I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill [A.B. 94—’63], submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time.

Mr. SPEAKER announced that Mr. van den Heever, as Chairman, had presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill.

I wish to move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this unopposed motion. That is the customary position at this time of the Session. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether he could give us some more definite information as to the legislation the Government desires to pass this Session. I think it is usual to do that at the time of proposing the motion he has just proposed.

I know that is the usual procedure at this time. I have hitherto tried to keep the Whips on the other side informed as to the legislation with which we are going on. I think I can say that we shall be going on with everything that is on the Order Paper, except perhaps some of the financial measures and the second amending Bill on Bantu legislation. Everything else will be proceeded with.

In view of the fact that members have to make arrangements in regard to their private affairs could the hon. the Minister give us some indication as to how long he expects the Session to last.

As the hon. member knows if it were left to the Government the Session would end considerably sooner than it would if left to the Opposition. The end of the Session is generally decided by the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move as an amendment—

The intention of the amendment is to make provision at the end of the clause that any chemist and druggist selling not more than eight fluid ounces of rectified spirits or absolute alcohol for bona fide medicinal use shall be allowed to do so.

As far as I am aware the practice has existed over a number of years, to my personal knowledge for the last 30 years, that if a chemist and druggist is satisfied that a reasonable quantity of alcohol, rectified spirit or absolute alcohol, is required for bona fide medicinal use, it has been supplied on those grounds. It would appear that when the Bill was introduced in 1928 no provision was made for this practice which had gone on over the years. The idea of the amendment is to regularize the matter, and I believe sincerely that there has been no abuse of the practice. I suggest under these circumstances that it would be a protection for a body of professional men who have shown in the past that they have a sense of responsibility in so far as the distribution of medicine and medical preparations are concerned. I also would like to draw attention to the fact that the South African Retail Chemists and Druggists Association has made urgent representations that some form of protection should be embodied in the Act. The limitation is there and I feel that a quantity of eight ounces is a reasonable quantity and that it can hardly lead to abuse.

The position has been correctly set out by the hon. member and I have no objection to this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

That is only to state very clearly what is wine and what is brandy, so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. It is a purely formal amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible to let Clause 3 stand over …

No!

…more particularly until Clause 36 has been dealt with which seems to deal more with the principle than Clause 3.

I have considered this proposal very carefully and originally it seemed as if there was no objection to it, and I was quite prepared to let the matter stand over, but on further consideration and after discussions, it appeared that there are principles involved in both which make it practically impossible for us to carry on this discussion if we permit Clause 3 to stand over. In this regard I believe, and I ask your guidance, Mr. Chairman, that in respect of Clause 3 there can be a very wide discussion in this regard, with reference to Clause 36 too. If I am wrong, I shall appreciate it if you could give the Committee some guidance in the matter.

I am quite prepared to permit reference to Clause 36 here.

Clause 3 amends the vitally important Section 8 of the principal Act which deals with the classification and description of licences. I move—

That is, in other words, sub-paragraph (vi), “grocers’ wine licences”. Mr. Chairman, a good deal of argument was heard during the second-reading debate on this particular aspect of the Bill. I do not intend to repeat that argument, but I wish to put forward a point of view in support of my amendment which I hope will have the support of members of this House. We have heard in the course of the discussions on this Bill that one of the main objects is to try and change the pattern of drinking in South Africa from hard liquor to natural wines, and particular stress has been laid on the fact that wine should be associated with food, and if possible all liquor should be associated with the consumption of food. I appreciate that there is a certain amount of merit in that argument that has been put forward, and therefore I do not intend to move the deletion of the other portion of this clause which enables the issue of licences in respect of “meal time wine licences”. However, Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the issuing of a new type of licence to grocers and to grocery stores. In considering the whole aspect and wisdom of creating a new distribution point for the sale of intoxicating liquor, we must remember that we are setting a pattern which could lead to the aggravation of an already serious problem, the problem of excessive drinking. Now, Sir, the question of bringing this about by creating this new distribution point, in my opinion is merely for the sake of increasing the sale of wine and thereby increasing the consumption of wine. I do not think it is necessarily consistent with the point of view that the sale of wine should also be associated with the sale of food as takes place in a normal groceries shop. I believe that the additional distribution point of wine is an unnecessary risk that this House is being asked to take in respect of the welfare of the community, because the risk of encouraging persons to partake of this intoxicating liquor is going to be a very important factor if this clause is passed in its present form. For instance a person who enters a grocery shop—and remember there are persons of all ages, of all races—will be tempted by an attractive display of this intoxicating liquor and thereby such a person will be tempted and indeed encouraged to purchase this wine, and in many instances those persons who purchase the wine will make sacrifices in other regards and in particular in regard to foodstuffs. The foodstuff which is a vital and essential factor in life is going to be subjected to restrictions and those persons, particularly people who cannot afford the luxury of wine, will be tempted to purchase wine instead of purchasing food. Indeed a statement that appeared in the Wynboer has been brought to my notice. In the November 1961 issue of Wynboer it is stated that wine could replace bread. I believe that is an attitude which certain people hold, and in view of all this, the House is being asked to take a very grave and serious step. Now the question of the opposition that is being raised to the granting of this new type of licence I think should also receive the very serious consideration of this Committee. We must realize that a large section of the community have registered their strong opposition against the creation of this new type of licence. On the other hand, as far as I know, there has not been any demand for bringing about a new type of licence, a grocer’s wine licence. For what reason this has been incorporated in the Bill is very difficult to judge. There have been statements that this is merely the enactment of recommendations of the Malan Commission, but I think that is no argument and I maintain that certain of the statements and recommendations of this commission are not altogether acceptable. For instance they state on page 20 of the Malan Commission Report, dealing with the question of natural wines and beers in grocery shops—

Sir, that conclusion that was arrived at by this commission has been proved to be a complete misjudgment of public opinion, because the exact opposite has occurred. Those persons who are vitally concerned and interested in the evil of excessive use and abuse of liquor have registered the strongest possible opposition to the further distribution point that is to be created by issuing grocers’ wine licences. It is a case of completely misjudging public opinion, and I believe that in addition to this particular observation by the Malan Commission, other observations, such as that the abuse of liquor in the home is unthinkable is also not entirely correct. Reports of social workers and welfare organizations tell us that an increasing problem in those welfare organizations is to cope with the problem of the secretively drinking mother who likes to partake of liquor in her home. It is a problem which does exist. Yet this commission’s observation says that it is unthinkable that that should take place.

The advisability of proceeding with this particular type of licence I think should receive the very serious consideration of hon. members, because we are all agreed, and I know the hon. Minister is sincere in that respect, that the abuse of liquor should be curtailed and that every effort should be made to see that the abuse of liquor does not continue in its present form. But I believe that this is not the correct method, namely by granting a further distribution point, a method which can have the exact opposite effect of curbing the present drinking pattern of South Africa. I believe that a number of those persons who perhaps have not yet taken to intoxicating liquor will be encouraged to do so, and they can well be set on a path of becoming persons who partake of intoxicating liquor, and amongst any such group there will always be a few who are weak-willed and who will want stronger and stronger liquor. So rather than effectively changing the pattern, I believe that by creating a new distribution point, we will encourage the sale and consumption of liquor and it will have a detrimental effect and will be a retrogressive step in the battle to try and bring about a betterment in the drinking pattern of South Africa. It is those persons who go into these grocery shops who will be subject to that temptation. These persons who could quite easily, if they particularly wanted to buy liquor, go into a bottle store will now have the liquor in front of them; they will be tempted to buy the liquor in the grocery shop and the facilities that already exist in the bottle stores are surely adequate for those persons who can afford the luxury of buying wine and drinking wine with their meals. So the whole question here, I believe, is not one of trying to change the pattern in the way of drinking, but this step can have the opposite effect and encourage those to partake of liquor who in the past have seldom or never consumed liquor. The person buying wine in a bottle store—I hold no brief for the bottle-store keeper as such—is under strict control, or at. least the sale is under strict control and supervision. There is some doubt whether the same degree of control and supervision will exist in a grocery store that is issued with a wine licence. In the case of bottle stores there are restrictions as to which person can go into a bottle store and purchase intoxicating liquor; in the case of a grocery shop all and sundry will be permitted to go into that grocery shop and will thereby be able to buy liquor. As we know in some instances, even to-day, persons are often served liquor who are under the age of 18. [Time limit.]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, many of us are in difficulties now after your ruling. It is quite clear what you are going to permit us to discuss on this clause, but what is not clear is what you will permit us to do on Clause 36, to which certain important amendments will be proposed. Will you please give us some guidance? If these amendments to Clause 3 are agreed to, to what extent will it be ruled that we have anticipated the principle contained in Clause 36, namely grocers’ wine licences? To what extent are we then going to be limited to dealing with the matter on its merits, and if we wish to do so, to negative it? What does the Bill mean if Clause 36 is negatived and Clause 3 is amended as proposed by hon. members here? If Clause 3 is amended in respect of grocers’ shops and the principle is negatived in Clause 36, what does the Bill mean then? May I put my own difficulty to you? On Clause 36, I should very much like to vote for the amendment standing on the next page of the Agenda in the name of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). Will I be entitled to do so? Will I be able to discuss it fully? Or will you in accordance with the rules of the House be obliged to rule that the principle has been decided in Clause 3, and that for that reason we are limited as regards Clause 36?

It is clear that the Chair cannot possibly put both clauses simultaneously, but at the same time it is appreciated that a decision on Clause 3 will to a large extent depend on what concession is possibly made in Clause 36. For this reason I am prepared to permit reference to Clause 36 in a discussion on Clause 3, and also that the hon. the Minister on his part may possibly indicate what he is prepared to accept or not to accept. That will enable hon. members to know what attitude they should adopt in regard to Clause 3. But Clause 3 will be put independently and later on Clause 36 will be put independently, together with its amendments.

I do not propose to reply at this stage to arguments raised so far. I shall do so at a later stage after more hon. members have participated in the debate and all the amendments have been put. I merely feel constrained at this stage to bring one matter to the attention of hon. members. I am doing so particularly with reference to what the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) has said that there is agitation against the Bill. I am aware of that fact. I am aware that some of the agitation is quite bona fide and understandable, and I respect that attitude. However, I am aware also that some of the agitation, let me say a lot of it, is not only false, but very mean. It is my duty to bring that to the attention of the House. It has happened that many hon. members, and I think I am not overstating it when I say dozens of members, during the past day or two have received telegrams purporting to emanate from the Churches in the congregations to which they belong. Strangely enough, all the telegrams were handed in at Orange Grove and dispatched from there, and hon. members have been astonished to see that their ministers of religion travelled to Orange Grove to send them telegrams. Hon. members have made inquiries, and they have handed them over to me, to ascertain whether or not these telegrams came from their congregations. It now appears that all the telegrams from Orange Grove, purporting to have emanated from hon. members’ congregations, were dispatched by one Mr. Swart of Orange Grove, every one of them. So it is not only mean, but it is false, and I merely wish to inform hon. members about it. I propose to hand the telegrams to the police for further inquiry. I do not know whether it is an offence, but if it is an offence I feel action should be taken in this regard. Such mean propaganda methods may not be used to influence members one way or the other.

Who is Swart?

In so far as I have been able to find out, he is a proprietor of a bottle store.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that my Church Council has not sent me any telegrams.

They know you too well.

It may be that they now regard me as being beyond redemption. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He has his views, which one respects, and one can only disagree. His whole argument amounted to this really, that the more you make liquor available, the greater are the prospects of it being abused, and the greater will the abuse of liquor be. I think we have a complete answer to that, and that is this: Liquor has been made much more freely available to the Bantu, and there is no sign at all of any greater abuse, of any greater evil. If there is any indication, then it is actually in the opposite direction. I cannot see how your White section of the population, how the White young people, will react in any other manner than the way in which the Bantu have reacted, and I think we can say they have reacted in a very responsible manner. That is my reply to the point of view of the hon. member for Umbilo. Now I move the following amendment—

It amounts to this, that not only light wines, but beer also is made available to grocers’ shops. At the second-reading debate it became very apparent that there can be no objection in principle at all to making available beer in grocers’ shops. With the best will in the world I cannot see how anybody can vote for making available wine in grocers’ shops and then vote against beer also being made available in grocers’ shops, beer which is a liquor incidentally more heavily taxed than wine, a liquor which contributes much more to Treasury than wine. At the very outset I should like to say here that the Minister in Clause 36 limits the making available of wine to grocers’ shops in those areas where wine sales do not represent 40 per cent. Permit me to say that my amendment will be so amended that it will not involve the making available of beer where wine is not made available. In other words, hon. members need not use that argument. My amendment only seeks to make beer available also wherever wine is made available. So there will be no grocers’ shops handling only beer and not wine.

As I showed in my second-reading speech, the Malan Commission found that a tremendous quantity of hard liquor is consumed in South Africa. If time permits me to do so, I shall show that the Malan Commission actually considerably underestimated the position, however seriously they may have stated the position. The Malan Commission recommended that our pattern of drinking should be changed and that we should try to switch over from hard liquor to softer drinks. The Malan Commission specifically recommended not only light wines, but beer also. Now I should like to make this submission: I should like any hon. member to tell me how he could possibly justify the argument that if this Bill is passed in its present form, light wines will be available in the Transvaal to a man who wishes to buy it at 19c a bottle. The man who drinks beer—and this does not apply to people drinking in the hotels, but only to those who drink at home, for the on-consumption at hotels is not affected by this Bill at all—and who wants to consume the same quantity of alcohol in his home that is contained in 19c worth of wine, will have to pay 78c for it, because he will then have to consume three bottles of beer. Nobody must come and tell me that a beer-drinker remains a beer-drinker and a wine-drinker remains a wine-drinker. Mr. Chairman, I know the workers of Vereeniging, I know their habits, I know the workers of the Witwatersrand, and if afterwards those people come to realize that they can buy the same quantity of alcohol for 19c that they now buy for 78c they will switch over to the consumption of wine. The catastrophe will be

Mr. Chairman, if we encourage light wine sales (which I wholeheartedly support) it will not be at the expense of brandy, not at the expense of vodka, not at the expense of gin, but it will be at the expense of the most harmless type of liquor, namely beer. So I cannot see the logic in the proposal to exclude beer and include wine. The hon. the Minister has said that in principle he has no objection at all to the inclusion of beer. His only reason, and a reason of substance, is that he does not wish to touch vested interests. Now I should like to say this to the hon. the Minister in the first place: He does not wish to interfere with the vested interests of bottle stores, and one must respect him for that, but it is as clear as daylight to me that under this legislation as it stands now, he is going to affect the vested interests of the breweries, and I cannot see how you can refuse to prejudice the vested interests of one section of the people while you do prejudice the vested interests of another section of the people. I should like to tell the Minister how serious is the possibility of interfering with the vested interests of bottle stores and of the off-consumption divisions of hotels. Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the second reading too, there are 2,000 off-consumption sales points and bottle stores in South Africa. At 1,617 of these points of distribution (I have obtained these figures from the S.A. Breweries, which as the hon. the Minister knows supplies 95 per cent of the beer in our country) less than 8,000 gallons of beer are sold per annum. That means that the total sales of beer through those 1,617 points, that is to say, through 80 per cent of the bottle stores and off-consumption sales points, produce a turn-over of R2,294,000, and that gives one an average of R1,410 gross income from beer per bottle store or off-consumption sales point. As liquor dealers will tell you, to arrive at the net income on that, you have to divide by four, because the net income is 25 per cent of the gross income. In other words, the profit of 80 per cent of the bottle stores and off-consumption branches derived from the sale of beer varies from R350 to R400 per annum. That shows that those people are not relying so much on beer as is generally assumed. The other 20 per cent will be affected to a greater extent. I openly admit that. However, I should like to submit strongly to the Minister that the Liquor Act cannot be used to provide protection. Vested interests are going to be affected in any case. Protection will have to be given in other ways, and the bottle stores had the windfall when they were given the right to sell liquor to the Bantu. With the best will in the world I cannot see that if beer were made available to grocers, it will even do away with that windfall. But I am willing to go further. I am not unsympathetic to the bottle stores. They have grown up under our legislation, and as I have said, it would be madness to throw them to the dogs now. I should like to make this plea to the Minister. Let him firstly give them the right to sell other commodities too. I am sure that alone will be sufficient to restore their turn-over to where it was before beer was made available to the shops. Secondly, I should like to make this suggestion to the Minister. Let him give the bottle stores a period of adjustment of a year, or even two or three years, to adapt themselves to this new system of distribution. The third thing I wish to suggest is that after he has given the hotels the bottle stores, which meets with my wholehearted approval, let him then freeze the position. Then I say with the greatest measure of conviction the Minister will not be touching vested interests at all. I really do feel that that argument of the vested interests will be better met by the suggestions I am now making.

What must they sell?

They may sell delicatessen or cigarettes or cigars, and that will provide them with more than enough turnover to maintain their position.

The next point I should like to make is the misconception in the House of how much beer actually is consumed in South Africa. According to the figures given by the Minister, 39 per cent of the volume of liquor consumed in South Africa is beer. That is quite correct. The Malan Commission also based its recommendations on those figures, and they came to the conclusion that hard liquor and fortified wines constitute 45 per cent to 49 per cent of liquor consumption, but they have made the fatal mistake of equating one gallon of brandy with one gallon of wine and one gallon of beer. [Time limit.]

I believe, with the hon. member for Vereeniging, that there should be a change in our pattern of drinking and I would subscribe to his point of view that beer be included with light wines, but I do not subscribe to the point of view that grocery shops should sell wine. The matter has been dealt with at length and I do not want to elaborate much, except to say that I believe that one of the results will be that eventually the standard of our wine will drop. There will be competition between the bottle stores and the grocers, and each one will lower the price in turn and the price will go down and down, which will have the natural effect of the quality of the wine becoming lower and lower, until you reach the stage, as in France, that the vin ordinaire is like a mixture of vinegar and methylated spirits. The second reason is this. It has been said that women will now go into grocery shops to buy their wine. What will happen is that on the husband’s account at the end of the month there will not be two bottles of wine, but three cakes of soap. That happens even to-day.

I would like to move the amendment standing in my name—

I would like to make it quite clear, because there appears to be some misunderstanding on the subject, that this applies only to mealtime licences for lodging-houses and it has nothing to do with restaurants. I object to a licence being granted to a boarding-house. There are two types of boarding-houses. There is what is called the private hotel, which is a very excellent institution. It is usually a good building with numerous private bathrooms and lounges and all the facilities of an hotel. If those people want licences, they should apply for an hotel licence. But throughout the country we have thousands of boarding-houses catering for the younger people, and the granting of a licence to this type of boarding-house will have the effect of enforced social drinking. What happens is this. A young man or woman lives in a boardinghouse for about R30 a month. They normally do not drink, or drink very little, but they invite a friend for a meal, and if liquor is available social decency demands that the host shall ask the visitor to have a drink, when neither of them really wants a drink, and that is the start of social drinking. I sincerely hope that this clause will not be passed.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I may say it is related to the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo which I also support. As far as I can see we are trying to do two things. On the one hand we want to help the hotels to progress and to maintain a better standard, and on the other hand, we want to teach the public to take light wines rather than hard liquors. I do not believe you can teach people by legislation to drink this or that. I believe the wine industry has shamefully neglected its duty, because they have never launched a publicity campaign to tell the public of the merits of their lighter liquors as against the harder liquors. The people in many parts of the country hardly know there is such a thing as light wine. I think the first requirement is that the people should advertise their product properly. We have the example of the type of wine sold and drawn through a refrigerating system in drinking places. These people are advertising systematically. I understand the turnover of those people has increased twenty-fold since they began to advertise two years ago. But nobody who wishes to market an article, can bring it to the notice of the public and popularize it unless he advertises it regularly, and that is a shortcoming in our wine trade. When you discuss the matter with the producers of wine, they say the K.W.V. may not advertise, because they sell it. That is a senseless argument to me. The K.W.V. handles that product and they may place general advertisements to boost that product, without mentioning the specific names of the types of wine. Or otherwise the wine producers could club together and place advertisements. The public will then in due course know what there is.

