I move—

In Clause 1, to add the following proviso at the end of the clause:

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I will deal with the amendment and with the reasons which have caused it. The effect of the amendment which I have moved is to exclude from the operations of the new definition contained in Clause 1 of this Bill, those people, in the first place, who have already been classified, and in the second place those people who have applied to be classified but whose classification has been frozen by the hon. the Minister’s Department for various reasons, one of the reasons apparently being that their classifications had not been made because the Department was awaiting the passing of this Bill into law.

The persons who will fall to be protected under the amendment which I have moved are those who have already been classified as White. The effect of the definition is to exclude from the status of being a White person certain people who would, but for the amendment in this Bill, be entitled to be classified as White. In other words, Sir, the amendment is designed to give security and protection to those people who have got home as White under the old definition but who will be excluded from the status of being a White person in terms of the new definition. My amendment, therefore, protects persons who have been classified as White in the first place, and who would, but for my amendment, become non-White by law as soon as this amending Bill is passed. As far as they are concerned, I want to say that in terms of this definition there could be thousands of people who overnight, by operation of law, will become non-White people. The sort of person whom I have in mind and who this amendment is designed to protect, is the sort of person contemplated in Clause 1 (b). That is the sort of person who is dark in colour and therefore falls to be dealt with in terms of the new definition under (b); the person who might not have any non-European blood in him at all, the person who before, although he was dark in colour, was accepted as a White person and was entitled to be classified as White. Those dark people, although having no Coloured blood, fall now, in terms of the law, to become non-European overnight. This is the one class of person which this amendment is designed to protect.

The other type of person this amendment is designed to protect are the persons who, although they have been White for generations, admit of a Coloured ancestor somewhere along the line. My amendment is designed to provide that those persons who honestly admit that somewhere along the line they had a Coloured ancestor, will not be re-classified in terms of the new definition. Were it not for my amendment, anyone who makes such an admission hereafter will automatically be excluded from the position of being a White person.

As I have said, this amendment is also designed to protect those persons who have applied to be classified but whose classifications have not yet been made. There are many thousands of them. The effect of this amendment would be that all those persons, when they are classified, should be classified in terms of the law which existed at the time they made their applications for classification.

The reason why this amendment has been moved is that the hon. the Minister gave an understanding that he would not re-classify persons who have already been classified. He would not use the new definition to exclude anyone who had managed to get home as White from that position. That is the only reason for this amendment, Sir.

To illustrate I want to deal very briefly with the case of Mrs. Singh. I will not dwell on it; I will just refer to it in passing. It is a simple isolated incident. But the hon. the Minister did say that Mrs. Singh was one of the people who he wanted to have the power to deal with in terms of the new definition. I think the Minister has in fact dealt with that in terms of the amendment which he accepted to this clause in the Committee Stage, namely that a person cannot just admit that she is a Coloured person by descent. You cannot just do that and become non-White. It is possible for the Minister and his Department or for anyone else to prove that the admission that the person is not White is in fact not true. So Mrs. Singh does not become an obstacle to the hon. the Minister accepting the amendment which I have moved. That objection, in my submission, therefore falls away. Not faced with that difficulty, I submit there is no other valid reason why this amendment should not be accepted by the hon. the Minister. As I have said the hon. the Minister has given this undertaking. And if that undertaking means anything then I submit this amendment must be accepted.

I want to deal with the objections which have been raised to the acceptance of this amendment. I want to suggest that none of them has in fact any substance. It is precisely this amendment, in precisely the form in which it was moved in the Committee Stage, that was rejected by the hon. the Minister in the first instance, because he said it would prevent other persons from objecting to the re-classification of any person under the principal Act. That was his first reason for rejecting this amendment. If one looks at the words of this amendment it is very clear that is in fact not so. In the first place it does not in any way amend or try to interfere with any of the other provisions of the principal Act and certainly not with the provision that other people may object to the re-classification of any other person. In the second place, Sir, the amendment says that they shall not be reclassified in terms of this definition. So that they may be re-classified, persons may object, and they may all be re-classified. But, Sir, they can only be re-classified in terms of the old definition. They may not be re-classified in terms of this definition. So I think that objection of the hon. the Minister’s falls away.

The other objection the Minister had was met by a further amendment. The hon. the Minister said that if there was an error, then in terms of Section 5 of the principal Act, it would not be possible for the Registrar to put right what he called a bona fide error. My submission is that also is not true for the same reason, Sir, viz. that it is not correct to say that The ability of people to object to other persons’ classifications will be affected by this amendment. As before, Sir, the provisions relating to bona fide errors in the principal Act are not dealt with in this amendment, and in the second place, all that this says is that they cannot be re-classified in terms of this definition. They may be re-classified in terms of the old definition, but not in terms of this definition.

The hon. the Minister dealt with another matter and he said there was a number of other people who will want to be re-classified and who will not be able to be re-classified unless they avail themselves of the admission provided for in Clause 1. As far as that is concerned, that is dealt with in this amendment. It provides that you can be re-classified in terms of the new definition if you so request it.

It has also been suggested that if this amendment were accepted, it would not be possible to have people judged by the definition which has been repealed by the legislature. I submit that again is not a valid argument. This sort of thing has been going on for years. Ever since this Parliament has been here laws have been passed changing the law and its application in the future in respect of certain people. I submit that is precisely what comes into play here. Laws are not made retrospective unless the Statute says they are. This will, therefore, only apply to people in the future and anyone in the past whose rights fall to be determined will be determined by the law which existed at the time their rights became, what I will call, vested, that is up to the time of the passing of the Statute. I want to give an example of this because this was an objection raised to this amendment, namely, that having repealed the old definition you could not classify anyone in terms of it. I want to give an example which comes readily to mind and which fits the Bill. The legal fraternity on the other side of the House will appreciate it. I think it was in 1933 that a law was passed by this Parliament that persons in Natal who had the right of dual practice—that is they could practice as an advocate and as an attorney—should not from then on be entitled to practice in both capacities. From then on they were obliged either to practice as an attorney or as an advocate. From that moment on, Sir, the law said that anyone who came to be admitted to the Bar or to the Side Bar could only be admitted to one or the other, and not to both as in the past. But, Sir, at the same time those persons who were admitted before that Act was passed as attorneys or as advocates, were entitled to practice as both and their rights to-day are determined by the law which existed before that law was passed in 1933 prohibiting anyone in the future from practising in both capacities. In that example. Sir, the law was repealed, but the rights of the persons—many of them are still alive and still practising—are determined in accordance with the provisions of the law which was in fact repealed. That is precisely what is going to happen here. And so, Sir, I think that objection also falls away.

There is one other objection which the hon. the Minister might in a fanciful moment take and that is that it might affect his rights or power to classify, in terms of Section 5 (1) of the principal Act, Coloureds and Natives into ethnic groups. I submit, Sir, that does not enter the picture. That is a subclassification to be determined only after the main question is determined—which is what this Bill deals with—as to the main classification into White, Coloured or Native.

I suggest that there is no reason to refuse this amendment. There is no reason why the House should not accept this amendment unless the House feels that the hon. the Minister’s assurance was not given properly. I am sure that no one will suggest that the hon. the Minister’s assurance was not given properly. I am sure that this House will, therefore, give effect to the assurance that the hon. the Minister has given, unless the Minister intends to re-classify members of already existing classified family units, or unless he intends also to classify differently those persons who have applied to be classified as Whites and who, under the existing law, will be entitled to be classified as White, and classify them as non-White in terms of the new definition. I ask this House and the hon. the Minister to honour the assurance which has been given by the hon. the Minister, regardless of the change; this was an assurance given by the Minister on behalf of the Government and I feel that in view of this assurance we are entitled to ask that such an assurance by the Government be put on the Statute Book. Surely we have not reached the stage yet where one’s rights are to be determined by assurances. I submit that this amendment should be accepted because individuals are entitled to know from the law what their rights are, not from assurances by the hon. the Minister, but from the law. They should be able to look at the law and say; I have certainty, I have safety, I know where I stand. If for no other reason than that they are entitled to security, to safety and certainty from the law, and not from the whim of the Minister, this amendment should be accepted.

I second.

Amendment put and the House divided:

AYES—48: Barnett. C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronie, F. J. C.; de Kock. H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood. B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux. G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher. D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney. H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout. G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand. F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo. A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

In Clause 4,

Amendment in Clause 4 put and agreed to.

I move—

In doing so, I would like to put my reasons for moving this amendment.

Order! I would like to say that I have had an opportunity of considering the amendment…

With respect. Sir, will you not permit us to put the case before you? I assume that you propose to rule that the amendment cannot be moved, and if that is so I would like to address argument to you.

It seems to me that the hon. member has the same views that I have. I have given very careful consideration to the amendment of which notice was given by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) and which he has just moved. In my opinion the effect of this amendment would be to destroy the principle of investigation into the particulars to be recorded in the Population Register, as contemplated by the Bill as read a second time, and in the circumstances I regret that I cannot accept it.

Sir, may I address you on that?

I am sorry, but that is my decision, after considering the matter very carefully. I now put the Bill as amended.

Sir, may I come back to your ruling?

Order! I have given my ruling, and the hon. member knows the rules. If he wants to query my ruling, he can only do so by a substantive motion.

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be adopted.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—78: Bekker. G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch. J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein. J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht. N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever. D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden. F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo. A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—47: Barnett. C.; Basson. J. A. L.; Bloomberg. A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan. J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds. P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Moore. P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp. L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and the Bill, as amended, accordingly adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 7 May.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the words “harbour or port of access” are defined in the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, Act 22 of 1913, as a place on the coast of the Republic or a railway station or a place in the Republic near or on one of the borders through which persons enter the Republic. In view of the fact that in the Act no mention is made of airports, aircraft or persons entering the Union by air, and the definition does not include these concepts either, it was necessary to provide in the Aviation Act of 1923 that the provisions of Act 22 of 1913 would also apply to airports, aircraft and persons entering the Republic by air. My colleague, the Minister of Transport, has already amended the Aviation Act of 1923. and in this Bill we make the provisions of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act in respect of entry through the seaports and other ports, and other provisions applying to it, applicable also to airports and aircraft. In essence all we are doing in this brief Bill is to make the provisions of the Aviation Act of 1923 applicable to this Act also.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a comparatively simple measure which is designed to overcome a problem which came to my notice when I appointed the Deputy Minister for South West Africa. This Bill is designed therefore to deal with two possible difficulties, neither of which is really serious. The one flows from the fact that, as hon. members are aware, my Department and I are responsible for the administration of South West Africa. When I sought to relieve my duties to a certain extent by appointing somebody to assist me in respect of South West Africa affairs, the problem was what his designation should be. It might have caused considerable confusion and given rise to complications to call him the Deputy Prime Minister, and it was obviously impossible to do so. That was the one problem. After all, if a person is appointed to assist the Prime Minister, he cannot be called the Deputy Prime Minister.

The second problem was that here we were dealing with a special sphere of work, which actually falls under various Ministers and Departments. In other words, the Minister of Bantu Administration also has certain duties in connection with South West Africa, and so has the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The solution that was then found, and which was perfectly legal, was to appoint this person and to describe him as a Deputy to the Prime Minister in connection with the latter’s duties in respect of South West Africa, as a Deputy to the Minister of Bantu Administration in respect of his duties with regard to South West, and as a Deputy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in so far as South West affairs are concerned, and to make it known that since he was to be a substitute, in terms of the existing law, for each of these Ministers and was to act in respect of their Departments, he would be described for the sake of brevity as Deputy Minister for South West Africa. But what I think would be the right course would be to amend the Constitution in such a way that it confers the right to appoint a Deputy Minister for a specific task. The change which I propose here therefore is simply that whereas it is stated to-day that if a Deputy Minister is appointed he is the substitute for a particular Minister in respect of his particular Department, the wording is now being altered so that the Deputy Minister’s title can indicate what functions are entrusted to him, even though it is a limited function within one Department, or a limited function within quite a number of Departments. It is a question therefore of making an appointment for a specific purpose for which somebody is needed. In this case, where a Deputy Minister for South West Africa was appointed, I must say that it has worked very effectively. It is useful in connection with the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments with reference to a particular subject. That is the whole key to this Bill, that it entitles one not only to appoint a Deputy Minister as a substitute for a particular Minister and then limiting his functions to a particular Department or a series of Departments, as has been done legitimately up to the present, but to make a direct appointment for a specific task with a suitable title which describes that particular task. That is what is being done in this Bill.

Furthermore, a few words are being omitted which are redundant because they also appear in Section 17 of the Constitution. I refer to the indication that he is not a member of the Executive Committee. That is already stated in Section 17 of the Constitution; it is tautology therefore and that is why we are omitting these words.

For the rest the clause is divided into three parts for the sake of clarity. No other substantial change is proposed here. The third part (c) of Clause 1 is necessary only because reference has already been made since then in other legislation to a substitute for a Minister, and since we are now bringing about the change in (a) which I have just explained, namely that one can describe the Deputy Minister in terms of his task and give him a special title in accordance with his task, instead of appointing him directly as the full substitute for a Minister in respect of his whole Department, it is also necessary to indicate in (c) that under other legislation that has since come into being, these functions can be performed as now provided for in (a). That is all the Bill contains.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to this legislation, but it does raise one or two rather interesting points. The first is this, that in the Republic the State President has the right to establish a State Department. In Britain I believe the various Departments or Ministries can only be established by statute. We are in the fortunate position that the State President can do so. One wonders whether in fact this legislation was necessary if the State President was in a position to establish a separate department to perform the functions which it is now proposed to bestow on the Deputy Minister. The result in Britain has been interesting, in that whereas it was found necessary to appoint a Minister to deal with Commonwealth affairs and colonial affairs in the absence of a statute it was found necessary to appoint a Secretary of State because only a Secretary of State, of which there are nine, seven functioning at the moment, can take over the functions of various ministries, and is held to have a roving brief of that sort. Now it seems that we are in the position that the Deputy Minister can be appointed to perform any odd function in the Department without the approval of the State President, and one wonders what the hon. the Prime Minister has in view in respect of this particular point, in that it would seem that here we have a Deputy Minister who will impinge upon the duties of a variety of Departments run by different Ministers. We would be grateful if the Prime Minister would give us an indication of the exact functions of the post he is now creating so that we can get some idea of what the scope of this Bill is and how he proposes to deal with matters in future. He is now in the position where in the past we had a deputy appointed for a particular Minister, to perform one or more of the functions of that Minister, but now we have a deputy who is apparently appointed to perform odd functions of the different departments of different Ministers, and one is inclined to ask who is his boss, who sees to it that he performs his job, or does he only fall under the Prime Minister, or is he responsible to each individual Minister in so far as he impinges upon the duties entrusted to those particular Departments? We should be grateful to have clarity in that regard. I may say we are more than relieved to find that, leaving out words with reference to him not being a member of the Executive Committee, it does not have the meaning we feared it might have, that Deputy Ministers also became members of the Cabinet. We already have 18 Cabinet Ministers, whereas a country like Britain has 21 now, and one feels that the Cabinet is quite big enough and the Opposition is having quite enough trouble as it is in keeping an eye on the various Ministers, and if one has to scatter oneself too widely it becomes a little difficult to devote attention to all of them.

I can comfort the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by saying there is no intention whatever to increase the size of the Cabinet. As far as the other point of the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, it is not the intention to establish a separate department and therefore in such cases it would not be in accordance with our intention that the State President should be deprived of any right he has at present, namely to establish a Department or not, or that he should be asked to exercise his right in such a direction.

That also leads me to the reply to the other point, and that is that any Deputy Minister remains according to this Bill under the jurisdiction of a Minister. It says that the State President may appoint any person to hold office during his pleasure as Deputy Minister of any State Department or Deputy Minister of such other description as the State President may determine, and to exercise or perform—and the following refers to both these positions—on behalf of the Minister any of the powers, functions and duties entrusted to such Minister. In other words, when there is a Deputy Minister for South West Africa any function which he performs is performed on behalf of the Minister who is actually and finally responsible. Therefore, when he operates on my behalf he has to act in accordance with instructions given by me, or under my control. If the same person has to perform certain duties for the Minister of Bantu Administration, he acts not under my jurisdiction but under the control of that particular Minister.

Is there no conflict?

There is no conflict possible, because at present I have my duties and that Minister has his duties, and if there can be no conflict between me and the other Minister, each performing his duties in respect of South West Africa, then there can be no conflict if a certain deputy becomes a useful link between these two Ministers in similar matters. That is actually how it works out. To-day I find much greater co-ordination in performing all tasks in connection with South West than we ever had before. This fear of conflict, I can assure the hon. member, need not arise.

But it could happen that a person is appointed as Deputy Minister for a specific task within a Department, like the Department of Economic Affairs, although I am not suggesting that this will happen. I am just giving an example on the spur of the moment. Supposing that within that Department we thought that attention should be given to planning we could want to appoint a Deputy Minister entrusted particularly with the task of planning. This planning might bring him in touch with other Departments but it would be the function of the specific Department to which he is appointed. Under such circumstances the Prime Minister might stress the fact that he does not want him to relieve the particular Minister of his duties in other respects. I could not make such an appointment before, but I can now, if it should be necessary. That is all there is to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I am sure hon. members will remember that during last year’s session Parliament approved of certain exchanges of notes between the Republic and the United Kingdom in which South Africa agreed that the Ottawa trade agreement could be amended in certain ways in order to enable Britain to comply with its obligations in terms of the Convention of the European Free Trade Association. Hon. members of course know that the Convention for the establishment of the Free Trade Association, or EFTA, came into operation on 3 May 1960 and that seven countries, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal, belong to it, and that this Association has become known as The Seven as contrasted with The Six of the European Common Market. On 27 March 1961 an agreement was signed in Finland in terms of which Finland could be associated with The Seven. The result is that the United Kingdom will now have to reduce the tariffs on the imports of industrial products from Finland to the same rate as those of imports from other EFTA member states. In other words, when Finland becomes associated with The Seven, Finland will have to be granted the same tariff preferences as the other members of The Seven. In all these cases the date set for the total elimination of tariffs is 1 January 1970, but in the light of the recent resolutions taken there the pace of the elimination or reduction of mutual import duties has been hastened, and the probability is that the total elimination of export duties between members of that association will take place before that date, provided the EFTA Convention remains in force. I say provided the EFTA Convention and the agreement with Finland remain in operation, because in view of the fact that the United Kingdom has now applied for membership of the European Common Market, the continued existence of EFTA has become uncertain. The result of the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the European Common Market cannot, however, be anticipated and in the meantime it is necessary for the United Kingdom to obtain this exemption in order to apply the EFTA Convention and the agreement with Finland.

The exchange of notes which was approved by Parliament last year grants exemption to the United Kingdom to eliminate the contractual preferences on certain products enjoyed by the Republic in the United Kingdom, as against the other EFTA member states, in terms of the EFTA Convention. The products in respect of which South Africa’s contractual preferences in the United Kingdom are affected by the agreement with Finland are precisely the same. In other words, last year I asked the House to grant Britain the right, in respect of a whole series of articles, to reduce the preferences South Africa has always enjoyed in respect of the other members of The Seven; and now I am asking the House, in respect of precisely the same commodities, also to forgo the preferences which South Africa enjoyed in Britain, in favour of Finland. I refer here to the following products: (1) Blue-veined cheese, a special kind of cheese made in Denmark; (2) wattle-bark and wattle extract; (3) mealie products, excepting those included in Schedule II of the Rome Agreement and which are therefore regarded as agricultural products; (4) whale products; (5) oyster-shell grit; (6) goatskins; (7) boxwood; (8) asbestos; (9) sausage casings; (10) ostrich feathers; (11) canned rock lobster; and (12) quick-frozen fillets of hake.

The British Government already requested the South African Government in April 1960 to agree to exempt it from the import duties on these products, in terms of the agreement with Finland, and to amend the Republic’s preferences in regard to these products. After the matter had been carefully considered by the Government, the British Government was informed that the South African Government was prepared to grant the desired exemption. Notes were exchanged to confirm the Republic’s agreement, and the House is now being asked to approve this exchange of notes.

Over and above the products I have mentioned, unsmelted copper also appears in the notes exchanged. The preference on this product has, however, never been put into operation, in view of the fact that it was subject to the condition that Commonwealth production should be offered to British consumers at not higher than world prices.

Hon. members will perhaps ask me now what the effect of this approval will be on South Africa’s trade, and in that connection I want to say the following: According to the published statistics of the United Kingdom, none of these products, with the possible exception of boxwood, is exported to the United Kingdom by Finland. In other words, in this sense we will not be affected. Boxwood is not indicated separately in the British statistics, and therefore it is not known whether Finland in fact exports this product to the United Kingdom or not. South Africa’s exports of boxwood to the United Kingdom in any case amounted to only R4,696 in 1959 and R1,052 in 1960, a minimal amount. According to the Forestry Department, supplies of boxwood are very limited and there is no possibility of extending the export trade to any appreciable extent. Therefore it is clear that the elimination of the relevant preferences will have practically no deleterious effect on South Africa’s foreign trade.

Finally, I should like to emphasize that the United Kingdom, as the result of the above-mentioned exchange of notes, has now been given the liberty to eliminate South Africa’s preferences on the products I have mentioned only in respect of Finland; in respect of the other countries outside EFTA the preferences in regard to these products are retained. South Africa’s contractual preferences in the United Kingdom on other export products like fresh and canned fruit and wine are not affected, because the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of customs tariffs between the EFTA member states applies only to industrial products, with certain exceptions.

Although it is not relevant to the motion under discussion, I just want to refer briefly to the position in regard to non-contractual preferences. South Africa’s non-contractual preferences in the United Kingdom on industrial products are in fact affected, because the United States is at liberty at any time to eliminate these non-contractual preferences.

I second.

We are indebted to the Minister for his full statement on this matter. It is quite clear from his full statement on this occasion as well as his full statement on the same matter last year, that this whittling away of our preferences is the inevitable consequence of the fundamental trading changes taking place in Europe, the establishment of EFTA and the fact, as the Minister himself has mentioned, that the Common Market is beginning to cast its shadow over EFTA too. I suppose that there is not very much that the Minister can do about it; as I say, this is the inevitable consequence of the big changes which are taking place, but we on this side do feel that the Minister can probably keep himself far more informed as to what is happening in Europe and what is happening as regards EFTA and the Common Market, because it is rather alarming, when one reads the newspapers and the proceedings of the Chambers of Industry, to see how poorly South Africa is represented, for instance, at Brussels, the headquarters of the Economic section of the Common Market, compared with certain other countries who will have to face the same consequences that we will have to face here. As the Minister himself has said, this deals specifically with EFTA but there seems to be very little doubt that further development will bring in the Common Market too.

Then there is another matter too. The Minister spoke of compensation last year for the whittling away of these preferences by the United Kingdom. There is also mention of compensation in the present notes that have been exchanged. I should like to know from the Minister exactly what type of compensation he envisages, because it is rather difficult to imagine what compensation we can get from the United Kingdom except to GATT. It certainly cannot be a question of re-establishing preferences in respect of other products; at best it can only be the reduction of certain tariffs, through GATT, which, of course, would be extended to all other parties to GATT too. I should very much like to hear from the Minister what sort of compensation he envisages and whether any steps are being taken in this respect.

This is the second occasion in just over a year that we have had to deal in this House with the question of EFTA. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has indicated, this is a position which is going to continue and continue in one form or another. The hon. the Minister, I think quite rightly, said in the course of his remarks, “If EFTA should continue to exist”, because with the development which is taking place in Europe to-day on the economic front, it is more than probable that EFTA in its present form may change very considerably. Sir, we are faced with one undeniable fact, and that is that the picture of economic trading throughout the world is moving into a completely new era. The circumstance of Finland joining EFTA is merely another indicator. If the United Kingdom were not considering joining the Common Market or if her application to the Common Market were not accepted, one would presuppose that there would be other countries, which are untied to these two organizations, which would join with EFTA.

This question of our representation abroad to watch these developments is causing us a great deal of concern. The hon. the Minister mentioned under his Vote that an economist was going to be sent to Europe to watch the position, but I would like to refer the Minister to his speech exactly a year earlier when he said exactly the same thing, namely that we are watching the position; that our ambassador is accredited and that we are going to send a trained economist to watch the position. That was in May 1961; to-day we are in May 1962. Where is that economist? Has he been appointed; when is he leaving?

He is watching the position.

Sir, the tragedy is that this Government will go down in history as the Government of “too little too late”, because we find in so many of our economic facets that too little is done too late. After the war when considerable expansion was taking place, many vast schemes were stopped when this Government came into power. We found that we could not export our minerals because the Railways could not handle them. We do not want a similar situation here in regard to EFTA or any other institutions which are set up to deal with exports. Sir, I could give another example but you would probably rule me out of order, and that is the question of immigrants, where we had exactly the same thing—too little too late. Now in the year of our Lord 1962 we start looking for immigrants.

It is interesting to see some of the figures in relation to these items which have been mentioned by the hon. the Minister and which are dealt with in the notes. In regard to goatskins, in 1959 our exports stood at R87,000; they dropped in 1960 to R42,000. In the case of wattle extract, we exported wattle extract to the value of R2,260,000 in 1959 and it dropped to R1,664,000 in 1960. I think we would like the hon. the Minister to give us some explanation in regard to those figures. I am not suggesting that the drop in these exports occurred as a direct result of the concessions that we have had to make in regard to EFTA. I think there has been a drop in the last year in the price of hides and skins, but we would like to have some explanation from the Minister with regard to the drop in these figures and whether this question of EFTA has affected these particular products.

I have listened attentively to the points raised by hon. members opposite, points which, with all respect, were not always directly concerned with the exchange of notes we are discussing here. But those are matters which can, in the near future, I hope, be raised under my Vote. The question was asked in the first place whether South Africa is fully informed about what is happening in Europe. Whether we have a full-time economist in Brussels or not, that is not our only means of obtaining information about what is happening in Europe and Britain. The Department has numerous channels and contacts by means of which it is continuously kept au fait with what is happening in Britain and Europe. The hon. member suggested that because we still do not have a properly trained economist in Brussels, we do not know what is going on there. We have our departmental representatives in all the capitals and also in other places; we have our embassies in those places, and through our diplomatic and other channels the Department is kept informed as to what is happening there at the moment. In regard to the appointment of an economist in Brussels, that is also a matter which may perhaps be raised under my Vote. We shall then be able to devote more time to that matter. It is not so easy to find an economist suitable and available for such a post. We would not like to appoint anybody there unless we are quite sure that he is the right person for that type of work. Attention is being devoted at the moment to the appointment of a person there, and unless we receive setbacks again, we hope within the near future to have a full-time economist there.

A question was also put in regard to compensation for the preferences we are now abandoning. The form of this compensation is not really relevant now. I would not like to give an indication now as to the form in which we would like to be compensated, but we think that we will be able to use it in future in further negotiations with G.A.T.T., when we discuss certain of our tariff obligations at G.A.T.T. Opportunities will also arise again when we seek exemption in respect of certain of our obligations under G.A.T.T., and on that occasion we hope to be able to make use of these sacrifices in order to obtain those exemptions from G.A.T.T.

I think those are the only points raised here. I do not want to go into the matter raised by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin), namely that the Government does too little too late. I can just say that his Government did not do too little and too late; it did nothing at all.

There was a war on.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

We have now come to the final stage, as far as this House is concerned, of the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill, and those of us who have taken an interest in this matter since it was introduced by the Minister, know that we on this side of the House have done everything in our power to persuade the Minister and his supporters to withdraw certain of these clauses and to modify others, and finally we did attempt to persuade the Minister to limit the life of this Bill, all because we were of the opinion that it is a very bad measure indeed. We intend voting against the third reading and we are going to ask for a division in the hope that there will still be some members on the Government side who will have a conscience about this measure and support us in our attempt to defeat this Bill and thus prevent it from going forward to the Other Place.

This is a Bill which is full of tricky little legal amendments, and to try to put the effect of these amendments, the actual contents of this Bill, into plain ordinary language is not easy without being accused of not putting the true picture before the House.

It is not my intention to speak for any length of time, but what I wish to do is to put the position with which the Bill has now presented us as clearly and as concisely as I can, bearing in mind that I may not deal with anything other than the contents of the Bill before us.

It would appear that there are three things which are of grave importance as far as the contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund are concerned. The first of these is that no allowance will be paid in respect of illness, unless the contributor has been employed as a contributor for at least 13 weeks from the date upon which his unemployment is deemed to have commenced. We referred to this as an attempt to save money at the expense of sick people who are no longer able to work. That is the first serious point that I wish to make in connection with this Bill. The second is that a contributor shall not be entitled to maternity benefits unless she has been in employment as a contributor for at lease 18 weeks during the year immediately preceding the expected date of her confinement, no matter what credits she may have earned over the previous years. Here we are attempting to save the assets of the fund at the expense of expectant mothers. The third proviso is that a contributor shall not be entitled to benefit unless he has been employed as a contributor or otherwise for at least 13 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of employment is deemed to have commenced. Here we are being asked to agree to a very severe interference with what has been possible in terms of this fund in respect of a person who is unemployed for a lengthy period of time. In connection with this particular feature you will remember, Sir, that we had quite a lot to say at the second reading, and during the Committee Stage the main point at issue was whether the interpretation that the Minister places upon this particular clause and Section 39 (2) and (3) of the principal Act could be reconsidered by the board on appeal from a contributor who has been refused benefits as the result of the fact that he has already had 26 weeks’ benefits in a particular year. That simple issue could be summed up in this way, that the Minister is of the opinion that at any time when a contributor has had his benefits curtailed and is not in a position to qualify for further benefits, he has the right to appeal to the board and the board in its discretion will be in a position to extend the benefits if it seems fit to do so, notwithstanding the new qualification of 13 weeks. In other words, if the contributor has not worked for 13 weeks in a particular financial year, his hope of getting a second period of benefits is remote indeed. The Minister is not concerned about that so much because he believes that contributor can on appeal be given those benefits despite this qualification of 13 weeks. The Minister has promised to go into that point and if necessary to introduce an amendment in the Other Place if my interpretation proved to be correct. I may say briefly that the interpretation that I have placed on it is that because of the restrictive wording of Section 39 (3) it is not possible for a claims officer to grant benefits because we are dealing with a claim for benefits in a subsequent year and not in the particular year with which the claims officer is concerned.

If I were to put these three points in simpler terms I would say this, that unless a sick person works for 13 weeks whilst he is sick, he can receive no benefits. Secondly, unless an expectant mother has worked for 18 weeks in the year immediately to the birth of the baby she will receive no benefits, and, thirdly, unless a contributor who is willing and able to work gets employment for 13 weeks from the date on which he is deemed to have become unemployed, he will receive no benefits. These are the three principal groups on which the Minister estimates that the fund will save a total of R2,800,000. I ask you, Sir, does the Minister believe that the 768,000 contributors to the fund who are in employment and who may be temporarily out of employment will appreciate the fact that their fund is being protected by withholding R2,800,000 from the sick, the expectant mothers and those who are able to work but are unable to get employment? I wonder if the Minister appreciates these points? Here the workers are being asked to agree to a proposal which means that the saving effected at the expense of their former colleagues who are sick, who are unable to get work although they are prepared to work, is to be used to make their fund more secure. I think this must be a very sorry day indeed for hon. members on the other side and particularly for the Minister of Information who regards this as a laughing matter.

You are a very good propagandist.

This Government has always claimed to work in the interests of the workers. I may say in passing that I don’t think that any Minister in any Cabinet position in this Government has ever had so little support from his colleagues for a measure brought before this House.

Order!

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I could not resist in passing just mentioning that. There is another feature that I do not think has been raised at any other stage, but it is very pertinent in view of the amendments in this Bill and that is the question as to whether or not the Minister has had any discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Pensions and Social Welfare, whom I am pleased to see here this morning, because as a result of these amendments a considerable number of contributors to this Fund who would enjoy at the present time under the Act subsequent periods of unemployment benefits, are now going to become the responsibility of the Minister of Pensions because they are going to apply for the old-age pension, whereas under the Act as it now stands they would be able to get at least six months in a year benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Minister of Pensions can expect an increase in applications from those who are going to be affected by this Bill to quite a considerable degree. I hope that some consultations have taken place between these two hon. Ministers, and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Labour when he replies to this debate will tell us whether such discussions have taken place.

There is another point that is tied up with this issue as well, and that is that an old-age pensioner who applies for the old-age pension, he suffers as a result of the means test, and if the Department of Pensions takes into account the credits which a contributor may have to his account in the Unemployment Insurance Fund and looks upon those credits as an asset, where is the prospective old-age pensioner going to land? It is an issue which has to be considered. We have the position that there will be contributors who have not got a month but perhaps three or four years of credits built up and who will not be in a position to get any benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is the issue that is facing so many as a result of these specific amendments which the Minister has introduced, and the proof of it is that the Minister hopes that he will save this Fund an amount of R2,800,000 as a result of introducing these particular provisions. An amount of R2,800,000 is going to be taken out of the pockets of those who are least in a position to afford it, the sick, the expectant mothers and the persons who are able to work but cannot get employment. Those are the three groups who are going to sacrifice R2,800,000 per year so that the rest of the workers who are able and fit to work may know that their fund is secure for them when they should fall unemployed. The more one thinks about it, the more one realizes how desperate the future must be for the categories that I have mentioned, and I think the hon. the Minister of Information is going to have a lot of trouble to explain this away to the people in South Africa and also overseas. I do not intend to go any further, Mr. Speaker. I think I have said enough to convince this honourable House that in voting for the third reading they are doing a great disservice to the workers of South Africa.

We are protecting the Unemployment Fund.

You are not…

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by the hon. the Minister of Information.

No, Sir, I am only disappointed in one of our English-speaking Cabinet Ministers. I want to say to the hon. Minister of Labour that he is probably the only man in this House who has not yet voted against the provisions of this Bill. He may, however, do so later on. His hands in that respect are still clean. He has not voted against these provisions. I am hoping that before this measure reaches the Other Place, the Minister will be able to say: “I am going to vote for the rejection of this Bill.”

What a hope!

It may be a false hope, but, Mr. Speaker, the position is that as a result of the introduction of this measure, I am positive his own colleagues…

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. I have allowed him a lot of latitude at this third reading, but he must now come back to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will close with these words that this hon. Minister has introduced this Bill and it contains provisions which we find distasteful. We cannot support them, and I do hope that in future years this Minister’s colleagues will not accuse him as the first English-speaking Minister in this House to introduce such legislation.

The hon. member has summarized his objections under three headings. The first was in regard to no allowances to contributors who suffer from chronic illness. The amendment of course only applies to those who are suffering from a chronic illness, that is, to those who are not likely to work again.

But they may have considerable credits.

That I admit. I think I have pointed out on at least six occasions in the course of the passage of this Bill that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is not there for the purpose of providing payments to persons who have ceased to be on the labour market through illness. It was never intended that this Fund should provide a source of income for persons who have left the labour market on account of chronic illness.

Even if they have credits standing to their name?

Yes. I have pointed out almost ad nauseam that it is an insurance fund, and they may even have credits. After they have been removed from the labour market and it is not likely that they will ever work again, they can draw credits up to a certain time and after that period they may still have credits.

It is legalized theft in that case.

It is obvious to me that the hon. member who made that remark has not the faintest notion of what this Fund is.

I know more about it than you do.

The next point made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was in regard to maternity benefits. I and members on this side of the House have explained why there is this provision in the Bill. There are many women who on marriage cease to be employed and who have no intention after marriage of resuming work.

That is a mere assumption.

I do not intend to go into all the reasons again. They have been stated again and again. In regard to the third question raised by the hon. member, the interpretation of Section 39 and the prohibition now contained in sub-paragraph (m), I repeat that I will go into this question and if there is any substance in the submission of the hon. member, I will see to it that it is put right in the Senate.

I may also just tell hon. members that in regard to another matter which was discussed, the question of citizens who are called up for service, I have finalized that matter and I am introducing the necessary amendment in the Senate. I agree with hon. members that amendment is necessary.

Motion put: Those in favour of the motion will say “aye”, those against “no I think the” ayes” have it”.

Division called.

Mr. Speaker, would you mind putting that again, because I was under a misapprehension.

Order! A division has been called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are certain members on the other side of the House who shouted “Aye!” when the question was put. One of those hon. members has left the Chamber, but there are others who are still present and who should vote on this side of the House.

Who are they?

I think the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) was one of them.

Mr.Speaker, I want to ask that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) should enter. He said “Yes”, and then left the Chamber.

That hon. member did not ask for the division

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can remember, on a former occasion Mr. Lawrence was called in when at a division he said “No”, and he was compelled to vote against the motion.

If an hon. member asks for a division, he must vote, but when he has not asked for a division he is entitled to decide what he should do.

The House divided:

AYES—72: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coertze, L. 1.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—44: Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move as an amendment—

To insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (b):

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

We on this side of the House strongly object to the provision in this clause by which a jackal club is permitted to cut a wire fence, and we appeal to the Minister to amend this accordingly. We say that, if a jackal-proof fence is cut, it can never be restored to the condition it was previously in. It is absolutely impossible to do so. I claim that a jackal-proof fence once cut would be very difficult to restore back to the condition of it being a jackal-proof fence. I think these are powers which are not necessary, and I think the hon. the Minister should rather make provision for bridle gates to be put into fences where there is a great length of fence through which a jackal club could proceed in following its game.

Order! The hon. member may only state his objections briefly.

I realize that. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter consideration. The farmers in general in this country I think will very strongly object to this provision. Perhaps the Minister could undertake to make some suitable change in the Other Place. If he could do so, we would be very pleased because we would like to vote unanimously for this Bill.

