Last night I made the point that both the State and the Churches strongly reject and disapprove of any form of abuse of liquor. The question I should like to deal with briefly now is this: What are we to do in regard to this matter? I think we are reasonably unanimous that prohibition is not a practical, reasonable or wise solution to the problem. It has been tried out without success in other countries of the world. Now the authorities, the legislature, may apply other ways and means at its disposal to combat the abuse of liquor, and I should like to point out that this piece of legislation is in fact an attempt to combat the abuse of liquor by trying to give our nation a new pattern of drinking, new drinking habits, by means of legislation. This legislation seeks to declare to the people that the State, the Government, gives preference to the consumption of light natural wines, because it undoubtedly is true that the harder fortified liquors to a large extent tend to promote alcoholism. I should like this House to see this matter in the light that we are not here dealing with an attempt, as some people put it, to force liquor down the throats of people who do not want it, but that it is an honest and serious attempt not only to change the drinking pattern of our nation in favour of light natural wines, but actively to combat the abuse of liquor. I am pleased the hon. the Minister shows consideration for existing interests, such as those of our hotel industry. I am particularly mindful of the fact that in the rural areas the hotels play a very important role, and I am pleased that in the amendments being introduced here those interests are being taken into consideration. However, I should like to express the hope that when the House approves this legislation, it will have the effect that we shall have taken at least one step in the direction of combating the abuse of liquor, drunkenness, alcoholism. There are other steps the State could take, such as for instance to amend the criminal law in such a way that it could more effectively combat the abuse of liquor. I hope the hon. the Minister will now, or later in further legislation, devote his attention seriously to our criminal law in regard to the abuse of liquor. Personally I think that the existing penalties have not been a success. A punishment of R5 or 14 days is a very unrealistic punishment for anyone who has taken intoxicating liquor in excess simply because with the R5 you are taking from the man, you are hitting the man’s family and not so much him, and if he were to be imprisoned for 14 days or a month, his family is deprived of his earnings. Therefore I wish to suggest today that we should try to find another kind of punishment to combat abuse of liquor and drunkenness, and that is compulsory week-end imprisonment for anybody who takes liquor in excess. The idea is that such a person should not be taken out of his employment, and that as little as possible of the income of the family will be taken away, but that the drunkenness will be brought home to the man who has exceeded the limits of moderation. I assure you that when people have to spend two or three week-ends in goal after they have been drunk and caused trouble, they will be very careful their next free week-end as regards drinking. I hope the hon. the Minister will give very serious consideration to a step in that direction.

I conclude by saying that I feel all of us ought to be in agreement on one matter because all of us are seeking only the best for our nation, and particularly the various population groups in our country, and the State and the Church and all authorities, as well as the parents ought to co-operate in combating the abuse of liquor. Personally I think the Churches can do very much more than merely to object at licensing board meetings to the granting of additional liquor licences. My personal view is that our Churches can do very much more in this matter by giving positive guidance, by telling the people the truths of the Gospel and by unequivocably warning people against the habit-forming power of hard liquor. But the Churches can do still more, and that is to resort to ecclesiastical censure. It is a difficult matter for the State to punish a man merely because he has been intoxicated, but I think our Churches can do much among all sections of our people to combat abuse of liquor, and I really do hope that our Church authorities will appreciate that our Government means well in this matter, and that they will co-operate, not by accosting people in front of the bottle store—Mr. Speaker, you can set up hundreds of bars in a row and I shall not enter one unless it is really necessary. [Laughter.] Yes, it may be necessary sometimes. The point is that on the part of our community and all responsible bodies, our people should be educated to consume liquor with a sense of responsibility and in moderation. If we are afraid to adopt that attitude, then we are afraid to adopt an adult point of view, and to educate our people to become responsible beings. So I hope this thought will find favour, that it is not the responsibility of the legislature alone, but that it is the responsibility also of every parent and every body in the community to guide our people in the right direction. I am fully confident that in this legislation we are doing a good thing. I trust that the natural wine of the Boland will be respected and recognized and enjoyed by all with a sense of responsibility, without drunkenness. Our forefathers had the habit of using the Dutch prayer “Heer voor spys en drank, Zeggen wij u lof en dank” and they included liquor in that. It was a gift from the Creator to them. [Laughter.] I am prepared to concede that coffee and milk and what have you v/as included, but you may take it from me that wine also was included. It was not a strange thing. Our nation must return to that way of life not to go and take liquor like animals standing at the manger, but respectably at table in our homes, and in thankfulness, and if we could cultivate this attitude and way of life, and steer our people in the direction of natural wines, we shall gain a lot and then we shall have to build fewer homes for inebriates, etc., in the future.

We cannot separate liquor from the social evil connected with it. All of us are in agreement on that. We make laws in regard to liquor. We are concerned about liquor because it is fully integrated with one of the greatest social evils. I do not think there is any difference of opinion among us on that. Secondly, if one does not see in this Bill before the House the desired method of combating this evil, or of stopping the growth of the evil, it does not imply at all that one is not concerned about the matter.

What does this Bill before the House do? We must face the facts as we find them and as they are regarded and construed in practice by the nation. The object of the Bill before us is to make our nation swerve from one kind of alcoholic liquor to another kind which contains a little less alcohol but which is cheaper.

Nonsense!

That is a fact, because one of the basic principles of this Bill is to change the drinking pattern, and to change the drinking pattern we are offering another kind of liquor. Is that nonsense?

Absolute nonsense, yes!

We are offering another kind of liquor. We are opening the channels for making available another kind of liquor. We want to close the one channel as much as possible, and we want to open the channel for another kind of liquor, the so-called cultural liquor. We want to close wholly or partly the channel through which hard liquor flows.

Where are you closing it?

I shall ask Mr. Speaker to silence you in a moment. We want to close the one channel through which the hard liquor flows to the nation, and we want to open the other channel through which the less hard liquor flows to the nation, the cultural liquor, the light wine, the natural wine. The second object is that we are now offering the nation an opportunity to obtain the cheaper alcohol. We are doing that in this Bill. I want to make a calculation. According to scientific analysis one bottle of natural wine contains the same quantity of alcohol as six and a half tots of brandy. That is the official analysis. This alcohol in six and a half tots of brandy now must reach the nation through the channel we are opening at about 20 cents. That same quantity of alcohol in the form of tots of brandy will cost about 80 cents. How do we wish to offer these two kinds of hard liquor now? Because I think it is a blunder to present natural wines to the nation as non-alcoholic liquor. It merely is liquor containing less alcohol, but which on the other hand is much cheaper than the liquor containing more alcohol. How do we now wish to offer it to the nation? Firstly we want to increase the points of distribution. What new points of distribution that did not exist before are we now creating? The first are the hotels, through off-consumption, the second are the restaurants where all kinds of liquor will be offered to the public at appointed times, and thirdly grocers’ shops as a completely new point of distribution.

Let us analyse these new points of distribution we are creating. Two of the three are wholly new channels and at two of the three we are offering intoxicating liquor, that is to say, hard liquor as it was called here yesterday, and furthermore there are the lighter wines which also contain a certain quantity of alcohol. The channels through which the hard liquor has flowed to the public, and which have created the evils, are not being reduced. No, they are being increased. What are we doing now? We immediately introduce the factor of competition between these two new points of distribution. The natural reaction is going to be that both the bottle stores and their new competitors, the hotel with its off-consumption sales, will do one of three things or all three of them. They are firstly going to launch new publicity campaigns; they are going to step up their salesmanship secondly; and thirdly they are going to resort to price cutting. All three of these methods will be applied in order to increase the turnover. The result will be one thing only and that is that the turnover of hard liquor will be increased. There is only one victim, and that is the public, because that is the object to be reached, the public, and in creating these new channels of distribution we shall accentuate the competition factor with all its accompanying attempts to increase turnover, and the ultimate victim is the public.

I make a second submission. These representations from hotels, or this wholehearted support of this Bill by the hotels, therefore is no guarantee to me that hotels are going to provide the public with better service. If we create a new source of revenue for the hotels, where the hotels will be obtaining further income by means of selling by the tot and we are creating a further source of income for them, what guarantee have we that those hotels are not going to concentrate upon the sales of liquor rather than on actually giving service? The very fact that they could not reap sufficient financial benefits from rendering services to guests and tourists was the reason that led to us giving the hotel an extra source of income. What guarantee have we that they are not now going to concentrate upon the extra source of revenue we have created in competition with existing channels of distribution? As regards the hotels, I can come to no other conclusion than that their support of this Bill betrays nothing but self-interest in the first instance. I ask: Why has the hotel industry in South Africa never made a serious attempt to establish a proper hotel school here such as is found in Europe, a school where the proper type of hotel manager can be trained, so that there can be people in charge of hotels who know the geography of our country, who know the geography of the world, and who could be a source of information to the tourist? Just travel through our country and look at the type of managers we have in our hotels. The majority of them cannot speak either of the two official languages of South Africa properly. The majority of them have not the slightest notion of what is going on outside the borders of their town or city, and most have not the vaguest idea of what is going on in our country. What guidance can such an hotel manager give the tourist? One of the basic requirements of an hotel is to be a good haven for the tourist. A further question: All businesses, companies, require a person to have a certificate of competency to manage the business. I wonder how many hotel managers are certificated to undertake that important work? And now, because they have dismally failed in that duty, we want to give them a second source of income through liquor, which gives me the right to state that I do not see any guarantee of better service in that, and I think my argument is as well founded as that of those who say the opposite. Mr. Speaker, competition will now arise between hotels and bottle stores, competition will arise between hotels and restaurants. Everybody will benefit from this proposed increase of income the hotels must get from the creation of this new source of distribution. In business competition leads to only one thing. Competition is set afoot in order to make greater profits, and for no other reason. It leads to greater consumption of liquor and rivalry will be unleashed. Strangely enough it will not be a conflict between the softer alcoholic drinks such as beer. No, we are not throwing that into the arena. We are throwing into the arena light, natural wine about which the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) became so lyrical in describing it as a cultural act when it is consumed; we are throwing two alcoholic liquors into the battle with each other and we swerve away from beer. I say we unleash a conflict between two alcoholic liquors, with destructive consequences to our nation. We are contemplating a new drinking pattern. I want to emphasize that I appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Minister, and I appreciate his effort, but unfortunately I cannot agree with the method he is applying. We are aiming at a new drinking pattern! No, we shall not create a new drinking pattern, we shall bring about an enlarged drinking pattern. [Hear, hear!] You do not impress me at all with your “Hear, hears!”.

How has the drinking pattern of the Bantu developed in South Africa up to the present moment? It started with ordinary kaffirbeer, and when the effect of alcohol took root with the Bantu and the Bantu acquired the taste for it, they began to fortify their Bantu beer with all kinds of additives. It was carbide, methylated spirits, and everything one can possibly think of. That resulted in us becoming concerned about the drinking habits of the Bantu. We then removed the prohibition and the Bantu was given access to hard liquor. How did the pattern develop then? The consumption of Bantu beer increased, but the consumption of hard liquor, particularly brandy, bought by the Bantu, also showed an increase, because the Bantu is now using brandy to fortify his Bantu beer, because he must have the kick.

How can he do that?

Did you not vote in favour of the Bill?

On whose shoulders are we now loading this burden of changing the drinking pattern? Are we loading it on the shoulders of our producers? Do we expect them to bear part of the burden of changing the drinking pattern? Were the thousands of winegrowers ever asked to do their share? Or did they merely produce the wine? I am asking that as a serious question. Were the winegrowers ever asked to exploit properly the unlimited channels at their disposal to market their product? It is well known that every wine farmer can obtain a licence to market his product in any place within the Republic. Was that fully developed? Is it not a fact that the bottle-store proprietors until about six years ago were limited as regards the quantity of natural wines they could obtain? Have we ever in all seriousness given attention to the proper channelling of our liquor? Did we harness our nation, so that they also could bear a part of the burden in regard to this proposed changing of the drinking pattern? We are now compelling a man to go and eat if he wishes to drink. He now has to eat whether he likes it or not in order to obtain liquor at a restaurant. I am not rejecting that principle, but what I should like to emphasize is are we forcing the population to have a share in the change of the drinking pattern. Secondly we are forcing a man to take his beer bottle with him to a restaurant if he wishes to drink beer there, because he cannot drink beer there.

Where do you read that?

We are therefore debarring him from obtaining in a restaurant the healthiest and most balanced liquor with the lowest alcohol content, and instead of that we are offering him the highly lauded light wines. If we want our nation to become a wine-drinking nation, why do we not compel them to purchase a bottle of light wine with every bottle of hard liquor they buy? We are obliged to harness our nation also as a party to this proposed change in our drinking pattern. We must bring the producer into it too, but we should first of all make full use of the existing channels of distribution. I could easily say, if I were a barley-grower, that I have the strongest possible objection to discrimination against my product which may not be sold in the restaurant, while the winegrower’s product, which is much more noxious, may be sold there. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not interject so much.

Apart from the nation and the producers we have to harness, I say we should first of all harness the existing channels of distribution without creating more of them. And those are the people we cannot just ignore. We are now blaming them for the change in the drinking pattern which has been brought about through the years, but I should like to draw attention to the point that this particular drinking pattern we have is closely woven into our nation’s historical background, and into certain psychological factors which have had an effect upon the nation’s whole history. But now we are confining it down to the existing channels of distribution, that is to say, the bottle stores. They now have to accept responsibility for the hard liquor we are drinking. When we released liquor to the Bantu we left that responsibility in their hands just like that, and who can say they did not fulfill their task with full honour? I say we are making those people an unfair challenge, and I have no interest in any bottle store or in any liquor-distributing business, but I say that when I do one an injustice I do it to the rest also. We must expect that if these people were to compete with one another, they will fight like lions, and that competition will have one effect only, namely that the liquor turnover will be increased, and it will have to flow through the throats of the public. There is much at stake for them, and we must give them a chance.

What must we do now? The hon. member for Kimberley (North) last night reproached the hon. member for Mossel Bay for not having made a suggestion. It does not follow that if one does not agree with this Bill one is condemning everything in it. There are many good things in this Bill, but there are certain things which worry me when the logical effect is analysed. What must we do? As far as I am concerned, as liquor is inseparable from a social evil, and as this social evil has assumed the proportions where we shall have to establish rehabilitation centres at a cost of thousands of pounds, I say for goodness’ sake, while we have now introduced the Bantu as an additional factor in the liquor trade, and the addition of the Bantu has not yet made its influence felt on our drinking pattern, why be in a hurry now? I say we must at the moment keep the number of points of distribution as low as possible, because once one gives the nation the impression that the State has withdrawn its controlling hand, one will have eliminated two necessary educational functions, the function of control as an educational factor and the function of punishment which is based on a breach of that control. I am afraid that if we were at this stage to extend our points of distribution as much as possible, and add 300 for the hotels alone, it merely makes the impression upon the nation, and particularly upon the immature youth, that the State has now withdrawn its controlling hand. I say we have enough confusion and I do not wish to be sentimental now, but we have enough problems to solve. Do not let us now withdraw the control and that factor of education of the nation. We must keep the number of existing channels as low as possible, and nobody can tell me that he cannot obtain liquor as he wishes. There are points of distribution in every town and city. Secondly, the State may under no circumstances create the impression that the consumption of liquor can be separated from strict control. By keeping the number of channels of distribution as low as possible, and making the control as strict as possible, and by utilizing the age-old and tried educational method of punishment, and by developing a method whereby the penalty for abuse of liquor is made as harsh as possible, much will be accomplished. As we have many problems, I ask whether it is not advisable to be a little cautious. I am not pleading for prohibition, nor do I advocate accentuated competition. Price is not the principle of this Bill, is it? Nor am I pleading for the loading of extra duties on to our police to exercise control over the increased number of points of distribution, because as I see it, we shall not be off-loading but loading their duties; we shall load our police with extra functions of control. So I am not pleading for an increase of it, but for a reduction. We shall support the Bill because there are many things in the Bill that are right, but if we could retain the present points of distribution and make the other improvements provided for in this Bill, we shall have peace and quiet and then we shall be given time to find our way. I should like to appeal to the Minister please to consider not increasing the number of points of distribution of liquor, but to limit it as much as possible, and to carry out all the other good things contained in the Bill, but also to safeguard us against the evils which we can foresee will result from an increase of points of distribution. If that cannot be done, I must say with all sincerity that I shall not be able to vote for the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, so much has been said about this Bill that it will be a good thing to outline the background of it in order to obtain a clear picture of what has led to this Bill. The Minister indicated to us at the outset that this Bill is the result of an inquiry made by and the findings of a commission of inquiry. If one were to summarize the findings of that commission and condense them, there are really two shocking conclusions that may be drawn. The commission admits that these conclusions were shocking, and that is the reason why it may be a good thing to mention it in passing, and to remind the country and the House of it.

The first shocking conclusion is that the abuse of liquor is taking place in South Africa on a tremendous scale. The second conclusion, equally shocking, is that this abuse is due to hard liquor which is used to a much greater extent in the Republic than in any other Western country. I should like to mention these countries: France, Italy, Belgium, Australia, Switzerland, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, West Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. Of all those countries, the consumption of liquor is greatest in the Republic. The closest of all those countries to us as regards the consumption of intoxicating liquor—and they consume much less—is Sweden. The consumption of intoxicating liquor in the United Kingdom is only one quarter per capita per annum. In Belgium and Denmark it is the lowest. There it is only about one-seventh of what it is here. You see therefore that these shocking conclusions do not surprise one when regard is had to these figures. In the country with the largest consumption of intoxicating liquor there is abuse of liquor on a scale I need not tell hon. members about, because the police and the courts are continually indicating it to us. I say that with those facts before us, it is no wonder that our Churches and the temperance associations, yes, everybody who is concerned about the future of the nation, are concerned. If such a state of affairs were to continue, it must ultimately lead to the moral decline of the nation. Personally I believe, and I say this on the basis of the years of study made by the commission, that the future of our nation is at stake if this abuse of liquor were to continue. That was the finding of the commission. Fortunately, however, if you know that is the problem then the inference to be drawn from it is obvious, and that is what the Minister has already emphasized, namely that the drinking pattern of our nation is wrong, and that it must be altered if we do not want these shocking conditions to continue. If the drinking pattern has to be altered, then many questions may arise. You may ask whether there should be greater restrictions on liquor, as some hon. members think. My reply is that we have far too much experience of that to consider it seriously. We tried it with our Bantu, and it was a complete failure, and when we removed it, we achieved success. America also tried it, and we know what the results were. We may say that possibly there should be greater freedom for the consumption of liquor given to the White people. That is inconceivable too, because there is so much freedom already that it is simply impossible to give greater freedom. Liquor is obtainable and even if another 100 or 600 new points of distribution were created, the freedom to obtain liquor will be no greater. But I also say that prohibition does not lead to abolition or to lesser consumption of liquor. Liquor is part of our civilization. It is dangerous when it is hard liquor, but there are many other things which are dangerous. Motor-cars are dangerous, but we do not abolish them. We must accept them as part of our civilization and they must be used properly, and the same applies to liquor. So one is forced to the conclusion, when one begins to consider what is to be done to change the drinking pattern, or rather, one asks oneself: What is responsible for the peculiar drinking pattern we have? I say without fear of contradiction that the Liquor Act of 1928 is responsible. That is an obsolete Act. It is an Act passed 35 years ago to make provision for the difficulties then existing. I suppose it has done some good work during the years, but it is completely obsolete now. So a change of the drinking pattern, which is the result of the Act of 1928, is the aim of this Bill. That is why the Minister comes along with a new basis. The basis or foundation of this Bill is a change of the drinking pattern. If one were to change it, the following question arises: What is really wrong with our drinking pattern? I shall try to answer that.

I say the drinking pattern is such that the kinds of liquor with a high alcohol content, such as brandy, whisky, gin and vodka, which contain 45 per cent of alcohol by volume, are the types that are sold mainly at the expense of the kinds of liquor with a low alcohol content, such as natural wines and beer. To prove that I should just like to refer to the figures the Minister has already mentioned. This liquor with a high alcohol content of 30 per cent or more constitutes 45 per cent of the total liquor sales in the country. In other words, nearly 50 per cent of all liquor sold contains more than 30 per cent alcohol by volume. The natural wines normally containing on an average about 11 per cent of alcohol by volume, constitute only 15 per cent of the total sales, and malt and beer constitute about 39 per cent. So you see how low the sales of our natural wines are. Without blaming anybody, the most harmless product of the vine, natural wine, which is consumed on a large scale in other wine-producing countries, is something which is consumed here on an insignificant scale. In three of the four provinces it is hardly consumed at all—only 3 per cent, 5 per cent and 8 per cent of the total liquor sales. That is a serious defect in our pattern, because we are drinking the kinds of liquor with a high alcohol content and we are not drinking those with a lower alcohol content. It reminds me of a parent who wants his child to become acquainted with firearms, and then gives him a Lee Metford instead of an airgun.

Well, it is not true that beer constitutes such a small part of the total sales. Beer however also is a natural liquor, and the consumption of it could easily rise. Beer is not a liquor in the same sense as wine. Beer is a drink that quenches thirst. It is something you like to drink when you have played tennis or golf on a warm day. That is why the sales percentages of beer are almost equal to the sales of hard liquor. So I say the first mistake is that we are drinking so little natural wine that we must face up to, and try to rectify it in this Bill.

Another mistake in our drinking pattern is that liquor is not associated with food. If someone does not wish to drink, that is a good thing. If he wishes to drink in order to quench his thirst, he will probably drink beer. But if somebody wishes to drink natural wine today, there should be an association with food, otherwise there is no occasion to do so. Nobody enters a bar or an hotel lounge and orders a glass of natural wine if he does not intend having a meal. That association of food with our consumption of liquor must be present, and only then will we use natural wines to a greater extent and to greater advantage. That is why the commission and this Bill emphasize this association between liquor and food in an attempt to alter our drinking pattern. That is why also it is the object of this Bill to remove the defects in our drinking pattern. I have already mentioned the two points, and I am repeating them merely to emphasize them. The one defect is that too little of our natural liquor types are being consumed, and secondly, the association between food and wine must be much closer otherwise natural wine will not be consumed in any event. So we say: Do not prohibit people from drinking hard liquor, and it is not done in this Bill. I say beer will always remain popular, but give the Cinderella, the Cinderella of our liquor types, namely our natural wine, the place of honour it occupies in all wine-producing countries; give it that place in association with food when natural wine tastes best and food also tastes best. That is part of our culture; it is part of the culture of our countries of origin. If you go to the older countries, you will find that food is always associated with natural wine. South Africa is in the position that it must seek the best for the future. Let us in this respect also apply the same principle and also say that we are seeking the best as regards our drinking pattern, and the best will be an association between natural wine and food.

The next question that arises is how this Bill differs from the existing Act.

Will you explain to us on what you base your assumption that a change in the drinking pattern from spirits to natural wine will improve the position in regard to the abuse of liquor?

It is so obvious that I really do not have to reply to that, but do let me reply to that question. Supposing a person has drunk hard liquor up to the present, and that he were to begin drinking natural wines now. Because there will be an association between natural wines and food, as I shall explain just now again when I come to the places where natural wines may be used, that person cannot absorb so much alcohol that he will become intoxicated. It has been proved in other countries of the world, and the same thing will be proved in our country. It is not the natural types of liquor that cause drunkenness in the world; the hard liquor types cause drunkenness in any country, including France, in parenthesis. I hope I shall have time to prove that. Well, in this Bill we seek to alter the drinking pattern in this country. Let us see now how this Bill is going to alter the position in comparison with the position under the old Liquor Act of 1928. We have to differentiate here; in the first place we must only refer to the sources for on-consumption, those places where the liquor is sold and consumed. So we are talking only about on-consumption in the first place. In the wine and malt houses, wine and malt could be sold during the day under the old Act. Under the new Bill wine and malt houses will be given three years’ respite, and thereafter they also will have to offer the public meals so that there will be an association between food and wine and malt. Then there are the bars which are not important. There are only 15 in the whole of the Republic. There is one of them down here at the bottom of Adderley Street, if anybody is sufficiently interested to go and look at it. Those bars are relics of the days long before the First World War. Within three years they will have to do exactly the same as the wine and malt houses. They will also have to make provision for food if they wish to continue selling liquor under this Bill. That is the second change. The third relates to restaurants. Our restaurants will continue as they are carrying on at the present time, except that they will I hope be able to obtain licences more easily than at present. It is easy to obtain licences at present also, but licences will be granted more readily to approved restaurants. I presume that every restaurant offering a full meal and which is managed under decent conditions will be able to obtain a meal-time licence. So in that respect we are not making a great change. We only hope there will be more such restaurants. Then I come to the hotels. As regards hotels, no change at all is being made for on-consumption. I admit with regret that that is the position. Personally I should have liked to see that there should be a shelf for liquor in every hotel lounge, so that people may be served not over a counter, but so that the waiter must take the liquor off the shelf and serve the people in the lounge where they are sitting, men and women mixed. That is what I would like to have. I should like to see that old form of bar in hotels which was permitted to continue in 1928 and which we still have to-day, gradually changing into a decent place, because in many hotels it is anything but a decent place. I have been in certain hotels where no fault could be found with these bars, but I have also been in hotels where the bars are really scandalous. I trust and I have reason to believe that when this system of hotel classification is introduced, these bars will develop in accordance with this pattern which is the best pattern as I saw it in European countries and in America, and there is one person at least who has promised that he will work in this direction in his hotel. Well, we are now talking about on-consumption. As regards approved hotels, a change is being made in this Bill. Approved private hotels will be able to obtain a licence to provide natural wine at meals, and if they wish to add beer, I do not think the Minister will have any objection, for it is a natural liquor. These are the small changes that are being made but as hon. members will see, the direction in which we are moving with this Bill is only a gradual change from the provisions of the old Liquor Act. The aim is to associate food with liquor everywhere. The closer that association is, the greater will be the success we shall achieve with the change of the drinking pattern.

I next come to the question of off-consumption. As regards off-consumption, namely the bottle stores, the position remains exactly the same. The provision in regard to the number of voters is changed in that for “1,000 male voters” we now substitute “2,000 voters, male and female”. As regards bottle stores no vested interests are therefore affected. As regards off-sale at licensed hotels, a big change is being made. Hundreds of new off-sales licences are going to be added, but the pattern according to which sales are to be effected will probably still be the old one. There are many hotels in the Cape Province and in the Free State which have off-sales facilities. Take the position in the Free State for instance. The hotels in the Free State with off-sales facilities do not sell our natural wines either. I suppose, therefore, that as we shall be giving off-sales facilities to hotels, they will not really make the association between food and natural wines closer. Under the old pattern they will still be able to sell hard liquor. I mention this not because I wish to condemn it, but I wish to point out that it is really a concession to our hotel industry aimed at improving our hotels. Our hotels help us to attract tourists from other countries, and for that reason also we want to improve our hotels, and I believe this can be effected in the manner suggested by the hon. the Minister, namely that the profits made from off-sales should be deposited in the hotel account. If things do not go well with the hotel, those profits will be used to increase the profits _ of the hotel as such and to improve the service.

I have already mentioned the bottle stores, and I have referred to the hotels. Now I come to the quasi-wholesalers. We have really curbed the quasi-wholesalers. I do not know whether that is the right thing, but we have done so. I hope that there may be a little relief in this regard. The quasi-wholesalers rendered a great service to us in the past.

When there were the price agreements between the wholesalers selling to retailers, it was this quasi-wholesaler who intervened and prevented those price arrangements continuing. In any event, so little change is being made as regards the quasi-wholesalers that I do not propose to dwell on them for long.

Then there are the existing wine and malt houses. There are a small number of them who also have off-sales facilities in addition, and they will continue as usual. As regards the wholesalers as such no change is being made. So you see, Mr. Speaker—and I wish to emphasize this point—that hardly anything is being done as regards off-sales to encourage greater sales of natural wines and beers. Hardly anything is being done in that regard, and that is why the hon. the Minister comes along with this Bill in which he says that we must create a place in which all these natural wines will be obtainable for supply to the public. We must retain the association with food and we are doing that. We must make it easy for people to obtain this liquor which is not dangerous, which has the lowest alcohol content. For this reason the Bill provides that a licence for the sale of natural wines may be granted to grocers’ shops. In my opinion this is an extremely important provision in this Bill, because a grocer’s shop is associated with food. For off-consumption light wine cannot really be associated with food in any other way, because in this instance the food is sold in the grocer’s shop. It is easy for the housewife or the husband to order his or her food and liquor through the grocer’s shop. But it really holds a much greater advantage than we are inclined to think. Under those circumstances, in a world where liquor is available to all, we are enabled, in our homes, to let our children make contact with the kind of liquor that is harmless. We enable them to know one day when they have to go out into the world on their own which liquor is the least harmful and which liquor is dangerous. Reference has been made to the thousands of teenagers who regularly get drunk. One of the great reasons for that is that those children have not become acquainted with natural wine in their homes; because they have not learnt that it is something that can be consumed with safety, not to excess, but in a reasonable manner; that it is part of a good life, that it is part of the culture of old nations and also of our nation. I say that if they had learnt this in their homes, if natural wines had been available in grocers’ shops—and it cannot be consumed in the grocer’s shop, it is taken home and drunk there—these teenagers would have been better off. That is my honest conviction. Mr. Speaker, in passing I should like to say that this Bill will prove to be one of the greatest instruments for combating drunkenness and alcoholism. It will be one of the best instruments for combating alcoholism. Not a single person who became an alcoholic started with light wines. This statement is based on medical observations. I have had interviews with a series of alcoholics and not a single person told me that he started by drinking wine. [Interjection.] The hon. member must not think that because he is a doctor he knows more about these things than the people with whom I had discussions. I spoke to doctors. For instance, I spoke to a person who has his doctor’s degree, not a person with the ordinary Baccalaureus degree and who is called “doctor”. The person I spoke to wrote a doctor’s thesis on the consumption of liquor by people and the effect of it upon people. He made his thesis available to me, and he also thinks that there is no truth in the assertion that wine causes alcoholism.

Are you excluding the Coloured people too?

Cannot the hon. member be silent for a little while? I say that alcoholics themselves tell one these things, and when it is confirmed by medical men who have written books on the subject, then I really believe that alcoholism is not caused by wine. I should like to add that this matter has been discussed with the head of the semi-State Department in France which deals with the fight against alcoholism. One of the members of the commission present here visited France and he was requested to devote special attention to this matter and to request an interview with the head of that Department, who told him that the quantity of wine that may be consumed without any danger is 1¼ bottles per day. Hon. members must remember it is a great Department with research facilities; that was their finding. The quantity of liquor consumed in France is ½ bottle per day on an average. The head of this semi-State Department in France says that the cause of drunkenness in France is not the wine the French people are drinking, but the hard liquor they are drinking on a large scale, according to him, although there they are drinking only one-quarter as much hard liquor as the people in South Africa are drinking.

They started off with wine.

The hon. member is just talking when he says that they started off with wine. People who have fallen into the habit of drinking, and who know what they are talking about, say it is not so, and one can take notice of them. The reason why we included beer in our original recommendation is that beer is a natural liquor and because it has an even lower alcohol content than wine. But because 2½ times as much beer as natural wine is being consumed, it was felt that these vested interests should not be touched by allowing beer also to be sold in grocers’ shops. However, I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. If it will mean that this clause regarding grocers’ shops will be accepted if beer is included with the wine, I shall support it, but then we must have the assurance that hon. members will also support the clause providing for the supply of natural wines through grocers’ shops. I have already referred to one of the advantages connected with the sale of natural liquor by grocers’ shops, and that is the educational value to our own children. The second point I made is that natural wines should be readily obtainable if we wish to encourage the consumption thereof. The third consideration is that the prices of natural wines will be kept down. The fourth is that it does not entail a danger of liquor abuse by the nation.

Before concluding, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to stand firmly by his request to this House, namely that if hon. members are not prepared to vote for the clause relative to grocers’ shops they must rather vote against the second reading, and let us then be rid of this Bill. I say honestly—this is my conviction—that if that clause is omitted, this Bill will have been emasculated; then it has no hope of bringing about a great change in our drinking pattern.

In conclusion I should just like to show hon. members what the views of the winegrowers are. They are frequently charged with being interested only in the sale of their product. Here I have a letter written by the Robertson Farmers’ Association: “As you know, this district is the largest distilling wine producer in the Republic, as well as the largest producer of muscadel wines and other heavily fortified wines.” The letter proceeds—

That is not relevant here now—

[Time limit.]

There are one or two observations that I would like to make on this Bill. In the first place my constituency has an interest in this Bill. The hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) has said that he holds the record in his constituency as far as the number of liquor licences is concerned. I do not want to compete with him in that respect but I believe that in my own constituency there are over 120 licences. This is a considerable number. Sir, I will be brief in what I say because this debate will end in just over two hours, and I want to express the hope that hon. members who follow me will be short in their speeches so as to give the greatest opportunity to other members to get into the debate. I do not criticize the previous speaker, who occupied a special position as chairman of the commission. I think it was quite right that he should address the House at some length. I would also like to say that I speak simply as an ordinary member expressing my individual point of view. If I were to speak in lighter vein in seeking the principle of this Bill, I might call it a Bill to “Vorster” the consumption of natural wine, but I desire to treat it in a more serious vein and to examine the principle of this Bill in the light of what the hon. the Minister said in moving the second reading. An examination of this Bill to my mind shows that the principle is the distribution of liquor. It is no more and no less than that. The distribution of liquor is the principle of this Bill. Various avenues are created in this Bill for the distribution of liquor. In the first place it provides for the granting of licences to grocers to sell natural wine; it provides for the extension of off-sales facilities to hotels, for liquor facilities at mealtimes and for the enlargement of restaurant rights. Those appear to be the avenues for distribution. Sir, the hon. the Minister in moving the second reading stated most categorically that if members were against one of these avenues of distribution, namely the grocery shops, they should vote against the Bill at the second reading. I believe that that was a grave error on the part of the Minister in trying to obtain support for his Bill, because there are many members who, as I estimate the position, are against the granting of licences to grocers but who would probably be in favour of the rest of the Bill or the greater part of this Bill. I for one will vote against the clause which provides for the granting of licences to grocers, but there is much in the Bill that I support, especially those clauses which are designed to enable hotels to raise their standards. The Minister in following that course not only lost support for this Bill but he raises the all-important question about this Bill: Is this a package deal, to use a tourist expression? Is it a package deal? If the one part of the Bill falls away, does the rest of the Bill fall away? I believe that it is vitally important for members to know that. It seemed to me from what he said at the second reading that one could quite rightly come to the conclusion that if the clause dealing with grocers’ licences is not supported, then he will have nothing to do with the rest of the Bill. I believe that that would be tragic, and I for one would be grateful to the Minister if he would clear up that point. I believe that he has left many members on the horns of a dilemma because of that statement. I personally, as a result of that statement, am very much inclined to vote against the second reading of the Bill. I was not inclined to do so at the start because I do not believe that the fact that grocers’ licences disappear, affects the principle of the Bill. I am concerned with the principle of this Bill, which is the distribution of liquor, and if there is truly to be a free vote, I do not think that the Minister should take up that attitude.

I go on to another point and that is my disappointment in certain provisions of this Bill. I would say that the hotel industry as such has been the Cinderella industry in this country, not only under this Government but under previous Governments. In 1936 there was the Norval Report; in 1944 there was a committee of which I was chairman, and later there was a university survey of the hotel industry, and quite frankly no previous Government acted on those reports, nor has this Government done so. The problems have remained basically the same year in and year out without any positive action being taken on behalf of the hotel industry. Until we get the position where we desire to foster the tourist industry, which the Minister himself supports, the premier hotels of the country are going out of existence. Take, for example, one of the premier hotels of Johannesburg, the Carlton Hotel. It is going out of existence. Why? Because it is uneconomic. They find it uneconomic to run that hotel in the situation where it is, a situation where a hotel should be, namely in the central part of the city. Where did Members of Parliament reside at one time here in Cape Town? In the hotels along the Sea Point front. To-day it is difficult for them to find an hotel on the Sea Point front. They have practically all disappeared. They have been replaced for economic reasons. Land values have increased too much to run an hotel in that situation. If you go to other countries in the world you find that that is where the hotels are.

This is a liquor Bill; not an hotel Bill.

I am quite aware of that. What I am saying appertains to a liquor Bill because the Minister is going out of his way to improve the hotel position so that they may exist. That is my point. If you are so dense that you cannot see that I cannot help it. Mr. Speaker, I make the point that everything should be done for hotels as such. I hope the hon. Minister who has just interrupted, when he takes over the responsibility of Minister of Tourism actively, will be able to show soon and readily what he is going to do for the hotels.

According to you I must leave it to the liquor trade.

I think you are going to have great difficulty in the spread of responsibility between the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Economic Affairs and yourself. They all have a finger in the pie. But that is one you must sort out, Mr. Minister.

Then there is the other disappointment of police inspection. That is not dealt with in this Bill. This is something which has been resented by hotels over the years. The police do a job of work; I am not denying that. They do the best they can but they are not the people equipped to do the type of inspection that will improve the standard of hotels. Then there is the vicarious responsibility of an hotel-keeper who is guilty of offences which are not within his knowledge. Somebody on his staff commits an offence and the hotel-keeper is as guilty as the person committing the offence. Some sentences appear to be out of all proportion to the offence. Take the question of compulsory stocking. There the maximum fine is £500. I know offences are divided, as the Minister knows, into three categories. In the case of the worst offence the fine is £500, then £100 and then £50. The fact that the hotel-keeper does not stock eight brandies and six wines makes him as guilty as though he had sold liquor without a licence. It seems to me that things like that could have been straightened out in this Bill.

The restrictive conditions applying to closed days are not dealt with either. Nor are clubs dealt with and clubs compete very heavily with hotels. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic in the Committee Stage to an amendment in that direction which may meet the case to a certain extent. I have spoken about some of the disappointments. I could list many but I believe I have given an indication of the disappointments, particularly those of the hotel industry, in this measure. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there, are distinct advantages. Those advantages flow from the classification of hotels, from the extension of off-sale rights and other minor matters that are provided for in this Bill. They are an incentive to the hotel industry. In regard to classification I should like to say this. Classification is provided for in this Bill but there is some apprehension. and I think quite rightly so, as to what factors will decide the classification. More important than that, Sir, is the question of losing privileges owing to classification. There is a very strong feeling that if they cannot qualify for classification certain hoteliers may be deprived of their livelihood. I believe that is also a matter that should be given some consideration in the Committee Stage.

There are several anomalies, as I have suggested. in this Bill. For instance the necessity for the police to inform the hotel-keeper of the names of those persons on the black list has disappeared, but the offence still remains. It is very difficult to conceive how a person can be guilty of an offence when he was unaware of it that the person he was serving was a black-listed person. Hotel hours do not seem comparable with restaurant hours and should be brought more into line. Again the Minister may give consideration to this in the Committee Stage.

Then there is the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Point namely the signing of the guest register on closed days, particularly on Sundays. I know of no matter that has caused more irritation. It is true that the guest has now to sign and not the host but I do not know what purpose that serves. I suggest, the fact that the guests are having a drink with the host present meets the requirements of the law. There are many other anomalies. I have mentioned the question of the vicarious responsibility of the hotel-keeper. Another one that springs to mind is the responsibility of the hotel-keeper who has to see that there is no drunkenness on his premises. But he is unaware of whether a guest introduces drink into a hotel; he is unaware of whether he takes it away or not. He is totally unaware of the fact, yet he is guily of an offence. I believe the person committing the offence should be responsible. Why make the hotel-keeper suffer for offences which he is quite unaware of?

I believe the suggestion by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee after the second reading, is a good one. I am concerned about the Committee Stage of this Bill. Various interests will obviously put forward many amendments. The second reading has shown that there are many contentious points. I am apprehensive that there will not be sufficient time to discuss the amendments that will appear on the Order Paper. I accept that 12 hours is a reasonable time. I know of many amendments. I was approached only this morning. They wanted to know whether I would be interested in amendments to tidy up this Bill. There were some 14 or 15 amendments. I agree with most of them and I believe the Minister will agree with them. They tidy up the Bill and clarify it. But I believe it is quite useless putting those amendments on the Order Paper because there will not be time to discuss them. Some of these contentious clauses are going to occupy considerable time in the Committee Stage and unless an amendment is in the name of the Minister many amendments, which hon. members would like to see accepted, will go by the board. I therefore support the suggestion that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. After the principle has been accepted you will know what measure of agreement there is and it will not be beyond our wit to find a Select Committee, representing the various interests on this vexed question of liquor, which could report in due course and produce a Bill which is ready for the Committee Stage. We can resuscitate this Bill, to save time, next session at the stage where we leave off this Session and deal with probably fairly early next session. I believe we shall have a much greater measure of agreement than we have in this House to-day. The pros and cons can be discussed by the Select Committee and they can come forward with what I believe will be almost an agreed measure. I hope the Minister will give it consideration.

Finally I want to say this, Mr. Speaker—I have already made this clear—that unless the position about the grocery clause is clarified by the Minister (the statement he made when introducing this Bill can be interpreted in a certain way) I shall vote against this Bill. If that is clarified then my attitude may be different.

If the present Liquor Bill had been suitable, it would have been a miracle because the position has changed appreciably since last year. As you know, the main object of the liquor legislation in this country until last year has always been to keep away the so-called White man’s liquor from the Bantu. A great change was made in that respect as we all know. Because that was the object of liquor legislation in the past, it was essential considerably to limit the number of distribution points. It is obvious that the distribution of liquor would have been impossible if there had been no limitation in regard to the distribution points. Investigations have shown that the statutory limitations on the number of distribution points undoubtedly led to monopolistic conditions. There was an appreciable measure of price control in regard to liquor, and the price of liquor was higher than it would have been had there been more competition. I know that there are people who welcome the fact that there is a limitation on the number of distribution points. They use two arguments. On the one hand they say that the more expensive liquor is, the fewer people will buy it and the less alcoholism there will be. In regard to that point, I think that if we find that the consumption of liquor gives rise to a high incidence of alcoholism, the Government should consider increasing the excise on liquor. There is no doubt that the price of liquor has an influence on its consumption. I do not think it is any argument at all to say that we should limit the number of distribution points in order to combat alcoholism.

There is, of course, also the other argument that if one has a limited number of distribution points it results in a more moderate consumption of liquor. However, I do not believe that there is any proof that this is in fact the case in South Africa. We already have so many distribution points that I do not believe that their number has any influence on the amount of liquor consumed. The factors influencing the consumption of alcohol per capita are the price, the purchasing power of the population and their drinking habits. Just take the case of the United Kingdom. The Englishman to-day drinks much less than his grandfather, in spite of the fact that he is much better off than his grandfather. There have always been many distribution points; the reason is not that there are fewer to-day. A change has, however, set in as the result of better social conditions; there is better education, with the result that the modern Englishman is more sober than his grandfather. Therefore I say that the argument used in the past that the number of distribution points should be limited has now fallen away. Nor do I believe that more distribution points will lead to more alcoholism. That does not mean that I am advocating the total abolition of control over liquor. The fact remains, however, that in the past great vested interests arose. I still think that in view of the fact that the potential market will increase in future, now is the time to make liquor more freely available to a considerable degree. In order to do that, one must retain certain social objectives. I suggest that the aim of the Malan Commission was to promote and to improve the hotel trade. As has been proved by one commission after another in South Africa, the ordinary South African is not prepared to pay a decent price for his food, although he is prepared to pay for his liquor. Unless the hotels can make a decent profit out of their liquor trade, they find it very difficult to render decent services. I do not want to go into details, but one of the objects of the Malan Commission was to use the Liquor Act to stimulate the hotel industry in South Africa.

As has already been said, it is also being attempted to improve the drinking habits of South Africans, to get them to drink less hard liquor and more liquor with a low alcohol content, in particular light wines and beer. I do not want to go so far as to say that there will be no drunkenness if people drink only light wines and beer, but in general one will find less drunkenness. That is the reason why it is suggested that grocer shops should be licensed to sell light wines. I must say that to a certain extent I am disappointed because beer is excluded from the grocer’s licence. There is no doubt at all that for young people it is preferable that they should drink wine and beer instead of hard liquor. I want to associate myself with what hon. members have already said, viz. that I hope the Minister will see his way clear in the Committee Stage to extend these licences to such an extent that beer may also be sold. I realize the argument that it will affect vested interests to a greater extent than if only wine is sold. I should like to know from the Minister what amount of beer is sold, e.g. by bottle stores, which constitute one of the vested interests which he does not want to bit too hard. Cannot the same type of protection be given to beer as in the case of wine? Cannot some percentage basis also be found there?

Because I think that our existing legislation is antiquated and because we have had new developments in South Africa, whereby the Bantu and the Coloureds can now buy any type of liquor, I think that this legislation is justified. I think it is essential for us to make amendments. I am aware that vested interests will be affected, but to a certain extent vested interests are always affected when one makes changes. For these reasons I will support this legislation, and I also signed the recommendations of the Malan Commission, in the hope that in the Committee Stage the minor matters which worry us would be remedied. [Interjections.] I still think the Malan Commission was quite justified in making those recommendations. By extending the sales of liquor, the hotels will be assisted and the pattern of drinking in this country will be changed appreciably. If we find that people are drinking too much, I think there is a very easy method of combating it. I think that it can easily be controlled by applying price control. I believe more in price control than in physical control. All one does by limiting the number of channels is to create monopolies. If the State considers that people are starting to drink too much, it has a very easy remedy at hand: it can simply increase the excise.

Then it will be too late already.

No, I do not think so. As I said before, the quantity of liquor people drink depends on the price. That is the main factor in the long run. For these reasons I will vote for the second reading of this Bill and for incorporating the sound recommendations of the Malan Commission in the Bill in the Committee Stage. I also think that table licences should not be limited to private hotels alone. The Malan Commission recommends that all restaurants providing decent meals should have that right to a certain extent. The whole idea surely is to encourage people to drink light wine and beer with their meals. Why then limit it to private hotels alone?

In considering legislation of this nature, one should bear in mind not only the requirements of certain groups affected by it, but above all. the interests of the mass of the population. If we consider what this Bill envisages we can best determine it by looking at the terms of reference of the Malan Commission at the time it was appointed. I think the standpoint of the authorities at the time when they drafted the terms of reference of the commission, to the effect that they should investigate the distribution of liquor, was the fact that they knew that we had liquor and that prohibition was not possible—that it was an impracticable idealistic idea. Because that is so. we must set out from the standpoint that liquor on the one hand is a gift and a pleasure in the glass of the civilized drinker, but on the other hand a potential danger in the glass of the reckless man, which may lead to great misery. For that reason, the commission was instructed to investigate the channels of distribution for this category of people I mention, which I will call the social aspect of the matter; and secondly, to investigate the distribution of liquor, because we recognize liquor to-day as an economic commodity. I want to call that the economic aspect of the matter. To-day this House has to decide by way of legislation on these matters which were entrusted to the Malan Commission. To allege, as the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has done, that it is impossible to regulate drinking habits by legislation and that legislation should rather be guided by drinking habits, prices, quality, etc., is quite wrong in my opinion. Legislation is a very effective means of determining a drinking pattern. Parliament is being called upon to pass laws in regard to the distribution of liquor which on the one hand have to serve the welfare of our nation and on the other hand must have regard to the economics of the matter, so that the producer, the distributor and the consumer are not placed in unfavourable positions vis-a-vis one another.

I personally have a very high regard for the work of the Malan Commission. That commission did not represent sectional interests and deliberately avoided doing so. The commission brought out a report which embodied the considered opinion of its respective members, and in which it succeeded in viewing the whole question of the distribution of liquor in a comprehensive perspective. Therefore I feel that we as legislators have good reason for following in broad principles what has been laid down in this report of the Malan Commission. I see it, inter alia, in the first place as a particular drinking pattern in which natural liquor, like natural wine and beer, must be given preference as against spirits. In the second place wine and beer, those natural drinks, should always be associated with food. In the third place, vested interests should not be affected, or should be affected as little as possible. I think that this Bill before the House in the main succeeds in achieving those objectives. There may be a difference of opinion on minor points of detail, and amendments may be moved at the appropriate time. We as members of this House have received representations from various sources, inter alia from the Churches, temperance associations, abolitionists, etc. They made representations to us that the great principle of this Bill, to sell natural wines in grocer shops, should not be accepted. I do not blame any of those bodies for adopting such a standpoint, because I know that all of them are at least sincere in their intentions when they tell us not to accent this legislation. But I want to add immediately that their arguments are not always realistic, and I want to mention an example with reference to one of the numerous pamphlets I received. It is headed, “Wine in our Grocer Shops”. This person writes—

I say that many of the ideas are based on this type of wrong impression, and in many of these pamphlets there are repeated references to liquor in small general dealers’ shops. In other words, the people who make these representations to us as members of this House do not have a clear view of the issue which is really at stake. Therefore I want to say that such bodies, Churches, temperance unions, etc., should not misinterpret the intentions of those of us who have expressed our support of this Bill; they should also accept our intentions as being sincere and as being a real attempt to improve the drinking pattern in our country.

We have every right to use as a test the making available of White man’s liquor to the Bantu, because those same bodies two years ago made representations to us that we should not do so because it would lead to the greatest measure of chaos in the country. Now that the 1961 legislation has stood the test of time for just a little less than a year, we can say that our realistic views were correct and that those bodies with their idealistic views were wrong. I want to say, further, that they cannot adduce any proof that more alcoholism will be caused by natural wines which are taken with meals. The example of France, which is one of the greatest wine-drinking countries in the world, is repeatedly quoted, and it is pointed out that there is a high incidence of alcoholism there, but in none of these documents submitted to me has proof been adduced that the use of natural wine causes alcoholism. Because it so happens that in France much wine is consumed, it does not necessarily mean that wine-drinking is responsible for alcoholism. It is well known that in France much illegal distillation of spirits takes place, and before a very clear analysis is made of the matter I do not believe it has been effectively proved that the consumption of natural wine, as the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. Malan) has also indicated, is responsible for alcoholism. I want to go further and say that in the Western Province, where the Coloureds particularly drink much natural wine, the incidence of alcoholism amongst them is not high at all, although there may be much drunkenness. There are not many signs of actual alcoholism amongst the Coloureds.

I come to another matter, viz. that certain sections of the liquor trade also say that the consumption of natural wine promotes alcoholism. I say that they are making a great mistake. A document was sent to us by the organized liquor trade, in which reference was also made to the fact that France is one of the greatest wine-drinking countries in the Western world and that alcoholism is one of the greatest evils there, and then the person referred to yesterday by the hon. the Minister, Mr. Gillibrand, also made similar allegations. But now I want to pose this question: In the representations it made to us, the liquor trade practically demanded a monopoly in the liquor trade, and if natural wines are to be distributed to a greater extent, it wants to have the right to do so. But the question arises in my mind as to whether they are honest in the views they propound, viz. that the increased sales of natural wine will lead to greater alcoholism, because if they are going to enjoy that monopoly then according to their argument they will be promoting alcoholism. What happens then to the argument of the organized liquor trade? Mr. Gillibrand goes further and states in his memorandum—

This is a terrible admission by this person. I am informed that he is the owner of no fewer than five bottle stores, and he and his organization want to have the monopoly to sell liquor, but here they are creating a situation of terrible drunkenness in the country. Now I want to ask him and his kindred spirits this question: What have you done, through the channels available to you, to remedy this position? Is this position not in fact a reproach to the established liquor trade? Therefore I say that the system which envisages changing our drinking habits to those of drinking more natural products will help us to get away from the very thing against which this man is trying to warn us.

What is the position from the angle of the wine farmer? He is an important person as far as this is concerned because he produces the wine. The wine farmer is not only interested in the economic aspect of the matter, but also in the social aspect. The wine farmer would like to see the civilized use of his product, and not drunkenness. I need hardly mention the fact that many of our most well-known leaders in the educational sphere, the Church and the political sphere emanate from the wine districts of the Western Province. Many wine farmers do not even drink liquor in any form, and many people who have grown up in the wine districts abstain from using it. I may mention the example of the late Dr. D. F. Malan, the former Prime Minister, who did not drink alcoholic liquor, although he grew up on a wine farm. I may refer to the hon. the Minister of Health, who comes from a family which lived in the wine districts, and he does not drink alcohol. Mr. Speaker, it is the reckless consumption of liquor which places a stigma on the product of the wine farmer, which he does not want. That is why the wine industry has concentrated on improving the quality of its product. I may just refer to the speech of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan). The wine farmer wishes his product to be distributed in such a manner that the evil of the abuse of liquor which places a stigma on his product is eliminated. Without criticizing any section of the liquor trade, I want to say that the present system of the distribution of liquor has much to do with the stigma which to-day attaches to the products of the wine industry, because the liquor trade places the emphasis on spirits, on strong liquor, because that liquor gives them the greatest profit per unit. That is why the natural product is neglected. The existing channels of distribution regard it as less profitable to sell natural wines than to sell hard liquor. In this regard I want to refer to a report in a Johannesburg Sunday paper in connection with the interview Mr. Gillibrand granted to them. The report reads—

Then he goes further—

The Minister has quoted all that.

I know, but I quote it again because I want to emphasize the stigma attaching, quite wrongly, to the product of the wine farmers, but it is caused because people like these are only interested in filling their pockets and then do not mind hitting out left and right, whether the blows are aimed at the hotel industry or at the wine farmer, as long as they can just protect their monopoly. This is a typical example of what is going on in this country to put a stigma on the product of the wine farmer. I can quote further from the memorandum of Mr. Gillibrand, where he says—

I cannot help saying that this sort of statement reminds me of the fact that only people who stand behind the door themselves seek others there.

The wine farmer is very meticulous as to the quality of his product and the drinking pattern, in which food also plays an important role. If the wine farmer were only concerned with sales, no matter how, he would not have taken the trouble to plant certain varieties and to incur heavy expenditure in developing a good natural product, and he would have sold his product simply for distillation into spirits. Nor does the wine farmer seek more distribution points simply in order to sell more wine, but particularly through the means of grocer shops, where his product will be sold together with food, to develop the correct and sound drinking pattern. The allegation was also made that this allegation emanates from the pressure exerted by the wine farmers who are supposed to be such a mighty group in this country. It so happens that only 11 constituencies are represented in this House where the wine industry is practised, but in only three of those constituencies does the wine industry constitute the predominating element in the economy. In other words, this argument that this Bill is a result of pressure brought to bear by the wine farmers is devoid of all truth.

In regard to the drinking pattern elsewhere in the world from which we can learn, I should like to quote from a lecture given by Mr. van Niekerk, who is connected with the beer-brewing industry, in which he says the following—

Then he mentions a few examples and continues to say this—

Then he proceeds to analyse the position in the Western countries and mentions, in the first group of countries, France, Italy, Western Germany and Belgium as being the countries whose legislation contains the least limitations in regard to the control of alcohol, and then he says—

In the second group of countries he discovered a different state of affairs, and he says—

Then he comes to this further conclusion—

That is the pattern in other Western countries, from which we can learn.

But what about the hotel industry which plays an important role in regard to our liquor legislation? I want to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), who pleaded for that industry to-day, that there is surely nobody in this House who does not realize the importance of the hotel industry to the growing tourist industry and who will not give his support to ways and means of improving the position of the hotel industry. That industry derives great benefits from this Bill. In previous budgets provision has already been made for the hotel industry, and recently a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to investigate this industry, and it is a great pity that their report is not available yet. But I also want to say this: However highly we regard the value of the hotel industry, the hotel industry should not regard liquor legislation as the only means of solving its problems. The hotel industry cannot just be based on the sale of liquor and seek a monopoly in that regard. The Malan Commission, inter alia, refers to the conditions in the hotel industry and on page 14 they say this—

Anyone can go to an hotel and order a bottle of dry wine at table, and immediately afterwards, if the hotel has an off-sales department, he can go and inquire the price of that bottle of wine. I say that the difference between what the bottle of wine costs over the counter and what it costs at table is too great. That is one of the reasons why the hotel industry should also pull up its socks in regard to this matter.

A request has come from certain circles for a period of adaptation. It is alleged that the hotel industry can fulfil this function in regard to the distribution of natural wines. I want to say emphatically that we are not merely seeking increased sales of natural wine. Because if one tries to promote a greater sale of natural wine through channels other than are contained in this Bill and are recommended by the Malan Commission, and the drinking of wine is not accompanied by the consumption of food, there is a definite danger that one may create evils. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said yesterday that the established hotel industry should first be given the opportunity to develop the sales of wine, and he made the statement that the grocer shops should really be used as a sanction—a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the hotels so that if they do not get a move on in regard to selling dry wines, that right will be given to the shops. I cannot quite agree with that statement, because, like the Malan Commission, I see the provision of wine (and here I want to agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging), as well as beer, by grocer shops as the establishment of a pattern, and it should not be made dependent on the question as to whether the established liquor trade will within a year or so have promoted the sales of natural wine. I want to mention the example of what I myself saw a few days ago in this city, of a wine and beer house which did not wait for this Bill to be passed but which, after having read the report of the Malan Commission, proceeded to provide tables and chairs in its limited space, and because it did not have enough kitchen space to supply a dining-room with cooked food, acquired a large variety of canned sea-foods, meats, fruits and vegetables (all in canned form) and which to-day has a menu of canned foods which offers a great variety to its clients at all times, and the food is heated up for them within a few moments.

They will be excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. member is quite wrong. That person has already made provision in terms of the recommendations of the Malan Commission which are now being incorporated in the Bill. As the result of that policy he applied before the law compelled him to do so, that man has attracted a select clientele. I myself ate there one afternoon and did not hear a single wrong note. He also has a section for Coloureds, where matters proceed in an equally orderly fashion. I mention this example as practical proof that the recommendations contained in the report of the Malan Commission and which are incorporated in this Bill can be implemented, and hold out better prospects.

In conclusion, I just want to deal with a few of the arguments advanced here. It is alleged that the fact that grocer shops can sell natural wines is the thin end of the wedge and that they will eventually also be able to sell spirits. Here I want to differ from the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), because if anyone has the idea of allowing grocer shops to sell spirits and strong liquor, he is going contrary to the principles laid down in the report of the Malan Commission and in this Bill, because then we would in fact be making those products more easily available, whereas we really want to separate them from the natural wines. I want to tell the people who use the thin end of the wedge argument that that is not the intention in terms of the report of the Malan Commission, and still less is it the intention of the Minister in this Bill.

The argument has been advanced that chain stores will obtain monopolies in regard to the handling of natural wine. To people who raise this objection, I want to put the question as to whether there is not already a monopoly to an appreciable extent in the established liquor trade to-day, so much so that the retail trade is able to-day practically to charge any price they like. We find that for the cheapest class of wine, for which the producer is alleged to receive 6c a bottle (that is denied by the K.W.V.), the wholesale trade which has all the costs of bottling, etc., receives 7c per bottle, whilst the retailer also receives 7c for rendering practically a minimum of service. That is the position in regard to the cheapest type of wine. The hon. member for Paarl proved yesterday that on the more expensive types the profit is still higher. Is that not the result of the distribution system we have to-day? And if that danger exists, I see no reason why our expanding consumers’ co-operatives, which today handle a large share of the grocery trade, cannot also sell liquor. If the danger exists that chain stores will virtually obtain monopolies as far as light wine is concerned, then this House can pass legislation to combat it, and I do not think that anyone who is well-disposed towards our country will allow such a situation to develop without taking action.

Finally, a word regarding the principle of this Bill that no rights, or as few as possible, will be taken away. I feel that here and there concessions can be made in the Committee Stage in regard to certain interests whose rights are being diminished, but at the same time I want to say that if the established liquor trade, including the hotel industry, is not narrow-minded and shortsighted, and if they realize the broad perspective in which this Bill has been drafted and will help to guide our people in the direction of consuming more natural liquor products (and particularly with their food), rather than hard liquor, the established liquor trade need not expect a loss of profits, something which in fact is not provided for in the Bill but which they think may happen; then they may also derive benefits from the new dispensation. Therefore it is a great privilege to me to support this Bill.

One can understand that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is supporting this Bill. I am afraid I cannot share his optimism or the optimism of the hon. Minister who when he introduced this Bill said that it was an effort to change the pattern of drinking in South Africa. As I see the principle of this Bill it is one which is essentially aimed at increasing the sale and the consumption of intoxicating liquor. Therefore in principle I strongly oppose the second reading of this Bill.

However, there are certain aspects which I hope to deal with in the Committee Stage, and realizing that there are a number of members who still wish to express their point of view during the second-reading debate, I do not intend to speak at any length. But I think we must bear in mind when considering the principle involved in this Bill that organizations which are deeply concerned with the welfare of the community are strongly opposed to the further extension of facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I believe that many of the members who have spoken and who have placed the accent on the sale of wine, have endeavoured to show that wine is perhaps not as harmful as other intoxicating liquor, but I would like to say that in my opinion the introduction of liquor where a person commences drinking, often starts with the consuming of wine, and irrespective of what the hon. member for Hercules (Mr. A. I. Malan) has said, I know of many cases of persons who are still receiving treatment as alcoholics and persons who have received treatment as alcoholics in the past, who have commenced their drinking habits with the consumption of wine. It has invariably led to that person seeking stronger liquor. Therefore the pattern has been one of commencing with the weaker liquor and then going on to stronger liquor. The hon. Minister when he introduced this Bill said that one of his objects was to change the pattern of drinking and to try and encourage the consumption of wine and less intoxicating liquor, liquor with a lower alcoholic content. I believe that that will not come about. I believe that the natural pattern in respect of the person who consumes intoxicating liquor will be to continually seek stronger liquor, and to try and put in reverse that pattern of drinking is going to be exceedingly difficult. Hon. members who are supporting the second reading of this Bill may ask what I can suggest to try and bring about a reduction in the consumption of strong, hard liquor. Well, personally, I would like to say that we should retain strict control on liquor and not try and endeavour to make it more readily available. We have heard from various members who have spoken in support of the Bill and those who are opposing the Bill, that to-day there are already sufficient distribution points for the sale of liquor. Indeed if a person wishes to buy wine and drink wine with his food, there are ample facilities to purchase such liquor. Therefore it does not seem that there are not sufficient distribution points, and that cannot be the reason why such a small quantity of wine is consumed, because these facilities exist, and if a person wishes to partake of liquor and wine with his meals, that is fully available to him. I do not see that the introduction of this Bill will in any way alter the pattern of drinking in South Africa. Firstly, the whole question of alcoholism is one of the grave social evils facing South Africa to-day, and indeed facing many countries in the world. I believe that with further facilities being made available, we will be taking a retrogressive step in our endeavours to lessen those evils. If you refer to the inter-departmental committee of inquiry into the treatment of the alcoholic you will find that evidence was produced that excessive drinking leading to alcoholism is a problem which has reached national dimensions. I believe that this Bill should not be proceeded with and therefore at the second reading I intend voting against it. The Bill that arose from the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee of inquiry into the treatment of alcoholics recommended that a National Advisory Board on Alcoholism should be established, and I believe it is a great pity that this Bill was introduced before that board has been established. I believe that this Bill should have been referred to that board for its comments before being introduced here. I fail to see the urgency of introducing a Bill of this nature so late in the Session. We know from the volume of representations we have received that there is considerable public opinion against the introduction of the Bill. I have not received any representations by letter or by telegram from people who say that they support the Bill.

As a matter of interest, when did you receive representations?

Ever since the Bill was published in the Government Gazette.

And especially in the last few days?

Yes, particularly in the last two days. I am still receiving memoranda while the debate is in progress. I have just received two more letters from interested parties in my letter-box, from people who oppose the Bill. I believe it is unwise to hurry along legislation of this kind, and I believe it should not be proceeded with in view of the volume of opposition against it.

The Minister, in introducing the Bill, gave as one of the main principles of the Bill the extension of wine licences to groceries. That has made it difficult for some hon. members who see the advantages of the other clauses but who feel so strongly on that aspect that they cannot support that principle of the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will see fit, if he does not decide to withdraw the Bill, at least to indicate that he will withdraw that clause dealing with grocery licences.

Certain hon. members who have supported the Bill, like the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht), brought in an aspect which I think could well have been left out, the aspect of Christianity and the Bible. If we look at the memoranda we have received, his point of view is in complete contradiction to the views expressed by the large majority of churches. There are also other organizations which have expressed their opposition to the Bill. A body such as the Temperance Union would naturally oppose such a Bill, but I believe that they represent a considerable volume of opinion and that they are trying to find a way to lessen the degree of seriousness in regard to excessive drinking and alcoholism. On the other points raised by the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan), dealing with the question of wine, I think one of the main causes for excessive drinking amongst the Coloured community is attributable to wine. Only a fortnight ago I saw a drunken orgy taking place in the Peninsula amongst Coloureds all carrying jars of wine. I believe it is not in the interests of the community to push the sale of wine. There are far more urgent needs that require the attention of the Government. We have had a campaign to eat more cheese, which I believe has nutritional value for the people. But now it appears that with the introduction of this Bill a campaign will be embarked upon to drink more wine. I cannot see how anything can be gained by the community as a whole through the greater consumption of wine. I am quite sure that the consumption of other strong liquor will not decrease as the consumption of wine increases. I cannot see a person forsaking strong liquor and changing over to drinking wine. He will continue to take his strong liquor, and in addition he will drink wine. The tragedies resulting from the abuse of liquor have been mentioned by a number of speakers during this debate. I do not wish to repeat a number of those points which were put particularly by the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who indicated the tragedies that occur as the result of the abuse of liquor. Those of us who are connected with welfare organizations such as children’s homes will know that the vast majority of the children in those institutions are there because of excessive drinking by one or both of the parents. These tragedies, which lead to the breaking up of family life and the undermining of the family unit which is the very basis of our community, is something which should be condemned, and I believe that this Bill will have the effect of increasing those tragedies. However much one may say that wine is not as detrimental as strong liquor, it is still an intoxicating liquor containing up to 14 per cent of alcohol, and this narcotic drug will be made available to as many people as possible. It will encourage those people who go into the grocery store to buy food to buy wine also. It seems to me that by putting wine and food together, it will tempt persons to purchase the wine, and particularly in the case of people in the lower and middle income groups it will mean that they will make sacrifices in regard to vitally needed foodstuffs for the family because they will be tempted to buy wine while they are buying food. If we look at the analysis made of the various liquors, we see that there is very little nutritional value in them. The main purpose of some persons drinking intoxicating liquor is to become intoxicated. The interest of the community should be paramount in considering the second reading of this Bill. I feel that no case has been made out to extend these facilities to make wine more readily available. It is already available in bottle stores and those who wish to buy wine can do so. This Bill merely places temptation in the way of many people who cannot afford to buy wine. Making available intoxicating liquor particularly to young people is a matter which causes the greatest concern. For instance, there was a statement made by a past Minister of Justice in 1956. The Minister of Justice at that time was the hon. C. R. Swart, and he said this—

Now instead of bringing the drink danger home to our youth, I believe that the effect of this Bill will be to bring the drink home to the youth and for other persons. Liquor will be coming into the house with the food and will be looked upon as developing our culture, as some hon. members have said. I do not think there is any necessity for proceeding with the second reading of this Bill. Other countries are also faced with problems in regard to the use of intoxicating liquor by young people. Only recently a survey was carried out in Britain, which showed that 29 per cent of the boys and 13 per cent of the girls under the age of 15, were taking liquor at least once a week. This encouragement of the use of liquor is very dangerous. The Malan Commission in its report made the recommendation that wine and beer should be available at grocery shops, but I do not accept certain points which have been mentioned in this report and certain views which have been expressed. For instance, they say—

I believe that that statement is not correct and I do not accept it, because I have here certain reports from welfare officers of large child welfare societies and they put forward a completely different point of view. One of the latest reports of two senior social workers states that alcoholism is increasingly becoming a problem among the mothers as well, and it then goes on to cite various cases of excessive drinking by the mothers. In another report the social worker states—

Here the need is stressed for more homes for inebriate women, but at the same time we have a report here which says that it is unthinkable that there will be an abuse of liquor in the home.

I do not intend dealing with the various clauses at this stage, because I hope we will have an opportunity in the Committee Stage to do so and to move amendments. To me the main principle of this Bill is to make intoxicating liquor more readily available to the community, and I believe that it will be to the detriment of that community to proceed with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief statement in regard to the attitude I shall personally adopt in regard to the voting on this Bill. But before doing so, I want to break a lance for the honour of this House. Unfortunately there are so many interests concerned in this matter that feelings have been aroused to such an extent that it seems that a stigma will be laid on hon. members by some group or other, however they may vote. I should like to make an appeal to the public outside, as well as to hon. members here, to do everything in their power to prevent such an impression being given. The matter we are discussing is highly delicate. It is quite clear that there is nobody at all in this House, on whichever side he might argue, who supports the abuse of liquor in any form. The debate and the Bill are not concerned with that. It is true that the way in which the last-mentioned is depicted outside, and also partially here in the House, gives the impression that the matter being dealt with here is the consumption of liquor, yes or no; or of prohibition, local option, or whatever might be best. However, the real issue is quite simple. It is simply a choice between various methods of preventing the abuse of liquor. It greatly redounds to the honour of this Parliament that every hon. member without exception is deeply concerned about the abuse of liquor and that everyone, whether he supports this Bill or not, has no other object but to combat this evil. I should therefore like everybody in South Africa to understand clearly that Members of Parliament cannot help having a duty to choose, because it is part of their functions to decide, one way or another, in regard to a matter about which they have strong feelings, viz. how to combat drunkenness. They should not be misunderstood in this regard.

Having said that, I just want to sketch my personal attitude which I will adopt in regard to the voting. It is unfortunate that two allegations have been made which compel me to adopt an attitude, apart from my conception of the nature or content of the Bill itself. The one is that it was alleged, also outside this House, that there are many members who really have no opinion of their own but who will be looking over their shoulders to see how certain leaders react, and inter alia there was reference to me. Now I do not believe that that is a true interpretation. I believe that the debate we have had for the past few days has already shown to a large extent how completely independently hon. members, according to their consciences, have adopted an attitude without looking over their shoulders. Nevertheless, I myself want to act in such a way that there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone that any member has to vote in the way his Leader votes.

The second point, which is of even more importance to me, is that the impression has been created, in spite of everything which hon. members have said, that it is a Government Bill which is being debated here. The way in which hon. members have acted ought to make it quite impossible for people to think so. In spite of that, I am even to-day receiving communications of such a nature that it is clear that the public outside (and in fact it was also said in one or two cases in this House) firmly believes that we are now dealing with a Government Bill. I have received letters from the propagandists of the different points of view making personal appeals to me to see to it that “the Government” does not continue with the Bill. Because that is so, I feel that I must demonstrate as strongly as possible that this is not the Government’s Bill. The Government in fact had nothing to do with the drafting of this Bill. It was never discussed in detail by the Cabinet. It is a task which rested exclusively, in his official capacity, on the Minister of Justice. The Bill was not discussed by the caucus of this party. We carefully avoided having any discussion of this Bill in the caucus of our party. I do not know what happened in the caucus of the Opposition, nor am I concerned with it.

The same thing.

I want to state clearly that this is a Bill in regard to which hon. members are free to think and to talk and to vote as they like, and it would be a great pity if in spite of that it should later be alleged that we are dealing here with a Government Bill. I am more concerned about that than about anything else. In the light of that, I have decided that I, as the Head of the Government and the symbol of what the Government stands for, will not participate in any voting in regard to this Bill, so that it may be made clear to the public that this is not a Government Bill. Otherwise I would have stood through thick and thin by any Minister who introduced Government legislation on behalf of the Government.

In conclusion, I want to say that there should be no misunderstanding about the position of the Minister of Justice either. A Minister of Justice traditionally always handles this type of legislation. No blame should be attached to him later, or any stigma, by saying that he introduced a Bill which he should not have introduced. He is the Minister who ex officio traditionally has to introduce such legislation, and it is also traditional that the country, through its representatives, must decide what it does or does not want, and the Minister of Justice automatically abides by that decision. I want to appeal to everybody not to judge the actions of the Minister of Justice in regard to this Bill in any other way than that he is merely doing his duty.

I was very glad to hear what the Prime Minister said, but I have no particular wish to follow him. I think, however, that both the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) have misinterpreted the report of the hon. member for Hercules. The hon. member was instructed to inquire into and report on the general distribution of intoxicating liquor and the selling prices thereof. But he went far beyond it. His commission, when it was originally constituted, was, I believe, instructed to investigate the problem of the sale and the distribution of liquor. But they went much further and attempted to redesign the pattern of drinking. They took it upon themselves to decide what was good and what was bad drinking, and they felt that they should change the design of drinking. But they were not equipped to do this. They were simple businessmen, lawyers and Members of Parliament, nearly all completely unfamiliar with the scientific training for the investigation of a serious social evil, an evil which no country in the world has been able to solve, the problem of having a drug made available to the public, a drug which is also a social pleasure. Alcohol is the solvent that makes the wheels of society run smoothly, but it is also the solvent which in time washes away the family life of the country. It is like any other substance which if abused leads to harm and danger. I do not wish to say entirely that this commission was of no avail from a good point of view. It did make some excellent suggestions and I would have been pleased this afternoon if I had heard the hon. member for Hercules not praising his commission and the great success he claimed it had, but deploring the fact that on the last page he made excellent recommendations which have not been accepted and which have not been carried out. To my mind page 45 of the report is the most valuable part of it, but unfortunately the hon. member failed to draw attention to it. He says in regard to research that drunkenness is to-day one of our greatest evils, but it is connived at by the public. Now, he carried out research into why this greatest evil is connived at by the public—because it is not a habit of the public to connive at social evils; there must be a reason, and he suggested that the reason should be sought, but he did not mention it to-day. He goes on to say—

Such a statement, unsupported, drawn out of the minds of men completely unfamiliar with scientific investigation—how can we attach any value to it? He says, further—

Sir, that is merely a way of saying that when someone becomes an adult and begins to work he is likely to meet friends who ask him to come and have a drink. And if they want to do research on that, I have no objection. It is part of everybody’s education, if the dangers of alcoholism are to be combated effectively. The few valuable parts of this report, apart from the fact that it will increase the sales of wine, which someone will be pleased with, were completely overlooked by its own author, and I want to tell the Minister that if he is trying to solve this difficult problem of how to supply an intoxicant and at the same time to control it, he should consult his colleague the Minister of Finance. Speaking in this House in 1959 I objected very strongly to the rise in the excise on beer. I pointed out at that time that this was putting a premium on the drinking of strong alcoholic drinks and particularly on the drinking of fortified wine. What was the reply which I got from the hon. the Minister of Finance? I have no reason to think that he has changed his opinion in the meantime. He said—

In other words, the colleague of the hon. the Minister of Justice makes no bones about it; he says, “I am here to collect money and I am not concerned with the social pattern of drinking”. The hon. the Minister himself is responsible for this Bill, as he has said and as the hon. the Prime Minister has said but it would have done him good had he consulted with his colleague the Minister of Finance or had he discussed the matter with the Minister of Social Welfare who is faced with the problem of dealing with the unfortunate victims, whose numbers will probably be increased by this Bill; it would have done him good had he consulted with the Minister of Health who has to maintain homes for inebriates or had discussed it with the hon. the Minister of Education and if he had asked the Minister of Education whether he thought that it was possible to educate people so that they do not subsequently become alcoholics. Sir, only one country has completely abolished the drinking of one drink, and that country has not solved the problem of alcoholism, and that country is France. I know it is said, and perhaps with truth that the incidence of drunkenness in France is very high. But when France realized what was happening to her people as a result of the drinking of absinthe she abolished it at one blow; absinthe disappeared from the market completely; the manufacturers ceased to manufacture it and it was impossible to obtain it. This shocking drink, probably the worst drink that has ever been put on the market, has completely disappeared. Occasionally an odd bit creeps out of Switzerland but in fact, as an alcoholic drink, it has disappeared. I suggest that if the hon. the Minister is so concerned about the youth of the country, if he is so concerned about the abuse of alcohol, let him abolish the drink which causes it and then let him stick, if he likes, to drinks with a lower alcoholic content. Let him follow the advice of the hon. member for Hercules and carry out research. There has been no research to establish which drinks are drunk by alcoholics. There is no statement to that effect to be found anywhere. Which is the particular drink that produces abuse? We do not know. We have heard from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) who has a great deal of experience in dealing with these people that he knows of many cases—and my colleague here has said the same and I myself can testify to the same thing—where people have become alcoholics through the drinking of light wine only. If the commission was unable in its search to find one such case, then I do not think it looked very far. The statement that people do not become alcoholics if they start by drinking light wines, is a statement which requires careful investigation. Sir, investigations should be carried out scientifically in an attempt to find something which will prevent addiction, if at all possible. Investigations should be carried out scientifically so that the Minister will be able to say, “this is the drink which starts people downhill”, and then he can say, “I will abolish this drink and then everything in the garden will be lovely”.

I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). I appreciate that it is possible for a person starting with light wines to become an alcoholic. It is possible for a man to become an alcoholic if he begins on coca-cola; he may still end up as an alcoholic. I know too that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) is sincere and that he sincerely believes in what he says. He talked about the tragic abuse of liquor. I quite agree that excessive drinking is a tragedy, but let me put this to the hon. member: Gambling may also produce very tragic results; it can also be abused. I have heard it said that a gambler starts by throwing around dice and that he ends up by owning race horses. My hon. friend is an owner of race horses but he practices moderation. He would not suggest that we should introduce legislation to prohibit horse-racing.

You can own race horses without gambling.

He would not suggest that we should have legislation to prevent gambling on horse-racing. My hon. friend both owns race horses and gambles. You see, Sir, people find it easy to judge what is wrong and what is right as long as it does not affect them personally. They practice moderation, and that is the pattern which we are trying to introduce in this country as far as drinking is concerned. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) talked about the closing of the Carlton Hotel and of hotels in Sea Point and laid the blame at the door of the Minister in charge of the Liquor Act. What has the closing of the Carlton to do with liquor licences? The hon. member also talked about the closing of Sea Point hotels. Sir, all the Sea Point hotels have liquor licences and they probably have off-sales licences. My point is this: What surprises me is that the hon. the Minister who comes forward here with legislation which is designed to improve the drinking pattern in South Africa, has to bear the brunt of all the criticism directed against this Bill.

I think that is a very unfair observation to make.

Sir, let me point out to you that the hon. member for Von Brandis who is knowledgeable and who knows the hotel industry and the liquor trade, said that the object of this Bill was to provide additional points for the distribution of liquor. That is not the intention of the Bill. It was never intended to provide for additional points for the distribution of liquor.

Then you have not read the Bill.

This Bill is based on the report of the Liquor Commission, and if criticism is to be directed against anybody, it can be directed against myself as a member of the Commission, against the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan), the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), the Minister of Labour and other members of the Liquor Commission. This Bill owes its origin to the Commission’s report.

And it does not carry out the recommendations of the Commission.

There are certain recommendations made by the Commission which are not being given effect to by this Bill. There are differences between this Bill and the Commission’s recommendations but those are points which one can discuss. However, let us get this straight, as far as the Commission is concerned: Various amendments have been made to the Liquor Act in this House as a result of the Commission’s recommendations. Let me just take a few of them. The Licensing Boards were reconstituted and improved in terms of the Commission’s report. I remember that there were members on both sides of the House at the time—because it was not a party measure—who criticized the changes which were being brought about in respect of the Licensing Board; the impression was created that something terrible was being done; that this was an attempt to introduce more drunkenness in South Africa. I remember the objections which were raised by hon. members in connection with the tied houses. Members on both sides of the House raised objections and they even objected to the Bill which permitted the sale of European liquor to the Bantu. I was not here at the time but I read speeches made here by hon. members in which they predicted that there would be the greatest abuse of White liquor by Natives. They predicted that you would have the streets filled with drunken Natives as a result of the consumption of White liquor. The approach of the Liquor Commission after having gone very carefully into the matter, was this; they said: “Look, there is a negative approach; there is the prohibition approach; the Bantu have been prohibited White liquor and look at the abuses that resulted from that prohibition. Is there not a positive way in which this problem can be tackled? Is there not some way in which we can promote sensible drinking habits?” I must say that I was amazed at the way in which the Bantu responded to that legislation. The terrible prophecies which were made by hon. members were never realized. I would like to know now what the prohibitionists, who opposed the sale of White liquor to the Bantu think to-day, after all the predictions which they made as to the evils which flow from that legislation. The outcome of that legislation has simply been that these people have adopted a more sensible pattern of drinking. Sir, if I had to analyse the report of the Commission, which forms the basis of this Bill, I would say that the main object of the Commission was not to bring about an increase in the number of points for the distribution of liquor; the main object was to bring about a pattern of drinking in which food was associated with drink. One cannot analyse the principles of a varied Bill like this but I would say that the main emphasis of the Commission was on this question of associating the intake of liquor with the intake of food, and to get away from the old pattern of drinking where people had drinks before their food. Hard liquor in quick rounds. The idea of the Commission is not to advocate the drinking of hard liquor at meal-times but the drinking of light wines or beer. It was the encouragement of that pattern which was first and foremost in the minds of members of the Commission, in making these recommendations. That is why this Bill makes provision for meal-time licences: that is why it provides for the supply of drinks together with food at private hotels. All these things are part and parcel of the food and drink pattern. It was not a question of wanting to create additional points of distribution for liquor. It was a question of having distribution points at places where people buy their food. It was felt that if we wished to encourage a change in the drinking habit of our people grocery shops were the obvious places which should be allowed to sell drinks with a low alcoholic content. Nobody on the Commission thought for one moment that it would be possible to change the drinking pattern overnight. There are other countries in which changes have been brought about in the drinking pattern. There were countries in Europe where there was a very high consumption of spirits. There was the greatest incidence of drunkenness in those countries, and within a period of 20 years those countries changed in their drinking pattern. When people say to me therefore that we will never succeed in changing our drinking pattern, my reply is that it cannot be changed overnight but that you can gradually create an atmosphere which will lead to a changed drinking pattern. Sir, it is not to our credit, but the fact remains that we in South Africa are heavy drinkers of hard liquor, and I think the intention of the Commission was to encourage the drinking of drinks with a lower alcohol content in South Africa and to associate that drinking with food. I think the plan put forward by the Commission is a very fine attempt to create a better pattern of drinking. Another point which the Commission bore in mind was that if you do drink and you have food at the same time, you drink very much less and leisurely, than you would if you had your drinks before eating. The hon. member for Durban (Central) says that we did not go into this matter scientifically. Of course we did not. We are not scientists but we took evidence and we came to a certain conclusion, and I think that conclusion was correct. I think it has been proved in other parts of the world that people drink more moderately when you associate drinking with food. Sir, in suggesting that licences should be granted to grocery shops for the sale of natural wines, the Commission did not for a moment accept the principle that the right to sell natural wines should eventually be extended to include the right to sell spirits as well or that eventually the grocer’s licence should become a full liquor licence. We rejected that completely. We never for one moment thought in terms of that, and I think the hon. member will appreciate, on the basis of our reasoning, that we could never have advocated that sort of thing. I do not therefore accept what the hon. member for Ceres has suggested. In fact I venture to say that it would be completely wrong for any Minister of Justice to change a grocer’s licence to sell light wines and/or beer into a full liquor licence. Sir, let us be quite frank. When it comes to malt liquors, I completely support the idea that malt liquors should also be included in the same category as light wine, because at the back of our minds we were not thinking of wines specifically, it was a matter of encouraging the consumption of beverages with a lower alcohol content. If in South Africa we produced a cider with an alcohol content of 3 per cent, I would say that that would also come under the same category. That was the basis of our reasoning and that is how we arrived at our recommendations. Let me say this to the hon. member for Durban (Central): We are not medical men and perhaps we have not had his medical experience and the experience of the other people to whom he referred, but we had the benefit of listening to the evidence of men who knew what they were talking about, and I think even the hon. member will not find much fault with the basis of our reasoning as I have explained to him here. Mr. Speaker I have already indicated in replying to the hon. member for Von Brandis, who said that this Bill was intended to increase the number of distribution points for liquor, that that is not the intention underlying this Bill. I do not deny that the number of distribution points will be increased because they will be increased but as I say, that was not our object.

What about off-sales in the Transvaal?

Let me deal immediately with this question of off-sales privileges for hotels to which the hon. member refers. That was done for one purpose and I should like to know how the House feels about it. We came to consider the position of the hotel industry and sections of the hotel industry, and here I am not referring now to the Carlton Hotel and the Sea Point hotels on the sea-front which have been replaced by flats; I refer to various hotels in various parts of South Africa which did not have off-sales licences. It is a peculiar situation that here in the Cape you have many hotels with off-sales licences; I do not know the figures but you have hotels here with off-sales licences because they had them before 1928, but from 1928 there was a complete block as far as off-sales licences are concerned. We had representations from hoteliers asking for off-sales privileges and we had the representatives of bottle stores opposing it. We had to sort out the position. Sir, as far as liquor legislation is concerned, I would say that it takes a very courageous Minister to come forward in this House with such legislation. We know what great pressure is exerted by the powerful vested interests in the liquor trade. It is not a question of being influenced by the pressure that they exert but one is so inundated with representations and conflicting arguments that one is not able to see the wood for the trees later on.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am quite prepared to have a little bit of fun and games with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) but I think this is quite a serious matter. I think he should have listened to the hon. member for Durban (Point) because the hon. member for Durban (Point) studied this Bill, which I think is more than the hon. member for South Coast did. As far as the hotel industry is concerned, you had this situation that there were hotels with off-sales licences, but then you had another situation and that is that a large number of hotels went and bought bottle stores in various parts so that they could have both on-consumption and off-sales privileges. We came to the conclusion that the hotel industry, which the hon. member for Von Brandis said was experiencing great economic difficulties and which is associated with the liquor trade, could be assisted by opening up this further avenue, this natural avenue, of income for the hotels. We decided that we would recommend that the hotels, if they were up to a certain standard, should be given off-sales licences. It is true that that is an extra distribution point.

But you said just now that there were none.

I said that that was not the object of the commission’s recommendations. I was quite emphatic about it. I denied what the hon. member for Von Brandis had said, and that is that the whole intention of the Bill was to increase the number of distribution points. I said that that was not the intention of the Bill, and if the Bill was only intended for that purpose then I would say that it was a bad Bill. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) appreciates that the hotel industry should be given an additional source of income in the shape of off-sales privileges. He indicated in his speech that that was one of the things which he regarded as a big advantage to hotels in this country.

Mr. Speaker, let me recapitulate the points which I tried to stress. In the first place I say that the main motive underlying the commission’s recommendations was to introduce a changed pattern of drinking of beverages with a lower alcohol content in association with an intake of food. As far as the hotel industry is concerned I say that the additional off-sales privileges were intended and are intended to give the hotel industry a chance of getting onto its feet financially and to be able to improve its standards. Those considerations formed the basis of the Commission’s recommendations. Sir, I say again that the Minister is faced with a problem as far as the liquor industry is concerned, and that would apply to any Minister in charge of this Department, whichever party may be in power. The liquor business in this country is so complicated and there are so many vested interests involved that it will always be a difficult problem. Let me give you an example, Sir, of the sort of thing which came to the notice of the Commission. As you know, when a bottle-store licence is applied for, there is opposition to that licence from two quarters. In the first place there is always opposition from Dominee de Beer and the prohibitionist body he represents; he opposes the issue of the licence. There is opposition also from the South African Bottlestore Association which employs a very experienced and highly paid K.C. Strange bedfellows. That is the situation you have and that is the sort of situation that a Minister of Justice, whoever he is, has to try to sort out and which this House has to sort out. I say this Bill is a positive step and it is a step in the right direction, and if this Bill is watered down to a bit of legislation which is only going to increase the number of distribution points of hard liquor in this country, then it will completely miss the object which the Liquor Commission had in mind, and that is to bring about a gradual change in the drinking habits of the people of this country in the interest of the country itself and of our people.

I have just a few minutes at my disposal. I do not propose to speak at length therefore and I want to ask the hon. the Minister at the outset to refer this measure to a Select Committee before we pass the second reading so that a proper and thorough and scientific inquiry can be instituted into the effect of the consumption of intoxicating liquor on the population of South Africa, its social, moral, religious, economic and medical implications, as well as the question of placing restrictions upon or allowing the unrestricted production, fabrication distribution and consumption of liquor in any place in the Republic. The whole motive underlying this Bill, as the hon. the Minister has put it to us, is to encourage our people to consume less hard liquor, but the question which I ask myself is this: Where is most hard liquor consumed? Is it in the homes of people who buy their liquor at bottle stores or is it in the bars and in the hotels? I contend that it is in our bars and in our hotels, and nothing is being done in this legislation to curtail the consumption of hard liquor in the bars and hotels. On the contrary, the fatted calf is being slaughtered here for the hotels; they are also to be given off-sales facilities. This Bill hits the bottle stores because the fact that hotels are to be given off-sales facilities means that the number of bottle stores will now be doubled throughout the country. The question which occurs to me is this: If we want to combat alcoholism, must we turn to natural wines, the alcohol content of which is 14 per cent, or should we fall back on beer, the alcohol content of which is 4.9 per cent? The question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Should we not allow grocery shops to sell beer only and no wine? If we want to change the drinking pattern in South Africa, if we want to encourage our people in South Africa to consume less hard liquor, then we should not only increase the excise duty on hard liquor occasionally here in South Africa, but we should make a drastic change immediately and say that from now onwards we are going to encourage our people to drink beer, to regard beer as our national beverage, and we should levy such a high excise duty on hard liquor that the man in the street will not be able to afford it. We should make up our mind whether we want to promote the sale of wines only or whether it is our intention to combat alcoholism. That is the whole issue. If it is our earnest desire—and we should settle the matter at this stage—to frame the Liquor Act in such a way that we are not going to promote alcoholism then we should take positive steps. I would strongly urge upon the Minister therefore to refer this legislation to a Select Committee before the principle is laid down at the second reading.

Then I want to put this request to the Minister, in view of the fact that the bottle stores are going to be hit hard, that he should consider the question of refunding to the bottle-store owners in the 29 proclaimed areas the levy of R10,000 or less as the case may be. I would suggest that where bottle-store owners have been in a position over a number of years to make a profit, the refund should be reduced by 10 per cent for every year during which they have traded. As far as the hotel industry in South Africa is concerned I submit that this legislation alone will not promote the hotel industry to any great extent. As an hotel commission has been appointed under the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I regard it as so much more important that a commission should also be appointed to go into the Liquor Act. I have had experience as an auditor over the past 18 years, and my experience has been that all hotels which have had good managers have done well. I am not going to mention names, but I can mention one case of a hotel employing a manager at a good remuneration, where everything is being done to promote tourism and to render good service. The profit which that hotel makes on its own capital and borrowed capital, excluding creditors whose money is also used to finance the running of the hotel, is 30 per cent. I also know of various hotels which concentrate entirely on the sale of liquor. I can give you the assurance that those persons who try to give good service and to employ the right managers, run hotels where it is pleasant to stay. The Minister made reference yesterday to a hotel or hotels where one is looked at askance when one asks for light wine. I personally have never had that experience. It may be that the hotel does not stock the brand for which one asks. I want to ask the Minister what we are going to do. If the sale of dry wines is to be pushed, are hotels like bottle stores also going to be required to sell a certain percentage? That brings me to the question of the 40 per cent as far as grocers’ licences are concerned. If the position is going to be that grocers’ licences are going to be granted in areas where the figure is not 40 per cent, it will mean that no grocery shops in the western Cape will be given licences. Until such time as the figure of 40 per cent is reached in those areas licences will be granted and thereafter no further licences will be issued. The licences which have already been issued will remain. That will mean discrimination between different parts of the country. There are areas in the Cape where the figure may perhaps be 42 per cent only but no licence will be issued to grocery shops, while in other parts of the country where the turnover is 40 per cent or more the grocery shops will have licences. That discrimination should be eliminated.

At 5.55 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of ten hours allotted for the second reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on 5 June.

We have been listening to the discussion of this Bill for the last two days. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say, on behalf of both sides of the House, that there would be chaos in this House were it not for the fact that the measures submitted to this House are party measures.

You will allow me right at the outset, and in all fairness to the people concerned, to put certain matters right. I refer to the statements of a certain Mr. Gillibrand who, according to a report in the Sunday Times, spoke on behalf of all bottle stores. I just want to set the matter right in fairness to certain groups of that organization which sent the following telegram to me. The first is from the Natal Bottle Store Keepers’ Association—

I received the following telegram from the secretary, a certain Mr. Alger, of the Transvaalse Plattelandse Drankwinkeleienaarsvereniging. [Translation]—

I also received the following telegram from Mr. Gillibrand’s own Association—

I do this in all fairness to those associations. Secondly, I think that in fairness to our own people I should also set right another matter, a matter which has long worried me and caused me concern because people so glibly, and without any proof, make such statements. That statement was repeated by hon. members in this House. The statement was glibly made—I know I made that statement myself, but I adduced proof—that we should at all times guard against becoming a nation which drinks only hard liquor. In fact, this is one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced. But to place a blot on our own people without adducing the least proof in that regard cannot of course be allowed. I refer to the statement which has repeatedly been made, that there are 100,000 alcoholics in South Africa. I have heard it ad nauseum to such an extent already that I now become annoyed if this argument is advanced in season and out of it. Is there any point in blatantly alleging that there are 100,000 alcoholics amongst our own people? I challenge any hon. member to prove that that is the position. We have evidence in that regard. We have the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee of Inquiry in regard to the treatment of inebriates. That is probably the best investigation we have ever had into the problem of alcoholism. What does this committee say? Paragraph 76 of its report, page 14, reads as follows—

All the witnesses started their evidence in that way. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) also repeated that same phrase in a parrot-like fashion here—

That is the allegation, but what did the committee find?—

That is the authoritative committee which had to investigate the matter, and they found that there was no proof at all for such an allegation. We know that there are alcoholics among our people. We know they drink too much hard liquor. Some of us want to combat it; others perhaps do not feel so strongly about it. But the allegation made against our own people without more ado that 100,000 are branded as alcoholics is one which I hope will not be repeated again.

I want to refer to another matter which I found very interesting. It is something which has occurred during the last few days. It may have happened previously; I would not be surprised. I refer to the “spontaneous protests” which have been raining down on hon. members during recent days. It is interesting to remember that this Bill was published for the first time on 9 April, i.e. a little more than two months ago. When it was published, very great publicity was given to it, detailed explanation of the Bill was published in all the newspapers. Hon. members will agree with me when I say that there was little or no reaction. I can of course judge best because I receive more reactions than hon. members opposite. I also received protests against this Bill, just as other hon. members did. What I found significant, however, was that during the last few days they came so spontaneously. I was struck by the fact that protests were received from the employees in bottle stores, couched in precisely the same terms as those sent in by their employers. It is also peculiar that the employees of one bottle store submitted the same protests as those of another. It is a very interesting phenomenon we have had in this regard, and one which every hon. member should judge on its merits.

In regard to the discussion in this House, it sometimes seemed to me that hon. members set out from the standpoint that they had a free voice but that I did not. I think I should make use of my right, just as hon. members made use of theirs, because people may perhaps be under the impression that there is no longer free speech in South Africa unless I do so. It was interesting to note that there was a great difference of opinion between hon. members on my side of the House. I accept that, and I am also grateful that it was treated as a free measure on the opposite side, as the hon. the Chief Whip there told us. I quite accept that. What struck me as strange, however, was the spontaneous way in which interjections were made simultaneously by hon. members opposite when somebody said anything in favour of the Bill. I leave it there; that is only one of the things which I have the freedom to say in this regard.

I had two matters in my notes in connection with the second reading, but which unfortunately slipped my memory. Before replying to this debate further, I just want to set these two matters right. The one was that a deputation from the inhabitants of Fish Hoek came to interview me. They wanted certain assurances from me. I gave them those assurances in private, and undertook to repeat them publicly. The assurance they wanted from me was that, in view of the fact that a Liquor Bill is traditionally entrusted to the Minister of Justice, as long as I held that position I would not, in so far as it was in my power, approve a liquor licence for Fish Hoek. I told them that I gladly gave them that assurance and that I would repeat it in public, as I am now doing.

Even though they should change their opinion?

Unless—that is how they put it to me and how I have also put it to them—it appears very clearly that the inhabitants of Fish Hoek themselves ask for it and have changed their opinion. They gave me the assurance that there was no likelihood of those people changing their opinion. I want to say frankly that the inhabitants of Fish Hoek are not abstainers. They also told me that. They told me, however, that they were a community which set out from the standpoint that there were enough bottle stores on either side of them and that they preferred not to have such places in their area. I respect the standpoint of those people.

In the second place—I am sorry about this oversight—I want to give the assurance on behalf of myself, again because it is traditionally the task of the Minister of Justice to introduce a Bill of this nature, that it is not my intention—I think it would be a foolish intention on the part of any other Minister—to agitate for or to be a protagonist of the supplying of spirits by means of grocer shops. Where it is therefore argued that this is the thin end of the wedge—that was the opinion of some hon. members; they are entitled to their opinion, although I do not share it—and that it will lead to the free distribution of liquor, I want to give the assurance, in my official capacity, that as far as I am concerned, this is not the thin end of the wedge. I give the undertaking that I will not be associated with any Bill which will make possible the sale of spirits by grocer shops. I do so firstly to state the matter very clearly, and secondly, unless I adopt that standpoint, I shall be destroying my whole argument and the whole basis of this Bill. The basis of this Bill, as was correctly stated by the hon. the Minister of Information, is not to provide more distribution points. One can do that in many other ways if one wants to. The basis of this Bill is to try to bring about a change in the drinking pattern of South Africa. That was the challenge with which this House was faced; that was the matter we had to discuss and in regard to which we had to adopt a standpoint. It was not our task, as I see it, to try to promote the interests of one or another group of interested people. That was not our task in the discussion of this Bill. I tried to state it clearly, and I hoped that we would adopt a standpoint in respect of this one matter: Is there something wrong with our drinking pattern, irrespective of who distributes the liquor or what interests are concerned, and if there is something wrong with it, what should we do to remedy it? That was the only matter before us. I quite agree with the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). I want to congratulate him on the speech he made. He again reminded us that we were called upon to adopt a standpoint in regard to that question. I do not think, Sir, and I am again relying on my right to speak freely, that we have done much honour to that subject. In season and out of it we evaded that subject. We chased up all kinds of hares, but we did not succeed in catching the one hare we should have caught. We had many other objections, but unfortunately we seem to have evaded the issue. Hon. members cannot escape from this, whatever their standpoint may be. This still remains the question on which this House has to decide. This House still has to decide: Is there something wrong with our drinking pattern? I do not want to argue with those who say there is nothing wrong with it. That is their view, and they are entitled to it. I leave them in peace. But upon those who have doubts or upon those who are convinced that there is something wrong with our drinking pattern, and who refuse to realize the consequences of it, rests a very heavy responsibility. I was blamed—why, I do not know, Sir; I do not blame anyone for having stated his standpoint—for what I am supposed to have said. I cannot remember my precise words; they were used during the argument in respect of whether people should vote for or against the second reading. All I meant—and if I did not say so in so many words on that occasion I regret it, because what I am going to say now is what I meant—was that if there were people in this House (and now the question is not only whether one is in favour of or opposed to grocer shops) who are convinced that there is nothing wrong with our drinking pattern, that we should do nothing about it, then they must vote against the second reading of this Bill.

You are now telling a different story.

I am not asking that hon. member opposite to make my speech for me. If I need advice, I will ask it of better people.

Does the hon. the Minister interpret a vote against the second reading as a vote in favour of the status quo?

I almost feel inclined to tell the hon. member that I am not the guardian of his conscience. The hon. member should settle the matter for himself.

As far as I am concerned, I shall unfortunately have to regard it in that light. If it salves the hon. member’s conscience somewhat, I am grateful for it. I repeat that there are people in this House who are not in favour of granting licences to grocer shops but who adopt the standpoint that there are other merits in the Bill for which they can vote. However, I am also thoroughly aware that there are some hon. members who are so concerned with the interests and the monopoly of the bottle stores that they can see no merits at all in this Bill and who have stated—I am referring to those who participated in the debate—that they will vote against the second reading. They are at liberty to do so; I do not blame them for it. I therefore repeat my advice to those who have not had the opportunity of participating in the debate, that if they feel like that too, they should also vote against the second reading. Why do I say so? I say so because in my opinion this Bill has two important aspects. The one is the granting of licences to the grocer shops in an attempt to change the drinking pattern, and the second is the additional benefits granted to hotels in an attempt to assist the hotel industry which is suffering from certain ailments of which we are all aware. If people are so wedded to the existing liquor trade—that appeared from certain speeches; I do not want to mention the names of those hon. members—that they cannot even see merit in what we are trying to do for the hotels, then my standpoint was, and still is, that it is not worthwhile proceeding with this Bill, because then both those provisions will be voted down in the Committee Stage and we will simply have wasted a week. That is and remains my standpoint. I want to repeat that I have become keenly aware of the fact that there are certain members who are perhaps not very much in favour of licences being granted to grocer shops, but who see other merits in the Bill. I need not, of course, tell those hon. members how to vote. They each have a free vote, and if I were in their position I would vote for the second reading and then cast my vote, according to the dictates of my conscience, in respect of the other clauses.

Before business was suspended, I tried to put certain matters in their correct perspective, as seen by me. I now want to continue by saying that there is one matter in connection with the liquor trade which causes me concern, and that is the unnecessary way in which some traders in some districts agree amongst themselves to raise prices unduly. I am informed, and if it is correct it is certainly a matter to which one should devote attention and which should be investigated, that in some towns, not far from Cape Town, a much higher price is asked than is charged in Cape Town for the same type of liquor.

As, for example, on the Railways.

If traders adopt that attitude and protect each other in that way, it is something to which one cannot shut one’s eyes and something will have to be done about it. I do not know whether it rests with me or with one of my other colleagues, but at all events something will have to be done about it sooner or later, and I do not think that the trade would like interference, but if I may just give the trade some advice, they will remedy this matter as soon as possible in order to prevent its being remedied from the outside. I do not think people have the right, where they have, as it were, received monopolies from the State as the result of our pattern, to exploit the public in that way just because they are aware that they have a mono poly. I therefore heartily hope that if there are such people—and I am informed there are—they will as soon as possible remedy the matter of their own accord.

When I now come to the arguments of hon. members, there are of course the arguments which we had from the hon. members for Albany (Mr. Bowker), Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and others, which for the sake of convenience, although it is perhaps not fully descriptive, one can describe as the arguments of the abstainers. Of course I have no objection at all if a man is an abstainer. If it had been practicable for everybody to be abstainers, this would of course have been a much better world in which to live. I therefore do not want to quarrel with that argument in the least. But I think what one can in fact quarrel with—and I do not want to say that any one of those hon. members did so, but I am stating the principle in general—is that some people who adopt that attitude now think that unless everybody supports that attitude, then the people who do not support it are minions of the devil. I do not think it is fair to adopt such a standpoint. I heartily want to support what the Prime Minister said here to-day and what others also said, myself included, namely that I do not know a single member of this House who is in any respect indifferent as far as the abuse of liquor is concerned. Nor do I think there is a single member who is not acutely aware of the evils resulting from the abuse of liquor. Therefore I find it strange that whilst this is the atmosphere and whilst this is the attitude of hon. members on both sides of the House, we should have to listen to so much moralizing in regard to the abuse of liquor, whereas we should have discussed the problem of the distribution of liquor here. It is all very well to mention it and to emphasize it, but I do not think it was fitting to lecture other hon. members about it, nor do I think this was the time and the place for it. What particularly struck me about hon. members who took this opportunity, in regard to the provision of liquor and the sale of natural wine by grocery shops, to deliver a homily to us about the evils of liquor was that, wittingly or unwittingly, they gave the public the impression that there would be no evil, that the evil would disappear like dew before the sun, if only grocery shops were not being allowed to sell natural wine. In other words, I almost inferred from their arguments that there is nothing wrong with bottle stores selling brandy: that will not create an evil. But the natural wine sold by a grocer shop will lead to the downfall of the nation! That is how I understood hon. members’ arguments. If hon. members had told me they objected to the sale of hard liquor, I would respect that standpoint. I would have had much respect for it. But what struck me, Mr. Speaker, was that the hon. members who adopted that attitude were old members of this House who know the procedure of this House, and no amendment was moved that the sale of liquor should be stopped entirely. In fact, there was no such suggestion. In other words, hon. members want to entrench the rights that the liquor suppliers have at the moment and ignore the one fact that we repeatedly emphasize, a fact which nobody tried to controvert, namely that if one makes natural wine available to the public there is the chance that there will be less abuse of liquor. I must honestly say that that argument still stands firm, because nobody tried to controvert it. On the contrary, hon. members who adopted the other standpoint tried to evade it to the best of their ability.

But I come to another argument which I cannot understand at all in the light of what I said in introducing the second reading and which was also used by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl). I wrote down his words and the hon. member for Sunnyside, as I understood him, spoke about the great onslaught which was being made on the interests of bottle stores. The hon. member must tell me if I am misinterpreting him. He spoke about the great attack being made on the bottle store interests. Mr. Speaker, did I not say that it was just because I respected the vested interests of these people that I worked on a percentage of 40 per cent? Did I not mention the figures and mention various towns specifically? I can give the whole “box and dice” to hon. members, from the beginning to the end, I can give the figures in respect of the constituency of every hon. member, outside of the Western Province, to prove that no interests are being affected because such interests simply do not exist. I want to repeat that the only people who tried to do something about the drinking pattern were the K.W.V. and certain wholesale interests at Stellenbosch and elsewhere. But the retail trade, which is intimately concerned with it, and which is very well organized, what did it do? To tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen interests as well represented and as well organized as you have seen during the past fortnight in the case of these liquor traders? They are not isolated individuals; no, they are closely linked with one another. Now and again when one of them oversteps the mark the others repudiate it, but for the rest they are particularly well organized, and they have done nothing to improve this position. However, I want to say very clearly that I am allergic to being reproached for affecting vested interests without more ado. I do not want to affect any interests: I do not want to harm anybody. For that reason I now want to tell hon. members that when we come to the Committee Stage I will not be wedded to 40 per cent. We can discuss that matter. That is a matter for the House, and not for me, to decide. It is in the hands of the House, and I am not wedded to it. I say so deliberately now because I do not want that reproach to be hurled at me. How anyone who has studied the position can reproach me and talk about the great onslaught on the interests of these people is simply, with the best will in the world, incomprehensible to me.

And while I am on that point I want to remind hon. members that the question was put to me by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and others: Why not beer? I stated the position in my second reading speech. Let us understand each other clearly. In principle, I cannot adopt any standpoint at all. If I say that light natural wine may be sold in shops I cannot say that in principle beer may not be sold as well. I readily want to admit that. The only motive which counted with me was that I did not want to affect vested interests. But that is not appreciated by the liquor trade. They do not even say, “Thanks, dog,” for these concessions which have been made. No appreciation has been expressed, and that was my only reason and motive for not including it. But this, just like all the other matters, is something which rests with the House, and it is not for me to decide. My motive was merely that I did not want to affect vested interests, and the figures show that beer constitutes 39 per cent of the sales of these people, on an average. Out of consideration for them, and for no other reason at all, I excluded it. But as I say, from some people one waits in vain for thanks or appreciation for an attitude which one has adopted.

Apart from the group I have just mentioned, who are firmly opposed to the principle of grocery shops selling light wine, what is the standpoint adopted by the liquor trade in this regard? Firstly, I want to mention the standpoint of the Association of Bottle Store Keepers and Off-Sales Licensees of the Western Province. From the very nature of the matter, these people do not like this step, and. they told me so, and I appreciate their standpoint. They say that they are opposed to it through self-interest. I appreciate it when a man tells me, “My own interests demand this or that”. They do not try to give a moral slant to it, or anything of that nature. They say frankly: We are protecting our own interests, and we do not believe it is in our interest to grant the grocery shops these licences, but if you have to do so, and if the House decides to do so, then they tell me the following in their memorandum—

That is how an adult talks—not nonsense about this or that, but facing the matter realistically and saying: It is not in our interest, but we admit that if you do it this is a realistic figure to take as the basis.

But there is another interested body whose standpoint should be considered, and that is Fedhasa, i.e. the Federated Hotel Association which represents all the hotels in the country. I am authorized by them to say that Fedhasa, the Federated Hotel Association of South Africa, “supports the principle of wine sales through grocery shops provided (a) the 40 per cent provision at present contained in the Bill is retained and (b) a concession of two years is granted before grocers start selling liquor in order that the established trade may try during that period to increase wine sales”. That is also how adults talk. They are also people who come forward with an argument, and now one is able to argue with them. In regard to the 40 per cent, I am quite prepared to concede that. We can argue about the two years. I think it is too long. If hon. members ask me now as from when grocers will be able to sell natural wine, it appears to me, taking into account our experience of what happened in the past, that it will take at least a year before we can apply it in practice. In other words, such a period will have to elapse, and the percentage which is of importance is the percentage at the time when the grocer applies. In other words, one does not take the figure as it is to-day, but if the grocer applies on 1 September 1964 that is the operative date from which it will apply. In other words, there will in any case be a reasonable period of adaptation before the thing is put into operation. That is to say, if people are already near the percentage which may be decided by the House, they will have full opportunity to try to increase that percentage. But in terms of this Bill it is still within the discretion of the various bodies which grant the licence, and if those bodies can be convinced that there is an area in which there is improvement, they will probably exercise their discretion accordingly. That is what I believe. These are all factors which will be taken into consideration. I mention all these matters because I want to emphasize again that whatever one’s personal attitude may be towards those bodies, we are not here to harm them or to eradicate them. We want to adopt a realistic standpoint in regard to the matter.

Now it has been asked whether we cannot send the Bill to a Select Committee. Certain other hon. members went further and said that we should again appoint a commission. Mr. Speaker, if we have to appoint another commission to investigate the evils resulting from the abuse of liquor, of what use will that be? We have had an inter-departmental committee, the Department of Education, Arts and Science is busy making a further survey in regard to alcoholism, and we know the answers to those problems. And in regard to the distribution of liquor, we have had the Malan Commission. Why should we have another commission now? In fact, one cannot appoint a Select Committee to consider this Bill. With all respect, I say that the Bill produced by that Select Committee will be opposed just as much as this Bill is being opposed. All that we are going to bring upon ourselves—and goodness knows I do not want to experience that again—is to hear the same arguments repeated which we have now heard for two days, and I do not think there is a single one of us who looks forward to that. I do not think that the Bill lends itself to being considered by a Select Committee because the interests are too divergent. In theory, also, it may easily happen that the members of the Select Committee are all abstainers, or that all the members are anti-abstainers. Where do we land then? For practical reasons it is simply impossible, in my opinion. I think that the Committee of this House is quite capable of doing this work, and that hon. members are the people best suited to reconciling the various standpoints in the Committee Stage and then voting on the matter, one way or the other. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot accept the suggestion that a Select Committee should be appointed.

I could reply to every argument raised by hon. members, but I do not think that is expected of me, nor do I think hon. members want me to do so. I apologize to hon. members whose arguments I have not replied to because the time and the circumstances do not allow of it, but we will be able to deal with the same arguments again in the Committee Stage.

However, the question was put to me by hon. members as to how we expect to set to work in regard to the classification of hotels. The reply is that my Department has already in the past had discussions with the hotel industry in order to arrive at a solution to this problem, and secondly I want to point out that a Hotel Commission has been appointed which will throw light on this question. I want to give the assurance in advance that whatever the Hotel Commission may recommend, my Department will not proceed with the classification before having fully consulted the hotel industry, who are the persons concerned. The basic standpoint of my Department will be not to deprive people of rights but to grant them rights. In other words, our standpoint will not be to deprive people of rights. They will have full opportunity and will be given enough time to adapt themselves to whatever standards may be laid down. But I have told my Department that certain minimum standards must be laid down as soon as possible, before the end of the year still, according to which hotels will be able to get off-sales privileges. In other words, I want to put the hotels which are deprived of off-sales rights on the same footing as the hotels with which they have to compete, viz. those with off-sales privileges, as soon as possible. That is all that classification will mean at the moment, that I want to take away no rights, but I just want to allow those people to compete on an equal basis with other hotels which have privileges which they do not. For the rest, as I say, we will wait before determining certain standards in consultation with the Hotel Association, and if necessary, also in consultation with the Hotel Commission. It will be difficult, but it will not be impossible to do so.

Then there was the argument—I do not think it was seriously meant, and I think it was only a shadow argument—that chain stores would not get the entire liquor monopoly and that they would eventually undermine the hotel industry, and that this would really become the most dangerous monopoly in the country. Mr. Speaker, one need only look at the figures, one need only look at the margin of profit on natural wine, to know that if this is the only thing available to those people it will mean very little to them. In the meantime, the established liquor trade of course continues to sell the same article. In other words, where the average for the Republic at the moment is 15 per cent, even if one grants it to all chain stores or to all shops it still will not mean much. I want to point out that hon. members set out from the standpoint that every general dealer will, as it were, now be granted a licence. That is not so. It is not every general dealer who has a few biscuits on his shelves for sale who will be granted a licence. It will only be the bona fide grocers who will be granted this concession. That is provided in the Bill. And it is obvious that particularly in the beginning we will be very selective before granting a licence. As far as the other argument is concerned, that the chain stores will now have a monopoly, I want to ask whether there is anyone in this House who has considered the matter for a moment who will tell me that the chain stores will be able to handle more than 5 per cent of the present 15 per cent? Surely it would be nonsensical to allege that. But this 5 per cent of the sales will of course be of great importance as far as the consumption of natural wine is concerned. And I want to repeat that if we are in earnest in wanting to change the pattern of our drinking, it is an incontrovertible fact that 30,000 leaguers of natural wine had to be distilled. Why? Because there was no market for it, because it could not be disposed of. But the total quantity of liquor, whether it is natural wine, fortified wine or spirits, is limited. One cannot make it more than it is. It is just a question of the channels into which one allows it to go. One either allows it to go to the spirits channel or to the natural wine channel. Because the total remains the same. And those 2,000,000 bottles or more which had to be converted into spirits would have remained in the form of natural wine if there had been a market for it. In the circumstances I cannot advance a stronger argument than this.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), according to the notes I made, said: “This Bill will make alcoholics, more than anything else.” I waited in vain for hon. members to adduce the proof for that. I want to repeat that I do not say that I have the reply to it, but what I do know is that a commission of responsible and intelligent people was appointed, and the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said that they exceeded their terms of reference, which may perhaps be true. I do not want to argue with him, but the fact that it is so strengthens my argument. If that was not in their terms of reference it just shows what a deep impression the information they acquired made on them, through the evidence which was submitted to them, so that they of their own accord told us: “It was not our task to investigate this, but we were forced to take note of this.” If the hon. member is right in his interpretation, I attach even more importance to their recommendations than I would otherwise have done.

I can continue adducing further proof in regard to the arguments advanced here and which were ill-founded. One could talk about it until to-morrow, but it would serve no purpose. It remains a fact, and with this I want to conclude …

Mr. Speaker, may I say something?

No, the hon. member may not say anything.

If the hon. member does not want to put a question, I want to conclude by saying this: The responsibility is not mine. Let us understand that clearly. Nor is the responsibility that of the Government. The responsibility rests upon this House to decide whether there is a problem, and if there is in fact a problem, whether something should be done in that regard. I do not want to be misunderstood, and therefore I repeat that I am not saying that this is the solution to the problem. I believe it is. I do not want to say that the Malan Commission is correct, although I believe it is. But the fact that the Commission was correct in regard to the two other matters in connection with which I made recommendations makes me feel inclined to say that they are correct here also. The fact that they then gave the correct advice makes me inclined to feel that their advice is correct now also. But what is even more important to me …

May I ask a question? What do you regard as the principle of this Bill?

The question is not what I regard as the principle of this Bill. The question is, with respect, what hon. members regard as the principle of the Bill when we get to the Committee Stage. If you ask me what I regard as the principle of this Bill, I would say the principle of the Bill is to change the drinking pattern, the attempt made to change the drinking pattern, and that attempt is embodied in the fact that grocery shops will be allowed to sell natural wine. Further, I regard it as the principle of this Bill that the hotel industry—the hon. member will have noted this in my second-reading speech—will be placed on a sound basis. It will be remembered that I spoke about a slump in the hotel industry and that it behoves us to combat that slump. Also for that I have tried to indicate the remedy in this Bill.

I want to repeat that it is the duty of every member of this House to adopt a standpoint in regard to this matter according to the dictates of his conscience. We cannot blame anybody but ourselves if we do not achieve the desired effect in regard to this matter.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—81: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dӧnges, T. E.; Durrant, R. B.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raw, W. V.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—48: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Greyling, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, F. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I wish at this stage to move—

I believe this is the appropriate stage to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The reason why I move this motion in English is because I failed to catch your eye when I addressed you just now as “Meneer die Voorsitter” in Afrikaans as is my usual custom. The reason for this motion is that the virtue that is sought to be attained by this Bill might by the means employed by the Bill be defeated. As is clear from the debate, the exact terms of the means to be employed are of the greatest importance in attaining the ends the Minister has in view and which the majority of this House has in view, as well as portions of the minority. Furthermore, the kinds of liquor to be dealt with under the Bill are to be re-examined very carefully, as the debate also proved that there are certain misgivings on certain aspects of that matter. At this stage it is of course not known what the judgment of the Chair will be as to the admissibility of any amendments in regard to the types of liquor to be affected by the different provisions.

In the third place, there are many advantages in this Bill, which is freely admitted by both sides, both by those for and against, for the preservation of temperance in South Africa, and that purpose could also be best served by the precise consideration of all the details involved in the application of the most effective measures. Furthermore, it has appeared that in spite of the general good disposition of this House as to the terms of this Bill, the subject matter could well be considered by a Select Committee. In the course of the debate it clearly emerged who are the protagonists of different points of view, and if I were permitted to do so I could very easily mention five hon. members who could constitute a Select Committee which would have the confidence of this House and which would be able to bring out a speedy and efficient report in connection with the subject matter of this Bill. I have no doubt, Sir, that you, after hearing this debate, could even much better nominate five or more suitable members to consider this subject.

Lastly, I want to advance this reason that I think this House owes it to the hon. the Minister, who so ably introduced this Bill and who so ably defended this Bill which is genial in many aspects, that he should be relieved of the burden of carrying any possible odium for presenting certain points of view to this House. Let the Bill be the result of the working of this House in terms of its time-honoured procedure. Let us create a Bill which is really the product of the deliberations of this House at its best. That best will be found by appointing a select group of our leading members representing different points of view who will constitute a Select Committee which will report to this House and give us their recommendations, which I am quite sure will at that stage find favour immediately.

I second. The principle which has been accepted at the second reading is that light liquor should be made available …

Oh no.

What are you talking about? I say the principle which has been accepted is that light liquor will now be made more readily available than in the past. It is evident from the second-reading debate that there is a reasonably serious difference of opinion in regard to the method whereby it should be made available, whether only light wine or whether beer as well should be made available through grocery shops and whether only wine or beer as well should be available in boarding houses. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) made a very interesting point in his second-reading speech, namely, food plus liquor, that the two should be brought together and whether you should not try to promote this through these delicatessen shops. Therefore, when a Select Committee is asked for, we are not asking for a further inquiry into the whole principle. That principle has now been accepted. We are not asking for a further inquiry into whether or not light liquor should be made more readily available because that principle has been accepted. There is, however, a fair amount of doubt as to the precise channels through which it should be done and what kind of light liquor it should be and how it should be made available. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park is simply asking for a Select Committee not to inquire into and to report on the principle of this Bill, but to iron things out and to effect improvements so as to produce the best possible Bill and in order to relieve the Minister of a great deal of responsibility. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We have the suggestions of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) for instance. I must honestly admit that I was greatly impressed by the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Point last night, an attitude which does not conflict at all with the principle of this Bill. My approach was to establish exactly what is envisaged in this Bill but over a longer period and by certain other methods. I want to know whether that is not the work of a Select Committee because it is going to be difficult to examine all these clauses within 12 hours and to do the right thing. That is why I want to know whether it is not the work of a Select Committee to sort out all these finer details.

The hon. member for Kempton Park also advanced an argument which impressed me greatly, namely, that it would relieve the Minister of Justice of a great deal of responsibility. At the moment a very big responsibility rests on him. He has had to convert the recommendations of the Malan Commission into legislation and there were many protests and attacks. I think, therefore, that the hon. member for Kempton Park has made out a case.

The final point I wish to make is that there is no particular hurry to put this Bill through. The principle has been accepted. We can now appoint a Select Committee and it will not be necessary for it to call for a great deal of evidence because most of the witnesses who could have been called have already been called. All they have to do now is to sort things out; they can then report next year and we can start with the Bill at the Committee Stage. That is why I heartily support the hon. member for Kempton Park in the attitude he has adopted.

Very briefly, Sir, I should like to express my support for the motion moved by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), although I differ vehemently with the main reasons given by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in supporting that motion. I cannot accept that the decision given by this House at the second reading is a decision in principle to accept all the provisions of the Bill for the extension of the opportunities for the consumption of alcohol.

I did not say all the principles.

That is not the principle, in my view. The principle which has been accepted, to my mind …

Order! That is not under discussion. The principle cannot be discussed now. What can be discussed now is only the motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

We want to give the House the opportunity, through a Select Committee, to investigate and examine and report upon the details of this Bill. The details of this Bill are all directed towards reforming the existing Liquor Act, and I believe that Parliament took the correct decision in deciding that the Liquor Act should be reformed, and therefore I would appeal emphatically to hon. members on both sides to give Parliament the opportunity to work out the details and to consider the nature of the reforms we wish to bring about.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to differ from the present and the former members for Vereeniging. Great play has been made of the fact that the Minister should be relieved of some of the responsibility. I think we should have clarity on that. The hon. the Minister carries only one responsibility as far as this matter is concerned and that is the same responsibility which I carry, namely, the responsibility to exercise one vote in this House, and nothing more. Anything more said about that does the Minister an injustice. The value of his responsibility is that of one vote out of 160 votes. I am opposed to the motion that a Select Committee be appointed for this cardinal reason. I, and I think other members as well, do not want to be subjected again to what we experienced over the past few weeks. There have been memoranda, people have adopted a high moral attitude and I simply cannot reconcile these two things. An appeal is suddenly made to you by people from a moral point of view and I cannot reconcile the two. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Vereeniging seconded the motion but it is very clear that a Select Committee has a specific objective, namely that where a principle has been accepted you have to look for as many points of agreement as possible. In this case, however, nobody is tied down. I ask you, Sir, who is going to appoint this Select Committee? The Whips have no say in the matter.

The Speaker.

How is the Speaker going to know whom to appoint? Nobody in this House has a higher regard for the judgment of Mr. Speaker than I but we cannot expect the impossible from him.

But there is another argument. The hon. member mentioned five prominent members. With due respect I want to say that the matter has been investigated and I cannot imagine our getting more outstanding members than the hon. members for Hercules, Jeppes, the present Minister of Information and Minister Trollip. I want nobody better than those four. That is why I am opposed to this because this cannot be resolved during this Session by a Select Committee because time is too limited. We are adjourning round about 18 or 20 June so the matter cannot, therefore, be settled.

What is the hurry?

The hurry is this that I do not want to be subjected for a year to what I experienced over the past few weeks. Sir, let us finalize this matter and let us give South Africa the opportunity of changing its drinking habits. When I talk about changing the drinking habits I think one of the fine things we can do is to add some healthy water to our natural wine.

Mr. Speaker, while I disagree to the extent of three quarters with the analysis of the hon. member for Vanderbiilpark as to the membership of previous commissions, I must agree with him in his attitude towards a Select Committee. I believe there are three reasons why this House should not agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. The first is that I have in my hand here what various interests have been able to pump into us in the last two or three weeks, and this is only a little sample; quite a lot of it is already in the wastepaper basket and others are still coming in. I do not feel that this is a matter which this House can delay in order to allow the sort of canvassing and the attempts to influence hon. members to continue longer.

But there is another and more important reason, and that is that whilst a Select Committee should certainly be able to improve this measure in regard to its technical details—there I agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park—I do not believe that a Select Committee would be able to achieve that improvement. The reason is that once this Bill goes to a Select Committee it must either be a Select Committee which represents conflicting points of view and which will therefore find itself bogged down in the same sort of dissension which this second reading has revealed, or else it will not be a truly representative Select Committee. If you get a Select Committee representing the conflicting points of view indicated in this debate, then I cannot see that such a Select Committee can in fact achieve what the hon. members for Kempton Park and Vereeniging think it can achieve, and what in theory a normal Select Committee would achieve, because you are dealing with matters in which emotions are involved, and not with the practical, mechanical details in regard to which this Bill still has some shortcomings. But I think that in the Committee of this House we can achieve a better effect if members, both those for and against the Bill, would devote the Committee State to dealing with improvements rather than to dealing with points of difference in principle. Therefore I feel that if we as a House make up our minds that we are not going to have a filibuster on principles, but that we are going to get down to improving the Bill, we can do it quite easily in the time available to us. But I think that to keep this matter dragging on, with the emotions and feelings involved, would be a mistake.

Finally. I believe it is unfair for those interests which have postponed capital investment on improvements for year after year to be kept waiting for a decision any longer. People who want to give improved service to the public cannot be kept waiting another year. We cannot keep another year hanging over people who want to take advantage of this measure to give greater service. So I believe that this House should face its responsibility. It should face the difficult as well as the easy, and it should say to itself that this will not be easy but we will do our job and deal with the issue before us.

Mr. Speaker, no one can agree more with the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) than I. I do not want to enlarge upon the arguments advanced by him, all of which are sound, and the soundest one of them all is the one which you, Sir, nearly did not want him to advance. [Laughter.] But it is very relevant to this debate namely that we are now putting a stop to this matter with which we have been dealing for years and which has hampered development to a great extent so that that development can take place. If we appoint a Select Committee it will not finish its work this Session nor will it do so next session and the necessary development will be kept back all that time.

There are two types of person who are in favour of the motion we have just had. There are those who just want to use it in an attempt to wreck this legislation. I have nothing to do with them. They can go their own way but there is the other type who honestly believe that improvements can be effected by the appointment of a Select Committee and I am only dealing with them at the moment. I just want to give them the history of this matter. This will not be the first time that an attempt has been made by a Select Committee to improve a liquor law. When this question of liquor came before this House some four or five years ago the Bill was very similar to the present one and on a motion introduced in this House that Bill was sent to a Select Committee and what happened? That Select Committee sat for two years and achieved absolutely nothing. They had a Bill before them just as the proposed Select Committee will have one before them but they achieved nothing because the interests on that Select Committee were so diverse that they could not be reconciled. When the Government in its wisdom realized that if it wanted to do anything a Select Committee would never achieve it the Malan Commission was appointed and the matter was taken out of the hands of the Select Committee. The Malan Commission was appointed because it was found that a Select Committee was not the right machinery to bring a Liquor Act to finality. The Malan Commission then carried on with the work which the Select Committee could not finalize, they reported and we are to-day acting on that report. To think that we are going to achieve any success with a Select Committee is merely a pipe dream. History has proved that you cannot do it that way. The House itself in its wisdom must now decide what it is going to do. But a Select Committee is not going to take us any further. It will only delay the matter; it will become a futile organ and within a year or two it will return to us in frustration and we shall have to carry on where we left off. This matter must now be brought to finality. That is necessary because this matter has been going on for a long time. The time has arrived for us to bring this matter to finality and the only way of doing that is to carry on in the way we are doing at the moment.

Was the previous Bill referred to a Select Committee before or after the second reading?

I think it was referred to it before the second reading but the Select Committee could not come to any decision.

The basic point which I think we have to consider in dealing with this motion to send the Bill to a Select Committee—a motion which I heartily endorse—is the question which has just been asked. Here the principles of the Bill have been agreed to and the Select Committee will, I presume, have to stay within the ambit of those principles. We have been told to-night that the Prime Minister has not seen the Bill, that it is not a Government Bill and that it is not the responsibility of the Minister who introduced it. It seems, therefore, as if nobody has ever considered the details of the Bill except those people who drew up the Bill. Consequently, it will be the right thing for this House to do to appoint a committee of its own members to go into the details of the Bill. I am reinforced in this regard by the speech of the hon. Minister of Justice in his reply to the second-reading debate. He indicated that in a number of clauses of the Bill there might well be changes. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he said there might very well be changes in regard to the question of the percentage for instance. Then there is the question of implementation which was, he said, a question for the House to decide.

There are so many divergent opinions on these matters that if this House has to try and deal with these question, I fear there will be chaos. The committee which we will appoint will represent us, i.e. the House, and that committee will bring the matter back to us. The report of the Malan Commission was not accepted by this House and it was not discussed. In the circumstances, I support the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee.

I am merely rising to say that I cannot reconcile myself with the motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I am grateful to my hon. friends for being concerned about the responsibility which I shall have to carry and the work I shall have to do. But I am not completely finished yet; I can still remember! I want to give them this assurance: Unless it so happens that the members appointed to such a Select Committee are in agreement with one another and subscribe to the same principles, we shall, from the nature of things, get a minority point of view. Because this is not a party measure the minority on the Select Committee will adopt the attitude that they have a majority in this House. In that case we shall have a repetition of the fight we have had in this House yesterday and to-day.

I do not believe, therefore, that by referring this Bill to a Select Committee we shall save time or gain anything. But there is another aspect of this matter, namely, that if we were to decide to refer this Bill to a Select Committee we shall be doing nothing else than to transfer the responsibility to the whole Committee of this House to another committee. It is not our task and function to pass on our responsibility in that way. At the present moment this matter is the responsibility of every member and not of a Select Committee. What we shall achieve by not referring the matter to a Select Committee will be to ensure that more members are in the House when the measure is dealt with in Committee because we should all be here to state our point of view and not only come in to take part in the division. Everyone will have to state his point of view and defend it I want to repeat: This is not a case where we can pass our responsibility on to a Select Committee but one in respect of which everyone of us must accept his responsibility.

I think it is generally accepted that all members of this House felt a high degree of responsibility in coming to a decision on this Bill. That responsibility is all the more greater because of the short period within which we had to study this final Bill. In addition, there are a number of members on both sides of the House who have not had an opportunity of expressing their views on the Bill during the second reading. Furthermore, I am certain that a large number of amendments which members will put forward on certain clauses of the Bill, during its consideration in committee of the whole House, will never be considered by that committee owing to the short time allotted for that stage. I consider that we should give ample opportunity for all amendments coming forward to be fully discussed.

But you agreed to the 12 hours.

I did agree to it but in the belief that we would all be given a full opportunity of discussing the Bill. With the time factor against us, however, I do not think that will happen. There are certain aspects of this Bill of which we were informed only on Wednesday. We were only given five days to consider amendments which were not in the original Bill when gazetted. On one important matter, the interests concerned only became aware this morning of the practical effects of these new amendments.

All these matters can be ironed out in a select committee. I do not agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) where he said that we would be shirking our responsibilities were we to send this Bill to a select committee. I do not agree with him because we would still exercise our responsibilities by having to consider and vote on the report and findings of the Select Committee. Furthermore, those people who did not have sufficient opportunity to consider the Bill will get an opportunity of giving evidence before the Select Committee. I do not think the haste is so great that this Bill cannot be sent to a select committee to the advantage both of this House, and the country.

There is doubt in the minds of so many people as to what exactly is the principle of this Bill. Had there been greater clarity in this respect, I believe more members would have voted for the second reading than actually did vote for it. Under the circumstances, I appeal to this House to do the right thing as far as the interests of members are concerned, and to support and adopt the motion moved by the hon. member for Kempton Park. I do not think it will do the country any harm, nor will it do any vested interests any harm, if we delay this matter so that it can first be considered by a select committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage.

I just want to point out that after the Malan Commission submitted its report hon. members were inundated by pamphlets and memoranda. There was also uncertainty in all sections of the liquor trade. If we were to refer this Bill to a select committee that uncertainty …

That argument has already been used.

… will only increase and hon. members will only be pestered all the more. You will find the phenomenon all the more that certain liquor interests believe that members of Parliament are simply lackeys whom they can order to meetings and committees in order to instruct them how to act in this House. [Interjections.] That happened repeatedly over the past week. It happened the first time in this House.…

Order! The hon. member must return to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out what the results of a select committee will be. That select committee will be a divided committee. You, Mr. Speaker, will not be able to do justice to yourself when appointing the members of such a select committee because you did not have the opportunity.…

Order! That is an argument which everybody has already used.

I just want to point out that you have not yet had the opportunity of forming a proper opinion. That being the case, to refer this matter to a select committee will only be a repetition, not only of this debate, but of the pressure from outside. That is why I say this House must accept its responsibility and not palm this Bill off on to a select committee.

I cannot see that to refer this Bill to a select committee will serve any good purpose whatever. The point is that we all have a free vote on this question and no matter what the Select Committee may come to, it will not affect our free vote. I for one will not be bound by anything which a select committee may decide. Furthermore, there are so many facets to this question that it will be impossible to appoint a representative select committee and, consequently, it will not serve any good purpose whatever. To refer the Bill to a select committee, therefore, will be to my mind simply a waste of time. Moreover, it cannot bind my vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion now.

I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I only rise to express my support of the motion by the hon. member for Kempton Park to now refer this Bill to a select committee. I do so because I am not as pessimistic as some members are about the results of following the time-honoured procedure of referring matters to a select committee. Mention has already been made of the time already spent on this measure and of the divergent opinions which exist in regard to it. There are 160 members in this House, Sir, and therefore 160 individual opinions. It is one of the principles of procedure of this House to have a number of selected members to serve on a select committee, members who will be of value to that committee.

This measure is of so much importance—not for vested interests because I am not concerned about their gaining or losing by a select committee—but for the country at large, that we should ensure that the measure should become an Act of Parliament in the best possible form it can. That form can only be worked out by a select committee. If further support is required for the motion I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister himself who told us that this Bill has not been considered by the Government. Now, if it was not considered by the Government with a view to streamlining the provisions and tidying up its various points, then surely before this House puts its seal on it, we must have a select committee to do that not only on behalf of the Government but also of this House.

Therefore I believe that it is in the best interests of this House that we should refer the measure to a select committee.

I cannot think of any argument which has not already been used in connection with this motion. The Minister of Lands has already pointed out that this is a matter which has been before the country and this House since 1954. The hon. the Minister of Justice has already said that this motion cannot be accepted because its objective is to try to transfer our responsibility to a select committee. In actual fact the motion only amounts to this that we are postponing our decision. If this Bill is referred to a select committee we shall be faced with a majority and minority point of view when that select committee reports. We shall then start arguing all over again.

I have the report of the Malan Commission here. That commission was appointed in 1956. No new argument has been advanced in favour of the appointment of a select committee. That is why I humbly ask that you now accept the motion which I moved a moment ago, namely, that the question be now put.

Amendment put and negatived.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

The hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted certain amendments which were moved by this side of the House during the Committee Stage which have the effect of improving to a certain extent the machinery of this Bill. This Bill has as its object the setting up of a board for the purpose of co-ordinating the State’s film activities and the acquisition, the production and distribution of films by the State. Despite the amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister accepted from this side of the House, the Bill still has those objectionable provisions which it had when presented to the House on its second reading.

Broadly the position is that this Bill aims at setting up a board which will have as its main objective the presentation of South Africa through films as seen primarily through the eyes of the Government. There can be no question that this board will serve as a medium of political propaganda on the home front for the purpose of presentation of Government policy by means of moving pictures and sound. If there is any doubt about this one has merely to examine the constitution of the board to see that its chief members will be representatives of Departments of State and other statutory bodies like the S.A.B.C. All these bodies are, in some way or another, concerned with influencing public opinion through various channels. This confirms the suspicion that this board is going to be used primarily for propaganda purposes. There will be no representation on the board for such interests as science and technology, social welfare, arts and culture or commerce and industries. The only representation these interests will have will be through a person to be appointed to the board by the Minister.

Furthermore, one should have thought that representation would at least have been given to the embryonic film industry of this country or to the large film distributing industry. But no provision at all has been made for the representation of these interests. Consequently, one can say that the board presented by this Bill is an emasculated board—a board of stooges appointed only by the Minister and in terms of Clause 10 incapable of doing anything without the approval of the Minister. They would not even be able to amalgamate the State’s film interests without the approval of the Minister. In fact, one may say that the Board as it is envisaged in this Bill is constituted so as to present as effectively as possible Government policy and to create to a channel through the medium of moving pictures for all Government propaganda.

To produce a film it is not only the presentation of the facts that counts but the manner in which those facts are slanted. I need not remind hon. members of the film “Sabotage in South Africa” which although based on facts slants those facts in such a manner that it gives a entirely wrong picture of conditions in South Africa. Now, I do not think there can be any question about the fact that this board is going to be used in the same manner. I do not think there is any doubt that all members of this House would like to see the development of a film industry in our country. That is most desirable because it can bring considerable advantages to our country. This Bill, however, will not do that. In fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister has admitted that. The object of this board only will be to bring together the various State activities regarding the production and manufacture of films. This Bill does, therefore, do nothing more than to legislate for bureaucratic action. It can by no means be described as a means of developing a film industry in South Africa. We on this side recognize that it is desirable to have a board for the development of a film industry in South Africa. However, all our representations in this regard have been completely rejected. The Government did not lend a sympathetic ear to our representations and suggestions for the establishment of a National Film Board for this purpose. In the circumstances, we on these benches have no other alternative than to move—

I second.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Turffontein for describing the reaction of the Government to the criticism and amendments of the Opposition in connection with this Bill as unsympathetic. Actually it is a long time since we have had a Bill in respect of which so many amendments by the Opposition have been accepted as this Bill. If that is the reaction of the Opposition then one will be disinclined in future to pay serious attention to their criticism.

No amendments to the principle have been accepted from this side.

Of course the principles concerned in this matter cannot be amended but considerable concessions were nevertheless made as far as the mechanism of the Bill is concerned.

The composition of the board is not a matter of principle.

The allegation that this Film Board will be an instrument that will be used for party purposes is equally out of place. If the fact that we want to make South Africa’s scenic beauty and problems known can be described as propaganda I admit it will be a propaganda medium but that will be propaganda that will benefit our common fatherland—for example, to oppose films like “Sabotage in South Africa” and the misrepresentations which that sends into the world.

This measure will also be to the benefit of the private film industry. During the Committee Stage, in reply to criticism from the other side, I pointed out that the proposed board would not organize private industry and that the latter would therefore have no representative on the board. That does not mean, however, that private industry will not benefit from this measure. On the contrary. The private film industry will benefit considerably from the proposed board. The aim is to produce films to the value of R600,000 per annum within a few years. Of that 60 per cent will be canalized to the private film industry in South Africa. It will greatly benefit that industry. In the circumstances I cannot reconcile myself with the idea expressed that this Film Board will not benefit the private film industry.

I am convinced that this Film Board will come up to the high expectations we have of it. I ignore the accusation that “stooges” will be appointed to the board. When the Industrial Tribunal and other statutory bodies were composed we on the other side raised a similar cry. Yet those appointments enjoy the esteem of friend and foe to-day. I predict that that will also happen in the case of the appointments of this board. The persons who will be appointed to it will be people of outstanding merit, people who will do their duty objectively and in the interests of South Africa.

Question put: That the word “now” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

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

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.: Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a third time.

I should like to move the following amendment—

“(b) There shall be no differentiation as regards the remuneration determined under paragraph (a) in respect of the members of the various executive committees except to the extent that the remuneration of such members who in the opinion of the State President perform full time service may differ from the remuneration of such members who in his opinion do not perform full time service.”

In moving this amendment I just want to inform the Committee that I said very clearly in my reply to the second-reading debate that, as the clause read at the moment, the intention was that there should be no discrimination between the various provinces or rather between the various executive committees of the various provinces. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), however, was not too happy about that and he placed an amendment on the Order Paper. After he had put it on the Order Paper I met him personally and I discussed the matter with the legal advisers. They thought it would be better if it were worded in the form in which I have just moved it and that solved his problem. I hope therefore that in view of the amendment I have just moved the hon. member will see his way clear not to move his amendment and that we shall in that way obtain unanimity on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, we voted against the second reading of this Bill because Clause 2 (b) provided that there could be differentiation between the various provinces. We objected to that. In his reply to the second reading the Minister intimated that that was not the intention. We felt that, although that was not his intention, it should be written into the law. I put an amendment on the Order Paper and, as the Minister rightly said, since then I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the hon. the Minister. I think his proposed amendment meets the point raised by us during the second-reading debate. I therefore do not propose moving my amendment. I am prepared to accept the Minister’s amendment. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s courtesy in letting me have this amendment in advance. As it meets our objection we are prepared to agree to this amendment of the Minister’s.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Amendment in Clause 2 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

This Bill is among those which provide that people be deprived of their liberty; they are deprived of their liberty without actually having committed a crime in the ordinary sense of the word. They are deprived of their liberty because society feels that they should be confined for treatment. There are not many Acts which provide that people should be deprived of their personal liberty except by the courts. In this case he is also deprived of his liberty by the court, it is true, but in this case he is deprived of it not because he has committed any crime. It therefore resembles very much the individual who behaves anti-socially, the person who is mentally different from the average person, and who, in his own interests and in the interests of society, is confined. The difficulty is that in many instances the deprivation of the liberty is not clearly defined in time. The time can be much shorter or longer than the average for a similar confinement. If a man is confined for having committed a crime he is given a definite date on which he will be released provided he behaves himself. In regard to the type of confinement with which we are dealing here there is no outside influence, no prison department one might say, that can make certain that the man does not get lost. That is something which happens to mentally diseased people or people who are alcoholics and who are confined to institutions. With all the goodwill in the world there is frequently shortage of staff, there is frequently a spirit of laisser faire and strict discipline is not always maintained. It is natural in these institutions that there should not be strict discipline. They are institutions where one is trying to rehabilitate those people so that they can return to society. This cannot be done by force; it can only be done by education and persuasion. All this tends to a lack of organization—discipline is not the right word—because it is very difficult to organize these institutions where you are dealing with different classes of people. Furthermore many of these people are not particularly welcome in their own homes. Very often the husband is tired of a drunken wife—you cannot blame him—or a wife is tired of a drunken husband—you cannot blame her either. The point is that very often there is no family affection; nobody to see that such a person is let out when he has recovered. I am not for one moment suggesting that the institutions which the hon. the Minister is going to bring into being are going to be of this character. But I have personal experience and it is common knowledge among medical men that there is such a thing as neglect.

It is the management.

Exactly it is the management that is the difficulty. There are managements and managements; some are neglectful and some are not. I know how often these institutions are short-staffed. It is very difficult to get people to go and work in these institutions.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the release of the inmates.

With your permission, Sir, we feel that because of the character of these institutions the release may be overlooked. We therefore want this man to have the right to appeal to the courts after he has been in a certain time. That is the gist of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) when it is read in conjunction with Clause 18 to which we shall go back. It is on that account that we ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. It is a safeguard so that the neglected man can appeal to the courts for his release. With all the goodwill in the world it is bound to happen that there will be neglected men. It is unavoidable that the neglected man will sometimes lie there with nobody taking the slightest interest in him. It is for that reason that we ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment so that the neglected man will be remembered.

I think I have already replied briefly to the hon. member. I just want to repeat the reasons briefly. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. He suggests that the person should have the right to appeal to a court after six months. The underlying idea of this legislation is to keep those people away from the ordinary court. That is the reason why provision is made for an inquiry by a magistrate and where possible in camera. The object is to avoid the stigma of the court. What will the position be if that person is in that institution and you throw him back at the court after six months? How is the magistrate going to determine whether that person has been rehabilitated sufficiently to be released? The magistrate has not got the information on which to judge. The people who can judge are those who manage that institution and throughout this discussion everybody has praised the officials of the Department of Social Welfare who are responsible for the management of these institutions. We should leave it in the hands of the management, in the hands of the Department and the Minister to judge whether the person has been sufficiently rehabilitated to leave the institution. I hope the hon. member appreciates my difficulty and that he will not insist on this amendment. In practice people are released more or less within a year. If they are sufficiently rehabilitated most of them are released within a year. The function is to rehabilitate; to rehabilitate him physically; to rehabilitate him mentally; to rehabilitate him morally and depending on how he is thus rehabilitated most of them are released within a year. If he is there under the impression that he can appeal to the court in six months’ time you retard his rehabilitation. As a scientist the hon. member knows the power of suggestion. You immediately suggest to him that he has been wronged and that he can appeal to a court within six months. For these reasons I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

I appreciate the Minister’s point of view in regard to this clause. The reason why the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has moved that amendment is to give the inmate the right to have his case heard before an impartial judge. In this case we have nominated a magistrate.

Order! That argument has been used.

I was unaware of the fact that that argument had been used. The position is that a number of the people who are committed to such an institution remain there for a considerable time. I have three cases of inmates who claim that they should have been released far earlier. I do not intend to pursue that matter because I am not yet convinced that the facts that they have provided me are authentic. However, the position is that we feel that where these people are committed to these institutions they should have the right to have their case reviewed after a period of time. If the court is of the opinion that this detention is not serving any useful purpose he should be discharged. The position is that the management will have to prove that it serves some useful purpose to retain the inmate in the institution. I think the amendment that has been moved is one which will give the inmate that right to put the case and should receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this position, even if he reconsiders it before this measure goes to the Other Place. The Minister is quite correct when he says there is provision in this Bill for patients in these institutions to appear before the magistrate. That is at the initial stage. Thereafter there is no provision for a man to appear before a judicial officer. Nor is there provision for any type of visitor, such as a prison visitor or, as in the case of ordinary prisoners, circuit judges visiting the institution thus providing an opportunity to the inmates to place their complaints, if any, before a judge. That is the custom in South Africa at the present time. It is to meet the situation of a man who, having been before the magistrate in the first instance and having rightly been committed to an institution of this kind and having spent some time in that institution, believes correctly that he ought to be released. Because the borderline between eccentricity and lunacy is sometimes very difficult to decide upon, and often a very narrow one, and because the decision as to whether that man is to remain there is merely an opinion of an individual or a group of individuals, and because opinions can differ even amongst the most highly qualified individuals, and because to detain a man wrongfully no matter for how short a period and so do away with his freedom is an important factor, I would request the hon. the Minister to reconsider this amendment. The answer he gave that the magistrate has already considered the case does not really meet the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). It is thereafter that the danger of neglect or overlooking arises. There is no safeguard of any kind against that taking place. We have heard of the most scandalous cases in Europe and America where people have been detained for years in institutions, wrongfully, as it turned out in the end.

But the Bill provides that he should only be detained for three years.

With respect, when one is wrongfully detained three years is a very long time.

Clause 18 makes ample provision for an appeal against an order of committal to the court.

I will not detain the Committee long but the point is this that after those proceedings have been gone through and after a period of detention has been served this difficulty could arise. If you had some form of visitor or some form of independent investigation to whom complaints could be made it might meet the situation. As far as this side of the House is concerned it will be best met by making provision for an application of this kind. Quite clearly, Sir, the judicial officer concerned will have a close and careful regard for the expert medical opinion put up should any such application be made. I doubt whether there could be any kind of abuse in it. I would urge upon the hon. the Minister to reconsider his objection to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North).

I do not understand hon. members opposite. When we discussed this Bill at the second reading their attitude was that these maladjusted people and alcoholics were actually patients. In other words, they were sick people, that they either had a psychological defect or a sociological defect because they were maladjusted or they really had a physiological defect and that that was the reason why they were placed in these institutions. Their position is similar to that of a person who is a patient in an ordinary hospital. It is for the doctor, for the person who treats him, to say at what stage he should be discharged. You do not expect such a person to go to court to be discharged. I cannot understand the argument why the court should now again interfere. As the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out we must eliminate the court. The people who are best qualified to judge whether these persons should remain longer in the institutions are those managing that institution. That brings me to the second point, namely, that if the case has to be heard by a court the court will in any case have to decide on the information submitted to it by the management of the institution. You now have to bring in an outsider to judge on the information submitted to him by the management, information on which the management itself would have decided whether or not such a person had been rehabilitated. Why must the court decide? The argument advanced by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) that persons have been detained for years and years does not hold water to-day. Those instances happened under very obsolete laws and those were cases where the people were placed in asylums in respect of which, as we know, the laws of all countries were obsolete. In this case it cannot happen in any case. The longest period is three years. Provision is made in this specific clause that the management can at any time before the expiration of that period release a person if he has been rehabilitated. The only thing we are trying to do is to rehabilitate those people. If a person knows that he can make application within six months you retard his rehabilitation because he sits in that institution with the idea that an injustice has been done to him and that within six months’ time he will exercise his right and leave. You are actually defeating the whole attempt at his rehabilitation. When he comes there he should be separated; he must come there as a patient. He must not come there as an aggrieved person. If he is there as an aggrieved person who will later exercise his rights you will never succeed in rehabilitating him. I am pleased therefore that the hon. the Minister has not accepted this amendment.

I am afraid I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) to pass unanswered. In the first place these people are not similar to those in an ordinary hospital. They are detained against their will. A patient in a hospital is not detained against his will. He can get up and walk out any time he wishes to. He does not have to ask anybody’s permission. I do to some extent agree that if they feel that in six months they can make an application it might perhaps handicap their treatment. It might be better for the hon. the Minister to give consideration, as he has been asked by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), to allow application in 12 months’ time. I have a genuine feeling that we should protect these people. Even if we do occasionally do harm to a patient we nevertheless are protecting people who otherwise are at the mercy of the neglect of people even of goodwill. It is in institutions which have difficulty with nurses and which are short-staffed where patients get lost and are neglected. That is the type of patient whom we are trying to protect and it is that type too which I think the hon. the Minister wants to protect. The only way we can protect him is that he should at least once a year have the right to appeal. Because there must come a time when we can do no more for the man; there must come a time when treatment must cease. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to meet us in this respect and at least give the matter consideration.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 36 put.

It being 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.