But I should like to say a word or two about the grocers’ shops. I should like to ask the Minister what is a grocer’s shop? There is no such thing in South Africa. You have general dealers who specially concentrate upon groceries, but there is no definition in any law of a grocer’s shop. What are we going to find now? Take any town. There is a general dealer who has a grocer’s section, and it is a high quality shop. There is another person who only sells groceries, but his shop is not of such high quality. The two apply for a licence and the general dealer gets it. The man who sells only groceries then will appeal to the courts, and he will ask the courts to define what is a grocer’s shop. We shall be encouraging lawsuits in order to get a definition of a grocer’s shop.

I do not know why we want to do so many things simultaneously in this Bill. In the early ’forties Parliament said postal votes were handled by too few people, and they then permitted just about every person in the country to handle postal votes, and to-day we are having a headache about it. We must guard against having too many points of distribution. If we want to help the hotels, we must give the hotels more facilities and as far as I am concerned, the bottle stores can be given a period of ten years and then they must all be incorporated in hotels, or otherwise they will lose their licences. I would even say that the provision for the establishment of more new bottle stores when the quota of voters rises should be omitted. Let all the liquor trade go to the hotels. Then we shall have proper hotels.

I now come to the meal-time licences. I like this a lot. My constituency has a lot of boarding-houses, decent private hotels, but the vast majority of people living in those hotels are young civil servants. We often receive letters from people in rural districts asking where they can find boarding for their children in Pretoria at a place where they will not come into contact with liquor. Many of the private hotels deliberately refuse to have anything like that, because they are afraid the young people will be led into temptation and so they do not apply for liquor licences. The quality of the accommodation is quite good enough for them to be able to become licensed hotels.

But they do not have to apply for a licence.

I know that, but my point is this, that we are doing a very dangerous thing here. However, I concede that whereas it is limited only to mealtimes, the danger can be kept within bounds. Every day one sees, particularly in the north, that when you take people to lunch, there are some who only want to drink beer with their meals. Why should I, when I have guests at such a place, only be able to give dry wines to those who want it, but be unable to provide beer for those who wish to drink beer? I do not think the trade will be prejudiced if we were to provide that beer may be included in the meal-time licences. It is my opinion that the turn-over of liquor in those boarding-houses I know will not be so great that they will order it direct from the producers. They will buy it from the local wholesale bottle stores. I hope the Minister will accept this suggestion. However, it is difficult to tell the Minister to accept something, for he has no Whip behind him. So I hope hon. members will accept it.

I wish to discuss one further point only. The percentage stipulated in Clause 36 with a view to the grant of a grocer’s licence may be changed, the Minister has said, but why insert something of that nature when it has no practical value? It shows the people already are afraid that things may go wrong, and therefore they want to change the percentage. In principle I am opposed to the whole idea of a grocer handling liquor, and I repeat there is no such thing as a grocer. If we were to say that remotely situated shops not less than five miles distant from the premises of a liquor dealer or an hotel, may obtain a licence to sell liquor, there is something to be said for it. In the Pharmacy Act such provision is made. If all the grocers in Pretoria were to apply for liquor licences and were granted their licences, just about the entire liquor trade in Pretoria will be in my constituency and in that of the hon. member for Prinshof, and I do not think that is what is intended in the Bill. I should like to appeal to hon. members and to the Minister to dispense with these grocers’ licences and let us rather build up the hotels properly, and I appeal to the producers of liquor to advertise their product. It is not our duty as Members of Parliament to be the advertising agents of the wine farmers.

As the amendments have now been put, I should like to state my point of view in respect of these two matters which have been raised by way of amendment by the hon. members for Vereeniging and Pretoria (Central). The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) has said that the wine industry is to be blamed for not selling more of their product. If by that the hon. member meant that he blames the wine farmers or the K.W.V. for that, I have to disagree very strongly with him, because I do not think it can be expected at all of the wine farmers to make that propaganda; and if it cannot be expected of them, it cannot be expected of the K.W.V., for the simple reason that this Parliament has deprived the K.W.V. of the right, rightly or wrongly, to market their products in South Africa, and if Parliament has deprived the K.W.V., and through it the farmers, of the right to market their product, it is not fair to expect them to make the propaganda in regard to their product.

Cannot we restore that right to them?

That is not a matter which is relevant here. Sometimes, when I become fed up, I feel I would very much like to handle such an Act. But we are bound by the law. Parliament deprived the K.W.V. and the wine farmers of that right, and gave it to the liquor trade. I would suggest that not only the privileges, but also the duties and obligations were thereby imposed on the liquor trade to see to it that the right type of liquor is supplied. So I want to differ from the hon. member in that regard. For the rest, the hon. member has moved an amendment. His amendment, of course, to a large extent contradicts the speech he made, but let me say at once that his amendment is much better than his speech. [Laughter.] For that reason I have not the least objection to accepting the hon. member’s amendment, for as much as it may be worth, and I shall vote for it. It is good and proper, I think, that we should accept the amendment because it cannot be said here that we are interfering with vested interests. For that reason, and to link up with what I said at the second reading, I am not at all averse to accepting the hon. member’s amendment. I may say that originally the people concerned, the private hotel proprietors, did not ask for beer, apparently because the representation came from down here and the people hereabouts are not quite so keen on drinking beer at meals. But I think the hon. member has made out a case for it that there are people who do prefer to drink beer with their meals, and so it is right to grant that right.

Then we come to the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging. I put my point of view at the second reading, and for what it is worth I am repeating it now. I admitted that in principle I have no objection to the supply of beer together with wine in the grocers’ shops which qualify for it. But I am faced with two problems, and every hon. member is also confronted with these two problems. On the one hand we are anxious to change the pattern of drinking so that people will drink softer liquor, and if that is our argument, we of course have no case against beer; then we must say beer and wine must go together, as the Malan Commission said. But there is the other argument, and I regard myself as committed to that, because I have based my case on it, that vested interests should not be touched. If it were vested rights in the usual sense of the word, where any man could obtain that right by the normal process of taking out a licence, I could still have accepted it, but I cannot rid myself of the fact that we said, by Act of Parliament. rightly or wrongly, that in some cases people have to pay R10,000 whereas in other cases they pay R5,000. In other words, we forced them to pay a very high price for that licence, and when so much has been paid, not because those people wished to do so, but because the law compelled them to do so, I must take that into account.

I hope you will not take a firm decision on that now.

No, I am merely putting my point of view. I have to consider the two things, and I have based my whole case on the question of vested interests, and committed to that argument. Therefore as far as I am concerned—and I have told the hon. member so too—I am sorry that I personally cannot vote for his amendment, in spite of the fact that I endorse every word of his arguments. But I must weigh the two against each other, and I am afraid I have to adhere to my point of view.

I want to ask the Minister: If we could satisfy the Minister with a good enough argument that the vested interests that must be protected can be compensated for their possible losses, will he receive it sympathetically?

Of course it is very difficult to reply to that now. It will depend upon the arguments used by the hon. member. I am merely stating my present point of view.

While I am on my feet, I should like to cross swords with the hon. member for Park-town in respect of his statement that the quality of our wine will be diminished. I do not know very much about the matter, but the little I do know tells me that the quality of our wines is constantly being improved, and improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and I do think that instead of the quality thereof being diminished, it will be improved, and therefore I do not entertain the slightest fear in that regard.

I should also like to put my point of view in regard to the moral question. I am not going to argue on that any longer. I have stated my point of view at the second reading, and we discussed it for eight hours. Unless new arguments are raised I do not propose to react to it in the Committee Stage.

Can the Minister justify having an additional point of distribution in the form of the grocer’s shop?

That is the crux of the whole matter and I can dispose of it in one sentence. That is what this Bill deals with. We want another point of distribution because the present points of distribution have done nothing in this connection. There are a sufficient number of existing points of distribution, but they were unable or unwilling to do their share in rectifying the drinking pattern, and for that reason alone we want this point of distribution. I have told hon. members that we have only a certain quantity of alcohol and it flows in three channels, in the channel of brandy or of fortified wine or of natural wine. It does not become more or less. Our point of view is that the brandy channel and the fortified wine channel are too wide and too little is flowing through the natural wine channel, and for that reason we want this other point of distribution in order to make this stream flow more strongly. Because there is only a given quantity of alcohol, it is self-evident that if more flows into the natural wine channel, there will be less in the other two channels, and that is all we desire. The quantity of alcohol will not be increased because the points of distribution are increasing.

Why not?

For the simple reason that only a certain quantity is produced each year and because quotas are fixed, as hon. members know. Those quotas are fixed so that there cannot be further additional planting of vines for purposes of wine production. Admittedly that does not apply to table grapes but quotas have been fixed for wine purposes. Let me say this to hon. members of the Highveld: If you were to buy a farm in the western Cape to-day, you cannot plant as many vines as you wish, as they can do in the Highveld. When you buy a farm here in the western Cape at the present time, you buy a farm with a quota of so many leaguers, and you may not produce more than that quantity.

If less of that quota were exported, surely more would be available for the internal market.

Order! Hon. members must stop asking questions. They may put their questions in the course of their speeches.

Yes, it is obvious if less is exported, but the object of the K.W.V. is to exploit the overseas markets because it is more profitable than the internal market. Do hon. members think for a single moment that you will abandon your more profitable external market for the less profitable internal market? That is then my attitude in any event as far as that matter is concerned, and for that reason I gladly accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). I have already stated my point of view regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging.

I cannot believe that this clause does anything else but encourage the increased sale of light wines. The whole object of this clause is to encourage the sale of light wines. I do not believe that it is going to affect the pattern of drinking in one way or another. Sir, people get into the habit of drinking whisky and I would like to see any law made which makes a man who has been accustomed to drinking whisky, switch to light wine. The whole pattern, the whole distribution of light wine is such that it is not going to change a man’s pattern of drinking. Nobody is going to go into a bar or a pub and drink out a bottle of wine. He takes a short drink, brandy or whisky or gin, and he goes out again. It is going to take him a very long time to drink out a bottle of wine in a bar. He is only going to drink wine with his meals at home or in a restaurant. I would like to see the restaurants sell more wine and the only way in which they can do that is if the Government takes steps to see that they do not overcharge. That is what the Government should do. You do not need more distribution points. The Government should fix the price of wine to bring it within the reach of the man in the street. If people want to drink it and they can afford it, well and good. Sir, I have heard such a lot of sentimental slush here about the virtues of light wines that it has really become sickening. It is nonsensical for members to come here and to tell me about the virtues of light wines and their harmlessness. Anybody who says that they are harmless must be walking about the streets of Cape Town blindfolded. One only has to go a hundred yards from this House to see the effects of the natural wines of South Africa. They are very good wines, but they contain too much alcohol. A wine with an alcohol content of 14 per cent is no longer a light wine; it is a very potent wine. Sir, any member who makes a comparison between the effects of light wine and the pleasure it gives and the effects of beer and the pleasure that beer gives the drinker, must vote wholeheartedly in favour of beer. Sir, what do you do when you go into a shop to-day and buy your groceries? You go into the self-service department and you go to those parts which are most attractive. Is the Minister going to encourage the sale of more wine in the grocery shops and go against the statement which he has just made that the amount sold will be constant? Obviously what is going to happen in the self-service places is that the most attractive-looking bottle of wine is going to be sold. It will depend on the attractiveness of the label and the shape of the bottle, not so much on the contents, and people will go in and buy more than they should buy. I say therefore that the Minister must not allow the sale of wine in self-service stores. If the Minister is so concerned about changing the pattern of drinking and if he wants drinking to go hand in hand with eating, why does he not allow bottle stores to sell food? Let the bottle stores start selling roast turkeys and hams and roast beef. If the grocer can sell wine, why should the bottle store not sell food? That is the way to do it. Sir, this whole Bill is designed to encourage the drinking of wine—nothing else. Well, it is a good thing for the wine farmers. If the Minister wants to point a finger at those people who have been lobbying in favour of one or the other cause here, then my question is whether the wine farmer is blameless. Has he not lifted a finger to ask for protection or for increased sales? Oh no! But the Minister is quick to point a finger at the others who are looking after their interests. If the Minister wants to protect the wine farmer, well and good; it is an industry in our country which must be protected, but the secret came out in the Minister’s second-reading speech. He said that they have 2,000,000 gallons of wine which could not be sold because there was no market for it. It could not be sold; it had to be re-distilled into brandy. Sir, can the citrus farmers distill their excess citrus? What happens to it? What happens to the pawpaw farmers and to the mealie farmers? What do they do with their products? Can they distil it? No, we have to be realistic about this matter. I say that if you are going to open up channels for the sale of one particular liquor through grocery shops, then you must open up those channels for the rest as well. That is why I support for once, over a long period, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The most important point that has emerged from this argument is this question of off-sales licences. The Government is going to encourage off-sales licences; it is going to encourage the hotels to do better and it immediately puts an obstacle in their way by giving the right to grocery shops to go into competition with the very off-sales departments which the Government is creating. What sort of balance of distribution is that? I think it is ridiculous and I say the sooner we get rid of this clause the better for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, we have only a certain number of hours in which to discuss this matter. We have now discussed this one clause for a whole hour. I move—

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

I am glad to see that my colleague here who is also my neighbour in Johannesburg thinks so much of the merits of beer and I certainly hope that he is going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and for the amendment for the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), because I intend to vote for them. Sir, I want to deal with the two points made by the Minister in the hope that I shall be able to persuade him to think again as to how he is going to vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging, and also because I feel that there are certain issues which must be clarified in regard to this Bill. It seems to me that other hon. members who intend to vote against this, are compromising their own thinking. On the one hand they wish to see a change in the drinking pattern of South Africa, and let me say immediately that there has been a lot of talk here about the drinking pattern but too little talk about drinking habits. One can talk about the drinking pattern as it affects your nation, but we are concerned about the effects of liquor on the individual, and that goes hand in hand with the question as to how the drinking pattern affects the drinking habits of the individual. The Minister has said that that is one of the reasons why he is going to vote for the provisions of this clause, because he wants to see an alteration in the drinking pattern, but he is not going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister and other hon. members who may share his views: If a man is in the habit of drinking beer, must we try to persuade him to drink light wine which may possibly lead to the evils which have been enunciated by those hon. members who are going to vote against this provision? I submit to the Minister and to other hon. members who think along those lines that that is a completely unrealistic argument to put before us because the effect of it will be that if wines are going to be made more easily available, those who drink low alcoholic beverages such as beer may change their drinking habits and switch to light wine which obviously has a higher alcoholic content.

I come now to the way in which the Minister and others are compromising themselves with regard to the so-called vested interests in the liquor trade. I want to say at once that I cannot see how any body of persons concerned with the distribution of liquor can claim that they have a vested right through legislation passed by this House through the years which was based on outdated social thinking in regard to liquor judged by modern-day standards. The legislation under which the present bottle-store distribution of liquor developed grew out of the concept that drinking itself was evil and further that it was an evil thing for the White man of South Africa to make it easily acceptable to the millions of non-Whites. It was for these reasons that points of distribution were restricted. Sir, the fact that members voted in this House—some members, let me say, who have voted against the second reading of this Bill voted for the Bantu Liquor Bill. When we see this change in our whole social approach towards the consumption and distribution of liquor it is to me incredible that they can get up and talk about protecting vested interests. I cannot understand the Minister when he says that he is going to vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging because he recognizes that there is a vested right on the part of bottle stores to distribute beer and that the volume of business that is available to them should not be reduced. But the Minister is introducing this principle himself in later clauses that we will consider in this Bill. He is going to create, at least in the Transvaal Province, a further 300 outlets for liquor sales, for beer and for spirits. He is himself going to create that by the extension of bottle-store licences to hotels. In other words, the existing volume of business in the Transvaal for example, as far as beer sales are concerned, will be reduced by the new licences that will be granted as far as existing hotels are concerned in competition with those bottle stores which have licences at the present time. Mr. Chairman, it is a nonsensical argument to come and say on the one hand we must alter the drinking pattern of South Africa because it has dangerous trends and then to come along and say we must protect the vested interests. How must we legislate in this House, Sir? Do we legislate for the public interest as a whole, for the millions of people, or are we legislating here to protect the interests of some 890 bottle-store licences. That is the plain simple issue to me, and therefore I say that I am voting for the amendment because I do not see any reason at all why bottle stores should sit in a privileged position in regard to the distribution of a beverage which has a low alcoholic percentage. Let me point out to the Minister another point, and other hon. members that may have escaped their notice who may be voting for the grocer’s wine licence. If this Bill becomes law, in fact, those grocers who will be licensed to sell wine will also have the right to sell Bantu beer. It is quite clear in terms of the Bantu Beer Bill, Section 11. Section 11 states this—

It does not describe what kind of liquor licence. Anybody who is licensed to sell liquor may be entitled to sell Bantu beer. It is obvious that there are large numbers of members who support this provision, and once we agree to the grocer’s wine licence, any grocer who gets a wine licence will be entitled to distribute Bantu beer.

Why not?

If he can distribute Bantu types of beer why cannot he distribute European types of beer? And what is the difference in alcoholic percentage? 1.2 per cent. It is a fact that in Johannesburg to-day, on the Witwatersrand—the hon. member for Vereeniging will support what I say here; I can support it for my constituency and I am sure the hon. member for Rosettenville can support it for his constituency-—Native beer is also becoming a European drink to-day on the Witwatersrand largely, let me say, because of the price, and it is a pleasant drink when it is chilled. So I submit to hon. members and particularly to the hon. the Minister that the argument that he has submitted here to-day on the one hand to change the drinking pattern of South Africa for the people who drink a high alcoholic beverage and on the other hand he says, “I am in the difficulty that I have to satisfy vested interests”, I cannot accept it.

You are wrong, of course, as far as Bantu beer is concerned.

Well, I read the Act just as it stands.

Read Section 69 of the Liquor Act.

The Minister can explain the position to me; maybe I am wrong there but on the surface it looks as if anybody who is licensed to sell liquor may sell Bantu beer. It does not qualify the nature of the licence that is granted. Anyway, I will look at that section, I cannot do it now. But I put it to the Minister: I am not directing my argument directly at the Minister; I do it for all other members who have a similar point of view. But I put it to the Minister that it does not seem to me to be logical that on the one hand he wants to protect the interest of 890 bottle stores and on the other hand he wants to alter the pattern and the evils of drinking for millions of people in South Africa. Now, which is the greater interest? Let us face it from that point of view. Which is best in the national interest—to alter this drinking pattern or to protect the interests of these few bottle store people? Because I support entirely what the hon. member for Vereeniging has said here, that the whole trend of liquor distribution gives a limited life to the liquor selling industry as it exists in our country to-day and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the standpoint he has taken in the light of the arguments I have submitted and that other hon. members will support me in the case I have made here.

I do not propose to make a Cape to Cairo speech here. I think we have had enough of that during the second-reading debate. I merely wish to say that as far as I myself am concerned, I am opposed to this clause and that I shall vote against it because it creates further distribution points for liquor. I am opposed to further points of distribution under our Liquor Act, and so I cannot support this clause. We know the history of liquor; we know the misery and grief liquor has caused in our country, and I am not happy in supporting a measure that will create further distribution points. I wish to refer briefly to the figure we have been given by the Temperance Alliance, namely that our country is already saddled with 20,000 female alcoholics. In the second place, I wish to mention as evidence against this measure, the measure introduced here a few weeks ago by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare in regard to the rehabilitation of alcoholics. I mention as a further fact the tightening up of punishments for people driving motor vehicles while under the influence of liquor. We know that at the present time it is an offence that is regarded in a very serious light, almost as bad as murder itself. The reason why the penalties have been made more stringent is the fact that the liquor evil is growing and the legislature is doing everything in its power to combat abuse of liquor and the consumption of liquor in general. My colleague, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has made the remark here that he fortunately received no protests from any church. I have here six telegrams of protest. I do not know which of us is the better off—I who have received six protests or he who has not received a single one—but I should like to read these telegrams for the record [Translated]—

Mr. Chairman, there are hon. members who are laughing at it, who are scoffing at it. I am one of the silent members in this House and I do not like to interrupt hon. members; I am not saying I have never done so, but these interjections are revealing an attitude of mind which in my view is not worthy of this House. There is tension outside among our people in regard to this Bill, and we must not interrupt each other recklessly. Mr. Chairman, I have decided to vote against this clause.

It seems that most hon. members who are opposed to this clause adopt the attitude that a number of new distribution points are being created here and that is all. For example, the hon. member who has just sat down spoke about drunkenness and the abuse of liquor and he said that we are coming forward with a Bill which will result in liquor being consumed on a larger scale. I want to tell hon. members who reason in this way that they are not considering the matter from the correct point of view. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), for example, whom we know as an honest person who usually studies his subjects, is completely wrong in his approach to this problem. He also sees this matter from the point of view that if more natural wines are consumed than is the case to-day, drunkenness will increase. The whole aim of this Bill is to change the position as we know it to-day. What is happening to-day is that liquor is being abused, particularly strong liquor. The underlying idea in this Bill is that we must try to lead the public in the direction of using natural wines so that they will leave strong liquor alone. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) adopt the attitude that it is not possible to turn people away from strong liquor by making light wines available to them. But it has been proved that this is so.

Where?

In Belgium. In 1920 a Mr. and Mrs. Feldsman who felt very strongly about this matter went to Belgium. They were people who were held in high esteem by the Government. They were able to convince their Government that the Belgians had become a nation drinking strong liquor. They said that more emphasis should be placed upon natural liquors and that the use of other liquors should be discouraged, and that was done. And do you know what the position in Belgium is to-day? Less strong liquor is used in Belgium to-day than in any other country. I think it is 0.26 gallons per capita a year. I am speaking now of hard liquor. That is the position there. The people of Belgium drink more beer than wine to-day and what they drink is a natural liquor.

What are the prices?

That is not relevant. What is relevant is whether it is possible to change the drinking pattern of a country by making light liquor more easily obtainable and strong liquor more difficult to obtain. In that sense the price of liquor is relevant because the price of strong liquor must be higher. It is the aim of all supporting this Bill to bring about a change in the drinking pattern of South Africa and to encourage people to drink natural liquor. We have seen this succeed in other countries and we are trying to do it here now by means of this Bill.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has advocated the inclusion of beer in this clause. He is quite right. Beer is a light liquor and it ought also to be included. That was why the commission recommended that beer and wine be made more easily available and be supplied to grocers for sale to the public. But there is something in this Bill that is in conflict with the attitude that we adopt. In Clause 36 we provide that if the existing distribution channels, which sell practically only strong liquor, very much more strong liquor than anything else, sell more than 40 per cent of these natural liquors, then we will not allow those natural liquors to be sold in those districts by grocers. There is an amendment to the effect that the percentage should be lowered to 15 per cent and 30 per cent, but that is not relevant now. Now we come to beer. If we look at the figures we find that a great deal of beer is sold in Natal. In Natal beer represents 53 per cent of all liquor sold. In the Orange Free State it represents 36 per cent of all liquor sales and in the Transvaal, 49 per cent. If one has the right to protect the wine industry where more than 40 per cent of the total sales is made through the existing channels, then one ought also to protect the breweries. This is the difficulty with which the hon. the Minister is faced, but it is not a matter on which every hon. member must decide. If one wants to protect natural wines by not permitting the sales of natural wines in grocer shops where the existing channels are selling more than a certain percentage of those wines, then one must also protect beer. I think that every person must judge for himself in regard to this matter but if we adopt the attitude that we want to make light liquors more easily obtainable, then beer ought to be included.

I come now to what the hon. member for Rosettenville said. The hon. member had hold of the wrong end of the stick. He said that the underlying idea of this Bill was merely the sale of natural wines on a larger scale. Of course that is so. He is correct there; that was the only thing which he said that was correct. The idea is to sell more natural wines because if one sells more natural wines one will sell less of the others. He wanted proof in that regard. I gave him the example of Belgium. He could not have been here otherwise he would have heard it. Therefore, because it could be done there, we should also be able to reduce the consumption of strong liquor.

Another point in regard to which he was completely wrong was to mention 14 per cent in regard to the alcohol content of natural wines. That is completely wrong. That is the maximum that is given in the Bill. That maximum is given so that if someone sells natural wines the alcohol content of which is in excess of 14 per cent, he can be prosecuted. Does the hon. member not know that 80 per cent of our white wines contain less than 12 per cent alcohol? These are not my figures; these are the figures of the K.W.V. The reasons why this 14 per cent provision has been inserted in the Bill are as follows: There are some of our red wines that contain 13.5 per cent alcohol. To make quite sure that those people selling natural wines do not break the law the figure is given at 14 per cent; 80 per cent of our white wines are below 12 per cent. Many of our wines are as low as 11 per cent. Generally speaking therefore we can say that 90 per cent of our wines have an average alcohol content of from 9 per cent to 12 percent. Neither is it correct to say that the wines of Europe are far lighter than ours. If we take the figure of from 9 per cent to 12 per cent in the case of our South African wines, we can say that the European wines are from about 8 per cent to 11 per cent. There is therefore not a very great difference. People who have a knowledge of these matters say that when we compete with European wines we are able to compete in any class as far as low alcohol content, average alcohol content and high alcohol content are concerned. In the case of the countries where wine is drunk instead of water, it is wrong to say that those wines are such light wines and that those wines do not cause drunkenness; that they have no effect. Our whole approach to this problem is wrong. Our wine is good wine; the alcohol content of our wine is not too high. Our wine has improved greatly over the last 5 years. Research is being done on a large scale to-day by the K.W.V. to improve our wines even further by way of temperature control. Private entrepreneurs are doing the same. We are therefore in the fortunate position of having first-class wine. We now have the chance of popularizing that good wine that is only popular in the Western Province to-day in the other provinces as well, of doing something good. My request to this Committee is that we must do so by passing this Bill.

One expects the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) to adopt the attitude which he has because he was the chairman of the commission. But I am afraid I am not convinced by his arguments. He referred to Belgium, but surely the hon. member knows what they tried to do in Sweden. To suggest that you can alter the pattern of drinking by legislation and by legislation alone is a myth. I was in Sweden at the time when that law applied. You had a certain quantity of strong liquor allocated to you every month. The same applied in the case of wines. If a person became intoxicated during the month he lost his book for a month. They tried by legislation to ensure that the consumption of spirits was controlled per head of the population. They limited the quantity a person could consume; they taxed it very high; the prices were high, but after many years’ trial Sweden revoked that legislation. They failed to alter the pattern of drinking by legislation. In spite of high taxation and in spite of legislation Sweden failed. Quite rightly the hon. member for Hercules said that they had a low spirit consumption in Belgium, but their figure for wine consumption is higher than ours. Belgium has the highest consumption of beer of all the countries.

Mr. Chairman, what we are concerned about is the sale of alcohol in grocery shops. People can speculate as to the effect that is going to have, but I want to support the plea made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He illustrated some of the disadvantages that would flow from this. If anybody has any doubt about this I suggest they go to Rhodesia. I go to Rhodesia regularly and I know many South African families up there. They have told me that one of the things they do not like is liquor in grocers’ shops. They say, first of all, it puts temptation in the way of young people and secondly they do not like seeing young children carting liquor about in the streets. We know the pattern of ordering from grocers’ shops in this country.

Young people cannot buy it.

The housewife orders groceries and she asks her young child of 15 or 16 to call for those groceries on the way home. What is going to happen? Is the grocer going to leave out the liquor bottle?

There it is also hard liquor.

Yes, they sell hard liquor In the grocers’ shops in Rhodesia. I want to make it quite clear that in Rhodesia they sell all liquor in grocers’ shops not only wines. The South Africans I have met in Rhodesia object to the temptation which is put in the way of young people and, from the point of view of the housewife, to having liquor easily available from grocery stores.

Surely that argument also applies to the bottle stores.

No; a young child does not fetch it. The Minister knows that a young child cannot enter a bottle store but he can enter a grocer store. The Minister knows very well what I mean. It will encourage the lower income groups to spend their money on wine instead of food. It will make it easier for young people to acquire liquor. It will increase the potential temptation as far as alcoholics are concerned. Mr. Chairman, I think those are all strong arguments in favour of not having liquor easily available in groceries’ stores. The hon. member for Hercules seems to think this will alter the pattern of drinking. I am sorry, I disagree. The whole object of this Bill is to increase the sale of wines by the wine industry. That is the object and that alone. It would be much better to say so frankly.

Then we would have made everything free.

We are dealing with the sale of wines. I cannot argue the question of other liquors. We are dealing with this specific clause before us which provides for the sale of light wines in groceries stores. I have beard no argument in favour of extending these facilities. This is a commodity which requires control. Everybody admits that. The Minister admitted that in the second reading. I submit that, as this is a commodity which requires control, those who are to-day responsible for that control are best qualified to control that commodity.

There is something else. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has given consideration to this. This is something which I commend to him. If this clause is passed will the Minister of Finance demand that records of sales of light wines be kept separately from the sales of other commodities? It is very easy to lose the total sales of wines in the total sales of groceries. The hotel with an off-sales licence is to-day required by the Revenue Department to run separate accounts for bottle-store sales and bar sales so that the Department of Inland Revenue can calculate the percentages as between off-sales and bar. If the percentage sale is not up to the general average the Department of Inland Revenue has the power to estimate an assessment and to assess the taxpayer on the profits he should have received. I see nothing in this Bill to stop the grocer including wine sales in his groceries sales. At the end of the year he can show the same gross profit. The opportunity for defeating the Revenue Department is greater if no such requirement is laid down by the Minister of Finance. It will be possible to tuck profits away and in that way to avoid tax.

I want to raise another matter which was also dealt with by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and which the Minister dismissed as unsound. He suggested that we would have a lower quality wine in the grocery shops. I do not know whether the Minister has a great deal of experience in connection with large retail organizations. If he has he will know that over the last couple of years it has been customary for these large organizations to have their own special brand of goods. They say to the manufacturer: “We do not want your grade A groceries; we want a special grade for ourselves at such and such a price.” They place a large order with the manufacturer and the manufacturer is faced with this position that in order to provide the goods at that price he has to provide goods of a lower quality in order to give that large volume. And he does so. Mr. Chairman, ask the fishing industry; ask the various food industries and they will tell you that they have been put into that position. I can quite imagine, if this clause goes through, that these large retail organizations will go to the wine industry and say: “Pack us a light table wine selling at such and such a price.” They will then display it attractively on their shelves and put it up as a special offer over week-ends …

Do you think they will want a lower quality with their name on?

It is quite clear that the Minister of Information does not know what goes on. [Time limit.]

I only want to deal with one point and that is the point made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), that young children will now be able to collect wine in the groceries store while on their way home. I take it the argument goes further and that the young child will probably consume it on the way home.

I did not imply that …

The argument was that the young child would collect the wine and by collecting the wine temptation will be put into the young child’s way; otherwise there is no substance in his argument. If the child is not tempted, then, of course, there is no substance in the argument.

You will be conditioning the child to regard wine as a food.

That is a different argument altogether. I understood the hon. member to say that temptation would be put in the way of the child. Be that as it may. Be it that his argument is the temptation argument; be it that his argument is the fact that the child gets used to the sight of wine, the position is covered by Section 92 of the Act. We must now not lose sight of that. Section 92 of the Act reads as follows—

These are the operative words, Sir—

And if a grocer sells liquor it is also a licensed premises—

Therefore little Johnny cannot collect mother’s groceries at 13 or 14 years of age if light wine is included in the grocery order. If the hon. member has qualms about that he need not have them because the position is covered by the Act.

I have no interests in any section of the liquor trade. I rise as one who wants to protect vested interests. I want to be very clear in this regard because I feel that during the course of this debate an undeserved stigma has been attached to this industry in the Republic. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, these people did not steal their licenses or obtain them unlawfully; they paid for their licences under the laws of the land; they bought those licences in order to carry on that calling as good citizens. My experience is that those people are not smugglers or drunkards but they are persons who also see their way clear to serve on local church councils and other bodies, persons who occupy an honourable place in society. Because this is so, I personally feel that we should have more points of distribution for the sale of that wine; that this distribution should take place on a wider basis, not necessarily on a deeper basis. In other words, I have no objection to more people buying wine because I am not an abstainer myself. There are however a few problems that I would like to raise and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will reply to them. One of my problems is this: In this Bill I miss an acceptable definition of “grocer shop” and “restaurant I find no official definition of these two concepts. Mention is made here of a restaurant as a place where meals are served at a minimum price; where regular meals are served and where there are normal facilities. But what does this mean? Can an ordinary café also qualify as a restaurant? I would like to hear the views of the hon. the Minister in this connection. I miss an official definition of these two concepts.

In the second instance I personally feel the need to tell the hon. the Minister that I have every sympathy with him in his difficulty of trying to satisfy the views and convictions of all these people. I want to put it to him quite fairly on the basis of the attitude that I have already adopted. As far as interference with existing rights is concerned—nobody will make me change my mind in this regard—I maintain that the appropriate channels to be exploited for the improved marketing of dry wines have not been exploited because the K.W.V. have not been allowed to do it and because the retailers apparently do not want to do it. The correct attitude should be—this is the accepted policy in the business world—that in the manufacturing industry it is the national manufacturer who markets the article on the basis of two fundamental points—quality control and the deliberate and positive creation of a consumer demand. He does not expect this to be done by the retailers who handle his article. He himself undertakes that responsibility. He has a national undertaking that makes money available for that purpose and he has a regular staff to educate the public and convince them of the quality of the article manufactured by him. My attitude is that the manufacturers of this type of wine and of liquor in South Africa have neglected their duty shamelessly in the creation of a market for their products and to expect now that forced channels should be created, without the manufacturers having done their duty in this respect is, I think, a little unfair.

Furthermore, I miss the logic in the attitude that where the handlers, the manufacturers and the wholesalers expect more points of distribution, they should in all fairness also look to the interests of the consumer. The interests of the consumer have never been discussed under this legislation. Where does the consumer stand? If we want to create competition as far as distribution is concerned, if we want to be fair in connection with prices to the consumer, we must also allow competition as far as the production is concerned. Then we will be acting logically; we will be consistent. We know what our market is and we know what its potential is. Mr. Chairman, we must be logical. We cannot allow this in one sector and forbid it in another sector of agriculture. I know what the practical problems are; I am not blaming the Minister. That is not my task. But as far as the trade is concerned, the principle is the task of all of us. When we deal with matters such as this, we must respect that principle. These are my problems. I know that nothing can be done about them at this stage. I repeat that I have every sympathy with the hon. the Minister but I do want to ask him whether he will not be prepared to meet us halfway; not in my interests; I have no interests other than the interests of my voters in this regard. I want to be honest enough to admit that. There are some of my voters who are connected with this industry, honourable people, and I would like to try to protect their interests if it is at all possible for me to do so. Even though there are only a few of them, they are some of the people who sent me to this House and they are people who have a fair right to earning a living, a right that they have received in terms of a law of the country. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s concession as far as beer is concerned and the fact that we want to keep it out of the law. I differ from the mover of the amendment and his supporter in this regard. Our breweries have been mentioned here. They are people who are not short of funds. In other words, things are going well with them. Nothing is being taken from them; something is merely being added. But the distributor is being deprived of something because more competition is being created. The breweries can lose nothing; they are going to gain if the hon. the Minister agrees to the proposals that have been made here. I think that things are going well enough with them. As far as I am concerned they are one of the business bodies that are prepared to create a consumer demand for their article and to apply quality control in the strict business sense of the word.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider a reasonable transition period as far as the distributive trade is concerned—let us say a period of three years with a maximum percentage of 15 per cent to start with, increasing each year thereafter to a maximum of 40 per cent. Then we will be able to give these people an opportunity of adapting themselves. That will be fair and reasonable. Although it cannot rightly be expected of them, they can then, in co-operation with the wholesalers, increase wine sales, maintain their businesses and continue to fulfil their function to society.

In the second instance as far as the hotels and the granting of licenses for off-consumption are concerned, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will also not accede to this logical request—that in fixing a required percentage of turnover in regard to natural wines, he will also regard these people as forming part of the liquor trade from that date. [Time limit.]

A previous speaker has said that we must be logical about this debate. I do not know whether there is much logic about this type of legislation, but let me start off with a very simple rule of logic, that the greater includes the lesser and I think the corollary of that is that the lesser lesser is included in the lesser, in other words, the lesser includes the lesser lesser. Mr. Chairman, what is the purpose of this legislation? The purpose of this legislation is to encourage people in this country to drink what one could call the lesser alcohols. But what do we find now? Instead of the greater alcohols we must drink the lesser, but here we find that they exclude the lesser lesser, the weakest of the lot. Surely that is completely illogical from that point of view. I am trying to be logical on that point alone. It is true that the hon. Minister says that vested interests will be touched, but surely if the lesser lesser touches vested interests the lesser one must also touch vested interests, and if that is the deciding factor then we should abandon this extension of a licence to grocers altogether. If you take it value-wise, surely what I call the lesser lesser drink is not as important in turnover as the lesser drink. So for that reason I cannot really see how one can, to achieve what the hon. Minister aims at that the people must drink the lesser alcohol, exclude the lesser lesser, the weakest of the lot! Quite apart from that, there is another very important consideration. When we were on this commission we time and again had evidence, and I think there was probably a lot of substance in it that one has certain monopolistic conditions in the wine industry and in the brewing industry and that these monopolistic conditions are maintained to a very large extent due to the fact that these producers have tied to them, or control a large number of outlets, and if I am not mistaken one of the reasons why we thought that the distribution of wine and beer should be freed to some extent was to induce more competition, that it would be made easier for a newcomer to come in. Of course that would be made easier if there is a fair distribution. But what are we going to do now? As far as I am concerned I have no doubt that if this legislation goes through in this form it will be easier for new producers to come in, but as far as beer is concerned, it is going to make no difference at all. Surely that is also an important consideration. To a large extent these recommendations apart from trying to encourage South Africans to drink lighter drinks were also intended to do away with monopolistic conditions to a certain extent Now if beer is going to be excluded then that one purpose the commission had in mind is certainly going to be thwarted.

I should like to support the clause as it stands. The opposition to this clause appears to-day to emanate from two groups. There is the one group which thinks it will combat drunkenness and the abuse of liquor if it opposes this clause. The argument seems to be that if the points of distribution are increased, the abuse of liquor will also increase. We had the same argument at the second reading. Mr. Chairman, I believe those people are sincere, but I also believe that they are the victims of our history in this regard. if we study the history of liquor consumption and the abuse of liquor in South Africa, we notice that we were constantly of two minds: Whether we should have total prohibition, and if we could not have that, whether we should have limited prohibition. Our entire pattern of drinking since 1928 has been moulded upon the latter basis. The fact of the matter is that those restrictions have simply moulded the abuse of liquor in South Africa into the form in which it manifests itself to-day. With as much right as they have to say to me that more points of distribution will promote the abuse of liquor, I can tell them that the abuse of liquor has nothing to do with the points of distribution of liquor. I think I have more right to say that for the simple reason that experience throughout the world shows that when the sale of liquor is restricted, liquor sales are promoted. That is one of the peculiar things; it does not sound logical (I say that to the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje)) but there is no logic in the abuse or consumption of liquor. The case of Sweden has been mentioned. The Swedish Government tried very hard to regulate the consumption of hard liquor, to such an extent that every person carried a pass to say how much liquor he could buy. That was a failure, but their pattern of drinking changed. What changed the pattern of drinking in Sweden? Strangely enough it was a very naive measure, seen in retrospect, that changed the pattern, namely that a drinker may not take his liquor while standing in Sweden; he has to sit down. In other words, he must have a chair and a table. The bar counters at which people stood simply disappeared; if there are people who are concerned about the abuse of liquor, they must move that standing bars be prohibited. The Malan Commission stated emphatically that there is not the slightest doubt that the standing bars promote abuse of liquor. Mr. Chairman, I put it to you that these friends of mine who want to combat the abuse of liquor by combating the granting of licences to grocers’ shops are making a mistake in their thinking. There is an Afrikaans adage, with its English equivalent, that an inclination creates an opportunity, that is to say “an inclination provides the time”. But now we have developed the matter in our country in such a way that our people have begun to think that an opportunity provides the inclination, and not that the inclination creates the opportunity. They are arguing on that last-mentioned basis here: they believe that every time they discuss this matter, it is the opportunity that creates the inclination. That is not so at all. Experience in our own country has taught us—there is a town within a mining area; I

am not mentioning its name here in the House, because I do not wish to offend people—where the sale of liquor was not permitted. The people were obliged to travel a few miles, 25 miles, to fetch their liquor; they accumulated stocks. In the result there was much greater consumption of liquor in that mining area than the management of the mine liked to have. That continued until they established a club and obtained a club licence. Once liquor was readily obtainable, drunkenness was at an end also. Mr. Chairman, I have been overseas, in countries where liquor is sold freely. In Italy I could buy wine from the apple wagon, and I never saw a drunk man in Italy. In France I could buy liquor from the grocer’s shop where I bought my vegetables, and there in Paris on a Sunday I saw the only intoxicated man I ever saw there; and it was on a Sunday when liquor sales were under control and liquor was not as freely available as on other days. I have travelled in Rhodesia. I arrived at an hotel and ordered beer; the man next to me said they were going to close soon and would open up an hour later only; if I wished not to run dry during that hour I would have to order two drinks. He did so and he left before they re-opened an hour later. Had they not closed during that hour he probably would not have ordered those two drinks, and he would have remained seated until he had finished his drink. The fact of the matter is that one accumulates a stock, and then it goes as Langenhoven said: The trouble with a man who wants to drink is that if the bottle is full he wants it to be empty and if it is empty he wants it full. The supply promotes the abuse. If you have a full bottle, and you are inclined to take liquor, you will empty that bottle. For that reason I think the hon. member for Umbilo has hold of the wrong end of the stick altogether when he considers that if we have more points of distribution, that will promote the abuse of liquor. A point of distribution is not a stock as yet. I think I could equally well say, and I think with greater justification, that when we have more horse races on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday there will be more gambling.

May I ask you a question: As a consequence of your argument, are you advocating that the sales of liquor should be free, everywhere, without any control?

As far as I am personally concerned, I would only close down the standing bars. I have not the slightest objection to free sales; I should like to see greater competition. I cannot agree more with this statement of the Malan Commission than I already do.

The cardinal idea of the commission in this report is that conditions should be created whereby the consumption of natural alcoholic liquor with food should rather be encouraged, at the expense of harder liquor and spirits.

If more points of sale will promote the sales of wine, as in Italy, then I am 100 per cent in agreement; not spirits, not the hard liquor.

I add to this what the Malan Commission said in paragraph 183 of their report—

I have my own opinion too. I am as concerned as the hon. member for Umbilo about the abuse of liquor, but I just cannot see how I will combat the abuse of liquor by maintaining the present pattern of drinking.

The second group then are the people who also say they wish to combat drunkenness and the abuse of liquor, and that they wish to reduce the points of sale, or at least do not want them increased. If their speeches are analysed properly, they are really concerned about the sale of liquor, of this wine, by the bottle stores, that is to say, by the liquor trade. They really wish to protect the existing trade. The hon. the Minister is also quite willing to protect the existing trade in connection with beer, but he says: “Let us liberate the rest.” I share that view.

Because there is no existing trade.

Yes, there is just no sales worth mentioning by the existing trade. I am saying this to the hon. member for North-West Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). Those people have had time since 1928 to promote the consumption of natural wine, and they did not do so. So they must not take it amiss of me if I do not take their arguments seriously when they plead for the existing trade which did not avail itself of its opportunities, and they must also forgive me if I gain the impression that they are pleading for the personal interests of other people here, in spite of the significance of this Bill and in spite of the general welfare. We can do nothing but simply to reject that.

In conclusion I should like once again to point out that we are not dealing here to-day with the question of whether we should combat or promote the abuse of liquor. We are concerned with this question: Can we alter the pattern of drinking with this measure? [Time limit.]

I want to inform the hon. Minister that I am not a total abstainer. So I am not prejudiced against liquor as liquor. But I want to impress upon the hon. Minister that is is irregular to change our pattern of drinking by extending distribution through our grocers, One reason is this: The hon. Minister of course aims at increasing the sale of our natural wines by granting licences to grocers and I maintain that the more wine people buy through grocery stores, the less food they will buy.

But surely they can buy wine from the bottle stores?

Yes, but I want to inform the hon. Minister that they will not buy as much as when they can obtain it from the grocery stores which are much more readily available to the public. There are hundreds of grocery stores, 100 grocery stores to every one distribution centre as regards liquor. A point I wish to stress is this that it is quite wrong to give our light wines by legislation preference over other agricultural foodstuffs. The hon. Minister is talking to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and I hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will say that he is also interested in the sale of our butter and cheese and all the excellent foodstuffs that the agriculturist in this country produces, and that it is wrong to make a law to give the unfortified wine-producer preference over other agricultural products. This Bill, if passed, will militate against the consumption of agricultural products in this country. It may be only to a small degree, but it is of importance. We know how the consumption of butter increased when there was a very small reduction in the price of butter, and I say that the grocers should sell food but not liquor. The hon. Minister is aiming at changing the pattern of drinking. If we produced light wines like France and Italy, there might be some justification, but I would like the hon. member for Hercules (Mr. A. I. Malan) to know, who advocated the drinking of our lightest wine, that our lightest wine has an 11 per cent alcoholic content. I would like the hon. member to know that one quart bottle of the lightest wine contains at least as much alcohol as five tots of brandy. So when a man has consumed one quart bottle of our lightest wine, he has consumed five tots of brandy.

Don’t you think that is a physical impossibility?

The Minister is advocating the changing of the pattern of drinking, the drinking of unfortified liquor. There is no difficulty in drinking a whole bottle of wine. I have no doubt the hon. Minister has already consumed a bottle of light wine, but I am quite certain the hon. Minister did not realize that, when he had the reactions from that bottle of wine, he had consumed as much as five tots of brandy.

Why drink the whole bottle, why not share it with your partner?

Even if I concede this point to the Minister, each partner, then, drinking the lightest wine, would have consumed 2½ tots of brandy. But our normal wine has a 14 per cent alcohol content and contains the equivalent to more than six tots of brandy as far as alcohol content is concerned. The solution of the difficulties of the wine-producers in this country is not to be found by way of legislation. It is by producing a lighter wine, and this Bill will militate against the production of lighter wines. When there is an increased sale, producers will carry on in the easier way and produce heavy fortified wine. There is no doubt about that whatever. This Act will militate against the production of a lighter type of wine than we have to-day. It must be the case. We know that in our climate it is not so easy to preserve wine of a lower alcoholic content, and naturally if the Minister creates increased avenues for the sale of wine, then the heavier fortified wines will become much more popular among the producers in this country than is the case to-day. That is the point I want to stress, that the hon. Minister by introducing this legislation is creating legislation that is going to reduce the consumption of agricultural products in this country, and he is not going to reduce the consumption of heavy liquor, because our wines are heavily fortified, and there will be just as much consumption of alcohol if not more.

Fortified wines are excluded.

Yes, but I am speaking now of light unfortified wines of 14 per cent alcoholic content. That is a wine of a high alcoholic content and I regard it as equivalent to a fortified wine. In France it would be regarded as a fortified wine, in Italy it would also be regarded as a fortified wine. Mr. Chairman, the wine farmer is encouraged in every possible way. I should like the hon. Minister to inform the House as to what excise taxation the light wine farmers pay in percentage to what is collected by way of custom tariffs and excise. I do not think it is 1 per cent. They are the lowest taxed community in this country. Not 1 per cent of the excise and customs taxation is paid by the unfortified wine producers in this country. They have not carried out their responsibility in producing a better class of wine, and it is quite wrong to pass legislation here which will militate against the health of our country, and to reduce the consumption of our agricultural products. If the hon. Minister is interested in history—the hon. member for Standerton referred to history—then let him look at the position of the Coloured people in the Western Province who are a wine-drinking community. Let the hon. Minister study their condition, the infectious diseases that permeate their homes. Let him ask our social welfare workers what difficulties they are faced with and the difficulties our Churches have to face. Whatever the hon. Minister may say about telegrams, he knows that our Churches are unanimously opposed to this legislation, and all our social organizations are opposed to this Bill, and I can say that in the constituency I represent the overwhelming majority, I should say of the constituents I represent, are opposed to the provisions implied in this clause that is now before us. I do hope the hon. Minister will pay due regard to the evils that will flow from the implementation of a clause of this nature. It is contrary to the health and welfare of our country.

Because the Bill as a whole contains some good and meritorious clauses, I voted for the second reading. I was eager to give my reasons, but owing to the limited time and as a result of the great number of speakers it was impossible for me to do so. However, I am definitely opposed to the grant of wine licences to grocers’ shops as contained in Clause 3 (a) of the Bill, and for that reason I am supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo. My objection may perhaps best be illustrated by comparing this Bill with a honey bee. The honey bee is a very useful and very beneficial insect, but it also possesses a dangerous and poisonous sting, and therefore it must be handled carefully. Then it is useful, otherwise it is dangerous. Clause 3 (a) in my view is that sting of the honey bee which is hidden in this Bill, and therefore I wish to plead with the Minister to-day to give attention to the few reasons I modestly wish to adduce why he should abandon this Clause 3 (a).

In the first place I wish to point out that it is a far-reaching departure from the traditional method of supply and distribution of liquor in our country. It is a break-through through the traditional borders of the manner of sale of liquor, particularly in respect of the points where liquor was sold in the past. There has always been a stigma attached to the traditional supply points of liquor, the bottle stores, etc., in our national life, which stigma has kept thousands of people away from them, and accordingly also kept them away from the use and abuse of liquor. The preserving conservatism which is a feature of our national character has always stood our nation in good stead in the past. It applied in respect of our religion against the modernistic trends; it applied in our political life against the liberalistic tendencies; it also applied to our attitude in respect of the use of liquor, as regards the bottle store in the past. Therefore liquor should remain restricted to those traditional places, and as far as I am concerned, the stigma must remain attached to it, so that it will continue in future to have the effect of restraining people.

In the second place my objection is that the points of supply of alcoholic liquor will be increased and doubled to dangerous heights, with the necessary consequence of the stimulation of greater consumption of liquor in our country. We cannot get away from that. Surely it is clear that the greater the number and the more convenient the places of supply, the greater the temptation, the greater the sales and the greater the consumption will be. The natural attitude of the preserving element in our national life surely is restriction and not extension and the creation of more opportunities for consumption.

Thirdly, the granting of light wine licences to grocers’ shops is the thin end of the wedge, and that, as far as I am concerned, involves two unavoidable implications: (a) That

pressure will be exerted for the grant of other alcoholic liquor licences, as is now already being asked for in connection with malt liquors, and the consequence will be further, as has already been indicated by the hon. members for Piketberg and Standerton, the complete opening up and the sale of more and more kinds of alcoholic liquors until there will be no stopping it any longer; (b) in the second place pressure will be exerted for the grant of wine licences to all grocers’ shops. It will hardly be possible to draw a line between those to whom a licence will be granted and those to whom it will not be granted, and such a line could not be maintained to the end. In the fourth place, my reason is that it will, unasked for, place upon the shelves of the business where it, in my view, does not belong, namely the general dealer’s business with a groceries branch, an alcoholic liquor with an alcohol content of up to 14 per cent. All the representations from my constituency mainly were against this particular clause, and that also largely strengthens my case against it. I have reason to believe that this also applies to other constituencies in the northern provinces, as regards the rural districts. The question is why natural wines, which after all are obtainable from other points of distribution, now must also be placed as a temptation before the eyes of thousands of people, adults as well as children, to be bought by persons who otherwise might never have used it at all, and would never have seen, and would never have bought it, and who neither have the money nor the means to buy it. The argument is used that it will help to change the pattern of drinking of our people.

That brings me to my last point, namely that I have serious misgivings about this argument, in so far as wine licences granted to grocers’ shops must help to change the pattern of drinking. I think the approach, the formula, is wrong. “Pattern of eating” would have been more suitable. In this regard it is argued that food and natural wine should be associated more at meals. That may be good and right, but what is the ultimate object then? Is it not more correct to say that the natural wine should be upon the table to alter the eating customs of our nation? And is it not the object in this manner to obtain a greater market for light wines, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch argued when dealing with the economic aspect of it? By this clause, only more light wine can be used at the tables of our nation, but nothing more can be achieved by it, because natural wine does not fit into the pattern of drinking of a nation, it merely fits in with the meal, with the pattern of eating, at the table, but not at the bar nor at the cocktail party or the drinking before receptions or meals. The drinking habits of a nation fall under quite a different category from its eating and mealtime habits. Light wine will never be taken in a bar, and will hardly be drunk before a dinner or a reception, because the hard liquors have already come to stay and have constituted a fixed pattern of drinking in this respect.

The conclusion is clear: This clause can do nothing to the pattern of drinking. It may well do something for the pattern of eating. And why should the eating habits of our people be changed? Why should wine be brought to the thousands of tables of our nation, on which wine did not appear formerly, in this manner by way of legislation? Why should wine be brought by virtually soliciting them to do so and to change their eating habits? No, Mr. Chairman, I think the pattern of drinking can be changed by a campaign against the advertisements filling our newspapers and periodicals, and which are affixed to our walls and even on our railway buses, etc., to encourage people to buy intoxicating liquor. Examples are known, such as “Hundred years and still going strong” with the picture of a smart gentleman on it, and then a recommendation to drink or Mellow Wood or whatever kind it Oudemeester may be. Let us launch a campaign against that. Let us even consider prohibiting these provocative advertisements by legislation as is done in Canada. It may have a more favourable effect upon the increasing consumption of hard liquor.

On the other hand, if we wish to increase the use of good natural wines, for which I also have a taste, at our tables, so that they may fit into our pattern of better eating, it is the duty of the wine producers to organize wine festivals and lectures in the northern province (not at Paarl and Stellenbosch) in order to teach our people to appreciate wine better and to use it properly. But it is not our duty to build that bridge by legislation to bring alcoholic liquor to places where it traditionally does not belong, and as far as I am concerned where it ought not to have a place in future. Those are some of my modest reasons why I shall vote against this clause. I urge the Minister to give his attention to these reasons, as well as to the good reasons adduced by other hon. members. He must delete this contentious clause to make the Bill more acceptable.

When we discussed an amendment to the Liquor Act here last year to make liquor available to the Bantu, we had to listen for days to arguments to the effect that if we made liquor available to the Bantu, terrible things would happen and murder and violence would increase. We heard the argument, and we have heard it again from the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), that the Bantu would buy liquor instead of food for his family. I admit that I believed that story at that time and I really thought that that would happen. But what did happen? The position is now much improved.

The Bantu who are now able to obtain liquor have obtained it for years; they have been able to obtain as much as they have wanted and what is more they have obtained it through the existing bottle stores. So for hon. members to argue that the Bantu have only had the White man’s liquor for a year is not true; the Bantu have had this liquor for many years and the position has now improved. We have now heard the same arguments for two days. If I am to believe these arguments again as I believed them the last time, I must accept the fact that the White man and the White woman are now going to abuse liquor. Where the Bantu has not done so, I cannot accept this argument. I was one of the few who voted against the Bill making liquor available to the Bantu and I admit now that I was wrong. But I am not going to be wrong again.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I think that he is quite right. The danger does exist that we will encourage people to drink wine instead of light beer and that is precisely what we do not want. That is why I support his amendment.

I do not agree with the hon. the Minister in placing so much emphasis upon the vested rights of the bottle stores. We are living in times in which the winds of change are blowing. The hon. member for Vereeniging told us how his father who was a wagon-maker had to make other plans when motor-cars came into the country, and we see this in regard to other businesses as well. We see, for example, that the old “family grocer”, is disappearing from the scene. If he cannot adapt himself to the times, he goes out of business. I think that the golden age of the bottle store is also past. I think that this legislation is a timely warning to them to make other plans and to sell other articles as well if they want to stay in business.

I have one last point to make. We have heard so much about the people who so abuse and will abuse liquor, but I have not heard anyone mention the millions of people who will make use of these facilities and not abuse them. I think that this is also a fact that we must consider. I have no hesitation in giving my full support to this clause.

I want to reject this Clause 3 (a) with all the force at my disposal, in the first place because it is necessarily connected with the illogical structure of Clause 36 and because we cannot adopt this clause on the assumption that Clause 36 may be amended. In terms of this clause liquor licences can now be granted to grocers in provinces and districts other than the Boland because anyone will realize that it is impossible for the liquor trade to increase its sales to 40 per cent where it already stands at that figure here. Why make this illogical distinction between the Boland districts and the rest of the country, including the Transvaal? Is this fact alone not a complete denial of the argument that what we are dealing with here is a change in the drinking pattern? We who are observers notice that the drinking pattern in the Boland is precisely the same as we know it in other parts of South Africa, except in regard to the Coloureds who form an additional problem. Those who are in favour of the increased consumption of wine say that the drinking pattern in the Boland must not be changed but our drinking pattern must be changed. This basic illogicality is a pernicious characteristic which makes me condemn the whole clause. Furthermore, why draw a distinction between the area this side of the Drakenstein and the rest of the Republic? Have I still to be told that one will be able to buy liquor in a grocer’s shop in the university of crime which is Johannesburg but that in the Drakenstein paradise the grocer shops will not have the right to sell wine?

My next argument is that the whole story in the change of our drinking pattern is contradicted by the structure of the Bill. Neither is it supported by statistics, except in regard to Belgium where the availability of liquor is only one of the factors affecting the drinking pattern. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) who is a supporter of this clause admitted that in his view—and, strangely enough, I agree with him—the most important factor in the drinking pattern is the accursed standing bar, but that factor is not being affected in this legislation which ostensibly seeks to change the drinking pattern, while liquor is now being brought into the shops. The drinking pattern is formed by the total legal prohibition upon liquor, by heavy excise duties on liquor and by propaganda and advertising and, in the long run, by the moral institutions of the nation upon which we have touched very lightly in this debate.

I come now to this point of the moral institutions of the nation and I want to ask my hon. colleagues who the people are from whom we have received representations in regard to this matter? I am not talking now about the voluminous screeds that we have received from interested parties. I want to know from whom we have received representations, representations that count? Were those representations received from our party organizations, from sports clubs and social clubs and communal bodies in our constituencies? No; generally speaking, we did not receive these representations from them; those people remained quiet. But we did receive representations from the churches, honest appeals, unlike the despicable telegrams that were sent from some forger or other in Orange Grove. As representatives of these constituencies it does not behove us to make so light of those protests. Does it behove us, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C van Niekerk) stated, in a time of crisis for our nation, to make so light of the protests that have been coming from bodies which to a large extent are the protectors of the moral steel of our nation? I want to go further: What are we doing? Besides the large number of new selling points that are being created, we are proposing, together with the hotel industry, to create certain other selling points, and to establish certain new vested rights. If we establish these vested rights to-day by means of a fatal vote, we will not be able to undo what we have done and neither will our children. But if we reject this clause and make time for judicious consultation so that we will have a definition of a grocer’s shop, a concept which we have no definition of to-day—the grocer can be any general dealer who sells a tin of sardines; it is Moosa’s shop and the Red Shop on the corner. There is no definition of a grocer and it must not be said now that we can rectify this sort of thing by means of regulations and amendments. It has to be tested now, as it has been placed before us. Hon. members did not want us to proceed with this Bill. Must we now establish these new vested rights for the marketing of liquor? No, let us reject it. Let us deliberate. We have here the germ of an idea that may perhaps have some good effect. We can come along next year or shortly thereafter with amendments to amend the Act if we find that certain defined grocer shops should also sell liquor. But if we allow this clause to go through we will not be able to undo this mistake either in our lifetime or in that of our children.

I want to conclude by referring to new channels and I want to say that the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) sneered at the weakness of my powers of conviction. But all that we learnt from his great powers of conviction was that liquor would be freely available. Of course; that is the logic of it. Start with dry wine in the shops. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has already said that beer should be included. It is logical to say that a marketing channel will eventually extend that market and not reduce it. Let us give the people time to consider this matter. Let us fall back on the basis of the conscience of conservatism and of care. Let us postpone this matter by rejecting this clause. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging is concerned in regard to the inclusion of beer, I want to say that it sounds extremely plausible. I do not want to repeat the argument of the hon. the Minister in regard to vested rights but I say that it is incorrect to argue about the alcoholic classification of beer. Beer and wine are liquors that are used at different times and wine will not force beer out if wine alone is sold in the shops. But if the amendment is adopted, beer will force out wine and the wine farmers should take note of this fact. In the far-off shops in the dry north-west where people are always thirsty, or in Natal or in the lowveld, the shopkeeper will have his 8 or 12 bottles of wine on one side but he will have his cases of beer there, cases which are difficult to transport over long distances. People will buy beer as fast as they can and this will make additional inroads into the trade of the bottle store. Many people buy odd bottles of spirits because they go to the bottle store to buy beer. And what of our young people if beer is sold by grocers, beer in tins which are easily opened so that that beer can be drunk in the car while driving? At the moment the young motorist driving past does not call specially at a bottle store to buy liquor but if he passes a grocer shop and he sees it on sale there he will say: “Let us buy half a dozen beers and drink them in the car It is not so easy to do the same thing in regard to wine. No, this amendment merely makes matters worse. If we have to accept this evil thing, let us accept it for what its purpose is, and that is to at least assist the wine farmers. Do not let us also seek to assist the breweries and thus make things worse for our people.

I want to conclude with this thought. We are dealing with this matter in a completely light-hearted and material manner. There is no hurry in regard to this matter. There is no reason why we should only consider the financial interests involved. I believe that the factor that has to be considered above everything else is any possible and eventual spiritual implication of the measure. Without associating myself with the prohibitionists, they have at least advanced the very strong argument that this matter may have spiritual and moral implications and in the absence of clear practical reasons why we should force this measure through, our consciences compel us to oppose this clause at this stage.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said at the end of his speech that we were dealing with this matter in a light-hearted way. If that is the view of that hon. member, he must not accuse us of holding the same view. But if I accept the fact that that is his view, I may say that he has just been acting a role before this House. That is just about what it amounts to because in the days when he used to practise I am sure that the hon. member did not act more seriously than he has just done.

The hon. member started by referring to the Boland. I would like to point out that the Boland as such is not being excluded at all in this clause or in the Bill.

The percentage provision excludes it.

By implication the percentage provision does exclude it but that does not mean to say that only the Boland is being excluded. In any case, it is not the Cape that is being excluded but every area in which there is a certain percentage. [Interjections.] It may be that the Coloureds make a contribution and it may be that the Coloureds have actually a better drinking pattern than we have. It is true that they do make a contribution in the western Cape but that does not mean to say that it is wrong. That is precisely what we are striving for. It is common cause as far as we are concerned that it is better to drink wine than to drink brandy or whisky or gin. [Interjections.] I will be pleased if hon. members will give me an opportunity to speak.

Order!

This matter is based on a logical foundation and that is that where we are seeking to establish that pattern and want to recommend the consumption of light liquors. We want this to be done in the areas in which it is not yet being done. It is precisely for the same reason that we are not affecting vested interests in this way. On the one hand by the insertion of this 40 per cent provision we are not interfering with vested interests but on the other hand we are making provision whereby the consumption of light liquor is being encouraged in those parts where it is not being consumed. I do not want to discuss again the reasons why we are introducing this legislation. That has already been done. I can only see two arguments on the grounds of which this legislation can be opposed. The one deals with moral convictions, people who are afraid of the abuse of liquor. This is understandable and I have the greatest respect for hon. members who are in earnest in this regard. The only other consideration is a financial and economic consideration. Allow me to say that financial and economic considerations play an important role in the opposition to this Bill. We have the facts before us at the moment to indicate that in most of the towns of the Transvaal and the Free State where light wines only form 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the amount of liquor sold, we find that the liquor trade in those areas is becoming afraid. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has had his chance. He must listen now.

This fear has now arisen because the sales of light wines are so low in many of those towns. This is a clear proof to us that we are on the right track in changing that pattern. If the liquor dealers themselves did not believe that we were on the right track, they would not raise so much opposition to this Bill. It is not our intention to introduce this provision in the areas where we already have a large market for light wines; we only want to do so where we do not have that market. The fact that they are opposed to this move proves to me that they themselves believe that we are going to change that pattern by means of this Bill. But I feel that we must ignore those economic interests. We are trying to change the whole drinking pattern of the nation because it has been clearly proved by the figures given to us by the hon. the Minister that this pattern is not the right one. I want to tell the people who are convinced in their own minds that this Bill will encourage drunkenness or the abuse of liquor that in the first place our motives in regard to this legislation are exactly the opposite, and I want them to please believe us. Secondly, if we succeed in changing that pattern, they must ask themselves whether it will not be a good thing for the people of South Africa. If a man has a bottle or two of wine in his home and he is able to enjoy that wine with his food, will this eventually not encourage him to forego brandy? Is that not what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) also wants? He may differ from me and say that we will not succeed but that is what we envisage and there is every possibility that this is what will happen. I can do nothing in regard to hon. members who argue on economic grounds but to those who argue because of moral convictions I want to say that they must realize that we mean well in this regard and they must support this clause.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park being so concerned because a man may buy a bottle of beer or wine along the road. It is available. If one drives through a town and one wants to buy a bottle of liquor, or a dozen bottles, one can do so. [Interjections.] Why is the hon. member concerned? He can only be concerned for financial considerations. If it makes no difference to the availability of liquor, why is he then concerned? I say let us encourage this stream and if we can succeed in changing our pattern we will be doing some thing good for the nation.

In conclusion I want to ask that we must try not to consider economic considerations. To those who are afraid of the abuse of liquor I want to say that they must actually support us because our aim is the same as theirs.

Before calling upon the hon. member for S. J. M. Steyn), I want to ask hon. members not to converse so loudly. Hon. members tend to have their say and once they are finished they do not listen to other hon. members and they hamper the debate. I appeal to hon. members to give their attention to the debate.

I think that it would be wrong to remain silent in regard to this matter and that is why I feel compelled to put my point of view. I want to say immediately that I do not think it possible to place a total prohibition upon liquor. Human experience in many parts of the world has already proved this and it is even more impossible to apply partial prohibition in a community, to make liquor available to some people at some places and not to other people at other places. That is why last year I was able to vote for making liquor available legally to the Bantu. I think that everyone will agree from the experiences we have had that this has been an experiment that has been a good thing in our national life; that there is more order to-day: that the task of the police has been facilitated and that there is less crime, particularly on festive occasions such as Christmas and New Year. This has been proved in our cities. But while I believe that it is unavoidable for us to make liquor available legally, I also feel that it would be wrong to make liquor available as though it were a completely common article of trade. Liquor is a special commodity. It is a habit-forming drug.

Not wine.

Sir, I have already seen people who only drink natural red wine cutting up their host’s lawn! [Laughter.] I think it is the experience of most civilized countries that liquor must be dealt with as a special commodity. The point is that making liquor available has to take place in a specially controlled manner. Special precautionary measures have to be taken against abuse and the public must also be made to realize that they are dealing with a particular commodity. That is the reason why I cannot bring myself to vote for the making available of liquor in grocer shops; not wine and beer even less, as has been proposed by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I do not want to repeat arguments that have already been used because I think that the matter has been discussed particularly well. It was put particularly well by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). I did not think that a Steyn could become so heated on any subject! What worries me about the sale of liquor in a grocer shop is this: There is no other place in a community where it is so easy to obtain credit than a grocer shop and we think that it is necessary that this should be so. And so, in the laws that we have for the recovery of debts from people who are tardy in paying their debts, grocer shops are regarded as shops which sell the necessities of life and they are given preferential treatment in regard to the recovery of debts. What are we going to do if a man is in debt to a grocer and a large portion of that debt is for liquor? Is liquor then going to be treated as a necessity of life? I cannot see how that distinction can be made. Are separate accounts going to be sent out? There will be all sorts of difficulties that can easily be circumvented by anyone who wants to be even slightly dishonest. Then we also still have the black list system, which is not a very effective system, but it does help. A person can even ask for his name to be placed on the black list or, if he is a habitual drinker, his family can ask for his name to be placed on the black list and then he cannot be supplied with liquor. Does the hon. the Minister honestly see his way clear to apply that legislation carefully and effectively if every grocer in the country can sell beer and wine? This makes the combating of the abuse of liquor impossible. Mr. Chairman, we talk so much about the people whom we have tried to recruit here to support a certain attitude. I want to say immediately that I cannot see why the hon. the Minister and other hon. members resent the fact that the members of the public do this. Their interests are affected by this Bill and they have the fullest right to put their case as forcefully as they can to members of this House. Hon. members are free to decide, having regard to all the information that they have at their disposal and all the representations that have been made to them. But what strikes me is that the people who advocate the sale of beer by grocer shoos use the same argument as the hon. the Minister uses for wine—that if liquor can be sold by grocers, more will be sold; that the availability of this liquor will encourage consumption. They say: “Do not adversely affect a good industry like our brewing industry in favour of wine; give us the same privileges to have that larger market which wine will enjoy because beer is also a light liquor That was their strongest argument in my opinion—that they would be adversely affected if wine was made available in grocer shops because the sales of wine would increase and they would not have the same opportunities to increase the sales of beer. I do not think that we are going to change the pattern of the drinking habits or our people by making wine available for sale in grocer shops. What will happen will be that those people who are habitually drinkers of strong liquor, fortified wine and spirits, will continue to drink it because the opportunities that will be created will make it easier for other people to start drinking through the medium of wine and beer. This is not a change of pattern; it is an increase of opportunity. That is another matter completely.

But after having said all this I want to say something about the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). Here we have something completely different. Here we have something in regard to which I have had a certain amount of experience and I would like to tell the House something about it. When I was a young lad, my father used to take the family for a holiday regularly each year to a little seaside resort, Still Bay, near Riversdale. There was no liquor licence at Still Bay and the result was that the young people of Riversdale and Ladismith and Barrydale and the surrounding towns used to come to Still Bay each weekend during the holiday period with their cars full of liquor, the idea being that all the liquor should be consumed before the weekend was over. It was not taken back with them. The drunkenness that one saw there was absolutely shameful. Some years ago a licence was granted to a hotel at Still Bay and within a year the drinking pattern at Still Bay changed. There was a moderate consumption of liquor.

But now you are contradicting yourself.

No, I am not contradicting myself. The point is that no liquor was available at Still Bay but liquor was available at other surrounding towns. When liquor was made available legally under a controlled licence with police supervision, the drinking pattern changed. It was not a grocer shop that obtained a liquor licence; it was a hotel. But, Mr. Chairman, one finds the same thing happening to-day in restaurants and eating places. Here in the Cape one goes to good restaurants to enjoy good, well-prepared food and one has to carry one’s liquor with one because these places do not have liquor licences. The same thing happens in those eating places as happened at Still Bay. None of that liquor must be taken home; everything has to be drunk there, and that means excessive consumption. Where the public are being served food, where good restaurants or boarding-houses serve meals, it is right that those people should have a licence to serve light liquor; I think that that is only fair. I was very interested to see in London that they have a system there that I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister, a system that is in sway in some of their “boroughs” or municipal units. Anyone who wants to start a decent restaurant there receives a licence but not a liquor licence. If for a fixed period of a year or two years that person can give satisfactory, clean, good, attractive service to the public, he becomes automatically entitled to a restricted liquor licence. I hope that the hon. the Minister will bear this in mind. He may perhaps consider placing restaurants and similar places in South Africa on probation in this way by telling them: “Provided that you serve the public properly you will receive the privilege of a liquor licence after a certain period.” And so, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote against the amendment of my hon. friend the hon. member for Vereeniging. I have no personal reason for doing so; there is no historical grievance connected with my decision. I shall also vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central.) But I am faced with this difficulty. What happens if the amendment of the hon. member for Vereeniging is adopted? I shall probably have to vote against the clause because I do not know what will happen when we come to Clause 34. As far as Clause 34 is concerned I want to express the hope now that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) because then we can try out the matter; we can try out the controlled channels of distribution and create the opportunity of rectifying the mistakes that may perhaps be made.

I rise as one representing a liquor-producing constituency and I want to say immediately that not one single bottle store or director of the K.W.V. has approached me and asked me to vote against this Bill.

Order! I have thus far allowed a very wide discussion and a certain measure of repetition. I want to ask the hon. member and future speakers not to repeat arguments that have already been used.

As far as the supplying of dry wines by grocers is concerned, I ask myself what the effect will be and to my mind the best barometer in this regard is my own experience of the drinking habits of our farmers in the South-Western Districts of the Cape. I grew up and grew old among them. I cannot say that our wool farmers and our maize farmers and fruit farmers are drinkers, just as little as our wine farmers are. I challenge any member in this House to point out a wine farmer in the South-Western Districts who is addicted to liquor or who is a drunkard. If one cuts my constituency down the middle, one finds wheat and wool farmers on the one hand and exclusively wine farmers on the other hand. When one visits a wine farmer in the evening, he will often not even ask one whether one would like a drink. When one is walking to one’s car he may perhaps say: “I beg your pardon, would you not have liked a drink?” Our wine farmers are entitled to a quota of 15 gallons of wine. They can take 15 gallons of wine or they can take 15 gallons of brandy and they get it cheaper than any of us sitting here who are not wine farmers. There are many of our wine farmers who do not even make use of that quota.

I come now to this Bill before us. When this Bill was introduced I had my doubts because when I see a drunk person, it worries me, although I am not a prohibitionist. Whether it is a man or a woman or a Coloured, if I see a drunk person it worries me. But I have never been afraid that our people will drink more because we make cheap wine available in grocer shops. Our people have long passed that stage. People who are addicted to liquor and who want to buy liquor will simply buy it at a bottle store or at a hotel if they cannot get it at a grocer shop. All they have to do is to telephone the hotel or the bottle store and ask for the liquor to be delivered to their homes. Why then are we so concerned about the suggestion that light wine should be sold by grocer shops? As I said, I had certain doubts and I told the hon. the Minister about them. But after the hon. the Minister explained the position to me and said that in certain districts where the sale of wine was higher than 40 per cent of the total liquor sale wine would not be sold in grocer shops, I was satisfied. I am not worried that people will drink too much but I am worried about our old-established businesses. It is the duty of this Government or any Government in power to look after old-established businesses. There are people who have invested thousands of pounds in hotels. We should have told the hotel owners: “Look here, we are going to pass a law of this nature; we are going to take away some of your business by allowing grocer shops to sell light liquor but we are only going to do it in five or six years’ time.” That would have been the correct thing to do but I say that it is wrong to come along suddenly and to interfere with established businesses. As the Bill has now been amended no established businesses will be adversely affected and that is why I can vote for this Bill as it stands. I received a telegram this morning from a minister in my constituency. He telegraphed me to “Vote against the Liquor Amendment Bill”. I did not even reply to him. I accepted the fact that he was not acquainted with the provisions of this Bill that are now being dealt with. I am not so concerned about this Bill. As I said just now in the Lobby I am one of 15 children. From an early age wine and brandy were available to us and if we wanted to drink it we could drink as much as we wanted to drink. Not one of us is a prohibitionist. We will all enjoy a drink at a party, myself included, but not one of us is a drunkard. One finds the same thing happening in many homes in the Boland where children grow up with liquor. One never finds that they become addicted to liquor.

I rise to reply to certain questions that have been put to me. It is very clear to me as it was to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), that we have two main points of view in this debate, two groups opposing this Bill. On the one hand we have those people who honestly believe and are strongly of the opinion—for which we all have a great deal of respect—that this clause, if it is adopted, will lead to serious abuse of liquor. I differ from those people. It is noticeable that the same arguments were raised in connection with the Liquor Amendment Bill in terms of which the White man’s liquor was made available to the Bantu. Precisely the same argument was used and there we have the proof of the pudding. The argument was raised that it would lead to more convictions for drunkenness. Instead of that provision leading to a larger number of convictions for drunkenness, the number of convictions for drunkenness has diminished.

And related crimes?

The number of related crimes has also dropped in some parts of the country for which we have statistics. The hon. member will remember that I said in the Other Place that I did not want to attribute that fact to the provisions of the Liquor Act. But the fact remains that the incidence of these crimes dropped and this is proved by statistics. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the argument of those hon. members but I think they are wrong in this case just as they were wrong in the other case. Then there are those people who are honestly pleading for vested interests. I have nothing against them. Every person is free to plead for vested interests and I am not disinterested as far as those established interests are concerned. Amongst other things, I am urged to postpone these provisions; I have been told that we must give these people a chance. I am not disinterested in this regard. It is going to take us some time to issue the regulations to get the machinery in order. In other words, these provisions of the Liquor Act would in the normal course of events only be put into operation in the course of next year. But because I want to show that I am not disinterested in regard to the attitude that established interests must be protected, I want to give hon. members the undertaking that this measure will not come into operation before I March 1965. I think that it is fair to say that we will give those vested interests a chance up to that date.

The whole Bill or just this clause?

This clause in regard to the supplying of natural wine through the medium of grocers. I realize that it will be a disappointment to many people; I realize that people will hold this against me but I want to prove beyond all doubt that I am not disinterested in regard to hon. members who have adopted the firm attitude that established interests must be considered. In the second instance I want to make clear that I am not married to the question of 40 per cent. If hon. members want to make out a case in regard to this question of 40 per cent we can argue about it when the particular clause comes up for discussion. What I do feel is that when we bring this measure into operation on 1 March 1965, everything under 20 per cent has to be brought into operation immediately no matter what other opportunities and chances one may give to the vested interests. But we can argue about that later. I merely want to tell hon. members that I am prepared to hear arguments in that connection.

The question has also been put to me whether “the consumption of natural wines” will mean wine sold for on-consumption as well as off-consumption purposes in determining the percentage and my reply to that is a definite yes; that will be the case. Mr. Chairman, we are not dealing with anything new here. As far as this matter is concerned the position is that in 1908 the Cape had a Light Wine Act. That Act was in operation until 1928. Any grocer, even any chemist and any café-owner, could obtain a light wine licence under that Act and there was no abuse. I have looked up the records of those years and I have found that no abuses flowed from that fact. To tell the truth, if one has to pass judgment one must say that it is a great pity that in 1928 the liquor trade persuaded this House to abolish that licence and that it was not applied at that stage on a Union basis. But the only reason why it dropped was because vested interests killed it in 1928 and demanded that channel for themselves, just as established interests cut the throats of hotels in 1928 which has resulted in the withered fruit that we are now plucking.

I listened carefully to the arguments of hon. members. I heard no argument to make me depart from the attitude that I have adopted. As far as I am concerned, I still believe, and I am firmly convinced of the fact, that the House will be doing the right thing by adopting this clause.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—91: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dӧnges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Henwood, B. H.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, E. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Byl, P.; van der Merwe, P. S.; 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 Niekerk, M. C.; 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.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Warren, C. M.; Webster, A.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C; Dodds, P. R.: Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.: Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Greyling, J. C.: Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jonker, A. H.; Lewis, H.; Loots, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.: Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Timoney. H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.: Wood, L. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and D. M. Streicher.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (a) up to and including “wine” in line 52, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—72: Barnett, C.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Cruywagen, W. A.;; de Villiers, J. D.; Dӧnges, T. E.; Durrant, R. B.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Henwood, B. H.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.;

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—57: Badenhorst, F. H.; 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.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Lewis, H.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, E. G.; Maree, G. de K.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.: Moore, P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Otto, J. C.; Radford, A.: Rall, J. J.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and D. M. Streicher.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Oldfield dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. B. Coetzee put and the Committee divided:

AYES—32: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Cadman, R. M.; Coetzee, B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Durrant. R. B.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Heystek, J.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.: Maree, W. A.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Plewman, R. P.; Rall, J. J.; Ross, D. G.; Stander, A. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Tucker, H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and H. H. Smit.

NOES—86: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Kock, H. C.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dodds, P. R.; Dӧges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Field, A. N.; Frank, S.; Gay, L. C.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henwood, B. H.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jonker, A. H.; Kotze, G. P.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H, E.; Meyer, T.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Byl, P.; van der Spuy, J. P.; 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.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (b) up to and including “wine” in line 55, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—97: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.: Botha, S. P.: Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Kock, H. C.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dӧnges, T. E.; Durrant. R. B.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché. J. J. (Sr.): Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henwood, B. H.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.: Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, E. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mitchell, M. L.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Tucker, H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Byl, P.; 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.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Waterson, S. F.; Webster, A.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—25: Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Jonker, A. H.; Loots, J. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Nierop, P. J.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and D. M. Streicher.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Emdin dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. van den Heever put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—69: Barnett, C.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.: Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dӧnges, T. E.; Durrant, R. B.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Henwood, B. H.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra. E. C. A.: Jurgens, J. C.: le Roux, G. S. P.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; 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.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

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

NOES—52: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gray, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Lewis, H.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Otto, J. C.; Plewman, R. P.; Rall, J. J.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and D. M. Streicher.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

In consequence of the amendment just adopted by the Committee, a number of consequential amendments will have to be made in other clauses of the Bill and these amendments will be made administratively.

Business suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

On Clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Every year of course every licensee has to apply for the renewal of his licence and he has to go to considerably expense and has either to go himself or be represented by a lawyer at the licensing court and in 99 cases out of 100 the renewal is a mere formality. Unless there is any police objection or objection from anybody else, the licence is renewed. I therefore hope that the hon. Minister will accept my amendment. It seems to be a reasonable proposal.

It is very easy for me to accept the first amendment of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Water-son) to insert the words “and recommendation”. As far as the hon. member’s second amendment is concerned it is not so easy because the position is that in a police report in regard to certain hotels it is stated from time to time that certain things have to be done and then the licensing board makes that a condition for the renewal of the licence—that what is recommended in the police report is done. For that purely administrative reason I can unfortunately not accept the amendment. Hon. members must also remember that members of the public can object and we do not want to deprive them of that right. It happens in practice that if no objections are forthcoming, the renewal takes place automatically. The licence-holders complain that they have to appoint attorneys or advocates but whether they want to do this or not is of course their affair because it is not absolutely necessary for them to do so.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister has listened to the argument that obviously has been put to him, but with all due respect it is unfounded. The amendment specifically states “unless objection by police report or otherwise is lodged …” The police reports must be submitted in ample time before the meeting of the Licensing Board. The hon. Minister can quite simply say that he will be prepared to accept the amendment if the words are added after “renewal”, “or the imposition of conditions”, or words to that effect.

That is a different matter.

May I then suggest to the hon. Minister to add those words, because then if the police have any objection, the applicant can be called before the board.

The hon. member will realize that I could not accept the amendment in the form it is printed on the Order Paper, but in order to afford the legal advisers an opportunity to go properly into the matter, I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

This is purely consequential.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

My amendment to this clause is consequential, dependent on the amendment to Clause 9, and therefore I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I would like to address an appeal to the hon. Minister that in regard to 32ter of the original Act which is here inserted, the hon. Minister should take administrative action to simplify the forms and procedure in respect of applications for temporary late hours licences. These are things which happen all the time. There is a dance or a show or a rugby match and the procedure at the moment requires the licensee to take fairly complicated steps to acquire what is granted almost invariably without any question. I would appeal to the hon. Minister to ask the Department to simplify the procedure so that the person could fill in a form, send it in, and unless there is some objection to it by the magistrate, it could be granted more or less automatically.

I think the hon. member is quite correct and I have already instructed the Department to take the necessary steps to simplify the procedure. Much can be done in this regard.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

Clause 21 repeals Sections 36 and 37 of the principal Act which concern the procedure in regard to objections. Now in terms of Clause 22, an amendment is brought about which substitutes the words “in terms of Section 36” by the words “in the prescribed manner Certain fears have been expressed by persons who in the past have lodged objections in terms of the old Act as to what the meaning is of “in the prescribed manner Could the hon. Minister give some further information as to what he has in mind?

I take it the hon. member has read the whole Act, and he will find that in terms of the interpretation clause “in the prescribed manner” means “prescribed by way of regulation” and the regulations will provide for all that which the hon. member has in mind.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

While I am not moving an amendment to this clause, I would seek an undertaking from the hon. Minister in regard to the question of rights already granted in case of the renewal of a licence by prohibiting or classifying any portion or any section of the trade for a particular race group in regard to removal to a prohibited area, etc. etc. I do not want to go into details, but the point is that there is a fear that where a renewal of a licence in terms of Clause 2 is granted, the question of race group areas may come into the picture, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister merely to give an assurance here that whilst the intention is accepted in previous legislation, that it is not his intention to interfere with existing established hotels in regard to the renewal of a licence.

I can readily give the hon. member an assurance because this clause does not apply at all. This clause only deals with removals, not with renewals. It has nothing to do with renewals whatsoever, and the hon. member can therefore rest assured that this clause cannot be applied.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 36,

I have an amendment here which aims at two things, and in moving this amendment I would like to take this opportunity to say that I specifically abstained from voting on Clause 3 because I believe that Clause 3 is inextricably wound up with the final form in which Clause 36 is passed by this House. I was not prepared to tie myself to the question of a grocer’s licence unless it was clear that the circumstances under which such licences would be granted would be restricted. In the absence of knowledge as to what limitations this clause would apply, it was not possible for me to support the general principle. Now the general principle has been accepted and we are to determine the conditions under which a grocer’s licence may or may not be granted. The clause as it reads now lays down that less than 40 per cent of the total liquor sales shall be wine before a grocer’s licence may be approved. Before dealing with that, however, may I deal with the first part of the amendment which is that an objector to an application for a grocer’s wine licence shall prove this fact of the sale of 40 per cent or otherwise of the total liquor being wine. Now quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, it is not possible for any objector to adduce that evidence. Even if an objector to the application for a grocer’s licence is a member of a society or organization, he cannot demand of his colleagues that they disclose to him the business details, the trade secrets of their individual concerns. A man wanting to object must go to every single liquor licensee including, bottle stores, wholesalers and hotels which have off-sales, and must find out from them the percentage of wine which they are selling. If any of them say “no, we are not prepared to give you that information”, then it is impossible for him to carry out the provisions of this clause. So in point of fact, this clause is a mockery. I would go further and say that this clause has absolutely no meaning in practice whatsoever. It is a bluff. Because if this clause goes through as it is, then in point of fact, in every single area of South Africa, grocers’ wine licences can be granted, and the declared intention of the hon. Minister to limit grocers’ wine licences to areas where wine is not being sold, becomes meaningless. The hon. Minister must recognize what will happen in practice. Here in the Cape for instance, you have a conflict between the retail liquor trade and certain wholesale interests. Now surely the Minister must realize that if either goes to the other in order to ask him to disclose the percentage of wine—in fact his exact figures broken down into spirits, wine and malt of total turnover (and wine divided into fortified and unfortified wine), it would be absolutely impossible to get that information. Similarly it would be impossible for an applicant for a licence to get that information, because obviously a grocer’s shop wanting to apply for a licence would not be provided with the figures by the existing trade channels. So my amendment substitutes for “the objector” “the Minister”, because the Minister has the power to get that information without any trouble. He can just say to his Department: “Ask the licensees in that district to provide this information”, and they must provide it and give it to the Minister. If he wants to he can have a check. If he does not want to waste time on checking it, he can accept the figures given to him under affidavit. But the only person who can get that information is the Minister. No other person has the legal, moral or practical ability to demand that information from the existing trade The Minister has the power and he has the machinery. No I have heard the argument that he would require another 500 police and this and that and the other. It does not apply at all. All the Minister has to do is to say to the police, as he did when he got the survey samples on which he based his second-reading speech: Phone up the bottle stores and the off-sales and ask for a break-down of their liquor sales.

And if they refuse?

The Minister has the right to obtain those figures. The police have the right at any time to examine the records of any individual licensee under the Liquor Act, and if a man refuses to give the information, the police can examine those records. Of course it may be a bit awkward for his Department and may put a bigger load on the Department, but I say that if this clause means anything at all then the Department must accept that responsibility. It is completely wrong for the Department to say that it will mean a little extra work and so to make a mockery of the whole intention of this provision. As it stands now, unless you have a monopoly or some other agreement amongst the existing liquor trade interests, you are not going to get wholesalers, retailers and off-sales telling each other what their sales are, or telling even their association officials what their sales are. So I hope that the hon. Minister will realize that if he does not accept the responsibility he makes a mockery of this clause, and then you can forget about the 40 per cent. It means that if 80 per cent of the sales consist of wine, grocers’ licences will still be possible. If that is so, then I ask this House to realize that everything we have been told up to now is meaningless and therefore to reject all the clauses which are consequential hereto, so as to prevent the situation arising which will arise if this clause goes through as it stands now. If it goes through as it is now, the Minister in practice will have the right to grant grocer’s licences anywhere in South Africa, because no objector can supply the figures and bring the proof.

Then we come to the percentage of 40 per cent. The hon. Minister indicated on Clause 3 that he would grant a moratorium to 1 March 1965. I welcome that decision. But now I am going to put a question to the hon. Minister. I am not going to move my amendment at this stage because the hon. Minister’s moratorium to March 1965 changes the position. But I ask the hon. Minister whether he will accept an amendment, or accept the principle and move the amendment either at the Report Stage or in the Other Place, an amendment which will provide that on 1 March 1965 in any area in which the Minister is satisfied that the sale of wine in relation to total liquor sales in that area is 15 per cent, a year later 20 per cent and. if necessary, a year later 30 per cent …[Time limit.]

Clause 36 amends Section 53 of the principal Act and I want to raise one matter here for the sake of the record. It has been said in this House that any Indian shop and any Coloured shop will now be able to obtain a liquor licence. This has also been said by various hon. members in the lobbies. Earlier to-day, the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said that Moosa’s shop would also be able to have a liquor licence. I do not think that the hon. member has read the Bill. Section 53bis which is being inserted by Clause 36 provides—

In sub-section (2) of this section, it is provided further—

Sub-paragraph (ii) also refers to Natives. It is clear that no Asiatic, Coloured or Native who owns a business will be able to obtain a licence in terms of this Bill to sell liquor in his grocer shop. I rise simply to put this point because a great difference of opinion exists and because this matter is also discussed by the public outside. There are some of our Ministers who have approached us and some of them discussed the matter with us. I rise simply in order to have it placed on record that this is not the case.

I voted against the principle of this Bill because of the provision regarding grocer shops. Not only was I opposed to it personally but three of the congregations in my constituency representing about three-quarters of the voters who sent me to this House, and the congregations themselves are opposed to this provision. But as this principle was adopted by 81 votes to 48 and because during the second-reading debate the hon. the Minister made it very clear that those hon. members who were opposed to the provisions dealing with grocers’ wine licences should vote against the second reading of the Bill, I realized later that we had no hope of rejecting this clause at the Committee Stage. I discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister and he was very helpful. He said that he would assist us. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now in how far he can assist us. I just want to say that when hon. members talk about the liquor trade they only mean the bottle stores and it is said that that part of the trade has not done its duty in encouraging the consumption of wine. But what about the hotels?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. This clause has nothing to do with the matter that he is discussing now.

The point is that these grocers’ wine licences are being granted as a result of the fact that the consumption of wine is not being sufficiently encouraged. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot bring the percentage down from 40 per cent to 30 per cent and whether the wine consumed on the premises of hotels will also be taken into consideration and not only the turnover of the bottle stores. As I say, it is also the function of the hotels to sell wine and to find a market for it. This is not the task of the bottle stores only. That is why I want to ask that when the percentage has to be determined, care will be taken to include the turnover of the hotels as well in determining that percentage.

I rise immediately to assure the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) that not only the wine sold by hotels for off-consumption but also the wine sold by hotels for on-consumption, no matter what form it may take, will be considered in determining this percentage. If that is not the question which the hon. member wanted me to answer, he must tell me. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is concerned, I readily agree that there is a great deal in the argument of the hon. member. The only problem that I have in this connection is that the whole idea of this Bill is to eliminate as far as possible the difficulties that exist for the trade at the moment. One of the things which gives the trade a great deal of trouble is the counter register in which the purchasers’ names and addresses and the types of liquor which are sold have to be entered. I am not talking now about the usual bookkeeping of a business, books that are kept for other purposes; I am talking now about the books which have to be kept in compliance with the requirements of the Act. If I were to comply with the request of the hon. member for Durban (Point), it would mean the retention of the counter register which is something that I want to eliminate because I do not want to put these people to that trouble. It would then mean that the counter registers which I have tried to do away with in the interests of the trade itself would have to be brought into use again. The hon. member would have a good argument if it were not for Clause 25. He said that it was impossible for traders to determine those figures themselves. From a practical point of view I do not think that it is impossible for them because it will be to the advantage of the trade if no licences are granted. That is why I do not believe for one moment that any member of the trade would refuse to give the necessary information. On the contrary, I think they would object to any licence as a group if they consider that that licence ought not to be given. Secondly, in terms of Clause 25, even if only one man objects—let us assume that he does not receive the co-operation of the other people within his area—he can in terms of Section 25 compel such persons through the Licensing Board to appear before the magistrate to make that information available. We must be realistic. We must accept the fact that a group of people in the trade will object through their association; we will not have individual objections. What is the problem? Our problem here is that there is only one person who is able to say what he sells and that is the man in the trade himself. He is in the best position to give that information and if there are any of his colleagues who refuse to give it, he can force them to give that information in terms of Clause 25. If we place the onus on the Department, we will be bringing back what the trade does not want—continual interference by the police in their books and so forth. The trade does not want that because it is a nuisance, but then I shall be compelled to reintroduce those provisions. I think the hon. member must consider which point weighs more heavily—to give the trade all this bother or simply to give the traders, who will stand together, the opportunity of saying: “We have sold so much and so much and the percentage in our district is so much.” Although I have sympathy with the argument of the hon. member I think he should very seriously consider whether it will not be far more to the detriment of the trade to do what he suggests than to do what I suggest.

As far as the granting of licences is concerned, I told the hon. member for North West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) earlier that I was very sympathetic, and I want to show my sympathy with the trade in a practical way as far as the adjustment is concerned. I do not want to be accused of having interfered with vested interests. I said that in the normal course of events the provisions of this Bill would come into operation next year and that it would be possible to grant the first licences next year. But I am quite prepared to postpone the date of the granting of the first licence—in other words, the date on which grocers can start selling light wines—to 1 March 1965, that is to say, for about two years, and during this period the trade will have the opportunity of adapting itself to the changed situation. I am prepared to do that and I want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to accept that. I am quite prepared to say as far as the first allocation of licences is concerned, that is to say, on 1 March 1965, that licences will only be granted to those who at that date are selling less than 15 per cent and that in the next year, 1966, that is to say, three years from to-day, the rest will be permitted to sell in terms of the provisions of this Bill. I would like to hear arguments as to whether we should make it 40 per cent or 30 per cent but I think that if I allow a three-year postponement, 30 per cent appears to be quite fair. This puts wine on more or less an equal footing with beer. I say that this appears to me to be fair but I would like to hear views of hon. members in this regard.

I should like to cross swords with the hon. member for Durban (Point) on the onus, which, under Section 36, according to him, is intolerable to the liquor trade. Firstly, if only one dealer objects, it is not enough for the region. If all the dealers object, there is no reason why they should not co-operate. If they are prevented from revealing their secrets because of competition, they will no doubt find some means of doing so. So I cannot agree with him that the burden placed upon the objectors by Section 36 is too great. Personally, I believe that the heavier that burden is, the better it will be for the pattern of drinking. For that reason I am a little disappointed that the Minister wants to make some concessions in regard to the 40 per cent. I think the retailers have had an opportunity since 1928 to promote the consumption of light wines. [Interjections.] Possibly the product was not always there, but it is known that for the last 15 years the product has been available and they have done nothing. Now they should not come along and complain today because their supposed right, which they did not even exercise, is being infringed. Personally, I should be sorry if the Minister made further concessions, because if he were to do so, he would still not succeed in making light wines available at points other than at bottle stores. After all, our aim, according to the Malan Commission, is to associate the consumption of light wine with food, not only when one is having a meal, but also when one is selling it. [Interjections.] The recommendations of the Commission proceed from two viewpoints, namely the consumption of wine while food is also being consumed …

What did the Malan Commission say about beer?

That matter has been disposed of. Why does the hon. member now want to rake up an old empty beer bottle? I say the Commission states very clearly that not only should the consumption of liquor and food be associated with one another, but the sale of food and liquor as well. In paragraph 183 the report says this—

Were the Minister now to make concessions on this point, namely if he reduced it to 30 per cent and to 15 per cent, he would defeat that very object. The onus of proof is not impossible, because if all the people in one region object collectively to the application of a grocer’s shop, they can act together and, if they do not act in a body, there is a difference of opinion, and if there is a difference of opinion then the grocer ought to get his licence. Secondly, if we make concessions in regard to this section, we are really acting contrary to our decision just now, that the grocers may now also sell wine. For that reason I shall be sorry if the Minister makes any concessions on this point.

I am concerned with the onus of proof which the hon. member for Standerton discussed, but I am more concerned with the reasoning behind this clause, and Clause 3, which deals with the sale of wine by grocers. If I understood the hon. member for Standerton correctly, he says that the bottle-store keeper has had since 1928 to promote the sale of wine, and having failed to do so, we will now teach them a sharp lesson and let the grocers loose on them! He says in effect that the establishment of grocers as outlets for wine is due to the fact that, according to him, bottle-store keepers did not do their duty by the wine industry since 1928. My first objection is this: I fail to understand where, under the law, there has ever been an obligation on the bottle-store keepers to sell wine up to any quantity.

But they are claiming the right now, and where in the law is that right given to them?

My point is that the bottle-store keeper has never had the obligation to sell light wine up to any particular quantity. To argue as if there was an obligation, which has not been fulfilled since 1928, and to give this Committee and the country the impression that a particular sector of the liquor distributive industry has been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, is completely misleading. I say that to this day there is no onus on a bottle-store keeper to tell his customer, who comes in to place an order or telephones, that he must buy 40 per cent or 60 per cent by volume of wine, otherwise he is not doing his duty to his country! That is completely unreasonable, just as it would be to say that the grocer is not doing his duty to a particular manufacturing industry when he does not persuade all his customers to buy soap, when they need toothpaste. This is the position: A man wants to order something to drink, say brandy or whisky, and then, according to the hon. member for Standerton, the bottle-store keeper is morally obliged to say that he must buy light wine—and this is held up to us as being something which is in the interest of the community! In other words, we must now set up a sort of forced-feeding system from the producer of wine to the bottle-store keeper to the customer, who must accept at least 40 per cent by volume of wine.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the percentage or to the other matters contained in the clause.

With respect. I was talking about those things. The Minister said he was going to reprieve the bottle-store keepers up to 1 March 1965. I see that period as a period in which the bottle-store keepers will be able to do the duty the hon. member for Standerton claims he has not done, and that is to boost the sale of natural wine. In other words, between now and 1965 the bottle-store keeper must realize that unless he boosts the sale of wine he will have a dozen grocers competing with him. I do not see this period of reprieve or respite as a concession. To me it is a subtle way of compelling bottle-store keepers, willy-nilly, to do what he otherwise would not have done, and that is to boost the sale of wine. The alternative to this forced selling of wine after l March 1965 is. in order to obviate the effects of this clause, that every bottle-store keeper must now try to sell as much wine as possible, and the customer will literally be badgered to buy light wine. Now, Sir, how do you think that will be brought about? It will be done by all sorts of inducements to the consumers, because I cannot believe that the bottle-store keeper will buy all the wine he is supposed to buy to get up to the 40 per cent level and then simply store it away-—he cannot afford to do so. So he will either give it away or sell it at cut prices, or he will give the kind of inducement in regard to wine which we already know about, where certain producers of wine are delivering 13 cases and charging for only 12. I never imagined that when we seriously debated legislation to change “the pattern of drinking” we would sink to this level. This artificial stimulus, which I admit the “wine lobby” in this Parliament has succeeded in getting into this Bill—a lobby more powerful than the oil lobby in Washington—is an artificial stimulus to provide the bottle-store keeper with an economic compulsion to sell wine, and it can only be fulfilled if the consumer drinks more wine—and then what is the effect of all this? I am not arguing against the use of wine. I agree with the hon. member for Ceres that it has an ennobling effect on food, but in the very area of South Africa where this great virtue, the drinking of natural wine, has been established for many years, and where there is no need to force-feed the population to make them drink wine, the position is reflected in a letter published in the Cape Times a few days ago, signed by “Clinic Doctor”, which reads as follows—

I say the writer of this letter must have been psychic, because this is the gist of the debate in support of this clause to-night

Can it be that they have never seen what light wines do to the Coloured population? On Monday mornings we reap the harvest of the pay-day celebrations on Friday. This Monday at one clinic we treated. among many others, these patients:

1. (1) Charlie, who was assaulted by his drunken brother-in-law, who poured paraffin over him while he slept and set him alight;
2. (2) Jacob, who came with septic human bites on his face, sustained in a drunken brawl in which both parties must have fought like animals;
3. (3) Petrus, who will lose his job as a casual labourer because his drunken companions kicked him and fractured his ribs.

I am not suggesting that a man would not kick another man and fracture his ribs even if he has not partaken of light wine, but I must submit with great deference to the hon. members for Gezina and Standerton that they must rather say categorically that the idea of selling wine through grocers is purely and simply propagated in order to stimulate the sale of light wine, and not to hold it up as “changing the pattern of drinking”, so that we will all become more civilized.

I want to say in conclusion that in the area which I represent, the centre of Johannesburg. which is as civilized as the western part of the Cape, we do not need to be force-fed to buy light wines. The people there have established a pattern of drinking in a civilized way. Those who prefer beer buy it and drink it, and those who prefer wine buy it and drink it, and they do not, with great respect to those who wish to puff up the wine industry in this part of the country for reasons totally unconnected with the health, morals or economic standing of these people, need this forced-feeding which this clause is designed to promote.

The hon. member who has just sat down has misrepresented the position. In the first place he says that the people of South Africa have “developed a civilized pattern of drinking”. He accepts that the pattern of drinking that we have to-day is the right one. He regards it as a good pattern for a civilized country.

In the Transvaal, yes.

It is anything but civilized. Hard liquor is consumed on such a scale in the Transvaal, as indeed in every other province, that it is beyond one’s comprehension. When one compares it with the consumption of hard liquor in other parts of the world, and the incidence of drunkenness, one finds that our drinking pattern is highly uncivilized. The hon. member assumes that this large-scale consumption of hard liquor is an indication of civilization. It is anything but civilized.

I did not say that.

Secondly, he suggested that it was entirely up to the bottle stores to ensure that more natural wine was consumed. He kept on saying that the bottle stores should do this, that or the other to force natural wine down peoples’ throats. That is not so. What has to be proved in terms of this clause is that all places selling liquor have increased their sales of natural wine to such an extent that they form more than 15 per cent of the total sales. That includes bottle stores and hotels in respect of on-and off-consumption; it includes wine and malt houses in respect of on-and off-consumption and it includes the bars, some of which have on-and off-consumption facilities. In other words, the liquor sellers in the country have until 1 March 1965 to increase their sales of wine to 15 per cent of their total sales. This is a concession with which I personally do not feel satisfied but I do feel that every hon. member who opposes it has every reason to be satisfied with it. I am quite surprised that the hon. the Minister has gone as low as 15 per cent because to my mind it is obvious that it will be the easiest thing in the world to reach 15 per cent, and I want to explain why I say this. In three years the consumption of light wine in the Republic has increased from 8,000,000 gallons to 15,000,000 gallons, so the hon. the Minister has set them an easy task; they are given two years to reach the figure of 15 per cent. The figure for the Republic to-day is already 15 per cent. Therefore, the hon. the Minister is not asking for anything out of the ordinary. I think everyone will agree that the hon. the Minister’s acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is a particular concession. That is the first point. Secondly, he says that they will have the opportunity to increase their sales in the next two years and that in the third year they must more or less treble their sales and step up the percentage to 40 per cent. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to depart from the 40 per cent. We will have had a preparatory period of almost two years during which the licence holders will have had the opportunity to increase their sales of natural wine. Then we come to 1 March 1965, and we still give them an additional period of time up to 1 March 1966, to push up their sales of natural wines to 40 per cent of the total sales. That is a very generous concession and we are making that concession because we believe that it can be done quite easily. If we are not prepared to achieve these results within two years, what hope do we have of ever being able to change our drinking pattern? The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) says that he does not believe that we want to change the pattern; that our sole purpose is to sell light wines. [Hear, hear!] Would he not be shocked if England had our drinking pattern? The whole of the Western world would be shocked if they had the drinking pattern that we have. [Interjection.] We are now making an earnest attempt to change that pattern and I want to ask hon. members to give it a chance. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has told us time and time again how much he wants to cooperate because he realizes that the drinking pattern is wrong and that it should be rectified, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has said the same thing. I believe that all hon. members who believe in doing things in a civilized way. whether it be drinking or eating, will agree that we must do something. It is for that reason that I support this clause. On 1 March 1965. 15 per cent of our total sales must comprise natural wines and a year later, 40 per cent. I hope that the hon. the Minister will not make any further concessions.

Before calling upon the next speaker, I just want to point out that this clause does not deal with the drinking pattern but only with the question as to when an application for a grocer’s wine licence may be approved. I want to ask hon. members to confine themselves to that point.

I want to be very brief. I welcome the concession that the hon. the Minister has made in this connection by reducing the figure to 15 per cent. I see only one difficulty. I just want to ask whether it will not be possible to postpone the date in respect of the second 15 per cent, that is to say, the date by which the total percentage must be pushed up to 30 per cent, to 1 March 1967—that is to say, two years for the first 15 per cent and two years for the next 15 per cent. The first 15 per cent will then come into operation in 1965 and the 30 per cent in 1967. This would give a period of four years and I think everyone would be satisfied with that. I thank the hon. the Minister for that concession.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in regard to the ability of an objector to call evidence, he referred to Section 25 of the Act, which again shows the hon. member to be completely wrong, as he so often is. Only the Licensing Board may force a person to appear as a witness. An objector cannot subpoena a witness.

I said that he could cooperate.

The hon. member said that an objector could subpoena a witness, and that is incorrect.

On a point of explanation, I never said what the hon. member is accusing me of now.

The point is that an objector cannot force a person to give evidence. The people from whom he requires evidence are bottle-store keepers, and I agree that they could get together, but then it is also wholesale licensees who deal directly with the public. The Minister knows there is almost a blood feud between the retail trade and the pseudo-wholesalers who deal direct with the public, and it is unthinkable that either the retailer or the pseudo-wholesaler is going to give the other one information about their businesses. But even more difficult than off-sales which I should imagine will co-operate, you have your authorities, licences granted to City Councils to sell liquor in locations and non-White areas, and licences granted to associations of non-Whites, ten Coloured people with authority to sell in a Coloured area. The Minister must realize that an objector cannot get from those divergent bodies, the city councils, the groups of non-Whites and their arch enemies in the trade, the public wholesalers against whom they are competing, the information that is required. The Minister said that would mean reintroducing counter books. That is not so. Every bottle store or off-sales has a record of what they receive and what they sell. All they need is a stock book showing their total sales. They do not have to enter the name of every customer. They take stock at the end of the week or at the end of the month and the difference between this and what they had plus what they got in, is what they have sold in the meantime. So there is no problem with the records. I can assure the Minister that the licensees would much rather keep those records available for his inspection than to try to get out of the city council and other organizations the information demanded. Again I say it is impossible for an objector to get that information, whereas it is possible for the Minister to do so. Coming to the question of the percentage, I want to say that I am sorry that the hon. member for Hercules said that 40 per cent was a simple amount to get. The issue is to draw people away from hard tack to soft liquor. Now, according to the Minister’s own figures, in Natal the consumption of unfortified wine constitutes 4.85 per cent of liquor used as against 23.46 per cent spirits. Consequently, if not a single person in Natal drinks one single tot of spirits, the total percentage will only be 28.2. If not a single tot of whisky, or brandy, or gin was drunk in Natal, then you would only have a percentage of 28.2 in respect of wine. In the Orange Free State the position is that if no one drank one single tot of hard tack, you would only have 21 per cent wine drinkers. In the Transvaal 21 per cent drink spirits and 7.5 wine. So if you switch every spirit drinker to wine, you will have 28 per cent.

How much wine must you drink in order to get the equivalent of one tot of brandy?

That is my next point. It makes it worse because this clause lays down that it must be measured by volume; so every bottle of brandy is equal to a bottle of wine or beer.

I do not wish to drink one bottle of brandy with my dinner!

You would have to drink three bottles of wine, to get the equivalent of one bottle of brandy.

No, five and a half.

No. For red wine it is 14 per cent against 40 per cent for brandy—in other words, three bottles of red wine are the equivalent of one bottle of brandy. But when you bring beer in as well then it becomes even worse, because a person will buy at least 12 bottles of beer for one bottle of brandy, if not more—in alcoholic content equivalent much more. So in point of fact you are making it impossible. This is then just a sham; this percentage becomes a sham because to achieve this you will have to stop people drinking beer and make them drink wine. If you want to achieve 40 per cent you will have to draw people from fortified wine and beer. If you want to attain the 40 per cent you would have to do that because there is just not that number of people drinking that amount of spirits.

Dealing with the question of the onus I want to move the following amendment—

That deals with the question of the onus of proof which I now separate from the question of percentages. Then I should like to move the following further amendment—

We then have a firm basis of discussion. Twenty per cent is the total spirit sales in the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State converted into wine, less 4, 3 and 7 per cent respectively. Therefore, I believe that if the figure is 15 per cent after 1 March 1965, and 20 per cent 12 months thereafter, we would have a reasonable basis taking into account beer. I would prefer if the Minister agrees …

What is your maximum percentage?

20 per cent after 1 March 1966.

Is that your total maximum?

Yes. That is what I propose. I want a basis to work on. At the moment there is nothing tangible before the Committee. My proposal is that it should be 20 per cent after 1 March 1966. That means that in order to achieve that the other three provinces have to convert the equivalent of their total hard liquor sales into wine. I do not believe that the Minister can possibly expect more than that of the trade. I do not want to argue with theories, or with morality, or with anything else. We are dealing here with a practical issue. And I am pleading that the Minister give existing channels of distribution the opportunity of achieving this target. I am setting a target which it is possible for them to achieve. If you set the target higher than that, then you might just as well forget about it. This clause would then become quite meaningless.

Consequently, I move these two amendments. The question of beer is not excluded. If it were excluded then you can change these percentages. But if a gallonage out of all proportion to its alcohol content and its value is included, then these figures are fair figures to set as a target which more than meets the objective which this Bill sets out to achieve.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has a flair for putting certain things. He always creates the impression that he has a very good case. I have in mind his stereotyped statements like “misleading the House”, “making a mockery of the clause”, “challenging the Minister”, and so forth. If you ask me what this has to do with the clause under discussion, then I say that I have gradually come to the conclusion that a great deal of nonsense has been uttered about what hon. members describe as “liquor”.

I simply cannot accept what the hon. member apparently regards as axiomatic, and that is that the hon. the Minister is compelled to collect evidence in order to give his decisions. I simply cannot accept that anyone can claim that the hon. the Minister must collect the evidence on which to give his decisions. It is an absolutely wrong conception of the hon. the Minister’s duty. It is a rule of our administrative law, our private law, and of our law of evidence that he who avers must prove. If, therefore, anybody were to allege that the consumption of light wine represented a certain percentage of the total consumption, it would be up to him to prove it. What the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants is that the hon. the Minister must collect that evidence—as though the Department does not have enough work already! After all, we cannot expect the Department to run the liquor section of grocery shops.

That is why I hope that the hon. the Minister will not even pay any attention to this amendment, because the aim of it is to make his Department subordinate to liquor interests, interests which have shown that they are quite capable of looking after themselves. If the light wine sold within a certain region represents 40 per cent of the total liquor sales, and a grocer applies for a licence to participate in that trade, there will be adequate reason for that liquor trade as a whole to team up and to produce the evidence which the hon. member now wants the hon. the Minister to go and collect.

I want to say in passing that I have never said that the Liquor Licensing Board should summon people to give details of their turnover. I do know this about the trade: that it is clever enough to reveal certain information without giving that information to its competitors. This can be done by giving the information to an attorney and an agreement can be entered into that he will not divulge the turnover of the other people. The attorney can then make the necessary calculation. It is the simplest thing in the world.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister again to make no concessions whatsoever, and that applies to the question of 15 per cent, for which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) asked. Indeed, I did not gain the impression that the hon. the Minister said that he would make that concession. But if he has already done so, I am sorry about it, and I want to ask him to reconsider the matter. He must abide by the provisions of the clause. In making this appeal, I am not seeking to impose any penalty on the liquor trade, because they have not done their duty. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) maintained that that was what I wanted to do. That is not my aim. My aim is to associate liquor with food.

In a bottle-store?

As far as I am concerned, I think that a bottle-store ought to try to acquire an hotel or a cafe or a grocer’s licence. I do not have the slightest objection to that. I make no secret of the fact that I hold no brief for bottle-stores. Not at all. By the way, I do not like the word “bottelstoor”; I think it is bad Afrikaans. I simply used it to make it perfectly clear what I meant. I say that I am not trying to impose a penalty on the liquor trade. All I want to say is that the drinking pattern has developed in this way because we in this country could not decide in 1928 whether we wanted partial or complete prohibition. Then we decided …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the clause. It provides that the onus of proof will rest on the liquor trade which contends that it is supplying an adequate quantity. I say, too, that the figure of 40 per cent is not an impossible figure. If the liquor traders contend that it is an impossible figure, they must prove to the Minister that, when they sell liquor, they do so under the new pattern; in other words, that they are associating food and drink. As soon as we can achieve that, we will have achieved everything we want. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister not to make any concessions in this regard. It is my humble submission to this House that this legislation does not require an impossible onus of proof. Indeed, I want to congratulate the Department on having formulated these provisions in this particular way.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will not accede to the request of the last speaker. Personally I appreciate the concession that the hon. the Minister is prepared to make, and that is not to issue the first licence to grocers until 1 March 1965, and the fact that it will be calculated on a basis of 15 per cent.

I simply cannot understand where this idea of 40 per cent comes from. Is it not a completely arbitrary figure? What is the idea of 40 per cent? Is the idea to push up the consumption of light wine to 40 per cent for the country as a whole? If so, and if the percentage of fortified wine remains the same, we are going to have the following state of affairs: 40 per cent light wines, 30 per cent fortified wines and more or less 40 per cent beer, making a total of more than 100 per cent. What becomes of brandy then? I think we should also consider the composition of our people. I was surprised to hear that in the Western Province light wines, most of which is vaaljapie, represent 40 per cent of the total consumption. I was surprised because I expected the figure to be far higher, particularly bearing in mind the composition of the population. As far as I know. Whites in the Western Province do not drink vaaljapie, but whisky and brandy. They use light wines at table. But we in the north do the same thing. Our Coloureds in the interior drink wine, but not vaaljapie or light wine. They drink the heavy sweet wines. It will take longer than up to 1 March 1965 to change this habit. In this I see a discrimination against the interior. There is another reason why I hold this view. If we compare the drinking habits of the Whites in the Western Province with those of people in the interior, we in the interior compare well with the Western Province as far as the consumption of light alcoholic liquors is concerned. Here we are discriminating against the interior. In Prieska, Carnarvon, Upington and other places, one does not drink wine during the summer. One does not drink wine with one’s meals, but one will not go to a bottle store to buy wine; one goes along there to buy beer.

The consumption of light liquor forms the basis of this Bill. If we include beer amongst the light liquors consumed in the interior, and if we base our formula on this figure, we will be acting fairly towards the interior. I know that I may not refer to it, but I want to say in passing that I am very sorry that we were not able to include beer under Clause 3.

The basis of the percentage we have been talking about is the aim to bring about a change in the drinking pattern. That change would be in the direction of increased consumption of light wines. According to those who support this, you could then expect a corresponding reduction in the consumption of hard liquor. Let me deal with this point first. Is there any member in this House, including the Minister, who honestly believes that if a confirmed drinker of hard spirits is encouraged to drink one or two bottles more of light wine it will affect that person’s consumption of hard liquor? Will that change that person’s drinking habits? I do not think so. Does anybody really believe that working on this system we are going to change the drinking habits of the country? If he does think so, then he has another guess coming. I think the choice of a standard on which judgment is being based as between one province and another—the basis of the 40 per cent light wine consumption—is a very unfortunate one. That 40 per cent has undoubtedly been arrived at by taking into consideration the consumption of wine in the Cape Province. Now it is being held out to the other three provinces that if the bottle stores wish to avoid competition from grocer shops they must increase the sale of light wine to a level of what it is in the Cape. That, I think, is very unfortunate. What are we in fact doing? We are using a man’s weakness for liquor as a criterion to judge whether in the other three provinces there should be protection against competition of the existing licensee. What do we find? We find that the deciding figures are being based largely on the wine consumption in the Cape. Now it is an accepted fact that the heaviest wine drinkers in the Cape are our Coloured people. Let us take the 1961 convictions for drunkenness. If you look at those convictions you will see that the highest incidence of drunkenness is amongst the Coloureds—the highest of all the population groups in the Republic. The actual position is that although the Coloureds constitute less than 10 per cent of the total population, more than half the number of persons convicted for drunkenness in 1961 were Coloureds—59,361 out of 73,577. This fact is hardly encouraging for us to want to compel licensees in other provinces to build up their sales of wine to the Cape level.

The hon. member for Hercules and others have told us about this civilized pattern of living of having wine with your food. That, according to them, is one of the hallmarks of civilization. They say it has an ennobling effect on a meal.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am dealing with the percentage, Sir.

Then the hon. member must confine himself to the percentage and not repeat discussions we have had previously.

I would suggest that those who believe in wine having an “ennobling” effect with meals, take a walk to Wynberg Hospital on a Friday night and see what the nursing staff has to do as a result of liquor consumption …

Order! The member must confine himself to the percentage required before an application can be made.

He is, Sir, the percentage based on the consumption of wine in the Cape.

The hon. member must now confine himself strictly to that.

With respect, Sir. that is what I am trying to do. I must be allowed to give an example of why I think that percentage is an unrealistic one and why it should not be encouraged in other areas. One of the reasons why I say it should not be encouraged, is that I have seen with my own eyes the effect that percentage can have, the ravages it produces. That is why I say that the choice of using as a standard of comparison the amount of liquor a man can consume is entirely wrong. It is a principle which should never be accepted by this Parliament. If we must adopt some standard of comparison, then we must find another standard than this one. We should not trade on a man’s weakness.

That is why I am completely against this clause. I am against it because we are trading on human weaknesses. Thereby we shall be ruining people. So every attempt to put this percentage basis into operation must have very serious repercussions. Provision is made for a period of grace of years or so before this clause will be applied, but what does that mean? In fact it will be practically impossible to put the provisions of this Bill into operation within less than 1½ year’s time. All the machinery must still be provided to enable it being put into operation, the premises must be prepared, etc. So the period of grace does not really give away much because the competition could not exist before that time in any case. But the promise is being held out now that if you use that time to boost up your own sales to 40 per cent—or to whatever percentage is eventually fixed in the Bill—you will be exempt from competition by grocers. This is further proof that the whole set-up of the Bill is wrong, because if, as a result of the other provinces increasing their consumption, we can forego wine being sold through grocers’ shops in these provinces, then the whole basis on which this Bill has been presented to the House is wrong. If we want to boost the sale of light wines in the country, let us then go straight forward and try to do it. Do not let us do it by a roundabout, backdoor method, as we are trying to do in this Bill, as a bait to the people concerned. Let us not try to accomplish what this Bill is aiming at along those lines.

I want to react to the hon. the Minister’s concession to our request and thank him for it. I feel that I must refer to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) who asked the hon. the Minister not to make any concession with regard to a percentage lower than 40 per cent. Just two sentences later in his speech he had to admit that he expected the bottle stores in the north to sell wine, which was not to be had there. But he also made another mistake. Indeed. I think that he was rather careless as far as his facts were concerned. It is only since August of last year that the bottle stores in the north have had the privilege of having a larger market amongst the non-Whites, a privilege which has existed here in the south since 1928. It is this advantage of 35 years in point of time which logically accounts for the figure of 40 per cent as against 7 per cent. This is an important consideration. We in the north who are not as civilized as those in the south (?) started with Marula beer. Statistics show, however, that since liquor has also been made available to the non-Whites in the north, there has been a reasonable increase. During the first quarter of 1962, for example, the sales of unfortified wine represented only 6 per cent of total liquor sales while this percentage rose to about 11 per cent for the first quarter of 1963. This shows that progress is being made. The same applies to fortified wine.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his concessions. But I want to strike a “bargain” with him in the good sense of the word. My request is that 12 months after 1 March 1965, he should make the percentage 25 per cent. If he does not want to accept this, then when he increases the percentage to 40 per cent, he should seriously consider including beer which has already been excluded in the case of grocer shops.

Would you be satisfied with 30 per cent instead of 40 per cent?

Would the hon. the Minister still exclude malt liquors then?

No, then the whole basis would fall away.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that the north has a backlog to make up and that it will not be so easy to increase the percentage from 10 per cent to 40 per cent in 12 months. It is only fair and realistic to accept that fact, particularly since they have a limited market and limited means of advertising. But I would be satisfied to accept 30 per cent after 12 months.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the discussions on this clause have degenerated into a sort of Rialto, because the one moment it is 15 per cent, the next moment 20 per cent, then it is 25 per cent, then 10 per cent, then 14 per cent, then 40 per cent, then again 30 per cent! The Stock Exchange, Sir, is by comparison comparatively quiet! This, then is the kind of motivation behind the debate on this clause, i.e. a purely commercial one, and not a moral one as we have been told it is, for hours on end. If anything makes that clear, it is this bargaining across the floor of the House. The bottle-store keepers, naturally, do not want grocers to sell liquor thereby encroaching on a business which bottle stores have developed at great trouble and expense. If they feel that the Minister is adamant and that the decision will go against them as regards the percentage, then clearly the extent to which it can be reduced represents some sort of a concession. That is purely a business approach.

On the other hand, in so far as the interests of the wine farmers are concerned, those who speak for these farmers are saying, in effect, that it is perhaps impossible to attain this tremendous 40 per cent advantage and that, therefore, they will settle for 30 per cent. But let me say that the people I represent, and, I think, the people from my part of the country, are not interested in this compromise by bargaining. They are not interested in this Rialto which is being created here. On the contrary, they are interested only in the public interest. That is surely the better approach. I do not want to sound too moralistic about it, but this kind of debate, as I see it, is so unbecoming as to be almost immoral. If it could be argued that the people of the northern provinces, even including Natal, had up to now been deprived of the privilege of drinking light wine, and that that was due to culpable negligence on the part of bottle stores, which control the distributive trade …

Licensees also and not only bottle stores.

I accept that. If, therefore, it could reasonably be argued that the licensees were culpably negligent through having deprived over the last 35 years, i.e. since 1928, the people of the Northern Provinces and Natal of light wine, and that they have to be punished for that not only by the creation of additional competitors but also by the creation of additional outlets to the public, then the position would be completely different. Even the former chairman of the Commission, to whom unfortunately much reference has to be made in the debate, would not suggest that in the city of Durban, or in any small town in Natal, or in the city of Johannesburg, or in any small town in the Transvaal, the person who wanted to buy a bottle of light wine had any difficulty since 1928 in doing so.

Too expensive.

We had that argument, about it being too expensive, before. If that is so, those who argue as they do should stand up and say that we should control the retail price of wine so as to bring it within the reach of those people who want it. That would be a more practical consideration; it might even be a moral consideration for bringing the benefit of light wines within the economic range of people who are dying to get it, but cannot afford it. Nobody says that. They do not say: “Let us curb the profits and bring down the costs and help these poor deprived people …”

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the percentage.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, in order to justify the one percentage or the other, certain arguments have been advanced. In order to try to convince this Committee of the validity of an argument, one has to deny, if possible, the arguments advanced in favour of a certain percentage. If that is illogical. Sir, then I cannot say any more. But then, Mr. Chairman, you must not allow those other statements to go unchallenged—and I propose to challenge them.

Order! I request the hon. member to confine himself to the percentage required before a licence should be granted to a grocer, and nothing else.

Sir, I do not want to repeat the arguments of other hon. members, or my own, for that matter. I do want to say that this question of percentage is obviously the heart of the matter. In order to fix that percentage, you have to try to establish why it is necessary to obtain any percentage. That is the purpose of my argument. Why is it necessary to obtain a percentage of 40 or 30 or 50 or even 1? Why? Unless somebody can prove that the people who want to drink light wine in provinces like the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State, are at present unable to procure that wine, then I submit, with respect, that there is no reason for any percentage whatsoever in this clause. It is one thing to come here with an argument that can stand up to the test of honesty, but it is a different matter to come here with specious arguments—which I, for one, have had to listen to and under the cloak of virtue or morality, seek to achieve a purely commercial purpose. [Time limit.]

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the concession which he has made to hotels in fixing 1965 as the commencing date and for lowering the percentage to 15 per cent. There are a few other points which everybody has overlooked so far. The hon. the Minister has excluded beer in the case of grocery shops for the sake of vested interests. If beer had been included, the sales of beer and wine taken together would have affected this 40 per cent. If we take the total consumption of beer and wine in all the provinces in relation to the total liquor sales we find that it is as follows: 61 per cent in the Cape, 57 per cent in Natal, 39 per cent in the Free State and 56 per cent in the Transvaal. If, as requested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), we increase the figures for the sale of light wines to 20 per cent after 1 March 1966, and we accept that the consumption of hard liquor will be reduced and that the consumption of beer will remain the same, then the figures will be as follows: 61 per cent for the Cape, 73 per cent for Natal, 56 per cent for the Free State and 69 per cent for the Transvaal. If we increase the sales of light wines to 30 per cent, again assuming that we lower the consumption of spirits and that the consumption of beer remains the same, then the figures will be: 61 per cent for the Cape. 83 per cent for Natal, 66 per cent for the Free State and 79 per cent for the Transvaal. I maintain that if we had not excluded beer for the sake of the vested interests we should have taken these figures into consideration. My point is, Mr. Chairman, that the Cape is not doing its duty as far as beer is concerned, just as the three northern provinces are not doing their duty as far as wine is concerned. Because of the climate it is not healthy in the northern provinces to drink as much light wine as people consume in the Cape, particularly on a warm day. When I personally scrape together the courage to drink the dry red wine of the Cape I suffer from heartburn for the rest of the day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the question of taking wine and beer jointly in determining this percentage. It is perfectly clear to me that if the northern provinces have to increase their sales of light wine in order to reach the percentage of the Cape, then the Cape in turn will have to drink so much more beer in order to reach the percentage of beer consumed in the northern provinces. If we make it 20 per cent as far as light wines are concerned after 1 March 1966, the northern provinces, with the exception of the Free State, will drink far more light liquor than the Cape. That is what we want; we want to discourage people from drinking hard liquor.

I think I should thank the hon. the Minister in advance for the 20 per cent provision which I hope he will accept. I want to make a strong plea in this regard. We must consider the matter on that basis. The hon. member for Durban (Point) had other considerations in mind when he arrived at the figure of 20 per cent but as I have put the matter, I think the case I have put forward has merit; I think my arguments hold water.

Mr. Chairman, they say that drink makes strange bed-fellows. I find myself very much in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). I have also risen because the hon. the Minister has invited opinion on this clause for the reason I gather that he himself is uncertain in regard to the provisions of sub-section (3). I believe he wishes to sound the views of members in order to clear his own thinking as to the advisability or not of accepting this sub-section or amending it or otherwise. I want to tell the Minister that I personally consider it unfortunate that this sub-section has been included in the Bill. I shall tell the hon. the Minister why. I voted for the second reading and for Clause 3 because I accepted the fact that there was a necessity to change the drinking pattern of South Africa. What does this sub-section in fact do, Sir? Let me put it in the language of the layman and not in legal terminology—

I think that is a fair interpretation. What does it mean? If we couple that with the statement of the Minister that he is prepared to allow a period of two years before he will apply this provision what does it in fact mean? It means that we are including in this Bill a provision which will hold the sword of Damocles over the 2,000 licensed liquor outlets for the off-sales of liquor in this country, because we are virtually saying to them: “If you 2,000 outlets which the Government has licensed, do not bring an effective change about in the drinking pattern of South Africa, we are going to license a number of other outlets which will make light wines more easily accessible to the public.” The Minister, by that statement, as I see it, is saying to liquor interests: “I am now passing the buck to you, you have to change the drinking pattern of South Africa; you have to make light wines more easily available to the public, and secondly, you have to convince the public that they must drink light wines.” What is going to happen if the onus is thrown on the liquor interests? Can you imagine the advertisements in the local weekly newspapers by Sam’s Liquor Establishment or Sam’s Bottle Store: “Drink Light Table Wine and Keep Sam in Business” or “Drink Light Table Wine and Don’t Become an Alcoholic”. Because that is what the Minister is suggesting in order to protect these interests. We are either going to license grocery shops normally to sell light table wines on a proper basis as it is sold anywhere else or we are going to pass the buck to vested interests to sell light wines on a bigger scale. That is what it amounts to. I believe it is necessary to change the drinking pattern. Let us also bear this in mind that before a grocer is granted a licence, in terms of the other provisions of the Act, anybody can object to that application of his. What we are doing in sub-section (3) is to say to the liquor interests: “We are giving you a special right to protect your interests because if you people in any particular magisterial district can come together and can prove that you sell 40 per cent light wines that licence won’t be granted.” They will say to themselves: “We must push up the sales so that nobody else comes into the trade.” Mr. Chairman, I think it is a ridiculous proposition. I do not think it is a fair one. I shall vote for this clause because I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that in practice it cannot be applied. I think it will be difficult to apply. That is the only reason why I am going to vote for it otherwise I would move the deletion of sub-section (3). Let us accept our responsibility; do not let us pass the buck. I think it is entirely hypocritical to ask us to support a Bill of this nature and then to go along and say that we are going to leave it to the bottle stores to change the drinking pattern of South Africa. That is ridiculous, Sir. We are holding the sword of Damocles over their heads; they will live in fear of licences being dished out in their district if they do not sell 40 per cent. I hope the Minister will see it in that light and leave this sub-section just as it is here in the Bill.

I think we have now discussed this matter quite fully. I asked hon. members to express their views in regard to this question of percentage and hon. members on both sides have freely stated their views. Let me deal first of all with the view of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that the onus of determining the percentage should rest upon the Department. I have considered this very carefully and I feel that it would be an unfair onus to place on the Department. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) was quite right in saying that a cardinal principle of law of evidence is that he who avers must prove. I realize on the Other hand that there may perhaps be something in what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, that it will be difficult for the objector to prove this. That is why I want to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) the undertaking that I will move an amendment in the Other Place to Clause 25 so as to eliminate all objections which the objector may have that he does not have the necessary facilities to obtain this information and to give the objector a full opportunity to obtain that information. I think that is fair. For the rest, the clause will go through as it stands. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that.

I also readily agree that there is substance in the argument of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) except that his attitude is wrong. If we regarded liquor in the same light as any other article of trade, any person would be entitled to a licence in order to trade in that article. In the past—and we cannot get away from this fact—the State has said that not every person will be able to trade in this article; only certain people who obtain a licence on certain conditions will be allowed to trade in this article. That is what the State said. The State went further, and said: “You cannot only take out the usual trading licence and pay for it; I am going to make you pay a further £5,000, and in some cases £2,500, for the privilege of trading in that article.” If it were not for that fact, I would be in complete agreement with the hon. member for Turffontein; we would not even have to argue about it. But we, as the House of Assembly, cannot lightly ignore what Parliament has done in the past; we must take that into account. When we fix a percentage, we do not do so because we want to force people in any particular direction; it is simply and solely because we bear these things in mind, and because we have respect for the established rights that the liquor trader has obtained, not only as a result of the fact that he is in the trade, but because he obtained those rights under specific circumstances. The State forced him in the past to obtain those rights in a certain way and to pay for them. That, to my mind, is the decisive argument.

I know that we have discussed this matter fully and in order to finalize it I want to give my views in this connection. I repeat: I do not think it is necessary to insert this provision in the Bill; I have given this undertaking, and I can do so because we do have a discretion; it is a question of policy. The undertaking is that in the first allocation of licences on the 1 March 1965, when this provision comes into operation, the percentage will be fixed at 15 per cent and for the rest, Mr. Chairman, I want to move at this stage—

“thirty”.

But you said 25 per cent.

I personally would have liked to have made it 25 per cent and that was why I asked hon. members for their opinion. Hon. members hold it against me that I have already lowered the percentage from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. If I have to bring it down further to 25 per cent, I will get into hot water with other hon. members who have also put their views. I think we must be satisfied with this concession of 10 per cent. We must finalize this argument and that is why I had moved to substitute “thirty” for “forty”. I have also given this administrative undertaking.

May I ask a question? Is the hon. the Minister not prepared to accept 25 per cent having regard to the consumption of beer in the North?

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I want to tell hon. members that whether it is 25 per cent or 30 per cent will make no practical difference. It makes no difference to me, but in view of the arguments advanced by both sides I feel that we must be satisfied with 30 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that sub-clause (3) is a most unfortunate clause and I shall tell you why, I believe it will lead to a drink race …

Order! That argument has been used.

…which will put arms races of the past in the shadow and I shall tell you why.

Order! That argument has been used.

Sir, much has been said about changing the pattern of drink and I want to say this …

Order! The argument about a drink race has been used, inter alia, by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). The hon. member must obey my ruling.

I have a new point, Mr. Chairman. The hope has been expressed that where we are drinking hard liquor to-day we shall switch over and drink soft liquor. I say that this percentage clause will simply have the effect that there will be no change in the drinking of hard liquor, but that the interests concerned will simply bring in a vast new body of people to drink wine. I think it is unfortunate that people should be brought in unnaturally. Moreover, these people will be brought in, quite unnaturally, under the force and the pressure of sales campaigns and advertising campaigns in order largely to prevent licences from going into the hands of grocers.

Order! I am sorry that argument has also been used.

I shall move to another aspect, Sir. We are concerned in this clause with the advisability of introducing a percentage of table wine which must be reached by the drinking public failing which licences may be granted to grocery stores. I am trying to advance arguments that this….

Then the hon. member must advance new arguments.

What I would like to say is this: Whatever percentage is decided upon what will clearly happen is this: The various interests concerned with wine will get the percentage up to the required percentage, which is now 30 per cent as moved by the Minister. The breweries could then push their beer sales tremendously in order to force the wine percentage below 30 per cent. Then you will have a further effort by the wine interests to push their percentage up. It will lead to a drink race….

I want to move—

Let the hon. member for Pinelands first finish his speech.

Sir, there are vast and conflicting interests in this trade. I predict that we shall find the consumption of all kinds of liquor going up in a most unfortunate way simply because of the pressure of this very clause. This House has passed the clause dealing with licences to the grocery shops I say no more about that. But I say that if people are concerned to change the drinking pattern without making us a nation of terrific drinkers we should delete sub-clause (3) and remove this artificial stimulant to competition and mutual rivalry which will be disastrous.

It is interesting to think that this seems to me to be a most unfortunate result of our departure from the Commonwealth, because I believe this is an attempt to make up the loss which is feared in our wine industry. This will have serious consequences for the nation.

With leave of the Committee, the first amendment proposed by Mr. Raw was withdrawn.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Raw put and negatived and amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—65: Badenhorst, F. H.; Barnett, C.; 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.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Dӧnges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Le Roux, G. S. P.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S.L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Raw, W. V.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; 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.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—21: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Greyling, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Odell, H. G. O.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

It being 10.27 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: