I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I want to assure hon. members that there is nothing sinister in this motion such as, e.g., that a new type of seller is thereby being introduced to the trade. It deals only with people having existing rights, namely the holders of wine farmers’ licences; that is to say, wine farmers and co-operative companies. By the amendment of the Liquor Act in 1961, and as applied since last year, in terms of which liquor may also be sold to Bantu, this anomaly has arisen. Section 82 of the existing Act reads as follows—

It amounts to this, that the holder of a wine farmer’s licence—the farmer himself or a cooperative winery—has first to ask anyone, when selling wine to him, whether he possesses a house to the value of £200. This restriction does not apply to any other seller of wine products and it is not carried out in practice either. Nor do the police enforce it. The K.W.V. now feel that this is an anomaly and that therefore with the amending of the liquor legislation the opportunity should be taken to remove this anomaly.

I second.

The Bill before the House deals with the position of wine farmers’ licences. Now the hon. member wishes to remove the control over the scope of a wine farmer’s licence which is provided in the Act. The hon. member’s motion seeks to extend privileges. I think I understand him correctly that he objects to limitation. I feel that the wine farmer’s licence should, like any other licence, be subject to control and should be limited just as other licences are, and therefore I feel that it is unwise to extend the scope of this proposal.

I wish to associate myself with the point of view that has been expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The idea and the object of this contingent notice of motion merely seems to be to make more readily available the wine and the products of the wine farmer. I believe it is merely a sectional interest that is being put forward and it should be rejected by this House. I see no reason whatsoever why they should have a special privilege of having an unlimited supply without any control whatsoever over the supply of their product.

I associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. It is an archaic provision in the legislation which serves no useful purpose at all, for the simple reason that it is impossible to apply it in practice, and it has always been impossible to apply it in practice. If you look at the provision in regard to the 25 miles, you will see that it places upon a licence holder an onus which it is quite impossible for him to discharge in practice, and as regards the occupation of the house, nobody any longer occupies a house that is worth less than is stipulated here. However, if one wishes to be strict, the licence holder must first go and look at the house, and he must first, in whatever manner it may be, satisfy himself properly whether the house has that value. If you want to take it to its logical conclusion, he must really have a sworn valuation of every building in the district on his premises before he may sell. Apart from that, it is not a burden imposed on any other licence holder. Any other licence holder may sell as he wishes. The question then is why should this unfair onus and impracticable onus now be imposed upon one specific licence holder?

If the hon. Minister’s argument is a valid one, then one can only express surprise at the fact that the matter was not dealt with long ago. If this is an archaic provision, and one which according to the hon. Minister is impossible of fulfillment, then one wonders why in the past, and especially in the case which the Minister himself introduced, no regard was had to the need to change what is now called an archaic and “impossible of fulfillment” provision. One may be forgiven if one comes to the conclusion that this is merely an afterthought, which has arisen in the run of the debate yesterday.

No.

Well, I can only look at the facts as I find them this morning, and I say again that one may be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that, having regard to the way the debate went yesterday in favour of certain interests and against other interests …

We have to forgive you such a lot that a little more will not make any difference.

That is very generous of the hon. Minister of Lands.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to submit that this is merely a piece of opportunism to secure a greater sale of wine, born of the success already achieved by the wine farmers, and therefore I do not see why the change is necessary merely because it is impossible or difficult to fulfil a certain legal obligation. There are other cases where a law stands on the Statute Book to which it is difficult to adhere. It may be an archaic provision, but it may still be a wide provision, and therefore it is difficult to understand why the same yardstick cannot be applied to this piece of legislation, that is, to leave it on the Statute Book.

There is just one point in respect of which I require enlightenment. For days now we are busy dealing with the sale of light wine and I want to know what this wine farmer’s licence is going to embrace, fortified wine or unfortified wine?

This is nothing new. This is an old thing.

I admit that, but for record purposes I would like to know exactly what it embraces. A farmer will now be able to sell right through the country and if a campaign started to sell fortified wine it may restrict the sale of light wine.

But he can sell that now.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make this submission that where an hon. member wishes to put before the Committee of the whole House a relevant provision of the nature of that put forward by the hon. member, this House should be very chary of refusing permission to give such an hon. member the opportunity of stating his case. I am glad to say that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has asked me to say that he withdraws his objection. I therefore hope that the House will approve of this motion. The merits of the case we can discuss when the hon. member has put his case.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

(2) The Minister may upon a recommendation made by the National Liquor Board and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 63, in his discretion authorize the conversion of such wholesale liquor licence into a bottle liquor licence, subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may deem fit to impose, provided that—

This is quite a complicated amendment I have moved, and I should like hon. members to examine it with me. The clause as it appears in the Bill provides that wholesale licences may be converted into bottle-store licences, as they are generally called. But the section also debars such a conversion in a case where a person who has an interest in a wholesale licence also has any interest at all in another liquor licence. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that at the second reading I argued whether it is good and sound that this system, which is generally known as the “pseudo-wholesaler”, should continue—that is the wholesale dealer who does business direct with the public; he has all the liberties to do business with the public direct, save that he may not sell less than 12 bottles at a time. That really is the objection I raised at the second reading, and upon which I do not propose to dilate. This creates a special problem in the rural areas because a man is compelled to buy 12 bottles when he may want only 11 bottles or ten bottles. He is not compelled to do so. We are not compelling him to do so; he may buy from the retailer, but it frequently is an encouragement to him to do so, because he may save a few cents in that way. That is why I say it is a monstrosity in our law. Having made the liquor trade increasingly free, we should not now have a provision whereby we compel a man to buy a large quantity. This must also be eliminated. In all other respects the pseudo-wholesaler is the same as the bottle store, except for the provision relative to the quantity that may be sold.

The clause as it stands has a very great weakness. Sub-clause (2) which provides that a man who has another interest cannot have this conversion while he has that interest. In other words, the only inference that can be drawn from this is that when he comes along to ask for this conversion, he must have no other interest in liquor licences. Now you may have the position that one man may have six different wholesale licences, and everyone belongs to a separate company, and that from now on until the end of the year, fee gives each of his six sons the shares in each of those companies, with the result that at the beginning of next year when he applies for the conversion there is not only one that is converted but six. The door has been opened beautifully to make Clause 38 (3) virtually valueless. I call this a weakness in that clause. What I now have in mind is that we should canalize the sale of liquor. My whole motive is that we must eliminate that provision in our Act, that a man must sell 12 bottles in fact. I want the liquor dealer to supply liquor in any quantity to the public. We are now in any case opening the door for the bottle store completely. Formerly they could sell more than 12 bottles at a time. Now we say he can sell any quantity. In other words, the reason why we formerly had the wholesaler dealing directly with the public no longer exists if this Bill is passed. We have often found that the holder of a bottle-store licence on the same premises also conducted the business of a wholesaler, so that they could sell more than 12 bottles. There is no longer any need for that, and that licence may now fall away, because he can now sell any quantity under the bottle-store licence. I realize that the pseudo-wholesaler who sells direct to the public has acquired vested interests, and I should not like to undo that. The Bill seeks to grant a bottle-store licence in the place of a wholesale licence but only where the man has no other interest. Now I say the man who may perhaps have other interests, who may have two or four wholesale liquor licences, or who also has an interest in another bottle store or an hotel, and who wishes to convert his wholesale licence into a bottle-store licence, must be given the opportunity to do so, but he should have only the one opportunity to effect one conversion in one district.

Why?

If a man has five wholesale licences in Stellenbosch, surely you cannot give him five bottle stores there. I am really opposed to the distribution of bottle-store licences, because I should like to help the hotels rather than to distribute bottle-store licences. But I want to eradicate the evil of the wholesaler who may sell more than 12 bottles to the public, but I do not wish to deprive him of his right; I want to give him a bottle store. If he holds more than one wholesale licence, he may convert one into a bottle store. That is a valuable asset, because now his field is no longer limited to the people who buy 12 bottles or more. However, if he has already made that conversion, and converted his wholesale business into a bottle store, and he holds another wholesale liquor licence, it need not fall away, but I attach a condition to that to the effect that he will not longer have the right to do business direct with the public, but only with the trade. In my amendment I am amending Clause 38 (2) and then I add sub-clause (4), but (4) must be read together with the first one and I cannot separate the two. If I separate them, I achieve nothing, because what I really wish to achieve is to canalize liquor sales and to compel wholesalers in future to deal with the trade; to the people who have a vested interest, I am giving a bottle store, which actually is more valuable. In (c) of the amendment, I introduce a further proviso. As I said just now, we frequently find that a bottle-store licence is conducted on the same premises as a wholesale licence. He merely had it for the purpose of selling in large quantities from the same bottle-store premises. [Time limit.]

The amendment of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) covers two aspects. The first is contained in (2) and the other in (4). I can quite understand the argument of the hon. member without committing myself at this stage in regard to my own attitude in respect thereof, but I should like to point out to the hon. member that as far as (4) is concerned, it can best be discussed when we reach Clause 59, because Clause 59 deals with this aspect, and if we were to discuss it now, I am afraid we are not going to have a full discussion on Clause 59. I have no objection to the first leg of the amendment. It seems to me there is substance in it, but if we were to discuss (4) now, we are doing an injustice to Clause 59, to which there are various amendments. Therefore I should like to suggest that at this stage we confine ourselves to the first part of the amendment, and that we discuss the second part of it when we reach Clause 59.

Mr. Chairman, I do not like Clause 38, nor do I like the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres. Clause 38 is tied up with Clause 59. The position is that the wholesaler is given a right to change his licence from a wholesale licence to a retail licence, or to accept certain restrictions in terms of Clause 59 on his present licence. In so far as the producer or the manufacturer is concerned, he is given no alternative at all. I find it somewhat amazing, after the lines this debate has taken, to find that at this stage there should be a curtailment of the sale of liquor. Let us be realistic about it. Those who want to increase the sale of light wine have been in the majority, and now suddenly we find that we are to do away with the right of the public to buy that wine cheaply. Let us look at the Commission’s report, which dealt with the matter very clearly. In paragraph 169 they say—

Here is the crux of the whole situation. If you want to expand the sale of light wine and give the public the right to buy at the lowest price, why suddenly remove the wholesaler by giving him the right to convert to being a retailer or remaining a wholesaler but subject to restrictions that make it impossible for him to trade as a wholesaler? I believe that the wholesaler should not be given the right to convert. We are going to have another 400 bottle stores anyway as the result of hotels being given bottle stores, and I believe the wholesaler is essential to the public, but suddenly we have the aspect that the wholesaler must only sell to the retail shops. Sir, there is no section of our business community in which the wholesaler does not sell to everybody, and some of those firms who have tried to ensure that they will only sell to the retailer have almost had to go out of business. I am going to vote against the clause and the amendment.

I wish to continue my explanation. I wish to point out that my amendment is wholly dependent upon (4). If I can achieve the same object in another part of the Bill, of course I do not mind, but if I cannot achieve the effect contemplated by (4), I would rather withdraw the rest and not proceed with it. What I have in mind is that if there is a quasi-wholesaler in Cape Town doing business with the public direct, and if he also has a wholesale business in Stellenbosch and another in Worcester and a further one in Malmesbury, he may have a bottle store in each of those places in the place of his wholesale licence. [Interjection.] Not if he is a manufacturer, but a manufacturer is eliminated in any event. It is not a new thing. He cannot have a bottle store to-day, even if he has a quota. If the hon. member wants to bring him in, it is something new. But I wish to give the quasi-wholesaler something in the place of his right, and I give him a bottle store in every district in which he runs a wholesale business. I want the liquor sales to be canalized. A wholesaler cannot sell less than 12 bottles at the present time, and Clause 59 amends that so that six bottles must be of the same kind. That is an indication that there is a desire to reduce the sales of the wholesalers because it is a monstrosity. In the previous Bill we have before us, provision was made that at least 12 bottles had to be of the same kind, and that has now been dispensed with. Why? Because we want to curb the sales of the quasi-wholesaler. Now I say let us dispose of him once and for all, but do not let us deprive him of his rights. Indeed, what we are giving him, as I see it, is really more than he had before, a bottle store in every district. But I do not give it in the case of a bottle-store licensee who also holds a wholesale licence in the same place, nor do I give it in respect of an hotel with off-sales privileges which also holds a wholesale licence in the same place, nor to a wine and malt licensee who holds a wholesale licence in the same place, because it is unnecessary. The reason why he had a wholesale licence now falls away under Clause 59, because he may now sell any quantity whereas formerly he was limited to 12 bottles. [Interjection.] Now the Minister is rectifying that position. There is only a minimum now and no maximum. The bottle store may now sell any quantity, but he may not sell less than a certain quantity only. To overcome this difficulty the bottle stores had wholesale licences on the same premises, but now it is no longer necessary. I am giving the bottle-store licence only to the people who have acquired a vested right to sell to the public, that is to say, the quasi-wholesaler. I am giving him a bottle store, which is better than he had before, but the wholesalers who remain must do business with the trade only and not with the public. That is a very important factor. It is one of the great weaknesses of our law that we are selling to the public and imposing a minimum which is above the mark of many people. It creates a social problem and we must rectify it.

I do not think the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) and I understand each other clearly. There are three groups of wholesalers. There is the one who holds a wholesale licence together with his bottle-store licence, purely for convenience. The need for that now falls away. The second type is really only a retailer in another form. We are now meeting him, because we are permitting him to convert. Some of them are debarred from converting because they may still hold a few shares in another company. Their case is covered by the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres. But there is a third group, and that is why I have proposed that this whole thing should stand over until we reach Clause 59. As far as my knowledge goes, there are three groups falling within this third group. They are the Stellenvale group, the Alphen group and the Huguenot group. But according to the hon. member’s amendment they cannot convert. They had vested rights to sell to the public, but they are producer-wholesalers and the hon. member’s amendment in (b) will have the effect that we shall put these three out of business completely. But this can best be discussed under Clause 59. The hon. member need not discard the first part of his amendment if the second part falls away, because he covers a certain number of people and I agree with him that those people should be given an opportunity to convert, for then we lessen the evil of the so-called wholesaler. But if we accept his amendment, we shall with one fell blow from the side deprive people of a vested right they have had, and I do not think that can be our intention. If we wish to take it away, we must do so with our open eyes and deliberately under Clause 59 after we have discussed the whole position, but we must not take it away indirectly here without having had an opportunity to come to Clause 59. Had it not been for that, I would have been in full agreement with the hon. member, but under the circumstances I have to repeat that I cannot agree with (4) of the hon. member’s amendment.

On a point of order, as I read (4), the hon. member wants to add a new sub-section at the end of Section 55bis. Is he talking about the Bill or the old Act?

The old Act.

Then I will reserve my remarks.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 42,

The reason why I am requesting the House to reject this clause is because people who are interested in the consumption of liquor, whether they are drinkers or not, must also have certain vested rights. Not only people who sell liquor have vested interests, but also those who do not sell it and who see danger in the sale of liquor. Thus far the public have always had the right, as at Fish Hoek for instance, to vote whether they want a liquor licence there. If this clause is passed, that right falls away. That is why I am asking the House, when they are protecting the people who have vested interests, to protect in this instance the right of the public, of the man in the street, and to give him the right to vote whether or not he wants a liquor business in his neighbourhood.

It may perhaps eliminate unnecessary discussion if I explain my attitude in regard to this matter at this stage. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) can rest assured that the repeal of these sections is of no significance at all, and I shall give my reasons for saying that. Firstly, as far as Section 59 is concerned, the State President may proclaim an area to be an area in which a wholesaler or a bottle store may not sell or supply liquor to a person unless that person produces a police permit authorizing him to buy liquor. The only area in which such a proclamation was ever issued was Bellville. I do not know why it was done but it was proclaimed and the proclamation was withdrawn again some years ago. Therefore it means nothing in practice. Then there is another area, the district of Gordonia in which a proclamation was issued many years ago—I do not know why—in terms of which liquor could not be sold by wholesalers. With the development of the liquor trade this serves no purpose at all and no one will suffer if we remove this old provision. As far as Section 60 is concerned it makes provision for the retention of the so-called local option areas, in which, when the 1928 Act came into operation, trading in liquor was forbidden by vote. There was only one “local option area” in the Republic and that was Alberton. The people of Alberton took the matter to court and the court ruled in their favour with the result that there are many liquor businesses in Alberton to-day. In other words, there are no longer “local option areas” in any part of the Republic. The area which is closest to a “local option area” is Fish Hoek but it is not a “local option area it is a completely different matter and I have already given an undertaking in that connection. But in Alberton we had an entire magisterial district which was a “local option area”. That section therefore serves no purpose. As far as Section 61 is concerned, it is a fact that the inhabitants of a district can present a petition for or against the extension or renewal of a liquor licence. This is already in the Act but if the hon. member will look at Section 173 he will see that in terms of that section similar regulations may and are going to be drawn up. That right is therefore not being taken away; people will have precisely the same right that they have to-day in terms of Section 61. They will have that right by way of regulations passed in terms of Section 173. I assure the hon. member that it is not our intention to deprive those people of that right. They will always be able to exercise that right as they have been able to do up to the present.

Section 62 deals with the question of memorials. Memorials have never applied to any province other than the Cape and it is felt now that the repeal of this section will place the Cape in the same position as the rest of the Republic, and in place of memorials objections can still be lodged in terms of the regulations framed under Section 173. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are not taking away any right but we are merely deleting provisions which are no longer applicable. The rights which people have had in the past will still be given to them by way of regulation in terms of Section 173.

May I before dealing with the point which I wanted to raise under this particular proposal in support of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) convey to the hon. the Minister, as I have been asked to do as their local representative by the people who usually organize the opposition to the granting of liquor licences at Fish Hoek, an expression of appreciation of the Minister’s assurance which he gave in his reply to the second-reading debate. I can assure the hon. the Minister that it has given general satisfaction to the people in this area to know that at any rate during his term of office they will be protected. But dealing with the broader issue I accept what the Minister has just said, namely that although the provisions at present apply under the section which is to be repealed will disappear, the other clauses of the Bill which he mentioned do in some shape or form give a similar protection, although the procedure is perhaps a little bit more complicated, to a particular area, which does not want to be burdened with or to have the privilege of a liquor licence of one sort or another referred to in the Bill. That may be so, Sir, but I want to say this with regard to the last portion of the Minister’s speech dealing with memorials. Although the principle of the memorial applied only to the Cape, to a large extent it took the place of the previous system of local option which, as the Minister has rightly said, disappeared some time ago. It did allow what one might term a democratic right to the people in an area, to the people interested, not just those who happen to be there temporarily; in the case of Fish Hoek, to use an example, people were actually voters as owners of property, but there was this difference that there were other features involved in the Fish Hoek case, as the Minister has rightly said. There was the question of the servitude on the title deeds forbidding the establishment of any wine house in that area. Large numbers of people who bought property there, bought that property with that safeguard or proviso on their title deeds. That in itself, I think, justifies the action which they have taken there. A certain community grows up in an area like that, but you have other areas where for one reason or another—possibly not the same legal reason as in the case of Fish Hoek—a community feels that they are better off without any liquor licence in the area, and I still believe that there should be some way in which a community like that should have the opportunity to convey their feelings to either the licensing authorities or to the Minister or to whoever is finally responsible for the issue of the licences. It is in keeping with the whole of our democratic system of government, where the democratic right originates with the people and it eventually remains with them. It now becomes more of a legal job to battle with any opposition to licences, if I may put it that way, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister, despite the fact that he says that he wants the Cape to fall into line with other provinces, could not permit that provision to remain and whether, if he feels that there must be uniformity, he cannot extend this to the other provinces. Cannot he permit it to remain where it has been in existence for so long? In fact I would go further and ask the Minister, if he cannot do it in this House, to consider the question of introducing an amendment in the Other Place which would make it safe for an area, so that once the people in that area have by an overwhelming majority, as in the case of Fish Hoek, given their vote against a liquor licence in their area, they can be protected for a reasonable period of time against a renewal of applications for such a licence. I happen to know the tremendous amount of work that has had to be put in to carry the voice of the people to the authorities concerned. There is no question about it; it involves a terrific amount of work, but I also know that the people who want the licences are far better off financially than the people who oppose the granting of licences, and therefore it is a simple matter of business each year to renew the application on the principle that continuous drops of water would eventually wear away the stone.

Water?

Yes, it is well watered down in this case. The people themselves who are bringing up their families there and who enjoy an atmosphere there which they probably would not enjoy under other circumstances, have no protection against this attack year after year. I would ask the Minister therefore to give his most sympathetic consideration to the question of retaining the principle of protecting the rights of the individuals in the area, a principle which is enshrined in the memorial and to consider the question of introducing some kind of amendment in the Other Place whereby this principle would not only be retained but whereby applicants for liquor licences would be debarred for a period of three or five years from making further applications so that at least the people concerned will know where they stand and will not have to fight this battle year after year.

I do not think the hon. member who has just sat down fully appreciates the position. The position of Fish Hoek and other areas which the hon. member has in mind is dealt with and fully covered by Section 56 of the principal Act, and as far as Section 56 is concerned, that is incorporated in the new Act without any amendments to it whatsoever. That position is fully covered by Section 56 therefore and the hon. member need have no fear that this protection will fall by the board in any shape or form. If other areas wish to follow the example of Fish Hoek they can do so under Section 56. But the question of memorials can be dealt with and would be dealt with under the regulations passed in terms of Section 173. The reason why the Malan Commission felt that memorials should be done away with is, as the hon. member knows, because it happened in Fish Hoek just in the reverse, that the liquor trade pays people half a crown for a signature. That has been proved in Fish Hoek and I take it that the hon. member knows that that is so.

That is what I meant when I talked about financial backing.

That is exactly what is happening in practice. In order to get a signature they pay half a crown for it in Fish Hoek, and then in other cases, under the memorial clause, in order to keep competitors away, they again pay half a crown for a signature. That just goes to show what half a crown can do. For that very reason it was decided to delete those particular sections. I want to give the hon. member and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) the assurance again that as far as the Fish Hoek position is concerned, that is covered by Section 56, and if other areas want similar treatment, then Section 56 will be there for them to make use of.

I will be very brief. I accept what the Minister says, that the half-crown seems to have considerably more force than the crown as far as Fish Hoek is concerned. But cannot that difficulty of paying for signatures be avoided if, after a memorial has been presented and accepted and a verdict has been given on that memorial, a period of stalemate for three or five years was then imposed? Once the agreement has been reached and the Licensing Board has decided on the memorial, then if that decision is binding for a period of three or five years, the community itself would know that for that period they could not be assailed again if they did not want a liquor licence; the people who want licences also know that they could not succeed, and it would at least give that breathing space to the residents. The local situation changes every year as the younger people get older, and by the time the period of five years has elapsed, you may get quite a different kind of opinion even on a memorial.

As I read Section 56—and I do not suggest for a moment that my interpretation is correct—it seems to me that if Fish Hoek, for instance, were to come along and convince the State President that they do not want an application there over the next five years, then I think it would be competent to make such a declaration under Section 56, and therefore the position which the hon. member has in mind is covered by Section 56. Let me quote Section 56 to the hon. member—

The “restrictions” according to my interpretation are unlimited. I am prepared to suggest to the hon. member that we make an experiment. I am prepared to go so far as to say that if the proper authorities in Fish Hoek approach me, I am prepared to recommend to the State President that he should declare Fish Hoek a prohibited area for five years or ten years for that matter. I am perfectly prepared to do that, because I know that at the moment they are dead against the granting of liquor licences. They do not want to be pestered every year by people submitting applications and stirring up everybody by paying half-crowns to get their signatures. If my interpretation of this section is correct—I have not consulted the law advisers and I am not saying for one moment that it is correct—then I am prepared to recommend to the State President that Fish Hoek be declared a restricted area for ten years.

If the hon. the Minister goes on in this way in regard to Fish Hoek he will soon get the name of Pussyfoot Vorster. I think that is quite wrong. If the Minister wants to declare Fish Hoek a dry area then he must declare it a dry area. The section which the Minister has read out provides that restrictions may be placed on the sale or supply of liquor. I do not want to cross swords with the Minister now about Fish Hoek because it is a local authority and I do not live there but I want to say that the fact that there are no licences in Fish Hoek creates a monopoly for the people round about Fish Hoek. Liquor to the value of thousands of pounds is sold in Fish Hoek every month …

But they do not want it in their area.

No, but they drink it in their area. The vans of liquor dealers in Simonstown, Glencairn and Muizenberg go into Fish Hoek daily to deliver liquor. They are very busy running in and out of Fish Hoek delivering liquor. I respect the views of the people of Fish Hoek, and I do not care whether Fish Hoek gets a licence or whether it does not get a licence, but it must either be declared a dry area—and then people can buy their liquor in Cape Town and take it to Fish Hoek in suitcases—or the sale of liquor in the area must be prohibited. As far as memorials are concerned, I agree with the hon. Minister. The position has become farcical. It is something which I and many others who have practised in the legal profession have condemned, because it boils down to this that the man who has the most money gets the most signatures. It has always been a farce and I am very glad that that is being done away with. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must be very careful not to create a monopoly for certain areas. I think I might be able to convince him over a cup of tea one day that his declaration at this stage with regard to Fish Hoek should be considered very carefully by him.

I just want to say “thank you” to the hon. the Minister and to assure him that I will convey his views to the authorities concerned. With regard to the last speaker I just want to say that the monopoly was created by a servitude on the title deeds of the people from whom the Fish Hoek inhabitants purchased their properties, and in most cases influenced such purchases.

May I put a further question to the Minister? The position of Fish Hoek is fairly clear because there they have a municipality which controls the whole area, but what will the position be in the case of, say, a large suburb of a big municipality which wants to have the same conditions imposed, which wants to keep the area free from liquor licences? Could the same thing be done there?

May I just reply to the hon. member’s question, with your leave, Mr. Chairman? There is nothing in the Act which prevents them from asking for the same facilities.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 47,

I have an amendment on the Order Paper in regard to Clause 47 and also in regard to Clause 57. I want to say that I do not intend to move those amendments because since placing them on the Order Paper I understand that there have been discussions between Fedhasa and the representatives of the clubs in South Africa and that an agreement has been arrived at. That information has been placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister by the hon. the member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). I believe the matter is under consideration, and I merely want to ask that it be dealt with during the passage of this Bill through the House or in the Other Place when the Bill goes there—preferably during the Report Stage if it can be done. I know that the Minister has it under consideration. Perhaps he could tell the Committee what the position is.

The position of the clubs vis-á-vis the hotels is as the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has set it out here. I believe that there have been talks between the two bodies and that they have come to a certain agreement. Unfortunately I was only informed of that late last night, and hon. members will realize that it was impossible for me to consider the position and to discuss it with the law advisers. What I had in mind—and I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Von Brandis will agree to that—was to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs. The hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) discussed this matter with me at length, and I was wondering, whether in view of the very late arrangement and in view of the fact that I feel that some of these matters have not been investigated fully, it would not be wise to revert to the status quo as far as hotels and clubs are concerned in this Act. I will give the hon. member the assurance then that I will personally ask the club representatives and Fedhasa to come to my office during the recess to discuss the whole question with a view to finding a solution acceptable to both parties. If a solution is found, I will then come back to the House next year with an amendment before consolidating the Liquor Act, and incorporate the agreement between Fedhasa and the clubs in that amendment. I think it will be possible to arrive at a solution which will satisfy both parties. For that reason, because of this very late agreement and because of the fact that I have not been able and will hardly be able to find the time before this Bill goes to the Other Place to consider all matters fully, I think it would be advisable to leave this matter over for another year. We will then have an opportunity in the meantime to discuss this matter, and I suggest that we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs and that we revert to the status quo until next year.

I just want to draw the attention of the Committee to the seriousness of the clause as it now appears in the Bill before us, and to the detrimental effects that it would have on members of clubs. In view of the Minister’s remarks, and the compromise suggestion which has been agreed upon between the Associated Clubs of South Africa and the Federated Hotels of South Africa, and which I have submitted to the Minister. I do hope that that will form the basis of the amendment which will be introduced next year when we come to consolidate the Liquor Act. I thank the Minister for accepting this interim suggestion.

May I ask the Minister whether he has any powers which he could use in the case of any club which is not a member of the association or which fails to recognize the authority of the association, continuing the practices which led the Minister to introduce this amendment in the first place. In other words, I accept that the Club Association and the Federated Hotel Association will come together and sort out the position. They have already agreed upon a basis which has not yet been translated into this Bill. They have arrived at the basis of an agreement but that is an agreement only between the Association of Clubs and the Federated Hotel Association. I should like to know whether in the case of those who do not abide by any agreement which has been reached, there are powers which can be used to prevent them from in fact abusing their licence …

Do you mean during this year?

Yes, to prevent that position from continuing for another year until an amicable agreement has been reached.

Unfortunately the reply is that I believe I have no powers to stop them if they do not want to abide by the gentleman’s agreement which has been arrived at in the meantime. But I do suggest that even though I have no powers at the moment, it is best to abide by the status quo for another year; we have had it all these years and we can endure it for another year. According to the Act as it stands at the moment I have no power to stop them if they do not abide by the agreement which has been arrived at. I think that in the circumstances they will be reasonable if they are aware of this agreement which has been arrived at between the organized clubs and Fedhasa.

Do I understand that the hon. the Minister is withdrawing Clause 47?

We are going to vote against the clause.

I do not quite understand what is meant by a club licence. I should like to know what the position is with regard to a licence given to a sporting body. Is that a club licence? Those sporting bodies are certainly not members of this august body which is taking part in this back-scratching and making agreements and then coming to the Minister.

They are members.

Some clubs are, but what about bowling clubs? I hope that the Minister will not stop any member of a bowling club who wishes to organize a function at his club and to provide liquor there. I hope that this back-scratching which is taking place will not prevent that.

Clause 47 put and negatived.

On Clause 49,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

The position under the old liquor licensing boards was that certain bodies such as Churches, for example, had the opportunity of objecting to or giving information to the board in regard to the granting of bottle-store licences. That position has now been changed, of course. But the clause as printed deprives these people of the right to ask that bottle-store licences should not be granted. I think my request is very reasonable and I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment.

This was also a matter which we intended rectifying by way of regulation issued in terms of Section 173, but after further consideration I think that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is correct and that it will be better to include a provision in the Bill in regard to this specific matter instead of doing it by regulation. For that reason I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 52,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

As the clause stands at the moment the conditions might be rather onerous and actually affect establishments that meet a demand. They may perhaps not provide elaborate accommodation and I think insertion of the word “facilities” would allow consideration to be given to such establishments. I think it is eminently fair to do so and I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment.

I think the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has put the position correctly and I have no hesitation in accepting his amendment.

I want to raise another question on this clause and that is the question of the few remaining bars in this country. As the Minister knows, since the 1956 Liquor Act and by succeeding amending Acts, they have been admitted to be rather a class by themselves in that they do serve a particular purpose and they very often cannot conform to the ordinary requirements of hotels in general. That has been recognized in that special arrangements have been made in Act after Act since 1928. I think there are 14 of them left in the country. I think the hon. the Minister is continuing that practice, one might call it, in the proviso he has to this clause. He says—

One must remember that these few remaining bars have a considerable capital investment, “vested interest” as the Minister would call it, with which he is not anxious to interfere. This proviso is a rather vague safeguard for people who have very big investments in old-established businesses, a fact which has been recognized by the State all these years. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps accept a different wording of this proviso which would put it in clearer form and be less alarming to these people, At the same time it would not prevent them from carrying out any provisions of this clause as far as it is possible for them to do so. I accordingly move—

It gives the Minister exactly the same powers but it puts it in a clearer and more definite form for the consolation of these people that in principle their existence is fully justified.

As the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said the substance of his amendment is similar to that of the existing clause. I agree that his wording is better and for that reason I am fully prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 53,

I want to draw attention to the Bill as printed. I refer to the last line of this clause. I do not know whether it is a slip-up in the printing. In (d), where the value of the premises to be erected is given, it talks about twenty thousand pounds and ten thousand pounds. I want to know whether it is intended to be £20,000 and £10,000 or whether it should be R.40,000 and R20,000?

The position is this. Because the Act has not yet been consolidated and because reference is made to pounds in it we must retain pounds in our amendment. It is not an oversight; it must be put that way. When the Act is consolidated, which we hope will be next year, pounds will be translated into rand.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 54,

I have two amendments on the Order Paper in my name and I wish to move the first one which reads as follows—

This is the clause which deals with the classification of hotels and with the privileges which these hotels will enjoy or the penalty which will be applied to them should they not succeed in being classified. The present proposal is that the National Liquor Board shall be the body which will do the classifying. The purpose of my amendment is that if, and I believe it will happen, a body is established either under the Minister of Tourism or arising from the investigations of the commission appointed by the Minister of Economic Affairs, on which practising hoteliers are represented and which has knowledge of the affairs of an hotel, consultation with that body shall be included in the procedure in classifying a hotel. With all due respect to the National Liquor Board there is not one person on that board with practical experience of the actual running of an hotel. They are persons who have experience in the liquor trade or in other aspects of liquor or they are officials from the Department, people with indirect knowledge. But they do not have the direct, intimate knowledge which only a person with the hotel business face to face can possibly have. I believe it would be of value and it would be much more satisfactory if classification were made after advice by such a board or body which may be appointed.

I now wish to move my second amendment—

That amendment means what it says, namely that barmaids could be employed in classified hotels at the discretion of the Minister if the person so employed was approved by the magistrate of the district. The reason I move this, apart from the obvious reasons, is that classification of an hotel entitles the Minister to approve of certain bars (restricted portions of the hotel) being open to females. In other words, in terms of the Minister’s powers you can have ladies’ bars created. It seems ridiculous that you should not be allowed to have a female waitress or a female behind the counter in a ladies’ bar or a ladies’ bar lounge. I would like to see it carried further, and the Minister should have this authority. It has been my experience that those bars which have barmaids are bars where the behaviour of the people is always exemplary. You do not have to have a chucker-out. If you do get a person using foul language or anything like that in the bar the customers themselves deal very expeditiously indeed with him. The presence of those barmaids who were appointed before 1928 has lent an atmosphere to those bars which I believe is the right sort of atmosphere. I believe, therefore, that it would do no harm, subject to the rigid control which I propose, if that position were to be restored. Even if the Minister does not want to go that far now he will have the right to do so—he will at least have the right to permit a hostess or a barmaid or a waitress in those bars which are set aside for both sexes. At the moment the position is that you have a ladies’ bar but the housekeeper or the chambermaid cannot go in there to arrange the flowers or to do any work in those premises. I believe this is an amendment which is administratively necessary and one which will also improve the drinking habits of the public which this Bill seeks to achieve.

Finally I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is wedded to the question of a certificate remaining in force for a period of three years. Once an hotel has been classified surely that hotel can remain classified unless a police report indicates that it should be reinvestigated. If classification is going to be done properly the procedure is going to be very lengthy. There will be forms to be filled in in detail …

Where does it deal with three years?

In Clause 54 (6)—

I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider accepting the deletion of “three years” and saying until the Licensing Board calls upon the licensee to appear before it in respect of a police report or any additional conditions which may be demanded of him. I see no reason why an hotel, once classified, should have to go through the whole procedure every three years, with a lot of cost and time wasted, without, as I see it, any real purpose.

I have certain objections to this clause. This clause makes provision for the granting of off-sales licences to certain classified hotels. The object of this, from the Minister’s second-reading speech, is to be solely to help hotels to improve their financial position. I appreciate that it is desirable to have a good hotel industry in this country and that hotels should be encouraged where possible. But I shall deal with that later. In particular I shall make the point that I believe it is entirely wrong that any improvements to the hotel industry should be at the cost of other business interests, particularly bottle-store keepers.

The first point I make is that an off-sales department is not the proper function of an hotel. The real and proper function of an hotel is to provide accommodation, service, food and, in the case of a licensed hotel, liquor to its residents and guests. It is not the function of an hotel to deal in liquor with the general public. I believe this ought not to be made part of the ordinary functions of an hotel—call them classified hotels if you will—because I believe that if this happens there is a very great danger that the bottle stores will be put out of business because of the number of off-sales departments which will be created under this clause. If the bottle-store keepers are in fact put out of business, as I believe many of them will be put out, there will be a monopoly in the hands of the hotels; they may not provide facilities to the public as good as those which the bottle stores provide to-day because they will have another source of revenue to rely on and, generally speaking, I believe there is also the danger that the cost of liquor to the public may be increased as a result of the monopoly which the hotel trade may acquire in this way.

As I have said I would support any reasonable move to help the hotels to solve their financial problems but I do not regard this as a reasonable move because, as I said a moment ago, it will only help hotels at the expense of bottle stores, i.e. at the expense of vested interests. This, I believe, is quite wrong and I shall elaborate on that in a moment.

I have another objection to this clause, Mr. Chairman. This clause does not state the basis of classification. It leaves that completely in the air. I believe that the clause should not be enacted; that this House would be entirely wrong in enacting this clause until such time as the basis of classification is disclosed and the various interests have had an opportunity of stating their views and until such time as this House has had the opportunity of discussing the whole question with a full knowledge of the basis of classification.

I believe that the worst feature of this clause, and the feature to which I have the strongest objection, is the provision that the off-sales departments of these classified hotels will be able to be situated at any place. I refer to sub-clause 7 (a) of Clause 54—

I appreciate the point made by the hon. the Minister that certain hotels, because of their situation, would not benefit by the off-sales section if they had it. I do not believe that that is any reason whatsoever for encroaching upon the existing business of bottle-store keepers. The hon. the Minister took up the attitude that in so far as he was concerned bottle stores could be thrown to the wolves.

You cannot throw one wolf to another wolf.

The hon. the Minister and various hon. members of this House have quite rightly been concerned that they would not, by means of this legislation, affect vested interests. That, I believe, is an honourable attitude and a perfectly right attitude. But at the same time, Sir, if that is correct then I cannot see how it can be correct and proper to affect the vested interests of bottle-store keepers. If hotels are to be allowed to situate their off-sale sections anywhere in an urban area there is no doubt that wherever their off-sale section is situate it would affect existing rights, it would seriously jeopardize existing businesses, particularly existing bottle-store keepers.

I wish to make it quite clear that I have no brief for bottle-store keepers. But I believe in principle this is wrong. I would point out, Sir, that bottle-store keepers pay a large deposit of R10,000; they have built up a goodwill with which they should be entitled to deal. If their businesses are seriously affected, as they will be, a large part of their investment will immediately disappear. If the hotel industry requires help, and I accept that it does, then that help should be given in some way which does not jeopardize other people’s businesses. If necessary, Mr. Chairman, some organization, like a Land Bank, could be established to assist the hotel industry the way the Land Bank assists the farmers. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what protection there is going to be for bottle-store keepers in areas where hotels are now going to be allowed to have off-sales departments and those hotels sell their business. Will those hotels be allowed to sell freely? The case was put to me yesterday of an hotel in my own area. It is a very good hotel; it cost a lot of money to build and they got a liquor licence from the board on the plea that they required it to help them with their finances. This hotel is situated about three miles away from a little village. Having got the licence the company sold the hotel to one man and retained the liquor licence. They have now sold that liquor licence, probably because of this liquor Bill being on the stocks, to another individual. This individual is now worried that that hotel may be allowed to erect an off-sales department in opposition to him in that urban area. And that liquor licence was actually granted to help the hotel to meet its financial obligations. What is the position going to be in future in regard to hotels which have off-sales departments either attached to them or away from their hotel premises as far as sales to other individuals are concerned? I see no provision here for the prevention of the sale of off-sale licences. If they can sell them as independent liquor licensed stores will they be allowed to establish further off-sales departments on their own premises or near by? I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what provision will be made to protect those people who have purchased in those circumstances and to see that there is not going to be an unnecessary multiplicity of liquor licences because of that fact.

I only rise at this stage to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. The intention is to give off-sales facilities to so-called underprivileged hotels on one condition and one condition only namely that that off-sales department must at all times be part and parcel of the hotel business. It cannot be formed into a subsidiary company, it cannot be sold, it cannot be done away with. It must remain part and parcel of the hotel business at all times. I can give the hon. member that assurance. If it is not clear in the Bill then I shall make it clear, but that is definitely the intention.

May that hotel hold its bottle-store licence in another part of the town or must it be on the hotel premises?

According to the Act it can be in another part of the town for the reason I gave in my second reading speech namely that an hotel is usually situated with a view to the convenience of the guests that will stay in that hotel. That being the case you may not have the business in the area where your hotel is situated so that you cannot compete on an equal footing with other bottle stores. We want to help those hotels who go out of their way to site their hotel in a place because they have regard for the welfare of their guests. But you cannot transfer it from one magistrate’s court district to another. It must be in the same district.

I now move the amendment as printed in my name—

There is no substance in this amendment other than the fact that my attention has been drawn to it that the clause is not very clear as it reads at the moment. It is only to make it clearer.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Will an hotel be able to erect an off-sales place anywhere it likes in the same area, or would it have to get permission from the Liquor Board?

No, such an hotel would have to get permission. It cannot erect an off-sales department wherever it likes because other licensees must be taken into consideration and therefore you will not allow him probably to put his off-sales department next to another licensee. I think this must be handled in a reasonable way.

I was wondering whether the hon. Minister could tell us: Will the present position be maintained that an hotel which is in a White area will be prohibited from transferring its bottle-store off-sales to another group area?

Very definitely. Not only is that the intention but a clause which has already been adopted by this House provides that it cannot be done.

Whilst fully appreciating the motivation for granting off-sale licences to hotels in order to increase the standard of cuisine and catering, the thought occurs to me, what guarantee have we got that by giving this facility—and a very valuable facility indeed—to hotels which establish bottle stores, either on their premises or away from their premises, that they will use the profits from those bottle stores in order to carry out what the hon. Minister has got in mind, namely, to improve the hotels—structural improvements or the whole standard of catering and accommodation? I am wondering if the Minister should not impose some restriction on the granting of such licences for off-sales consumption, by laying down that a certain percentage of profits that is earned in a bottle store, must be ploughed back into the hotel in order to carry out the Minister’s purpose. Otherwise, I do envisage the position that the concession that the House is granting to hotels, will not be used for the very purposes that we have got in mind to encourage tourism in this country. I would like to get the hon. Minister’s reaction whether he does not see his way clear to introduce some form of limitation and imposition when these off-sales licences are granted.

The other matter that worries me in this regard, is that we consider the granting of this off-sales licence to an hotel as if the owner of that hotel will at all times be running the hotel, and is in personal supervision of the hotel. But as we know, in a very large number of cases these hotels are rented out to tenants. Now apparently the off-sales licence will accrue to the tenant of the hotel. Has he got any interest in improving the property of his landlord, other than making a profit out of the off-sales licence? I foresee the possibility that the object we are out to achieve will not be achieved where you have a tenant occupying that hotel and not the owner himself who may be prepared to plough back some of the profits in order to improve the standard of the hotel. Would the hon. Minister take those two factors into consideration? Failing that, I feel we would be defeating our object in giving away 400 very valuable concessions, and we may have to come back in the near future and try to correct this omission, if it is an omission.

I rise to reply immediately to the hon. member for Springs. It is true that you might have some difficulty with tenants, but I do not visualize that in practice these difficulties will actually arise, for the following reasons: First of all there is a periodic classification. We still have to argue whether it should be every three years or every five years. In the Bill it is three years, and I think that is a fair proposition. But if the hon. member will look at sub-section (5) he will find that if the hotel-keeper does not come up to scratch, these facilities can be taken away from him and that is our guarantee that he will not only come up to scratch but that he will keep up to scratch, otherwise he will lose these privileges, and I do not think for one moment that he will run the risk of losing the privileges. And let me give the hon. member the assurance that once we have decided on a system of classification—and let me tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) at this stage that I am in perfect agreement with his amendment that the classification should be done in conjunction with the hotel industry—once we have come to an arrangement and once we have the report of the commission appointed by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, and we have clarity on this position, then it will be strictly adhered to and licensees will be expected to carry out each and every condition of such classification. I think none of them will want to run the risk of losing their certificates as classified hotels because it will certainly very detrimentally affect them if they do lose their certificates.

What about a provision in regard to the ploughing back of a certain percentage of profits?

Naturally one cannot tell them what they must plough back. You must leave that to themselves, but if they do not maintain the standard of their hotels, they will lose their certificate of classification. I am afraid I cannot take the matter any further than that.

Would the hon. Minister tell us a little more in regard to this question of the off-sales. He used the phrase that it was an attempt to assist the “underprivileged hotels”.

They call themselves that.

What would be the situation in a place like Durban where you have along the beach front I suppose 20 or 30 or 40 hotels, the bulk of which are in the highest class, or very near the top of any classification one might have. Do I understand that those hotels, which I suppose could not be called under-privileged, will not be granted off-sale privileges whereby they could establish in Durban town another 30 or 40 bottle stores in effect? Do I understand that that will not take place?

If I may just explain to the hon. member: Certain of those hotels have off-sales, others have not. I want to place all hotels on the same footing, or classified hotels, by giving them the same privileges. So if those hotels on the Durban sea front, which I fully agree with the hon. member are good hotels, in some cases have not got off-sales, they will get the privilege under this Act, and they will not only get this concession but they will have the opportunity, if they want to make use of it, to have the off-sales in the same building, or they can place the off-sales department somewhere else. But that does not only apply to those hotels who get it now, it also applies to those who had the off-sales privilege in the past. In other words, all hotels classified which have off-sale privileges will be able to put those off-sales, which one can compare with a bottle store, although it is not a bottle store in the strict sense of the word, somewhere else, but they will not be able to sell such an off-sales department and they will not be permitted to form it into a subsidiary company. The revenue accruing from those bottle stores must go into the same account as the hotel account.

After listening to the hon. Minister’s explanation I am even more opposed to this provision than I was before. It is quite clear that so far as this clause is concerned, it is the intention to favour the hotels and so although the existing bottle stores will in theory be able to raise an objection to the siting of any off-sales licence by an hotel, that objection in practice will be worthless, because according to the Minister’s statement every hotel will be entitled to an off-sales department and will be entitled as of right….

If it is classified, yes.

I accept that, but I think the majority of the hotels that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) referred to will undoubtedly be classified hotels. So the point is that all hotels of that class will be entitled as of right to an off-sales department and will be entitled as of right to site that off-sales department elsewhere than on its own premises. So they are bound to affect very seriously the existing bottle-store business, and I believe that it is entirely wrong to adopt a means to assist the hotels to put themselves on a decent financial footing at the expense of the existing bottle-store keepers. They have good, genuine, legal businesses which have been established under the law, and there is no reason why they should not be protected. They have established goodwills which they are entitled to retain. The only objection against bottle-store keepers that I have heard in this debate was an objection that they have not made any propaganda for the sale of wine.

That is quite wrong. They do not render service in the sense that an hotel renders services.

They render the same sort of service that the grocer is now going to render in respect of light wines. With the greatest respect to the hon. Minister, I cannot see that there is any substance in that argument. Bottle-store keepers render a service to the public so far as the sale of liquor is concerned, the same sort of service as for instance a co-operative dairy.

There is no limitation on the licence of a bottle store.

Mr. Chairman, if the public have complaints in regard to bottle-store keepers because of hours and so on, then that is a matter that can easily be changed by legislation. I wish to point out to the Committee how very wrong it is in respect of other vested interests to do the utmost to protect those interests, but in respect of bottle-store interests to ignore those interests simply because it is believed that this is a means of helping hotels. I reiterate that if the hotel industry requires help, then some means should be adopted whereby existing businesses and existing vested interests are not affected. So I wish to move as an amendment—

It is obvious that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. The whole purpose of this clause—and I made this perfectly clear during the second-reading debate—is to remedy the unfortunate result which the Liquor Act of 1928 had and that is that it adversely affected our hotel industry. The hotel industry has suffered to an increasing extent over the years with the result that our hotels are experiencing a recession to-day which years ago we did not think was possible. That is why something positive has to be done to encourage the hotel trade, and I honestly feel, since it is an accepted fact that hotels cannot make ends meet simply by supplying meals, and that they must have additional income from liquor sales in order to supplement their income, and since over the course of years we have made so many additional licences of one kind or another available, that the position of the hotel trade has become more and more difficult. All that we are asking here is this: Give the hotel a fair chance to compete on an equal footing with the other licences that we have created. We are not depriving the other licensees of anything. They can still do as much business as they like but they should at least be able to face competition. They already have a monopoly as far as bottle stores are concerned and they cannot have a monopoly in this regard as well. A liquor trader can place his bottle store wherever he likes. Why should we penalize the hotel which has an enormous amount of capital expenditure by saying that its off-sales section must be situated on the hotel premises? Let us consider this matter from another point of view. The bottle-store owner simply has a room, that is all that he is responsible for. He takes no risks. His product is bottled; it is safe in the bottle; the older it becomes the better it becomes and he therefore runs no risk. But the hotel industry does not only have a room. A tremendous amount of capital has to be invested in the erection of the hotel. Hon. members know what it costs to build a first-class hotel, and after that capital has been invested, the owner still runs the risk of not even being able to earn the interest of his money as far as the whole of his business is concerned.

Then it is bad business.

No, that is the risk that the man runs. He does not know whether people are going to stay in his hotel or not. He can only judge after he has taken the risk of building the hotel. I want to repeat that a hotel is sited at a spot which is most convenient to its guests. But it is usually not a spot where there is a large flow of pedestrian traffic: those people do not pass the hotel’s off-sales department. The hotel may be built in some quiet street, or at some place with a good view—for example, at the beach—whereas the owner of the bottle store has the whole of the hinterland at his disposal; he can establish his bottle store in the business area. I want to make an earnest plea to hon. members therefore to realize that our hotels are entitled to this concession that we are giving them in this regard. It is a pity that the 1928 Act did not give them those privileges. We would then have had a flourishing hotel industry in South Africa to-day.

Then I want to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in connection with the employment of women under the age of 21 years. I have certain misgivings about this amendment. I do not want to be prudish and in fact, I am not a prude. In the first place, 21 seems very young to me. It is wonderful what 20 or 21-year-old models can do!

The magistrate will use his discretion.

The hon. member says that the magistrate will use his discretion. Ministers do not always use this discretion wisely; how do we know that the magistrate will always exercise his discretion wisely? But there is another aspect of the matter. I have received many objections from barmen. This is something that we must consider. Whether we want to admit it or not there are large numbers of people who will find it very difficult to obtain employment on the labour market if they cannot be employed as barmen, and barmen have very serious misgivings that they will not be able to compete with these ladies—not as far as statistics are concerned or anything of that nature—but they feel that they will not be able to compete The question which I ask myself is this: If we consider this matter in a practical way, I do not think that anyone will continue to employ a man unless he is compelled to do so. I know on the other hand that there is the complaint from the hotel industry, a well-founded complaint, that it is sometimes very difficult to obtain barmen who have the requisite qualifications. I know that they have many difficulties. But I am not sure in my own mind that we will be doing the right thing at this stage if even in the classified hotels we permit women to be employed for this work.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Minister not give himself this power even though he is not prepared to use it at present? Will he not include it in the Bill for the future?

Just look at the temptation which the hon. member wants to put in my way. A hotel-owner may come along to me and say: “I want to employ a certain woman and I want you to tell me whether I may or may not do so.” In the nature of things, Mr. Chairman, I will then have to investigate. Cannot the hon. member realize the unnecessary temptation which he will be placing in the way of a Minister? Of course, I can resist the temptation but I have to protect my successor! Cannot the hon. member realize what temptation he will be placing in the way of my successor with a provision of this nature on the Statute Book? We may perhaps be able to discuss this matter at a later stage when we come to the question of classification and once the Commission on the Hotel Industry has submitted its report because then that Commission—this is the important point that I want to make—will undoubtedly give its full attention to the question as to whether the slump in the hotel industry is not attributable perhaps in some measure to the fact that there are no properly trained employees to do justice to the hotel industry. This also covers the point that was raised by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)—whether an effort is going to be made to train people to manage hotels. I think all those aspects will be considered by the Hotel Commission and if the commission then reports that there are insufficient suitable male workers, I will be fully prepared to say in the light of that commission’s recommendations that we can consider the matter. But I wonder whether for the present we should not leave this matter in abeyance until the Hotel Commission has submitted its report? It is a very difficult thing to decide upon and once we take a decision this thing will be perpetuated. Although in the normal course of events I like to make up my mind rather than procrastinate, I wonder whether it would be wise to anticipate the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the hotel industry? I think we should give the hotel industry the opportunity to put their case to the Commission first. After they have put their case to the Commission, the Commission can submit a report to us in that connection.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) should not lead the hon. Minister into temptation by making the suggestion that he did. However, I want to ask the hon. Minister a few questions in regard to this clause. In the first place I want to ask the hon. Minister whether these off-sales places will be taken into consideration in regard to the quota for bottle stores?

They will.

I am not so sure. I am not quarrelling with the principle, but I should like to say to the hon. Minister that as far as Cape Town itself is concerned, I believe (I speak subject to correction) there is a provision in regard to where a bottle store may now be situated in regard to declared group areas. If there is a group area at the top of Wale Street, then I think a new licence must be a certain distance away from that group area. I think the hon. Minister should also consider that aspect of the position. In my opinion the hon. Minister is going a bit too far when he states that any hotel which has an off-sales department can now move it to where he wants to move it. I think the hon. Minister should consider very carefully whether he should make provision for that. I appreciate that he does not want to prejudice any of these hotels who may have been forced to keep their off-sales on their premises and that they should not be placed in a worse position than new applicants.

Quite.

Of course I am very much against monopolies, and I am afraid there is a monopoly in Cape Town and in other parts of South Africa, and that is the stranglehold which the breweries have in the trade. The breweries to-day, at least in Cape Town, not only own a lot of hotels but also own a lot of bottle stores. I believe the hon. Minister should limit this right. Where an owner of a hotel is already an interested party in a bottle store, he should not have the right to move his off-sales anywhere except to keep it in his hotel. The hon. Minister will probably know what the position is. In the Salt River area for instance, I think the breweries own three hotels within a radius of a mile.

Six.

That is quite possible. They also have bottle stores there. It will mean that these people who own hotels and with bottle stores already in their possession, will also be entitled now to move their bottle stores from the hotels to all over the place. I think it should be limited to any person who is not in possession of a bottle store already. Otherwise you are going to have compete chaos. Hotels will move the off-sale sections all over the show and will make it impossible for already existing bottle stores to exist. I believe the Minister should stick to his guns, although I do not agree entirely with the principle of the clause, to help that hotel which has no facilities other than the off-sales privileges which are now being granted. But it should not be free for all where there are already owners of bottle stores who also own hotels, and that they should also be allowed to move their bottle stores. I think the Minister would be doing the trade a disservice if he allowed that. He would be acting against the interests of the very people whom he wants to help now; those people who have no off-sales and cannot place them where the Minister thinks they should be placed should not be subjected to the competition of the breweries or any other organizations who own several hotels and can shift their bottle stores where they like, and when it can be proved that that brewery or other organization already owns bottle stores independent of the hotels. I think the Minister should help only those people who have no bottle stores and allow them to move, but no one else.

I should like at this stage to reply to one question raised by the hon. member for Boland. The reply is that these off-sales, although not bottle stores in the usual sense of the word, will count as such for purposes of the quota. That will mean—and I give that to the hon. member for Musgrave as a consolation—that in urban areas for years and years to come no new bottle stores will be able to come into existence because the quotas will be oversubscribed for a number of years.

Would the Minister react to the question as to the period of the classification?

As far as the period of classification is concerned, I replied to that, in passing, to the hon. member for Springs. I do not think it is such a long period. I do not think three years is too short a period, for the simple reason that it will keep these gentlemen on their toes, and they must be kept on their toes because they are getting very great privileges and therefore at this stage I am convinced that the period of three years is short enough. If the hon. member wants to submit further arguments, I am prepared to listen to them, but at this stage I think three years are enough.

But you have the right to cancel at any time.

That is so, but one does not like to make use of it. One would rather have it that the hotels themselves feel that after three years the whole question can be reconsidered and therefore they must do their best at all times.

I am afraid the last condition the Minister has just mentioned in regard to the off-sales counting as bottle stores for purposes of the quota will in a large measure defeat the very object of the proposal, the object of improving the general standard of the hotel. I want to take the Minister’s mind back to the big spread a few years ago of off-sales licences particularly in the Cape. It came about as the result of the joint sittings of the local licensing boards held at Cape Town, at which the Chief Magistrate presided, to decide on the local policy with regard to off-sales. There are a number of decided cases applicable to the Cape where convictions were secured against licensees supplying to its own residents in an hotel liquor by the bottle. The anomalous position has arisen where you have some of your big holiday hotels which never have had any bottle stores of their own, and if their guests went out for the day, as so many visitors do, and wanted to take refreshment with them, the hotel was compelled to go to some other bottle store to buy a bottle of liquor for the guests to take away. To overcome that difficulty, the off-sales licences were introduced. I agree with the Minister that the off-sales licences have generally come to be regarded as bottle stores, but it is one of the reasons why a condition was imposed to the granting of an off-sales licence that it either had to be attached to the hotel or should be situated somewhere near its premises, the primary reason being that it was to provide a facility in that hotel which any hotel of high standard should have, of providing liquor in the bottle to its own guests. The majority of the coastal hotels in the Cape cater for the holiday trade. We are now endeavouring to improve the standard of the hotels for the tourist trade. They are the people who get up in the morning and go out sight-seeing and they like to take a reasonable supply of liquor with them. If we permit the off-sales licence to be moved to any place in the magisterial area, to a large extent it will defeat the very benefit which the off-sales licence is intended to afford to the hotel.

Is that not rather a secondary object?

It may be a secondary object from the point of view of income, but it is a very important aspect from the point of view of raising the standard of the hotel. No hotel can be classed as really first class unless it provides those facilities on the premises. What will happen is that the hotel proprietor, in order to meet the requirements of his guests, will have to send to his bottle store maybe a mile or so distant for a bottle of liquor to supply the guest, and that may cause difficulties because many of these trips are planned overnight or early in the morning.

Your argument does not apply, because these off-sales are not open at all hours of the day. They have the same hours as bottle stores. Therefore if a guest wants to leave at 7 a.m., he cannot get a bottle until the off-sales opens.

Yes, but in practice arrangements were made to help them, although it may have been technically illegal. I support the Minister’s idea of extending that licence, but I am not in agreement with him in regard to the siting of the off-sales some distance away from the hotel. I understand that the reason is to give the hotel a chance to make more money, but it defeats the object of creating a first class hotel. If this is going to be done, some other provision will have to be made whereby the hotel can meet the normal requirements of its guests and give them the facilities they would have in their own homes. The hotel is the resident’s home while he is living there, and they should be able to have the same privileges as they would have at home.

I think I have a very simple argument that will satisfy the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). If he makes an investigation in his own area he will find out that in the main street there is an hotel with an off-sales department for non-Whites, and that numbers of non-Whites are always to be found there. If that hotel were to be given the opportunity to transfer its off-sales premises to that part of the town where the non-Whites live, it would be so much better for the people living in the White area. Does he want those people to be saddled with off-sales premises for non-Whites in a White area when it would be very easy for those premises to be removed, not to the non-White residential area, but near by, away from the main street in the White area?

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave. As the clause stands it helps one industry at the expense of the bottle stores. I feel quite sure that most of the bottle-store owners are going to be ruined by this clause. It would be bad enough if the hotels were compelled to keep their off-sales on their premises, but I think it is quite unfair that they should be allowed to transfer it anywhere in the town. Therefore I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave.

I just want to get clarity. I want to ask the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) whether he does not know about the prohibition of having a licence within half a mile of a group area for Coloureds. The man who has an off-sales licence cannot go nearer than half a mile from a Coloured area.

I said in the neighbourhood.

The hon. member for Boland must of course realize that this half-mile limit is within the discretion of the Minister and the practice in the past has been—and I think it is a sound practice—that where you have isolated Coloured communities you do not take that into consideration at all. You only take it into consideration where there are large Coloured communities who are at the moment establishing their own businesses in terms of the Act passed last year. Otherwise it will not be taken into consideration at all.

May I ask the Minister whether he will not over the lunch-hour reconsider his attitude to my amendment in regard to barmaids? The point I want him particularly to consider is that where he classifies an hotel and grants it a bar for women, does he not feel it is reasonable that in such bar he shall permit a barmaid to be employed.

There is one aspect I should like to discuss in regard to this clause. I am pleading the case of that much-maligned and neglected section of humanity, the wives of club members. In terms of the clause, an hotel can have the right to establish a bar to which women will be admitted, subject to the approval of the Licensing Board, and I quite agree with that principle. But in terms of this clause clubs as such cannot allow women to go into the bars. This is discrimination against the clubs. I should like to move that the same facilities that an hotel enjoys to establish what will become a bar-lounge where men can take their wives, should be extended to clubs as well. Amongst other things, I think it will have the effect that our wives will take us away from the clubs very much sooner than we go to-day.

If you take this away, where can a man go if he wants to get away from his wife?

If I had thought of that before, I would not have decided to move an amendment! For the reasons I have mentioned, I hope the hon. the Minister will consider this matter sympathetically.

Before the hon. member moves his amendment formally, I want to say that I am not averse to his amendment, but as I see it we agreed this morning to keep all club matters in abeyance until such time as we have had an opportunity to discuss it fully. Is it not best to leave it over and to incorporate it in the club legislation which I promised hon. members I would introduce next year? Then we can have a full opportunity of discussing it from all angles. We may perhaps accept the amendment now and then find that there are certain snags which we cannot think of at the moment, and whilst we are going into the club position very fully during the recess I think the hon. member would be well advised not to press this amendment now but to allow us to look into the whole thing and then to come back next year.

I welcome the suggestion of the Minister, but I would just like to ask him

If you want to know whether I will accept your later amendment, I will.

Thank you.

I feel I must support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave, unless the Minister can give assurances that will satisfy my misgivings in regard to the clause as now printed. My difficulty is that the Minister stated that there would be a considerable increase in the number of existing licences and that the quota would be exceeded for a considerable time, and therefore no new licences would be allowed. My difficulty is that apparently there will be increased points of distribution. I cannot see that that will be to the benefit of anyone, not even of the hoteliers. If the plan is that hotels which have existing off-sales licences are permitted to move those to some more profitable point elsewhere, I would have no objection, but if the plan is to issue new licences to hotels which at present do not have off-sales licences, and that they can be in other parts of the town, and if it will lead to an increase in the distribution points, I am against it.

I just want to know whether I understood the hon. member correctly. Do I understand him to say now that the privileged hotels, those which have off-sales because they got them before 1928, must be allowed to move their off-sales, but the under-privileged hotels which get off-sales licences now only must not be in a similar position?

Yes, that is my standpoint. My point is that it will be increasing the number of licences, and I do not object to it purely from the pussyfoot point of view, but also from the point of view that it will not achieve its purpose. The object of the Minister is to assist hotels which at present are not sufficiently profitable to improve their premises. The idea is that they will have a new source of revenue to help them to do better. If there are to be no additional licences, that argument holds good, but if they are to get extra licences in an area where there are other licences, it seems to me that there will then be a free fight between all the bottle stores until such time as some of these licences fall away through lack of sufficient profits to keep the business going. Who will be the first ones to fall away? Not the existing bottle stores, but the new licences, which will then have the burden of carrying the unprofitable hotels. But the object is that they should increase the profits of the hotel, and they will obviously be in the worst position in competition with the existing licences, and they will be the first to fall out. Therefore if extra licences are granted, it seems to me that it will not achieve its purpose. It will only achieve its purpose if the quotas are not exceeded and the new licences are only issued to hotels at such time as the existing licences fall away, or if they acquire existing licences.

This whole clause goes against the grain. This clause makes it possible for large chain grocery stores to enter the liquor trade, particularly since restrictions are being placed on certain grocery stores.

Order! This clause does not deal with grocery stores.

No, but it deals with the granting of off-consumption licences to hotels and that is what I want to refer to. As soon as certain hotels qualify for off-consumption licences by complying with certain requirements those hotels, will fall into the hands of grocery stores in the course of time and I am afraid that that will result in an increase in liquor consumption. I have considered this matter very carefully. I am convinced that any increase in the number of distribution points, no matter what motives we may ascribe to it, will promote an increase in liquor consumption.

That point has already been made.

Yes, that is quite right.

That is the purpose of this Bill.

Let us imagine that after it has qualified, an hotel complies with the necessary requirements and that it is granted an off-consumption licence. What will be the logical result? Keen competition is then going to develop between the existing bottle stores and the off-consumption premises of that hotel. That is the first thing that is going to happen. It is only natural that it will lead to keen competition. They are going to appoint better salesmen; the prices are going to be cut; liquor will be made more attractive; advertising will be improved and the inevitable final result will be an increased consumption of liquor. And the people, the individuals, whom we want to protect against the excessive use of liquor are going to be the victims. I am convinced in my own mind that that will happen. Let us imagine that the chain grocery stores buy a hotel which has an off-consumption licence. What is going to happen? It is going to have that bottle store next to its existing grocery business or, as we already find in the case of butcheries, inside that large grocery store. What will happen then? Liquor will then be sold on credit together with groceries and people will receive one account for liquor and groceries. If that does not aggravate our problem and the liquor evil, then I shall be very surprised. I am sorry that I cannot support this clause. It will lead to an aggravation of our evils; it will increase credit and it will result in a gradual increase in liquor consumption; it will not change our drinking pattern as we want it changed. I am in favour of a change in the drinking pattern as envisaged in this clause but I am afraid that this is the wrong method. Why should we increase liquor consumption? I do not want to use moral or sentimental arguments but we are creating an additional source of income for the hotel industry here. The hotel will now have two sources of income from liquor. It is now going to sell liquor by the tot and it will also be able to sell liquor in the bottle store. What reasonable person is going to concentrate on the accommodation side, the service side of the hotel, which gives him no profit? It is quite obvious that he is going to concentrate on these two sources of income, namely, the tot section and the bottle section.

And if he does that he will lose his off-consumption licence.

I shall be pleased to hear the views of the hon. the Minister, and I am quite prepared to listen to any reasonable argument. The hotel-owner will improve his hotel; he will decorate his rooms and make them attractive to the tourist and he will get his licence. He will then ask for a renewal of the licence. Then the body that has to consider the renewal of the licence inspects the hotel. The hotel-owner tells that body or the inspector: “My hotel is wonderful; I have complied with all the requirements laid down by you but I have no guests; I have no tourists. But that is not my fault. It is the fault of this city council or municipality which has failed to provide amenities. How can you hold me responsible for it? Just look at the expense that I have incurred. I have improved my hotel but I do not have any guests or tourists. That is not my fault. It is due to the lack of initiative on the part of the city council.” I want to ask: Will that body, whether it be the licensing board or an inspector who has to consider the renewal, have the moral right to take away that licence, particularly if the hotel-owner says: “I have spent a few thousand pounds in so improving the hotel that it complies with the requirements laid down by you for classification”? There is not one single guarantee that the granting of off-consumption licences will result in better service. I see only one thing in this and that is an increase in the consumption of liquor in South Africa. That is my view and under these circumstances I cannot vote for this clause.

I rise immediately to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). The hon. member often comes to light with original ideas; sometimes they hit the target and sometimes they do not. I fear that this argument of his has not hit the target. The hon. member says that he is afraid—if there was any substance in that fear I would share it with him—that grocery stores will now take over hotels because those hotels have obtained off-sales privileges. Is that correct?

That is one of my misgivings.

But we are in a position to judge in that regard because there are at the moment 697 hotels with off-sales premises and not one of those hotels has ever been taken over by a grocery store. If it had been profitable to do so it would have been done a long time ago. But let me say with all respect that no person is going to put his head into the hornet’s nest of the hotel business at the present moment—and he would not have done so in the past either—because it is not a paying proposition. If in the past there was no danger of grocery stores taking over hotels with off-sales facilities—and there are 697 of them—then I honestly cannot see why those hotels are going to be taken over now. But the second argument of the hon. member was that if an hotel receives an off-sales licence, it will concentrate on the tot and bottle aspect of the business and neglect its service side. If it does, then of course it will immediately lose its privileges; it will then lose its off-sales facilities and it will lose many other privileges that it has obtained. Then it will simply be ruined. The hon. member need not have the slightest fear that there will be any problem in this regard. But now the hon. member says that a man may improve his hotel and comply with the highest requirements of the classification and yet have no guests. Mr. Chairman, from the position in which our hotel industry finds itself at the moment it is perfectly clear to me that if an hotel complies with all the requirements it will not know how to cope with all the people who will seek accommodation there! The position is simply that third-rate hotels at the moment are being overwhelmed by requests for accommodation at certain times, let alone an hotel that complies with first-class requirements. It is obvious that if a man erects this class of hotel in an urban area, he will have guests; that is obvious. We all know how difficult it is to obtain hotel accommodation here during the Session; we have often heard complaints in that regard. If he erects the hotel at some other place he will not have guests but then his off-sales licence will not mean anything to him either because nobody will buy liquor there anyway. In any case therefore it is not a problem that we need consider. As I see it it is a problem that simply cannot arise in practice.

But I hasten to reply to two matters. The one is the question which has been put to me as to whether hotels which have bottle stores which they acquired in the normal course of business—that is to say, hotels which do not have off-sales departments but which have what are simply and solely bottle stores which they have obtained in competition with other applicants through the usual channels—will also receive an off-sales licence. My answer is “yes”. I do not want to mislead anybody. In terms of this Bill it will be possible for such a hotel to obtain an off-sales licence and the reason for this is that it obtained its bottle store in the normal way on the ordinary market. What is more—and this is the important point—it paid the same amount for that bottle store as any other buyer paid for his bottle store. If that person wants to sell his bottle store he can do so in order to recover the money which he originally invested in it, plus any profit that he may be able to make out of the transaction. But we cannot penalize him as far as the hotel is concerned simply because he has obtained a bottle-store licence in the normal way.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has asked me or rather tempted me to give further thought during the lunch hour to the question of the barmaids. I arise to reply to that temptation, if I may put it that way, because time is running short and with all due respect to you, Sir, in the language of the bar, you may very shortly say to us: “Time, gentlemen” before we have considered the other clauses of the Bill. I have thought it over again and I have no reason to depart from my previous standpoint, and that is that the Federation of Hotels will have ample opportunity of putting their case fully to the Hotel Commission, which consists of well-qualified people, and all I am prepared to say to the hon. member is this, that should the hotel people put their case to the commission and the commission, consisting of imminent, well-qualified gentlemen, decides to recommend it, then I give the hon. member the assurance that I will adopt that recommendation and come to this House with legislation incorporating such a provision, but failing that, I think we would be taking too much upon ourselves at this stage in agreeing to it without having canvassed the position fully and without having heard argument from all interested parties.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister in respect of rural hotels which one would also like to help. It appears to me that under the Bill it is essential that the off-sales must be on the hotel premises. There may be better premises available in a suitable spot, and I see no reason why the platteland hotelier should be prejudiced as against his colleague in the city.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has raised this point. I have a note here on it, but unfortunately I forgot to refer to it. It is true that at the moment we are only talking about the urban areas but I am seriously considering the position of rural hotels, and if I can find a suitable formula I intend to do something about it in the Other Place. I want to mention one example which has occurred to me—and I take it that most hon. members know this particular place: If you go to the Game Reserve there is an excellent hotel high up on the mountain, but it is about 1½miles away from the main road, and it might very well be that it will be to the advantage of that hotelier to bring his bottle store down to the main road. There are other cases of this kind, especially in these days where hotels are built high up in the mountains because of the view or because of other factors, and it may very well be that a formula can be found to help those hotels. If I can find such a formula I will be extremely glad to be able to help them.

I am extremely pleased to hear what the hon. the Minister has said about rural hotels. Everybody who has travelled a good deal through the country in the last 30 or 40 years will know to what extent the rural hotels have improved. The improvement is almost unbelievable. There was a time when you could hardly find a suitable place to stay overnight on the national road; to-day there are first-class hotels, and everything that can be done to help those hotels is of infinite value to the country as a whole, and I therefore support the hon. the Minister in this matter. Sir, anybody travelling abroad will realize that our tariffs here in South Africa are probably lower than in any other part of the world for the same type of accommodation, and our hotels find it extremely difficult to keep going. We see hotels closing day after day. There is talk about one of the biggest hotels in Johannesburg closing and a block of flats going up on that site. What is going to happen to visitors to this country if that hotel cannot keep going? Sir, it is no use talking about a tourist trade if we cannot provide decent accommodation for tourists here. I think this is a frightfully important part of the Bill. Tourism earns foreign currency for us, and good hotels uphold the prestige of South Africa in the eyes of visitors to this country. Another important factor is that in view of the hostile misrepresentation, by foreign Press abroad, this most important source of making the world realize how wrong the picture presented is, is by having foreigners visit our country to see for themselves. People, however, will not come here unless suitable hotel accommodation is available. For those reasons I will support this clause.

May I ask the Minister what the position is with regard to motels. Are they to be treated as boarding-houses in that they will be able to supply wines and malts, or would they qualify in some instances for a liquor licence?

Motels are actually hotels. They can qualify for liquor licences and they can apply for licences. If on the other hand, they want to be treated as ordinary boarding-houses, then it depends upon them. There is nothing in the law, however, to prevent a motel from changing into a hotel.

I think that we are all agreed that the hotel industry in South Africa must be improved but it will not pay me to try to rear my youngest child by wringing the neck of the eldest one. During the second-reading debate I said that an assault was being made on the bottle stores. The hon. the Minister told me to explain what I meant. I believe that the hon. the Minister thought at that stage that I was referring to grocers’ licences but I was referring particularly to this clause. In 1958 according to the report of the Malan Commission, there were 885 bottle stores and there were 826 hotels without off-sales facilities. That number will just about be doubled now. In other words, these bottle stores in South Africa will find that their turnover will drop by about half if those other hotels receive off-sales licences.

Order! That argument has already been used time and time again. The question of distribution points has also been discussed often.

I am not going to discuss the increase in the number of distribution points again. I just want to say that if what I said here does happen, then instead of the consumption of hard liquor decreasing, it is going to increase. These bottle-store owners paid a great deal of money for their licences and we cannot blame them. It was this Parliament which imposed that levy on them. These hotels will of necessity take some of the business away from the bottle stores. We are now going to have an intensive advertising campaign …

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to repeat that argument.

If you will not permit me to prove this argument of mine, Mr. Chairman, then I just want to put one point to the hon. the Minister in connection with hotels. There is a considerable number of hotels which are controlled and owned by the breweries and since these hotels all have bottle stores there is a danger that the breweries …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member so often but that argument has also been used before.

No, Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair.

No, I just want to ask a question. Let us imagine that the breweries refuse to supply beer to the other bottle stores. What are we going to do about that? Does the hon. the Minister contemplate doing anything to combat this state of affairs? The breweries may supply beer to their own bottle stores and refuse to supply it to other bottle stores. If they do so, they will of course attract business to their own bottle stores.

The hon. member has raised the point that the breweries may perhaps be stupid enough to decide to supply beer to their own distribution points only and not to other independent distribution points. Let me say immediately that it would not be good business from the point of view of the breweries to take such a step. But I want to make a solemn promise to the hon. member. If the breweries try to do that, I will immediately make use of the first opportunity available to me to come to this House of my own volition and introduce a Bill to make them change their views. I give the hon. member my solemn promise in that regard.

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

Question put: That all the words after “premises” in line 29, page 34, to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (7) of the proposed new section 71bis, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and a division was called.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Messrs. Barnett, Cadman, Field, Hourquebie, Odell, Oldfield, Tucker and Mrs. Weiss) voted against the question, the Deputy-Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Hourquebie negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Raw put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 54,

I move—

55. Section 72 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following proviso thereto:

This new clause will have the effect of assisting sporting bodies which have more than one sportsground. I believe the hon. the Minister is not averse to this amendment and I hope he will accept it.

I think there is substance in the amendment moved by the hon. member. He has made out a case and he has explained the position fully to me. In those circumstances I shall accept the amendment.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 57,

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I am not moving the amendment standing in my name because it affected the position of clubs. I said so when I withdrew the earlier amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 58,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of this is to give the authority granting the licence the power to make the hours probably the same for hotels as for restaurants, or in special cases, to make it not later than 11.30 in respect of restaurants. I think it is a simple amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has talked me into this amendment and I therefore accept it.

I have much pleasure in moving the amendment standing in my name—

and to add the following sub-section at the end of the proposed new section 75:

The position at the moment is that members of a club and their guests are entitled to go into the bar premises of such a club on closed days and Sundays. As is generally known, members make much use of this facility after a game of bowls, tennis, golf and so on. The effect of the clause as it stands

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier in the discussion, I am prepared to accept this amendment from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) I am not compromising myself on this issue at all, Sir. The only reason why I accept it at this stage is because I want to restore the status quo as far as clubs are concerned until such time as we have gone fully into the question of clubs. The hon. member must therefore not think that I am compromising myself in any way about this clause. I am prepared to listen to arguments on it but at this stage I think, as far as clubs are concerned we must restore the status quo totally until such time as we can come with a club law next year.

I take it that means the hon. the Minister is accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog)?

Yes.

The amendment also applies, of course, to hotels as well as clubs. I also have an amendment on the Order Paper in respect of this clause. Now that the Minister has accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Springs my amendment does not fit in but I should like to move it just the same.

The hon. member can withdraw it.

No. I do not want to withdraw it, Sir. As hon. members know the host has to write in laboriously the names and addresses of his guests before he can buy them a drink. This has always seemed to me not only cumbersome but quite ineffective because with a little bit of imagination any name can be entered in the guest book and there is no way of checking it. The waiter or the barman never sees the guests again and it does not seem, therefore, to serve any useful purpose. As far as clubs are concerned, of course, it is not necessary because it is invariably a rule of a club that when you take a visitor there you sign him in as you enter. My amendment is to delete all the words in the proviso which reads—

I want to delete those last three lines and insert “in the presence of such lodger or member”. It will then read—

I think it is perfectly clear that liquor can only be supplied to a lodger for consumption by his guest in the lodger’s presence. If the Minister is prepared to accept it I move it as follows—

There is one aspect to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Constantia and that is that in this amendment which the Minister has accepted there is already a fairly extensive concession to hotels and clubs in regard to their guest register. The position at the moment is that the name of every guest at a hotel or a club has to be written in the register. It will now not be necessary for that to be done; it will merely be necessary to “record” the names of your guests. In other words. Sir, you will be able to hand in a typewritten list of all your guests in advance and that will be pasted into your register. The problem of large functions. e.g. weddings is therefore overcome. I wonder whether the hon. member for Constantia has noticed that concession which I think simplifies the position as far as guest registers are concerned.

Sir, naturally I cannot consider the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia at this stage because it does not fit in with the wording at all, as the clause stands.

It can be fitted in if we amend the amendment of the hon. member for Springs.

Whilst I have every sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member it is going to make it very difficult at this very late stage. There are certain other clauses which I think must be discussed I think the Committee will be well advised to leave this as it is and to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs.

Will you consider it at the report stage?

I shall consider it. At this stage, however, I think we shall be wasting time to devote more time to it.

The amendment appearing in my name seeks to remove the same evil which the amendment of the hon. member for Springs seeks to remove, only, I suggest, with a greater economy of words. As the hon. the Minister has already accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Springs I am not going to move my amendment.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Higgerty and Mr. Taurog put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Waterson put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 59,

I move the amendment as posted in my name—

This amendment deals with the supply of liquor by a wholesaler to his customers. It is particularly with a view to the quasi-whole-saler that this amendment is being moved, but in any case it includes all wholesalers. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the position at the moment is that a wholesaler cannot sell less than 12 bottles of liquor to a customer but those 12 bottles may be made up in any way. That is the position in terms of the 1928 Act. That is the provision as it exists to-day. In terms of this Bill a change is being made. In terms of the Bill the minimum quantity that he can supply to his customers still remains 12 bottles but six of those bottles have to be of the same kind, the same description and the same brand, except for beer which may be of any kind. The amendment that I have moved goes a little further. My amendment states that instead of those six bottles consisting of brandy, for example, of the same sort, description and brand, the six bottles may consist of natural wine which then need not be of the same kind. The remaining six bottles may consist of whatever the customer wants. In this way we will be helping to bring about the pattern that we have in mind. It seems to me that this is little enough to expect of the wholesaler—that if the customer so desires, one gallon may consist of natural wine and the other gallon of any other liquor, except beer in any event.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

These provisions refer to the holder of a wholesale licence who in terms of this Bill will not be given the opportunity to change over to the usual retail trade. In contrast to what the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) said here this morning, we feel that we dare not exclude the influence of these people in the trade. I have recourse, amongst other things to the findings of the Malan Commission which, in paragraph 161 of its Report, has the following to say [Translation]—

In paragraph 169 they say [Translation]—

As these two paragraphs in Clause 59 read, and also the amendment that has just been moved by the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan), it means that the right which this type of wholesaler has had—to sell to the public as well, although with a restriction of a two gallon minimum—will now be changed. As the clause stands now this right will be changed drastically although in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules it will be trained less drastically. Nevertheless, a change is being made in regard to the established rights of these people. I feel that it is no more than fair to maintain the status quo, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the retention of vested rights and in order to ensure that people in the trade who also bear the stamp of being producers themselves—because the people to whom I am referring are also producers—will remain in the trade. Therefore I want to move the omission of these two paragraphs. The reason why I also move the omission of paragraph (b) is because it is purely consequential. It refers to foreign licences which are provided for in the present sub-section (2), if it stays as it is.

This is a very difficult clause and a very difficult subject. I frankly do not believe anyone can provide a completely satisfactory answer. There is no doubt, as things are at the moment that there are wholesalers who enjoy a completely unfair advantage over their fellow wholesalers or over the normal trade because of the fact that they can buy direct from the K.W.V. I have information to indicate that in the case of a particular brand of cheap brandy the cost to a wholesaler who has those facilities is R1.11 compared with the cost to the trade through normal channels of R1.25. The public wholesaler selling direct to the public can sell it at R1.35 which means 10c more than the actual cost to the normal retailer. There is a very strong argument and a very strong case for those who say that in the interest of fair trading and in the interests of ordinary commercial practice, a wholesaler who, in the practice of normal trade, is the intermediary between the producer and the retailer—that is accepted in all trades—has tended more and more to be not so much an intermediary as an eliminator of the third step, i.e. the retailer. The argument is that the normal trade channel, producer to wholesaler to retailer, should be followed. If you cannot prevent a wholesaler from jumping the retailer and selling direct to the public, or if you do not want to prevent him, then at least the special privilege which he enjoys in two fields, one in regard to his rights to purchase direct from the K.W.V. (therefore he enjoys a special price) and, secondly, the double trade which he enjoys (i.e. selling to retail outlets and to the public in bulk), should be offset in some way in order to give him a fair trading opportunity but at the same time to give the trade itself a fair trading opportunity. If you are going to prevent the person who is a producer/wholesaler from converting to a bottle licence and you prevent him from selling to the public, then you kill that person. And I do not believe the Legislature has the right arbitrarily to deprive any person or any organization of its living. On the other hand, I believe it is the duty of the Legislature to ensure that an industry or a trade, in which it lays down the conditions by law, to ensure that there is fairness. I therefore believe that restriction is necessary and I have an amendment on the Order Paper which, if accepted, will meet the case. I accordingly move the amendment standing in my name as follows—

That is known as an “unbroken case”. It is argued that if you are a wholesaler dealing in bulk, a case should be the accepted unit of sale. Once you get below the case, then you are no longer a true wholesaler. I should like to hear the views of members on this matter, because a modification may be necessary. It does, however, give us a basis to work on. I noticed in last night’s paper that the same problem has been met in England. It says: “Attempts to sell drinks through the post on easy payment systems have been rejected by licensing justices.” That is the same sort of thing as liquor which is sold on a mail order system. In England they had an easy payment system added to it yet it was rejected in a country such as England where they take the point of view that the sale of liquor should not be unduly restricted.

If I have gone too far by saying a complete “unbroken case”, it may be necessary to differentiate between the producer/wholesaler and the normal wholesaler who purchases the goods from the same source as the trade. A wholesaler who is not a producer is in free competition, but fair competition, with the retail trade because he must buy his goods at the same price as anyone else in the trade. But a producer/wholesaler, or a wholesaler buying from the K.W.V., has an advantage denied to others. I want to eliminate that advantage. I have no objection to it in the case of wine. The producer/wholesaler, I believe, should be able to sell his own wines without difficulty. But where he is buying from the K.W.V., he should only sell to the trade or in “unbroken case” lots, because he is buying brandy and re-selling it with an advantage of 14c per bottle over anyone else in the trade. I think he should lose this advantage or there should be a limitation on quantity in that regard. I shall not amend my amendment at this stage, but put the suggestion forward for debate. If it is accepted, I have an amendment prepared which would differentiate.

One last point, namely that as the clause stands at the moment it cannot, of course, go through, because by excluding malt liquor it means that nobody will be able to supply even 100 cases to the trade unless he adds six bottles of wine to it. Take the case of any of the breweries who operate through a wholesale depot, who then redistribute. Nobody would be able to buy from them unless they took six bottles of wine with each case. I think the Minister realizes that the clause will have to be amended in any case. As the clause reads now, it would mean that he would have to sell six bottles of wine or spirits and the other six could be mixed. I personally think a case is a better unit and I should like to hear the Minister’s reaction.

I will personally be very grateful if we devote some time to this clause and discuss the matter from all angles for the simple reason that I myself am not quite sure what is best in this regard. It is not often that I do not know what to do, and when it does happen I give the impression that it has not happened. When therefore I admit that I do not know what to do in connection with this clause, then I really do not know what to do for the reasons that I shall give the Committee.

I want to reply firstly to the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). The more I think about this clause the more I wonder whether we should not draw some distinction between sales by wholesalers to the trade and sales by wholesalers to the public. I think we must make that distinction. In my humble opinion no reason exists for imposing any restrictions as far as trading with the trade is concerned. I shall be pleased if hon. members who are interested will indicate whether they agree with me in this regard and then I shall know how to frame an amendment in this connection. I know that the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) also has some ideas in this regard. The evil that we want to combat in this connection, if it is an evil, is not the trade between various branches of the trade; the problem that we have to deal with is the trade between the wholesaler and the public. I have no objection therefore if we leave the position of the wholesaler in regard to other wholesalers or in regard to the retailers severely alone so that they can buy from one another as much as they like because that cannot harm anyone and cannot create any evil. But now we come to the second problem and this is where I experience difficulty—in regard to the trade of the wholesaler with the public. This matter has its pros and cons. I have often listened to the arguments of advocates whom I have consulted in this connection. While I am on this point I just want to say that as busy as I was I received representations from the trade to interview them. I refused to see the representatives of the trade themselves. I saw nobody from the trade but I told those who made the representations to me that I was quite prepared to see their legal advisers. And all of them sent their advocates and attorneys to me and I argued with them for a long time and listened to their arguments. And now for the information of the Committee, so that we will all know precisely what this is all about, I just want to sketch the background to this matter.

In terms of the old Act the wholesalers could sell direct to the public in any class as long as it was in quantities of two gallons. It could be mixed; it was not necessary for that liquor to be of the same kind. The minimum was fixed at two gallons. That was the only requirement. In other words, my problem lies in the fact that the wholesaler has established rights of which we will now deprive him either completely or partially if we accept an amendment in connection with this clause. On the other hand, it is also true that the trade has a justifiable complaint when they say that these people compete with them in an unfair way. There is substance in this complaint by the trade. The wholesaler says to me: “Actually, I am a price catalytic agent; the trade is inclined to become monopolistic and I am the only one who can combat the trade.” That is the counter argument. The wholesalers also say: “It is within the power of the trade to kill us within three months, provided that they bring down their prices”. Then the trade tells me: “No; it is not so easy; we cannot kill them because they are producers and are able to eliminate one middleman and so they can buy far more cheaply than v/e can ever dream of buying”. These are the different problems that we have in this connection and I honestly admit that it is not so easy to arrive at a decision in regard to what must be done in this connection. One has various alternatives. One can say: We must leave the position as it is. Or one can say: The man is a producer (not a producer of beer); he is a producer of wine and brandy, and therefore, because he is a wine and brandy producer, one must impose certain restrictions upon him as the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules seeks to do. And if one wants to impose certain restrictions on him, must one go as far as the trade wants to go—to sell only “unbroken case lots”—or must a certain amount of play be allowed either way? I admit that I am experiencing difficulty in this connection and I have placed my difficulty before this House. I want to hear arguments from the House in this connection to see whether we cannot have clarity in this regard.

I am pleased the hon. the Minister has put this matter so comprehensively. I want to raise another aspect of it. There is another type of wholesaler or quasi- wholesaler, or perhaps a quasi-retailer in the north who is not a producer wholesaler. One gives a licence to the retailer and he sells liquor as he likes but then one restricts or prescribes the sales of the wholesaler. If we consider this carefully we must realize that it is unfair. The wholesaler can only sell “unbroken case lots” of six or 12 bottles, but the retailer can sell 20, 30 or 60 bottles without any restriction. Is that being fair to the trade? Let me say immediately that the rural wholesaler is very greatly hampered in this regard.

What wholesalers has the hon. member in mind? Those to whom we want to give the right to convert?

Yes.

They will present no problem to us because they are going to convert.

Yes, if they convert to a bottle store. Then the objection falls away to a large extent. But I am not so sure that all of them will qualify to become bottle stores. If so, then the difficulty falls away. But the difficulty remains real for the rural areas because some of them will remain on the platteland and their position there is different from that of the urban wholesaler. I want to bring another aspect of the matter to the attention of the House for a moment and that is in connection with licences. We have one sort of licence for the grocers, another sort for the retailer and another sort again for the wholesaler. Each one is different and each one will be subject to certain restrictions.

Order! I want to direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that this clause deals with the quantities that may be sold.

Yes, In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring the following aspect to the attention of the hon. the Minister, this question of restrictions. The fact remains that I am in favour of the suspension of all restrictions. It has been proved over and over again in regard to the supplying of liquor to Natives that the dreadful fears we have had have not materialized. I may not discuss this point but I mention it as an absolute proof. We are dealing here with a matter in regard to which we want to prevent the public outside offending against the Liquor Act and we want to avoid having to make use of the police in regard to liquor restrictions.

Order! The hon. member is now wandering too far from the clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I just wanted to make that point.

I move as an amendment—

I agree with the hon. Minister that as far as the trade between the wholesaler and the retailer is concerned, there should be no restriction whatsoever. That is a normal consequence of business as between those two parties and I do not think there is any question on either side of the House that there should be any restrictions. I also agree with the hon. Minister that there are problems in connection with this matter and that there is something to be said on both sides. But it seems to me that in the final analysis you should be concerned with the public. And there is little doubt that the public has benefited tremendously as a result of the existence of the so-called quasi-wholesaler. I do not want to repeat what I said this morning on Clause 38 when I referred to the Malan Report, where the report says that the quasi-wholesaler arose as a result of the high prices charged by the retailer and that if it were not for him those prices would go up again.

Looking at this problem where there are two points of view, I think the man we should protect is the public, and I would recommend to the hon. Minister the old adage “when in doubt, don’t …” If he is in doubt, do not let him change the present situation.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I appreiciate the hon. Minister’s difficulty and I want to congratulate him on the impartial manner in which he has approached the subject. I do not think anyone can grumble with the way the hon. Minister put the case. My amendment deals with the wholesaler who deals only with the trade, and the Minister has indicated already that you have to consider the position or two types of wholesalers, the one dealing only with the trade and the other one dealing with the public. That is not at the moment the question here, but I mention this because the wholesaler who deals only with the trade is apparently required under the Act at present to do exactly the same as the wholesaler who sells to the public. I think that is unfair and it causes the licensee of a retail bottle store to purchase even if he requires one bottle at a time for a special customer, a minimum quantity. If he requires one or two of a kind for a special customer, he cannot go and ring up the wholesaler and say: “Send me a bottle of this type of liqueur or brandy or wine for a customer”; no, he has to buy two gallons of liquor and six of a kind and six of another. I think that is an anomaly and I do not think there is a single member of this House who would like to bind a wholesaler who deals only with the trade and to subject him to the same restrictions as the wholesaler who deals with the public. In no trade that I know of is a shopkeeper bound to go to a wholesaler and to say: I want a shirt, or I want a pram, or I want a bicycle, and then to find that the wholesaler says: No, I cannot sell you one bicycle, you have got to buy six bicycles. Or if the hon. member there becomes a father and he wants to buy a pram, the merchant telling him “You must buy six prams”. There is no trade where a wholesaler is required to sell six of a kind, except in the liquor trade. I submit that it is just as bad that there should be that distinction between a wholesaler dealing direct with a licence holder, with a retail bottle store and the wholesaler who deals with the public. I therefore hope that hon. members will see the justice in my amendment and will see the difficulties under which the wholesaler who deals direct with the trade is labouring. Quite frankly I want to say that I was interviewed by one of these wholesalers who put his case to me and he pointed out that he has very expensive liquor, brandies and liqueurs and champagne, and he is bound to sell these expensive items six at a time if a man only wants one. I do not think I need press my case. I think the whole House will agree with me and will accept my amendment.

I also want to deal very briefly with the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to wholesalers under the present Bill. There is no provision made for a wholesale liquor licensee to sell two gallons of malt to one customer at a time. If he wants to sell two gallons of malt, he has to sell some wine and something else with it according to the present Bill, I think that is an oversight.

I want to repeat again that I think we should make some differentiation in this Act between the wholesaler who deals direct with the public and the wholesaler who deals with the trade, and I therefore hope that the House will support the amendment I have moved.

To help the hon. Minister in his approach to what is a difficult situation, as outlined by him just now, I want to add to the number of choices he will have to make up his mind by moving the amendment which stands in my name—

The hon. Minister has told us that he finds it difficult to make up his mind and I admit that my amendment is but one of the choices offered to him. But for the reasons the hon. Minister himself has given, the first choice should be to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit). I say that because of three reasons that are worrying the hon. Minister at present, namely (1) to maintain the status quo; (2) time is running out and it is difficult to deal with the matter; and (3) because the Minister said “ek is nou raadop”, in other words, he has run out of remedies. So the preference to my mind lies with what the hon. member for Stellenbosch has moved that is to revert to the status quo. I also accept that if the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) or the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) is accepted, that will meet my case completely. I merely move mine, as I say, because in the event of the hon. Minister wanting another way out, I think this is one of the ways out.

How do you get away from the fact that he is not a producer of beer?

Let me pursue my argument. The clause as it now stands amounts to the enforcement of a form of conditional sale, by which a person who wants to acquire a certain quantity of liquor is obliged to purchase either six bottles of brandy or six bottles of wine in order to get six bottles of beer. The hon. member for Parktown has made the point and made it very well, that in these circumstances it is the public interest which must weigh and must prevail. And it is certainly not in the public interest, nor is it in the interest of trade that there should be conditional selling. A former speaker spoke about a bicycle and referred to the chain. Of course that is not conditional selling. But if the buyer would have to take the baby as well as the bicycle that would be a conditional sale. And that is certainly not in the interest of the public because in conditional selling someone is always left with the baby to carry.

Now the second aspect which is not in the public interest is discrimination against one or other form of trade commodity, and what this clause will do is simply to discriminate against malt liquors. I think that is a matter of considerable importance and that actuates me very largely in moving the deletion of those words, because thereby we would get rid of discrimination. As the clause stands now it is going to debar the wholesaler from selling liquor unless it is sold either on a conditional basis, or subject to discrimination. Sir the brewer of course sells under a brewer’s licence, but the brewer who has got a wholesale licence is faced with this problem which I have tried to outline to the hon. Minister. But the person who is hardest hit of all is the wholesaler who imports any particular brand of beer, because he is also “radeloos”; he has no remedy at all under this clause. He will have to try and sell some hard liquor or some wine if he wants to sell an imported beer. For those reasons I think that the hon. Minister must in this array of amendments that has been put to him, at least accept the one that I have moved. Lastly, it seems to me that the hon. Minister is thinking in terms of making some differentiation as regards the wholesale trade between sales to the trade and sales to the public. Now whatever merit there may be in differentiating so far as the wholesaler is concerned between sales to the trade or sales to the public, the two things that must not enter into that differentiation are firstly, this discrimination against one product. Nor, secondly, must conditional selling enter into the matter. So whichever way the hon. Minister may view the matter, whatever desire he may have in making this differentiation between sales to the public and sales to the trade, I submit that the amendment which I have moved at least must be accepted. That would be my appeal to the hon. Minister.

There are a few cooperative wholesalers who have the right to supply liquor to the public. Their position is defined in Section 76 of the principal Act. Now Clause 59 (d) (5) provides that their position will remain as it is. The principal Act provides that besides the liquor that they supply to members of a co-operative wholesale company of this nature, they can also supply liquor to members of the public but this liquor has to be in a four-gallon container. They may not sell the public less than four gallons. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider—I have not framed an amendment in this regard—placing these wholesale liquor businesses on an equal footing. There are only a few of them; I think that there are only four or five who have the right to supply liquor to the public. Why should the public be compelled to buy four gallons at a time? In the first place it is very difficult to obtain a four-gallon container and in the second place it compels a man who wants to buy two gallons to buy four gallons. I want to ask that this quantity be reduced to two gallons.

It is two gallons now.

No, they are excluded under sub-section (5) and their position remains as defined in Section 76 of the principal Act. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider reducing this quantity to two gallons.

Is that in the wine farmer’s licence?

Yes, the few cooperative wholesalers.

I think this Committee will generally sympathize with the Minister in the dilemma in which he finds himsef in trying to be equitable and fair in regard to the problems of the wholesaler, the producer-wholesaler and the retailer. As I see the problem, this Bill has made wide concessions to practically all interests in connection with the liquor trade, but there does appear to be this one isolated instance where the producer-wholesaler, in terms of this Bill, is going to be penalized. I would like to say to the hon. Minister that in view of the approach of this House to this whole problem, no vested interests as far as possible should be prejudiced. As far as the wholesaler as such is concerned, he is going to be given the right in terms of this Bill, or if the amendment of the hon. member for Ceres is accepted, to convert to a retail bottle store. But in both those amendments we have specifically excluded the producer-wholesaler, and he is the man that is going to be penalized. If I remember correctly, the hon. Minister said that there were three firms in this category, the Bertrams Firm, the Alphen Winery and the Huguenot Firm. Well, Sir, I am wondering if we cannot overcome this problem by leaving the status quo as it is, but inserting in line 18 of the existing Act the words that “the liquor need not be of the same kind, description and brand when sold or delivered by the holder of a wholesale liquor licence in existence on 1 March 1963”. The effect of that will be that those firms that go over from a wholesale licence to a retail bottle-store licence will have the benefit of the retail trade, and those that do not go over to the retail trade, can stay on as they are at the moment, and the producer-wholesaler will not be adversely affected. I ask myself, Sir, in what role the producer-wholesaler finds himself at the moment. As I see it this dealer is producing the grapes, is blending it, is manufacturing it, is bottling it and is selling it to the public at a reduced price.

Not necessarily, because he sells whisky and he sells beer.

And he undersells.

But leaving it as I suggested, as on 1 March 1963, I do want to put it to the hon. Minister that I know from personal experience in my constituency that these people are serving a very useful function. They have enjoyed the support of the public, the public are getting the products at a reduced rate. The mere fact, that in terms of the memorandum sent to us, their turnover has increased so tremendously, means that they are serving a useful purpose as far as the public is concerned. I am really concerned that if we remove this facility from the public, and tell them that they have to buy on a “conditional” basis, and they have to exclude malt liquor as such, that we will come in for undue criticism. It is something which I think we should avoid under the circumstances. The public interest will not be affected under the suggestion I am making. The interests of the wine farmers will be protected. And after all, the Malan Commission, that went into this matter very fully, had more time at its disposal than we have, and they suggested that the producer-wholesaler does serve a useful purpose and should not be interfered with. I think that generally speaking it would be a wise compromise if we leave the status quo as it is but insert a proviso that that is only applicable to those wholesalers in existence on 1 March 1963. Thereby you will exclude the inroads of further wholesalers after this date. I do hope that the hon. Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment.

For two days now I have been listening to the arguments raised here and I cannot understand there being any opposition to the motion of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and even to that of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) because the whole argument of the trade is that we should not interfere with vested rights. But here we already have a case where we are interfering with established rights. In other cases one affects financial interests but not the vested right to trade. In the case of the bottle stores, they are not being interfered with and they are receiving additional rights. This is the only case in which one is interfering with the principle of the 1928 Act and the amendment of 1956. Those rights have always been protected. The argument has been used that the bottle store owner has paid R10,000 for his licence and that is why he should be protected. Sir, do you know that over the past two years these producer-wholesalers have spent R250,000 on their farm in order to produce good liquor and they have done so under the existing legislation which has been in operation for more than 50 years. So when the hon. the Minister says that the liquor trade is complaining that these people compete against them, I want to say that they knew about those people when they received their licences. Each one who received that right received it in the knowledge that the producer-wholesaler existed, and so I maintain that they cannot complain now. I want to point out that the producer-wholesaler is going to be adversely affected by the passing of this legislation. It will mean that his trade will to a large extent be adversely affected because he has no market; he has no bottle stores. He is the only one who is prevented from converting so where is he going to find retailers to trade with? One can say that 70 per cent of bottle stores now in existence are in the hands of dealers whose rights were protected in 1956. In 1956 the existing whole-salers who had bottle-store licences were given the right to retain them, but the producer-wholesaler who did not have a bottle-store licence in 1956 cannot obtain one now. They are the only ones who have been adversely affected and we are now going to affect them adversely again by saying that they can only sell certain types of liquor. I think that it would be extremely unjust to interfere with those established interests. One may ask why they spent this enormous amount of R250,000 over the past two years if they were not sure of their rights. I want to point out that not only were they encouraged by the law to do so, not only did they receive protection in terms of the law, but the Malan Commission recommended that those licences should remain. And so they were never given the impression that those vested rights would be interfered with. I want to point out that the recommendations of the commission were that to compel the quasi-wholesalers to sell only to the retailers would eliminate them completely and possibly raise the price of liquor to the consumer as has already happened in the past; if the quasi-wholesaler cannot trade with the public this will make price agreements possible. That has already happened. Another point that has appeared very clearly from the debate is that we have to protect the interests of the public. We cannot make a plea for the bottle stores; we are here in the general public interest and these dealers who have served the public for 50 years and in regard to whom the Malan Commission has stated that their rights should not be interfered with, should not now be discriminated against. I wondered why that provision was inserted in the Bill at all. I can only think of one reason why the hon. the Minister allowed it and that is that when the Bill was drafted originally the intention was to give grocers’ shops throughout the country the right to sell light wines. It was probably felt then that certain rights were going to be taken away from the retailer and in order to compensate him the wholesaler had to suffer. But what has happened now? The Cape has been completely excluded. The percentage has been lowered to 30 per cent for the other areas so that it has now been left to the retail trade to protect its own interests. It has been done away with completely in the Western Province and in the rest of the country they are being given the opportunity to bring it up to 15 per cent which is very easy and it has to be 30 per cent within three years. So that threat no longer exists and accordingly there is no further need for this paragraph. There is no reason why these vested interests should be dealt such a heavy blow. I want to remind the House that the amount that I mentioned has only been spent in the past two years but hundreds of thousands of rand were spent while these businesses were being built up. In my opinion we will be doing these people an injustice and I cannot see how we can allow that injustice to be done.

I do not know whether it will be right to do what the Minister has indicated namely that we should make a distinction between sales by the trade to the trade and sales by the trade to the public. Sales by the trade to the trade in unbroken cases seems to be the solution to the problem.

Broken cases.

No, of the wholesaler to the retailer. That is “unbroken cases”. [Interjections.] Yes, I beg your pardon. Our only problem is the sale by the trade to the public. I just want to remind hon. members that we are not dealing with a large percentage of our liquor. It is only in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent of our total liquor which goes to the public via that channel. It is relatively small and I wonder whether we need be so much concerned about that. Nevertheless, 4 per cent is a considerable amount. I think everybody will be satisfied if we think along the lines of my amendment namely that instead of saying the first gallon must be of the same kind we say the first gallon can also consist of six bottles of natural wine, and that the balance can be mixed, it can even be six bottles of beer. Although it may be a little inconvenient in some cases we are also asking the trade, when selling to the public, to do something to change the pattern and to popularize wines. That is why I think we need not struggle to find an answer. The problem in regard to sales by the trade to the trade has been solved. Sales by the quasi- wholesaler to the public. It is along those lines that we shall popularize our wines and it places no burden on the trade. To be quite honest, it is no burden.

In approaching this problem in the distribution of liquor, it is important to remember that originally the clause set out virtually to destroy the producer-wholesaler by requiring him to sell the unbroken case of one dozen bottles of whisky or gin or anything else. It was common knowledge that as the clause stood it would be impossible for anyone in this sector of the trade to do business. Then it was watered down by the provision calling for only six bottles of one kind, excluding malt. Now we have five amendments, and the position is complicated; but I could complicate it further by suggesting that in the two gallons or 12 bottles, there shall be either a minimum of six bottles of wine or 11 pints of beer. That is another alternative. So if one applies one’s mind, one can find all sorts of alternatives to the position we have at present—but it is more important to examine why it should be necessary to change the present position in which the producer-wholesaler finds himself. I know that the hon. member for Hercules is anxious, for good reasons, to increase the consumption of wine, but yesterday when I pointed to the fact that there was never an obligation on the bottle stores to sell wine up to any level, and that in fact no one had ever had any difficulty in obtaining wine from bottle stores all over the country, the hon. member interjected to say that the price was too high. Ostensibly his objection to the price was based on the interests of the consumer. To-day we find a completely different position. Yesterday the Minister said the producer-wholesaler was an evil because he competed with the bottle store, but to-day he says that he is an evil because he cuts prices and reduces the price to the consumer. I ask myself which is true. If a group of traders is considered to be an evil because it maintains high prices, then it cannot the next day be considered to be an evil because it reduces prices. The two contentions are mutually exclusive. So I am forced to the conclusion that in fact the producer-wholesaler is no evil whatsoever. It is something in the trade which has grown up through the years, and the position to-day is that the largest one, and in fact the only significant one in terms of turnover, is the Bertrams-Stellenvale group, which claims to have 67,000 customers all over the Republic, 13 outlets, employs 300 people and has a turnover of R2,700,000 per annum. Now, one does not build up such a business unless one gives service to the public. So we cannot possibly deny the fact that the producer-wholesaler renders a service to the public and is a boon, in so far as the distribution of liquor may be a boon. That being the position, I think I must also rely on the Malan Commission, which said in paragraph 170—

I ask the hon. member for Hercules, who has moved a fairly reasonable amendment, to bear in mind what his own commission said in this context. Furthermore, the commission said that it is in the public interest that the quasi-wholesaler be allowed to continue to exist, and the commission recommends that no changes be brought about in this regard. I think that sums up the position. Faced, as the Minister is faced to-day, with all these conflicting amendments—and I must say that the original design of this clause, which was to destroy the producer-wholesaler, has been somewhat watered down—I think with great respect to the Minister, that he should rely on the recommendations of the Malan Commission where it says that it is in the public interest that quasi-wholesalers should be allowed to exist, and the commission recommends that no changes be brought about in this regard.

Finally, I want to make just one other point. It seems perfectly clear from all available evidence that if the law is going to restrict the producer-wholesaler even more than the ordinary wholesaler, he will find it absolutely impossible to exist—if he does not as a producer own or control his own outlets. It is quite clear that the producer who also sells his article to the public will not be supported by those who compete with him. That is an economic law. Nobody feeds a competitor; he rather deals with someone completely out of his particular field. The proof of that is, of course, that so many of the firms, which have tried to produce and distribute without their own outlets, have in the event gone into liquidation. One need only mention a few like the Lion Wine and Brandy Company, La Paris Estates, the Federal Wine and Brandy Co. and the Standard Wine and Brandy Co. There is a long list of them, which proves that unless the producer-wholesaler can sell “wholesale” to the public, which apparently welcomes his activities, he has no chance of survival. For those reasons, and for those stated by the hon. member for Omaruru in another context, I say that the best thing to do is to let well alone, and to maintain the status quo as recommended by the Malan Commission.

I should like to introduce a new idea into the debate, and that is to emphasize that the objection and the difficulty which faces the trade boils down in essence to one issue only. That is the ability of certain producers to purchase their raw materials cheaper than their competitors. If you could deal with that one issue, you would have solved the problem. Therefore I want to suggest that the Minister should consider a proviso to this clause as it will be amended by the amendment of the hon. member for Boland, to the effect that this shall apply to all wholesalers provided that where a wholesaler purchases his supplies from the K.W.V. the minimum quantity which he may supply to the public shall be two gallons of any one brand or type. This would mean that any wholesaler who does not purchase from the K.W.V. and therefore does not enjoy that benefit will not be subject to the limitation I propose, but any wholesaler who does enjoy that advantage of getting cheap supplies will have to supply in unbroken cases of two gallons. If you do that, you eliminate the trouble. Then you give the wholesaler a choice. Either he continues buying from the K.W.V. and he is restricted to true wholesale quantities of 2 gallons or 1 case, or if he wishes to sell in broken cases he forfeits the advantage he has of getting cheaper raw material. You cannot control the source of supply and make it possible by legislation for one man to buy his raw material cheaper than another, and then avoid the responsibility of protecting the man who is prejudiced by the benefits granted to his competitor. We give the benefit to some competitors and the man who has the advantages should correspondingly also have some limitation. So I suggest that if we add a proviso that these quantities proposed will apply, not to the trade but to the public, except that in the case of a direct purchaser from the K.W.V. he may only supply in two gallon lots. I put that to the Minister as a possible line of thought which may solve this difficult problem.

There is nothing wrong with it if a member tries to promote any particular interest. It is generally done, particularly when agricultural interests are involved. But I think the spirit of the discussion in general has been that the House in this Bill wishes to bring about a fair balance between the various interests. It is obvious that when one wants to effect a change, one must always touch vested interests to a certain extent. One cannot avoid it altogether, but the aim should be to achieve the greatest measure of fairness to all. Now it seems to me, and it seems to me that the Minister has also admitted this, that if there is someone who has a complaint, then it is the retailer as regards the competition from the producer-wholesaler.

That is only 4 per cent of the whole market.

It is in the hands of one man.

I do not know whether that is so, but it is 4 per cent which is concentrated. If it is our aim to be fair to all interests, I do think we are dealing with a problem here which we must try to solve. We do not wish to eliminate the producer-wholesaler, because he has rendered a service to the public, and we want to help the public, but at the same time we want to ensure a fair livelihood to the retailer, and he feels he has to cope with something unfair in the producer-wholesaler’s advantage owing to the latter’s privilege of buying from the K.W.V. In my view the hon. member for Durban (Point) came closest to a fair proposal. As far as I understand it, the retailer would like the Minister to consider that the quantity the producer-wholeslaer may sell to the public should not be less than 18 bottles at a time, that is to say 3 gallons. I should like to know the Minister’s views on that. Then we will not be making too much of an inroad on the vested right of the producer wholesaler, but we do give the retailer an extra chance. I should like to ask the Minister also whether he does not think it will serve a useful purpose to get the various interests together sometime between now and when the Bill goes to the Other Place, to see whether they can suggest a formula. They know that there is going to be legislation which is going to affect their interests in one way or another; and possibly they may prefer to suggest a mutually satisfactory formula themselves.

The general trend of the debate has been not to disturb the producer-wholesaler, which this clause is designed to do. I myself would plead with the Minister not to disturb the vested interests of the producer-wholesaler. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, which is designed to maintain the status quo. If the producer-wholesaler has enjoyed an advantage over the wholesalers generally, I think it has been to the general advantage of the country and the public, and they have done much towards improving the qualities of our wines and other liquor. Most of our best wines have been introduced by them. They have found it very difficult to maintain their position in the face of the other competition, and only 4 per cent of the trade is enjoyed by them. I think it would be a hardship for the producer-wholesaler to have imposed upon him the limitations that this clause wishes to put on his trade. He has not the outlets that the general wholesaler has to the public, and he has developed his business under conditions which he has enjoyed for many years. I hope that at this stage nothing will be done to disturb the slight advantage that the producer-wholesaler has. We must remember that the producer-wholesaler is not only an advantage to the trade but he is an advantage to our industry. He has an interest in improving the quality of our wines; he has encouraged the wine farmer, and I think his competition has been a healthy competition. We generally notice that when the right to a special wine is purchased by one of our wholesaler firms in this country, there is a general deterioration in the quality of the wine or brandy as the case may be; that has happened over the years. We have had excellent brandies and excellent wines produced in past years by producer-wholesalers, and when these interests have been bought out by standard wholesalers there has been a gradual deterioration in that particular wine or brandy. I think on that account the competition of the producer-wholesaler should be maintained. I think it is a healthy competition in the interests of our wine and our liquor industry.

I just want to say a few words because I realize that there is little time left, and we still have a few quite important clauses to consider. This matter we are discussing here is extremely important. It is a complicated matter and one which creates great problems. In essence it is unsound, as I tried to prove this morning, that provision should be made in the Liquor Act for a minimum quantity to be sold by a particular trader. It is unsound and it leads to all sorts of problems. This morning when we discussed Clause 38 I tried to canalize the trade and I suggested that once the trade has been canalized, wholesalers should no longer have the right to sell to the public. If my amendment had been accepted it would have meant that the whole of the discussion we are now having here would have been unnecessary.

But in that case we would ruin the wholesaler.

Yes, he would then not be allowed to sell to the public at all. But I want to admit that after this morning’s discussion and after having moved my amendment the hon. the Minister placed certain information and certain data at my disposal, which had not been clear to me previously and from which it became clear to me that sub-section (4) as proposed by me was not practicable and that I would have to be prepared to abandon it. I realize therefore that I can no longer press for the addition of the proposed sub-section (4). As far as the other portion of my amendment is concerned, the hon. the Minister expressed the opinion that he agreed with it and that he would be prepared to accept it but when we revert to Clause 38 I may not have the opportunity again to speak on it, and I simply want to indicate at this stage therefore that I am prepared to abandon the last portion of my amendment; we can then proceed with the remaining portion only. But as far as this matter is concerned, it will not solve the problem at all. As far as I am concerned I should like to make it difficult for the wholesaler to sell to the public. I know that it is difficult to bring that about and I know that many members of the public are also anxious to buy from the wholesalers because they can buy their liquor more cheaply and thus save a little money. In principle I feel that it should not be permitted at all. Since it has created a social problem in other spheres, I should like to see that we make it as difficult as possible so that this source will not be available to our Coloured population in particular, but none of the amendments which we have before us solve that particular problem of mine, and it seems to me that if we wish to bring about the pattern which is really the object of the introduction of this Bill, the proposal of the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. J. Malan) is really the most acceptable. One would like to give the retail trade an opportunity, and that is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) wants to go even further; he wants to tighten up the position even more for the sake of the retail trade but that would still not solve the problem. I am prepared to make it more difficult for the public to buy from wholesalers, but I should like us to continue to build up the pattern which this Bill is really designed to bring about.

I am very grateful to hon. members for the discussion which has taken place here because to some extent one is now able to crystallize one’s thoughts. To my mind three things flow from this discussion, and as far as two of them are concerned I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I think all hon. members will agree with me. The first is the principle, since we are dealing here with wholesalers, that there should be no restrictions as far as the trade itself is concerned. I think that is the view of all hon. members who have taken part in the discussions, and if there is any member who does not hold that view, I should like him to draw my attention to it just in passing. I think that principle is covered by the amendment of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) and I shall therefore accept the hon. member’s amendment at the appropriate time. The second point is that in the past the trade has urged upon the Liquor Licensing Boards that the so-called wholesaler, the producer-wholesaler, should be tied down to unbroken case lots; that was what they demanded. I think hon. members will agree with me that that is so. The man is both a wholesaler and a producer, and our problem is aggravated by the fact that in the past he had certain vested rights, on which he built up an enormous business and into which he put an enormous amount of capital, as the hon. member for Omaruru (Mr. Frank) has correctly pointed out. On the other hand it is an indisputable fact that he comes into unfair competition with the retailers. I was wondering whether the solution to this problem should not be sought along the following lines—and whether in any event we in this House should not accept this, in which case I would undertake to go into this problem further, having regard to what hon. members have said, and, if necessary, to bring about a further amendment in the Other Place in this connection—I was wondering whether, having regard to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has said and in which there is a great deal of substance, just as there is a very great deal of substance in the argument of the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan), the solution should not be sought along the following lines: To my mind the ideal solution would be to give the wholesaler an option; he is both a wholesaler and a producer, and if it were possible to do so, the ideal solution to my mind would be to call upon him to split up his business; to operate his producer’s section as one business and his wholesale section on a separate basis. That would have been the ideal. I have caused inquiries to be made in that connection and it appears from the inquiries that the whole thing is so interwoven that that is not possible and that we will have to seek some other solution. In our minds, however, we can split up the business, and I do not think we would be wrong in doing so; we could say, “Here we have a man who is a wholesaler on the one hand and a producer on the other”. And what does he produce? As far as I know he does not produce gin; he does not produce beer; he does not produce whisky. He produces brandy and fortified wine and natural wine.

He also produces gin.

No, he does not produce gin.

He does not produce wine; he buys it from the K.W.V.

I understand from the hon. member that he buys his brandy from the K.W.V. That makes it easier to find a solution to my problem. Since the retailers demand that the producer-wholesaler should be tied down to the principle of selling in unbroken case lots, I think I should bring about an amendment in the Other Place to the effect that such a wholesaler may sell in unbroken case lots; as the Act now reads it does not lend itself to it; in other words, he can sell 12 bottles of brandy; he can sell 12 bottles of beer or 12 bottles of whisky or 12 bottles of fortified or unfortified wine. Nobody has any quarrel with him if he sells in unbroken case lots. We can then rectify the position and give him the right to do so.

Of the same kind and brand?

If he prefers to do so, he can then sell in unbroken case lots. The retail trade has no objection if he is bound to sell in unbroken case lots. The question then remains as to what the position is going to be if he does not sell in unbroken case lots. He has had the right to do so in the past and we cannot get away from that; it is a fact that we must face. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) is correct in saying that in that respect the retailers have a legitimate complaint, but because the man is a producer who does not produce brandy—he only produces natural and fortified wines—we can say to him, “You had a vested right that we want to respect; we do not want to respect it 100 per cent, but you only produce natural wines and fortified wines; you had a vested right to sell mixed lots; we will allow you to retain that right, but in this connection we are going to place the emphasis on your role as producer, and if you want to sell mixed cases, then you must sell as suggested by the hon. member for Hercules; you must sell a product of which you yourself are the producer. The drinking pattern which Parliament has accepted is natural wine, and if you wish to sell mixed lots, then any such mixed lot must include six bottles of natural wine”.

Any six bottles of his own product?

The 12 bottles must include six bottles—at least six—of any kind of natural wine which he himself has produced. In that way we do not ruin him, but I believe that we do clip his wings and, with all due respect, having regard to the figures at our disposal, I think one can clip his wings to some extent. No injustice is done to him then as a producer but his activities are brought more into line with his status as a wholesaler. He in turn also has a complaint, of course; I do not want to go into it at this stage but he says that he has been excluded from the ring of wholesalers. He contends that they do not want to do business with him because his prices are too low. I do not want to go into the whole of that history now, but having regard to the other very important provisions, amongst others the provision in regard to which I should very much like to hear arguments, namely whether we should allow credit or whether we should not allow credit, I would suggest that hon. members agree to the suggestion which I have made here and that is that we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boland. For my part I undertake to move an amendment in the Other Place to the effect that these producer-wholesalers may sell in unbroken case lots, and that if they do not sell in unbroken case lots, then at least six bottles of natural wine of their own make must form part of the order, as proposed by the hon. member for Hercules. I do not suggest that that is the ideal solution, but I think in the circumstances it is the best solution that we in this Committee will be able to find. In that connection I also undertake to have further discussions before the Bill is introduced in the Other Place, and if I can find a more acceptable solution I shall move an amendment to that effect in the Other Place, and if it is accepted there I shall come back with it to this House so that we in this House can examine and discuss it again to see whether it provides a solution.

Would that also mean the removal of the obligation in respect of malt liquor; would the four words in question also be deleted then?

In terms of the amendment which I have undertaken to bring about he will be able to sell 12 bottles of beer or 12 bottles of brandy or 12 bottles of whisky.

The hon. the Minister said that the producer-wholesaler would be obliged to sell six bottles of his own product, being natural wine, but in the event of the producer-wholesaler being the producer of gin, would he be permitted to sell six bottles of gin on that basis?

Fortunately we have no such cases.

Yes, there are such cases. Bertrams-Stellenvale make their own gins and they make their own liqueurs. They are making some very good export liqueurs. Will that minimum of six bottles of their own produce also cover the gin and liqueur?

If they make it, yes.

I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister would not be prepared to consider a provision to the effect that it need not be six bottles of wine of the same kind but six units of his product. That would mean that he would then be allowed to sell one bottle of sherry which he produces himself and five bottles of natural wine.

Yes. I cannot accept it at this stage, of course; we have no amendment before us. I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) and I shall go into the idea put forward by the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens), an idea in which there would seem to be a good deal of substance at first glance, and see whether we can perhaps give effect to that idea in the Other Place.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) put a question to me, to which I failed to reply in the heat of the moment. This position has existed for years, and I think we should leave the present position undisturbed. I have given very careful consideration to what the hon. member said, but I think we should leave the position unchanged for the time being. There is a great deal of substance in what the hon. member said, but I do not think it would be fair to the trade if we acceded to his request at this moment, and I feel therefore that we should rather leave this matter in abeyance.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Smit, Mr. Emdin and Mr. Raw were withdrawn.

The first amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett was put and agreed to, the amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman was put and negatived, the second amendment proposed by Mr. Barnett was put and agreed to, the amendment proposed by Mr. Taurog was put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Dr. A. I. Malan was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 60,

I welcome this clause because it creates the opportunity for hotel owners, particularly in our smaller rural towns, to have their on-consumption sections in a more suitable part of the town. That is very essential, as hon. members who know the circumstances in the rural areas will readily concede. Our hotels are situated in the heart of the town, in the residential areas, and the position which has developed in recent years is that Coloureds in particular kick up a row at the hotels until midnight. There is one thing which disturbs me in connection with this clause, and that is that as I read the clause the initiative will still remain with the licensee. If I interpret the clause correctly, the licensee will make representations in the first instance to the Licensing Board and the application will then go to the Minister. There may be very good reasons why a licensee does not apply for permission to shift his on-consumption section, and I was wondering whether the hon. the Minister could not insert a provision which will make it possible for the local authority, where it can be proved that the position is intolerable, to take the initiative, upon receiving a report from the police, with a view to forcing the licensee to shift the on-consumption section of such an hotel to some other part of the town.

I am glad that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) has raised this matter. We often find that the on-consumption premises for the Coloureds are situated in small annexes which have no or few facilities, a state of affairs which is unfair to the Coloureds, amongst others. I myself can testify to the fact that in many of our small rural towns this is a very positive source of annoyance. In terms of this clause licensees will now be able to obtain authority to shift their licenced premises. I am very seriously considering the question of introducing an amendment in the Other Place—and I am trying to find a formula—to make sure not only that we can authorize it, but that we can compel the licensee in certain circumstances to shift a portion of his licensed premises. If such an amendment is accepted it will be a very great advantage to this particular class of person, because for the first time they will then have new, decent and better premises in which they will be able to come together. I have already negotiated in this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Coloured Affairs and of Community Development; he and I understand each other in this regard. I should like to be able to give effect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prieska by moving an amendment in the Other Place, and thereafter the amendment will be brought back to this House again.

This clause is not quite clear to me and I have a feeling that it is not entirely correct. I referred to it just in passing in the second-reading debate. In the first instance, I just want to say this with regard to what the hon. the Minister has just said in connection with the idea of compelling licensees to shift their licensed premises. Sub-section (1) (b) (ii) of this measure authorizes the Licensing Board to impose the condition in the case of an on-consumption licence that no liquor shall be sold or supplied to a particular class of persons. In other words, if the Licensing Board imposes the condition that as from a certain date no liquor shall be sold or supplied to a particular class of persons in the on-consumption section of the licensed premises it means that that licensee will no longer be able to sell and that he will have to make some other plan. In other words, in order to be able to do so he will be obliged to come and ask for leave to shift his licence to some other site for which provision is made in sub-section (2). But I just want to refer again to the matter which I have brought to the notice of the House before. Sub-section (3) (i) of the old section in the existing Act provides that separate places may be set aside for certain classes of persons—let us say for the Coloureds. That is an existing section in the Act, and subsection (2) should not refer to that section; it should refer to (b) (ii). If I am wrong I should like to have an explanation in this regard, because I feel that a Licensing Board may now authorize a licensee no longer to supply liquor to a certain class. Perhaps it is just a slip, but I simply cannot understand it.

We shall go into it.

We are, of course, aware of the fact that there is a provision in the Act to the effect it may not be granted or may not be shifted to a place within half a mile of an area set aside for Coloureds.

No, there is a discretion there.

In other words, that provision will not clash with what is provided for here?

No, there is a discretion.

Clause put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 64.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move—

Leave was granted this morning to discuss this new clause and I do not think it is necessary to say anything further about it. It was clearly indicated this morning that it simply puts the existing position right. Section 82 of the old Act is never applied any more because it has been found impracticable to ascertain on every occasion whether a purchaser does indeed own a house valued at £200.

I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) for the reasons I gave this morning. I do not want to limit the discussion on this clause or that on any other clause, Mr. Chairman, but I want to point out politely to hon. members that as far as I know there is exactly half an hour left of the time allowed for the Committee Stage. I refer hon. members to Clause 84, which contains a very important principle, namely, the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules to the effect that no liquor should be sold on credit, or rather, that it may be sold on credit, but that it will not be recoverable by way of a summons. That is a very important principle—the others are less important—and I should like to hear hon. members’ views on that amendment. I should, for example, like to hear the views of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) because he knows something about that aspect. I want to ask, therefore, whether we can quickly dispose of the other clauses in order to devote half an hour to discussing that particularly important clause. This is only a suggestion on my part.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 65,

I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister a question on this clause. It provides that—

Is there any reason why the hotel liquor licence is excluded here? Because the same considerations would seem to apply and one could possibly impose the same requirement. I have been asked to put that point to the hon. the Minister.

I have given notice of an amendment that I wish to move—

This is an extremely important matter, and I should like to put it to the Minister just briefly. It is visualized here that the wholesaler shall be the only person who bottles liquor. With that I have no fault to find. I know that the object of that is that the wholesaler must accept the responsibility for the quality of the contents of the bottle—and that is also the recommendation of the Malan Commission—but as this clause reads at present it gives rise to quite a number of difficulties. If all wholesalers have to bottle the wine at their premises, which will be situated in the Western Province in the main, and then have to send that wine to Beaufort West or De Aar or Kimberley, it will mean that by the time the wine gets there, it will cost at least 5c more per bottle. What is visualized here is that the wholesaler must send the liquor to an agent to do the bottling for him. This clause provides that that person who buys from the wholesaler will not be allowed to bottle the liquor. The result of this will be that many of our smaller wholesalers in the Western Province, who sell a great deal of liquor in the interior but not nearly as much as the large institutions like Castle Wine, etc., will have to establish depots in that area. Their turnover, however, is not big enough to justify this. On the other hand, the large institutions with a big turnover will be able to afford to open depots at De Aar or Kimberley while the smaller institutions will not be able to do so. The net result will be that the smaller institution will have to sell at a higher price because it will have to do its bottling locally and then forward the liquor in bottles, running the risk that the bottles may break. The smaller institution would simply be ruined and the large institution which can afford to open a depot in the interior would eventually have a monopoly in the interior. I am pleading here for the smaller wholesaler, because if this clause is passed as it stands it will be a tremendous blow to him. It is felt that that wholesaler should be allowed to appoint one of his clients at, say, Victoria West as his agent and that a label should be placed on the bottle to indicate that liquor was “bottled by So and So for So and So”; that the wholesaler should accept the responsibility but that his agent should be allowed to bottle the liquor. The agents are prepared to do so. If, as this clause says, it cannot be done, it would mean that the wholesaler would have to appoint a third party, which would be tantamount to opening a depot. It would cause a complete disruption. I have tried to rectify the position in another way, but if we cannot rectify it, we should rather delete this clause. I know what the intention is; the intention is good, but as the clause reads at the moment it is going to cause a dislocation in the wholesale trade.

The commission had the same problem in connection with the small producer/trader which the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) has raised and they suggested the following: This was suggested by the small producer/traders themselves. The commission was satisfied with it and recommended accordingly, namely, that the small producer who could not afford to have depots throughout the Republic, something which the big producer could afford, should be allowed to appoint an agent in the various places instead of having a depot there. The agent will then be allowed to bottle, not on his own responsibility, but on the responsibility of the producer. If there is a prosecution it will be the producer and not the agent who will be prosecuted. If the agent is somebody who also uses the product of the producer it will make it worth while for that agent. We think it will solve this difficulty. The agent does not only bottle but he may also trade in the product which he bottles in which case it will pay him.

I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ceres because if he does he will be opening the door to substitution. We have been told that the idea is to bring up the standard of our wine and encourage the drinking of wine. We know that once people are allowed to buy wine and bottle it themselves it can be abused. If we are going to maintain the standard that we require in our wine-producing industry the wine should come from the manufacturer in sealed containers. There has been substitution in the past and rubbish has been palmed off to our workers; they have had to drink rubbish that was bottled in the backyard of some bottle store. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will not accept that amendment.

I think the explanation by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) is an adequate reply to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller).

I quite agree that the danger exists but then the law should be changed.

I am informed that the law has been changed.

The clause is not right as it stands at the moment, Clause 65 says—

He may not be an agent. If he has to appoint an agent he might just as well have a depot in which case the whole thing is wrecked.

No, we do not want that. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that if it is not possible to solve this problem now—this is a problem which has only arisen now—I shall put it right in the Other Place.

I just want to say this to the hon. member for Salt River. He is scared there will be substitution so we must not allow it. This liquor will still be sent to the agent in large containers. The label on the bottle will be that of the wholesaler. It is still his liquor; he will still be responsible for it. It will only be stated on the bottle “Manufactured by So and So but bottled by So and So. The quality is ensured therefore. It will still be of the same quality which it was when it was with the wholesaler.

Anything can happen in the grocer shop.

No, the bottles are sealed. When it leaves the retailer it is sealed. When the public buys it it is still sealed.

I wonder whether the hon the Minister can give me the explanation I asked for. There is probably a very simple explanation for it.

I am sorry that, in the hurry, I omitted to give the hon. member for Pinelands the explanation. The off-sale licences of hotels are subject to the same conditions; it is used as a bottle store. In the case of liquor consumed on the premises you cannot apply it unfortunately because a variety of types are drunk

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. S. L. Muller was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 67,

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

Clause 67 amends Section 87 of the principal Act which provides what liquor may be sold under a wine farmer’s licence but does not indicate where it must be sold. The amendment establishes where it should be sold. I admit that the wine farmer’s licence is a very favourable one. A new licence only costs R2 and a renewal costs R1 compared with R500 in the case of a wholesale licence and R500 in the case of a brewer’s licence. I believe in many instances these licence holders have gone beyond the spirit of the Act and that they have actually established depots in town. It is for this reason that I have moved my amendment because I believe that favourable licences of this kind should at least be confined to the place in respect of which the licence has been granted.

We are dealing here with an old existing right. The farmers wanted the existing position to be changed but I resisted it. I think we should leave the position as it is at the moment and that is why I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 68,

Because we have adopted the clause dealing with licences for beer and wine at meal times it is necessary to bring about an amendment to Clause 68 and I consequently move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The object of this amendment is to do away with the tot system. This system has been condemned on all sides. The commission which investigated this matter said that the tot system was a system which should be condemned. In view of the time factor I do not propose to argue this point at length. There is no doubt about it that the tot system is a system which should not be encouraged and that it should be discontinued.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinetown. As he said the tot system is an iniquitous one. We know what it has done to our Coloured population. As the Minister has said this system won’t die overnight and that the farmers will still continue with the tot system. The object of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinetown is to put it beyond doubt that this wine should not be given to the workers in any form.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment because it would create an impossible position. You will never be able to institute any prosecutions because you will never be able to determine whether it was given as a reward or not. If my garden boy has worked hard during the afternoon and he tells me he is thirsty and I give him something to drink will that be regarded as a reward for having worked hard or must I only give him something to drink when he has not worked hard. You see all the problems that can flow from it, Mr. Chairman.

I think hon. members ought to be satisfied that we are now abolishing the tot system. It has been a contentious question for years. I think if we abolish and bury it without any further ado we have done everything possible. If we add other things the whole problem will simply crop up again and I do not think it is necessary to do so.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the late hour we have reached I should like to move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 84,

I have an amendment—

I do not want to take up any time by reading it, but I just want to say briefly what it means. It is something which will be welcomed by the public in general. Because liquor is not a necessity like food and many other things we should also distinguish between paying for liquor and paying for food. In terms of the amendment a wholesaler can sell liquor on account to the trade if he wishes to do so, but he will not be able to recover that amount through the courts after two months. That is point number one. Point number two is actually more important, namely, that when the retailer sells liquor to the public he can sell it on account if he wants to, but that money will not be recoverable. If it is a good client and the retailer knows that client will pay him it is his own business whether he gives him credit or not. Difficulties and problems may flow from this, but it appears to me that it will be safe for us to leave it at that and that we protect the public, particularly the wives and children and families, who would otherwise be able to obtain liquor easily from the retail trade without paying cash for it.

So as to comply with the procedure the Committee must first vote down the existing Clause 84 in order to consider the new Clause 84 of the hon. member for Hercules.

I must apologize for not being here; I did not know that Clauses 82 and 83 were standing over. As far as Clause 84 is concerned I think it is wrong if we make credit easier in regard to liquor sales under these new licenses. I want to move the amendment in my name to negative this clause completely.

The hon. member must have misunderstood me. What I am trying to do is to make it more difficult to give credit for the purchase of liquor. Let me read the last paragraph to the hon. member—

1. (1), no action or other judicial proceeding shall be capable of being brought by any person for the recovery of any money alleged to be owed in respect of the supply of liquor to any person, nor shall any such alleged debt be capable of being set off or of being the subject of any claim in reconvention by any person.

Does that mean that a customer will have to pay cash?

Yes; unless the retailer wants to take the risk.

Order! I now put …

Mr. Chairman, can’t we discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules before you put it to the Committee?

I have to put Clause 84 and if it is negatived the Committee can consider the new Clause 84.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to Clause 84. Once we have omitted Clause 84 we cannot oppose the new Clause 84. If I wish to retain the original Clause 84, and if I am opposed to the proposed substitution of a new Clause 84, how do I do it, Sir?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) may address the Committee on Clause 84 as it stands now.

I appreciate the thinking in regard to tightening up the provision of liquor on credit. I am certainly in favour of the idea that purchases under grocery shop and mealtime licences should be for cash because I do not think we should mix up liquor accounts with food accounts. But I am concerned about the proposal to limit trade transactions to two months. In the trade any normal wholesaler has to give credit to-day. It is unusual for a wholesaler not to give 90 days’ credit; sometimes it is 120 days. I think in the case of a normal business transaction, where firm is dealing with firm, and where the assets of a firm are part of its business, it is wrong to remove the right of recovery of debt. I can see the argument in the case of a private person. When you sue a private person you are suing a family and their normal possessions and livelihood are affected for the sake of liquor. But when a liquor firm, like a bottle store, owes money to a liquor wholesaler or when a wholesaler owes money to a producer I think it is wrong to interfere with the normal processes of business.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is your standpoint that we must not interfere as between trade and trade?

Yes.

But that the hon. member for Hercules is correct as between trade and family.

I don’t believe you should interfere as between trade and trade. It is a business transaction. The assets concerned, if somebody does sue, are assets earned by and belonging to the liquor business. So I think we should leave the trade out. In regard to trade and public …

I agree with the hon. member wholeheartedly.

Thank you. In regard to trade and public there is a provision limiting it to two months, in effect. Statements are sent out at the end of the month in which the purchase was made, so that is one month, gone. So in practice there are two months’ credit recoverable as between bottle store and public. I see no harm where it is such a short period. Very few people are going to sue within two months. It makes the person selling the liquor careful; he is not going to give credit indiscriminately but it covers him in the event of credit being given by mistake. The proprietor is not always in the shop. Somebody may come in and say “I have an account; give me this or that”. The assistant gives it to him and enters it. When the proprietor comes back he discovers that credit has been given to a person who does not have an account with him. To cover cases like that I believe there should be some right of claim. In the normal course that right is not exercised within two months. Nobody is going to issue a summons the second time an account is sent out. I think there should be some protection against attempts to swindle a legitimate business by somebody who misrepresents themselves. Provided there is an opportunity to recover from the public I have no objection to grocers being excluded right from the start because that is a new field. But in regard to the public buying from a bottle store there should be a limited period to enable a person to recover a fraudulent account.

My attitude is that it should be two months as between trader and trader as well as between trader and public. It makes no difference to me whether it is a transaction between the trade and the trade or between the trade and the public. It is a business transaction in both cases and the money of both is equally good. My attitude is, therefore, that it should remain two months in respect of both.

As far as the difference between trader and trader is concerned, it is not clear to me what the hon. the Minister’s standpoint is in this regard. Many of the sales are covered by means of bills of exchange.…

We are leaving the position between trade and trade as it is.

That still leaves the matter between the seller and the consumer somewhat complicated because there are two kinds of consumer; you have the one who buys a bottle and finishes it at home and then you have the consumer at the restaurant and under the hotel licences. It may be that somebody living at an hotel only pays his account at the end of the month. Portion of the account covers the liquor which was consumed during the month at table and the food. How are you going to separate those? How will the hotelier make out his account in respect of that consumer? I do not object to your limiting it to the grocer but when it comes to the restaurants you are dealing with a joint service, the serving of food and the serving of liquor. I do not understand the first part of the clause fully. I may be totally wrong but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider that matter.

I would like to have clarity that by deleting the existing Clause 84 and introducing another Clause 84, there will be no relaxing of the provisions of the original Section 111: That there will be no relaxation in respect of sales on credit. By inserting the words “or grocer’s wine licence”, I take it that the provisions of Section 111 in that regard will not be relaxed at all. In other words that it will not relax the time limits in any way in respect of credit sales. There is a restriction on credit sales at present in regard to liquor for on-consumption.

The hon. member wants to restrict it altogether?

That is so.

I would like to hear argument from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) and other hon. members. I am anxious to know what their view is whether there should be credit or not.

As a result of my experience I have no desire that the period of prescription that is at present provided in respect of bottle stores should be extended, but the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) wants to reduce it. The Tielman Roos Act has been attacked quite often in this House. There was a genuine attempt to introduce some sort of control over the consumption of liquor and one of the main controls of course was this control of credit. The previous two Sections, 82 and 83, deal with the same thing. There is the question of signing cards. In the old days before the Roos Act, one could sign cards in bars and everybody could get credit and it caused infernal difficulties, troubles that one cannot realize to-day. I had experience of that in those days and it was an impossible position. I think there should be no credit given at all for tots, for drinks alone, but as far as the bottle stores are concerned, I have no objection to the present position in regard to prescription, but I do think that in the groceries stores wine should only be sold for cash.

I wish to associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). I feel that if the public is to be allowed to purchase, particularly from the grocers, supplies of wine on credit, it could lead to tremendous abuse and that there should be some provision, some step taken which will discourage that practice of buying more liquor than perhaps people need because they can get extended credit. I wish to support the attempt to restrict it to cash sales in respect of grocery wine licences.

There are only a few minutes left and it seems to me as if there is a great difference of opinion on this matter. If we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) without further ado I think we shall find ourselves in difficulty in view of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) and others. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Hercules therefore to withdraw his amendment. I shall go into this matter and in order to give hon. members an opportunity of discussing this matter again I shall, if necessary, move an amendment in the Other Place so that it can come back here and so that we can have a fuller discussion on this important point.

You can do that at the Report Stage.

Yes, but we only have an hour for the Report Stage and that will unfortunately make it very difficult for us.

Will you also consider the mealtime licences?

Yes, everything will be taken into account.

With the leave of the House the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hercules was withdrawn.

Clause 84 put and agreed to.

On Clause 85,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 93,

I move—

(b) by the substitution for sub-section (2) of the following sub-section:

and to add the following paragraphs at the end of the Clause:

(c) by the substitution in paragraph (b) of that sub-section for the words “to whom licences for sale of methylated spirit may be issued” of the words “who, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), shall not sell methylated spirit;”; and

(d) by the deletion of sub-section (4).

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 94 to 99 put and agreed to.

On the conclusion of the period of twelve hours allotted for the Committee Stage of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on 5th June, as amended to-day.

Clauses 100 to 111 put and agreed to.

On Clause 112,

To add at the end of paragraph (1) “in any portion of an establishment restricted to White customers, and one shilling and sixpence in any portion of an establishment for non-Whites”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 113 to 115 put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 9, 16, 38 and 72 to 83 standing over.

Clause 9 put, upon which the following amendments had been moved by Mr. Waterson: In line 19, after “report” to insert “and recommendation”; and to add the following proviso at the end of the proposed new section 17:

Provided that unless objection by police report or otherwise to the renewal of a licence shall have been lodged with the licensing board at least two weeks before the consideration of an application for renewal, such licence shall automatically be renewed without requiring the applicant to appear or give evidence before the board.

The first amendment was put and agreed to and the remaining amendment was put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 16 put and agreed to.

Clause 38 put, upon which the following amendments had been moved by Mr. S. L. Muller: To omit sub-section (2) of the proposed new section 55bis and to substitute the following new sub-section:

1. (2) The Minister may upon a recommendation made by the National Liquor Board and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 63, in his discretion, authorize the conversion of such wholesale liquor licence into a bottle liquor licence, subject to such conditions and restrictions as he may deem fit to impose, provided that—
   1. (a) the Minister may only grant one such authority in any one district in respect of a business conducted under a wholesale liquor licence if the applicant or any other person or agent or nominee or company having any financial interest in such business, has any financial interest whatsoever in any other business conducted under a liquor licence or had any such interest on the first day of March, 1963;
   2. (b) no authority under this section shall be granted in respect of a business conducted under a wholesale liquor licence in which a producer or manufacturer or brewer or agent or nominee or person or company referred to in Section 114ter has any financial interest whatsoever or had any such interest on the first day of March, 1963;
   3. (c) no authority under this section shall be granted in respect of a business conducted under a wholesale liquor licence on the same premises as or together with a business conducted on the first day of March 1963, under an hotel liquor licence to which off-sale privileges attached, a bottle liquor licence or a wine and malt licence.; and to add the following sub-section at the end of the proposed new section 55bis:
2. (4) No holder of a wholesale liquor licence shall trade directly with the public under such licence as from the first day of March 1964.

With leave of the Committee, the second amendment proposed by Mr. S. L. Muller was withdrawn.

The remaining amendment was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 72,

To omit paragraph (a) of the proposed new Section 94.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of the proposed new Section 94, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—65. 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.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Plewman, R. P.; 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, 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 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.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.

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

NOES—22: Bowker, T. B.; de Kock, H. C.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Greyling, J. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Malan, E. G.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Nierop, P. J.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. H. Hopewell and G. N. Oldfield.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clauses 73 to 77 put and agreed to.

On Clause 78,

In line 11, after “wife” to insert “or a member of the family”; and to add at the end of the proposed new paragraph

1. (c) inserted by paragraph (c) “or a housekeeper”.

Agreed ot.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 79,

To omit paragraph (a) and to substitute the following new paragraphs:

1. (a) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of the words “any female or”;
2. (b) by the deletion of paragraph (a) of subsection (2); and

In line 17, after “business” to add “or a member of the family of such licensee, proprietor or manager, or a housekeeper”.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Van der Walt was put and negatived and the amendment proposed by Mr. Raw was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 80 to 82 put and agreed to.

On Clause 83,

To insert the following as a paragraph (a) after “amended” in line 40:

1. (a) by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the word “licence” where it occurs for the first time of the words “or of a grocer’s wine licence”;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title of the Bill having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.