I move—

To draft a Bill dealing with liquor is certainly not one of the easiest tasks one can undertake. To tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, had I had the power and had I had a bitter enemy, I would have liked to have entrusted that task to him. The reason is of course that the moment one comes forward with such a Liquor Bill there are so many conflicting interests which one has to reconcile with one another, conflicting interests which very often do not even want the sun to shine on the others. Now it is the task of the responsible Minister to reconcile those conflicting interests. Apart from the fact that one has to do that, one must take so many different facets into consideration when drafting such a Bill.

Before coming to the basic principles of this Bill, you will allow me, Sir, to say something by way of introduction. The first is in regard to what, as I have been informed, certain gentlemen have been saying in the lobbies. Those gentlemen are not members of this House. I think it is necessary to say a word about that, as to why I am introducing this Bill. The Bill, as hon. members know, is not a party measure. For that matter, it is not a Government measure either. Traditionally, liquor measures are not subjected to the authority of the Whips, and from the nature of the matter every member has the right to talk and to vote as he thinks fit. That is also the position in regard to this Bill. As far as I am concerned, I do not know how my best friend is going to vote in regard to this Bill, nor does it concern me. Let me immediately inform hon. members that it will not embarrass the Government or me if anyone talks against the Bill or votes against it. But the question arises—and it is necessary for me to reply to it—as to why I am introducing this Bill, seeing that it is not a party matter or a Government matter.

It has come to my ears that certain interests have been saying that I am quite unnecessarily poking my nose into this matter and that it is really a private Bill introduced by me. I would have left that sort of scandalous allegation there, but I do think, for the sake of the record, that I should state the correct position for the benefit of those who do not know better. A few years ago the Malan Commission was appointed. That Commission consisted, amongst others, of members of both sides of the House, and it was the task of that Commission to investigate the liquor problem. It was the Government which appointed that commission. That commission issued a report, which is in the hands of every hon. member. In spite of the fact that it was a Government commission, the Government could not accept or reject that report, because traditionally liquor measures are not Government measures. But because the Government had appointed the commission and had tabled the report, the Government has a positive duty towards Members of Parliament, and that is to give them the opportunity, seeing that the Government cannot do so, to express their opinions, for or against the recommendations of that commission. The only way in which those recommendations can be brought before this House is by way of legislation, and traditionally the Minister of Justice is obliged to introduce such legislation, just as Mr. Tielman Roos had to do in 1928. That is therefore the reason why I am introducing this measure.

I want to state very clearly, because that allegation was also made, that this measure is not being introduced by me for or on behalf of the wine farmers of South Africa. It is true that it will redound to their benefit. I make no apology for that fact. Whilst discussing that subject, Sir, I want to express my thanks to the wine producers for the way in which they have conducted themselves during this turbulent time. The fact that they did not try to exert pressure and did not make a fuss, as was done by certain interests, I think redounds very greatly to the credit of the wine farmers, that they behaved themselves in that way in these particular circumstances and in spite of all the temptation they were subjected to. On the other hand, I must express my displeasure at the way in which some interests set to work, and I want to express my thanks to Members of Parliament for the fact that where attempts were made to make lackeys of some of them, they did not lend themselves to that. I am very grateful to know that hon. members did not allow themselves to be used in that way.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that it is generally admitted, and was very clearly stated by me and by everybody else, that this is not a party measure, and that the Government is not at all concerned with this measure, there are in fact some liquor interests which could not refrain from making bitter remarks in this regard. I refer particularly to the statements of Mr. Gillibrand, who spoke on behalf of the Bottle Store Owners’ Association, and I refer to the interview he had yesterday with a Sunday newspaper, in which he said, inter alia—

And this “farce” which the Bill is, according to that gentleman, is now being laid at the door of the Government! I reject it with the contempt it deserves. But he goes further—

I would have expected this gentleman and his kindred spirits to have been very grateful for the monopoly they have enjoyed all these years and under which they have operated.

They paid for it.

Yes, but it was particularly lucrative to pay for it. But this gentleman goes further, and I must express my displeasure in regard to it. He says—

Hon. members should note that he is again referring to the Government which wants to rush this Bill through. Who is trying to rush it through? Was notice of this Bill not given a long time ago, and was the time for dealing with this Bill not arranged with the consent of the whole House? Who is this gentleman, to hurl these reproaches at the Government on behalf of the retail traders? But the gentlemen concerned are not only malicious; they are also uninformed. Listen to what he says, further—

Any person who says that has never read the report of the Malan Commission, or even seen it. And then to sow further suspicion, this person says—

Have you ever heard a more irresponsible and scandalous statement than that? He says—

Have you ever heard such nonsense? It is nonsense spoken in an attempt to wreck this Bill. Indeed, let me say that if these gentlemen have no better arguments with which to wreck this Bill, I do not doubt for a moment that this House will accept the Bill. Then this gentleman continues—

I think this is one of the most scandalous statements made in regard to the wine farmers and the wine industry which I have ever read. But the same Mr. Gillibrand sent hon. members a circular in which he said that it was being submitted to the hon. Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, Prime Minister, hon. members of the Cabinet and hon. Members of Parliament. I acknowledged receipt of all the other circulars, but I frankly did not consider it worth while replying to this circular. But for the sake of the record, just to show what is happening in this regard, I nevertheless think that I should quote a few passages from it. He begins by referring to the 1922 Strike.

Is he a Nationalist?

I hope not. Then he says that if those conditions should recur, how terrible it will be when grocer shops can sell light wines. That is what he says in his covering letter, but listen to the contents of the letter itself, the circular. There this gentleman is very sanctimonious and says—

Just imagine!—

Just imagine a grocer sitting in his shop the whole night merely in order to sell a few bottles of dry wine at the back door! I wonder where the smugglers in the past got their liquor from. But this person is now terribly concerned, and he says the liquor trade is very concerned about our youth. He says—

Sir, here the feelings of people are being toyed with, whilst this Mr. Gillibrand, of all people, should know that the position of cafés under the new Bill will remain just the same as it was under the old Act. But he drags in the cafes to gain the sympathy of people, whereas he knows, or ought to know, that the position of cafés remains unaltered in terms of the new Bill. Then he continues and he is particularly concerned about alcoholism and juvenile crime. Mr. Speaker, nobody could be more concerned about that than I am, and I shall come to it, because it is one of the reasons I have for introducing this Liquor Bill. But what I want to object to most strongly is that this circular was sent out by Mr. Gillibrand without telling hon. members that he is intimately connected with the liquor trade and that he is the chairman of the Witwatersrand Association of Liquor Traders. In other words, this circular cannot be regarded as anything else but an attempt to mislead Members of Parliament by means of the information contained in it. I want to express my strongest disapproval and indignation in that regard.

When dealing with a Liquor Act, and with this Liquor Bill in particular, it is of course relevant to ask ourselves: What is the drinking pattern in South Africa? And if we look at the drinking pattern of South Africa at the present moment, I want to say immediately that there is something radically and seriously wrong with our drinking pattern, and that not only social workers but the Churches have every reason to be very concerned about the present state of affairs; that not only have they reason to be concerned, but that they would be neglecting their duty if they did not warn us, as they in fact did in their circulars. It therefore behoves us, seeing that each of us must account to himself in regard to this matter, to ask what the present drinking pattern in South Africa is. Not only must we ask ourselves what the present pattern is, but we must also ask ourselves what the results of it are.

In this respect I want to draw the attention of hon. members to three aspects. The first is that the figures prove indisputably that ours is a hard-liquor-drinking country. That is not anything to be proud of. On the contrary, it is something to be concerned about. In the second place, we are faced with the problem, and every hon. member ought to realize this, that our hotel industry, particularly if we have regard to tourism in South Africa, is unfortunately experiencing a slump which causes all of us great concern, and that we all feel that if there is anything we can do to assist the hotel industry in South Africa, it should be done. Hon. members are aware that the Government regards this so seriously that an Hotel Commission was appointed to investigate the problems and troubles of the hotel industry in South Africa, and it was high time that such a commission was appointed.

I have said that we should accept it as a fact, and I will prove it, that we as a people drink hard liquor, and this is the crux of the whole Liquor Act. If hon. members tell me that it does not matter that that is so, if hon. members say it is quite in order, and that we should just leave it as it is, they can just vote against the second reading of the Bill and its provisions, and then of course we will just leave the matter there. If hon. members say it does not cause them concern. and if they say that welfare organizations and the Churches are needlessly concerned about it, we can leave the matter as it is and we will not pass this new Liquor Bill. Then we will allow matters to take their own course and we need not concern ourselves any further. But if hon. members tell me that they are in fact concerned about it—and let me say in all modesty that there should not be a single hon. member in this House who is not concerned about it—then we can discuss the matter, and if we agree with one another we should ask ourselves what we can do to bring about a change in the position, and then it behoves us to make changes.

Let us look at the drinking pattern for a moment and see whether we can be satisfied with it. I caused very thorough random tests to be made in the various provinces, and the figures I am now going to quote may be regarded as authoritative. If we take spirits, we find that in the Cape Province of the total number of gallons sold 7.51 per cent is spirits, in Natal it is 23.46 per cent, in the Orange Free State 18.91 per cent, and in the Transvaal 21.83 per cent, and the average for the whole of the Republic is 17.93 per cent. If we take fortified wine, what do we find? May I just say that it struck me that the objectors to the sale of wine in grocery shops consistently tried to create the impression that not only natural wines would be sold in grocer shops, but also all kinds of other types of liquor, inter alia, fortified wine. But when we come to fortified wine, which will not be made available to grocer shops, we find that it is 30.13 per cent in the Cape, 17.93 per cent in Natal 41.13 per cent in the Free State, and 20.96 per cent in the Transvaal. The average for the whole Republic is 27.54 per cent.

When we come to unfortified wine, we find quite a different picture, viz.: The Cape Province 45.48 per cent, Natal 4.85 per cent, the Orange Free State 3.57 per cent, and the Transvaal 7.50 per cent. For the whole Republic the average is 15.35 per cent. To complete the picture, if we take malt, we have the following position: The Cape Province 16.88 per cent, Natal 53.76 per cent, the Free State 36.39 per cent, and the Transvaal 49.71 per cent, an average of 39.18 per cent.

But when we analyse the figures for the Cape Province further, we find that it is only in the Boland area where natural wine is sold to such an extent that the figure for the Cape Province comes to 45.48 per cent, because if one looks in passing at the various towns one finds that whilst the average percentage for the Cape Province is 45 per cent, the figure in Aliwal North is 5 per cent in the one case and 1 per cent in the other case. If one takes a place like Beaufort West, it is 0.62 per cent in the one case and 0.19 per cent in the other. So one can continue. Then of course one finds certain places in the Western Province like Bellville where one gets figures of 84 per cent. 66 per cent and 59 per cent, and a place like Caledon where it is 45 per cent and 73 per cent. For Cape Town one finds it is 44 per cent, 75 per cent, 84 per cent and 67 per cent, from place to place. In other words, it is only in the Western Province that one has these figures. If one looks at the individual towns of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal, one finds that almost no natural wine at all is sold in comparison with the total sales.

I had these figures in front of me when I had to decide on this aspect of the grocer shops, and taking into consideration these figures I decided so to word the clause that grocers’ licences for the sale of wine will not be granted in those magisterial districts where the sales of natural wine are more than 40 per cent of the total sales. Therefore the question immediately arises, and it is a reasonable question: Why did I do that? And secondly, hon. members may ask me: Why did you confine it to that sort of wine and why did you not, in conflict with the recommendation of the Malan Commission, include beer? That is a fair question. I have already partly given the reply to it in the beginning, namely, because I am dealing with vested interests. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was quite justified in saying that these people have paid, directly, and sometimes also indirectly, for their licences, which are expensive. We are all aware of that. Therefore as a responsible Minister I cannot simply ignore vested interests. I must take vested interests into consideration. If I were to allow grocer shops without exception in every area to sell natural wine and beer, then, in view of the figures I have before me for the whole of the Republic, I would be affecting vested interests in so far as their sales of beer are concerned.

Why not allow the sale of beer and not of wine?

I shall come to that. I was saying that the reply is that if I allow beer to be sold in grocer shops, which according to these figures of mine in so far as the established trade is concerned come to an average of 39 per cent, it will hurt the established trade. I would be taking customers away from them; I would be reducing their sales and consequently I would be affecting them deleteriously. I said in the beginning that one of the things one should bear in mind when introducing a Bill such as this is that one should as far as possible not affect vested rights. Otherwise the trade could have approached me for depriving them of a commodity which they have been selling for years and which constituted a vested right. They could have reproached me for taking the bread out of their mouths. I therefore decided that as far as I was concerned I would not include beer.

Coming to the question of natural wine, precisely the same argument could have been used against me, namely that I was affecting vested rights if the trade had been selling natural wine, and in those areas where they in fact had been selling natural wine. Therefore I decided, in view of the figures, that if it constituted 40 per cent of their sales I would not allow it in those areas. If hon. members want to know what the figures for their districts are, they are welcome to get them from me. If I now give a grocer shop in Aliwal North or Fort Beaufort or Klerksdorp or Volksrus, or any other place where very little or no natural wine is sold, the right to sell wine, I am depriving nobody of anything. The established trade cannot say that I am taking the bread out of their mouths and that I am now giving to the grocer shops an article from which they have been making their living all these years and must make their living in future. They cannot reproach me, because they never sold it, and consequently they cannot suffer any loss. But what is more, I want to state very definitely that not only did the established trade never sell it, but the established trade never lifted a finger to try to sell it. I discussed the matter with them. The established trade has never made any attempt to sell it. I asked them why not, and they told me that it was not their task or their function; it was the function of the K.W.V. to do so. I make bold to say that it is not the function of the K.W.V. Do not forget that the whole background is that the K.W.V. does not have the right to sell its own products in South Africa. It is not allowed to do so. The liquor trade claimed that right many years ago, and obtained it. The liquor trade sells their products. Therefore it is the duty of the trade to see to it that propaganda is made for it. The K.W.V. in fact felt concerned about the matter, and I want to say to the credit and the honour of the K.W.V. that during recent years it has done much to popularize natural wine. It went out of its way to do so, in spite of the fact that it was not its function. I think we should all be grateful to that organization for what they have in fact done in that regard. I therefore say that the established trade did nothing to popularize wine. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they have not also had the experience that if one comes to certain places outside the Western Province and one wants to enjoy a meal and asks for a bottle of wine to drink with one’s food, one is regarded as a being from Mars. One is looked at askance. A stigma immediately attaches to one because one dares to ask for natural wine. A friend told me only the other day that he went to a certain hotel for a meal and the waiter came to take his order and my friend asked: “Have you got a wine steward?” The waiter then walked to the serving hatch between the dining-room and the kitchen and called to the cook in the kitchen. “Two wine stewards, please”. We have all experienced that sort of thing. I think that in regard to this aspect of the matter we are all agreed that we as a people drink hard liquor. I think we also agree at this stage that we should do something to change this drinking pattern. And that is not my idea, or yours, but it is the idea of the Malan Commission, which devoted years to this subject and gave us a very well-considered opinion in regard to the matter. And what do they recommend? In spite of the fact that Mr. Gillibrand never heard of it, this is what the commission recommends in paragraph 158 of its report—

That is what the commission recommended. I shall make a point of letting Mr. Gillibrand have a copy of the report.

Now the question arises as to why I do not allow beer and why I do not allow wine to be sold in certain areas. It is because I want to be fair and objective and I do not want to affect vested interests. That is why I do not do so. But in no district where it will be allowed, according to the statistics, will vested interests be affected, because vested interests simply do not exist there. The question now is this: The Malan Commission recommends grocer shops, and is that now the solution? For the liquor trade that is not the solution. For certain other persons who are opposed to liquor it is not the solution either, but I found it interesting to see how people were grouped together. It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but I say that liquor makes even stranger bedfellows. The question is whether the grocer shops provide the solution to the problem?

One of two things may happen. The grocer shops may say they are not interested. I cannot say to-day that they will or will not say so. They may say it will not pay them and they do not want to go to all that trouble. If they say that, then we have lost nothing, but then we as a House have at least done our duty so that we can tell the Churches and the social workers: We are concerned about this state of affairs; we have tried to change the drinking pattern by making it available to grocers, but they do not want to touch it. Then at least we have the right to say that our conscience is clear because we have done our best. If they accept it, as I think they will, it means that there will be distribution points for natural wine which at present do not exist in practice. In theory they do exist, but in practice they have never yet existed. It will then mean that there will be somebody who will make it his duty to try to sell natural wine. And what do the figures tell me? Statistics show that last year 30,000 leaguers of good natural wine were distilled because there was not a market for natural wine. In other words, more than 2,000,000 bottles of good natural wine were turned into spirits because there was no market for natural wine.

Now I put this question to hon. members, and it is a question which each of you must answer. It is no use our crying for the moon It is no use saying that there should be no liquor. It is here, and we must make the best of it. But in heaven’s name we should at least try to educate our people to drink the less harmful liquor, unless of course we say we are not concerned that our country is a spiritdrinking country, and that this state of affairs should simply continue. If that is our attitude, it is the end of the argument. But if we are serious in saying that we want to change our drinking pattern, then we must do something about it. I repeat that I do not want to say for a moment that the solution lies in grocer shops, as the Malan Commission says, or that it is the ideal solution. The future will have to teach us. But what I do tell hon. members is this: Give me a better solution and I shall grasp at it with both hands. Give me a better solution than the recommendations of the Malan Commission and I shall willingly amend or withdraw this Bill and accept your solution. A great responsibility rests upon us, and I believe that where the Malan Commission very thoroughly investigated this aspect of the matter, they are the most suitable people to tell us what the position is and what the solution is; and until such time as a better solution can be suggested I stand by the recommendations of the Malan Commission in this regard, with the modification I have made for the good reasons I have given hon. members.

But what is now the objection we have received in this regard? We have received numerous objections from the liquor trade. Sir, you have no idea how concerned the liquor trade has become about wives and children in the past fortnight. They have become very concerned indeed. Our children will now run across the street at 11 o’clock to the nearest cafe in order to drink a glass of wine! Have you ever heard such nonsense, Sir? And that is said in spite of the fact that I told hon. members that the provisions in respect of cafés remain precisely what they were under the old Act. No change is being made in that regard. But these nonsensical arguments are advanced. Then it is said that every corner cafe will stock wine and they will force it down people’s throats, as Mr. Gillibrand said. Utter nonsense! If these people had told me: We do not want this Bill because it will harm our pockets and we want to keep everything for ourselves, I would have differed from them but I would at least have had respect for them. But I cannot have much respect for people who advance this type of argument. No, one can analyse all those arguments, and I tell hon. members, with a full sense of responsibility, that there are still the same controls we have hitherto had in regard to the supply of liquor to juveniles. This Bill does not change that in any way. If it could not be done under the old dispensation, it cannot be done now either. Why do these people not divulge their true motives?

But there is a second aspect which induces me to introduce this Liquor Bill, apart from the fact that I think we should try to bring about a change in our drinking pattern, so as to encourage people to drink the less harmful rather than the more harmful liquor, and that is that in recent times, as I have already said, there has been a slump in the hotel industry which must necessarily cause us concern. Now I want to make a statement which will perhaps shock some hon. members, but I think most of them will agree with me. I want to say clearly that I am not a bottle-store man. I think that is the worst thing that has ever slipped into our liquor industry. I say so because I believe that the people who should have the prior right to the liquor industry, if anybody is to have it, are the hoteliers. Unfortunately the 1928 Liquor Act had the effect that the liquor industry was deprived of its legitimate share of the liquor trade, and that is why the hotel industry has landed in the trouble in which it is to-day. I believe that we should do everything in our power once again to give the hotel industry its legitimate share of the liquor trade.

What is the present position? At the moment there are 691 hotels in the Cape Province, and the Cape Province is fortunate; it is the only fortunate province in so far as the 1928 Liquor Act is concerned, inasmuch as 512 of them have off-sales privileges, but 179 do not have these privileges, and those who do not have them are particularly the newer hotels which were built to provide better service. They are deprived of these privileges and must compete with an old hotel which was built before the rinderpest but which has off-sales privileges; but the better hotel which has to cater for the tourists does not enjoy those privileges. What is the position in Natal? There we have 307 hotels, only 101 of which have off-sales privileges, and 206 are deprived of them. Why? For what sound reason? The Free State is also better off. There are 111 hotels and 84 of them have off-sales privileges. But in the Transvaal there are 424 hotels and not a single one of them has off-sales privileges. Is it fair and just that this should be so? I say no. There are in fact hotels which do not have off-sales privileges but which have bottle stores, but they have to take their chances in the open market. I adopt the standpoint that a good hotel should have off-sales privileges without any further ado. It should not have to go and compete and apply for these privileges. If it is a good hotel it should have them automatically. That is my standpoint. The liquor trade of course also opposes this. The retail trade does not want it. They believe that it is their prerogative to open up their shops at 10 a.m. and to close them again at night without taking any responsibility. They suffer no losses. Their product cannot spoil. To tell the truth, it improves with age. But the hotels which render the service do not enjoy those privileges. Therefore I set out from the standpoint that hotels should be given those privileges.

