Mr Chairman, there are days in the existence of this House which I think can be considered to be great days. Today we are experiencing such a day because a group of men who had the privilege of being elected to this House for the first time on 24 April 1974, is today able to look back upon ten years of parliamentary service. [Interjections.] When we look back at the past ten years, and take note of the contribution which this group of men has made to the business of this House, I think …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could the hon member for Mossel Bay just give us an indication of what clause he is dealing with now? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Mossel Bay may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I can reassure the hon the Leader of the House by confirming that I am discussing clause 1 of the Bill. [Interjections.]

When considering the contribution this group of men has made to the business of this House during the past ten years, I think that 24 April 1974 is indeed an important date in the history of this House. This group of men has not only produced the Speaker, of this House, but also the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. Furthermore, it has also produced a Cabinet Minister and three Deputy Ministers.

And four CP’s. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am still coming to the hon member for Langlaagte. He need not become so excited. [Interjections.] From this group of men came various other hon members who played an important role in the business of this House, and are still doing so. I would make so bold as to allege that this group of men has perhaps produced fewer dissidents than other groups that ever came to this House. [Interjections.] However, we still feel affection for the hon members of the 1974 group who are now sitting on the opposite side of this House. There, too, they are after all among the most prominent hon members on that side of the House. Even there they are still maintaining the high standards of the 1974 group. [Interjections.]

Clause 1 of the Bill now under discussion makes provision for the establishment of deeds registries. What does one do in a deeds registry? [Interjections.]

Order!

In a deeds registry certain very important facts are placed on record and registered. I suggest that clause 1 of this Bill will also empower the responsible Minister to place on record and register many important events in this House. Furthermore I suggest that a start be made by placing on record the very important occasion when a group of 25 men came to this House ten years ago, men who have made an exceptional contribution to the business of this House, and who have left their mark on this House in an exceptional way. I think it would be appropriate if provision were made in the present Bill for placing on record and registering such important occasions in the history of this House.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Mossel Bay has just said, I also believe this is an important occasion. I do have to remind the hon member, however, that the cream of the crop of 1974 is still to be found in these benches. [Interjections.] It is true that 25% of the hon members of this party were elected on that memorable day. [Interjections.] Therefore, Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Mossel Bay carries out this process of recording it in a deeds registry office I hope he will also record that the best of the crop of 1974 are still to be found in these benches.

Vause, you mean 25% by number, not by weight. [Interjections.]

Quite right.

Coming now to clause one of the Bill, a little sooner of course than the hon member for Mossel Bay did, I remind hon members that I gave notice during Second Reading that I would move an amendment to this clause during the Committee Stage. Unfortunately it was late in the afternoon already and it could therefore not be published on today’s Order Paper. I have, however, given the hon the Deputy Minister a copy of my amendment, which aims at providing protection for the legal profession, and I hope that I will have the support of legal practitioners on the Government side in this regard. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where a Deeds Registry office should be closed those whose livelihoods as conveyancers depend on the operation of that office will be adequately safeguarded. In some of the smaller centres that have a deeds registry, as much as half of the business done in the legal offices is involved with conveyancing. Should the deeds registry in a small centre like King William’s Town close down, some half of the lawyers practising in that town will lose their livelihood. I want, therefore to move the following amendment:

1. 1. On page 5, after line 38, to insert:
   • (f) The intention by notice published under paragraph (a) to disestablish a deeds registry or a subdeeds registry, or to amend a-determination or definition so as to reduce the area and functions of such a registry, shall be published by notice in the Gazette, stating that representations may be submitted to the Minister within one month of such publication, and the Minister shall publish his decision by notice in the Gazette after consideration of such representations: Provided that his decision shall come into operation after a period of not less than six months after such publication.

The effect of this amendment is simply that the intention to close a deeds registry will be advertised in good time to enable legal practitioners to lodge representations or objections in regard thereto within a period of one month. I do not think that this is an unreasonably long time. Once a decision has been taken—and who knows how long the Government takes to decide on any matter; if it takes six months to a year to decide, that is its business—but if that decision is to close a deeds registry, there will then be a period of six months’ grace to enable the legal practitioners in that town or area to organize their affairs and, if necessary, to close down their offices if their business will be affected thereby. They can then make other arrangements as may be necessary in the light of the closing of that deeds registry. Similarly, estate agents and people involved in the buying and selling of property who will lose the benefit of having that deeds registry available to them will also be given the opportunity to engage other conveyancers at a new office and to make the necessary business arrangements to enable the whole mechanism of property transactions as affected by the deeds registry to be adjusted so as to fit in with the new circumstances.

If this period of grace is not given and a deeds registry is closed without warning or within a short period, there will be chaos as far as all pending purchases and sales and registration of transfer are concerned which will then have to be registered elsewhere.

I think that this is an absolutely reasonable amendment and one which will lead to a maximum delay of seven months from the notice of intention to close down a deeds registry to the stage at which the Minister’s decision will be implemented plus whatever time he takes to decide. I suggest a delay of seven months because I can think of no reason why the closing down of a deeds registry should be so urgent that it cannot be delayed for that period in order for proper representations to be made. Without wishing to argue it any further, therefore, I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the official Opposition and as an individual I should like to add my congratulations to the “class of ’74” for their 10 years’ contribution towards Parliament and South Africa. I want to stress that I am particularly proud to be associated with eight hon members sitting here on my left and right who have been here since 1974. Here I think in particular of the contribution of the hon the Leader of the Opposition because I think his contribution speaks for the quality of the contributions made by the PFP to South Africa. I am sorry that I do not have a red carnation to display but perhaps we can dish out other bouquets to the hon members on this side to display.

We are actually dealing with 99-year leases and not with 10 years’ contributions and therefore I think we should revert to the clause under consideration and the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point. If there is any danger of any deeds registry being disestablished, then I shall support the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point, but as I read it, I understand it to be purely mechanical in that provision is made for the disestablishment of certain deeds registries in order to re-establish others. Every existing deeds registry will be registered as it is at present, but the schedule which defines the geographical area which falls under a specific deeds registry will still be covered. I am sure that there is no intention on the Part of the Government or the hon the Deputy Minister to disestablish any deeds registry in South Africa. I hope I am right in so far as that is concerned, but if I am wrong, then the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point will have substance because if a deeds registry which has been in existence for a considerable period is disestablished it will be a substantial move which will affect quite a number of people. I think before that happens, adequate notice ought to be given. Under those circumstances I shall await the reply of the hon the Deputy Minister before I make a final commitment with regard to the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point.

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Mossel Bay rose to his feet this afternoon and began to discuss clause 1 of the Bill, I became quite confused because I thought the hon member would speak on an amendment to clause 1. However, I have great appreciation for the way in which he abused his privilege by saying a few words in connection with the good qualities of all the hon members of the 1974 group. On behalf of those of us on this side of the House I should like to congratulate hon members of the 1974 group very sincerely on the fact that some of them are still here and that at least two of them are sitting on our side.

When one has to make a contribution on such a matter, one gets the impression that there really are various methods of stating one’s case. This afternoon the hon member for Mossel Bay used a method which was entirely unknown to me to state his case concerning the 1974 group. The contribution made by the hon member for Durban Point, too, made me realize afresh that one need not have served in this Parliament for a very long time to know how to state a case very quickly and succinctly while in effect achieving the same results, and consequently I move as an amendment:

1. 2. On page 3, in line 12, after the second “time” to insert:

The hon member for Barberton motivated this amendment fully in his Second Reading speech. I should like to see this House being the only body that may establish or disestablish deeds registries and the only body able to determine the location of such registries and the areas served by such registries and the only body able to specify or amend the registration and other functions that may be performed in a deeds registry.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Yes certainly, Sir, just as long as it is an intelligent question.

If the hon member says that this Parliament should be the only body that is able to establish and disestablish deeds registries, is he thinking of it as an own affairs or a general affair?

Sir, the hon member’s question testifies to the fact that there is still no clarity in the ranks of the NP on what own and general affairs should be. The question of the hon member is a question to which the hon member’s party should reply. If I could have my way—and that is why I moved the amendment—I should like to see this House doing the things I have just enumerated, and not the Minister by way of proclamation, and I want to plead with the hon the Deputy Minister to consider my amendment carefully and accept it. If there is one professional body which is very intimately involved in this legislation, with its practical implementation, it is the attorneys’ profession. There is no other profession so closely involved in this legislation as the attorneys’ profession. For that reason we on this side feel that whatever the hon the Minister wants to do, he should do so in consultation with this extremely important profession. The hon member for Barberton has fully motivated our reason for making this request, and I do not want to repeat what he said.

I appeal once again to the hon the Deputy Minister to accept my amendment. It is short and succinct, and will not create any problems, not from an administrative angle either, for the department to consult the Association of Law Societies in advance and before the things envisaged in clause 1 take place.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin with the hon member Mr Theunissen and say that unfortunately I cannot support his amendment. Through the amendment which the hon member moved he indicated his lack of knowledge of the general principles of government of the NP. I can now understand why the hon member, in spite of the fact that he is a very pleasant person, is no longer sitting on this side of the House and is now sitting on the opposite side, where he should never have been sitting. He never had any grasp of the way in which the P W Botha Government governs. If he had had any idea of how it did so, he would have realized that his amendment was not necessary. He would have realized that the co-operation of the Government with all the various organizations in this country, whether they are professional bodies or economic or other bodies, is the primary aim of the hon the Prime Minister and his Government. The hon the Deputy Minister will never even consider establishing a deeds registry or closing an existing registry without the cognizance and co-operation of the various law societies of South Africa.

You are saying that against your own better judgment.

Surely the hon member knows that what he has just alleged is not true.

Let us go further, however, and see what the hon member has proposed in his amendment. If he is in earnest with his amendment, I want to accuse him of not having gone far enough. He is being unfair to other bodies. If he speaks of the Law Society of South Africa or of a specific provincial law society, I want to ask him: What about the estate agents, who also have a professional body. What abour land surveyors? They also have a material interest in this matter.

If the hon member wishes to be consistent and logical, surely his amendment should also make provision for the professional bodies of estate agents and land surveyors. Only then would his amendment cover what it ought to cover. As the amendment reads at present, it is deficient. Because the hon member does not understand the mode of government of the present NP Government, he has moved this amendment. If he understood the essence of government which prevails at the moment, he would have realized that his amendment was superfluous.

I should now like to refer to the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point. In it he requested that six months’ notice should be given of any intention to close a registry. However, I should like to refer the hon member to the wording “establish or disestablish deeds registries” in the clause. This is merely good legislation. It would not have been sufficient merely to have the wording “establish deeds registries”, because if one has the positive on the one hand, it is a good thing if one also has the negative on the other. This will give the hon the Deputy Minister the freedom of movement to establish or disestablish deeds registries, according to requirements. I say that I think—and I am certain that the hon the Deputy Minister will react to this—that the Minister will not dream of allowing any establishment or disestablishment to take place without first having thorough consultations in advance with the interested parties.

Then there can be no objection to the amendment.

The reason why I cannot agree with the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point is that it is superfluous. If the hon member’s amendment is accepted, the old legal rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius will apply. If only certain people must be consulted, it means that the Minister need not consult other people. Then one narrows down the obligation resting on the Minister to consult people. The hon member for Durban Point must remember one thing, viz that in future he is perhaps not going to be so fortunate as to have an NP Government. Other governments may come into power which he will not be able to trust to the same extent as the present Government. With his amendment he will then have reduced the obligation resting on the Minister. The hon member will not be able to lodge an objection either, because in terms of his own amendment the Minister would then be able to act in a far narrower sphere in establishing or disestablishing registries. In fact I believe that the responsibility of the hon the Minister should be confirmed, and for that reason I do not support the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point. I know that the hon the Minister is in duty bound to consult all the necessary bodies and not only one. I do not agree with the notice period of six months either. To my mind it is not a question of “seven months’ delay” as the hon member put it. Even if it took a year and seven months, the hon the Minister must hold consultations with people before he proceeds to take such a step.

That is also why I object to the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Theunissen. It narrows down the responsibility of the hon the Deputy Minister. I would prefer to see his responsibility being kept as wide as possible on the grounds of the principle of consultation with all the responsible bodies. For that reason I cannot support the two amendments.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Vasco. How tenuous his argument really is, is apparent from the fact that he keeps on hiding behind the National Party, while we are dealing here with legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with a political party. Why is he hiding behind the National Party now? I honestly thought that the hon member was a far more competent conveyancer and attorney.

The hon member dragged land surveyors and estate agents into this discussion, and to me that was a relevation of his lack of background knowledge on this specific legislation, Nowhere in the Deeds Registries Act is any land surveyor or estate agent involved to the same extent as the legal profession is. This is so in every respect, and surely the hon member knows it. The responsibility that is being placed upon the profession of attorneys and conveyancers by this Act is such that it indisputably confers the greatest responsibility upon them alone. The issue here is not a political institution or party that has to do certain things. The issue here is the responsibility of a body that this House intimately associates with this particular matter by means of legislation. That is why I moved my amendment. Surely it is a fair request. The hon member for Vasco, as conveyancer, ought to give me his full support in my fair request that this body should be consulted, particularly when matters which may be amended in terms of this legislation are involved. Where is there a better opportunity and a greater need for the hon the Minister to consult the attorneys’ profession than in this legislation?

Mr Chairman, can the hon member mention any example of a deeds registry that was established or disestablished without the cognizance of, and consultation, with the legal profession?

Mr Chairman, that I cannot tell the hon member, just as he cannot tell me that they were, in fact, consulted in that connection …

They were consulted.

Very well then. But then surely that is all the more reason for him to support my motion. If they were consulted in the past, why should they not also be consulted in future? Surely it is a fair request.

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I drew attention to the fact that I came from an area in which innumerable representations had been made for the establishment of a deeds registry. I am referring to Port Elizabeth. But these have always been without success.

I listened to the Second Reading speech of the hon the Deputy Minister. His motivation for clause 1 was that deeds registries could in future be established and disestablished more rapidly. I welcomed that aspect in particular because under the present dispensation it is in fact virtually impossible to establish or disestablish a deeds registry. We must take note that the only deeds registries that are possibly going to be disestablished are those situated in King William’s Town— which affects the hon member for Durban Point in particular—and in Kimberley and Vryburg. There are colleagues of ours here who practised in King William’s Town and who are at present practising in East London, and I think that the registry in King William’s Town probably processed more deeds than either of the two other small registries at which deeds are processed. However, the registry in King William’s Town would have no right to exist if it were not for the support from East London, and East London is situated just over 20 km from King William’s Town. I have been informed that most attorneys drive from East London to King William’s Town to convey deeds there. That seems sensible to me.

I find no real reason for the fears expressed, in respect of which it was argued that law societies should be consulted. I should like to say, with all due respect, that in my opinion this would, in fact, negate the purpose of the clause, because its purpose is, after all, to establish deeds registries more rapidly than is at present the case. In contrast to what the hon member for Hillbrow said, I maintain that I can imagine that some of the smaller deeds registries are going to be closed down. I think it is possible. It would be practical to close down some of the smaller deeds registries for the sake of greater efficiency in the larger regions where no deeds registries exist at present.

I should like to support the clause as it stands.

Mr Chairman, I think this is my last turn to speak. The hon member spoke about fears, but I want to say that there is no question of fears. It is a question of recognition. His colleague also mentioned that it was in fact normal practice for the attorneys’ profession to receive recognition in this connection. Now we are merely asking for it to be inserted in the Act that the attorneys’ profession will be consulted. There is no question of fears. It is a question of recognition.

The hon member also spoke about “more rapidly”. I do not understand that argument. As his colleague said, they are consulted in any event. Since the legislation itself wishes to involve the legal profession intimately in this matter, surely there can be no objection to according recognition to such consultation. It cannot be done any faster. That will be the normal procedure. Let us then lay it down in law that there shall be consultation. It is also the wish of the profession.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to all the arguments that were raised here. Right at the outset I want to say that when the first speaker rose to discuss this clause, I was not quite certain how far he would go to find the pretext he needed to raise the matter which he wanted to raise.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the 1974 group on their ten years of membership of this House of Assembly. It is also true that under this clause we register proprietary rights. The question that comes to mind is whether they are a proprietary right of Parliament or of the party to which they belong. I accept that, whatever the case may be, they have rendered a service in this process. We want to congratulate them on doing so. I should also like to congratulate the members of the 1974 group in the other parties.

I think one of them is deserving of special mention, namely the Leader of the Opposition. He deserves it not so much because of the tenth anniversary of his election to this House of Assembly, but because of the fact that this period in the House of Assembly did not wear him down to such an extent that he remained unmarried. We wish to congratulate him on his marriage over the past weekend and wish him everything of the best for the future. [Interjections.]

I should like to react to the two amendments that were moved. Right at the outset I want to mention that the object of this clause is in point of fact to do justice to the registration of deeds procedure, to allow it to take place as smoothly as possible. When new deeds registries are established or existing registries are disestablished, it must be done in this spirit. The amendments deal primarily with the disestablishment of deeds registries. The first question which occurs to one in this connection is whether it is only the legal profession that is involved in this process. I want to say at once that I accept that it is the legal profession which is the largest single profession affected by the closure of a deeds registry. What is also true, however, is that there are other interest groups in society, with an interest in this process, that are affected. I think the hon member for Durban Point’s amendment accommodates that sector. This was also discussed during the Second Reading. In the case of a relatively small town in which the deeds registry plays a relatively important role, it is not necessarily the legal profession only that is involved, but the social order of the entire community could be involved. If this statement is accepted as being correct, the question is whether the hon member Mr Theunissen’s amendment is correct in taking only the law societies into consideration, whereas larger social interests are also involved. I believe that on that basis we can say that it is not only the legal profession that is involved, but that this measure also relates to other groups.

In the amendment moved by the hon member Mr Theunissen, mention was made of “after consultation with” the attorneys’ profession. But the town council or the agricultural union may also be involved in the case of a small town in which the infrastructure may be involved. [Interjections.] The point is this: What we are concerned with is a community in a specific town that may inter alia have an interest in the matter. I am not referring to a priority now. As far as priorities are concerned, the legal profession is the most important. I accept that.

It represents the whole town.

How can the hon member say that the legal profession represents the whole town? Surely that is nonsense. The deeds registry may comprise the nucleus of a whole town. Then the whole town and the social interests of the entire community become involved. On those grounds they are involved.

The hon member for, Vasco pointed out very clearly the procedures that have been adopted up to now in respect of all matters. He pointed out that the interest groups—it is not only one interest group—have to be consulted in the process. If the various interest groups have to be consulted in the process, the first thing that occurs to one is the fact that we are living in a growing country, and the question which then arises is what the chances are of a deeds registry in a specific place being closed. What will in fact happen is that additional deeds registries may be established as a result of the volume of work that has to be done in a growing economy. The closure of a deeds office is therefore not all that relevant. If it should become relevant, however, and we were to consult all the people, the question arises whether the authorities should be restricted, by way of legislation, in the process of negotiation, or is the undertaking given by the authorities of consultation over a wide front sufficient?

We believe that the procedure that has been adopted up to now, and the undertaking of the Government and the Minister to consult with the legal profession as well as with other interest groups in future, is sufficient to prevent any delays in this process. We believe that the same measure of efficiency will be maintained, and on those grounds I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister is wrong, of course. The procedure which has been followed up to now is fully in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in terms of which Parliament has to give its approval for the closing of a registry. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to consultation. I have no objection to that. However, the Act which we are now seeking to amend provides that Parliament has to authorize the establishment of any new registry or the disestablishment of a registry. The hon the Deputy Minister is quite wrong, therefore, in saying that the present procedure, which has been satisfactory, gave him the same power is that which is now being proposed. It has been satisfactory only because ultimate control has been exercised by Parliament, and if the Minister wanted to enlist the support of Parliament, there had to be prior consultation.

The Deputy Minister is wrong, in the second place, in suggesting that I want to bind him. I am not saying that he should have to consult any particular party. All I am asking for in my amendment is that a period of one month should be allowed for representations by any interest group. I am not binding the Minister by suggesting that he should have to consult any particular interest group, and in that respect I agree with the hon member for Vasco that one cannot bind a Minister by providing in an Act that he has to consult a large number of interest groups. All I am asking for in my amendment is that a period of a month should be allowed so that people who will in fact be affected may be able to make representations. Surely that is not asking too much.

†I also want to refer to the point that the hon member for Hillbrow raised. He said that if this Bill could lead to the closing of offices, then he would support my amendment. I think it is now clear from what the hon the Deputy Minister and the other speakers have said that the intention is that offices may be closed. Therefore we are not dealing with a vague possibility or a suspicion. The hon the Deputy Minister himself said loudly and clearly that it may well be that offices will be closed.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it if it is necessary. All I am asking for is for the Government to get off its arrogant high horse and to listen to people. I am asking for one month in which people can make representations. Is that unreasonable? However, this Government is so obsessed with power that it says the Minister can decide when and with whom he will consult. That is the attitude of this Government, and I am getting rather tired of hearing: “We will do it the right way; trust us.” They always do it the wrong way, if anything. I do not accept the ministerial assurances in lieu of legislation. Ministerial assurances do not make good legislation, because they have no power in law.

I am not aiming to bind the Minister. I am merely asking him not to be so arrogant as to claim for himself the sole right to consult as and when he wishes. I am appealing to him rather to accept that, for instance, closing the registry is going to affect the livelihood of 12 firms of attorneys in King Wilfiam’s Town and may indeed put six of them out of business and that he will therefore receive their representations. It may even affect the life of the town as a whole, as the hon the Deputy Minister has said himself. It will not only affect the attorneys. It will affect the whole community. Why should he then not say, for instance, that he intends to close the deeds registry office of King William’s Town and ask anybody who has any representations to make to do so? That is all I am asking for. I do not want to bind the hon the Deputy Minister at all. He need not be bound to follow or obey such representations. He should simply be willing to follow the basic principles of democracy; the basic principles of law; the basic principle of audi alteram partem. This is a fundamental principle of law. That hon Deputy Minister, however, is not prepared to give the practitioners of the law the right—not the privilege or a grant by his favour, but the right— to put their case and to be heard. If it was a court case they would have the right to be heard. The Government, however, seems to have a mental block against the rights of everybody except those in power. I am asking for the right to be heard, the right to make representations, to be granted to those who are affected by a decision which can destroy the livelihood of people and which can have a major impact on a small town. That is all I am asking. I do not want the hon the Deputy Minister to be bound to talk to certain specific people or to be guided by their representations. I am merely asking him to give them a chance to make representations, and if he rejects those recommendations, to give them time to make the normal business arrangements in order to minimize the radical effect it will have on their businesses.

I do regret therefore that the hon the Deputy Minister has given no justifiable reply other than expressing his arrogant determination to have the sole right of deciding. He has given no logical reply to this amendment and therefore we will stand by it.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the replies given by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North and by the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as the argument advanced by the hon member for Durban Point, we will support the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point.

The closing of the deeds registry office will have a traumatic effect on any small town community. In this respect I am referring to the smaller deeds registry offices mentioned by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. The deeds registry office at King William’s Town is a case in point. There are, however, also deeds registry offices at Kimberley and at Vryburg, which means that the smaller deeds registry offices are in danger of being closed. That is why, with great respect, I agree with the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point, in which he asks for the right to be given to people to make representations. I also believe that the period of six months may indeed proved to be somewhat short. Most of the smaller deeds registry offices, to my knowledge, do not yet make use of microfilming. In any event, any arguments along these lines with the hon the Deputy Minister, I believe, would to some degree be purely academic. One would not be able physically to close a deeds registry office overnight. Most deeds registry offices have been in operation already for many, many years, and to close any one of those offices will also involve the transfer of all deeds and other documents, as well as staff, to other centres. That, I believe, can take up to a full year to accomplish. Therefore I do not believe it is correct for the hon the Deputy Minister to argue that it is not necessary to give people this kind of notice. It is definitely going to take him that long to carry out the closing down of a deeds registry office that is already in operation.

In the light of all these circumstances, Mr Chairman, we will support the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Point.

Mr Chairman, it surprises me that the hon member for Durban Point should have got so agitated about what I said. In my reply with regard to the possible establishment or disestablishment of a deeds registry, I made the position very clear. I am not the one who says so either; it says so in the Bill itself. I want to point out to the hon member for Hillbrow that it is very clearly stated in the Bill, in clause 1, that the Minister may by notice in the Gazette establish or disestablish deeds registries. This is very clearly provided for in the Bill. It is also provided for in the principal Act.

The hon member for Durban Point spoke about the arrogant conduct of the Government in this regard. He is very much mistaken as far as this matter is concerned. If we accept the hon member’s amendment, it will mean that upon expiry of the period of a month during which representations have to be made, as well as the subsequent period of six months after which the registry has to be closed, the Government will still be able to do whatever it likes, and this is the position in terms of the hon member’s own amendment. What the hon member for Durban Point is actually doing is to level a charge of arrogance at the Government, a charge which is certainly not borne out by the conduct of the spokesmen on this matter on this side of the House. This is in respect of the procedure which has to be followed. The hon member for Vasco pointed this out very clearly.

The approach of the Government in this case is not an arrogant one. The approach of the Government is to consult all the interest groups in this connection.

Afterwards.

But Mr Chairman, I have said that this is the approach of the Government.

No.

Mr Chairman, I am glad to see some signs of life in this House. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon member for Durban Point that I take the strongest exception to his allegation that I misled the Committee with regard to the approach of the Government to this matter. The deeds registries are mentioned in the clause and that provision can only be amended by this Parliament. In respect of all the legislation which the Government has to implement, its approach is to consult over a wide front. I want to put this question to the hon member for Durban Point: Is this the procedure which is followed by the Government or is it not? Surely the procedure followed by the Government is to consult over a wide front.

If it so wishes.

No. I am asking the hon member whether it is true that the Government normally does this.

I do not know.

Yes, the hon member does know. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that it is true, but the hon member has created the impression that the Government fails to do this. [Interjections.]

I put it to the Committee that the Government wishes to achieve a certain objective in this process, and if the proposed amendment of the hon member for Durban Point is accepted, that objective will not necessarily be achieved. After having considered the representations, the Government will still be able to ignore them without discussing them at all, and that is not the best result that could be obtained with regard to the co-operation which it wishes to bring about with the various interest groups. However, since the approach of the Government is to have consultations over a wide front, that cooperation can in fact be improved in the process. This is something which depends on the spirit in which the Government acts and it is not something which can be embodied in legislation. By accepting the amendment of the hon member for Durban Point, therefore, we shall not be solving the problem which he has tried to solve in terms of that amendment. Under the circumstances, therefore, I cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, I want to react very briefly to the hon the Deputy Minister’s remarks. I take exception to the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister said in so many words that the right to effect a change was embodied in the legislation at the moment and that the Government consulted interest groups before any changes were made. This is not so. This is what I called misleading. At the moment, the legislation provides that certain deeds registries shall be deeds registries. This is laid down in the legislation and it is not something which the Government can change of its own volition. At the moment, the government cannot close a registry without coming to Parliament. While that procedure of amending the Act had to be followed, it gave the interest groups the opportunity and the time to make representations. In terms of the present provisions of the Act, therefore, there is an opportunity to make out a case with regard to the closing of an office. All I am asking is that the Act should continue to guarantee this opportunity.

If the Government had decided to close a registry and if it had negotiated with the interest groups and they had been opposed to it, the Government could still have given effect to its decision because it believed that this would be in the interests of the State or of effective administration. The Government could still have put its decision into effect in spite of the fact that there was opposition to it. Just think of all the laws we have placed on the Statute Book in spite of the fact that those laws were strongly opposed by interest groups. Therefore I am not binding the Government; I just want to perpetuate the guarantee which is embodied in the present Act by saying that the least we demand is the opportunity of making representations.

If the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government reject this amendment, they will be saying to every attorney, to every interest group, that the Government is not prepared to give the guarantee that interest groups will have an opportunity to express their views. All the hon the Deputy Minister is saying by rejecting the amendment is that he is not prepared to give the guarantee that interests groups will have an opportunity to express their views and to make representations. That guarantee is embodied in the Act at the moment, but in future it will no longer be there.

If this amendment is rejected, every attorney must know—I am making this statement now—that this Government is not prepared to say in terms of the Act that the Government is prepared to consult with attorneys but is not prepared to allow representations to be made. That is what the effect will be if the amendment is rejected. In voting against the amendment, every hon member on that side of the House who is an attorney will be voting against the right of his colleagues in the profession to be heard when a drastic change is to be made.

To say that the amendment would bind the Government is absolute nonsense, because the amendment only guarantees the opportunity for interest groups to make representations. I regret to say this, but the assurances given by the hon the Deputy Minister have not detracted from that fact. Assurances are all very well, but Ministers come and go and there may be a Minister in future who says that he is going to close this or that registry. In that case there may be no opportunity for representations to be made against such a step. In the past there has been consultation, but the guarantee has been that the Act could only be changed by Parliament. That is why the Government had to and did consult. All I am asking is that the right to make representations should be entrenched in the Act.

Mr Chairman, I shall attempt to reply to the hon the Deputy Minister without coming to light with the same snide remarks he came to light with. I leave it at that. The hon the Deputy Minister has told the Committee that it is, after all, stated in the Act that deeds registries can be established and disestablished—what difference would that make? The difference is that as the legislation reads at present, only the Parliament of South Africa can establish or disestablish a deeds registry. We on this side of the House prefer it to remain that way, but as a result of other considerations we have said that if this has to be changed, it should be done in consultation with the Association of Law Societies. Sir, why is it that only Parliament must be able to establish or disestablish deeds offices? This is so because deeds offices are involved with one of the most important commodities in the world, and that is land. Other aspects have, from time to time, come into the picture, for example antenuptual contracts, etc, but the primary object of a deeds office is to have information about the total surface area of South Africa recorded in a register, and I think South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that can state, with complete authority, that each square metre of its surface area is registered in some or other deeds registry.

Now, however, the hon the Deputy Minister comes along with legislation stating that in future this function of Parliament will be in the hands of a Minister, without having consulted any other body in this connection. As far as I am concerned this is a question of increasingly encroaching bureaucracy. All of us know of instances of parliamentary authority previously having been transferred into the hands of a Minister. The hon the Deputy Minister knows of such instances and the fine assurances that have gone hand in hand with this. At a later stage, however, the legislation was not implemented in accordance with the solemn pledge given earlier.

So here we have the possibility of one of the most important offices in the country arbitarily being established or disestablished by a Minister. Today it is particularly a question of the disestablishment of a deeds office, because this could cause complications. As far as I am concerned, we are not dealing here with vested interests or anything of that nature. In my view it is a question of the desirability of having a system in accordance with which there will not be proper control, or of an interested party not being all that certain, when it comes to the question of land rights, where he must look for what is actually recorded.

The hon the Deputy Minister wants to know why we are merely emphasizing consultation with the Association of Law Societies. Sir, the only person who may do conveyancing of deeds is a conveyancer. An attorney is the only person who can also qualify as a conveyancer. Not all attorneys are conveyancers, while all conveyancers are, in fact, attorneys. Those attorneys are represented in the Association of Law Societies. They are the people who are equipped to do the conveyancing of deeds. Estate agents have nothing to do with the conveyancing of deeds. They merely draw up purchase deeds that may eventually lead to the conveyancing of a deed. [Interjections.] Please! A short while ago the hon member for Vasco gave vent to a long tirade here that astounded me, coming as it did from a professional man. The conveyancer is one who deals with the technical aspects of the registration of deeds. That is why we are requesting, in our amendment, that the establishment or disestablishment of registries take place in consultation with the Association of Law Societies. Just as inapprorpriate as it would be for me to say in exercising discipline in the medical profession, or for me to claim that disciplinary action should take place in consultation with me, there is likewise as little need for other bodies to be consulted when it comes to the technical aspects of conveyancing.

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Soutpansberg will not, if I refute his arguments, resort to accusing me of making snide remarks, as he unjustly accused the hon the Deputy Minister of having done. In my opinion, the hon member is guilty of a basic error in logic. He is approaching this legislation as if the establishment of disestablishment of a deeds office were a matter of principle, whilst this is not the case. Surely the hon member can distinguish between a principle and a mere organizational arrangement. Who will have the right to establish or disestablish a deeds office is merely a matter or organization arrangement. Let me go further. It has nothing to do with the validity or correctness of deeds if, for example, a deeds office were established in Port Elizabeth and that office functioned properly. It would not, after all, suddenly affect the validity or otherwise of our deeds, and it is a specious argument to allege that that would be the case.

As far as I am concerned, it goes without saying, in the times in which we are living, that Parliament, which in future will have to pass more legislation, will be divesting itself of matters which are of a mere organizational nature and make no difference to the legal aspects involved. I do not think I can make it any clearer than the hon the Deputy Minister himself did when he explained how the various interest groups were, after all, involved in a deeds office. So to pretend that only attorneys have an interest in this is to grant an unjustified status to the law society, of which I am also a member. Attorneys also function within the community and if, for example, the deeds office at King William’s Town were to close down, surely it is not only the attorneys who would be affected, but other groups too, and even the local authorities whose income from taxation would be affected. So to contend that only the law societies should be consulted is to display, in my view, a lack of the necessary perspective.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Durban Point and I misunderstood each other initially and he thinks I said that the legislation did not make provision for that, let me tell him that it was a lapsus linguae. I shall look at my speech and see what exactly I said, but that is what I meant. The old legislation contained a list of the various registries. What I want to say in this connection is that the Government’s approach is normally to hold extensive consultations before any steps are taken. That is the view that will also apply in this connection. Here I do not mean that this was specifically what was stated in the old legislation. As far as the rest of the hon member for Durban Point’s argument is concerned, we have repeatedly dealt with that and I do not want to comment on it any further.

I want to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg that the proposed section 1(1)(a)(i) specifically makes provision for the establishment or disestablishment of a registry. Why I have specifically mentioned this is not so much because it is irrelevant, but because the allegation has been made that the impression was created that we were systematically concealing or withholding this and wanted to push something through. It is on those grounds that I specifically mentioned it, pointing out that it was contained in the clause.

I also want to refer to the hon member’s second argument. The importance of the establishment of registries and the registration of deeds has nothing to do with this Bill and its status. If hon members were to consult the Second Reading speech, they would see that all hon members who took part in the debate pointed to the importance of our deeds system. Everyone emphasized this and paid tribute to the people administering it. It is in that same spirit that new registries will be established so as to maintain the existing high standards. There is no question at all of downgrading the present system. That is the second aspect the hon member tried to emphasize in his argument. I want to make it clear that that is in no way the intention of this clause.

In regard to all the arguments, there is some merit in the hon member for Durban Point’s amendment, but with a view to the procedure and the explanations I have furnished about the Government’s approach, I stick to my standpoint that this cannot be changed at this stage. It is not a question of the disparagement of the attorneys’ profession or the individuals involved. Nor is it a question of downgrading the system, but merely a question of an approach with a view to consulting on as wide a front as possible and having the procedure run as smoothly as possible.

How long would it take to disestablish a deeds registry?

That depends on the problems encountered in the process. In practice it could create quite a few problems. The closing of a registry could take months or it could be done more quickly. If everyone co-operated in closing down a registry, and everyone agreed that it was in everyone’s interest, it need not take long.

They must be consulted.

What I have been trying to bring home to hon members all along is that consultation does take place. It now depends on whether this House wants to restrict the Government in regard to the procedure which should be adopted.

Amendment 1 put and the Committee divided:

Mr Speaker, before we adjourned for the Easter Recess, a number of hon members participated in this debate, and I should like to refer to some of them. Firstly, I want to refer to the hon member for Albany, who unfortunately could not be present and had his speech read by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. In my opinion, this led to two errors. Firstly, the knowledge which became apparent from the speech of the hon member for Albany, was not a credit to him. In the second place, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North caused a greater problem by adding things which emphasized that lack of knowledge even further. I do not want to say anything about the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, except that what he did have to say was not worth much. I want to react to one aspect of his speech, however. He spoke about a so-called wine lobby here in Parliament, and I have a problem with this, since if one speaks of a wine lobby in Parliament, one must at least explain what one means by that. If what is meant by the term wine lobby is that there are a number of people who have an interest in the matter and who address representations in this regard and who provide information where necessary, I agree that there is, in fact, a wine lobby. However, if when the hon member speaks of a wine lobby he means that there is a pressure group in this House, surely he himself should know that such an allegation is ridiculous. Surely it is impossible for a democratic government to govern in the presence of pressure groups. If such a wine lobby, which would want to form a pressure group, exists, we can forget about a democratic system of decision-making. Nevertheless, I must tell the hon member that he is according to us a special honour by making such an allegation. After all, the total number of wine farmers in this House is only six, of whom one sits with that hon member in his own party. I therefore want to ask him kindly that when wine is discussed again, he should leave it to the hon member for Wynberg to speak about it, since he knows a great deal more about these aspects than he does.

Not only do I want to thank the hon member for Barberton for the support he has given this Bill, but also for the exceptional way in which he did so. I must admit that it is always a pleasure and a privilege to listen to the hon member for Barberton, particularly when he uses his head. I also wish to address a friendly request to him, however. He must please ask his hon leader, when agriculture is discussed in the future, to allow him to discuss it all by himself, particularly when it entails legislation on liquor. On occasion during this session I heard the hon member for Sunnyside making a remark about agriculture. When he speaks about agriculture, one really does not know whether to laugh or to cry, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Then, Mr Speaker, there is another hon member who is even worse off. That is the hon member for Langlaagte, of course. The students at Stellenbosch have an expression for someone who stands up and speaks without knowing what he is saying—they say he is waffling. I therefore want to request that in future the hon member for Barberton should make all the speeches on agriculture himself. Perhaps the hon member for Lichtenburg could help him, since he also knows what he is talking about when it comes to agriculture.

Unfortunately I have to cover a relatively arid field as far as this Bill is concerned. I have to speak about clause 1 and clause 3. They are concerned with the sale of grapes, and they are of a somewhat technical nature. During the discussion of the Wine and Spirit Control Amendment Bill last year the hon member for Ceres made a well-thought-out speech here in the House. I should therefore like to use most of his ideas verbatim in so far as they are applicable to this Bill today.

During that debate it was pointed out that the transaction of the purchasing of grapes should be made more flexible, by way of a system of equalization that was introduced. This did not solve all the problems, however. With the introduction of the statutory provisions in 1976—and I am now referring to section 1 of Act No 69 of 1976—whereby the purchasing of grapes for the making of wine is regulated, this measure was questioned strongly by the wholesale liquor trade and the untied grape producers. As a result of this the annual fixing of the quantity of grapes that may be sold has remained a controversial matter. It has always landed the hon the Minister in a tight corner, too.

However, I believe that it is necessary for us to take note of the historical background of this system of grape purchases and the contributory reasons for control over this. I should like to put this to the House once again by providing the information that we have already progressed a considerable way as regards the present negotiations concerning the problem with regard to the annual fixing of the quantity of grapes. As far as history is concerned, we know that the KWV was established early this century, with a view to solving the problem of the wine industry. The KWV is founded on two basic principles. The first is that the future of the wine industry is based on the co-operative principle; a principle that must be extended. Secondly, the principle of wine production must be maintained and the emphasis must never be placed on the production of grapes as such.

These two principles found practical implementation in the ordering process of the wine industry in that the KWV was was established as a compulsory co-operative, the licensed wholesale trade was prohibited from purchasing grapes from wine farmers, and since its inception, the KWV has been instructed to fix a minimum price for wine, but not for grapes.

These stabilizing functions in the wine industry—amongst which is the declaration of surplus of distilling wine—is based purely on the principle of wine production and, as I have already said, has never been applicable to the production of grapes. These two principles form the basis on which the success story of the KWV is founded. The practical implementation of these two principles has brought about unprecedented stability and security in the wine industry, as well as in the general economy of the Western Cape. These two principles have also given rise to a marked extension of the co-operative undertaking, to the extent that 85% of all wine produced by co-operatives today is produced by approximately 70 co-operative wine cellars. These cellars are equipped with some of the most modern equipment and make use of the most advanced preparation techniques under the competent work and guidance of trained technical people.

The result of this has been that the co-operative cellars have made an enormous contribution to increasing the quality of our wines, to the extent that our ordinary wines need certainly not take a back seat to any other ordinary wine in the world.

In this process of development there has been a development in the opposite direction, which has had a negative effect on this wholesome influence as far as these two fundamental principles of the wine industry are concerned. As I have already indicated, the wholesale trade was prohibited from purchasing grapes form grape producers. However, the legislation granted the concession that grape producers could purchase grapes from one another. What happened then was that in time, the wholesalers, by way of subsidiary companies, went on to acquire farms, and one farm that had a quota of 140 tons, but which eventually enabled them to purchase 14 000 tons of grapes, was acquired. The inevitable result is the disturbance of an ordered pattern of development in the wine industry, in that the pattern of development based on the co-operative undertaking will be undermined by increasing grape purchases, with the result that the existing facilities will not be fully utilized. A pattern of development based on wine production with the built-in stabilizing mechanisms of a declaration of surplus will certainly be undermined by grape purchases. The inevitable result will be that the South African wine farmer will find himself helpless in a situation such as the one that prevailed in Australia in 1978 when more than 50 000 tons of grapes were left hanging on the vines. That was because the Australian wine industry was based on grape purchases. This development will therefore drastically undermine the mechanism of wine farmers to practise self-discipline, as well as to act self-sufficiently, in the long term.

The negation of these two principles by increasing grape purchases by the wholesale industry will therefore undermine and destroy the basis on which the KWV has been founded and on which the wine industry has been expanded. It was therefore decided in 1976 to peg the quantity of grapes by way of legislation—the quantity that may be purchased by the wholesale trade.

With this as background, two problems remained; firstly, that the stipulation of the quantity of grapes caused dissatisfaction because the fixed quantity did not make provision for growth in years when things are going well and when tum-over increases. Consequently, I could almost say, the poor hon Minister continually found himself in this crossfire. The KWV does not want to increase the quantity, and the untied grape producers want it increased. It was then decided that the fixing of this quantity would take place according to a formula on a sliding scale which would be determined according to the percentage of good wine that was sold the previous year. Briefly, this means that if there is growth in the sale of good wine, there is a corresponding growth in the tonnage of grapes, and on this occasion I should like to express our special thanks and gratitude to the hon the Deputy Minister on whose initiative we really decided on this formula. Our sincere gratitude goes to the hon the Deputy Minister.

The second argument against the sale of grapes was the fact that farmers who sell grapes have an unfair advantage because they do not contribute to the surplus contribution. Of course it is true that no wine can be made from grapes without there being distilling wine. In the case of red wine which, as we know, ferments in the husks, there is eventually less distilling wine than in the case of white wine, when one only uses the first run-off for the preparation of quality wines. The rest of the liquid is distilled after fermentation. That is why two different figures, which are determined as scientifically as possible, are mentioned in the proposed section 21B in subsection (2)(a) and (b).

Logically enough, such a provision is not a popular arrangement with the producers who sell grapes, but I believe that they understand the situation, since a statutory amendment as proposed here, makes all grape producers equal, and eliminates the prejudicing of 96% of the other winegrowers.

The question could be asked whether such a measure is not giving too much attention to such a small number of farmers and such minimal tonnage, but it must be borne in mind that this tonnage is mainly purchased in certain small sections of the wine-growing industry. By allowing actions of this nature, and certain people to have an advantage within an ordered industry where almost everyone contributes to keeping the industry stable, it is simply unfair for others to use this ordered system to their own advantage. Consequently, this amendment is simply seeking to have justice done so that the benefiting of certain grape producers will be eliminated, something that has upset the entire wine-growing industry for many years. I am therefore privileged to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on these benches shall debate the Bill on its merits and we shall not be adopting of “holier than thou” attitude. We accept that the wine industry is an established industry and closely associated with the early development of the Western Cape. Acceptance of this fact makes a mockery of the realities of any situation if one is going to treat legislation of this type in a light-hearted manner. Many people are dependent upon the wine industry for their livelihood and one appreciates the contribution that it has made to the economy of this country. It has already been established that today is an important day in the political life of a number of hon members in this House. How inappropriate to celebrate the 1974 vintage members without paying tribute to the blessings of Bacchus! [Interjections.]

I now come to the Bill itself. The two principal features contained in the Bill are significant and relate primarily to the production and quality of flavoured wine and secondly to the imposition of the surplus contribution levy to make it applicable and more equitable to all producers. The fact that the Bill is aimed at encouraging the production of flavoured wine following on the success of ginger wine has proved that there is a ready market for this type of wine. It is therefore logical that this development and expansion necessitates amendments to the existing quality regulations falling under the two Acts referred to in the Bill. As a result, the inclusion, of such ingredients as moskonfyt in the manufacturing process, does lead to the expansion and the greater use of moskonfyt. It is also significant that the flavouring that is envisaged will be of a natural flavour. It is logical that a distinction must be made between natural wine and flavoured wine and that in times of surplus, attention be turned to ways and means of disposing of such surpluses. We have seen how helpless the European Economic Community is to dispose of its present wine lake. One welcomes the practical efforts that are being made in this instance to overcome the surplus problems in the wine industry in this country.

The principle of the development of new products must be encouraged at all levels, and other agricultural industries can certainly take cognizance of the initiative of the wine industry in making efforts, in a practical manner, to reduce the amount of surplus products they may have on hand from time to time. We have seen to a great degree the benefits of blended products in the dairy industry and how much this has contributed towards increasing consumption very materially. One must compliment the wine industry on the imagination it has used, and I express the hope that this initiative can be expanded in respect of other agricultural industries. They can take a leaf out of the book of the wine industry with its positive approach. One appreciates that it is necessary, in terms of this Bill, to amend certain regulations appertaining to Act 25 of 1957 relating to flavoured wines and quality requirements. The levy in respect of the surplus contribution found being extended to all producers is only fair and logical and regularizes a uniform basis of contribution. However, I must point out that consumers in my constituency are accustomed to aqua pura of a very high quality and, in order to preserve its palatable effect, the consumption of this natural liquid finds itself mainly used as a dilutant for the more conventional beverages of this nature. I do not therefore see a tremendous market for flavoured wines in my constituency. However, I have no doubt that sooner of later a home will be found for flavoured wine as accommodated in the Bill, even in the more remote areas of the platteland.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Mooi River made a balanced and polished speech on which I congratulate him. He said a few kind things about wine farmers and their products which one also appreciates.

On 13 April, the last time this Bill was debated in this House, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made an amazing speech. In the process—judging by what he himself said—he delivered the speech of the hon member for Albany. I must say that he did so with such fervour that one could not help gaining the impression that this was not the first time he had delivered another man’s speech. He seemed to be quite at home. Nor could he emphasize too strongly that the official Opposition believed in freedom of conscience. He also said that every hon member on that side was able to act according to the dictates of his conscience in this debate. That is wonderful, but I just want to ask why they only give their consciences free rein in debates dealing with alcohol. One gains the impression that in other respects the consciences of hon members opposite are so frequently constrained that they become quite boisterous when it comes to liquor debates. They are almost like calves released from a pen, and it is indeed an amazing sight to behold. Why do they not have freedom of conscience when it comes to debates dealing with constitutional matters too? Then there would, after all, be no need for the otherwise very loquacious hon member for Yeoville to remain silent, as was the case last year. No, Sir, this is merely an illusion being presented to us by those hon members. Usually the intolerance of the liberals in their ranks dominates the consciences of other hon members in that party. While I am speaking about intolerance, let me also refer to the intolerance displayed by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North when he raised a ridiculous point of order in an attempt to prevent the hon member for Ceres from making his speech. I thought hon members opposite were people who believed in freedom of speech. But now I am no longer so sure. The hon member created a distorted image of the wine farmer about which he, who is himself a farmer, should be ashamed. He depicted them as being callous, as if they could not care less what the consequences of the abuse of their product were, as long as they made money. Surely this is not so. They are not that kind of people. The calm, controlled and responsible way in which the hon member for Ceres reacted to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North wonderfully illustrates the approach to life and the behaviour of the wine farmer in general. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North would do well to take cognizance of this and learn something from it.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is concerned about liquor abuse and alcoholism. Who is not concerned about that? We are all concerned about it. The hon member for Ceres clearly stated the feelings of the wine farmers in this regard. I myself have been concerned about this for may years, but today I feel less concerned about the abuse of liquor by Black people than I did when Black people did not have legal access to so-called “White” liquor. Prohibition is therefore undoubtedly not the solution. I gain the impression that this is not the solution the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has in mind either. It is simply no use being either merely concerned or giving vent to tirades in this House and drawing caricatures of the wine farmers. What would help is responsible and balanced guidance, and this is exactly what the farmers are furnishing.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is not opposed to liquor as such. As a matter of fact, he made propaganda here for sorghum beer, a drink which is allegedly so healthy, as if sorghum beer does not contain alcohol and does not result in people getting drunk. The alcohol content of one litre of sorghum beer is equivalent to that of three and a half tots of spirits, for example brandy, and it is freely available, even in the strangest little shops. However, the hon member has no fault to find with that.

Today I want to reiterate that wine farmers are responsible people. In my opinion they should not unnecessarily be restricted in the marketing of their products. We should not actually be debating this-type of legislation here today. After all, it merely concerns another type of marketing for a product which is already produced legally. Not a drop of wine is produced illegally in South Africa. Why should wine farmers therefore be treated as if they were doing business illegally and as if they were the cause of all the endless misery which results from the abuse of all types of liquor, including sorghum beer?

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said that wine farmers should diversify and also for example, farm with pigs. The hon member, who is himself a farmer, knows that he is talking nonsense. One could just as well tell the Kalahari farmers there is a shortage of maize in South Africa and they should supplement the shortage by planting maize. What contribution could such arguments make in combating liquor abuse? The fact of the matter is that people consume alcohol and that their preferences and needs are always changing. In my time I have seen the South African drinking pattern change dramatically—for the better. We only began taking an interest in natural wines in 1958. The reason for this is that since that time the Government and the KWV have constantly emphasized that there was scope for the consumer public to change its drinking pattern for the better. The well-known Malan Commission was appointed by the Government in 1956 and brought out its report in 1960. In paragraph 106 of the report it is stated:

Here strong liquor means spirits. As a matter of fact, the commission found that the per capita consumption of spirits in South Africa was by far the highest in the world. That was something to be concerned about. However, the wine industry did not sit back. Huge sums were invested, for example in modern cellar facilities, which made possible the distilling of prime quality natural wines. They did more than that. They launched a purposeful publicity campaign to educate the consumer public in the meaningful and moderate consumption of natural wines. Why did they do that? They did so because the wine farmers insisted on their products being consumed with enjoyment, but also in a civilized manner.

Of course the individual’s drinking pattern also changes constantly. When we began drinking natural wines in days gone by sweetish white wines were popular. Gradually people’s tastes changed, or one could rather say improved, and there was first a swing towards drier white wines and somewhat later towards red wines. Many people still consider red wine to be the prince of all wines and the ultimate in wine enjoyment. This changing or progressive pattern is still followed today by people who are encountering wine for the first time in their lives. For this reason recently a new need has come to the fore throughout the world, a need for natural alcoholic beverages with a pleasant and refreshing taste but with a lower alcohol content than table wines. In the USA this gave rise to the marketing of the so-called flavoured wines. There it immediately became apparent that there was a great need, and therefore also a market, for these wines.

Now it has become clear that there is also a need for them in South Africa. The demand for the so-called ginger wines, which are already on the market, proves this. In this connection it is important to note that we already have a flavoured wine on the market. One of the reasons why I say it is actually unnecessary for us to debate such a matter is that we already have this kind of wine on the market. It is therefore not a new idea.

Flavoured wine, as envisaged by this legislation, is a natural product. I want to emphasize this. It will contain no synthetic ingredients. It will consist of natural wine—high quality natural wine as the hon member for Ceres has said—to which natural sweetening agents as well as natural flavouring will be added. The alcohol content will be up to half that of table wine. But the unique wine character will not be lost. The advent of flavoured wine is just another step in the development of our wine culture. It is an additional and, I maintain, more primary step in the development of a good taste for wine. It fits in well with the ideal that people should become acquainted first with natural wine rather than with stronger liquor. Flavoured wine is a product having its origins wholly in agriculture. Each component is an agricultural product. It is the product of a branch of agriculture with a proud record of responsibility towards the consumer public. For that reason I am quite satisfied to give this legislation my unreserved support.

Mr Speaker, if there is one thing I have learnt in this debate it is that exaggerated language convinces no one. I say this with reference to the speech by my hon colleague, the member for Pietermaritzburg North. When I listened to his speech the week before last I really gained the impression that we in this House were dealing with people who were seeking to destroy a section of our community by imposing their product on them against their will and without their being able to offer resistance, while the necessary consequence of the use of that product would be that the families of those people would disintegrate, that their children would suffer and that they would become involved in motorcar accidents. As a wine farmer I honestly began to wonder whether I should take part in this debate or not.

I also found, to my amazement, that objections were raised to the hon member for Ceres taking part in the debate. If an hon member should be able to object to another hon member taking part in a debate about a matter in which he has an interest then I should say that no hon member who is a farmer could ever take part in an agricultural debate. No hon member who is an attorney would ever be able to take part in the discussion of the legislation that was before this House earlier today. I am informed that there are six wine farmers in this House. They are not present here as wine farmers but as representatives of their respective constituencies. I wish to state very clearly that I am taking part in this debate as an individual, as a farmer with an interest in the wine industry. I am involved in other branches of farming, too, and up to this stage I have not supplied to the consumer a single product about which I ought to be ashamed. However, I also take part in the debate as a member of Parliament elected by the voters of my constituency, and as such I ask that this legislation be supported, because I am of the opinion that it is in the interests of the community I serve and not because it would be in my own material interest. Nor do I take part in this debate as a member of a so-called wine lobby. I do not know of any wine lobby. Any contention that there is a group in Parliament that promotes its own material interest at the expense of the community as a whole is really not worthy of this House.

The legislation before us at present embodies four important provisions. A certain degree of control which is at present exercised by the department, is being delegated to the general manager of the KWV, and he in turn has the right to delegate further. I am in favour of the State granting the private sector the right, as far as possible, to promote its own interests or, in this instance, to arrange that certain functions that must, by law, be carried out are in fact carried out by that sector. I am in favour of the State keeping out of the functioning of the private sector as far as possible.

Moreover, provision is being made for a levy to be imposed on grapes delivered by untied farmers for the making of good wine, because we all know that grapes are used partly for the making of distilling wine. I do not believe that anyone in this House has a problem with that provision.

It is also being provided that moskonfyt for use in wine can be sold at a price cheaper than good wine. When I noted that the legislation made provision for this I wondered whether those who so enthusiastically oppose the legislation realize to what extent grape juice and moskonfyt are used as an important ingredient in the manufacture of fruit juices. Those who are so fulsome in their praise of the consumption of fruit juices—I myself am in favour of it—probably did not take the trouble to ascertain that most kinds of fruit juice, such as apple juice, also contain grape juice or the product of the grape. Perhaps they should have taken a little trouble to ascertain that this is the case.

Provision is also being made in this legislation for the making and marketing of a flavoured wine with a low alcohol content. I think that this is the aspect that this debate should really be concerned with.

There can be no debate on wine or the making of wine without there being a discussion of the role played therein by the KWV. Accordingly we find that over the years the KWV has had to endure a great deal of criticism, and I must admit frankly that I, too, have criticized the KWV from time to time and shall do so again in future if necessary.

On the one hand it has been said that the co-operative has acquired monopolistic powers by way of legislation, whereas on the other hand it is said that as a marketing organization the KWV has not succeeded, or that particularly as far as overseas marketing is concerned, they have not acted dynamically enough. That is the kind of criticism that is levelled at the KWV. Another charge levelled at the KWV is that it is responsible for consumer prices of wine in South Africa being kept at an artificially high level. The KWV is criticized on that score as well.

As far as foreign marketing is concerned it is also my considered opinion that in the past in particular the KWV has allowed opportunities for South Africa to pass, and that in markets such as Great Britain, Europe, the USA, and perhaps Canada as well, outlets were available which were not utilized to the full. One has to admit that foreign markets for products such as wine, particularly under a South African registered label, cannot be built up overnight. It is a slow process that requires know-how and, as I have already said, the KWV has perhaps not always done its work properly in the past.

As regards the complaint that the KWV is monopolistic, two aspects must be considered. In the first place it is necessary to consider the determining of minimum prices for grapes or for good wine. In this regard one can only say that those who are so quick to criticize in this regard should perhaps cast their minds back to the chaos that prevailed before the co-operative was established by legislation. Therefore, if there are people who contend that the KWV has too much control, I should like to know whether they would be prepared to revert to those chaotic days and would want to see liquor being made available to the South African market without any control whatsoever. Not so long ago, in a discussion of a Bill in this House, some of the hon members who spoke in this debate were in favour of wine being made available, not in 20 litre containers but in smaller containers. Why, Sir? This was done in an effort to protect the consumer who, due to his background, was not capable of doing so himself. Therefore the contention that those who have an interest in the industry and are in favour of this legislation are simply exploiting the consumer is inconsistent with what has happened in the past.

In the Western Cape the KWV has made an enormous contribution towards stabilization of agriculture by stabilizing the wine industry. Moreover it must be noted that, together with the other agricultural cooperatives and the private sector that is not linked to the KWV, the KWV has made a very considerable contribution to the production of quality wines in South Africa. I think that this should be mentioned while we are discussing this legislation.

This also brings me to the next statement made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. He referred to the so-called pop wine which is now to be marketed. In that regard he also expressed the fear that the image of the quality of wine would be prejudiced, or would be jeopardized in some way. I believe that all of us in this House who have an interest in this industry or are interested in the wine industry ought to guard against the quality and the image of quality of this product being undermined. I should contend that if there were good reason to object to this legislation, it should be done taking this into account. Indeed, I believe that there are hon members who feel strongly about this and who might even want to conduct a debate on this. However, to contend that because certain developments in the wine industry are envisaged which entail inter alia the marketing of a popular flavoured wine with a low alcohol content, the image of quality wine will necessarily be prejudiced, is, as I see it, an argument that does not hold water.

It is true that wine competes with other alcoholic beverages. There was a time—the hon member for Stellenbosch referred to it in passing—when brandy, whisky and gin, for example, enjoyed a very large share of the market, and when products with a lower alcohol content, such as wine, systematically began to attain their rightful share in the industry, due to skilful marketing techniques, something which necessarily led to a fall in the consumption, on an individual basis, of liquor with a higher alcohol content. This is of course ot the benefit of South Africa and the South African community. I should far prefer to see people using more wine than see fewer people consuming more alcohol.

Alcoholism and the use of liquor does not necessarily result from the consumption of wine. It is not necessary consequence of the consumption of good wine or of wine with a low alcohol content. It is also been said— and I take it that this is correct—that anyone who wants to consume alcohol and begins by drinking a popular wine—for example the Lieberstein of the sixties—in due course developes a taste for a better wine or a wine of higher quality. What is wrong with that? After all, we want to develop and promote the wine industry, and I am not aware of consumers of good wine who abuse it. I do not know of such people.

If people are really so concerned about the abuse of alcohol, how is it possible that thus far in this deate no one has objected to the importation of cheap overseas liquor products, for example whisky? If one is really so concerned about the abuse of liquor let us tackle the problem where it can be tackled. If one is so concerned about the abuse of liquor, what about the beer which is available in cartons in virtually every shop and café? I concede that when that sorghum beer is sold in the carton it does have a lower alcohol content than in the case of wine, but it is an unstable beverage. If it is stored long enough, that alcohol content will be considerably higher than when it was originally marketed. However, no one has had anything to say about that. Therefore I ask myself the question: What is this debate about? I suggest that if there are hon members in this House who really feel that alcohol is a danger to the community, they must openly advocate that we prohibit the sale of alcoholic liquor totally. If they were to do so, I should be able to understand their attitude. However, to deal out blows in between as they are doing, is not good enough and I believe that we should not permit them to get away with it.

It is also argued that the marketing of flavoured wine is aimed at certain markets, and in this regard specific reference is made to two markets. The one is the Black market and the other is the so-called youth market, the young people, who will come into the picture in this way as far as the consumption of alcohol is concerned. This, too, is not in line with reality. The Black community of South Africa will not allow itself to be deceived by the sale of cheap flavoured wine. The Black man will drink and buy what he wants to. If he wants to buy beer he will do so. If he wants to buy flavoured wine, he will do that, too. As far as children are concerned, sweet wine is already available on the market. There are wines on the market that taste like sweets. There are flavoured wines with a far higher alcohol content than ordinary wine, and no one has objected to that. There are liqueurs on the market that also taste like sweets—peppermint liqueur and others. Why do we not object to that? If a young person can buy such a liqueur then he can also buy flavoured wines so as to form part, as it were, of the pattern of alcohol abuse.

There is another point that is being made. It is being said and written that flavoured wines will be available at every shop and café. That is not the truth either. These wines with a low alcohol content of 6% or 6,5% will only be available through the normal channels through which wine may be sold. As I read the legislation, even the supermarkets will not be able to sell these wines at this stage. Moreover, there are reasons to prevent this happening.

I have read the legislation and listened to the debate, and I really have not heard anything to convince me that this legislation is a monster.

There are two other aspects I must refer to before resuming my seat. I just want to say to my hon colleague that I do not believe that what I am going to say now necessarily relates to him. There is a tendency in this country where problems arise, where social irregularities prevail and where poverty occurs, always to attack the farming community. The farming community form an easy target. Having listened to what was said in regard to this matter, I find that it is once again, unfortunately, the case that the wine farmer is being made the target. I want to quote what my colleague said, although I do not believe that he really intended it:

I do not believe that that was his intention, but to content “the wine farmers pour their wine lake down the throats of fellow South Africans at will” is something I do not believe can be said of the wine farmers or of any farmer in South Africa. He goes on to say:

They can take up pig farming …

Well, maybe I am the only wine and pig farmer and I take it that he is referring to me, and I do not object to that. He adds:

†I do not believe that my hon colleague actually meant what these words mean. I do not know of any farmer who ever has or who would like to, even if he could force his product down the throats of fellow South Africans.

*I just want to make the point that in selecting our words and seeking to convince one another in this House, we should think twice and use the words we really want to use if we are to convince one another of our opinion. I said that I had no objection to anyone being opposed to the abuse of alcohol. I have no objection to anyone being in favour of the moderate use of alcohol; I think that that is right. I object to anyone who is in favour of the abuse of alcohol. I believe that when I say I am opposed to that, I am probably speaking on behalf of everyone in this House, including those who are in favour of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon member for Wynberg on a well-constructed and well-reasoned speech. To the hon member, who is a voter in the constituency of Paarl, I want to say that I am very proud of him. [Interjections.] I am very proud of the ability of a voter of mine to deliver such a sensible speech on such a fine subject. While speaking of voters, I should also like to refer to the hon member for Wellington, who is also a voter in the constituency of Paarl and who delivered an equally fine and sensible speech. I want to appeal to the hon member for Wynberg to adopt as sober and level-headed a standpoint as he has just adopted in respect of other legislation as well. His was a balanced standpoint, and I appeal to him not to act under the influence, in a figurative sense, of the people surrounding him when it comes to other legislation. I want to agree 100% with the hon member that there is no such thing as a wine lobby. I also agree with what he had to say about the role of the KWV. In a previous debate we were able to pay tribute to the role played by the wine farmers through the agency of their own organization over a period of 70 to 80 years. A Bill dealing with marketing and control is to be discussed here in the near future, and the wine industry is one of the best examples of an industry which has put its own house in order and which, along with Parliament, accepts responsibility for keeping its own affairs in order.

The hon member touched on another very important matter, and that is the role of the farmer and the fact that unfortunately the farmer often is the target of unjustified criticism from the South African society. I want to thank the hon member for pointing this out. A further point to which the hon member rightly referred was that the wine farmer was, possibly more than anyone else, concerned about liquor abuse. After all, he does not want the image of his product, which is a noble product, to be dragged through the mud. The hon member for Stellenbosch took the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to task on this score, as did the hon member for Wynberg. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, and I undertook a few trips in the Transvaal during the past week, and I want to tell him that I am astonished at the speech which he delivered here. I can only think that he did not write that speech himself and that he possibly saw that speech for the first time when he was delivering it here. He asked, inter alia, what the young people were going to drink now. What do young people who want to drink, drink today? They drink “cane for the pain”, brandy and Coke, vodka and the like. On the basis of the argument which he advanced here, surely the hon member is going to achieve exactly the opposite. The hon member for Stellenbosch took him to task to some extent on the question of his conscience and while the hon member was speaking here the other day, I could not help wondering what the conscience of the hon member, who is a lay preacher, tells him when that party discusses censorship and legislation dealing with censorship. His party does not agree at all with the Government on such matters. One really has to be very careful when dealing with matters of conscience.

The making available of flavoured wine does not, in the first instance, and this the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also tried to intimate, have as its objective the increased consumption of wine. Making this kind of wine available as well as granting it recognition in legislation reflects a domestic shift in tastes which is occurring in South Africa. It has been pointed out by hon members before, but I want to repeat that the total consumption of alcohol in South Africa has shown virtually no increase. In fact, over the past decade or two it has remained reasonably constant. In trying to ascertain the total consumption of alcohol in South Africa, one has to include all products, viz sorghum beer, ordinary beer, wine, fortified wine and spirits. In respect of these types of liquor there has been virtually no increase in the consumption of alcohol. As the standards of living of people rise, as they become westernized and urbanized, there is in practice a movement away from sorghum beer to Western types of liquor. Yet sorghum beer today still represents 41% of the country’s consumption of alcoholic beverages. I find it very interesting that when people change over from drinking sorghum beer to drinking Western beverages, they specifically look for something light. Surely it is a good thing that when a person no longer wants to drink sorghum beer, he prefers to replace it with something light instead of something strong. The hon member for Wynberg also pointed out, however, that as far as the drinking pattern of Whites was concerned, there had been a marked shift over the past two or three decades from strong drink and especially from fortified wine to natural wine and even to something fighter.

I want to draw attention to another point, and that is that the concept of “flavoured wine” is nothing new. The hon member for Wynberg also referred to this. I want to refer to what is contained in Act 25 of 1957, which is also being amended by this Bill. That Act already makes provision for flavoured liquor. It makes provision, in the first place, for ginger wine. Of every 10 litres of wine consumed in South Africa today, one litre is ginger wine, in other words, 250 million litres out of a total consumption of 250 million litres. It is a wine with an alcoholic strength of 10% or 11% by volume. Fortified wines, which are also flavoured wines, for example vermouth, wine aperitifs, or wine cocktails, are wines with an alcoholic strength of more than 16,5% by volume. Then there are the spirits, for example liqueurs and spirit aperitifs and spirit cocktails. These are categories of liquor for which that Act makes provision. These are flavoured types of liquor with an alcoholic strength of more than 24%. Surely it is only right, if a real need for flavoured liquor exists, for us to move away from spirits to fortified and natural wines, and to something even less strong, as far as this is concerned. This is now being rendered possible.

No wine-producing country in the West has legislation disallowing this, whereas we in South Africa, who are very proud of our drinking pattern, allow this only in respect of fortified wines. Therefore we are now moving in the right direction.

Let me give an example of an existing need. Today one can buy apple cider in any bottle store under a wellknown and extensively advertised brand name. That tin is marked “6% alcohol by volume”. This proves that there is a need for light alcoholic beverages and consequently it is natural for the wine farmer to want to move in that direction as well. Is the product of the vine to be excluded? I do not have the least doubt that we are taking a step in the right direction in this regard.

The wine fanner of South Africa has always made it his object to establish sound patterns of consumption. As was remarked by the hon member for Wynberg, the good name of the product of the vine is being protected and maintained as this is in the interests of the consumer and of the industry of each wine farmer in South Africa. I wonder whether hon members realize that the wine producers offer to the public through the agency of their organization an on-going programme on the correct consumption of alcoholic beverages. The wine farmers of South Africa contribute R1 million every year for the very purpose of bringing this about. Where does one find a better example of an industry which wants to keep its own house in order itself? The approach of the wine producer is positive in that an image of consumption is being projected which is civilized and balanced. The wine farmers also want standards to the laid down very clearly and to be maintained in respect of this product. This is the very thing which is being achieved by means of this legislation.

I want to conclude now. Although flavoured wines in this lower alcoholic class represent something new in the South African wine industry and is something new to the public, one reads in history books that the style of wines has constantly been changing throughout the centuries so as to satisfy the taste of the time. As long ago as 2 300 years BC the Greeks had a predilection for wine flavoured with herbs or sweetened with honey. I think the time has now arrived, virtually 2 000 years AD, for this new product be marketed in South Africa as well.

Mr Speaker, could the hon member perhaps give the House some indication of the price at which flavoured wine would sell? Could he give us for example the price per bottle?

I am not a wine farmer, nor am I an official of the KWV. However, it goes without saying that it will have to find its place in the market. For example, it will have to compete with the apple cider I spoke of some moments ago, and I assume that unless it is able to compete as far as price is concerned, it will not find a place in the market. It is very clear, however, that there is a great need for such wine and for that reason the price ought to be reasonable.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he can give us the assurance that a kukumakranka wine is also in the offing? This is the nicest flavouring there is.

If the hon member would dig up kukumakranka in sufficient numbers, we should be very pleased to make it available.

Mr Speaker, I greatly appreciate the responsible way in which the debate has generally been conducted up to now. I want to say at once that I do not stand here as a wine farmer, nor do I have any interest in any liquor company. I do not stand here either as a person who wishes to inveigh against the consumption of wine on moral, religious or other grounds. On the contrary, if I were to ge guided by my sentiments alone, I would be on the same side as the hon member for Wellington, the hon member for Stellenbosch, the hon member for Paarl and the hon member for Wynberg.

But I am opposing this Bill precisely because of my respect for the concept of what wine ought to be. During the discussion on a previous Bill, the hon member for Paarl delivered a eulogy here on wine and what it meant to mankind, on the image of wine. It is said that Plato alleged that wine was the greatest and most wonderful gift of the gods to mankind. That is why I want to express my deep disappointment at the fact that this Bill has been introduced. In spite of what the hon members for Paarl and Wynberg said, I myself cannot approve of the fact that we are now going to sell, under the name of wine, a brew which is going to harm the image of wine and which certainly does not deserve the name of wine. This is one of my principal objections to the Bill. The Bill is indeed a motion of no confidence in wine as such. It is a motion of no confidence in a noble product. I want to say at once that I have only the greatest appreciation for wine. I am a wine consumer myself and a collector, in a small way, of South African wines. Therefore I have no conscientious objections to the consumption of wine. It is what we are doing to wine in this Bill that I object to, and that is why I have to vote against it.

I consider it an insult to wine that a mixture with a different flavour is going to be marketed—that is what this Bill is concerned with—and that this will then be called wine. I would have no objection if it were called a banana cocktail with a wine flavour. That would be something different. A banana drink with a wine taste is something different, but to speak of flavoured wine as wine is totally unacceptable to me. In view of the whole history of wine production in South Africa and the position it occupies in this country and abroad, I cannot understand how a proud wine farmer, like several of my colleagues, can bear to say that he is going to sell a product and call it wine, while he knows full well that it is not wine. From what the hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Paarl said, it is very clear that it is not only going to be flavouring that is going to be added to wine, but that it will in fact involve a dilution of wine. Therefore it will no longer be wine. Call it anything else, but for goodness’ sake do not call it wine. That is all I ask.

Not only does it amount to a motion of no confidence in wine; in my opinion, it is also a motion of no confidence in the marketing strategy which can be followed in respect of the sale of wine. In other words, it means that the KWV and the wine producers are throwing in the towel, which actually implies that wine as a product cannot be sold in a responsible way so as to keep up with the production of wine. The hon member for Wellington as well as the hon member for Wynberg referred to the time when our consumption of natural wines was very low. What happened? Through the marketing strategy of Stellenbosch Fanners’ Winery, especially with regard to Lieberstein, a market was created in South Africa for light natural wines. That market, which had not existed before, was created. They did not dilute that natural wine or add any flavourings to it. It was a pure light natural wine which in fact established the wine market in South Africa. However, if we say now that the only way of dealing with the present overproduction of wine is by adding flavourings to wine or diluting it, this simply means that we have no faith in our ability to increase the consumption of wine by means of a proper marketing process. When we consider—this has been said here repeatedly—that a large part of our population are not yet wine consumers and that there will be an enormous increase in our population in the years to come, I cannot understand why we should now say in advance that we cannot increase the market by means of proper marketing in order to find an outlet for the surplus.

What I do find disturbing is the result of the surplus. There was not a single word in the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech about any wine surplus which had necessitated this Bill. All kinds of other things were mentioned, such as selling wine more easily, but the real reason is that there is a wine surplus. These are things which I cannot understand. If there is no wine surplus, then I have been misinformed and I should like to tell the hon member for Paarl that I am sorry, that I am wrong, but that this is the information which has been given to us. If there is a wine surplus, the way to dispose of it is by marketing it properly. I cannot understand why the potential market which does exist cannot be exploited by a proper marketing strategy. Is it because private initiative no longer plays the same role in the distribution of wine today as it played in the past?

Mention has been made of the KWV and the role played by the KWV, and because I am interested in wine as a noble product, I want to know whether the KWV has performed its task properly in this connection. I doubt whether the KWV has done so, and the hon member for Wynberg also referred to this. What I find especially strange is that we should at this particular stage, now that South Africa is producing quality wines, wines which can indeed be compared with the best overseas wines, wish to harm the image of our wines, and I say this in spite of what the hon member for Wynberg said. What I cannot understand is why, in the light of all the control measures which have been implemented through the years in connection with the planting of vineyards, the quota system and wine production, we should now find ourselves in a situation where it is said that we need a measure of this nature because of the surplus. Surely one would expect that a body with all the scientific control measures available to it would have taken steps to ensure a production which was more or less proportionate to the demand. I do not know whether the reason for this is that our wine farms have been over-capitalized. Perhaps the problem is that too many of the heavy-bearing varieties such as Cabernet have been planted, as against the lighter-bearing types such as Chardonnay, Merlot and others. If it is true that we have an overproduction of wine at this stage, it would appear that there has not been proper planning in this connection.

I cannot support the Bill, therefore, not on the basis of the other considerations which have been mentioned here, but because I really feel that the wine farmer will be harming his own cause by wishing to market a product under the name of wine which is in fact not wine. To me as a person who appreciates wine in my own modest way, this Bill is unacceptable for that reason.

Mr Speaker, I should like to react briefly to some of the remarks made by hon members on the opposite side of the House, and I wish to refer, in the first instance, to the abuse of liquor. I do not think that there is such a thing as the abuse of liquor. However, there is such a thing as over-indulgence in liquor. The abuse of liquor is when a person opens a bottle and let the wine run out on to the sand. That is the abuse of liquor. The hon member Prof Olivier spoke about over-indulgence in liquor. That is where the evil really lies. In addition, it was said that flavoured wine has an exceptional characteristic—and I am saying this for the information of those who have conscientious objections in particular—and that is that if one takes a mouthful and one’s faith is strong enough, it will change into water before it reaches one’s throat, and consequently, one can feel free to drink it. Thirdly, it was said that liquor does not tolerate injustice. As far as that is concerned, I believe that this amending Bill will not tolerate injustice either.

The hon member for Wynberg reacted positively, but I do want to refer to his remark about our marketing abroad. Although our foreign marketing constitutes approximately 10% to 20% of our total production, we have problems because we have to compete in the foreign markets with large quantities of wine that are placed on the market at highly subsidized prices. At present, there are recessionary conditions prevailing abroad as well, and consequently, purchasing power is weaker. Apart from that, we must never forget that South African wines are discriminated against in a subtle way and that they are even boycotted.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to flavoured wine and said that it would supposedly detract from the true image of wine. However, I believe that the allegation that flavoured wine would detract from the image of wine, is totally incorrect and misplaced. We could take other products as examples. Perhaps one is not permitted to speak about them in the same breath. However, I do just want to point out that when one adds salt and other flavouring to meat, for example, one is not detracting from the flavour and the quality of that product. The same applies to wine. Why can something not be added to wine which gives it a different flavour? Wine is still continuing to exist in its present form. It is still possible for the person who objects to salt and spices to enjoy his meat without them. Similarly, wine is still continuing to exist in its natural form, and the traditional wine-drinker can continue to enjoy it as he has done in the past. I believe that in this whole process an attempt is simply being made to make a product with a low alcohol content available, which can be a stimulating and palatable drink to meet the needs of some people. Every product that wants to justify its right to exist in every country must meet the demands of the times. Similarly, all kinds of variations of wine will have to be established in order to make it adjust to the needs and tastes of a large section of our population.

We are dealing with a tremendous surplus in the wine industry today. The hon member Prof Olivier also referred to the surplus. Firstly, I wish to point out that an important reason for this, of course, is the tremendous expansion of vineyards, in conjunction with improved planting material and methods of cultivation. Despite the control exercised, the viticultural product, just like any other agricultural product, is nevertheless subject to ordinary laws of economy, of which the law of supply and demand is probably the most important. However one tries to control it—it does not matter through which organization—it remains subject to these laws, and despite all control, eventually, when there is an economic recession or the purchasing power of people is influenced in some other way, it will simply become impossible to sell the product, with the inevitable result that there will be a surplus. The high production of the past few years, due to the reasons I have just mentioned, as well as due to the favourable climatic conditions and the greater expansion of vineyards, also includes an accompanying levelling off in the purchase and consumption of alcoholic liquor.

In addition, the wine industry also has to contend with competition. This industry has to compete in the market with other alcoholic beverages which do not come from the vine. It would therefore not be ethically correct to make propaganda against other alcoholic beverages, because a number of those alcoholic beverages come from agricultural products. Therefore, the only solution would be to propagate the product of the vine properly. This product can only be propagated and sold effectively if ways and methods for its presentation in other forms are continually sought—taking the wishes, tastes and preferences of all sections of our population into account, of course. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, I fully support the present Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am delighted that the hon member Prof Olivier raised the point he has raised here. He has indeed made the only valid point I have heard so far in this debate for opposition to this Bill. I believe his appreciation of good wine is completely understandable, and I can also fully appreciate his desire not to have such a good product adulterated by additives.

This must surely be the prerogative of wine farmers and wine producers. It should not be for us to prescribe to the wine farmers how they should be allowed to sell their wine. If, however, we are going to talk about the qualities of wine, I believe, a similar situation has arisen in connection with many other types of alcoholic beverage. Whisky, for instance, was originally purely malt. It was then blended, however, and the old purists used to say that this was a terrible practice because whisky was being destroyed in the process. It was indeed the blended whisky that became the popular seller which whisky is today through tout the world. Malt whisky is very expensive and is not very often sold. However, I want to point out to the hon Prof Olivier that I think that there is a certain amount of what I would call misinformation being disseminated in regard to the wine industry in South Africa. I am pleased to see that the hon member for Ceres is in the House because I believe he should take note of the position in South Africa in regard to Riesling wines. You see, Sir, Riesling wine in South Africa is not in fact Riesling. It is marketed as Riesling but it is not. It is a different product altogether. The Riesling in South Africa is made from a cultivar known as the Cruchen Blanc cultivar. This cultivar comes from France. In terms of our regulations we in South Africa market that product of the Cruchen Blanc vine as a Riesling, and this is totally incorrect. The Cruchen Blanc wine which is produced in France is not in fact a great wine. It is sold predominantly as a vin ordinaire in that country whereas the true Riesling originated in Germany and predominantly in the Rhine and Moselle valleys.

The situation becomes more complicated, Sir, when one realizes that in recent years large quantities of vine stocks have been imported from the true Riesling-growing areas, and that those products are now on the South African market. However, we go so far as to prevent them being sold as Riesling. Those wines which are the true Rieslings have now to be sold as a Rhine Riesling or a Weisser Riesling or a Paarl Riesling. It cannot be called just a Riesling. I believe that this is incorrect and I also believe that it is an injustice. If we want to market Rieslings overseas then we have to market a proper Riesling. I want to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister that I understand that we are not allowed to export our Rieslings from South Africa for the very reason that they are not in fact Rieslings. They cannot be sold on overseas markets because of that simple fact. I would suggest that we need a change in this situation. I believe that we should market our Rieslings as a proper Riesling and not as a product of Cruchen Blanc.

Obviously in this country we have a vast agricultural industry producing wine. This is, of course; a product that has been sold for centuries, and I have even been told by some protagonists of wine that it can be medically good for one. They point to the fact—and I say this with trepidation with the view to the hon member sitting next to me— that in certain wine-growing countries where wine consumption is quite high there is a lower incidence of heart attacks than there is in countries that do not grow wine. [Interjections.]

I believe that the wine industry which is predominantly situated in the Western Cape is in fact an extremely important part of the economy of the Western Cape. If we do not allow people to market their products in the way that they see fit then I do not believe that we can say with any justification that we are part of a free enterprise economy. I will not drink flavoured or pop wines. I prefer my wines unflavoured and I enjoy them with meals, as indeed I feel most people enjoy them. However, there will most probably be certain less sophisticated palates that will enjoy these pop wines, and if the wine farmers can find a market for their product in this way, I think it would be very wrong to attempt to prevent that type of marketing. It is normal, it is part of the free enterprise system and it should be allowed. I say this particularly when one considers the fact that spirits which have a considerably higher alcohol content than wine has are freely available. One can buy liquers that have additives in them at any bottle store. I believe that one of the latest ranges of the South African market is the Cape Velvet Cream. It is a very sweet drink. It has cream in it and it is very smooth and tasty. I am sure any child would not mind drinking it. We allow that to be sold, why then should we discriminate against the product of our Western Cape Farmers? Why should we discriminate against wine when we allow all these other liquors to be sold? We should particularly consider the fact that the alcohol content of that wine is considerably less than the alcohol content of all these other products that stand by their hundreds on the shelves of the bottlestores in South Africa. I do not believe that we should discriminate. I am very glad that the minimum content is to be as low as 6,5% because really I do not believe that this is going to be a particularly nasty product in terms of making people drunk very, very quickly and very, very easily.

I am a little bit more concerned about the provisions of the Bill and the control over flavoured wine that is given to the KWV. In the proposed section 40 we find a provision which allows the general manager of KWV to be designated by the Minister as the administrating officer for the purposes of these flavoured wines. I am not sure that it is a good move to place the administration of a product of this nature into the hands of the general manager of what is essentially a private concern. I do not think that this is correct and I wonder whether the hon the Deputy Minister would not respond to this. Would it not be better to have as administrating officer somebody in the Public Service? I am not at all sure that the small farmers will be entirely happy with the control that could be exercised by the KWV on this basis. If one reads the proposed section 40 further, one notices that even any person in the employment of the KWV may be authorized to fulfil the functions of being an administrating officer.

I think this is perhaps a more difficult subject and I believe the hon the Deputy Minister should reply because I must say that I think in the wine industry as a whole there are a lot of regulations which make it difficult for the owner of a small independent vineyard to be able to produce his product. He has difficulty, first of all, in establishing precisely what it is that he has to do because if he asks for a document to tell him what he may and he may not do, he cannot get it. He has to go to the KWV himself and there he is allowed a sight of documentation which tells him what to do. I believe that the KWV should produce some comprehensive pamphlet or booklet to tell the small independent grower of grapes for the purpose of producing wine precisely what rules and regulations he has to comply with and how he has to go about it so that he does not fall foul of the regulations in this regard. I understand it has not happened as yet; I hope it will happen in the near future.

I think also that some of these regulations should be looked at again because again the small man, the little man together with his wife and a small labour force, has a certain amount of difficulty in complying with regulations timeously because of the very size of their operation. Many of these people produce an excellent product. Some of their wines get four or five stars from the various organizations that taste and test wine. They produce a very, very good product but because they have not been able to get a certain regulation fulfilled, they cannot sell their product as a wine of origin. This makes it considerably more difficult for them.

I believe that as upholders of the free enterprise system we should give these people the right to market their wine in the particular way proposed by the Bill and therefore support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, we welcome the support of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He experienced a few sober moments in the speech he has just made, and I trust that he will have lucid moments in his other speeches, too. He has two problems with this matter, and in my opinion, these can be readily solved if one takes into account that the KWV is the controlling body for the winegrower, just as there are other controlling bodies for other sectors of farming, and as such they can surely supervise the product they look after. Furthermore, the hon member can read the information that has to be divulged to people and organizations monthly in the magazine Die Wynboer. He could even progress to the level of a winemaker if he is knowledgeable enough in this field.

It is indeed a pity that legislation which is really so simple has to be presented in such a complicated manner, as is the case with the legislation before the House at present. The question about which there is a dispute and about which we are arguing with one another is whether it should be permitted by way of legislation that flavoured wine should also be produced. Ginger wine is already being manufactured and one finds various flavours when it comes to wine and spirit aperitifs. South Africa is not sucking something out of its thumb by doing this, but it is exploiting a particular need which has already been identified as an existing need in other countries. Flavoured wine has been made successfully in the USA and Spain, whilst the European Economic Community is in the process of formulating regulations in this regard. Precisely by following up this particular need of the consumer, the opportunity is being created for flavoured wine to be manufactured for the South African market. I think that the arguments that have been raised with regard to the abuse of liquor, are by no means justified, and that the hon member for Wynberg has dealt effectively with this. It is interesting to note the deep secrets of hon members participating in the debate. One can camouflage these deep secrets to a certain extent, but this only works up to a certain point, and then one’s camouflage leaves one in the lurch. One of the keystones of the policy of the official Opposition must surely be the freedom of speech. A person must have the opportunity of putting his case, regardless of whether or not one agrees with him. In an unguarded moment an hon member on the opposite side, whilst no longer acting under the discipline of his Whip, jumped up and objected to an hon member putting his case. This was referred to as intolerance, but I think it is a very strong indictment against the deep, slumbering line of thought of members …

There is a great deal of respect for the rules of the House.

The hon member says that there is respect for the rules of the House, but I am trying, in a calm way, to show how he gave himself away as being a person who does not stand for the freedom of speech. There is no encouragement whatsoever by any organization or individual to over-indulge in liquor, but the opportunity is being created for more people to use liquor if it is to their taste. The opportunity is not being created for people to use more liquor.

The hon member Prof Olivier advanced an interesting argument, but I do not think his waterbag will hold wine. If one has good wine, that wine will by no means be threatened by another product. What is going to happen here, is that the place flavoured wine is going to occupy in the market is going to depend on the one hand on the need people have to use flavoured wine and on the other hand, on the quality of the wine which is offered. I think that no-one but the winegrowers themselves say that they have so much confidence in their own product that they will be able to resist this competition.

It is not wine.

We can conduct a technical debate about that. The hon member says that it is not wine, and there are indeed people who make a case for its being flavoured wine. What is more, it must be a natural product that must be flavoured and sweetened with natural substances. The fact is that ginger wine is already on the market and that this practice in respect of wine and spirit aperitifs exists, and I can therefore freely recommend that this Bill be read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I would like to start by addressing myself to an argument which has been raised by some of my colleagues on this side of the House, namely the question that if one speaks against this Bill, one should in order to be consistent, be against the consumption of alcohol or the importation of whisky, as mentioned earlier today.

Those of us opposed to this Bill are not speaking from any “holier than thou” attitude against drinking wine. Many of us are wine drinkers and enjoy it; we may perhaps even enjoy too much now and again. What we are concerned with is that the passing of this legislation will lead to the consumption of more alcohol and may even lead to encouraging people to consume more alcohol. I would like to address myself to this particular aspect today. Does this Bill encourage people or is it intended to encourage people to consume more alcohol or less alcohol?

What we have before us, is a very classic product differentiation exercise. This is used in all marketing circles to encourage people to consume more. We have a very good example in the dairy industry. First, we had yoghurt, after that flavoured yoghurt, then yogi-sip, sterimilk and all the other milk products which are aimed at attracting more consumers. Products are added to the range and consumers are in fact encouraged to consume more. To what extent are we doing that by providing flavoured wine on the South African market?

First of all the motivation behind the Bill—I have already said this and a few hon members have admitted it today, for example, the hon member for Gordonia who referred to the wine surplus which we have—is to encourage people to consume more wine. There are two ways in which one can do this. One can first of all turn to existing consumers and encourage them to drink more wine. This is one way in which the demand can be increased. As the hon member Prof Olivier mentioned, existing consumers have already developed their taste patterns for wine. They may consume more wine and many of them are probably consuming as much as they want to, but I believe they are certainly not going to drink much flavoured wine. When one therefore looks at ways of expanding the market, one does not turn to the existing consumers of wine but to new consumers. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also dealt with this subject. The new consumers are people who have obviously not yet developed a taste for wine or liquor of any sort. They may be young people or Black consumers, and I say this without being patronizing in any way.

What happens in the case of new consumers? Those of us who know something about agricultural marketing will realize that the scope of consumption of any product or food is limited by the capacity of a man’s stomach and what he can afford. If one wants to consume more flavoured wine, one will normally substitute it for some other product. One can substitute this product for a number of other products. One can substitute flavoured wine for wine. There is nothing bad in that. One can also substitute it for beer, and to the extent that it is still an alcoholic beverage there is also nothing bad in that. One can also substitue it for hard liquor. That is something to be encouraged. I am sure most hon members in the House would encourage that. Then of course—and this is of concern to those of us speaking against the Bill—one can substitute it for other drinks, for example drinks like maas. Many people drink that in the work-place during the lunch break. To the extent that this product is a substitute for maas, it is against the interests of the dairy farmers. I put that as a point to the hon the Minister of Agriculture. It can also be used as a substitute for cold drinks. To the extent that it is used as a substitute for a non-alcoholic beverage, I would like to argue that it is not a good thing. It can also be used as a substitute for many traditional beverages like magou which have an extremely Tow alcohol content of about 1% or 2%. I submit again that that is not a good thing. To the extent that it is freely admitted that there is a wine “lake” in this country and that it is freely admitted by all members that the intention behind this legislation is to try to get rid of this, flavoured wine is obviously going to be used as a substitute for a lot of products which people are going to be better off using, products they are presently drinking.

I believe that there is one acid test which hon members on all sides who have spoken in favour of the Bill could in fact apply. If someone representing, let us say, the manufacturers of fresh fruit drinks came along and said there was a surplus of cane spirits in South Africa and proposed that we should add cane spirits to fresh fruit juices to give them an alcohol content of up to 6%, I am prepared to bet that not a single hon member in the House would support that. I submit that in principle there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between having a flavoured wine which tastes like orange or perhaps pineapple with an alcohol content of 6% and adding cane spirits to fresh fruit drinks to help out the cane spirits producers who have a surplus of cane spirits.

I think that that is a very unfair comment. [Interjections.]

There is no difference between such flavoured wine and adding 6% cane spirits to the pineapple juice to bring it up to the same level. It will actually have the same alcohol content. One probably would not even taste the cane spirits in the fruit juice Those hon members who have had cane spirits with fruit juice, which is quite a popular sort of cocktail, can confirm that one harly tastes the alcohol in it. I submit that there is very little difference. If hon members argue that they would not support that type of legislation, I submit they should also vote against the Bill before us today.

Mr Speaker, the great majority of the hon members who have participated in this debate have been in favour of this legislation. In fact, there were basically only three hon members who were opposed to the legislation. The hon members who have supported the legislation have actually made it very easy for me to reply to the debate, because I believe that there is not a single argument advanced by the opponents of the legislation which has not already been answered by the hon members who are in favour of the legislation. Therefore I wish to convey my very sincere thanks to the hon members who have participated in the debate and who have supported the Bill.

I suppose it is necessary just to refer briefly once again to a few matters which have been raised here, although they have in many respects already been dealt with by some hon members. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, in particular, was taken to task by the hon members who supported the legislation. However, that hon member made himself unpopular—Eulenspiegel said “people hate me, but I ask for it”—in respect of this specific debate in this House. He made a few allegations which even hon members on his own side—such as the hon member for Wynberg—could not omit to reply to and to repudiate. What did the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North say? Firstly, he said that there was a so-called wine lobby in Parliament and that it was a strong lobby.

It was only a quotation from Die Burger.

But why does one use newspaper cuttings? Surely it is to confirm one’s own ideas. [Interjections.] The hon member used a quotation from a newspaper to confirm his own opinion. It would be an evil day if we started labelling one another in this House as being lobbies for certain industries, organizations or professions. We would then have to start counting how many of us are maize farmers, cattle farmers, attorneys or medical practitioners, and then we would have to take very good care, in discussing legislation in this House, that a person who was a member of such an industry or profession in his private life did not participate in the debates. How ridiculous can one be!

†The hon member referred to the drinking habits of, especially, youths. He said that flavoured wines would now create a new drinking pattern. But what is easier for a young man: To buy a bottle of wine or to buy a bottle of spirits and mix it with Coca Cola or something else?

*That is a dangerous drinking habit, because one does not know how much one is drinking. At least the man who buys a bottle of wine knows that he has a bottle of wine in his hand, but the one who buys a bottle of brandy or cane spirits and who mixes it with Coca Cola does not know how much he is drinking.

Now you are arguing against yourself.

No, I am not arguing against myself. I am simply saying that the drinking habits of our young people are much more likely to be adversely affected by the drinking of spirits than by the drinking of wine. This has been pointed out earlier in this debate, but I, too, have seldom seen people get drunk on wine, while I have seen people get drunk on spirits and mixers. This is extremely dangerous, especially, to our young people. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North does not warn against the consumption of spirits. No, he warns against the consumption of wine with a low alcohol content. Why does he not rather oppose the consumption of cane spirits, vodka and that kind of drink with a high alcohol content? Why does he not oppose the importation of cheap whisky which is being dumped in the country at low prices? Why does he not talk about that? He is a real “boerehater”. [Interjections.] He is simply against the farmers. He is talking the biggest nonsense. If one has no knowledge of the subject one is talking about, one should rather keep quiet. Listen to what the hon member said:

What nonsense! How does a wine surplus arise? Surely it does not arise because a certain part of our wine crop is used to produce wine of inferior quality. I do not know, therefore, how the hon member can say: “Most of the surplus grapes are not of the highest quality.” It is possible that we may have a good crop one year and that the grapes may be of a very high quality throughout, while they may be of a very poor quality the next year. However, a surplus has nothing to do with the quality of the grapes. This statement by the hon member is just another proof, therefore, of his complete ignorance of the matter which he spoke about. Since the hon member knows nothing about this matter, let me tell him that it sometimes happens that a farmer produces wine of an excellent quality, but as a result of marketing problems he eventually has to dispose of that wine as distilling wine, and then that high quality wine becomes surplus wine. However, this has nothing to do with the quality of the grapes. But it is not worth while devoting too much attention to the hon member, so I shall leave him at that. In any event, the hon member for Wynberg replied to him very effectively.

I should like to thank the hon member for Barberton for his support of the legislation. The hon member for Wellington spoke with knowledge and insight about an aspect of the Bill which was actually not discussed at all, and that is the way in which grapes are purchased. I also thank him for the kind words he addressed to me. It is gratifying to be able to solve a problem which has existed in our industry for many years in such a positive way and to the satisfaction of all the interested parties.

†The hon member for Mooi River made a very responsible speech, and I thank him for his support of the Bill. He mentioned that even the EEC is helpless in its efforts to dispose of a wine surplus. That is so. If one looks at the enormous surplus in the countries of the EEC—France has a surplus of approximately 250 million litres; the same applies to Italy while Spain has a surplus of more than 400 million litres—one realizes what problems one has to contend with when trying to export wine or spirits.

*Mention was made of the problems experienced by the KWV. The hon member for Wynberg said, among other things, that although he appreciated the work done by the KWV, one should nevertheless be critical of this co-operative. I agree with him, but one should also realize that the KWV has an enormous problem in marketing not only wine, but spirits as well in other countries.

†The hon member for Mooi River complimented the wine industry on its positive approach, and I agree with him in this regard. Indeed, I think it would be to their advantage if other industries in the agricultural sector would take cognizance of what the KWV is doing in an effort to solve the problem of surplus production.

*The hon member for Stellenbosch dealt very effectively with certain specious arguments advanced by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Among other things, this hon member tried to create a totally false image of the wine farmers by alleging that they simply wanted to sell more wine in order to make more money and were not in the least concerned about the consequences of alcohol abuse in this country. My sincere thanks to the hon member for Stellenbosch for doing so.

While we are on the subject of alcohol consumption—please note, consumption, not abuse—it is also interesting to note that the consumption of wine in South Africa is out of all proportion to the consumption of wine in other wine-producing countries of the world. In France, for example, the annual consumption of wine is 90 litres per capita. In Italy it is 74 litres. In Portugal it is 77 litres. In Argentina it is 63 litres. In Spain it is 60 litres. In South Africa however, the annual consumption of wine is only 9 litres per capita.

It is too inexpensive.

No, that is not the problem. Some people drink too much, perhaps. However, they should rather switch from hard tack sometimes to gentle, natural wine. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to point out that I appreciate the speech made here by the hon member for Wynberg. I appreciate it, not because he repudiated the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, but also because he pointed out quite a number of inescapable realities in the wine industry; because he took a realistic look at this whole situation. I believe that his speech did him credit. I also believe that the wine farmers will be grateful to him for making it. With regard to one statement which he made about the maintenance of quality, we must never lose sight of the fact, of course, that the Wine and Spirits Board—and I believe that is what the hon member Prof Olivier did not realize either— exercises scrupulous and vigilant control over the quality of our country’s wine. By means of our system of certification, a process in which a large percentage of our wine is involved, very thorough control is exercised. I believe, therefore, that there is no need for anyone to fear that we shall not be able to maintain the high standard of the past. This new product—I want to put it to hon members right away, also arising from what the hon member for Wynberg said— will not detract in any way from the good reputation of our country’s wine.

Flavoured wine has been commercially available for quite some time now. I am referring specifically to ginger wine, which is in fact a flavoured wine, and which is provided for in the present legislation. I want to ask the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North whether he has ever tried ginger wine. I myself have not tasted ginger wine. It seems to me that the hon member has not tasted it either. I wonder whether a single hon member in this House has ever tasted ginger wine. Ginger wine has been …

Ginger wine does not have a lobby in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, ginger wine has been commercially available for more than two years. According to figures available to me, 26 million litres of ginger wine was sold in South Africa last year. This did not harm the image of wine in South Africa either. The other day I asked the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North how much Ginger Fizz he had in his refrigerator at home. At that time he did not even know what I was talking about. He did not know what Ginger Fizz was. I think he still does not know.

I know perfectly well what it is. I also know how many Black people buy it and how pleased you are about that. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, when I asked the hon member how much Ginger Fizz he had in his refrigerator at home, his reply was that he did not like ginger beer. [Interjections.]

To come back briefly to the hon member for Wynberg, I want to say how pleased I am that the hon member referred to the tendency which exists in some quarters to attack the farmers, whether by making allegations about the so-called culture of poverty or by suggesting, as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North did, that the wine farmers are pouring their surplus wine down the throats of the public. I agree with the hon member. Why should they be singled out as the scapegoats? I am glad that the hon member raised the point and I thank him for doing so.

The hon member for Paarl made a very good speech, as usual. He pointed out that this product was nothing new, that the ancient Greeks made herb wine and honey wine, and to those we can add a whole series of products. What is interesting is the fact that it has been possible to sell flavoured wine in this country for years, provided that the alcohol content of that wine was higher than 16,2%. Now we are introducing legislation to reduce the alcohol content of these wines, and now certain hon members object to this. In the debates so far none of them have objected to the fact that flavoured wines with an alcohol content of more than 16% are already being sold in this country.

The hon member Prof Olivier seems to be a wine lover and connoisseur. He said he had a lot of wine in his cellar. He might invite us to come and taste some of his good wines. However, I think the hon member should accept that the wine farmers of this country must be among the greatest connoisseurs of wine. They must also be among the greatest wine lovers and they have the greatest respect for the product. If they have asked to be given the opportunity of marketing this new product…

But it should not be called wine.

But we are calling it flavoured wine, Sir. Does the hon member know that in Germany, which is one of the most snobbish wine countries in the world, they amended their wine legislation years ago—the hon member can go and look it up—to provide for their so-called aromatic wines? Those aromatic wines did not detract in any way from the high quality and prestige of the German wines. The French and the Italians produce flavoured wines, and these have not detracted at all from the reputation of French wine. Nor has it detracted from the prestige of the red wine of the Italians. The Spaniards have been drinking flavoured wine for years, and it has not harmed the prestige of their wines. We should simply show some realism.

In France—I think the hon member for Ceres mentioned this in his speech the other day—they produce 75 million litres of flavoured wine every year; in Italy they produce more than 200 million litres, and in the USA more than 100 million litres. The French have even made special arrangements with regard to the exportation of flavoured wine. This is nothing new in the world of wine. Why should South Africa, which is a fairly young wine country, be different from the other wine countries in the world? A country such as Germany, which is extremely highly regarded by OIV, the International Wine Organization which recently held its congress in this country, is content to allow the production of flavoured wines, so who are we to object to that?

The hon member for Gordonia said the right thing, as usual, in an amusing way. He said that one should not abuse wine and that one should not consume too much of it either, because liquor does not tolerate abuse either. That is quite correct.