I think the hon. member is rather exaggerating the objection he is raising now. If one studies the matter, the effect is not so bad in practice. The clause only provides that the registered club shall have the right to cut a fence when hunting vermin. We must view the content of this clause against the background of the actual problem. The actual problem is to exterminate the jackals or other vermin. When we think of the annual losses amongst our sheep, amounting to approximately 300,000, we realize how serious the problem is. The loss of 300,000 sheep a year amounts, at a very low estimate, to R1,500,000 per annum. In the light of that, this is really not a great sacrifice the farmer is asked to make. And fences will not be cut everywhere. What fences will actually be cut?

Order! The hon. member may not speak in defence of the clause either, i.e. of the principle, because the principle has already been accepted. The hon. member is now defending the principle.

Thank you, Sir; then I just want to say that we must view this matter against the background of the whole problem.

I have listened to the objections and I must agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) now seems to have the impression that the cutting of fences is being encouraged. I maintain that the provisions of the clause are so protective that a registered club will be very careful. It is provided in the Provincial Ordinances that a minimum of five owners and tenants of land, i.e. farmers, can form such a club. Therefore it is farmers who will have to implement the provisions of the Act. It is further provided that if such fence-cutting takes place, they must guard the spot until it is properly repaired, and they must restore it to the state, within practical and realistic limits, in which it was before. These are strict provisions, and to accept that as a result of this provision they will just cut vermin-proof fences at random is far-fetched. I want to point out that where there are vermin-proof fences from one farm to another, so that all the farms are fenced, then the procedure is that the club notifies its members that a hunt will take place. The farmer inspects his fencing to see that there are no holes, and if a jackal is in a camp its chances of getting into another camp are very slender. But what may happen is that the inside fences are such that they do not quite stop the jackal. Not only the South African Agricultural Union, but also other farmers’ associations, had the opportunity to discuss this matter over and over again for almost two years, and I think we can accept this provision without any fear. It was suggested that I should provide that gates should be erected. My reply to that is that the owners are at liberty themselves to determine on the specifications of their fences. We do not lay down specifications for fences, and they are at liberty to provide gates at convenient places. Therefore there are preventive measures which can be applied. But I do not want us to view this danger just from the angle of the inconvenience it may cause. We must also bear in mind the protection afforded in the Act for the elimination of serious damage which may be done by a reckless person or hunter.

Nobody in this House doubts the good faith and the good intentions of the Minister in regard to this Bill or in regard to this clause. Nevertheless, I feel concerned about the provisions of this clause. Seeing that the Minister has said that organized agriculture has recommended these provisions, I want to predict that organized agriculture will again come back to the hon. the Minister shortly to ask him to make a change in these provisions. I want to put it this way.…

The hon. member must obey my ruling and not argue on the principle of this clause now.

Then I just want to add this, Sir. Every farmer will know, and even any person, whether he is interested in agriculture or not, will know that a fence which has been cut cannot be restored to its former condition, and whilst the provisions of this clause make it possible…

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down, but I just want to say this…

Order! The hon. member cannot continue to discuss the principle.

Then I want to appeal to the Minister to try to move an amendment in this clause in the Other Place.

I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply. The Minister does not really appreciate that a jackal proof fence is a sacred thing in the eyes of farmers. A jackal proof fence once cut can never be restored to its previous condition…

Order! I have given the hon. member an opportunity to state his case.

I want to say, Sir, that I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. The Minister did say in his second reading speech that he favoured bridle gates and things of that nature and he himself did not like fences cut. We thought the Minister would come forward this morning with a provision that fences should not be cut or that only in very extreme cases…

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along those lines. He can vote against the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

“less—

1. (a) if the owner who succeeds him is in terms of Section 33 of the Land Bank Act, 1944 (Act No. 13 of 1944), liable in respect of any advance made to the usufructuary in respect of such cost, the amount of the capital of such advance for which that owner is so liable; and
2. (b) such amount, if any, in respect of depreciation of such fence or, as the case may be, of such converted or altered part thereof, as shall, in default of agreement between the usufructuary or his estate and the owner who succeeds him, be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule.”

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title of the Bill having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move the following amendment—

I just want to explain that as the result of this amendment we are adopting the clause as it was originally. The part which was omitted by the Senate was a part of the clause which the Senate, in terms of the constitution, cannot initiate. The Senate was therefore compelled to take it out, and we are now inserting it again. The same will apply to Clause 16.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) asked whether it was not possible to insert an amendment here that diagrams on which corrections have been made should be advertised before the Surveyor-General endorses them. That was the procedure up to 1927, but then it was taken out of the Act, because that procedure was regarded as a waste of time. I may say that it was taken out unanimously, because it was found to be unnecessary and a waste of time.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister. I have also had the advantage of a discussion with my colleague the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). He assured me that the new procedure has been found to be quite adequate in so far as the interests of everybody owning surrounding land are concerned. I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

To insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (3) of the proposed new Section 26bis:

and to add the following proviso at the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (5) of the proposed new Section 26bis:

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

In lines 17 and 18, to omit” on application of the owner “and to substitute” after receipt of such data as he may require from the owner for the purpose”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) stated last night we on this side of the House have the traditional right on liquor matters to vote as individuals. I think this is a good Bill. Had this Bill been brought forward last year instead of the Bill which was to give European liquor, or White liquor as it is now called, to the Bantu in free supply, it would have been a better thing. The Bantu have now got used to having his own beer in the quantity in which it will now be available to him. To the Bantu kaffir beer is like whisky to the Scotsman. Both of them look upon it as a real food. I will agree that when you are cold and feel generally miserable a good tot of whisky does you a world of good. So does a good half gallon of beer do a Native good when he feels cold and empty and when he gets home on a wet day after having done a day’s hard labour. I am going to call this beer by its traditional name, namely kaffir beer, although the hon. the Minister kept on harping upon the title of Bantu beer last night. We have never heard of that before. The Native knows it as kaffir beer and so do we. A rose by any other name, you might say, Sir, applies here. The traditional kaffir beer is a very good food and is a yeast food which balances the diet of the Native. I disagree with the statements made by my colleague, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). He said that farmers were going to find it quite impossible to do milking on a Sunday afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I have been a dairy farmer all my life. I have no difficulty with Sunday afternoon milking whatsoever. The Native boys are always all there. In Natal we have the right to allow kraal heads to brew beer in reasonable quantities for themselves and for the inmates of the kraal. Every kraal head on my farm has that right.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member realize that he is making a statement that does not come under this Bill?

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing with what I called the exaggerated picture painted by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) as to the evils of this Bill and the proposed legislation and the harm which may result from the freeing of beer from full control, as it is to-day. He went so far as to say that it would not only undermine the health of the Bantu population as a whole but that it would lead to a tremendous increase in TB and that the whole farming community would have the greatest difficulty even in getting their cows milked on a Sunday afternoon. I have pointed out that in Natal we have had the traditional right of allowing our Natives to brew their own beer. The owner of the farm gives that right in writing to the kraal head, and that has never been abused. I have been a dairy farmer all my life and I have had no difficulty at all in this regard. I think it is a poor farmer who cannot control his own Natives as far as that is concerned. [Interjections]. I do not mind saying it. I have heard it said before that if Natives get their traditional beer you cannot handrear your calves because you have to turn your calves in with the cows on a Sunday afternoon. I was told that when I first started farming on my own some 40 years ago. But I have never had difficulty. I will not put up with drunken Natives in my cowshed at any lime. I think it is a pity when those sort of exaggerated statements are made on a question such as this. In giving the Native back his right to brew his own beer in his kraal and consume that beer in his own home and on his own premises, is a good thing. It will lead to much less drunkenness amongst the Natives. If the Native cannot brew his own beer and drink it with his own family in his traditional way before we took full control and deprived him of that right, he starts looking for liquor which he usually obtains illicitly. He ends up by drinking skokiaan and all sorts of concoctions which only do him harm.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member has not answered my previous question. My question was whether he realized that beer would be controlled under a new Act. Then I would like to ask him how does he know that under the traditional system there was less drunkenness?

I will answer that question, Sir. As a youngster we visited the Zulu reserves in our area and we saw them on our own farms. They have the right to brew their own beer as long as the farmer gives them the right in writing to brew sufficient beer to meet the requirements of the inmates of that kraal. I have not had any drunkenness to any extent. When you get to the peri-urban areas where there is strict control and they do not have that right, you see the drunkenness which takes place on a Sunday afternoon. They go looking for drink. That is why I say that I know what I am talking about when it comes to this question of beer. As I have said, every kraal head on my farm comes to me every year and I give him permission in writing to brew beer for the requirements of his own kraal. I have not had that right abused. If he did abuse that privilege I would give him notice on the turn to get off my farm.

I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) in relation to Clause 13, that the definition of who is the occupier or owner of the premises on which that beer can be brewed and stored. I think in terms of this present wording it could be held in court—it certainly would be challenged—that the owner is the occupier. After all, every labourer on a farm is an occupier of the premises provided by the employer. Here, I think it is necessary that an amendment should be introduced in the Committee Stage, as suggested by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, making the definition quite clear as to who is an occupier and giving the right to the owner of the property, not the employee, to say whether beer shall be brewed, stored and consumed. I think we should be very clear on that and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept an amendment in the Committee Stage clarifying that position. I understand he will be prepared to accept such an amendment. I support the hon. member for Transkeian Territories in that this should be clarified so that it is water-tight. We are giving back to the Native a right which he has enjoyed in the past. I think this will make a much better law than the one which came into being last year according to which they were given White man’s liquor. As I said in my opening remarks if we give him back this right you will find he will not abuse it, whereas there will be abuse in respect of the consumption of White liquor. I think this will do away with quite a number of our shebeen queens and put an end to illicit drinking to a great extent in the peri-urban areas. Beer is a good food and I think this is a step in the right direction.

I can see nothing in the statement made by the hon. member for Albany, who keeps on wanting to ask me questions about farm labour and kaffir beer, that this is similar to the tot system. He draws a parallel between the tot system which operates in the Cape and the consumption of kaffir beer. I do not think that is a true picture. If the Native consumes kaffir beer in his own kraal, on his own premises, it is something quite different from the tot system under which the cheaper types of sherry and “dop” and other cheap liquor are consumed. In many instances this liquor is given to the Cape Coloured, under the tot system, as part of his wages. There is no question here of this beer being given to the Native as part of his wages. If the employer wants to give his employees a little kaffir beer it cannot do any harm. You will have to give him a large amount of kaffir beer before he will get drunk. Under the tot system, however, a few tots of a very cheap brandy or sherry will make him the worse for liquor in a short space of time. So I welcome this Bill. I think we are giving back to the Native something which has been taken from him, and that is a good thing.

Last year I, as a wine farmer, voted in this House in favour of the motion for White man’s liquor to be supplied to the Natives and I have not regretted it, and to-day I am glad to have the opportunity as a wine farmer to support this measure. I think it is only fair that in view of the fact that we have the privilege of drinking the liquor which we as White people produce in the Western Province, the Bantu should be able to obtain the liquor to which they are accustomed freely, and that we as Whites, as well as the Coloureds, should also be granted the right to drink it. But I must say that at the same time I, as a wine farmer, also have some objections to this Bill. My biggest objection is to the fact that this liquor is sold very cheaply. It is sold in the Paarl beer hall at 20c a gallon. My objection is that it will perhaps have the effect of more kaffir beer being sold and our natural wine not being sold as the result of the new taxes levied on it for the first time now. I can see that I am touching the heart of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan), and I want to quote a few figures to show the House that there is some substance in what I am saying. Up to this Session it was the custom for wine farmers to be taxed indirectly on the alcoholic content of the liquor produced, but natural wine was not taxed. To make a comparison, I want to point out that if our whole wine crop of 600,000 leaguers is converted into pure alcohol by volume, we will find that every year 8.8 million gallons of alcohol is produced from the vine. That was the product which produced the taxes, but now we pay right through on our wine. As soon as we have made the wine we pay the tax on it. I just want to mention that the extra taxation just from natural wine this year is expected to produce R17,000,000, and now I come to kaffir beer.

According to statistics we get from the Mealie Control Board, last year 1.4 million bags of sprouted kaffircorn was sold, which can be used for one thing only, namely the making of kaffir beer. That does not take into account the amount traded by the Bantu amongst each other, just as little as account can be kept of what we wine farmers trade amongst each other, but now I come back to my argument, to the amount of “kick” which is sold. That is the alcohol in that beer. The standard recipe used by the beer halls is that from every four bags of sprouted grain of 180 lbs. each, they make 1,240 gallons of beer with an alcohol content by volume of 4 per cent.

How much “kick” is that?

It is just twice as much kick as all the products of the vine can produce in a year. It is over 17,000,000 gallons of pure alcohol, and not a cent of taxation is paid on that. If we convert that into the number of bottles consumed and we levy a tax of 1 cent per bottle, it will produce R26,000,000 in a year. But I do not want to be unreasonable. I do not say the Minister must do that, but I just feel that we wine farmers should not be treated less fairly than the people who are now going to drink kaffir beer. I am very sorry for the producer of kaffircorn. He must make a living, and I grant him that, and I do not want him to pay a cent in taxation, but the man who buys the sprouted grain should in all fairness pay a tax in order to do justice to the wine farmers. [Interjections.] I do not want to weary the House further with figures. I just want to say that one of the arguments used by people who oppose this legislation is that the farmer will no longer have any control on his farm over what the Natives, or even the Coloureds, drink. As the position is to-day, one already has enough trouble with these people. They make kaffir beer and other brews in any case, but it depends on oneself. If you, as the owner, do not exercise control, it is your own fault. Here the landowner will now get the opportunity to tell his employees: I am granting you consent to brew beer, but if you abuse it I will deprive you of that right. Therefore I welcome this Bill, with the proviso that I hope something will be done to make the price of Bantu beer a little more higher in order that we wine farmers may be able to compete.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) apparently has no objection to this Bill except that he feels that the supply of kaffir beer…

Bantu beer.

… will compete with the wine farmers because Bantu beer will also have a certain amount of “kick” and will not be subject to excise duty, whereas a duty is payable on wine. The hon. member has told us how much “kick” there is in every tot of Bantu beer. But since he has given us that information, why does he not tell us also how much “kick” there is in every “tot”? [Laughter.] I just want to warn the hon. member for Karoo that the Minister of Finance is only too inclined to exploit every possible source of revenue, and he must not put the idea into his head of imposing a duty also on kaffir beer. No, I see no objection to or danger to the wine farmer in the passing of this Bill. On the contrary, I think this measure is necessary after the passing of the Liquor Act last year, as I shall explain in a moment. But I want to come back to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker).

The hon. member raised many objections to the passing of this Bill. He told us how bad the position was on his farm, but I want to tell him that the position that he complains about exists under the present Act, and that I have had that experience myself. It is not the outcome of the Bill that we are discussing here. But I want to say this: If the passing of last year’s measure, which provided for the supply of wine and brandy to the Bantu, or the passing of this Bill is going to change the drinking habits of the Bantu and the Coloureds, we will have achieved a great deal. The hon. member for Albany will concede that it is not the drinking of Bantu beer which places him on Sunday afternoons in the position that he has complained about. He must admit that position is caused by the people who make all sorts of concoctions. I know of cases where yellow sugar and torch batteries are added to the beer, or a rat in an advanced state of decomposition. It sounds far-fetched, but that is the truth. Even meat which has reached a certain stage of decomposition is thrown into it in order to give it the “kick” which causes all the trouble experienced by the hon. member for Albany. Mr. Speaker, we have placed restrictions on the Bantu in brewing his traditional liquor, and we give the owner of the land the right to allow only a certain quantity of Bantu beer to be brewed, but that quantity is never sufficient to meet his requirements. It is in those circumstances that the Bantu tries to put the “kick” into it, to which the hon. member for Karoo referred; he tries to put as much “kick” as possible into the quantity that he is allowed. No, this argument advanced by the hon. member for Albany holds no water. I am certainly as much concerned as he is about the drinking habits, not only of the Bantu or of the Coloureds, but also of the Whites, and I am equally anxious to see less alcoholism amongst our people. I know that the hon. member for Albany reads his Bible very regularly and believes in it, and if he reads his Bible he will see that wine was used at the particular wedding at which Jesus officiated.

No, Bantu beer.

No, there were no Bantu at that wedding. Those people drank wine.

Can the hon. member quote any passage from the Bible which shows that there was drunkenness?

There are many cases of drunkenness referred to in the Bible. Even Father Lot was also a little under the influence. There was drunkenness in those days too, but that is no justification for allowing more drunkenness to-day. As a matter of fact, the object of this measure is to keep people more sober. Once we have succeeded in teaching the Bantu to use liquor in a civilized way, whether it be kaffir beer or wine or brandy, we shall have gone a long way. Like the hon. member for Albany, I, too, have had a great deal of trouble because these people always have a certain amount of fear that whatever liquor they prepare for themselves for the week-end will be destroyed by the police in a raid, so they try to get under the influence of liquor as quickly as possible. I know of many hon. members whom I would not call drunkards, but who do have a drink and who benefit from it, and the hon. member for Albany must not begrudge the Bantu and the Coloured the same opportunity. The hon. member for Albany made a strange statement here when he said that the Bantu of 18 years of age, to whom we want to give the right to obtain Bantu beer without restriction, only has the intelligence of a child, and will never grow up. I find that a strange argument coming from the hon. member, bearing in mind the fact that it is the same hon. member who, according to their federation plan, wants to give the franchise to these people, and who is prepared to share with them the responsibility of governing this country.

Order! That is not relevant.

No, the hon. member must be consistent. I think in making available Bantu beer to the Bantu we are removing an injustice. We know that the eating habits of these people are such that they do not eat much in the way of vegetables, and that there are certain essential vitamins that they never get. Many of those vitamins are to be found in Bantu beer. I therefore welcome this Bill. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Karoo has asked that the Government should impose an excise duty of 1 cent a gallon on Bantu beer. Why should his proposal not be accepted?

We are not dealing with a financial measure now. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not become frivolous.

The arguments of these hon. members do not hold water, and I consider it a privilege to support this Bill.

After the introductory speech made by the Deputy Minister, it required only three further speeches to indicate immediately what divergent views are held on the merits of this Bill. We were told by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) that this Bill represented a step in the right direction and that he was convinced that it would be in the interest of South Africa, yet a few minutes later the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said that this was the worst thing that could ever happen, and that he felt ashamed to be in this House when such a measure was discussed. I leave it to you to imagine, Sir, what this hon. member will feel like when this Bill becomes law. The point is that there are many people outside the House, as well as in it, who feel exactly the same as that hon. member. This is an extremely controversial matter, and I think that at least we should agree that this Bill, coupled as it is with the introduction of the operation of the Liquor Amendment Act, on the same day, represents a very important departure from established practice. I submit that the consequences of this may be of such enormous proportions and significance that it requires more than the wit of one man to estimate the socio-economic consequences, and its effect on the people of South Africa. We are virtually asking the country to take an unchartered course by the provision of liquor, virtually without restriction, to 11,000,000 people who have up to now been restricted in their opportunities to acquire liquor in any form; and not only will they be given their traditional liquor, Bantu beer, but also every other kind of liquor. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the Minister of Information was here last night when the Deputy Minister made his speech. One of the things he said was that this Bill would come into force on the same day as the amended Liquor Act. Therefore I submit to the Minister of Information that you cannot possibly dissociate this Bill and its consequences from the amended Liquor Act and its consequences.