What privileges and benefits will the hotels derive from this Bill? Here I want to say that if we are in earnest in regard to the tourist industry, and if we are in earnest in wanting to help the hotel industry—I am referring only to the principle now; how it should be done can be discussed in the Committee Stage—what advantages will the hotels derive from this? Apart from minor matters with which I do not want to weary the House, I want to mention eight benefits which the hotel industry can derive from this. The first and most important is that the hotels will be given off-sales privileges which were formerly denied to them, and which they deserve and ought to have. Secondly, in view of the problems of the hotel industry, better hours have been made available. Thirdly—and this is a matter for which the hotel industry has been agitating for years—I have introduced in this Bill the question of welshers. I want to tell hon. members who do not know what a welsher is that it is someone who stays in an hotel and then disappears without paying his account. That is now being made an offence. The hotel industry has been asking for it for many years.

Private hotels also?

I shall come to that. The reason why it is applied only to hotels is that the law compels an hotel to provide accommodation; it cannot refuse. There is only one other parallel case, that of a taxi. A taxi-driver can also lay a charge if someone has made use of his taxi without paying. Therefore I think the hotel industry has made out a case here and that is why this provision is in the Bill.

But then there is also another matter, and the liquor trade will also oppose this, and are already doing so. Where does one site one’s hotel? One sites it where it is most convenient for the guests. One does not build it in a place where there is much noise, if one can avoid it, but where it is most convenient for one’s guests. But normally that is not the best place to have an off-sales department, because the public does not have easy access to it; it is not on the main road. Take Port Elizabeth. Most of the good hotels there are at Humewood, but many people do not walk about there; they walk about in the centre of the city. At present the hotel, if it is so fortunate as to have an off-sales, must have it in a place where there are not many people. That is why I provide in this Bill in Clause 54, that if an hotel has an off-sales it can site it in any other place in the town or city, away from the hotel. In other words, if for the sake of the convenience of the guests the hotel is sited against the slopes of Table Mountain, it can have its off-sales in Adderley Street, because it has to compete with the rest of the trade and it cannot do so where it is sited. I make no apology for this, because I say the hotels have first option, if they maintain decent standards. That is why I am giving them this opportunity. I am departing from the old provision that the off-sales must necessarily adjoin the hotel. I cannot see why I should adhere to this old provision. But there is a provision connected to it. It may not be a separate business; it cannot be turned into a separate business, and the hotel may not see it, but it must remain part of the hotel, and the profits made must go into the same account as that of the hotel, because we do so particularly to encourage the hotel industry. We are giving it its share of the liquor trade so that it can provide a good table, clean rooms and other facilities. That is why we are granting the hotel trade this privilege, which in my opinion is a very great one and should be appreciated as such.

Hon. members will also know that when one gives a reception in an hotel, it entails a lot of trouble. If I were to be so friendly as to invite hon. members to an hotel—and I will not do so because I cannot afford it—I must pay for every guest’s drinks as he receives them, and of course that is a nuisance to the host. In my opinion there is no reason why one cannot pay for all one’s guests after the conclusion of the function, and we now make provision for that in this Bill.

A peculiar anomaly of which I was not even aware in the Liquor Act is that if a man is a guest in an hotel he cannot buy a bottle of liquor in the off-sales department of that hotel, but must buy it elsewhere. I find that a nonsensical provision, and I am repealing it.

Then there are hotels—there are such hotels at Hermanus and on the South Coast—which are seasonal hotels and which find it very difficult to keep open out of season. They have been given the right to close down out of season. In other words, they dismiss their staff and close down until the next season commences. But now the position is that if they close, the hotel must also close its off-sales, and I do not think that is fair. Let them close their hotel if there are no guests, but they should have the right to keep their off-sales open. There is not the slightest reason why they should forfeit their share in the liquor trade simply because the hotel closes down in the off-season. There is no obligation on the hotels to do so, but I give them the right to keep open if they wish to. There are also good reasons for that. In spite of the fact that other people’s fees have been raised, the hotel tariffs have not been increased but are the same as they have always been. These, then, are the advantages the hotel trade will derive from this Bill.

Hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) are aware—and the hon. member drew my attention it—that under the guise of medicine all kinds of harmful liquids are being marketed. I took action in that regard not only under the existing Act, but hon. members will see a provision in the Bill which will make this sort of thing impossible. In future no medicine containing liquor will be able to be marketed before it has been certified as a medicine in consultation with the Minister of Health, who in turn will consult with the Medical Council. Hon. members will also see a change in regard to licensing. I do not want to go into that now. I just want to say that the reason for it is to achieve uniformity, which is very necessary. Hon. members will find a new type of licence here, apart from the grocer’s licence, and that is a table licence. It is a licence which will be to the benefit of private hotels and enable them to serve natural wine with meals. We have many first-class private hotels which for some reason either cannot get a liquor licence of do not want one, but which provide first-class accommodation and they may make use of this new licence.

Hon. members will remember that in terms of the old Liquor Act, the liquor trade was built up on the retail trade and the wholesale trade, but in the course of time evils slipped in and the two drew much closer to each other, and certain wholesale businesses were established which were in fact not wholesalers but retailers in the true sense of the word, a retail business enjoying so-called wholesale facilities. In this Bill I am now giving those people the right to convert their business under certain stated conditions. I am not explaining the provisions of the Bill, because hon. members have had so many teachers during the past fortnight that it is unnecessary for me to do so. There should be a distinction between the retail trade and the wholesale trade. The retail trade was after the blood of certain wholesalers, particularly the producers who were wholesalers, and wanted to exterminate them at all costs. Originally they almost convinced me that this should be done. Later I realized that these people also have certain vested interests and that they are also entitled to a measure of protection. For that reason I amended the provision, as hon. members will see. In the Committee Stage we can discuss the merits and the demerits of it.

Hon. members will see that there is a provision which does away with the tot system. This has been a bone of contention for many years. I do not want to say anything more about it. The provision in the Bill is quite clear. Hon. members who have an intimate knowledge of the Bill, and who have had good teachers, will see that many irritating provisions have been eliminated in the new Bill, because as the result of the provision of liquor to the Bantu and the eradication of smuggling it is no longer necessary to have those provisions, and consequently those irritating provisions are being deleted.

The Malan Commission recommended that the retail trade should not do bottling because many evils arise from that. I have accepted that recommendation, and hon. members will see it in the Bill. I could have said much more, but I notice that I have been speaking for more than an hour already. I could still have discussed many of the provisions and explained them, but I think most of them can be discussed in the Committee Stage. I think—that is what I infer from the Press reports and from hon. members—that the contentious point in this bad Liquor Bill to which Mr. Gillibrand refers is in regard to the grocery shops. I have tried to motivate it to the best of my ability. I am not looking for more dispersal points for liquor. No one in his right mind will encourage people to drink more. On the contrary, it behoves all of us to do the opposite. But that is not my responsibility or that of the Government. Because this is a non-party measure, it is the responsibility of every individual member of this House not to allow other interests to dictate to him as to how he should vote, and not to be influenced by this or that group of interests. Every member must satisfy his own conscience as to whether he wants to do something to change this state of affairs and to establish a different drinking pattern in South Africa. Father Christmas and the angels are not going to do it for us. Only this House can do it, and every man must ask himself whether he is satisfied with the position, and if he is not, what can be done to improve the position. And do not tell me that grocer shops will not change it, because I say that any change brought about in this state of affairs must necessarily be an improvement. But let us give it a chance. We have carried on in the present way for years, and with what results? With the results the Churches and the welfare organizations tell us about. Let us try something.

I want to conclude on this note. The Malan Commission, which made it its task, consisting of hon. members on both sides of the House, found after mature consideration that this was one way of doing it. I wish to conclude by saying that if someone can indicate a better method during the course of this debate, I shall grasp at it with both hands, but after having dealt with this problem for months and having made a study of all these and related problems, and having studied the statistics, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way of doing it, and that is the method provided for in this Bill. As far as I am concerned, I am not inserting these provisions simply because the Malan Commission recommended them but because, in spite of the fact that originally I was opposed to it, I have strongly come under the impression that this is the only way in which this position can be remedied to some extent. If this proves to be the solution, it is one which I should like to grasp with both hands.

It was a difficult task to draft this Bill. I do not want to say for a moment that it has no defects; I am sure there will be many of them, but I want to say this: I challenge any other person to try to reconcile the different interested groups better than I have done in this Bill. Under those circumstances I have the temerity to ask hon. members to lend their support to this Bill. I now want to direct a request to hon. members, particularly as this is a non-party measure. My request is that we should not waste time on this matter. If hon. members feel that the provisions in regard to grocery shops are not to their liking and that they are not going to vote for it, let them please vote against the Bill at the second reading. Let us then simply vote it down right at the beginning; then we need not waste further time on it. We will then know precisely where we stand, and for the rest of the week we can devote our time to other constructive work.

As a very staunch opponent of this Bill, I have been rather surprised at the way in which the Minister introduced this measure and in the way in which he ended his speech. Firstly the hon. Minister asks for the sympathy of the House because this onerous task has fallen on his shoulders. He then proceeds to explain that it is not a Government measure but one which flows from the appointment by the Government of the Malan Commission. The Minister has explained the provisions of this Bill in a very involved way. The position is quite plain to me and we will see whether it is a Government measure or not when the motion is put to the vote, even though the Minister has almost pleaded with members of this House to vote against this Bill at the second reading if they see fit to do so and to dispose of it quickly. The Minister has explained that the intention of this Bill is to promote the drinking of wine. Sir, I do not regard it as a democratic measure. It is a revolutionary piece of legislation. The Minister has explained to us that heavy drinking takes place in the Western Province and he has quoted the percentages of liquor consumed here. It seems to me that not only does the Minister want this heavy drinking to continue in the Western Province but that he wants other areas to indulge in heavy drinking to the same extent as the inhabitants of the Cape Province. We have had figures produced to us in an attempt to prove that the drinking of light wines may reduce drunkenness in this country, but these figures have not been proved. Take the position in France. In France 82 per cent of the alcohol consumed is consumed in the form of wine, and yet this produces the highest incidence of alcoholism in the world. In South Africa amongst the Coloureds who consume mostly wine the number of convictions for drunkenness is eight times as high as in the case of any other community. That alone should be some indication to the Minister of the evils that exist here in the Cape, evils which have necessitated the introduction of Bantu labour here on account of the low vitality of the Coloureds of the Western Province. That is the position purely as the result of their drinking habits, and now the Minister wants to extend this evil to the rest of the country. Sir, there have been no demands from the public, the grocers or anybody else for this Bill. It is being opposed by our Churches, our welfare bodies, our women’s associations and trade organizations. If the Minister had only held over this Bill until next Session and given the public more time to express their dislike of this measure, he would have found it quite unnecessary to come to the House and plead for sympathy because the responsibility has fallen to his lot to introduce a measure of this nature. There is no doubt that if public opinion had been tested this Bill would have been rejected. I myself do not think that the Government will attain the advantages which it thinks it will derive by way of taxation as the result of the increased consumption of liquor in this country, and I wonder whether in the long run the wine farmers themselves will thank the Minister for this measure. Sir, I sympathize with the hon. the Minister. I am afraid he will have to live down a Bill which will go down in history as the Vorster Liquor Bill. I do not think that that is a title which he will be able to look upon with pride. I foresee the evils that will arise from the fact that light wines will become available through grocery stores. I have no doubt that a campaign against this measure will be launched in this country; that there will be an endeavour to boycott the grocers who adopt this system of selling light wines. If chain stores adopt the system of selling light wines, it may well mean the end of the development of chain stores in this country. Sir, I appeal to the country to fight this Bill tooth and nail. Let us fight the interests who are promoting this Bill. We must save our children; that is our first obligation. If we do not build up a virile strong nation in this country we are doomed, and yet here we want to bring wine into people’s homes as part of their grocery order. You will find that where groceries are ordered by people who can hardly afford to feed their children, wine will form part of that order and certain articles of food will have to be sacrificed. I cannot see any sanity in a measure of this nature. On the one hand we are spending millions of rand monthly combating the evils of malnutrition, tuberculosis and excessive drinking, and on the other hand we find that the Minister in introducing this Bill promotes the causes of these evils. That is all that this Bill will do. We have seen that happen in other countries. I myself have seen the evils of the consumption of light wines in other countries and the quantities of wine consumed by poor people who cannot afford it. There is no doubt that the consumption of light wines will promote the drinking of strong liquor in this country; it always has done that. I do not see anything wrong with drinking a light wine at a luncheon, but it will not end there; it is not as simple as all that. On the one hand we have the Government deprecating the brewing of home beer; the Minister quoted the low figures with regard to the consumption of liquor at places like Fort Beaufort and he said that the people there were drinking beer and not wine. I think it is evil for the Minister to try to encourage the drinking of wine in that particular area where the people are drinking beer which is much more wholesome. We know what the experience is in our courts. We know that in every country in the world where there is heavy drinking the instance of crime goes up. After all, we are responsible to an enormous Native population in this country and I think it is wrong to try to make light wines popular and easily available. It is far better to let people consume our natural beers which have been tested and which we know have a nutritional value. We know that the Government has gone out of its way to establish beer halls and to do away with private drinking. In spite of that, the Government now comes along with a measure of this nature which is going to induce people to go in for drinking in their homes. Hon. members would be shocked if they visited some of our Santa centres and saw the number of children suffering from tuberculosis, children who, in many cases, might never have contracted tuberculosis if the money spent by the parents in liquor had been spent instead on food for those children. Sir, I appeal to hon. members to vote against this Bill; to condemn it in the interest of our children and in the interest of the future of this country. The Minister knows how much money we have to spend to combat the evils of over-indulgence in liquor. Half the cost of the running of our courts is due to the evils of liquor. When we come to analyse the position we find that most broken marriages and most crimes are due to over-indulgence in liquor. Then we have our mental institutions, and I am sure that if we analyse the history of the inmates we will find that many of them have a history of overindulgence in liquor. My plea is that we should try to rear a healthy nation in this country. I have figures before me which indicate that there is just the same amount of alcohol in a bottle of beer or in a tot of whisky as in a bottle of light wine. The Minister may say that people will not, of course, drink a whole bottle of wine, but that they will drink a whole tot of whisky. Sir, in France I myself have seen children who are barely able to walk, drinking a whole glass of wine. The Minister must know that people who have the urge to drink would drink a whole bottle of wine to satisfy their craving for alcohol. We know that the Italians produce very light wine, but what happens? They simply go on drinking until they have had the amount of alcohol for which their system is craving. These are evils which are associated with the consumption of light wines. I think if the Minister analyses the evils that will flow from this measure he will find that it would be far better from the Government’s point of view to subsidize the wine farmer rather than to promote the increased consumption of liquor. The Minister has referred to the fact that so much of our wine has to be reconverted into spirits. I say that I would much rather see that than that it should go down people’s throats.

Public resistance to this Liquor Bill will become stronger and stronger. We have had temperance associations throughout this country appealing to Members of Parliament to oppose this measure. Never in my life have I received so much correspondence and so many appeals as I have with regard to this particular measure. The public in general, the temperance organization, social welfare organizations and women who are running social welfare clinics have begged us to see that this light wine is not made freely available. Sir, I would like to quote a few paragraphs from the memorandum submitted by the South African Temperance Alliance in regard to this Bill. I do not think anyone can deny what they say here. They say—

This is the opinion of the Narcotics Division of the United Nations. Sir, we know that many of our Native people are very peace-loving, but they partake of strong liquor to give them courage when they want to commit an offence. This memorandum goes on to say—

That is what we are going to find here; the Minister is seeking to establish more outlets for the sale of liquor; to make it more freely available, and these are the evils which will result from giving these facilities to the public.

That is what I would like to see; I would like the Minister rather to reduce the outlets for liquor as they are now doing in France. The Minister need not try to experiment in this country; all the necessary experiments have been carried out by other countries. We have seen what has happened in other countries; we have seen how the vitality of the people has been affected. We know that much of the instability in France and Italy is due to their earlier history of promiscuous drinking. We want to be a stable people in this country. We do not want liquor to be available to our children: we do not want to induce them to drink. Unless this Bill is outvoted it will mean that in every home in this country light wines will be consumed at mealtimes or at one meal per day. I think that is what the Minister is aiming at. His aim is to assist the wine farmers and to produce more revenue for the Government. His aim is to encourage people to drink the surplus liquor in this country, which is at present turned into spirits. But think of the cost! Since this Bill is a non-party measure I hope that when we come to vote on the second reading certain Ministers will vote against it. I certainly feel that the Minister of Health will vote against it. The Minister or Health knows that we are spending something like R21,000,000 on health services in this country, and half of that expenditure is brought about through the curse of liquor, the over-indulgence in liquor by our population. I am quite sure that the Minister of Health will take the lead in opposing this Bill and I hope that hon. members on the other side will realize that this is a measure of a revolutionary nature. If this Bill is passed I am sure that it will mark the commencement of the decadence of the South African nation. I feel that hon. members should carefully search their consciences before they vote on this Bill. We sympathize with the Minister that it has fallen to his lot to introduce this Bill, but I would remind hon. members that the Minister himself has said that if anyone has any doubt about the wisdom of this measure he should vote against it and that he, the Minister, will not resent it if members on the other side vote against it. I do hope that hon. members of the Opposition will oppose this measure and set their face against the evils of promiscuous drinking. Let us face the world with a determination to maintain a sober nation. Let us reduce as much as possible the inducements to our Native people to partake of liquor. As far as I am concerned, if this measure is passed, I will do everything in my power to see that it is not implemented successfully in this country.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) really argued in favour of this measure, because he dealt with the Bill from the wrong angle. That is to say, he suggested that the Minister had stated that the object of this measure is to promote the drinking of wines. With respect to the hon. member, that is not what the hon. the Minister meant or said. Nor is that what this measure is supposed to do. The Minister has repeatedly stated that what he aims at with this Bill is to change the drinking pattern in South Africa if it is at all possible to discourage people from drinking hard liquor. One cannot now draw the inference from what the Minister has said that what is intended is that people who have not taken liquor at all before, must now necessarily become drinkers of wine.

You are placing a wrong construction on what I said.

The hon. member for Albany, as indeed we expected, rose here and referred to all the misery caused by liquor. I do not think we need even discuss that. I think it is common cause that we are not protagonists of drunkenness. We desire that liquor should be taken in moderation, and in that regard I am completely at one with the hon. member for Albany. That is what we are aiming at; and if the hon. member wants to propose that legislation should be introduced to place greater restrictions upon the sale of liquor thereby to make it more difficult to obtain liquor, then it is a different matter, but this legislation does not seek to make liquor so much more easily obtainable, and I shall try to prove that to the hon. member in a moment. This legislation, and in particular the provisions relating to licences for grocers’ shops, seeks to change the drinking pattern in South Africa.

I think I am correct when I say that our approach as members of this House should be as follows, particularly in view of the fact that so much influence is being brought to bear on us from outside by financial and economic interests: What is in the interests of the country, rather than what is in the interests of my friend or relative or my client. I should like to say at the very outset that I believe that ultimately—it may take 20 or 30 or 50 years before it happens—there will be free trade in liquor. I do not think we can stop it; it will come eventually. I know that hon. members who are opposed to the consumption of liquor, and whom I shall call “abstainers” although all of them are not really abstainers but are opposed to the taking of liquor because they feel so strongly about the evils and the abuse of liquor, will actually be horrified when I say I foresee the day when we shall have a completely free trade in liquor. But I should like to put this question to those hon. members. Is there in this House a single person to-day who finds it difficult to obtain liquor? All those who wish to obtain liquor at the present time can obtain it and they can get it in any quantity. Whatever may be done in this Bill, therefore, will not facilitate the acquisition of liquor. Instead of a person who wishes to purchase unfortified wine having to walk out of one door after he has purchased his groceries, and then having to go in at the next door to purchase his unfortified wine, he will now be able to buy it in one and the same shop. That is the only difference. Whether he be a Coloured man or a Bantu or a White man, is immaterial; he can obtain as much liquor as he likes to-day. To the trade, which may also be horrified when I say I believe that eventually there will be a complete free trade in liquor, I should like to say that they are responsible for us moving in that direction. I am speaking from experience here, and I am sure the hon. the Minister is also speaking from experience. For years we have appeared at licensing board meetings on behalf of the trade. They come along year after year and ask for greater exemptions. We previously had Section 81 in the Liquor Act. Section 81 provided that the Liquor Licensing Board could impose conditions under which certain classes of our community could be dealt with differently from others in regard to the quantities they could buy and in regard to the hours of sale of liquor to them. Year after year there were representations from the liquor trade that there should be greater and more exemptions from those restrictions. Last year when we pleaded for liquor to be made available to the Bantu, we also repealed Section 81 of the Act. In other words, there are no restrictions at the present time. Formerly Coloureds here in the Western Cape could only purchase liquor in a bar until 6 p.m. because the Liquor Licensing Board had imposed that condition. To-day they can freely enter a bar and drink until 10 p.m. All those old restrictions have been removed. Who asked for the removal of those restrictions? The trade asked for it.

The only good reasons existing to-day for regulating the liquor trade are economic reasons. In fact, there is no other consideration. I am saying that to the abstainers who disagree with me. There is nothing in our Liquor Act to-day withholding liquor from a section of our community at the present time. Liquor is available to all. Why then must we maintain a closed ring in respect of a particular trade? Is it because of moral considerations? Is it because we wish to reduce abuse of liquor? No, it is not for that reason. As I see it, it is only for economic reasons, and I should like to hear the opinions of hon. members who disagree with me. The only reason is to protect trade interests. Even in this legislation one of the most important considerations is to protect those vested interests. I am a protagonist of an eventual completely free liquor trade. I think the time will come when I shall be able to enter any shop and buy any liquor I wish without any restrictions. Although I believe that, I do not believe it will come about overnight because if it were to happen overnight, the existing trade interests would be very seriously prejudiced. I believe it can only come about over a lengthy period in order that there may be gradual adjustment. I want to emphasize that the only reason why we do not do it to-day, is not to retain the restrictions on liquor but only in order to safeguard the interests of the vested trade.

I think there is a very unholy alliance to-day—which may be used against this legislation-in which the liquor trade which has exerted itself throughout the years for greater freedom to sell liquor with Churches and other leaders which are opposed to the sale of liquor. The two now want to form an alliance to come and tell us that this legislation in terms of which natural wines will be available in grocers’ shops, will be a very great evil. I should like to ask those in the liquor trade and hon. members of this House, please not to come here with that story. The trade has always asked for greater freedom; greater freedom to be able to sell more liquor and to have longer hours. Now they must not feel sorry for the person who may be able to buy a few bottles of liquor from his grocer. That same person can now go along and buy it from the bottle store next door or a little further away.

Mr. Speaker, it is frequently found that someone tells one proudly that he has never appreciated the need to drink a drop of wine; that he has never tasted wine and that he never wants to drink. With respect, Mr. Speaker. I should like to tell them that they cannot come and talk to me about wine. If they have never drunk wine, and if they never wish to drink it, then they cannot come along and talk to us about the normal, temperate and proper consumption of liquor. It reminds me of my wife who does not eat sweet potatoes. Sometimes I say to her: “Taste this sweet potato,” and then she says no, she does not eat sweet potatoes. You yourself know how nice a stewed sweet potato is with gravy. How can she now come and argue with me about sweet potatoes if she refuses to sample the taste of it? As regards wine the matter goes much further. It is not only what wine tastes like, but what it does. When I say “what it does” I do not mean I must become intoxicated or foolish. That is not what I mean. I mean there is something noble in wine; it imparts flavour to a meal. It does something to your food which, if you did not have it, will make you miss something in life. That is how I feel about it. A glass of cold white wine with poultry, and a glass of red wine—the bottle should have been opened an hour or two previously—with venison is something special. It is part of life you are enjoying which you cannot enjoy in any other way. That is where I agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). We should rather join forces to advocate the temperate and proper consumption of liquor. I should like to say this also to the hon. member for Mossel Bay: As regards this legislation he and I ought really to stand together, because this legislation seeks to encourage the proper and correct use of liquor. We feel that instead of a man using strong liquor with his meal, or at any other point of time, we want to promote the use of natural wines used in every civilized country. As the hon. the Minister knows, I initially had very serious misgivings about this clause, for the same reasons why the Minister will not include beer and why he also proposed the 40 per cent. I knew that it could prejudice the trade, particularly in the Western Cape, and the hotels particularly. Like the Minister, I am concerned about our hotels. I shall dilate upon that a little more just now. I am not concerned in the least about the bottle stores. I say that candidly. One of the things provided for in this legislation I do not agree with is that we are now again establishing a lot of bottle stores. We are creating more bottle stores and I have no sympathy with them. I sympathize with the hotels. Initially I was opposed to the opportunity we were creating here in the Western Cape, where such a large proportion of our liquor sales consists of natural wines, for prejudicing those vested interests. However, after the Minister introduced this 40 per cent clause in this new legislation, I was quite satisfied. I agree with him that in other parts of our country, where the consumption of natural wines has not yet been so encouraged that there are sales thereof instead of hard liquor, we must create the channels for doing so. I am not saying that we should create the channels because I wish to promote wine production as such, but because I am firmly convinced that it is in the best interests of our country, and that in that way we can accomplish a drinking pattern that will be to the advantage of our nation.

To summarize I should like to repeat that every opportunity already exists for all sections of the population to obtain as much liquor as they wish. Therefore this legislation is not creating any further opportunities for people to procure more liquor than they have been able to obtain heretofore. Secondly, I said that the liquor trade to a large extent are responsible themselves for it, because they have always asked for relief from the restrictions. What we seek to do in this legislation is only to improve the pattern in so far as it is possible at all.

The other important objects aimed at in this legislation, as I said just now, among other things, is the conversion of wholesale licences into retail licences in many cases. Clause 38 of the proposed legislation provides for this. I repeat I do not like this very much. I do not like it because we have gone out of our way in recent years to promote the interests of hotels. As the hon. the Minister has explained, hotels must provide a special service, and if there are advantages to be derived from retail liquor sales, I feel the hotels should have those benefits rather than any other business not providing such services to the community. Otherwise than in the other provinces, there are hotels in the Cape Province with off-consumption privileges. Since 1928 no further licences could be granted to hotels for off-consumption privileges accompanying on-consumption privileges. I cannot understand why this happened in 1928. We are now busy rectifying the position created in 1928. However it may be, we frequently find in the Cape Province that there are two hotels in one and the same town. The one is the better hotel, it has no off-consumption privileges and it cannot exist. The only other hotel in the town has off-consumption privileges and it makes thousands of rand profit every year. That is the position we have in the Cape Province. I think this position is more unjust than in the other provinces where the hotels have no off-consumption privileges. The competition in the Cape is terribly unfair. That is why I say I do not like this conversion of wholesale liquor licences into bottle store licences. In particular I believe that a bottle store licence has not the same right of existence that a hotel licence has. By making more bottle store licences available, it must obviously mean that the value of an hotel licence is being reduced. However, I am aware that there are difficult circumstances. I am aware that the habit of buying from the wholesalers has taken root with the public. It has taken root to such an extent that the Minister now regards it as a vested interest, a vested interest he does not wish to interfere with. That is really one of the effective reasons as to why the wholesale licence is now being converted in certain respects into a retail licence. Many problems are involved. Before we come to the Committee Stage, I should like to ask that we should still consider this matter much more carefully. At the moment it is provided that nobody can be granted such a conversion if he has liquor interests in the same district. Apart from that I realize that once it is permissible for wholesale licences to be converted into bottle store licences, we shall continue to have that group selling directly to the public. They will not have been exterminated as yet. If we have been moving in the wrong direction thus far, namely in permitting sales direct to the public, and we now wish to rectify that by converting them into bottle store licences, we are solving that problem only partly, for we shall still have that wholesale seller with us. For that reason I should like the Minister to consider something of this nature, namely that where we say that nobody may be granted a conversion if he holds other liquor interests, that should be permitted in fact but that such a person or company must be able to hold only one licence in a particular area or district, but that at the same time we shall put a stop to the sales direct to the public by wholesale liquor licensees.

Now I have another great difficulty which supports me in expressing this thought, and I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay will support me strongly in this regard. The wholesale liquor dealer who sells direct to the public imposes a condition precedent upon that contract, namely that the purchaser may not buy less than 12 bottles or two gallons. That is to say, you are encouraged to go and buy from the wholesaler, but you may be compelled to buy more than you require. That I think is the evil; I think that is wrong. I know of a town in the country—I shall not go into details—where there is a wholesale liquor licence. On a Saturday morning trainloads of Coloured people travel to that little town. From 8 o’clock in the morning that wholesaler is selling to the Coloureds, with the result that at 10 o’clock in the morning, when the retail bottle store opens, literally hundreds of the Coloured community have already bought their liquor. That is not quite so bad yet, because they do get their liquor a little cheaper from the wholesaler. It promotes sales to the public at the cheapest possible prices. The Minister reminds me that the hours are the same now, and that the wholesale trade will no longer be able to do this, but the fact remains that the liquor is cheaper wholesale. Even if the hours are the same, the public will still go and buy from the wholesaler because they will get it cheaper there. I do not object to that but what I do object to is that you are thereby encouraging the Coloured man to buy more liquor than he requires. Say for instance dry wine costs 65c per gallon; two of them join forces, each gives half and they buy their liquor by the gallon rather than by the bottle, and thereby they are encouraged to buy more. I do not wish to go into that point any further, but I say that is an evil. That is the kind of evil we must try to combat.

Will the fact that grocers will now be able to sell liquor improve that position?

I am not talking about grocers’ shops at the moment. There is no connection between the two. The question I am now dealing with is not related to the grocers’ shops. I have never said that the grocers’ licences will improve that position. I am now referring to the clause dealing with the conversion of wholesale licences into bottle store licences. I have developed that argument and suggested that we should consider providing for sales by the wholesalers to the trade only, and that this man who is an encouragement to the public, and particularly to our Coloured community, to buy more than they require, ought not to be allowed to sell to the public. We must have the wholesaler, the K.W.V., and then the retailers who sell to the public. I am speaking from experience I have had myself, and I think if we can do anything in this regard, we ought really to do it.

In conclusion the hon. the Minister said that we should rather vote against the Bill if we are not in favour of the clause making provision for grocers’ shops to sell wine. I do not think I agree with the hon. the Minister in that regard. I do not wish to discuss the details of this legislation; at the Committee Stage we shall be able to do so. There are many good aspects to this Bill on which we shall not differ at all. There are so many good qualities in this Bill, that even if we were forced to surrender one or two clauses, we must get the other clauses approved in the interests of the country, if we can do so at all. I am thinking particularly of the existing Section 63 of the Liquor Act. That section is being amended in this Bill. It is really the section that provides for the off-consumption rights of hotels. If the Bill were rejected as a whole, we cannot make that amendment. I feel therefore that because of the good qualities of this Bill, we should pass the second reading and then reject those clauses we do not like at the Committee Stage.

In conclusion I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one or two small matters in regard to Clause 60. Clause 60 provides that the Government will compel certain licensees to move a certain portion of their sales to a certain class, the on-consumption sales to a certain class, to a certain area. I think that is essential, particularly here in the Western Cape, where there is such a tremendous congregation of Coloureds, where there is on-consumption. It is not in their interests, nor is it in the interests of the rest of the community. The Minister now wants to create the opportunity for him—and I think it is very important—to move to a part of the town where it will be more convenient and better under all circumstances. I think in sub-clause 60 (2) there is a reference to the wrong paragraph. Sub-clause (2) provides—

I think it must be sub-paragraph (ii), because sub-paragraph (i) only makes provision for separate rooms in the hotel to be set aside for certain classes. Sub-paragraph (ii) makes provision for the removal. There is much that is good in this Bill, and I think we ought certainly to approve the second reading. Personally I am convinced that it contains great benefits for our country and our trade.

I want to say immediately that in so far as I want to discuss this Bill I should prefer to talk about the effects which this Bill will have in my opinion. When we come to the Committee Stage, which I hope will not happen, we can rectify whatever in the Bill will do more harm than good. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is going to allow a free vote on this Bill. I hope the precedent which was created in the past and which also had to do with liquor will be maintained in future and that all legislation dealing with liquor will be left to the free vote of the House. I want to admit immediately that certain clauses of this Bill are a big improvement on the existing Liquor Act. This legislation is like the “curate’s egg”, good in parts; those parts are, however, so few and the balance is so bad that I want to appeal to the House to reject the Bill in its entirety. The Minister said at the beginning of his speech that he as Minister found himself in a difficult position in that he had to try to satisfy all the conflicting interests. I want to say immediately that my attitude towards this Bill is not one of reconciling conflicting interests but to do what is in the best interests of the country as a whole. I do not want to benefit certain interests at the expense of others.

What do you want?

I am coming to that. The hon. the Minister nearly had an hour and a half to speak; I only have 40 minutes. I think when a Bill is left to the free vote of the House the Minister concerned should not have the benefit of being able to talk longer than an ordinary member of the House. The Minister said in his speech that the Church and welfare organizations maintained that the position was impossible. I do not know whether he meant to do so but by saying that he must not try to create the impression that the Churches and the welfare organizations support this Bill.

That was not what I intended.

I accept that. I was only afraid the impression might be created that the Church supported this legislation. I have telegrams and letters in my office and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that there is greater opposition to this legislation than hon. members probably realize. The opposition is not against the Bill as such. It is not against the attitude which the Minister adopts—I know he is acting according to his conscience—but it is against the effect which this Bill will have. The people who are opposing it do not look at those effects in the same way as the hon. the Minister does. In the time at my disposal I shall endeavour to prove that the Minister is wrong if he thinks he will satisfy the public by making light wines more readily available to the public. One thing is certain and that is that nobody has immediately become a drunkard by drinking brandy or other strong liquor. Nobody becomes an alcoholic by starting to drink brandy. The young people usually start with light wine and then they go over to stronger liquor and you do not know whether they will ultimately become alcoholics. That is why I maintain that the pattern which the Minister says must be followed will aggravate the position in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare introduced a Bill 14 days ago which had the full support of this House. Provision is made in that Bill for the erection of institutions where those people who have unfortunately become alcoholics can be treated and where it will be tried to rehabilitate them so that they will become good citizens of South Africa. I agree with him that that is a very good idea. I do think, however, that while he is treating the father and mother as alcoholics in that institution the Bill which we have before us is creating the opportunities for their children also to find themselves in that institution some day. I am of opinion that the more readily liquor is available, the more will drunkenness increase in South Africa and I shall prove that. The hon. the Minister often referred to the Malan Commission in his speech. He said that it was his humble opinion that he had to do what he was doing in the interests of the country. What was the position before the appointment of the Malan Commission? The former Minister of Justice appointed two committees from among the ranks of this House. Those committees sat for two sessions and the members were the following: Messrs. Abraham, Barlow, Davidoff, J. H. Fouché, J. J. Fouché, Higgerty (who withdrew at a later stage), Mr. Hugo, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. J. A. Loubser, Prof. A. I. Malan, Dr. Shearer, Dr. J. H. Steyn, Mr. Trollip (who withdrew at a later stage), Dr. van Nierop, Mr. Warren and Mr. Waterson. Those were the members of the committee and in 1951 the committee submitted the following report—

The committee again met in 1952 and once again they could not come to any conclusion and they then made a recommendation which amounted to this that a few members of the committee should be sent overseas and visit a few countries where liquor was sold in shops, particularly light wines, and that they should then submit a report. But that was not what happened. The only person who was appointed to the commission was the chairman, Professor A. I. Malan. Why was the recommendation changed? Why did another commission have to be appointed while the previous committee had listened to a stack of evidence which was handed over to the commission? Were the committees not good enough? Members served on that committee who are to-day sitting in the ministerial benches, so the reason cannot be that that committee was not good enough. Why was it necessary to appoint a commission consisting of Professor Malan?

I now want to discuss the effects which in my opinion flow from the misuse of liquor which will be encouraged by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is a cause for every evil. Drunkenness is not caused by the mental state of the person or his inability to resist liquor, it is caused by something he drinks or which he does. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) spoke about certain people who were prohibitionists and certain people who were in favour of the liquor trade. It has been suggested that an alliance has been formed in connection with this measure. It is peculiar to find that when you do not take liquor you are regarded as narrow-minded, as prejudiced; you are regarded as a person who talks simply because you do not take it and because you are a prohibitionist. If such a person is regarded as narrow-minded and prejudiced, I say that a person who drinks or the person who manufactures liquor and who sells liquor or who encourages the use of liquor and who makes money out of it, is less impartial than somebody who has no financial interest in it and who only realizes what is happening in other countries.

It is an indisputable fact that in countries where wine is used freely alcoholism is increasing. The hon. member for Ceres said something which could perhaps be used against him. He said that everybody could obtain as much liquor to-day as he wanted. I admit that. They can obtain wine. But I thought the Minister introduced this Bill in order to try to combat drunkenness. I was under the impression that this Bill has been introduced to try to lessen drunkenness by getting people to drink more light wine. The Minister expressed the opinion that that would lessen drunkenness. But if people can get as much as they want why this Bill? If you want to change the drinking pattern does the Minister honestly believe that it will be changed by making it easier to get liquor? I put the question to somebody who was a moderate drinker and a member of this House at one time. His reply was: “Old chap, you do not know what you are missing in life by not drinking.” I asked him whether he really liked the taste of brandy and his reply was—and he did not say it as a joke—“No, it does not taste nice but it makes you feel nice.” That is the point I want to emphasize. Extension of opportunities to drink does a tremendous amount of harm. We cannot get away from that. I want to read what a former Minister in the National Party Cabinet said about liquor. He was not a prohibitionist and consequently not a narrow-minded person like myself. He was not a spoil-sport. I want to quote what he said at a National Convention on the Abuse of Liquor at Pretoria. According to the report he said the following—

That brings me to the point I want to emphasize. It is not I as a prohibitionist who is saying this but a person who was not a prohibitionist and who was a Minister—

Mr. Speaker, I have letters from alcoholics in my office which I am prepared to show to anybody. They have asked me to oppose this Bill to the utmost of my ability because, they say, they have become what they are because they started with light wine. I am not only speaking on behalf of those people but I am talking on behalf of those people who are afraid it might happen to their children or their descendants.

We can easily talk about this Bill and try to joke about the serious position, but in my humble opinion there is greater threat than the misery which the abuse of liquor causes. I also want to say this: Where the hours are extended or where it is made easier to obtain liquor the evil is increasing. I also want to say this that where the Minister talked about light wine there is no light wine in South Africa. We have not got the light wines in South Africa which they drink in other countries. Once people have learned to drink wine they may easily become alcoholics. I just want to point out how extended hours and more facilities to obtain liquor aggravate the position. I should like the medical profession, the doctors in this House (I hope they will support us in opposing this Bill) to note the following. I want to tell them with due respect that they know as little about drunkenness as the ordinary man in the street. What they do know much more about than any section of the population are the results of the abuse of liquor. I want to quote something from “Medical Aspects of the Use of Alcohol”—

I read on—

Mr. Speaker, how often are you not told that you should drink something to help your digestion? I read on—

I can go on quoting ad nauseam. Here is another paragraph in respect of the “Effects of Alcohol on Disease Resistance”—

“Effect of Alcohol on the Nervous System and Mind.” There they tell you how it starts off by affecting you slowly but that it gets worse so that institutions have to be established to which those people can be sent. Then I come to “Effects of Alcohol on Sensation and Perception”—

That is the effect of alcohol. They then give reasons why liquor should be placed under stricter control or why its use should be completely prohibited. They then deal with the question that you cannot do so because total prohibition was a failure in America. Mr. Speaker, that is the biggest lie ever. I feel very strongly about this matter and I am now going to say something which I am not so sure is the wisest thing to say but I am saying it for the sake of the nation to which I have the honour to belong. I want to read from notes which I have in connection with the total prohibition in America under the heading “Why Prohibition in America did not Succeed”—

That is probably a well-known name to many hon. members opposite. They know who Andrew Mellow was. It says here—

And listen to this—

That is the position in America after the lifting of prohibition. The Keeler Institutions are institutions where alcoholics are treated; they are more or less on the lines of those the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare wants to establish in this country. Prohibition may perhaps have been a failure to a certain extent because you still found drunkenness there but I have figures to show to what extent drunkenness has increased in America since prohibition has been lifted.

Because the Minister has come to the conclusion that it is necessary here in South Africa he makes it easier for people to obtain wine. Mr. Speaker, in Scotland they sell wine in shops. I do not know what the position is there. Certain ladies do not like going into an hotel or a bottle store to buy wine but if it is obtainable in a shop any lady can enter and buy wine. It was found in Scotland that it often happened that ladies bought wine and that it was entered as “groceries”. The liquor is then taken home and in that way liquor is made available to people who are more susceptible to it than men. The male sex is less susceptible to any drug than women. I think the medical profession will agree with me. That is why doctors in many cases do not give drugs to women because they are more susceptible to anything of that nature.

