Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill chiefly embodies a few amendments in connection with grocers’ wine licences. In consequence of the enquiry by the Competition Board into restrictive practices in the supply and distribution of alcoholic beverages in the Republic of South Africa, the Government decided to place a restriction on the number of grocers’ wine licences which may be held by one person or body. Because the point of departure was that the existing rights of licence holders should not be alienated, the number of licences held by the largest single licence holder, namely 36, was fixed as the maximum.

As a result of their links with producers or beer brewers by way of shareholdings, two existing licence holders, namely OK Bazaars and Checkers, with 12 and 28 grocers’ wine licences respectively, are in terms of section 32 of the Liquor Act, 1977, Act No 87 of 1977, prohibited from obtaining further grocers’ wine licences. This prohibition is now being lifted in clause 1 of the measure under discussion. It is difficult to justify this discrimination in the present set-up in the liquor industry, where different forms of vertical integration occur. As a matter of fact, it remains an objective to achieve a greater degree of uniformity in respect of conditions and restrictions for all licence-holders. In a free enterprise system the rules should be the same for all participants. Historical developments have led to this principle not applying in the South African liquor industry at present. The granting of additional licences to the aforementioned two licence-holders will contribute a great deal towards introducing a greater degree of uniformity into the system.

†An amendment to section 147 of the Act, as proposed in clause 2, will authorize holders of grocers’ wine licences to sell sparkling wine which has an alcohol content of less than 14% by volume. The holders of grocers’ wine licences are presently only allowed to sell table wine, ie wine with an alcohol content of less than 14% by volume.

The inclusion, therefore, of sparkling wine does not expand the principle of a grocer’s wine licence, as sparkling wine clearly falls in the same category as table wine.

Mr Speaker, before addressing myself to the subject matter of this Bill I should like to place on record that this is one of those rare occasions upon which the Whip has been withdrawn from our party in this Assembly.

You are far better off without him. [Interjections.]

Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, hon members of the PFP are free to vote in accordance with their conscience in respect of this measure. [Interjections.]

What conscience? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the same question could apply to hon members on the Government side, I guess. [Interjections.]

This Bill, like with liquor matters in general, is a free vote issue for the PFP, and hon members of this party will vote accordingly.

Quite simply, Mr Speaker, this Bill merely provides for the increasing of the availability of a wider range of wines for sale through grocery outlets. Firstly I should like to point out that there are a number of arguments against this step; arguments of which we need to take account. The first argument is that liquor causes certain serious social problems throughout our society, and that any extension of the availability of liquor should therefore be opposed in the general public interest. [Interjections.] Secondly, there is the argument that liquor should not be made more freely available in places which are frequented by children. [Interjections.] In this respect we immediately think of places like grocery stores and supermarkets. A third argument in this regard is that an increased availability of liquor in supermarkets could lead to an increased impulse buying of such liquor, and that it can therefore increase the consumption of liquor in general.

Let us take these arguments one by one, Mr Speaker. The fact that liquor causes serious social problems throughout our society is an argument one can readily accept. It does cause serious social problems in some quarters. It does, however, seem to me to have dubious validity when it is argued that the mere curbing of the availability of liquor will necessarily reduce these social problems.

The great experiment on prohibition in the USA earlier this century is well-known as a classic failure in this very field. Prohibition in the United States seemed to have had a counter-productive effect. Prohibition in the United States and restrictions in general seemed to assign to liquor the glamour of forbidden fruit. Furthermore, prohibition in the United States had the very negative spin-off effect that it led to a number of dubious characters making very large fortunes out of the business of breaking prohibition. It would therefore seem to me that there is not a very clear and strong relationship between the greater availability of liquor as such and its greater abuse. It would seem to me that the remedies for the social ills of liquor abuse must be sought at deeper social levels than merely a restriction upon the availability of liquor. In the case of this particular piece of legislation, the increase in the availability of wines is marginal. Therefore, I think it would be erroneous and, in fact, exaggerated, to suggest that this amendment will add to the general social disease of alcohol abuse.

As far as the second argument in relation to the exposure of liquor to children is concerned, once again it would seem to me to be stretching a point to suggest that this Bill increases that exposure and therefore the danger of temptation on the part of children. The place most frequented by children is obviously their own homes, and most modern homes have liquor cabinets with a modest stock of liquor for normal and temperate use. It would seem to me, therefore, that the grocery stores would hardly be likely to hold the potential to corrupt our youth to a greater extent than exposure to liquor in their own homes may have. Therefore, I do not think that this argument holds water either.

The third argument that I must concede has some validity is that the greater availability of wines in supermarkets is likely to lead to our increase in the impulse buying of wines. I think that is fairly incontrovertible argument. One must therefore accept that there will be increased sales of wine in grocery stores and supermarkets. However, this does not automatically make it a bad thing. Firstly, increased sales of wine through grocery stores and supermarkets will to a greater or lesser extent be offset by reduced sales of these items in bottle stores. Secondly— and this is a more important point—it is quite possible that the increased sales of wine through grocery stores and supermarkets as a result of the one-stop convenience now available to the shopper to buy wines at the same time as they buy other products may mean fewer deliberate trips to a bottle store. By avoiding more trips to a bottle store it may mean that one is avoiding more impulse buying of the harder kinds of liquor available at bottle stores. It would therefore seem to me that it is possible to argue that to the extent that this amendment will contribute towards some minor shift in general drinking patterns away from harder liquor and towards milder natural and sparkling wines, one could even argue that it was a positive shift and that it may have a very slight and marginal impact in a positive direction on the general consumption of alcohol in South Africa.

I want at this stage to make the point that if it is accepted that Government policy should be oriented towards encouraging people to partake of liquor in moderation and to partake in moderation of mild forms of liquor rather than strong forms, then surely it would be a good thing also to class beer in the same category as wine. I want to mention the fact here that we have previoiusly criticized the Government for using its power to make rules and regulations and to levy taxes and so on as far as the liquor industry is concerned in ways that are favourable to its supporters in the wine industry and neglectful of the brewing industry. Unfortunately it must be said that this amendment is another example of the Government favouring the wine industry over the brewing industry and it is an example following hot on the heels of the example in the Budget which was introduced yesterday.

With reference to this particular matter, it seems to me that since both wine and beer are mild forms of liquor, they should both be treated equally when permitting sales through grocery outlets. I therefore take this opportunity once again to appeal for even-handedness on the part of the Government in the treatment of these two industries.

Having said that, I should like to come back to the Bill and say that in spite of its limited form and in spite of the fact that it applies only to wine, I am prepared to support it. I support the extension envisaged in the Bill for the balance of reasons which I have advanced and also for the following two reasons. The first of the subsidiary reasons which I should like to advance is that the increased competition in the marketing of wine which has arisen since sales through supermarkets were permitted has in fact benefited the public through lower prices in many instances. Those hon members who are anxious about the rate of inflation might have to agree that this step has served the public interest in an anti-inflationary way and that this amendment will marginally extend that benefit of lower prices for popular products to the public.

What is the wine content of the CPI? [Interjections.]

The second subsidiary argument I should like to advance is that in so far as this amendment will increase the number of grocery store outlets where liquor can be sold to the general public, it will to some extent help to offset the over concentration of sales at a limited number of licensed bottle stores. The importance of this is that in suburban areas isolated bottle stores have the unfortunate tendency to attract a concentration of undesirable anti-social elements, vagrants and drunken deadbeats who often indulge in low standards of behaviour. This situation has very unfortunate side-effects for the people in suburban areas who live close to bottle stores. So to the extent that more outlets might diffuse the marketing of these products and therefore diffuse the negative impact that these inevitable undesirable elements have on any area, it could be marginally positive development.

In summary, therefore—I can only speak for myself in this matter—I intend using my freedom of discretion in this free vote to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I find myself in the unusual position of being compelled to thank the hon member for Constantia for, and congratulate him on, what was generally a well-thought-out and interesting speech. It therefore appears that if the hon member distances himself a little from politics, he is, in fact, a man of merit. The only low point in his speech was the very point when he touched slightly on politics by saying that the Government supposedly gave preference to the interests they support, as opposed to the interests of the beer industry. I shall come back to that during the course of my speech.

Over the years there have been many debates in this House on matters pertaining to liquor. I went to the trouble of reading a few of them. Almost without exception they were debates that stirred up emotions. Of course, it is understandable that this was and is the case, since liquor is a potentially dangerous commodity. After all, the results of the abuse of liquor frighten us all. We are all extremely sympathetic to the fate of the alcoholic and those close to him. It is right and fitting that we should have the interests of these unfortunate people at heart. Most of us are also sympathetic to those who have vested interests in this industry, and it is right and fitting that they should protect their interests. We do not deny that. However, we must just see to it that we maintain a healthy balance between all the claims, since we must bear in mind that we have primary producers who also have interests and there are a large number of workers dependent on these producers for their livelihood. Then there are those—by far the majority— who are able to handle their liquor and for whom the moderate, sensible and civilized use of liquor is an asset in their lives. These people, too, have interests. Again I emphasize that when one speaks about this matter one should strive for a balance and see to it that one has the necessary facts at one’s disposal.

I assume the hon member for Langlaagte is going to oppose this legislation.

Most definitely.

Last year we also had a Liquor Amendment Bill before this Chamber and the hon member for Langlaagte also participated in the debate (Hansard, 29 April 1983, column 5940). On that occasion the hon member’s speech took up six columns in Hansard. I studied the speech carefully and found that during that course of it the hon member made no fewer than 27 factually incorrect statements and remarks. On that occasion the hon member engaged the attention of this hon House with an argument that had no substance whatsoever. I assume that the hon member is going to participate in this debate after me, and I hope that this time he will see to it that his facts are correct.

Grocers’ wine licences have not been in existence for long. They came about as a result of a recommendation by the Malan Commission of 1960 and the granting of grocers’ wine licences was approved in 1963. The idea was to promote the association of wine with food and to encourage the use of natural wine. At that time there was concern because our people were consuming mainly spirits. There was, in fact, reason to be concerned. In fact, there is still cause for concern. In any case, when the legislation was introduced there was a great deal of opposition to it, both inside and outside this House. People were afraid that grocers would practically force wine on the public and that smuggling would be encouraged. How that could happen, I do not know. In addition, it was feared that it would result in the greater abuse of liquor and untold misery. None of these fears were confirmed, however. What the objectors lost sight of, in the first instance, was that this legislation was introduced by a Government with a sense of responsibility, a Government that is just as concerned about the results of the abuse of liquor as they are.

Grocers’ wine licences are granted only with the greatest degree of circumspection. The public interest is always the decisive factor. The first licence was granted in 1965, and in the 19 years since then altogether 159 licences have been granted. If we bear in mind how many thousands of grocers there are in our country the figure of 159 licences is a conservative one and attests to, I could almost say, an overresponsible approach to the granting of licences on the part of the Government and the Liquor Board. At present approximately 7% of all natural wines consumed in South Africa are sold by grocers.

I now come to the Bill. In view of the provision that bona fide grocers that qualify at a sufficient number of places may obtain a maximum of 36 grocers’ licences some of the large companies are complaining because a ceiling is being placed on the number of licences at all. It is a pity that a ceiling had to be placed on them. I admit that. I would prefer it if there were no control over the liquor industry in this country if it were at all possible. It is not as simple as that, however. It was never the intention that large groups of stores could build up new concentrations of power in the liquor trade. This becomes apparent if one reads the debates that have been conducted on this subject. That is precisely why provision has been made for the holders of liquor store licences and hotel off-sales to sell wine on the premises of grocery stores that do not belong to them under an additional licence. These are the so-called wine counters. This arrangement is aimed, firstly, at taking vested interests into account and secondly, at fulfilling the specific needs of the consumer public. Unfortunately most of the large department stores have always refused to co-operate in order for this provision to be carried into effect. I concede that they may have their own sound reason for doing so, but I want to make it clear that their conduct is short-sighted and motivated mainly by their own interests. It is not in the long-term interests of the public or of the liquor trade, and I hope that they will give their co-operation now. In fact, I want to appeal to them to do so, since there are no insurmountable problems attached to this. Such wine counters do exist, and the system works very well. By the way, as far as I am concerned the designation “wine counter” is a very unfortunate one. It creates the wrong impression, and a designation such as “wine section” would have been much better. We no longer like to purchase our wine over a counter, since we want to select it ourselves. Besides, wine counters remind one too much of the dreadful old canteens of days gone by, of which we fortunately do not have many left today.

To many people the Liquor Act in general, and particularly in its technical context, is an object of dread. Many a person versed in law sitting here and who has had anything to do with the Liquor Act would be able to bear witness to the fact that the Liquor Act has always been a nightmare for them. I want to illustrate this briefly by discussing clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause 2 contains a provision that will authorize the holder of a grocers’ wine licence to sell sparkling wine as well. Until now these people could only sell table wine with an alcohol content of no more than 14% by volume, whilst the selling of sparkling wine was prohibited. It is completely illogical that sparkling wine was excluded, and I shall tell you in a moment why I say this. In any case, how we could ever have stipulated what the holder of a grocers’ wine licence could sell, remains a mystery. It is really an achievement on the part of the lawyers that they were able to interpret this provision. Nowhere in any law is the term “table wine” defined. In fact, the Liquor Act of 1977 does not even tell us what wine is. The Liquor Act states that if one wants to know what wine is one must go and look at another Act, viz the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act of 1957. This Act contains a fine definition of wine. It is a broad definition and states that wine also includes perlé wine and sparkling wine. One can infer from this what table wine is. One can infer that wine as defined in the 1957 Act, is table wine for the purposes of the 1977 Act if it does not contain more than 14% alcohol by volume. This includes perlé wine and sparkling wine. Perlé wine may be sold in a grocery store, but not sparkling wine. If one can make this inference—and I think I am correct in doing so—why does the law not provide for this so that one can read it there? Why must one find this out in such a roundabout way? I think the time has come for us to look at this complicated Liquor Act so that we can make it understandable to ordinary people. If that sounds complicated and confusing, we can be grateful that we were not referred to the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970 for a definition of wine, since in terms of that Act wine means something completely different. In fact, according to that Act even two such divergent things as wine lees and eau-de-cologne are wine.

I have already said that it is illogical to sell perlé wine in grocery shops, but not sparkling wine. I do not want to elaborate on this any further. Some of my colleagues will do so. The question is often asked—and the hon member for Constantia raised this as well—that if sparkling wine should be made available in grocery stores, why not beer as well? Let us take a look at history. The Malan Commission recommended in 1960 that beer may also be sold in grocery stores. That recommendation was not accepted, however. The reason for this was given by the then Minister of Justice, Mr B J Vorster, in this House, and I quote from Hansard of 1963, col 7541:

The issue was therefore the protection of vested interests. That is why, as the then Minister responsible for the administration of the Liquor Act, he did not permit wine licences in districts where it could be proved that wine constituted more than 30% of the total off-sales to the public either. The restriction on the sale of wine in grocery stores in certain districts, which were situated mainly in the Western Cape, was abolished in 1979 because it was unnecessary due to the fact that the so-called “wine counters” had been introduced. In any case the control function of the Liquor Board was already so adequate that it was no longer necessary. Today the Western Cape has fewer grocers’ wine licences in relation to the rest of the country, and it is also more difficult to obtain them.

With regard to beer, the hon the Minister reconfirmed the Government’s standpoint in a statement in March 1983. I myself have a completely open mind regarding the sale or otherwise of wine in grocery stores. I have a remark to make, and I also wish to put a question in this regard. The remark is that beer sales increase continually and that they constitute a large portion of the turnover of established off-sales. The hon the Minister of Finance said yesterday that the beer industry was still a growth industry. I ask myself, if beer should be made available under wine licences, whether it would be to the advantage or the disadvantage of the established industry. If it should be to their disadvantage, would it ultimately be to the advantage or the disadvantage of the public?

There is another question I am hesitant to ask. Do many of our young people not already drink too much beer? I am by no means prudish, but the scale on which beer is consumed on occasions such as at cricket matches causes me concern and disturbs me. I shall leave the matter at that now and perhaps I shall refer to it again during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote.

There is one restriction I should like to see on grocers’ wine licences, viz a restriction on the sale of imported wine. I do in fact want a prohibition on the sale of imported wine under grocers’ wine licences. We produce more than enough wines of top quality at reasonable prices in this country and I therefore think it is unnecessary that imported wine should be sold in grocery stores in competition with our wines. Such a provision already exists in respect of restaurants that have wine and beer licences. They may only serve South African wine, and as far as I am concerned, this prohibition can be extended to grocers’ wine licences.

Since it is autumn here in the Cape, or what we call the “najaar”, and since we have arranged for our friends from the north to have champagne weather every day, it reminds me of a beautiful poem by D J Opperman. He comes from Stellenbosch, from the area in which I live. The poem is entitled Herfs and reads as follows:

This is what makes us who live in the Boland true children of the Boland and that is what gives us such a feeling of well-being which we should like to share with the rest of the country. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, all I can say about the hon member’s speech is that I liked his recitation at the end. To stand up in this House and say that a person furnished 27 incorrect facts is unheard of, especially if one does not even attempt to offer any kind of explanation. I shall indicate how superficial the hon member’s arguments were by referring to a few of his statements. Firstly he spoke about established rights which were being affected. I want to say that I am not in favour of established rights at all if they have anything to do with alcohol. I stand for the abolition of alcohol in all respects, if that is possible. I know that it would not be easy to accomplish this. When we talk about established rights, however, we cannot do so in regard to grocers’ wine licences. One cannot justify the extension of this practice and the withdrawal of quotas under the old Act. As regards the casual granting of these licences, I want to say that a single licence is approximately R100 000 in someone’s pocket. And then they talk about established rights.

I want to ask the hon member for Stellenbosch whether he was speaking as a wine farmer.

No.

On whose behalf was the hon member speaking then?

On behalf of everyone who feels the same way I do, and that is a great many people.

The hon member said he was not speaking as a wine farmer. [Interjections.] I am speaking today as a person who has seen an entire population, which hon members opposite do not even call a population any more today, brought to its knees by the tot system. I am referring to the Coloured population. I am referring to the total eradication of the pedigree of the Coloureds. The only group among their number who remained standing was the Mohammedans who do not touch liquor. Go and see where one finds the leader class.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is trying to imply now that all Coloureds have become addicted to liquor as a result of the tot system?

Sir, that hon member always makes poor assumptions in the political sphere and he seems to know nothing about liquor. The fact of the matter is that over the course of many years the Coloureds have been manoeuvred into this tot system. I think it is a disgrace that this should ever have happened in South Africa. But I do not wish to pursue this matter further.

I want to ask the Government why they abolished the “swartvark”, the 20 litre container. [Interjections.] The Minister must tell me why the “swartvark” was abolished. He is in favour of wine being made more cheaply and readily available. After all, this only applies to wine with an alcohol content of 14%. Why did he abolish the “swartvark”?

You should not put words in my mouth. I shall give my own reply.

But the hon Minister is very quiet. However, he will not be so quiet when it comes to a few aspects which I shall point out in a moment.

If you would sit down, I shall reply.

The hon the Minister is going to hear quite a lot more before I sit down. [Interjections.]

I have here the report of the Competition Board. Section 32 of the Liquor Act makes special provision so that there will be no vertical integration in the liquor industry. Of course the product of the farmer must be protected. One result of this vertical integration, for example, was that people were not allowed to enter into “tie agreements”, thus being obliged to sell certain kinds of liquor. The hon the Minister is one of the people who spoke about this in one of his speeches.

Let us see what various organizations have had to say about this matter. Rembrandt said it was not in favour of vertical integration in the liquor industry. I quote from page 57 of report No 10 of the Competition Board:

Rembrandt is therefore opposed to this integration, yet the hon the Minister is abolishing it. He told us that he was protecting the farmer, the KWV and those people who had established rights in the agricultural sector, but now we have returned to a situation where grocers’ wine licences are being granted on the grounds of competition.

Did I abolish vertical integration?

Yes, in this legislation the hon the Minister is making it possible for it to be abolished. It is nothing else. [Interjections.] It is very easy to laugh. The less intelligent one is, the more one laughs. [Interjections.] What did Johannesburg businessmen tell me? They said: “If that Minister does not know how to answer a question then he starts laughing and telling a joke.” That is the honest truth. They also said: “It is R250 000 in our pockets, time and again. [Interjections.] OK Bazaars and Checkers cannot compete with their biggest rival, Pick ’n Pay, owing to the fact that Pick ’n Pay has more grocers’ wine licences than they have. This section is therefore being amended to provide that OK Bazaars and Checkers—in other words, Natie Kirsch—can apply for new grocers’ wine licences.

Is it the Minister’s task to see whether supermarkets are able to compete with one another? I do not want to discuss Pick ’n Pay, or whatever other stores are involved. OK Bazaars was unable to obtain wine licences because they were taken over by SA Breweries. Surely they knew that if they were taken over by SA Breweries, they would no longer qualify for a licence. When Checkers, through Natie Kirsch, acquired a major interest in Union Wine, they knew very well they were not entitled to apply for grocers’ wine licences because the Act specifically prohibited that. However, the Minister is wiping the table clean. They are paying no heed to the Act. SA Breweries has taken over OK Bazaars, and now they want grocers’ wine licences. The hon the Minister thereupon amends section 32 so that grocers’ wine licences may again be made available to these people. Is it the duty of the hon the Minister to ascertain whether these people are able to compete with one another or not? I do not think it is. Besides, the sale of alcohol is assuming ever greater proportions. If it is argued that more grape juice should be sold, I have no complaint about that, but if a person wishes to allege that an alcoholic’s problem arose only through the consumption of strong drink alone then I say he is a liar. In my life I have often worked with alcoholics, and I know that the person who eventually degenerated into an alcoholic only drank light wines and beer in the beginning, but ended up by drinking brandy, whisky and other spirits.

In one of his speeches the hon the Minister said, however, that it was the policy of this Government to promote the sale of natural wine, hence of alcohol, among the public. But it should not be the policy of a government to promote the sale of alcohol. [Interjections.] If hon members had the CP’s attitude in regard to certain matters, this country would have been far better off today.

Section 32 is now being amended so that SA Breweries can sell champagne through its OK Bazaars outlets this year, and I predict that next year they will also be selling beer. The sole supplier of beer in South Africa, the largest monopoly, will probably receive a grocers’ wine licence as well, because the Competition Board has already suggested that beer should also be sold under the above-mentioned wine licence. The proportions which certain of these companies are assuming are diquieting.

Soft drinks have become so expensive in South Africa so that it is almost cheaper to buy wine. For example, SA Breweries have taken over Appletiser completely. I suggest that we should persuade Coca-Cola to blend their soft drinks with 50% fruit juice and in that way help our fruit farmers. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh if they wish, but I wonder whether they know how much fresh fruit juice Coca-Cola already contains. The hon the Minister is also laughing now, but does he know how much fruit juice there is in this soft drink at present? [Interjections.]

I suggest that the hon the Minister should concentrate on ensuring that greater quantities of our country’s produce are consumed. We all know how difficult it is to market fruit juices. Hon members should venture into that field and see how they fare. One’s efforts are frustrated in so many respects that it is subsequently no longer worthwhile trying to market fruit juices. It is in fact the task of the hon the Minister to ensure that more fresh fruit juices are marketed, and not necessarily only wine. I am not suggesting that more of our brandy should be sold. I am not in favour of that, but today whiskey is cheaper than brandy, a product we manufacture locally. Now I ask today, when people want to know why I am opposed to grocers’ wine licences …

You are a teetotaller.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Tygervallei asked me whether I am a teetotaller.

I did not ask whether you were; I made a statement.

Oh, please, you don’t know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

South Africa is a country with a relatively warm climate. Now it happens that the housewife goes round to the supermarket to buy her groceries. Perhaps her child accompanies her. Together with her groceries she may perhaps buy a soft drink; and of course a cask or two of wine. It is quite correct that in earlier times people also bought wine and brought it home. In earlier times, though, people treated liquor with more respect. If liquor was bought and brought home, it was usually done by the father of the household. In addition, liquor was then locked away safely, and it was used with discernment and respect.

Nowadays a mother goes to the supermarket to do her shopping. She takes her children with her, and they help her to pack her purchases into a basket or a trolley. The child sees this as a new pattern of life. He accepts it as the normal practice to buy alcoholic liquor together with the groceries. At home the wine is kept in the refrigerator, and frequently when it is very hot and there are no more soft drinks in the house, children also pour themselves some of the wine standing in the refrigerator and drink it. [Interjections.] Of course this is the case. Children simply help themselves if it comes to the pinch. [Interjections.] Any observant person will have noticed that all the indications are there that alcoholism among children is increasing alarmingly. [Interjections.]

Yes, laugh if you like, Dawie. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, let that hon Minister and hon members on the Government side laugh until they have had enough. [Interjections.] I wonder whether they are aware of the headlines which appear frequently in newspapers and publications these days in connection with this very matter. I am referring for example to a recent headline in Die Huisgenoot. It reads as follows: “Kinders dronk ná skool”.

That is the parents’ fault.

I do not care whose fault it is. The hon member should remain calm. [Interjections.]

*I am referring only to recent reports which appeared on this matter. I have piles of cuttings on the subject. On 21 March a report appeared in The Star under the following headline: “Alcoholism amongst women is increasing”.

That is the husbands’ fault. [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Amanzimtoti would only remain calm, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] The following headline comes from Rapport: “Gewildheid van kartonwyn neem steeds toe”. In Die Huisgenoot an article appeared under the following caption: “Skokverslag oor Suid-Afrika se groeiende getal tieneralkoholiste: ‘Dronk na skool; drank is tog so maklik verkrygbaar’”.

A weekly publication gives the reply to the question of whether or not the uninhibited consumption of liquor is assuming problematical proportions. According to the Director of Sanca the percentage of those under the age of 24 years who are being treated for alcoholism is increasing alarmingly. During 1978 there was a 9,7% increase in the numbers of those receiving treatment for alcoholism. In 1979 there was a further increase of 14%, while a 15,9% increase occurred in 1980. This percentage is increasing every year. We must also remember that during the past three years, a period for which the figures are not yet readily available, it has been calculated that the increase has been considerably greater.

At the Durban branch of Sanca it was found by means of surveys that 95% of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 had already consumed alcohol, while 50% of them had been drunk on one or more occasions. As far as young women are concerned, 80% of them between the ages of 15 and 24 years had already consumed alcohol and 40% of them had already been drunk on one or more occasions. The provision of free liquor anywhere is an evil.

Let us take the SA Airways for example. I ask whether it is necessary that passengers should be served liquor on a flight lasting from 40 minutes to two hours. I think that if a passenger feels that he paid too much for his ticket he will take that drink. In this way he becomes accustomed to it. In addition there are passengers who used to be alcoholics, and liquor is put down next to them. [Interjections.] It is put down in front of them. [Interjections.] I wonder whether hon members know that if a person is addicted to alcohol, one does not hear what a person is saying to one. Anyone who has worked with such people will tell you that such a person is lost in such a situation. The being that is left is not likely to recover easily. It is a being without a will. It is terrible to see how people with alcoholic problems suffer three times as much and have to bear a cross that is three times heavier than a person who is a moderate drinker, and no retribution is ever exacted from the supplier.

The department of the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare controls rehabilitation centres for alcoholics. Has the hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism ever asked the Minister of Health and Welfare what effect the free availability of liquor has on the activities of his department? They will tell the hon the Minister that throughout the world, and particularly in Canada where one of the most detailed studies in this connection has been made, it was found that when liquor was made more freely available to the public the alcohol problem became worse.

I am very pleased that we have the Hansard system in this House, because the words of S P Barnard and others will be recorded. I say that a liquor problem is developing in South Africa. South African wives are consuming liquor in the company of their husbands. On the other hand Latin-American wives, French wives and Italian wives do not consume liquor in the company of their husbands, and for that reason the liquor problem among women in those countries is almost minimal.

Your statement is not correct.

These are scientific facts obtained by our own rehabilitation centres. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that the increase in liquor consumption among women is already such that even the newspapers are warning against it.

Even in Boksburg people were caught last week pushing children in prams while under the influence of liquor. [Interjections.] What I am saying here is an absolute fact. The police arrested a woman. These people were arrested because they were so intoxicated that if they had tried to cross the street, the child could have ended up under the wheels of a motor vehicle. [Interjections.] The problem with the NP is that it has to stop up so many holes, there is so much that is wrong in its system that when a person begins discussing something that is good, they begin to bark. The hon member for Hercules has a different story every time one discusses liquor. He tells childish jokes in between. The same applies to the hon member for Stilfontein. I wonder what the idea is. Why do the hon members not participate in this kind of debate for a change, so that we can see what comes of it? We shall then be able to see how much they know about this subject.

For many years I worked in the poorest part of Johannesburg. I taught at school, and some of those schoolchildren were buried up to their necks by a father who went stark raving mad from too much liquor and then wanted to murder his children. I taught in La Rochelle.

What Government was then in power?

The NP was then in power. [Interjections.]

The point is that we cannot agree in this House with the hon the Minister’s idea. I am quoting what was said to him in a report:

The hon the Minister must explain this to me: Since when do we amend an Act specifically for the purpose of enabling two groups—they are among the biggest groups in the country—to obtain rights to acquire wine licences? That is one aspect. There is something else that creates a problem:

It ought not to be the policy of the Government to promote the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The problem of alcoholism in this country is an enormous one. We are spending R6,4 million per day on liquor. Did hon members know that? The hon member for Stellenbosch must listen to me now so that he can agree that this is the truth. Does this House realize that we are spending R2 324,4 million per annum on liquor in order to consume and to abuse it? These are the figures from Sanca and the rehabilitation centres.

When the wine licences were still granted by the Department of Justice we had a stable situation, and one accepts that it is not possible to simply wipe out an industry that has already made so much progress. But there were quotas and other restrictive conditions. All these things combined to build up an industry which was reasonably stable. One cannot escape the conclusion that since the issuing of licences was taken over by the Department of Commerce and Industries a laxness, a relaxation, has occurred in certain measures, and that was not to the benefit of the farmers.

Are you for or against the KWV?

I have never been against the farmers in my life.

You say that control measures have become laxer. Why do you not give an example? Be specific now. After all, you are so clever.

There is section 32 for example. Or does the hon the Minister wish to imply that he has not on any occasion effected amendments to the liquor legislation here? Please!

Barnie, are you drunk?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Sir, when a person adopts a standpoint—right or wrong—then one always encounters the clowns. The old shoes that are tied to a bridal car are not really part of the bridal car and one only hears them when they bounce along behind. The hon member for Vryheid is like the shoe tied to a bridal car.

I want us to take cognizance in this House of the fact that a drinking problem is developing among the young people of South Africa. We must also take cognizance of the fact that the Coloureds have been brought to their knees by the abuse of alcohol. I shall ask any Coloured person from any platform whether liquor abuse was not the reason for their downfall in the work situation.

For the reasons I have mentioned, Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House cannot support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I have heard the hon member for Langlaagte making very strange speeches in this House. Today’s speech takes the cake, however. It was the most irresponsible speech I have ever heard in this Chamber. The hon member wanted to know from the hon member for Stellenbosch on whose behalf he was speaking. Well, I shall tell you on whose behalf I am speaking. I represent the head quarters of the wine industry in South Africa, viz Paarl. On 2 February 1658 Jan van Riebeeck was able to report that he had made the first wine, and in the more than 300 years that have passed since then this industry has gone out of its way to keep the image of this industry as sound as possible. I concede at the outset that there have been many problems along the way. I myself worked for the KWV, and there are other members who have worked for that organization, too. I can attest to the fact that that organization has gone out of its way and spent thousands of rand to prevent…

Explain your standpoint, and not that of an organization.

If only the hon member for Rissik would shut his mouth and open his ears he would have a better idea of what is going on. I have no doubt whatsoever that the organization that represents the wine industry in this country has over the years gone out of its way to rectify the problems that have arisen. I could not believe my ears when I heard what the hon member for Langlaagte had to say. He simply wants to eradicate everything. It is at such times that one experiences problems all over again. What happened in America when there was prohibition? What happened in South Africa when we thought that the Coloureds and the Blacks should be kept away from liquor completely? Precisely the opposite of what the hon member for Langlaagte is claiming will happen. What was the standpoint of the hon member for Langlaagte and his colleagues of this matter up until 24 February 1982?

You were not here.

I was here.

We had a free vote. Throughout my life I have refused to vote for liquor.

The hon member for Langlaagte was opposed to the tot system, and I agree with him that in many respects the tot system was not the right thing. However, just look at how the wine fanner has gone out of his way to uplift his workers. This was all linked to a higher standard of living for those people. Just go and look at a farm such as the one owned by Boland Coetzee in Stellenbosch, and thousands of other wine farmers who have gone out of their way to uplift the people on their farms. However, to criticize the entire wine industry now, in 1984, about problems it has had in the past is ridiculous. There are between 5 000 and 6 000 wine farmers, and I maintain that they are the backbone of the population. The hon member wants to get at them now, and I hope that the wine farmers of the Western Cape will take note …

All I am saying is that as long as the industry falls under that Minister the brewers of beer will take everything away from you.

I shall come to the situation with regard to the beer people in a moment.

The hon member for Langlaagte is opposed to the abolition of vertical integration, but I do not think the hon member understands the Bill. The provision being incorporated by way of clause 1 is simply an embodiment of what the Cabinet decided years ago when it stipulated that no licence holder shall have more than 36 grocers’ wine licences and that this provision is also applicable to other bodies now. I cannot see why the hon member is moping about this aspect now.

The hon member for Langlaagte is very much afraid that stores will also be able to sell beer next year. It is a fact that the beer people would very much like the sale of beer under grocers’ wine licences to be authorized. However, the Government has a standpoint in this regard and it is a standpoint that was adopted as far back as 30 or 40 years ago. Surely the standpoint is very clear, viz that wine goes with food. The hon member for Stellenbosch expressed his concern about the sale of beer. I want to say at the outset that I see the use of wine and the use of beer as being two totally different categories. One enjoys wine with food, and beer on other occasions. To compare the two is unnecessary. The whole object in selling wine in grocery stores is to promote the correct use of wine. This is what the wine industry has tried to achieve over decades.

The hon member referred to the Airways. Apparently he travels by air more often than I do. No waiter or waitress has ever put a bottle or glass of wine before me if I have not asked for it. If the hon member is so concerned about that he could order orange juice or a Coke or something else. He will never have wine simply placed before him. They probably know him very well by now and know what his taste is.

I want to reiterate that it is the strangest speech I have ever heard. He referred to the situation in Canada and claimed that the more freely wine became available in Canada, the greater their drinking problem became. Why did the hon member refer to Canada and not to the position here in this country?

Have you visited the rehabilitation centres?

Those are the exceptions. Why does the hon member not look at the whole picture?

The hon member also referred to the “swartvarkie”. There were sound reasons for eliminating that. The best proof of the fact that the greater availability of wine— amongst the Coloureds and Blacks as well— has assisted in normalizing the use of alcohol amongst those people, is a very practical example …

Why do you not also sell beer in the shops?

But I have just explained it to the hon member. [Interjections.] Wine goes with food. One can purchase food in a shop and, consequently, wine too. [Interjections.] Until 20 or 30 years ago the wine consumed by Coloureds was mainly cheap wine. A typical example of this was a wine from Paarl by the name of Golden Jubilee. Everyone bought it because it was cheap. [Interjections.] Today, however, those people buy the same quality wine as hon members and I buy. What better proof is there that as the greater freedom of consumption was made possible, and as these people become educated and achieve a higher standard of living, their wine consumption also becomes normalized?

I want to put a final question to the hon member for Langlaagte. If this Coloured homeland of the CP comes into being one day, is prohibition going to be implemented there, or will the consumption of wine be permitted?

They will become independent and will be able to decide for themselves.

But surely you are going to advise them. [Interjections.]

I now come to the Bill itself. Any community owes it to itself to examine its laws on a continuous basis, particularly laws dealing with its level of development and civilization. Particularly when it is concerned with laws regarding morality it is so much more essential that a statutory alteration should not ultimately promote the evil. One must look at this legislation within those norms. We must tell ourselves that legislation on liquor within the plural society of a developing country must always be able to be adjusted within these norms. If one looks at what the real position is in this industry and what the real influence of this legislation will be I have no doubt whatsoever that this is a further step in normalizing this industry. There are a number of wine farmers in this House. I have to doubt whatsoever that drunkenness goes against the grain of the wine farmer even more than anyone else. He is the last person who would want his noble product to be the cause of something like that. As short as it is, I consider this legislation to fulfil that requirement in all respects. What is it about?

Apart from the grocers’ wine licences it is, in fact, about sparkling wine. What is sparkling wine? The hon member for Stellenbosch referred to this briefly. “Sparkling wine” is a fine, descriptive name. When we were younger we all came to know it as champagne, the name linked to the region where it was originally made. However, there was an international prohibition on the use of that name outside France. In any case, I think “sparkling wine” is a fine name. It is a drink for a festive occasion. It is usually more expensive as a result of its preparation and packaging. It is a wine that really goes with everything. Nowadays our ladies have champagne breakfasts on occasion.

The CP, too.

Yes, the CP’s ladies, too. This legislation makes it easier and more convenient for everyone, the ladies in particular, to purchase sparkling wine, since they will now be able to purchase it at the grocery stores. [Interjections.]

Sir, what is sparkling wine? It is a completely natural wine to which carbon dioxide has been added. There are three ways in which this can be done. It seems to me that the best way is, as they do in France, to place the wine in the bottle and to allow it to ferment further there. This, then, is the true or proper champagne. The second method is to place the wine in a steel tank and to allow it to proceed to develop naturally. The third method is physically to add carbon dioxide.

Since I support the principle contained in this Bill 100%, I want to ask the hon the Minister in conclusion whether he would not consider a certain amendment with regard to clause 2 of the Bill. There are four kinds of licences in respect of the sale of wine. One of them is a restaurant licence which most restaurants have and which are subject to very stringent requirements. That licence gives the owner the right to sell all kinds of liquor, including imported liquor. Then there is a wine and malt licence and a wine house licence. In those two cases the owner is not permitted to sell imported liquor. In the case of the grocer’s wine licence the person concerned may sell all kinds of wine, which now includes sparkling wine as well. However, it also includes imported wine. I wonder whether the time has not come for us to consider an amendment to the Act to prohibit the sale of imported wine in terms of this kind of licence.

At present there is a tremendous surplus production of good wine throughout the world. Today one can purchase imported Italian wine in New York at $6 per case. This is due to the fact that the producers in the EEC countries, which are the largest wine producers, are subsidized by an amount of R13,5 billion in order to sell their wines as cheaply as possible abroad. During the past two years the importation of wine to South Africa from abroad has increased by 100% to two million litres. This is a very small portion of our total crop, but I want to say that to me the imported wines which are then sold as loss-leaders in terms of grocers’ wine licenses contain the seed for a major problem for our wine industry in the future. I should very much like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not give serious consideration to investigating this matter and possibly rectifying it in the future. I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Paarl as we all know represents a constituency in which one finds some of the best vineyards in South Africa. This also applies to the constituency of the hon member for Stellenbosch, who spoke a little earlier on. One therefore would expect the hon member for Paarl to support the legislation, because it is no doubt a matter of economic importance to many of his constituents. I think we are faced here with a bit of a dilemma in that on the one hand we have vested interests and economic realities to consider while on the other hand we have, as we have heard from the hon member for Langlaagte, moral and social problems to consider. I should like to say to the hon member for Langlaagte that economics play a very important part in the sale and distribution of any commodity.

He raised the matter of the “dop” system on wine farms, which he claims was the cause of a lot of alcholism on the part of Coloured community. The way I have been informed about the “dop” system is that it was merely a case of the farmer giving his employees some of the commodity which he produces, which was wine. [Interjections.]

It is like a sugar cane!

Quite correct, it is like sugar cane for workers working on cane farms. Sugar farmers never complain when a labourer breaks off a stick of cane and eats it. In fact, I might tell the hon member, many sugar farmers and sugar companies do allocate a monthly ration of sugar to their labourers because it is produced on the farm. It is possible that some labourers might suffer from sugar diabetes. One might say therefore that we must ban the issuing of sugar to labourers because it could result in them dying from sugar diabetes. [Interjections.] My hon colleague for Umbilo tells me that the British Navy for something like 200 years used to issue a daily rum ration at 11 o’clock in the morning. I asked the hon member how this arose and he told me that about 200 years or so ago Britain’s trade with Portugal had resulted in a tremendous imbalance in one way or another and that the British had to contend with a trememdous import of surplus rum from Portugal. The one way of the Government could get rid of it was to make sure that every navy man had his morning tot of rum. [Interjections.] As I have said, there are many economic factors that one has to consider when considering measures of this sort.

Having said that, we in the NRP believe that on a matter of personal conviction, such as this issue before us, our members should have a free vote. This has always been the policy of this party on such matters as abortion, etc. We believe this is a matter of personal conviction and therefore I speak for myself now and not necessarily for my party.

I am the first to agree with the hon member for Langlaagte that we do see tragic results of alcholism. Alcoholism is a disease and it should be treated as such. However, I should like to put it to the hon member that by restricting the sale of wine or any alcoholic beverage at a retail outlet one is not going to stop the alcoholic from obtaining his alcohol. He may not be able to get it from the supermarket, as the hon member would like, but he will certainly find it one way or the other, in a bottle store or elsewhere. I do not believe that one can legislate against the wishes and rights of the total population because of a particular illness of a very small minority of the population.

Very small?

Yes, it is very small. I am talking about pure alcoholism.

R2 billion is spent on alcohol every year.

Not just by alcoholics, but I will come to that later and discuss methods how one can fight this particular disease. One also accepts that there is a tremendous amount of abuse of alcohol by people who are not necessary alcoholics. At parties and even in their own homes some people tend to drink too much and then they start acting in a very antisocial manner. I think this is to be condemned; it is to be criticized, but again I think it is ridiculous to say that one should therefore legislate against alcohol because of the abuse of it by a small minority. It is just as ridiculous to suggest that one should ban the sale of motor cars because a small minority of people who own motor cars drive recklessly.

One does not become addicted to motorcars.

The hon member will be surprised. There are some people who, once they get behind the wheel, act like road-hogs. I do not therefore believe that the abuse of a commodity by a minority of the population is any logical reason to ban the use of that commodity for the population as a whole.

The answer to the problem which the hon member for Langlaagte has raised is, I believe, education.

It is temptation not education.

The other aspect— if the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North will allow me—is parental control over their children in their homes. I firmly believe that the message that should go out from this House is to the parents of South Africa. They should be told to raise their children properly and correctly in the use of alcohol. I might say to the hon member for Langlaagte that there always is a bottle of white wine in my refrigerator because we like to have an occasional bottle of wine with our meal. My daughter, who is now 21 years old, grew up knowing that the wine was there; she knew where the liquor cabinet was. But we considered it to be our parental responsibility to make sure that she knew what alcohol was all about. I am happy to say that so far, at any rate, my daughter has not abused the use of alcohol. [Interjections.] The other aspect is education, and I think there should be a far greater emphasis placed on educating our children in the schools about the use of alcohol, and parents too should have a responsibility in this regard.

The Bill before the House basically consists of two clauses. Clause 1 expands the number of outlets which certain supermarket chains will in future be able to have. As we have heard, they are at present restricted. I certainly believe in the free market and in free enterprise, and I believe that there should be even a freer market in the sale of alcoholic beverages than we have at the present time. I agree with the sentiments expressed by, I think, the hon member for Constantia that one should also be able to buy beer in a supermarket. In fact, I cannot see any logical reason why it should not be so, other than possibly that there are certain very powerful business interests that have been lobbying the Government to prevent this sort of thing from happening. However, my view is that the more competition we have, the lower the price of these commodities will be to the public. We have heard from the hon member for Paarl that in New York one can buy a case of the best Italian wine for $6.

I would like to see that.

So would I. I would like to see that happening here. I believe that we should therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to try to make the necessary amendments in the future to ensure that we get far greater competition in the marketplace when it comes to the sale of wine and other alcoholic beverages.

The other clause now includes a sparkling wine in the provisions of the Act. I find it ridiculous that it was ever excluded in the first place. It is a product of the grape; it is a wine. I cannot therefore follow the logic behind the exclusion thereof in the first instance.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I will be supporting this Bill through all its stages. I welcome it, and, as I have already said, I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will take note of what I have said in connection with the need for greater competition, and that he will perhaps come to this House at some future stage to introduce other amendments to this legislation which will allow for more competition in this particular industry.

Mr Speaker, as a wine farmer I thank the hon member for Amanzimtoti for his speech in support of this measure. I can assure him that we wine farmers are all against the abuse of our product. One can, however, abuse many things. One can even abuse women and food apart from wine and other alcoholic beverages. Does the hon member for Langlaagte agree with this statement? [Interjections.]

*Mr Speaker, I quote from a speech made in this House on Friday, 29 April 1983. The hon member was speaking and he said the following, and I quote (Hansard, col 5944):

It is not I who said that, Mr Speaker. The person who was speaking was the hon member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.]

You did not read it all. Why do you not read the rest as well?

Does the hon member not understand the passage I read? [Interjections.] I shall read it to him again. [Interjections.] The hon member said that he was not opposed to liquor being made available on certain domestic airlines.

Read a little further, however. What does he say directly after that?

No, the hon member can go and read it himself. It seems to me that he has already forgotten what he said then. [Interjections.] In the same speech the hon member went on to say (column 5948):

It was the hon member for Langlaagte who was speaking on that occasion, too, Mr Speaker.

Do you see how dishonest you are? [Interjections.]

I am not dishonest. What I read appears in Hansard, Mr Speaker.

Please read it in the correct context. [Interjections.]

But surely that is what I did. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte permitted to say that the hon member for Worcester is dishonest?

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, we are all opposed to something being abused; it does not matter what it is. However, I want to put it to the hon member that no-one can force someone else’s throat open and compel him to swallow something. Each person has to open his own throat in order to swallow. Similarly, no-one can speak nonsense on someone else’s behalf. Every person must speak his own nonsense. [Interjections.]

Why does one hide one’s pills on a shelf? So that one’s children do not get hold of them.

No, so that you do not get hold of them. [Interjections.]

Why does one hide pills from children?

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please take note that the present legislation deals with liquor and not with pills.

Mr Speaker, I now want to confine myself to liquor as a subject. One of the greatest miracles that has probably ever occurred on earth was, in my opinion, when water was turned into wine in the little town of Cana. I want to know from the hon member for Langlaagte whether he thinks that was a mistake. [Interjections.]

What does that have to do with grocers’ wine licences? [Interjections.]

No, please answer me now. [Interjections.] I could really never have imagined that an amending Bill such as this could stir up such emotion as has been the case here this afternoon. After all, we as wine farmers are very proud of our product. We are in favour of its use, not of its abuse. As has already been said, the wine farmers had done a great deal to encourage the use of wine. I do not think it befits the hon member for Langlaagte to come and claim that we supposedly made the Coloureds drink too much. We do not want to drag politics into this matter. However, I think the hon member for Langlaagte knows just as little about the Coloureds than the rest of his party knows about them. They must rather leave the Coloured question to us. We in the Western Cape know the Coloureds. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the wine industry is struggling at present, and a wine farmer is not one who complains easily. Anything that can promote the marketing of wine is welcomed by us. There were 7 000 licensed liquor distribution points in the Republic on 31 May 1983. Of these, 3 000 were off-sale points, of which only 127 were stores with grocers’ wine licences. There is therefore a great deal of room for improvement in this regard.

What do we really drink in this country? In 1970 we drank 20 000 hectolitres of sparkling wine, and in 1980 we drank 42 000 hectolitres. As regards natural wine—ie dry wine, wine which is good for one, not the kind of wine of which the hon member for Langlaagte spoke—1 600 000 hectolitres were consumed in 1970, whilst in 1980 the consumption was 2 300 000 hectolitres.

How does this compare with beer consumption? In 1970 we drank 2 590 000 hectolitres and in 1980 the figure was 11 600 000 hectolitres. The hon member for Langlaagte says that we drink so much in this country, but in comparison with other countries we drink extremely little. The per capita consumption of liquor in South Africa is 7,7 litres per annum, in comparison with 90 litres in France, 77 litres in Italy and 77 litres in Portugal. They must really have a wonderful time there! [Interjections.]

We are very grateful that the excise duty on wine and brandy has not been increased. We are very pleased that the hon the Minister of Finance has seen fit to clamp down on beer this time!

With these words I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, if there was any doubt whatsoever that this Bill is nothing more or less than a wine lobby Bill, that doubt has been dispelled by the hon member for Worcester, who made it very clear in his speech that he was speaking for that lobby.

What I have found very interesting in what has been a rather dull session up to the present is that suddenly when we start discussing the provisions for the extension of the sale of wine, things become very exciting indeed.

Very spirited!

Quite correct. I must say that I have enjoyed this debate because, as I say, things have been pretty dreary, almost enough to drive one to drink!

That doesn’t take much!

Yes, that is true. [Interjections.] The other interesting fact that I discern is that there seems to be some confusion in regard to which party has allowed its members a free vote on this measure and which party has not. It was made very clear by my colleague, the hon member for Constantia, that this party has a free vote in relation to questions of alcohol, and the hon member for Amanzimtoti made the same point on behalf of the NRP. However, I am not sure about the NP. I should like to ask the hon the Minister or anybody who would like to reply whether there is a free vote in this regard in the NP or whether there has been a caucus decision. [Interjections.] Purely for our own information, I want to ask the hon Chief Whip of the NP whether there is a free vote on this matter in the NP or whether it is a caucus decision.

The hon the Minister will tell you.

Then I should like to ask the hon the Minister.

Nobody who objects to the Bill will have to vote for it.

In other words, if they object to the Bill, they can abstain.

I cannot remember whether the hon the Minister was the responsible Minister at the time, but when we debated in this House the Bill which extended the sale of wine to grocery stores in the Western Cape in 1979 there was quite a critical debate. We are now looking at a further amendment in that regard. Was there a free vote then? [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon members of the CP whether the hon member for Langlaagte spoke for the entire party in his speech today or purely in his own personal capacity.

We all think alike.

Both.

Then I want to ask the hon members of that party this: Did they change their minds towards alcohol as well as every other thing since 1979?

No.

Well, I find it very interesting because when I look at who voted in favour of the Bill in 1979, the Bill which extended the sale of wine through grocery stores in the Western Cape, I find these names: S P Barnard, F Hartzenberg, T Langley, F le Roux, H Schoeman, A Treurnicht, J H van der Merwe, J H Visagie. It is the right of anybody when there is a free vote to exercise that vote in terms of his conscience.

It was not a free vote. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether we can get some clarity here.

It has always been the case and one can ask the hon member for Innesdal.

I wanted to vote againt the Bill but I was forced to vote for it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, we have had to listen to a great number of arguments between the NP and the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not allow the topic under discussion to become muddled on account thereof. The hon member may proceed.

What does seem to be clear is that it is very ambiguous and as clear as mud. It seems to me that the NP is now saying in the House that when it comes to the question of alcohol, its firm announced policy is that members who do not support a particular Bill may abstain—not abstain from alcohol, but may abstain from voting on that particular Bill. The argument of the CP is that in 1979 this was not the case. [Interjections.] I am going to leave that argument there. I did hope to get it clarified but obviously I have not done so. I therefore intend leaving it there. I should, however, like to ask one last question and then we may move on to the Bill itself. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what would happen if someone in those benches felt so strongly that he wished to vote against the Bill. Would that be permissible?

I have no objection.

I want all the hon members on that side to remember that when it comes to voting. They must then not take refuge in saying that it was a caucus decision and they had to vote. What the hon the Minister is saying is that if their conscience says they do not like the contents of the Bill, they should be voting against it. The hon the Minister has now given such members permission to do that. It will be very interesting to see what happens at the division. Actually I am quite serious about this because I think that it is good for the House. As the hon member for Langlaagte said, those of us who talk against it or those who are for it are perhaps talking a lot of nonsense, but I think it is very good and right that on certain crucial issues members of this House should have the right to go against a caucus decision, that it should not be binding, so that members can vote according to their consciences. I think that is something that should be encouraged and I am very grateful for the hon the Minister’s reply to that.

I am on record as saying in 1979 that you do not have to be a drunkard to support the extension of liquor outlets, but also that you do not have to be a teetotaller to be against that measure. That does not follow, and is simply my own situation because I will not be supporting the legislation. I do it not because I am a teetotaller because I am not, and I hope that I am also not the other, but that I will leave to the judgment of others. In 1979, when I asked the then Minister who was piloting that Bill through Parliament whether representations had been received in order to place the legislation before the House, I was told that a considerable number of representations had been received from churches, temperance groups and individuals arguing against it. In the same debate I asked whether there had been any representations for the measure. The then hon Minister said there had been and gave me the names of two organizations, namely the KWV and the SA Agricultural Union. Those were the only two mentioned by the hon the Minister but there may have been others. I would have thought that if there had been others, he would have mentioned them. I think that makes the point because it certainly did in 1979. I want to ask the hon the Minister now whether he received any additional representations to introduce this particular measure.

From various groups. I do not have all their names here, but I can give them to the hon member.

Can I then ask whether there were any individuals who complained that there were too few outlets and that the provisions should be amended to provide for that, or was it only business? Were there any private individuals who made representations to the hon the Minister and his department requesting them to change the law so that, for instance, champagne can also be bought in grocery stores?

As I have indicated, I have received requests from both individuals and groups.

I am convinced that there are any number of MPs and other people in leadership positions in society who are constantly getting representations from residents in areas where there are liquor outlets which are a confounded nuisance in those areas. The hon member for Constantia, even though he was arguing for this Bill, made that point. I certainly have found that in my own experience in my constituency on a number of occasions. The argument of the hon member for Constantia, however, was … [Interjections.] The hon member for Wynberg—a most appropriately named constituency for him!—makes the point by way of interjection that there is an overconcentration of these outlets and that it is far better to have more of these outlets so that one would not have all the problems in one area. What he is actually arguing for is that the problem of deadbeats and drunkards which we have at these outlets must now be spread to all the supermarkets as well. [Interjections.] It is all very well to say it is rubbish, but that is the logic of the argument. My argument against that is that I do not think we ought to do that. There are a number of supermarkets in my constituency and in many other constituencies which are very close to residential areas. What we are saying is that because there is a problem in one area, it must be diluted by extending that problem into all other areas. I do not think that that is correct. There are plenty of outlets for people to purchase wine and other alcohol at present.

Do you say they are in a mess?

A lot of them are in a mess, but I try to avoid those, particularly those in the Johannesburg North area as people buy there too often.

For every single person who has a problem about buying sparkling wine in a grocery store, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands who would prefer wine and spirits of any kind to be kept out of supermarkets. In fact, in the Western Cape there are certain areas such as Fish Hoek—I am sure the hon member for Simon’s Town will know this better than I—and Pinelands, the village itself, which have a very special history. They have tried their best to prevent all outlets from operating in these areas. I am not implying that as a result of this legislation and the 1979 legislation this will happen, but it will make it a darned sight easier. I hope that does not happen because if a community makes that decision at least they have the right to receive some consideration.

The hon member for Constantia also argued that if one has wine and sparkling wine in supermarkets, beer should also be sold. I must say that there is a great deal of logic in that argument. Why then is whisky, vodka, gin and all other kinds of alcohol not sold there? Arguments from that side of the House were to the effect that there should be moderation in drinking. One can have one tot of whisky and a bottle of wine …

One does not drink whisky with food.

A lot of people drink whisky with food and some people even argue that whisky is food. One cannot argue like that. People can get drunk by drinking wine. [Interjections.] Exactly. The fact that one sells wine and not whisky does not mean that one is encouraging moderation. That is a fallacious argument.

The first argument was that wine should be sold in supermarkets in areas other than the Western Cape because of the 30% restriction. In 1979 this was extended to the Western Cape, although sparkling wine was excluded. I do not know why that was done. Sparkling wine will be included next. The hon the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who should know better because he is a fit and athletic man, will propose next year that beer, whisky, gin, vodka and other alcohol should also be sold in supermarkets.

Why do you not mention restricting the number of supermarkets to 36?

I concede that there is a restriction, but there is no reason whatsoever for a person who wishes to have a licence to have the right—since 1979 at least—to have a wine counter. If they make an application and all other things are equal, they will receive a very sympathetic hearing. I have not only read the Bill but the Act as well.

I want to reiterate that one does not need to be a teetotaller to oppose this Bill. If there are any members in this House who believe that further extensions and outlets are both unnecessary and undesirable, they should be voting against this legislation. To oppose it is not to support prohibition. I have never heard such nonsense as the hon member for Constantia speaks. How on earth can he say that to vote against this Bill is tantamount to supporting prohibition as happened in the United States? I am not arguing that all outlets should be closed. I am merely saying that they should not be extended.

They should only be closed in your area and to your constituents. [Interjections.]

No, my argument is that grocery stores and supermarkets should not be allowed to sell alcohol. Because the hon member for Wynberg …

Why do you not argue that they should not be allowed to sell fatty foods which are also unhealthy if not eaten in moderation? [Interjections.]

Can I ask the hon member for Wynberg to make a speech and tell us how many people have recently been killed in road accidents because the driver had been eating such food? How many children are there in hospitals who have been maimed by drunken parents who have beaten them? Is it because of fatty foods that they abuse their children? No, Sir, I think this man is being impossible. I can well understand why hon members on the other side often differ with him. [Interjections.] I believe that this Bill, by extension, compounds the problem and does not resolve it and for that reason I shall be voting against it.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting to see the unanimity amongst PFP members on this issue today. I have been told that such unanimity is only transcended, at times, in their caucuses. Whilst referring to the speech of the hon member for Pine-lands, I should like to put a question to the hon member for Walmer, and that is: What does he think of the speech of the hon member for Pinelands, specifically the question of the “free vote” of which the hon member for Pinelands made such a fuss? Does he think it is a valid or sound argument? Does he think that it is such a terrible or inhuman thing that a caucus be in a position to take a decision and that, unless members in a caucus meeting stand up and ask for a free vote and object to a piece of legislation, there are any problems involved? Is he really just as concerned about this “free vote” as the hon member for Pinelands? [Interjections.] The hon member need only say “yes” or “no”.

Make your point, man!

Or is the answer “Yes no”? I shall make my point. Last year the hon member for Walmer and a colleague of his signed a certain select committee report, the report brought out by the select committee having been a unanimous one. Do you know what happened then, Sir? After the unanimous report had been signed by the two gentlemen of that party, they reported to their caucus, saying they had signed the select committee’s report because, with the courage of their convictions and on the basis of their intelligent assessment, they felt they should sign because they agreed with it. Do you know what happened then, Sir? They then had to repudiate it here in the House because their caucus compelled them to do so. It is the caucus of the hon member for Pinelands that did it. Now he makes a great fuss about this sort of thing today.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is suggesting that the question of toll roads is a matter of conscience?

That is not the point. [Interjections.] We are not talking about the kind of roads the hon member mentioned when he was speaking about drunken driving. We are talking about the Liquor Act and about a principle. The hon member stood up with a holier-than-thou attitude, wiped his hands and, as if they were now clean, said: “Our caucus is allowing a free vote, but what are you doing?”. Last year, not only did his caucus not allow a free vote, but it also forced two of its members to repudiate their own actions after having put their signatures to paper. I find it very important, in South Africa, for a person to be able to take a man at his word after he has signed. He can still tell a he if he is telling one something, but once he has put his signature to paper, that is really quite a different matter. It was months later that that hon member was not only forced by his caucus to change his standpoint, but also to stand up in the House and say: “I was not using my common sense when I said it.” Then the hon member for Pinelands surely cannot say such a thing. In the legal profession we have the concept that a person must come to court with his hands clean. Otherwise one is totally out of court. That is why I want to say to the hon member for Pinelands that with his caucus and his party he should not raise such points. The hon member raised certain points which, I want to concede, are good points. I shall come back to them at a later stage. At this stage, however, I want to turn my attention to the hon member for Water-berg. Does he agree with the speech of the hon member for Langlaagte?

Do you agree with the hon member for Innesdal?

It was a lovely speech, and I therefore take it that the hon member for Waterberg agrees with every word of it. Is that correct? [Interjections.] I should like to know what the hon member for Waterberg, the hon member for Rissik or any other hon member on that side has to say about the report that appeared in the Sunday Times on 26 February 1984 under the heading “Portrait of five saviours of the Afrikaner soul, wooing a representative of the English Press”? I quote from it:

Sir, do you know why? It was all a question of votes; nothing else. The hon member for Waterberg says the hon member for Langlaagte made a fine speech, with which he largely agreed. By the way, I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte that we shall miss him when he is no longer with us here. [Interjections.] What does the hon member for Langlaagte think of this champagne breakfast that his leader had with a representative of the English Press? [Interjections.] I am a little man, but the facts here before me loom large. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell that hon nominated member that the smaller I am, the larger loom the facts against him. The hon member for Langlaagte does not want to respond to my question. Let us ask the hon nominated member Mr Theunissen. By the way, speaking about him, when is he going to make room for Prof Boshoff? [Interjections.]

When a few of your colleagues on that side also make room for others.

Let me quote further from the report:

[Interjections.] It is stated further:

Further on it is stated:

Let me now ask the hon member for Langlaagte: Is that any way for fathers of the people to behave, partaking of liquor even at breakfast? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, would the hon member not please quote that one passage for us again? It is so lovely. [Interjections.]

That is such a reasonable request that I cannot refuse it. Let me quote:

What does the hon member for Langlaagte think of this situation? If we talk about principles and about the correct use of liquor, we are talking about a serious matter. Champagne breakfasts have never been my strong point. I have never thought it to be a part of our culture. Has the hon member for Langlaagte talked to his leaders about this, and if not, when is he going to do so? [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the legislation before the House. In speaking about the drinking problem and liquor abuse in South Africa, we are speaking about a very serious matter. The hon member for Langlaagte, the hon member for Pinelands and several other hon members made valid points about liquor abuse, something which is recognized as an illness today and is treated as such by medical practitioners. The costs for the medical treatment of someone addicted to alcohol is also tax deductible. In contrast, however, one must affirm the true state of affairs, and that is that not a single hon member will stand up here today and say he is in favour of the total prohibition of liquor. The proper use of liquor is a good thing. I think we all agree with that. It is, after all, a matter of how it is used, and for that reason the Government has accepted, on the basis of the Malan Commission’s report, the principle that the drinking of light wine with food should be encouraged. The Government has wanted to encourage the use of liquor in that way, because it is accepted that if food and drink go together, there are fewer cases of drunkenness. And I have no problem with that; I support it. I think it is something that should be promoted.

In contrast, the hon member for Constantia raised a valid point by referring to the two trends of thought in this connection. The one trend of thought states that there is a positive correlation between the number of marketing outlets, the sale of liquor and the question of drunkenness. That standpoint is endorsed by a large group of people, whilst other hon members, for example the hon members for Paarl, Stellenbosch and Worcester, adopt another standpoint. As far as the question of liquor abuse is concerned, there is probably no single hon member who is not opposed to it. So about that we are completely unanimous. Between those two poles, judging how to use liquor correctly in the combating of liquor abuse, we must seek the correct way of marketing liquor. One must, of course, see questions of this nature in a relative context. Just as the liquor industry is experiencing problems at the moment, the beer industry was experiencing problems in 1955. But since then, with a fantastic marketing effort, that industry has now had tremendous success.

The hon member for Langlaagte mentioned the tot system and its influence on the Coloured population. It is no secret, however, that as a result this population group has suffered considerable harm, but they have fortunately surmounted this problem. The farmers realized the evils inherent in the tot system, and today the situation is quite different. I therefore want to ask again that we try to promote the use of lighter alcoholic beverages rather than stronger ones.

There are a few reasons why I support this legislation. If one reads it properly, one clearly sees that one is not dealing here with the extension of liquor marketing outlets, but rather with a restriction in the number. Several hon members have contended that vested rights should be acknowledged and respected. If the hon the Minister had wanted to extend the number of outlets, surely he would have allowed a larger number than the 36 he is now setting as a limit.

A second reason why I support the legislation is because here it is solely a question of the consumption of light alcoholic beverages with a low alcohol content. That is the only kind of liquor that will be distributed in this way. [Interjections.] I want to emphasize again that I still, on the basis of the Malan Commission’s report of 1963, support the concept that the drinking pattern we must try to cultivate in this country is that of the normal drinking of light wines with food. From the legislation itself it is therefore apparent that this is all that is being envisaged. This legislation is, in truth, so completely uncomplicated that the arguments we have thus far heard about it have, in more ways than one, really astonished me. I do not think it is worth having long, complicated arguments about this. As far as I am concerned, it is very clear that provision is not being made, in terms of this measure, for an unlimited extension of marketing outlets. Nor do I think that the measure under discussion is aimed at greater liquor consumption. For these reasons I have no difficulty at all in supporting this legislation. I heartily endorse it.

Mr Speaker, it is quite interesting for me to hear that the hon member for Vasco supports multiracial or international liquor distribution facilities in supermarkets. I should like to know whether he still supports—or whether he supports now—the issuing of international liquor licences to sports clubs in his constituency. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I reply to the question of the hon member? [Interjections.]

Simply reply “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] In his speech the hon member also raised the question of “yes” or “no”. It is unfortunately true that the liquor issue is often a “yes” or “no” one. Perhaps people merely attempt to make it such an issue. I do, however, think that is unnecessary. It is quite clear that it is a far more complicated issue. I think the hon member’s arguments were good but his conclusion was bad. The balance is of course one between prohibition and drunkenness. There is therefore no need to become a teetotaller to be concerned about the liquor problem or the problem of alcoholism in this country. In sociology it is taught that every society has three things in common. Those three things are marriage, religion and an alcoholic beverage. We will of course never get rid of the principle in a society of consuming an alcoholic beverage.

We have spoken at length this afternoon— and it would appear some more speeches are forthcoming—on a two-clause Bill, which is primarily concerned with two matters. One of these is the fact that brewers can now obtain interests in grocers’ wine licences. In a sense that is what the hon the Minister says when he refers to a well known brewery in South Africa—I am sure we can all quess which one he has in mind—that has obtained an interest in a grocery enterprise. That particular grocery concern also runs a wine counter in its shop. That is the reason why the amendment contained in clause 1 of the Bill has to be effected. I believe that the hon the Minister ought to investigate what else is going on because according to my information a well known milling company, which has an investment in a well known brewery, is in the process of acquiring certain other grocery claims in South Africa. This is being done in a very discreet way though. I believe that is not in the interests of South African business, and that it should receive the attention of the hon the Minister by way of some form of inquiry in terms of legislation prohibiting the formation of monopolies. If I may use a colloquial term I want to say: Let us cut the cackle. The object of this second clause is to extend the availability of liquor, and the hon member for Worcester let the cat out of the bag in this regard. He was proud to tell us that the consumption of sparkling wines has doubled over the past 10 years, and he was extremely alarmed because the consumption of beer had, in fact, more than doubled, indeed nearly trebled. He felt that this was an important clause to support because, hopefully, the consumption of sparkling wine would increase even further.

We are obviously concerned about our wine farmers because they form an important section of the economy. Incidentally, I am concerned that the hon member for Paarl and the hon member for Vasco seem to regard the tot system as a thing of the past. If, for example, one goes to the Tulbagh area one sees that the tot system is alive and well on numerous farms. For the impression to be given in this House by hon members of the NP that the tot system is a thing of the past, that it is an anachronism and that it only exists on very few farms, is complete nonsense. It has, of course, declined, and we are grateful for that fact. However, it is unfortunately still very strong, and I would have thought that hon members of Parliament representing Boland constituencies would have been concerned about that fact. This is a degrading and demoralizing system that has to be fought radically if it is to be dealt with. One cannot pussyfoot around the tot system if one is going to really break away from it.

The point that I want to make is that we have to reach a balance between the health of the people in this country and the welfare of our wine farmers. For the sake of keeping our wine farmers afloat on their lake of wine because they are such efficient producers, I do not believe that we can put at risk the health of our entire nation. It is all very well to talk about light wine and light beer but it is a question of the alcohol that is consumed. Members have received the report of the National Adivsory Board on Rehabilitation Matters which contains some interesting statistics in relation to the quantity of pure alcohol consumed. We are dealing here with the alcohol content of liquor whether it be light or heavy. According to this report the consumption of pure alcohol increased from 1978 tot 1980 by 31,5%, namely, from 88 million litres to 116 million litres. I do not believe that this sort of increase is in the national interest. The hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development who was himself responsible for welfare in the DRC or any medical doctor working in the casualty section of any hospital or any person making an analysis of road accident statistics or any one of us who has had members of his family who have been alcoholics will know that the social effects of alcohol are very far-reaching indeed. Regardless of the political party to which we belong, I do not believe that we as members of Parliament can allow alcohol to be sold on every street corner like green mealies. The consumption of alcohol has social effects and we ought to have a social conscience in that respect. I feel that there are more than sufficient outlets for alcohol at the moment. As far as I know, nobody in this House is in favour of prohibition, but then I do not see why it is necessary for alcohol to be constantly promoted, glamourized and romanticized when it is nothing of the kind. Personally, I believe that alcohol should be sold as it is in Scandanavia, namely from Government stores. I believe it should be available to those who want it but that it should not be promoted and its consumption encouraged in society.

Obviously, the Government has a vested interest. I see that the hon the Minister of Finance is anticipating raising an amount of R1,7 billion from excise duties. Most of that amount will come from excise duties on alcoholic drink although obviously some of it will also come from the excise duties on cigarettes. However, this is a very large amount of money and the State obviously has an interest in the liquor industry, if only for that reason.

I believe it would be unwise for this House to support the extension of the availability of alcohol to more people in this country. I think we should rather encourage the savings that this country would experience through fewer motor accidents, less family disruption and less work lost by campaigning to reduce the consumption of alcohol and not to encourage it. For that reason, Sir, I shall be opposing this Bill.

Mr Speaker, today I find myself in the extremely peculiar position of agreeing with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I am merely rising to elucidate the point that contrary to what the hon member for Langlaagte said, and hon members of the Opposition alleged, we on this side of the House do not have an absolutist standpoint with regard to this measure in the sense that members of the NP being compelled to vote for the measure even though they feel, to a certain extent, that it lies heavy on their conscience. I should therefore like to make the point that in accordance with the tradition in the governing party with regard to matters such as this, when it comes to this measure we shall also have members on this side of the House who are not going to vote for the measure.

I should like to make the point that this is a very emotional matter, a matter with many facets. I am the last member on this side of the House who would want to suggest that one can know everything. As a matter of fact, the use and abuse of liquor and alcoholism are problems that have engaged the attention of medical doctors, social scientists, clergymen and others for centuries now. There is no doubt that the problem of alcoholism has assumed alarming proportions in South Africa, and anyone gravely concerned about the welfare of people realizes that, seen against the background of specific socio-economic problems, in many respects we are dealing with a problem in South Africa that has very serious implications.

It is with grave concern that many people in South Africa are reading, speaking and writing to an increasing extent about the incidence of alcohol abuse and alcoholism in, for example, the Black communities in South Africa. It is very illuminating that in the Black communities in South Africa, particularly among the Black youth, there is tremendous resistance. It is not without significance that in times of unrest and rioting, liquor stores are among the first places to be attacked by Black rioters. As a matter of fact, the point is made by many young Black political leaders that liquor—and I do not agree with this—is an instrument to keep them in perpetual political slavery.

I should like to agree with all my hon colleagues on this side of the House who said that in dealing with liquor one must, in fact, get to the point of educating our people. I admit readily that wine, seen in the context of its being a beverage to enjoy with food, may perhaps not have the same effect as strong drink such as spirits, but it is nevertheless my personal opinion that, seen against the background of the tremendous problems in South Africa, the freer availability of all types of alcoholic beverages is not in the interests of South Africa’s people.

On a previous occasion it was said in all modesty that at sports fields one could see the tremendous extent of alcohol abuse, the excessive use of alcohol and alcoholism—call it what you will—all two-legged and three-legged components of the same problem. A few years ago at the Free State stadium I was absolutely shocked to see the extent to which liquor was being abused. Take note, this was not spirits; it was wine the young students were abusing, drinking as they did hopelessly too much of it.

I only want to make a few more remarks. The fact remains that alcohol abuse—and particularly alcoholism—have terrible consequences. The behaviour, habits and life patterns of any alcoholic in South Africa directly affect at least six people around him. His children are affected psychologically to a very serious extent. All their lives some people suffer psychologically from experiences involving alcohol abuse.

Although I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government’s intention with this measure is to make wine freely available so as to promote alcohol abuse and the excessive use of alcohol and alcoholism, this is my personal standpoint. I know that the tradition of the NP, namely that one may abstain on a measure such as this, proves that we are not a party which adopts a standpoint against people’s consciences, but one which has free and level-headed ideas about such matters.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member: What was the situation with regard to the 1979 legislation? Were the hon member and other hon members whose names were mentioned here this afternoon obliged to vote for that legislation?

In reply to the Chief Whip I just want to say that I intended to end off with that point. On that occasion the legislation was discussed by the caucus, and to this day the same standpoint remains in force in the NP, namely that a matter such as this is left to the conscience of individual members and that they may act accordingly. If I remember correctly, there were approximately 16 members who did not vote for the measure.

Mr Speaker, may I also ask the hon member a question? Is it not true that that hon member and I objected to that legislation and that the Prime Minister said in the caucus that we could not have a free vote?

In accordance with tradition, what is said in the caucus is not at issue here. What is at issue—and I think that as an honourable man the hon member for Langlaagte will grant me this— is that the caucus decided that those who did not want to vote for the measure could abstain. That was, in fact, the reason why more than 16 members—if I remember correctly the hon member for Langlaagte was one of them—did not vote for the measure. The express understanding at that stage was that the Government did not expect a single one of its members to vote for that measure and that the members who abstained, who in actual fact got up and walked out when that measure was voted on, did so with the consent of the party and in the spirit and tradition in which the NP deals with this kind of thing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may not say “You know that is not true”. He must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. But the Chief Whip knows it is not true.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must also withdraw the reference to the hon Chief Whip.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

I find it astounding that hon members of the CP—and I understand that they are all going to vote against the measure—want to turn this Bill into a political issue. By doing so they are acting in direct conflict to their standpoint that people should be able to express a free opinion on matters of this kind. Is it not a little hypocritical to try to turn a measure of this kind into a political issue? I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte that those of us who are not going to vote for the measure, do not want to turn it into political issue. As far as we are concerned, this is a personal matter of principle, namely that in principle we would not like to see alcohol made more freely or readily available to more people. It is quite unfair and untrue, and does no one any credit, that in a discussion of a measure such as this it is being insinuated that it is the Government’s standpoint or intention that people should drink more and be adversely affected by the excessive consumption for liquor. It is not the Government’s intention to drive people to alcoholism. It is certainly not in the spirit of “let people drink or people should simply go ahead and drink or there are no evils inherent in the consumption of liquor” that the Government introduced this legislation. It is a pity that hon members are trying to play politics by suggesting that this is the case. It is not, however, true. I believe this is a sensible Government. Although I disagree with the legislation, I can understand why it is being introduced. I respect the opinion of my colleagues that no problems will arise from this.

In a country like South Africa, and in fact throughout the world, liquor and the consumption of liquor should never be glorified. In discussing this measure I should like to make an appeal—although I do not want to oppose the sensible use and consumption of liquor—to the liquor trade in South Africa constantly to go out of its way to point out to the public that it does not sanction the excessive consumption of liquor and alcohol abuse and is oppressed by and concerned about alcoholism as a phenomenon. I honestly believe it is actually the moral duty of the liquor trade to do so. It is also a duty resting on the wine farmers. I do not believe that they want to contribute to people’s downfall. That is not the spirit in which they market their products. They could contribute greatly to a sensible approach to the consumption of liquor, to the correct use of liquor, if they were to spend more money in pointing out the evils linked to the misuse of liquor.

With these words I want to conclude by saying that, in the tradition of the National Party, a few members on this side of the House will abstain from voting on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, if you will allow me, I should like to come to the actual provisions of the legislation.

Each one of us, I believe, respects the opinions of others with regard to the consumption and distribution of liquor. I do not think we should try to score points off one another unnecessarily in this connection. One should consider what this legislation really deals with, and I am referring in particular to clause 1. The distribution of wine by grocers is not being authorized for the first time by this legislation. This principle has already been accepted and is contained in the legislation. Therefore I do not believe that it is correct to say—as we have heard some hon members say—that the supporters of this legislation are being used as a so-called wine lobby. I think we are dealing here with a different kind of lobby.

The hon the Minister referred very briefly in his Second Reading speech to his motivation for introducing this Bill, and clause 1 in particular. Everyone who has an interest in the industry has found that vertical integration in the liquor trade in South Africa is not in the interests of the liquor trade as such. That is why section 32 of the liquor Act is on the Statute Book, the section which provides that certain persons or companies are disqualified when it comes to the granting of grocers’ wine licences. There were very good reasons for this. No convincing reason has been advanced for deviating from this principle, either by the hon the Minister or by any hon member who has come out in favour of this legislation. There is, of course, the argument advanced by the hon the Minister, namely that two wholesalers that are in the hands of big capital are being prevented by the provisions of section 32 from obtaining additional grocers’ wine licences, and that they cannot compete on an equitable basis with another big company, Pick ’n Pay. In order to extricate them from this predicament, we have this measure before us today. If it is a valid argument that the powerful OK Bazaars, which is fully controlled today by the even more powerful SA Breweries, should be protected against unfair competition, as it is called, from an organization such as Pick ’n Pay, then I ask the Government—and I should like to receive an answer to this: What about the small grocer on the corner who does not have a wine licence either? What about his ability to compete with Pick ’n Pay? What about his ability to compete even with OK Bazaars?

But he can apply.

Oh yes, there is the argument, as we have now heard it from the hon member for Paarl, that he can apply. My goodness, those people apply, but how many of them get a licence? After all, we are living in the second half of the twentieth century, and we know that the little man does not stand a chance today against the big organizations in South Africa. After all, we have just received the latest figures again, which indicate that an organization such as Anglo American has increased its controlling share on the Stock Exchange from 52% to 54% within a single year. I think the hon the Minister should rather give attention to that situation.

I can only come to the conclusion that the big business lobby is using the so-called wine lobby here. I am not referring to the wine lobby in a derogatory sense. I believe that the farmers, and the wine farmers in particular, are entitled to have the sales of their product promoted. I think this is normal and justified. My objection to this measure is that it is primarily aimed at promoting the interests of organizations that are well supplied with capital, that it is being done at the expense of the generally accepted policy that vertical integration in the liquor trade should be avoided as far as possible and that the Minister has now introduced this measure to overturn the policy which existed in the past, in the interests of two capitalist organizations. All ad hoc legislation has always been bad legislation, and this will not be the end of the story.

I think the hon the Minister owes this House an explanation of why he is so concerned about the financial interests—this is not a question of the interests of the wine farmer—of OK Bazaars and, arising directly from this, the interests of SA Breweries, which is allegedly unable to compete on an equitable basis with the other big organization, Pick ’n Pay, while we do not hear a word about the interests of the grocer on the corner who is being forced out of business in the cruel competitive world of today. That is why we shall vote against the legislation. [Interjections.] That is the reason why we shall vote against the legislation, because that is what is primarily at issue in this legislation. [Interjections.] The hon members opposite will have a turn to speak and they must tell us why this legislation is being passed specifically in order to promote the interests of two companies. This legislation is not being passed to promote the interests of the wine farmer or of the consumers; it is being passed to promote the interests of the lobby of big capital in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton has given the reasons why he is going to vote against this Bill. I should like to turn to the hon member for Innesdal and to congratulate him on an excellent speech. I think it was a very responsible speech. As I understand it, he is not going to vote for or against this legislation but he is going to abstain. Is that correct?

Yes.

I should like to know from the hon member why he is not going to vote against the Bill, especially since he has come out so strongly against it. [Interjections.] The only reason I can think of—I may be wrong—is that the hon member is completely opposed to the Bill, but is not being allowed by his Chief Whip to vote against it.

That is not true.

Then I do not understand the hon member. I believe that of all hon members, he has perhaps advanced the best and strongest arguments against the Bill. Having done that, however, he is not going to carry his standpoint to its logical conclusion.

I should like to give the reasons why I am opposed to this legislation.

†This Bill provides for the easier availability of wine. Wine contains alcohol, the same as any form of spirits. It contains alcohol in a more diluted form, at a lower percentage, but it still contains alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, ethyl alcohol. What are the effects of alcohol on the human being? First of all, in small quantities it is a stimulant. In bigger quantities it causes depression of the central nervous system, stupor, coma and even death. These are the acute effects of alcohol.

Alcohol also has many chronic effects. It is also the primary cause of many diseases. Alcohol also affects the nervous system and could cause disease such as neuritis, neuropathy, psychosis and even a condition known as delirium tremens, which we all know as “die horries”. Alcohol also has an effect on the pancreas and leads to acute pancreatitis. It is interesting that South Africa has the second highest incidence of acute pancreatitis in the world, after France. This disease is known as the “one bottle a day” disease. This refers to one bottle of wine per day, which is said to cause acute pancreatitis. Pancreatitis can of course also become chronic, with all its complications.

Alcohol also has an effect on the stomach. It can result in gastritis, vomiting, malnutrition, cirrhosis and bleeding oesophageal varices, resulting in death. Alcohol is not only the primary cause of these diseases; alcoholism, as the hon member for Amanzimtoti has said, is in itself a disease. Nobody knows whether he will develop this disease or not. The only reason for alcoholism is the fact that alcohol is used. These are a few pathological conditions caused by alcohol. Even more serious are the socio-economic results of alcohol.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he is referring to the use or abuse of alcohol.

I am talking about the effect that alcohol can have on the human being.

Does it depend on the quantity?

These are still the effects of alcohol.

Mr Speaker, could the hon member tell us whether people suffering from those diseases start drinking at breakfast? [Interjections.]

No, it is not necessary to start drinking at breakfast. Alcoholism may cause a person to start drinking at breakfast, but many people who are not alcoholics also develop these diseases.

†Alcoholism is a socio-economic evil, a major problem. We all know what effect alcohol abuse has on a person. He undergoes a personality change; his health deteriorates and he loses all initiative. Moreover, alcoholism causes problems at work and may lead to the dismissal of the unfortunate man. At home, conditions deteriorate; the children are affected and often there is a complete breakdown of home and family life. I am sure the hon the Minister is, like all of us, acutely aware of the ill-effects of alcoholism and also of the fact that it wreaks havoc on our roads and causes pain and suffering, injury and maiming. It claims many lives and eventually involves a tremendous amount of money.

We will shortly be debating a Bill which deals with drugs and drug abuse. Harsher penalties will be meted out to those people who supply and peddle drugs, and I support these measures because I have seen the results of drug abuse.

*I should like to inquire of the hon the Minister what he regards as the greatest socio-economic evil—alcohol or dagga?

Between alcohol and dagga?

Yes, the result of alcohol and dagga abuse.

One is as bad as the other.

If that is the hon the Minister’s standpoint, he does not agree with most socio-economists.

The hon the Minister does not know because he does not smoke dagga.

It is recognized— and I challenge the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs to prove that I am wrong—that alcoholism is the greatest socio-economic evil in South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore, since we shall soon be discussing legislation in this House in which very heavy penalties will be prescribed for dealing in drugs—and I repeat that I agree with this—I cannot see how the hon the Minister can introduce legislation in terms of which more alcohol outlets are being envisaged.

Mr Speaker, can the hon member tell me whether he is opposed to liquor being made available to the public?

No, not at all. I am opposed to the way in which the hon the Minister wants to make liquor available to the public. [Interjections.]

Could you explain your standpoint?

Certainly.

Although I am aware of the fact that there is a great surplus of alcohol in South Africa, I object to more outlets. I understand that the surplus is so great that we shall soon be able to use alcohol instead of water for irrigation. I am opposed, in the first place, to the advertising of liquor. To associate liquor in advertistments with prowess in sport, with well-built young men, and to suggest that its consumption enables one to have a good time—that I am completely opposed to. I am also opposed to advertisements which encourage people to drink by using slogans such as “He is a great guy” or “He is going to get a beautiful girl” or “This young man is going to break records”, and all this only because they drink a certain kind of wine. Most major sporting events are sponsored by the big liquor companies and hundreds of thousands of rands are involved.

Mr Speaker, does the hon member know what the effect of Coca-Cola on a child’s teeth is? Is he in favour of Coca-Cola being advertised as a cool drink or not?

The hon member asked whether I was opposed to the advertising of Coca-Cola. No, I am not opposed to it. I am not opposed to the distribution of liquor either. The problem I have in this connection, however, is the way in which liquor is distributed. The hon member will agree with me that the damage which Coca-Cola does cannot be compared with the evil of liquor. One can always get a new tooth, but one cannot give back a life which has been lost. That is impossible. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned, that is where the difference lies.

I believe that the price of an alcoholic drink should be high enough to enable its distributors to provide money, not only for the further distribution of liquor, but for educating people with regard to the use of liquor and for the rehabilitation of people who are suffering because of the problem of alcoholism. The educational task in this connection and the rehabilitation of alcoholics are two aspects for which adequate provision has not been made. After all, the hon the Minister is aware of the problems which we experience with the rehabilitation of alcoholics and with the accommodation of alcoholic patients. In my opinion, those who receive the profit from the sale of liquor should also contribute financially to the solution of this problem. Therefore I suggest that liquor should be much more expensive so that people will find it more difficult to afford.

Last but not least, I want to make it clear to the hon the Minister that we cannot stop the consumption and distribution of liquor altogether. However, I believe that the Government, and especially the hon the Minister and the department under his control, should support every organization which performs any function aimed at combating the abuse of liquor, not only financially, but in every other possible way. In this way, they can make it possible to educate the public of South Africa so that they may understand the evil of alcohol abuse. In that way, we shall be able to take active measures to combat this major problem.

Mr Speaker, many of the arguments raised by the hon member for Parktown are of course arguments with which any normal, reasonable and sensible person will agree. Unfortunately, however, they have no bearing at all on the measure now before the House. The hon member has spent a considerable portion of his time addressing himself to the question of public morality, the health of the nation, etc. One can abuse the health of the nation as much in any other way. The same arguments advanced by the hon member for Parktown also apply to the abuse of sugar, tabacco …

Mr Speaker, will the hon member for Maitland be prepared to reply to a question?

Mr Speaker, I am not going to reply to any questions now. I shall give the hon member the opportunity of putting his question to me a little later. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that all those arguments advanced by the hon member for Parktown are not relevant to the issue now under discussion. This measure deals with improving a competitive situation and with allowing another group to provide the same service to its clients which its competitive group is already able to provide. Representatives of this particular group had consultations with the hon the Minister in connection with this issue. The hon the Minister unashamedly acceded to their requests, and the result of that is the Bill now before the House.

I believe that the kind of caustic attack the hon member for Barberton chose to launch on big business, as though this is the motivation of the Government in this regard, is distasteful in the extreme. I want to put it to the hon member for Barberton that I am becoming rather tired of the attacks launched on big business because I believe that big business has been the locomotive that has hauled this country from the position of a rural economic backwater to a modern, progressive industrial country in which the living standards of people are improving all the time. Big business has created enormous technological advances in this country, and has also brought about the accumulation of enormous wealth for huge sections of our population. In my view, South Africa has some of the most responsible big business houses in the world, some of the big business houses in the world with the greatest sense of social responsibility than any other country I can think of. I want to say, Sir, that I think that kind of attack is uncalled for and is certainly out of place in a debate of this nature. One has only to look at the policy holders of a company like Sanlam or Old Mutual, and look at the track records of these companies over the past 50 years during which the major industrial growth in this country has taken place in order to appreciate what an enormous contribution they have made.

I think the hon member for Parktown can be accused of being fuzzy. I should like to quote what was said by Mr Morris Udel on this fuzziness issue—I think it was in 1976. He was talking about alcohol and said:

It is of course a fact that there is alcohol abuse which is a bad thing. The industry itself promotes programmes that militate against the abuse of alcohol. An hon member raised the question of the “swartvarkie”. It was the industry itself that brought pressure to bear to stop the sale of “swartvarkies” because of the abuse that was taking place.

Oh, no! [Interjections.]

Oh, yes! The fact of the matter is, Sir, that I think people are getting carried away. This measure will create the situation where wine will be more readily available. However, I want to say that if I have a criticism of the industry—I am not arguing in favour of the banning of advertising in this regard as did the hon member for Parktown—it is that, having been inspired by its beautiful advertising and the cultural contribution wine has made towards our country’s heritage, when one enters a bottle-store to buy some, one finds that one is dealing with a point of sale that is ugly in the extreme. One sees huge signs everywhere proclaiming the prices of certain products, and the way in which those products are presented at these points of sale is in my view a disgrace. I know that one can do nothing about this but I still feel it is something we should discuss. I feel that there is room for a far more tasteful presentation of these products.

I want to say that I support this measure because it will ensure that wines will be available more readily among a plethora of food products. It will be available quite normally there and people will see it and regard it as a normal product. They will see it in perspective and, hopefully, they will also use it in perspective. As far as the abuse of liquor is concerned, I am sure that everyone in this House will agree that that abuse must be combated and, in so far as it is within their power to do so, I am sure that the Department of Health and Welfare and the Government will do just that.

As far as the aspect of sparkling wine is concerned, I am surprised that it was necessary to introduce an amendment at all. I would have though that by virtue of the definition mentioned by an hon member earlier, wine would have qualified as a product that could be available in any event. However, the fact that it has now been written into the legislation would appear to be sensible. If people wish to drink perlé wines or sparkling wines instead of the normal table wines, that is up to them. I cannot see that there is any difference in principle at all.

With those few words, Sir, I support this measure.

Mr Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with what the hon member for Maitland said in regard to big business. Without doubt big business has made a tremendous contribution to the development of this country. I regret, however, that I must take issue with him on his statement that South Africa was a backwater. This wonderful country of ours, he suggests, was a backwater. May I ask when does he consider this country was a backwater?

Before the First World War and to a certain extent before the Second World War. [Interjections.]

In other words, what the hon member is saying is that at the time of the Boer Republics in the Transvaal and Orange Free State this was a backwater. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not think that I can agree with him, and particularly when one considers that that hon member was a member of the United Party—in fact, he was an MPC for the United Party at one stage—and between the two wars that party had a big part in governing this country, one is surprised that he can consider it to have been a backwater.

I want to turn to the hon member for Parktown. He is a very learned man, a very erudite man. I want to start by perhaps congratulating the hon member on the award that he has today been awarded by France. I think it is a great feather in his and in South Africa’s cap. The hon member talked about alcohol being a drug. He said it has accute effects and it has chronic effects. I want to ask him whether he prescribes drugs in the course of his practice.

Yes, of course.

Of course he does. I want to ask him this: If those drugs which he prescribes are taken in excess, will they have acute effects, chronic effects, and can they lead to all sorts of -itises?

They are prescribed; they are not sold over counters. [Interjections.]

Order!

Are those effects not as bad as the effects resulting from the excessive use of alcohol?

You are completely on the wrong road, and I do not want to embarrass you.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is prepared to allow highly dangerous drugs sometimes prescribed by the hon member for Parktown and other doctors to be on sale readily available at supermarkets?

I am prepared to see them made available to the public on a doctor’s prescription. I should like to say that there are more doctors in this country who provide those prescriptions than there are liquor outlets in the whole of the Republic.

The hon member for Parktown mentioned all sorts of -itises, and I think the hon the Minister was quite right: It sounded as if the hon member for Parktown was in fact trying to ban all alcohol altogether. Perhaps he suggested that it should only be available on a prescription, but that was not the case because he did not ask for that. I think he has been muddle-headed in his thinking. If one is going to have it available to the public, then I do not believe limiting the outlets where it is sold is going to have the desired effect of limiting the consumption. We do limit our outlets for alcohol in this country and we have done it for years, but there has still been drunkenness, there has still been alcoholism, there has still been tremendous carnage on the roads caused by alcoholism. I do not believe that our anti-drink laws, when it comes to being in charge of a motor vehicle, are anywhere near severe enough. This is the type of situation where we should tighten up and not on the fact that wine is going to be made available in a few more grocery stores. There are many things which are bad for us. One of the things about which I have spoken in the House is lead in petrol. I am not suggesting we should ban all petrol because there is lead in it, but in excess, the pollution caused by that lead is very damaging to health.

I am going to support this Bill. I think it should be obvious to hon members at this stage that I am going to do so. But I also have a small problem with it. I do not think it goes far enough. [Interjections.] When we issue licences to hotels and restaurants, very often we issue them with a wine and malt licence only. They cannot sell spirits, but they can sell wine and malt. Wine and malt have tended to go together, not only in this country but in many countries in the world, in terms of licensing arrangements. Now that we have allowed wine to be sold in supermarkets, I cannot really understand what the reason is for this Government not allowing beer to be sold there also. I would like the hon the Minister to react to this. Beer and wine obviously have a lesser alcohol content than most drinks. Picture the situation of being able to buy wine and malt in your grocery stores. Obviously you are surrounded by various other things for sale, the more wholesome and filling products. However, if you have to go and buy that wine and malt in a bottle store you are tempted by the displays the hon member for Maitland pointed to. There are special offers on whisky and brandy and there are also liqueurs available. I think the temptation to spend your money on that type of drink is far greater if you buy your wine and malt in a bottle store than if you buy it in the retail grocery outlet.

That is a typical leftist-liberal statement.

I actually thought I was on the right-hand side on this one and that the leftists-liberal who is sitting in front of me, the turbulent priest, was on the other, but it appears that I was wrong. I want to point out to the House that there are many countries in the world which allow the sale of wine and malt in their grocery outlets. It is done in Britain, France, West Germany and in many other countries. I have never seen the sights outside grocery stores in Britain, France or in West Germany that one sees outside the bottle stores of this country, which are restricted outlets. I think this particular Bill is actually an advantage in enabling the sale of this type of liquor with a lesser alcohol content …

May I ask the hon member a question? Do you not think that special regulations should be brought in for the driving of supermarket trollies where wine is available in a supermarket?

I think the hon member for Walmer is being flippant. I think that grocery stores should have wine and malt licences. In terms of a malt licence one is obviously talking about SA Breweries. The hon member for Barberton talked about these big capitalistic enterprises, etc. I must say that it sounded more to me like the sort of talk one would hear in Moscow than in South Africa, ie talking about the evils of capitalism. SA Breweries is a very big business, but many people are shareholders in that business. Many small people in this country have bought SA Brewery shares, are shareholders and are participating in that business. SA Breweries also have many employees. I do not know what the difference is between the number of people employed in the wine industry and the number of people employed in the beer industry, but I think that they must all be very important to this country. One of the problems of the beer industry, is that the Government is definitely discriminating against it. Not only do we have this provision but there was the increase in the excise on beer in the Budget only yesterday, where wine was not affected at all. Beer as a product in this country is too expensive. By comparison with whisky, brandy and gin, beer is a very expensive drink. One of the reasons for it is the great amount of money which is levied by the Government in terms of taxation on beer.

The other problem I have with the liquor industry in this country relates to the actual licensing procedures. There is no doubt that many people who should have licences do not have licences. I refer to some of the smaller country hotels which make a living out of their accommodation and not out of their liquor trade. They do not have liquor outlets. They possibly have a wine and malt licence. They find it extremely difficult to get applications—I am referring to genuine residential places which make a living out of selling hotel accommodation—for liquor licences through the liquor boards. I have personal knowledge of this.

I am also not happy with the appointment of people to the main Liquor Board. These appointments are made on a political basis. I make that statement categorically and I can point to a specific instance, although I will not do so on this occasion. However, if the hon the Minister would like me to mention to him privately the instance to which I am referring, I will do so. Appointments to this board can be made as political rewards to members of the National Party, and I know of this specific instance which happened not so long ago. I believe that is wrong. The person I am referring to had no knowledge of the liquor industry other than as a normal member of the public and consumer. I am not even sure if he was a consumer.

At this stage we are discussing the limitation of outlets. It has been proved over and over again that limiting the outlets where liquor can be sold does not bring about a decrease in the amount of alcoholism in a given area. Some of the worst countries for alcoholism in the world, are countries where there is the greatest amount of restriction on the sale of alcoholic products. That is definitely true. [Interjections.] If one wants a cure … [Interjections.] One can look at Sweden as an example.

What about France?

I will refer to France in a moment. The hon member obviously has a great regard for France. I want to point out that alcoholism in France is not excessive.

France has the highest rate of alcoholism in Europe.

France may have the highest rate in Europe … [Interjections.] Is it higher than in South Africa?

Yes, it is.

Very well, then, I will leave it at that. [Interjections.]

The limiting of outlets is not the way to cure the problem. Can the hon member for Pinelands tell me whether the establishment of these additional outlets will mean that he will rush out and buy more wine?

No, not me.

The hon member says he will not buy more wine and I believe this applies to the vast majority of the South African public. Simply because there are more outlets available, does not mean that everybody will rush out to buy more wine.

I now want to refer to some of the statements made by the hon member for Langlaagte. He said that there were children in supermarket where wine was in the same trolley or basket as foodstuffs. Does the hon member keep his wine in his fridge?

I do not keep it at all. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member for Langlaagte most probably keeps other things in his fridge. Does the hon member for Pinelands keep his white wine in his fridge?

Yes, I do.

Does he believe that this has an adverse effect as far as his children are concerned?

Certainly not.

What are we in fact arguing about? There can be no doubt that alcoholism in this country will not be cured by limiting outlets in this way, and I therefore support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, before I come to the arguments of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, I should like to refer briefly to the hon member for Innesdal. I thought he made an excellent speech today and I would merely reiterate the point made by the hon member for Parktown when he said he was sorry to see that, despite the views the hon member for Innesdal holds and the courage he showed in expressing them, he did not feel free to vote against a Bill which he thinks is against the interests of South Africa. It is an unfortunate situation that on matters of conscience free votes are not available to everybody in the House because I think it would aid the debate and in fact raise the level of debate.

I must say that the more arguments I hear for the Bill, the more I am convinced that it is a bad Bill. The speech of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was indicative of the quality of support this Bill is able to obtain. First of all, he used the analogy that, like drugs, alcohol can be abused and therefore, by implication, if one is going to restrict the use of alcohol, one must restrict the use of drugs as well. The use and availability of drugs is, of course, very severly restricted. If the analogy the hon member tried to draw in the House this afternoon were valid, he would either have to argue that drugs should be freely available in supermarkets or that sparkling wine should only be available on prescription, neither of which he appeared to argue. That is, however, the only conclusion one could come to if his point had any validity at all.

Secondly, although he subsequently back tracked on it as fast as he could when he discovered the real facts, he made the slightly fatuous remark that he had never seen drunks in France hanging around bottle-stores or grocery shops.

I did not say I had not seen drunks. I said I had not seen the problems there that I have seen here. If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. [Interjections.]

In any event, he has now been correctly informed that France has one of the highest rates of alcoholism in the world and probably the highest of all in Europe.

If one looks at the other arguments that have been raised in favour of the Bill, one sees that they, equally, do not stand up to close examination. The hon member for Constantia, and other hon members subsequently, said prohibition did not work, which of course is true. From that, he drew the conclusion that the limited availability of a product encouraged a greater use of it. That would of course lead one to the further conclusion that the more freely available a product like alcohol or wine is, the more it will encourage moderation. The hon members forget that the opposite of prohibition is forced consumption and not free availability. I and most of the other hon members here, if not all of them, are not proposing either prohibition or forced consumption. If that logic were valid, however, surely alcohol should be available everywhere and there should be no question of liquor licences. Any retailer should then be able to sell alcohol. If that logic were valid, one could in that way encourage moderation and all or many of the problems would be reduced or disappear entirely. However, I have not heard anybody argue that point this afternoon.

Secondly, in relation to the problem of children and alcohol, the same hon member suggested that children were exposed to alcohol in their homes and that, therefore, exposing them to it in supermarkets by having it available there made no difference. What he seems to forget is that homes are under the control of parents while supermarkets are not. There may be some parents, although I am not amongst them, who do not want any alcohol in their homes whatsoever and in fact do not have it. The parents are in any event also there to control it. This does not apply in supermarkets where that sort of control and choice does not exist.

The hon member for Paarl came with the grand idea that one of the big objectives is to promote the proper use of alcohol and especially the concept of enjoying wine with one’s food. I would agree that wine is most enjoyable with food. I would also agree that it is very proper to enjoy alcohol and wine with food. However, the hon member then immediately argues further that therefore it is desirable to sell wine in food stores because it serves an educative purpose. I believe that connection is at best extremely tenuous. Take beer for example. Most of us would probably agree that if one is going to enjoy beer, one of the best times to do it would be after strenuous exercise.

After action!

Yes.I have not heard any hon member suggest that therefore beer should be available in sport shops because the buying public connect exercise and sporting activities with drinking beer. That has not been suggested because it would be ludicrous, in exactly the same way as suggesting that merely because one can buy wine and food in, for example, Pick ’n Pay that that in itself is going to encourage people to have wine with their meals and not at other times.

It was also suggested that encouraging the drinking of wine would actually discourage the drinking of stronger liquor. In practice there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. The hon member for Pinelands also very correctly made the point that people can get just as drunk on wine or beer as they can get on whisky or other spirits.

There is also the free enterprise argument. I accept this also has a certain amount of validity at face value, but the whole situation in relation to the supply of liquor and wine is already riddled with controls. There is anything but free enterprise in the South African situation, although I accept there is considerable competition between retailers on the sale of liquor. However, in general terms there is anything but free enterprise in the liquor industry. We know, and it has been mentioned, that licences are worth vast sums of money and are bought and sold on that basis. In addition, if one is going to carry the free enterprise argument through, there is no reason whatsoever why beer or other spirits should not be available in supermarkets, or for that matter elsewhere too.

In the same breath, previous speakers who argued in favour of free enterprise, and the freer availability of liquor, immediately then requested that there be a prohibition on the sale of imported wines in supermarkets and grocery stores. This of course runs completely counter to what they are trying to do, namely to promote an element of free enterprise amongst other things.

The object of this Bill and its predecessor is quite clear; namely to increase the sale of wine by providing extra distribution points, and also by encouraging impulse buying by people who have not gone specifically to buy wine or any alcohol at all. That is the object of the Bill, and I think we should not play around with it.

In evaluating the situation, on the one hand one has to look at the desirability of having freer enterprise—it is certainly not free—in the supply of wine, and on the other hand at the problems of alcohol abuse. On the one hand one can say that anybody should be allowed to sell alcohol because it is the right of an individual to sell something if he can provide a service to the public, and on the other hand we have the various problems arising from the use and, in particular, the abuse of alcohol. When one looks at the situation as we find it now in 1984, one must ask oneself where the balance lies between these two, between free enterprise rights and the alcohol abuse problem.

I would suggest that the unresolved problems, essentially of a socio-economic nature, relating to alcohol abuse are enormous. They have been mentioned, but I should like to mention some again. One can think of drunken driving, alcoholism, vagrancy, and dead-beats hanging around in various places. That is a very serious problem in our cities.

Irrespective of what happens to this Bill or other Bills like it, the hon the Minister should, in my opinion, push for far more rehabilitation centres. In the Western Cape there is a tremendous shortage or rehabilitation centres for alcoholics, vagrants, deadbeats and drug addicts, and I hope that the hon the Minister will personally push to have more of these centres established. The problems related to alcohol abuse are in many respects unresolved and are in fact increasing instead of declining in our society.

What about the availability of wine and alcohol? I do not honestly believe that any hon member in this House can suggest that there is a problem in regard to the availability of liquor—that somebody who wants to obtain wine or some other alcoholic beverage has a problem in getting it. Indeed, I am sometimes concerned about liquor being so readily available. There is the old story about the man who was asked at Newlands why he went to watch rugby matches, and his reply was: “Because my wife does not allow me to drink at home”. I find it astonishing to see that at half past one or two o’clock in the afternoon, at the start of the sporting programme, the bars on the premises are all open. Of course, these bars are entitled to be open, but what sort of man wants to start drinking at a quarter past two in the afternoon when he is supposed to be watching a rugby match? I accept that if these people cannot obtain liquor at the sporting venues, they will go somewhere else to drink, but there is certainly no restriction on the availability of liquor.

If one is going to have restrictions and ümit people in what they can sell, then I accept that one needs to justify why one has the restrictions. One does not need to justify why one is going to allow somebody to sell something. It is not the selling but the restriction that needs to be justified. However, I have no doubt in my mind that, given all the factors, the balance is such that one should oppose this Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to participate in a debate in which the Whips have allowed hon members to speak freely and according to the dictates of their own consciences. It was in fact like a breath of fresh air to üsten to the hon member for Innesdal in respect of the freedom with which he expressed his feelings. We congratulate him on this because he is the only member on that side who has done so. In fact, I should like to appeal to the Chief Whip of the NP to do what this party has done in regard to this debate, and that is to withdraw the Whips. When therefore we come to vote, let every single member sitting in the House vote according to the dictates of his own conscience. This is a matter on which I believe one can make a personal decision. I do not believe that a party should make a decision on a matter of this nature and should certainly not be accused of being a front or a lobby for a certain section of the community of South Africa or of those who are producing wine.

We are to a certain extent dealing with alcoholism. I have for many years served on the National Council for Alcoholism and Drug Dependants’ executive and am therefore acutely aware of the problems caused by alcoholism. However, I do not have to go into all the tragedies resulting therefrom. When one talks about wine one usually thinks of sitting around a table and enjoying good food and a glass of wine; and, quite frankly, there is no harm in the moderate use of alcohol. Indeed, nothing is harmful when taken in moderation and we have to draw a distinction between use and abuse. However, in the Western Cape, particularly those people living in the coastal villages and towns do not sit down to a meal like many other people do, and then drink their wine. They often spend their whole salary cheque on wine which they then consume to the detriment of themselves and their families, and these people are often a danger on our roads.

That is the situation to which I am referring in particular. What will happen in terms of this Bill will be that wine outlets will proliferate. Even more grocery stores will now be able to sell wine to the public. They will also in future be permitted to sell sparkling wines. What is happening indeed in terms of this measure is that wine is being made more freely available to the public.

I should like to tell hon members of this House something about what happened in the USA some years ago during the term of office of President Nixon. He voted $1 million to be made available to a commission under the chairmanship of Mr Schaeffer; the commission being instructed to investigate the question of the abuse of marijuana, or dagga, as we know it. The investigation lasted a full year and that commission travelled to various countries to gather evidence in connection with the abuse of that drug. The commission also visited South Africa and among other people I also gave evidence before them. I believe there are other hon members of this House who also gave evidence before the commission. The chief finding of that commission was that the actual abuse of marijuana was the direct result of the free availability of the drug. Availability is a very important factor. The more available anything becomes, the more freely people begin to use it. Therefore, Mr Speaker, my main objection to the measure now before the House is levelled against the fact that it will be extending the availability to the public of a particular alcoholic beverage. That is why I find it difficult to accept this. That is also why my point of view has not changed from what it was in 1979. I hope other hon members will also express a similar point of view in this respect.

In passing I should like to ask the hon the Minister the following question. Will the grocers’ wine licences only be confined to supermarkets or hypermarkets or will virtually anyone who owns a grocery store be entitled to obtain such a licence as well? I should like the hon the Minister to deal with this question when he replies to the debate later. I should also like the hon the Minister to tell the House what criteria are going to be applied when applications for grocers’ wine licences are considered. I regard this as a very important aspect of the whole issue, and I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this in full.

In terms of clause 2 of this Bill the range of wines to be sold in this manner is extended to include sparkling wines as well. That being the case, should people who are in possession of grocers’ wine licences come along next year or at any other future date and ask for permission to sell port wine or liquers, for example, what is the hon the Minister going to say then? Is he going to refuse them that right or is he going to yield to their requests simply because he has already created a precedent? If that should happen, I submit, there will ultimately be no limit to the types of alcoholic beverages supermarkets and other grocery stores will be able to sell to the public.

I should like to point out that should the Government proceed with this method of extending the availability of alcoholic beverages to the public, they also have a duty towards the public of South Africa. It is the duty of the Government to protect the public against the possible abuse of liquor, which, I believe, is to be encouraged as a result of what is contained in the Bill now before the House. The first obligation that will rest upon the Government, I believe, will be to control the advertising of liquor. I think the way in which liquor is advertised in this country is entirely wrong. In nearly every liquor advertisement people using alcohol are displayed as great heroes, great sportsmen and as men of the world, simply because they are consuming liquor. That is why I say the Government has a duty towards the public. It is the duty of the Government to undertake an investigation into the way in which liquor is advertised all over the country. Measures should be adopted in terms of which control over that type of advertisement can be exercised.

A further duty of the Government is to protect every single South African who uses the roads of this country. Therefore I call upon the Government to increase, threefold or more, the penalties for drunken driving. I suggest that someone who is even once found guilty of driving under the influence of liquor should permanently forfeit his driver’s license. That should be made a compulsory punishment. A driver of a vehicle who, as a result of drunkenness, is found to be responsible for the death of another road user should no longer only be fined R100 or R150. That, I submit, is the biggest nonsense in the world. I believe it is one of the obligations resting upon the Government to inflict harsher penalties on people responsible for crimes of this nature.

If the Government is still going to proceed with the extension of the selling of wine by increasing the number of grocers’ wine licences, then, I believe, there is a further obligation, a further duty resting on the shoulders of the Government. It is of course true that nearly everybody who enters a supermarket buys many more things than he intended to buy in the first instance. Why? I submit that this is again a result of the availability of whatever merchandise is offered for sale. People simply buy things because they are there. I believe one can regard this type of availability as just another sales gimmick.

There has been an unfortunate tendency as far as bottle stores are concerned for people to accumulate outside certain of them and drink their liquor there. Although this is illegal, it is being done, and I should hate to see a situation arise where little drinking groups collect outside hypermarkets in which women with young families are doing their shopping. There will now be an obligation upon the Government to police them and to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. Therefore, if they are going to proceed with this, they have this duty to fulfil and I call upon them to fulfil that duty.

Mr Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the thoughts expressed by my colleague, the hon member for Hillbrow. However, Sir, I must tell you that it has come as a complete surprise to me this evening that the hon member is prepared to suggest in this House that minimum sentences should be applied which will be draconian in their effect because a man happens to be found behind the wheel of his motor car while under the influence of liquor. [Interjections.] I have always believed that hon members of Parliament generally were in favour of giving a judge or magistrate the right to take a decision after having weighed up all the circumstances, and to let the punishment fit the crime.

Do you condone driving under the influence of liquor?

No. What I have said does not mean that I am in favour of people driving under the influence of liquor. However, simply to say that such a person’s licence should be taken away from him, that he should be put against the wall and shot, that he should be taken out of society … [Interjections.] … is really going too far. I believe that the spirit of statements of that nature is contrary to the philosophy applied by most of the important hon members in this House. [Interjections.]

I feel that most hon members who are opposing this Bill are misled. Nobody in this House is in favour of the abuse of liquor. That point has been made over and over again, and it is very clear. We are not in favour of that. To say that the availability of good wine will increase the abuse of liquor has not been proven. In fact, I believe that what has been shown is that where people are introduced to the consumption of wine under civilized circumstances and conditions, when wine is consumed with a meal or in one’s home as a family unit, it is far more likely that the wine consumed under those circumstances will be enjoyed as it well should be and that such people will not, as it were, be encouraged to progress to the consumption of strong liquor or to consume liquor in excessive quantities.

May I please ask a question? I should like to ask the hon member whether he considers that the prime object of this Bill and the extension of grocers’ wine licences is to increase the sales of wine?

I can answer that question very clearly. I believe that the prime object of this Bill is to make wine available to people who wish to buy it under circumstances and conditions which to them are more convenient and more suitable.