Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the supply of liquor to any group of our population, we are dealing with one of the most vexing problems which modern society has to face. Throughout the world, society has great difficulty to control the supply and consumption of liquor in a manner which will prevent anti-social development. In South Africa the problem is moreover bedevilled, as any problem in South Africa is bedevilled, by problems of race and this Bill which the hon. Minister has introduced is an attempt to make the complications of our liquor legislation as they have been created by the racial problems of our country, less complicated and, I believe, also less dangerous to society. There are, of course, people who would like to see alcoholic beverages disappear from the world completely. That might be the ideal position, Sir, but life is not like that. The consumption of alcoholic liquor is ancient. As far back as we can go into history, we find that people have discovered the joy, the pleasure and the relaxation of alcohol used in moderation. We can go back to antiquity for such evidence. We find, for instance, that St. Paul wrote to his friend Timothy to give him this advice—

The practical point, Sir, is whether attempts to bring the consumption of alcoholic liquor under proper control can be enforceable or not. The reason why some of my friends on this side of the House feel that this Bill is dangerous is because they know, as we all know, that the consumption of liquor is subject to grave abuse, and when it is abused, its effects are visible dramatically and most tragically. The results of the impact of the abuse of alcohol upon the public have led in certain countries to attempts to apply total prohibition. We have the experiment in the United States of America; we had it until 1920 for a period in all the states of Canada; and we had it in several of the Scandinavian countries. What is significant, however, of these experiments, is that they have failed everywhere. I would like to bring some evidence to show how these attempts at total prohibition have failed elsewhere. I have here the testimony of Mr. J. Harben who was the assistant United States Attorney for the district of New York during the time of prohibition in the United States of America. This is what he said in the 1920s—

When one wants to enforce the law, that law must be accepted as binding by the people whose actions it seeks to control because one cannot enforce any law on people who regard the breaking of it as desirable, harmless and innocent. The old philosopher Spinoza put it this way and I could not have put it better—

The American philosopher Walt Whitman also put it well when he said—

We must therefore accept that unless the public attitude to the consumption of alcohol can be so changed that the vast majority of the people will accept that an attempt to prohibit them from consuming alcoholic beverages is necessary for themselves and that they desire to accept such laws binding upon themselves, all attempts to make such law will in the end fail.

If prohibition does not work in homogeneous communities, as has been proved, how can it be expected to work in South Africa, and to be enforceable and effective, only on part of the population? There is a very interesting book written by E. Hose called the Prohibition or Control describing the experiment in Canada and in the United States of America. He finds that one of the major reasons why prohibition failed in the United States was because after 1920, when Canada again became wet, it was too easy for the illicit liquor trade in the United States of America to obtain supplies in one way or another from over the border. The same was found in Scandinavia, namely that while they tried to keep that portion of Europe dry, liquor was too easily available from adjoining countries and that was one of the major reasons why it failed. In South Africa we are trying to enforce prohibition on a section of the community which is geographically intermingled with people who are entitled to obtain liquor and the result is, as the hon. Minister has pointed out, that an utterly impossible situation has arisen, a situation which had also arisen in America. American witnesses will tell you that at the time of prohibition there were as many as 22,000 speak-easies in the City of New York alone. The hon. Minister the other day told us of a very large number of shebeens in Cape Town. In Johannesburg people in contact with the problem will tell you that in the central part of Johannesburg alone they can take you to 70 high-class shebeens—not the hole-in-the-corner thing but shebeens where lounge facilities are available and where civilized drinking can even be indulged in. The police are helpless against the problem because the Native people do not look upon the law as binding; many Europeans look upon the law as unfair; and supplies are readily available because the European community, and other communities to a lesser extent, have free access to liquor and it is the simplest thing in the world to let liquor pass from legitimate channels into illicit channels. The position which has arisen is completely impossible. What are the results in South Africa of our attempts to apply an imposssible law? The first result is that a major industry which is unlawful has arisen in South Africa and thousands of people are making a living from something which is anti-social, without any control at all. Crime, Sir, is made to pay for the illicit liquor dealer in a manner which the police cannot control. It is evil, it is against the interests of the State, and it is certainly against the interests of the community upon whom these illicit liquor dealers batten for their living. Another consequence is that, in order to keep their costs down, these illicit shebeen runners most often adulterate the liquor which they sell to the people concerned and a Native who thinks he is buying the White man’s beer or the White man’s brandy, is buying stuff which is poisoned and adulterated. What we are paying in the health of the working people of South Africa, nobody can tell. Another consequence of this action of ours is that the law cannot be enforced except be it by means which one can only describe as tyrannical. We cannot blame the police because it is their duty to enforce the law but in order to enforce it they are compelled to indulge in raids, usually midnight raids or raids in the early hours of the morning when people have to be knocked up and their homes searched. Even the man who is morally innocent and who is in the possession of the minimum amount of liquor, an amount of liquor to which nobody can object, is sent to gaol. The hon. Minister told us that 200,000 people go to gaol every year for doing what for other sections of the community is perfectly legal. Even the moderate drinker, and even the most occasional drinker amongst the Native people is subject to imprisonment for doing what you and I consider as normal in our lives. It is a form of race discrimination which brings the police in disrepute and makes it impossible for them to build up the relationship with the Native people which they would like to see built up and which they have built up with other sections of the community. Nothing, Sir, can be unhealthier for the South African State than the feeling that prohibition applies to the Native people only, a feeling which creates the idea in the minds of the Native that the police are his enemies, that the police are out to persecute him and that the police are the representatives of a White tyranny in South Africa. If ever there could be proof to the Native people that this is not true, it would be to remove this unjustifiable discrimination against them. They look upon this partial prohibition affecting them only, as a White man’s law to emphasize their inferiority. It has always been interesting to me that some of those people who are the most vehement in their opposition to a measure like this, and who will stand up and paint the most horrible picture of what the consequences will be of this Bill, are the very people who throw up their hands in horror, as I do, and plead for the repeal of those statutory offences for which people are put in gaol and which make criminals of people who would otherwise be good citizens. Some of us in this House will be the first to protest at the methods which are used by the police in order to combat this evil; yet we do not want to attack the root causes of the problem.

When we do not want people to buy liquor or when we want to make it impossible for them to obtain liquor legally, the arguments used in support thereof here and all over the world can be reduced to two theories. The first is the “poison theory”—the contention that alcohol is poison even when used in the minute amounts. I do not want to enter into an argument on this question. The fact remains that 90 per cent of the people do not believe that alcohol is a poison; they believe that alcohol has a social function to fulfil which is a healthy one. It is unfortunate that some people are subject to addiction to alcohol, but that does not mean that no man should be allowed to obtain alcohol. This brings me to the second theory of the abolitionists, namely what I would describe as the “sacrifice theory” —because alcohol is bad for some people, or because some people abuse alcohol, we must all make the sacrifice of not using alcohol at all and not making it available to anybody. That is a strange argument, because nobody would suggest that because people kill each other while driving motor-cars, we should abolish motor-cars, nor will it be suggested that because some people consort with prostitutes, we should return to the strict morality laws of the Puritan era.

I believe, Sir, that this Bill means a step forward, and that it is an act of liberalization of our race laws. I think it is going to remove one of the greatest evils in our society, namely the illicit liquor trade, and I believe it is going to make the task of the police infinitely easier to deal with real abuse of alcohol instead of making every occasion on which alcohol is consumed, in no matter what moderate quantities by the Native people, a crime which they are called upon to suppress and eradicate but which they cannot do, no matter how hard they try. This Bill, if properly administered, can do much to ease race tension in South Africa and to bring about a better spirit amongst the various races here. The hon. Minister is, according to the terms of the Bill, accepting very great responsibilities and I am sorry that he did not give us more details in his second reading speech of what he envisages under this Bill. I hope he will, when replying to this debate, make one thing clear, and that is that this Bill does not mean that from the moment it is promulgated, alcohol will be freely available to every race everywhere in South Africa. That, Sir, depends upon himself. I find, for instance, that many bottle-store keepers believe that in the very near future they will be allowed to sell freely to everybody who comes into the bottle store. I think these people misread the amending clause to Section 100 of the Act which gives the Minister extended powers to prohibit the supply of liquor to groups of races in any area of South Africa. Reading these amendments together, it would seem—and I hope the hon. Minister will clarify this when he replies to the debate—that it will be possible for the Minister to divert trade in liquor to non-European groups into the areas which are occupied by those groups. It seems that the Minister intends to channel off the liquor trade for Coloured people into areas reserved for the Coloureds under the Group Areas Act and it seems also that the Minister intends almost to create monopolies in the Native townships for the supply of liquor to the people in those areas. If my reading of the Bill is correct, I think the hon. Minister should state it very clearly because wrong impressions are gaining ground, and wrong expectations are arising in the minds of a great many people. These are very big responsibilities which the hon. Minister is undertaking. Quite obviously if he is going to make an experiment like this, there should be very firm control and the Minister must accept responsibility for that firm control. I hope the hon. Minister will give us either the assurance that our hopes are well founded, or discount them when he replies. I hope that as far as the supply of liquor to Natives in their townships is concerned, it will be left in the hands of the local authority concerned. The Bill does provide how the profits derived from the sale of liquor to Natives should be used. It seems to me that it will be impossible to do what the Bill suggests, namely that the privileges to supply liquor should be given to persons and associations. It seems to me that if you are to control profits, the right to distribute liquor should be in public hands. Local authorities are directly responsible for the administration of the Native townships and they have the machinery to exercise proper control and daily experience of the Natives living in those townships and it might be advisable, therefore, for the hon. Minister to indicate well in advance whether, as far as the Native townships in our urban areas are concerned, those rights will be conferred chiefly, or I hope exclusively, on the local authority. Then I hope that the hon. Minister is not going to bar the acquisition of liquor by Natives from the existing retail supplies outside of the townships, because if he does that, I am afraid he will not do what I am sure he wants to do and what all of us want to do, namely to give the illicit liquor trade a death blow. I can, in this respect, only speak of Johannesburg where I know the position and here a great many of the Native people working in the City of Johannesburg are never in their townships during hours of daylight. Under the policies of this and other Governments, they live far from their places of work and under the policies of this Government transport facilities have up to now been inadequate. Many of these Natives have to get up at five o’clock in the morning in order to get to their transport and many have to wait until dark to get their transport back to their areas. They may not find it possible to acquire legitimate supplies of liquor from whatever facilities are available to them in the townships. The concession embodied in this Bill will then be meaningless to them and the temptation will remain to support the illicit sources of supply which has already become a habit with them—a habit which the hon. Minister should break. It may be that the Minister will be wise with these people who work in the city during the week and who are not in their townships during the normal business hours, and extend the present permit system and make permits much more readily available to the law-abiding Native than is being done to-day, because if we are at one in hoping to destroy the illicit liquor trade, we should not create monopolies. Then the factors leading to illicit dealing will remain.

I would also suggest that in this Bill the Minister should leave the tot system out altogether. This is the most controversial clause in the Bill and not directly relevant to the main principle of dealing with illicit liquor trading by legitimizing the trade. The hon. Minister would be well advised to shorten the debate and make his own task very much easier, if he decides to leave consideration of the tot system over until the main Liquor Bill comes before Parliament next year.

With these few comments I want to say that I am glad that this measure has been introduced. It is an experiment—that I admit—but I am confident that as an experiment it will be more successful than the experiment we have been conducting in South Africa for many years now. The experiment which we have been conducting in South Africa for many years was appropriate in those days when the Natives were either all still in the reserves or working on the farms. Now with the urbanization of the Native and with the detribalization of the Native, it has become impossible to administer and it has become a source of crime, misery and great unhappiness and strain in our society. This Bill is a very wise adjustment of South African policy to the fact that the urban Native has come to stay with us as a permanent feature of our society.

Order! That is a different subject.

No, Sir, and with respect. I want to say that this Bill is necessary because the life of urban Natives has changed and far be it from me to oppose any measure which is an acceptance of such an important fact in our society.

It is a well-known fact that the ideas of people in South Africa with regard to the consumption of liquor are on the conservative side. And perhaps it is not wrong that that should be so. Their ideas are conservative particularly with regard to the question of access to liquor for non-Whites. Even here in the Boland where wine is produced, a visit to an hotel or rather to an hotel bar is regarded in many circles as an act which is not very exemplary. It is felt that liquor is a product of civilization and that it should be consumed in a civilized and decent atmosphere, preferably that of the home and the family. Under our present liquor legislation, hotel bars do not always offer a civilized and correct atmosphere for the consumption of liquor. That is why our people hold this conservative view with regard to the consumption of liquor. Then there is also the view which has been impressed upon me and many of us on this side of the House since childhood that the Bantu ought not to be given wine or hard liquor because—so we were told—he becomes a barbarian and loses all self-control when he consumes alcohol. For these reasons I can understand the well-meant opposition in certain circles to a measure such as this, which goes in quite the opposite direction to the one that we have followed hitherto, or rather I can well understand that this measure will be opposed in certain circles such as church and other circles that have to deal daily with the evil of the misuse of liquor. I can well understand their misgivings about this legislation because I know that their misgivings flow from genuine concern. In saying that I also want to ask those circles not to doubt the good faith of this Government and of members of this House who come forward with this legislation. It is clear to me that what we have to decide here to-day is whether the proposed legislation is a negative measure or whether, on the other hand, it has a positive purpose. To my mind it is clearly a positive step. After the numerous, well-intentioned but unsuccessful attempts of the past to combat the evils which have arisen from the misuse of liquor by imposing restrictions on the distribution of liquor, we are now following a new line and that is to. change the method of distribution of the product of the vine in such a way that it will become a blessing to our people, as it is in fact, and not a curse. With this legislation the legislators say to the entire population of South Africa: “Regard and treat the product of the vine, one of the oldest and first products of our country, a product which is produced with great devotion and care, with the respect of civilization and not as an evil to be indulged in only surreptitiously and illegally.”

With all respect for those who have doubts regarding this measure and its good intentions, I want to raise this question: Are such persons not approaching this problem from too one-sided a point of view; are they not oversimplifying the problem? The problem is that liquor (as the product of the vineyard) is regarded in many outside quarters as an evil, instead of the abuse of liquor being regarded as the evil. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit)—Mr. Speaker, I trust that during this Republican year the opportunity may arise for the two Smits in this House to agree on at least one occasion, but it seems to me that I am hoping in vain —has said that the greatest evil with which he had to deal as a magistrate and in dealing with non-White matters, was the curse of intoxicating liquor. I think the hon. member’s approach is quite wrong. It is the curse of the abuse of intoxicating liquor and not the liquor itself. As far as this matter is concerned I want to draw a comparison this morning with the splitting of the atom. If you mention the splitting of the atom to anyone to-day, he immediately thinks of Hiroshima. He thinks of the harmful effect of the use of the atom as a weapon of violence. But, Mr. Speaker, it is after all equally well known that the atom to-day is fulfilling a very useful function in the industrial world where it is being put to proper use. Exactly the same applies to liquor. If liquor is abused and there is legislation which lends itself to the abuse of liquor, it can become a social atomic bomb. On the other hand, if it is correctly used, it can be a very useful and healthy product of civilization.

The problem with which we are really faced here is a social problem and not a problem of production. Liquor will be produced in any case, no matter what legislation is on the Statute Book. Mr. Speaker. I shall take great pleasure in voting for this Bill because the Bill is trying to reach the true crux of the problem, namely the merciless combating of drunkenness instead of placing all the emphasis, as was the position in the past, on the possession of liquor. It is precisely the prohibition which has existed hitherto on the possession of liquor which has given rise to all the problems with which we are faced to-day: The illicit liquor traffic which, as we learn from the report of the Malan Commission, involves as much as 60 per cent of the total production! This quantity of liquor is flowing through illegal channels, and is then bought by the non-Whites at exorbitant prices. In the second place, as a result of this system, grievances are being caused amongst the Bantu because they cannot get what the White man has, and what the White man drinks every day. These are grievances which give rise to strained relations between White and Black. In the third place it results in crime. This system lends itself to the activities of the shebeen queens with which we are all familiar. These shebeen queens are the focal points of crime in the Bantu areas. It is here that the agitators against law and order see the opportunity to get the people together and after they have drunk such illicit liquor to incite them against the authority of the White man precisely by playing on this grievance.

Mr. Speaker, against this background I want to protest vehemently this morning against certain unfortunate and excessive statements which have been made in opposition to this measure in this House. It has been said that by introducing this legislation we are acting irresponsibly and that we are even deliberately trying to cause the destruction of the non-White. That is not in keeping with the spirit of the doubts which have been expressed against this legislation outside this House. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and the hon. member for East London (City) have alleged that it is the wine farmers who are responsible for the pressure behind this legislation and that their motive is to fill their pockets.

I did not mention them.

Yes, the hon. member did not say it in so many words …

I did not mention that at all.

I shall quote what the hon. member said presently. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has already denied this allegation, and has pointed out that it is not the result of pressure by the wine farmers. The hon. member for East London (City) is a very conscientious man who always prepares himself very carefully before he discusses any subject, and to me it is not in keeping with his conscientiousness that he dares makes such an allegation to the effect that the introduction of this legislation is due to pressure by the wine farmers who want to fill their pockets. He should know better. In this House there are only five members who represent constituencies which are predominantly wine-producing constituencies, and in total there are only 11 members who represent constituencies in which wine is produced at all. If five members of this House have the power to persuade the Government and a part of the Opposition to support legislation which will fill the pockets of the wine farmers, they must be extraordinarily powerful people. On the other hand I want to remind the hon. member that it was precisely one of the wine constituency representatives, namely the hon. the Minister of Finance, who a few years ago resisted strong representations from the wine farmers to the effect that the increased excise duties on brandy should be reduced. It was precisely the representative of a wine district who insisted that the excise duties on brandy should be increased, and by so doing he immediately gave the lead towards the establishment of a completely new drinking pattern in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the wine farmers deplore it when they are referred to, by implication or otherwise, as exploiters who want to enrich themselves through the misery of the Bantu and the Coloured. The product which they produce is one of the oldest and the noblest in our country. The wine farmer himself treats his product with the respect of a civilized person, and he would like all other people to do the same. Hon. members who support this standpoint could safely examine how the farmer advertises his product, how, at his wine festivals, he does not propagate the idea that we should drink more, but that we should use liquor correctly, at the right time, and with food. The wine farmer does not want his product to be regarded as an evil, nor does he want to see drunkenness because, if there is drunkenness his product is usually blamed. As regards the reference to wine farmers who want to fill their pockets, I want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) that the wine-producing areas of our country have produced some of the greatest leaders of our country in all spheres—political, spiritual, educational and others—and that some of the greatest contributors to mission work are still to be found to-day in those areas where the vine is cultivated.

What the wine farmer does see is the evil inherent in the present system of distribution and the incorrect drinking pattern which exists in our country as a result of that system, and he realizes that it gives his product a stigma. The wine farmer is just as anxious as everyone else that this position should be rectified. He does not want his product to reach exploiters. Nor does he want to see his product giving thousands of Coloureds the opportunity to make a living through the illicit liquor trade, which results in their being withdrawn from decent employment, which reduces their morale and which results in the Bantu streaming to the areas where the Coloureds have a prior claim on the employment offered him by the White man. For these reasons the wine farmers are interested in this legislation—although they are not responsible for the pressure behind it—particularly because the representations for this legislation have come from those people who stand in the front line in combating the evil of liquor abuse and the illicit liquor trade, namely the police, who do not speak piously about this matter, but who have had their hands full with combating the evils of liquor abuse as a result of an unsound system. This pressure has also come from organized agriculture, and from agricultural unions which represent areas far removed from the wine-producing parts of our country, people who, as I stated originally, are conservative as regards the consumption of liquor by non-Whites but who are realistic farmers and who appreciate that one cannot achieve one’s desired objects by placing a prohibition on such consumption as we have done in the past. The hon. member for East London (City) has said that in the days of the Transvaal Republic liquor was described as a secret weapon against the Bantu. He further said that the unrestricted supply of liquor to indigenous races in other parts of the world had resulted in their destruction. The facts refute this allegation. From the report of the Malan Commission it appears that in our neighbouring states, where liquor is supplied freely to the Bantu—Bantu who, in actual fact, are less advanced than ours—the effect has been the reverse. Drunkenness has declined and court prosecutions, as a result of the abuse of liquor, have declined in number.

The hon. member for Simonstown has said that the 11,000,000 voteless people of South Africa consider this measure to be a political weapon aimed at keeping them subservient. But he also said that the Bantu were asking for bread and we were giving them brandy. He said that this was worse than the biblical comparison, because we were not giving them a stone, but poison, which would destroy their souls and result in their degeneration. Mr. Speaker, I say that this is an irresponsible statement because it is not only a false and distorted metaphor which the hon. member has used, but it is also untrue because, by so doing, he is insinuating that we are withholding bread from the Bantu. May I point out to the hon member that the Government subsidizes bread to the extent of millions of rand in our country, and that is in fact subsidizing it to-day for the benefit of the Bantu. The Bantu which, until a few years ago, mainly ate mealie meal as their staple food, are eating bread to-day, and they are eating white bread because they regard bread and white bread as the food of the White man. They regard it as the food of the White man, just as they regard the liquor which is kept from them as the liquor of the White man, and for that reason they would like to have it. Now the hon. member says: They are asking us for bread and we are giving them brandy. I want to ask the two hon. members who have made this far-reaching allegation, to the effect that by this legislation we are trying to undermine the non-Whites, whether they can estimate what harm these statements may do our country abroad. If I had not heard hon. members make those statements here myself, and if I were to read them, then I would have said that such an allegation was the brain-child of someone like Stanley Uys because I can imagine how the popular world Press will refer to this allegation as an example of how we are trying to oppress the Native by over-supplying them with liquor and what sombre pictures will be depicted of people asking for bread and being given brandy.

Mr, Speaker, we have had a whole series of misrepresentations from members who have participated in this debate. The hon. member for Simonstown has also said that we may not experiment with the lives of men, women and children.

Hear, hear!

There the hon. member is saying “Hear, hear!” He made this statement in discussing the hon. the Minister’s reference to the fact that this legislation was of an experimental nature. I now want to ask the hon. member this: What was the legislation dealing with liquor consumption, which we have had hitherto in South Africa, if it was not experimental? The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that we have had a variety of commissions which investigated this problem in the past. In the case of a population which is of a heterogenous composition and which is gradually developing one will find that one has to adjust one’s liquor legislation from time to time and one will have to learn from the experience of the past through the experiments which one undertakes. In this regard I want to express my thanks for the fact that a National Liquor Board will be established under this legislation. The wine farmers and others who are interested in the distribution of the product of the vine welcome this step, because we believe that such a body will be able to help to rectify more rapidly the anomalies which exist to-day and which may also arise in the future rather than following the protracted method of first returning to this House and amending the legislation. I also believe that the advice of this body will assist in eliminating the anomalies which have existed and to which the hon. the Minister has referred, for example, the fact that Coloureds stream to Kuils River on Saturdays to buy liquor which they cannot buy in the Peninsula. One hon. member has said that we should rather follow the course of allowing civilized Bantu to obtain liquor by means of permits. I now want to ask: By this system of permits, would we not in fact once again be making the illicit liquor trade possible? By so doing we shall be making it possible for certain people to obtain liquor and it will give them a certain incentive to abuse this product which they have in their possession by supplying it to the illicit liquor trade.

The hon. member for East London (City) has said that it is not true that the Bantu can afford White liquor to-day. I do not know whether the hon. member has read the report of the Malan Commission. In paragraph 37 it says—

But the fact of the matter is actually that the hon. member has made that allegation while it is known, and this report confirms it, that the Bantu and the other non-Whites do in fact obtain as much liquor as they want. The difference is just that they have to pay double the price for it, and what is more, they obtain liquor of a poor quality. I want to point out to the hon. member that the Bantu is a thrifty person. If he can acquire something readily, he is slow to buy and he is very selective. Those of us who have travelled on roads in the interior which are being repaired, have often seen how a Native walks from his work barefoot while his boots are hanging over his shoulder. He is thrifty. When he goes to a shop to buy, he bargains and he buys carefully and reluctantly, if the goods are available to him. But, Mr. Speaker, it becomes quite a different matter when the product is withheld from him.

Hon. members have also referred to the tot system and to the evils which have flowed from that system. They are objecting to the fact that this system will now be extended to the other provinces. But those hon. members should know that the tot system is not compulsory, that it is permissive and that anyone is free to give liquor or not to give liquor to his employees. Every farmer knows that the tot system is a burden on him personally in the sense that it requires additional supervision, that it causes him additional trouble and that it involves him in additional expenditure. After all he would not introduce such a system of his own accord if he was not obliged to do so. But the point is this: If hon. members were to discuss the tot system and they were to compare their opinions with the realistic and practical farmer, that farmer would immediately ask them what their alternative was. Would the farmer be satisfied to have his workers going to the towns at night in order to obtain illegal liquor, would he be satisfied to have them obtaining liquor from the illicit liquor traffic at night and then arriving for work drunk the next day? Or would it not perhaps be better for the employer to accept responsibility for his workers and for giving them good and proper liquor, and that he should do so with their meals, as liquor should really be served?

A great deal has been said about the misery caused by the tot system, but without any real knowledge of the system. I concede that it is possible to abuse the tot system, but the unscrupulous employer who abuses the system will have to pay the price himself, because he is undermining the productivity of his workers. He will get less satisfactory work from his employees. Sensible farmers will only supply wine at mealtimes to their workers. I can just mention the fact that there is far less drunkenness amongst farm workers on the farms than there is in the towns where the people are not subject to the tot system. One hon. member has also asked: What would happen if industries were to place their workers on the tot system? But it is after all silly to make such an allegation. These people work and live in the immediate vicinity of canteens and other liquor distribution points, and it is precisely the industrial workers who abuse liquor to a far greater extent than the farm workers who obtain their liquor through the tot system. I can also point out that the farmers are anxious that their employees should not drink. That is why we often find to-day that in areas where the tot system is used farmers encourage their employees to drink less or not to drink at all and that they guide them along the right lines as far as their drinking habits are concerned. There are many farm workers who do not drink at all.

A further allegation which the hon. member for East London (City) has made is that serious crime will increase as a result of this Bill. Then he has also said that various Judges have referred to the dangers of this system and to the fact that the abuse of liquor results in crimes, particularly those of violence. He has also said that intoxicating liquor is a great contributory factor to crimes such as rape, etc. But, Mr. Speaker, what those Judges and magistrates were referring to was surely the crimes which resulted from the present system which we want to improve. For this reason the hon. member should offer us his assistance in improving the existing position and not try to defeat our attempts by misrepresenting the position.

Mr. Speaker, the only alternative to our present system which remains is not satisfactory and we do not want to follow the course which the hon. the Minister has suggested, namely, that we should impose yet more severe restrictions. Is the hon. member in favour of such a course? He is after all familiar with the evils which have resulted from the present system of restrictions in the shape of the illicit liquor traffic and these pernicious brews. Does he think that further restrictions on the supply of liquor will help us to any extent in this regard? For this reason I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation because I know that its aim is to benefit our whole population, to establish improved relations between Black and White and particularly because it provides for the establishment of a National Board which will assist in effecting the necessary changes which may become necessary from time to time.

I think it is understandable that there are deeply held differences of opinion on a measure of such a major nature. I think we are fully aware of the evils, not only of the present system, but of the abuse of alcohol which manifests itself in various ways in various parts of the country. I do not want to impugn ulterior motives to any one section of the community, whether they be suppliers of alcoholic liquor or others. I believe that by and large the South African nation would like to find a policy, a form of legislation which would do everything possible to limit the abuses of alcohol amongst all the people of South Africa. I therefore want to approach this matter on an objective basis in order to see whether the Bill which is before the House is one which, we can be satisfied, will not only remove the abuses from the present system but will mitigate against the development of new abuses.

I believe that there will be considerable agreement for the view that fairly radical reforms of distribution of liquor and the Liquor Act in South Africa are necessary. The parent Act which we are seeking to amend today is an Act which was introduced on the Statute Book in 1928 when South Africa, viewed from the point of view of the social and economic pattern, was a very different country from the country it is to-day. It was introduced at a time before our major industrial revolution, before the tremendous migration of people from the platteland to the towns; before the non-Whites, and the African in particular, had become as closely integrated into the whole economic and social machine of our urban areas. There have been in the course of the past 30 years fundamental changes affecting the social and economic relationships between the various colour groups in South Africa. As a result of these pressures, as a result of these changes there have emerged certain grave anomalies in the present system of the distribution of liquor. Certain grave abuses have arisen, both in respect of statutory crimes and what I would call moral crimes as a result of the present system. I think it has become abundantly clear to most people that it is necessary that changes should be brought about.

I believe that there are very few people in South Africa who believe that total prohibition is either feasible or indeed desirable in modern circumstances. I will go further and say that in an integrated economic society such as we have in South Africa, partial prohibition can be no complete or final answer to the problem of the distribution of liquor, especially when that partial prohibition is based on arbitrary criteria of either race or colour. I believe that the final attitude of the people of South Africa to-day towards the use or the abuse of alcohol, the final degree of temperance or intemperance will depend upon the moral fibre of the people of South Africa, and on the social and economic conditions under which they live. So that if we want to tackle this problem in all earnestness we must not see it as purely a problem affecting the distribution of alcohol, but we should see it as part and parcel of the whole policy of reform of the social and economic conditions under which the people of South Africa live. I believe that major reforms are necessary. The question is whether the Bill before the House, and the measures which the hon. the Minister is putting to this House are sound, not only in relation to the ultimate goal, but whether they are based on the factual situation which exists in South Africa to-day.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the methods which the hon. the Minister seeks to employ to overcome the undoubted problems which there are in South Africa to-day, I find myself in disagreement with the hon. the Minister. I agree with, and I accept the Minister’s desire to eliminate certain abuses and to obviate certain difficulties. However, I have not been persuaded that the measures which he proposes are indeed measures which we can contemplate without any hazard for the future.

A commission was appointed by the Government, as a result of its desire to change the conditions pertaining to the supply of liquor. The Malan Commission was appointed to investigate and to make recommendations on this problem. This commission sat for some time and heard considerable evidence, and it was in the position to make certain recommendations. Certain people have criticized the recommendations of the Malan Commission. I accept that no commission would ever make recommendations on such a touchy subject as the distribution of liquor and not be free of some kind of criticism in one or other quarter. But I also believe that the recommendations made by the Malan Commission were far more realistic and far less hazardous than the recommendations which the hon. the Minister has put before the House to-day. Because I believe that what the Malan Commission recommended tended to be more realistic and a much safer way of dealing with this problem, I do not believe that the Government should at the present time exceed those recommendations.

I have said that partial prohibition was no final solution, and that in all circumstances we should try to avoid arbitrary prohibitions based solely on the criteria of colour or race. But having said that, can we totally disregard the very real differences of attainment, the very real differences of civilization, the very real difference in the distance to which they have moved towards the Western way of life of a wide variety of the people who form the South African nation? I think we are all fully aware that the impact of Western civilization is being felt on the African community today, that many of these people have moved into the field of the Western way of life. Others have not yet come under its impact. Just as in other fields there is a good case to be made for recognizing the attainments of the individual, recognizing the distance he has moved in accepting the Western way of life, so, too, do I think it would be far more realistic, in dealing with this difficult problem, to recognize the personal attainments of the people in South Africa along the path of Western custom, Western habits and Western standards. Dare we ignore the fact that because of our legislation vast numbers of non-White people in South Africa are living under social and economic conditions differing from our own? It may be held to be a product of history, nevertheless there is no doubt that there are a large number of other laws of a discriminatory nature which compel millions of non-White people to live under undesirable social conditions. I believe that those social and economic conditions should be reformed and that that reform should precede or should go hand in hand with this kind of reform in the distribution of liquor.

This legislation reminds me very much of the philosophy of the Government in the field of political rights, where it seems to be posed that the only solution is either no say at all in Parliament, or one man one vote. I do not accept that philosophy in so far as political rights are concerned, nor do I believe that in the field of the distribution of liquor we should ignore the very real existence on a personal basis between the standard of attainment and the standard of civilization of individuals. The Malan Commission did recommend radical reforms to the whole system of permits, both in the administrative set up and in the criteria which should be applied to the issue of permits. I think the recommendations of the Malan Commission were realistic and were sensible. I think they are the type of recommendations which could well have been accepted as an experimental basis to see what impact such a considerable extension of permits could make to the situation in South Africa. I realize full well that once you go in for a system of permits, even on an extended basis, it does lead to the difficulty of the transfer of liquor from people who have permits to people who have not. I realize that that system is always subject to a certain measure of abuse. Nevertheless, the Malan Commission found that the abuse of the permit system was minimal, and in paragraph 74 of their report they state—

I think that possibly this is putting it at its optimistic best. I believe that evidence could be adduced to show that there was a measure of abuse of the permit system. Nevertheless one has to decide whether you are going to discriminate against people on the basis of individual attainment, or whether in terms of this Bill you are going to apply discrimination on a block or area basis. It should be realized that this Bill does not abolish racial discrimination in the narrow sense of the word, it will merely allow the Minister to apply discrimination on the basis of an area or a block or a local authority rather than on the basis of the individual. I would far rather prefer the extension of the facilities for the provision of liquor to individuals who have reached a certain standard of attainment.

We must try to do two things. We must try to minimize the tremendous number of statutory offences which flow from the implementation of the present Liquor Act, but at the same time we must do it in such a way that it will not in turn lead to any abuse or degeneracy in the social and economic fields. When one talks of abuse, one thinks of two kinds of abuse. There is the abuse of the system, the abuse of the law, and there is the abuse of the commodity. We must take into account these two kinds of abuse. We must be on our guard lest by eliminating the statutory problem, we do not create or aggravate any social or economic problems. As far as the elimination of the statutory abuse is concerned there is no doubt that the passage of this Bill will decrease the number of statutory criminals in respect to the liquor laws. However, it will not entirely eradicate these offenders because liquor will still be supplied on a differential basis to White and non-White, on the basis of the region or the local authority area. Secondly, it will still be necessary for the police to take action to see that the Liquor Law is carried out. It will still be necessary under certain circumstances to have police raids to ensure that there is no illicit brewing of liquor. I am one of those who believe that by making liquor of an approved type more freely available it is likely that there will be less illicit liquor brewing than in the past. Nevertheless, I do not believe that habits or customs that have either grown up as the result of environment or previous enactments can be eliminated merely by the stroke of a pen. So much for the abuses or offences against the law.

Now, what about the abuse in respect of the commodity? Can we say with certainty that the passage of this Bill will not increase abuses in the social and economic field? I do not know. I do not believe there is any member of this House who can say he is fully convinced that it will lead to the elimination of abuse of this commodity in the social and economic field. I have the greatest apprehension that unless the reform of the distribution of liquor goes hand in hand with similar radical reforms in the social and economic field, it will cause abuse and degeneracy in the social and economic field as well. It is interesting to look at the figures of crimes committed against the present Liquor Act and to divide the crimes into the categories of purely statutory offences on the one hand and offences against good morals on the other hand. Let us consider drunkenness as an offence against society and consider the illegal position of liquor, etc., as an offence against the law, as a statutory offence. It will be seen that while there are almost hundreds of thousands of Africans, who have become statutory offenders, it is important also to look at the figures of drunkenness for the various groups in South Africa. It will be seen from the latest figures available, those contained in the report of the Malan Commission, that convictions for drunkenness amount to 4.5 per 1,000 Europeans. For Africans it is 4 per 1,000, and for Coloureds 34 per 1,000. I think we must ask ourselves why there is this tremendous disparity in the convictions for drunkenness between the various racial groups. We should ask ourselves why the percentage for the Africans is as low as it is. Is it because only a small percentage of those people are addicted to liquor? I doubt it. Is it because the African is traditionally not a man who indulges in such excesses? I doubt whether he is any better or worse than we are. Is he by nature an abstemious person? I doubt whether in the same social environment he would be any better or worse than we are. Is it because he cannot afford it? I think that the evidence shows that when he wants liquor he can afford to obtain it. Or is it perhaps the fact that he has no easy access to liquor which has been a deterrent, and which has. limited the degree of drunkenness amongst Africans? Is it because he can get liquor, but only with difficulty, and knowing that he is breaking the law? Is his drunkenness the result of an expedition or of a habit? I do not know, but I think it is important to take into account that wherever commissions have investigated the causes of the abuse of alcohol, they have come to the conclusion time and time again that the root cause are the social and economic conditions under which people live. I want to read very briefly from one paragraph from the Commission on the Cape Coloured people which sat in 1937, and which investigated the conditions under which these people live. It says this—

It is for this reason that I say that while reforms are necessary and while the type of reform recommended by the Malan Commission would have been acceptable to many people, I believe that this Government, because it has not indicated at the same time any major reforms in the social and economic fields for the non-Whites, is putting the cart before the horse. I would have hoped that hand in hand with reforming the liqour laws we would have heard that the Government intended to put an end to the migrant labour system with the sense of insecurity and the complete absence of family life which flows from it. ] would have thought that the Government would have indicated that it is embarking on a plan of giving home ownership to the Africans. I would have hoped that hand in hand with a Bill of this nature …

Order! The hon. member is going very far now.

I am referring to the recommendations of the Commission, which said quite clearly that if you want to reform the attitude of people towards the consumption of liquor, it is necessary not only to reform the law but to make practical reforms in the social and economic fields. The Government is proceeding with this Bill in a vacuum, because it is not relating it to a general programme of social and economic reform. This is why I am not attracted to this. Bill. I believe, with the commissions, and in broad outline with the Malan Commission, that the Minister should have allowed the supply of liquor to the non-Whites on a selective basis, taking personal attainment into account. That would have been far wiser. I believe it would have eased the transition from one pattern of drinking to the new pattern which is linked with the Western way of life. I believe it would have allowed greater room for experimentation, examination and adjustment. I think it is. important for us to realize that we have no parallel of a law such as this being applied anywhere else on the African Continent. Other than in Kenya and Uganda, where all types of liquor are readily available to all people, irrespective of any racial or other criteria, elsewhere on the African Continent, wines and malts are readily available, but up to the end of 1960 the supply of spirituous liquor was controlled on the basis of individual merit and attainment. So we are not in a position to draw from the experience of other industrialized or semi-industrialized nations in Africa.

I have stated some criticisms in general of the Government’s attitude in not allowing the Minister to assess individual merit as far as the application of the Liquor Law is concerned. I also have criticized the fact that seen against its broad background, this action is not related to a general programme of social and economic reform. But I have one or two specific objections to the Bill itself. First of all, there is no abolition of the tot system envisaged in this Bill. I agree that there is reference to the abolition of the tot system.

I intend withdrawing Clauses 8 and 16.

I think it represents an advance if the Minister has agreed to the abolition of the system. The next point of criticism I have is that the Minister now virtually replaces the Liquor Licensing Board as far as African areas are concerned. He is going to be the sole arbiter without criteria having been laid down in the Act as to the conditions he should impose or in regard to the availability of liquor or the withholding of it. I think this machinery is quite inadequate. I do not think it should be left as arbitrarily as it is to the Minister’s discretion. I believe that there must be an opportunity of people being able to object and to give evidence at an open sitting of whatever court or commission the Minister might care to set up, in order that views can be ventilated before there is further distribution of liquor in the Bantu areas. I think it would be far better from the Minister’s point of view if this authority were not vested in the Minister, who unfortunately is subject to all kinds of pressure, political or otherwise, and that it be put into the hands of magistrates who are not subjected to that pressure. Thirdly, as I read the Act, it denies to the Africans in their areas the right to exercise any local option. It has been fundamental as far as the White people are concerned that local communities can muster objection and veto the introduction of liquor facilities in a specific area if it is not the wish of the majority. While I do not think that people on a majority vote should be entitled to decide on the extent or type of liquor facilities—I think that should be left to the magistrate, or to the Minister, if this Bill becomes law—I think we should allow each local community the right to veto the introduction of such facilities if the local people so wish. It is an important right which the White people have enjoyed and I think we should also give it to the non-Whites, so that they will know that they are given such facilities with their approval and not in spite of their attitude or wishes. I think it will be helpful if the Minister in his reply would indicate the extent to which there has been either a clamour or a request for the extension of these facilities from responsible non-Whites themselves. It may well be that he can tell us that the tribal or territorial authorities have requested this kind of legislation. He might indicate that the advisory boards have asked for it. As far as I know, right up to 1955 the advisory boards asked for radical reforms of the system of liquor distribution, and for more access to wines and malt, and also for the extension of the permit system. But I know of no request from formally constituted Bantu Authorities for the kind of law which is before the House at the moment. I think it will do the House and the country good if the Minister could indicate that this step is only being taken after earnest consultation and with the approval or at the request of such statutory or quasi statutory bodies representing the Bantu as may exist.

Finally, I must criticize the Government for its handling of this measure, for the way in which it has been introduced at this late stage, because it is cavalier treatment both of the members of this House and the public. No one will deny the tremendous importance of this measure. It is a measure which on the one hand will initiate certain radical reforms, but on the other hand it will also create certain new vested interests. Whether we like it or not, the passage of this Bill will immediately have the effect of creating new vested interests, and once one creates new vested interests we all know that it is physically impossible to abolish those vested interests because of the pressure groups which build up around them. So both because of the radical nature of the reform and because we are creating a new vested interest which we will not be able to undo even if we wish to, I think the manner in which the Bill was introduced is an extremely bad one. There has been no warning to this House or to the public as to the exact intentions of the Government except ten days ago, on the same day that its was announced that the House would adjourn on the 23rd. The Malan Commission appointed by the Government made certain recommendations for reform. That was almost a year ago. The Government’s intention was kept dark until just before the recess, before the inauguration of the State President, when an indication was given that an abbreviated Bill would be introduced merely to deal with one aspect, the extension of liquor facilities to non-Whites. But even at that stage there was no indication by the Government that it would accept the recommendations of the Commission. We know that there are very few people other than possibly the members of the Cabinet who believed that the Government intended to exceed the reforms recommended by the Malan Commission. So after having had a Commission sitting on the matter, and the Commission having recommended certain reforms, and having waited for nearly a year, the Government says: We reject the basic recommendations of the Commission and we will proceed with this Bill in the last two weeks of the Session.

We did not express an opinion on the report as a whole.

The Government has divided the recommendations into two parts.

This is only a small part of the recommendations.

I concede that the other part, the technical recommendations, may be just as important, but as far as the principle is concerned, I believe that it is of far more vital concern than the various technical amendments which may be made next year. If the Minister is correct and the Government intends to introduce far-reaching proposals next year, I say that this aspect of the Bill should be considered in conjunction with the new intended aspects. We are being asked to reform the Liquor Laws in respect of the consumption of liquor by non-Whites on the basis of the present Act, and not on the basis of the important technical recommendations which will flow from the consideration of the rest of the report of the Commission.

It will be a good thing to have this experiment before proceeding further.

Perhaps it would have been better to experiment first with the technical improvements, with the new pattern of the distribution of liquor to the Whites, to see what effect that has before it is applied to the non-Whites. I do not want to suggest that the one should precede the other. My argument is that this thing should be seen as a whole, and I think it is wrong to divorce the question of extending liquor facilities to the non-Whites from the rest of it without knowing what the Minister’s intention is in regard to the other important recommendations of the Commission. My plea to the Minister is not to proceed with this legislation at this stage, that the Government hold over this Bill, and that during the recess they publish a White Paper which will deal with the whole of the report of the Malan Commission, so that the people of South Africa will be aware of the Government’s intentions, both in regard to this aspect of the report and the other technical aspects. I believe that by taking an important and virtually irrevocable step such as this, it behoves us to give mature consideration not only to one aspect of it but to the whole of the Government’s intentions in regard to reforming the liquor laws. So I ask the Minister not to proceed with the Bill right at the end of this Session before having given the people the opportunity to consider these proposals. I do not believe that they have been given mature consideration. I think the type of consideration it has received during the last few days is highly emotional, because of the time factor involved. I believe it will be far better for the Minister to make the whole of the Government’s intentions public before proceeding with this Bill.

For these reasons: because there must be a more realistic approach, because there have to be major reforms to ensure that liquor is supplied on a basis which will not aggravate the abuses which already exist, and whilst I believe that this Bill will reduce certain statutory offences, I am not satisfied that it will minimize to any great extent the offences of an anti-social nature, I ask the Minister to withhold the Bill, and should he not do so, I am afraid I must record my vote against it.

I briefly want to give my views on this matter. I have a great deal of respect for the attitude of the churches and the standpoint they adopt towards the misuse of liquor, but this measure is not being introduced one day too soon. In spite of all the objections we have had in the form of memoranda, the time is long overdue for this measure to be passed. Apart from any ethical or moral arguments, we must remember that for the past 50 years, with the best will in the world, the police have found it impossible to suppress the illicit liquor trade. Everybody is agreed that it is physically impossible for the police to suppress this evil. If you ask yourself which is the greater of those evils, I think you will agree, Sir, that illicit liquor trade is the greater by far. The one thing that this measure will be do will be to do away with the illicit liquor trade. You will still have to deal with people who are drunk and much worse because the people to whom we are now supplying liquor had to resort to other means to satisfy their craving, they had to resort to concoctions which were very harmful to both body and soul. I do not think we could combat that, and I think we should forget politics for the moment. [Interjections.] Do not misunderstand me as you so often do. Is it not peculiar that here in South Africa the major portion of the nation is forbidden to use liquor? I think that is quite unnecessary. It is an undesirable state of affairs because let me tell hon. members this that the need for liquor is much stronger in the case of somebody who does hard physical labour than in our case who sit in this House. Anybody who employs labour on a large scale, any farmer or industrialist, will tell you that when the worker has his liquor in a proper way his mental state is such that he works much better. I want to know why we should refuse those people the right to enjoy that stimulant which encourages them to do their work? I challenge anybody to tell me that drink is a greater evil to the man who is spiritually and physically stimulated by it to perform better work than all the harmful concoctions that he resorts to in order to satisfy his craving. I am in favour of this Bill as we have it before us because it will enable the Bantu to acquire his liquor legally and not always to have to break the law in order to get liquor which is harmful to him. It has become absolutely necessary that we place this measure on the Statute Book. Everybody will admit that I owe the wine farmer nothing, and that I cannot be accused of pleading the cause of a handful of people whom I represent. I gave evidence in a case for the first time in 1931 here in Cape Town and on that occasion I said that it would be very stupid to keep liquor away from the Bantu mineworkers in the Transvaal. Reference has been made to pressure groups that have been formed by the wine farmers. I think that is a very unworthy statement to make, because if you look at the statistics and you see what a bottle of liquor eventually costs and what profit the wine farmers make out of it, it is very unjust to say that the idea is only to fill the pockets of the wine farmers. This measure must go through. My attitude towards the churches is that, just as in the case of lotteries, in the absence of total prohibition it is no more than right towards the whole nation that they should be able to acquire liquor legally, according to their needs and their pockets. As long as we have the position that there is not total prohibition in this country, I will always be an ardent supporter of liquor being made available to everybody. Do not let us adopt the false attitude that liquor is something which should only be available to certain privileged people. It is those very poor people who need some stimulant so that they may forget their depressing circumstances. The most clever man in the world, namely Solomon, said that. Why must we deprive those people of liquor, those people who have the greatest need for it, because it is an elementary human right. No, the time has arrived that we faced up to this question squarely. Where we have the position to-day that a large section of the Police Force has to be on their toes the whole day through to combat the illicit liquor trade, that one responsibility will at least now be taken off their shoulders and we will not have that state of unconscious drunkenness which we have to-day due to the abuse of liquor, where they commit more crimes than they will when they drink decent liquor. Let us stop saying that this is a measure which emanates from a pressure group. The police who could not suppress that evil are the most ardent supporters of this measure. I welcome this measure and I do so with great respect to those who oppose it, particularly the churches. I hope the churches will admit that the police cannot suppress this evil, and nowhere in the Bible is it stated that it is wrong to use liquor but it is wrong to abuse it. In the circumstances in which the Bantu live he was forced not to use liquor but to abuse it, and when he did get hold of liquor he went too far. Because liquor will in future be used more and misused less, I will vote for this measure.

Four reasons were advanced for this Bill, namely that illicit dealing will be reduced, discrimination will be abolished, a stop will be put to harmful brews and drunkenness will be reduced. Let us pay closer attention to these reasons.

It is said that illicit dealing will be stopped. I do not believe that that will be the case, and the hon. member who spoke last, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), if I may have his attention, emphasized that illicit dealing will be stopped and that the police have found it impossible to cope with the. evil of smuggling. I just want to ask the hon. member this: There is a tremendous amount of smuggling in dagga and also in diamonds. In order to facilitate the work of the police, does he want the restrictions on the use of dagga to be removed and that the diamond laws should not be applied? Surely it is nonsense to advance that as a reason, that in order to reduce the work of the police we should make liquor available to the non-Whites, particularly to the Bantu. South Africa has once before, in the Transvaal, tried to provide strong liquor freely to the Bantu communities in that area, and what was the result? It led to such a state of affairs that President Kruger had to institute total prohibition. In regard to shebeens, we find that they flourish particularly in the vicinity of the beer-halls. The evidence given before the Malan Commission in the Peninsula was that there were approximately 600 of these shebeens here, but of the 600 only about 200 were for the Bantu and more than 400 were for the Coloureds, who can obtain liquor freely. Therefore there were more than 400 for the Coloureds and only 200 for the Bantu, who are totally prohibited from obtaining liquor. That was the evidence given by Col. Reay before the Malan Commission in 1959. It is said that this Bill will reduce drunkenness. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) produced figures a moment ago to prove that there is more drunkenness amongst the Coloureds than amongst the Bantu. This measure will increase drunkenness amongst the Bantu. The position is that whereas to-day the Bantu can buy a bottle of brandy in the shebeen or R2 per bottle, he will be able to buy it lor R1 per bottle and drunkenness will increase because he will be able to obtain so much more liquor for the same amount of money. Surely it is clear that drunkenness is in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed, and the more liquor facilities are provided, the more drinkers there will be. It was found in America in 1948, for instance, that in the whole of America there were 3,960 alcoholics per 100,000 of the population. In Nevada, one of the American states, there were 8,128 per 100,000 of the population. In the whole of America the consumption was 1.17 gallons per person, whilst the consumption per person in Nevada was 2.41 gallons. In other words, approximately twice as much brandy and whisky was drunk in Nevada as in the whole of America and there was 2.1 times as many alcoholics in Nevada as in the whole of America. Drunkenness is therefore in direct ratio to the amount of alcohol consumed and with the amount of alcohol available. I am not saying that the more liquor facilities there are the more new drinkers there will be. I will concede that it will perhaps mean that the police will have to carry out fewer raids, but will it really mean less work for the police? Will there be fewer assaults and murders? Will there be less rioting? This Bill provides that the non-White may buy liquor but that he may not take it to a house of which he himself is not the owner. Every house-owner will therefore have to give his consent to the use of liquor on his premises. Will that reduce the work of the police? If I find that non-Whites are consuming liquor in my backyard and I do not want them to do so—and you will find that 90 per cent of the White people will not want liquor to be consumed on their premises—I telephone the police and ask them to come and investigate. Not only will I do so but also my neighbour and three or four other people in the same street will do so at the same time, usually Friday night or Saturday morning or Saturday night after they have received their wages. Will that reduce the work of the police? Will it reduce the number of assaults and murders? It is argued that this measure will reduce the work of the police. It is an argument which hangs in the air and has no substance. Langenhoven said that one could not combat an evil by extending it, and that is the truth. How can one extend an evil and then say that one is combating it?

In 1937 beer-halls were introduced by the municipalities and it was done with the idea that if the Bantu was given the right to drink his own liquor there legally there would be less drunkenness and fewer contraventions of the law. What was the result? Statistics prove that drunkenness amongst the Bantu increased by 41 per cent within two years. That was the result of establishing beer-halls where the Bantu could drink legally.

One of the reasons advanced as to why we should abolish the existing restrictions is that there is discrimination between the Whites and the non-Whites. Surely it is a well-known fact that undeveloped and half-civilized people cannot stand strong drink. I want to say that the Bantu in South Africa particularly cannot stand strong liquor. It has clearly been proved by medical men that the Bantu eats too little fat and that as the result he is much more susceptible to the destructive influence of liquor in his system, because he eats too much starch and too little fat. I feel that as Christian guardians we should protect the semi-civilized and undeveloped people. But why should there not be discrimination and differentiation? Surely we apply it in other respects. We apply it in the social sphere and in the political and the economic spheres. We differentiate between the wages paid to Whites and to non-Whites. We discriminate against the non-Whites in regard to working facilities. Legislation has been placed on the statute book by this Government which provides for job reservation, a measure which discriminates against the non-Whites. Why then in this case should there not be differentiation or discrimination? If we intend doing away with discrimination and differentiation, are we going to allow the non-Whites freely to acquire the weapons of the White man? Are we going to do away with job reservation? Why should there not be discrimination simply in regard to liquor, this thing which can harm them so much? Surely it is well known that all colonizers in the olden days, all nations which took part in colonization, decided that liquor was harmful to semi-developed people. We know what happened in Australia and New Zealand. We know what happened to the Eskimos and to the Red Indians of America. We know that it resulted in their destruction and downfall. I have said that nations with colonial interests realized that they should not make available spirituous liquor to undeveloped and semi-developed people. I particularly refer to spirituous liquor, because the Malan Commission did not recommend that spirituous liquor should be made available to the Bantu. They spoke about light wines and beer. We find that the colonial powers at a congress placed the prohibition on the provision of liquor to the inhabitants of Southern Central, Central and North Africa, in a general prohibition passed in Brussels in 1890. In 1890 the convention of St. Germaine again reaffirmed it, and in 1919 seven countries again signed a statement in which they said that it was dangerous to supply liquor to the peoples of Africa.

It has been argued here that the passing of this Bill will do away with poisonous brews. What proof have we for it? The Coloureds can obtain ordinary liquor, but they still distil various brews. It is also argued that there will be less drunkenness and it is pointed out that there are other countries in Africa—e.g. the Rhodesias and also other countries—where the non-Whites have access to liquor. But have hon. members noticed that in these other states, in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, for example, spirituous liquor is so expensive that the Bantu cannot afford it? It is five or six times as expensive as it is in South Africa. What is the position in South Africa? And that applies to the White man as well as to the non-White. The position here is that it pays the poor man, whether he is White or Black, much better if he has 5s. in his pocket to drink five brandies, because he can buy five tots of brandy for 5s. and five brandies make him much more drunk than 5s. worth of wine or beer—seeing that the hon. member for Krugersdorp says that he must feel nice. He will become much more intoxicated on five brandies costing him 5s. than on 5s. worth of beer. He can buy three beers for 5s., which will not make him drunk, but for 5s. he can buy five tots of brandy. We are now telling the Bantu in South Africa that they will be allowed to buy brandy, and they will buy brandy only. They will not buy any beer or wine. That is something for the hon. the Minister of Justice to consider, even in connection with the drinking habits of the White man in this country, that spirituous liquor is easier to get and cheaper than light wines and beer which are less deleterious.

There are also other reasons why I am opposed to this Bill. It is contrary to the tribal customs of the Native that women and young men should have free access to liquor. I do not know how much the hon. the Minister knows of the tribal customs of the Natives. If he knows them, he will realize that it is a deep-rooted custom amongst them that only the older persons in the kraal have the right to drink kaffir beer, and to a much less extent the older women, and not at all the young men and women. That is one of their deep-rooted tribal customs. This Bill does away with the provisions which must be complied with in terms of the ordinary liquor licensing rules. The hon. the Minister of Justice will know that only a few years ago he had to change the old liquor licensing boards and that he appointed only magistrates and people with legal knowledge to these boards. He found that irregularities were taking place even under the old system of liquor licensing boards, and now he is abolishing it completely. The hon. member said that he was going to delete the clauses dealing with the tot system. I am very glad that he is going to do so and therefore I will not say anything more about it. Mr. Speaker, this Bill does what the Methodist Churches describe as “too much in too short a time”. It is said that it was an experiment. An experiment? Do we in South Africa not know, to our regret, that one can give a man rights but that one can hardly take them away from him? This Government ought to know it very well, because it tried to deprive people of their rights and it knows what the consequences were. It knows what the consequences were to South Africa, both inside and outside the country.

And you still want to grant increasingly more rights?

This Government wants to grant more rights, without having thoroughly considered what kind of rights it gives. This experiment may be the most dangerous thing we have ever seen yet. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak here to-day as a member of the D.R. Church. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak here as a woman, on behalf of all the women of the country, White as well as non-White. The D.R. Church expressed itself firmly and unequivocally against the proposed plan to make light wine and beer available to the Bantu. They have only had the opportunity to express themselves against it. The Churches have not yet had an opportunity of expressing their opinions in regard to this Bill which wants to make available spirituous liquor, but they did express their opinions as being against the provision of beer and light wine. That was, inter alia, decided by the Synodal Commissions of the Transvaal and the Cape Synods in 1957. That resolution was taken by the Church Conference at Bloemfontein 1957, and the same resolution was taken by numerous circles, conferences of Church councils and Church councils, and they are even more opposed to the provision of spirits to the Bantu. That was also the request of the Bantu Churches themselves; the Christian Bantu expressed himself strongly against it. The D.R. Bantu Church in South Africa in 1957, the Mission Church of the Transvaal in 1956 and in 1960 expressed themselves against it. Even the Coloured Churches in the Cape expressed themselves against it. The Federal Mission Council of the D.R. Church expressed itself against it in 1955 and in 1958. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not speak for the ordinary woman in South Africa, and particularly for the farmers’ wives on the far-distant farms and in the rural towns. Do we realize that, in terms of this Bill, any Bantu may buy a case of brandy and may take it and drink it just where he likes? In the circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa, where we have the system of migrant labour, where on many farms there are 20 to 30 Native men and where the farmer’s wife is often alone on the farm during the day and often at night with her children, we give these people the right to take strong liquor there and to drink it? That woman will not have the right to prevent them from doing so and the police will not be able to protect her. The police cannot protect thousands of farms in the country. But what about the Bantu woman herself under this system of migrant labour, where the man leaves his home for six months or a year to go and work in the city? In terms of this Bill he will have free access to liquor; he will be able to spend as much money as he likes on liquor. How much of his wages will be sent back to the Native reserves for the maintenance of his family there? Will he maintain his wife and children, or will he spend all his money on liquor?

Now it costs him twice as much, but he still gets it.

The hon. the Minister has just entered the Chamber. I said clearly that it costs the Bantu twice as much, but it means that he can now buy twice as much liquor and become twice as drunk. That argument does not hold water.

But he still has equally little money to send back home.

That is my objection. I repeat that it is one of the most dangerous bits of legislation the Government has ever introduced and that I am going to vote against it.

The object of this legislation is obviously in the first place to destroy the illicit liquor trade and to achieve this object this legislation envisages allowing a greater measure of freedom in the distribution and consumption of liquor, firstly, by extending the right to consume liquor to Natives so that Natives can buy liquor and can consume it as they wish, and also by introducing other relaxations in the restrictions which have hitherto been laid down by law. I should like to discuss this Bill very objectively and I want to compare the advantages and disadvantages entailed in this Bill. But, before doing so, I want to refer briefly to two thoughts which have been expressed by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). In the first instance she has referred to the illicit liquor trade and she has asked more specifically whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) considered that dagga should be made available in order to stop dagga smuggling. But the hon. member for Krugersdorp has stated specifically that there are only two methods which one can adopt, that is to say either total prohibition or, if not, free supply. Total prohibition is the only method which one can control by means of legislation, but when there is discrimination and a partial prohibition, one is faced with problems as regards control. I should like to ask the hon. member for Drakensberg whether she is opposed to the consumption of liquor in any form or in any quantity.

No.

Very well, I accept that and I am glad.

I do not want it to be available in any quantity.

The hon. member has quoted Langenhoven. She says that Langenhoven said that one could not fight an evil by extending it, but the evil and the extension which she is discussing are two quite different things. The evil which we want to combat is the illicit liquor trade and what we want to extend and make available is the consumption of liquor. How can the hon. member make such a comparison?

It is a poor comparison.

I am glad the hon. member agrees it is a poor comparison. I should like to discuss this Bill under three heads—in the first place the psychological effect of a prohibition on the consumption of anything, whether it be liquor or anything else; in the second place the justification which we have, for our sakes and also for the Bantu’s sake, for making liquor available or prohibiting the supply of liquor, and in the third place the waste of energy and manpower involved in the prohibition on the supply of liquor.

The first aspect which I want to discuss is the psychological influence of prohibition of any kind. It is common cause amongst us that people desire that which is withheld from them. A restriction of any kind arouses the desire to obtain or to do that thing which is prohibited. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to make any quotations from the Bible to you, but when we think back to the days of Eve we find that everything that was good on earth was made available to her. A prohibition was placed on only one tree …

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I was discussing the psychological effect on people, namely, that they want to do or to consume that which is prohibited. I also just referred briefly to the fact that even Eve succumbed to the desire to do that which was prohibited to her. In the modern world of to-day this is also a general impression and a recognized fact. In nearly every language in the world there is an idiom which deals with this matter. In Afrikaans we say: “gesteelde vrugte smaak die lekkerste” and in English the same idiom is even more apt, namely, “forbidden fruit tastes sweeter”. I therefore think one can accept that as soon as a person is denied or prohibited from having something, a desire, perhaps an unconscious one, arises in the mind of such a person to have such a thing or to do what is prohibited him. In cases where restrictions are imposed, he usually wants more than he is entitled to. We remember that during the war years when petrol was scarce and we still had to use coupons to buy petrol, we often went out specially at the end of the month to go for a ride even if it was unnecessary, to make sure that we used the petrol which was made available to us in limited quantities.

This Bill not only makes liquor available to the Bantu but other relaxations are also being permitted as far as the existing restrictions are concerned. Section 81 which provides that a licensing board can impose certain restrictions on the quantity of liquor supplied to various races is being repealed. I should like to devote a little time to this point and point out to the hon. the Minister that I should like to see a yet further relaxation being introduced, particularly as regards the Coloureds. We find to-day, particularly here in the Western Cape, that the bottle stores and the bars are only open to Coloureds from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., that is to say for three hours, on a Saturday. It often happens that during this period or for much of that period the Coloured is still working and as a result he only has an hour or half an hour left in which to go to the bar and enjoy a drink. I submit that if that bar were to remain open for the rest of the afternoon, it would not compel the Coloured to drink his liquor in a short period so that he can be finished by 1 p.m. It often happens that he also takes an extra drink for the thirst which he may develop in this afternoon. If he was not under an obligation to finish drinking by 1 p.m. he would perhaps go home knowing he can return in the afternoon if he does develop such a thirst. I am merely mentioning this example to show that such restrictions which are imposed on people quite often have the reverse effect. Experience has taught me that there are only two factors which limit drunkenness. One is self-control and the other is purchasing power, and this applies particularly to our less well-to-do people, and it applies particularly to the Coloureds and the Bantu. If a person cannot control himself, there is only one other factor which can control the quantity of drink which he buys, namely, his purchasing power, because we have heard ourselves from the evidence submitted here, it is in any case no problem to obtain liquor. The Coloured can always obtain liquor. Here in the Western Cape restrictions are imposed on the Coloureds. They can perhaps only buy one bottle of brandy and one bottle of wine from one bottle store, but there are perhaps five or six bottle stores in a town, and it is self-evident that such a Coloured would not have sufficient money in any case to buy his full quota from each of these stores. There are only two factors which can keep him from drunkenness, namely, self-control or his own purchasing power.

Another question which I want to put is this: Are we justified in withholding liquor from the Bantu or any other race in South Africa? We know that as a result of the restrictions on the supply of liquor to the Bantu, we have created a fairly great measure of animosity and dissatisfaction amongst the Bantu. Paragraph 26 of the Malan Commission’s report states as follows—

Paragraph 27 says—

I agree with this, and I think that we should all agree with it. We also heard last year when we had the disturbances that one of the reasons why disturbances and dissatisfaction were to be found amongst the Bantu was the fact that he was discriminated against as regards the obtaining of liquor. If the Native wants it, what reason do we have in our own interests and his interests to withhold from him the liquor which he wants? Our great aim in this House is to preserve the influence and the control of the White man in this country and when it does not affect this great aim of ours and if by so doing we can also gain his goodwill, bearing in mind also the uncertainty as to the advantages and the disadvantages involved, why should we withhold liquor from the Native and what justifiable reason have we for doing so? I say that if we make liquor freely available, we shall not be derogating from our main, our most important aim as White people in this country, but if we do not do so, it will bedevil our relations with the non-White peoples.

The final aspect which I should like to discuss as regards the removal of restrictions is the waste of time and energy. The hon. the Minister has already told us that no less than 30,000 people make a living from the illicit liquor trade in the Peninsula. These are people who could all be doing good and constructive work for South Africa. We also know that the time of thousands of people in the courts is occupied with prosecutions aimed at combating the illicit liquor trade. Thousands of men in our Police Force and in our magistrates’ courts are engaged on combating the illicit liquor trade. Let us assume for one moment that it is right and proper that there should be restrictions and that liquor should not be made available to the Natives; then I want to ask this question: If it is a good thing, to what extent have we succeeded? And if we have succeeded to any extent, is it worth the price which we have to pay? In the first place I think it is clear to this House that to the extent that we have succeeded in withholding liquor from the Bantu, or in applying restrictions in other areas, it is most certainly not worth the tremendously high price which we have had to pay in the past. What we have done in the past is not in line with modern thinking and I think the time has come when we must make a change in this regard.

I should now just like to deal with one or two details of the Bill, and I want to refer in the first place to the age of 18 years which is being laid down. The age of 18 years is also laid down in the case of Whites, and I think that it is right and proper that this should be so, and I have no fault to find with this provision. It is not in conflict with our morals and our customs. But I just want to submit to the Minister for his consideration that I am not certain whether it is in accordance with the morals and customs of the Bantu. I know that at a certain stage in the life of a Bantu man, he goes out into the veld and he is bedaubed and he tells one that he is becoming an adult. I do not know at which stage he becomes an adult, or whether the principle underlying this provision, namely that a child may not obtain liquor, has been discussed with the leaders of the Bantu. I am not quite sure whether this provision of 18 years is also in line with the customs of the Bantu which lay down when he stops being a child.

The next point relates to the National Liquor Board. The clause provides for the establishment of the National Liquor Board which presumably will consist of a magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Justice, and three other persons appointed by the President. I want to submit to the Minister for his consideration that it may be desirable to have at least two callings represented by the other three persons, namely the producers and the trade. The hon. the Minister may tell me that he will do so, but it may be desirable to lay down in the Bill that when these three additional members are appointed, two of them must have knowledge of the production of liquor and the liquor trade.

In conclusion I just want to say that I do not feel very happy about the idea that the hotels are not yet all being placed on an equal footing. We all envisage that this legislation may result in increased liquor sales. I am not quite convinced of that, but let us assume that this will be so. Then I say it is a pity that our hotels will still have to compete on such an unequal footing. If there is an increase in the sale of liquor, I expect that it will take place immediately after the commencement of this legislation and until such time as other provision is made at a later stage, there are many hotels which do not have off-sales licences and they are having a very difficult time.

I want to conclude. I do not want to imply that I want to encourage the increased consumption of liquor. That is not my intention. I should prefer to apply St. Paul’s comparison as regards marriage to the consumption of liquor. St. Paul said that those who were marrying did right, but those who did not marry were doing better. There are perhaps people who do not agree with him. But I should like to say as far as liquor is concerned: Those who consume liquor in moderate amounts are doing the right thing, and those who do not drink it at all are doing better. But liquor has become part of our social life and of our home life and I am afraid that in the modern world we shall simply not succeed in banishing liquor from our life, our homes and our social life. We shall simply have to take it into account. If we consider what we have achieved in the past and what success we have had, then we are forced to the conclusion that we have not succeeded in withholding liquor from the Bantu by means of legislation. Nor have we succeeded in enforcing the restrictions relating to the other groups. But what we have succeeded in doing is creating dissatisfaction and animosity amongst these people because they are being discriminated against as regards the provision of liquor. What we have also found is that in many instances these people have been forced to drink illicit brews which have been far more harmful to their health than ordinary proper liquor. I therefore say that I think it is common cause amongst all of us—and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has also admitted this—that we are not opposed to the moderate consumption of liquor, and I therefore feel that as we have not succeeded in achieving the object we set ourselves in the past, there is only one alternative left to us, namely: Make liquor freely available and let us all work for the moderate consumption of liquor by all section of our community.

I don’t speak as a prohibitionist, and I don’t have to be reminded by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that we have been using alcohol since time immemorial and that many of us have been able to enjoy the pleasures of moderate drinking over the years. I want to approach this Bill as objectively as I possibly can, and for that reason I want to say at the outset that I think the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) must forget that this is an experiment. This Bill as it stands now closes an era of prohibition or an attempt at prohibition, and what we start now is a totally new era; something which we have not had before and something on which we will never be able to go back. I am concerned not so much that we are giving those who have not, something to go on with, but what I am concerned about is that the step we are now taking might be one in respect of which we may over-reach ourselves. I think the step is too far forward at this stage, and if the hon. the Minister wanted to experiment he should have built up quietly and successively on what we have at the moment. But he has not done that. He has virtually taken it from a stage in which there has been no wine, beer or spirits for a group of people and he has now thrown these people into the arena and said to them “You can now go and buy them”. I would say to him that if he was going to experiment, he should have said first of all: What have they got now and what should they have, and how quickly can I give it to them? He should have first started with the supply of kaffir beer, which could have been used in their own homes and not only drunk in communal beer halls; he could have experimented with the canning and bottling of kaffir beer and he should have made those wholesome products available to those Bantu that wanted it and let them enjoy these things in their own homes. But the hon. Minister has over-stepped that and he has gone straight to beer, wine and brandy. He must remember that whatever ill-effects may come from this relaxation of the law, he will not be able to go back, he will never be able to repair the damage that may come from these relaxations.

What is going to be the effect of these relaxations in the present Bill? We have been told that one of the main reasons for bringing in this Bill is because in the past the police have been unable to cope with the situation that has arisen through illicit liquor dealing. Is this Bill going to have any effect on that? I doubt it very much, because provisions are made in the Bill for restrictions. Provisions are being made in this Bill for restrictions which are so distasteful to so many of the Bantu at the moment, and as long as you have restrictions, as long as they are restricted to what may be sold, to where it may be sold and when it can be sold, so long will you have to do with the illicit liquor dealer. You will still have the runners, and if they don’t run during the hours of ten to six in the daytime, they are going to run from six at night until the next morning. Because the Minister knows as well as I do that the shebeen trade does most of its work when the bottle stores close and the pubs close, and these swanky shebeens that we have heard of that are being patronized in some of the large towns, are not open during the daytime. They do their business at night-time. They do their business when one cannot get into a night club to drink. They do their business when the pubs are shut, and they go on to three o’clock and four o’clock in the morning, they go on as long as their clients have the money to spend on drink, and they will continue to do so, and we shall still be faced with the problem of having to cope with these illicit liquor dealers. If any of the people think that the 1,000,000 bottles of drink that are being sold illicitly to-day is going to improve the economy or the financial set-up of the wine-growers or the wholesalers, they are making a mistake. Those million bottles will be sold in the same way as they are being sold now. The wine producer will still send his product along to the wholesaler and it will still be bought from the wholesaler at the same price. The only difference is that the person who buys it will pay less than he has done up to now if there are no restrictions. But if there are restrictions placed anywhere along the line on the sale of brandy especially, it will still be sold at a higher price when the pubs and bottle stores are closed. And that is what many White people are doing, with all the facilities that they have got. We all know what happens when you run out of a bottle and the pubs are shut. Instead of paying 13s. 6d. for a bottle of brandy, you are willing to give £1 if you can get it, and if you can’t get it for £1, you pay 30s., and that is what is going to happen again in the future. It is not going to stop the illicit liquor trade because you happen to make the amount of alcohol available a little freer during the daytime. The question arises also as to drunkenness following the free supply of liquor. I agree with the hon. member for Drakensberg to some extent. She believes that if you pay 30s. for a bottle of illicit brandy now and you should be paying only 13s. if it is bought legally, you will buy, she says, twice as much, you will get two bottles for the same 30s. I agree with the hon. member that you will get two bottles, but I do not say, as she says, that there will be twice as much drunkenness following the purchase of that. I say that there will be far more drunkenness, because you will not only get the double quantity in comparison with what you would get from the shebeen, but because of the ease with which you can buy brandy, you will get a higher degree of drunkenness in South Africa than at the moment. My problem is not so much in respect of wine and beer, but entirely in respect of brandy. I don’t speak without any knowledge, and I do know that brandy not only makes people drunk quicker, it is not only a habit-forming drug, the addiction to which is very, very difficult to break, and I do know also that of all the alcoholics that we have in our country to-day, 90 per cent are alcoholics because they have been drinking brandy. The figures available are quite illuminating, and I would say this to hon. members: The figures of the Castle-Carey Clinic should be taken into consideration when thinking of brandy drinking. There were 219 patients treated at the Castle-Carey Clinic last year, and their daily consumption in bottles alone, before admittance to the clinic and apart from drinks consumed in bars and clubs, was as follows: 255 bottles of brandy, 31 bottles of whisky, 24 bottles of wine, 17 bottles of gin, six bottles of vodka and 14 bottles of beer or stout. Just listen to these figures. That was their daily consumption. Look at the high percentage of brandy consumed, not because the others were not available to these people, but because the addiction is towards brandy. We have to-day 100,000 alcoholics in our country amongst the White people. It sounds a fantastic number, but that is what it is, and with the free supply now of brandy to the Bantu, we are going to double that figure to say the least of it, and what it is going to mean to the Coloured people, this free supply, I do not know. For some reason (the figures were quoted by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), there is always a far greater percentage of drunkenness amongst the Coloureds than amongst any other group. I have thought of reason which may be causing that, and to me it would appear that they drink too much on empty stomachs. I don’t think that the food that the Coloured people eat is nourishing enough for them, and I don’t think they go to work with sufficient in their tummies, I don’t think that their lunches are sufficient for them, at night-time I don’t think they get enough to eat either. These problems are now going to be put onto the Bantu people as well. There is another problem which I think of immediately and that is the economic set-up between the Whites, the Coloureds and what may happen in the future. Now, amongst the White people in most families where a large percentage of the wage earnings are used for the purchase of alcohol, or let me say in many families we find the wives going out to work to supplement the budget. With the help of the wife they manage. The children are fed and dressed fairly decently and there is a certain amount of peace in the home because the wife of the family supplements the income. Now what is going to happen in the Bantu families? I don’t know if there is going to be work for the Bantu women to supplement the budget. I don’t know whether they are going to be allowed to come into the towns to work. I don’t know if there is going to be sufficient work for them on the farms. But I do know that there are going to be shortages in the families.

May I put this question to the hon. member? In what respect do they not experience the same problems in Moçambique and Rhodesia where they have a free flow of liquor? Can the hon. member mention one reason?

I think there are two reasons for that. Firstly, the cost of brandy is so high there that they cannot afford to get it, and secondly, I think, they have been conditioned there over the years to take it.

I said at the outset that if we are going to make an experiment, we must build up slowly. We must not take this great step forward, of plunging this whole population into the brandy-drinking arena. How are we going to stop this? To me it seems quite evident that this Bill is going through. The Government have made up their minds that they are going to pass this legislation, and they are going to pass it even before we can put it into the puzzle that is going to be presented to us when the whole of this legislation is given to us to study. Here we have one little piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The Minister has the rest of the pieces in his little box and next session or the session after he is going to take out the rest of the pieces and is going to put them together, and then we are going to put this piece into the rest of the jigsaw puzzle. I think that before he should have asked us to pass judgment on this Bill, he should have shown us how it is going to fit in with the rest of the set-up that is going to appear in legislation at the next session. It would have been only fair to all of us to have been given some inkling as to what the whole legislation is going to be, but the hon. the Minister has not told us what he is going to do.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions: Is he going to encourage the establishment of restaurants throughout the country where non-Whites can sit down decently, in White areas, because they are working in White areas, where they can sit down and have a lunch and be served with a bottle of beer? Is he going to allow that? Or is he going to remove the facilities that these people have had as has happened in certain towns, very primitive facilities in the streets where they have been able to get a cup of coffee and a slice of bread? In Johannesburg for instance there has been a sudden wiping out of almost every coffee-stall in the town, they have been taken off the streets—coffee-stalls where they were buying coffee and tea, pieces of bread, etc.

You have to blame the City Council for that.

I am not blaming any city council, I am not blaming anybody. I am asking the hon. the Minister whether there are going to be facilities where these people can eat decently and properly. And I for one am against workers of our country having to stand in the streets, or sitting on the pavements with a cup of coffee in one hand and a piece of bread in the other. I would like to see them sitting in a decent place, off the street. That is what I am asking the hon. the Minister to do. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying to me that he is going to see that these restaurants and eating places are established either in the living areas of the Bantu or in the Native reserves, or in tribal places. I want to see them established where these people are working.

I want to know another thing: Is he going to take the trouble through his National Board to show the Bantu people what dangers can come to their race as a whole if they persist in immoderate drinking of brandy? Is he going to make sure that the sale of light wine and beer are made as attractive as possible to these people so that the purchasing of brandy will not come into the picture except as far as the small group is concerned which insists on drinking brandy and are prepared to pay the price for it? I would say that we are paying far too little for brandy. I would like to see the price of brandy go up by taxation and that the money coming from an excise duty or a special tax be devoted to the treating of those people who suffer from the ill-use of drink, from immoderate drinking. I should like to see money spent on recreation facilities for the non-Europeans. I would like to see money spent to help run decent restaurants and eating places for these people. The money should only come from one source and that is a duty imposed on brandy-drinkers for the privilege of drinking brandy if they so want.

Now let us say that the police are inundated with thousands upon thousands of cases of contravention of the existing liquor law. We all know that if we reduce the number of liquor offences in one sphere, we increase them in another. If we are going to have fewer illicit liquor-runners, there will be more drunks on the streets on a Saturday afternoon.

How can you say that?

Let the hon. member disprove what I am saying: When this Bill is passed, three months later the hon. member can come and show me the figures of what happens on Saturday afternoons as far as arrests for drunkenness are concerned. If I am wrong, I will apologize. I hope to God I am wrong, and if I am wrong, it is not because of the facilities that have been given to these people, but it is because they know how to behave themselves.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Will he admit that the Native now gets all the liquor he wants, but that it is adulterated and poisoned, and that this Bill tries to stop that?

I don’t believe that at all. I do believe that he is getting adulterated liquor and I am going to say that the hon. member does not know the shebeen queens if he thinks he is going to put them out of business. They are going to compete with the brandy producers. That is a certainty. They are not going to give up so easily and if brandy is going to be 50 per cent proof or 60 per cent proof, their concoctions will be 90 per cent proof, and if brandy is going to be sold at 12s. 6d. a bottle, they will sell at 7s. 6d. a bottle, but they are not going out of business. Coming to that I must say that the hon. the Minister has put into this Bill much heavier penalties in order to combat this shebeening that goes on, and the illicit liquor business. I would then say to him why does he not apply this immediately? Why must he wait; if these people are doing so much damage surely the time is now for them to be penalized, and the penalties should be as heavy now as they would be next week or the week after when this Bill becomes law. Is there any reason why we have been lenient with them in the past? Why did we not amend the law long ago and make these penalties as heavy as they will be in the future? If the hon. the Minister did think at any time, or if his advisers thought that by increasing penalties it would do away with the crime then he should have done so long ago and he should not have waited until now.

I am going to make another forecast, and that is that this country is going to experience a wave of robberies throughout the country; burglaries into bottle stores, bars and wholesale premises. That is what is going to happen. We will find that these people who are to-day illicit liquor sellers and buyers will not go out of business. When they know that they have to compete at certain prices they will see that they get their requirements for nothing, and the only way they can do that is to steal. That already happens. We all know what precautions some of these big wholesalers have to take in their stores; we have all seen the walls that they put up and the fencing that is put round their premises. Some of these places look like forts as a result of the precautions they are obliged to take. I think the hon. the Minister of Defence should tour some of these premises and learn something about how to protect the populace. There are terrific fences and barbed wire erections and a variety of other precautions. This is necessary because their experience has shown that if they do not take these precautions, at the end of the month their stocks will be very short and those shortages will not be easy to account for.

I now want to say that if this legislation has been introduced because of the difficulty that the Police Force have in administering the Liquor Laws, and if there are 300,000 cases per year arising from illicit liquor selling or buying, then we want to know if anything is going to be done about the Pass Laws which are just as difficult to administer?

Order, order! That is not under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I am trying to show that we are told that because of the difficulties of the administration of one law it is being amended. We want to know if that is going to hold good for other laws as well? We must be told that. If it is good for one law, is it going to be good for another law? Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether he is going to use for other work the people who have been employed on these raids about which we have heard over and again in this House, or are those raids going to continue? No one can tell me that the raids that take place throughout the country are only as a result of the Liquor Laws. I do not believe that.

Nobody said that.

I know that nobody said that, but it has been suggested that once we do away with this discrimination there will be peace on earth. There will be no more cases of people being woken up at three o’clock or four o’clock in the morning by policemen going into their rooms and disturbing the people there. I say that that will continue.

Who said so?

I say that that will continue. And if the hon. member does not believe that it will continue he must say so.

Are you a member of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the thinking of some of those hon. members on the Government side of the House. If one points something out which is not to their liking they either brand you a member of this group or as a member of that group. Hon. members on that side of the House should know better than that. Their petty interjections that mean so very little should rather be kept to themselves.

Order, order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by these interjections.

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker.

Whilst the hon. member agrees will he kindly come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to this question of these raids. I take a very serious view of what happens. I do not say that the police should not do their best to eradicate the evils that arise, particularly from the brewing of illicit liquor. They know from experience who is responsible for this sort of thing. But I still do not think it is necessary, in the early hours of the morning or the middle of the night when workers are trying to get a few hours’ sleep before going back to work, that they should be disturbed and asked if they are hiding a bottle of brandy under their bed-clothes.

There is another question which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is the question of malnutrition which arises from drinking. The hon. the Minister will have to combat that. I think he realizes that this is a problem which we must face up to. The more money that goes into the purchase of alcohol, the less there is going to be for the purchase of food. I am afraid that over the years we are going to find that a lot of school children, particularly, are going to have to go without food some time during the week, and that will probably happen on the Monday or the Tuesday.

Because they have not done their homework.

I say that we must try and link up the health standards in our country with our food production, and we should use only that which we can spare on the luxuries. And amongst the luxuries I include the production of alcohol. If we should find that our food supplies are running short, if we should find that any section of our population is going short of food, then I say to the hon. the Minister that he, together with his co-Ministers, especially the hon. the Minister for Health and the hon. Minister for Economic Affairs should put their heads together and see how much they can save out of the wreck that may come and keep it for the production of more food and less drink.

I regard it as a privilege to be able to rise to my feet as the representative of one of the liquor-producing constituencies. I rise in order to plead for an increased market for the liquor-producing farmers other than the market they already have in the form of ordinary trade and illicit trade. The wine industry is one of the oldest industries in this country and it is an industry which from the very beginning has made tremendous contributions—contributions which one can hardly describe—in the ecclesiastical, educational and many other spheres of our national life. These farmers produce liquor and they have always been very proud of their product. Last week the hon. the Minister of Agriculture opened a demonstration or a show here in the city and on that occasion he said that every farmer ought to be proud of the product he places on the market. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I want to give hon. members the assurance that that is the case with the liquor farmers. It hurts them very much, however, that this product of which they are so proud is subject to illicit trading and causes all the misery which it has caused in the past and which it is causing to-day. We know that after gold was discovered on the Reef during the time of Oom Paul chaos existed as far as illicit trade in liquor was concerned. However, I do not want to talk about the Reef but I talk as somebody from the Western Cape and I say that not so long ago, about 30 or 35 years ago, we did not have an illicit trade in liquor here. The reason was that there was no market for it. But as the Bantu filtered through into the Western Cape the illicit trading in liquor became as lucrative as it is today, because a market was established for that illicit liquor. Nobody goes in for illicit liquor trading for the sake of his health. He does so in order to make money. Now that the Black man is able to get liquor we are depriving the illicit liquor trader of that power. I believe, therefore, that as a result of this there will not be any illicit trading in liquor in the future. Recently I was walking in one of the streets of my home town when one of the lorries of the divisional council stopped in front of the charge office, a constable climbed on to the lorry and opened a bag of mealie meal. I stopped to watch what was going on. He took 12 bottles of Mellowood brandy from that bag of mealie meal. Where do those Natives get that brandy from? They get it from the Coloured people. As a result of this amendment to the Act the Black man will be able to buy his liquor himself, and he will get it much cheaper than to-day.

If we take the Liquor Act as it stands today and we take this amending Bill and we compare the two and we look at the Black man as a human being, we cannot for one moment hold it against him for buying liquor illegally. Think of the misery it has caused in that a quarter of the criminals who are today in gaol are there as a result of illicit trading in liquor. It costs the Government R4,000,000 every year in manpower, motorcars and court cases. I believe that those things will disappear because of these amendments. I am not saying that illicit trading will cease immediately. I am not saying that the Black man will not drink more, but I do believe that the evil which existed under the old Act will disappear in future. Neither do I believe that anybody sitting here to-day likes to see a drunken person, whether he be Black or White. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) spoke this morning and I listened attentively to her speech. I respect her for having made that speech. I respect the opinion of every man and woman in this House, whether he or she is against or in favour of this Bill. She referred to the illicit trade in diamonds and dagga. As far as that is concerned, I am in complete agreement with her, and if we can pass a law to prevent that I will agree with it. But I do not see how the Government can pass a law that will put an end to it. In this case, however, it can be done and I believe that these new amendments will offer a solution. I truly believe that and that was why I rose to say these few words. But that is not all. I think of all those hundreds of young men, White as well as non-White, who are behind iron bars as a result of the illicit liquor trade. I believe that even that will come to an end when these amendments are put into effect.

I can quite understand the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) and the representations he has made, because naturally he must speak in the interests of the grape-producing farmers of the constituency he represents. The hon. member spoke of the evils of illicit liquor traffic. I wonder if the evils of the illicit liquor traffic will be any worse than the increased liquor consumption which this Bill propagates? It ill becomes this Government, in the dying days of this Session, to force on its members and on the country a revolutionary measure such as this Liquor Amendment Bill. This Bill offers no solution to the question of the abuse of liquor, as is claimed for it, nor would it curtail the use of liquor. This Bill will actually facilitate the acquisition of alcohol by those who are less able to resist the inborn craving for it. It will considerably increase the consumption of liquor by our subject races. By this Bill we are not only opening the doors to the abuse of liquor by the great majority of the population of the country, but we are actually encouraging the craving for alcohol by these people, in the same way as a parent does by regularly giving his children alcohol. And there is no difference in these cases, because these people are our children.

It is claimed that properly controlled supplies of good liquor to Natives will remove far more evils than they will create. That is something we still have to see. But what evidence is there to substantiate that claim? The reaction of the Coloured people to liquor facilities definitely disproves this claim. The Coloured people to-day represent 49 per cent of those convicted for drunkenness in this country. If that is what has happened to the Coloured people, who knows what is going to happen to our Bantu people when the same facilities are afforded them?

The hon. member for Hercules (Prof. A. I. Malan) said that the commission came to the firm conclusion that 60 per cent of the liquor produced in this country was sold on the black market. If the commission accepted that finding, it should rather have investigated the control of liquor from its source. We know that if we want to control a flood that control should be exercised at the source, not in the area devastated by the flood. There you can only bring relief, it is at the source of this evil that the commission should have exercised its endeavours rather than at the place where the flood has had its effect. And we all know what it costs the country, in general, when there have been ordinary floods, and we feel that the effect of liquor when let loose on the country is going to be even more devastating. I regard it as criminal to make liquor available to all, regardless of their incomes. The Government claims that the granting of liquor facilities to all sections of our population will stop illicit liquor dealing and the operation of shebeens. But that is quite absurd. The Government knows that free liquor facilities granted to our Coloureds have brought about a tremendous increase of these shebeens amongst the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, no hon. members of this House have ever before been so inundated with letters from people protesting against the passing of this Bill. Every Member of Parliament and every member of the Senate has received a document from the Federale Raad van die N.G. Kerke vir die Bestryding van Maatskap-like Euwels. In this circular the Churches have appealed to every Member of Parliament and every Senator to oppose this Bill. They say—

We all know that Synod after Synod of the N.G. Kerk have passed resolutions opposing increased drinking facilities for our Bantu people. I am not going to quote a lot and take up the time of this House on this point, but there are one or two items I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

We have all received a memorandum submitted by the South African Temperance Alliance in connection with this Liquor Amendment Bill. One of the clauses therein reads—

Then I have another memorandum from the Parliamentary Liaison Committee of the Methodist Church of South Africa, which contains a clause in which the hon. the Minister of Justice may be interested —

This appears in the Senate Hansard No. 15 of 1959, from a speech on 22 June 1959. And that very truthful statement was made by this hon. Minister of Justice. I think that all of us who are opposed to this Bill fully agree with that statement.

In addition to these memoranda I have, like other hon. members, numerous letters from individuals. I have for instance a letter here in which the individual says—

Then I have another letter from a lady whom I know very well and who says—

I think that every word of that statement is true. This lady goes on and says—

I agree with that too. We are passing through a very serious time of political unrest, and when people are disturbed or restless they seek liquor, and that liquor aggravates their illegal intentions.

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at this legislation and I will oppose it to the utmost. We are the trustees of the indigenous races of this country but here we are exposing them by this Bill to the ravages of alchohol. We inherited the Cape tot system as a recognized evil of the past, and the supply of liquor freed of its present restrictions is going to let loose, still further, the ravages to the homes of the least able to withstand it. Mothers and children of these people are crying out to us to save them from the misery that increased liquor facilities will bring to the Native inhabitants of this country. We who work amongst the Native people know their poverty. We know the evil of liquor facilities. We know of the shebeens that cause so much misery. But this Bill is going to make more liquor available, and more easily available to our Bantu people. We must remember that we are their trustees. I do not see how we can possibly do it. It is going to bring about misery and starvation and increased incidence of tuberculosis.

You know, Sir, we have been patting each other on the back and saying what wonderful progress we are making in the combating of tuberculosis. That tuberculosis resulted mainly from the lack of protective foods. Yet now we are introducing a Bill of this nature which will result in the reduction of the supply of protective foods to the children and will consequently aggravate the tuberculosis position. I deplore what the Government intends to do in this Bill. Even at this stage—and I hope it is not yet too late—I appeal to members on the Government benches to oppose this Bill. We know that they are not allowed to speak in the debate if they are opposed to the Bill. Has regimentation in this country reached that state that we no longer have the liberty of saying what we have on our consciences? It was reported in the papers that members would be allowed to vote according to their conscience, but I think it is a terrible limitation if Government members are not allowed to express the feelings of their conscience. Dare we resist these criticisms? I thought that the Afrikaner was a God-fearing man, yet in this Bill they are going against their own Church.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to this article which I quoted. Surely I am speaking to this Bill when I express the feelings of the Church towards this legislation, because that is what we are doing on the second reading. At the Committee Stage I will be prepared to limit myself to the individual clauses. The Dutch Reformed Churches are completely opposed to the free supply of liquor to the African people. The Federal Council of the Church, set up for the control of social evils, which represents the Churches of the Transvaal, the Orange Free State, the Cape and Natal, has condemned the proposals in this Bill. The Council has said that these proposals would lead to the demoralization of the Bantu and would place a major obstacle in the way of the Churches’ mission work. The Council said that the great majority of the Bantu live in primitive condition and have not reached the standard of civilization under which they would be proof against the devastating effects of alcohol. We who have employed the Native people can, I think, all support that statement with conviction. We know how the Natives are prepared to sell their souls for a little alcohol. Farmers who have provided alcohol to their Natives have brought about a demoralizing effect on the Native character. And this is something that the Native has asked us to protect them from. The Natives in the area that I represent have said that they do not favour this legislation. They do not regard this privilege as something giving them a status of equality as regards the White man in this country. They regard this measure as aimed at exploiting the Native people.

Mr. Speaker, we all know of how many nations have been destroyed by liquor. We know of that giant race in Southern Patagonia which was wiped out when given liquor facilities. These people were accustomed to going out to sea when fishing poorly clothed, sometimes wearing only skins, and they were able to resist the rigors of the climate. But when liquor was made available to them their resistance was diminished and they became victims of tuberculosis and pneumonia and, as a result, that race has been wiped out. And that has happened to many people. The Hottentots of this country were wiped out more as a result of alcohol than as a result of smallpox. We know that Professor Marais in his book mentions several instances where alcohol has had such a devastating effect on our primitive races. To think that in this century of enlightenment we are prepared to expose these people to the ravages of liquor, and only resort to increased penalties to control drunkenness, is quite absurd. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus) askes what prohibition did to America. They drank less liquor there during prohibition, although it was available. I hope the hon. member is not supporting this measure. He has an enormous Native population in his area and they have had trouble in controlling them at times. If the hon. member gives the measure consideration he will realize that the control of the Native areas of Port Elizabeth will become more difficult than ever.

Before I sit down, I want to appeal to the members of the Government to come back under the wings of their Church and to avoid this issue where political domination may destroy their consciences, and I say: Rather God than Mammon.

I think the debate so far has shown how wise has been the practice in the past of allowing a free vote when it comes to matters in which liquor is concerned.

Hear, hear!

I am only sorry that the side of the hon. member who said “Hear, hear!” did not follow it as genuinely as this side did. We have followed up the decision that every member should be free to vote according to his conscience, but that hon. member certainly cannot say that for his side of the House. I find it very strange to find myself in disagreement with many of my friends on this side and in agreement with hon. members opposite for a change. I intend to vote for the principle of this Bill, because I believe that this Bill seeks to eliminate an evil.

The arguments we have had against the Bill so far have been arguments not against this measure but against liquor as such. In other words, they are arguments against the provisions of the principal Act which is being amended, because every argument advanced in this debate against the passing of this measure has been based on the evils of liquor and the damage it does to human beings. Now there is no doubt about that, but it applies equally to those who are already entitled to it and able to obtain it and those who at the moment cannot obtain it legally but who obtain it illegally. I believe that more harm is done—and I think this has been proved by prohibition in America, where during prohibition there were 22,000 shebeens in New York alone, whereas to-day there are none—it has been proved that by making something illegal you cannot prevent it. What happens is that those who are prepared to be dishonest and to act as criminals will still continue to get their liquor, whereas those who try to keep within the law are prevented from obtaining it, and this Bill aims at meeting that situation. It aims not so much at meeting the question of the distribution of liquor as trying to counter the illegal sale of liquor and, above all, the illegal brewing of liquor. Much of the damage that is done is not done by genuine liquor, but by these evil brews produced by the shebeen queens, brews which contain anything from carbide and methylated spirits to high octane petrol. I know that during the war when liquor was scarce people made brews out of anything, including brake fluid. Somebody discovered that it contained alcohol and they mixed it with condensed milk to produce a potent brew. I see hon. members laughing. Some of them may have tasted it. I did also, but it was not very nice. It is that sort of brew which does the harm. Surely if we want to counter that evil and we know that people are going to drink in any case, then it is better to enable them to drink something pure than to drink the impure concoctions they can buy. Apart from that, there is the question of the intrusion into the private lives of the Bantu through the liquor laws that exists today, intrusion into the homes of people which create so much bitterness. Whilst you will still get shebeens with illegal brews, and whilst you will still get abuse—I accept all that—I feel that this Bill may to some extent remove many of those evils and alleviate others of them. Like others, I looked for control in this measure, which may have made it perhaps less wide and unrestricted than it is at the moment. I thought in terms of an extension of the permit system or an endorsement of the pass book entitling a person to obtain liquor, and various other controls which may have been introduced. But when one considers each and every one of these methods, I think one must come to the conclusion that all of them still leave the evil there. If Native A is entitled to buy liquor but not Native B, then A becomes the buyer for B. If a person is entitled to buy with a permit, he will borrow a permit from his friend if he does not have one himself. So I do not think that that type of control will be effective. It will merely channel the liquor through those who are entitled to buy it, and thus increase the price and create an extra middleman. Therefore, reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that I will support the Bill with the basic principles as they stand at the moment. I am opposed to many of the points of detail, but those matters can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I would rather deal at this stage with the general principle of the supply of liquor, and consideration of the general principle has led me to the conclusion that any type of restriction will merely perpetuate the problems we have to-day.

But what I feel the Bill is doing, and a field in which there is room for improvement, is the invasion of the established interests of private enterprise which it contains. I would like to look for a moment at the question of distribution as envisaged in the new Section 100. as it will be amended by the measure before us. In terms of Section 100bis. we have complete and unrestricted power being given to the Minister to grant special authority for on-consumption and off-consumption, and for the consumption by certain classes of certain types of liquor. But all the power rests in the hands of the Minister or the person whom he appoints, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider two possible amendments in this respect. Firstly, he is creating a National Liquor Board. Will he not consider that where authority is granted to a local body like a municipality or any other local authority, before the grant of such authority the advice of the National Liquor Board should be obtained? I will put it no higher than that, but if the Minister agrees to that he would enable those who felt that they were being wronged to give evidence or to make their representations to that Board, and he would then be acting on the advice of that Board in the granting of authority; or, if not, whether he will incorporate a provision that if there are those who feel that the granting of an authority to a local body is in conflict with the interests of the area or with private enterprise, he will then agree to receive representations from those so affected; in other words, that he will publish his intention to issue such an authority and give an opportunity for those affected to make representations to him. But the other class of person, apart from public authorities, to whom I wish to refer, are those classed as “persons or associations of persons”. That enables the Minister to grant an authority which is in effect a liquor licence to any person or association of persons. Surely where we are dealing with private persons in a matter as intricate and as controversial as the distribution of liquor, we should retain the safeguards provided by the liquor licensing boards. [Interjections.] Yes, but if it is an association of Natives in their own area, surely the liquor licensing board will treat such an application with fair and just consideration. The point is that they are a body experienced in the granting of licences. It may not be a group of Natives. It may be someone who is entirely unsuited to be a licensee, but by presenting a false picture of himself he creates the impression that he is a suitable person to receive a licence and the Minister grants it, without being bound by any of the provisions of the licensing board. The licensing boards must establish a man’s character and his criminal record and his financial stability. The Minister is not bound by any of those restrictions. So I suggest that where private interests are concerned use be still made of the liquor licensing boards, because whether he likes it or not, the first person who receives an authority from the Minister is going to be labelled as a “boetie-boetie” licensee, whether it is right or wrong. The minute the Minister grants an authority to a private person, the rumours will start that this is “jobs for pals”, and I want to protect the Minister and the industry as such. My friend laughs. He is not interested in the consequences of this. He has been told to vote for the Bill, and that is as far as he can think, whilst I am trying to deal with the provisions of the Bill. I am asking that in the interests of justice and in order to create confidence that there will be no abuse of these powers, in the case of an authority granted to private persons the liquor licensing boards be used as the channel—not as the final channel but as an advisory body to the Minister in this respect; and where such authorities are to be granted, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of advertising for tenders if the local authority is not going to run the distribution of the liquor. If the local authority says they are not interested, I assume the Minister will grant that authority to some person or association of persons, and where there is such a case I feel that in the interest of fairness such a situation should be dealt with by advertising and calling for persons to apply for the authority.

The impression is created, and I think wrongly, that this Bill is merely going to throw liquor open far and wide to every non-White who wishes to buy it. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions in regard to this, because I doubt whether that is in effect the outcome of the Bill as it stands now. I doubt whether that is the position and that in fact any distributor would be able to sell liquor to all and sundry, because Section 100quin as proposed grants permission for the exclusion either of a class or an area from the provisions of this Bill. That is Clause 9 of the amending Bill.

It is a class in a defined area.

Yes. But Clause 10 retains the permit system, the exemption system. Section 100quin as now proposed gives the Minister authority to exclude any area, to exempt any class of person in a defined area from purchasing liquor, but in Clause 10, Section 101, he retains the permit system with regard to Natives. He merely deletes from it Asiatics and Coloureds and he deletes two other subsections, but the permit system is retained. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to use 100quin to exclude White areas so that Native liquor trade will be directed into Native areas, and whether that is the purpose of this clause, and whether, allied to that, the retention of the exemption permit system is in order that those Natives who have permits will still be able to buy on permit in White or in excluded areas. The Minister may, e.g., exclude the whole of Cape Town from the provisions of this Bill and say that liquor will only be supplied to Natives in Langa or Nyanga, and in that exclusion he may say that a class of persons, i.e. Natives with exemption certificates, will still be able to purchase in the White area. I think it is important that we have clarity on the meaning of this clause.

The clause is intended to deal with the position if it gets out of hand.

Thank you. Then I assume I am correct in saying that it is not the intention to exclude White areas holus-bolus and to direct all the Native liquor trade into the Native townships. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify this point, because many of the arguments I still wish to make flow from it; because if the intention of the Bill is that the supply of all liquor to Natives will be confined to the Native townships, then 100ter has no real meaning except in cases where the local authority is not going to supply. But if 100quin is purely to deal with the matter when it gets out of hand, then 100ter will apply and be put into practice, and therefore many of the arguments for and against this Bill will change materially in the light of the Minister’s reply. If the Minister’s intention is to control all liquor in Native areas, many of the objections to this Bill will fall away, but then the Minister will be cutting across an established right and private interests, and one of those which I would like to refer to is the position of licensees in the Cape who to-day are supplying Coloureds and exempted Natives. They are entitled to do so under the existing legislation. Under this Bill, if liquor is to be directed into the Native areas only, those people who pay very highly for their licences will find that the whole situation is changed as far as their businesses are concerned, because those Natives who were previously buying through commercial channels, if they are forced to buy in the Native areas, will no longer be potential customers. Those channels which previously supplied them will find that their trade has lost much of its value. I draw this to the Minister’s attention because, as he knows, the obtaining of a liquor licence is very difficult, and rightly so. A person cannot just get a liquor licence. It costs him a lot of money. He often has to wait a long time for it and a great deal of time and capital is invested in the distribution channels. If the Minister intends by one sweep of the pen to take away part of their income, I think in fairness to these people he should give warning of his intention so that they can plan accordingly. I hope it is the intention of the Minister to use 100quin, as he says, merely as a regulating measure, and that he will make the fullest possible use of the existing distributive channels. We have the hotel and the liquor distributing industry, and they are of a high standard. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said it was unfortunate that hotels competed on such unequal terms. That is so. It is unequal in many respects but primarily because some hotels have off-sales and others have none, and also in regard to the quality of their service. But the industry as such is battling and finding the position so difficult that they cannot make the improvements they wish to make. I feel that where we have a satisfactory channel of distribution the maximum use should be made of it by the Minister because it is controlled by experienced people. It is a channel of distribution run by people, most of whom have spent their whole lives in the business and who have learnt to know the difficulties and the snags and the loopholes whereby people try to evade the law and who, because of that experience, are less likely to allow abuses than inexperienced people to whom authority may be given. So I ask the Minister not to discard the existing marketing channels which can be of great use in giving him effective control.

Then I wish to refer to the question of the board itself, the National Liquor Board which the Minister proposes to establish. I have already suggested that this board should be used to advise the Minister in the granting of authority, but I would especially ask that that board be asked to advise the Minister in regard to exclusions in terms of 100quin. The granting of an authority is an additional right.

That will take up so much of the time of the board that it will be almost a permanent board.

But is this matter not of such importance, and are the risks outlined by those who are opposed to the Bill not so great that it is necessary that there should be a full-time board? Does the Minister intend to make so many exclusions that it will be impossible to refer them to the board, or does he intend to delegate his authority, because he as the Minister cannot handle every application, to an official, so that one man will take these decisions? Surely it will be better to have a board, and if necessary a full-time board, to deal with these matters continuously, a board in which the public could have confidence and on which I suggest, there should be represented the existing distributive trade, whether it is the hotel industry or the bottle-store trade.

I suggested in my second reading speech that there should be such representatives on the board.

I hope that the Minister will incorporate that in the constitution of the board and if necessary increase the board. But I feel that the trade should be represented because of the experience they have had.

Now, if I may deal with another contentious issue in Clause 8, the question of the tot system. I am afraid the Minister has not yet made the question clear to the House. He has said that the intention is to leave it to the free choice of the employer.

To leave the Act as it is, i.e. to leave Clauses 8 and 16 out altogether.

That will leave the four provinces with different systems, as it is to-day. It will leave the tot system as the authorized and recognized system in the Cape, which is the present position. Section 96, I feel, is the last section which should be left untouched. Originally the intention was to change it. Then I understood the Minister to say that he was introducing an amendment to this section which would have left it open to the employer to make up his own mind, but now he is not to pass anything, and will leave Section 96 as it stands. That leaves the four provinces with different provisions. It leaves the tot system unchanged, and it leaves the unsatisfactory situation which I am sure the Minister himself wishes to eliminate. I would seriously urge the Minister to consider the amendment he contemplated, or an amendment which will make the provision of liquor as part of the remuneration for employment illegal. I have no objection to the employer at the end of the day giving his employee liquor. I think many of us on farms, when we have had a veld fire and the labourers have worked all night, have given them a drink when they have come in, or to those who have been working in the rain all day. I think even hon. members who oppose the Bill do it themselves. If their employees have done a particularly arduous job, they will give them a tot at the end of the day, but the objection is to giving liquor at regular periods throughout the day.

The whole matter can be thrashed out when we come to the consolidating measure.

Thank you. I think it will be welcomed by everyone.

Another cause of uncertainty is the provision in Clause 3 affecting licences within half a mile of Native or Coloured areas. That is creating a great deal of uncertainty, because persons who already have licences now have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them until November, and I would ask the Minister whether he would not make a statement in regard to this matter to remove the uncertainty and to assure those who have legitimately and in terms of the Act acquired such rights that they will not suddenly overnight find their livelihood taken away from them.

Then there is another provision in Clause 4 where restrictions based upon class (Section 81) are repealed. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether existing determinations already made in terms of Section 81 are also automatically repealed or whether they will remain and whether the repeal of Section 81 will only mean that no future restrictions based upon class may be made. There are to-day restrictions based upon class, imposed in terms of Section 81. Does the repeal of this section mean that those restrictions automatically fall away or will they remain and will only future restriction become illegal?

Then flowing from this whole Bill is the extent of supervision which is to-day exercised over hotels by the police. It was in many respects necessary because of all the restrictions which existed, but this is a matter which causes a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great deal of unhappiness. Hoteliers tell you to-day that they live almost at the whim and mercy of the police. If they fall out with an officer they find their premises being inspected almost every day. If they get on well with him, they may be left alone for months at a time. It is a human weakness. I am not saying that it is being done dishonestly. But a licensee may fall out with the police and then he finds that his premises are continually being inspected. There is an invasion of the privacy of hoteliers and the right to run their hotel. This Session, after coming back late from an inland trip, I was still in my room at about 9 o’clock one morning and a police captain walked into the room. The hotelier told him that somebody was occupying that room who had come in late that morning and that he would not like the visitor to be disturbed. However, the police captain insisted on going into that room. That sort of interference is something which I hope will become less and less necessary as the restrictions fall away. I would ask the Minister, when he removes restrictions, also to take into account the practical administrative interference as well as the purely legal issues which are raised by this legislation. [Interjections.] Sir, I am dealing with this in all seriousness, and if the hon. member has a serious suggestion I would be happy to deal with it. Then, Sir, in terms of Section 100bis the Minister has the right to grant authorities, but he only has a permissive right to apply to such authorities the restrictions which apply to normal licences. In terms of sub-section (4) of 100bis the Minister may apply any of the provisions of the Liquor Act or he may choose not to apply them. Again there is the problem of private persons obtaining authorities and selling in competition with existing licensees. The Minister will be entitled not to impose upon a private person selling this side of the fence, restrictions which the man selling on the other side of the fence would be obliged to abide by. He may grant authority for a bottle store in Adderley Street. Yes, there is no limitation. Section l00bis does not limit the area in which the Minister may grant an authority. He can grant an authority for off-consumption or on-consumption anywhere he likes, and he could grant an authority to a private person to open up next door to an existing licensee. The existing licensee would be bound by the provisions of the Act and the person selling under an authority could have no limitation whatsoever placed upon him. Where it is a question of an authority which is in fact a licence for normal sale, I feel that it should be compulsory to apply the provisions of the Act to such an authority. Where authority is granted for a beer hall in a location or in a Native township, then it is not necessary that all the provisions should apply, but where the Minister grants an authority which is in fact identical to a normal licence, except that it is not granted by the licensing board, then I feel that the permissive powers provided for in subsection (4) should be compulsory, otherwise the Minister would be creating unfair competition.

Another matter on which I hope that the Minister will give greater clarity is the question of on-consumption premises in White areas, because in every city there are thousands of Natives who are employed and live in the White areas—household servants, flat employees, milk delivery employees and so on, who are and will remain in the White area. If the Minister is not going to provide any facilities for them in the White area then the present illegal trade, the runners, instead of running from the White bottle store to Langa, will be running from Langa to Cape Town, because those Natives will not be able to get out to Langa to buy liquor. By the time they leave their work in the evening it is too late for them to go all the way out to the Native township for their liquor; so unless the Minister wishes to have the illegal liquor trade flowing in the reverse direction, I feel that he will have to take this into account and I hope he will make a statement in regard to reasonable facilities for those employees in the White areas.

They can get permission from the owner.

The Minister says that they can get permission from the owner to buy for off-consumption.

Those who work in the White areas and remain there all day can get permission from the owner of the property to consume liquor on the premises.

But is that not creating a new class of criminal again? Should some provision not be made for those people to whom permission is refused by the owner? Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has said, “I will not allow my Natives to have liquor on my property”, Those Natives will now go and buy liquor, but in terms of Section 100quat they will not be allowed to consume it; they will be committing an offence if they consume it on the owner’s premises without permission.

They can get permission.

But what happens if the owner refuses to give them permission, as many members have said they would do? If they are refused permission they will go and buy liquor and they will have nowhere to drink it, so they will either drink it on the street or they will break the law by drinking on the premises without the permission of their landlord, and if they do they are subject to very high penalties. I think the Minister will have to consider some sort of on-consumption facilities for those Natives who have no other choice, those Natives who are refused permission to consume liquor on the premises of their employers, but who are unable to go out to the townships. I know that there are difficulties, but I raise this problem with the Minister because I think Section 100quat is going to create a new class of criminal, who is allowed legally to buy liquor but who is then precluded from consuming it. He is entitled to buy the liquor but he has no legal way of consuming it. Some provision should be made for that class.

I think the other matters which cause concern are matters that can best be dealt with in Committee, but the principle of this Bill is one with which I agree—the principle of the extension of liquor facilities and an attempt to remove both illegal liquor sales and illegal brewers. I therefore intend to vote for this measure and I hope that with the co-operation of the Minister, during the Committee Stage we may be able to remove some of the problems and snags which I think will lead to difficulties. I hope we will also get the Minister’s assurance that this is not an attempt to build up a State-controlled liquor trade in South Africa, because I am sure that will not enjoy the support of the public. But if private channels of distribution are harnessed and proper control is exercised, I feel that this Bill will do more good than harm.

In discussing this Bill we have to keep account of certain basic facts. The first one is that wine farming and its product is an old established off-shoot of the agricultural industry. It is even interesting when you look at history, Sir, to notice that civilizations have thrived in wine producing countries. That is why I cannot reconcile myself with the idea expressed by some hon. members that we should try to finalize the entire matter simply by means of total prohibition, or that we should use expressions such as “the curse of liquor”. I think hon. members mean it well but I think their approach to this whole matter is wrong. We must admit that not only do our wine farmers practise an old established industry but that generally speaking they are very honourable and sombre and stable persons who have made a big contribution towards the development of our country and the promotion of civilization. They have certainly shown us that the production of wine and the use of liquor are not synonymous with the abuse of liquor or drunkenness. That is why I cannot reconcile myself with the remarks made by hon. members who are so dead against liquor and the use of liquor. The second thought I wish to advance is that we should admit the basic fact that prohibition has been a failure. That is nothing new. Even in our own country where we have prohibition in respect of a section of our population it has been a failure. I think we must admit that it is unreasonable to expect that the Department of Justice and our Police Force alone should combat this whole problem of the misuse of liquor. As the position has been in the past the question of combating the abuse of liquor has been left to the Department of Justice and the police and that has proved to be a task impossible of fulfilment. That is why I say that we should not be too quick in opposing this Bill because we have here a new approach on the part of the Minister; an attempt which is based on the idea that prohibition has appeared to be a failure and that we cannot continue along that road.

The third basic fact that I want to advance is that the evil that really confronts us is the abuse of liquor. I think I can definitely say that every hon. member in this House is against the abuse of liquor, against illicit trading in liquor and its accompanying evils, and that is really why this matter is such a delicate one. Where we deal with the abuse of liquor we are not dealing with a consumer’s article that can be banned and that you can expect to disappear from the market and that the demand for it will immediately cease. The vine, wine and strong liquor will always be with us and I think we should accept it that that will be the position. It has been a source of pleasure to man which is as old as history itself. But when we come to the question of the abuse of liquor we must always take into account the fact that we are dealing with something which not only gets a hold of the body of man but also on his spiritual powers. A little wine, as we have been told, freshens the body of man and it makes him happy but on the other hand an excessive amount of wine and strong liquor breaks the body; it clouds the brain of man and breaks his spirit. We must keep count of this truth when we discuss this matter and if we want to form a balanced opinion, we should think along these lines that the State and we who have the welfare of the nation at heart, should concentrate on combating the abuse of liquor and that we should tackle the problem from a different angle than that of prohibition, because prohibition has been tested throughout the years in our country and in other countries as a means and it has proved to be a failure. We should bear in mind the fact that a large section of our population consists of immature people, people who need the protection of the State. The principal Act of 1928 was based on the assumption that the Bantu population had not as yet reached the stage of maturity where wine and strong liquor could readily be made available to them and the question which I ask myself is whether we can now expect it and whether the State should resort to other methods of combating the abuse of liquor and of protecting those people. I want to put it this way that circumstances have changed a great deal. We do indeed have ways and means at our disposal to-day of combating the misuse of liquor and therefore I want to emphasize the fact that our approach should not be that we are now placing a new Act on our Statute Book and that for the rest we should leave it to the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice and the police and that we can wash our hands of it. I want to make this appeal to-day that this House and every responsible body in this country should be serious about combating this great problem of the abuse of liquor, drunkenness and alcoholism. Particularly where liquor is made freely available to the Bantu population. I think that all available means should be used to prevent the abuse of liquor. It will not avail us in ten years’ time to say that this legislation has appeared to be a failure and to be sorry that we did not leave the position as it was. That is why I want to suggest that in future we should make more use of the radio which is to be found in the home of every Bantu to-day, in order to impress certain basic ideas on his mind—not to preach to him about it, not to try to convey to him the idea that strong liquor is poison and that he should avoid it. That really does not mean a thing to me; we will achieve nothing by following that line. The hon. member tor Ceres (Mr. Muller) has referred to Bantu customs and the occasion when he becomes a grown-up man. Let us bring one simple thought home to the Bantu by means of the radio, for example the idea that a grown-up man never gets drunk; that a grown-up man never buys wine and strong liquor before his family has been fed and clothed. If we can impress that idea on his mind by means of the radio, and if we can appeal to his self-respect I think we stand a chance of doing something positive. We can also enlist the aid of the Press in this respect. The Press can do a great deal to convey positive ideas to the Bantu and not only in respect of the Bantu. I see in this an opportunity of adopting an entirely new approach to the combating of the abuse of liquor and drunkenness and that is why I want to suggest to every responsible body to use the Press in order to bring home to those people that liquor should be used moderately, and to propagate that idea ad nauseam so that our children too will grow up with that idea, so that when the day arrives when they too use liquor, they will know that it is something that must always be used in moderation. I do not believe in the idea that we should at all costs keep our children away from liquor. On the contrary I believe that they should be taught from a tender age that liquor should be used moderately and that liquor, if used excessively, destroys and ruins you.

As far as the Bantu population is concerned I also wish to refer to the Department of Bantu Education. Since 1928 we have made tremendous progress in this respect and there are thousands, no millions, of Bantu who can be reached via our Bantu schools, where this matter can be presented to the Bantu youth who in turn can carry it over to the parents —the necessity of guarding against the abuse of liquor, the care to be exercised that strong liquor does not become a habit and the necessity of placing first things first, namely the home and food and clothing first and only thereafter the luxury articles such as wine and strong liquor. I welcome the idea of the establishment of a Liquor Board and where the Department of Justice is to be represented on that board and apparently the liquor producers and the traders as well, I should like to ask the Minister to consider the possibility of giving the Department of Social Welfare representation on that board, and where he seeks advice from that board, as far as this matter is concerned, that there should also be somebody on that board who will not only concentrate on the distribution of liquor and the crime aspect of the matter, but who will also regard this matter from the point of view of social welfare, from the point of view of the general welfare of White, Coloured and Bantu. Throughout the ages we have learnt the lesson that you achieve better results in teaching people when you adopt a positive approach, by appealing to their sense of decency and honour and self-respect, and I think it is very important that we direct our efforts along these lines and work strenuously in that direction. I think we can take it that the Department of Justice, and hence the Government, will gain by it in that there will be fewer prosecutions and fewer police will be required to concentrate on the combating of the existing illicit trade. We can take it that the liquor trade will derive certain benefits from this proposed legislation. We can even take it that eventually the producer will have a greater market for his product, in other words that the wine farmer too will increase his production and that there will be a market; let us admit that. In other words, benefits will be derived from this legislation and I want to plead with the Minister that all these bodies, the Government and the wine farmer through his recognized organizations and the trade, should play their part in this fight against the abuse of liquor. We can do it by means of the radio and the Press, etc., but I really have in mind the big problem of alcoholism. We have been told that there are hundreds of thousands of White alcoholics in South Africa, people who have reached a stage where it is no use telling them that they are sinners. They are our responsibility; they are people who are mentally ill. A great deal can be done in the way of research as far as this problem is concerned. A great deal can be done by establishing institutions where these people can be treated and assisted, because they want to be helped. They want to get out of the hold that this evil has on them, and they themselves are no longer capable spiritually to offer any resistance to the destructive influences that flow from the abuse of liquor. I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister and this House: Let us be realistic. Let us accept that the product of the vine is the recognized product of a recognized agricultural industry, an industry which is as honourable as any other. Let us be realistic and admit that prohibition has been a failure. It will not avail us to introduce prohibition any further, for the simple reason that you cannot shackle the human spirit by means of a single prohibition law, but on behalf of those hundreds of thousands of White alcoholics—probably more amongst the Coloured people—on behalf of those sons and daughters, of our nation and of every national group in the whole country, those sons and daughters who grew up in the sorrow and misery of a household where liquor was misused, on behalf of those sons and daughters who grew up in the realization that their father or their mother could not care for the family because they drank too much, on behalf of those sons and daughters I want to plead to-day that we, who are realistic in accepting certain facts, should not regard it as too much trouble to do everything in our power to combat the abuse of liquor, and that we should be prepared to spend a large amount of our money on the combating of this evil of the abuse of liquor.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an impassioned appeal for steps to be taken to curb the abuse of alcohol, and I feel that the speech which he has made this afternoon is one of great importance because the abuse of alcohol is undoubtedly one of the great social evils of present-day civilization. However, where I do not agree with the hon. member is that he does not realize that this Bill will bring about an extension of greater liquor facilities to the Bantu people and the other racial groups which, in the opinion of the Churches and welfare organizations, will lead to a greater consumption of liquor and with that greater consumption of liquor, to excessive drinking and a further abuse of alcohol. I feel that the speech which he made is a speech which highlighted the dangers and the evils of the abuse of alcohol, and I think it is a speech which should really have been made by a person who opposes this Bill. If I believed that the provisions of this Bill would in any way reduce the incidence of drunkenness and the abuse of alcohol, I would certainly support it enthusiastically. However, after studying the provisions of this Bill, in my opinion, the main principle is the extension of liquor facilities to make strong liquor more readily available. I feel that that extension of liquor facilities will undoubtedly lead to a greater consumption of liquor and thereby create conditions which will make it easier for people to develop into excessive drinkers and alcoholics. Therefore, before proceeding with the reasons that I wish to put before the House as to why I draw that conclusion from the provisions of this Bill I would like to associate myself with the remarks made earlier to-day by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin). The hon. member for Pinelands made an appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill and at least to hold it over until next year. I feel that it is a great tragedy that a Bill of this importance should be introduced in the dying days of this Session of Parliament. The hon. the Minister has said that it is an experiment. I fail to see how this is an experiment, because once these facilities have been provided, it is an irrevocable step that has been taken, and I cannot see how the Minister would be able to retract should these facilities prove to be a failure. I feel that organizations that are vitally concerned with this extension of liquor facilities should be given a greater opportunity to state their views and to put forward representations to the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister published this Bill in a Government Gazette on 9 June, and he introduced the second reading debate on 16 June. I hardly feel that time has been afforded to those persons who are vitally concerned with the effects and repercussions of this legislation, to submit their memoranda and their views to the hon. the Minister. We know that the report of the Malan Commission brought about a large number of memoranda and views expressed by numerous organizations, but that commission’s report is not what is being incorporated in this Bill. This Bill goes much further than the report and incorporates far greater principles and is creating facilities far beyond what was suggested by the commission in regard to the supply of strong liquor to the Bantu people. I regret to say that I do not see how this Bill in any way will bring about improvements in the previous Liquor Act of 1928. I am afraid that this extension in the Bill will do more harm than good. Therefore I intend to vote against the second reading of this Bill.

The question as to the good that can come from the implementation of this Bill is one which deserves serious consideration and scrutiny. It is a sincere attempt—I do not doubt that—by the Minister to reduce illicit liquor dealings, and a great deal of optimism has been expressed by those who are supporting this Bill. I cannot support that optimism, because I fail to see how illicit liquor dealing will cease. Possibly there will be a reduction in the incidence of illicit liquor dealing, but certain restrictions are going to be made in regard to provisions of this Bill, and the police and the authorities will have to see that those restrictions are carried out. Therefore the question of dealing in illicit liquor will still remain a problem, because from area to area certain restrictions are to be made and there will still be bootlegging from the restricted area to the unrestricted area, and vice versa. I feel that the main principle involved in this Bill is a dangerous step, namely to provide facilities for the Bantu people to this extent.

The question of illicit brewing is another important factor in regard to the problem that is facing the authorities in the enforcement of the liquor laws. Sir, the illicit brewing will still continue, and I refer you to the report of the Malan Commission on page 7 in paragraph 54 dealing with illicit brewing, where it says—

Here we see that one of the liquors that is made available to the Bantu people is brandy, and we find in the report of this report that brandy is listed as a base of these concoctions that are made in illicit brewing and in the shebeens, therefore I can only foresee that by making brandy readily available to the Bantu people, that by having the greater consumption of that brandy, it will mean that the illicit brewing will flourish. I do not see in any way how it is going to bring about a reduction in regard to illicit brewing.

That leads me on to say that the police raids will have to continue. I don’t think the hon. Minister can possibly say that they will not continue in future when this Bill is passed and becomes an Act.

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

Yes, Sir, I realize that, but I believe that it is such an important argument that the Minister should give serious consideration to this particular point, because it has been repeatedly referred to by people supporting this Bill.

Before coming to a decision, and voting for a Bill such as this, one has to ask oneself whether the whole question of the availability of this additional liquor is going to lead to an abuse of liquor, and I believe that the only benefit that will be derived from this greater consumption of liquor is that it will create an expansion of the internal market for the consumption of this liquor. Therefore the greatest benefits to be derived from this Bill, will be derived by those persons allied to the manufacture of this liquor, and I feel, Sir, that it is taking a far too great risk in making these provisions which will not be in the interest of the welfare of the Bantu people. The hon. the Minister in introducing the second reading of this Bill mentioned the question of Rhodesia and claimed that in Rhodesia it had been a measure of success. However, there are contradictory views in that regard, and I would quote information that I have received from the Federation which shows a marked increase in the incidence of drunkenness and assault cases. It states that drunkenness in 1957 was 1,325 (amongst Bantu people) and increased to 1,529 in 1959, and the assault cases from 6,164 in 1957 to 6,857 in 1959, an increase of 700 in the assault cases. So I do not think one should rely too heavily on the fact that Rhodesia has implemented a scheme like this, because there is contradictory evidence in regard to the success of that step.

The question of increased drunkenness is one point which I wish to stress in this debate, because I feel that with the detribalized urban Bantu, who is being tempted to partake of the stronger liquor of the White man, we are creating a very serious problem indeed, and the demand that these people will make will be a demand for brandy, it will be a demand which will lead to increased drunkenness amongst a number of Bantu who in the past have not been drinkers. Non-drinkers will now become drinkers due to the fact that this temptation will be placed before them, due to the fact that they will endeavour to follow the example of the White man, once they are allowed the White man’s liquor. With the growing number of urban Bantu, I feel a number of very serious consequences and problems are going to arise. These problems are going to be far more serious than the possible advantages of passing a Bill of this nature. Sir, the Native social workers are also deeply concerned about the implications of the extension of strong liquor to the Bantu people. I have received a number of representations and letters from Bantu social workers who are greatly alarmed at the fact that strong liquor is now to be made so readily available to the Bantu people. Some of the urban Bantu have stated that they need schools, they need further facilities in regard to the distribution of foodstuffs; their needs are far greater than the need of brandy and other strong liquor; they also believe that with a greater amount of money being spent on liquor, which will be more readily available, it will lead to a further impoverishment of the Bantu people. No, the extensions provided for in this Bill, particularly in 100bis of Clause 9 of the Bill, are certainly a drastic step that must be taken with a great deal of care and moderation.

I would now like to deal with another aspect which vitally affects the Bantu people, and that is the question of malnutrition and how that problem is going to be aggravated by the ready availability of strong liquor. As a member of the King Edward VIII Hospital Board in Durban, which is one of the largest non-European hospitals in South Africa, I have often been appalled at the incidence of kwashiokor and malnutrition in the wards of the children. Often one sees at least two children in a cot suffering from advanced stages of malnutrition. The mortality rate is exceedingly high. And the tragedy of this matter is that many of those lives could be saved because we are concentrating on the availability of liquor rather than concentrating on the distribution of milk. We know that the distribution of milk could save thousands of lives, and I may mention that the surplus of skimmed milk is considerable. In the Farmer’s Weekly of 31 May 1961 we read that in Table Bay an average of 2,3000 gallons a day of skimmed milk is being dumped. These lives can be saved. I raised the matter with the hon. Minister of Health, and the hon. the Minister told me that the problem is one of distribution and I feel that if the Government could concentrate its efforts on providing milk and the distribution of skimmed milk to save lives and to combat the misery and ravages of malnutrition, it would be doing far greater service to the Bantu than passing a Bill such as this which will facilitate the distribution of health-destroying liquor. The whole question of bringing about these extra facilities, the temptation of placing before these people harmful liquor, will not only lead to increased drunkenness, but will mean that the breadwinner will spend more money on liquor and less money on food for his children, and it will also endanger lives in regard to the safety of the roads. Another vitally important problem facing South Africa to-day is the number of deaths on the roads, and a large number of accidents on the roads are caused by persons driving under the influence of liquor; we know that with the evolution of the Native people, an ever-growing number of Native people are qualifying for drivers licences, and that will mean an increase in the incidence of drunken driving amongst the Bantu people if drink is more readily made available to them.

The more I study the provisions of this Bill, even the provisions which provide for the allocation of profits to be derived from the sale of this liquor, the more I am appalled. It states here that those profits may be canalized for certain specific purposes, and I presume that welfare services will be among the services that will derive some benefit from those profits. In my opinion it is most ironical that additional money from profits will be allocated to welfare services which will be called upon to carry an increased burden due to the fact that there is going to be increased drunkenness. So we are creating a position of aggravating the social problem as a result of the abuse of liquor and then providing in the Bill that the profits can be used for the combating of the evil that has been produced by the increase in liquor.

Another important aspect which I would like to mention is in regard to the urban Bantu and particularly the urban Bantu youth. We know that one of the important problems facing South Africa to-day is the question of the tsotsis in the Native townships and the difficulties that arise in that regard. Here we find in the Bill provision for the supply of liquor to any Native over 18 years of age, and here too I think there is a gross danger of making these facilities available to these young Natives. Because in the first place I do not see how those who have the authority to supply this liquor are going to estimate the age of these people. There is no provision made for the estimating of the age of the 18-year-old Native and it is going to be a very difficult problem. I know that as far as the European youth is concerned to-day, those who are associated with the running of youth clubs and suchlike, are often appalled to find a number of 16-year-old school boys and school girls arriving at social functions of youth clubs under the influence of liquor. I personally have asked a number of these school-going youths as to where they obtain this liquor, and they say that they are served in the bar lounges. So if we are unable to control the sale of liquor to the 16-year-old European youth, I cannot see how they are going to control the supply of liquor to the 18-year-old Bantu youth. It is going to be a great practical difficulty where these young people, some of them 16 years of age, will be able to partake of this liquor. As the hon. member for Drakensberg mentioned in the course of her speech, I say that it is against the principles of tribalized Bantu people that people so young should be partaking of liquor. So they are becoming completely detribalized and we are here passing a Bill which will facilitate the detribalization of these Native people in regard to their drinking habits in particular. The whole question in the increase of the abuse of liquor is one which to a great extent affects the young people. If one studies the returns of the work colonies, one finds that there is an increasing number of young people in these work colonies, and it is one of the grave social problems facing social workers working amongst the young people of South Africa, young people who social welfare services try to reclaim before they reach the stage of an alcoholic. Before they become drinkers and excessive drinkers, and then alcoholics, and I believe that by providing these easy facilities to the Bantu people, we are going to create a great social problem amongst the Bantu. Sir, the question of alcoholism is a very serious one indeed. I am not a total prohibitionist. I realize that certain facilities under certain control have to be made in a civilized world, but I believe that the example of the United States of America and the failure of total prohibition in that country is not a very good example, because if one looks at the figures of the incidence of alcoholism, one finds that France is first and the United States of America second, and then South Africa third. So the United States of America in spite of abolishing total prohibition, is the second highest in the world as far as the incidence of alcoholism is concerned.

Taking into account all the welfare tragedies, all the social tragedies that arise from the abuse of liquor, I feel that we must take steps to control the abuse of liquor. It is one of those vital social problems, and that is why I admired the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht), but I was disappointed when he came to the conclusion that this Bill in some way or other could reduce drunkenness, because as I read this Bill it will have the exact opposite effect.

I do not wish to delay the House by going into a large number of the tragedies of abuse of liquor because I realize that hon. members of this House are unanimous in their decision that the abuse of liquor and the abuse of alcohol is one of the evils, one of the present-day evils of modern civilization. The only thing that I am concerned about is that the hon. members do not realize that by extending these facilities, particularly to the urban Bantu, they are going to create grave social problems and are going to aggravate the tragedies we have with us to-day. Read the child welfare reports, read the reports of the United Nations —one interesting report in regard to juvenile crime showed that 31.7 per cent of the 12,000 cases of juvenile crime which were studied, were directly the result of liquor. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest tragedies of the world to-day that liquor should lead to persons committing sometimes the most serious crimes. The destruction of family life is something that every child welfare society has to struggle with. Only recently reading the reports of social welfare workers, professional workers of the Durban Child Welfare Society, I found that they stated that alcoholism still remains the major problem in their work, and a social welfare worker who concentrates in the Coloured areas also refers to alcoholism as one of the greatest causes of distress and the breaking up of happy homes and family life. Another social welfare worker sees in the greater supply, the indiscriminate supply of liquor, one of the greatest social evils facing South Africa. So the provisions of this Bill are going to extend the facilities for strong drink, thereby creating a situation which will lead to greater consumption to the moral degeneration of the Bantu people and of all the races concerned. There are certain positive steps which could be taken in regard to the abuse of alcohol. Some were mentioned by the hon. member for Piketberg. I know that the National Welfare Organizations’ Board, in their report for 1954 stressed that some steps should be taken to curb the incidence of alcoholism. They made certain suggestions in that report whereby children should be reminded and continually told of the tragedy flowing from excessive drinking. It is a matter every welfare society is deeply concerned with, and therefore I believe that if we were to concentrate our efforts on finding ways and means of combating the abuse of alcohol, rather than extending facilities which will lead to more drinking and greater consumption of strong liquor, we would do much better than passing this Bill. Just the appointment of one additional Bantu social welfare worker in an urban area does provide some means of combating the problem of excessive drunkenness, because the establishment of one Bantu social worker in such an area who can organize the Bantu people as to how to utilize their leisure hours to the greatest benefit of all, and can do a great deal towards the combating of this social problem. Therefore taking into account all the provisions of this Bill and what the main principle entails, I shall certainly vote against the second reading of this Bill.

I intend to vote for this Bill in the second reading, not because I have a wish to see a tremendous spread of alcoholism in our country, to turn 50 per cent of the non-White population into potential drunkards, or to see an excess of all the terrible things that flow from excessive drinking of alcoholic spirits. I am going to vote for it because I believe that the choice is no longer whether or not the non-Whites should obtain liquor, but whether they should obtain it in a decent, a lawful way and under proper control. I think this Bill provides the machinery whereby the non-Whites, the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics of our country can obtain liquor in a decent way, in a lawful way and under proper control. I want to deal with the question of control in regard to the provisions of this Bill in a few minutes, but the fact is that listening to this debate, no single opponent of this Bill, not one, has suggested as yet total prohibition, and if you weigh the arguments of those who oppose the Bill, then every argument comes down to the evil of drink. Well, if drink in itself is an evil, then if you want to get rid of an evil thing you must prohibit it altogether, not only by class distinction or race distinction, but let us then prohibit it for all the races of our country, and then I submit there would be a considerable substantiation for all the moral arguments that we have had in the course of this debate. But what the opponents do suggest is partial prohibition to the non-White groups with free access to liquor for the White groups of our population, based on the assumption, Sir, that the non-White groups are incapable of exercising any self-control in respect of the consumption of alcoholic liquor. But what do the facts reveal about this lack of self-control? The memorandum of the South African Temperance Alliance has been quoted in this debate in regard to the Liquor Amendment Bill, but it is noteworthy that no single opponent of the measure quoted any of the excerpts of the memorandum from the Temperance Alliance. When it comes to the question of self-control and moral aspects, in respect of a White group or a non-White group, their ability to exercise control in the consumption of liquor, what does the Temperance Alliance tell us in this memorandum? They in fact tell us that the ratio of drunkenness convictions per 100,000 of each section of the population was as follows: Asiatics 250.2 per 100,000; the Bantu population 329.9 per 100,000, and that, Sir, coupled with the fact that we have 250,000 sentenced every year of course for illegal possession of liquor, this does not take into consideration the drinking of skokiaan or the supply of liquor in the Bantu areas of spirits concocted by skokiaan queens. But what is the European figure? The European figure is 364.7 for every 100,000 of the population convicted for drunkenness. So if the moral argument has to apply from the opponents of this Bill in regard to all the terrible effects, then to be logical they should propose the repeal of the 1928 Act and the application of total prohibition, on the ground that the White population are the ones that are the greatest sinners as compared with the non-White population, and that is in terms of the figures that we have before us from the Temperance Alliance.

What is the other fact that I believe cannot be gainsaid? The fact that we cannot ignore is that the Malan Commission points out that in 1956 there were no less than 214,500 offences against the Liquor Act for illegal possession of liquor by the Bantu population. What does that in fact mean? It means that over a period of four years—and according to the statistics the number has still been increasing—you are making criminals of over 10 per cent of the Bantu population of this country, and if you take it over a ten-year period, then you must argue on the same basis that 25 per cent of the Bantu population to-day have criminal records in regard to liquor offences, 2,500,000 of the Bantu population. Sir, I wonder if a survey were taken of the entire Bantu population over a ten-year period, whether the figure would even be as conservative as 25 per cent as having been convicted. I think they would show that a greater percentage than 25 per cent has been convicted of liquor offences. Therefore I would ask whether it is right that in the application of an outdated Liquor Act, in relation to the natural development of our urban Bantu population and their greater acquisition of civilized tastes, including liquor, we should continue to apply an outdated concept the application of our liquor laws and not give the Bantu the same opportunity of acquiring liquor under control and in a lawful manner, when it is his natural desire, as it is of other sections of the population, White, Black or Yellow.

It is said that this is an experiment. I cannot accept that it is an experiment, because I agree with those speakers who have said that once having taken the step of making more liquor available to the Bantu population, there can be no going back unless total prohibition is applied in our country. But what I do agree with is an experiment that the Minister is applying in the distribution of liquor to the Bantu population. That is the experiment, but I think it would be entirely wrong to let an idea exist in the country that this is an experiment as far as the mere supply of liquor to the non-White population is concerned.

That is the first sensible statement you have made.

It would be interesting to hear from the hon. member for Ventersdorp what his views are, but I notice hon. members on the other side who I know are against the principle of this Bill, whose moral convictions, whose personal viewpoints, whose religious beliefs have been suppressed in the Nationalist Party caucus for the sake of pushing something through this House which should be discussed freely in the interest of our country. I am sorry I allowed myself to be distracted Mr. Speaker. Now if it is an experiment then that experiment rests on the methods the hon. the Minister is adopting to distribute liquor to the Bantu population, as well as. to the Coloureds and the Asiatics. However I do not want to deal with the Coloureds and the Asiatics at this stage because I am prepared to accept the proposition in the Bill whereby the Coloured man as an appendage of the White population is now placed on exactly the same status as the White man with regard to the acquisition of liquor, and similarly with the Asiatic group. But the argument with regard to the 4,000,000 Bantu customers who are going to be put in the position of acquiring liquor is different. We will now have 4,000,000 Bantu legal customers of bottle stores who will be allowed by law to purchase liquor. That is what it amounts to. Therefore I think that the method the hon. the Minister is adopting in regard to the distribution of liquor should receive greater scrutiny by this House. The two main provisions which govern the distribution of liquor to the Bantu are the new Clauses 100bis and 100ter. There we have two distinct new channels of distribution that the Minister is attempting to define for Bantu consumers of liquor. On the one hand the Minister is saying “I am now going to be the sole authority as to who will supply liquor to the Bantu in Bantu areas, whether it is a reserve or an urban area”. He also says “Apart from my being the only authority, I am going to be the only arbiter as. to who will get liquor licences entitling them to distribute this liquor. In one regard I am going to take the right upon myself to nominate any person, to give authority to any person, or to a nominee of any group or any association of persons, or to any established local authority”. But on the other hand what does the Minister also say to the Bantu population? He says “Whilst I am taking the authority as to who will distribute liquor in the rural areas, as far as the White areas are concerned the Bantu will have free access to any bottle store anywhere in terms of Clause 100ter”.

Any bottle store that is established has to obtain a licence. That licence has to be obtained from a local Licensing Board. The local Licensing Boards have to decide for themselves who the licensee will be. The Liquor Act lays down certain stringent conditions upon which a Licensing Board may grant such licence. An applicant for a licence has to comply, for example, with Section 65. He has to be a person of certain characteristics and qualifications. Before he can be granted his licence in terms of 136 of the Act, the Licensing Board also has to take note of a police report, and the police have to state whether or not that person is a fit and capable person to be issued with a licence. And that applies to every single bottle store in the country. But the hon. the Minister now says “As far as I am concerned, I am going to be the only authority; I can pick anybody; I can decide of my own accord without considering anyone else’s views, who is a suitable licensee”. I submit to the hon. the Minister, whether it is in regard to a nominee of a local authority, or whether it is in regard to the nominee of a group of associated persons, or whether it is merely a person selected by the hon. the Minister of his own accord, that is a wrong principle.

That is not what I said at the second reading. I referred to the National Board and said that they would be consulted in the first instance; the Department of Bantu Affairs would be consulted.

I will come to the point where the hon. the Minister suggested that the National Board should decide. Let me use as an example the Witwatersrand Local Authority. There is not going to be one nominee only, there are going to be many nominees because, obviously, if distribution points are to be established in the urban Bantu areas there will have to be a large number, whether they be for on-consumption or off-consumption Surely, therefore, these nominees must be issued with individual licences. They surely must comply with the same provisions, as laid down for any hotel or bottle store, or any other liquor licensee. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give consideration to this point. In the Committee Stage I will take the matter further. Before the hon. the Minister issues that authority in terms of Clause 100bis, he should pay due regard to the provisions of Sections 65 and 136 of the Liquor Act. That would then place any person who controls the distribution of liquor on the same basis and make him subject to the same controls as a person who gets a licence in the European areas. I think that is a fair proposition and I hope the hon. the Minister will give that some consideration.

Certain objections have been made against the suggestion that the hon. the Minister should have the right to issue a licence to any person. I hold the view that if any person is subject to the same provisions as a normal licensee, then I have no objection to that procedure. I recognize it is possible that the Minister may wish to issue an authority, for example, to a Bantu hotelier in a good urban area in any one of our cities.

Would not the National Board be the correct body to be consulted on the question of exceptions?

Yes, I am prepared to concede that, but I will deal with the National Board in a minute. The National Board as presented to us in this Bill cannot be expected, as a National Board, to consider every individual authority issued by the Minister. That would mean that the Board would have to sit for 24 hours a day throughout the year in order to cope with the position, and I do not think that that was the intention of the clause as it appears here. I take it, however, the Board will advise the hon. the Minister in regard to general principles, and in regard to the issue of authorities.

The Government’s policy in regard to the urban centres of this country, in respect of private trading rights is that as far as is possible licences for trading in Native urban areas will only be granted to the Bantu. That is the declared Government policy. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention if, for example, an association of Bantu persons had to approach the Bantu Development Corporation with a view to establishing a Bantu hotel in a good Bantu urban area, and then applied to the Minister for authority to distribute the liquor—would it be his policy to grant that authority in those circumstances? Is that the intention? I think that we should have clarity on that point. If it is the intention of the Minister to grant authority to any person then surely that person, whether he be a Bantu a Coloured or Asiatic, or even a White man, should be subject to the same provisions as any White licensee in terms of Section 65 and 136 of the Act. I submit that point to the hon. the Minister at this stage because it deals with the general principle of distribution. I think the Minister will agree that it is wrong to consider the distribution of liquor in a manner which discriminated between one race group and another race group once liquor has been made generally available throughout the country. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to this aspect of that matter.

Turning now to Clause 100bis, sub-section 7, I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is taking upon himself the right to specify the manner in which profits may be distributed in terms of any authority granted by him in a Bantu area. May I ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is where he is prepared to grant an authority to an individual Bantu person to conduct, for instance, a bottle store in a Bantu urban area? Is he intending to specify how the profits of that private person are to be utilized? We can appreciate that the nominee of an urban local authority may have specified for him the manner in which the profits of the sale of liquor may be used, in relation to the betterment of the area or as the Minister may decide. But what will be the position when it comes to granting authority to individual Bantu persons or to a nominee of a group of private Bantu persons?

The policy as far as the individuals are concerned is not to touch their profits.

That is as applied to the Bantu?

That is as far as the individual is concerned.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will give some consideration, when replying to the second reading debate, to the points I have raised on the broader principles of the distribution of liquor.

The hon. the Minister said “What about the National Liquor Board” that he seeks to establish here. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) made the suggestion that before any authority is granted by the Minister he should refer the application to the National Liquor Board. I cannot accept that, however, as I do not think it is a practical proposition. I think if the applications for authority were made subject to the same provisions as I have mentioned, namely, Sections 65 and 136 of the Act, and were issued under the authority of the Minister I would be happy to accept that position. I would view that as a measure of control. But what are the functions of the National Liquor Board going to be? If the Minister is going to use it merely as an advisory board …

Under Clause 19 the consent of the local body has to be obtained beforehand.

Yes, in the case of an urban local authority. I appreciate that. But what does the Minister regard as the functions of this National Liquor Board? He is not making it compulsory in this Bill. I think that one should be established and I will move accordingly at the Committee Stage, but the Minister leaves it as a permissive power, so that it is merely an advisory board. Now what is it going to advise the Minister? If the Minister seeks advice from the National Liquor Board in respect of authorities he issues, he will, in terms of this Bill, have power to act immediately on any advice he may get from the National Liquor Board. But when it comes to general matters affecting the distribution of liquor in terms of the Liquor Act itself, then the only way the Minister can act on the advice of the National Liquor Board would be to come to Parliament and amend the Liquor Act. Is it envisaged that this National Liquor Board shall be able to exercise a controlling function over the manner in which Liquor Licensing Boards exercise their authority? Is that the intention?

No, but their advice will be invaluable.

Well if their advice is valuable the Minister will be expected to act upon it. In terms of this Bill the only way the Minister can do that is to come to Parliament with a Bill to amend the original Act. But in respect of Clause 100bis, the Minister controls all power in respect of the distribution of liquor.

I will deal with that question in my reply.

I think it is an important issue. There is considerable confusion with regard to the functions of this board in the liquor trade as a whole. I would be glad if the Minister could clarify the position in that regard.

I should like to add my voice to the appeal that has already gone out from other hon. members of this House who have supported this Bill, asking that the Minister gives consideration to the extension of the board itself. The board is restricted, in terms of this Bill, to three other members to be appointed by the State President for a period of two years. The hon. the Minister has stated who those members are. They all represent liquor trade interests, either the hotel side or the liquor distribution trade.

I said that one of them was the representative of the consumers.

I want to plead with the hon. the Minister. The issues in this Bill are so broad, and if this is only an experiment, if the matter will have to be reviewed at a later stage, then let him give more expression now to public opinion by giving them representation on this board. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider appointing at least two members, not to represent the consumers, because there are more than the consumers involved. We have to consider the moral aspects of this matter as well. I think it is vitally important that when the Minister is prepared to act on advice given by the National Liquor Board, that the moral aspect of the matter should also be considered.

I am prepared to consider that as an experiment. Let us first test it out and later on we can come forward with a consolidating Bill.

Does the hon. the Minister say he is prepared to test it as an experiment, and to allow other members on the board …

No. Let us test this board as the proposal constitutes it now.

Mr. Speaker, let me submit this to the hon. the Minister: if he is prepared to test it, is there any harm in testing it by giving wider representation so as to include other than liquor interests?

There can be no end to representation.

The hon. the Minister says there is no end to representation. He said he is going to have a representative of the liquor trade on this board. But the liquor distribution trade consists of a vast number of different associations …

Order, order! That matter can be discussed at the Committee Stage.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately reacted to the hon. the Minister’s suggestion.

Order! I think the hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by the hon. the Minister.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, hoping that the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter when he replies to this debate, and we can come back to it in the Committee Stage.

I then want to make a few observations on several of the clauses in this Bill, particularly those dealing with the question of penalties. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the Bill makes it quite clear that in respect of the illicit sale or preparation of liquor concoctions, the most severe penalties are now applicable. In his second reading speech, if I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister said that these provisions were similar to those contained in the Dental and Pharmacy Act with respect to the legal sale of dagga. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that I support him wholeheartedly in regard to these provisions, because I moved those amendments when the matter was considered in this House. I would even like to see these penalties doubled. There is no doubt at all that since the application of these increased penalties the dagga trade has declined very considerably. But when we come to the aspect of drunkenness, then I am not satisfied. If we are going to extend the distribution of liquor on a wide scale, as we are doing in this Bill to-day, then I think we have not gone far enough in regard to the penalties which are applicable for drunkenness. I think that in a Bill of this nature it is quite inadequate to lay down a maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or R200 fine, and leave a wide discretion to the courts to determine what the penalty should be, irrespective of whether it is a first or second, or even a fourth or fifth offence.

Absolute nonsense!

Let me say immediately that I think what is needed here is a schedule of heavier penalties. Drunkenness is an offence where a citizen has acted immorally and without due regard to the interests of his fellow citizens. There is no excuse for drunkenness.

I think that is shocking.

Therefore I am going to submit to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived when we should lay down minimum penalties for a first offender and maximum penalties for other offences.

That is absolutely shocking.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are strong views about this matter, but I am advancing my personal views. I think, for example, that a man such as the one mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) who gets behind the driving wheel of a motor-car while he is drunk, and kills an innocent family, is nothing less than a murderer. He falls into the same category. He has acted in the first instance knowing full well what the consequences of his actions are likely to be when he has consumed liquor in excess.

As the Act stands to-day wide discretion is left to the magistrate in cases in which there is medical evidence that the man himself is an alcoholic. We must remember that the fact that a man is drunk is not in itself an offence. A man must be drunk and something else—he must be disorderly; he must be making a public nuisance of himself or committing some other offence, plus his drunkenness. The fact that he is drunk is not in itself an offence, but it is when associated with other matters which are to the disadvantage of his fellow citizens, when it reaches the stage when he commits an offence. I plead with the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to my observations on this point. If we are taking this step where we are making liquor available to millions more people in this country, then we must also point out that men must act in moderation otherwise they must face the consequences of the law. That is the only answer. We saw this in the case of dagga, which was a case to which the hon. the Minister referred. Since the application of these increased penalties, without the option of a fine, for a third or fourth offence, the incidence of illicit dagga sale and dagga traffic has declined, according to my information, by over 75 per cent. And I think the time has arrived when taking a step of this nature, when the Minister should give some consideration to the imposition, after a certain number of offences, of a gaol sentence without the option of a fine, with a limited degree of discretion left to the magistrates.

As a final point I wish to mention to the hon. the Minister this: It must be realized that with the passing of this measure and the promulgation of these provisions, millions of our Bantu population for the first time are going to be able to walk the streets of our cities aware of the fact that if they carry a bottle of wine or brandy or beer, they will no longer be put in gaol. They must realize that. I therefore think that an educational programme in regard to the facility that is being given the Bantu is something that the Government should give serious consideration to. I think it will be entirely wrong for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book and immediately make available to any Bantu man the facilities of bottle stores without his being fully aware of the consequences. He should be made to realize that he is still subject to all these other restrictions. We must realize that the conception has taken root in the mind of every Bantu man or woman in South Africa that if they are found in the streets with a bottle of liquor they will immediately be arrested. But overnight that will disappear. I therefore think the hon. the Minister should give some consideration to the introduction of an educational programme, both as to the effects of alcoholism and excessive drinking, which should be directed at the Bantu population in order to make them fully aware of the responsibilities they now have to carry as a result of the privileges being extended to them whereby they enjoy the same privileges, without any discrimination, as are enjoyed by the Whites of our country, namely, free access to alcoholic liquor.

I believe that this Bill is an attempt to reform a situation which all of us find unsatisfactory. A reformer was once described by an observer as one who wishes to abolish existing evils in order to replace them with other. The question before us is not a question of a transition from a situation with problems, known problems, to a millennium, but a transition from a situation with known problems to a situation in which we know there will be problems which we hope will be less, but the majority of us have difficulty in calculating. At this stage of the debate a great number of arguments for and against the general principle have already been canvassed, and I do not propose to repeat them. If I may be allowed I would like, in passing, to comment on one or two of them. I will not delay the House long, but there are one or two points that have not been raised and that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, it has been argued by many speakers that this is a liberalization of an existing law; that it is a removal of discrimination. And to an extent that is right. But the comment I would make is this, particularly to Government supporters: they have always said that their standpoint has been that they stand in relation of guardian to the ward, in so far, particularly, as the African population is concerned. I cannot avoid the comment that it is unfortuate that, in the first great step that is taking in a liberalizing direction in recognizing that the ward has grown up, that that step should be taken in the field in which the guardian himself is not the master. Because the problem of the handling of alcohol, although it has been the custom of men to drink since men were on this earth, has never been satisfactorily mastered, except by individuals, but never successfully matered by society. I think we are all agreed that we cannot indefinitely maintain a position in the field of purchase where one group in the community is prohibited from purchasing while other groups have that right. You cannot maintain such a position indefinitely. I think we are all agreed, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot, by law, save men from the consequences of their own weakness and folly. In that respect the debate that is taking place in this House to-day is a repetition of countless debates that have taken place in forums all over the world, not only in particular aspects of this problem, but on aspects of an analogous problem, for instance, the question of whether you legalize or do not legalize prostitution. Many of the facets of the problem, such as the position of the police and so on, are related in those two problems. I can think of no society that has come to a completely satisfactory answer on either of those problems.

I am stating this, Mr. Speaker, for this reason, that if an individual in this House, by reason of conviction, is going to vote against this Bill, it does not mean that he is voting for the status quo. It does not mean that he regards the present situation as satisfactory. It does not mean that he is striving for some impossible ideal—he is simply recording his opinion that this particular Bill, and the terms of this particular Bill, and the method under which it is being discussed at the present moment are not likely, in his opinion, to produce that marked improvement that would be desired and may, perhaps, bring disadvantages that we have not yet calculated.

That is a very negative attitude.

That is so, but in such a position as this it is the duty of anyone here to weigh the advantages against the possible disadvantages, and as the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin)-and he spoke very closely to my own thinking, not only in general principle but in detail—as he said, had the total Bill come before this House; had this Bill been in total the recommendations of the commission that sat upon it, it might be easier for members not so expert as those who sat on that commission, to form an opinion. Apart from that, each member must try and weigh—not in an idealistic way, not in a way that is away from the realities of human behaviour—must try and weigh so far as he can whether what is proposed is likely to produce, in total, a better situation than that which already exists. On that basis I myself come down slightly on the side against this Bill, because weighing the thing as a whole—I do not want to retrace the arguments that have been put forward—I think the likely new problems we will create are possibly greater than those which already exist. The Minister may, in some regard, satisfy me in his reply to this debate and in the discussion at the Committee Stage, in a way which might modify my own attitude at the third reading. I am trying to be quite objective about this. For example, I welcome the fact that he has removed those clauses about which there was doubt; the doubt that there might be an extension of the tot system.

My own view on that is that any Bill which contains any provision which in any way extended the tot system I would have opposed, however good the other provisions of that Bill were. Because I think it is a system which, although it grew up historically, at base is tremendously unsound. It is, in effect, a payment of wages in kind, and I am against payment of wages in kind in principle—and this is in a particular deleterious form of kind. And if the farmers who wish to encourage workers, even in the Western Cape, were to go over to a principle where they offer the workers the choice, as an incentive, between having his pint of wine or having some money equivalent, I think in time you would get an increasing number of those workers who would take the money equivalent as an incentive, and you would gradually wean people from a system which, in my opinion, is bad. However, that is in passing. I say I welcome the fact that the Minister has removed doubt in that regard. If we are no better now than the status quo, we are at least at the status quo.

I now come to a point which has not been raised by any hon. member so far, and I should like an indication of Government policy in this regard, and that is the indirect taxation aspect of this new law. I now come to a point which has not been raised by anyone and I would like an indication of Government policy in that regard. It is the indirect taxation aspect. The policy of the Government in this field has always been financial segregation; in other words, that where advantages accrue to the Bantu the Bantu should by his own efforts pay for those advantages and that the services given to him should as far as possible come out of his taxation and not out of general taxation. I personally am against that principle, but what I want to determine is the change which will be effected by this Bill in this field. If it is the intention of the Minister to confine the sale of liquor to local authorities—I understand that will not be the position—that principle which already operates in municipal beer-halls will be continued, that in so far as people drink they shall get services, but it is the alteration of the principle I am concerned with now. If the total expenditure of the Bantu population on alcohol, if their drink bill remains unchanged, then under this Bill there will be a diversion of their expenditure to some extent, or the Bill will be a failure, from the skokiaan queens and from the municipal beer-halls, if hard liquor is going to become at all an article of commerce, to expenditure on White man’s liquor, to use that convenient term. Now the attitude of the White man to liquor taxation is this, in almost all civilized countries, that we are ready to place a very heavy taxation on liquor for the following reasons, that if the consumption does not diminish we get a very good revenue from it, to which very few people can object, and if in fact the revenue is not great it means that the consumption of liquor has diminished, so either way it is a good thing. Now you are transferring the Bantu in this regard to the White man’s indirect taxation system and if that is so I want to suggest to the Government that this is a departure, first of all, from the principle of financial apartheid, but secondly, that if that is done then services should be given to the Bantu in proportion to the increased taxation you are placing upon them; and I think it will be a matter of some education to get the Bantu to visualize the position that high taxation on alcohol is a good principle in taxation. If you do not get them to realize that, your Bill will not be the safeguard it should be, the argument that has been used so often by the protagonists of the Bill that in transferring his consumption from the dreadful brews which contain carbide and other poisons to liquor of a higher quality … [Interjection.] If I may pause there on this argument of liquor of higher quality, I am not an alcohol chemist, but I know that the lower grades of whisky and brandy, even when it passes certain legal tests, nevertheless contain some poison, like fusel oil in the case of whisky, and in the cheaper varieties of even the White man’s liquor these poisons are not completely eradicated. It is for this reason that we buy whisky that has been matured for so many years. I do not know the provisions of the remainder of the Liquor Act which will come before us, but even in the cheaper grades of hard liquor we should have higher standards of impurity removal. I am not speaking now of alcohol but of the things that are sometimes associated with the cheaper varieties of hard liquor and which are far more deleterious to the human body than alcohol. I should be glad if the Minister would give me an answer with regard to Government policy on this, because I think he will agree that it is an important point, unless he simply argues that the Bantu are paying indirect taxes on other commodities and why should they not pay it on alcohol. I say this has been the principle, and a rather bad principle, in this country that the profits of the municipal beer-halls are used for social development, so that the price of having light is that the community should drink sufficient to provide that service.

There is one other question I would like to ask the Minister before I sit down, namely this. The question whether liquor should be supplied to an indigenous and not highly developed population has been studied not only in this country but throughout the world. And broadly speaking, world opinion has been against it, even at the League of Nations and UN. I do not know the terms of the South West Mandate, and I do not want to discuss at length a matter which will shortly be sub judice, but I understand the position under the mandate was that it was a condition that liquor should not be supplied to the indigenous population there.

They will have their own Act.

So this Act will not apply there? The Minister has answered my question. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), in his able speech, has made my own standpoint on this Bill clear. I am voting against it not because I wish the status quo to be maintained but because I am not yet convinced that the step we are taking will, on the whole, be an improvement. The police work has been mentioned, and other legislation has come before this House where we have argued that the Government was placing the police in an invidious position, and if the Government would listen to that plea it would be better for South Africa. I just mention it to say that I do not wish the task of the police to be made more difficult, but I have a reasonable doubt on balance as to whether this Bill will actually be a step forward. For that reason, unless the Minister can convince me to the contrary and to change my mind, I shall vote against the second reading.

I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) and agree wholeheartedly with what he said, but I find it very difficult to agree with my colleague from Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who most emphatically states that there is no excuse for drunkenness and that he would punish drunkenness with the harshest possible measures. I am not saying that drunkenness is any virtue—far from it; nor do I believe that it should always escape punishment, but I think there is some responsibility upon those people who provide the liquor for the uneducated people of the world. Over the years certain groups of people have become accustomed to drinking alcohol, and even among them there are some who abuse it. But to throw alcohol freely before a large group of people and then say that the total responsibility for drunkenness among them rests with them is a completely unjustifiable statement which cannot be supported. You may as well hand a child a knife and when he cuts himself say it was his own fault. There is a well-known saying in English that children and fools should not be given edged tools. I am not implying that the Bantu are fools, but in the question of strong alcoholic drinks they are innocents. Alcohol is a drug, and like other drugs it needs control. Down the history of the world there have always been efforts to control it, some with greater success than others, but the same problem has arisen with other drugs. Twenty or 30 years ago we in the medical profession were faced with an appalling increase in morphia addition and the derivatives of morphia. Now, except for limited areas, the drug is completely under control for all practical purposes. Every grain of morphia which enters the country has to be accounted for, and every grain that goes astray is searched for. It is difficult to get it into the country. This was brought about by an attack upon the sources of supply. To some extent police attempts, through the health authorities, stopped morphia addiction, but it was done primarily by means of international arrangements that morphia has been completely controlled at its source of manufacture. I maintain that in this lack of control which the police have themselves said they have, in their inability to control strong drink among the Bantu, that failure has come from their failure to attack the source of supply. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said that you do not try to stop a flood when it is running into the sea; you try to catch it at its source. I have not yet heard of one single wholesaler or manufacturer of alcohol in this country losing his licence, nor have I heard of one who has been prosecuted. It is at the source of supply that you have to tackle these evils, and the police know it. Why have they not done it? If the police cannot do it, they must get a new Chief of Police. This thing cannot be tackled otherwise than at its source. There are many things in the Malan Report with which I disagree, but one thing they say with great clarity at page 13, paragraph 110: “Whites were the source of liquor for the alarming illicit traffic.” They make it quite clear. They say that that is where the alcohol comes from. It is true that there are some shebeen brews manufactured, but primarily the strong drink reaching the Black man comes from White sources, and that is where it can be found. There is no question of going into these places and dragging the blankets off Native women who are fast asleep just to see whether they are sleeping on a bottle of liquor. There is no need for that if you tackle it at its source. That is where the police have failed to do their duty. The hon. member for Turffontein takes great credit for the diminution of the use of dagga. Like all unscientific people, he argues from the singular to the general. There are other causes and reasons why dagga has diminished. It largely diminished because the police went to where it grows. They did not stand on the corner of the street trying to catch some unfortunate Coloured smoking a cigarette, or go into a backyard to find a Native smoking it in his pipe. They went to pull out the dagga weeds in the fields, in the foothills of the Drakensberg and some lost their lives through it, but I am sure that did not stop them going back again. No, they know that is what they must do. Similarly, we must consider what control can be applied. All through history efforts have been made to control drugs and alcohol is a drug. Various methods have been used. The best examples come from the U.S.A, and France, but there are many others. The first thing the people of the U.S.A, did was to let alcohol loose among the Red Indians, and where are the Red Indians now? That is the effect of alcohol on a primitive people, and our Bantu are not far from primitive. Then they attempted prohibition and found that the cure was worse than the disease. In other words, it is not possible completely to prevent the use of alcohol, although possibly the vested interests in the manufacture of alcohol could say something about that. On the other hand, we have France, where there is almost no control and which stands highest in alcoholism in the world. In Paris, according to official figures, there is one bistro for every 50 adults in the city, and the Department of Justice in France makes claim that 78 per cent of all crime in 1959 had some connection with alcohol, and in 95 per cent of cases in which children were involved or had been badly handled alcohol was involved. Yet there is a country where alcohol can be had at all times and almost anywhere. So we have the two limits. It is not possible to beat the problem by complete prohibition, and it is not possible to deal with it by laissez-faire, by letting it merely follow its course. We must have some form of control and I feel that this Bill is, one might almost say, an amateur effort to deal with a large problem. There is not the slightest evidence that the people who know something about this problem have been consulted. I am not inclined to take a very strong view of the value of the Malan Commission’s Report.

They sat for four years.

Yes, but it got off on the wrong foot originally and probably never got back again on to both feet. It got off on the wrong foot because it was badly constituted. It consisted of not one single sociologist or social worker, not one doctor and not one psychiatrist, men who know something about alcohol and its effect. I am not in a position to say whether or not such men were heard as witnesses because no list of witnesses is given and there is no evidence to read (for a very sound reason which the Commission gives), but a careful perusal of its notes shows that it has made such contradictory statements that to my mind it has little value, except for small items. Among other things, it strongly recommends the sale of liquor for off-consumption, i.e. for consumption in the home. Its argument in favour of this is that “abuse of liquor in the home is unthinkable”. Mr. Speaker, how any body of intelligent men could make such a statement is quite beyond my conception. I can assure the members of the Commission and the Minister that there is not a doctor in general practice in this country who will not be prepared to take you to at least two or four homes in his practice in which the mother is an alcoholic, and the mothers do not go to the bars to drink and they are not usually taken there by their husbands. It is becoming more and more common in this country to find women alcoholics among our patients. To make such a statement is beyond my conception.

Another thing which was much quoted to-day in this House, although I do not think it is altogether fair to blame the Commission, is the statement that drunkenness has diminished in Rhodesia since they have had free access to alcohol. Their own quotation does not say that. On page 4 they say there was a decline in the convictions for liquor offences. The same will happen if this Act goes through, because all these statutory offences in regard to getting a drink somewhere will disappear, but it will not make the drunkenness disappear. To read into this statement of the Commission that drunkenness will disappear if you give the people free access to the White man’s liquor is nonsense. Drunkenness has not disappeared amongst the Whites. How can it disappear?

Here is another statement by the Commission, on page 8, paragraph 69: “Drunkenness amongst Natives can to-day largely be ascribed to the fact that they are prohibited from obtaining liquor.” Sir, it is incredible! Do men get drunk because they are not allowed to get liquor? So the remedy is to give them as much access as possible! How can we attach much importance to this? But I am pleased to think in many respects the hon. the Minister has to some extent taken notice of them, because I see they recommend that no provision be made for Natives who live in White areas, and I understand that the Minister intends to carry that out.

No.

If that is so, I will speak to support something which was said by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), who drew attention to the fact that while her Natives might be able to buy liquor she was not going to permit them to drink it on her premises. Is the Minister going to prevent them from drinking it in the streets? My hon. friend painted a picture that all her neighbours would also forbid them, but I want to paint a picture of three neighbours who forbid them and one who does not, and ask what is going to happen there if there is an absentee owner who cannot stop them? What will be do in our homes with the limited number of police available when there is a drinking party going on next door? Who will deal with it? No, I believe that giving alcohol to these people freely is an admission of weakness on the part of the police and of failure to tackle the problem seriously and scientifically on the part of the Minister.

Let us consider what are the effects of alcohol on the human being. It is usually considered that alcohol is a stimulant, but it is not a stimulant at all. It is a drug. Its actions are all depressive. It only depresses, but its effect on the human brain comes on unequally and it tackles the higher centres first, i.e. the centres of self-control and intelligence, and that is why the after-dinner speaker has lost his shyness and thinks he is a fine big fellow who makes a good speech. Similarly, with these people, give them a drug which takes away what little self-control they have—and they are a violent people—and what happens? Self-control being removed, the man reverts to his animal characteristics, which are primarily violence and sexual satisfaction. The Native is by nature a violent individual. He does not go gently and quietly through the streets; he likes to carry his sticks. It is characteristic of him that he carries sticks because that is his usual habit to protect himself, but a much worse feature is the sexual laxity and the sexual violence to which the White women of this country as well as the Black women—more so than White women—are going to be exposed by this action on the part of the Minister. This is the feature which upsets me more than any other. No woman in a lonely house, no woman or child living alone in this country will ever feel safe again. That is a responsibility that rests on the Minister’s shoulders.

And of this Government.

Is he going to let this happen? Because it is going to happen. We all know it happens. It happens with White people and it will happen still more with the Black people and the hon. the Minister must bear that in mind. I will not mention the effect of alcohol on the family; that has been touched on by one or two other speakers, but I want to go further into the question of the community. What will be the effect of this licensed drinking on the community? A lowering of the working force, a lowering of the working capacity, a lowering of general nutrition, but even more a great rise in the diseases of malnutrition and deprivation. The question of malnutrition has been touched on but the deprivation of vital food products will cause a rise in the tuberculosis rate in this country. It is already one of the highest in the world. That is largely because it is a fresh disease to these people. It was beginning to come under control. This year this country is spending R8,000,000 on tuberculosis and it is not meeting the problem. I prophesy that within three years it will be R 16,000,000. The most common cause of abscess of the lung in this country to-day—and it is a common disease among the Bantu and an uncommon one amongst the Whites—is drunkenness. These men drink themselves unconscious. They lie in their vomit; they breathe in their vomit, and the next thing is that they lose a lung. You will find that in any of the chest hospitals in the country. That is going on all the time. This country probably has a higher rate of abscess of the lung than any other country in the world. These are the evils that are coming.

Lastly, Sir, I notice in the Bill that the hon. the Minister takes the right to say what will happen to the profits. I think the first thing that he should do is to establish a fund which has the first call on all profits, not only the local profits but all profits, to compensate the unfortunate victims, those who will be hurt and damaged and invalided as a result of the conduct of the drunken victims of the Minister’s Bill. Sir, in the choice between anarchy and oppression I would recommend to the police of this country that oppression is the lesser of the evils.

I think all members of this House will agree with me that we have just been listening to one of the most outstanding speeches which I have heard in this House during the eight years I have been here, namely the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). I believe that the Minister and the Government and this House and the public will thoroughly have to consider what the hon. member said here. I cannot emulate him, nor unfortunately can I add anything, on the same level, to what he said, but I just want to say that, as the hon. member will understand better than I can, we are dealing here with a symptom of a very deep-rooted disease. That disease goes to the innermost depths of the social life of the human being. I do not believe that the type of measure we are dealing with here will penetrate to the actual disease. We are dealing with symptoms. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Williams) that we might find some improvement here, or that it might be much worse; we do not know. We shall have to see what other symptoms become apparent from this step which the Minister wants to take. No, we will not solve this problem in this way. There are greater responsibilities to which the public and every population group will have to devote attention. I personally received telegrams from Churches in my own constituency and from other institutions elsewhere asking me to oppose this Bill, and I am going to do so, not because they asked me to because I want to say that even the Churches—I say this with all responsibility—have not yet done much in regard to combating the problem we find in South Africa to-day amongst the Whites (I am forgetting about the non-Whites for the moment) and it is the result of the failure of us White people. We cannot help ourselves. Large numbers of our people are going under as the result of this evil—call it a sin, a national sin—of the abuse of liquor. What happens amongst the non-Whites is largely the result of the failure of the Whites as the bearers of those higher values of our Western civilization to which we ourselves do not adhere. The solution does not lie in patchwork such as is contained in this Bill; it lies much deeper. In my opinion it lies in a deep spiritual revolution which must take place on the part of Whites as well as non-Whites, but under White leadership. That is the first responsibility which rests on the Whites. It does not comprise only the things mentioned by the hon. member. There is also the economic aspect of this problem, and when I say something about this subject I do not want to allege that the person who can live on a high economic standard, the rich man, is not also the victim of this evil. I do not say that economic improvement will be the solution of the problem. In many cases it can make the problem even worse. The economic uplift of our backward Whites, and particularly of our non-Whites, is the duty resting on this civilization, on this White leadership we have in South Africa. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) spoke a true word when he said that when a man’s stomach, particularly that of a non-White, is empty the effect of liquor is even worse. I do not want to say that proper nutrition will solve the problem, but without proper feeding, without economic uplift, the matter will become much worse. I just want to state the matter briefly in its breadth and depth as far as I can, but this is one aspect of the Bill to which I must draw attention, namely, that we have an attempt here, at least to some extent, to eliminate racial or group discrimination. To that extent there is something positive which I can at least support, that we cannot treat people here as we usually do in the economic, constitutional and even the religious spheres as groups, but that we are starting to realize that they are individuals. This sin is never committed by a group. These abuses are never committed by a group, but by the individual, and whereas in this Bill we are at least trying to get away from group discrimination or racial discrimination, to that extent I can approve of it. But I repeat that the matter is so deep and so wide that I would prefer to see, before we take these drastic steps, steps which are to a large extent laissez-faire steps, that we should go much deeper into the wider complications of this type of problem and see whether we cannot get something better than the hon. the Minister proposes here. I find it very difficult to decide. One can advance sound arguments against anything. I can advance arguments against the most beautiful parks because there are trees with branches on which people can hang themselves, or there are places where immoral acts can be committed, but we must realize that by taking away the park or by planting more trees we are simply toying with the problem; we cannot solve the problem because it lies much deeper. One cannot remedy the sins of the individual by means of laws. I am inclined to believe what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said, that if we pass this Bill the evils will far outstrip the benefits. We must think a little deeper and get to the root causes and try, as far as possible, to deal with the root causes and to forget about the symptoms.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister at this late stage in the debate, where most of the arguments have been used to allow a free vote on his side.

What has that to do with the Bill?

One or two members on the Government side have supported the Bill but can the Minister assure me that every member on the Government side will vote for this Bill or are certain members being compelled to be silent?

What has that to do with the Bill? Why don’t you look after your own side?

The Minister must not be afraid of this matter.

It is not a question of being afraid; look after your own side.

We should know whether the whole of the Government are behind this Bill. There would be something to be said for them if members on the Government side who are against this Bill, were prepared to voice their protest or record their vote against this Bill. [Interjections.] It is all very well shouting about it. The evidence will come when we divide on this Bill. Then we will find out which of those members who are here to-day and have absented themselves conveniently, are going to have the courage to vote against this Bill and show that they are against the Government on this matter.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I have made my point. That was the only point on the political side that I wanted to make. It is very easy to treat this matter as a joke because many of the members here are not going to see the price that will have to be paid for passing this measure. It is a question of what is the greater evil. The arguments against this Bill have been many and varied, but all those who have expressed their approval of the Bill have done so with reservations. All those who have spoken on the other side have admitted that there are certain dangers in this Bill, that there are certain evils but that in their opinion this is the lesser evil. The whole attitude of Government members towards this Bill is to create the façade that there is virtually no discrimination. I would like to draw attention to a speech made recently on this matter by no less a person than the South African Ambassador to the United States of America in an address to the Law School Forum at Harvard University as recently as March 1959. Referring to the consumption of liquor in South Africa Mr. du Plessis said this—

With the introduction of this Bill he would now say “We have now thought it advisable that the Bantu should be made subject to the ravages of strong drink”. This Bill represents a change in Government policy since 1959 when the South African Ambassador spoke at Harvard University. Within two years there are not just a few thousand highly evolved Bantu; to-day presumably all the Bantu are highly evolved. The Minister knows only too well that one of the biggest difficulties with alcohol is the extent to which the individual can exercise a measure of self-control, and that is why the Minister, when he was formerly Minister of Defence, stopped the consumption of alcohol in the military canteens. He has changed his views since then.

He saw his mistake.

Recently in Another Place he said this; this was in 1959, at about the same time when the South African Ambassador was speaking in America—

When the hon. the Minister was speaking in the Other Place on 22 June 1959 he realized that once you take this step you cannot retract it and yet he is now taking this step and he is creating the façade that there is no discrimination. However, when we examine the Bill more closely we find that it is the intention to introduce a permit system, and a permit system, as we all know, lends itself to all sorts of abuses. Let us see what the commission itself had to say. It said this in paragraph 70—

While that sounds a very high ideal can you imagine, Sir, what is going to take place? Can you imagine the number of manhours that is going to be wasted outside magistrates’ courts? Already magistrates all over the country are complaining about being short-staffed and having too many temporary staff, too many men past the retiring age assisting them to deal with many administrative matters, and now they are to have the additional burden of issuing permits. This is going to be an extension of the permit system and that system lends itself to rackets. We can see no end to that. Sir, at best this in an experiment. The Minister has said that this is an experiment and I am not satisfied that throwing the door wide open, as this Bill does, is an experiment that we can lightly make in the interests of those people for whom we are supposed to be trustees. I have a memorandum sent to me and others on this side by one of the leading churches of this country. Other speakers have referred to the Dutch Reformed Church. I refer to the Methodist Church which says this—

Sir, one of ablest speeches made from this side on this matter was that made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). He has shown the scientific approach to this matter. I speak as a layman in this matter, but as a layman who has had some experience of social work in this country. I realize only too well the danger of alcohol put into the hands of people who cannot discipline themselves. There are many people to whom alcohol is no problem at all. They know when to say “no”. Unfortunately there are many who are unable to say “no”, and you generally find that these are people who are weak and unstable and whose family and social life is insecure. We need only go to the housing schemes of our various municipalities to realize the amount of boredom and uncertainty that exists in those townships, to realize the effect that easy access to strong drink would have on these people. We have an unenviable record. The commission’s report shows that the consumption of liquor per capita expressed in gallons, is higher in South Africa than anywhere else in the world. The consumption of spirits by South Africans is higher than that in France, Italy, Belgium Switzerland, West Germany, New Zealand, the U.S.A., Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. When those figures were published there were no statistics available of the hard liquor consumed in the shebeens. You can imagine what those figures are going to look like when this fine experiment of the Minister’s gets under way. The Minister is taking a very grave risk in this experiment. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government and the party on the other side must take full responsibility for the risk that they are taking in introducing this Bill. I am quite convinced that the price may be anarchy, and for that the Government will be responsible and we will hold the Government responsible for taking such a risk at a time like this. Here we have one of the first major measures passed by the new Republic, a measure which pretends to do away with discrimination and to make alcohol available to everyone. Sir, I think it is not an auspicious start for a country which prides itself on giving a lead on the African Continent in the Western way of life, and I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will defer the passing of this measure until more time has been given to the responsible social workers of this country to suggest ways and means of taking some of the extreme provisions out of this measure and so lessen the effects of this measure which I feel will do more harm than the good it pretends to do.

I want to say at the commencement that I am opposing the second reading of this Bill. I want to be brief, but I want to say that certain parallels have sought to be drawn between this Bill and the position in South Africa and what happened in the United States of America under prohibition. Quite frankly I do not think there is any real comparison. In South Africa it is not a case of prohibitionists versus those who want liquor to be sold. That is not the position to-day and it is not the position under this Bill. I do not think that that parallel is a good one at all. What we are concerned with in this Bill is the question of the sale of liquor to non-Europeans, and I want to say that as far as the Bantu are concerned, it is a problem of the Bantu desiring as much hard liquor for his money as he can get. He has no palate for liquor. If he can purchase as much hard liquor for his money from one source or another he will go to the source from which he can get the most, irrespective of its quality, irrespective of whether it has a good aroma or irrespective of any other qualifications. It must be hard liquor. I realize the difficulty facing the Government in trying to find a blanket law to cover the position of the whole of South Africa. The days are gone when perhaps we could have taken certain steps to try to deal with this problem in its incipient stages. However, it is no use crying over spilt liquor—those days are gone. Whatever may have been the position then, I do want to urge on the Minister—and I hope in my remarks presently to present one or two facts to him—that what we should do is to proceed very slowly in regard to any relaxation of the liquor laws.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the business of the House was interrupted just now, I was saying that the trouble that we are facing is to find a law which will be a blanket wide enough to cover all circumstances in South Africa in dealing with this problem of the supply of liquor to non-Europeans, and, Sir, I venture the opinion that such an all-embracing law to-day in fact is beyond all human achievement. I say so because the conditions are so different, they change from one part of the country to another, and from one set of circumstances to a totally different set of circumstances you get elsewhere. My mind went back this afternoon, when I was listening to hon. members speaking, to a case that I had some few years ago where the missionary in charge of the hospital in the Ubombo village, the Bethesda Mission Hospital, a fine, upstanding, God-fearing man who was very, very strongly opposed to the use of liquor in any form (he was a prohibitionist) came to see me. He was a magnificent type of medical missionary. I called upon him several times and knew him very well, and one day he came to see me and he was nearly broken-hearted. He said to me: “You know, Mr. Mitchell, I do not know what to do. For years past, during the winter and the early spring months the Natives in the lowveld down in Maputuland suffer terribly from various types of deficiency diseases, one of the worst being scabies and scabies amongst the children is just a shocking thing to behold. I have for years passed brought in here vast supplies of lime juice as an anti-scorbutic to use in the treatment of these cases and every year it is a pitiful campaign that I have to wage.” He said: “You know my opposition to liquor and the use of liquor. Now I have found, and as a practical man I must face it, that when the palm wine starts, which the Natives call Busulu, with the sap rising in the middle of the spring months, the scabies disappear just like snow under the summer sun. They just disappear.” And he said “I have had to get this palm wine now analysed and I find that its anti-scorbutic properties are three times as great as lime juice.” He did not know what to do. As a doctor and a man who was trying to help these fellows, he had to use the palm wine for the job, because it was obviously capable of doing far better than anything he knew.

Mr. Speaker, that Busulu is used in that form while it is quite fresh. When it has been allowed to stand to forment for a few days, it becomes very, very intoxicating indeed. The Natives down in that area don’t comply with the laws in regard to liquor. Throughout the whole of that lowveld when the people concerned who have the big wild palm plantations there where it is growing naturally and they have collected a sufficiency of this juice, they hoist a flag at the end of a long pole, which is visible for miles across those sand-flats, and anybody who cares to come along can get his drink for 6d., or whatever it may be. Nobody interferes with them. Now, Sir, the general standard of health amongst those people down there in Maputuland is very low. They are not a strong, robust type of people, and many people contend that it is because of malaria. That may be so or may not be so. It may be due to the fact that they are drinking this Busulu. If I may interrupt for a moment, a rather peculiar feature—and I do not want the Minister to use this in connection with the Bill—is that the census returns show that in the whole of that area down there, by and large there are about seven female children to every male child born, in all those kraals right along the Maputuland area. Medical people in the past have gone into it and have tried to find out what it springs from. I am not quite sure, but I believe that on St. Helena or one of those islands, where there is also a big use of palm wine, something like a similar result is obtained. I do not want to put it down to the drink, but I am afraid the Minister might be tempted to use this in connection with his Bill in one way or the other, I don’t know which way. However, that may be, here is a case of one section of our country with a quite a different set of circumstances than you will find elsewhere. The liquor they consume there is liquor they produce themselves, and it is very cheap and there this legislation is going to have little effect. But what is the position elsewhere? We know about the shebeen queens and so on. I unfortunately officially have had to come into contact with a lot of these people and the basic ingredient of the illicit liquor is brandy or cane spirit. That is the basic element to which is added all the adulterations which finally produce a liquor which, as I said earlier on, the Bantu will buy because it is hard liquor and it is cheap. Up to now the shebeen queen had to buy that basic liquor whether it is brandy or cane spirit in a black market, and she had to pay for it. Then she adulterates it, she increases the volume, the basic principle always being observed that the Native wants as much for his money as he can get. The Native is not peculiar in that regard, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of other people who have exactly the same idea, whether it be in regard to liquor or other matters. The Native has got no palate for liquor. He can’t tell the difference between good brandy or bad brandy or adulterated brandy. What he wants is hard liquor and it must be hard. Sir, the days when we could expect to palm off light wines and light beers on to the Native drinkers are gone. He wants his hard liquor and as much as possible. Now what I fear from the Bill is that we are simply going to provide another avenue for the shebeen queen to get much larger quantities of her basic material at reduced prices because of the opening that is provided in this Bill. And that is going to do nothing to stem the evils we are suffering from. The evil basically is one of failure of self-control. The Bantu people as a whole did not go in for strong liquor except in the odd cases of people like these drinkers of palm wine and so forth. The old Zulu, Basuto, the Xhosa, those people did not go in for hard liquor in their ordinary life. Indeed among the Zulu people it was an outstanding social stigma for a man to get drunk. The odd few here and there that were drunkards were looked down upon and despised, they were the dregs of society as far as the Zulu people were concerned. Hard liquor did not come into the picture, but the fact remains that now they have acquired a taste for it they are not easily going to relinquish it. And that is what is worrying me. I do not see that this is going to meet the situation as set out in this Bill. I want to go along with the line of thought that was put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) As I stand here to-night, in my home I have got two Natives in charge of my house and my farm. Two Natives in charge of my place to-day, my whole property there, not only my work, but my father’s work, and my grandfather’s work before me. I have three Natives. There is no White man on my farm.

Shame!

No, it is not a case of shame. I have worked for what I have got and I am proud of it. But the Natives in that area have never yet been introduced to hard liquor, except the odd case here and there, through the medium of a shebeen queen. The market has not been there. But with the restrictions lifted and the possibility now that the White man’s hard liquor can be obtained, under the circumstances envisaged in this Bill, I say that none of us. who have got our places out in the country, none of us who leave our wives and our children on our farms when we are away, are going to leave them in safe keeping. What is the idea behind it, Mr. Speaker? What is the fundamental idea behind the Bill? Surely the idea is that the restrictions which have been imposed in the past have led to lawbreaking, shebeening, to untoward pressure by the police under circumstances which have resulted into discord. If now the restrictions are lifted, the shebeen may be killed, the untoward pressure by the police will be lifted, the Native will be able to get his liquor and will be able to settle down to the new circumstances and behave himself. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that that completely excludes the character of the Bantu who are not used to it yet, and to whom it will now be brought. There is already talk about what is going to be done with the profits. Mr. Speaker, as soon as a municipality or anybody else is going to deal in the profits from liquor, they are going to see to it that they get profits. In other words, there is immediately an incentive to get profits, whatever purpose they may be used for. In exactly the same way as human nature tries to avoid losses, so does human nature immediately try to take advantage of profits, and when it is a case of profits, human nature being what it is, even your municipalities are going to try to cash in on those profits, and the net result of this Bill must be to spread the use of hard liquor among the Bantu people, into those areas where it has not yet gone, into those areas where it has been little known up to now. And what is more, it can be bought legally. There was an honourable member here who said that if you allow the Bantu to obtain liquor under this Bill in a decent, a proper and a lawful manner … lawful, yes, and proper in the sense that it may be lawful, but decent? The hon. member who said that must never have seen drinking bouts that go on from time to time, even where kaffir beer is consumed, never mind hard liquor, and he could never have seen a shebeen in full blast on a Saturday or a Sunday night in one of these areas outside our big urban centres. Then he would never talk of “a proper manner”. And it is because it is going to be lawful that the trouble will arise. I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, that if there was a feeling on the part of the Government that the restrictions should be raised, then they should have been raised most guardedly and under proper care and supervision, so that we may hasten very slowly indeed and step by step, to see what is the precise nature of the result. What is, the fruit on the tree once you cultivate a plant like this? It is going to produce hard liquor for consumption by the Bantu people. What is going to be the result? Here, if ever, it is necessary for us to proceed very carefully and very slowly indeed. If as time went on, and the people begin to accustom themselves to the use of liquor, European liquor, and we found that there were no evil results flowing from it, then we could perhaps have opened the gates a little wider, and a little wider. Although I myself am a teetotaller, I have never believed that our policy towards the Bantu in the use of his own kaffir beer was the right one. I was certain that it would ultimately lead to the position that we have reached to-day with the shebeening that goes on. To allow these people to have their drink under proper conditions should be our aim. But to throw the door wide open, as is being done in this Bill, I think is wrong. The hon. Minister says that he is withdrawing Clauses 8 and 16, the two clauses dealing with the tot system. Mr. Speaker, because we are against the Bill, it does not mean that we want the present state of affairs to continue. I do not think there is a single member in this House who wants the present state of affairs to continue. We vote against the Bill because we see clearly enough that we are throwing the door open to a worse state of affairs than exists at the present time. I want hon. members to bear in mind what I am saying now when we begin to have criminal assaults, rapes on White women and White children that are left alone on the farms. Let them bear this in mind when the time comes. These two clauses are to be withdrawn. I say that we do not want the position to remain as it is. This will relieve the situation so far as the tot system is concerned, but does it do away with the right of a farmer to give liquor to his employees merely because those two clauses are withdrawn? I submit that it does nothing of the kind because of the other provisions of the Bill. I fail to see how it will not be legal for a farmer who desires to give liquor to his employees if he wishes to do so. It will be virtually impossible for all practical purposes to get a conviction against the man who does that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of Clauses 8 and 16.

I said I was going to be brief, and I do not want to take the matter much further. But the same hon. member whom I have quoted said that there should be a minimum penalty for drunkenness. He advocated very heavy penalties and a minimum penalty for drunkenness. Mr. Speaker, in Portuguese East Africa they have got that, but they have had that system for many, many years, and the people who have acquired a taste for liquor there have grown up under a system where that has been the law all the way throughout. Even then they have evaded it with impunity and they have in fact been caught drunk in European premises and in European villages. But if that was a really sincere and honest suggestion, and I am prepared to accept that the hon. member thought that that was a good and great improvement on the Bill, then I ask what are we heading for as far as further punishments and a further class of criminals are concerned? To have a minimum penalty for drunkenness in South Africa, under the circumstances that will be brought into being by the passing of this Bill! I cannot understand the reasoning! We are going ourselves to open the door, and the hon. member is supporting the Bill. We ourselves are opening the door to the circumstances where whole fresh groups of people in South Africa are going to have the acquisition of drink made easy for them, and at the same time it is suggested that we should establish the principle here of a minimum punishment inflicted for drunkenness!

Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this Bill tonight—and I must say I am sorry that there are a lot of hon. members who are going to give a silent vote; I think that in a matter of this importance to society in South Africa, to White society, to non-White society, to every man, woman and child throughout the country, I think more is required than just a silent vote. But before we cast our vote, let us in respect of the developments, of the happenings, of what can happen now on our isolated farmhouses, in our homes all over the countryside, think of those people and what is going to happen to them, and then let us with John Bradford say, “There but for the grace of God, go I”, because that is the position as I see it, and for that reason, if for no other, I am going to vote against this Bill.

The hon. the Minister of Justice, when introducing the Bill last Friday, said that it was an experiment. He was obviously referring to the main principle of the Bill, which is to give effect to a recommendation of the Malan Commission that the sale of wine, and liquor generally, should be extended to all non-Whites. That is the primary purpose of this Bill and that is the crisp principle involved in this Bill. In terms of existing legislation there are restrictions upon the sale of wine and malt liquor and spirits in certain parts of the Republic. In the Transvaal no Bantu or Coloured person or Asiatic may be supplied with liquor through the ordinary channels. In Natal there is a restriction on Asiatics, except in respect of places for on-consumption, especially set aside. In the Free State there are certain restrictions; and in the Cape the restrictions are mainly in regard to Bantu and in regard to other non-Whites in so far as the licensing courts may impose such restrictions.

The Minister has separated this question of the extension of the sale of alcoholic liquor to non-Whites (primarily the extension is to Bantu) from the other recommendations of the Malan Commission. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), in a very eloquent and persuasive speech earlier to-day, suggested that that was a mistake. In my view I think the hon. the Minister was right, to this extent; that I think if we are going to attempt to break through what has been a tradition in this country, not only in the days of Union, but also in the days before Union, namely the tradition that liquor should not be supplied to our Native people, if we are going to attempt to break through that tradition, then I do believe it is right and proper that hon. members in this House should have an opportunity of concentrating on that question alone, or mainly on that question, and that the problem should not be clouded by a number of other issues which have been raised in the report of the Malan Commission, and which affect members of the trade and other interests—producers, retailers, wholesalers and so on, consideration of which, in the result, might deflect the minds of hon. members from the true issue.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments which have been raised by hon. members who have supported the measure and by those who have opposed it. In that respect this debate is most interesting indeed. It may well prove to be an historical debate of its kind. It is interesting because I believe that the hon. the Minister has made it an open vote …

No, he has not.

I understood that certain hon. members on the opposite side might be speaking in opposition. If the hon. the Minister has not made it an open vote, I believe he should do so even now. I believe that in a debate like this hon. members should be free to act according to their convictions. I believe that all sections of the Opposition have treated this on a non-party political basis. I think that is the correct basis on which to approach a Bill of this sort, so that hon. members can bring to bear their minds and their abilities on this very difficult subject untrammelled by questions of any party loyalty or party considerations. This is a matter, the principle involved in this Bill is something, which over-rides all party differences, or should over-ride all party differences in this country, and should be dealt on a basis of individual opinion and on the basis of the contributions which hon. members may make to the debate by reason of their experience, living in various parts of South Africa. I would suggest that even at this late stage the hon. the Minister would be wise if he were to leave this matter to an open vote. It has virtually become a tradition in this House, or at least I have always thought so, that where matters affecting our liquor laws are concerned—as was done I believe in case of the original 1928 Act, and subsequent amendments—the matter should be left to an open vote.

Except when there is a basic principle involved.

But it is a basic principle which does not in my view touch political beliefs. If it does touch political beliefs, then I would believe that at last the hon. the Minister has been converted, because this touches the question of racial discrimination, and it eliminates race discrimination; and if the hon. gentleman is going to tell me that he has introduced this Bill because he wishes to eliminate race discrimination in this country, then I would be prepared to discuss it on that basis.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. What he is discussing now is another subject altogether.

But, Sir, that is the basic principle. The hon. the Minister said that one allows measures like this to go to an open vote except when a basic principle is at stake. What is the basic principle of this Bill? That you should not have racial discrimination in drink, in the consumption of alcoholic liquor. However, I do not intend to go on along that road, even though I think the hon. the Minister made an unfortunate interjection by saying that—unfortunate for himself. I welcome that interjection. If I were able to regard this …

Order! The hon. member must not follow up that point. He must return to the Bill. I know he would like to embroider on that point …

Sir. I do not propose to embroider on it, but put in just a few stitches …

But it must be a stitch in time.

Sir, I have attempted to make my point, but I believe that this is a measure which the Minister responsible should leave to the free vote of the House.

I have said that there have been some very persuasive reasons given in favour of the measure, and some extremely persuasive reasons against it. I am also bound to say that I have heard a good deal of ballyhoo talked by the protagonists on both sides, but I would like to add my tribute to that already paid to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). After listening to him, I had to think very carefully what I should do in regard to this Bill. It was a magnificent speech; I listened to it with the greatest of interest, and I hope that the hon. Minister has done so as well. As I say, a great number of speeches were made showing tremendous persuasiveness against this Bill. But the whole case for the Bill, in the view of the Minister and in the view of those who favour the provisions of this Bill, is that there is a vital and imperative need to make some attempt at the present time to eliminate the illicit liquor traffic. In other words, if I may say so, the slogan behind the Bill is “Ban the bootleggers”, “make war on the White marketeer”; in other words, eliminate the White market as far as the illicit trade is concerned. That seems to be behind the Bill, yet when we are faced with the alternatives that have been placed before the House, the decision is difficult. On the one hand there are those who prophesy that through the extension of facilities to obtain liquor, drunkenness will be increased and a serious situation may arise. Some hon. members have gone very far indeed. They have painted a lurid picture of a sort of alcoholic Congo in which there is going to be rape on a very large scale. I think that is unwise. I am prepared to approach this Bill in a more mature way and regard this innovation from the point of view of the experiment which the hon. the Minister has suggested and not necessarily to disseminate these ideas which are very dangerous. As opposed to the prophecies and views which have been very sincerely expressed that there may be some very unfortunate results from this extension, there is on the other hand the knowledge, I believe on the part of every hon. member of this House, that liquor restrictions have probably led to more bitterness between Africans and the police than anything else except the pass laws. I would like to quote from a memorandum which has been sent to me and no doubt to other hon. members by the South African Institute of Race Relations. They put forward these three premises. They take cognizance of the following facts—

1. (1) That non-White persons who want liquor can obtain it in spite of the existing restrictive laws, but they pay an inflated price on the black market …

I would have preferred to call it the “White market”—

1. (2) that liquor restrictions have probably led to more bitterness between Africans and the police because of the raids that are taking place in attempts to deal with the liquor restrictions;
2. (3) that it is clear that there are at present far more liquor restrictions on our non-Europeans than there are in other African territories.

I believe that those facts postulated by the Institute are by and large correct; that you have a situation, as has been pointed out by many hon. members, of increasing bitterness and frustration between members of the Native community and the police, because the police, whether they like it or not, have to carry out the existing laws. Far too many tragedies have happened in this country, particularly recently, because of police raids to deal with the illicit sale of liquor. So when approaching the principle, one is faced with the two alternatives; Whether to take a decision which would be in the nature of retaining the status quo—allowing the existence of the present restrictions on the sale, possession of liquor by Bantu particularly, to continue—or whether to open the door. On the one hand the status quo with the consequences flowing from it, the continued raids, the existence of the illicit liquor traffic, the shebeen queens and all the rest of it, the concoctions, or, on the other hand, whether one should try to break through that in an attempt to eliminate those conditions. We have to balance the two possibilities, because it seems to me that that is the simple issue before us in principle. I am coming to details at a later stage. But when a member of this House has to make up his mind whether or not to approve or to disapprove of this Bill, it seems to me he has to apply his mind to this crisp question: Are you prepared to open the door or not, yes or no? That is the principle. If you are prepared to open the door, then you vote for the second reading and then one can deal with objections to the procedure in the Committee Stage and subsequent stages. When I put myself these two alternatives I say that I have come to the conclusion, without reiterating all the arguments that have been used to-night, that I am prepared, on balance, to support the principle of this Bill as an attempt to get away from what is a real evil, the illicit liquor traffic. In an attempt to make a new start I am prepared to give my support to the principle involved in the second reading of this Bill. Therefore I shall vote for the second reading. In coming to that decision, Sir, may I say that I was assisted by the announcement which the hon. the Minister made this morning that he was prepared to withdraw Clauses 10 and 16 of this Bill relating to the extension of the tot system.

He is retaining it.

No. Those two clauses would have had the effect of extending it. The position is that under the existing law, in terms of Section 95 of the Liquor Act, it is provided that—

And in the Province of Natal—

I mentioned that in passing at an early stage of my speech. Now the hon. the Minister proposes to repeal Section 95 of the principal Act. I want to know if it is correct that he still proposes to repeal that section?

No, I am going to delete Clauses 8 and 16. That means that the law is going to stand as it is at present.

No, no, with respect. If the hon. the Minister will give me his attention for a moment. Clause 7 says that Section 95 is repealed. Does he still propose to do that?

No. it is going to remain.

I want clarity on this point. Section 95 of the Act is the one which I have read now and which says that—

and no Asiatic in Natal may obtain liquor.

That is not going to be repealed. The position is going to remain as it is.

Let us try to get this clear. It is Clause 7 of the Bill which says that that section is going to be repealed.

Clauses 8 and 16, the two clauses which refer to the tot system, in the present Bill.

If the hon. the Minister would be good enough to look at this Bill for a moment, would he please tell me whether Clause 7 of the Bill will remain?

Clause 7 will remain.

In other words, the hon. the Minister is going to repeal Section 95 of the original Act?

No.

Yes, he is. Of course he is. That is what he says. If the hon. the Minister will just listen to me for a minute, because I am still trying to make up my mind. I have said that I am prepared to vote for this second reading but, as I have told him, I am still balanced on a knife edge.

You are referring to Section 96?

No, that is Section 95.

As I have said, Clauses 8 and 16 are to be deleted. That means that Section 96 of the original Act will remain.

What about Section 95?

I am worrying about Section 95 at the moment.

That will remain.

But the Bill says it will be repealed. If the hon. the Minister could help me over this I would be grateful.

It is quite clear. The only two clauses referring to the tot system in the present Bill are Clauses 8 and 16. Now they will be deleted. In other words, the 1928 Act will stand in connection with the tot system.

Then I would simply ask the hon. the Minister if he would be good enough to apply his mind, after the adjournment, to the provisions of Section 95 of Act 30 of 1928 which it is proposed to repeal by this Bill, in order to see whether he still wishes to repeal it in view of his decision to drop Clauses 8 and 16 of the present Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that I am prepared, being faced with this very difficult problem of having to balance the disadvantages and the evils of the present position against the potential evils and disadvantages of the future, to give an opportunity for a new deal. I want to say straight away that I am not necessarily tremendously optimistic about what is going to happen. On the other hand, I am not necessarily tremendously pessimistic. But I certainly do not agree with these lyrical suggestions of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), for instance, that if only this Bill is passed all drunkenness will disappear, all illicit liquor selling will go, and we will be living in a sort of alcoholic Valhalla in South Africa. I do not believe it. I think we are going to have difficulties. I think the hon. the Minister should realize that, and not be carried away by the more excessive plaudits of those of his followers who have not been muzzled in any way. I am also not at all happy about the machinery which the hon. the Minister proposes to set up.

What is the procedure under this Bill? The Minister is going to extend the sale of liquor to non-Europeans, and he is going to do so in terms of the provisions of the new Section l00bis. He will allow, in terms of the new Section 100ter, all forms of liquor—that is wine, malt liquor and spirits—to be sold to non-Whites from any bottle store or any hotel which has off-consumption facilities. In other words, that is going to take place in the White areas, and those sales will be subject to the conditions laid down by a licensing board. But then the Minister goes on, in terms of Section 100bis, to provide that he may give written authority to any person or to the nominee of any urban local authority, any association of persons, any divisional council or any Bantu territorial authority, to sell both for on-consumption and off-consumption. That is where I agree with so many of the speakers this afternoon that we are left with a great deal of vagueness. This is a very wide power which is being given, and I want to put some questions to the hon. the Minister about it. What persons does he contemplate may be given this particular authority? How will the applications be made? It has been suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) this afternoon that he might advertise and call for tenders. I do not regard that as a proper procedure. I do not think that he should call for tenders. In any event, it is very difficult indeed to know the procedure until the hon. the Minister gives us some more detail as to what he has in view. He will have now in his hand the power to issue authority to sell both for off-consumption and on-consumption. In other words, he has authority to grant a liquor licence, not in terms and subject to the conditions of the existing Act, but under such conditions as he may lay down. Now he may grant that licence to a person or to a nominee of an association of persons or to a nominee of a local authority. I link this up with the question of the provisions of the new Section 100bis (7) which provides that—

If we take into consideration the fact that there is provision for profit and that the Minister has the sole discretion for making an appointment giving authority, the following questions arise in my mind: what class or type of person does he propose to appoint? Is he to be an individual or the nominee of an association of persons, or the nominee of a local authority? Will that person be regarded as a licensee in terms of the Liquor Act? Will that person be an ordinary private member of the public who is going to carry on this business for gain, subject to certain possible restrictions on his profit, or will he be a Government servant? Because what does this section mean when it says the profits are going to be used? I do not want to reiterate what has been said, but many hon. members this afternoon asked why does not the hon. the Minister subject this privilege of selling for on-consumption, presumably in Native areas—make it subject to the local Licensing Boards so that they can have control and lay down the conditions? But he is not doing that, he is taking in his hands the power of granting a monopoly. It is very important to know to whom he is going to give that monopoly. If the hon. the Minister says there is no danger in this because he is going to give it to someone who will be a Government servant, then we have to consider the question of whether this will be State trading, and whether it is a good thing to have, side by side with private trading. State trading on a large scale of this sort. Where will it end, in view of the fact that in terms of Section 100quin the Minister might, in a White area, prohibit the sale for off-consumption to members of the Bantu or any Coloured group. I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister should give us some idea both as to the persons he has in view, the sort of associations he has in view, and what he proposes to do with the profits.

Mr. Speaker, I ask these questions because I believe that we should have a number of amendments in the Committee Stage. But if the Bill were to go through as presently constituted, I say, what has the Minister taken into consideration? Has he considered the types of wines and spirits which he will make available to this new market, to persons not only in the urban area but in the rural areas, who have not had these facilities in the past? What steps does he propose to ensure, so far as humanly possible, that adulterated, poisonous stuff is not thrown on the market at cheap prices, which may immediately have a very deleterious effect on those who consume it? What steps is he going to take to ensure that this opening of the floodgates is not going to deteriorate the standard of our wines in this country?

Sir, I am very jealous of the standard of our wines. I believe that in recent years we have developed both our white and our red type wines very considerably, and we can produce wines, particularly in the Western Province, which stand high in reputation not only in wines of South Africa but also of the outside, world. If it is going to be permissive to extend the sale of wines, there may be very serious temptation on the part of some producers simply to flood the market with cheap wines which will be sold in Bantu residential areas and elsewhere, and which certainly will not be for the benefit of the good reputation of our wine producers.

The principal Act provides for regulations to be made in that regard.

The hon. the Minister says that there are regulations. But I believe that this sort of thing should be written into the Act itself. I think that when we are going to make an innovation of this sort, certain provisions should be written into the Act to make it abundantly clear that the possibility of abuse and mistakes will be minimized so far as possible.

Surely all these details are never written into an Act.

But all these details are not normally dealt with by a Minister of Justice, they are normally dealt with by Licensing Boards. And the Minister of Justice, presumably, has other work to do, apart from deciding what conditions he is going to lay down in regard to certain licences.

I suggest that these may be a very serious danger of cheap, fortified wines coming on to the market simply with the view of getting rid of surplus wines. I would then put this to the hon. the Minister; the hon. the Minister said that this is an experiment; I believe that as an experiment there are great possibilities of making it a success, but to do so the hon. the Minister must follow the advice of certain hon. members who have spoken on the matter, such as the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) who spoke about going slowly. He is going to oppose the Bill, but he said that if the Minister goes on with the Bill he must not go too fast. I believe that is very wise advice. I think that if the provisions of this Bill, amended or not, are translated to the Statute Books, it will be fatal were the Minister, by a few strokes of the pen, to throw open the floodgates throughout the country. I think he must choose his areas. Obviously one of the locations of frictions, one of the places where there is friction, is the urban area, because it is there that we have had so many police raids in search of illicit liquor. So it is in the urban areas that a beginning must be made. It is in the White urban areas where a beginning can be made, and in the so-called Bantu residential areas. I believe it will be quite wrong, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out this afternoon, to use the provisions of Section 100quin in order to create a monopoly for the sale of liquor in separate areas occupied by the non-European people. I think that that would be a very great mistake indeed.

In terms of this Bill the Bantu can obtain liquor in the so-called White areas only for off-consumption. He cannot consume in the White areas but, of course, he can consume on the premises of his employer …

Only with the consent of the owner of the premises.

I say that there are no bars or other places in which he can sit and have his drink. There are no hotels available in which he can enjoy his drink. And if he does purchase in what are known as the White areas, then he has to take his liquor back to his place of employment, provided he has the consent of his employer, and then he can consume it on the premises.

And if he does not get that consent?

Now the point has been raised, what if he does not get that consent from his employer? That, of course, does raise a difficulty. The hon. the Minister may have to come round to a system in terms of which, if it is found by experiment after experiment that the system is not being abused, provision is made for on-consumption—even on the basis of this Government’s own policy—in the White areas for many years to come. There is obviously no question that if a Bantu is not entitled to consume on private premises, if the employers are going to take that line, their only means of consuming that liquor is to take it into one of the Bantu residential areas. But that may be very difficult indeed for them. Once again, the temptation to consume either in an open place or in a public place, or illicitly on their employer’s premises, may arise. Therefore one temptation would follow another which has been removed.

Only experience can tell how this will work out.

I am glad the hon. the Minister has said that, because that brings me to my concluding remarks. The hon. the Minister began his speech on Friday by saying that this Bill is an experiment. I accept it as an experiment. I believe that the manner of its operation will have to be very carefully watched for a period of some two years. I believe that it may very well be found that by then, or even before then, serious amendments have to be made to it. However, I have told the Minister that I am prepared, in my individual capacity, to support the principle of this Bill; but that is subject to my being satisfied that with certain amendments which one may have to move at Committee Stage, certain objectionable features will be eliminated. Here, may I say, I can only wish that the hon. the Minister had introduced this Bill at an earlier stage. Even at this stage I believe most seriously that the hon. the Minister would achieve a great deal if he would take the second reading of this Bill and then be prepared to say he will send it to a Select Committee. not this Session, but to be ready to deal with it next session. I believe that that would have a profound effect for good. This sort of legislation should not be rushed through the House.

It would be a great disappointment to the people concerned.

Which people concerned?

The European people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can convince the hon. gentleman at this late stage …

Order, order! I do not think the hon. member should try.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to convince the hon. the Minister that at this late stage he might agree, after taking the second reading, to say that he will postpone going on with the Bill until he can go further into the details of the practice. I am prepared to give him a vote for the principle, but I am not at this stage prepared to give him a vote for the practice. I am prepared, at this stage, to vote for the second reading of this Bill; but if I am not satisfied with the practice which is then laid down I may find myself compelled to vote against the third reading. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. the Minister, if he gets the second reading of this Bill, to allow time for further consideration of it. I believe that would be very wise indeed. I emphasize that this Bill has been thrust upon us in the last days of the Session. It is one of the most important Bills that has come before this House for a long time, and it may have profound effects on the whole economy and the social set-up of this country. In those circumstances I believe that the Minister, having established the principle—on which I am going to support him—would be very wise indeed if he then said: “I will hold over further consideration until next session in order to give full time for amendment and possible reconsideration by a Select Committee”. On that basis I am prepared to vote for the second reading, reserving future decisions until the Committee Stage.

When the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) took part in this debate on Friday, he referred to the Bantu people as the voiceless people of South Africa. I think he made a mistake. They might be voiceless, but they are certainly not more voiceless than the Government side has been throughout to-day and this evening.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. That point has been made over and over again.

With the greatest respect, Sir, I am referring to their voicelessness with regard to this Bill …

Order, order! The hon. member must obey my ruling, and come back to the Bill.

Hon. members who took part in this debate appealed to the hon. the Minister to impose heavier minimum and maximum penalties in regard to drunkenness. I sincerely believe that those appeals did not emanate from stupidity or hypocrisy, but I must say that there appears to be absolute ignorance as far as those appeals are concerned. They do not emanate from a scientific approach and they certainly do not conform to modern practice. In Cape Town, over the last few years, it has been proved that the imposition of heavier sentences for these offences is just the thing which should not be done. A few years ago the Cape Town magistrates decided to increase the sentences, especially as far as the Coloureds were concerned, because they are the biggest offenders in this respect. The sentence was first £1 or seven days, then it became £2 or 14 days and then it jumped to £5 or one month in an attempt to curb drunkenness. But the result of that was that the welfare organizations, both private and State subsidized, which have to look after the wives and families of these unfortunate people who sit in gaol for drunkenness, could not cope with the avalanche of demands made upon them because the heavier fines did not lessen the number of convictions. Such problems should be approached scientifically, and in that respect I come to my objection against the report of the Malan Commission in certain respects.

My objections are based on similar reasons to those mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). The hon. the Minister remarked that this commission sat for a period of four years. Well, I believe that they also stood, perhaps with a foot on the rail, even in Portuguese East Africa, in order to observe the practical side of liquor being served and drunk on the premises. But I fail to find that there was a psychiatrist or a sociologist on that commission. When it comes to the commission’s report, especially in regard to the consumption of liquor amongst the Coloured people and the illicit liquor sales amongst these people in the Cape, I find that this matter was not studied very thoroughly, and I wish to deal with that matter further.

Mr. Speaker, originally I had no intention of taking part in this debate. However, certain arguments were advanced that were based on wrong information, and I feel that as far as they concern my own experience as a person who has spent the major part of his life in this city and who has experienced the development of the population vis-à-vis the Coloureds, the Europeans and the Bantu in Cape Town, and who has, seen the development of illicit liquor selling, I feel I could be of some assistance to the Minister. I have in my hand a certain memorandum. I must say that this memorandum was the final straw on the camels back to make me decide to take part in this debate. It is from the South African Temperance Alliance, and I wish to quote only one passage from it. This is an appeal to all members of Parliament to oppose this Bill, and they say—

Now I want to re-read this and I want to change only one word—

And that is what is happening to-day, Sir. The hon. member for Simonstown, when he took part in this debate, referred to the fact that there were Coloured representatives in this House. I am a member of this House and I am a representative of the Coloured people, and in taking part in this debate I wish to assure this House that I have no interest whatsoever in any liquor concern, least of all in a liquor concern in a Coloured area. I have no pecuniary interests in any such concern or any such business. However, I have seen quite a great deal of these undertakings, and liquor activities, and I should like to tell this House a little story which is directly concerned with what has been happening up to now and what this Bill, as I see it, is designed to stop. Admittedly, as the hon. the Minister said, this is an experiment, and no experiment can bear the fruits that we want it to bear unless we keep a firm hand upon it and there is guidance and strict control. However I want to concern myself for the moment with the lives of a large number of people in this, country.

I know an African by the name of John. He works for a motor-car firm in Cape Town. He is a decent respectable type and I prefer him to drive my car whenever I take it for service and when it is delivered back to me. One Friday John decided to take a bottle of brandy to his home at Nyanga, as many others do from time to time. Over the lunch hour, when they were sitting outside playing dominoes or draughts, a Coloured man came up and John passed him £1 10s. The Coloured man went off. They knew him well, he always sauntered about the place and never had any regular work. During business, hours he was always available for this sort of thing. In due course a parcel was delivered to John. Now this was not the ordinary round bottle as we know it. Since the early 40s certain large liquor concerns and distilleries have produced a flat type bottle. I do not want to mention the brand, but it is quite obvious that those bottles were not produced merely because they wanted a different bottle. They are bottles which can be concealed much better under a mattress or in a coat pocket or in a lunch basket.

Why?

For the reason that somebody wanted to buy that bottle of brandy and convey it somewhere with the highest degree of safety, yet keep it concealed. This sort of thing has been going on for years but nobody has bothered about that.

That parcel was delivered to John. He took the parcel and put it inside his lunchbox and in the afternoon at five o’clock he left his employment and made his way to the Cape Town railway station. He was careful to keep in the middle of the crowd and to get to the train without being spotted by a policeman and perhaps searched on suspicion of carrying brandy illegally. Eventually he got into the train on the way to Mowbray station where he would get the bus to Nyanga. When near Observatory station he saw to his consternation that there was a railway policeman in the coach coming down the aisle, speaking to various passengers and searching them. At Observatory John jumped out and waited for the next train. He caught the next train and eventually got to Mowbray. There he had to bide his time and take his chance of getting on to the bus because it was rather dangerous standing in the queue because if a policeman approached the queue and he left it the policeman would know there was something wrong. Eventually he got on to the bus.

To cut a long story short, Mr. Speaker, eventually he got this bottle of brandy safely home. He put it away under his mattress, to be drunk the following evening with his friends at his leisure. At two o’clock that night his front door crashed in and he, his wife and four children were herded out while the police searched the premises. He was lucky to grab his trousers and his shirt. He had that on by the time he was ushered into the police van. He was taken to the police station. On the Monday morning he was not at his work, but his wife was there to ask for some money to get him out of gaol and back to work.

There are nearly 100,000 such Johns in Cape Town. There are approximately 1,000,000 or more such people in the rest of South Africa. The point is, how are we going to overcome making criminals of these people who do not want to be criminals, or merely want a bottle of liquor such as they see other people buy and other people drink?

On the other hand, we find that in a city like Cape Town we have the Coloured community. The argument was used here to illustrate that shebeening will not be stopped by legalizing the sale of liquor to Africans, because the Coloureds have free access to liquor and. they say, look at the shebeening that goes on among the Coloured people. That is a fallacy. The Coloured people do not have free access to liquor. They had many years ago, if I remember correctly. The point is that I remember the days in the early 1930s when the builders and heavy industries worked on Saturdays, too. I grew up as the son of a builder and we never had any trouble about Coloured labour on a Saturday morning. They were there. The man got paid on Friday afternoon and went home and he could tell his wife to buy him two bottles on Saturday, and he had his liquor for the week-end. Then in the post-depression years, after 1933. a boom developed.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is wandering too far from it.

With respect, Sir, I am right on the Bill.

The hon. member must obey my ruling.

I am talking about the Bill, with respect, in so far that the argument was used that free access to liquor should not be made possible. I am merely trying to prove that this was tried before and it was a complete failure. The fact was that with the African population increasing and with the market being there to sell illicit liquor, the people who could get the liquor and sell it to them were the Coloureds. The redress was not to make it possible for those people, the Africans, who wanted to buy liquor to do so legally as this Bill envisages. Coloured women were prevented from buying liquor. That did not help and then the mailers developed, of which it has been proved that there are between 20,000 and 30,000 in Cape Town. When that developed too far, liquor licensing boards started hammering on the hours. First of all, Coloured people were precluded from buying liquor on a Saturday, and then the hours were shortened on the Friday. The result is that this market of illicit buyers still exists but the bona fide man who does his work and wants to buy liquor on a Friday afternoon to take home for the week-end cannot do so. because by the time he has finished work the bottle stores are closed, but the person who sells liquor illicitly to the Natives is free all day to do so, and why should he work? If he works, he earns approximately 15s. a day as an unskilled labourer, but if he carries one bottle of brandy a day to an African he gets 15s. 6d., because the price is 30s., whilst he pays 14s. 6d. for it. I use this argument to prove that the curtailment of hours never got to the root of the trouble. There are still hundreds of thousands of Africans who want liquor and who are getting it illegally and at a price, and the price is such that the man who carries the liquor is so tempted to do so that he does not take a job and work. He need only sell a few bottles of brandy a week to have an income equal to that of the man who does an honest job of work. I realize that it is a tremendous problem, but to argue that the present state of affairs should continue is just as futile. But I wish to appeal to the Minister at this stage. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) quite rightly used the example of what happened when he was a member of a liquor licensing board, and it is perfectly correct that Coloured women asked members to impose a restriction on the hours in order that their husbands might come home and bring their wages home. May I appeal to the hon. the Minister, with the experience of what has happened in Cape Town over the past few decades, that what should rather be done is to ensure that the workman brings home his wages, whether he is a Native, a White man or a Coloured—because the problem is just as acute amongst the Whites—is to shut the bottle stores and bars completely on a Friday, because on Friday they get their pay, but leave them open on Saturdays so that if they want to buy liquor in moderation they can do so without being forced to go to a shebeen. What has the curtailment of hours for the Coloureds done now? It has had the result that over the last 20 years shebeens have flourished in the Coloured areas, because they cannot get liquor at the bottle stores after five o’clock on Friday. And as far as the heavy and the building industries are concerned, they lose an hour per man per week, because most of them now have to pay their men at 4 p.m. on Fridays in order to allow them to get to the off-sales before 5 p.m. Just prohibiting them from getting it by cutting the hours will only result in further illicit liquor dealing.

While we realize that this is a difficult problem and that strict control has to be exercised, I quite candidly fail to see how I can agree with these people who are opposed to this measure in principle and who would rather see the present position going on. Various references have been made to prohibition in other parts of the world. In this circular sent out by the Temperance Alliance a very interesting figure is given, that seven per cent of the population of the U.S.A, are alcoholics and that a further six per cent are problem drinkers. But will any organization in South Africa or in the United States go to the Government and ask them to impose total prohibition again? Never, because the experiment failed. I have a cutting here to the effect that when the last illegal distillery of Al Capone was cleared up in Chicago the equipment alone in it was sold, at that time, in 1929, for 250,000 dollars. Therefore I believe that the figures of the profits and the rate of illicit liquor dealing in South Africa are not out of proportion at all. So we stand before this problem that as far as total prohibition is concerned, it did not work in America. Here we have partial prohibition, with the people prohibited from getting liquor living their lives among those who have free access to it or partial access to it, and how on earth can you prevent them from getting it? Must we have this corruption, this moral cancer, going on and on, without making some attempt to curb it by making these facilities accessible to the people in a legal manner? The argument might be advanced that it is contrary to the tribal customs or the natural habits of the African to drink brandy. The argument was advanced here that it is contrary to tribal custom for a young man or woman to drink, but when other measures are discussed in this House the same members go to great lengths to prove that the hundreds of thousands of Africans in the urban areas have become detribalized and are not bound by tribal laws and customs any more, but have acquired the ways and customs of the Whites. Just as I would not like to make two stories of that issue, I would not like to do it as far as the minimum fine which was suggested is concerned either, because I am against it in principle that the discretion should be taken out of the hands of the magistrates. We must be consistent in our approach to these matters, and the same applies when we talk about tribal customs of the Africans in regard to this problem. When I say this, I fully bear in mind that in Zululand and the Transkei and in other Native areas where you have the tribal laws and customs on a much more solid and firm foundation than in the urban areas, the position is different. I learned that at the University of Stellenbosch when I took Native Administration, but since those years the urban African population has increased a hundredfold and there are generations living in the urban areas who know nothing about the tribal ways of drinking of their forebears in the reserves. If you stand before the problem as to whether we are going to perpetuate prohibition on one part of the population on racial lines, and we hear the arguments advanced about the high percentage of alcoholics in South Africa, many hon. members who took part in the debate forgot one essential fact. They mentioned the high figures of convictions for drunkenness amongst the Coloureds, 2,983 out of every 100,000, but it does not mean that those 2,983 are all alcoholics. They might be problem drinkers or they might be regular drinkers, people who get drunk, but an alcoholic is a person who has become addicted to the drug alcohol and whose drinking is beyond his own control. In Sweden total prohibition was applied until a few years ago, and to their consternation they discovered that in spite of prohibition they had the highest percentage of alcoholics of any country in Europe except France, and as far as France is concerned scientists approach the problem on a different basis because there the problem is different in the sense that children grow up drinking wine, very much the same as applies to many Coloureds in South Africa as the result of the tot system on the farms. When we stand before these facts, how can we go on allowing 200,000 people every year to go to gaol and to be made criminals, just because they bought liquor, just what the next man is getting but they have to pay a much higher price on the illicit market? I fully agree that there is the problem that their families might suffer deprivation, but very few people in approaching this matter, like the Temperance Alliance or the churches which have now sent out so many circulars, have really consulted the sociologists and the scientists who have studied the problem and asked them why it is that the rate of drunkenness amongst the Coloureds is so high. I have read a great deal about this and I have had practical experience of it and it is a well-known fact, admitted by all scientists, that drunkenness amongst the Coloureds is mainly attributable to the fact that they have no normal family life in the sense that we know it. Overcrowding and bad housing and lack of housing are the root causes of it. A man goes from work and enters a bar and drinks because it is hell for him to go home to a small room with three families in it. That has been the finding of scientists from time to time, and when the Temperance people and the church leaders speak about this matter, did I ever hear any of them protest against the fact that the Group Areas Act held up housing for so many years?

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

In conclusion, may I point out to the Minister that while one accepts the Bill in principle there are other factors which might be considered and which I hope the Minister will consider. That is, inter alia, the fact that a man of a low level of education and earning a low wage can go into places to drink, perfectly legally, but there is nobody in the form of the barman or the hotel proprietor to curb their drinking, and once he walks out drunk and is picked up by the police it is not the responsibility of those who sold the liquor to them. I wonder whether some form of control in that respect can be considered. The former speaker referred to the fact that the Minister had said that this Bill was an experiment and he asked whether we must experiment with the lives and the suffering of people. But, on the other hand, an experiment that has been a failure up to now has been playing with human passions and emotions, and with all the restrictions and the laws we have had up to now we have had no success and the problem has become worse every year. I hope that in voting for the second reading of this Bill and accepting the principle enshrined in the Bill as it stands now, we will be on the threshold on an era where we will meet better days in regard to this problem. May I express the hope that the forebodings many members expressed in this House will not be worse than what we have had up to now.

I do not wish to detain the House long. This has been an extremely interesting debate, interesting for the combination of motives which have influenced hon. members either to vote for or against the Bill. The observer of the debate has experienced the delicious irony of hearing from hon. members on that side of the House, the protagonists of White supremacy, the argument that this legislation has to be passed in order that we should allow to the African those things which we allow for ourselves and on the other hand we have learned from hon. members on this side, who are normally to be found in the forefront of the fighters for the extension of privileges to the Africans, the allegation that the Africans are, after all, little better than barbarians and should be allowed very little in the way of liquor. So the arguments have gone on, and I say it with the greatest of respect to hon. members that they have revealed considerable confusion of thought. For most of to-day the opposition to this measure has been conducted by hon. members who have spoken of the evils of alcoholism and the nuisance of drunkenness. Now, one has had occasion to see a good deal of alcoholism, and a very terrible thing it is, and extremely difficult to cure in any way. But I think that anyone who has ever treated alcoholics will agree at once that you have not got the faintest hope of preventing any alcoholic from being one in South Africa by trying to withhold liquor from him. He will find the drink even in a totally dry country, but certainly in a country like South Africa which is two-thirds wet and one-third dry you can never prevent an alcoholic from getting what he wants. I do not know whether hon. members are acquainted with some of the things that alcoholics drink when they cannot get liquor, and I am talking about White people now. I do not know whether hon. members have heard of some hair oil preparations which are on the market and which contain a high percentage of alcohol, and which is consumed in large quantities by alcoholics when they cannot buy wine or brandy. I do not know whether hon. members know of the alcoholic content of brake fluid and of methylated spirits and the various things that an alcoholic will drink if he cannot get liquor. In regard to drunkenness, this is not quite so true. The ordinary cheerful Saturday night drunk probably will not get drunk on hair oil. but he also has the habit of finding his way to alcohol. So in the circumstances that exists in South Africa to-day, to pretend that you can check alcoholism or drunkenness simply by maintaining that an African cannot buy liquor is more futile than the old lady who sought to sweep back the sea with a broom. Conversely, if there were any truth in the argument that by prohibition you can prevent alcoholism and drunkenness, we will have to look ourselves in the face as Whites and prohibit liquor to ourselves in order to prevent the very widespread alcoholism that exists amongst South Africans of all races. If one believes that by prohibition one can check it amongst all races, there might be a case for prohibition in South Africa. Yet it has been common cause between all hon. members who have spoken that firstly there is no practical value in total prohibition, and that secondly the measure of prohibition which exists in South Africa does not prevent any man who wants liquor badly enough from getting it. That being so, alcoholism, horrible though it is, and the nuisance and the danger of drunkenness, have nothing to do with this Bill at all. The alcohol for those purposes will be obtained whether this Bill goes through or not. We are dealing here with a measure which must be judged by certain other criteria which I will come to, but not by alcoholism and drunkenness.

Now, the protagonists of the Bill suggest strongly that the main purpose is to stop the illicit traffic in liquor. A great deal has been said about this and I do not want to add very much to it except to say that I agree to a large extent with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and by others, that while the passage of a Bill of this sort may, and I think will, reduce sharply the scope of illicit liquor traffic, I do not believe it will stop it or that it will stop shebeening. I think the moment the licensing hours are over the shebeens will open and you will always find people with a desire for these brews which are not normal liquor. I also think there is a good deal in the argument which has been put from this side of the House that even if this Bill does break the neck of the illicit liquor trade, the effect may very well be that the Africans will simply buy twice as much liquor because they will only have to pay half as much for it; and I would not be a bit surprised to find drunkenness amongst the Africans maintained or even increasing.

The next reason advanced by the supporters of the Bill is that it is a grievance that the African has that he is not allowed to buy liquor whereas the Brown man and the White man can, and that we should be prepared to free the African from this grievance. Of course hon. members will not be surprised to know that I have great sympathy with this argument, but it does seem to me to be extraordinary, as was pointed out by the Temperance organization in their memorandum, that if the object of the Government is to remove a grievance of the Africans, they should start with this particular one. There are. after all, so many statutory offences which send so many Africans to gaol and there are so many discriminations against the Africans which are applied every day to make them feel that they are inferior beings. I have little sympathy with the argument advanced by hon. members in favour of the Bill that it is necessary to remove one of the grievances from the lives of the Africans.

Then hon. members were at great pains to explain that none of them were speaking in the interests of the wine industry, although some of them have told us at length what a fine industry it is. I accept that nothing is further from the minds of hon. members representing wine farming constituencies than that their constituents should make more profits, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for the wine industry to want to make more profits. just as it is for the boot and shoe industry. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the Minister’s side of the House, while assiduously denying that they are interested in the future of the wine industry, nevertheless referred to that industry in complimentary terms. The Chairman of the Commission has told us that 60 per cent of the liquor production of this country goes to the illicit market. If that is true, and if all that liquor is being sold now, it is hardly likely that very much more will be sold now that it becomes possible for the recipients of the liquor to buy directly. The hon. the Minister of Transport interjected to ask me whether I was for or against the Bill. What I have been doing is to explain that I am not very much impressed by any of the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, nor by those advanced against it. But I will put the Minister out of his misery and tell him that I will vote for the second reading and I will tell him why. What hon. members opposite are doing to a large extent is what T. S. Eliot, in one of the most penetrating lines in modern English poetry said—

And to a very large extent that is the position in regard to the support given to this Bill. I am going to support the Bill for a perfectly simple reason, a reason of principle to me which goes beyond and above any of the reasons advanced here. I am going to support the Bill because the liquor law as it is at present is a race discriminatory measure. I hate all race discrimination. It is true that this Bill does not completely abolish race discrimination, but it goes a very long way towards it. It takes away one particular stigma against people of colour. The principle of this Bill, as I understand it, is that the sale of liquor to non-Whites should be liberalized and extended and that the racial discrimination applied against them in this respect will now be removed. For that reason, to remove that discrimination, I will support the second reading, but I do not contend that alcoholism or drunkenness will be reduced in South Africa by this Bill going through. I do not believe the illicit liquor market will be abolished, and I do not believe that many of the other roseate dreams which have been sketched for us by hon. members will come true. I believe that if we want to get rid of alcoholism and drunkenness, what we require is widespread socio-economic reforms of a kind which you, Sir, would not allow me to discuss now. That, and not a Bill of this sort, is the answer to the evils of drink. The principle of the Bill is that liquor should now be sold to Africans and I propose to support that principle at the second reading. Like the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) and others on this side who have taken the same line as I do, I am anxious about several of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Particularly am I anxious about the Minister’s control over the distribution of liquor to Africans. Enough has been said on that subject to make it unnecessary for me to go into details why I am concerned, but I am concerned with subsection (7) of the new Clause 100bis which deals with the distribution of profits, and I hope the Minister will be able to give satisfactory answers on all these matters. Provided he does, my support for the Bill will continue. If not, I too must reserve my right to vote as I please at the third reading. In principle, I have no doubt that this is a measure to ameliorate racial discrimination and for that reason I shall support it.

I do not intend to detain the House for long. We have had a very full debate on this side of the House. I am extremely sorry that we have not had similar contributions from that side. But we have had a full debate and a sincere attempt from these benches to assess the merits and demerits of the Bill. We have made an attempt to weigh up the possible advantages against the disadvantages. I believe that in casting their votes at the end of the debate members on this side will have had the benefit of a long and free discussion. But to put it at its lowest, in certain respects this discussion has appeared to devolve upon one thing, that if we give the Africans liquor legally they will drink too much in future. On the other hand, we have had the argument that if we continue the present system they will obtain liquor illegally anyway. In fact, it reminds me of a poem I learnt early in my life—

The debate in many respects has reminded me of that. The situation is very serious, but I think the Minister has not made his task or that of the House much easier by the manner in which the Bill was presented. I think it is an extremely difficult thing for any member to assess exactly what the effects of this Bill are going to be, because there is so much doubt as to the precise measures, administratively, which the Minister will adopt in implementing this legislation.

You first of all get the authority in the hands of the Minister to licence or authorize persons or associations of persons or urban authorities or Bantu authorities to sell liquor, for on and off-consumption, to Natives, and in that particular section, under these authorities, the Minister can decree what type of liquor can be madde available. Then you get Section 100ter, which is enough to frighten anyone out of his wits, because in terms of this clause it seems as if the Minister can and will extend liquor privileges to all classes of persons over the age of 18 in any area. Then you get to 100quin, in terms of which the Minister can exclude any areas from the provisions of 100ter. But the Minister cannot in terms of 100quin prescribe the type of liquor to be made available. So it looks to me that the Minister in terms of his powers under 100bis prescribes the type of liquor for sale in a certain area and that he then uses 100quin to exclude the provisions of 100ter. The thing is as clear as mud. One does not know, in attempting to arrive at an assessment of the effects of this Bill, what those effects will be, because of the tremendously wide discretion in the hands of the Minister and the doubt that exists as to the manner in which he will exercise it and the lengths to which he will go. He has not made the task of weighing the pros and cons very much easier.

I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us some idea of the manner in which he intends to apply this Bill. That will give us a much clearer idea as to what the situation is. You see, Sir, on the pro side there is the fact, I believe, that you will to a large extent diminish this tremendous racketeering that goes on in liquor in this country. Hon. members have often referred to the situation in America in the prohibition era. I want to say that from my personal knowledge that system of racketeering applies in the Native townships to-day to almost the same degree that it did in the days of Capone in the United States. I believe that the acceptance of this Bill will tend to diminish that, and that it will tend to improve race relations and that to a large extent we will be able to do away with liquor raiding. I believe that liquor raiding is one of those things in our social and political life which tends to aggravate and exacerbate race relations, and the tragedy of Cato Manor not so long ago is an example of it. I believe that the problem of alcoholism remains a problem whether we have this Bill or not. I do not think that it matters at all in regard to the question of alcoholism. One of my hon. friends on these benches made the point that our consumption of liquor in this country per capita was the highest in the world. I want to say that I do not believe that that consumption is legal consumption—I believe that a very high percentage of it is illegal consumption. As I say, Sir, there are pros and cons to this matter but I believe that in the final analysis the social evils that exist and arise from our existing liquor laws are greater than the evils that will arise from the application of this Bill. For that reason I am going to vote for the second reading. I hope, as I have said, that in his third reading speech the hon. the Minister will tell us how he intends to apply these three sections, 100bis, 100ter and 100quin. I think the Minister should do that in the interests of this House and in the interests of his own objectives in this Bill. I believe that this Bill will eradicate many of the social evils that arise from our present liquor legislation. For that reason I intend to vote for it and I also believe that this is an experiment and that in the course of that experiment the Minister should have wide powers. But I think he should tell us how he intends to exercise those powers. I think members on this side of the House will have many amendments to propose in the Committee Stage but at this stage I intend voting for the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, a wide field has been covered between Friday and to-day. I want to say at once that many speakers on both sides of the House have approached this Bill objectively and I am very grateful to hon. members for doing so. Of course there have been one or two exceptions to-day where hon. members have been unable to resist the temptation of dragging a little politics into the matter. It is probably difficult to hold a debate and not touch upon politics. The only objection in the political field, was, it seemed to me, that this side of the House is not acting like the official Opposition. I understand that the official Opposition have allowed their members freedom to speak and vote as they wish. So I understand. This side of the House is a party which when principles are involved, as is the position in this case, adopt a standpoint and if there are members on this side who feel that they would prefer to refrain from voting, then we say: Very well, do so. But the party as a party adopts a standpoint. That is the difference. There is nothing strange about it. I do not think it is correct to say that historically it has now become the practice in South Africa for the parties when the liquor legislation is being discussed, to allow their members to vote as they like. Since 1928 a large number of amendments have been made to the Liquor Act, and I think that on those occasions the practice which has been described to us to-day was followed. The attitude of the National Party is clear and it is that this is a Bill which involves a matter of principle; particularly since the events of last year representations have been made to the Government that the Coloureds and the Natives, and particularly Natives, have grievances. Their attitude is, quite correctly as far as this question of liquor is concerned, that they are treated differently to the White. The Coloureds have the same grievance. They complain that this constitutes discrimination. The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) has referred to this aspect. That being so, is it so wrong of the National Party to say: Here there is a grievance which we see our way clear to removing in accordance with the principles which we uphold both as regards the Natives and the Coloureds. What is wrong with that? That is why I say this Bill involves a principle; there is an object underlying this Bill, namely that grievances must be removed; here we have discrimination which causes grievances. The hon. member for Maitland has asked why we have chosen this grievance while there are so many other grievances. But the fortunate position is that the National Party sits on this side of the House and it is in a position where it can choose. That is my only reply. If we had chosen another grievance, the hon. member would once again have asked why we had chosen that one. As I have said, there are grievances which cause evils and which must be eliminated. In this respect it did not seem to me that there was any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House; both sides have referred to the vast evils which have grown from the existing system. Some of the members who are opposed to the Bill have unfortunately rather exaggerated matters. These hon. members have depicted an unrealistic picture. They have not taken the facts into account. I have been sorry to see that certain hon. members have resorted to depicting pictures which are not realistic. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has also unfortunately gone so far—I did not expect this of him—as to say that, if this Bill is adopted, the Natives and the Coloureds will be able to buy liquor freely and how many assaults on women and children in isolated areas will there not be! But has the hon. member ever studied the present facts? I am—I can almost say—in the unfortunate position that I come into contact with the very worst type of case involving assaults, etc. But what are the facts? The facts are that under the present liquor distribution system most of these cases of assault are the result of these unsatisfactory conditions which prevail to-day. It is not the person who drinks decent liquor who commits these offences. It is those people who come from the shebeens, those people who are mad from skokiaan, shimiaan and other types of liquor which they drink there. It is this evil which we want to eliminate, and I have been very surprised that especially the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), who is a medical practitioner, has tried to depict the picture to us which he has in fact depicted, I think for lack of better arguments. This is the very system we want to eradicate. What does the hon. member want? Apparently we must appoint more police in South Africa to see whether we cannot eliminate the shebeen queens and their pernicious activities. Must we appoint more police in order to destroy the illicit brews which are being made? How many police will we not have to appoint in this country to do all that? I am glad the hon. member for South Coast is back in his place because a moment ago I expressed my surprise at the attitude the hon. member has adopted and at the fact that he has asked us how many women and children will now be endangered. I have already expressed my opinion on that point. I do not think the hon. member has adopted a realistic attitude bearing in mind the present-day facts.

This Bill must go through this Session for the simple reason that we must try to eradicate this system which has developed in this country. The position cannot continue any longer as it is. The Malan Commission has told us that; the police have told us that and so have all the people who deal with these matters. They tell us that we must proceed with this Bill. Many representations have been submited to both sides of the House but I do not want to go into them. However, I think that the example to which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has referred is worth emphasizing, namely, the opinion of the Institute of Race Relations in respect of this Bill. I shall just read their recommendation—

This is an opinion which is not opposed to this Bill. [Laughter.] Is it so wrong, because we do not always agree with what they say, for us to agree with them when they make a statement such as this? Hon. members have also said that the Bantu have not been consulted. But the Department of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is in daily contact with the Bantu. We have consulted this Department and they have given us valuable advice in respect of this matter. I have here a letter from Dr. Matheson, the Director of non-European Affairs of the Benoni City Council, which reads, inter alia, as follows—

He is the Director of the Institute for non-White Affairs in Southern Africa and he to a large extent exercises control over the locations.

Did he say that in respect of this Bill?

This letter is dated 13 June 1961. The heading is “Supply of Liquor to Bantu”. I have also received this telegram to-day from the President of the Institute of non-White Affairs in Southern Africa—

These are a few examples which I could not resist the temptation to read. It is therefore not correct for hon. members to say that people who know anything of Bantu affairs are opposed to this Bill. There is another side to the picture as well.

Hon. members have discussed a number of points which I think can very well be discussed at the Committee Stage. We can use all the arguments we consider necessary at that stage but I just want to direct the attention of the House briefly to one or two of the main points which have been raised. In the first place I should like to express my thanks to hon. members who have indicated how we should enlighten the Bantu and the Coloureds when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book regarding the provisions of the Bill and the regulations which will be issued in terms of the Bill. The hon. members for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) and Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) have suggested, for example, that the Press and the radio should be used for this purpose. I shall go into the possibility of doing so because I agree that we should use the radio particularly to explain to the non-Whites the provisions of the Bill and the regulations which will be issued under the Bill. We shall of course welcome all assistance from the Press in this regard as well. These people must understand what their rights are in terms of this new legislation.

Hon. members have asked what we are going to do with the profits derived from the authorized drinking premises. My reply is the following: Let us assume that there is a Bantu or an association of Bantu in a Bantu area who obtain such an authority to run a liquor distribution point. In terms of our policy I think it is reasonable that the profits should be left in their hands. That is in the case of individuals. But when we turn to municipalities and local authorities, it will only be reasonable to hand over certain of the profits to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development so that he can plough them back in the form of housing, etc., for the benefit of the Natives of the area concerned. I think that this will be a reasonable way to use the profits.

Then it has been said that under this Bill the Minister is taking undue powers to issue these authorities to various organizations to enable them to control the liquor distribution points. I just want to say that if difficulties arise which the Minister must deal with, he will in any case not do so personally but will consult all the organizations concerned in this regard. I would be very sorry if a Minister who succeeds me were to do so because I should not like to give my personal attention to such a matter before, of course, it is submitted to me personally. I shall obtain all possible advice. I shall start with the National Liquor Board. If it is a matter involving the Bantu I shall consult the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; if it is a matter involving the Coloureds, I shall consult the Department of Coloured Affairs. Thus I should like to consult all possible interested parties before I take any action. While I have been told that I should be very careful in applying the provisions of this Bill, I have already told the House that I intend being careful so as to make a true experiment of this Step. Hon. members have said that once we have introduced such a measure we can never go back but after all the measure deals with the application and the control of the distribution of liquor. These are relative matters; one can change them from time to time. I just want to repeat what I said on Friday. If we find from experience that there are loopholes which must be plugged and that we must take other steps to improve the distribution of liquor, I will be the first to help in doing so. I have said that it is our intention to publish a consolidated Liquor Act roundabout October—I hope it will be in October—which will also cover the provisions we are now considering. When this Bill is published, the whole country will have an opportunity to comment on it and when it comes before the House, the House will have all the necessary information available and then we can give further consideration to the Bill.

In October?

I say that if it is possible I hope to publish the Bill in October so that hon. members will have a few months during which to study the Bill and so that we can obtain information as to what the general feeling is. A consolidated Liquor Bill has become an absolute necessity. Hon. members know what it means to understand the Liquor Act properly—the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Horak) has referred to this aspect—they know how difficult it is to interpret a Bill such as this when a whole series of other laws are involved. It is clear that we must have a consolidated Liquor Bill.

Then I have been asked whether the National Board cannot be extended. There are to be three officials: The chairman, probably a magistrate, the chief of police or his representative and the Secretary for Justice, or his representative. Then there will be a further three persons who, I hope, will in practice represent the following three groups: The consumers, the producers and the trade itself. The Government will have to appoint these three persons because I am afraid that if these three bodies must appoint a person to serve on the Board, they will never agree as to who they should appoint.

How will you decide upon the representative of the users?

We shall look around and if there is a prohibitionist, we shall appoint him! Seriously though: In this case we shall consult the interested parties who should be consulted. We cannot extend the Board any further. If we add another person to represent another sector, we shall find that there will be three, four or more other sectors which will ask for representation. If we open the door I do not know where it will end. I say we must make the experiment and if it appears later that the position must be changed, we can always put forward arguments to prove why that should be done.

I think that these are more or less all the important points which have been raised …

What will be the status of the persons who issue the liquor licences? Will they be public servants?

I shall be glad if the hon. member will raise that point during the Committee Stage.

I just want to raise one personal point. I was criticized on Friday when it was said that I as Minister of Defence stopped the supply of liquor to the Defence Force and now I have introduced a Bill of this nature. But let us keep to the facts; this is after all a place where one can occasionally be allowed to keep to the facts! The fact of the matter is that certain evils developed in connection with the consumption of liquor in the Defence Force, evils which we wished to eradicate. I adopted the attitude that for a period I would close the places where liquor could be obtained. I appointed a committee to go into the whole matter. The committee submitted its report and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, has implemented that report. Now that we have applied the recommendations of this committee all these evils have been eradicated. Thus we have achieved what we were seeking. And now we are seeking something different. Here we have evils which the Government feels must be eradicated. That is our object. I do not know why hon. members are now criticizing me for doing so. I think that in this case we must consider the facts realistically. When one listened to the arguments of certain hon. members to-day, one would have thought that there was no such thing as an illicit brew in South Africa, that there was no such thing as a shebeen queen, that there was no such thing as crimes as a result of drunkenness, that there was no such thing as the fact that these illicit brews not only make the Bantu so drunk that they lose all sense of reason, but that they cannot go to work on Monday or Tuesday, that they make them so ill that South Africa loses millions of working hours annually. We now want to improve the position. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said that the people have asked us for bread and we are giving them brandy. Is that a fair submission to make? What happens to-day is that when the breadwinner receives his pay at the end of the week, instead of that money being used to buy bread for the family, it goes to the shebeen; that liquor is drunk on an empty stomach and then the father of the house is not in a position to care for his family. But I want to add this: These illicit brews have the result that thousands of families are deprived of their breadwinners annually because they mow them down like fleas, according to medical evidence. This is an evil which exists to-day and I think it is a very good thing that the Government has decided to introduce this Bill in order by so doing to destroy that evil once and for all.

Motion put and the House divided;

Ayes—96: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Butcher, R. R.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Durrant, R. B.; Erasmus, F. C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H.; Luttig. H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Swart, R. A. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Tucker, H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waterson, S. F.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—23: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hughes, T. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Swart, H. G.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Williams,, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.