Reference has been made to countries, amongst others to Lourenço Marques, where drink is easily obtained. I want to pose the question why the Churches in South Africa insist on local choice? In other words, why do the Churches in South Africa ask that the opportunities to obtain liquor should be placed under stricter control instead of making it available more freely? I want to quote a few figures in order to show that what the hon. the Minister is in all sincerity trying to achieve with his Bid will not be achieved. In 1915 and 1916 certain states in Australia, by means of a referendum, decided to have earlier closing hours for bars and bottle stores and sentences for drunkenness declined as follows: In New South Wales with 44 per cent; in South Australia with 54 per cent; in Victoria with 55 per cent. In New Zealand where the figure was 10.9 per 1,000 in the years before early closing it dropped to 5.8 per 1,000 when early closing was introduced. When liquor was more readily obtainable in Canada the consumption increased by 15 per cent. I have the figures here for arrests on the ground of drunkenness per 100,000 of the population. These figures increased as follows in comparison with 1932: by 100.5 per cent in 1937; by 100.5 per cent in 1941; by 134 per cent in 1945; by 181.9 per cent in 1949. You notice therefore, Sir, that prohibition was not such a failure. Drunkenness, the big curse of a nation, increased when prohibition was lifted.

But countries like France are mentioned and reference is made to Lourenço Marques where liquor is freely obtainable. The percentage of drunkenness in Lourenço Marques per 1,000 head of the population is higher than in South Africa. The commission went there and reported that they never saw a drunk person there. But these are reliable facts. Take France where light wine is drunk and where there is no prohibition on liquor. Let us see what the position is there. I want to refer to Prof. Perrin of the Nantes Medical School who conducted an inquiry amongst 1,667 doctors. His inquiry bore out the contention of many observers that fermented liquor, particularly wine, was the main cause of alcoholism in France. Listen to this—

There is a higher percentage of alcoholics in France where liquor is freely obtainable than in South Africa. We are going to create practically the same position which obtains in France by making liquor more freely and more easily obtainable. It can only lead to one thing and that is to increase the number of alcoholics.

My time is running out and I still want to advance a further argument. I do not want to bring the House under the impression that I am a better person than anybody else. The argument is sometimes advanced that the Bible approves of the use of wine and that the Bible even says that Christ himself made wine. I have received a letter in respect of the allegation by some people that alcoholism is not a disease. The person who wrote this letter to me is a parson and he quotes texts from the Bible. He quotes certain texts to show that a drunk person cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven and then he adds the following: “Or do those people who call alcoholism a disease think that the Almighty will for that reason keep a person who is ill out of Heaven?” Here I have a pamphlet “Wine of the Bible”. It was written by Ruby Adendorff, B.Sc., and she writes the following—

But you cannot have it both ways.

What is stated here is very clear. [Interjections.] A further argument which is advanced is what must happen to the wine farmers who have invested money in their farms. I admit that is a problem. I admit they are people who were allowed by law to plant vineyards but I wonder whether I can just refer to a pamphlet which was issued when there was a grape shortage. It says—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) was influenced by that. I do not know whether he read this pamphlet before he changed his mode of farming and became a person who sold grapes instead of making wine. I want to congratulate him on the fact that he has given a reply to that question and on having set an example to so many. It is very difficult to get grapes in Cape Town and you have to pay for them—

It was brandy which increased to that extent during that time. Does the Minister think that by establishing a new drinking pattern with this Bill he will put a stop to that? Does he think this patch-work will help?

Tell us what you want?

I want you to listen and to talk less. I want to know from the Minister whether he really believes he will succeed in teaching the world to drink light wines whereas spirits is being drunk not for the taste of it but “to get a kick out of it”? [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that I do not regard him as petty or narrow-minded, nor as a spoil-sport. I have the greatest respect for the attitude he adopts and the greatest admiration for the manner in which he, and people who think as he does, are acting. Nor do I wish to quarrel with the abstainers and the protagonists of prohibition, except to say that America is not the only place where it has been a failure but here in South Africa it has also been a failure. Then you have the people who say liquor should be made difficult to obtain, for the more difficult it is to get, the less the evil will be and the less the consumption of liquor will be. I think that argument has broken down completely with the release of liquor to the Bantu of South Africa, because that has shown that more evils have not arisen, but less. There has been no greater consumption of liquor among the Bantu, but less, and more orderly consumption of liquor, and the making available of liquor to the Bantu has been a success and has been a great blessing to South Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). I am one of those who believe that if liquor were to be freed completely, there will not be more evils or abuses, and I do not think people will drink more. Of course I am not in favour of it, but really not on moral grounds, but on economic grounds. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote in favour of this Bill, both for the second reading and also at the Committee Stage, in favour of the most contentious clause, because I agree with the Minister that this Bill is a step in the right direction. It will definitely help to change our drinking pattern. It will without a doubt encourage the consumption of light wine and we must welcome that. As it encourages the use of light wines at the expense of brandy and other hard liquor, we should welcome it all the more. But I should like to make this suggestion for the Minister’s consideration, that he must not be so sure that the passing of this Bill will bring about the increase in the consumption of light liquor at the expense of hard liquor such as brandy and whisky. I am afraid that the Bill as it stands now is going to encourage the consumption of light wines at the expense of the consumption of beer, and if that were to happen, if we were to drink more light wine at the expense of beer, we shall in my view be creating the source of a very great social problem. In the first place I think it will definitely be unfair to the breweries, but that leaves me cold, because they are strong enough to look after themselves, and as I shall show later on, they are undoubtedly going to look after themselves in a manner that will possibly hit the liquor trade much harder than this Bill is going to hit it.

I say it may create serious social problems, and I am afraid that if more light wine were to be sold at the expense of beer, we may actually in the long run not change the drinking pattern in a favourable direction, but possibly in the opposite direction to that contemplated in this Bill. Let me say at once that I realize the Minister’s difficulty, and I am convinced that he has no objection in principle to introducing beer also in this Bill, but he has a problem, and I am going to suggest things which in my opinion may possibly solve his problem.

The problem is that it is possible that this will largely disrupt the liquor trade, and I agree with him that we do not have the right to disrupt the liquor trade. Whether we sympathize with bottle stores or not is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that bottle stores came into being pursuant to legislation passed by this House, and we cannot throw them to the dogs now. But I do not think it will disrupt them so very seriously, and I wish to make certain suggestions that will minimize the disruption.

I wish to put it thus to the Minister: Even if the liquor trade were to be hit harder than they can really afford at the present time, I do not think this is the way to meet the liquor trade, but I shall discuss that later. The Minister has said that the object of this Bill is to change our drinking pattern. I think he expressed it thus, that we should move in the direction of the more noxious liquor being replaced by the less noxious liquor. The basis of this Bill was the report of the Malan Commission. Now I should like to remove one doubt completely. The Malan Commission did not say that we should change the drinking pattern from hard liquor to light wines. It said we must change the drinking pattern from hard liquor to liquor of a lower alcohol content, and it specifically referred to the distribution of natural wines and beer through grocers’ shops. So the pattern change we have in mind is not from hard liquor to light wines, but from hard liquor to softer liquor. People must be persuaded to drink the liquor with the least alcohol content, and the liquor with the lowest alcohol content is beer, and not light wine. For that reason I say there is no logical reason at all why beer should be excluded. The only reason can be that you may think it will be unfair to the liquor trade, and I shall show the Minister just now that that is not so.

The danger I see is this. If this Bill is passed, beer will be available in South Africa at approximately 4,000 points. Those are the hotels and the bottle stores. The alcohol content of beer is 4.2 per cent. Light wines will, if this Bill is passed, be available at many thousands or hundreds more points. The general view is that light wines will be available at as many as 10,000 more points than beer will be available at, and the alcohol content of light wine is more or less 12 per cent, and this Bill allows it to be as much as 14 per cent.

Secondly, let us look at the price pattern that will arise, and here lies the greatest danger. Beer is selling at the present time in bottle stores at 26 cents a quart. The mark-up at the bottle stores is 50 per cent to 55 per cent. Now wine is being made available to grocers’ shops. Their mark-up ordinarily is from 15 per cent to 25 per cent, and I have very little doubt that they will make it 15 per cent on wine. So light wine will be available at 15 cents a bottle. Now I ask the Minister whether he thinks that under this system the beer drinker will adhere to beer, which is the least noxious liquor, with the lowest alcohol content, or is he going to switch over to light wine? I am afraid that in view of the supply problem and the price pattern that will develop, as I shall indicate, there is not the least doubt that the beer drinker will switch over to drinking light wines.

Let me put it this way. One bottle of light wine, with an alcohol content of 12 per cent is equivalent to 6.3 tots of brandy, and that now costs 19 cents. In other words, you are now making available to people the equivalent of one tot of brandy at between 2 and 3 cents per tot. The beer drinker, in order to get the same quantity of alcohol into his system, in order to achieve that sense of relaxation and pleasantness, which is the reason why most people drink—and nobody must say there is another reason for it, for then you might as well drink water. So 90 per cent of the drinkers, the workers, the mine workers and steel workers in my constituency, drink beer or brandy, and some drink both. It costs the beer drinker 78 cents in the form of beer in order to absorb the same quantity of alcohol he can absorb when he buys one bottle of wine at 19 cents. The price at the bottle stores remains the same, and the price of wine is reduced from 24 cents to 19 cents. As the workers of the Rand gradually discover that they can buy the same quantity of alcohol for 19 cents, how long will they continue buying the same quantity of alcohol for 78 cents? For that reason I have not the slightest doubt that the increase in the consumption of light wine is going to come about at the expense not of brandy but of beer. I say in the first place it is very unfair to the breweries, which are equally entitled to protection for their vested interests as the liquor trade is. But secondly I think a very dangerous social pattern is going to develop in South Africa, because the less noxious liquor is going to be replaced by the more noxious, and that will not be at the expense of hard liquor. Light wine at the moment enjoys a great advantage over beer, because in the first place the excise duty on the same quantity of beer is much greater than that on the same quantity of light wine. On one large bottle of beer the excise duty is 8.7 cents. On the same quantity of wine the excise duty varies from 1 to 3 cents. In South Africa beer is being taxed 27 times as heavily as wine is taxed on the alcohol content thereof. I say that is right and I am not asking for a change in that position, but I say it gives wine a big enough advantage over beer. It is estimated that this year there will be consumed 15.000,000 gallons of light wine, and that will provide the State with R1,000,000 revenue. It is estimated also that 21,000,000 gallons of beer will be consumed and that will provide the State with R11,000,000 revenue. I am not saying that must be changed, but I say that wine is already being given, in proportion to beer, a large enough advantage. Therefore I say that the release of beer to grocers’ shops is an absolutely strong and sound case to which there can be only one answer, and that is that if it were to be permitted, the liquor trade will be hit too hard, and I shall try to show just now that this is not so.

I should like to urge the Minister that in the case of private hotels, he should make beer available to them also, because that does not affect any vested interests; and the same applies to the point that the wholesalers may no longer include beer. It is something they have had. and to remove it now is an infringement of vested interests.

How seriously will the release of beer affect the liquor trade? How harmful will it be? I am not one who says I have no sympathy with the bottle stores, because there an industry has been built up pursuant to legislation of this House, and it would be the very acme of irresponsibility to cast them to the dogs because you do not have sympathy with them. The first submission I wish to make is this. The liquor trade cannot expect the State to keep them under its protective wing for ever. The breweries are equally entitled to protection. If the consumption of beer were to drop considerably as a result of this, the Minister will agree that it will be an infringement of their vested interests. All the liquor trade may expect from the State is not to always shield them protectively, but only to see to it that this transition period should take its course as orderly as possible so that it will not be attended with insolvencies and the disintegration of a large part of the trade created by Acts of this Parliament. However, in the interviews the liquor dealers have had with me, I told them very plainly that they must simply face the fact that the pattern of liquor distribution is changing. The day liquor was released to Bantu, the death sentence of the present pattern of distribution was signed, and the liquor trade will simply have to face that fact, and they will simply have to spread their wings and look to other things to maintain their turn-overs. The liquor trade complains, quite rightly, that the only thing they have to sell is liquor, but in not one of the memoranda I have received did a single liquor dealer ask that they should be permitted to sell more commodities. They merely want to retain this monopoly in the liquor trade. [Interjection.] Yes. I am coming to that, because it is one of the things I am going to recommend to help the liquor trade during this transition period.

This thing, of having a new pattern in economic development, is nothing new. It has happened before. My father was a blacksmith and a carriage and wagon maker. When motorcars started coming into the country, he had no moral right to go to the Government and to say that motors were going to kill his industry, and that the Government should not permit them to come in. The most he could ask for was protection as far as possible, but he subsequently had to realize that the motorcar completely destroyed the formerly great industry of carriage and wagon making, and he was simply compelled to ask the Government for temporary protection, and for the rest they had to look after themselves and start something else. The liquor trade has no more right to expect the Government to protect them for ever. They will have to develop in other directions in order to maintain their turn-over.

To what extent will the release of beer affect the liquor trade? In the first place the Minister says, quite correctly, that beer constitutes 39 per cent of the turn-over in the liquor trade, but it is 39 per cent by volume and not 39 per cent of the turn-over. My information is that the profit on beer is comparatively small, and the handling costs are comparatively high, but my information also is that the highest turn-over in any district in the Republic of South Africa of beer in proportion to the other kinds of liquor, is something like 15 per cent in money. The Minister has referred to the turn-over by volume, but a gallon of beer of course is much cheaper than a gallon of brandy. The thing that determines the profit is the turn-over in money, and beer is only 15 per cent of the turn-over of the bottle stores in money. So only 15 per cent of their turnover is jeopardized here, and they will not lose the entire 15 per cent. I must admit they will lose a good deal of it, but not all. But we must remember that with the release of liquor to the Bantu, the turn-over of the bottle stores increased tremendously. The other day I asked the chairman of the Transvaal rural liquor trade to what extent his turn-over had risen at a place like Coligny, and he said it had risen by 12 per cent. If beer were now to be made available to grocers’ shops, I am very sure that he will not even lose that increase in his turn-over; and we must remember that this additional turn-over of the bottle stores was a very nice windfall to them, because the Malan Commission did not recommend it. The commission recommended that if liquor were released to the Bantu, the bottle stores should not provide it, but that only official bodies such as municipalities should do so. So in that respect the liquor trade received a considerable windfall. Then I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to this. There are about 2,000 bottle stores in South Africa, and 1,617 of them sell less than 8,000 gallons of beer per annum, and the profit on that is about R300. So if they were to lose all their beer trade, their profit will drop by only R300 and R400. I urge the Minister not to close his eyes, when we come to the Committee Stage, to the fact that this danger to the bottle stores, if beer were to be released to the grocers’ shops, is much less serious than he thinks, and the maximum prejudicial effect it can have is that it will remove the windfall they received at the time when liquor was released to the Bantu.

But now I should like to draw attention to something else. The breweries are very powerful companies, and they are not going to have their turn-over diminished in favour of wine. Many of them also have great interests in wine companies. Here I wish to sound a warning. As a business man it is obvious to me. I am not warning the Minister, but the liquor trade. Any brewery has the right to open a depot anywhere in South Africa. So Stag or Castle could open 1,000 depots to sell beer to the public provided it is in quantities of 12 bottles or more, and then the following price pattern will arise. At the present time the brewery delivers beer to the bottle store at R1.10 per dozen bottles. The bottle stores sell to the public at R1.68. Now the brewery can, if they were to make it available direct to the public under a licence they already have, sell at R1.20 per dozen bottles, which is 48c cheaper than the present price and 10c more than the breweries are getting for it to-day. So the retailers must be on their guard, because it is obvious that the breweries will do so, and then you will have the position that the liquor trade will have no beer at all to sell. So it is a dangerous principle to discriminate against beer, which is the softest liquor. I should like to conclude by saying to the Minister that it seems to me virtually an economic impossibility to assist the liquor trade in this way. I sympathize with them because they are now in a transition period—I agree with the hon. member for Ceres that within a few years you will be able to buy any liquor in any shop. He will have to help them in some other way. In the first place he should help them by giving them the right to sell more commodities in their shops. He must give them the right to sell cigarettes and cigars. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) rightly said here the other day that the liquor trade are complaining that they can sell only liquor; that they may not even sell the glasses out of which the public are drinking. I say: Give them that right.

They are not asking for it.

[Inaudible.]

They will not ask for it because they want a monopoly; they want to be the sole distributors of liquor, but I say that pattern is already disappearing. It is because they wish to be the sole distributors of liquor, that they will rather not ask for it, but I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he can protect them in that manner. In the second place I think the time of the bottle store has passed. After liquor was released to the Bantu, the time of the bottle store expired; it is purely a matter of time. Under this Bill the Minister is now going to give a number of new bottle store licences to hotels, and the principle of that is very sound in as much as it will assist the hotels. But then I want to ask the Minister to stop there and not to issue any further bottle store licences in future. In that manner you will be protecting your liquor trade without causing this great injustice to the beer breweries which constitute a great industry in South Africa, an industry which makes a tremendous contribution to Treasury.

R11,000,000.

Yes, that is only in excise. It does not include income-tax. Therefore I am asking the Minister to tackle and solve this problem in another way. We must guard against this great social evil; we must not create a pattern where the promotion of the consumption of light wine is going to take place at the expense not of brandy and whisky and gin but at the expense of beer, because if that happens it will be in direct conflict with the recommendation of the Malan Commission and in direct conflict with the desire expressed here by the Minister in such a brilliant and effective manner, namely not to change your drinking pattern from hard liquor to light wine, but to change the drinking pattern from hard liquor to light wine and beer, which is the softest of all alcoholic liquors.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the second reading and I am also going to vote for this clause, but I think I have made out a very good case here, and I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind so that in the Committee Stage we may argue about this matter some more, and possibly persuade the House that we should also make beer available for sale by grocers.

The hon. the Minister asked us to consult our consciences and to say frankly what we thought of the Bill, as frankly as he spoke in introducing the Bill. One realizes, of course, that the hon. the Minister would feel it incumbent upon him to introduce a Bill after the investigations made by the commission. Whether one likes the Bill or not is beside the point. It was obviously his duty to introduce a Bill. Sir, in this Assembly we see kaleidoscopic changes. The first Order on the Order Paper to-day is the second reading of this Liquor Bill. The fifth Order is a measure under which we are still considering in Committee the rehabilitation of drunkards and the provision of retreats for them. We are doing both. Whether the Bills are associated with one another I do not know. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) feels very emotional about that and so does the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). I do not feel quite as emotional as they do. I do not have that same strong feeling. I want to say a few words about the Bill and I want to respond to the Minister’s invitation to say what I feel about it. Sir, I am going to vote against this Bill; that is my decision. What is the principle of the Bill that we are considering at this second-reading stage? The hon. the Minister has removed any doubt in this regard. The principle is the extension of facilities for the sale of liquor. The hon. members for Ceres (Mr. Muller), Mossel Bay and Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), who spoke so well, have said quite frankly that there are sufficient facilities already. Had the hon. the Minister come along with suggestions for restricting the sale of liquor I should have been prepared to consider them. I am not a prohibitionist. I realize that it is just as impossible to introduce prohibition in a country like South Africa as it is to introduce the Government’s Bantustan policy. It just cannot be done. Well, if that is the case, what does one think of extending facilities to grocers? The argument is that we should associate wine with food. That is the correct civilized way of drinking. I agree. Where should you associate them? Surely at the table, not in a shop. If you associate wine with food at the table one can understand it, but the hon. the Minister says that he will not grant these facilities to cafes where they will have food on the tables. I think it is most undesirable that the mother, the manager of the household, who walks into a grocery shop to buy her food should at the same time be able to buy wine there. I am quite opposed to that. My hon. friend, the member for Albany, has said that a bottle of wine and a bottle of beer contain the same amount of alcohol. Well, of course, he is speaking from statistics and what he has read; I am speaking from experience. A light wine is very much more potent than beer, even a lager beer. I am not speaking of special beer. Special beer is a very light drink. The ordinary lager beer has about one-third of the potency of South African light wines, and as hon. members know our wine is much more potent that the wines of France or even of Germany. Therefore, I think there is much to be said for the argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging. I am opposed to any liquor being sold by a grocer. If you are going to sell liquor in a grocer’s shop, you must sell beer. It is a lighter drink. The hon. member for Vereeniging has supplied statistics and so on, but to me it is quite obvious that beer is a much lighter drink; it is the workman’s drink, the man who works hard physically during the day. Wine is not a drink for the man who works hard physically during the day. It is a drink for a professional man or a dilettante. Therefore, I should like to say that although I cannot approach this matter emotionally and make a speech on prohibition, I would rather welcome restrictions on the sale of liquor than extra facilities, and I have not the slightest hesitation, therefore, in voting against the provisions of this Bill.