It is only the date.

Well, it appears that people outside this House find it easier to persuade the Minister of Information than I do. Surely he realizes that the moment a Bantu can buy not only Bantu beer without any restriction, and brew it without restriction in some cases, but on top of that he can mix his drinks by buying any kind of “White” liquor, the consequences go beyond the supply of Bantu beer. We do not require a sociologist to explain that, so I will not pursue it. What I say is that we are now about to set sail on an unchartered sea. This is a very serious measure and it should be very carefully considered. [Interjection.] The purpose of my speech is to ask the House which, judging from the speeches made, is clearly not ad idem on the Bill, to ask the Deputy Minister to reconsider, if not the whole Bill, then certain aspects of it. The point I am trying to make is this. The Minister has said that the Bantu will welcome this Bill. That may be so. In fact, expressions of opinion in certain quarters indicate that they will welcome it, but there have also been other expressions of opinion, particularly from those organizations which speak on behalf of Bantu women. I am sure the Deputy Minister is aware of the fact that as far as expressions of opinion by Bantu women are concerned, they do not welcome this Bill, and for obvious reasons.

Yes, the shebeen queens.

I may be wrong, but I say that expressions of opinion from Bantu women do not indicate that they welcome the Bill, and for obvious reasons. Surely hon. members realize that the experience of the White community in regard to the use of liquor in this country or in any other country has led many women’s associations to take a very strong stand against the distribution of liquor, for the obvious reason that the man, being the wage-earner, gets the money before it goes into the family purse, and he being the one who is usually inclined to drink, rather than the female of the species, the amount of money spent on drink is, in the view of the women, money of which she and her family find themselves deprived. With respect, I suggest that I speak with some experience in regard to what local authorities know about the distribution of Bantu beer and the effect of it, and the matter is far from being so simple that anyone can say with any authority that this is a step in the right direction, and that it is in the best interests of South Africa. I do not want to be dogmatic, because this is not a matter about which anyone can be dogmatic. It is a matter very much of opinion—and of experience—as to how it will work. I want to tell you, Sir, that in regard to the rather friendly argument that has arisen just in front of me between these two hon. members, I do not intend to intervene because I have practically no experience of the distribution of Bantu beer, or B.B.—(of course, if you said “B.B.” in Europe, people would understand something else)—amongst the rural Natives. This Bantu beer, according to the hon. member for Albany has interfered on Sundays with the milking of his dairy herd. He speaks from his own experience, and yet the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) says, “nothing of the kind!” In his experience, his employees have not kept on drinking until the cows come home, and so they were ready to milk when the cows did come home; but apparently in the case of the hon. member for Albany, his employees kept on drinking until after the cows came home, and then they could not tell the difference between the milk and the beer. I sincerely hope that we will not lightly dismiss the argument advanced by the hon. member for Albany. There you have your first clue as to what my views are about Bantu beer.

But what I want to deal with mainly is the distribution, in terms of this Bill, of beer to the urban Natives. Sir, the greatest and best justification, in my experience, that anyone has ever been able to find for the large-scale undertaking of beer-brewing by any local authority in South Africa—and this has become a traditional argument—is, that from the profits of that Bantu beer or kaffir beer, it can provide those amenities for Natives which the local authority, it is said, would otherwise not have been able to provide. And, Sir, since it has been said ad nauseam that the bulk of our Native population, even after the independence of portions, as proposed by that side of the House, will remain in the so-called White South Africa, and since we have in the cities the largest concentration, in any given area at any rate, of the Bantu population of this country, and since we have in the case of a city like Johannesburg, 750,000 Bantu living in close proximity to the White population, it is that aspect of the matter which, I think, requires the greater consideration because it will require the greater control, if there can be any control.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he imagines that the sale of beer through licensed premises will still be maintained when indiscriminate beer-brewing is allowed under this Bill.

The answer is a very simple one. The Deputy Minister, being wise in his generation, has not sought to prejudice the local authorities by depriving them in any way of their present monopoly. He knows which side his bread is buttered on or he knows which tankard his beer is in, and he is very quick to say in this Bill that in certain cases—and obviously those that are established cases will continue—the local authority becomes the monopolist, the only authority or person or undertaking (for the benefit of the hon. member for Albany) which can brew and provide Bantu beer; so the question, in the case of Johannesburg, for example, of private enterprise or a bottle-store impinging on this monopoly in regard to the manufacture of kaffir beer cannot enter into the matter because it will not be possible for them to do so. In terms of what the Deputy Minister has told us—if anything, the bottle-store will now become the client of the local authority with its enormous brewery undertaking. The bottle-store would be able to buy this beer and sell it to its clients. And, Sir, one of the amazing things about the whole situation is that the Deputy Minister asked us to accept as one of the merits of this Bill the fact that kaffir beer or Bantu beer would now be freely available to Europeans through their bottle-stores in the ordinary way. Now, Sir, I want to test this.

They have to pay for it; it is not free.

That is perfectly true, of course. What I mean is that they will buy it there, and there will be no more difficulty about buying that than buying other traditional types of liquor. I was going to say that is an extraordinary situation. We are asked to believe that we are now about to exchange compliments with the Bantu people, “We” being the White people; we are going to drink their traditional liquor, Bantu beer, and they are going to drink our traditional liquor, being the all-sorts, because on the same day and at the same time I. as a European, will then have the privilege of going to my bottle-store, which traditionally has made enormous profits out of selling me the conventional liquor—to the extent where some of them have a goodwill of R200,000—and say to them, “Send me a dozen bottles of B.B.” With due respect, I do not regard that as a privilege, and not entirely because I have never found kaffir beer palatable; but I do not regard it as a privilege—I do not know whether I am in the minority in this House, possibly a minority of one—I do not regard it as a privilege and I do not regard as an inducement for me to support this Bill, the fact that I, as a European, will in the future be able to buy kaffir beer, because in any case one’s tastes having become accustomed to a certain type of beer, the beer drinker does not lightly change. In any case, I believe it is quite unreasonable to ask that this Bill should* be supported on the ground that we are now being given a concession. I submit to the Deputy Minister with great respect that those who can afford to buy whisky are not going to buy kaffir beer from any bottle-store; but the converse, of course, is the important consideration, and that is that those who cannot afford whisky, being the new-found Bantu drinker, who traditionally has been drinking his Bantu beer, to whom it has been, as we have heard over and over again, not only drink but food, this new drinker who cannot afford whisky will now be able to buy whisky. To me that is the greater consequence of this coincidence in the date of application, a very important coincidence, and it would require more than my time this afternoon to try and outline even the remote consequences of it.

I want to deal briefly with the position of the local authorities, to whom the merit in the brewing and the sale of beer has always been held out as being the opportunity to earn the profits out of which certain amenities could be provided for Natives. I think it should be placed on record what has happened, for example, in the city of Johannesburg. In regard to its Non-European Affairs Department, the recreational facilities that had already been provided up to 30 June 1959—and I personally have taken various Cabinet Ministers to various sites for recreation since that time, in 1960 and 1961…

Did you play with them there?

No, one would hesitate to play with any Cabinet Minister. Sir, here are the facilities that had already been provided up to 30 June 1959—the significance of this is enormous, and I think these facts should be known: The number of sports fields was 59; the number of American basket-ball sports 5, athletic tracks 3, children’s playgrounds 23, club-houses 14, cycle tracks 2, dance arenas 2, enclosed sportsgrounds 2, one gymnasium, recreation halls 4, skittle alleys 2, sports stadia 2 and tennis courts 24, a total as at 30 June of 143 recreational amenities for an enormous and a very hard-pressed population. I give this evidence gratuitously as evidence to those who support the argument that the sale of kaffir beer by the local authority, which will have the monopoly wherever it wants it under this Bill, should be encouraged because in this way you provide them with the amenities. And in case hon. members doubt the position as to how these amenities can be financed merely by the sale of this very cheap commodity, kaffir beer, which according to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) could even stand an impost of 1 cent a bottle…

Tot.

Sir, I do not like to use the word “tot” when I am talking to him because I do not know him well enough—but I think he said 1 cent a bottle. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) yesterday did touch on this question of the provision of amenities by the local authority. I do not know whether he should have attempted to give the details or not, but I would like the House to know how these things are financed because this is directly concerned with this Bill; this is the justification for the greater part of this Bill. In the case of Johannesburg again, in the year 1959, the income for the year 1958-9 on its Native beer halls, which are obviously the distributing outlets for its brewery, was R2,600,000. I am not talking about the odd gallon or 50 gallons of beer that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) or the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) has to contend with when his boys are drinking on a Sunday. We are talking of big business here; this is enough to make the South African Breweries tear their hair out with envy. The income was R2,600,000. The expenditure incurred in order to earn this income was R1,300,000. The surplus for the year ended 30 June 1959, was R1,300,000.

What a shame.

The hon. member said, “shame Sir, you may well ask how much capital is required to earn this apparently enormous profit of 100 per cent, and I will tell you. The capital outlay on these beer halls as at 30 June 1959, was just over R1,000,000; so there you have a very fine business proposition where, with a capital outlay—which remains pegged, which is not subject to taxation—of R1,000,000, you do a turnover of R2,600,000 a year. And let me tell hon. members that this has increased since 1959, by I think, 16 per cent. With this capital outlay of R1,000,000 or just over R1,000,000, you have an annual profit of R1,300,000.

Disgraceful.

There you are—this hon. member says “disgraceful”. I am often told that we are not very clever in Johannesburg. For all I know the brewery in Pietermaritzburg works on a bigger profit, but in spite of this complaint, the position is that the justification has always been, “See what we do with the money”. I have already told the House what Johannesburg does with the money. Despite the fact that one can hardly evade the necessity for providing these amenities for the Bantu in the urban areas and one cannot readily find other means, a certain ethical doubt must creep in as to whether you are doing the right thing in encouraging people to drink—some people would say, to drink themselves into a stupor—in order to give them recreation to enjoy when they come to. There must be a certain ethical doubt, and of course that doubt becomes magnified where a local authority, which is not an individual or a company—and one knows that individuals and companies are not necessarily bound by ethics (they are bound by law)—where a public body like a local authority, representing the will of the people in its particular area, can indulge in this sort of practice, which we have been assured over and over again is the beginning of the process of deterioration, as the hon. member for Albany referred to it, of an increasing degree of alcoholism which may eventually become very serious. How does one square that circle; how does one get over the fact that, for example in 1960, the then Chairman of the Committee on Alcoholism of the American Medical Association, a very eminent doctor by the name of Marvin Block who visited South Africa, in addressing the National Conference on Alcoholism which I opened—I cannot say that I had any pleasure from it, but I opened it—said that France had an incidence of alcoholism, pro rata the population, of 6 per cent. He said that the United States was just behind it. a very good second—if you can say “good” in that context—but having spent some weeks in this country, having investigated many, many statistics, having had discussions at Governmental level, he went on to say that we were lying right next to the United States, second on the list as far as alcoholism is concerned. Now, I must ask myself, and I think we should all ask ourselves and I am not going to come to the sort of conclusion to which the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) came the other day when he said, “I said this to myself and I said that to myself—and then I signed the affidavit I cannot sign any affidavit) but I am obliged to ask myself whether it has been shown beyond any doubt that this Bill is one which is in the best interests of South Africa. Contrary to this belief, I would point to the example of France. We all know that on the Continent generally, but particularly in France, which is a very large wine-producing country, there is no difficulty for anybody of any complexion, of any economic or social status, to obtain liquor; you can drink it in a cafe, on the pavement or you can sit in the gutter—not you, Sir, of course, but one can sit in the gutter and drink. And there we have a situation where it has been established by the Government that 6 per cent of the population is alcoholic already; more are being turned that way all the time, and it has become such a serious problem that one particular Prime Minister recently tried to enforce a no-drinking ban; he substituted milk-bars and he was out of office before the sun had set, as it were. I want to say that whereas one can see, perhaps in a rather sardonic manner, the funny side of this situation sometimes, it is not something that can be dealt with lightheartedly. If we have to-day 5.6 per cent of our population classified as alcoholics—and people have gone on record with facts to prove that—how many more will become alcoholic as the result of what one can only call the liberalization of liquor for all the races in South Africa, and more particularly for the Bantu? How can anybody say at this stage that it is undoubtedly in the interests of South Africa?

There will be less alcoholism.

Somebody over there says that there will be less; I do not want to labour my point but I merely say that there is at least room for a little doubt, for a little soul-searching about this matter.

In regard to the actual provisions of this Bill, it is laid down in Clause 4 that any person may for domestic consumption and any employer may for supply free-of-charge to his employees brew Bantu beer. One of the things that struck me was the fact that this, like most of the other clauses of the Bill, is something which has no ceiling; in fact the sky is the limit. Any quantity of Bantu beer can be brewed by an employer, for example, and clearly if any quantity of Bantu beer can be brewed, then any quantity of Bantu beer, in terms of the Bill, can be supplied by an employer. I am concerned in this clause not so much with the position of the local authority which has a certain record, which has a certain know-how, in regard to both the brewing and distribution of Bantu beer; it can assess the position as to whether drinking is on the up-grade or rather whether the curve is going upwards, or whether it is on the down-grade. It has a background of experience. But what do you do with an employer who suddenly discovers that under this clause he is entitled, assuming he employs 25 or more Bantu over the age of 18, to provide Bantu beer without restriction?

But he is not allowed to sell it.

I realize that, but consider the position in regard to any other commodity of which you pile up stocks; that stock becomes a pressure, or generates a pressure—In this case, literally—if you stock pile Bantu beer, you know what happens as a result of the pressure. I want to submit that a private employer is now going to be permitted not only to supply this beer, but to brew it and supply it on an unrestricted basis as to volume, and there will be a natural inclination both on the part of management to give more away and on the part of labour to take more of it away; that must be so. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister therefore at least to take another look at this Bill. Once he fixes the number at 25 he must also have some idea—and if he has not, I think I and others in this House can give it to him—as to what would be a reasonable potion for the Bantu-worker to obtain at, say, lunch-time and, say, at 5 o’clock. Whether it should be one pint or one gallon I do not want to say now; it is a matter of the individual point of view, but we must put a limit on this, and say that in respect of 25 employees an employer may only brew, shall we say, 50 gallons of beer a day.

Take the experience of the mines.

The hon. member here rightly says that we should make use of the experience of the mines, and I would say that we should make use of what is even more to the point, that is, the experience of the local authority. There must be a limit—that is my first point in regard to the Bill itself otherwise you will have the situation where an employer for his own reasons wants bigger and better production on a particular day and wants everybody to be “hopped up”, as the Americans would say, and then the party is on, at lunch-time; they can drink as much as they like as long as they get through the work afterwards. I think it could almost be said to be an immoral way of inducing the happiness of your Bantu labour.

In Clause 5 (3) it is provided that—

I think that may be a source of some difficulty in the future. I am assuming now that this Bill will be passed. I think the Minister knows better than I do that the apparent age of a Bantu is not a very simple matter to determine. In fact, I think it is more complicated than our search for a definition here just a few days ago which seemed to last for a year but was only five days for a definition of what is White, what is Coloured and what is Black. If you speak to a Bantu and ask him what his age is, usually, or very often if he has just come from the Platteland, he will tell you that he does not know, and if you look at him he could be 18 or 23, or 40 or 60. I want to suggest that this apparent age of 18, if any age is going to be laid down at all, should be stepped up to the age of 20 or 23. I do not want to advise the Minister once I have made my point, because he will know how to deal with it. But it will be easier at that age to determine what the apparent age is rather than at the age of 18, when any man, whether he is White or Black, is either still adolescent or just emerging from adolescence. It is easier to define the apparent age when maturity has been reached. I would like the Minister therefore to take another look at this clause.

In Clause 5 (4), which deals with sites or premises on which no female person shall be, there is a proviso to this effect—

This restriction of the premises in so far as the access of females is concerned, may and, certainly, in the experience of the local authority, can cause a certain amount of difficulty. You see, Sir, the gentlemen of all complexions who go in for a “quick one” after work have been known to linger. In fact, it is almost conventional to linger. In the Bantu townships of Johannesburg, at the end of a working day, there are thousands of Bantu women who, having waited long enough for the spouse and the head of the house to come back, decided that they want to go and fetch him from the Beer hall, and I submit to the Deputy Minister that where a female, regardless of her colour, wishes to embark on such a necessary and even hazardous expedition, no legal barrier should be put in her way. She should be entitled to go and look for her husband and to say, “It is time you came home and gave me the balance of the wages,” he having spent the greater part of it on beer. I leave it at that. I am not speaking here to champion the rights of women.

Clause 13 provides—

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has moved an amendment, which has already been supported on this side, and possibly on the other side too. I, too, wish to support that amendment because I think it would be quite wrong to allow a person who occupies a room as an employee of the lawful occupier of the site or the premises, to have any rights in this matter of bringing liquor into the premises. This has caused a lot of trouble in this country, particularly in the larger cities, in the past, and one does not want to see a recurrence of this on a larger scale because the garden-boy can now argue that he is the lawful occupier because he occupies a room belonging to what we call the lawful occupier. This question of the consent of the owner is something which I think requires re-examination. How often must that consent be given, since no permit, no written consent, is involved here? Is it sufficient, for example, for the employee to say to the employer at the beginning of his term of employment, “I intend to bring alcohol or liquor into my room; have I your consent?”, and then if the owner has said “Yes”, does that mean that for the duration of that contract of employment, which, as we know, is on a weekly or monthly basis only, the employee then has the right at all times to bring in any quantity of liquor? Is that the position? The Minister must know what he means by “consent”, because I interpret it in one way only, that is that every time liquor is brought there by whoever it may be, every time the threshold of the premises or the building site or the yard is crossed, whoever is employed on that site must have the lawful occupier’s consent for every such delivery. With due respect to the Deputy Minister, as it stands here this “consent” can be interpreted in such a way as to read only to friction.

Furthermore, I was a little puzzled by Clause 19 (b), which says—

I was told by one of my hon. friends here with considerable legal knowledge that I was unnecessarily perturbed, because all that the employer could do here would be to act as the agent of the local authority and merely collect the money for it. But what I am not clear about is whether, in the event of a price having been established by the local authority for the supply in bulk of Bantu beer, and the employer then, having acquired the Bantu beer for sale in terms of Clause 19 (b), acts on behalf of the local authority and hands it over for cash to his employee—whether it is quite impossible for him to say, “I have bought it at so much a gallon in bulk; I am supplying it at so much per bottle in plastic bottles and there is a difference in price because of handling, storing, labour etc.” In other words, whether there is any possibility here of a markup as between the price charged by the local authority and the price charged by the employer who is only purporting to act as the agent for the local authority, and whether in that difference there is not perhaps the opportunity of quite a substantial profit for those who are unscrupulous enough and those who employ thousands of Natives, for whom this will be an important or attractive feature of their employment. I want to ask the Deputy Minister to clarify that.

Sir, having said that, I want to assure you that on this subject of the Bill and its effects a great deal more can be said, and I hope it will be said by hon. members. I hope it will not be allowed to die a natural death and simply be put to the vote, merely because of the fact that there is to be a free vote. This is something, I submit, which will lead inevitably to a flood of beer pouring across the greater part of this country. Sir, we know what happened after the great flood which brought a certain Noah into public prominence, but I am not able to forecast the consequences of this new flood. Sir, I ask the Deputy-Minister who, I know, has the interests of the the Bantu at heart, and I ask all the members of this House who have been able to and can still give this matter some thought, to consider carefully all the implications of this Bill before a flood is let loose upon South Africa, the consequences of which are completely unknown to us, beyond the fact that larger revenue will be earned by local authorities; there will be more sports fields provided by them, certain farmers will not have trouble with the milking of their cows on a Sunday afternoon. In the purely sociological sense, I submit, we have not got enought facts to say dogmatically that this Bill is in the best interests of South Africa—the converse may well prove to be the case.

The hon. member for Hospital has raised many points here, some of which are important, and I want to deal with a few of them, but he also raised many points which in my opinion should be dealt with in the Committee stage. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on this legislation, and I do so because to a large extent I agree with what the hon. member who has just sat down has said, and that is that the two dates should coincide; in other words, when we make the White man’s liquor available to the Black man in this country, we should at the same time make available his own liquor to him. I regard that as very important because, like the hon. member, we are all reluctant to encourage alcoholism in this country. We will want to guard against the Black man’s becoming an alcoholic. That is why I welcome this Bill because I am convinced, with my knowledge of their customs and their background and their traditions, that we cannot withhold his beer from the Bantu in South Africa. If we do not give him what is his natural beverage, namely Bantu beer, he is going to buy other concoctions and mix all sorts of poisonous elements with it. We know that in many respects we ragard the Native as a mystic; we as Whites only partially understand his make-up. But we know that his Bantu beer is one of the things around which his tradition revolves, and that there are certain Native ceremonies which can only be performed when they have their own beer available. Failing that, they have to resort to something else. As I know the Bantu in South Africa, the good beer that he brews for himself has never made an alcoholic out of him and it has never had a bad effect on his family life. But the hon. member for Hospital suggests that if we make Bantu beer available to him, the Bantu will spend his wages on beer, and that his wife and children will suffer. I contend that the opposite is true, and that is that the very thing that the hon. member is warning against is what is happening to-day; because what is happening to-day is that the Bantu gets into the wrong company when he visits shebeens. When he finishes the day’s work and feels like a mug of beer, he ends up in the shebeen where he is given intoxicating liquor. Instead of going home and being able to enjoy the beer there that his wife has prepared for him, a wholesome beverage, he has to go to the shebeens or to the beer halls to spend his money, and in addition to that he is robbed there by the bad elements with whom he has to mix. I think this is a much more serious matter and one which goes much deeper than many people realize. I would go so far as to say that it is this attempt on the part of the White man to withhold his traditional beverage from the Bantu that is responsible for much of the hatred and animosity on the part of the Bantu against the White man. It is due to the control over liquor as presently applied. Take the case of such a family wishing to hold some function or other, to celebrate an engagement or wedding or some big occasion in the life of the family. The police arrive on the scene, all the liquor is thrown out, all the preparations are upset and people are arrested and conveyed in police vans to prison. Can you imagine what bitterness this causes in the family circle! While meaning to do well, we have aroused feelings of hostility that will take many years to wipe out. We have caused that hatred by enforcing legislation of that kind. I think that in his natural home environment, in his family circle, in his own circle of friends, the Bantu will seldom if ever overstep the mark provided he can get wholesome Bantu beer. I am very pleased that this step is being taken, because I have been convinced for a long time that the existing conditions are responsible for most of the trouble that the police and the authorities have had with the Bantu, who by nature are law-abiding individuals. As I say, the Bantu in South Africa are by nature law-abiding people, but when one behaves in an unreasonable way towards other people one cannot expect that there will be no reaction from them. I say again that the way in which we have withheld from the Bantu his natural beverage, which is not an alcoholic beverage but one which he practically regards as his food, has caused bitterness which to a large extent has been justified perhaps, in spite of the fact that we have done this with the best of intentions.

I am also pleased that now at last we are also making Bantu beer available to the Whites, not that I believe that the Whites will consume Bantu beer on a large scale, but why should people in the remote areas who find it difficult to come into town to obtain supplies of ordinary beer, not be allowed to brew their own beer? I want to give hon. members the assurance that a glass of cold kaffir beer on a very warm day is one of the most effective thirst-quenchers that one can get. And there is nothing wrong with it. It all depends on how it is prepared. It is a beverage from which the White man can derive great benefit, and it is a very nice drink. I am not making propaganda against wine. I must say that last year I voted with very mixed feelings for the legislation that we then passed, because I regarded it as a serious matter to vote for a measure which makes the White man’s liquor freely available to the Bantu in South Africa. But there were certain problems to which I could find no solution and, moreover, I did not want to go against the wine farmers in this country unnecessarily. I thought that if we could find a market for their good, wholesome wine, we should not stand in their way. But I welcome this legislation in terms of which the White man’s liquor is to be made available to the Bantu, but at the same time we are making his own national beverage available to the Bantu in a more liberal and better way. I hope that this Bill will receive the blessing of this House and that it will usher in a new period in which there will be a better understanding between the various racial groups in South Africa—and that is probably more important to-day than any other issue. We must do away with things that unnecessarily cause ill feeling.

I think I have replied to the more general points raised by the hon. member for Hospital, but before I sit down I just want to give him the assurance that the Bantu women of South Africa will undoubtedly welcome the day when their husbands will be able to come home once again and enjoy their Bantu beer in their own homes instead of having to get it in a shebeen or in a beer hall. I hasten to say that I have nothing against a beer hall as such, because it is a good and essential institution for the Bantu who is living away from his family. The hon. member for Karoo has stated that kaffir beer should be subject to excise duty. I want to tell the hon. member that a great deal of good is being done for the Bantu population out of the profits made on beer halls. As a matter of fact the hon. member also referred to it. But the beer hall system has one great defect and that is that the Native is obliged to go to the beer hall instead of being able to return to his own home and to drink his national beverage in his home circle.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) at the end of his remarks suggested that the House should take this matter very seriously, because I know that there are large numbers of people outside this House who are taking this matter very seriously, and some have expressed surprised that this debate is receiving very little attention in the Press. Many people are anxious to know just how seriously the House is taking this matter.

Mr. Speaker, my first impressions on reading this Bantu Beer Bill were much the same as those expressed by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). It seemed to me that this Bantu Beer Bill would tend to mitigate to some extent the dangers and in fact the disasters which some people fear might follow when the Liquor Bill passed last year is brought into force. But on second thought and further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that view was really a superficial one, and after further considering the matter I feel that the Bantu Beer Bill will not mitigate the dangers which may very well flow from the Liquor Bill that was passed last year. This Bill is regarded by some as the lesser of two evils. On the contrary it seems to me that in fact you are going to have one evil added to the other. Although some hon. members may disagree, I feel that we are going to have virtually indiscriminate brewing of Bantu beer, with the result that added on top of the White liquor being made available freely to the Bantu throughout South Africa, will mean that the Bantu in South Africa will be flooded with liquor. He will be able to get all the liquor he wants, and what the effect will be upon people who have not had free access to liquor, remains to be seen. Personally I fear that the results are going to be much more serious than people imagine.

Before going further, I would like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux), when he estimated that possibly four times as much alcohol from kaffir beer would be made available as is now being made from the product of the vine. That was the estimate of somebody who is well connected with the liquor trade, and therefore I think I am correct in stating that we are going to have the country flooded with European liquor and Bantu liquor. What the effect of that is going to be, nobody can as yet foresee.

Personally, I have intimate knowledge of the Western Province where I lived for many years and also of the Border Area where I have lived for many years. Many people may be under a misconception as to the attitude of the Bantu when it comes to this matter of liquor. Many base their opinion on what they see here in the Western Province. I want to draw attention to what goes on in the country towns of the Western Province on a Friday afternoon and a Saturday morning when the police go around in their vans picking up the Coloured men as they come out of the bars and fall into the sloots, taking them away in van-loads. I mention this because the Coloured man is an individualist. When he has had his drink, he comes out and may start a brawl with another individual; he is taken away and that is the end of it.

But when you come to deal with the Bantu in the big Bantu areas, especially in the cities, the situation is very different indeed. When the Bantu has too much, he comes out and starts a brawl, but the Bantu’s mentality is to go about in teams. For the Bantu young man stick-fighting is his sport; it is his Saturday afternoon’s football. They work in teams and when one Bantu gets into a brawl with another Bantu of another kraal or of another tribe his pals come round to support him and then you get the big fight in which there are heavy casualties, and if the police try to intervene, the net result is very often that the whole lot then attack the police. I warn hon. members that thing is likely to happen. I have seep it happening under present circumstances, and when strong liquor is available along with kaffir beer, I am afraid nobody can say what is going to happen. To my own way of thinking I fear that the police will find the position uncontrollable in many instances. The position will be much more serious than many people who do not know the Bantu areas may anticipate. To my way of thinking, this House is creating a Frankenstein monster which will be far beyond their control. It will not only have serious repercussions on the Bantu people, but also on the economy of the country; when these brawls take place which develop into riots, the economy of the country suffers; there is nothing that the Press overseas like to take up more than trouble we are having with our Bantu people; the repercussions can be serious, and I would not be a bit surprised to find that this will have serious repercussions not only for the country as a whole, but also for the Government which last year brought in the Bill to supply the White man’s drink to the Bantu and now comes with this Bill.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) has painted a very gloomy picture here, but when we look at the Bill which is before us to-day and the control measures which are going to be applied, we must ask ourselves whether the position is going to be any different from what it is to-day. I personally have certain misgivings with regard to certain things that I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister and in connection with which I should like to have some advice. In terms of this legislation the position is that in the future it will be possible to brew Bantu beer without restriction, and in certain circumstances it will also be possible to supply it free of charge. This Bill also provides that it will be possible to obtain Bantu beer in unlimited quantities. Thirdly—I should like to enlarge upon this for a moment—employers will be able to give their employees Bantu beer when there are more than 25 Bantu working in a factory. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us the assurance that where local authorities have the sole right to brew beer, they will retain the sole right to sell it. I want to say a word or two this afternoon in that regard. We have heard pleas here that home-brewing should be extended and that the Natives in this country would like to be able to brew their own beer, in accordance with their traditional custom. But the position of the urban Native differs very much from that of the rural Native. The urban Native no longer believes in the old tradition of brewing his own beer in his hut; he does not believe, as his forefathers did, that the ingredients of the beer have a nutritional value. All that he is concerned about is the alcohol content of the beer, and there I agree with the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who asked whether the Bantu was interested in the nutritional value of the beer or whether his sole purpose was to get drunk. There I agree with the hon. member: The urban Native, when he brews beer at home, wants a beer that is as potent as possible. I would therefore urge the Minister not to allow the brewing of beer to be taken out of the hands of the local authorities in the urban areas, because the local authorities concentrate on the nutritive value of the beer; they see to it that the beer that is given to the Natives has the right nutritional value, and they can also exercise control as far as the alcohol content of the beer is concerned. But if we allow home-brewing, we are going to find that it will not be possible to control the alcohol content of the beer, and we will then have the chaos to which certain hon. members have referred. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will not allow those powers to be taken out of the hands of the local authorities. The impression is created that if home-brewing is allowed, it is going to create a bigger market for mealies and kaffir corn. That is an erroneous impression, because the Native who brews at home will not concentrate on the nutritional value but on the alcohol content; he will add things to increase the alcohol content instead of using more maize or kaffir corn. I want to urge the Minister therefore not to yield on this point. Where it is in the hands of the local authorities to-day, let it remain in their hands. It was said in this House yesterday that city councils were making enormous profits out of Bantu beer. Here I have an extract which shows precisely what it costs a city council to brew beer. And it must be remembered that the Department of Bantu Administration has fixed the price of beer at 20 cents. No city council has the right to charge more than 20 cents for kaffir beer. There are various city councils which are charging much less. It is perfectly true that the prices vary from place to place. But the position is that if you brew up to 1,500,000,000 gallons a year, the ingredients of the kaffir beer will cost 8½ cents per gallon; if you brew up to 2,000,000. gallons it will come down to 8 cents per gallon, and if you brew more than 2,000,000 gallons the cost will be 7 cents per gallon. That does not include transportation and distribution costs. I want to tell hon. members that this figure of 7 cents per gallon is very low, and to that figure must be added the distribution costs which amount to 4.2 cents and the transportation costs amounting to.18 cent. The position to-day is that the locations are far apart and the city council are not making unheard-of profits out of beer. Their profits on the sale of beer is comparatively little, and all the profit that they make is ploughed back again for the benefit of the Natives. If we allow home-brewing to take place on a large scale, the local authorities will not be able to make this profit which is to-day ploughed back and used for the benefit of the Bantu. The only person who is going to benefit is the home-brewer.

Another aspect that worries me in connection with this legislation and that I should like to bring home to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members is that here we want to allow the national alcoholic beverage of the non-Whites to be brewed in the White areas, but if a White person wants to put up his own small still he is forbidden to do so. Is it fair towards the White man not to allow him to have his own small still when we give that right to the non-Whites? In this legislation the hon. the Minister provides that any Native may buy any quantity of beer at a beer hall. The great danger that I see in this is that while proper control is applied at the beer hall and in the beer garden, if the Bantu is allowed to buy as much beer as he likes and to go and consume it at home, what control will there be? Is that fair? I as a White person am not allowed to buy more than a certain quantity of liquor. If I want to buy more than a certain quantity I have to go to the head of the police and obtain a permit. I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) that we are going to have chaos if we allow large quantities of Bantu beer to be purchased at the beer halls. Why not maintain the limitation of four gallons per day? I believe that is more than sufficient for any Native as head of the family. If he wants more, let him get a permit in the same way as the White person.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred yesterday to Clause 9, and I should like to draw his attention to it once again. This is a matter which disturbs me very much. Clause 9 provides that if an employer has more than 25 employees in his service he can supply Bantu beer free of charge to his employees on the premises. If this is going to mean that the iniquitous tot system which is in vogue to-day in the Cape Province is going to be extended to the Transvaal and the Free State and to Natal, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to re-consider it very seriously and to delete this provision immediately. In the older cities to-day we find that many of our industries are situated within White residential areas. Not all our industries are established in these modern industrial zones. Many of them are situated in White residential areas; they are surrounded by residences and I would strongly urge that careful attention be given to this matter. I can see what the hon. the Minister is aiming at. He is anxious to get rid of certain beer halls which are situated within White areas; he is anxious to destroy the evil connected with beer halls in White areas, but at the same time we want to create facilities for the Bantu to obtain liquor at his place of employment. I am convinced that we are going to create a greater evil than we have to-day, because here we are going to make it possible for the employer to supply beer free of charge to the young Bantu who is employed at the factory and who has never cultivated the habit of visiting the beer hall to have a drink. And when he leaves the factory in the evening, or between one and two o’clock, he has to catch his bus and his train in the White residential area. We are going to create a very great evil here. If this legislation remains unchanged, then I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to see to it that this concession is only given to factory owners by a senior official, in co-operation with the local authority, because they know the circumstances there, otherwise we are going to create a dangerous situation.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Deputy-Minister that we are convinced that now that Bantu beer is going to be available freely, it will remove great evils because we know that when something is freely available, people are no longer so anxious to get hold of it. But at the same time I want to warn the hon. the Minister against the evils that may result from this.

I rise to support the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with this legislation. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) has made it perfectly clear that this is one of the ways in which we can reduce the pin-pricks, the friction, which has existed in the past between the White man and the Native. I entirely agree with that, and I think all hon. members in this House, when we have to take a decision on such an extremely important matter as the question of making Bantu beer freely available to the Natives, are deeply conscious of the seriousness of the decision that we are called upon to take. I think everybody who has to deal with legislation of this kind will ask himself immediately whether it it in the interests of South Africa, whether it is in the interests of sound race relations; whether it is in the interests of the Native himself who is affected by it. I have come to the conclusion that what we have to consider is the attitude of the Native who is affected by this legislation, whatever the attitude of the White man may be at this stage. Last year we gave the opportunity to the Native to obtain White liquor. It seems to me that it would have been a contradiction if we had not allowed the national liquor to which the Bantu is accustomed to be made available to him, just as we were prepared to make White liquor available to him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London North (Mr. Field) has stated here that “we will be flooding the country with Bantu beer and with European liquor.” What is the object of this Bill? Is it to give White liquor to the Native? No, I am convinced that the provisions incorporated in this legislation will in fact encourage the Native to make more use of his own national liquor. I do not want to detain the House in this connection, but the hon. the Deputy Minister and others have told us that Bantu beer is not only an alcoholic beverage but that it is also nutritious.

That is rubbish.

Of course it is a food.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) says that this is rubbish, but I do not know whether he knows what the scientific composition of Bantu beer is. The hon. member cannot deny that there is a very important vitamin, vitamin B, in kaffir beer and that there is a great deficiency of Vitamin B in the Native’s normal diet.

Can he only get it out of mealies?

Of course he can also get it in other ways. But the hon. member knows that the foodstuffs in which that important vitamin is found, are not always easily available to the Native. But that is not all I want to say to the hon. member. He himself will know that in earlier days our old people used to pick kukumakranka and make kukumakranka and buchu brandy with the specific object of using it as medicine. To this day it is still kept in the pantry and in the bedroom as medicine.

But they did not make four gallons.

Let me tell the hon. member that I have personally ascertained from a particularly good source, which I do not doubt, that Bantu beer is not only wholesome food but that it is also a sort of tonic; it is also a sort of medicine. I heard from somebody only to-day that he had stomach trouble for a very long time, that he had ulcers and that one of the best bits of advice that he was given was to use Bantu beer to heal his ulcers.

And the Bantu beer healed his ulcers?

Yes, definitely, and it heals diabetes too.

I seem to be getting a great deal of support from the other side, and I welcome that. Hon. members on the other side who have any knowledge of the ingredients of Bantu beer realize what its value is.

[Inaudible].

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay will have an opportunity to address the House.

I am very interested in the type of interjection that the hon. member for Mossel Bay makes. This Parliament decided last year to make available the White man’s liquor to the Native, which is a very serious matter, and the hon. member for Mossel Bay must tell me whether he thinks that is preferable to giving the Native the opportunity to make freer use of his own national liquor? Would he prefer not to have this measure placed on the Statute Book so that the Native will then be restricted to the White man’s stronger liquor? Let the hon. member answer that. Because, Mr. Speaker, after all that is the choice that we have before us to-day. I say that if I can make it possible for the Native to consume less of the White man’s stronger alcoholic liquor, having regard to the serious consequences that may flow from it, I will gladly do so, and that is why I am in favour of this legislation to give him the opportunity to consume his own national liquor.

My reply is, “Tempt me not.”

It would be very difficult for me to tempt that hon. member when it comes to liquor. The next point that I should like to make is this. I said at the beginning that we must be fully conscious of what we are doing here and that we must have regard particularly to the attitude of the Native himself. I have no great experience of the Native, but I do have some little experience and I know what the main source of the trouble was that we had with them in the past. A year or two ago, for example, we had a report in connection with the trouble at Sharpeville and Langa, and unless I am mistaken it appeared from that report that one of the main grievances of these people was the fact that their own liquor was not available to them and that they had to pay such exorbitant prices for the other types of liquor that were made available to them at shebeens and other places where liquor is misused.

And there are also the raids.

Yes, there are the raids. And take the position on the farms. It is a source of irritation to the Natives on the farms that they are subjected from time to time to police raids. When we talk to the police, they tell us that they regard it as an unpleasant and difficult duty to have to do that sort of thing.

I have read through this Bill very carefully and I have discussed it very thoroughly with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who is a lawyer. I have come to the conclusion that as this measure reads, it does not mean that there will be altogether unrestricted consumption and unrestricted brewing of Bantu beer. If every person could do what he pleased and brew as much as he liked, without proper control and without limiting the alcohol content, I would have been one of the first to vote against this legislation. But because it will be under proper control I am prepared to support this legislation.

What impresses me particularly is Clause 4 of this Bill. In the past the farmer has never been able to give beer to his Natives. He could allow them to brew beer themselves, and they did so without any control by the farmer. Clause 4 now contains the provision that the farmer or owner of the farm who has Natives in his employ, may allow them to brew beer under proper supervision by him. He may also supply beer free of charge. The practice on most farms is that liquor, whether it is of low alcohol content or whether it is hard liquor, is usually given to those people free of charge. And, Mr. Speaker, my experience is that it is precisely because the Natives have not been able to use their own liquor and because of the permit system, that whenever liquor is given to them they prefer to drink the White man’s liquor. But in terms of Clause 4 the farmer will now be allowed to brew beer for his employees, and in this way I am convinced that we shall be able to influence those people to make better use of their own national liquor. And talking about the term “national liquor”, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said a year or two ago that Bantu beer might still become the national liquor of South Africa. I do not know whether we are all so optimistic about Bantu beer; I do not believe that will happen. I cannot imagine that South Africans after a game of tennis or a rugby match will go and sit down at a table with a glass of kaffir beer. But if we can encourage the consumption of this Native liquor, for the sake of the traditions of South Africa, I say that it is all to the good. It is something that we should retain as part of the South African way of life and tradition.

I do not believe that this is dangerous legislation because this whole matter will be properly controlled. Clauses 5 and 6 make it perfectly clear that the most stringent control will be exercised through the local authority where the Bantu are living in an urban area and where such a Native area is under the control of the local authority. The whole thing will be under proper supervision, with proper control exercised by the State, and I cannot see therefore how there can be any abuse.

The last point that I want to touch upon is one which has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout), and that is the question of the brewing of the liquor itself, and not only through the local authority. The hon. member has mentioned the fact that no wine farmer is allowed to distil his own spirits. The strictest control is exercised; he has to take his grapes to the local cellar, or whatever it is called, where the grapes are converted into wine or brandy. In that respect everybody is under the strictest control. But here we are prepared to give the local authority the right to manufacture kaffir beer itself. I am just wondering whether in this respect we are not seriously interfering with the principle of private enterprise. I do not say that we can do everything at this stage; I do not want to suggest that we have already reached the stage where we can say that private enterprise should be allowed to manufacture this type of liquor itself. At the present juncture it is necessary perhaps that it should be done by the local authority. But I do feel that when it comes to brewing and supply of Bantu beer we should consider whether it is the right principle that the local authority should be given the oppotunity to do this. In terms of the Liquor Act that we passed last year, the local authority may sell liquor, but it cannot manufacture the liquor itself. It is allowed to use the profit for its own purposes. I am just wondering whether when it comes to supplying and brewing Bantu beer we should not follow precisely the same principle that we follow there. The brewing of Bantu beer should be left to private enterprise. I can well visualize that a local authority or municipality might be able to make just as much profit out of it, or perhaps even more. Private enterprise would not need such a huge staff and such big buildings to brew this liquor. I believe therefore that this is something which should be left to private enterprise.

Then I come to my last point. When it comes to domestic consumption, it is provided that any employer of Bantu labour may brew Bantu beer for private supply to his employees. I do not think that the provision with regard to domestic consumption should be left unchanged because at present there is no limitation. I definitely feel that some provision should be inserted to ensure that brewing for domestic consumption is kept within reasonable limits. I do not think a person should be allowed to have 50 or 200 gallons of kaffir beer in his home, and there is no way of controlling this.

He will not do so.

The point is not whether the man will do so or not; the point is that as this clause reads at present, he is allowed to do so. I feel that it must be limited to reasonable domestic consumption. In that way we would ensure that no Bantu abuses the concession provided for in Clause 4.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken, my friend from Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), at the commencement of his speech laid emphasis on the nutritional value of Bantu beer. However, I would like to point out to the hon. member that recently Dr. Fox of the South African Medical Research Bureau commented upon the nutritional value of Bantu beer. He said—

Dr Fox of the S.A. Medical Research Bureau further points out that milk, vegetables and fruit have all the valuable food substances which are part of the beer but yet have it in a very much higher percentage. These foods also contain many other valuable elements without the bad effects of alcohol. I think, Sir, it is obvious that as far as the nutritional value of Bantu beer is concerned, this particular aspect is being over-emphasized in this debate. We must be realistic and face the fact that the majority of Natives do not partake of this liquor so as to obtain a nutritional value. They partake of it to satisfy the alcoholic desire to drink alcohol. The provisions of this Bill, as I read them, are consequential upon the Liquor Amendment Act of last year. When that Bill was discussed in this House, I, amongst others, opposed it in principle. As such, Sir, I intend opposing this Bill in principle. I oppose it in principle because I believe that it is an extention of the facilities for the greater consumption of alcohol. I believe that the evils of alcohol, which is the abuse of alcohol, constitute one of the major social problems of present-day civilization. When we look about us we see the tragedy of the abuse of alcohol. We see the wrecking of family life; we see broken homes; we see children in institutions; we see all these tragedies, let alone the tragedy of accidents and death on the roads caused by the abuse of alcohol. Yet we in this House, or some of us, are prepared to pass a Bill which further extends the consumption and encouraged the drinking of alcohol. Because with the extension of those facilities the only purpose can be to increase consumption. Those who say that kaffir beer has a lower percentage of alcohol, being only 3 per cent, that it is not dangerous, are under a misapprehension. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the lesser of two evils. The stronger alcohol which was made available to the Bantu in terms of the Bill which this House passed last year, is perhaps more drastic and more evil than the beer provided for in this particular measure. When that Bill was introduced it was said to be an experiment. But before that Bill has been put into effect so that anyone could judge the degree of success or otherwise, or the tragedy of having passed such a measure, this Bill is now being introduced consequential to it. So before any results of that experiment can be seen a further extension of the provision for alcohol is now being made. In considering this matter, Sir, you must also take into account as to whether the Bantu people themselves so desire these extended facilities. It is interesting to note that, although the Bantu beer has a lower alcoholic content, it has been proved that with the increased consumption of Bantu beer a taste is acquired for stronger liquor. It is merely the whetting of the appetite of those who wish to partake of alcohol. The drinking habit often commences with the drinking of beer. As that habit increases so the desire for stronger liquor becomes stronger. We are now making available to these people who are the least developed and the least civilized of our population, this strong liquor with its accompanying dangers.

The African people have from time to time expressed points of view. I would like to mention here that the Transvaal Inter-denominational African Ministers’ Association expressed certain points of view. It says—

It was further disclosed at this Inter-denominational African Ministers’ Association Conference that—

Here, Sir, I believe is another important factor where they state—

Another important aspect is the fact that this Bill allows the sale of Bantu beer to persons over the apparent age of 18 years. They state here—

I will come back at a later stage to the aspect of the young African youth that is being exposed now to the dangers of alcohol.

The extension that this Bill provides for the greater consumption is bringing about a further phase in the abuse of alcohol. I believe that with the establishment of additional beer halls and, with the relaxation of certain controls that have been in existence in the past by making liquor easier available, we will find a deterioration in the behaviour of our urban Bantu people. The position of our detribalized Bantu population is one of grave concern to this country. With detribalization taking place and more money being spent by these people on liquor and as the ties becomes looser in regard to their responsibility towards their dependants, so we will find other evils arising. Other important and serious problems such as malnutrition will arise. I woul like to say that in the constituency of Durban (Umbilo) there is one of the largest non-European hospitals in this country, the King Edward VIII hospital. There one sees children hospitalized daily due to malnutrition, and due to the advanced stages of malnutrition, kwashiorkor. There is a high mortality rate amongst these children, sometimes over 200 per month. They die of malnutrition. So the question of the breadwinner spending more money on alcohol, will mean that there will be less money to buy food for those children. And that will aggravate this very serious problem of malnutrition among the Bantu people. I feel very strongly on this matter, Sir. By extending the facilities to get liquor, by encouraging the Native to spend more of his meagre earnings on liquor, we will seriously affect the position in regard to malnutrition.

We must also take into account the crimes that are committed whilst persons are under the influence of liquor. Over and over again we read in the daily Press of cases of violence, of crimes that have been committed and the guilty party invariably puts forward as an extenuating circumstance that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This is a matter of grave concern to those who wish to see a reduction in crime in South Africa. With this further availability of liquor I think there will be an increase in the incidence of crime. Various surveys which have been carried out show what influence liquor has in regard to crime. For instance, a survey was carried out in America in respect of juvenile crimes. That survey, I believe is very relevant due to the fact that we are now making liquor available to young Bantu youth. That survey covered 12,000 cases and it was found that no fewer than 31.7 per cent were linked directly with liquor.

That is strong liquor; this is weak liquor.

Yes, but this is the first stepping-stone towards their taking strong liquor. The extent to which crime is linked with liquor has been accurately assessed by the survey which was carried out in America. The young urban Bantu presents a very serious problem when he misbehaves himself. We know that the tsotsi problem in the larger townships is one of grave concern. In an article written in Penal Reform News of October last year states that—

The figures which were supplied to this House some weeks ago, detailing juvenile crime, showed the extent to which the Bantu was involved in juvenile crime. For instance, in 1958 the figure of juvenile crime—these are convictions—was 144,076 in 1958; 145,392 in 1959; and in 1960, which is the latest available figure, 150,647. These are the figures in respect of convictions in respect of juvenile crime amongst the Bantu people. I believe that by making this liquor available to these young people will lead them to commit crime whilst they are still juveniles. It will set them on a path along which they will not utilize their lives to the fullest benefit to mankind.

The whole question of the effects of the abuse of alcohol as it affects welfare organizations and children, was clearly stated by the National Welfare Organization Board when they studied the problem and reported on the dangers of alcohol. They came to the conclusion that every possible effort should be made to combat this evil. They even state, if you will allow me to quote from this pamphlet, Sir—

They go on to suggest that—

These are all matters which are of grave concern to welfare organizations and indeed to Government departments which continually have to deal with the problems arising from alcoholism We know that the Government has appointed a Committee which has recently reported. Although we have not had the benefit of seeing that report, we are looking forward to the day when some active steps will be taken to reduce alcoholism and to lessen the degree of the abuse of alcohol that is taking place in South Africa.

That is why I am disappointed to find introduced into this House a Bill which will lead to the greater consumption of liquor, which will create better and more facilities for the consumption of that liquor. Another matter, Sir, which I think we must bear in mind is the question of the driving of motor vehicles. Over the last Easter Holidays South Africa had a record number of accidents. The question of persons driving under the influence of liquor is a very serious matter indeed. We must remember, Sir, that the Bantu people are becoming drivers of vehicles in increasing numbers, if not of their own vehicles then of other vehicles. An increasing number of Bantu are taking their drivers’ licences and taking driving lessons. As the evolution of the Native people continues, so more and more of these people will become drivers of motor vehicles. I feel that the danger to which we are exposing them, the danger of driving under the influence of liquor, killing innocent people on the road, is another matter of grave concern. I may quote from a Road Safety pamphlet which I have here. They state that the most dangerous part of a motor-car is the nut behind the wheel, especially when the nut is a bit too tight. So the whole effect of this Bill is that it will lead to an increased consumption of liquor. There are certain aspects of the Bill which I would like to raise further in the Committee stage, but at this stage I just want to mention them to the Minister. Firstly, under Clause 3 it gives the percentage by weight of absolute alcohol for Bantu beer, but it merely limits it to the beer manufactured by the local authority or the employer. But in the very next clause authority is granted to any person to brew beer for domestic consumption and I believe that the 3 per cent should apply to that case also. The question of the age limit of eighteen years is one which I hope to raise with the Minister in the Committee stage. Unfortunately when the Liquor Amendment Act was passed last year such an amendment was rejected, but I would like to mention that in view of the fact that the Bantu people have a custom that their young people should not partake of this liquor, some consideration should be given to raising that age limit. Under our present laws, with the White youths, extreme difficulties have often been experienced. I have personally seen youngsters of 15 and 16, who are still attending school, under the influence of liquor, and when I asked them how they obtained the liquor they said they obtained it in a bar lounge. There is a great deal of laxity about in regard to the supply of liquor to these youngsters and I believe it is a great tragedy that there is not stricter control. I hope similar circumstances will not develop in terms of this Bill. I realize it is a difficult problem and that 16-year-olds can pass as 18-year-olds, but I believe it will be much more difficult for the 16-year-old to pass as 21 if the age limit was set as 21. The other matter to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention is the penalties, which I believe are far too low in this Bill. I would like to see far higher penalties imposed upon any persons committing offences in regard to the abuse of liquor. These penalties will not act as a deterrent. For these reasons I believe that this is not a good Bill and therefore I do not intend to support it.

I do not wish to differ from the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because I respect the attitude he adopts, although I think he is wrong because we are not now discussing liquor generally, but the traditional drink of the Bantu which he has used over the years, and whether we pass an Act in this Parliament or not they will still drink that liquor. The object of this Bill is to exercise a certain amount of control in regard to its use.

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. The first is in regard to the control which he or the police will be able to exercise in regard to the percentage of alcohol. The Bill provides that it shall be 3 per cent, but the Minister himself has admitted that if this beer stands for a long time it can go up to 12 per cent. How will those tests be able to be made by the police or by the officials? If a person makes Bantu beer according to the correct recipe and it has an alcoholic content of 3 per cent, but he does not drink it on that day and it stands over for a week or so and the alcohol content goes up, will that be an of fence? I should like to know from the Minister what the position will be.

The other question is in regard to the remarks made by the Minister, and the Press reports, that the intention is that Bantu beer will be used by Whites also. I should like to ask the Minister whether there were any consultations between the Mealie Control Board or the Agricultural Department and himself in regard to the development of any other type of beer, or any change in the recipe of the ordinary Bantu beer, to make it more attractive to Whites, because there have been rumours that the idea is that by means of the same recipe a different type of beer will be developed which is more acceptable to Whites. [Interjection.] Seeing that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has so much to say by way of interjection, I want to ask him to participate in the debate. This is a free House. There is nothing to prevent him from getting up, and I challenge him to do so. We on this side are at liberty to speak according to our conscience. He is not allowed to do so, but he makes interjections, and when questions are put to him he remains quiet. I ask the hon, member to get up and to tell us what he thinks and how he will vote. He is so inclined to make interjections, but we on this side are at liberty to speak as we like.

But whilst I am addressing the Minister, there is a final question I want to put to him. Has the Minister made any recommendation to the Agricultural Department to change the name of “kaffir corn” to “Bantu corn”? Because I want to know how one makes Bantu beer from kaffir corn. One uses kaffir corn, but when one uses the sprouted grain one gets Bantu beer. There are “kaffir watermelons” also. Is he going to change that name also? I want to tell the Minister that whatever laws he passes, the name “kaffir beer” will remain in use. I do not want to repeat stories I have heard from others, but the Minister will find that the word “kaffir beer” will still be used because it is part of the terminology in our language, and has been for all these years. But seeing that he wants to eliminate the use of the word “kaffir”, I want to ask him whether he is also going to eliminate the use of the name “Scotch”, because that is also the name of liquor?

I just want to know under what law the hon. member’s party managed to change “kaffir” into “African”?

No, we got that from the Minister of Bantu Administration. When we challenged him he said that he was a “White African”, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) also had something to do with it. I hope the Minister will give us information about the control and the other brews which may possibly be developed.

In regard to this measure, I feel very much like the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). I voted against the measure which was before the House last year, but it was passed by Parliament and became law. It seems to me that when that Bill was passed last year, the present measure became inevitable. So often, in looking back over history, we think to ourselves that if only this or that had not happened, how different the position would have been, but that gets us nowhere in regard to this problem, or most problems. We are faced with the history of this measure and with the problem of doing what is best for South Africa. I have tried to find out how it could be put crisply, and I think that any measure that is capable of reducing alcoholism can be said to be in the interests of South Africa. We do not know that this measure will have that effect. We are still groping in the dark. We have nothing by which to judge as to whether this measure will result in a reduction of alcoholism. We have to use our own judgment and deal with it piecemeal. When Parliament passed the Act last year, it seems to me we were faced inevitably with the measure now before us. But I am concerned particularly with one aspect of this matter, and that is that when Parliament was asked to pass the Act last year a picture was painted of the Government having now adopted a completely radical approach to the liquor problem. We have seen over the years the building up of growing hostility and friction between the police and the mass of the Bantu, particularly in the urban areas. We saw the growing trouble, more and more people being arrested and more and more hostility being created, because in the enforcement of the law the police would at night and under conditions which created disturbance do their duty. People came home for the week-end hoping to have a quiet time, but the police interfered and that led to trouble, and it resulted in some very sad tragedies. So the Government decided to come with a radical approach, last year’s Bill. Presumably, therefore, one of the hopes, and that hope was expressed again here, was that hostility would be a thing of the past, that the old troubles would gradually disappear and that through the provisions of this measure there would be a tendency towards a peaceful administration of the liquor laws. Sir, I want to say with all respect to the Deputy Minister that I fear the Government is going to be very disappointed if they believe there will be less need for official control by the police, and less friction and hostility created. The truth of the matter is that with last year’s measure and this one the stage is set for just as much trouble as we ever had in the past. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that we must view the future with great concern. I agree with that. We do not know where we go from here and no man can tell us. Only experience can show us. I am going to support this measure for one reason only, namely that the Bantu people have been accustomed to having their beer throughout the years and it is part of their lives. It was not introduced to them by the White man. It was part of their social customs, in the same way as drinking is part of our social customs, and I hope hon. members will not be offended if I point out that the question of drinking at parties is one of the first things mentioned in the New Testament where water was turned into wine at a wedding. It is a fact. We are not guilty of bringing kaffir beer to the Bantu. It is part of their tradition and it goes back to the Dark Ages. If this Bill will result in the Bantu rather spending their money on kaffir beer than on hard liquor, I will be justified in my own opinion and my conscience for the vote I am going to give to this measure. I do not want any man to be the custodian of my conscience in this matter. I want to stop or reduce alcoholism by any means in my power, and if this will have that effect, and I believe it may, I will support it. I say it may, because I repeat that none of us can say for certain. What is worrying me is that we know that what has grown up over the years is the creation of shebeens and illicit liquor selling and we know that the ordinary Native, with the amount of money he has available, goes for the strongest liquor he can buy and the greatest volume of it for his money. He has not the palate of a connoisseur of liquor. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Lands is not here, because when I think of connoisseurs I naturally think of him. The average Bantu is not interested in that. He wants as much as he can get for his money, and he wants it to have as much alcohol content as possible, and the result is that is what led to shebeening. It was the fact that they wanted to supply this ready market. So you got the position arising that various ingredients were used like carbide and bluestone and methylated spirits and sugar and honey, to give content and bulk. Adulteration was the basis of the manufacture of what was peddled by the shebeen queens. It is that which I fear. What I am afraid is that the basic beverage, kaffir beer, will be used for further adulterations to give as great a bulk and as high an alcoholic content as possible, because it will be so difficult to detect. Under last year’s Act hard liquor can now be obtained legally by the Bantu, and kaffir beer can be obtained legally under this Bill. You have a position which the police have never had to deal with before, where it is legal for the Bantu to have liquor. The police will be faced with an intolerable situation in enforcing last year’s Act and this Bill, and if unfortunately history goes that way there will be no other course open to us in Parliament but to retrace our steps. On the other hand, if the Bantu are going to stand by their traditional way of life and spend their money on kaffir beer, we will have done a good thing for South Africa, because it will reduce alcoholism which is becoming so rampant, particularly among the Bantu in the urban areas.

I want to some extent to differ from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) when he says that the police will find it very difficult to exercise control, particularly with regard to the shebeens. I want to make the point that making available this Bantu beer and also White man’s liquor to the Bantu to a large extent eliminates the shebeens. Their existence is now being made more difficult, because if one tries to see what gave rise to shebeens, we find that they owe their existence to the control which made it difficult for the Bantu to obtain liquor. When the Bantu had to buy at high prices on the black market liquor made from grapes, and could not obtain Bantu beer either, the shebeens came into existence. Now that liquor is made available to them, the necessity for the shebeens is eliminated, and also the difficult task the police had to perform. That brings me to the idea expressed by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), who said that the Bantu women do not want this Bill. But if he reads the police reports he will clearly see that it has been stated in those reports year after year that more than one-third of the money voted for the police is spent in controlling liquor, and in eliminating the shebeens. They also tell us clearly in the reports that incidents like Sharpeville and the other incidents we have had, the arson and the murders, can to a large extent be ascribed to the fact that the Bantu women were the instigators and that they did so because they wanted to give their husbands Bantu beer but the law prohibited them from doing so.

I want to express another idea which has not yet been expressed here before, namely the cultural value which the Bantu attaches to his own liquor. Here I also differ from the hon. member for South Coast, who said that as the result of his limited purchasing power the Bantu wants to buy the greatest volume of liquor with the highest alcohol content possible, but that is not inherent in the Bantu nature. The Bantu is proud when he can tell his friend: My wife can make better beer than yours. In other words, in the beer the wife gives her husband he recognizes a cultural value, a manifestation of her efficiency and her love for him. If one attends a large Bantu reception or meeting, one finds that after certain weighty matters have been discussed the meeting is adjourned at a given moment and then, in a very nice traditional manner mention is made of the fact that the throats of the spokesmen are parched and sore and must be doctored. Then the beer is not just served in a tin. No, in the traditional manner two young girls must carry in the beer pot and a third must bring a basin of water, and she must wash her hands and with a grass strainer she must skim off the husks and strain it, and then she must put the beer into a special clay pot, and it is first handed over to the tester who must see that it is pure, and then it is offered to the guests of honour. In that way, over the years, a cultural value has been attached to Bantu beer which is much more deeply ingrained in their minds than merely the idea of drinking and becoming intoxicated, and that being so, this Bill is very necessary, because it will restore to the Bantu his national pride and self-assurance if he can use his Bantu beer in the traditional manner.

That brings me to what was said by the hon. member for Hospital, that this City Council makes precisely 100 per cent profit on the beer sold by them, and that on a capital investment of R1,000,000, they had a turnover of R2,000,000 and made a profit of R1,000,000. Then the hon. member for Brakpan says that they make a much smaller profit. The difference is that the Brakpan Municipality sells it at 14.4 cents a gallon, and Johannesburg at 20 cents a gallon.

That is very Christian of them.

Now I want to put this question: In view of the fact that the Johannesburg City Council exploited the Bantu by charging these high prices, has it not had less peace and harmony in its Bantu areas than Brakpan? Is that not perhaps one of the reasons why Johannesburg has trouble with its Bantu, because it exploited them? Therefore I want to ask the Minister to pay attention to the maximum amount which may be charged for this beer, so that there will not be other city councils like Johannesburg which make 100 per cent profit. That is not fair towards the consumer.

But what about the facilities?

The hon. member wants to justify the profits by mentioning the facilities provided. I want to ask him this: Why should one, out of the profits on Bantu beer, comply with the requirements which any person has the moral right to demand? Why should you provide facilities out of the beer profits which you must provide in any case? I think it is the responsibility and the task of every employer to provide the necessary recreational facilities for his employees, and it is also the responsibility of every city council to provide facilities for the various racial groups, irrespective of their colour. Why should the facilities for the Bantu be financed out of his own beer, while those for other people come out of the taxpayer’s pocket? That is not fair and just. The Johannesburg City Council should not ask that Bantu beer should be made available by the local authorities, which make these enormous profits, and then seek to justify it by saying that they provide facilities for the Bantu, which they are in any case obliged, morally and otherwise, to provide, whilst facilities for the White people are not provided out of the profits made on their liquor. To my mind, there is a cultural value attaching to Bantu beer. I am glad to see that provision is made in this Bill for allowing the ordinary Bantu to brew his own beer, so that he need not go and buy it at the beer hall belonging to the local authority or elsewhere. In the past the position was that the Bantu family in the rural areas was entitled to brew only four gallons of beer. I feel that provision should disappear and that a Bantu family should be entitled to brew as much beer as they like, because in the first place it is a food. What some hon. member said here is true. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) looks at me askance, but I want to tell him that a man who has an ulcer need only drink a little Bantu beer for that ulcer to disappear. If a person who is too thin drinks Bantu beer, he will soon gain weight; it makes him healthy. I agree that the Bantu should be limited in regard to the amount of beer which he may brew and sell. We do not want to turn all the Bantu into liquor dealers who can brew and sell Bantu beer. But please allow the Bantu family to brew as much beer as they want to. I want to remind the House that four years ago I pleaded here under the Juctice Vote that we should make liquor freely available to the Bantu. I then used an example; I said that in the two months during which I specially went to investigate liquor and the drinking habits of the Bantu in Portuguese East Africa, I did not come across one intoxicated person; I did not encounter a single one who was under the influence of liquor.

That only happens in Johannesburg.

I asked myself why that was so. It is so because liquor is not a prohibited article there. There the Bantu can buy as much intoxicating liquor as he likes in every Indian shop or any other little shop, and he can brew as much liquor as he likes. In other words, if one makes liquor freely available, if it is not a prohibited article, one immediately eliminates drunkenness to a large extent. Therefore I say that we should not destroy the cultural value the Bantu has always attached to his beer, particularly at his various functions, at the indabas they hold. For example, if a young Bantu wants to get engaged to a Bantu girl he sends a messenger who takes along a beast or a young heifer to open the mouth of the father so that he can talk, and when he has opened his mouth to talk they pour beer into his mouth. It is then an occasion on which to drink beer, and if thereafter the young Bantu himself comes to put the question, and the girl agrees, and he hoists the white flag over his house, beer is again consumed. If a death has occurred, then after a certain period of mourning, they take off the mourning signs and the ceremony is accompanied by the drinking of Bantu beer; it is not done in any other way. A special big function is held and beer is consumed to end the mourning. In that way, over the centuries, a cultural value has been attached to Bantu beer. Therefore I repeat that I agree with the hon. member for South Coast. This is not a measure which will increase the number of alcoholics; it is not a measure to allow people to drink more, because they will drink in any case, just as they did in the past. This is a measure to stop the illegal drinking, the poisonous drinking, because the liquor sold in the shebeens causes tin or lead poisoning; they put all kinds of things into the beer, and this measure will to a large extent eliminate that.

Finally I want to say this, and I do not want the idea to get abroad that there is an over-production of wine or of kaffir corn and that therefore we want to make Bantu beer and other liquor freely available. This is not a measure to promote the sales of those articles. It is only a measure which makes it possible for the Bantu to buy liquor cheaply and legally, and not illegally on the black market. Therefore I think that this is a very desirable measure.

I think this talk of cultural background and traditional drinking is quite irrelevant. I do not think it matters what the Bantu do when there is some special occasion in some small area in the Reserves. I do not think we are dealing with those conditions at all. We are dealing with the practical issue of providing Bantu beer for the drinkers, and the drinkers are the everyday drinkers and not the occasional drinkers. Whether we call it kaffir beer or Bantu beer or African beer, what it really means is that after a day’s work these people are going to go along to the nearest shop and buy themselves some beer to drink because they like it; it has nothing to do with the question of culture.

This Bill before us has one or two faults, as I see it. I support the Bill in principle. I did so when we were dealing with the hard liquor Act. I then said that I would like to see an extension of the supply of Bantu beer. But I have some difficulty in regard to two matters. Firstly I think it is a great mistake to sell kaffir beer in bottle stores. If it is not possible to have beer halls available where the Bantu can buy beer, I think special beer shops should be erected by the local authorities, especially in the towns.

In the Native areas?

In the Native areas or even at places on the way home to Native areas, e.g. near railway stations and so on. I know what happens when a person goes into a shop to buy anything, whether he goes in to buy a carton of kaffir beer or whether he goes into a shop to buy a tie. You always see something else that looks attractive and you start thinking about buying it. I am just afraid that the man who is going to go in to buy a carton of kaffir beer is going to be attracted by a small bottle of brandy. That will do two things; it will strengthen the kaffir beer later on and secondly it is quite easy to open on the way home. I think that it is a terrible thing to do to sell kaffir beer and hard liquor in the same place, and I want the Minister to give this matter considerable thought, because I am not talking without some knowledge of these things. I say to him that beer shops should be erected. We have the example of the malt and wine licences in the case of Whites, and that was introduced primarily to combat the sale of hard liquor. Why then should there be a distinction now in the case of the Bantu, why should he be allowed to have both hard liquor and kaffir beer in the same place, if the White people themselves over the years have been restricted?

The other reason why I think we should have these beer shops is that the price of the beer could then be very easily controlled, and the profits obtained from the sale of that beer could be controlled and handed over to the local authority to be used for the benefit of the Bantu. I am pleased that the question of profits has been raised, because I hate to think what would have happened to the amenities which have been provided for Bantu people if these profits had not been used for that specific purpose. It is a good thing that the local authorities, especially in the large cities, took it upon themselves to use that money for the establishment of Bantu amenities. I think we should continue along those lines. Do not let us squander the profits from individual stocks, however small they may be, because the total profit that will be made will be quite considerable over the years.

The other fault that I find is that this Bill does not provide for a restriction in the size of beer halls. I am afraid that if you are going to encourage the erection of beer halls, there will be no control over the number of people who can drink in a beer hall at any one time. In my opinion the trouble does not arise so much from the amount of beer that is consumed during an hour or two; the trouble almost invariably arises from the disturbances that take place between groups of people in large beer halls, and I would like to see the Minister restrict the size of beer halls so that at no time shall there be more than 100 individuals in a beer hall.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has just come into the House; he thinks we are dealing with something altogether different.

He thinks we are on the Fencing Act.

I do not know why we even take any notice of the hon. member because he always makes these irritating interjections.

I feel that we are not really going to encourage greater spending by the erection of smaller beer halls, and I do not think that the provision of beer is going to make for greater spending amongst the Bantu. On the whole they are a responsible group of people. I think they have a great deal of experience now of how to work out their budget, and I think it is only the irresponsible Bantu who are going to over-spend on Bantu beer. Sir, I am not so sure that the point of overspending is valid.

The question of allowing 18-year-olds to buy Bantu beer is important, and here I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) that it is wrong, however difficult it may be to estimate the apparent age of a Bantu youth, to allow a Bantu youth of 18 to go into beer halls to drink. Sir, if you look at the statistics published by the Education Department you will be amazed to find how many youths over 18 are still at high school. Although the Bantu at 18 may be able to do a good day’s work, the middle-class Bantu is very often still at school at 18; he has not reached matriculation yet, and we are virtually going to allow schoolboys free entry into beer halls. I think if you raised the age to 21, there is a possibility of telling who is an adult and who is a juvenile, but from 16 to 18 it is very difficult to tell the difference between an adult and a juvenile merely by appearance. I should like the age to be raised to 21 therefore.

I want to say a word or two about crime in relation to beer drinking. I do not think that the consumption of Bantu beer in itself causes much crime; it is the lacing of the drink that causes crime, and here again I want to plead with the Deputy Minister to separate the purchase of Bantu beer from that of hard liquor; do not put them together on the shelf; do not tempt the Bantu to buy hard liquor in the same shop where he goes to buy his Bantu beer, because he will lace that beer. Whenever he has an extra shilling I feel that drinker is going to lace his Bantu beer with hard liquor, and it is that which is going to lead to more crime. The shebeen woman is going to go into direct competition with the producer of Bantu beer, whether it is the local authority or not. These women are shrewd business women, and if it is true that the Bantu wants as much as possible in bulk and a drink as strong as possible for as little as possible, the shebeen woman is going to give it to him. You may still have difficulty in trying to cope with that situation where she competes with the legitimate producer of kaffir beer.

Whether this measure is going to affect the accident rate is a moot point. I think that those people who own motor-cars are getting their fair share of hard and soft liquor. They pay a little more for it but they are getting it. I think that every Bantu who owns a motor-car to-day knows where to go with that motor-car to get a little extra brandy or whisky.

It is not so much the one’s who own their own motor-cars, but they drive other people’s cars and public vehicles as well.

Well, there may be something in that but I do not think it is going to increase the accident rate very greatly, as presented by the hon. member for Umbilo. I also think that the brewing of beer domestically is not a good thing to allow; because that will almost legalize the shebeen queen’s activities. After all, none of us to-day are allowed to make alcohol; if a still is found in a man’s house he is charged. I do not think the right should be given to the Bantu to brew his own beer domestically, whether it be in the town or in the rural area. If a farmer to-day wants a bottle of beer he does not make it himself, he buys it. We have now reached the stage where we can keep Bantu beer for days on end without its exploding in the container, and in the circumstances there seems to be no reason why in every town there cannot be a deep freeze where Bantu beer can be kept. When the farmer wishes to go and get beer for his workers, or when the individual himself wants to go and get beer, let him go to the local beer shop and buy it and take it home. But once you allow home-brewing of beer you will have all sorts of difficulties and the police will have their hands full in dealing with the abuses that will take place through the unauthorized production of beer. It will be unauthorized because you will have no control over the alcohol content of that beer.

How are the Bantu in the rural areas going to get hold of beer if they are not allowed to brew their own beer?

I have just explained that with the facilities that we hope will be provided to preserve Bantu beer, there would be no difficulty in having a store of Bantu beer in every village.

Where do you want it stored?

In the beer shops.

And what about the platteland?

Are there no shops in the platteland? Of course there are shops. Where do the Whites buy their liquor?

You are absolutely wrong now.

I would like to know how many farmers have their own shops on their farms and sell clothing and food to their workers.

Very few.

Where do the farmers get the supplies for their workers? Do those supplies drop from heaven, or do they go and buy it at the shops? They must buy it in the shop. Well, on the same day that they go and buy soap and candles etc., they can buy their suply of beer.

Are you of the opinion that the farmer should cart the beer for his Bantu workers to his farm?

I feel that beer ought to be produced by the local authority, because then its production can be fully controlled. I feel that if you are going to allow domestic production of beer, the law will be broken more often than not because there will be no control over the alcoholic content of the beer. I cannot see how it is going to be more difficult to deliver Bantu beer than it is to deliver an ordinary bottle of Lager. You can lay in a stock and keep it in a deep freeze and it won’t explode.

The Native has not got a deep freeze.

Of course he has not got a deep freeze. Who is suggesting that he should have a deep freeze? But we say that the shop from which the Native buys should have a deep freeze, and if there is no shop in the immediate vicinity the farmer can keep it for him.

And if the shop has no deep freeze?

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

I think so too, Sir. We have gone all over the platteland.

There is one last point and that is this question of the food value of kaffir beer. I do not treat this matter very lightly. I think there is very great food value in Bantu beer and whether the prohibitionists like it or not, the proof is that it is there. The hon. member for Umbilo has proved the value of Bantu beer from a food point of view. The hon. member showed us how much bread you have to eat to get the same value as from half a gallon of Bantu beer.

No, I said that to get the value of a 2 lb. loaf of bread the Native must drink eight mugs of beer.

Well, it is easier to drink eight mugs of beer than to eat four loaves of bread. Then there is another point. Bantu beer also has great medicinal value. I do not think we should all go and start drinking this medicine, but these points are important, and as long as people do not abuse these privileges I think it is a good Bill. I think it needs sorting out and tightening up here and there, but once we have decided to give the Bantu the right to drink not only Bantu beer but hard liquor, I think this is the sort of thing that will encourage him to drink his own type of liquor, and that it will possibly keep him away from hard liquor.

I do not want to say much about this Bill. In the first place, I just want to differ from the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) where he asked the Minister to consider allowing the Bantu on the farms to brew as much beer as they liked. I do not agree with that at all. I do not think we should allow every Bantu “stat” to become a bottle-store, because that is precisely what it will amount to. If we allow the Bantu on the farms to brew as much beer as they possibly can, we will be opening the way to abuses which we will not be able to control.

The second point I wish to raise is this: I want to ask the Minister, seeing that raids are made from time to time and investigations are made on various farms on various occasions, and the police look for those who contravene the Act in so far as the volume of Bantu beer brewed is concerned, whether we cannot more usefully use the time spent on that by testing this beer and ascertaining whether the beer contains other constituents which are harmful to the Bantu, because that is our great problem. It is not the Bantu beer which creates the problem; it is not the amount of Bantu beer a Bantu drinks in a given time, but it is the extra ingredients added to that beer which create a problem.

How will they make those tests?

They can make tests in the same way that they make tests at every depot.

How will the exemptions be made?

Order!

I just want to reply to the hon. member’s question.

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

The plea I want to make is this, because I think I am on firm ground when I ask that the time now being devoted to controlling the amount of beer brewed should rather be spent on taking samples of the beer and testing them to see whether those Bantu have added anything to strengthen the beer which is harmful to their health. I think the hon. the Minister should devote some attention to that, because it creates a very real problem for us.

For the rest, I am satisfied that this Bill facilitates the distribution of Bantu beer and its availability, and that it affords the proper channels of distribution and closes up certain channels of distributions and to a certain extent controls certain evils associated with the distribution of beer as the result of the activities of certain types of people who distribute Bantu beer.

Order! Those arguments have all been advanced already.

I therefore support this Bill, with this request to the Minister, and my further request to him is that he should not pay any heed to the representations made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom.

The Bill before us has such important features that I do not think it is a measure on which one should give a silent vote. My own views with regard to the sale or the use of alcoholic liquor are well enough known to the House, but I must say that in this particular case I find myself very much in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). We on this side of the House have a free vote. No member has the right to speak on behalf of any other member. We are each called upon to make our own declarations. Whatever views are expressed by a member are not binding on his colleagues and therefore I feel that this is a matter on which one should make one’s own position clear. I am not happy about the Bill. I believe that there are features in it which can well cause difficulty and leave us in a pretty bad mess. We hope that will not happen, but as has been said by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the only test will be the test of time after the measure is implemented. In other words, the test in this case will be supplied by the drinkers of the beer. I do feel that whereas in last year’s measure we committed ourselves to the supply of hard liquor, the tendency will be for this measure to divert drinking to this type of liquor which we understand is not so potent, which may be more nutritious and will certainly not be so damaging to the individual from the point of view of its alcoholic content if the production is controlled as it is intended to control it. For myself I feel that there are only two courses open. You either accept what we did last year and let it go at that and oppose this Bill, or if one feels that this particular Bill is an improvement then one will accept this one. My own feeling is that whatever one’s personal feelings are, there seems to be only one common sense view, in the interests of the country, and that is to accept this Bill. I therefore propose to support this Bill, although I opposed last year’s Bill, and although I would oppose any extension of the powers laid down in the Bill last year. I think they are two different things, they are on two different planes, they affect two different lots of people and there is certainly a far bigger potential for evil in the one than in the other.

But in regard to this Bill there are certain features (I am not going to elaborate on them because they have already been dealt with) which require consideration in the Committee Stage. I am in agreement that to a certain extent the profits derived from the sale of this liquor should, to a reasonable extent—because no one from a commercial point of view enters into this trade to give away all his profits—but to a reasonable extent be diverted back to the benefit of the people who are drinking the kaffir beer, in other words the Bantu themselves. That is an essential. I also believe the control which would ensure that, and the control which would probably limit any damage that the Bill is likely to do, would be best vested where it is possible to do so, in the hands of either the local authority or such other authorities as exist in the various places—in control of the people to whom the liquor is to be supplied. There may be practical difficulties, and no doubt there will be such difficulties in the country districts where you have got widespread areas, but I think that is an avenue that has to be explored in the Committee Stage to see what we can do in that respect.

I believe also that we want to examine very carefully the question of the type of premises in respect of which permits are to be granted as kaffir beer halls, or whatever you may call them, for the consumption of liquor, because I believe that in the case of all liquor, but particularly this one, we should try to create in such premises the other attractions which will take the many away from sitting down for a steady drinking session, will mix it up with other interests where the drink comes in as a secondary consideration. It should not be just made a drinking shop. The drink should only be a portion of a man’s evening’s relaxation. In other words, you create as far as you can for these people a sort of club atmosphere in which you take their minds off solid drinking. I believe that is something that also has to be looked into.

I think also, Sir, that the question which has been raised by the previous speaker with regard to his objections to domestic brewing by the family warrants consideration, but I am afraid I find myself in complete difference with the last speaker. I believe that one of the measures of effective control, certainly in the better ordered families, the well-ordered families, will be the domestic brewing of their own liquor, where it will be under the control of the head of the house, or the woman head of the house. I think one can expect there, more control and more discipline in the supply of liquor to that particular family circle than one can achieve by forcing them to go to shebeen queens, or whatever other supply which may be available. I see no reason against the sale of this liquor under properly controlled regulations through the normal liquor channels, the bottle stores. Surely there also the law of the land provides what we assume to be adequate control over that type of sale. There are penalties applying not only to the individual who abuses the supply obtained, but the supplier himself, and I believe there are many areas of the country where it would be beneficial for that type of sale to take place in that way. I have had a long association with the control of liquor as a member of the old type of liquor licensing board, and I have usually found that the licencee in general—you find in that trade the same as anywhere else the odd black sheep-has a sense of responsiblity and that he will endeavour to carry out those responsiblities to the letter and not only in the spirit of the Act. Therefore I see no reason for the objection lodged by the previous speaker against the sale of this type of liquor through bottle-stores.

As I say, each one of us has to sum this up as you feel best, as you can square with your own conscience, and despite my own personal feelings with regard to the general usage of liquor, I find myself in this position with regard to this Bill that I have no alternative but to support what I feel to be the lesser of the two evils, that is this Bill, in the hope that it will offset to some extent the damage that may be done by the Bill that was passed last year.

This has really in every respect been a pleasant debate to listen to, and one asks oneself how pleasant this debate could have been if the control over Bantu beer had not still existed. I think the spirit of this legislation has had a good influence on hon. members, and I also think that the discussions we had here have been very interesting, but I would like to divide it into fundamentally two types of statements which were made here. Firstly, I would say that we had fundamental objections to alcoholic liquor as such. In so far as that is concerned, that is not really relevant here to-day, because the distribution of alcohol in general, whether it has a low alcoholic content or a high alcoholic content, is really a matter which falls under the Liquor Act as a whole. Then, secondly, there were doubts expressed in regard to the Bill, and there were hon. members who wanted to see improvements made here and there. It is perhaps possible to suggest certain improvements. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) and certain other hon. members referred, for example, to Clause 13, and we may possibly consider an improvement there. I think, however, that it will be desirable briefly to deal with certain matters in general.

As regards the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), hon. members will perhaps agree with me if I say that the opportunity to reply to this debate should really have been given to the hon. member for Albany, but of course the rules of the House do not allow this procedure, and therefore I will have to reply, although of course I would not be able to deputize for him, and I would not be able to say what he would have said had the opportunity been given to him. The hon. member’s approach was a fundamental approach. He is against intoxicating liquor whatsoever, whether it be of a high or a low alcohol content. I think therefore that I cannot go into his arguments because we are concerned here with a Bill that is really supplementary to the Liquor Act, and this is not a Bill which deals with liquor primarily. The hon. member for Albany had some objections and observations in respect of the provisions of this Bill, but I really think that this measure will promote freer distribution and freer consumption of Bantu beer, which in its turn again should act as a deterrent on excessive consumption of both Bantu beer and other alcoholic liquor. I think the hon. member’s fears are not founded. I must remind hon. members that where we come with this Bill now, we do not for the first time introduce Bantu beer for the Bantu…

For the Whites.

Perhaps for the Whites, yes, but not for the Bantu in South Africa. We have had Bantu beer all these years, although under stricter control than that envisaged in this Bill. We have had Bantu beer all this time, and this is merely a question of extending the distribution and consumption of it, and I may say perhaps that it is merely the introduction of a better balanced and more logic distribution, especially if we compare it with alcoholic liquor in general.

It was also a very interesting experience for me to be almost in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. That is something that has happened very rarely, and it is perhaps the first time that has happened. The only thing he suggested, is something that I can accept, and that is his amendment. That also is a very exceptional occurrence and I wonder what the hon. member for Albany will say if I say that we have to thank the Bantu Beer Bill for such an improvement in the relations in this House.

*We also have all kinds of suggestions made by other hon. members. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) asked that action should be taken against the bar system in connection with Bantu beer. He said that beer gardens should be encouraged. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in regard to Bantu beer the bar system has not existed hitherto in the form in which we know it in regard to the ordinary strong alcoholic liquor. It is the beer hall system, and in recent years also the beer garden system, which is encouraged, and as hon. members have, I suppose, also read in the Press, many of the municipalities are inclining to the idea of Bantu beer being distributed more in accordance with the beer-garden system in the Bantu residential areas around the cities than under the ordinary bar system. I also want to give the hon. member for Christiana the assurance in regard to the one point he raised that the introduction of this Bill and the distribution of Bantu beer should not be viewed as a method of making money on a large scale for all kinds of social facilities, etc. Other hon. members also referred to it. I can give them the assurance that is not the intention. That is the great difference in the viewpoint of those hon. members and that of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), who was one of the last speakers. The making available of Bantu beer must be seen not so much from the practical point of view but more from a traditional point of view. The more logical and more balanced system which we are introducing now has a traditional basis, because the Bantu regards beer as a traditional part of his way of life. That is why there is price control. There is price control in regard to the prices charged in the Bantu residential areas. That has been so for all these years, and it will be maintained. There is also control even where employers, in a limited number of cases, are allowed to sell it. Therefore the whole tendency is that prices should not be so high as to result in large profits. Of course they cannot work at a loss, and what profits are made must be devoted to the social interests of the Bantu himself. That is the standpoint. But the motive is not to make big profits. The motive is to make available the traditional drink of the Bantu. The hon. member for Karoo also raised a few points. He referred to an excise tax on Bantu beer. That, as other hon. members have already pointed out, is not relevant here. We can provide here that an excise tax should not be levied, but if the Minister of Finance at a later stage deals with income tax measures, it can simply be changed again. It is not relevant here.

*The hon. member for Hospital also spoke at length and even now I am not yet sure whether I should take him seriously or whether his speech was meant sarcastically. Anyhow, I want to assure the hon. member that we all enjoyed his speech and I must give him credit that he definitely read the Bill, which perhaps we cannot say of all members, for some of them may not be interested and others may not have had the time. One of the most important automatic exemptions here is in respect of the fact that the individual may also now brew beer under certain conditions, and that is about the only major extension in the distribution and consumption of Bantu beer. Because as I said just now, the consumption of Bantu beer in South Africa is not something new. We have here only an extension of the distribution in certain respects. So I do not think that there will be such enormous consequences as the hon. member envisages. As regards the control of Bantu women, I may remind the hon. member that there is a provision for regulations whereby such control can be introduced, where necessary. So far also under existing conditions we did have control over Bantu women in beer halls in the locations of the towns and cities.

The hon. member for Hospital referred to the employer who will be in a position to brew and to supply beer on his property and he asked whether control would be exercised in that respect. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the control there lies in the system of the distribution of Bantu beer itself and in the quality of Bantu beer. In the first instance that employer cannot sell generally. So why would he then brew more beer than necessary? An employer won’t step up his costs very high to brew huge quantities of Bantu beer if he cannot dispose of the beer in the correct way. So I do not think the hon. member need have any fears on that count. Of course the employer won’t give away more than his employees should get and can absorb, and he won’t give to his employees so much Bantu beer that it will affect their work on his premises adversely. So I really think the most important control factor lies in the system of distribution and in the quality of beer. If for instance he is brewing too much beer, he will find out in a day or two that he cannot use that beer anymore because it becomes sour or deteriorates in other respects. If therefore such control measures were introduced in regard to employers as the hon. member suggests, you would introduce the necessity for police raids and control whereas we must try to avoid such raids as far as possible, as is the general intention of this Bill of course.

*The hon. members for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) and Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) also emphasized the importance of the traditional aspect of this matter. It amounts to this, and that is where the hon. member for Rosettenville was wrong in his approach, that we should not regard Bantu beer in the way in which we regard it, but in the way it is regarded by the Bantu, and to the Bantu his beer is, as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has said, part of his culture. I want to go so far as to say that it forms part of his religion, in the broad sense of the word, and for that reason the ready availability of Bantu beer is the primary consideration here and not the profit motive. Whatever the temperance people may say, this beer is in fact a food for the Bantu, whether it has a low food content or a high food content. It has a nutritional value to him, and it has this religious or cultural value to which I refer. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom gives an example which reminded me of a certain episode which took place which I just want to mention here, to illustrate how deeply his ideas in regard to Bantu beer are steeped in Bantu tradition. The hon. member told us how the Bantu uses beer as the yardstick by which to measure the efficiency of his wife, as contrasted with the wife of another Bantu. His wife can make better beer and therefore she is a better wife. The hon. member went a step further and also told us how beer plays its part when the Bantu is looking for a wife, and indicated how it plays its part during a time of mourning. Now I want to tell a little story here. It is said that on a certain occasion a former Minister of Bantu Administration, or Native Affairs as it was then called, had to appear before a large Bantu audience and that the Minister’s words pleased the Bantu and they felt very happy and they were very satisfied with what he had said. One of the old headmen who got up to thank the Minister for his speech then said: I just want to tell the Minister that to-day we feel just as happy as when we see the young women coming along with the beer-pots on their heads. That is the approach of the Bantu. It is an integral part of his life, and that is the approach which we adopt in this Bill, and not the “more practical approach” of the hon. member for Rosettenville. He had a very practical approach. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) also mentioned a few interesting points, but I think most of these points can be dealt with better in the Committee stage. His most important point, however, was that as far as possible the local authorities should retain the monopoly. I just want to point out that as the Bill reads now the position is that where this monopoly exists, where local authorities alone may brew Bantu beer, that position is automatically maintained, and it can continue in that way. If it is to be abolished and there is to be home brewing within the Bantu area of a local authority, that can only come about if the local authority in the first place takes the initiative and asks for it. Then the Department can approve it or not. But the initiative, in introducing the dual system where home brewing is also allowed, must come from the local authority. If a local authority wants to do that, it does so on its own responsibility, and it will surely have considered the implications fully. In that case the objection raised by the hon. member for Brakpan will also be negatived.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) I think also approached the matter fundamentally. His protest here to-day was not against the extension of Bantu beer, but against the consumption of alcoholic beverages in general. His was a fundamental approach and although I have respect for that view and sympathy for that view, I think that argument is not really relevant here because we are dealing here with a supplementary Bill to that which was passed last year.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether at this stage he is prepared to commit himself in regard to higher penalties and the raising of the age limit.

As regards the penalties, the penalties in this Bill are brought on the same basis as the penalities in the general Liquor Act, so in this case also we follow the standards set by the principal Act. I cannot deviate from what is in the Bill in regard to the penalties, I am afraid. In regard to age limit, I would like to say that up to now 18 years was the age limit for the supply of Bantu beer to individuals in the locations, so we just extend the age limit also for the purposes of this legislation. The experience we have had so far does not justify the raising of the age from 18 to 21.

*The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) also participated in the debate and I want to tell him that it is a new experience to be able to agree with him. I hope it augurs well for the future. The hon. member first referred to control of the alcoholic content. The percentage of alcoholic content only applies to Bantu beer brewed by the local authorities and the employers.

At the time of brewing.

Yes, that was also the case in the past, and I must say that we have gained very satisfactory experience in regard to local authorities as far as that is concerned. I know of no local authority which on the sly tried to increase the alcoholic content much above that level. We have every confidence in the local authorities that they will be honest. Tests can of course be made. The C.S.I.R. can test it if necessary. But hon. members should note that it is 3 per cent at the time of manufacture, and it is therefore obvious that if the beer is kept for a long time, the alcoholic content will increase, but then it is a bona fide increase which, one accepts, will not be too high. Because the local authorities regulate their supplies in such a way that they need not keep the beer very long, so that before the alcoholic content increases the supply will be exhausted. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned in this regard.

Can officials test it?

With the assistance of the C.S.I.R., and the machinery by means of which the beer is brewed can of course also be tested. Then the hon. member asked whether there were consultations with certain other departments to ascertain whether the standpoint in regard to the supply of Bantu beer can be changed so that Bantu beer will be made more acceptable to White people. Here there is a small point of difference between the hon. member and myself, which I really regret. On this point he agrees more with the standpoint of the hon. member for Rosettenville, who is now sitting next to him. The object in supplying Bantu beer freely is not to satisfy the White man, but to satisfy the Bantu. In other words, the question is, as I said in the beginning: What is the traditional conception of the Bantu in regard to Bantu beer? We are not making Bantu beer more freely available to enable the White man to obtain Bantu beer. That is a secondary result; it is something which is connected with the main principle. Our main object is to make Bantu beer available to the Bantu and therefore our first consideration should be the requirements, the character and the nature of the Bantu and the value he attaches to Bantu beer, and not that which the White man attaches to it. Therefore, if the hon. member for Durban (Point) must now drink Bantu beer which is really brewed to suit the taste and traditions of the Bantu, and it does not satisfy him or me, we will either have to cultivate a taste for it or not drink the beer at all. That is the only solution. But we approach the matter from the point of view of the Bantu and not of the White man.

Did the Mealie Control Board make representations?

No representations were made to ask for it. There was consultation in those circles, but they never raised that point. I may say that we had consultations with other bodies. For example, we had very valuable co-operation from the Institute of Managers of Non-White Affairs. They are the people who have had experience of this matter all these years. They gave us very valuable assistance, for which we should like to express our appreciation.

Then the hon. member did something which many other hon. members also did by way of a joke, namely to refer to the name “Bantu beer”. He asked whethter we were now going to change the name of “kaffir corn” also to “Bantu corn”. And another hon. member asked, by way of interjection, whether we were going to change the name “kaffir watermelon”. Mr. Speaker, we must really think fundamentally about this matter. This is a serious point. The name of this beer has never yet been kaffir corn beer. If the name had always been kaffir corn beer, then the hon. member would have had us cornered. But hon. members know that the word “kaffir” has never been an official term anywhere in our legislation dealing with the Native. In common parlance the word “kaffir” was used in various ways, to denote concepts. Kaffir watermelon was mentioned here. I now want to give hon. members a very nice figure of speech in Afrikaans which they will not be able to change; but there the word is used figuratively. It is to say: The Ikeys gave the Maties—no, no, no, surely that cannot happen!—the Maties gave the Ikeys a “kafferpak”. We cannot change the word “kafferpak” because it is idiomatic. It has nothing to do with a Native; it is a figurative expression. But the name of this liquor has never been “kaffir corn beer”. It was “kaffir beer”. Therefore it has nothing to do with kaffir corn. It should be noted that kaffir beer need not only be made from kaffir corn, although it is mostly made from it. The word “kaffir beer” therefore does not come from “kaffir corn”. It only comes from “kaffir”; and all those names which are derived only from “kaffir”, we have changed to “Bantu”, whether hon. members like it or not. That is the explanation for this name. Whether it will be used generally or not remains to be seen. We only hope hon. members will help us to let it become an accepted term.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have now dealt with all the points raised, and also in so far as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is concerned I am pleasantly surprised by the general agreement there is between him and us on this side. I therefore thank hon. members in general for the very positive contributions they made to the debate, and I hope that we will also receive their assistance in the next stage so that the Bill may be passed in as sound a form as possible.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.