I think this Bill is a very ingenious compromise between the various conflicting interests concerned in this matter, and I want firstly to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his advisers on the very ingenious and interesting new ideas contained in the Bill, but I wish to raise four objections. I want to say at once that my conclusion will be that we should ask the hon. the Minister to give an undertaking that after the second reading he will refer this measure to a Select Committee so that the specific details may be ironed out and once again reconsidered. The hon. the Minister in his speech gave no reasons why this matter is so urgent. I think the hon. the Minister was quite right in coming to the House with legislation. I think it is quite right too that this principle should be adopted, but I think also that it is necessary that the accepted principle should be investigated carefully after it has been passed here, because this House in Committee is not an effective body to work out the details of legislation. My objections in the first place are in connection with the provision that the privilege of a grocer’s licence cannot come into operation unless 40 per cent by volume of the liquor sold in a particular district through the existing channels is natural wines. I object to this for two reasons. In the first place it has been argued that it is a method of reducing the abuse of alcohol. It reminds me of the old man who complained that his two sons were walking about so much shooting with the shotgun that they would soon cause an accident and he would rather give them two 22s. More selling points of liquor, including natural wine, can become as great a national evil as the lesser number of selling points which to-day are selling spirits mainly. The limitation of spirits lies not so much in the encouragement of the sale of natural wine as indeed in the solution of excise duty, with which we have already made considerable progress in our country. That is my first general objection therefore. I have misgivings on the sale of wine by grocers’ shops. It is not an unmixed blessing. It is not something we should just accept without more ado as an acceptable solution for the abuse of liquor. But I accept the argument that the grocer’s shop is not an unnatural place in which to stimulate the sales of natural wine. I regard the injudicious grant of such licences as deplorable, but the grocer’s shop which specializes in the sale of confectionery and special foods, the so-called delicatessen shops, are par excellence the shops that could recommend and stimulate our best dry wines and natural wines, because they sell the conception of good eating as a whole to the public. For that reason I am not absolutely opposed to the sale of natural wine by grocers’ shops, but this 40 per cent requirement is going to have the practical effect that, except in the Western Cape itself, all grocers’ shops in South Africa will be entitled to obtain a wine licence, and that I think is too much. My further objection to this 40 per cent requirement is that it does not make the logical distinction between the position of the Western Cape and the rest of the country. The hon. the Minister argued very plausibly—but it is no more than a debating point—that when it becomes 40 per cent. he has to protect the economic interests of the existing liquor trade, and not create competition. I do not think that is the most important factor in this matter. If in the Transvaal and the Free State things were to reach the stage where the existing liquor trade stimulates the sales of natural wine to such an extent that it constitutes 12½ per cent or 15 per cent by volume of liquor sales, I think they will have done brilliant work and then I think that in those districts where that position has been achieved, the grocers ought not to get a licence. I further believe in any event that the Bill should define much more carefully which grocers can get this licence. If licences are going to be granted to grocers injudiciously in districts where the 40 per cent by volume has not been achieved, then I think it is an unwise measure. If licences were granted with discretion to the class of grocer who also conducts the higher class of trade in groceries, it could in my view be a great blessing and a worthy market for this national product. The second objection I have to this Bill is the vagueness of definition in regard to the classification of hotels, which in turn again results in the hotel getting the great privilege of establishing its off-consumption division somewhere else in the district. This classification, I take it, is going to be determined in good faith and with great skill by the Minister and his advisers, but at this stage we have nothing but the information that there is going to be classification. I wish to mention two factors here. Personally I should like to see that in the classification favourable points are given to the owner-managed hotel; that the hotel belonging to the owner who himself manages it should receive some priority above the hotel belonging to a big company, and which is managed by a hired manager. There is the classification according to regions. I accept that the classification will be metropolitan, city and town hotels, but the wholly rural hotel is a matter that has to be argued. In any event, we need not argue about it now. I am merely submitting that in regard to this important matter, we as a House of Assembly ought to have the information, and that we should ourselves take this matter in hand. The third point I should like to raise is in regard to the opening of a separate bottle store which may be situated at any place within the urban area; in other words, that the off-consumption division can be at any place within the urban area. We are cutting right across the old-established principle of a logical and geographical distribution of liquor shops in the cities. I am mentioning these merely as examples of shortcomings still present in this splendid measure, but these things cannot be rectified without more ado in the Committee Stage where it is very difficult to formulate all these things and to make suitable amendments.

Can you tell us what we should regard as the principle of this Bill?

I think that is a question that should rather be put to the hon. the Minister, but I think the three cardinal principles are in the first place the grocer’s wine licence and in the second place the meal-time licence and in the third place this principle of the separation of the off-consumption division from the hotel.

That brings me to the final point I wish to make. With these new ideas in the Liquor Act, namely, the grocer’s licence, the widespread meal-time licence and the separation of the off-consumption licence, we have come to an extension of drinking facilities where those of us who are sceptical about unlimited selling points in the liquor trade, may very well again raise the matter of local election. Is it sound to let these new facilities depend only on commercial considerations, etc.; or are we creating such a new pattern in our liquor laws that the moment has come once again where in conjunction with these further and new facilities we could think of some form of local election? If the principle is accepted, however, we might not be able to consider this aspect in a Select Committee. I think that after this debate the hon. the Speaker and the Leader of the House and the Minister will be able to constitute a Select Committee which will be able to thoroughly collect the views deserving consideration in this Bill. It appears from the debate that there are many divergent views and in a Select Committee a compromise could be effected even between conflicting parties.

Will you ever have a unanimous resolution?

I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has said in regard to beer. There are various facets in regard to the beer problem which also deserve further consideration, now that it is specifically formulated in statutory form. I conclude by saying what I said at the outset: I think this is an outstanding and ingenious Bill, for which the country is grateful to the hon. the Minister and his advisers, but it is legislation which this House cannot finalize further than to say that we accept the broad principle, and that we want a group from this House to inquire into specific details. If the hon. the Minister can give us such an undertaking, I gladly support him and the Bill; if not, I shall vote against it.

What I foresaw as the eventual result of this legislation has apparently been realized sooner than I expected, and that is that both the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) are already insisting that grocery shops should be allowed to sell more types of liquor.

Eventually.

Let me repeat what the hon. member for Ceres said; I do not want to do him an injustice. The hon. member for Ceres said that he was in favour of complete freedom of trade in the liquor industry.

Eventually.

Very well, eventually then. In saying that he created the impression in my mind that he regarded this legislation as a step in the direction of freedom of trade. The hon. member for Vereeniging has already put forward, in quite clear terms, a plea for the sale of beer, and I think if you were to ask him now he would say that it should not only be confined to beer; he too stated that he agreed that there would be complete freedom of trade eventually. Sir, I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for having emphasized that if we are not in favour of the clause dealing with grocers we should vote against the second reading of the Bill, and he will not take it amiss therefore if I indicate at this stage that I propose to vote against the second reading and against that particular clause, and I shall tell you why. I cannot associate myself with the derogatory way in which some people talk about the bottle store traders. The bottle store traders consist of all classes and all groups of our population. I have in mind, for example, the Afrikaans-speaking people who have entered the liquor trade in recent years, who paid high prices for bottle stores, who are not allowed to sell anything except liquor and who put all their savings into bottle-stores. I think they are entitled to protection just as much as anybody else. I want to make it clear that I have not read any memorandum submitted to me; I have received no deputation. When the report of the Malan Commission appeared I studied it and went into the matter and at that time already I made up my mind with regard to certain matters. It is perfectly clear to me that this Bill has two aims. It seeks to promote our hotel industry and to increase the sale of natural wines, and I am afraid that this legislation is going to miss both those objectives. I shall try to explain later on what I mean by that. If the hon. the Minister is looking for the guilty parties who have made no contribution towards increasing the consumption of natural wines, he should go to the hotel industry, not the bottle-store trader. The bottle-store trader sells what the public demands. The only way in which one can teach anybody to drink light wine is to invite him to dinner and to serve light wine at table. The Minister himself has said that one is looked at askance in certain hotels when one asks for a bottle of light wine. In the second place the hotels charge R1 or R1.20 for a bottle of natural wine which one can buy from the bottle-store for 30c or 40c. The hotels are the sinners. Look what one has to pay in a hotel bar for a bottle of sherry for which the hotel owner paid 33 cents. He sells that sherry by the tot for approximately R1.40. I cannot agree with the argument that he charges such a high price because he has to serve the wine. I want to say here perfectly clearly that it is not correct and it is not fair to say that the liquor trader has rendered no service. Who has been marketing the product of the wine producer hitherto? The liquor trader—nobody else. The hotels have done so to a lesser extent but it has always been the liquor trader who has marketed the product of the wine producer, and it is not correct nor is it fair to say that the liquor trader has rendered no service.

The hon. the Minister in referring to my constituency pointed out that very little light wine was being consumed there, namely 0.01 per cent. That is probably quite correct. We find in the whole of the eastern Cape that people do not drink light wines and very few in the Free State do so. They are able to buy it but they have no liking for it. I say again that they will only cultivate a taste for it if the hotels help. By making light wines available through grocery shops, we are not going to induce those people to buy light wines. But my main objection to this Bill is the fact that grocery shops will be able to sell national wines. Mr. Speaker, which grocery shops would ask for licences? The Minister himself is not sure but I shall tell him who would be the first to ask for this right. The chain shops would be the first to do so and they would perhaps be the only people to do so. I asked a grocer in my constituency whose grocery shop is situated directly opposite a hotel whether he was interested in this matter, and his reply was: “I discussed it with the hotel owner over there; he has been there for seven years and during those seven years he has sold two cases of light wine. Why should I stock eight types of light wine so as to be able to sell two cases over a period of seven years?” The small grocer is not interested in this; the chain store would be interested, and what would the chain store do with that light wine? It would keep it in some corner in the back of the store and sell it for a mere song. It would not matter to the chain store if it only made a profit of 1 cent per bottle because it would be able to afford it. It would only use it as a bait to attract people to the store.

But I thought you said people would not buy it.

I am talking about those who do buy it. If people are not going to buy it, then I say that this Bill will not achieve its aim; it will achieve nothing and it will be worth nothing. But if it is going to serve its purpose at all, and that is to induce people to buy more light wines, the people who buy wine to-day would buy it at the chain stores because they would be able to get it so much more cheaply. What would the effect of that be? In the first place the chain store would ruin the small grocer …

Why?

… if the demand which is already being made that grocers should also be able to sell beer and later on heavier wines is acceded to; and I cannot see how we can avoid it. In my opinion the hon. members for Ceres and Vereeniging have correctly stated that if this course is followed, there will eventually be complete freedom of trade in the liquor industry. In the. second place it would kill the bottle stores and in the third place it would be the hotels which would in fact suffer. Last week, according to the Press, the chairman of the Hotel Owners’ Association in the Transvaal stated that this Bill would eventually be prejudicial to the hotel industry. I do not think therefore that there is any justification for this infringement of vested interests. I am entirely in favour of the proposition that there should be a greater expansion of our hotel industry and that we should have better hotels to promote our tourist traffic. It has already been pointed out by one hon. member that hotels which have off-sales privileges make thousands of pounds of profit. What do they do with their profits? Why do they not plough those profits into improvements to their hotels? If the hon. the Minister can do anything to prevent hotels from selling natural wines at such huge profits, and to compel them to make it available to the public more cheaply, it will be a great step forward already. Secondly, if there is some other way in which the State can assist our hotel industry to make ends meet, without encroaching upon the vested interests of the liquor trade, then that method should rather be followed.

The hon. member for Vereeniging has also stated that not a single association of liquor traders has asked for the right to sell other articles as well. Sir, I have not read the memorandum; it is clear that the hon. member has, and I therefore accept what he says. I do know, however, that they have asked time and again in the past to be allowed to sell other commodities also and not only liquor. Their request has been refused time and again. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would consider it if I asked him to give the liquor traders the opportunity to sell other articles in addition to liquor, because I am convinced that that request will be made to him.

If that does happen, what is the object of this whole legislation then?

If it does happen, then the object of this legislation is simply to establish a greater number of selling points which, I think, would be unjust and unfair towards the existing interests. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has suggested that delicatessen shops should also have the right to sell liquor. Why do we not give liquor traders the right to sell delicatessen? After all, people will then be able to have food together with their wine. We can encourage the sale of wine without prejudicing vested interests who paid large sums of money for their licences. I am not referring now to those people who acquired their interests in a way which is not above board; I am talking about those people who purchased bottle stores in an honest way at the ruling price. I am told that people who have purchased bottle stores in an honest way at the ruling prices do not make a profit of more than 6 per cent. They bought their bottle stores on credit and they had to pay high prices for them, prices which were determined by the prices paid by other traders who preceded them. They have to pay off their debt out of their profits. Their position is very much the same as that of the young farmer who is only able to pay one-tenth of the purchase price of his farm and who has to borrow the balance from the Land Bank. For 30 years the young farmer has to use his profits to discharge his bond. It is only when he has paid off his debt that he begins to make a good profit. The individual who buys a bottle store at the ruling price cannot make a particularly large profit until such time as he has paid off the purchase price. I feel therefore that it is unfair to grant licences to-day to grocery shops. But worst of all is the fact that if grocery shops are able to sell wine at first and then beer and, as hon. members have already indicated, all hard liquor later on, then the time will come as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow, when the chain stores will have a monopoly over hard liquor as well as groceries, a monopoly which neither this Government nor any other Government will be able to control. They will create a monopoly, and once they have driven out all the other businesses they are going to charge whatever they like for liquor.

I want to deal with this final point. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has made provision in this Bill that where in any district the sales of natural wines represent 40 per cent of the total sales, grocery shops will not be given a licence to sell wine. I am grateful for this concession. But I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: Let us assume that the O.K. Bazaars in Cape Town cannot get a permit to sell wine but that the O.K. Bazaars in Klerksdorp are able to obtain a licence because the wine sales there represent less than 40 per cent of the total sales of liquor. Let us assume that the object which the Minister has in mind is realized and that the fact that the O.K. Bazaars at Klerksdorp are allowed to sell wine, eventually results in wine sales representing 40 per cent of the total sales. Is the Minister then going to take that permit away from them? I am sure that the Minister would not be so unreasonable as to do so because these people will have built up the sale of wine. They should therefore retain their licence. But on what grounds are you then going to say to the O.K. Bazaars of Cape Town that they cannot be given a licence?

Surely the reply is obvious.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give me the reply. Once the sale of wine in Klerksdorp has reached the figure of 40 per cent I cannot see on what ground a licence can be refused to Cape Town. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell me on what ground he would refuse it if the percentage of wine sales is the same in both cases. If a licence is not refused in Cape Town we are eventually going to have the position throughout the country that liquor permits will be made available to grocery shops and particularly to the chain stores with all the resultant consequences.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) made the statement in the course of his speech that the hotel industry was not really interested in natural wines because over a period of seven years one particular hotel sold only two cases of wine.

I do not think the hon. member fully understood what I said. I mentioned the case of one hotel which over a period of seven years had only sold two cases of wine.

This legislation which we now have before us is very clearly an attempt to change the drinking pattern in South Africa. If we want to talk about the drinking pattern in South Africa then perhaps we should first note how that drinking pattern came into existence. How has it come about that our people largely drink hard liquor and fortified heavy sweet wines? In order to give the reply to this question may I be permitted to refer just briefly to the history of the wine industry in South Africa? The first wine was made on 2 February 1659, when Jan van Riebeeck pressed 14.4 litres of must out of the first grape harvest and made wine out of it. Unfortunately this industry expanded very slowly. It was only in 1666, that is to say, seven years later, that a quantity of only 1½ leaguers of wine was produced. In 1669 the production was 2¾ leaguers; in 1679, 50 leaguers; in 1685, 89 leaguers. According to the records the quality of this wine was extremely poor. It was only with the arrival of the French Huguenot in South Africa that the second phase was entered because these people had a knowledge of the art of wine-making. The liquor industry then started to develop and we find that in the 18th century the Constantia wine acquired reknown in Europe. This position obtained until the 19th century because the people who produced the wine had a thorough knowledge of wine-making and were therefore able to produce very good wines. These wines were heavy, fortified sweet wines. It is clear to me, having made a good deal of wine myself, that the great handicap which the producer of wine always had to contend with in South Africa until about five years ago was the high temperature. It is because of that the problem which it had not been possible to solve before, that the drinking pattern developed in the way in which it did. Because of this high temperature we were unable to make a good natural wine, with the result that the drinking pattern developed along the lines on which it did. Fortunately that is no longer the position to-day; fortunately the position has changed to such an extent that we are now able to produce a product which will enable us to change our drinking pattern. The first problem which these high temperatures brought about was that from the point of view of their capacity to remain sound our natural wines were of poor quality. Too much acetic acid developed in our natural wines as a result of high fermentation temperatures, and to that extent therefore their capacity to remain sound deteriorated with the result that natural wines could not be distributed on a large scale. Another big problem which was caused by these high temperatures was that the fine flavour of the grape was completely lost in the fermentation process. We have a warm climate; our grapes go into the cellars at a temperature of approximately 80 to 90 degrees. The fact of the matter is that for every one degree of sugar which ferments and is converted into alcohol the temperature is further increased by one degree Fahrenheit. The position therefore is that the temperature of the grape must which goes into the cellar at 80 degrees, is increased by 20 to 22 degrees Fahrenheit in the fermentation process with the result that one soon finds that the temperature of the must is more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and by the time a temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit is reached, the lovely flavour of the grape has been completely lost. Hon. members who during the pressing season have been in a pressing cellar where cooling fermentation is not applied, will agree with me when I say that it is in the pressing cellar that the fine aroma of the grapes is most pronounced because it is expelled by the high temperature. That fine aroma, however, is entirely lost as far as the wine is concerned. That is the problem with regard to our natural wines; it was the problem until a few years ago. That was the reason why people drank a wine which in the first instance did not turn sour and in the second instance a wine which did not lose its bouquet, namely the heavy fortified sweet wines. All the flavour is lost by the time the temperature reaches 80 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the reason why for more than two centuries our wines could not compete with the European wines. The European wine-producer is able to produce his wines in temperatures which are so much lower and that is why he is able to make a wine which is so much better. During the past five years, or perhaps slightly longer, we have had at our disposal the new cooling techniques which have done away with all these problems. Before that time there were only a few producers of wine who operated under special conditions and who were able to make a good natural wine. I refer to the man who pressed a small quantity of grapes and who only picked his grapes in the morning when it was cool and then cooled it down further with cold borehole water. That individual was able to produce an excellent natural wine. To-day, however, we have mechanical cooling techniques which are used by every large producer of wine and by our co-operative wine cellars. They must ferment at below 70 degrees; as a matter of fact, they ferment at temperatures ranging from 67 degrees to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The result is that they retain all the fine flavour of the grape in the wine. There is no danger either of acetic acid developing because at that low temperature acetic acid does not develop. The result is that we are able to produce a wine which remains sound for a long period. It is these natural good wines which we are producing in this way which are opening the way for the creation of a new drinking pattern in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, when one pours this excellent wine into a wine-glass, a glass which narrows to the top and one then swirls the wine for a moment and smells it, the bouquet of the wine comes out immediately, whether it be the heavy muscadel aroma of hanepoot, whether it be the fine delicate aroma of a riesling or, for the sake of the Leader of the House, whether it be the bouquet of a pinotage. The bouquet of that wine comes out immediately because the flavour of the grape has been retained in the process of manufacture. What more does one want than a delicious wine made in this way, a wine which has such a fine bouquet that one does not want to taste it immediately; one first wants to inhale once again that fine bouquet. When one eventually gets so far as to taste it, one wants to roll it over one’s tongue before eventually swallowing it. What more does one want than such a delicious natural wine with nice food and pleasant company; it provides a perfect setting. The man who drinks that wine is not out to swallow down a second drink and a third drink; he enjoys it sip by sip. Nobody is going to persuade me that that man is going to become a drunkard. The man who enjoys that natural product, together with good food and pleasant company, is indeed a man of culture. What this Bill aims at is to open the door to a new drinking pattern in South Africa.

As I have said, high temperatures have always been the stumbling-block in the way of the producer of wine. Now that that stumbling-block has been removed, the wine-makers of the western Cape will provide South Africa with the finest and the most delicious wine that we can ever hope to get. Moreover, I predict that we will produce even better wines than the old civilized countries of Western Europe for this reason that we have glorious sunshine in summer and in our pressing season. This gives our wines a finer bouquet than wines produced in Europe under cool summer conditions. I prophesy, since we are now able to retain the full flavour by means of the new pressing processes, that within the foreseeable future we shall be able to place on the market a much better natural wine than even the old wine-producing countries of Europe. In this way I foresee the opening of the door to a new drinking pattern which is the hon. the Minister’s aim with this legislation. In my opinion this legislation follows the right lines because it makes available natural wines in the right place and that is in the grocery shop. In spite of everything that has been said this afternoon I want to emphasize once again that that is the right place for the sale of our natural wines. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) says that we should couple wines with food; that we should place it on the table and not in the grocery shop. But, after all, is the grocery shop not the place where one also buys one’s food? Just as we get our food from the grocery shop, so we should also be able to get our light wines there. As I have already indicated, wine ought to be consumed with food because it creates the right atmosphere for a very pleasant meal.

In the second place this legislation will make natural wines avilable in our restaurants, which again is the right place for it. In the third place this legislation makes natural wines available in our private hotels where once again food and wine go together. I heartily support this legislation therefore. Unfortunately our drinking pattern has developed along the wrong lines as a result of historical developments and as a result of our liquor legislation. This is the right time, now that we are able to place the right wines on the market, to change our liquor legislation in such a way that we can bring about a change in the drinking pattern.

I want to come now to the people who oppose this legislation. Who opposes this legislation? In the first place the temperance people, an euphemistic term for prohibitionists. Sir, I appreciate what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has said about me. I want to thank him for it but I want to point out to him that possibly he and I have the same object in mind and that is to have a sober nation; we only differ in our methods. Together with the temperance people he believes that you can only get a sober nation if liquor is completely banned. I, on the other hand, believe—and I have many years’ experience of liquor—that in that way we cannot get or will not get a sober nation, and in this view I am supported by the South African National Council on Alcoholism, which recently made available a pamphlet to us in which they set out what one should not do in connection with alcoholics. Do not hide the key to the liquor cabinet. We cannot produce a sober nation by hiding the key to the liquor cabinet. It simply cannot be done. Along those lines therefore we cannot succeed. Do not try to keep liquor away from the alcoholic by doing things behind his back. In that way we can never cope with the problem of the abuse of liquor in South Africa. That is why I say that the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I are perhaps striving to achieve the same aim although we believe in different methods to achieve it. The supply of liquor to Natives has proved that it does not cause drunkenness, that it does not promote alcoholism.

Does the hon. member believe that the Bantu could learn, within the space of one year, to drink the liquor of the White man?

Two years ago the temperance people strongly objected to the extension of liquor facilities to the Bantu. They said that it would immediately create chaos in South Africa. Moreover, the Bantu had been drinking all these years; it is true that he drank surreptitiously and that he had to pay much more for his liquor. Since last year he had been paying much less and I certainly believe that he is not drinking much more. Does that not prove conclusively that in making available liquor to the Bantu we have not promoted the abuse of liquor? Does it not prove conclusively that it has not promoted drunkenness and alcoholism? Our experience after making the White man’s liquor available to the Bantu has proved that the solution in combating drunkenness does not lie in prohibition; it does not lie in a curtailment of distribution points; it does not lie in making it more difficult for people to obtain liquor.

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

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended I was dealing with the question as to which bodies are really opposed to this Bill. I tried to indicate that the first group of people who were opposing the Bill were the temperance people together with their friends, and I stated that I had the greatest respect for the ultimate aim of these people but that I differ from them as to the methods to be used to achieve that aim, because I firmly believe if we are going to have these excellent natural wines available in the future, as I tried to indicate we will have, I simply cannot see how a person who consumes these wines as products of civilization can become a drunkard.

A further group of people who are opposing this Bill are certain elements in the liquo-trade—the bottle store owners, to be specific. I am very grateful to be able to say here this evening that the organized hotel industry wholeheartedly supports this legislation, as far as I am aware, but the organized bottle store owners, of course, are the people who are going to be at the short end of the stick under this legislation and I do not hold it against them therefore that they strenuously oppose this legislation, but it is strange to see who their partners are in the struggle. I am told that in the past where applications have been made for new licences, it has happened more than once that the bottle store owners have paid certain churchmen to get petitions signed on their behalf, and in connection with this liquor legislation we still find the same situation; we still find that the bottle store owners on the one hand and the so-called churchmen on the other make “strange bedfellows”. My question to the bottle store people this evening is whether their hands are perfectly clean as far as the wine industry is concerned, because I have here a report that was drawn up by the Public Relations Division of the K.W.V. about 18 months ago. The K.W.V. instituted a careful inquiry into the buying prices and the selling prices of various commodities in the trade and the gross profit made on them, and I notice that on light wines the average gross profit of the bottle stores is 50 per cent; on fortified wine it is also 50 per cent while on whisky, an imported liquor, the average is only 15½ per cent and on beer only 35 per cent. If the attitude of the liquor trade to the products of the vine is to take a gross profit of 50 per cent on the products of the vine, while it takes only 35 per cent on beer and only 15½ per cent on imported whisky, the question arises whether the liquor trade has done everything in its power to push the sales of natural wines. True, it is alleged by the liquor trade that it is not their duty to popularize natural wines; they maintain that that is the duty of the K.W.V. But not only have they not popularized natural wines, but they have actively opposed it by taking this high profit on the products of the wine producer.

What about the hotels which make a much higher profit?

The hon. member says: “What about the hotels where the margin of profit is even higher?” The margin of profit is higher because the hotels render a very definite service to the public. They do not sell by the bottle only. They render a definite service to the public; they give the overseas visitor a favourable impression of our country by rendering that particular service. I have no quarrel with the hotels therefore. As far as the bottle stores are concerned my contention is that not only do they do nothing to popularize natural wines but that by means of their price policy they actively oppose it. I make no apology therefore for not breaking a lance for the bottle store trade. I am sorry that vested interests may suffer to a certain extent perhaps, but they will not be the first vested rights to suffer. The hon. member for Vereeniging has just pointed out that the wagon-building industry had the same experience and it simply had to adapt itself; I personally have had that experience and I simply had to adapt myself and I succeeded. Why cannot the bottle store people adapt themselves to the changed situation? Personally I have no objection at all to bottle stores selling other goods in addition to liquor. I have no objection at all, for example, to their selling smoking requisites or other things in addition to liquor. But one thing is very certain and that is that hitherto the bottle stores have shown that they are not going to popularize natural wines or that they refuse to popularize them except for a few praiseworthy exceptions; there are a few exceptions, but generally speaking that is certainly not the case.

For these reasons I fully support this legislation and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Justice on the drive revealed by him in giving effect to the recommendations of the Malan Commission and I want to express the hope and confidence that hon. members will judge this issue purely logically and objectively and that they will endorse this legislation with a very large majority.

The hon. Minister in the closing portions of his introductory remarks regarding this Bill, referred to the duty of every member in this House, those who desire to do so, to help to shape a new drinking pattern in South Africa. That was more or less the sense of what he said. He went on to say that neither Father Christmas nor the angels could do so, but that the Malan Commission in their report had made a genuine attempt to find a solution. The hon. Minister also mentioned that if anyone felt that he had a better solution than the one put forward by the commission to solve this problem, he would be prepared to listen to it. I quite understand the hon. Minister’s difficulties. In regard to a piece of legislation of this kind, the House obviously is divided not only in respect of the merits of the proposals but on the principles involved in the Bill itself. Before dealing too deeply with the Bill, I want to touch on a point raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) who referred in his speech to the coalition between various interests that had been brought about by the proposals of this Bill. He referred to interests who hitherto usually were diametrically opposed to each other, but were now combining in order to apply their particular pressure, or interests, on one or other of the clauses. The hon. member for Ceres seemed somewhat surprised at this, as he termed it, coalition. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that any such coalition is simply based on the right of every man to fight for his own livelihood and to fight for what he believes in. In this case the hotel-keepers, the people who have heavy investments in the liquor industry and who feel that there is a weapon available that they can use to safeguard their interests, would be foolish indeed if they did not utilize the weapons and the powers they have. I wonder sometimes whether when dealing with a matter of this sort, we realize and appreciate the tremendous capital which is invested in the liquor distribution trade and in the hotel service throughout the country. Not only is very large capital invested in the industry, but it gives a tremendous range of employment and a tremendous general trade also flows from this industry. Take only the food bill of the hotel industry, the employment of staffs, the equipment of the buildings, industry in general benefiting from the manufacture of various articles required for the liquor trade—all these are factors that have a different bearing and which, whilst not accepting or agreeing with what they are doing or supporting their method of livelihood, certainly in my opinion it gives them the right to form an alliance or temporary agreement with any other interests in order to defend their own livelihood. I think that that would be the answer really to the coalition application used by the hon. member.

Sir, the hon. Minister gave a very fair summary of the general outline of the Bill and as we will have an opportunity in the Committee Stage to deal with the effect of the various clause I do not propose to deal at any length with those clauses at this stage. But there are certain points that I think should be ventilated now as they form part of what one might term the several principles enshrined in the Bill which should be dealt with at the second reading. One is the principle in Clause 36 which applies a limitation to the issue of a grocer’s wine licence in certain areas where there is a sworn statement lodged giving proof that the number or gallons of table wine of a certain class sold under a number of existing licences enumerated in the Bill, exceeds 40 per cent of the total number of gallons of all liquor sold during the preceding 12 calendar months for off-consumption. The very first question I want to ask the hon. Minister is whether he can tell the House whether there is any practical method by which reliable information can be obtained as regards to assessing the 40 per cent or otherwise of the liquor sold. There is another point I want to make here. The hon. Minister, and I think quite rightly, mentioned that, rightly or wrongly, the public attach a certain amount of stigma to individuals having to enter a bottle store or a public house or hotel in order to buy their liquor for home consumption, in bottles. That may be so. It may be quite wrong on the part of the public, but I think the hon. Minister is right in saying that there is such a feeling. It is a feeling which is communicated to many of the individuals themselves who go in. But this 40 per cent limitation means in practical effect that the issue of a grocer’s liquor licence will be almost impracticable in any part of the Cape Province whereas it will be permissible under the 40 per cent stipulation in either of the other three provinces. I think that will be the practical effect of the scheme. By-and-large the Cape will not be eligible for this concession. I want to ask the hon. Minister what happens to the “stigma” as far as the people who go into the bottle stores in the Cape are concerned, or who go into the hotels to buy their liquor supplies in the Cape? If this stigma applies in the other three provinces, then surely they must not have a monopoly in getting rid of the stigma. Surely then the stigma is just as effective in the Cape Province and the privilege of getting rid of that stigma, if that is one of the reasons for this particular concession, should apply to the Cape as well as elsewhere.

I never said anything of the kind. I never referred to a stigma.

The question of the stigma on people having to buy their liquor in licensed premises.

I never referred to that.

Well, I use the argument now because it is definitely an argument which can well be used and it is applied by a certain class of persons, and as far as that goes there will be that differentiation between the other three provinces and the Cape. But there is another side to it. I am not in favour of the sale of liquor in grocery shops, but if this House decides that it should be permitted, then I want to ask by what right is such a monopoly applied to three of the provinces and the fourth province debarred from participation in that privilege of the sale of liquor in grocery shops? To my mind liquor legislation as a general rule is on a national basis and if we are going to give a concession or whatever it may be in three of the provinces, then surely the fourth province would have the right also to participate. I also find myself in considerable agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that if the grocer liquor licence is to be approved then I think it should also be extended to include beer as well as wine. I am not an authority on the question, but beer on the whole, as far as I am aware, contains considerably less alcohol and is much more wholesome than the cheaper types of wine that are being sold, and I would ask there again that if we are going to change the existing pattern of drinking and if we are going to extend the sale of light wines to grocer shops, under what justification do we exclude beer? I think the hon. member for Vereeniging made out a very good case for the inclusion of beer.

One other clause I want to touch on briefly is Clause 71 and also Clause 72. Clause 71 is the clause which abolishes the tot system. It lays down that no person shall supply any liquor to any person in his employ in lieu or as supplementing the employee’s wages or remuneration. Then Clause 72 substitutes Section 94 in the principal Act, and amongst other things it provides “that nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to prohibit any employer from supplying liquor gratis to any Native of the age of 18 or more, bona fide employed by him, for consumption by such Native There is of course a general prohibition all over the country with regard to the supply of liquor to Natives. In my own opinion, Sir, the new Clause 72 not only undoes the good brought about by the abolition of the tot system in Clause 71, but it makes the position worse. It is true that it stipulates that it cannot be regarded as supplementary earnings, but there is no limitation applied to it. If one wants to see the effect of the tot system, one has only to go out in the country areas where it is applied, during the weekends in particular, to see the damaging effect of it. We are now going to put the employers in a position that one employer who so desires can give his Native employees liquor; another employer who decides not to do so will immediately be put in the position that he will have difficulty in obtaining labour. We are re-instituting what is virtually a tot system although without a lessening of the wages. We are re-instituting a tot system under some other name. I feel that the good being brought about in Clause 71 is more than negatived by the new Section 94.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Minister when he made his introductory speech, and, as I said, I think he was very fair in his summing up of the Bill. The Bill undoubtedly has proposals which if applied will improve the general conditions in the liquor distribution trade and it contains clauses which definitely must be welcomed. But the Bill unfortunately, has not only many of these good measures, also includes other features which in the opinion of a very large number of people with experience in and of the liquor trade are both unwise and unnecessary. Sir, the sale of intoxicating liquor, in whatever concern they are being sold, under whatever conditions they are being sold, has always been regarded as somewhat of a specialized job. There is so much potential for undesirable effects that the liquor trade as a whole has come under national control as opposed to either the provincial or local authority control in the case of other business licences. In the case of the liquor trade there are very stringent rules applied by national law which do not apply to any other type of business. There are special security conditions applied to premises to ensure no possible access to stocks after the premises themselves are closed. Police reports are required on the character of the individual holding the licence, applying for a licence—in regard to his character and his suitability to be considered for such a trade. That does not apply in the case of other licences except from the health point of view. There are also police reports on the overall control of such businesses in order to guide the liquor licensing courts when at their annual sittings they are dealing with these applications. There are many other specialized features which apply to the liquor trade, and as a rule, as a result of this control you have developed in the liquor trade a type of licensee who is well aware, in general, of the ramifications of the liquor laws and has a certain sense of responsibility in regard to them. That does not apply to the general shopkeeper, the ordinary general dealer. It is quite a different type of business, and I would say that it is practically impossible from a practical point of view to apply conditions similar to those which have been proved necessary in the course of time—it is practically impossible to apply them to the general run of ordinary grocery businesses. One other feature which comes to mind in dealing with this proposal is that you have in the grocery trade a very wide range of concerns from the small individual family business concern to the very large departmental store system spread over the country, with very great resources, with very fine modern buildings and very big staffs. On the one hand you have the owner and his wife and perhaps one or two employees, on the other hand these enormous concerns. What is going to happen to the small business if a big competitor in business—and Heaven knows they already have a pretty thin time of it—is allowed as a “draw measure” to sell liquor, light wines? I would say that in the long run it will virtually mean the end of the small businessman because you will have a very large percentage of people who from the point of view of the time factor, convenience and other reasons which facilitate shopping, will go to a place where they can get all their requirements, and the smaller type of family businessman is likely to disappear. I believe that also is a consideration which has to be very carefully weighed up in coming to a decision on the Bill.

I want to ask the hon. Minister in his reply to deal with one other point. There has always existed under the existing liquor law as it is to-day the right to a certain amount of local option in regard to local areas, such as municipal areas, etc., bodies running their own particular local government. In those cases the majority will of the people, people who have certain vested interests in the area, usually qualified by their registration as voters, have had the right by way of memorial or by petition to decide for or against the granting of a liquor licence. Reference of such a memorial to the liquor court when it is in sitting under certain conditions is binding on the court in considering a liquor licence. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will ensure that there will be no diminution of that established right, which is a very valuable and long established right which is very jealously guarded by the people concerned.

I want to ask the hon. Minister also if in view of the very far-reaching nature of certain of the proposals—and I am talking now about the bigger changes, not the improvements in the Bill—whether there has been any responsible public demand, especially from the consuming public, to bring about the changes which the Bill now introduces, whether there has been a demand from a responsible section of the consuming public for the introduction of the relaxations and extensions in the system of liquor distribution as envisaged by this Bill? Sir, I speak not without experience altogether of this particular category of business. I have had very many years of experience on liquor licensing boards, and many years of experience of local authority work where one has to come in contact with the difficulties experienced not only by the liquor trade but also the difficulties in the carrying into effect of the provisions of the liquor law without hardship to those concerned. I also have a very extensive personal knowledge of the misery and suffering which have been caused by the misuse of alcohol, despite all the precautions which are now in existence, some of which wise precautions will now disappear under the new system and with the widening of the scope of sale. Personally I can see no justification in any way warranting the risky experiments proposed in this Bill. We have had evidence submitted in the huge volume of literature which has descended on us. Sometimes it makes one wonder whether people realize what little time a Member of Parliament who is doing his job has to assimilate all this mass of stuff. We have had cited in them the position with regard to France as a wine-drinking country—a wine-producing and a wine-drinking country, and the suggestion has been made that as a wine-producing country we should try and emulate what is done in France with regard to the consumption of wine. My only remark in regard to that is that people who are supporting that view should also take into account the tremendous difference in the character of the two countries, the tremendous difference in the character of our racial buildup. Whereas in France you have got one reasonably homogeneous mass of people, here in this country we have such a variation from one extreme to the other in our racial group-ins that I think no comparison can be reasonably efficient. The Bill in fact is attempting to do the impossible. It is attempting to change the drinking habits of the nation by legislation, and I know of no case recorded yet where that has been possible. The drinking habits, the drinking system of a nation, if it has got to be changed, has got to be done by the choice of the public, the desire of the public and not by legislation. If the liquor producers wish to change the drinking habits of the nation and turn us into a wine-drinking country, then they must influence public taste by quality, by price, by pallatability and other things that make the public desire to have that product. If that desire grows strong enough then the legislation follows that, but it does not go in advance. We had a remark from one speaker here this afternoon, I think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) which I cannot too strongly support, namely that we have just completed dealing with a portion of the Bill to establish retreats on which many millions will have to be spent in order to rehabilitate people who have become alcoholics as a result of their access to liquor. It seems to me that this Bill we are dealing with now should have come first, because this Bill will help to produce some of the people who will afterwards have to be dealt with in the retreats which the Retreats Bill, which has still to be finalized, is going to establish.

I will end on this note. Under the Rules of the House we quite rightly at this stage have to deal with the principle of the Bill. We adopt the principle of the Bill at the second reading. When one studies this Bill there are several clauses that may well be considered as being a principle of the Bill, a part of the scheme directed at the change in drinking habits. If the principle is accepted at the second reading, then of necessity it has to have a very limiting effect on steps which can then be taken in the Committee Stage, and one may well find oneself, strictly in accordance with the rules of the House debarred from taking action to lessen the blow or ease the position, by amendments in the Committee Stage. The hon. Minister himself I think visualized this when he concluded his speech by suggesting that people who study the Bill and feel one way or the other about it, should be guided by their conscience and if they feel that they are against the main clauses of the Bill, they should vote against the Bill at the second reading. I believe that it is imperative that those who disagree with the principles enshrined in the Bill, in the various clauses, even though we would be prepared to accept certain other clauses which effect statutory improvements which would be beneficial to the distribution of liquor as a whole—I believe it is imperative that those who disagree with those principles should vote against the second reading, the hon. minister has asked us to be guided by our conscience and I support him in that view. As far as I am concerned, I do not want it to be left in any doubt: I believe that the bill can be conducive of more harm than good, that it is not justified in the present position of the country. as a matter of fact I can think of a dozen laws which would do a lot more good to the country and which should be occupying the time of the House at present rather than this one, and I shall have no hesitation in voting against the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am on dangerous ground in participating in this debate because I want to admit candidly that I know nothing about liquor although I do know what results can flow from the abuse of liquor. That is why I want to say at the outset that I am going to support this legislation of the hon. the Minister. I am going to vote for it in spite of the fact that I am a complete abstainer. I am convinced, however, that something must be done to the present situation. When I say that I am a complete abstainer I can well understand that some hon. members may obviously doubt whether I am really an abstainer but that does not worry me at all. I know what I am and there are also others in this House who know what I am as far as that is concerned.

I want to thank the Minister and express my appreciation for the clear way in which he has explained this Bill to the House. I think he has convinced everybody that he for his part only has the best of intentions and nothing else. There is something else which I appreciate and that is the fact that the hon. the Minister stated that if anybody could suggest anything better he would welcome it with both hands and that he would replace or improve the legislation. I think it will be difficult to find anything more fair than that. The Minister does not suggest that this legislation is perfect. He does not want to force it on to anybody. That is why he is allowing us to vote according to our convictions. We have already had a number of speakers and those who have expressed themselves against the legislation have not as yet suggested anything in its place, in spite of the fact that the Minister said that if anybody could suggest anything better he would welcome it with both hands. So far, however, nobody has got up and suggested anything else. I take it that amendments will probably be moved in the Committee Stage and if they are acceptable I believe the Minister will accept them. So far, however, there has only been one suggestion and that is that other liquor should also be considered and that beer should also be obtainable at grocery shops. I admit I know nothing about liquor but this Bill has nevertheless made me ask myself this question: What is going to be to the benefit of my country and my nation? Over the week-end I got in touch with certain medical practitioners, more than one, and I asked them, seeing that the Bill made provision for natural wine to be sold at grocery shops and seeing that those wines had an alcoholic content of 12 per cent to 14 per cent, why beer which had an alcoholic content of only 4 per cent, should not also be sold there. Some of the doctors immediately told me that beer was not such a healthy drink as natural wines. [Interjections.] I am not in a position to voice an opinion but that was what experienced people told me and they certainly ought to know more about it than certain hon. members who know nothing about it. But I went further. Only this evening I made inquiries from a doctor and I said to him: You say that beer is not a healthy drink; are natural wines healthy? His reply was: No, natural wines are not healthy either but if you take a normal drinker who drinks beer and another one who drinks wine you will find that the person who drinks beer will probably be more prone to develop bile difficulty. I know nothing about it but I have this consolation that before voting for this Bill I at least tried to ascertain what the position was. It is perhaps not necessary for people who have experience to find out but it is necessary for me who have no experience to find out what the position is.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) and I have something in common. I do not know whether we should be called abstainers or prohibitionists, but I must admit that if I were to be faced with the choice to-night whether there should be total prohibition or not, and I thought there was the slightest chance of carrying it through, I would vote for it.

Oh no, uncle Helman!

But we have this in common that we are both abstainers. The hon. member said something this afternoon which I did not follow. The hon. member admitted that this legislation was an improvement on the existing Act but in spite of that he said he hoped this legislation would not reach the Committee Stage. If I understood him correctly I can only ask him whether he wants a law which he admits is worse than the one introduced by the Minister? Does he want to retain the old Act? I listened very attentively to him and I do not think I misunderstood him.

It is time the two of you had a drink.

I want to ask him this: Are we not entitled to try to bring about an improvement? That is the object of the Bill. I thought the hon. member would come forward with something positive that he would make a positive suggestion how to cope with the liquor problem, but the hon. member has disappointed me because he did not do so.

Do you know that my time expired.

If the hon. member’s time expired I for my part want to say that in so far as I am sitting here and trying to decide what is my duty and where I should vote, I think it was his duty to suggest something which would have been an improvement on the present Bill. In that case he should not have given us the history of the committees of the past because we know that history. But he made no suggestions and up to the present we have had nothing from him. I am very disappointed in the hon. member. Drink revolts me but if I could suggest anything better I would do so. I am convinced in my soul that the Minister has come forward with this legislation in an effort to change the drinking pattern of this country. He is trying to get those people who have been drinking spirits to drink natural wines which I also hope I shall never use in my life but if you have to use liquor rather use the lesser of the two evils. That was what I expected we would get from the opponents to this Bill. I am going to vote for it because I am convinced the hon. the Minister is honest and sincere in his intentions to do the best for the people. Nobody can say that the use of strong liquor is not undesirable. Something must be done about it. We should try to bring about a change. We hear about the percentage of people who are alcoholics and if you can get them to drink less strong liquor I maintain we have no right to oppose this legislation unless we can suggest something better.

I want to mention a case where I am convinced an improvement can be effected. Some parts of our country are widespread and thinly populated and there are people in those areas who travel many miles to obtain liquor because they want it. If this new law of the Minister is accepted the grocery shops in those areas, which are much nearer than the town where there is a bottle store, can supply the liquor and provide people with natural wines which may stop them from travelling hundreds of miles to buy strong liquor. If that can be done the Minister is fully entitled to submit this Bill to us. I really expected the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who probably knows as little about liquor as I do, not to know what natural wines were. That is the peculiar thing about this matter. [Interjections.] When the hon. member for Mossel Bay was speaking I sat dead silent and I challenge him to refer to one clause in this Bill which says that people should drink liquor. Not a single clause encourages the abuse of liquor. The pattern is to get people away from spirits and to get them to drink wine. That is why I am going to vote for this Bill. Because if I can get people away from strong liquor I want to do so. I would much rather see them drink this liquor with an alcoholic content of 12 per cent to 14 per cent because that is the lesser of the two evils. But apparently the hon. member for Mossel Bay does not want this legislation in any circumstances which only means that the existing legislation will continue to operate and what then? In that case nobody will be given the opportunity of getting away from strong liquor. I felt that I would be failing in my duty if I did not also make my small contribution to try to assist in the prevention of the abuse of liquor. That is the reason why I heartily support this Bill. I only want to ask the Minister one thing and it is this, that after this Bill has run its full trial period and it is proved that it has not served its purpose the Minister must then use all his ingenuity to see to it that the law is once again changed in order to comply with what will be necessary, as proved by the circumstances, to combat the evil of the abuse of liquor.

Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is one which affects my constituency particularly, in that I have more hotels in my constituency than there are in any other constituency in South Africa. Therefore I felt it my duty to make a study of this measure and to take a particular interest in it. Because of that, I am sorry that the Minister, in his introductory speech, placed the emphasis on one aspect of the measure, and all the speeches we have had for and against the Bill have all been concentrated on this one question of the distribution of wine through grocer shops. The Minister went so far as to make that the key-point upon which he hung the Bill. He said that those of us who were opposed to that point should rather reject the Bill as a whole. I think that is a pity, because this Bill contains some 113 clauses, and there are only one or two clauses which deal with the sale of liquor through grocer shops and certain consequential amendments. The rest of the clauses are mainly in the interest of better administration of the existing liquor legislation, clauses in the interest of the hotel industry as a whole, and clauses which simplify the procedure and remove petty restrictions. I would appeal to the Minister to change the emphasis he places upon this one particular issue of wine supplied by grocer shops, because I believe that there, too, it is possible to put forward amendments which will meet with general approval. But if you look at the Bill you can look at it from various angles, from six angles, to be exact.

One can look at the Bill either through the eyes of the Malan Commission which deals with the pattern of drinking, or one can look at it from the angle of the wine farmer, or through the eyes of the hotel industry, or of the bottle stores, or in regard to the channels of distribution, or through the eyes of the long-suffering public which I believe has suffered for too long under the archaic liquor restrictions we have in this country. There is only one thing on which those six interests are agreed, and I believe that everyone is agreed on that, whether they be bottle stores, hotels, wholesalers, or whoever they may be. Everyone is agreed that the existing situation is unsatisfactory. Therefore I want to appeal to those who are considering voting against this measure on the basis of their opposition to grocers’ licences to give the Bill a chance at the second reading, as I intend doing—I intend voting for the second reading—so that, firstly, we can incorporate into our legislation all the good provisions of this measure, which I am sorry the Minister did not deal with at greater length, and secondly, so that those on which we disagree may perhaps be amended.

I want to look at the points of disagreement, and particularly the question of grocers’ licences. The motivation is that we must encourage the use of more wine and less hard liquor in our drinking habits. But if we look at the figures, we find that in the last ten years the consumption of light wine has in fact increased by more than 100 per cent. It has gone up from 7,000,000 gallons to 15,000,000 gallons under the existing channels of distribution, from 1952 to 1962. The sale of fortified wine has gone up from 8,000,000 to 13,000,000 gallons. If you take one particular unfortified wine, one of the popular brand, we find that in 1961 700,000 gallons of it was sold, but in 1962 it had increased to 1,700,000 gallons, which is over 100 per cent, and it is estimated that this year it will increase to 2,500,000 gallons. That is one brand of unfortified wine only. The point I want to make is that this increase has taken place through the existing channels of distribution. I do not believe that a case has been made out to indicate that the existing channels of distribution are not satisfactory. There has been criticism and isolated complaints, but no case has been made out to condemn what is a vast industry for having failed to provide the service it should have provided.

Let us take the hotel industry alone. There are over 1,500 hotels employing 50,000 people in direct employment, plus their families who are dependent on them. There is a capital investment of approximately R130,000,000 in hotels. Last year alone 202,000 foreign visitors stayed in the hotels of South Africa. They brought in an estimated R65,000,000 in foreign currency. Despite that, the net earnings of hotels dropped from 10.8 per cent to 6.9 per cent between 1952 and 1959, a drop of 33 per cent. But although there was this drop in profits, nevertheless the hotels continued to render service. There are 890 bottle stores, with 16,000 employees, and a large capital investment. Between them these two organizations have succeeded in providing a service to the public, but what has hampered them quite often has been the archaic restrictions under which they had to work. I believe we would do better if we were to take this opportunity to remove those archaic restriction. I am prepared to go so far as to say that having granted certain privileges and advantages to the existing channels of distribution, I would be prepared to support, and I believe that the Federated Hotel Association of South Africa would support it wholeheartedly, the provision of a sanction after a period. What I am getting at is this—but let me preface it by saying we have a new market for liquor, the Bantu. He has only been able to purchase liquor legally for the last nine or ten months. He has only just come into the market. I believe that with that new market and with the outlined approach, which I think is generally accepted—that one should encourage firstly our production of natural wines and their consumption, and secondly that we should encourage the habit of drinking with meals, which I think is a good thing as opposed to drinking without food—I believe that with that approach the existing channels of distribution should be given an opportunity to show whether they can reach the level of sales of wine which it is the object of this Bill to achieve. I should like, therefore, to suggest a compromise which I believe both sides could accept. If the Minister were to say—and I give an arbitrary figure—that in any area in which after one year 15 per cent of the sales of spirits plus wine, or after two years 30 per cent of the sales of spirits plus wines were achieved, in such areas the existing channels of distribution should continue. However, where the existing channels fail to encourage the sale of wine I believe they should accept the opening of the door for other channels of distribution such as grocer shops. But I do not believe that should be done until we have given the existing industry a genuine opportunity, firstly, to take advantage of the new Bantu trade, and secondly to encourage the use and increase the sale of unfortified wine. The figures indicate that this is happening.

You say we must remove certain restrictions. What do you have in mind?

I will deal with those. I think the Bill goes some way towards it. I think I will leave the question of grocers’ licences at this stage, because I think I have now made my point, that we should give the opportunity to the experienced trade channels to see whether they can achieve the Minister’s objects, rather than to gamble with untried channels, people who will not be particularly concerned with whether they succeed or not, because it will only be an adjunct to their normal trade. If the Minister were to accept my suggestion, I believe he would be achieving his objective, and he would be meeting the legitimate needs of those who have invested capital in this business, and he would be creating a sanction which he could apply if the existing channels fail to achieve what he wants them to achieve.

The Minister asked what the restrictions are which I believe should be removed. The Bill deals with a number of them. I believe that a decent restaurant should be allowed, as this Bill provides, to obtain a licence automatically. I think there is nothing more humiliating than having to walk into a high-class restaurant carrying a bottle under your arm. [Hear, hear!] Therefore I am entirely in favour of a decent restaurant having this right. But I think we should emphasize, because of the misconception in the minds of the public, that it is not the intention that every corner cafe should be able to serve wine with a packet of fish and chips. When one reads the reactions to this measure, it seems that people think that is the case. It must be a restaurant which must apply for a licence just as an hotel or a bottle store must apply, and the premises must be approved as being suitable, and it must be able to provide decent food. I believe that is one of the relaxations which is desirable. I agree with the provision that on application decent private hotels should be entitled to serve wines at meals, because again I believe it would be in keeping with the general trend of thought in regard to the liberalization of our approach to liquor. I believe that classification will go a long way towards improving the channels of distribution, and with classification I believe that the potential which the Minister has allowed himself to release from restrictions those hotels which duly qualify, is the greatest single advantage of this measure. In fact, I regard it as the most important aspect of this measure, because the whole pattern of our hotel industry throughout South Africa can be revolutionized by a judicious application of the privileges which are visualized under classification. It is a principle which is accepted by the hotels. There are only two things which I hope the Minister will deal with in his reply in this regard. One is the position in regard to existing right, where people have an established hotel and are afraid that under classification they will lose their rights and will be unable to do anything about it. I know what the views of the hon. the Minister are in this regard and I hope he will make a clear statement dealing with this aspect making it quite clear that any genuine hotel, apart from those who have made no effort to improve their services, will not be deprived of any facilities. This should be on record so that any anxieties which may exist on this score can be removed.

I wonder whether the Minister would go so far at this stage and remove the sanction of taking away a liquor licence if an hotel does not classify within five years. If the sanction is removed and it is found that it is abused it could always be re-introduced at a later stage. At present it is like the sword of Damocles hanging over people until the conditions and details of classification are known. Once that is known, the position changes.

Do you not want that sword to hang over their heads?

It is unfair, because we are giving the Minister a blank cheque here. There is no indication of what he will stipulate. It will be fair to apply that sanction only after he has given that indication. At the moment, however, he is being given a blank cheque. I have the confidence in the Liquor Board that it will recommend wisely and I hope the Minister will accept an amendment during the Committee Stage to the effect that the Liquor Board will consult with any statutory body which might be established to deal with hotel interests and which might be able to advise the Liquor Board on this question of classification. Subject to these qualifications I think this particular aspect is one of the strongest weapons the Minister will have towards improving liquor sales.

Without going into all in detail, I just want to mention a number of things flowing from present restrictions—the simplification of licensing procedure, for instance; automatic renewals where there is no objection; the question of wine and malt businesses; the question of pseudo wholesalers; technical details such as the right of a proprietor to use his housekeeper on a Sunday when he is away to serve from the bar over lunch times; etc. These are technical things flowing from the restrictions applicable at present. They are not points which should, I think, be dealt with in detail at the second reading because the proper time to deal with them is in the Committee Stage. What should be dealt with now is the broader picture such as bars for women and the question of whether the Minister is going to create all the normal amenities which almost every other country in the world has. There is the question of allowing late hours for those places catering for dancing, functions, late dining so as to create in South Africa that sort of night life which is to-day struggling to exist against a restricted clientele, taxation on entertainment and other difficulties with which people in South Africa are faced who try to provide night life and entertainment.

I believe that a class of hotels which can provide night life, dining and dancing on a scale of a type provided by European countries, will play a part by itself towards changing the attitude of people towards liquor, and towards bringing about the desire on the part of people to go and dine and wine in decent surroundings thereby making an evening of a meal instead of regarding a meal as an interruption between drinks. That is what it is today because many drink in a bar until it is time to go home and have a meal only thereafter to return to the bar for more drink. If we want to change this we must provide the facilities which will attract people. I believe that from the investigation which is being made by a different Department, other proposals will come which will fit in with the Minister’s ideas and plans on classification. It all boils down to the power the Minister has to create almost any condition or to relax any condition where an hotel classifies and qualifies for those privileges.

I do not believe that we should send this measure to a Select Committee as was suggested by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). I do not believe that we can achieve anything by doing that. Already there have been delays after delays. This is a matter which has been hanging over the liquor trade for years now. I know of hotels which have been holding up building plans for up to three years. After all, nobody is going to embark on building, renovation and changes until he knows exactly what the position is going to be, i.e., whether he will be allowed to build ladies’ bars, dancing rooms, etc. Any further delays are unnecessary. Nothing will be achieved. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will go straight ahead with these measures and allow us to deal in committee with those aspects which represent problems.

There is, for instance, the question of the raising of the price of meals to 30c. I think it is unreasonable to expect Coloureds and Indians to pay 30c. for their traditional food. What is more, it is not worth it—the normal curry and rice is not worth that in cash. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make a distinction between the price the Whites and the price the non-Whites will be required to pay as a minimum. I think it is quite wrong to expect non-Whites to pay 30c. for a meal when they can obtain a substantial meal for 10c. or 15c. Perhaps 15c. would be a more reasonable figure than 30c. I know of an hotel in Durban which supplies a four-course meal for 20c. and yet they claim to make a profit. I think it is not reasonable to impose a limit of 30c. for non-Whites.

Then there is the question of the ejectment of troublemakers on the premises. With this too we can deal in committee. In fact, I have 15 instances here where improvements are effected by this Bill but where further improvements are possible. I think it will be a great pity if, because of the question of trying to force wine sales through grocers, we allowed ourselves to be blinded to the rest of the Bill. Unless the Minister accepts a compromise I do not think we shall get the sort of agreement which is required. I see the logic for instance in regard to beer but if you want to draw people away from hard to soft tack and you use your existing channels for that, the anomaly of wine and beer will disappear, using the grocers only as a final sanction when all else fails. Then you will eliminate that conflict because then the existing channels will sell wine and beer obviating the two being treated differently. If you base your percentage not on all liquor sold but on spirits and wine, then you will get a fairer approach to what it is intended to achieve. If you want people to drink beer you should not penalize a beer-drinking area. The Minister quoted a percentage of 53 in respect of beer sales in Natal. Now, that is what the Malan Commission and the Minister are trying to bring about—a reversion from hard tack to wine and malt. Therefore I believe malt should be excluded from the percentage on which you calculate because what you want to do is to reduce the amount of spirits and increase the amount of wine and not to reduce the amount of malt and turn it into wine or increase the amount of spirits. If you want to be logical, therefore, I believe that in calculating the percentage sold, in terms of the compromise suggestion I have made, malt should be excluded because that should be encouraged instead of being suppressed. If, on the other hand, you include malt, it will not be in the interests of the liquor trade to press malt sales because that reduces the wine average. Normally a person will buy 12 bottles of beer to one bottle of brandy. So it will be 12 times as much in volume which will be your basis of calculation. Therefore the tendency would be if it was 40 per cent of total liquor to discourage malt whereas I believe it should rather be encouraged by taking a percentage based only on spirits and on wine.

If the Minister agrees and also gives those assurances he has indicated he will give in regard to classification, I believe we will have achieved a measure which will have the wholehearted support of the liquor interests and of the hotel trade in particular. With that support you will be able to achieve far more than you can achieve with a bludgeon. If you come with a bludgeon, you force people to do something and, consequently, you do not get the co-operation from them which they will give when it is voluntary. With the help of the suggestions I have made and with the assistance of other minor amendments to be made at the Committee Stage, the Minister can, I believe, win that voluntary cooperation—the wholehearted co-operation of the industry and with it the conscious effort of the industry to follow the lines the Minister has indicated. By that you will achieve the same results and this without the dangers, difficulties and possible evils which may flow from using grocers as a channel of distribution, i.e., a channel over which you will have no control, where there is no training, no background and no knowledge. Rather than to gamble with something new we should, I believe, make use of what we have and to endeavour in that way to achieve the objects the Minister has set.

I shall vote for the measure as a whole at its second reading and at the Committee Stage shall try to bring about improvements to certain of its provisions.

The hon. the Minister said this afternoon that those of us who were opposed to the provision in connection with grocery shops must vote against the Bill at the second reading. I hope he will change his attitude in this respect when he replies to the debate because many of us are in favour of the Bill and would like to vote for the second reading subject to certain provisos in respect of the grocery shops inter alia. Because of the attitude of the hon. the Minister many of us will be obliged to vote against the Bill in its entirety. I hope, therefore, as I have already said, that when replying to the debate the hon. the Minister will adopt a different attitude.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that it is impossible to apply prohibition in South Africa. It is even impossible to have semi-prohibition. That is why this Bill is such a difficult measure because it introduces semi-prohibition. The object of this Bill is to change the drinking pattern. In other words, to combat the abuse of liquor and to promote the sale of the product of the wine farmer at the same time. In principle I have no objection to this. As a matter of fact, it would be very well if we could do that. The only problem which worries me in this connection is the method which is being applied.

This Bill is creating an additional series of distribution points—inter alia: Off-sales consumption at hotels; the sale of liquor by approved restaurants and approved grocery shops; and facilities will be created for Sundays. I am afraid we shall not achieve our ideal because too many distribution points are being created. That will cause a conflict between the various interests with the result that that which we want to achieve will ultimately suffer. It has been stated that hotels will improve if they were given off-sale facilities. At the same time, however, you are creating competition for those off-sale sections of the hotels by allowing grocery shops to sell wine. As I have already said we are destroying that which we want to achieve by creating too many distribution points. For this reason alone we ought to limit the distribution of wine by grocery shops. I am one of those who believe that hotels should be granted off-sale facilities but I do not know whether that will solve our problem of trying to improve our hotels. That is another question. In this connection it must be borne in mind that many hotels already have off-sale facilities to-day but that they are third-rate hotels in spite of that. In Pretoria, for instances, there are private hotels where you get service of a higher standard that that offered by hotels with off-sales facilities. The same applies to Cape Town. I mention this fact not because I am against the granting of off-sale facilities to hotels, but because I do not want us simply to accept that if an hotel is given off-sale facilities it will automatically give better service. Just think how few Durban hotels have off-sale facilities but in spite of that I venture to say that the service they render is of a very high standard.

I wonder whether the solution of the hotel problem does not lie in the better training of people who own or manage hotels. Everyone seems to think that he can simply walk into an hotel and manage it without further ado, that is to say, without any training or preparation whatsoever. Yet the hotel industry is one of the most important industries in our country.

There is another problem connected with the distribution of wine through grocery shops and that is the problem that will be created by those shops who are not up to the approved standard. Those shops will be pushed out as a result of the fact that these shops which are only slightly better than they will be selling wine. It can also give rise to abuses, but I do not want to go into that any further at this stage. Reference has been made to wine and culture. But there is nothing wrong with the culture of West Germany, for instance, because of the fact that they are heavy beer and wine drinkers! We have also been told that we must not think wine is a cool drink. According to this Bill wine has an alcoholic content of 14 per cent, that means that one bottle of wine is equivalent to seven tots of brandy. In addition the wine is much cheaper. In the city you can buy it at 21 cent per bottle. That is a very cheap way of getting nicely drunk!

The whole problem lies in canalising the liquor trade. We have the producer, the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer. If we think in terms of canalizing all these anomalies will be eliminated. Many people think that the bottle stores are the fly in the ointment. But, as somebody has pointed out, the bottle store remains as the place which sells the product. When we think of it that according to the report of the Department of Commerce and Industry there were 855 bottle stores in the country in 1958 which gave employment to 3,420 Whites, 4,330 non-Whites and in which an amount of R300,000 was invested as capital, we realize that the bottle stores are an economic asset to South Africa. That is why we cannot simply do away with the bottle stores.

But there is a further consideration. When we made all forms of liquor available to the Bantu we took pride in the fact that by doing that we would be releasing many police units for other work. I foresee this danger in the creation of more distribution points which this Bill provides for that we shall have to employ more police units to control the position, or otherwise we shall again have to call upon these police units which were released when we made liquor available to the Bantu to supervise those distribution points which we are now creating.

The other points I wanted to raise I shall raise during the Committee Stage. I should like to vote for the second reading of this Bill but if the Minister persists in his attitude I am afraid I shall have to vote against the second reading of this measure.

After many years of struggling we are now making an effort to encourage hotels in South Africa. The hotels have insisted throughout that they are unable to give the service which the public expect of them unless their liquor trade enables them to do so. The bottle store was, of course, the competition of the hotel and those hotels which complied with the necessary requirements were consistently refused off-sale facilities. This Bill now puts that position right. That is one of the good reasons why I am going to vote for the second reading of this Bill. When introducing this Bill the hon. the Minister pointed out that it would be possible for hotels to share in certain benefits so that they would be able to improve the standard of their service.

The liquor trade has to assist hotels to provide the desired standard of service both to the travelling public and to those who live in the hotels. Those hotels who find themselves in a precarious position have always indicated that they were not in a position to give the necessary service while they had to compete with the bottle stores. This Bill now places them on an equal footing. In saying that I also want to say that I agree with other hon. members who said that it was easy to talk about the evils of the abuse of liquor. Fortunately they were wise enough also to point out that we were dealing with a problem which would be with us as long as humanity existed. Because I hold this or that view I cannot expect the rest of the world to agree with me. In this connection I should like to compliment the hon. member for Kimberley (North) on the unselfish attitude he adopted. As a matter of fact, he was the very antithesis of selfishness. I think I am speaking on behalf of many hon. members when I compliment him in this respect. If all of us adopted this attitude we would greatly assist the Minister in this problem.

The Minister spoke in a fairly restrained tone this afternoon. He is not the only Minister of Justice who has adopted that tone in connection with liquor matters. He is not the first Minister of Justice who has groaned under the burden which liquor legislation has placed on his shoulders. It is well known that when bottle store licences are granted every year everything is not above board. I think this Bill will put a stop to that.

At the same time I want to say that I agree with those hon. members who disagree with the Minister in the rigid attitude he has adopted by saying that those who wish to move amendments in the Committee Stage should rather vote against the second reading of this Bill. It has been asked what is the principle of this legislation. In my opinion the principle is an amending one. The object of this Bill is to amend the Liquor Act. In other words, this Bill entitles us to amend the Liquor Act in the Committee Stage as we wish. I am also of the opinion that things will be made easier for the Minister in the Committee Stage. He has certain things in mind with which he will not have complete success. I say that with the fullest sense of responsibility. The object of the Minister is to encourage hotels. In this respect I wish to point out to him that I think he is too liberal in the creation of channels for the future. I hope he will heed the warning which I am giving him in all seriousness. If our intention is to enable hotels to trade in liquor as much as possible we must be careful at the same time not to allow the distribution of liquor by means of certain chain stores because a very strong monopoly will come into existence there, a monopoly which will be made possible by the fact that these shops already have all the shiny facilities available—facilities which are better than those available to 99 per cent of the bottle stores I am referring to the large chain stores. They have the staff, the buildings and the clientele. Indeed, they have everything necessary to enable them to kill the hotels within the space of a few years.

I am surprised that you are going to vote for the Bill.

I am going to vote for the Bill because these matters which I have raised can be put right in the Committee Stage. Does the hon. member who has just interrupted me not know that you can put this matter right simply by amending Clause 3? Does he not know that it can be done, for example, by moving the deletion of paragraph (vi)? I am not saying that I shall move it in that form because there may be a better way of doing it. By doing that the danger which I envisage will disappear. The danger I foresee is that the hotels will be dealt a fatal blow by these shiny businesses which have more facilities at their disposal than any hotel to-day. Because of the flow of people whom they serve daily they will be in a position to build up a trade against which the best hotel or bottle store will be helpless. The danger exists therefore that even the hotels will eventually have to dance to the tune of these big chain stores.

There is another danger in this connection. We have the much lauded organization, the K.W.V. Even this model organization which I also hold in high esteem, will perhaps, after a few years, have to dance to the tune of these shiny organizations. It will be a fatal day not only to our wine farmers when these big cartel organizations can even dictate to an organization like the K.W.V.

But they can only sell light wines.

I am pleased the hon. the Minister has interrupted. Their sales will not stop at that.

I want to add this that one of the big reasons why I welcome this Bill is the fact that South Africa will now for the first time be able to drink wine. The law did not forbid it but it was impossible for one to get a glass of wine. You get a tot. You usually get annoyed when you order wine and you only get a small glass full. That is now being put right. The result was that the public who like to take a drink took refuge in concentrated liquor which, instead of just making the people happy, often made them mad. This is one of the reasons why I am going to vote for this Bill.

However, I wish to return to my theme. I say that these powerful organizations will deal the hotels of South Africa a fatal blow. The use of light wine will become a mighty stream, it will become such a mighty stream that nothing will reach the hotels, nothing will reach the ordinary bottle stores and nothing will reach the small grocery shops. I foresee that; I hope I am wrong but I am convinced that will happen. That is why I want to ask the Minister seriously whether we cannot, when we come to the Committee Stage, effect amendments whereby grocery shops will not be excluded completely but whereby wine will be made available in the grocery shops in those areas to which the hon. member for Kimberley (North), for example, has referred, the grocery shops in those areas where you do not have those shiny organizations or even an hotel which can be affected. That was one of the points which made me get to my feet. If the hon. the Minister can do these things I think there will be few sound reasons for opposing his Bill. If possible I should like the Minister to effect such an amendment in the Committee Stage so that the very thing which we do not want to see happening to the hotels does not happen to them but so that we achieve our object which is to improve the hotels. Once they get the hotels to dance to their tune they will force a big organization like K.W.V. to dance to their tune. With these few remarks I wish the Minister success. I hope he will give proper attention to the few suggestions I have put forward and then I shall also be happy. If the Bill were to go through in its present form I am afraid we shall find within a few years that the liquor trade has not gone in the direction we wished. I wish the Minister success in a matter with which many Ministers of Justice have struggled in the past. I am not trying to promote the interests of any specific industry in the country. As responsible members of this House it is our duty to give the protection to the hotels of this country which they deserve as the show cases of South Africa, as the places where tourists live.

Before dealing with the Bill itself I wish to refer to the statements made by the hon. members for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) to the effect that those who predicted that there would be serious consequences from allowing the free use of European liquor to the Bantu had been proved to be false. I want to say to those hon. members that at the first glance it would appear that the Bantu did not rush for that liquor as had originally been anticipated. But that is something which will take time. Statistics are now proving that the Bantu are using European liquor at a rapidly increasing rate. Other speakers on this side will give the figures so I shall not quote them. I do, however, want to quote what Mr. B. P. Loots, the Traffic Court Magistrate, said at Port Elizabeth. He drew attention to two “most disturbing trends” and he said this—

He went on to say—

I mention this in reply to the statement made by the hon. members for Vereeniging and Paarl.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing this Bill, stated that the Churches and welfare organizations were very much concerned at the existing position to-day. I want to point out that I have not found any Churches or welfare organizations supporting this Bill. On the contrary, every member of this House has been flooded by petitions, copies of which have been sent to the Minister, against this Bill. I have also been listening to the debate so far to try to hear if there has been anything to the effect that this Bill will actually improve the position. The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) said he was going to support the Bill because no one opposed to the Bill had been able to put forward any alternative which would be an improvement to the Bill. I think he is missing the point entirely. What is needed is some justification for this Bill: it is necessary to show that this Bill will improve the existing position. I make bold to say that the hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech, did not advance any proof to show that this Bill—I am now specially referring to the clause dealing with the sale of wine by grocery shops—would improve the existing position.

The hon. the Minister said his aim was to change the drinking pattern from the drinking of strong liquor to the drinking of wine, especially the lighter wines. He said the object was to improve the position in South Africa regarding alcoholics. I maintain that that particular clause will have exactly the opposite effect. It will increase the number of alcoholics. An example has been given by the hon. member for Albany and also by the hon. member for Mossel Bay who quoted figures and statistics. I shall not repeat those figures. They pointed out quite correctly that the biggest wine drinking country in the world to-day was France and that France had the biggest proportion of alcoholics in the world. We need not go any further than the statement made by the hon. the Minister when introducing this Bill in which he pointed out that the Western Province of the Cape was the biggest wine drinking area in South Africa and everyone knows that the Western Province has the biggest proportion of alcoholics in South Africa.

I feel, therefore, that it is necessary for the Minister and those who are supporting this Bill to give us some facts to show that this clause on which the Minister laid special stress would improve the existing position. If they cannot do so I maintain there is no necessity for this Bill except possibly for the hotel clauses. The Minister himself has said that if we did not agree with the clause providing for the sale of wine in grocery shops we should rather vote against the Bill at the second reading and be finished with it. I take it, therefore, that the Minister attaches great importance to that particular clause. In his effort to justify that clause the Minister referred to the Malan Commission’s report. That, as far as I can recall, was the only means he used to justify the introduction of this clause. The Malan Commission’s report, as other hon. members have pointed out, does not only refer to wine, it also refers to beer and malt.

The difficulty I have with the Malan Commission’s report is that they give only their own personal opinion. They state explicitly in that report that they are not giving the sources of their evidence for the reasons they give in the report. They give us nothing to go by by which we can check up on whether the conclusions they came to were reasonable conclusions from the evidence submitted to them. I want to repeat, therefore, that I feel those supporting this Bill must give some justification for the Bill and not say to others that they must produce something better in order to justify our voting against the Bill. I think the boot is on the other foot. They must justify this Bill otherwise they must vote against it. As I have shown, the countries where the most wine is drunk are the countries where they have the most alcoholics.

The hon. the Minister also stated that one of the objects of this Bill was to ensure that liquor was consumed along with food. What this Bill is doing is not taking food to the liquor but taking liquor to the food; it is taking liquor to the food in the home. If efforts are successful in getting more wine into the home, the wine will be more readily accessible to the young people in those homes. To my mind that is the biggest calamity this Bill will bring about. It has also been shown by statistics all over the world that if the younger people start to drink liquor the greater proportion of them become alcoholics. Therefore this method of taking liquor to the homes must have the effect of producing more alcoholics for the obvious reason that wine is more palatable to young people. Boys and girls in the home do not want a kick out of spirits. They take wine because it is more palatable but they eventually acquire a taste for stronger liquor as time goes on. As statistics have shown the earlier the age at which they start the bigger the proportion which become alcoholics. I maintain, therefore, that this Bill is not justified. On the contrary, it is going to do a great deal of harm to South Africa.

If this provision is accepted by this House I predict—and I feel sure my predictions will come true—that we will be producing a crop of alcoholics for the future. With more alcoholics we will require more rehabilitation centres. The rehabilitation centres are concentrating today on rehabilitation by means of drugs and there is ample evidence to-day to prove that by these drug methods they are producing more and more drug addicts. In other words, this Bill is tending in the direction of more difficulties in the rehabilitation of both alcoholics and drug addicts. The result will be an enormous increase in expenditure on rehabilitation, in the wastage of manpower, in broken homes, desperate wives and children and a larger proportion of road accidents. I ask whether we in South Africa can afford those increases which this Bill will bring about?

In view of the position we are facing today as regards the Afro-Asian nations can we afford to encourage drink in this country? Those nations themselves are condemning liquor among their people. They are introducing direct methods to prevent the use of liquor among their people because they want to build up a sober and strong and healthy population.

I want to quote from the speech made by the President of India in opening the Congress of the World’s Christian Temperance Union held in India this year. In opening this conference this was what the President of India said—

He went on to say—

He goes on—

Later on he said the following—

I have quoted that to show what is being done in countries which we have to face up to. I go further still. Banda and his Minister of Trade have both stated that they intend to do away with liquor in their country; they want to build up a sober nation. Banda himself said: “There must be no beer halls in this country, open or secret.” I maintain that faced with sober Afro-Asians can we afford to do what this Bill proposes. As I have indicated it is definitely tends in the direction of more alcoholism in South Africa. The idea that by going over to wine in place of strong liquor we are going to reduce alcoholism in South Africa has not been proved by anyone supporting this Bill.

I want to leave that point and refer to this matter of bilking. While the hon. the Minister has actually given his reasons for it I am sure the private hotel keepers throughout the country feel that they are being let down, that the hotels which have the right to sell liquor are being given V.I.P. treatment and that the police will do the collecting of their debts for them whereas private hotels have to throw good money after bad if they want to collect unpaid accounts. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal in this Bill which justifies our throwing it out.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that broadly speaking I associate myself with the principle and the broad purpose of this Bill.

What is the principle?

The principle is that we as responsible legislators should make a concentrated effort to guide the drinking pattern of the population in the direction of light liquor, preferably natural wine, instead of hard liquor. I think there are certain ideas and facts on which we are all agreed. In the first place we are perturbed at the fact that our people prefer to drink hard liquor. I think the statistics mentioned by the hon. the Minister confirm what I have just said. I think we have cause for concern over the fact that natural wine is a less popular drink. It gives one cause for concern and serious reflection when one learns that in 1962 30,000 leaguers of our wine production had to be distilled into spirits and brandy and that it was consumed in that form. I want to reply, in the light of those figures, to the hon. member who has just sat down and who asked us to justify this Bill. The existing pattern of liquor consumption in South Africa impels us to think seriously of finding new ways in an attempt to bring about a drastic change in the drinking pattern of our population. I am pleased therefore that neither the hon. the Minister nor other speakers who have taken part in this discussion have advanced the argument that we must seek a market for our wine production. That is not under discussion here at all. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the problem which faces us is that our people, particularly our young people, are being given more and more opportunities and are being tempted more and more by the existing pattern to show a preference for hard liquor such as brandy and other strong drinks. I say that that is a matter which gives us cause for concern. Another fact in regard to which I think we are all agreed is that we recognize the right of the wine industry and the right of the wine producer to produce his product and to dispose of it in an honourable way. I think we must bear in mind the fact that throughout our history the wine producers have made a particular contribution to the building up of our spiritual and cultural and economic heritage and that it is not their desire to dispose of their product in an irresponsible way, regardless of the effect that it is going to have on the well-being of the population generally. I think another fact on which we are agreed is that we as the responsible legislators have a duty to combat the misuse of liquor, because the misuse of liquor leads to alcoholism which is a disease which is very prevalent today, as we were told only a few days ago. Alcoholism is a disease which hits the individual’s family and breaks down his moral standards. The Government cannot dissociate itself from the harmful effects of the misuse of liquor. Drunkenness is an evil. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, It is not only an evil: it is a crime which breaks down the population physically and spiritually.

Then I should like to say to the public that we in this House, in discussing and deliberating upon this measure are at least agreed on one thing and that is that we are wholeheartedly opposed to the misuse of liquor and that we want to find ways and means of combating it. In the past few days we have received representations from quite a number of responsible church bodies which generally speaking have tried to warn us to exercise caution, to warn us against certain dangers, and in many cases have tried to influence us to vote against this Bill. I am well acquainted with that point of view; I have given attention to it, and for my part I want to ask this question: What is the Christian point of view? I think this House ought to ask itself on this occasion what the Christian point of view is. I want to say at once that the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) does not reflect a sound Christian view, in this sense that he advocates a practical, realistic, enforceable standpoint. He is entirely personal in his view: he is entitled to that view and I respect it but that is hardly an attitude which the law-giver can adopt. Throughout the centuries, Mr. Speaker, the Christian churches have recognized the rights of the wine industry as one of the oldest branches of the agricultural industry. It is very interesting to note that the Bible consistently distinguishes between wine on the one hand and hard liquor on the other, between the product of the vine in its natural form on the one hand and hard liquor, mixed liquor, liquor which is distilled from other products such as the date palm, etc., on the other. Wine is placed on a different footing. In Biblical times the community gave preference to wine over hard liquor. Wine even occupies a particular place in the life of the true believer. It occupies a particular place in religious ceremonies. Under the old dispensation of Judaism wine played its role, by way of a thanks-offering, in the religion of the nation. Wine occupies a particular place as food. In this connection I can mention the example of the building of Solomon’s temple. He hired his skilled workmen from King Hiran on the condition that he would provide them with food and wine. The Bible recognizes the use of wine for medical purposes. Here I have in mind the Good Samaritan who poured oil and wine onto the wounds of the wounded man. As far as that is concerned there is no doubt that we are not adopting an un-Christian attitude in recognizing and accepting as a fact the right of the wine industry and the right of the wine producer to sell his product. We do not have to try to run away from it.

I am not speaking here this evening under pressure from wine-producing interests in my constituency or under pressure from any group. I am here to give my honest opinion with regard to this very serious matter which is before us. I should like to try to make my modest contribution in an effort to help to ensure that we find a course which, having regard to the future of our nation, as far as spiritual and moral standards are concerned, will not be a retrograde course. As far as the attitude of the hon. member for Mossel Bay is concerned, I want to concede one important point to him. According to the Christian attitude abstinence is recognized and even directly praised but it is a personal, voluntary attitude. In the Bible we have the example of the Nazarite’s promise, etc., but I say again that that is a personal, voluntary attitude which cannot be propagated as a general Christian duty. It is not enforceable; it is not a general Christian duty. We cannot propagate that all people, all Christians, all true believers should practice total abstinence. As far as the Christian Churches are concerned, I can mention this example: We can never get away from the fact that Christ himself was not an abstainer in spite of the fact that he propagated the highest standards in life. He changed water into wine. I want to mention here that the statement made by Ruby Adendorff to the effect that in the one case “wine” means unfermented wine and in the other case fermented wine, holds no water; that statement is inconsistent with the views of all authoritative interpreters of the Bible. It is purely a fabrication to support a certain argument. Christ changed water into wine and we read that it was good wine. Christ was called a glutton and a wine guzzler by his critics. The fruits of the wine is used in one of the holiest and most valued religious sacraments established by Christ. We have every reason to believe that it was natural wine which he chose as the symbol of His blood. I also want to point out that throughout the centuries the Christian Churches have allowed wine to be used in moderation. Even Paul who was a leading figure in the Jewish clergy, as the learned man of Tarsus, in spite of his purposefulness, did not place a prohibition on wine. On the contrary, we know that Paul permitted it. To Timothy, with his particular physical ailment, he wrote: “Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach.”

The Roman Church has maintained the same attitude throughout the years. I want to say here that the Roman Church has done a great deal to maintain the production of good wine, the art of good wine-making. The Roman Church has ennobled wine. I do not want to enlarge upon that at this stage. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, recognized interpreters of the Bible throughout the years have never been able to place the interpretation on the Bible that the Bible condemns and disapproves of natural wine. Think of a man like Matthew Henry who wrote a recognized and valued Bible commentary. He adopts the attitude which he does in spite of the fact that he is an outstanding believer. I think of the Bible translators; I think of the Netherlands State Bible, the English Authorized Version; I think of our own Afrikaans Bible translators. All those people, who are representative of the best Christian theologians, uphold the right of the wine industry, the right of the wine producer to market and to sell his products. Moreover, throughout the years the Churches have been receiving money from the wine producer as a thanks-offering. They have never refused it. A few individuals may have done so but the Churches have never declined that money. I must, however, add this: Throughout the years the Christian Churches and all responsible spiritual leaders have consistently and very definitely warned against the misuse of liquor.

At 10.25 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned.