Mr. Speaker, with your permission I want to make the following statement.

I do not wish to anticipate the budget for the next financial year, but it is already clear that additional revenue will be necessary for the financial year 1977-’78. In the past, however, the expectations of increased indirect taxation in the main budget have often given rise to large sales of excisable goods shortly before budget day, with a resultant loss to the Treasury.

Accordingly I have decided to announce certain tax increases now. Briefly, the increases in the customs and excise duties are as follows—

The rates of sales duty are being increased by approximately 25%, e.g. 6,5% is increased to 8%, 10% to 12,5%, 13% to 16%, 16,5% to 20,5%, 20% to 25% and 26,5% to 33%.

The tobacco industry has requested that the present ad valorem duty on pipe tobacco be substituted by a specific duty. I have decided to accede to this request and the excise duty on pipe tobacco is therefore being amended to 180c per kilogramme net on pipe tobacco in packings of less than five kilograms and 162c per kilogram net in respect of packings of five kilograms and more. In the case of imported pipe tobacco, the customs duty is amended to 180c per kilogram net plus a countervailing duty equal to customs duty. This amendment will yield no additional revenue.

The effect on the consumer price of the increases in customs and excise duty ought not to exceed the following amounts.

Whereas I require additional revenue, the present excise duty of 1c per 750 millilitres on unfortified wine, which has not been increased since 1963, is regarded as unrealistic. Since the duty on fortified wine is now being increased for the fourth time since that year and will from today pay approximately 17c per 750 millilitres, I am of the opinion that the increase of 4,3c per 750 millilitres on dry wines is not unreasonable. In this regard, therefore, I should like to point out that even after these increases, the excise duty on fortified wine will be more than three times higher than that on dry wine. The difference in retail prices between these two types of wines vary to such an extent that retail prices, in the case of certain types of more expensive unfortified wine, for example, are sometimes higher than those of fortified wine.

Although the increase in the duty on dry wine could mean that the retail price may be increased by about 4c per 750 millilitres, I want to appeal to manufacturers of this type of wine to absorb at least part of the price increase.

There is no justification for dealers not directly affected by the increases immediately to increase the prices of goods purchased at the old rates of duty. It is expected of such dealers that they will continue to sell at the ruling prices and will only adjust the prices when new supplies are received.

The estimated additional revenue during the financial year 1977-’78 resulting from the various increases is as follows—

The increases will yield no additional revenue during the present financial year.

All the amendments to the customs, excise and sales duty come into effect from 15h00 today and are being published in Gazette No. 5416. It should be noted that amendments only apply to the goods not yet cleared for home consumption, viz. not yet removed from the premises of importers and manufacturers licensed by the Department of Customs and Excise.

The House will understand that I cannot anticipate my budget speech by furnishing the full motivation for these increases at this juncture. However, I want to assure the House that the increases are essential. The increased duties will be submitted to this House for consideration during the present parliamentary session in the Second Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and hon. members will have the opportunity to discuss the increases as announced in the debate on that Bill and in the budget debate.

Is that your thanks to the voters of Durbanville?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question arising out of his statement? I believe the rules provide for it.

Order! There will be no discussion on the statement made by the hon. the Minister. I also think that it will serve no purpose to ask questions, because the statement is clear, and any information that the hon. member wants to have he can get in the Government Gazette which is available by now. Therefore I am not going to allow any questions.

Mr. Speaker, the question does not relate to information in the Government Gazette.

Order! It is in the discretion of the Chair, and in this case I want to exercise my discretion by not allowing any questions.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, at the Second Reading of this Bill we indicated that, while we were generally in accord with the purposes of the Bill which were to extend the powers and efficiency of the Fuel Research Institute in dealing with matters relating to fuel and the extension of South Africa’s fuel resources, we were not happy about the way in which it was being done and we were not happy about the Government’s failure to integrate the various bodies, organizations and Ministries which are concerned with matters relating to fuel. We have therefore chosen clause 2 as a means of expressing our discontent.

For reasons which I explained during the Second Reading, we believe that the proposal to substitute the words “State President” by the word “Minister” indicates a moving away by the Government from its obligation to make energy questions a subject of coordinated action by various Ministries, and tends to concentrate power in respect of these matters in the hands of a single Minister who is himself not wholly responsible for every aspect of the energy question. We believe that this is, at least symbolically, a retrograde step.

We would have welcomed a move in the opposite direction. We would have been much happier to see in a Bill of this nature a provision—in clause 2 or any other appropriate clause—for the extension of cooperation in energy matters. We have raised the subject on numerous occasions and I do not intend to labour the point this afternoon. I think the hon. the Minister understands very well what my objection is and what my desire is in respect of energy matters and the co-ordination of energy matters by the Government.

We shall therefore vote against this clause, not because of an objection to the specific provisions in relation to the organization as is proposed, but to afford us an opportunity to express our displeasure and disappointment at the Government’s failure to do those things which we believe should be done for the co-ordination of fuel policy in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to repeat what I have already said during the Second Reading debate, and that is that the changes being made to section 3 of the principal Act, by clause 2 of the Bill we are now considering, do not constitute a retrograde step at all in the co-ordination of matters related to energy. I do not think it is correct to interpret the amendment, contained in clause 2, as a further disintegration of responsibility for the provision of energy. All this really means is that we should like to enhance the organizational procedure with a view to speeding up decision-taking. Secondly, the matters entrusted to the State President, as a duty or responsibility in terms of the existing section 3, are of such a nature that they can also be dealt with at ministerial level. Thirdly, these proposals are in accordance with the principles which the House has already accepted in various instances.

I want to point out that I join the hon. member for Von Brandis in support of the principle that there should be efficient and effective co-ordination of energy matters. I agree with him that various facets of this, and various energy sources, are the responsibility of various departments at the moment. However, let me say at once that the fact that the appointment of the board in this connection is a function which is being transferred from the State President to the Minister, does not mean that there is no co-ordination between the various Ministers, for the simple reason that the Minister does not appoint a board of this size in his personal capacity; it is approved and cleared by the Cabinet in any event. In other words, any appointments I make in this particular connection are, in any event, submitted to the Cabinet before the appointments are made so that there can be no suggestion, in practice, that other colleagues no longer have the right to advise concerning the appointment of the board.

Finally I should like to assure the hon. member that the Government is in earnest about bringing about proper co-ordination in regard to the energy aspect so that there will be a co-ordinating level in this particular connection, in the first instance in regard to the scientists and, in the second instance, co-ordination at Cabinet level by the energy committee of the Cabinet. It may be quite possible, in future, for these two bodies concerned with the co-ordinating function, to make suggestions for achieving effective co-ordination in terms of the implementation of recommendations. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that I share his standpoint in regard to the need for coordination and that I shall do everything in my power to be of assistance in this particular respect.

Mr. Chairman, I happily accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, but I should like to add that we have not yet seen the necessary proof. In the House recently I put a question to another hon. Minister in connection with the interdepartmental committee, and he conceded in his reply that since the middle of last year only one meeting of the interdepartmental committee had taken place. I was not allowed to ask how many meetings of the Cabinet Committee had taken place to consider the question of energy. If the hon. the Minister wishes to give me any assurances in that connection, perhaps I shall happily be able to accept them too. However, I must say that if there had been more evidence of progress in the sphere of the co-ordination of energy, we would not have taken the step we are going to take now in opposing the clause. We do this simply as a symbolic gesture of our dissatisfaction with the progress made in the sphere of the co-ordination of our energy policy in South Africa.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would explain the new section 5(4), which reads—

This is a departure from normal public service practice where the conditions of service, relating mainly to the scale of salaries, etc., are in fact available for public information. I hope the hon. the Minister will at least give us the assurance that if it is considered not to be in the general interest to publish the salaries or other conditions of service, they may be made known to this House in such circumstance as may be necessary. I believe it would be a very wrong principle for public institutions to employ staff under conditions which are not available to this House. I should be glad to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why he thinks such a provision is necessary and to have an assurance from him that the information can be made available if it is required for the purposes of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member refers to the section now being amended by clause 3, he will see—I shall read it very quickly—that there is no requirement for the conditions and salary scales to be published. I should like to give the hon. member the immediate assurance that in the provision of the conditions of service and the salary scales of boards of this nature, we try to adopt the structures of the public sector, for example the Public Service. I also want to assure the hon. member that any such information will be announced in the reports we discuss here.

Clause agreed to.

New clause (to follow clause 4):

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This basically comes down to the fact that the board will now also have the right to appoint committees and persons in private practice in order to carry out tests and analyses instead of just grading.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom because it is an amendment consequent on the amendment contained in clause 1.

New clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to point out that the replacement of the words to which we took exception in clause 2 also occurs in clause 7, but because we have already made our point we shall not oppose this particular clause, despite the apparent inconsistency in not doing so.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed Bill has two objectives, namely—

1. (1) to provide enabling powers for the increase of the existing levy on fuel by 2 cents per litre as from 10 January 1977. This has already been announced by the Government during January; and
2. (2) to repeal section 3 of the Finance Act, No. 72 of 1975. In this regard I want to point out that I shall have to move an amendment because of the Finance Consolidation Act that has already been passed this session.

It is essential that the additional funds which will become available from the increased levies be placed at the disposal of Sasol for the Sasol 2 project as soon as possible. However, the Finance Act is normally one of the measures that only receive attention towards the end of the parliamentary session and as it is not possible to wait until then for the necessary powers to regulate the allocation of these additional funds, it has been decided to embody the existing provisions of section 3 of the Finance Act, 1975 in a separate Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated earlier this year at a Press conference in Cape Town, on 7 January 1977, what reasons compelled the Government to increase the existing levies on fuel by 2 cents per litre.

Although these reasons were fully reported in the Press and it is assumed at this point in time that the motivation for this step by the Government is common knowledge, I should nevertheless like to repeat the following salient points for purposes of our present discussion.

*In the light of the prevailing international economic and political conditions, and especially by reason of the pressure which is being brought to bear upon South Africa from outside, it is obviously of the utmost importance for South Africa to be self-sufficient as far as possible and in this way to reduce the vulnerability of our national economy to attempts at isolating us economically.

In this connection, the Government has taken three major steps as a first phase of policy action aimed at achieving the said objective, namely—

1. (a) the build-up of strategic supplies of raw materials, including crude oil, which it will be possible to draw on in an emergency until such time as satisfactory alternate resources can be found;
2. (b) the erection of the Sasol 2 project in order to render the Republic less dependent on sources of imported crude oil; and
3. (c) the continued attempts, amongst other things, to look for oil deposits on our own soil by means of the activities of Soekor.

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that in addition to the high priority given to expenditure on the strengthening of our national defence, the Government is also giving high priority at the moment to restoring the equilibrium in our balance of payments. A variety of measures have already been taken in this connection, including the tightening of our fuel conservation measures, because expenditure on imported crude oil and petroleum products constitutes such an important part of our total expenditure on foreign exchange. In this connection it is also important to point out that the Sasol 2 project, when it has been fully commissioned, will save our country an estimated R350 million a year in foreign exchange.

As regards the Sasol 2 project as such, the total cost of its construction, at a cost escalation of 8% a year, is estimated at approximately R2 458 million, and the project will be financed from the following four sources—

1. (a) Funds appropriated by the Treasury from time to time;
2. (b) Export credits obtained from countries of origin of capital goods and other equipment;
3. (c) The Strategic Oil Fund—in the Bill before the House, its name is being changed into the State Oil Fund;
4. (d) Financing by Sasol from its own reserves.

†Due to the problems being experienced at present in regard to the availability of funds from both the local and overseas money resources, it is essential that bigger sacrifices and contributions be made by South Africans in order to assist with the financing of this project which I believe is of the utmost importance to the country.

As a consequence the Government has been obliged to increase the excise duty on petrol, diesel oil and liquid petroleum gas by 2 cents per litre as from 10 January 1977 for purposes of strengthening the State Oil Fund, as it will be known in future, as part of the financing programme in respect of Sasol 2. Corresponding increases in the maximum prices of the products concerned have been introduced, but the increased duty has not been made applicable to those products already subject to a rebate of excise duty.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has pointed out, the State Oil Fund Bill, which we have before us today, is really, in a sense, a reprint of a Bill which has previously been before this House. It appeared as clause 3 of a Finance Bill that appeared before this House in 1975, a Bill which was passed. However, in view of the consolidation of various Finance Bills, a step which has also been approved by this House, this Bill, which forms no part of the newly consolidated Finance Bills, has had to be dealt with separately. It comes before this House afresh. It contains new financial provisions, in fact a doubling of the original financial provisions, and therefore it is open for discussion by the House for a second time. While we do, of course, in terms of the rules, have the opportunity to re-discuss the entire Bill or the entire provision, we do not feel it necessary to do so at any length because the points we made in 1975 remain valid now. Nevertheless, there are two points I wish to make quite clearly. The first is the point we made in 1975, a point which remains valid now. We expressed a strong cautionary word against the use of State revenues for the creation or erection of State corporations in such a manner that the State acquires greater control of sources of energy or other sectors of the private economy at the expense of the taxpayer and possibly to his eventual disadvantage. In the case of Sasol, however, we made it clear that because of the energy crisis which we face, and the strategic importance of the oil situation and its significance in our economy, at least for the foreseeable future, we were not opposed to the erection of Sasol 2 nor to the provision of a certain amount of aid to Sasol in the erection of its plant. Nevertheless, the fears we have about the steady encroachment by the State upon the terrain of private enterprise, remain valid and have been strongly reinforced in public by a certain financier and by others. Those persons have reinforced the arguments we have used in this House on previous occasions.

I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister can help me in this respect. Since we were moving on from Sasol 1, whose purpose, quite clearly, was strategic if not wholly economic at the prices that prevailed during its earlier existence, we had hoped that with the greater efficiency of Sasol 2 and with the greatly increased price of petroleum products, it would in fact be possible for Sasol 2 to produce such products at prices competitive with world prices for imported products. It may be difficult for the hon. the Minister to give me a specific reply. If it is possible for him to do so with due regard to strategic considerations, it would be a great reassurance to those who are being asked to approve additional contributions being made from revenue for the creation of a great new industry, to learn that this industry will in fact be producing a product at a competitive price and that, once Sasol 2 has been erected, it will not in future continue to be dependent on constant and continuous subsidies by the State in order to make the product competitive.

Mr. Speaker, may I just put a question to the hon. member to make sure that I do not misunderstand him? I presume the hon. member is referring to the production cost of petrol itself and of petroleum products?

Yes, Sir, I had hoped to make that clear. That is what I was referring to. While, as I say, we accept the strategic necessity for Sasol, even though it may be uneconomic, and while we accept its overriding strategic importance, we would nevertheless, in view of the changed economic circumstances, welcome an assurance from the hon. the Minister that we may look forward to the time when this plant, by virtue of its greater efficiency and by virtue of the changed cost of imported oil, will in fact be able to produce petrol and petroleum products for South Africa at such a price that continuous subsidization by the State will not be required.

These are the major points we wish to make. We believe that, in the main, the energy sources of South Africa should as far as possible be financed out of the resources of private enterprise. This is in fact what has happened in respect of the coal industry. As a fuel producer of a primary nature, the coal industry in this country has been developed at great cost by private enterprise, has been expanded at great cost by private enterprise and has made a major contribution to the economy of this country by supplying coal for the purpose not only of heating or industrial furnaces, but also of generating electricity. This is living proof to us that private enterprise, given its proper opportunities, can in fact make the contributions that are necessary for the development of our economy.

It is regrettable that in the case of the oil-from-coal industry we have had to have recourse entirely to a State-controlled corporation. There are, admittedly, other factors at stake. There may even have been an unwillingness on the part of private enterprise to undertake the very vast capital investment required. We would like to believe that, as the country moves forward, we will move increasingly towards private participation in the creation of the energy resources of this country. Just as there is already a measure of participation by private enterprise in the coal industry, we should like to see, eventually, in the oil-from-coal industry, greater participation by private enterprise in investment, management and the other aspects of the development of this great industry.

Having made that point, I shall leave it to my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, briefly to make again the point which he made in the debate in 1975. We still stand by the principles which applied then. Given this Bill on review this year, so to speak, we should like to make these points briefly once again.

Mr. Speaker, I think I am right in saying that I have detected a fresh and responsible breeze blowing from the side of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

Is that possible?

One may well ask whether it is possible. I remember that in the days when Sasol 1 was established, the Government had to put up with severe criticism before it was established, but today there can be no doubt about the fact that the existence of Sasol 1 is of incalculable value to South Africa. In fact, the existence of Sasol 1 has enabled South Africa’s technology to take the lead internationally in the production of oil energy from coal. South Africa is certainly the world leader in that field. Now I can understand why the hon. member for Von Brandis is afraid that the State will interfere too much with private initiative and why he would prefer Sasol 2 to be operated by private initiative. In my opinion, this will not be practicable, because the technology, the knowledge of the industry, belongs to Sasol 1. In spite of the criticism expressed over the years, Sasol 1 has acquired the technical know-how, and now one can expect the establishment of Sasol 2 to be a continuation of Sasol 1.

The hon. member did not refer to the levy. This may have been wise, but according to a reply given by the hon. the Minister to a question, it is anticipated that R218 million will become available from the oil fund this year for meeting the costs connected with the erection of Sasol 2. I think it was wise of the hon. member not to refer to the levy as such. He referred more to the principle that the State has to provide money for it every year. However, I can tell the hon. member that the travelling public, the motorist, the people who consume the fuel, are quite satisfied to have the State obtain funds in this way for the erection of Sasol 2. There can be no doubt about the fact, neither on the part of the Opposition or on the part of the public, and certainly not on the part of the world at large, that Sasol 2 will be the vital energy artery of our transport industry if circumstances should occur which one may perhaps expect, but which one hopes will never arise. Let us suppose that in another ten years or so there is a further energy crisis in the world, without speculating as to its nature. If Sasol 2, together with Sasol 1, can enable South Africa to keep going just the basic transport industry in South Africa which is dependent on fuel, one and all will extol this wise step taken by the Government, not only in respect of Sasol 2, but also in respect of the erection of Sasol 1. They will even be able to write a book about it! I feel so strongly about this matter that South Africa should use its coal resources in order to avoid the energy crisis with which South Africa might be faced, that I think it would contribute a great deal to preserving our Western way of life in South Africa.

The hon. member did not refer to the saving in foreign exchange which this will make possible to us. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, the hon. the Minister pointed out that by the year 1985, South Africa’s net saving in foreign exchange will amount to R230 million a year. Then, after 1985, the net saving will amount to approximately R350 million a year. This is immense progress which South Africa is making in this respect with the erection and establishment of Sasol 2.

Another matter which may be overlooked is that as a result of our policy of decentralization of industries, a growth point will arise in the constituency of the hon. member for Bethal, which will be of great economic value to that area. It will mean jobs for thousands of people and it will be a growth point which in that respect will mean a great deal to South Africa as a whole.

Since the Opposition does not have any strong objections to the Bill, I just want to say that we on this side of the House support the hon. the Minister and the Government in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there are two very interesting issues that have been raised in respect of this matter so far. The first is the issue of free enterprise as against State enterprise. The second is the method of financing and the allegation by the hon. member who has just sat down that motorists are in fact happy to be paying the increase in charges in respect of fuel. I want to deal, if I may, very briefly with this last remark. Our view is, with respect, that in so far as the financing of Sasol 2 is concerned, this is not a matter which is solely in the interests of motorists. In the words of the hon. the Minister himself and of his predecessor, in so far as this is concerned, it is alleged to be a project which is in the national interest as a whole. It is not merely a motorists’ project. The tragedy in South Africa at the present moment is that the motorist is being regarded as a milk-cow. One can keep on milking the motorist. One can keep on taking more and more out of the pockets of the motorist, not only for this project, but for every other one as well. With great respect, it is utterly wrong to expect the financing of Sasol 2 to be the responsibility of the motorist. It is wrong to make that submission.

I have to say here, so that there is no misunderstanding, that the reason why these higher levies are being imposed, is a very simple one. That is that the Government is unable to obtain the adequate capital by way of loans. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister shakes his head and says: “Ag, nonsense!” May I then quote the hon. the Minister of Finance, who, of course, is inevitably right? He said quite clearly, in Hansard, col. 3406, on March 26, 1975, that the capital funds are not available for this.

Well, I have said so myself!

Why then shake your head and say “nonsense!” when I say it?

I did not say “nonsense”.

You mean, you have already forgotten what you said in your speech?

Order! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has forgotten what he said in his speech. That is the reason. The reason is the inability of the Government to raise the necessary capital. That is why the motorist is being milked. The truth is that, because of the image of this Government, because of the lack of confidence in this Government, the motorist is being milked. [Interjections.] That is the truth of it, Sir. If I may, I want to deal with the hon. member for Von Brandis and his statement concerning free enterprise. We in these benches support fully the concept of free enterprise, but let us put a few points here, points which, I believe, should be borne in mind. In the first place, Sasol 1 was in fact started by free enterprise, and free enterprise was unable to bring it to finality. That is a fact. The second point is that, in respect of the capital requirements of Sasol 2—and I shall deal with them in detail in a moment—I do not believe that free enterprise would be able at this moment in time actually to raise this kind of money in this kind of economic climate. Therefore, even though one advances the cause of free enterprise, one has to be realistic that when something is in the national interest and free enterprise is unable to do it, then there is a responsibility on the State to do it. That is why, in these circumstances, we support the concept of Sasol 2 being promoted by the State, as opposed to free enterprise. That does not derogate from our championing of the cause of free enterprise. I believe it is a strategic necessity. It is an obvious situation where free enterprise cannot meet demands.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put some specific questions to the hon. the Minister in respect of the project, its cost and its viability from a number of aspects. I want to approach it quite calmly and quietly because this is an economic matter and not a political one. I hope the hon. the Minister will do the same. The Minister has indicated that the cost of this project at the present moment is estimated at just over R2½ billion. In 1974 the cost of this project was estimated, on 1974 prices, at just over R1 billion. In other words, the increased cost from 1974 to 1975 has been R1½ billion, which is two and a half times higher. That is what it says and I can quote Hansard when this matter was originally debated.

I have indicated that the estimate of R2,458 billion includes the escalation of 8% per year …

That is correct; I accept that. Originally the completion cost, on the basis of the 1974 situation, was estimated at just over R1 billion. We do not disagree on that. I am assuming that this estimate that the hon. the Minister gives now is the estimate as to what the final cost will be when the project is finished and that it will not increase further.

Yes, provided the cost escalation does not change.

I am working on that assumption. If I am correct in those assumptions—and I am basing them on the hon. the Minister’s figures—then the saving in foreign exchange, which it is alleged will take place, will by 1985 be just over R280 million per annum and will thereafter develop to R350 million per annum. In other words, we are basing this investment on a 12½% basis in respect of the capital investment. That will be foreign exchange that we will save. In order to test the viability of the project from a foreign exchange point of view, the hon. the Minister has now got to tell us how much of the amount of just over R2½ billion will be expended by the Government in foreign exchange. How much will be spent in foreign currency in order to bring about a saving of R280 million and later on R350 million per year? We need those figures to check whether this is a viable proposition from the point of view of saving foreign exchange. The hon. the Minister must tell us now how much of the R2½ billion is going to be spent locally, how much of the local expenditure will have a foreign content and how much of it will be spent overseas. If we spend the bulk of this money in foreign exchange, it may well not be a viable proposition from the point of view of foreign exchange savings. The hon. the Minister has now got to take us into his confidence and tell us exactly what the position is. It is not enough to say …

I shall do that.

I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister. It is not enough to say what local purchases are, because we know that local purchases also have a foreign exchange content.

There are of course two other issues relating to viability. The one is the question of what one could call the strategic importance of this project, i.e. that if oil boycotts should come about, this will help to alleviate the boycotts. I want to concede immediately that this cannot be measured in terms of money, because survival one does not measure in terms of money. If this is a major reason for the project, then that is an argument in which we cannot start talking in terms of financial viability. The third one is whether, from an investment point of view, this is a viable proposition. In other words, what in fact does the hon. the Minister tell us will be the income which this State corporation, which is going to own Sasol 2, will have and what kind of return will it show on the capital invested? If we talk about a foreign exchange saving of eventually some R350 million, that cannot be the profit. The profit must then be quite a lot lower. If we are then talking in terms of those figures, it looks to me that it does not from an economic point of view appear to be a very attractive investment proposition. We need again to be taken into the hon. the Minister’s confidence. He should tell us what the viability studies are as to what is anticipated not only will be the foreign exchange saving—which is what we won’t have to pay for oil—but also what the anticipated gross profit and the anticipated net profit will be when this project comes into effect and is finally completed.

I want to say just one word on the question of other State corporations and their accountability to Parliament. What concerns many of us sitting in these benches, is that the multiplicity of State corporations which are not accountable to Parliament—when once Parliament has voted the money, the control over these is lost entirely—seems to multiply again and again as we go on in our economic existence. Sooner or later a halt will have to be called to the creation of more State corporations.

I want to conclude on this point and say that the hon. member for Von Brandis said that clause 1 was virtually a re-enactment of the existing section. With respect, I want to say that he is right, except for a very material thing. If one looks at clause 1(1)(a), one sees that the 7,4 cent is an increase from 3,7 cent and the 4 cent from 2 cent, and the most material difference between this and the existing Act is that it is quite clear, as I indicated right at the beginning, that the motorist is being mulcted with regard to this matter. The motorist is expected to pay the whole bill.

I want to come back to clause 1(2), i.e. the acquisition of coal and the exploitation thereof. The hon. the Minister should tell us whether, as a matter of principle, it is in any way intended at any time to go beyond the exploitation of coal specifically for the Sasol 2 project, because the powers that are given here will in fact mean that it can go into competition with the coal mines in the hands of private enterprise. He should tell us what the long-term intentions are and whether this should not be limited to the acquisition of coal and the exploitation thereof for the purpose of the manufacture of liquid fuel and not in its broadest sense. One would like that to be answered.

Lastly, I want to come back to the other objects to which the fund is to be applied. Does the hon. the Minister not believe—I know it is a re-enactment of the existing section—that if there are going to be other objects of this fund, Parliament should again have a say with regard to that matter? In other words, we know that one can use it for strategic oil, for manufacturing oil and to stock-pile and all those things that we have been told about. If, however, one intends to go beyond what Parliament has been told, then I believe the opportunity for Parliament to decide upon that issue, should be given to us. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance is not present, because to a large extent it is a financial matter we are now debating. When it was previously enacted in a similar form it was part of a finance Bill and was dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I say that because the Bill before us does have very definite and close financial implications.

The hon. member for Von Brandis, in his speech earlier this afternoon, indicated that there were two aspects of this Bill which we took into serious consideration. The first is the actual merits of the establishment of Sasol 2 and the second is the method of financing the erection and establishment of Sasol 2 as it is contained in this measure. As far as the merit of the establishment of Sasol 2 is concerned, let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that we on this side of the House support that.

South Africa may be relatively less dependent on oil as a source of energy than other countries; nevertheless, we are subject and vulnerable to problems of the supply of crude oil and we are certainly not immune from the problems that arise out of the incessant increases in the price of crude oil. In addition to that I think that we can say that we are fortunate in this country in that we have, through the establishment of Sasol and its successful operation, gained know-how that should be valuable in establishing the very great asset we will have in Sasol 2. We have an abundant supply of suitable coal, which can be mined relatively economically, and there should be no doubt that, over the years, Sasol 2 will be a viable proposition. While we are completely happy about going ahead with Sasol 2, we are certainly not happy about the method the Government has adopted in financing Sasol 2.

I believe that in a capital hungry venture—Sasol 2 is a very hungry venture as far as capital is concerned—capital should be sought as far as possible in the normal manner, i.e. from the domestic capital market and from the capital markets of the world. I am very conscious of the present problems of raising capital in the quantity required by Sasol. Internally South Africa’s savings are being squeezed on the one hand by the lack of growth in the economy and on the other hand by the continual rise in prices.

Externally we have the problem of raising capital, which is caused by the view which foreign investors are at present taking of investing in South Africa. Generally on account of Government policy they view this market as one which is not in the top bracket as far as investment is concerned. Nevertheless I believe more should have been done in so far as the financing of Sasol 2 is concerned, to try to raise capital by borrowing for that purpose rather than by means contained in this Bill. Here I do not suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance should take a larger slice of the savings of institutions and pension funds as he at present is doing. I made two suggestions during the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill in regard to methods of raising further capital by the State. The first suggestion I made then was that we are not taking as much advantage of tax-free bond issues as we have in the past. The hon. the Minister of Finance did come back to me on that point and say that there were still tax-free bonds available, but the position is that many of the people would be taking up tax-free bonds have already reached their limit as far as tax-free investments are concerned and in total tax-free investments are considerably less available than they were some years ago.

The other suggestion I made, which the hon. the Minister of Finance turned down, was the issue of an index-linked bond. I still believe that that is a method of raising funds which would be successful and which would be well worth trying in South Africa. There are other ideas which could be implemented to stimulate savings to provide money by way of loans for ventures such as Sasol. What disturbs me in regard to the financing of Sasol is, however, that apparently no effort is being made to provide a larger part of the Sasol capital by way of borrowing.

I am altogether opposed in principle to the system of raising money in the way that is envisaged in this Bill, in other words by squeezing it out of the consumer and particularly by squeezing it out of the motorist by raising taxes on petroleum products. This is inflation pure and simple. This is a case—and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs interjected earlier this session to enquire as to what I had in mind—of putting up administered prices when it is not altogether necessary to do so.

I say it is not altogether necessary to do so because no attempt has been made to provide finance by methods. I am not in any position to calculate accurately what the effect on the cost of living will be of this 4 cent levy on petrol that is contained in this Bill, but I do know that when the first instalment of 2 cents per litre was introduced in the 1975 budget, it was estimated that it was going to yield the sum of R117 million in a full year. Now that amount per litre has been doubled and I would suggest that it would not be an unfair suggestion that the total cost to the consumer of this levy on petrol will be in the neighbourhood of R250 million per annum. If that amount is related to the total of the private consumption expenditure, it amounts to 2%. If on the other hand it is related to the total consumption expenditure, it amounts to approximately 1½%, and if it is related to total expenditure, which includes investment expenditure, it amounts to approximately 1%. Whichever of those percentages one chooses, the effect of this levy on petrol to finance Sasol is very considerable in so far as its impact on the cost of living is concerned. These figures that I have indicated take no account of the cascading effect which an imposition of this nature on the price of petrol has. Petrol is a particularly sensitive commodity. It forms part of the cost of virtually every type of business, of manufacturing, of farming, of all sorts of institutions and of the cost of living of every person. It has an effect that ripples right throughout the economy and expands at every turn. I believe that an imposition of this nature, at a time when inflation is a major factor holding back the growth of our country and therefore causing unemployment, can only be undesirable and thoroughly unsound if there are other means of raising the required capital. The effect of this type of financing is also to subsidize future consumers at the expense of today’s hard-pressed consumer, particularly today’s hard-pressed motorist. It is forcing today’s taxpayer and today’s motorist to provide interest-free capital for Sasol 2 to subsidize the motorist of the future. I can see little justification for doing that if capital can be obtained from other sources. Sasol 1 has paid its way. It borrowed most of its requirements. It has been able to service its debts without great difficulty.

And pay its debts.

In other words, it has been able to stand the test of competing in the market for its capital. That is the acid test of the viability of any venture. I see no reason why Sasol 2 should not be subject to the same standards of financial performance as was Sasol 1.

While we shall support this measure because of our attitude towards the establishment of Sasol 2, we would like the Government to take full note of our views of the methods of financing it, particularly our views in regard to the effect that this method of financing has on the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Yeoville. I understood him to say that the motorist is being made to pay the whole bill. I also understood the hon. member for Constantia to say that the money was being squeezed out of the consumer. In order to alleviate any confusion, I wonder if the hon. the Minister would mind explaining the matter when he replies to the debate. I understood the hon. the Minister to say that it was not only the motorist or the consumer who was paying. He said there are four sources paying the bill. He said firstly that the Treasury was making certain advances. Secondly, he said that there were export loans involved. Thirdly, he mentioned the State Oil Fund, and I assume that is where the consumer comes in. Fourthly, he mentioned the financing by Sasol itself. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister would be doing the House a service if he explained to us to what extent each of these four components was doing the financing because I think there may be some misunderstanding in that regard. The PRP and the official Opposition say they are opposed to the petrol price increase. I can tell them that we are too. Everybody is against the petrol price increase. However, if one looks at the times we live in and the urgency of the situation, one realizes that Sasol 2 is a matter of urgent priority. It is necessary for all of us to make sacrifices and we, for our part, will encourage South Africans to make the necessary sacrifices. If the official Opposition or the PRP wants to discourage South Africa from making those sacrifices, let it be on their consciences. We fully support the concept of free enterprise and we also fully support the fact that free enterprise should, if possible, take over all these projects, but one has not noticed any free enterprise operation coming forward for this particular project. I am certain that if a free enterprise operation wanted to come in on this project, it would have volunteered some time ago, so one can only assume that free enterprise does not want to participate in this particular project at this point in time. However, at a later stage, when the project is on its feet, one may find that free enterprise is interested.

The other question I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that of State corporations. The hon. the Minister will know that when it comes to the question of State corporations, and more particularly Iscor, the hon. the Minister is very backward in coming forward. We find this with reports. We also find that when questions are asked in the House, many of those questions are disallowed. When it comes to the State Oil Fund, would the hon. the Minister not consider being a little more frank with us than in the case of the other corporations we have had experience of in the past?

As a matter of general policy, we are opposed to taxing the taxpayer to provide funds that should be obtained by way of loan capital, as in this particular case. However, it is our view that at present the capital market is very difficult and that it is not easy to obtain funds, while Sasol 2 is a scheme which must enjoy urgent priority. By way of a reply to a question I put on the Order Paper, I learnt that Sasol 2 will give a net saving of approximately R230 million per year up to 1985. I understood the hon. member for Yeoville to say that the figure would be R280 million per year, but according to the reply I received the figure is R230 million per year, up to 1985 after which it will save R350 million per year in foreign exchange. This sum of money is a tremendous motivating factor as far as we are concerned.

We take it that the Bill has been brought forward at this early stage because the money is required sooner. Normally this Bill would have been introduced in the June part of the session when it would have been contained in the Finance Bill. I presume it has been introduced earlier because the cash is required earlier.

In the circumstances and despite our objections to the method of financing, we are convinced that it is in the interests of the country that we support every effort to make Sasol 2 as viable as possible and as soon as possible. We strongly disapprove of the form of indirect taxation to finance this project which requires loan capital. However, bearing in mind the state of the capital market and the urgency of completing Sasol 2 as soon as possible, we are not going to oppose this measure. We are, however, going to ask the hon. the Minister to review the higher rates on petrol and petroleum products and to reduce these as soon as the economy allows it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for supporting the legislation, even if that support was not as enthusiastic as one would have expected under the circumstances. By way of various principles, I shall attempt to react to the objections, arguments and questions which hon. members put forward. Allow me to explain at once that one of the queried aspects put forward in this regard is an aspect we have had to listen to repeatedly during this session, viz. the State’s participation, whether direct or through an agency, in the economic life of our country. As far as this particular subject is concerned, inasmuch as it is relevant to the financing of the commodity, as provided for in this Bill, I think that the hon. member for Yeoville has repeatedly stated the fundamental standpoint, which I have already stated inside and outside this House, namely that although the Government fundamentally endorses the free economy system—as manifested in the profit motive, it being a system in which the marketing mechanism is responsible for the mobilization of production sectors—there are nevertheless certain circumstances and reasons why, in many cases, the State has a responsibility to intervene in economic life. One of those considerations which I am very much aware of and which is particularly relevant at this stage is naturally the strategic consideration to which hon. members referred. Allow me to say immediately that I do not think anyone wants to argue, as far as assuring oil supplies is concerned, that there are insufficient grounds to warrant the State having not only the right but, in my opinion, also a duty, to make its contribution in this specific regard. In my opinion the hon. member for Von Brandis quite rightly referred repeatedly to the importance of energy and sources of energy, particularly in the times we are living at present. I want to say at once that in that regard there ought to be no misgivings about Sasol 2 at this stage. As hon. members are aware, Sasol was established as a company in terms of the Companies Act. Shareholding in Sasol is regulated by the IDC. I think we have to say in praise of Sasol 1 that right from the start, it has fulfilled its obligations towards its shareholders. The actual facts indicate that it is not only operating at a profit, but also that it pays the IDC approximately R8 million per year in dividends on its shareholding in Sasol 1 and that these funds, in turn, are employed by the IDC for the development of the border industries. Demands could otherwise have been made upon the State. Secondly, I want to hasten to assure the hon. member for Von Brandis that there is really no question of subsidising Sasol’s processes and that the company is operating competitively. The hon. member is aware that the manufacture of Sasol’s petroleum products actually involves two raw material sources at the moment, firstly coal and secondly, crude oil which it processes into petrol in its refinery. For that reason there is not the slightest doubt as far as I am concerned, that it is an economic proposition at this stage.

In reply to the question the hon. member for Yeoville put to me, I want to say that before a decision was taken on Sasol 2, there was in fact a feasibility study committee with the Secretary for Finance as chairman. I immediately concede that there are two reasons why Sasol 2 has to be built. The first is the strategic considerations I have already referred to and the second is economic considerations. The hon. member will understand that the two are interwoven and not easily separable. After all, this is of economic advantage and value, apart from the strategic aspect, in the sense that we are assured of at least a part of our source of energy for mobility consumption. As such, this also has an economic value per se.

I want to point out further that Sasol 1 and Sasol 2 have certain rights to the exploitation of coal. The hon. member for Von Brandis asked me to give him the assurance that the exploitation of coal would be employed for the purposes of Sasol 2 and that it would not be undertaken for purposes of competition with the private sector. I am not an expert on the technical attributes of coal. I want to tell the hon. member at once, however, that we are acquiring the mines for the purposes of Sasol 2 itself. At this stage I do not know whether there are, in fact, different types or qualities that cannot be used in processing for that particular purpose. If there are, Sasol 2 would have to get rid of them in some or other way. The primary assurance he wants, however, is that Sasol should chiefly limit its mining activities to its own requirements, and I give him the immediate assurance that this is my standpoint and the standpoint of Sasol 2 in this regard.

The hon. member for Germiston District quite rightly supported the legislation and gave us his reasons for doing so.

The hon. member for Yeoville says there are two aspects which ought to receive consideration. One is the method of financing and the second is the argument about the State’s participation. The hon. member for Yeoville said that since this legislation has economic implications, I ought to limit my reaction to the economic aspect. I object to his making the statement that the Government’s image—as he called it—is the reason why the flow of capital to our country is not adequate for our capital requirements. I think that he, of all the members of this House, must ask himself to what extent members of his party are responsible for foreign countries’ confidence or lack of confidence in South Africa.

We create confidence.

The hon. member is aware of the fact that after one of the exponents of his party’s philosophy had spoken about what he could do about investment in South Africa if he were a foreigner, the hon. member himself had to stand up and ask him a leading question to put him on the right track. The hon. member knows how much harm Dr. Zac de Beer has done South Africa with the utterances he was reported to have made. I find it strange that the hon. member can come and tell me, under these circumstances, that South Africa’s image is the cause of our not being able to obtain money. There are people in South Africa, people who are enemies of this country, who largely contribute towards people asking questions. After all, when big capital in South Africa starts asking questions about South Africa, one wonders what the outside reaction ought to be. In this regard I have some advice for the hon. member. He has a lot of influence with Dr. Zac de Beer and is an influential man in Dr. de Beer’s organization. Perhaps the hon. member could very profitably and effectively employ the patriotism, which he so often expresses here, in advising his colleagues who do not have the privilege of sitting here. I am convinced that other people would then view South Africa in a different light.

Of course, the hon. member for Constantia has, to a certain extent, already replied to the question of the viability of this project. As he indicated, studies have been undertaken and these indicate that, given certain assumptions, there is not the slightest doubt that Sasol 2 can, in fact, be an economic proposition. However, advance estimates or assessments in the planning of a project naturally depend on certain assumptions. One of the relevant assumptions—I should like to emphasize this because I want hon. members to take note of it—is that the rising oil price is also directly related to the assumptions which have to be made, or which have been made, in relation to the planning of Sasol 2.

I should now briefly like to discuss the second question the hon. member asked. Before I do that, however, I should also like to refer to the other questions the hon. member put. He wanted to know what the local contribution to the total construction costs at Sasol 2 would be, costs which at this stage are estimated at R2 458 million, judging by 1975’s prices, with a price adjustment percentage of 8% per year. The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked me a question about the awarding of the contracts already awarded and the amounts involved. He wanted to know how much has been awarded to South African companies and how much to foreign companies. I replied to that question of his. What was his reaction? He immediately ran to the Press and issued a statement suggesting, in effect, that this undertaking, Sasol 2, would actually be to South Africa’s disadvantage, in the sense that the major portion of the expenditure would go to foreign countries. In the first place, his questions were not intended to establish what the total effect would be after completion. In answer to his own question, however, he developed an argument which he could use in his attack.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to dispose of this particular aspect. I indicated—in answer to that question—that the contracts already awarded in the Republic amounted to R570 million at the time of answering those questions. In addition, I indicated that foreign contracts totalling R733 million had already been awarded. To make it easier for the hon. member, I can say that the South African content is 44%, whilst the foreign content amounts to approximately 56%. This is only a part, however. I shall now elaborate further on the total amount. On the assumption that it will amount to R2 458 million, the eventual pattern of expenditure will be as follows: 57% in South Africa and 43% abroad. Expressed in figures, according to our present estimate, the expenditure will be as follows: R1 405 million will be spent in South Africa and R1 053 million abroad. Specifically in regard to that, allow me to say at once that that amount does not include the amount Sasol 2 is using from his own reserves for the establishment of the town Secunda. That involves an amount of between R89 million and R90 million. This shows clearly that contracts have already been awarded for a very large percentage of the total foreign expenditure, namely R733 million of an expected amount of R1 053 million. In the case of the South African portion of the work, the obligation is only slightly less than half of what we expect the eventual total to be. I think that what hon. members are failing to take into account, in this regard, is the fact that we are only now reaching the stage where inquiries are being directed on a large scale to manufacturers and suppliers about the types of equipment and material which are, in fact, available in South Africa. This is important. Since the hon. member has asked me what the foreign content of the local contract is, let me point out to him that in respect of the R1 405 million, we are at the stage of making inquiries about the local equipment and materials which, apart from the labour component, make up part of that amount. On that specific issue, Sasol assures me that there is no doubt that the available South African facilities—once again with reference to the equipment and material—will be utilized to the full and that use may also be made of South African contractors wherever possible, and, I may add, with particular advantages for South African entrepreneurs. I hope the hon. member will accept that reply. It is not possible, at such short notice, for me to say with accuracy this afternoon exactly what the foreign content of the foreign contract is. Present indications are that it will be approximately 60% of the total costs.

I want to go further and point out that financing is important. The hon. member for Walmer is quite right. I said there are four ways of financing the Sasol 2 project. The first is by way of export credits, the second by way of money voted by the State, the third by way of the levies which are now the subject of debate and the fourth by way of Sasol’s own contribution to the project. I now want to come back and reply to the hon. member for Constantia on this specific issue. His argument was firstly that we ought to make greater use of loan funds, initially on the local money market and then on the foreign capital market as well. The hon. member indicated how it would be possible to make use of the local money market and, in that regard, mentioned two examples of how it could be done: firstly by way of tax-free bonds and secondly by way of an inflation index bond. I do not want to argue with him at this stage about the financing, except to say that there have increasingly been complaints from the other side of the House to the effect that the Government, the State, apportions to itself, at the expense of the private sector, too large a part of the available savings in South Africa, i.e. on the local money market. I now find it strange that in this particular debate the hon. member for Constantia is arguing that the public sector ought to make more use of the money market in South Africa for financing this. The complaint that the private sector cannot obtain sufficient funds for investment has now completely disappeared.

I find this strange and at odds with the hon. member’s philosophy and the standpoints he often adopts on these matters in other debates. The second statement the hon. member makes is that I ought to turn to capital markets abroad. On this specific issue let me say—and I do not think there ought to be any doubt about this—firstly that there is already a great need for capital for the public and private sectors on the foreign market. I need not point out that Sasol is not the only undertaking competing for the available foreign capital. It is also a fact that there are very large projects, both in the public and the private sectors, which are going to demand enormous amounts of capital. For that reason I cannot agree with the hon. member in that regard. Let us be realistic. We all accept the fact that capital in South Africa is not as readily available as it was in 1974, for example, or in the years before 1974. Let us be realistic when we look at the reasons for this. The reasons have political and economic origins. The economic and political causes of the smaller capital flow are surely not limited to events on the local scene. This is also due, in particular, to events in the countries from which we obtain our capital, countries which, as a result of the recessionary conditions, find themselves unable to create capital to the same extent. Thirdly, surely the political events elsewhere in Africa have also had an influence on the flow of capital to South Africa. For those reasons I do not think we should advance that argument. I should like to answer the question of the hon. member for Walmer on that specific issue.

How do we suggest we should go about obtaining this R2 458 million? The answer is that, at this stage, we foresee this happening by way of money voted by the State, in other words Parliament—up to an amount of R300 million—with approximately R492 million, or R500 million in round figures, available for the purchase of equipment and capital goods. Thirdly, we may withdraw a sum of R1 666 million from the State Oil Fund at this stage. Sasol 1 itself, will supply the funds specified for the construction of Secunda which will cost approximately R90 million. We therefore make use of money voted by the State, of foreign finance which is made available in the form of export finance, and of this fund as well. I want to emphasize that this fund is not only being utilized to help finance Sasol 2; it is also being utilized for the purchase of strategic oil supplies. In that regard specifically no one will argue with me that we have to build up our stocks to the highest possible level, taking into consideration our financial capacity to do so. It is expected that after 1985 the saving on foreign exchange will be R350 million. If we weigh this against our obligations in respect of the repayment of the export credit of R492 million, we shall still have a net saving of R230 million until those obligations have been met in 1985. I think I have now replied to hon. members’ basic arguments.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points in this regard. Firstly, the fact that we did not oppose the Second Reading does not mean that we agree with the burden placed on the people who use the fuel. I should like to point out that the figures which the hon. the Minister gave in his reply show that the bulk of the financing for Sasol 2 is going to come from the Oil Fund, and the bulk of the funds of the Oil Fund come from the users of fuel. Therefore, with great respect, the burden still falls on them. If I remember correctly, the figure was R1 660 000 out of a total of R2,4 million, so it is quite obvious that it is the bulk of the fund. We still think that it is the wrong means of financing this and that the motorist, in particular, is being milked, but we regard Sasol 2 as being of strategic importance and, for those reasons, we have adopted this approach.

The second point I should like to make is in regard to the question of the acquisition and the exploitation of coal, and its relation to the manufacture of liquid fuel, oil and other products. In our view there should not be an acquisition of coal or the exploitation of coal, except when it relates to liquid fuel, oil and similar products. We do not believe that this fund should be used in order to go into competition with private enterprise and the coal mining industry. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister that my amendments do not appear on the Order Paper, but I assumed that the Committee Stage would have been debated tomorrow. Therefore, I should like to move the following amendments—

1. (1) on page 2, in line 25, after the first “coal” to insert “and”;
2. (2) on page 2, in line 26, after “deposits” to insert:

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Von Brandis I have pointed out that as far as we are concerned, the exploitation of coal by Sasol is chiefly confined to the need of Sasol itself. The funds that are made available for that will be used for the specific objectives of Sasol 2 and that is the manufacture of petroleum and petroleum products from gases. However, there are many by-products over and above petrol and petrol products that are being manufactured. Hon. members will know that the petro-chemical industry is one of the most important industries which exist and the hon. member will understand that. I wonder whether at this stage the hon. member would not accept the assurance I have already given to the hon. member for Von Brandis. That is that the coal exploitation process of Sasol 1 and 2 must primarily be related to its activities of undertaking such manufacture. However, at this stage I am not qualified, technically or otherwise, to say that there will not be a residue of coal which cannot be used for this purpose and of which they will have to dispose. If I were to accept these amendments, the effect would be that such a residue of coal could not be utilized. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if a situation were to develop in any way where Sasol 1 or 2 would start competing with the private sector in the exploitation of coal, I shall take steps to prevent it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s undertaking, but the difficulty that one always has is that one has a law which goes beyond the ambit of what is required in the circumstances. The hon. the Minister gives an undertaking but he, like other human beings, is not here for ever. The difficulty that I have lies with the very statement the hon. the Minister makes when he says that he cannot be sure that there is not going to be a surplus of coal and that he will have to get rid of it.

I did not say that.

What you said was that you may not be able to use it for the purposes of manufacturing and that if there is a surplus you will have to dispose of it.

It depends on the quality.

It would depend on the quality and the quantity because you may have too much. This already indicates that it is in the mind of people that there may well be a disposal of coal as opposed to the use of coal for a petro-chemical purpose. That is the problem that I have. The hon. the Minister knows what my views are on private enterprise and State interference, so I am not on a crazy trip in this respect, because I know that you must have this in certain circumstances. The fear that one has, however, is that in the way this is worded the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can authorize SOF (Pty.) Limited to embark on coal mining and there is nothing that this Parliament can do to stop it. That is why I regret that I cannot withdraw the amendment. It covers the situation in that it does not restrict this to fuel; it also deals with other products to cover the petrochemical situation. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister that if he does not want to accept the amendment now, he should apply his mind to an amendment which would cover these contingencies before the Bill goes to the Other Place, so that the possibility of competition can be avoided.

Mr. Chairman, I did not suggest for one moment that any surplus coal mined by Sasol 1 or 2 could be sold in competition with the private sector. I did, in fact, say that I did not have the technical knowledge at this stage to judge as to whether in the mining process there would be coal mined that could not be put to the purpose of the manufacturing of petroleum products. It would naturally be completely inconsistent with business principles not to dispose of that coal. I am not talking about surpluses; I am talking about incidental coal that may not be able to be used for this purpose.

What would you do if there was a surplus?

Then I would have to keep the surplus or I would have to stop my mining activities. I am not going to allow Sasol 2 to become a mining company which mines coal in competition with other concerns. I do not believe I have that power in any event, not even in terms of this Bill.

This gives you the power.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Sasol 1 has been operating for umpteen years, and it has never gone into competition with the private sector. The hon. member also knows that we have appointed a standing committee on State interference and participation in the private sector. As a result of that, no corporation, State department, provincial administration or local authority is entitled to enter the field of the private sector without referring that activity to this committee for decision. The committee, in turn, would make recommendations to a Cabinet Committee. I therefore submit, with due respect, that all the safeguards to protect the interests of the private sector are already there. In addition, I give my personal assurance in this regard. That does not mean that if I were not here tomorrow, someone else would not accept that principle. That is our basic principle and philosophy. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment is of a purely technical nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some principles related to this. Firstly, I do not think we have been satisfied that the methods of financing are the correct ones. When it comes to the question of capital, the hon. the Minister made great play of the fact that it was not the Government, but the Opposition, or some sections of the Opposition, which was responsible for a lack of confidence. With great respect, that is balderdash.

Order! I allowed the hon. member to make that point during the Second Reading debate and I allowed the hon. the Minister to reply. However, I do not think that is relevant now. I should therefore like the hon. member to limit himself to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you rule. Is the method of financing open to discussion?

Oh, yes.

Good, because that is what I want to deal with. If it were possible for the money to be raised overseas, all these burdens upon the motorist would become unnecessary. We see there is a figure of more than R1½ billion which is to come out of the Oil Fund and therefore out of the pockets of the motorists, and that is the bulk of the money required for this particular project. If the capital could be obtained overseas—and I am not speaking of local capital—this would create an entirely different picture as regards living costs and cost escalation because of petrol and oil prices that seep through. There is no question about it.

The responsibility for the situation lies squarely on the Government. Logically, in any kind of business, when one indulges in a new project, one capitalizes that project— whether one is dealing with private enterprise or State enterprise—by means of a basic capital structure which in private enterprise is equity capital, with the rest being loan capital. However, it is illogical to extract money from the motorists and of other consumers of fuel to finance a capital project of this nature.

I want to come back to the question of the degree of local content and the degree of overseas content. In this respect I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for supplying us with the information that was available to him at that moment in time. I also appreciate that, as far as local content is concerned, it is not possible, off-hand, to say immediately how much of that local content involves imported goods. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. If he can possibly increase the local content of the Sasol 2 project, he should do so because then he will be doing South Africa a great service in quite a different form. If I may borrow the words of, I think, the President of France, every time one buys something from overseas, one is in fact helping to cause further unemployment in one’s own country, while every time one buys locally, one is in fact giving more jobs to one’s own people. In view of the increasing unemployment in our economy at this time, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power to make sure that the maximum local content possible is used in this project in order to help in the fight against unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that this project will be financed from four sources. Foreign countries are one of these. The hon. member ought to know that due to the conditions, the depth and the duration of the recession which has been and is still being experienced in the countries from which capital has traditionally flowed to South Africa, and due to the oil crisis of 1973, the capacity for capital formation of those countries has been reduced to 40% of their original capacity.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister a question?

Just a moment, please. Allow me to finish stating my argument. The hon. member ought to know that the total amount available for export to other countries has accordingly been detrimentally affected. In the second place I told the hon. member that apart from any events within our borders, the events in Angola and Mozambique and the uncertainty in Rhodesia have obviously also had an effect on the capital flow to South Africa. The hon. member ought to know that that reaction abroad has been manifested, in the first place, in the term of the loans, the terms of the loans as regards interest rates and eventually the capital flow which has dropped. I made no secret of this. But apart from that, my argument is also that where the total demand of the public and private sectors is great, I believe it would be wrong to allow it to borrow further if there were alternative sources of finance such as this one.

The hon. member raised a second argument to which I want to reply. Basically it concerns the capital structure of a company. He knows as well as I do that the proportion of debt to the company’s own capital is very important when evaluating the viability of such an enterprise. What do we have at this stage? Already we have in this amount an element of loan capital of R500 million in round figures. A second important consideration is that this levy is distributed over a far wider field than would be the case in respect of a different, more limited source. Let me emphasize that apart from the strategic importance for South Africa in emergency and other conditions, it is necessary to have this source of supply. But is it not in the interests of the motorist, too, that sufficient fuel should be available for his needs from time to time? That is apart from the strategic considerations. Is it not also true that the industrialist who is a consumer of this product, and that any other consumer of fuel, for example the transport contractor, must be assured of this source, once again apart from strategic considerations? Is it not fair, too, that he should make a pro rata contribution to ensure this source of supply for himself? I do not think anyone can argue with me on that score. Let us now consider the relative burden borne by the consumer of this product in South Africa, in spite of the distances which our crude oil has to be conveyed to be refined in South Africa. If he were to compare the prices paid by the consumer or motorist, or whoever it may be, what does the picture look like than? Because I believe that it is only on that basis and with that criterion that one can judge whether the accusation, the complaints or argument of the hon. member are correct. Let me take just a few countries as examples. In Austria the price of the fuel of the quality equal to our 93 octane grade is 36,6 cents per litre.

There are many countries where it is cheaper.

I shall provide those figures, too. I am not like the hon. member who only states one side of the case. In Belgium the price is 35,2 cents per litre; in Denmark, 34,3 cents per litre; in France, 38 cents per litre; in West Germany, 33,8 cents per litre; in Holland, 39,6 cents per litre, and in Portugal, 34,7 cents per litre. In all these European countries the price is higher than in South Africa. In South Africa it is 28,1 cents per litre on the Rand, due to the distances involved, and 25,4 cents per litre at the coast. Let us now compare these prices with those countries which do not have their own sources. They are the countries we must look at. In Nigeria it is 12,6 cents per litre because it has its own sources. In Ghana the price is 34,1 cents per litre; on the Ivory Coast, 41,5 cents per litre; in Upper Volta, 37,5 cents per litre and in Tunisia, 33 cents per litre. I concede at once that in many of those countries that have their own sources, the price is far lower, but I say that in comparable circumstances, the expenditure incurred by or the pressure exerted on the motorist in South Africa, is nowhere near as extreme as in other countries. Furthermore, let us consider what we have done in respect of the production sectors. In regard to diesel oil which, in our country, is utilized chiefly in the production sectors and the transport industry, there is either a full or a partial rebate of the duty. As far as agriculture, forestry and the public bus services are concerned, there is a rebate of 9,550. The industrial consumers, viz. the production sectors, enjoy a rebate of 8,550.

When one considers paraffin and other products, one encounters the same process. In other words, we have exempted and given a full rebate to the production sector of those spheres which are geared for the consumption of this product. That is why I want to maintain at this stage that a strong case has been made with regard to the financing and fourfold purpose hereof and also that it would be wrong under these circumstances to effect a greater part of the financing of this enterprise with borrowed and foreign capital.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the final point that I was making when the House adjourned was in relation to clause 24 of the Bill. In terms of this clause applicants who fail in their application are not entitled, as it stands here, to reasons, for the failure in cases of fact. The Appellate Division and other courts have held that failure to give reasons can give rise to inferences or arbitrariness. This is because there is an element of lack of bona fides in failing to give reasons. Applicants may fail for many different reasons. They may fail because their premises are not suitable or because of the situation of their premises, or because of the food served in their restaurants or because there are too many licences in the area or for any other reason. They ought to be told why they have failed in order to prevent them from wasting money and time in making further applications. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to, for example, the Fertilizers and Farm Feeds Bill, where, in clause 6, it provides that when an application for registration is refused, the registrar shall furnish the reasons in writing. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the explanatory memorandum from the department has this to say—

Mr. Speaker, in that case, even if not asked for, reasons must be given, because it is autocratic not to do so. However, in the Liquor Amendment Bill, even when asked for, reasons are not given. This Bill is therefore even more autocratic than the situation as it exists at present in the case of the Fertilizers and Farm Feeds Act, and which has been remedied. Again, in the Livestock Improvement Bill, clause 10 provides for a similar thing—that the registrar shall supply reasons where an application is refused. There is ample precedent for such a requirement. If one autocratically refuses to give reasons it nullifies to a large extent the benefits of an application before an open tribunal, because one does not know why one’s application is being refused. Therefore I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this clause.

In conclusion, the three points that I urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider are, in the first place, to eliminate all reference to Indians or Asians from clause 88, which amends section 100sex, in order to leave them in exactly the same position as any other White person who has to apply for a certificate or a licence in terms of clause 31. This is a request that I explained earlier in my speech. It is a request from the Indians in Natal, and in fact—interestingly enough—it makes it more difficult for them because they have to comply with all the requirements of section 31 of the Act. The point is, however, that they want it to be more difficult, because, what has happened under section 100sex is that people who have put up very small tearooms and so on, have been obtaining licences and infringing the rights of people who have spent lots of money on hotels in the area. Therefore, I ask that Indians be omitted from that clause.

Secondly, I asked the hon. the Minister to consider allowing hotels in areas other than White areas to have multiracial facilities, provided, of course, they comply with all the other requirements of a multiracial hotel. Thirdly, with regard to the point I have just made, I requested the hon. the Minister to eliminate the provision which states that reasons need not be given for the refusal of an application in cases of fact. I request the hon. the Minister to consider those points.

Mr. Speaker, a long debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I would almost say that we spent too much time on that debate, because the Bill is in reality a highly technical juridical Bill which may be scrutinized to better effect in the Committee Stage. For this reason I do not intend replying in very great detail to the Second Reading debate. I shall simply, to the best of my ability, furnish answers to the points raised by hon. members.

I shall begin with the hon. member for Durban Point. That hon. member complained that there were just as many amendments in the Bill as there were sections in the original Act. However, I said throughout that this Bill will quite probably be the last one before consolidation legislation is submitted to the House. This is also a reply to the hon. member’s request that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The last time, we referred a Liquor Amendment Bill to a Select Committee, in 1954, we only received the report in 1961. That was the Malan Commission. The Select Committee eventually became a commission. In any event, I do not think there was any need for the Bill to have been referred to a Select Committee. The Liquor Act is not all that complicated. The hon. member for Durban Point said there were scarcely five people in this House who understood it. I do not agree with him, but if I have to use his argument, it is an argument against the appointment of a Select Committee, for if the hon. member is of the opinion that so few people understand the Bill, one could hardly refer the Bill to a Select Committee on which the same members who are now considered to unqualified by the hon. member will still have to deal with the matter.

In its consolidation the law advisers will, in the first place, rewrite the entire Act. At the same time it will be modernized, the clauses will re-arranged, and the entire Act will appear before us in a new form. The purpose of this Bill is simply to rectify the contents. In the consolidation the form will be rectified. I can give the hon. member for Durban Point the assurance that that Bill will be entirely readable, comprehensible and probably considerably shorter.

Will you be able to certify that it is in fact a consolidation?

Yes. The hon. member for Durban Point proposed that when a new application appears before the board, the National Board shall be given the right to make decisions and that appeals shall be lodged with the Minister. The hon. member says that the Minister is simply becoming a rubber stamp now. This is not true, of course. It has been left like this deliberately, i.e. that the Liquor Board shall make a recommendation to the Minister. Hon. members will remember, however, that it is stated in the Act that if the Liquor Board does not make a recommendation to the Minister, the Minister does not have the right to have such a rejected licence renewed. The entire object of these two legs of the administration—the Liquor Board and the Minister—is in fact to safeguard the Liquor Board from possible attempts at and any suggestion of influencing. As soon as a person tries to speak to the Liquor Board about his licence, the Liquor Board will automatically say that it is no use talking to the Board, since the Board simply makes a recommendation to the Minister. They will point out to this person that the Minister has the final say. If the applicant for a licence were then to attempt to influence the Minister, I am in a position to say that if the Liquor Board did not recommend the application, I do not, in terms of the Act, have the right to grant the application.

The entire matter is therefore one of checks and balances. It affords the Liquor Board the opportunity of saying that they are not responsible and it affords the Minister the opportunity of saying that he has no say unless the Liquor Board recommends the application. In both those cases we are in a better position. The hon. member proposed that there should be an appeal to the Minister. There has never yet been an appeal to the Minister in the case of a new licence. The appeal or review is always heard by the Supreme Court, and this procedure will remain the same.

The hon. member took it amiss of me because it will not be permissible in terms of the legislation to supply liquor on election days. The hon. member also argued that a Select Committee resolved—if I remember correctly it was in 1973—that the section in the electoral laws legislation prohibiting the supplying of liquor on election days should be repealed. However, it is my department that deals with matters pertaining to liquor. The hon. the Minister of the Interior made it very clear in his Second Reading speech that they were in fact deleting this from the Electoral Laws, but it depended on the Department of Justice whether it should be deleted from or included in the Liquor Act, for in reality the Department of Justice deals with the distribution of liquor, whether or not it is on an election day. I want to remind the hon. member for Durban Point of something. It is correct that they succeeded in getting the motion to delete the provision from the Electoral Laws passed with a majority vote by the Select Committee, but there were opposing votes as well. Shortly afterwards an election was held in 1974. I think there was also a by-election in Pinelands in 1974. At the time many of the hon. Senators in the Other Place were unhappy about this matter. I just want to quote what an hon. Senator said in the Other Place. He pointed out that liquor was being used to influence people to vote for a certain party. He said the following—

He went further, by saying—

He explained how the people got together—

There was an interjection—

Sen. Horak then went on to say—

As a result of that another Select Committee was appointed. The hon. member for Durban Point served on that Select Committee as well. What did that committee then decide? He has now referred us to the Select Committee of 1973, but the subsequent Select Committee, on which the hon. member also served, made the following recommendation in 1975—

Niemand gedurende ’n verkiesing sterk drank by ’n vergadering of byeenkoms van meer as tien persone, waarby die belange van enige kandidaat of politieke party bevorder word of bedoel is om bevorder te word, mag voorsien nie.

That is an entirely different matter!

No, it is not an entirely different matter. What is different about it? The hon. member was instrumental in having endorsed a resolution in the Select Committee in 1975 that no liquor may be allowed at parties. The reason why he endorsed it—I have deliberately quoted what the hon. Senator said in the Other Place—was based on what that hon. Senator said, viz. that people were being unlawfully influenced to vote for a party. Now the hon. member for Durban Point is asking what the difference in principle is between my prohibiting people from supplying liquor at house parties and prohibiting them from supplying liquor on election day. Surely we know that the parties will do precisely the same thing by using liquor there, as they used it at the house parties, to influence people to vote for the party.

[Inaudible.]

It is no use arguing, for it is exactly the same. If hon. members could indicate to me where the principle differs I shall be glad to hear it. The hon. member is a little annoyed because in the one Select Committee he was in favour of the exemption of liquor on closed days, and in the next Select Committee he opposed it. We investigated the matter very carefully and after we had discussed it very thoroughly, we arrived at the conclusion that to make liquor freely available on an election day, particularly when there are White, Coloured and Indian elections, will have terrible consequences. It would have terrible consequences if people were allowed to walk around freely with bottles of liquor at the polling booths and pour tots. One can just imagine what could happen there and what mischief could be brewing there. The department and I were therefore not prepared to make the closed days as far as the distribution of liquor was concerned open again. Therefore we included the provision in this Bill again and, for the information of the hon. member for Durban Point—it is precisely in line with what he himself decided in the Select Committee of 1975.

That is untrue.

The hon. member expressed the criticism that too many decisions have to be taken by me. The hon. member said that the Bill consists of a host of minor matters in regard to which everything has to be signed by me personally. I want to assure the hon. member that everything which is being provided there has a bearing on matters already requiring my signature. I have not received any additional tasks. I sign all the documents myself. If I remember correctly, the hon. member said in this House—he must correct me if I am wrong—that the Ministers did not keep a sufficiently close check on the officials. Hon. members alleged that officials do too much of the work and that the Minister has no hold on his officials. All the documentation comes directly from the officials after they have fully investigated the position. The officials make a recommendation and even if what it amounts to is that I simply sign it, I nevertheless want to give the hon. member the assurance that I read the entire document, all the work put into it by the officials as well as their recommendations, and if I do not agree with their recommendations I can call them in to argue the matter with them again. When I agree with the officials, I sign their recommendations. Can hon. members understand the salutary effect which it has if there is an interaction between the Minister and his officials? I think the hon. member for Durban Point ought to be grateful, not only that I am willing to do the work, but also that it is not a difficult task for me to perform. For me it is a normal task in the department and it affords me the opportunity in my work as Minister, as the executive head of the department, of knowing precisely what is happening in every division of my department. Even if it is a trifling matter, the file still appears before me after the official has gone through it in detail, and this affords me the opportunity of seeing how the officials have argued the matter, what they have written, how they have considered it and what their recommendations are. I then endorse the recommendations and I do not think that anyone in this House can complain or think that I am trying to take these powers, ostensibly because I want to have them. I have not yet come across a Minister who would want to do this. I am not doing so. I reiterate that I do not think hon. members would request us to forego these powers, for the possession of those powers affords the Minister an opportunity to see what is happening in his department.

The hon. member also spoke about the review by the courts and alleged that when a matter is before the courts on review, the courts are compelled to refer the matter back to the board. But that is not the case. I do not think the hon. member had at that stage studied the legislation as thoroughly as he has done by now. If the hon. member had done that, he would have seen that “the court may give the judgment that should have been given or it may send it back to the board for a rehearing.” It is therefore in the discretion of the court to decide. That is virtually all the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned.

The board need not accept that instruction if the chairman has refused.

How can the board not want to accept it? I think we should argue this matter further in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus put a request to me to the effect that a hotel’s off-sales should not count for a quota system. Unfortunately this provision is not contained in the Bill and the hon. member was therefore, strictly speaking, not dealing with the Bill. However, I can assure him that it is a very interesting proposal. I myself am of the opinion that it is unfair that an industry such as the hotel industry should, as it were, sweep all bottle liquor licences out of its way. The hotel industry did not consider the quota of 2 000 voters for a licence. In other words, every hotel, if it qualifies, can open an off-sales. The moment it has its off-sales, however, it counts against the quota of another person with a bottle liquor licence. I want to give hon. members an example of how serious this has become. I have been told that in Pretoria there are so many hotels which have off-consumption facilities that the ordinary person who wants a licence will, according to the quota, not be granted a bottle liquor licence within the next 24 years. I must honestly tell hon. members that this is something which also causes me concern and, although not in this Bill, I want to assure the hon. member for Potgietersrus that I shall give attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Sandton complained about the same matter the hon. member for Durban Point complained about, i.e. that when the board has refused a liquor licence, the board need not furnish any reasons for the refusal. However, the board does not take a final decision, but simply makes a recommendation to the Minister. If the hon. member would take a look at the new section 31(4) on page 34 he will see that the Minister may also take additional factors into consideration. In other words one will have the untenable position that, if the reasons as to why he recommended the application to the Minister have to be furnished, the applicant can feel very pleased because the board has recommended his application. The Minister, however, has additional factors which he may take into consideration, and if he refuses the application on those grounds, it will, I can assure hon. members, given rise to a great uproar. That is why we must not allow the board to furnish any reasons, because the Minister may take additional factors into consideration, factors which may put a different slant on the application.

The hon. member also said that he wants an appeal to the courts. I can tell the hon. member that the appeal and the review in this Bill are precisely the same as they were in the existing Act. Therefore there is no change whatsoever. He also said that there are cases where the board has the right to cancel or suspend a licence and that such cases come to the Minister. The hon. member will recall that this is in cases where a licence has already been granted. The first appeal and review is for licences which have been granted and also for cases in which they have been cancelled or suspended. In such cases there may also be an appeal or review. Over and above the appeal and the review they also have the right to approach the Minister administratively when a licence is suspended. The reason for this, as the hon. member will himself be able to understand, is that we do not know when a person will find a place on the court roll, and it could perhaps take a year. A licence is now suspended for a reason which the licensee thinks is wrong and he would like to have a decision on the matter as quickly as possible. He cannot wait a whole year for a place on the court roll so that his case can be heard, for he is going to lose an enormous amount of business. Now he is able to lodge a quick appeal with the Minister. The Minister may ask the board for the reasons for the suspension and review the entire matter and, if justified, restore the licence. This is an abbreviated administrative procedure, which is actually in favour of the licensees. The hon. member says he cannot understand why there should be a prescription period of four months instead of three months. I did this at the insistence of Fedhasa. Fedhasa indicated that the period of three months restricted them a little because most of their accounts were handled by a computer. By the time the accounts had been sent out by means of the computer, three months had elapsed and they were no longer able to issue summonses against anyone. In other words, by the time a person had received the account, Fedhasa was no longer able to issue summons against him. I acceded to this request because the period of four months gives the computer a chance to send out the accounts, to warn the persons concerned that summons is going to be issued against them and to set the proceedings in motion if that might be necessary. That is why we decided on the period of four months. It was at their insistence. However, I cannot say precisely why it should in fact be four, and not five months, but Fedhasa indicated that four months would be sufficient time for them to issue their summonses.

As far as I can remember, the hon. member for East London City, also asked for a Select Committee. I have already said why I do not think a Select Committee is necessary. He asked: “What about Blacks and Coloureds in international Hotels? Why penalize them on election day?” That is not true of course. People who are having a meal in an international hotel may still have something to drink with it, even on an election day. If the hon. member were to look at the legislation, he would find that this is in fact the case.

The hon. member also referred to the shebeens. He maintained that I had said that I would take steps to deal with the problem of shebeens. He will recall that, during the riots in Soweto, Guguletu and Langa, many of these shebeens were set on fire. Whether we like or not, and whether the children like it or not, it remains a fact that those people like the shebeens more than any other drinking place in their residential area. I think, it will therefore be necessary for me, in co-operation with the Department of Bantu Administration, to have a proper investigation instituted to see to what extent the shebeens are able to comply with licensing requirements and whether it is going to be worth our while now to legalize this illegality to a certain extent so that we are better able to control it. I intend going into this entire matter this year after the session to find out whether I should not appoint a commission of inquiry or some departmental committee or other to institute a proper investigation into the entire question of shebeens.

The hon. member asked whether I was of the opinion that the new board, which has to deal with new applications, should sit in one province only. No, the idea is that the board will, at various times, sit in all four provinces. The board will not necessarily sit in the major cities either. For example, if there are more licences in the eastern part of the Cape, it may be that the board will sit there. I think it is far better that the board should deal with licences. The members of the board are not local people, and therefore are not people who may be influenced by the local circumstances, but people who will quite simply consider the licences on their merits. If the hon. member would glance at the Bill, he would find that it is possible for the board to appoint assessors to inform the board members of the local circumstances. The board will also be in a position to have a look at the place. There may be an inspection in loco. Quite probably the board, before its sittings, will take a look at all the places for which licences are being requested. If the board then requires any additional information, assessors may be appointed.

The hon. member complained that prior notice of only 30 days shall be given of a meeting. He was of the opinion that prior notice of 60 days should be given. I must in all honesty say that I believe that any attorney or advocate can put his documents, his arguments and his witnesses, if necessary, in order within 30 days, particularly in view of the convenience of the fact that the board will be able to meet almost on their doorstep. I do not think that 60 days’ notice is necessary. I am not prepared to change it.

The hon. member also asked that “‘no direct financial interest’ should be extended to include ‘indirect interest’”. I am of the opinion that the concept of “indirect” is already covered in the proposed section 21(1)(a), (b) and (c). I am not unwilling to insert the word “indirect”, but I have one problem in this regard. “Indirect” is a very wide concept. It could cause major problems. Let me put a theoretical case before you. A board member may be a shareholder of, let us say, SAB. SAB has many affiliates. One of those affiliates may, unknown to the board member concerned, apply for a licence. Does this also represent “indirect interest”, although he is not even aware of it? So it can have even further repercussions: At what stage is “indirect interest” no longer an indirect interest? At what stage does the concept of “indirect interest” no longer apply? If the hon. member is able to define the word “indirect” more specifically in the Committee Stage, if he can state the concept more clearly, I shall not be disinclined to insert the word “indirect”. However, I cannot insert it without qualification, for then its scope would be far too wide.

The hon. member for Walmer discussed the availability of liquor on election days. I have already replied to that. He would also have liked the right of appeal to have been based on merit. I do not think that the hon. member was really in earnest about this. If a person were to allow an appeal on merit, I can give the House the assurance even at this stage that the board would not be able to finalize any application for a licence. Every person applying for a liquor licence—I have years of experience of this matter—imagines that his application is the best. Every advocate also imagines that. Every advocate explains why his client’s application is the best. If the Liquor Board then accepted one of, say, five or six applications, it would be possible to appeal on merit in respect of the other five applications. This would mean that the Appeal Court would have to do all that work. One might as well give the entire matter to them and put an end to the ordinary administrative work.

The board has a purely administrative function, and I am of the opinion that it should remain administrative and that the court should retain its normal rights of review in case something has gone wrong—this is also a very wide concept. At one stage I dealt with quite a considerable number of reviews, and I can tell hon. members that that review provision is so wide one can turn an ox-waggon around in it. If the court feels that the board has done something wrong, I can give hon. members the assurance that the person in question will win his case.

The hon. member for Walmer also said that I, as Minister, should not become involved in the administration of this legislation.

Not so deeply.

I am the executive head of this department. Surely it is a completely absurd argument to say the Minister should step aside and leave the administrative side of a law to his officials. What must I do then? Must I go on picnics? What does my work consist of then?

I have a great deal of confidence in the officials.

The hon. members may perhaps not like my taking so many responsibilities upon myself in this legislation, but it so happens that the legislation imposes them on me, and a Minister simply has to cooperate with his department. He cannot do otherwise.

The hon. member went to the other extreme in regard to prescription. He said that the prescription period of four months is too short, and that it should be six months.

†Can the hon. member remember that he came with that argument?

Yes.

I do not know why the hon. member wants to extend it further. The whole idea behind the short prescription period was that people should not accumulate heavy liquor debts. The bottle store owner which allows a person to run up debts, must know that he is going to lose its money after three months when that person need no longer pay. I want to emphasize the point that if any person has a liquor account which is more than three months old, the time for payment is past, and summons may not be issued against him for it. The whole idea is to administer and control the distribution of liquor.

†I want to say to the hon. member for Umbilo, who spoke in general about liquor, that we all share his alarm in connection with alcoholism and the increase in the consumption of liquor. But prohibition is not the solution. The United States came to that conclusion in the 1930s. In South Africa we tried prohibition as far as the non-Whites were concerned, but it did not work. So in 1961 we threw it open for them too. In the United States there is in existence a body known as the Federal Bureau on Alcoholism. Its budget for 1973 was in the region of $180 million. The view of the Department of Justice is that education in the moderate and correct use of liquor is basically necessary to combat alcoholism. This is a long-term policy. It is also the opinion of my department, an opinion which I share, that liquor producers and distributors have a duty to co-operate closely and actively with the State in whatever variety of ways it considers necessary for coping with the problem of alcoholic abuse and the consequences flowing therefrom. In fact in this connection we believe that the initiative should come from the producers and the retailers, the licensees. This is actually happening at the moment. The producers are busy with a detailed study of alcoholism at this very moment and will bring out a report in due course. As far as the extension of hours of wholesalers is concerned, at the present moment the holder of a wholesale licence does not deal with the public and may sell and deliver liquor between 7h00 and 20h00. This period is being extended in clause 61 by one hour, viz. to 21h00. This is being done at the request of the wholesalers, who have convinced me that particularly between peak periods, it would assist them to complete their deliveries without falling foul of the law. At the moment, I may tell the hon. member they sell at such a pace towards the end of the day that they need extra time to deliver. At the moment they are all transgressing the law in actual fact. I do not think this extension can lead to any further consumption of liquor.

*The hon. member for Pinetown also discussed liquor distribution and the abuse of alcohol in general. He said that liquor was one of those commodities which have to be controlled. To me this was an amazing statement, for if the hon. member were to look at the Liquor Act, he would see that the entire Liquor Act is in fact there to administer the distribution of liquor and to control it properly. That is the entire purpose of the Act. There are no laws for the distribution of sugar, coffee and tea. But for liquor there is a complete Act dealing with the issuing of licences and the distribution of liquor in general.

The hon. member for Worcester discussed the estate wine farmers and the right to deliver to the homes of individual buyers. Incidentally, this hon. member tendered an apology and cannot be present. This question has been discussed on various occasions with the estate wine farmers, the KWV and the Kaapse Instituut. Until now it has not been possible to achieve unanimity, but this matter will be gone into once again during the recess, if the estate wine farmers submit a fully motivated request to me. He also referred to visitors to the estate wine farms. He complained about the visitors’ fee. The payment of a visitors’ fee, inter alia, for wine-tasting, has the implication in terms of the Liquor Act that the estate wine farmer is selling wine for on-consumption, something which is of course illegal. The wine farmer is not obliged to supply cheese and biscuits, and he should make his wine-tasting glasses smaller, as at least one wine farmer has already done. A visit to a wine farm, and wine-tasting has a publicity value. I do not think the wine farmers should complain. They asked us for the 6A authority which authorizes them to sell wines on the farm. We allowed this. But now a horde of visitors are turning up, and the hon. member for Worcester has requested me to allow those visitors to pay for the wine they enjoy there. The answer must of necessity be “no”. It is a publicity campaign. It helps the wine farmer.

It helps the entire wine industry, as well as the distribution of wine. The hon. member referred to discrimination against unfortified wines in the Western Cape. It is accepted here that he is referring to the provision of 30% with regard to wine licences for grocers. This matter was discussed very fully in 1963 when provision was made for this kind of licence in the Liquor Act. The then Minister made it very clear that the object with that provision was not to create additional distribution points, but to attempt to promote the use of table wine in areas where sales were very limited. As far as we know, the Western Cape is not such an area and there is therefore no basis on which the elimination of the so-called discrimination may be considered. I may just mention that we receive an enormous number of applications from large supermarkets that are interested in selling wine. We consider the applications on their merits. Where possible we give those people the right to sell wine in their supermarkets. Surprisingly enough, very few applications are being received from the smaller grocers. It was in fact the smaller grocers who have always complained that the large supermarkets were undercutting their prices, which eventually forced them to close down their business undertakings. There is a golden opportunity here for the smaller grocers to apply for permission, where possible, to sell wine in their stores. This may be considered in the same way according to merit as in the case of large supermarkets. I am simply expressing my astonishment at the fact that these people are not submitting more applications for permission to sell wine.

What the hon. member for Umlazi had to say was of a general nature. I want to say once again that I appreciate the hon. member’s point of view because, as a practical policeman, he dealt with the liquor trade for many years. Any proposals which the hon. member should like to raise during the Committee Stage will receive my necessary consideration, because I know that by virtue of his experience he is a person who at least knows something about this matter.

The hon. member for Berea asked for an investigation to be instituted into the incidence of alcoholism.

†I am still of the opinion that the whole field relating to alcoholism should be subjected to an intensive study and to a thorough investigation. We are too inclined to speak, however, of hundreds of thousands of alcoholics, of millions of man-hours and millions of rands lost through alcoholism, but the problem in South Africa has never really been thoroughly studied on a scientific basis. This, unfortunately, is clearly not the function of my department as such, nor is it a matter that we really can deal with here under the liquor legislation. The hon. member asked me whether I had consultations with religious organizations. In actual fact, the contents of this Bill were published in draft form for general information and comment very early in 1976. I did not go further than that. It received very wide radio and newspaper coverage. Representations received from interested persons and bodies were properly considered by me. Every one that came to us with any reason were taken into account and considered by us. I think the churches were well aware that we were going to come with new amendments to the Liquor Act, because it was published, and if they really wanted to bring anything to our attention, they could have done so.

The hon. member for Berea also spoke about the advertising of liquor. This matter was very thoroughly investigated by the National Liquor Board a few years ago, and I made a statement in this connection in the House on 24 October 1974. As far as the advertising over the radio and television is concerned, I may mention that this is outside my sphere of control. Representations in connection with this should be directed to the hon. the Minister of National Education. As far as the request, that consideration should be given to the indication of the percentage of alcohol in liquor bottles, is concerned, I can state that this matter received the attention of the Liquor Board during its investigation into liquor advertising. It appears that the United States of America is one of the few countries in the world where the alcoholic strength of liquor in a particular bottle is indicated on the label and then only in the case of wines and spirits and in the generally ununderstandable term of degrees proof. I do not think anybody in the House fully understands these terms. As far as the Liquor Board could establish, this practice in the United States really served no purpose in so far as it might make people drink less. This was the actual argument that was put to us.

Reference was also made to the inspectors. Hon. members referred to an amendment put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for East London City whereby it is sought to compel an inspector to identify himself before he proceeded to carry out his duties.

*I shall discuss this aspect more fully in the Committee Stage. At this stage I just want to say that I think the hon. members are labouring under a misconception as far as the inspectors are concerned. As hon. members know there have been inspectors since 1928. The designated police officer has always done the work of carrying out inspections up to now and as far as this is concerned, I have always received good service from the S.A. Police.

However, I have found that the Police devote a tremendous number of their hours of service to liquor inspections, and although I cannot do without them even at this stage, I should like to alleviate their task as much as possible and reduce the amount of inspection work. One finds, particularly in big cities such as Durban, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and so on, that the designated police officer spends all his time on liquor matters. I have quite a number of police officers, brigadiers among the others, who are now retiring and I intend using high-ranking retired officers as inspectors. At present I am using a lieutenant, captain or even a major, but I have never yet used officers of a higher rank than brigadiers as designated police officers. It is now my intention in the big cities, where this is a full-time task and where policemen are available who have had 30, 35, 40 or 43 years’ service in the S.A. Police without a blot on their record, to use them as inspectors. Hon. members will appreciate that to me they are highly prized persons whom I can use to carry out these inspections. These are the inspectors we are actually referring to now. They are still policemen, but I want to use the retired police officers to work as inspectors on a full-time basis. This will release the other policemen to do more work for the police themselves.

Brig. Von Keyserlingk!

Yes, that is quite all right. If the Progress take his seat, he can join me. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for East London City wanted to know whether these people should not reveal their identity at once by means of their certificate. I do not think that that is necessary. If a person has carried out an inspection at a liquor dealer on one or two occasions the dealer knows that person and he will accept him as the inspector when he comes again. If he wants to question that person’s bona fides he has the right, on the strength of this amendment Bill, to ask for that certificate. In that case the inspector has to produce his certificate. I do not think an inspector is really expected to produce his certificate each time he calls at an hotel and to say that he is the inspector. I think the most we have to offer that hon. friend is something which is already stated in the Bill, viz. if the inspector is asked to do so he has to identify himself.

The same applies in other laws as well.

Yes, the same applies in all the other laws.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the eight different kinds of wine which have to be kept. In this Bill we are in fact providing that eight different kinds of wine, seven kinds of brandy and six kinds of beer from various producers and vintners have to be prominently displayed on the shelves, so that the consumer may see that there is a variety available and that there is not some agreement or other between the supplier and the wholesaler.

Is that not why the smaller dealers do not apply?

No, if he wants 50 bottles of wine he can easily get eight various kinds. He must have a variety. The hon. member asked me to introduce a licence for what he called a “house wine”. He wants people to be able to order a “house wine” in a restaurant or hotel which is poured into a glass from an unlabelled bottle and for which a certain price is paid. I shall look into this, for it does not sound like a bad suggestion to me.

I want to return now to the hon. member for Durban North. He mentioned three matters. He said an amazing thing to me. He objected to the amendment in the Bill which provides that in the 100sex cases Coloureds or Asiatics need no longer be formed into groups of 20. He said that it should stay that way. I find it very strange that this should come from that hon. member. That provision in the legislation that Coloureds shall form a company of 20 members before they can obtain a licence was a discrimination against those people. Now we are removing the discrimination, but the hon. member tells me it is wrong that we should give a licence only to the wealthy person, the person who can invest his money in an hotel and make a half-million rands. He is now objecting to it being possible for individual Indians to obtain licences. What is wrong with that? I can see nothing wrong in that. The one person wants a hotel and receives all the privileges of a hotel, the various distribution points and his off-consumption; in reality this is a bottle liquor licence. Why cannot the individual Indian not also have a little café where he sells his liquor? I cannot understand that. The hon. member comes here and is clearly representing only the rich Indians. He overlooks the less well-to-do Indians.

He told me that in terms of the Act, as it reads at present, only “White hotels” can become international hotels. He would like Indian and Bantu hotels to become international hotels as well. I must tell the hon. member that there are different approaches. Our attitude is entirely different to his. The hon. member is making that suggestion because he would like to have integration. That hon. member’s party is an advocate of total integration between White and Black and ours is not. We have attempted, with the legislation relating to international hotels, to afford people a facility which they did not have before. The whole idea of an international hotel is therefore that when the Blacks, Indians and Coloureds do not have facilities, we share our White facilities with them. The hon. member now wants the opposite to apply. Can the hon. member show me a single case of an insufficient number of hotels for Whites? For what reason should the Whites now share the Indian hotel with Indians? Surely that is not necessary. If the White person wants to eat in an Indian hotel with an Indian friend, he can receive ad hoc consent from the national board. However, to declare Indian and Bantu hotels international is in complete conflict with the policy of the Government.

The hon. member also said that a reason should be furnished when an application for a licence is not granted. I have already explained in this House why we did not want to furnish the reasons, and I think we can argue about this matter again at a later stage.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—96: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—41: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. D.; Pitman, S. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister … I seem to have lost him for the moment. Oh, no, there he is. In his reply to the Second Reading debate, he said that a Select Committee was not necessary and that this Bill would be streamlined when it was consolidated. Let me refer, however, to the clause we are dealing with now, clause 3. Could the hon. the Minister tell me how a clause such as this can be streamlined, either by amendment in this Committee or by means of a consolidation when no amendment may be introduced? He may be able to put the matter in a smoother form by changing the wording, but I should like to supply an example in connection with this clause. The hon. the Minister made specific reference to the overworked, dedicated—I mean “designated”—police officers. I am sure they are dedicated, but he has referred to the “designated” police officers. The proposed subsection (1)(h) deals with the manufacture of sweets which contain more than 2%, by mass, of alcohol. It is really necessary that these overworked, designated police officers should have to go back and back and back again to delicatessen stores and other stores that sell sweets to measure the alcoholic content of chocolate liqueurs? I have heard of cases, here in Cape Town, where designated police officers have gone back as many as three times to take samples of chocolate liqueurs to have them analysed, I assume by a Government chemist who is paid a high salary as a specialist, a professional man. He probably has to stop his analysis of some dangerous disease or virus so that he can measure the alcoholic content of chocolate liqueurs to find out if the alcoholic content exceeds 2%.

That is a “chocolate” story.

It may be a “chocolate” story, but it is nevertheless true. How can we therefore amend this clause, in a Committee like this, so as to avoid these designated Police officers being engaged in this sort of work, because we are amending the legislation to provide not only for chocolate liqueurs which are made, but also those which have been manufactured.

Order! We are not dealing with the question of the 2% now. That is part of the original Act and not being amended.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the fact that the chocolate liqueur “has been manufactured” as opposed to “is being manufactured”. This entails an additional task for the police. Instead of merely having to establish that the sweet is manufactured by a certain person, they also have to establish that it has been manufactured by him. That makes more work for the police. This now places a burden upon them. What is more, there must now be a person, in terms of this Act, authorized to sell liquor without a licence, a person who replaces all these other authorities or licensees previously specified. Where previously the designated police officer could see exactly who was allowed to sell these sweets, he now has to study the Liquor Act to find out what persons are authorized to sell without a licence. In the section being deleted, however, those authorities are all listed. I therefore submit that I am in order when I say that it is relevant to ask how we can amend this clause other than in a Select Committee if we are to prevent the sort of ridiculous situation arising where a policeman, who I believe has far more important things to do in South Africa, has to spend his time measuring chocolate liqueurs and doing that sort of work instead of being available for the benefit of the security of the country.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the Minister having to deal with a thousand and one minor administrative details and having to take the final decision in respect of all of them. In terms of clause 4 the Minister or a person acting under his direction has to deal with every application for a wine tasting function. Therefore, if some women’s institute, the Voortrekkers, the Girl Guides or some charitable organization wants to have a cheese and wine party, the organization must go to the Minister or the person authorized by him to take that decision to get the necessary permission. Although I do not wish to repeat the arguments I raised in the Second Reading, I raise this matter again because to my mind it emphasizes the ridiculous extent to which the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the safety and internal security of South Africa, for the administration of the Police Force and of the Prison Force of South Africa, must fiddle about with conditions applicable to a wine tasting function. Therefore, I move as amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in lines 56 and 57, to omit “a person acting under his directions” and to substitute:
   the officer in charge of the police station in whose area such function is to be held
2. (2) on page 6, in line 5, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “Liquor Board”;
3. (3) on page 6, in line 18, after “fit” to insert:
   , after notification of such intention to, and considering representations in reply thereto from, the holder of such authority

The first two amendments are in line with my criticism of the Minister, either personally or through his authorized representative, having to deal with piffling and localized matters such as the supply or sale of liquor at a wine tasting function. Because I would have been ruled out of order had I moved simply to have “Minister” deleted, I am not doing so but rather substituting as an alternative the proper person who I believe should take that decision, the man who is on the spot, viz. the police officer in charge of the local police station who knows whether it is going to be a racket or a genuine wine tasting function. In the old days the magistrate would have been responsible for this, but now it all has to be centralized in Pretoria. Therefore I have moved my first amendment.

My second amendment relates to the provision which allows the hon. the Minister to impose conditions or restrictions under this section, or to remove, amend or withdraw any condition or restriction. We heard the perfect example of the game of hiding behind each other’s skirts in the hon. the Minister’s reply. The Liquor Board hides behind his skirts and if anyone tries to influence them they say: “Oh, no, the Minister is going to do it. We have no say, we only recommend.” If anyone tries to influence the Minister, he hides in turn behind the Liquor Board. So we have this form of whirling skirts behind which each can hide. Here, however, we have the situation where there is no hiding behind skirts. The hon. the Minister can impose any restriction or change any restriction or impose a new restriction. I believe that when restrictions affecting the livelihood of a person are concerned, it is better that the Liquor Board should impose them, because there can then always be an appeal to the Minister. Secondly, the person affected should be notified of the intention. The third amendment which I have moved refers to this. When there is to be a change of restriction, then the person to whom that restriction applies, whether it is imposed or amended, should be notified. The proposal is that he should receive notification of such intention and be given an opportunity to make representations in replying. He should certainly not have to wake up one morning and find a registered letter in his post box informing him that a new restriction has been imposed on him, without having any opportunity to state his side of the case. I have raised the matter under this clause because it is the first occasion where such a provision arises. Throughout the Bill one finds this type of power. One cannot argue it on every occasion, and I do not intend to do so. There are perhaps much better examples than this, but I have taken the first example where the Minister takes a decision which I believe should be taken at another level and have accordingly moved an amendment. I have taken the first example in which a Minister imposes or may amend a condition or restriction and have moved an amendment to that It is the principle with which I am concerned which will then apply right through the Bill and the original Act.

I am not arguing this matter specifically, because this refers only to exemptions from licences. There are much more important cases, but the principle involved relates to the Minister being able to take decisions and impose, amend or change restrictions. Therefore I use this clause, where it appears for the first time as a base for my criticism. I therefore move this amendment to signify what we would like to see amended throughout the Bill to bring it into line with what I believe would be a better procedure.

Mr. Chairman, it is strange that just after arguing very convincingly with regard to clause 3 that the designated police officers are overworked and that they are burdened with too many duties the hon. member for Durban Point wants to place a further responsibility on the shoulders of the police in the very next clause.

That is a completely different subject.

It is the question of the granting of the right to grant this right at a wine tasting function. Now the hon. member says that this is a completely different matter, but it still concerns the functions exercised in terms of this Act. Now it seems peculiar to me that—having hardly finished discussing clause 3—the hon. member wants to entrust this task to the police under clause 4. What does clause 4 actually deal with? Clause 4 deals with cases in which people are granted exemption to provide liquor without a licence. It applies to police canteens, prison departments, etc., as well as to ships in harbours. Then, too, we have the case of the Minister authorizing people at a wine tasting function. We presume that this legislation, and this aspect thereof, will be administered by the Liquor Board and its officials. For that reason it is essential that this function be performed by the Liquor Board and its officials, under the supervision of the Minister in his capacity as head of this department.

In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister mentioned that the police were overworked in many respects and that in many cases, they have numerous duties and very long hours, and that what we have here now is a department which deals specifically with the provision of liquor and with the licensing of dealers in liquor. For that reason it is obvious that it would be the Minister, or someone appointed by him and acting under his direction—someone, therefore, who will have knowledge of the circumstances under which a wine tasting function will be held and under which it can be allowed. For that reason I cannot support this amendment at this stage. I must also oppose the further amendment—the amendment which refers to clause 4(h). In this case, too, the position is such that it should really be the Minister or his official, or a member of the department, or a member of the organization that administers this legislation who should determine the conditions for exemption. Therefore it can only be the Minister— because he possesses knowledge of these aspects and of the conditions—who deals with this specific matter, and not the Liquor Board. For that reason I shall oppose this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the Committee in respect of clause 4(d), which deals with a vessel in any dock or harbour. I hope that the hon. the Minister will favour me with his opinion and that he will reply to my submissions in respect of this clause. I have no argument at all with the fact that liquor—and I am talking of released liquor or duty-free liquor—should not be supplied while a vessel is in port or in harbour. However, I do feel that the hon. the Minister must tell us why he is altering the distance from 100 miles to a distance of 150 km in respect of a vessel which plies normally between two ports that are situated this distance apart. Let us take the new harbour of Richards Bay and the new harbour of Saldanha Bay. These are harbours which lend themselves to “tripping”. “Tripping” is something that is indulged in across the English Channel. It is indulged in in the Mediterranean waters. One finds that when one goes across the English Channel on one of the Sea-Link vessels the bars are open immediately on leaving port and are closed again once the vessel reaches the other side of the channel. The two ports could be anything from 25 to 45 nautical miles apart. Is it wise that we should have this minimum? Should we not consider the possibility of “tripping” taking place between ports such as Richards Bay and Durban, and, as I have mentioned, between Saldanha Bay and Cape Town? I am not suggesting that we should consider “tripping” between Hout Bay and Table Bay harbour. I believe that this would be going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I certainly believe that the hon. the Minister should have another look at this, and I want to ask for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I would like to refer to the very first amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

†The hon. member asked me to delete the words “or a person acting under his authority” and to substitute for them the words “or the officer in charge of the police station in which area such function is to be held”. With great respect to the hon. member, I cannot see any difference at all, except that the hon. member in actual fact is restricting me. Whereas normally I would be able to delegate this to any person under my authority, the hon. member now wishes me to restrict it to the officer in charge of the police station. I fail to see the validity of that argument, particularly in view of what the hon. member said himself about the overworked police. The moment the hon. member concedes that I should have the power of delegation, he must allow me to delegate that authority to whomever is the person that I should delegate it to. I do not think that he should restrict me as far as that is concerned.

*In his second amendment he asks me to delete the word “Minister” in the proposed new section 6(1A) and to substitute the words “Liquor Board”. The proposed sub-section reads as follows—

Section 6 of the Act deals with exemption from an obligation to hold a licence. In other words, the Act is here giving an exemption from any obligation to have a licence. The Act gives it to the people concerned free of charge, and therefore we are not dealing here with an application, but with a concession. The people mentioned here are allowed to sell liquor without a licence on their premises. People must expect that when such a concession is being made, the Minister will reserve the right to grant the concession subject to certain conditions. If the hon. member would look at the type of people who get these concessions, he will very soon find that in fact it has nothing to do with the Liquor Board.

I do not think it is one of the functions of the Liquor Board as such to make these concessions with regard to people, for example with regard to the Minister of Defence, who can allow his people to consume liquor in some of their canteens. Surely the hon. member cannot expect the Liquor Board to dictate to the Minister of Defence. The hon. member will probably immediately maintain that it would not be right to allow that. For this reason I cannot accept the second amendment of the hon. member.

In the hon. member’s third amendment he moves—

Here again we are giving the people something.

Then what is the restriction?

There are restrictions, but the fact remains that the person concerned had nothing before now. Now I am giving him a limited privilege. Therefore I am saying to the man that I am giving him the privilege free and that he does not fall under the provisions of the Act, but that it will be under certain conditions. Surely he cannot look a gift horse in the mouth and say that I should first have let him know which restriction I was going impose before giving him the gift. Because I am giving the gift, surely I should be able to tell him that I am giving it to him under certain conditions. For that reason I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to section 6(1)(h) of the Act. The wording in paragraph (h) is being streamlined and the distance mentioned therein, 100 miles, is being metricated. It remains exactly the same as before. All we did here was to metricate it.

Would the hon. the Minister not consider reducing it, in the light of the fact that we have harbours like Durban and Richards Bay?

What does the hon. member suggest we reduce it to?

Fifty nautical miles, which would be approximately 75 km.

It is entirely technical. I bow to the hon. member’s superior knowledge about shipping lanes, etc., but I am not prepared to reduce it just like that. The Government does not work that way. What I shall do, however, is to go into the matter and if I think I can meet the hon. member on that point, I shall reduce it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister missed the point. I used this clause as an example and now he wants to apply my argument to the detail of the clause itself. I was referring to the principle that the hon. the Minister should not have to consider every little application himself. One of the good reasons why we have asked for a Select Committee is that we knew we could not move all the amendments necessary. Technically I am not allowed to move the deletion of the word “Minister” in the clause on page 4, because it is part of the original Act. For that reason I introduced an alternative to the word “Minister”, namely “the officer in charge of the police station” because he is one of the hon. the Minister’s officials. However, I worded it and defined it in such a way as to stress that such local matters should be dealt with at the local level and not in Pretoria where the hon. the Minister is now going to appoint an official. For instance, if someone in Putsonderwater wants to organize a wine-tasting evening, must he now apply to Pretoria, fill in a form in sextuplicate and make a statement, whereas it is a minor decision which can be made by the local police or the magistrate. The police are on the spot and they can decide that it is a simple matter and that the people are decent people whom they know. For that reason they will be in a position to decide to grant it. The specific example of the police station to which I referred, is to extend the centralization from Pretoria to other places. I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that the board cannot impose restrictions on another Minister. That is fair, but I said specifically that I was only using this clause as an example, because it was the first clause where restrictions can be imposed and changed. The principle at stake is that when restrictions are imposed or changed, the person in respect of whom the restrictions are being imposed or changed should be notified. Once again the hon. the Minister evaded this by saying that these were concessions. I stated very clearly that I was using it as the first clause in which this phenomenon appeared in the Act. What about all the others? I do not want to repeat this matter in the case of the 20 or 25 clauses where it is applicable. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to accept the principle that where restrictions are being imposed or amended, the person to whom it applies should be given notice of the intention to do this, and should be given the opportunity to reply to it before a final decision is taken? That is why I moved the amendment. It is not only a case of people who are being exempted from licensing. Take the case, for instance, where the police or the Defence Force builds a mess and organize the building of the mess whichever way they like, according to the restrictions imposed on them. If the Minister suddenly changes his mind and imposes another restriction in this regard, they have no opportunity to explain why it would be difficult in their particular case to act according to the restrictions. That is why it is necessary that consultation should take place and that anyone affected in this regard ought to be given the opportunity to put his case.

The hon. member for Brakpan displayed his ignorance in this regard in a shocking way. The hon. member said that in one sentence I complained that the police has too much work, but by way of the provisions of the subsequent clause I wanted to give them more work. I put my case very clearly and referred to the “designated police officer”, a specific person appointed to administer the Liquor Act. In my motion I am now referring to the officer in charge of a police station, an official who has only to supply his signature, and is not a person who must go out and buy sweets in order to determine how much alcohol they contain. Here I am referring to a completely different person. The hon. member tries to give the impression that I said that the two people were one and the same person. The hon. member further states that it is the hon. the Minister or his officials who impose the restriction. I want the hon. member to show where, in clause 4(a), to which he referred, an officer either recommends or imposes the restriction. I do not believe the hon. member will find it there. Apparently he has not even read the clause. It is the duty of the Minister and the Minister alone and he cannot delegate it. Only the Minister in his personal capacity may impose, amend, suspend or cancel any restriction. I repeat that the hon. member has not even taken the trouble to read the clause and I hope he will now accept that I was right in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear and obvious that the hon. the Minister himself imposes the conditions and restrictions, but it is also obvious that the hon. the Minister also acts on the advice of his officials. Therefore it is ridiculous to use an argument of the kind the hon. member for Durban Point has used. As far as clause 4(g) is concerned, where the hon. member suggested that it should be the Minister or someone acting on his authority or “the officer in charge of the police station”, I only want to say that according to the present wording of the clause, the hon. the Minister may also instruct the person in charge of the police station to grant permission. Therefore the amendment the hon. member for Durban Point moved here is in any case superfluous.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister at the outset for saying that he would look at my suggestion in the Other Place, but in order to assist him, may I elaborate a little on what I was driving at?

The ports of Richards Bay and Durban are certainly less than 150 km apart. East London and Durban are probably 180 to 200, and maybe a little more, in nautical miles, apart. Released liquor is freely available on board vessels plying between these ports in the normal course of events. They might be within territorial waters or they might be outside territorial waters, but I do not think this is important at this stage. At the moment territorial waters are termed as being 3 miles, but territorial waters may extend. It appears to be the international fashion at the moment to extend one’s territorial waters. However, my submission is that if we should get to the stage where we get “tripping” between such ports as Saldanha Bay and Cape Town, and Richards Bay and Durban which could become a very popular pastime where people would take a week-end trip on board vessels that can be termed passenger vessels, I should like to see that released liquor, bond-free liquor be made available to people who would travel on those ships as it is available to people travelling on ships of, shall we say, the Union-Castle Line or Safmarine or whatever it may be. I do appreciate that there is a difficulty in that one cannot reduce the distance or eliminate any mileage or distance in kilometres altogether, because one does have the Hout Bay—Cape Town situation and also the Simonstown—Cape Town situation which is a very interesting one. Please do not ask me to speak in metric terms because I cannot. Simonstown and Cape Town are approximately 21 to 25 miles apart by road. However, by sea the distance may very well be 60 or more nautical miles. Some formula will have to be worked out. However, this is what I am driving at and what I am asking the hon. the Minister to look at. I am grateful to him for assuring me that he will look at it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has made

Umhlanga! I am your MP!

I beg your pardon, Umhlanga. I do not know why I confuse the hon. member with somebody else! However, we shall look into the whole issue and we will keep the fact of the hon. member’s tripping in mind.

As far as the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, I want to concede that I have dealt very literally and legalistically with his amendments, but I understand the point that the hon. member has made. I am also aware of the fact that I do not have to be involved in every minor matter and I shall try to keep what does not concern me off my back. I fully agree with the hon. member that one cannot do everything and that there are things that other people can attend to in full. I am quite prepared to give due consideration to everything that comes before me and to determine whether I can delegate it entirely and hand it over to other people to dispose of finally. I concede the hon. member that point because it is a good one. As regards his also telling me that we should notify people before we impose restrictions on them, I am quite prepared to do that because it is in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule. The hon. member referred to an example this afternoon and if I were to do as he said, e.g. impose certain restrictions without giving the people notice, I believe this would be a case in which they could take me on review because I did not keep the audi alteram partem rule in mind. It would have indicated a degree of mala fides. I fully agree with the hon. member that in those cases I should tell the people that we are going to impose certain restrictions and that they should reply to that so that the matter can first be discussed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply with regard to the notification of people if he intends to impose restrictions. I want to ask him whether, since it cannot be done during consolidation because then it would be an amendment, he would consider introducing such a provision in the Act either in the Other Place or by means of an amendment before consolidation. In practice it is impossible to do it now during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to insert it in the Act, because it must be done automatically. It affects one’s bona fides, in other words one can be taken to court if one does not do it. However, I have no intention of being taken to court for restrictions we have imposed. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall duly notify the people before we effect any changes.

Amendments (1) and (2) negatived.

Amendment (3) negatived (Mr. W. V. Raw dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to clause 5(f), which amends section 6A(4)(a) of the principal Act I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify his position as far as this clause is concerned. It relates to subject matter which has already been dealt with in an earlier clause. It deals generally with the sale of wine by certain persons and, in particular, with the procedure to be adopted by viticulturists in applying for permission to sell their finished products under various conditions. Previously, in terms of section 6A(4)(a), the following applied—

after having considered certain recommendations, grant the necessary authority for the beverage to be sold. The actual amendment in this instance is minimal, i.e. there is deletion of the words “or any person acting under his directions”. In effect, this means that after this amendment is passed, the hon. the Minister himself will have to deal with each application. That is as I understand the matter. The function, which previously might have been delegated, is now no longer a delegated function. The Minister, therefore, will have to apply his own mind to the merits of the applications, even after the Liquor Board, an expert national body, has given its full attention to the case in point. Why is this so? Why must the hon. the Minister deal with this particular type of application himself? Why can the Liquor Board not finalize the whole procedure? Assuming that there is a sound reason for such matters to be channelled through the hon. the Minister’s office, after they have received the full scrutiny of the Liquor Board, what is the necessity for this amendment which places a further burden on an already heavily overloaded Minister, almost personalizing his discretion in this matter? Will this new provision not increase delays in finalizing applications? Finally, is this type of application, in the Minister’s view, of sufficient importance to justify personalized Ministerial approval?

This sort of provision is to be found in several clauses of the Bill. I do not mean to raise this question again under each clause but, because I must admit that I did not find the arguments of the hon. the Minister in regard to an earlier clause entirely convincing, I would like to understand in relation to this particular provision and to the Bill in general why the hon. the Minister sees fit to perpetuate and extend a system which centralizes, to the extent to be found in this legislation, decisions and the formulation of conditions which could seemingly be finalized sufficiently and probably more quickly at another level, the level of the Liquor Board itself. I ask the hon. the Minister to react to this point.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain what is happening here. In practice the Minister has the last word in any event as far as the granting of all the various types of licences is concerned. This 6A authority relates to the granting of a specific type of licence, viz. the authority which a farmer gets to sell his own products on his farm. It has always been the duty of the Minister to see to all those things. The board receives the applications, goes into the merits of the applications and reports to me. This is the position. The only thing which is happening, is that the legislation is being streamlined. In other words, the existing practice is now being laid down in legislation. In regard to this specific case the board or any person delegated by me, has never yet done this, because it is the practice always to have the Minister to sign the final decision. I gave the reasons for this in my Second Reading speech. The reason is that the issuing of a licence is a very important thing. If some other person were to receive a 6A authority and the hon. member for Sandton were to learn that the person concerned was a friend of a member of the Liquor Board, then the hon. member would hold it against me and say, “On the other side of the mountain I heard some gossip about a 6A authority having been granted to a farmer who is not a bona fide wine farmer.” Similar stories will then arise. Then I will have to stand up in absolute amazement and say, “But I have absolutely no idea of this because it is not done by me, but by persons to whom I have delegated my powers.” Then the hon. member will hold it against me and say that I do not keep an eye on my department. The whole idea, as I explained to the hon. member for Durban Point—he did not appreciate it, but this is the truth and these are the facts—is that the Minister has to be involved in the administrative work so that he may know what is happening in regard to these very important matters and so that my officials may be safeguarded at all times against any possible idea of something being wrong. Now they can simply say, “Everything is put before the Minister. The Minister accepted the file and gave it the final signature.” That is why all these important things come to me and why I have to accept responsibility for them.

Mr. Chairman, this is a repetition in a different form of the problem I raised under clause 4. There it was a question of conditions and restrictions and here we have a first example where the Minister himself grants a licence. However, the proposal is to delete even his right to delegate his power in this respect to another person. The words “or any person acting under his direction” are deliberately deleted. Sir, if you would have permitted it. I would have moved to omit in this clause the words “the Minister may in his discretion, after having obtained the recommendation of the Liquor Board …” and to substitute “the Liquor Board may in its discretion”. However, Sir, you would probably not allow me to move that amendment, so I shall not do it.

That is quite right.

However, that is what I would have liked to have moved. As I have said, the same principle applies here. The person who knows the circumstances and conditions which govern this type of local life, are the people on the spot. The Minister is going to be advised by the Liquor Board, a specialized body of highly specialized people, in regard to this particular type of licence. Surely he can get information in this respect, and it could be decided at a lower level in a case such as this.

Seeing that I cannot move the first amendment I would liked to have moved, there is no point in my moving the second one, which would be in order in the following section, because it is the same principle, namely to omit “Minister” and substitute “Liquor Board”. Again, I accept the hon. the Minister’s bona fides when he says he will look at the situation and see which of these decisions and which of this detail can be removed from the centre, from this spider’s web, this sticky jampot in the middle of Pretoria, where everything has to come in to be dealt with, however small, however unimportant, however detailed—it must all come in and be dealt with in this centre. This is evidence, as the hon. member for Sandton had said, of that practice. But because it will be out of order, I shall not move an amendment in this respect.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this is another example of verbosity and officialese gone absolutely mad. In clause 7(d) the new subsection (2)(a) provides that—

This really does not make any sense to me. It states that no licence may be issued to a person to whom it cannot be issued. I would therefore like to move as an amendment—

There, in one sentence, one has got rid of all this officialese by saying “a licence may only be issued in terms of the provisions of the Act”. If it is issued ultra vires the Act, then it is null and void. What more does the hon. the Minister want instead of all this complicated verbiage of words, of nots, of disqualifieds and qualifieds, of reference to other sections? And one has to look at other sections, on page 66 for instance, to find the definition of who is not a disqualified person. However, there are many other disqualified persons. There are disqualified people who are not listed here. Surely what is wanted here is merely that a licence may only be issued to somebody who is entitled to have it. I do not intend taking the matter any further now.

Mr. Chairman, I read the amendment and, frankly, I must say to the hon. member for Durban Point that as far as I am concerned, his amendment sounds better than what I read in the Bill. Now, however, I have only one problem. He gave me his amendment at the last moment and consequently I have not yet had the opportunity of going into all the legal implications which may possibly flow from changing the present wording. I want to tell the hon. member that in consolidating this measure we have the right to rectify the wording in any event. I can do one of two things: I prefer to leave this until consolidation, bearing in mind the wording of the hon. member for Durban Point, or, alternatively, I can see whether I can accept the wording of the hon. member in the Other Place. But, if the hon. member will be satisfied, I prefer this to be done by means of consolidation and that we bear his wording in mind when we rectify the matter in any event at that time.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking to review this at consolidation or to introduce it in Another Place, I ask the consent of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, I wish to withdraw the amendment which appears on the Order Paper in my name and to replace it with the following amendment which I now formally move—

In explaining this amendment, I want to say, first of all, that basically speaking we are not happy with the position of what appears to be a penalty on page 14, in lines 21, 22 and 23. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any prescribed fee for the application to the Liquor Board to consider whether an annual licence fee was paid late on good grounds or not. That is in fact subsection (4)(a) of the new section 9, whether there is in fact any licence fee to be paid. As it reads at the moment, it does not appear to be clear. It says: “If the Liquor Board, upon consideration of an application in the prescribed manner and received by such Board before 31 March of any year in respect of which the prescribed annual licence fee was not paid is of the opinion,” etc. It says “in the prescribed manner”. My first query is whether there is a fee, because if there is a fee payable, then my approach to this Clause will change to the extent that I will again ask to withdraw my amendment and submit a further amendment in which I will propose that the words “may in its discretion impose in respect thereof an additional fee not exceeding R500” be deleted.

If one reads this particular subsection (4)(a) carefully, one will find that there are two criteria laid down for the granting of an application or a condonation of the late payment of a fee. The first criterion is whether the failure to pay such fee was beyond the control of the licensee concerned due to circumstances. In other words, the board would find that he was in fact a completely innocent person in so far as the late payment of the fee is concerned. It goes on to say “or that the circumstances relating to such failure are such as to render it just that relief should be granted”—in other words, that there was a justifiable excuse for not paying the fee timeously. Obviously the licensee has already suffered disabilities, because if he has not renewed his licence on 31 December he cannot trade. So, from the time that he has not renewed his licence, on 31 December, until the time that the Liquor Board hears his application for condonation thereof, he has already suffered a penalty in that he has not been able to trade at all.

Furthermore, I believe that what these words do in imposing a penalty, is to impose a penalty on an innocent person when the guilty party, the one who cannot satisfy the board in regard to circumstances beyond his control, or who cannot satisfy the board that there is just consideration for relief, does not have to pay the additional fee of up to R500. It does not seem that he has to pay this fee at all. So, here it seems that there is an imposition of a penalty against somebody who the board may well find is not really responsible for the emergency which has arisen.

Sir, I believe that when I first moved the amendment which was published on the Order Paper, I took as a criterion the fact that there would perhaps be an operation by the Liquor Board which would involve it in expense. For that reason I felt that there should be—if there was no licence fee payable—some form of compensation to the Liquor Board for the expense that it goes to in considering such applications. Then I found that there was in fact, a situation here which was similar to an application made ex parte, perhaps to a judge in chambers, for instance, where the actual hearing of an application does not take the strict formal procedures in which one would involve oneself in applying for a new licence. As I have linked it to a fee payable in respect of a new licence—on that consideration—I felt that the fee payable should rather be linked to the less formal applications which are provided for also in part A of the third schedule where it deals with the fees payable in respect of the transfer of a licence to another person, or in respect of the removal of a licence to other premises. These are the bases for the relief that I ask for here. I believe that, perhaps after the hon. the Minister has given me the information which I have requested, I might be able to again address the Committee. However, I believe that the imposition of this penalty is not justified under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City. However, I wish to raise another aspect to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. I would be grateful if, perhaps, the hon. the Minister would react to it. It is in relation to the proposed new section 9(4). It is incorporated with clause 8, on page 14. This clause, as it stands now, makes provision for the consideration of an application for the reinstatement of a licence which has lapsed as a result of non-payment or as a result of late payment of the annual licence fee. In the event that it is found by the board that failure to pay timeously was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee, or in such a case that relief is warranted, the provisions of this clause apply. Now, it seems that this provision is a welcome one, making relief available in deserving circumstances. Two questions, however, arise. The first one can be answered quite simply. Will the board deal with these cases immediately when they arise and as applications are lodged, or will such applications have to await consideration at a meeting on or after 31 March of the year concerned? In the Transvaal, for instance, it is in August or September. I assume, and hope of course, that the intention is to avoid delay and to deal summarily with each case on its merits as it is presented.

The second question is not quite so simple. In practice, relief will be granted to deserving cases, mostly, probably, for instance, where illness or some innocent supervening circumstance has intruded. The amendment boils down to the fact that it is not intended that innocent persons who have slipped up on payment of licence fees should be penalized. As it stands, the Bill states that if the licence is not paid by the end of the year, it automatically lapses and as I understand it becomes null and void immediately. In other words, this means that trading must cease. Let us take a hypothetical example. Licencee Jones was ill for two weeks preceding 31 December and returns to work on 7 January. Due to his illness the licence fee, ready to be paid and lodged in his safe, was not timeously taken to the Receiver of Revenue by his staff who were in charge while he was ill. On return to work he discovers that his fee has not been paid and he hurries over to the Receiver of Revenue to make payment. In terms of this legislation his fee is refused and he is told that his licence has lapsed. He must now make an application for condonation which is granted, say a week or two weeks later, I am sure that it was never the intention of this legislation and this clause to penalize such a person. However, what about that two week period in which, without a licence, his business may not operate? That short closure might cost an innocent person R2 000 or R20 000, but in any event a large sum of money. This is a heavy penalty. Would it not in the overall—and I ask the hon. the Minister this—be more just if the procedure were slightly amended to allow the Receiver of Revenue to accept payment provisionally pending a final decision on condonation? That way the guilty licensee will still be penalized when the Liquor Board makes its final decision, but innocent parties—they are the ones this clause is trying to cater for—will not suffer irreparable damage while their businesses must be closed. If what I have to say has validity—and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to react to it—I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would consider recasting this provision and perhaps give further attention to this matter when the Bill reaches the Other Place.

I want to raise another matter under clause 8 and that relates to section 9(5) on page 14. At first glance this section seems to be most strange. It appears to provide for an officer acting on the Minister’s instructions, having the authority to remove a licensee’s licence and to substitute another licence in identical terms. In my view, the wording is indeed cumbersome and I am sure that it can be improved. However, if I am correct the subsection is not totally without sense as it may, and probably will be used to substitute permanent licenses in terms of new arrangements in place of the annually renewed licenses, once the new system is operating. However, I would like to know if it is not a very cumbersome way of trying to state just that.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I just want to tell the hon. member for East London City that no fees are payable when one applies for a licence. However, there are a few things one should keep in mind in dealing with the new licences. The licence is permanent and does not lapse. The person has a great advantage in that he does not have to apply for the licence annually. Every year he is given three months notice that his licence is payable and surely he cannot blame the Liquor Board if, for some reason, he cannot take out his licence. Hon. members will themselves understand that because the licence is permanent, we must provide that if the person does not comply with this important formality, he will lose the licence because the licence will lapse. However, the board now has a right to condone, but it is clearly stated when it can condone—

Hon. members can see that there must be a hearing. In the meantime a meeting must be convened. There is a lot of expense involved in such an interim meeting. Because there is someone in Koekenaap, the whole Liquor Licencing Board must be convened and an interim meeting must be convened to find out whether this matter should be condoned or not. This is not a minimum of R500, but a maximum of R500. It does not exceed R500. What the board is really saying, is that the licensee cannot blame the board for his own default. If he has neglected to pay his licence fee, it is only fair that he should pay the costs so that the board may give his a hearing and so that it can be ascertained whether the board can condone it and allow him to renew the licence again. This is what it amounts to. When one takes into account that a wholesaler’s licence, for example, cost R2 000 per annum whereas a licence for a wine house costs only R50 per annum, is it nor unfair to say that R500 is the maximum amount payable to cover the expenses of the Board to do that person the favour and investigate his negligence and find out whether it was bona fide or not. That is all there is to it.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what the hon. the Minister has had to say, but one point still strikes me and that is whether I am correct in saying that if, in point of fact, the board finds that these two criteria are not present, it then does not condone the failure. But does the person who made the application still have to pay any fee or not, because as I read it here—“and may at his discretion impose in respect thereof an additional fee not exceeding R500.”—it seems to me as if the person who has been found not to have acted properly and who will not get a condonation, gets away without paying any fee whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is to save the board this extra cost. There the hon. member is correct. But again, it is in favour of the person who loses the licence. This amendment is actually in favour of the person who loses the licence. It is not unfair that the Liquor Board demands from this man—if it comes to the conclusion that this licence must be renewed—an amount not exceeding R500 for the expenses incurred by the board to give him back his licence. I think the hon. member is correct in his reading of this particular clause, namely that if they do not get a licence and that is the end of the story. They do not have to pay the money. If the hon. member, however, wishes to bring in an amendment to make him pay the cost of the board’s hearing in any case, I may be persuaded to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment, but I do not know if it will please the hon. the Minister. I believe the answer here is that where it says “on consideration of an application in the prescribed manner”, I believe that the prescribed manner for an application should be set out in a set of regulations. I believe that in such regulations it could be established that a certain application fee must be applied. If that does happen, I shall possibly move as an amendment—

I know that this will not please the hon. the Minister at all. However, I should like to hear his views on it before I formally move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the regulations that can prescribe any thing that can actually take the place of a hearing. A serious thing has happened. A person has lost his licence because he did not pay the licence fee. Surely, one cannot find out from the documents what the difficulty was. Therefore there will have to be a formal hearing, and it is the expenses of that particular hearing that we are interested in covering. The question is: Should we give the man his licence back? I think it should be worth at least that to him and that he will be prepared to pay the expenses of the board so that he can get his licence back which he lost because of his own neglect.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for East London City has already spoken three times.

Mr. Chairman, I think this proves how right we were to ask for a Select Committee, because now it is the Opposition which is finding flaws in the Bill. So far there has not been placed on the Order Paper a single amendment from Government members, nor has there been any sign of any knowledge from them of what is going on. But we are finding flaws. Here is a flaw which the hon. member for East London City found.

Where is the flaw?

The flaw is that the guilty party does not have to pay anything, whereas the clause provides—

The person to whom it is just that relief should be granted and whose circumstances are such that relief is justified, has to pay. That is the flaw. I do not see how it can be fair that a man has to suffer a penalty when the very body which is applying the penalty has found that his cause was a just one and that the circumstances were such that he is entitled to relief. Having found that justice was on his side and that the circumstances were beyond his control—it must be, because it states here “circumstances beyond the control of the licensee”—and because it is fair that he should have relief, he gets hammered up to R500. Yet the man of whom it was proved that it was not fair and who had no circumstances beyond his control gets away with it. I think it is only right that the person who bona fide, due to circumstances beyond his control, is entitled to relief in terms of the findings of the Liquor Board itself should not have to pay additional penalties of this nature. Enough money will be coming in from a thousand and one sources …

It is not a penalty.

It states here: “In respect thereof, an additional fee not exceeding R500.” Is that not a penalty?

No.

The hon. the Minister of Justice says that it is not a penalty if one charges an additional fee. Of course it is a penalty; I cannot see what else it can be. I cannot see the justice of what is, as I see it, an unjust law.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the hon. member for Durban Point harps so much on the words “where the circumstances are just, then relief will be granted”. Surely it is obvious that if a person has not yet paid his licence by 31 December, his business will close. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he had already received notice to renew the application during the previous year. However, he can still apply for condonation up to 31 March and, depending on his motivation for not having paid the licence fee, the fee which he has to pay will be calculated. He may advance such a good reason that his failure to pay, will be condoned and in consequence he will not have to pay anything. Therefore the most he will have to pay is R500. If, therefore, he is innocent, the board still has the discretion to give his licence back to him without him having to pay any additional amount. However, if the failure to pay was due to negligence, up to R500 can be demanded as an additional fee for the licence. There is nothing wrong with that. If he is completely guilty, his licence will not be renewed, the failure is not condoned and in this way the offender is also penalized. This is a very clear and simple provision, and therefore I do not know why the hon. member is carrying on so much about it; it seems to me as though the hon. member does not understand the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the way I understand the explanation of the hon. the Minister is that if an applicant has failed in good faith, according to the hon. the Minister, the applicant must pay for the cost of the board and it is an amount which is not to exceed R500. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether they could not consider a different application; in other words, that the man should pay according to the merits of the case. If he acted in good faith, I should consider it unfair that he would have to pay the entire cost of the board. One may find in one particular case that the board comes to the conclusion that an amount of R50 is sufficient. If there is just a blanket stipulation to provide that he must pay the cost of the board, it would mean that if the cost of the board is R400, that is the amount he pays whether his excuse is a good one, a bad one or an indifferent one. I believe that where a man acts in good faith, he should get better treatment than the man who has acted indifferently.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. Minister has said that what he wants to cover is the cost of the board. I feel that that should not be his motivation and I believe that the provision should be more discretionary than merely to provide that it shall be the cost of the board. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether I am wrong if I understand his explanation to mean that the amount payable must be the cost of the board. I feel that the cost of the board should not be the criterion and that it should rather be the merit of the case. One may find that the cost of the board in one particular case is R400, but the imposition they place on the applicant is R100 because of the merit of the matter. I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the cost of the board will not be the criterion, but that the merits of the application will be the guide-line to the board when it takes into consideration this discretionary amount.

Mr. Chairman, surely the board can never be blamed if another person does not pay his licence. The person did not pay his licence, and however good his reasons may be, they are beside the points. It is his fault and not the board’s fault.

†Now suddenly he gets the whole board in gear again and they have to come down from Pretoria to Koekenaap, for example, to hear what went wrong. It is not the board’s fault.

No, he comes to them.

Or he comes to them, or something. However, the fact remains that the board must hold a meeting. The board must hold some kind of interim meeting and this is a full meeting which involves expenses. All the legislation provides is that if this person’s licence is returned, they must at least tell him that this is an amount he has to pay for the licence which he has simply allowed to become mislaid, or whatever the case may be. However, that is the end of the matter as far as the other person who did not get the licence is concerned. He has lost his licence. We felt that he need not incur further expense, for he has only lost the licence. The board’s ruling was against him. However, where the person gets his licence back, it is nothing minor he is getting back, because that privilege is given back to him. Therefore the least he can do is to ask the board: What did it cost you to give me another hearing? This is the amount which is determinable: Between R0 and R500. This is the amount we charge a person in fees so that that meeting may be held and I do not think this is unfair.

Amendment negatived (Messrs. H. G. H. Bell and W. V. Raw dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, we have another example of justice here and I refer to page 18 where there is a proviso that the non-receipt by a licensee …

What page are you on?

Page 18. This is the provision dealing with the automatic renewal where a notification is sent out to each licensee before 30 September of each year advising him of the renewal of his licence and the amount which is to be paid. Then there is a proviso which reads as follows—

In other words, if he does not get the advice, he still has to pay.

Of course!

That is right However, in clause 11(b)(c) it is stated—

So, if a licensee goes to the Receiver of Revenue and tells him that he has not had his notification but wants to pay, the Receiver of Revenue cannot accept his payment. If he does not pay, however, he loses his licence because not having a notice is no excuse. The fact that the person did not receive a notice, is no defence, and if he does not have a notice, he still has to pay, yet if he goes to pay, as the law provides, he is told that the authorities will not take his money. As far as I am concerned, this makes nonsense of the whole situation. We must either have one or the other. I suggest that the provision should be such that the licensee may pay the Receiver of Revenue and be granted a provisional receipt which indicates his bona fides, i.e. that he has come to pay although he has not received a notification. That should be taken on trust. He can then write to the board and ask them please to send him a notification. The matter will be channelled through the computer, and if it is like the Army pay computer, the wrong answer will come out. After three months he may then eventually get an answer. The onus is on the licensee, however, and if the onus is on the licensee to pay, there must be someone to whom he must pay the money because it is stated: “… shall not absolve him from the obligation to pay the relevant” amount. How can he make payment, however, to someone who may not accept his money? I await the hon. the Minister’s reply before taking the matter further. I make two suggestions, however. Either there should be provision for provisional acceptance or for the deletion of clause 11(b)(c).

Mr. Chairman, we feel that the wording is quite right as it stands, in spite of the hon. member’s somewhat derogatory reference to it. It is very easy for a person who has not received his notification simply to ’phone and then to receive a notification. The amount is indicated, and the fact that he is in possession of it shows the Receiver of Revenue that the person in question does have a licence. After all, the Receiver of Revenue cannot just issue licences without the necessary documentation. Surely it is not too much trouble for the person concerned, if he has not received that advice, quite simply to arrange that he does in fact receive such advice. Surely it is in the person’s own interest to go and pay his licence on time. I cannot therefore understand the hon. member’s problem.

Mr. Chairman, my problem is that in one part of the legislation, provision is made for the fact that a person has to pay, notwithstanding the fact that he has not received a notification, whereas a subsequent provision indicates that the Receiver of Revenue may not receive that money. What, then, must happen in the meantime? It takes time for the person to receive his notice. What does he do in the meantime? Say for example he goes through his diary at the end of the year and finds that he has to pay his licence fees on 31 December. Say for argument’s sake it is already 23 December. Christmas lies ahead, the board’s officials are on holiday and there are postal delays due to all the Christmas cards being sent. The person concerned therefore writes to ask that a notification be sent to him. If 31 December arrives and he has not yet received such a notification, what does he do then? He wants to pay and it is his duty to pay. He has asked for a duplicate notification. What must he do in those circumstances? According to the provision being proposed here, the onus is on him, but he cannot pay because the money may not be received.

I ask that the hon. the Minister accept that a man usually does not think of paying more than about two weeks in advance. He may enter it in his diary and then, when the day arrives, realize that he has not received a notice. One has to take into account the fact that at that time of the year many people are on holiday and that at that time the mail is always delayed. If he should ask for his notification at that stage, it could happen that he would not receive it before 31 December. All I ask is that provision be made that in such a case a person may deposit his money and then state that he has asked for a notification but has not yet received it. One must bear in mind that the Liquor Board is the imperator et imperatus. It is the cock of the walk. It is the boss. The board will never be wrong. It will never be it’s fault if a notice is not issued. In practice, however, it could well happen that a delay could occur. The notification could be lost in the post. If the person in question should phone and ask for a notification, he could be told: “We have sent one.” If he then replies: “I have not received it; please send me another,” it could happen that the second notification could also be lost in the post. Mail goes astray every day. The person in question wants to protect his licence, but in a case of this nature the receiver cannot receive the money. If the person does not pay, he has to apologize under clause 8 and prove that it was not his fault. Then he can still be asked to pay R500 as a kind of fine. It is of direct application to this that although the onus is on the licensee to pay, the receiver cannot accept his money. If we want justice, we must make provision that a man can pay a deposit without a notification so that that money may be kept there until the matter has been settled. As the clause reads at present, it is not fair and is certainly not just.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point is now being somewhat wilful. I think the hon. the Minis ter’s explanation is very clear. Let me furnish an analogous example. If I have to renew my motor car licence by a certain date, the local authority sends me a copy of my registration certificate annually as a notification that I have to take out that licence at a certain time. If I mislay that notification and arrive on the penultimate day with my last year’s disc, I can be told: “Yes, but you must have a copy of your registration certificate.” Then I have to pay for one, because otherwise I will not get my licence. It does not matter if it went astray in the post.

In this case the man’s livelihood depends on whether his premises are licenced or not. If, as the hon. member for Durban Point puts it, it becomes the duty of the department to ensure that a man takes steps to have his premises licensed, then we are going too far. The least one can expect of such a man is to take the necessary steps himself.

Yes, but he wants to do so.

He wants to do so, but if he does not receive the notification he must ensure that he does receive it. From the end of September to the end of the year is 3 months. Within that period he can make sure that he does receive that notification or a copy of it. But to wait until the last week before the closing date and then to want to lay the blame on the prescribed procedure, is going too far.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move at this stage the first and second amendments standing in my name, on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 20, in line 44, to omit “thirty” and to substitute “sixty”;
2. (2) on page 30, in line 18, after “direct” to insert “or indirect”;

I listened to the hon. the Minister when he replied to the Second Reading debate. He said that he felt that it was not necessary to extend the period provided for in the new section 13(2) from 30 days to 60 days. The period I am referring to relates to the notice that will be given to new applicants for licences of the date and place where the meeting of the Liquor Board is going to be held. I think in the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading he also mentioned that it would apparently be the intention of the board to look at the applications for new licences which would be submitted to it from each province and then decide where the board would hold its meeting for that province. I am going to argue this because I believe that it is not adequate. I believe that the board must make decisions to hold meetings at different places in the province. The Bill provides for that because in line 23 on page 20 it says: “on such dates and at such places as may be determined by the chairman.” I understood the hon. the Minister to say that there would be a decision as to where the major number of applications had come from, and that the meeting would therefore be held in that place.

It would be at the board’s discretion; they could meet in different places.

I am pleased to hear that. Let us take the case of a single applicant, living in the far north of the Cape Province, who is given 30 days within which to make his application. He would have to do so in the nearest place at which the board can hold its meetings, because I do not believe that it can be reasonably said that the board must hold its meeting at every place from where an application emanates. Such a person will accordingly have to make reasonable adjustments. One must bear in mind, however, that there may not be enough time to warn his attorneys and witnesses to set aside a specific date when the hearing will be heard. I believe there have been and there are postal delays to small places, and I believe there are delays from five to six days from Pretoria to small places in the Cape itself. That cuts down the period of time in which the applicant, when he receives that notification, must now get hold of his witnesses, attorneys etc. Certain other matters such as accommodation and transport have to be arranged, and booking arrangements have also to be made. I know what the hon. the Minister is going to say in reply to me and that is that if one looks at clause 13, page 34, one will find the actual period within which an application must reach the board. In the new subsection (2) of section 31 it states in line 7—

This actually means, Sir, that in terms of the Bill he is given 30 days’ notice, and that the board has one month in which to decide where and when it is going to hold its meetings, because the period between the time when it closes for applications and the time when it has to give notice of where it is going to hold its meetings, is one months. If that is so, Sir, and if I extend the period under this amendment of mine to 60 days, it will mean that they will have no time whatsoever to do this. Consequent upon my amendment that I am moving now, I will have to ask—and I believe it to be a reasonable request as well—that when we come to the next clause, clause 13, I will ask for an amendment for the period to be increased from “at least two months” to “at least three months” and also “not more than four months” instead of “not more than three months”, as in the Bill, I just want you to get this picture, Sir, because I do not want the hon. the Minister to think that we are doing something that is perhaps inconsiderate of all the other clauses in the Bill. We have carefully considered this and we genuinely believe that 30 days is not sufficient under the circumstances which prevail in a vast province like the Cape. It is the Cape I am thinking of in particular. I do not see much difficulty, perhaps, in the other provinces, but certainly in the Cape there is a difficulty which could arise. At the moment the law is such that new applications as well as applications for renewal must always be submitted by the last day of August, and the hearing is fixed then. Everybody knows the date for the hearing of the applications. It is the first Monday in November of every year, and that is in fact a two-month period after the submission of applications. In practice we have not found that there is any real difficulty at all in respect of the period from the date that one finally has to make the application to the date of the hearing. If you add an extra month and make the difference between the final date for the application and the date of the hearing three months, it will not be any real difficulty whatsoever.

I cannot support the motion of the hon. member for East London City because in the first instance, all the provinces already know when the board will be sitting in the various provinces. In the Cape of Good Hope it is during January and February, in the Orange Free State it is during March and April, in Natal it is June and July and in the Transvaal during August and September. Therefore, when he submits his application, he already knows that the board is going to be sitting in the province in question at those times. As regards the other argument advanced by the hon. member for East London City to the effect that the board sits at a specific place in the Cape Province and does not move from place to place, this is a principle which already exists in terms of the present Act. In Germiston, for example, the board sits in respect of region No. 44 and that board serves an area stretching as far as Delmas and Heidelberg. Johannesburg’s board serves areas far removed from Johannesburg. That is not to say that the board has to go to all those specific areas to hold inspections in loco. The hon. member also raised a further argument to the effect that there could be delays in the post, but this notice appears in the Gazette. The notice appears in the Gazette at least 30 days before the start of the Board’s session. I am sure the hon. member for East London City has had to do with criminal appeals in the past. He ought to know that it sometimes happens that one is only notified 3 or 4 days before the criminal appeal comes up that that appeal is to be heard on a specific day. Therefore it is simply a case of its being the appellant’s and his advocate’s indaba to prepare themselves and be ready and get accommodation in order to attend the appeal. Furthermore the work of preparation for the application takes place when the application is being drafted, after all. It is at that point that one determines, firstly, whether there is a quota and, secondly, whether one’s premises comply with the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the regulation and whether they qualify on the strength of the provisions of the Act. He must already know all those things at that stage, and in fact, therefore, the matter of the actual preparation before the submission is only a formality.

Under those circumstances I believe that when a person knows that his application is to be heard in a specific province during a certain month and he is given an additional 30 days to prepare himself and make his arrangements, the period of notice of 30 days is quite adequate, particularly in view of the fact that the previous period—for which provision was made last year—was only 14 days.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to fight the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City. I believe it is a fair amendment and he had made out a good case for it. I believe that by granting that extra period, it will only facilitate the timing of the lodging of applications and the holding of the meetings. Quite frankly, I believe, that to argue against it, is merely to be argumentative.

Mr. Chairman, firstly I would like to move the first amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 22, in line 15, to omit all the words after “jurisdiction” up to and including “meeting” in line 19;

The proposed new section 14(3)(a) provides that a meeting of the Liquor Board be held subsequent to an order of the Supreme Court, if, upon a successful review, fair proceedings have not taken place. The proviso to the clause limits the right of the Supreme Court and prevents it from dealing with a situation in which, for some reason the chairman of the Liquor Board, has refused in the first instance to convene the meeting pursuant for an application provided for in the proposed new section 14(3)(a). Now, the point is a simple one. I cannot see the Supreme Court intervening at all, unless a case of fairly gross unreasonableness or of heavy loss is involved. I do not believe that the Supreme Court will intervene, or try to upset the normal workings of procedures, or even the discretions which are the domain of the Liquor Board, unless there is some gross unreasonableness involved. It would only play a role in extreme cases. Why, therefore, I ask, should this proviso be included? Why include this proviso and thus deprive an applicant of what might be urgent and justly needed relief? The exclusion of the proviso to the subsection in no way vitiates the power of the Liquor Board, and yet, it does insure that the safeguard remains intact.

The hon. the Minister may recall that I mentioned, when I spoke during the Second Reading debate, that I was worried about the procedure relating to appeals. I conceded that there was no right of appeal on merits in existing legislation. However, I felt, and I still feel, that this right which was lacking, was bad in principle and that its perpetuation was undesirable. The hon. the Minister has, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, given some reasons as to why he feels appeals should not be allowed. However, I believe that the amendment which stands in my name and which I have not yet moved, deals with the first of the problems raised by me in the Second Reading. Subsection (4) on page 24, line 25, deals with—

This subsection does not deal with applications for new licences. In other words, a great deal of existing vested interest and investment may well be involved. It is my feeling that in cases such as these where there is an appeal against a decision, particularly against a decision where no reasons are given to the applicant for that decision, an appeal should in fact lie to a body or a persona which is at arm’s length from the Department of Justice and the Ministry itself. The reason for this should be self-evident. There are many examples of the recognition of this principle by the Government, not the least of which is to be found in the Publications Act. In terms of the Publications Act an appeal board is set up and is, in fact, functioning. Even this procedure of setting up a special body to consider appeals, does not compare favourably—in theory or in practice—with a system which will allow aggrieved parties access to the independent courts. I do not allege at all—I hope the hon. the Minister understands this—that the Minister does not and will not in future give proper consideration to appeals lodged with him. I am sure he does. However, if I may respectfully submit, he is not at arm’s length from nor independent of the Liquor Board. The Minister, the department and the Liquor Board are closely and integrally connected in their various functions relating to the application of the liquor laws. They are part of one machine operating in accord with each other, with a common purpose and intent. In fact, the Liquor Board is the son of the Minister; the Minister is the father of the Liquor Board. If I may so say, the relationship is too close for justice to be seen to be done, and for the procedures for appeal to reflect this. I want to make it clear to hon. members that I am not alleging that the hon. the Minister has not given proper attention to appeals. However, I am saying that the relationship is too close for justice to be seen to be done. The procedure does not allow for a proper appearance, evidence being led or argument being offered.

These opportunities are limited in the extreme. We in these benches say that where issues of the nature of a cancellation or withdrawal of valuable rights are involved, proper judicial procedures should be available to those who seek redress. The amendment, which I have not yet moved, makes provision for this. It allows for an appeal to the Supreme Court having jurisdiction. If such procedure is adopted, it will allow the issue to be properly canvassed and argued. In this way the decisions of the Liquor Board can be confirmed or redressed, as the case may be. In closing, I want to mention that it will incidentally also ease the workload of the hon. the Minister to a limited extent. No prejudice to any party can arise; on the contrary, justice will not only be done, but will also be seen to be done. Therefore I hope that the amendments which I will move might be accepted. I move amendments (2), (3) and (4) as follows—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendments (2), (3) and (4) as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on the matter? Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that clause 12 deals with the setting up of the Liquor Board and the procedure relating to the Liquor Board. The main principle in that clause is the setting up of this board and this new procedure. The question of an appeal, as the hon. the Minister has already said, is an administrative matter and the hon. the Minister feels that administratively it is better for him to handle it in a particular way. That is not the main principle of clause 12 and I suggest that the main principle is the setting up of the board body. The hon. the Minister may wish to accept this amendment, in which case, Mr. Chairman, your ruling will have deprived South Africa of a magnificent change in the liquor administration.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I have already at one stage today addressed the House on this very same point and I wish to do so again. The hon. the Minister stated in his reply that he would consider the matter at the Committee Stage. At the moment the position is that where an application is refused for any factual reason, the Liquor Board is not required to give any reason for the decision.

As I pointed out earlier today during the Second Reading, the courts themselves and the Appellate Division have held that the failure to give reasons is in itself something from which one can draw an inference of arbitrariness, because the failure to give reasons contains an element of lack of bona fides. With respect, I want to say that somebody who goes to great expense to put up an hotel or restaurant and who makes application for a liquor licence and who furnishes the Liquor Board with witnesses, should be given the reasons when his application is turned down. One of the points I want to make is that in any other kind of civil litigation, the court arrives at a decision and when it does so—apart from the right of appeal—the matter is res judicata. The matter is finished. One cannot again proceed in regard to that matter. It is, however, different in the case of liquor licence applications, because here one can proceed again. What happens in practice is that people apply for a licence, the licence is refused, they do not get any reasons and they then apply again. It happens sometimes that they apply three, four or five times and they do not know why it is being refused. It may in fact be that the hon. the Minister or the Liquor Board refuses it because there are too many licences in an area. An applicant does not know that. He thinks his licence is being refused because the premises are not suitable. He goes on applying, and incurs a great deal of expense, but his application is turned down time and again. It is a most unfair situation and I suggest that what should happen is that the Liquor Board should be required to give reasons. For this reason I move the amendment—standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The result will be that except where the Liquor Board is requested by any party affected by this decision, it will not be required to give any reasons. So one ends up with a situation that whenever a party affected asks for reasons, it will get those reasons. Earlier I had made the point that in other legislation, such as the Fertilizer, Farm Feed Stock Remedies Amendment Bill and the Livestock Improvement Bill which were before this House during this very session, the department there made the point that it was an autocratic principle not to give the reasons when one refuses a man’s application. For those reasons I suggest that reasons should be given. It is even more important in the case of a person who is applying for a licence or certificate. It is more important there than it is in the case of somebody whose certificate has been cancelled, withdrawn or suspended, because a person who is applying is even more in the dark as to why his application has been turned down. As I said during the Second Reading debate, I myself was involved as counsel in a case where the Liquor Board turned down an application on mistaken grounds, as it later turned out. In a review it came to light that they had turned down the application on the ground that a certain part of the premises’ measurements were not placed on the plan, whereas in fact it was not part of the premises but merely a counter that was drawn on to the plan. That is an example of where the board mistakenly turned down an application. In that case, where there was a review before the Supreme Court, reasons were actually given as to why it was turned down. Therefore I suggest that reasons should be given, because it could save a lot of time and money.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the almost unique situation that I am in agreement with the last two speakers of the PRP. [Interjections.] To strengthen myself, I ought first to say that I am in wholehearted agreement with the excellent case made out by the hon. member for East London City in his amendment for extending the period to 60 days instead of 30 days. I think the hon. member’s case was unarguable; he put his facts with clarity and he entirely justified the period of 60 days. The hon. member dealt with the distances in the Cape, but the hon. members of the Transvaal are apparently not interested in their constituents or in their problems, nor are the Government members of the Cape Province. They do not care whether their people are inconvenienced by not knowing. They ought to know that, at the present time, to get a Government Gazette posted to an outlying place can take anything up to a week, 10 days or longer. They know what the situation is, but they have made the excuse that there are no delays in mail. They know one cannot get air bookings when one wants them and that one has to book weeks in advance, particularly over weekends. They know that one cannot merely say that one will be in Cape Town tomorrow. They know one has to plan. They know the people who are involved, i.e. the lawyers, are so busy that they have their programmes arranged well in advance and that they cannot merely pick up a suitcase and go, even though they get paid extra for it. To be more serious and more realistic …

And more to the point!

I am to the point. The point is that the distances and the scattered nature of the Republic of South Africa and the logic of requiring 60 days’ instead of 30 days’ notice in a printed Gazette which might well take a week to two weeks before it reaches one, leaves very little time for one to make one’s preparations. I submit, with respect, that it is very much to the point as to whether one is dealing with a large area, a small area, the transport and other facilities which are involved in the situation and, of course, the people involved. Therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for East London City and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept it.

Then we come to the proposed section 14—I refer to page 22 of the Bill—where the hon. the Minister tended to pooh-pooh me when I said that the Supreme Court could be overruled by the chairman of the Liquor Board. In this regard I want to support the hon. member for Sandton’s amendment. Here we have the strange situation where the Supreme Court of South Africa can order a rehearing, because of circumstances which have convinced it as the judiciary, and say that a matter shall be heard by a special meeting of the Liquor Board. One individual, the chairman of the Liquor Board, can overrule the Supreme Court because there is a proviso in the new section 14(3)(a) which provides that—

this refers to the request for a special meeting—

We are putting one official above a decision of the Supreme Court, if a person has applied in terms of section 14(1)(a) which provides that—

The section also provides that he may determine the place. If he has refused an application a court of South Africa cannot overrule that decision. When I raised this matter on an earlier clause, and referred to this subsequent clauses the hon. the Minister tended to pooh-pooh my argument and said that was nonsense—I think that was his interjection. Now we come to the point, however. In terms of the proviso an official can take a decision which cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court, irrespective of the facts, irrespective of the merits, irrespective of mala fides or anything else because the law says a division of the Supreme Court of South Africa cannot order a meeting if an official, the chairman of the Board, has ruled against the holding of that meeting. I do not suggest that the chairman of the board is going to be unreasonable, but I have for instance even had instances where officials have refused to address a meeting if a particular person were present in that meeting. It has happened to me that an official has refused to address a meeting if I were present at the meeting. One does therefore get unreasonable decisions and I believe that the courts of South Africa have a status which we ought to preserve. It is our duty to see that in no way and in no case do we impede the right of a court to take a decision on merit or on the facts of whatever issue is placed before it. I believe that it is certainly wrong and I support the deletion of the proviso to section 14(3)(a).

I do not agree with the next amendment of the hon. member for Sandton which you, Mr. Chairman, ruled out of order and therefore I do not need to debate it. I want to move an amendment myself, however, to section 15 which is also on page 22. This is again another example of the officialese approach where it takes from line 27 to line 64 to say what a meeting of the Liquor Board may consider. It ends up by saying that the board may consider any other application excluding two which are specified. It goes further and it says it may consider any application referred to the board in terms of subsection (1), any reports submitted, any written requests referred to in section 38, an application made in terms of section 100bis or 100sex, an application in terms of section 9(4)(a), 100bis etc. However, an omnibus section is added in paragraph (f) where it is provided that any other application may be considered.

I accordingly want to move the following amendment—

That is what this clause says. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I last spoke I had moved the second of my amendments, but I have not, as yet, spoken to it. Before I proceed to do so, however, I move the third amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I now want to deal with the question of direct or indirect interest referred to on page 30. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister stated that he would be interested to know of a specific example of how “indirect” would be of assistance in this particular case. I believe that the purpose behind clause 23 is to ensure that there is, as far as possible, complete impartiality in regard to the activities of the members of the Liquor Board. One must remember that in terms of the clause appointing the members of the Liquor Board, it is provided that three persons, apart from officials, can be appointed to the board. Those three persons can be anyone at all. I believe that not only in respect of those three persons, but also in respect of the entire membership of the board, not only should there be impartiality but there should be seen to be complete impartiality. I therefore believe that adding the word “indirect” to clause 23(1)(d), i.e. in line 18, so that the provision reads: “has a direct or indirect financial interest in the business in respect of which the application is made” would go a long way towards bringing about that complete impartiality. The clause involves the question as to whether “he or his spouse or child” may be “an owner, mortgagee, lessor or lessee of the premises” or “a partner, agent or employee of the applicant” or “a director, manager or other officer, employee or agent of any association of persons by whom the application is made.” Those cover all specifics. However, when one deals with a “direct financial interest” it has been accepted, I believe, certainly in municipal law in South Africa, that the extension to cover an indirect financial interest is there in order to extend the disqualification beyond the immediate participation in the actual business itself, financial or otherwise. It has been argued on numerous occasions, throughout the provincial councils of this country, that it is unnecessary to have the words “indirect interest” in regard to a disqualification of a councillor who operates in a municipal council. I think the hon. the Minister will know of this. The reason for that is, as I have said, that there must be seen to be complete impartiality. The hon. the Minister, in his Second Reading speech, gave what I believe to be a perfect example of how the words “indirect interest” would affect the issue here. He mentioned the question of a person having shares in a company which has numerous subsidiaries which it would be very difficult to pin down. I believe that it is exactly this type of case which should be covered by the use of the word “indirect”, because in point of fact the person sitting on the board may well be influenced, in some way, as a result of the fact that he has shares in a company which is going to benefit indirectly as the result of the granting or non-granting of a licence. I believe we have accepted the fact that the granting of a licence is of such importance, particularly a bottle licence, that we have now pushed up the impost on certain bottle liquor licences in certain areas from R5 000 to R10 000. We have just passed that clause. I therefore believe, particularly in regard to liquor, that it is vital that one should make certain that the people of South Africa accept that there is complete impartiality in regard to the operations of the people constituting that board. It does not mean that they are excluded entirely from the operation of their function. It may well be that one isolated case emerges in which they may have an indirect interest.

If that person, who is a member of the board, believes that he has an indirect interest—whether in fact he has that indirect interest or not does not really matter—he must recuse himself. I believe that the board will still be able to operate. This will only happen on isolated occasions, but I believe that in the interests of the establishment of the board itself and of its impartiality, we should include the word “indirect”.

Dealing with my last amendment, that seeks to make provision for a technical error on page 30 in the proposed new section 24. I deliberately moved this amendment at a late stage in the proceedings on this particular clause because I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North is a good amendment. Only if that amendment is unsuccessful, would I ask that my amendment be put to the Committee. My amendment serves to add a further exception to subsection (1), viz.—

As I have said, I personally believe that if a request is made for reasons, those reasons should be given. If the Committee does not agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, I believe my amendment should be put. If one refers to the proposed new section 173(2) contained in clause 145 of the Bill, on page 204, one finds there that the Liquor Board is given the discretion to “condone any error or omission of a formal or technical nature in such application”. If the board does not exercise that discretion to condone any error or omission, but finds that there is in fact an error or omission and refuses the application on those grounds, I believe that that information should be conveyed to the applicant. That is the reason why I have moved this amendment couched in the way that it is.

Finally, I should like to say that I support entirely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point concerning the verbiage here. I think it is a prime example of what we could have done if this whole Bill had been referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I move the fifth amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The proposed new section 17(1) allows the Liquor Board, of its own motion, mero motu, in considering any application, to take notice of any matter which in its opinion could be a ground for objection to the grant of such application, even though no objection has in fact been lodged or voiced. I have no objection to this provision. I think it is a good provision. It ensured that the board is not limited in the aspects of the applications which come under consideration. However, the concept of considering matters that are not necessarily before the board, should in fact work in both directions. More particularly, it should be clear that the board can also, of its own motion, take notice of any matter that might favour the granting of an application although no reference has been made thereto. This amendment seeks to ensure that facility and assists in a fair decision being made. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider accepting it.

I should like for a moment to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. The subject matter of this part of the clause, i.e. the new section 24(1) and the amendment moved by my hon. friend, were raised in the Second Reading. I am aware that the provision allowing the Liquor Board to avoid giving reasons for its decisions has always been in the Act, but I suggest that it is a thoroughly undesirable provision and that the time is ripe for its elimination. There have been occasions when information, subsequently becoming available to an applicant, has indicated that a licence has been refused on more than one occasion because of considerations which the applicant could in fact have met. For instance, in one case I have been told that the Minister of Justice, innocently, refused an application recommended by the National Board because he was under the mistaken impression that the premises formed part of a national chain.

I believe that the applicant should be given the opportunity of meeting whatever reasons the board or the Minister may have for its refusal. I hope that the new section 17(1), on page 26, will be fully used to overcome this difficulty. The reasons, however, for the final refusal of an application are vital information in so far as an applicant is concerned. The provision of these reasons can save thousands of rands of repeated and fruitless expenditure and uncertainty. It would also cut down on the number of applications, which have no hope of success, being repeated.

I was going to say to the hon. member for East London City in regard to his third amendment that although we support it in principle, it fails to get to the core of the problem we have, but as he has now said that his amendment is to be put only upon the failure of the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, I thank him for that consideration.

With regard to the new section 26(3), on page 32, I argued a little earlier that appeals against decisions of the Liquor Board should lie not to the Minister but to the courts. The new section 26(3) ensures that except that in very restricted circumstances appeals are altogether excluded with regard to decisions of the Liquor Board. Once the Liquor Board has made its decision with regard to an application, irrespective of the ramifications of that decision, that is an end to the matter. Reasons for the board’s decision are not supplied and an aggrieved party has no further forum in which to seek redress. Stated briefly, I do not believe this to be an equitable state of affairs, despite the historical fact that the new section does not materially alter past practices. It was wrong in the past and I believe it is wrong now. It is highly important in matters where decisions are taken involving the public interest, involving private investment, that the administration of justice in any form has built into it checks and balances to ensure fairness at all times, and by allowing access to the high courts, to seek redress on the merits of a case as opposed to the restricted grounds for review, it is put beyond doubt that those checks and balances guard the interests of the public and also those of the applicants. I therefore move the sixth amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendment No. (6) as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the arguments advanced by the members for Durban North, East London City and also, to a lesser extent, Sandton, it appears to me that in fact, these hon. gentlemen want to ask the hon. the Minister to change the whole situation in regard to administrative law. I just want to refer the hon. member for Durban North to the case of Pretoria North City Council v. Al Electric Ice Cream Factory Ltd., 1953 (3), S.A.L.R., page 1. I quote the headnote of this judgment—

What we find in the proposed section 17(2) is a precise reformulation of the provisions of the common law. The proposed provision reads as follows—

In other words, the proposed section 17(1) gives the applicant the right to reply to the objection of the board in accordance with which the application was refused. In the common law and in the existing law there is no provision to the effect that when one is dealing with matters relating to administrative law or quasi-judicial matters, reasons for such decisions have to be furnished. The provisions of this legislation therefore correspond fully with the provisions of administrative law. I think my hon. friend from Durban North will concede me this.

We now come to the first amendment of the hon. member for Sandton, namely that it should not be permitted that there should be an appeal “provided that no such division shall have power to order the holding of such a special meeting if the chairman of the Liquor Board has in terms of subsection (1)(a) refused to convene such a meeting”. In the normal course there is a right under clause 25 to review a finding of the Liquor Board. The court also has the right to direct that a special meeting of the Liquor Board be held. Now the hon. member also wants to give the court the right, even as far as the holding of a special meeting is concerned, to compel the chairman to hold a special meeting. The chairman will only hold a special meeting under certain circumstances. This has been the position in the past. In cases where there has been a technical error in the original application, the chairman will in the normal course permit at a special meeting that that application be resubmitted. That problem is now eliminated by the provisions of clause 145(2) to which the hon. member for East London City referred. When in any other situation the chairman is asked to hold a special meeting of the board, the applicant must convince the chairman that there are special circumstances which make it essential for the application to be heard at that specific stage and not at the next annual sitting of the Liquor Board. He can only do this if he can prove that it is in the public interest that such a meeting be held and a licence granted. In what case will he be able to prove that it is in fact in the public interest that an application cannot stand over to the following annual sitting of this board? Under those circumstances I believe that this is quite right. It would lead to confusion and endless litigation if—apart from the other rights it has under clause 25—the court could also have the right to compel a chairman to convene a meeting merely to hear the application which had not been submitted in time.

I now want to refer to the argument advanced by the hon. members for East London City in respect of the direct or indirect interest. I think that the hon. the Minister has already replied to that adequately; he did so when he dealt with this argument during the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister rightly said that one did not know where to draw the line because it was extremely difficult to distinguish where an indirect interest began. He referred to the possible case of an applicant’s mother who might have some interest in the matter. What about the applicant’s mother-in-law or brother-in-law … [Interjections.] Where is it going to end, Mr. Chairman? [Interjections.] Sir, we can sing together but we cannot talk together. I think the hon. member for Mooi River ought to know that. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it is a simple fact that that line cannot be drawn—not in practice. That is why the applicant also has the right, if he suspects that one of the members of the Liquor Board has a direct or indirect interest in an application, to ask that member to recuse himself—

†I think that is a common law right, a right which he has in any case. I also believe that that provides for the problem of the hon. member for East London City in any event. Coming then to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point—he moved to amend clause 15(a)(2)(f) by substituting a shorter wording—he says that any matter which the Board is competent to consider should be considered. Now, one can only visualize how many court cases will be heard in order to establish or to decide what matter is competent for a board to consider. As the clause now stands it is very easy for the court or for any interested person to know what the powers of the board are. There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever as to where an applicant stands. In the circumstances this proposed amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point has no substance.

*In those circumstance Mr. Chairman, whereas you have ruled the further amendments of the hon. member for Sandton out of order, I request that the other amendments, too, be turned down.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan says that we are trying to amend the whole of the administrative law. Then he cites the A1 ice-cream case. I take it that he is under the impression that the A1 ice-cream case is in his favour. In that case, a case against a town council, the Appeal Court Judge said that the same principle applied to the liquor laws. He also said this—

Now, what does “arbitrary” mean. Mr. Chairman? “Arbitrary” means that they did not even exercise a discretion, that they did not even apply their minds to the issue … [Interjections.] What the Appeal Court is saying—and incidentally this very case was followed in a liquor licensing case in 1955, in the case of Behr v. Oberholzer Liquor Licensing Board—is, that while it does not have to, in terms of the legislation, give reasons, it is so bad that it has to be set aside. In other words, what the Appeal Court is saying, is that it is highly desirable that they give reasons. [Interjections.] It said, in fact, that if they did not give reasons the case would be set aside. [Interjections.]

The second point is—I would like to understand how the hon. members on the other side can get away from this point—that in the two agriculture Bills before this House there are provisions that reasons may not only be given, but shall be given when an application is refused. [Interjections.] The ministry of Agriculture said that if there were no provision to give reasons, such an autocratic provision would put them in a very bad light The ministry, said that autocratically it would put them in a very bad light if there were legislation which provided that they need not give reasons. The hon. member for Brakpan said that there should be no reasons given. I would like to know how they get away from this. Do they say that the ministry of Agriculture is talking nonsense or does the hon. the Minister of Justice say that he concedes that they are being autocratic? If he were to put up that argument and say that he can see that they are being autocratic, but these are the reasons why they do it, then I would be able to understand that argument. However, I cannot see how the hon. member for Brakpan can suggest that it is not an autocratic measure. As I have pointed out the ministry of Agriculture accepts that it is an autocratic measure. I would very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he accepts that it is an autocratic principle not to give reasons or whether he says that it is autocratic, but justifies it on some other basis.

Mr. Chairman, I merely stand up to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I am not prepared to steal a march on him in regard to the Bill he has dealt with before and now wants to hold up to us as the law of the Medes and the Persians. I have already given him sufficient reasons to cover this aspect and have said that the House is not actually the body that makes the final decision. Why does the hon. member not want to listen, hear or understand? We said that the application is not finalized before I have considered it. What is more, in terms of the Bill, I can take certain factors into consideration before I finalize the application. The hon. member will realize that if the Liquor Board has to supply reasons at that early stage, and if it is fair for the board to supply such reasons, the board is tying my hands. If the board supplies reasons for rejecting or accepting an application, and I should like to reject it for other reasons which I am also entitled to take into consideration, the result would be utter confusion.

Therefore reasons are not supplied. However, now the hon. member says that that it is totally unjustified and that unless we can really supply reasons other than those supplied to him in the debate, it is unacceptable. I shall give the other reasons now and hope that the hon. member will accept them. I think that is quite logical; there is nothing wrong with that.

I now come to the argument of the hon. member for East London City. The hon. member for Durban North has already held it against us; he said that there would be many more delays in terms of this new legislation. I am not unwilling to increase the period to 60 days, but in all honesty I do not think it is necessary. Our experience with the international hotels, for instance, which also have to get together with the National Board at the moment, is that they telephonically give timely notice and have no difficulty in getting their team of advocates and lawyers and their documents ready within a month. I have an open mind about this but I do not already want to build delays into this system at this stage. If the applicants are going to find it difficult to appear before the board within 30 days, I undertake to change the period to 60 days. I am not dogmatic on that point. However, I want to bring it to the hon. member’s attention that this is mostly a question of new licences.

†In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point to clause 12, if I understand his argument correctly, the hon. member says this is quite unnecessary to put in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) of the proposed section 15(1). Is that correct? He said that this was an example of superfluous wording. He brings in this amendment, namely that the wording after line 60 should read: “Any matter which it is competent to consider”. He does not, however, say what it is competent for them to consider. What it is competent for them to consider is contained in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).

It is all in those clauses.

Of course, but that is what it is competent for them to consider.

Why repeat it here?

It must be there, all the matters they are competent to consider.

It is in all those clauses.

It is in all those clauses, but if one takes all those clauses out and one simply says “any matter which it is competent to consider” which then are the matters? Because these little clauses give them the matters which it is competent for them to consider. The hon. member will find that the matters which the board is competent to consider are set out in those clauses he wants to delete. So when the hon. member says in his amendment “any matter which it is competent to consider”, he must refer to the matter in the Bill which he is competent to consider. If we take all those little clauses out, we are without any matter to consider. That is the difficulty. I hope he understands that.

I am afraid the hon. the Minister is the one who cannot understand the position.

I can do more than that for the hon. member. I have tried to explain it to him, the hon. member for East London City wants to insert the words “direct” and “indirect” on page 30. I just want to tell the hon. member that I think that the word “indirect” has too broad a meaning here. To quote the proposed new section 23(1)—

Now the hon. member must not forget that the child may be an adult, a child who has left home altogether. If such a child buys shares on the Stock Exchange without his father’s knowledge, it may possibly be a case of indirect influence. Surely it is a little too wide.

†Does the hon. member not think it is a bit too wide?

That is a problem, but I think the positive outweighs the negative.

I agree with the hon. member. I said it right at the outset that I was prepared to put in directly. But in this particular context the word “indirect” is so wide that it is quite impossible to try to ascertain what is indirect in the first place and, secondly, I think it would be unfair. I quoted the example of the adult child who is out of the house and probably in another part of the country who might have shares which may affect the licence. This man must recuse himself.

Municipal ordinances use exactly the same word.

What about serving councillors?

It is quite impossible to make it as wide as all that. I am quite prepared to include it, but I must first take a look at it to see whether we should not restrict it slightly.

*The other amendment which the hon. member requests also appears on page 30 of the Bill. Clause 24(1) provides the following—

†There the hon. member wants to put in: “The Liquor Board shall refuse any application on the ground of a technical error or omission.” A technical error, however, is actually a question of law and for that the board already has to give reasons. It is appealable, and the moment it becomes appealable the board must give reasons for it. I think I have satisfied the hon. member, because I saw the way he shook his head. If what I am saying is correct, I think he will be satisfied, because in actual fact the technicality is a question of law and therefore is appealable. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Sandton complains that the board has the right to consider something against the applicant mero motu. The hon. member for Sandton now wants to compel me to accept something in the applicant’s favour. It is not the task of the board to take such facts into account mero motu. It is the task of the applicant who is being represented; it is his case which he can put to the board. The board cannot be compelled by legislation to raise a point which may perhaps be in his favour but which he has not noticed. What happens if the board does not see it either? The whole case can then be reviewed. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.

Order! The lawyers have now confused the issue to such an extent that I can no longer follow it either.

†I will give the hon. member for Durban Point the opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, when the sea-lawyers and the side bar and all the other bars have finished, plain common sense enters. This is what I want to deal with in the amendment which I have proposed and which the hon. the Minister, as a member of the Bar, has rejected.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is now otherwise engaged … The hon. the Minister says that it is necessary to specify the matters which may be considered by the Liquor Board. I want to take each of these items. I thought it would not be necessary to deal with it in detail but apparently it is and maybe I can get it through to him. Let me look at the items that I have proposed should be deleted. The first is “any application referred to the board in terms of subsection (1)”. That is subsection (1) of this section and subsection (1) provides that—

And I repeat “any application”—

That to me is simple, plain, understandable language. How it got into an Act of this nature, I do not know. It is so intelligible, so simple and so understandable that one would not expect to find it in the Liquor Act. However, it is there and it provides that—

The first item which I suggested be deleted is exactly that, namely an application referred in subsection (1) of the same section. The next item is section 15(2)(b), namely “any report submitted to such chairman by a designated police officer in terms of section 137 or 138”. If you turn to section 137, Mr. Chairman, you will find that section 137 provides that—

Then follows a whole series of things he must report. Section 138, on the other hand, provides that—

It is therefore stated in the Act that these are things which “shall” be reported to the board. It is not a question of “may” or of this being possible; there are specific things that “shall” be reported to the board by the designated police officer.

Let us look at the next item, namely “any written request referred to in section 38”. Section 38 provides that any person may alone or jointly and that any local authority may during the months of August lodge with the secretary of the Liquor Board a written request to such board for the cancellation, withdrawal or suspension of such licence. It further provides that such application shall be lodged in the prescribed manner and that upon the receipt of any such request, the chairman of the Liquor Board may after consultation convene an interim meeting of the board in terms of section 15 for the consideration of the matter. Every one of these items which I am proposing should be deleted are specific items reported to the board, and it is specifically stated in the relevant clauses that they shall be considered by the board. The next item, in section 15(1)(d), refers to applications pertaining to licences which have been cancelled. Reference is made to section 138 again. Section 15(1)(e) refers to any application by a licensee for the condonation of his failure to pay the prescribed annual fee timeously. We have already had a long debate on that, and it is an issue which the board “shall” consider. My argument is that if the chairman may refer to an interim meeting any application made to him and if every one of the issues which are listed in this long rigmarole which I propose be deleted, are specifically stated in the Act, then I cannot see why one cannot simply replace them with the words “any matter which it is competent to consider”.

Now let us look at what it is competent to consider. It is competent to consider an application in terms of subsection (1), it is competent to consider a report by a designated police officer in terms of this Act and it is competent to consider a written request in terms of section 38. These are all matters which it is competent to consider because the relevant section imposes the duty and responsibility to consider them. All I am saying is that this is a typical example of repeating things unnecessarily when they are already contained in the Act and when, in any case, clause 15(f) already states: “Any other application, excluding an application referred to in section 13 or 81(3)”. So, when all the matters have been listed, one then adds “anything else”.

One begins by stating “any application” and ends by stating “any other application”. One therefore starts by saying that they may consider anything and one ends by saying they may consider anything else, and in between one lists all this “guff”. I am not prepared to accept the fact that the hon. the Minister simply rejects this amendment, saying I do not know what I am talking about because the relevant powers must be specified. Every one of the powers is specified— and more. Mention is made of the fact that anything and also anything else can be considered. That is all I am saying. I am saying that it is competent to consider any matter which it is competent to consider, except the ones here excluded. That is all the amendment states, and I am therefore not prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s rejection of it in the terms in which he did so. The hon. the Minister has not replied—unless I missed his reply—to the issue of the Supreme Court having no jurisdiction to order an interim meeting if the chairman of the Liquor Board has refused a request for such a meeting. I may have missed that point, but I hope he will deal with it. I shall therefore take the matter no further at this stage.

Then there is the question which was raised about the reasons given. The hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for East London City was that a technical reason would be a matter of law. That, of course, is not so. An error on an architect’s drawing is a technical error. It is not a matter of law.

It is a technicality. He could forget to fill in something on an application form. That is a technicality, not a matter of law. It is an omission or a failure of a technical nature. In other words, it is a technicality, not a legal issue. Therefore the hon. the Minister is totally incorrect when he says that reasons will be given because it is a matter of law. Again I believe that he must rethink that one and either come back with another answer or accept our argument. The best solution is still that contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North, i.e. that whenever a reason is requested, that reason should be given. Another amendment which has not received an adequate reply is that of the hon. member for East London City dealing with the matter of “indirect financial interest”. If it is possible to unseat an elected public representative because of an “indirect interest”, surely it is possible for a person to recuse himself from a meeting if he has an “indirect interest”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, may I refer him to the proposed new section 15(1) on page 22 of the Bill. That subsection reads that—

Then in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new section 15 we find that it stipulates that “any report submitted to such chairman … If one peruses the proposed new section 137, one finds that the report is not made to the board, and if one peruses the proposed new section 138, one finds that, again, the written request is not made to the board, but to the chairman of the board. Therefore it is necessary that in terms of the proposed new section 15(2) the chairman be empowered to refer the matters to the board. If the hon. member looks at the proposed new sections 137 and 138 closely, I think he will find that the matters are referred to the chairman in his personal capacity and not to the board as such. Therefore I think that a great deal of the hon. member’s argument goes by the board. It is therefore necessary to include at least paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2). In that case I submit that the hon. the Minister is quite correct in his argument. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Durban Point refuses to understand it—I think he could understand it if he wanted to.

*The hon. member for Durban Point went on to say that he has a problem regarding the fact that, if the chairman of the Liquor Board refuses to grant a certain special meeting, the Supreme Court has no powers of review in that connection. That is surely quite correct. That is as it should be. If we look at the proposed new section 25, we find that the Supreme Court may only review proceedings of the Liquor Board. In the English text it reads as follows—

†Let me try to explain this in English: When an application has been refused, no proceedings whatsoever have taken place. In other words, there are absolutely no proceedings for the Supreme Court to review.

But the board refused an application.

That is correct. The board refuses even to grant an application a hearing. Then there have been no proceedings.

There are 200 decisions in the law reports on that very issue.

My hon. friend may be completely wrong. I would not be surprised if he is more often wrong than right. Be that as it may.

*I do not care about other decisions because they are applicable to other laws. The fact of the matter is that the wording of this legislation is very clear. Be that as it may, to me it is very clear that when one makes a mistake and requests a special meeting, the chairman’s discretion will apparently determine whether it is granted or not. If he decides that he does not want to hear the matter, he is quite entitled not to do so. He has absolute discretion, in terms of this legislation, to refuse to do so. I think that is the correct thing. Then the court cannot review the matter because there will no no “proceedings” before the court.

I want to make it clear that when it comes to administrative discretion, it is not the practice in our common law for one to have to provide reasons. This accords with our administration of justice. There are not only hundreds, but perhaps thousands, of cases that point this out. Why is this so? When one exercises discretion, it may be that 49% support such an action and 51% oppose it. In any event, one has to exercise one’s discretion in terms of the knowledge one has. Our administration of justice, however, places the onus on those, who allege that the discretion has been exercised incorrectly, to prove their statement. As far as I know there is no precedent for saying in an administrative-legal context that specific reasons must be provided.

I want to go further. I have already put the argument. The granting of a licence is a privilege. It is a privilege a person obtains; he is not entitled to it. It is a matter of discretion to give him a driver’s licence or a liquor licence. Therefore it is correct as it is, and I support wholeheartedly the fact that reasons should not be given under these circumstances. The person who is dissatisfied is always free to prove a mala fides; there are procedures for doing this. Our courts are open. Let him prove what he must. In these circumstances I really cannot see any pith in the arguments of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that I am not a lawyer, but I am dealing with the legislation from the viewpoint one can expect from an ordinary member of Parliament in the light of the difficulties one can encounter in one’s own constituency with this type of legislation. This is why I want to say something to the hon. the Minister.

However, I should first like to refer to something said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He says that the granting of a licence is a privilege, but if one complies with all the prerequisites, it is surely also one’s right to obtain such a licence. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am just speaking in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North which indicates that reasons should be provided on request. I think it is really a little unfair and unreasonable to expect us simply to accept the standpoint of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister told us that if the Liquor Board gives reasons, his hands are tied. Therefore we must accept that the hon. the Minister will give reasons at a later stage. I have not come across many such cases, but I did have one case in my constituency where a person repeatedly applied for a licence and did not know precisely what was wrong. In the meantime he had to sit there like a mind-reader trying to determine what was actually wrong and what requirement was not being complied with. If the same conditions hold here, can the Liquor Board, the Minister or whoever tell one precisely that one’s application has been refused for this or that reason, and then afterwards one does not have people spending money unnecessarily in order to build something extra, etc.

†The hon. the Minister has just tried to brush aside the precedent that has been created with the agriculture Bills, but I believe that it is good legislation to say that reasons shall be given when an application is turned down.

*I should like to address a request to the hon. the Minister, not for legal reasons, but just to simplify the task when one has to explain something to a person in one’s constituency who apply for a licence. To ensure that such a person like this does not waste unnecessary money and time—your own time and that of the hon. the Minister— the conditions, which the applicant will have to comply with before he can be issued with a licence, must immediately be furnished.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to react to a few points that have been raised. The one was raised by the hon. member for Brakpan and the other by the hon. member for Pretoria West.

Firstly, I want to say that on page 22 we find the new section 14(3)(a) which I should like to read so that we can understand precisely what it means. It reads as follows—

Now we look at the new section 25(2) because section 14(3)(a) deals specifically with orders in terms of section 25(2). Section 25(2) deals with the review of proceedings. It deals with the review procedure which is taken when decisions are made which are questioned in court. When are decisions questioned and what are the grounds for such review? In terms of section 25(2) they are of a very serious nature. They are that if in the proceedings in question the board exceeded its powers or refused to exercise powers or acted in an arbitrary or mala fide manner, is grossly unreasonable, or a member who was disqualified from taking part took part therein.

Before coming to the argument on proceedings, I want to say that by having this contradiction in the first instance, it says in effect that despite the fact that gross irregularities have taken place, the Supreme Court can, in fact, be blocked in its attempt to rectify those irregularities.

No, only in the case of section …

Well, if that is not the case, if hon. members on the other side say so, then I want to ask them why that provision on page 22 is there at all.

Look at section 14(1)(a). It is only when he refuses in the case of these particular instances.

On what basis then can it be refused that a meeting be held? I think that there are several cases where the very refusal to hold a meeting, when a meeting should have been held, where it was just and equitable that a meeting be held, was felt to be a situation in terms of which the chairman or a member of the body had exceeded their authority.

Quote those cases.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the case book in front of me. I believe that for this a proper case can be made out. There is no reason why that exclusion should in fact be in that clause.

Mr. Chairman, the other matter that I want to raise is in relation to a point made by the hon. the Minister. I refer to page 28 in respect of which he said that it was the task of the applicant to state all the points in favour of his application and that therefore it was not necessary for the board mero motu to take matters into account which had not been raised by the applicant. On the other hand, the hon. the Minister does provide that if there are objections to the application, even if these are not made in the application, the board can in fact take these into account. Sir, he does not balance it at all.

Let us look at the background to this. The board does not have to give reasons for its decisions and it does not appear that the hon. the Minister is going to accept an amendment which will allow the board to give reasons. In many cases the very criteria on which the board makes decisions are not known to the trade. As a result of this, they come back time and again not knowing what case they have to meet. All that we are saying is that in the background to this, where they come not knowing what case to meet, that the board should in effect take into account all the matters which are relevant, even if some of the matters which are relevant have not been mentioned by the applicant in his application. I am asking now that the board, in the light of this, be fair in making such a decision. I am asking that the board takes both sides into account, those things which are perhaps against an application being granted and those which are in favour.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Durban Central and I would not have told him that a cobbler should stick to his last if he had not said that the hon. the Minister “brushed aside” other arguments, because this is very far from the truth. The hon. the Minister did not brush arguments aside. I think that he replied to everyone’s arguments in full, but those gentlemen refuse to understand this. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central what happens in practice. One hundred applications are received for licences, but there is a quota for only one. The 100 applications are all technically correct and all are very well motivated. The hon. the Minister is up against the problem that he can only grant one. What reasons must he give for having refused the other 99? One application is virtually as good as any other. However, here and there the hon. the Minister must consider public interest when it comes to granting priority. This is the factual situation we are faced with. Over and above the factual position we are faced with, this is simply not the custom. Nowhere in our administration of justice will it be found that a Minister, or any official in his administrative capacity, must give reasons for his decisions. The hon. member for Sandton also said a few words here, referring to the proposed new section 25(1) and (2), but he did not get to the crux of the matter. The fact of the matter is that there are no proceedings to review unless “proceedings” take place.

†The “proceedings” take place at the hearing. A record is kept and the record indicates what can be reviewed, but if no record is kept, there is nothing to be reviewed. That is also very clear on this one aspect.

*When a special meeting is held, this is again something out of the ordinary. It is not the normal course of events. Then why is this special meeting actually necessary? This is not the normal course of events. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken have really said nothing to justify any deviation from the present wording.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to what the hon. member for Sandton said. That is, of course, if I can catch his attention. It does not seem as if he is listening to me at the moment. [Interjections.] It has been brought to my attention that I neglected to reply to him a moment ago. The question at issue here is the proposed new section 14(3)(a)—

It is a question of policy. For instance, special meetings are not allowed where licences are in competition with one another. Mr. Chairman, you will be able to understand this yourself. Should I know that there are going to be two licences in a certain town, or perhaps one licence … Usually a person has to apply before a certain date. In the old days it was in August, and the case was heard in November, not so? To quote an example, I now apply for a special meeting before the time. My application is refused. I cannot then go to the Supreme Court and have the court force me to convene a meeting in conflict with the policy of the department. That is a policy matter and does not concern the Supreme Court. Special meetings will be held, but not if the chairman has said they cannot be held.

There are certain policy provisions which the chairman has to comply with. As long as he does so, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court is being adversely affected. The orders of the Supreme Court are still being carried out, but the chairman is the person who has the right to decide when that special meeting must be held. The chairman cannot be compelled to hold a meeting at any other time. Nor can people threaten to take him to court should he refuse. This is actually the reason why the chairman has the right to determine if and when the special meeting can be held. I want to disagree with the hon. member for Durban North. A technicality is a question of law. The question that arises is whether the entry or drawing on the map, or whatever, falls within the legal provisions. It is a question of law as to whether it falls within the legal provisions of the Liquor Act or not. In other words, if someone has filled in his form incorrectly, the argument is whether it was necessary for him to fill in his form in that way so as to fall within the legal provisions of the Liquor Act. This is a question of law and is open to appeal. Since it is open to appeal, the board must give its reasons. It rather seems to me as if the hon. member is satisfied now.

I want to say once again that as regards “indirect”, I cannot go further than what I have already indicated to the hon. member for East London City. I cannot take it further than that because children are also involved and there should, after all, be some control. How must a person know whether to recuse himself or not? I shall first have to see whether I can limit it a little.

The hon. member for Sandton crossed swords with me about the fact that the board can adduce something mero motu to the disadvantage of an applicant. That is only fair, however. If the board is aware of something which counts against the applicant, it cannot ignore it and must take it into account and consider it. Therefore it is only fair to tell the person: “This point counts against you, what do you have to say about it?” However, if the board has to consider something in the applicant’s favour—the board will consider it in any event—the board does not have to tell him so, since because it is in his favour and there may be four or five applicants, the board has to notify all the applicants accordingly. The whole point is therefore that we must not put something like this into the Act because the board will automatically consider something in the applicant’s favour. However, the board must not be compelled to make it known as something in an applicant’s favour.

My amendment does not force the board to make it known.

I do not think there is anything else I need talk about.

Mr. Chairman, having heard all the legal argument, I now want to start with what I understand is a clear and an unequivocal assurance by the hon. the Minister which I want to get into Hansard and on record. If this is not so the hon. the Minister must tell me. As I understand it, he said that “a technical error or omission”, which are the words used in the amendment of the hon. member for East London City, will fall under the definition of a decision on a question of law. Did I get him right?

That is right.

That means—and I put this on record—that if any application is rejected on the grounds of a technical error or omission the reason will be given in terms of the proposed section 24(1)(a). [Interjections.] That is on record. That is what the hon. the Minister said and I place it on record for every applicant for a liquor licence in the future to know that if he has made an error the board will be obliged to give him the reason for the rejection in terms of section 24(1)(a).

Oh, it happens!

That is fine. The hon. the Minister says it happens, but I want to tell him what happened to an applicant who had his application rejected and went to try to find out—I do not know to whom he spoke—the reason why his application was rejected. He was told by somebody to go to a certain consultant who used to be connected or had something to do with the control of the liquor trade, and he would be able to sort out his problem. He went to the consultant and he was asked a consultancy fee of some R3 000.

That is a piece of gossip.

It is not a piece of gossip. He was asked a consultancy fee and then the consultant would sort out what was wrong with his application and why it had been refused. He was told officially that it was no use, because they do not give reasons, and that he should go to a consultant who will put him right. It is to avoid—as the hon. member interjects—a consultant taking anyone for a ride that we want the board to give reasons. Now we have a recorded assurance in Hansard by the hon. the Minister that if there is a technical omission or error, it will be given as a reason in all cases where an application is rejected, because it will be accepted as a decision on a question of law. Now that it is on record, I am happy. The hon. the Minister said it and he has again confirmed it now. He confirmed it specifically when I asked it across the floor of the House. He nodded now that it was in fact a question of law.

Vause, you are stupid.

I may be stupid, but now I have something on record which is of tremendous importance to the hotel industry. It is more than those hon. members would be able to understand judging by their inability to even follow the debate, let alone participate in it.

I want to come to the hon. the Minister’s question of the courts not dealing with a matter of policy. He is, of course, totally wrong. The court is limited in terms of section 25. It is limited to considering whether the board exceeded its powers, refused to exercise powers which it is obliged to exercise, exercised them in an arbitrary or mala fide or grossly unreasonable manner, or whether a member who is disqualified participated. Those are the only things on which the court may determine. Therefore the specious argument about policy is utter tripe. I do not know who fed it to the hon. the Minister, because he cannot really, when it is stated in the Bill specifically what the court may deal with, come to us and give as his reason for rejecting an amendment to delete an overruling of the court, that the court cannot decide on policy. Policy is not affected. It is bona fide, mala fide exercise of power, gross misapplication of attention. Those things must first be decided by a court; there must be a court judgment. Even after all that has been found if there has been an application for an interim meeting and it has been refused, the court’s finding is null and void. The hon. the Minister’s argument is specious and absolutely off the point.

Mr. Chairman, I could hardly believe the reply the hon. the Minister of Justice gave just now. I gave him the option and said that the alternative presented by the legal adviser of the Department of Agriculture was that this sort of “outokratiese bepaling stel sy beslissings in ’n baie swak lig”. That is what it says. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he agreed that it was autocratic or did he say that the Department of Agriculture’s legal adviser was talking nonsense? I asked him which of those two things it was. Does the House know what the hon. the Minister replied? He said: “In fact, the trouble is they cannot give reasons because it would bind my hands.” The hon. the Minister says that they are not giving decisions but that he is giving them. If one has a look at the new proposed section 24, it says: “Except when the Liquor Board … gives a decision … it shall not be required to give any reasons …” The proposed section 25 states—

It is absolutely clear that one goes to the Supreme Court on review of the proceedings of the Liquor Board. The hon. the Minister says that it is not their decision, but his. What would happen if one stood up in the Supreme Court and said: “M’lord, actually that decision is not one of the board but the decision is by the Minister. He said so in the House.” The judge would want to know if sections 24 and 25 were total frauds. These two sections state that the decisions of the Liquor Board have to be reviewed and it is only in certain cases that reasons do not have to be given. I cannot for one moment see how the hon. the Minister can suggest that one of his reasons for not giving reasons is that he himself is the person taking the decision and that the Liquor Board is not taking the decisions at all. With great respect, Sir, it does not even begin to answer the question I asked. I suggest what we should have from these boards are reasons, as they do give in certain cases, for example, on questions of law when they cancel a licence, when they withdraw a licence, when they suspend a licence. However, what is more important is that they should give reasons when they refuse a licence, because that is the time when the people are in the dark as to why the licence has been refused. I do not think we have had a reply from the hon. the Minister on that point.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually amazed to hear that that hon. member who boasts so much—he is a lawyer—professing to know all the Acts and to being able to whip all the court decisions out of his pocket, has not yet even read the Bill. The new proposed section 24 states very clearly—

1. (a) gives a decision on a question of law; or
2. (b) cancels, withdraws or suspends any licence or written authority or any right or privilege pertaining to any licence or written authority,

However, for these specific aspects it must give reasons. To which aspects did I refer? I referred to the granting of a liquor licence, and in this connection the board has only a right of recommendation. After all, the board does not give a decision in this connection. I now want to know from the hon. member for Durban North what decision of the board should go before the courts. The board simply makes a recommendation to the Minister. Had the hon. member read the Bill, he would have known that I can take three other aspects into consideration which the board knows nothing about. The Minister is entitled to do so, but now the hon. member alleges that in specific instances reasons do not have to be given. The proposed new section 24 lists the instances in respect of which reasons must be given. Reasons do not have to be given in any of the other cases. Is the hon. member now just giving the reverse argument?

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling.

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—34: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (5) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. S. A. Pitman,

Question put: That the paragraphs stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—107: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Lighthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—28: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I speak to the proposed new section 31(2) on page 34 of the Bill. I should like the hon. the Minister to look at this provision for a moment. In regard to this, I merely have a question. This subsection provides that applications must be lodged at least two months before the hearing by the board. The question I want to ask is whether this is not an unnecessarily long period. Experience of attorneys dealing with these applications is that the Police, even in a major city such as Johannesburg, have been able to complete efficiently their reports on new applications within two or three weeks. I feel that, if the application is advertised at the same time, a period of one month would be adequate. I should like the hon. the Minister to react to that point.

Mr. Chairman, objections, police reports, replies to objections, advertising, etc., take up time. This is what the department has informed me. This is the time they require for all the objections, etc.

Mr. Chairman, I have one question which I wish to put to the hon. the Minister, viz. on page 36, in lines 26 to 29, which read as follows—

I believe that the use of the words “substantial portion” is not satisfactory. I believe that there is an amount of uncertainty about the use of these words and applicants will not know whether they are in a position to appeal to the Liquor Board or not.

There should be a measure of certainty about how much of the premises should be erected before the submission of an application. I believe that a certain percentage could be applied. If the Minister feels that 50% is adequate I am prepared to abide by it. At least we will then have certainty to some extent. There must be some reason for this. We do not know what the reason is and why it is even necessary to bring in the wording “that a substantial portion of the premises has been erected” and I feel that it needs an explanation. It is small matters such as this which are difficult to pick up in legislation such as this and we have to do the best we can without any real explanations from the hon. the Minister. There are other places in the Bill itself where the same wording is used, i.e. “a substantial portion of premises” and this argument applies equally to those clauses.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. member’s problem, but the problem of the department is that we issue to a person a conditional authority and then he does not build; in other words, he is actually blocking many other people who might have obtained a licence. A person applies for a licence, receives the conditional licence but does not build. For that reason we have specified a period and we expect a substantial portion of the premises to be erected. “Substantial” should be enough to show that the man is building. He cannot merely lay a few bricks. I do not think that there are difficulties in this regard. On the contrary. I think a “substantial portion” means that those premises should be such that the board can see that their construction has virtually been completed and will be completed within the period he has undertaken to complete their construction or at least that he is making good progress.

The principle is all right.

The board will not be difficult about this matter. The board wants to satisfy itself with regard to the bona fides of this particular person. This is the only difficulty.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment—

This is to stop those do-gooders and cranks who come up with the hardy annuals at meetings of the Liquor Licensing Board. They have the same objections, arguments and motivations year after year. It is the same old gramophone record. They are well-meaning people; they belong to temperance unions and other unions of that nature, but they do not realize the unnecessary work and expense which they cause when they come up with these objections. This makes every applicant call counsel and also brings work on to the police. It amounts to nothing else but a waste of time.

Mr. Chairman, we now had another example of the inconsistency of the hon. members of the Opposition. They are the people who come here year after year and say that justice must be seen to be done. We hear that every year in regard to our laws against terrorism and communism, etc. Here we have a case where ministers of the Church and members of temperance unions have the inherent right to come to the board annually and put their cases to the board, their objection to the issue or renewal of liquor licences. Now the hon. member for Umlazi, however, askes us to accept an amendment in which the right to be heard by an objector is taken away from him. But, apart from that, Mr. Chairman, the board must now decide whether an objector is going to make the same submissions as he made in the previous year. How is the board going to decide whether an objector has on a previous occasion made substantially the same objections? I think it is a completely frivolous amendment and a time-wasting effort. I am very sorry that my good friend, the hon. member for Umlazi, has now been saddled with this, because it was actually the member for Durban Point who came with this amendment, but has now passed it on to the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches take strong exception to the attitude portrayed by the hon. member for Umlazi tonight. We feel that religious bodies and temperance unions are doing a worthy job of work and they have, as individuals, every right to do this kind of work. We feel, as the hon. member who has just spoken said, that this attitude of the hon. member for Umlazi is a denial of the rights of minorities. I am surprised that this comes from the official Opposition. After all, Mr. Chairman, for years and years we have heard about the rule of law and the rights to individual freedom, and I see very grave danger tonight of both the rule of law and the rights to individual freedom being undermined by the hon. member for Umlazi. We on these benches protest most strongly at this attitude.

Mr. Chairman, when the rule of law is defended by the hon. member for Simonstown, I want to tell you I will have to go and read it again. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Simonstown, and accordingly we will not be able to support the amendment put by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister is going to consider the amendment, I feel I must just highlight a few points, because I think we have had several red herrings across the floor here, starting off with the hon. member for Brakpan. I believe he succeeded in misleading both the Independent UP and the PRP. He said: “No one wants to take away the right of an objector.” Of course, this is not going to take away the right of an objector. All it does, is to say that, if year after year the same person objects for the same reasons and on the same grounds … For that reason I think I should read the amendment again. It says—

The hon. member for Simonstown, I know, knows nothing about the rights of minorities. What about those minorities of constituents that one has, people who are in fact the holders of liquor licences? They are the real minorities. They are the people who should be protected, they are the ones who, year after year … [Interjections.] It has got nothing to do with the Temperance League. That is just an example I quoted. It has got nothing to do with it. It only has bearing on individuals who come along year after year with the same request. We know that from our own experience. Then, what must happen? The holder of a licence cannot simply sit back. One hon. member said that a licence was a privilege and not a right. That holder of a licence cannot sit back and say: “The same request was up last year. We are not going to have legal representation.” So, what happens? They will have to get legal representation. All of this results in extra expenditure and it makes life a misery for that minority of constituents, that minority for whom we are fighting here. Therefore I want strongly to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi, and I want to appeal to other hon. members to think about it that they may perhaps have been misled by some of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Simonstown and by the hon. member for Brakpan. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, just before all the hon. members loose themselves on that side-track once again—and that in a debate in which we have many clauses to discuss and in which our time is extremely limited …

We have lots of time!

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. members that the general address referred to in the proposed new section 18(1)—that is the section which brought the Temperance Society into the picture—has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I just want to make that clear before hon. members start ascending dizzy heights in a discussion of things which have nothing whatsoever to do with this particular part of the legislation. Hon. members should please read the Bill first. After they have read it and know what it is about, we can discuss it. I agree with hon. members that we cannot accept the amendment. I happen to know the origin of the amendment, and I do not blame the hon. member for Umlazi at all for having moved it. He does not know what it is about.

The fact of the matter is that we should not like to deprive people who want to object of their right to do so. Therefore, if a person would like to object, we want to give him the right to do so. This concerns existing licences only. It does not concern new licences.

†The Temperance Society and all the other people, the church people, have the fullest opportunity when new licences are considered, of coming along and putting their arguments before the board. This has nothing to do with that particular case. This deals with an existing licence when, for some reason or other, there is an objection against an existing licence, so that the considerations that have been mentioned by hon. members should not be applied.

Mr. Chairman, I am thankful for that explanation, because that is certainly how I understood the law and I think the hon. member for Umlazi, in the absence of his friend, perhaps motivated it in the wrong way. [Interjections.] At the same time I want to disassociate myself from his sentiments. I believe that it is fundamental that people should have the right to object, and I do not care if the same objection comes up every time. The point which I do not think the hon. member for Umlazi understands, is that in subsection (3) it is clearly permitted that if the same objection comes up after a licence was refused, the board may well not accept that objection. It does not only refer to religious societies. There is a very infamous liquor outlet in a neo-Tudor building in Smith Street, Durban, which for years and years people attempted to close down, because it was an absolute den of iniquity. This objection came from the police and eventually the police were able to get the place closed down. It is a fundamental, democratic right of our society that anybody who wants to object, can object. I am really startled by this tendency. I know there has been talk about introducing totalitarian Government in this country, but I hope that my colleague from Umlazi would not be party to it. I certainly will not condone to it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Simonstown. I will be very grateful to him if he will explain his attitude, but I take it that he will agree that the Press should have complete freedom to express their views in regard to licences which may or may not affect different areas … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to appeal to the hon. members of the official Opposition to settle their internal squabbles at some other place.

We have a free vote. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I do not think it is necessary for them to occupy the time of this House by settling the question amongst themselves as to whether or not they want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi.

I think the hon. member for Umlazi is putting the cart before the horse with his amendment. The effect of his amendment is that the Liquor Board need not consider an objection if the same objection is lodged each year. However, I ask myself how the board is to determine whether it is the same objection if it does not consider the objection first. It cannot be concluded that it is the same objection unless the board has at least considered it first. And once the board has considered an objection, it can pronounce on its merits at the same time.

As the hon. member for Pinetown pointed out, it might well happen that an objection which was not justified at a certain time, or which was not adequately motivated, might at a later occasion, under changed circumstances, prove to be a justified objection or might have the necessary motivation and merits to be upheld. Therefore I think that it would create a very dangerous precedent if we were to decide to dismiss in advance on a later occasion an objection which had been refused on a previous occasion.

I do not think we need give any further consideration to this amendment, but we can, in the spirit of the amendment itself, dismiss it in advance.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put the hon. member who just sat down wise as to what the position is. [Interjections.] On liquor and religious matters we in the UP have always allowed a free vote. There is no control, and an hon. member can say what he likes on these matters. It is only a pity that the Government does not allow the same thing. [Interjections.] They are bound all the time, even in matters of this type, by party policy and party discipline. In the UP we allow free vote and it is only natural that there will be differences of opinion on some issues.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one small matter with the hon. the Minister. The new section 53bis deals with grocers’ wine licences. The changes are merely in the wording. I think, however, that this is an appropriate moment to comment that in fact very few people—not in the trade, not most attorneys dealing with these applications and certainly not the public—really understand the basis upon which grocers’ wine licences are granted or refused. Although this may not be the case, they seem to be dealt with in a somewhat haphazard manner. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would perhaps enlighten us as to what the policy at this stage is with regard to the granting of these licences.

Mr. Chairman, it is not entirely arbitrary. The whole idea behind those grocers’ licences was to stimulate the sale of light wine. Two principles are relevant here. On the one hand we should like to stimulate the sales of unfortified wines and on the other hand one does not want to infringe upon people’s existing rights. A hotel in the neighbourhood may hold an off-sale licence, and then an application is received from a grocer. We have laid down the rule that if the holder of a bottle licence does not sell more than 30% of his turnover in the form of wine, we shall consider granting him such a grocer’s licence as well. In other words, we expect a person also to sell a large percentage of wine. If he does not do so, a grocer in his neighbourhood is entitled to sell wines as well. This is the principle of the matter. In other words, such licences are not granted to grocers in the first place. Those licences are granted to the holders of bottle licences and similar persons, but when the holder of the bottle licence has not done his work properly in regard to the sale of light wines, we grant a licence to a grocer as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in this connection. If the bottle stores are not disposing of their wine in sufficient quantities, how is that made known to general dealers around the town, rather than to wait for applications?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will be surprised to what extent, with regard to liquor matters, people know everything about one another. He need not worry. Applications for grocers’ licences come to the Liquor Board by the dozen. There are plenty of them for us to consider.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 47:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak on clause 47 and, in particular, to the proposed section 67(1), on page 66 of the Bill. Clauses 24 and 47 now recognize the desirable situation that a licence may be held by an association. This has already been welcomed and I shall not dwell on the advantage of this amendment. One thought, however, does strike me, i.e. that the amendment does not provide for the situation which may arise if a partnership is dissolved by the retirement or death of a partner. I am now talking about the partnership which is specifically mentioned in line 36 on page 66 of the Bill. It does not provide for the situation which may arise if a partnership is dissolved by the retirement or death of a partner, or by the admission of a new partner. The Bill is silent on this point. Although a partnership, for purposes of this Bill, seems to be dealt with on the basis of it being a person, we all know that in law a partnership—technically speaking—is a group of people sharing joint and several responsibilities. Any change in a partnership brings such partnership to an end and in the case of death or the retirement of a partner the remaining partners form a new partnership. It is not the old partnership which continues under a slightly different guise. Technically and legally speaking it is the end of an old partnership and the starting of a new partnership. For instance, any new partner who is admitted to a new partnership causes the old partnership, between the old members, to come to an end and a new partnership is brought into being. What then is the position under this Bill and this clause?

As I see it, it means that upon the death or retirement of an old partner or the admission of a new partner in a partnership, the partnership to which a licence was granted has, by that stage, gone out of existence and the new partnership does not hold a licence. In this event a formal transfer from one partnership to the other new partnership will, I believe, probably be necessary, because if the law is strictly applied, I cannot see how this can be avoided. I am reasonably sure that this situation was not contemplated when the legislation was drafted. I do not believe it is the intention of the hon. the Minister that transfer applications be proliferated as the compositions of partnerships change from time to time, especially when no change in control of the new partnership is involved. In most cases such changes would involve only one partner, for example the death or retirement of a partner, or perhaps even the admission of one new partner at any point in time. If one looks at clause 135(c) on page 192, it seems to me that the point I have made is put beyond question. Nevertheless, I feel the hon. the Minister should look at this question and that he should perhaps introduce a further amendment in the Other Place if he feels that it is correct to cover this contingency.

Mr. Chairman, I must concede immediately that the hon. member for Sandton has definitely put his finger on a weakness in the Bill. If the hon. member had formulated an amendment to meet this particular case, we would have seriously considered it. There is no doubt about it; I think the hon. member is right in his argument. We have not made provision for the partnership or for the finishing off of a partnership and I shall certainly give it my attention. I hope to introduce the appropriate amendment in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50:

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the same issue which I raised with the hon. the Minister just now, when I referred to the words “afford facilities of a high standard for persons taking meals therein”. There again it is difficult for any potential holder of a restaurant liquor licence or the holder of such a licence to decide exactly what is a high standard for persons taking meals therein. I believe that the words that should have been used perhaps were “a reasonable standard” because in clauses 51 and 52—to which I am referring in passing—the Bill refers to “reasonable facilities” and these are understandable. When it comes to clause 53 it refers to an hotel “with residential accommodation of a high standard”. It then goes on to say—

In other words, a yardstick is set where the words “of a high standard” are used in clause 53. Why is no yardstick set where the same words “of a high standard” are used in clause 50?

Mr. Chairman, this is actually a question of facts and I am afraid that the board itself will tell the restaurateur when it is not a high standard. The board, in its inspections, lays down a standard and they will tell the restaurateur that his standards are not up to scratch and that he must get up to that standard.

*It is a fact that we do not like to give liquor licences to second-rate restaurants. The hon. member may understand why not. It is because people of weak character would go to such places and sit there drinking all afternoon or all evening, without really using wine in the way we should like it to be used.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the high standards envisaged here refer to the facilities in the restaurant or to the standards of the service and catering or to the ability of the chef?

It refers to all those items.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53:

Mr. Chairman, in his reply to the hon. member for Green Point the hon. the Minister has just said that the high standard will apply to all things in a restaurant, namely the facilities and the meals. As far as an hotel is concerned, the high standard refers only to residential accommodation. That is provided in the new section 71(1)(a) and also, if one goes over the page, in the present section 71(1)bis(a) where the words “will afford residential accommodation of a high standard” appear. However, nowhere does it specify in respect of an hotel that the meals or the catering facilities are to be of a high standard. Surely this is an omission?

Mr. Chairman, that falls under the Hotel Board. Restaurants fall under the Liquor Act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 60:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 60 is concerned, the Opposition has not introduced any amendments, but I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. the Minister on the whole matter of club licences. Both the hon. the Minister and the chairman of the Liquor Board are aware of this matter. We have argued the matter on occasion. However, I do not want to move an amendment on this clause this evening, but, mindful of the fact that we are moving in the direction of a consolidating Act, I want to say the following about this clause: In this clause, provision is made for cases in which the number of members of a club may be less than 50. The clause states that the minimum number of members must be 50, but that there may also be a membership of 35 if such a club is associated with an existing industrial concern, for example, or to a proposed industrial concern. I understand the idea of not wanting to create just another drinking place by way of a club licence. The clause provides that such a club if situated in a rural area, may have 35 members, but then it has to be associated with an existing industry or with an industry which is to be established. However, I want to ask that we give consideration to deleting the word “industry”. We have small clubs in the country which need to be awarded such a licence. Here I have in mind the golf club at Sannieshof, for example. We do not even have 35 members there, but we maintain golf-links which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture could feel proud to come and play on. The golf-links are beautifully situated amongst wheat fields, in which he would be able to take in the whole atmosphere of agriculture. We need such a licence in that place. After we have played a game of golf, we are not interested in going to a bar or a hotel for a drink. We are a group of people who play golf there and we are interested in having a drink there. [Interjections.] Yes, well! At least we are not like some of those hon. members who like to consume liquor by the bottle. We do it by the tot. In all seriousness, we have sports clubs, and not only golf-clubs, in the country.

There are other sports clubs, too, where one simply cannot muster 50 members which is what this clause stipulates. However, one can often muster 35 members. We are excluded, however, but those people who are attached to an industry are not excluded. Say for example Escom opens a depot of some kind at Sannieshof; if they could prove that they had a certain number of people working there—and I think they have more than 35 people working there; I do not know what type of work they all do, but they work there—they would be entitled to apply for a club licence. However, our bona fide club is not entitled to this. I am tempted to become dramatic and plead my case on my knees before the hon. the Minister and the chairman of the Liquor Board.

Beg!

Since we are dealing here with legislation which will later be consolidated, we must not discriminate. Those hon. members ought to support me.

Yes!

Why then, in heaven’s name, do they not move an amendment! [Interjections.] They ought to support me so that we can retain that privilege for these clubs. In the old Act, the minimum provision was 35 members and I really do not think that such clubs have ever abused the privilege in the past. Consequently, whilst we are aiming at consolidation, I am making a plea here for the restoration of that privilege. I promise that the hon. the Minister may then come and play golf at Sannieshof.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the plea of our friend over there. However, our problem lies in those parts of the country in which there are no industrial areas. The clubs established there, such as that club at Sannieshof where that hon. member plays golf, a club which cannot muster 35 members, would, in fact, be able to make use of and support a drinking venue with its 20 or 25 members. However, there is usually a small hotel nearby. The small hotel and the sportsgrounds are normally so near to each other that when one has finished playing tennis or golf, one might as well go and sit in the hotel. One of our problems is that hotel owners tell us: “You are causing the downfall of rural hotels with your club licences”. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall reconsider the matter. However, the hon. member has not told me how many club members there ought to be. Where are we to draw the line now?

Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of maintaining the status quo established under the original Act, namely that there have to be 35 members. An exception is now being made for those people attached to an industry. There must be at least 35 of them if they want to obtain this privilege. In respect of club membership, the number is being raised to 50. I do not want it to be fewer than 35. I should be completely satisfied with 35.

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply impressed by the “pleidooi” of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and therefore I move as an amendment—

That would meet the requirements of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. If the club consists of less than 35 members and it is reasonable within the local circumstances, a club licence could then be granted.

I second that.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept this because it would mean that all establishments would have to be given a club licence. However, we shall really consider the figure which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had in mind in order to see whether or not it is possible for us to amend the provision.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 61:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will see that clause 61 goes on for eight pages. That is an almost impossible situation. I should like to ask him to make certain that, when he does decide to consolidate this measure, section 75 will be set out in such a way that it will become reasonable for anyone who tries to understand it. I believe the hon. the Minister has said that he will try to rationalize this legislation next year when it is consolidated. I think that section 75 is one of the sections which particularly needs to be rationalized.

I now wish to refer to the proposed new subsection (7), on page 98 of the Bill, which deals with the whole question of the Electoral Consolidation Act. I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate in regard to the question of the Electoral Consolidation Act. I understood him to say that the Minister of the Interior, who dealt with the 1973 amendments to that Act, had felt that section 181 of that Act should be removed from there because that had been recommended by the Select Committee concerned. I grant that he did go on to say that he felt that he would not put this into operation until such time as those who were connected with the question of liquor should have had an opportunity of considering the whole matter.

Apparently the hon. the Minister has had a good look at this matter and has decided that he is not going to amend the Liquor Act. My question to him is this: Under these circumstances, is the Electoral Consolidation Act now going to be amended by promulgating the deletion of section 181?

No, why?

If it is not going to be deleted, the recommendations of the Select Committee which recommended that it should be deleted, are not going to be followed. It is no good that hon. member saying “No, no” from that corner. Of course they are not going to follow the recommendations of the Select Committee if they do not delete section 181. I just want to say, loud and clear that in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the majority of hon. members present here today, that when a Select Committee looks at the Electoral Act and decides that it is not necessary in terms of the Electoral Act and all the manifestations of elections, to have a bar—that is a bad word—against selling liquor on an election day, they must accept that it is not necessary in terms of the Electoral Act. After all, if they say it is not necessary, subsection (7) need not be included in our Liquor Act. I simply cannot understand the Minister’s reasoning, because it deals here with the question of elections for this White Parliament of ours. The hon. member for Parow must agree with me. He was one of those who said that we can open the bars on an election day. He cannot deny it; he is looking at me now, and the same applies to the hon. member for Vasco, who is sitting next to him, the deputy Whip. The Chief Whip and the deputy Whip agree that it was not necessary to close bars on election days and if anybody was present at Durbanville, they would have seen that it was not necessary to close bars on election days. I do not know what hon. members on the other side are worried about. Are they worried about their own people? We are not worried about our people.

Getting back to the issue, I wish to ask a further question. Does the hon. the Minister envisage that bars should be closed on election days when the homeland Governments are holding elections in the White sections of the Republic of South Africa? Why not? The hon. the Minister shakes his head and replies in the negative. These are questions we have to ask ourselves. Why is it that the hon. the Minister tells us in the Second Reading that he has considered this matter with the utmost care and consideration, but there are a thousand questions that arise from it? Why does the hon. the Minister not indicate his reasons for deciding that we should, in this sophisticated society that we believe we are living in today, keep a law which is completely anachronistic in its concept? I want to know from the hon. the Minister just why it is that he maintains that he has the right, although there was a Select Committee which maintained that even under the whole gamut of elections in this country, it was not necessary to close bars, to say “No, we must close bars.” I believe this is arbitrary and I believe the hon. the Minister must answer us.

Order! The matter which the hon. member has just mentioned is one of the principles which were accepted at Second Reading. I have allowed him to raise the matter again, but I want to request hon. members not to elaborate too much on this principle.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the detail of this clause and to support the hon. member for East London City in the two matters which he has raised—except that I do not want to be as gentle as he was in respect of the rationalization of the 8½ pages which, I believe, could be set out quite intelligibly, quite understandably, and without any problem in a matter of two pages if a little effort were applied to it.

I hope the hon. the Minister will repeat his assurance given in respect of other gobbledy-gook clauses which go on and on, viz. the assurance that these too will be put into intelligible language.

I first wish to deal with the specific amendments introduced on page 98 of the Bill in respect of the procedures on election day. I want to take strong exception to the discrimination against the White, Coloured, Asian and Black citizens of South Africa which is here introduced against them and institutionalized by a Bill which will become an Act of this Parliament and which provides, for instance, in line 15 on page 98 for an on-consumption licence intended for occupation by or the convenience of White persons. I further refer to line 22 dealing with an election under any law for the election of members of the Indian Council. In line 42 the Bill refers to an on-consumption licence intended for occupation by or the convenience of persons who are not Whites. All these amendments here mean that the Whites in terms of the subsection (7) and the non-Whites and Asians, the licensees of those groups, will not be able to sell and the members of those communities will not be able to purchase or consume liquor on election days where their group or their electoral community is involved, whereas if a homeland holds an election—if and when an election is held in KwaZulu for instance—and the Zulus are voting, then the Zulus may have access to their normal liquor supplies. If Bophuthatswana is having an election the citizens of Bophuthatswana in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Soweto or wherever they may be, may enjoy the full privilege of usage of liquor whereas a White person or an Asian or a Coloured person would be denied that right.

And a German in Germany?

A German would be denied that right. The only people who would enjoy that right on an election day would be a citizen of a homeland living in a so-called White area of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister made great play of the two Select Committee reports which he held up one against the other. Of course, neither of his arguments are correct. Neither of his contentions are correct. In the first case, the Select Committee to which the hon. member for Green Point referred and to which many of my colleagues on that side subscribe, took an attitude and the hon. the Minister of the Interior said that although we had taken this attitude it would require an amendment to this section of the Liquor Act before that decision could be implemented. We waited, expecting this hon. Minister to come here today to make the necessary amendment which had been foreshadowed in that Select Committee, but this clause …

It was unanimous.

Yes, it was unanimous. But this clause, Mr. Chairman, does not deal at all with the issue which the hon. the Minister raised of treating and of the influencing of people by alcoholic beverage. That is what we objected to in the 1975 Select Committee. It is a totally different matter. The expenditure of vast sums of money to treat, and so influence, people at get-togethers under different names, is something which, we believe, is an abuse of the treating provisions. This Bill has nothing to do with that, and I submit that the hon. the Minister was out of the order when he used that as an argument, because he was referring to a totally different set of circumstances. I am dealing with the Liquor Act, not with the Electoral Act to which the hon. the Minister referred, nor with the circumstances to which he referred, which were the abuse of treating and influence. We are dealing here, not with the right of politicians to treat people, to abuse or to influence people, but with the right of the citizen, the ordinary citizen, not to be treated, but, of his own right, to go and enjoy a normal daily amenity. We do not want political parties to be able to exploit this, but we do not see why every immigrant, every non-citizen, every non-voter, should not have the same right as a citizen of KwaZulu, or of Bophuthatswana, or of Gazankulu, or of any other homeland. We believe it is wrong that a White South African citizen, a foreign immigrant, a non-voter of South Africa, should be discriminated against, whilst others, who are in fact also citizens of South Africa, but who enjoy the dual citizenship of a Bantu homeland—and the Xhosa enjoy a dual citizenship—should then be privileged over and above other citizens of South Africa. This, Mr. Chairman, is discrimination in its worst form, and we are totally opposed to it. The arguments of the hon. the Minister, I believe, are specious. They were an evasion of the issue and they raised matters which, I do not believe, are relevant or in the order in relation to the provisions which we are now discussing.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I just want to tell both hon. members that in reality, the hon. the Minister of the Interior never intimated that he intended to do away with the days mentioned, on which liquor may not be sold, the so-called closed days. He never intimated this. In fact, he said in his speech that if that prohibition were to disappear from the Liquor Act … All that was at issue in the Select Committee of 1973, was determining whether that prohibition belonged in the Electoral Act or in the Liquor Act. The hon. member is very much aware of the fact that the Electoral Act and the Liquor Act are two completely different pieces of legislation. In fact, he has said that here. The distribution of liquor, whenever liquor may be distributed, the conditions under which liquor is distributed and so on, are in the hands of the Department of Justice. Whether this is right or wrong, is not at issue. It is not the Department of the Interior which is responsible for this. The hon. the Minister of the Interior knew this. The hon. member also knew this when he decided that that prohibition had to be removed from the Electoral Act. Surely he cannot try to oblige another department to give a hearing as regards a matter of this nature? It is not the Select Committee of the Department of Justice. The department did not elect the Select Committee or prescribe conditions to the committee or prescribe its terms of reference. After all, the hon. member cannot want to lay down the law to the Department of Justice? The Liquor Act and all its implications has been on the Statute Book in South Africa for years and years.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether a Select Committee of the House appointed in accordance with a motion of the Minister of Justice is more important and has more authority than a Select Committee appointed by the Minister of the Interior? [Interjections.]

The hon. member is trying to make a political football of the matter. The hon. member surely cannot expect a Select Committee which has been appointed by the Department of Justice to go and sort out all kinds of issues for the Department of Agriculture. What is he thinking of? Not even I would try to do it and not even my colleague in the Ministry of the Interior tried to do it. What makes the hon. member now want to bind the Department of Justice?

Parliament has decided.

No, listen to the arguments now. Surely every department has the right to do its own specific work, and if the hon. member is serving on a Select Committee which is investigating an electoral act, he ought to know—if the hon. member is not experienced enough to know this, he ought to know—that he cannot bind the Department of Justice. This is something which the department must consider in its own way and in its own good time. All the Select Committee did was to have the relevant part removed from the Electoral Act. The Select Committee could not find anything other than that and could not do any more than that. This is proved by the decision of the committee. In the decision of the Select Committee on the Electoral Acts of 1973, no mention is made of liquor not being served on closed days. The committee’s decision was merely that section 188 should be deleted from the Electoral Laws. That is all. It is now the task of the Department of Justice to decide in principle whether or not liquor is to be allowed on election day or not. It is the task of my department to deal with liquor distribution. I now return to the hon. member’s Select Committee of 1975. The principle laid down at that time was that people should not be allowed to provide liquor at parties before election times. The decision was that no parties were to be given at which people would be given liquor. What is the principle embodied in this?

The free right of an individual …

Just listen to my principle and then either agree with it or reject it. The principle laid down by the committee was that people were not to be swayed in one direction or another by liquor.

That is correct.

This was in order to prevent people from being bribed by means of liquor to do one thing or another. What difference does it make on an election day? If liquor were to be available on election days, then in our opinion, people would take others to bars where drinks would be handed out so that people would be influenced to vote for a certain candidate. This is exactly the same principle as the one laid down by the Select Committee of the hon. member for Durban Point in 1975. If the principle was good enough for the hon. member at that time, why is it not in order this evening as well? It is simply because the hon. member for Durban Point—I do not know whether he thought it up himself—thought that he would allow liquor to flow freely on election days again by using the Select Committee of 1975. I respect his reason for the decision, whatever it may have been. If he thinks it is a principle which should have been applied, I respect that, but the hon. member surely cannot expect to be able to bind the department. I do not think the hon. member is being serious if he thinks so.

The issue is the principle of the recognition of the maturity of the South African.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 70:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause as it stands at the moment, certain hotels are allowed to be multiracial. As the clause stands now that means hotels in White areas. In the Second Reading the hon. the Minister of Justice gave the reason why this was so. He said that it was in fact a privilege given to Black people in certain White areas. He also said that if the suggestion we made was accepted, it would in fact lead to integration. I want to say that that is not so. What the hon. the Minister of Justice is saying, is that in the hotel, where one has multiracialism, that is integration. I cannot see how there can be no integration in one street, simply because it is in a White area, while there is integration in the next street, which is in a Black area. I cannot understand this argument and how it encourages integration in any sort of way at all. The position is simply that at the moment the authorization that is provided for in terms of clause 70 is allowed so that people can, if necessary, allow these facilities to be used by Black people in White areas. Is there any difference if these facilities are allowed for White people in a Black area? It simply smacks of discrimination as it stands at the moment, if it is only allowed in the case of White areas.

The hon. the Minister of Justice also said that in Black areas they could always apply to the Liquor Board for permission. I do not know whether he paid attention to me when I spoke in the Second Reading, but this was one of the points I raised. It was one of the difficulties I had, and was one of the reasons I brought it up. I was asked by Indians in Natal to raise the matter. They had been told by the secretary of the local Liquor Licensing Board that since there is now a multiracial hotel, the Capital Towers, in a White area in Pietermaritzburg, permits will not in future be given to Indian hotels to have White directors of their companies at these Black hotels.

Black hotels?

Yes, there are certain Indian hotels in Pietermaritzburg. In Pietermaritzburg there is a large Indian work force in the shoe industry and the custom has been that at certain times of the year, such as Christmas-time, they have had parties at the Indian hotels. They have obtained permission for White directors of their firms to come along to these parties or dinners. They have now been told that in view of the fact that there is a multiracial hotel, they are not entitled to obtain such a permit. If the hon. the Minister of Justice will give us the assurance that the mere fact that there is now a multiracial hotel will not exclude the granting of permits in Indian areas in the future, that will go some of the way towards meeting the objections I have had put to me and have been asked to raise.

Who told the Indians?

The secretary of the local Liquor Licensing Board in Pietermaritzburg. In addition there have been reports in the Press, but I have not put that forward because I do not want to have to rely on the Press. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to allow hotels in Black areas to be given this kind of authorization, bearing in mind that it will not be a blanket permission, because this allows for specific authorization for any licensee concerned to serve liquor, to supply refreshments or meals to members of the different race groups. Will the hon. the Minister consider that?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North said he had been requested by Indians to bring up this matter. In cases such as this, the local board has nothing to do with the matter. Could the hon. member please furnish me with more information and in addition, tell me which Indian asked him the question? Could the hon. member tell me to which person the Indians directed their inquiries because I am convinced that if such a person had approached the secretary of the local board, he would have discovered that it was one of those aspects which that specific office did not deal with at all, that the matter had nothing to do with the local board.

The application has to be made to the National Liquor Board and the secretary of the local board may give no acceptances or refusals to such a person. Consequently, the hon. member will have to furnish me with more details. I do not think an hon. member ought to come to this House with a matter of this nature unless he is prepared to give chapter and verse as regards saying that this person approached me and that person refused, and that proof of this exists. It is absolutely impossible for me to run after all the hares that have been chased up in this House. The hon. member referred to the local board, but the local board has nothing to do with it. The members of the national board are sitting here and if the hon. member tells me now that the national board had refused an application, I could have ascertained immediately why it had been refused. The national board will consider all applications on their merits. That is the reply the hon. member should have given the Indian.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the hon. the Minister has this attitude, i.e. that he does not think that a member of this House ought to come to the House with this sort of thing. I have here the memorandum which was submitted on behalf of the Indian hoteliers of Pietermaritzburg and this very memorandum was sent also to the hon. the Minister. It is dated 7 April 1976 and was sent… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please restrict himself to the actual amendments to the section.

Mr. Chairman, may I not answer the hon. the Minister?

Yes, but very briefly.

The hon. the Minister has said that he is not prepared to chase “hase”. I am trying to tell the hon. the Minister that I have here the memorandum which was sent to him on 7 April 1976 by the attorney representing the Indian hoteliers of Pietermaritzburg. I spoke to the hon. the Minister about the matter in the Lobby of this House and told him that I was going to raise this matter, and I am now doing so in terms of this memorandum. I spoke to this attorney a few days ago on the telephone and he asked me to press the matter in the House and to put the case of the Indian hoteliers. I do not know what else I can do, and I must say that I resent the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Justice that I am chasing up “hase” in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the hon. member for Durban North is entitled to bring up the matter. The hon. member has brought up the matter on principle before and we have debated it on principle. Now the hon. member comes along and tells us a story about what happened in Pietermaritzburg, namely that an Indian had approached him and subsequently taken his problem to the local board. I then wanted to know from the hon. member where he got hold of that story. I had to know this because the whole procedure was incorrect. The hon. member gave out that the national board had laid down a policy whereby the Indians in Pietermaritzburg could not obtain permission to allow Whites to enter their hotels. This is what the hon. member implied.

Mr. Chairman, I never said that it was the “nasionale raad”.

You did not mention it, but who else could it be but the “nasionale raad”?

I told you it was the local board.

The local boards have nothing to do with it.

That is what I am asking you.

That is the answer, the total answer that I can give you. All I can tell you is that you must go back to your Indian friend and tell him that the local board has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Order! The hon. member must indicate, in discussing the clause, which amendment he is dealing with.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say finally as far as that point is concerned that I made it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that what I had here was representations from the Indian hoteliers in regard to something they had been told by the local liquor licensing board. If the hon. the Minister tells me that what they say is absolute nonsense, then I am satisfied. However, it is no good trying to tell me that I am quoting the National Licensing Board when I am not quoting it.

I would just like to raise one other point under the question of multiracial hotels. I have had further representations in regard to other hotels …

Order! The hon. member must please draw my attention to the amendment to which he is speaking now.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the clause.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the clause; he can only discuss the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point or order: Surely an hon. member is allowed to discuss a clause in a Committee Stage and does not necessarily have to discuss an amendment?

Order! The only relevant provision is that part which is amended and not the rest of the section.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, the object is surely to discuss the merits of any clause …

Order! Standing Order No. 64 provides that only those parts of the section which are being amended may be discussed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 83:

Mr. Chairman, we are going to vote against this clause and if we are successful I will move that the following clause be substituted—

This clause is, I think, generally speaking, called the “black list clause”. It deals with the question of the unfortunate person who under certain circumstances the law believes should be protected from partaking of alcoholic drink. This is a clause which could quite easily have been referred to a Select Committee. I know I keep harping on this, but it does crop up every now and again as we go through the Bill. This in particular is something which has come forward over the years since 1928 and has never really been looked at very carefully.

I believe that this is the stage where we can look at this section and decide whether it is worth while keeping in the Act, because if we are going to consolidate next year under a certificate without any further intervening amending Bills, we will have to keep this section in the consolidated Act. I do not believe that there is justification for this section nor that it is good law. The reason for this is that in the first place one should look at the effect of an investigation by a magistrate, which takes a great deal of time because he has to send out notices to the parties concerned to appear before him, he has to administer oaths and has to operate in a judicial capacity. The final effect of this procedure is that he may in terms of subsection (9) make an order in terms of subsection (8) and forthwith forward a copy thereof to the officer in charge of the police station. Subsection (8) reads—

That, in fact, is the effect of the order, i.e. that he prohibits the sale or supply of liquor to such persons. Then what does he do? In terms of the proposed new section 93(9) the magistrate sends a copy of that order to the officer in charge of the police station in the area in which that person is living. Then the officer at the police station notifies or causes to be notified “the prohibition to such person”. That is all. Nobody else is notified except the person against whom the order is made. Altogether the only persons who will know will be the magistrate, the officer in charge of the police station and the person against whom the order is made. None of the suppliers of liquor in the district or area will ever come to know about this order. I want to refer to the existing Act where, in section 158, it is laid down that there shall be—

In other words, if the hon. the Minister looks carefully at section 158, he will see that if a licensee supplies liquor to this poor, unfortunate person who has had an order made against him, he has no defence to a charge of supplying or selling liquor to that person. I believe that this is hopelessly inadequate. It does not achieve the object for which it was originally intended. There is no provision as I have said previously, in terms of which licensees are to be advised, and even if they were advised in terms of this particular section, how on earth would they know who the person referred to was, unless they asked every single person who came into their bottle-store or their bar whether he was Tom Jones, Bill Brown or …

Harland Bell.

Yes, even Harland Bell. It is therefore an impossible situation. This provision cannot be implemented. Furthermore, 99 times out of a 100 one is dealing with a reluctant person who has an order issued against him, and as such there are a thousand and one ways for such a reluctant person to obtain liquor, thereby rendering the whole purpose or so-called purpose of this particular section completely null and void. I see that the hon. the Minister has amended the original section by including the words “his own welfare”. If one wishes to protect such people, however, there are provisions in our law whereby a person may be declared a prodigal, but only a superior court can issue an order declaring a person a prodigal. Here, although it is only effective for a maximum period of one year, the magistrate’s court— and I believe that the legislation provides for even an assistant or additional magistrate to operate there—can deal with the question of the rights of a person and his freedom and his ability to do as he pleases. This right is now placed in the hands of a magistrate, whereas it is clear in law that the restriction of the rights of a person should only be dealt with by a superior court, as in the case of a person being declared a prodigal. I believe, too, that this is a quasi-judicial process where the magistrate acts as prosecutor and as judge, because this proposed section provides throughout that he shall send out the notices, make an initial decision as to whether a prosecution should ensue and then sit in judgment over this particular man. I do not believe that that is correct procedure. Finally, Sir, there is no right of appeal in the Liquor Bill, as far as I can ascertain, against any order of a magistrate made under this particular provision.

I believe that in this section we are trying to deal with a social problem, a matter which should be dealt with by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Indeed, I believe that it is a matter that can be dealt with by that department. I think that this clause should be deleted and I hope I have the support of the Committee in this connection. I have spoken to many people who have actually had dealings with this law in magistrate’s courts and they tell me that, in the very few cases where they have had to deal with an application under section 93, they have found it to be completely ineffective. I believe that it is time now, before we consolidate this legislation, to delete this measure completely.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the argument put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for East London City, because I can speak with some feeling in this regard, being the son of a hotel-keeper in the eastern Cape and therefore having seen the misery brought about by the blacklist provision in the Liquor Act. My hon. colleague has said that this matter concerns the magistrate, the individual affected and the police. This is not really so. Naturally, the local pub keeper has to be appraised of the situation. Here we have a stigma attached to the individual …

Order! The hon. member can only discuss the amendments to this clause. He cannot discuss the deletion of the clause.

Sir, I want to discuss the amendment that section 93, as contained in clause 83, be repealed.

No, I cannot allow that.

Well, Sir, can I address the Committee on the fact that this happens to be a social problem, one that should be …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the principle behind the list. He can only discuss the proposed amendment to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask whether the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City is in order?

Order! It may only be moved if the clause, when it is put, is rejected by the Committee. Only in that case may the hon. member move his amendment.

I take it, Sir, that the hon. member is speaking to the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City.

Order! The amendment has not been moved. The hon. member’s amendment would in any case not have been in order, because only those parts of the section involved that are to be amended are before the Committee and not the clause in its entirety.

Permit me then, Sir, to address the Committee on the man who squanders his means to his own detriment. I refer to page 122, lines 56-7, which deal with the man who squanders his means and prejudices his own welfare or the welfare of his family. I do not believe that this is the place for us to amend this legislation in this manner. I do not believe that we should even consider this amendment. I do not believe that we should give any consideration to it in this particular amendment Bill. I believe that this is, as has been said by my hon. colleague, a social problem. The man who squanders to the detriment of his own welfare is invariably a man who is ill, an alcoholic. His problem is that he is suffering from alcoholism. It is an illness. It is not something which should be dealt with under this Bill, and I would therefore strongly support the amendment moved by my hon. colleague …

Order! There is no amendment before the Committee.

I am sorry, Sir, but I thought he had already moved it.

Order! I have already ruled that it cannot be moved.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I then support his opposition to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing problems with this amendment which is being moved …

Order! There is no amendment under discussion. There is no amendment before the Committee.

However, you will still allow us to reply from this side of the House to certain of the remarks made by the hon. member for East London City, inter alia, that a magistrate may infringe the rights of the individual to the extent he is, in fact, able to do. And then where the welfare of his family is concerned, which is in fact an amendment of the existing Act, …

Order! The hon. member must indicate on what part of the amendment to the existing Act he wishes to address me.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to react to the statements made by the hon. member for East London City.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss the principle contained in the original section now.

Mr. Chairman, before I, too, overstep the mark, suffice it for me to tell the hon. member for East London City that although I had a measure of sympathy for his arguments, I cannot support him because I understand—I am not familiar with the workings of this legislation in its entirety—that in the rural areas, particularly in respect of the wives who complain to the magistrates, it works exceptionally well. For that reason, I am not prepared at this stage …

In my part of the country it does not work.

I must very honestly say that I cannot consider it at this stage.

Clause 83 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—105: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J. Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Oldfield, G. N.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe. NOES—34: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 84:

Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be remiss if I allowed the repeal of section 94 of the principal Act to go through without making a comment. Section 94 of the Liquor Act is one of the most discriminatory and indefensible sections to be found in this overwhelmingly racially orientated piece of legislation. At present, in terms of this Act, no person may supply liquor to any Black man, and a Black person may not possess liquor, except in very limited circumstances described in this Act. Probably the most important prohibition covered by section 94 is the illegality of sharing alcoholic refreshments with a Black person in the privacy of one’s home. This outdated and, I believe, insulting provision has been honoured in the breach rather than in the observance thereof. I and many others of us in this House have I am sure been guilty of this technical offence on more than one occasion. At last, this ridiculous legislation is to be abolished. The general prohibition contained in section 94 is to be repealed, thus ensuring that the Republic takes one further diffident step towards treating all races as ordinary people.

One of the effects could be that any licensee who has a bar or a lounge set aside for non-Whites or Blacks may supply Blacks for on-consumption, provided access is not prohibited in terms of the Group Areas Act or of any other legislation. It is hoped that the repealing of this section is not to be one of those useless amendments, the benefits of which will remain blocked by the provisions of another Act administered by another hon. Minister and by another department. This remains to be seen. However, nonetheless, I want to say to the Government that this is a step in the right direction, a step bringing slowly, ever so slowly, the liquor laws into the realm of ordinary normality.

South Africa is adjusting remarkably well and very rapidly to such things as normal cricket, normal dealings in the post office, normal theatre-going in certain areas, and the question I want to ask, is this: When are we going to allow normal social contact on licensed premises?

Get back to the clause!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East tells me to get back to the clause. I am absolutely on point on this clause, and I want to say that reform is surely long overdue in this legislation. Surely, the time is now that South Africans must attain maturity in regard to their drinking friends and in regard to their habits. The sooner all racial provisions in this legislation are removed, the sooner normality will be achieved. Then, South Africa will not have to hide its head in shame whenever the words “race discrimination” are uttered.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with this clause—in which section 94 of the Liquor Act is now being repealed—the hon. member for Sandton was once again quite unable to refrain from making a little dirty PRP politics out of it. If I may say something to the hon. member … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dirty”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “dirty”. The hon. member for Sandton was unable to refrain from giving utterance to a little base Progressive politics in connection with clause 84.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is evading your ruling. You have asked him to withdraw a word, and he substitutes it with another. That is contempt… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “base”.

Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw the word “base”, but it is still uncalled for of the hon. member for Sandton to discuss an amendment to the Liquor Act in the House in this way. I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that no matter what the PRP says, the Government will revise Acts from time to time as it sees fit, as has been done with the Liquor Act. From time to time, the Government will revise, rewrite and repeal clauses as it deems fitting in the light of circumstances.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 85:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has spoken about something which has been removed from the Liquor Act, but I want to deal with what stands here and which I believe should equally be changed. We have here before us four and a half pages—from page 126 to 134—of amendments to the “Authority” provisions of the Act. These provisions were only introduced in 1961, but they have already been amended five times. We have now another four and a half pages of amendments. I could relate what I want to say to specific amendments, but I can shorten it by putting it in one question to the hon. the Minister.

Order! Hon. members should please be more quiet.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to do away with this special definition of what in fact are liquor licences, called “authorities” and to streamline all these amendments into a form of licence so that the concept can disappear that when Black, Coloured or Asian people are granted a privilege, which to the White person is a licence, for them it has to have another name and a different form. A different group of people get it and so different conditions are laid down under which they function. Why cannot we change the 100bis, the 100ter, the 100sex authorities into normal liquor licences, with specific conditions, instead of treating each race group as though it is a different entity? [Interjections.]

I refer to the amendment to 100bis of the principal Act. This section introduces terms like “any person”. “Local authority” is the old term. It changes the definition of “Bantu labourer” to “a person under the Bantu Labour Act”. It also deals with the “Bantu urban boards” and various other bodies. There are all sorts of changes. We have here a separate entity, a separate form of licence.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is any reason why, in the consolidation he proposes, this cannot all be streamlined into a normal form of licence which will avoid all these amendments. The fact is that under the United Party the Liquor Act survived from 1930 to 1956, with only six amendments in 26 years. Since the Government started this sort of jargon—this approach—there have been 21 amendments in 20 years. That is what has happened. Six amendments were made in 26 years, at a time when it was kept simple and straightforward. Since the Government started with this racialism, namely from the time this section 100bis was introduced in 1961, which we are now amending, there have been 19 amendments to the Liquor Act in 16 years. I believe that the reason for that is this sort of amendment, because we are here making even more complicated a complicated system of differentiation and a differential approach to what is in fact a common problem. I shall take it no further than that. I think just a reference to and a reading of the amendments being introduced will show the sort of tangle one gets into when one has this mental approach which sees each of the race groups as something requiring a different approach, law, philosophy and even a different Liquor Act to deal with their requirements. I think the time has come when we can go further than the repeal of section 94. We can move towards bringing in the normalization of liquor control and administration.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that his argument is quite substantial. We shall consider it, but the hon. member will have to understand, of course, that there are always complications with this type of licence. I shall point out only one example to him.

But do we not cause those complications ourselves?

I shall point out only one of the complications to the hon. member. If we were to give our Blacks a normal licence, what does one then do with the quota system? How does one work out the quota?

That clause should be repealed, and the entire quota system as well.

All I want to point out to the hon. member, is that it is not quite as easy as the hon. member wants to imply. However, I shall give it further consideration and see whether I can streamline it.

What purpose does the quota system serve?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 88:

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I want to say that I think the hon. the Minister of Justice, with what he had to say in his Second Reading speech, misunderstood what I was aiming at. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the position as it now stands, with this amendment taking away the requirement of 20 people, means that the hon. the Minister may grant written authority to any Coloured or Asian person. Under section 100sex, where one had to have 20 people in an association, authorities were in fact granted that would never have been granted in terms of the normal application under section 31. The hon. the Minister knows that there is a complicated procedure under section 31 which is designed to prevent the absolutely free disposition of licences. It is an understandable procedure, because the intention of the legislature has been to control the granting of licences and for the purpose of this argument, I accept that absolutely. What has happened, however, is that authorities have been far more freely granted under the provisions of section 100sex. In fact, the result has been that very tiny, insignificant and undeserving restaurants and small tearooms have been getting licences. I cited the names of a number of them during the Second Reading debate and I know the names of about a dozen of these in the Durban area myself. Those tea-rooms would never have got a liquor licence if they had been owned by White people, because they were not of a sufficient-standard. The position is that there is a discrimination in reverse if we leave the amendment as it stands.

You should not object to that!

No, it is a discrimination against the White man. The position is that if we amend the section as it is intended to be amended, a Coloured or an Asian person will apply for a licence under the provisions of section 100sex and he will not have to go through the procedures of section 31. The experience in the past has been that these people obtain the licences much more easily. I can understand why they got them under section 100sex in the past, because I think the intention of the legislature was that tea-rooms at the bottom of blocks of flats, etc., should be given licences in the hope that these blocks of flats would turn into hotels in time. I think that was the intention initially. The position now is that, having abolished the requirement of 20 people, what should now happen—and I put this very sincerely to the hon. the Minister of Justice—is that section 100sex ought to be abolished altogether. Any Indian or Coloured, any Indian or Coloured association consisting of two to three people, or individuals, in terms of the section as it now stands, should simply have to apply under section 31 just as any other person has to apply for a licence. All the controls which are applicable to section 31 would then apply to those people. In other words, it is now an anomalous position. One has what is really a superfluous situation once one takes away the minimum of 20 people, which was put there for a specific purpose. These people should merely fall into the category of all other people making application in terms of the Act. I was only briefed in regard to the Asian people from Natal, and therefore I put the amendment in the form in which it appears. Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 136, in line 44, to omit “or Asian”;
2. (2) on page 136, in lines 45 and 46, to omit “or Asians”;
3. (3) on page 140, in line 37, to omit all the words after “or” up to and including the second “1968” in line 40;
4. (4) on page 142, in lines 46 and 47, to omit “or the Indian group”;
5. (5) on page 144, in lines 6 and 7, to omit “, in the case of a Coloured person or an association of Coloured persons,”;
6. (6) on page 144, in line 8, to omit all the words after “Relations” up to and including “concerned” in line 11.

Is the hon. member moving all six amendments?

Yes, Sir, I have noticed that there has been some objection to one or two of them, but I have tried to explain that they all apply to the same thing, i.e. that if one is taking away the minimum of 20 people, my amendments deal with the amendment only. All six do in fact deal with it, although I have taken out the words “Coloured people” in certain cases, but it is merely to give sense to the sentence and it does not affect Coloured people at all.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendments (2), (5) and (6), as they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North intimated during the Second Reading debate already that he had received representations from Asians in Natal to move this amendment to the Bill. The hon. member moves that the word “Asian” should disappear from certain provisions of section 100sex. In that regard, the authority relating to the Asians, is an author ity which they have enjoyed since 1962. In other words, for 15 years now, those people have been enjoying the authority to participate in and receive their own share of the liquor trade amongst their own people. The hon. the Minister told the hon. member that he wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of the majority of the Indians in Natal and that he wondered what the result would be of an amendment such as the one moved by the hon. member for Durban North. In the first place, there is the question: What will become of the present holders of this authority? These are people with vested interests. They may well be café owners or owners of small restaurants, but does the hon. member now want them to disappear and to have the authorities withdrawn?

The clause provides for this.

The clause provides for it, but the expression “Asian” is now to disappear completely from the section concerned. They are not people who merely desire to obtain such an authority eventually. They are people who already have such an authority. On the other hand, what becomes of those people who are at present able to make applications? You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that if these people were to make an application as Asians or Coloureds or as an association of Asians or Coloureds, this would in fact mean that they were simply competing amongst themselves within their own group areas and within their own population group. Then they would not have to compete with the total number of applicants for licences, which is determined on a quota basis. This means that if these people were to make an application under clause 31 of the Bill, they would actually be penalized. Would the hon. member be prepared to explain to the Indians who have these authorities at their disposal why theirs should now have to fall away and why they should now have to bid on the open market? He must also explain why the right to make an application, which the Asians have, is now being taken away from them.

On the other hand, I want to know whether the hon. member, who is speaking on behalf of the Asians in Natal, will be prepared to tell the Coloureds in the Cape why he, as a member of the PRP, is prepared to speak on behalf of the Asians but not on behalf of the Coloureds, because these people are treated alike in this clause. He must explain why, as a member of the PRP, he discriminates between Asians and Coloureds. It would have been just as easy for the hon. member to move that either the clause be deleted or the provision be repealed altogether, as far as the Coloureds and the Asians are concerned. What, then, are we to conclude? The hon. member is discriminating between Asians and Coloureds. To him, it concerns the Asian, but which Asian? Basically, this concerns the Asian big money, the Indian big money. It concerns the individuals amongst the Asians who will be in a position to bid for a licence on the open market. Consequently, I believe that since it is important for the Government to look to the interests of these minority groups as well—both Asian and Coloured— the hon. member’s amendment is, and can only be, unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the mistake that that hon. member over there makes is the mistake that they, on that side of the House, will always make. I am representing what those people want, the Indian people who have asked me. The hon. member over there will never know what the Indians want, because he does not consult with them. I have not had any representations from Coloured people. If I had any representations from Coloured people, I would have put their representations before this House. I am putting what that race group has asked me to put to this House. It is not for that hon. member to say that I am discriminating against any race group. He comes to this House and argues about discrimination, but he has no idea what that race group wants because he has never consulted with them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says that his reasons for moving the amendment is that he is doing so on behalf of the people he represents. I do not think the hon. member quite understands whom he represents in this House. However, I now return to the point …

Order! The hon. member must now discuss the clause and the amendments to it.

The amendment of the hon. member for Durban North is to the effect that the word “Asian” be deleted from this clause for the simple reason that he has had representations from the Indian population of Natal. However, the Indians of Natal have a body of their own, their own council, as a channel through which they may approach the hon. the Minister if they want an amendment made, as they in fact did when they asked that whenever their Indian Council was constituted, that day should also be a closed day as far as the supply of liquor is concerned. For that reason, the hon. member must accept that he cannot speak only on behalf of Asians. He cannot simply move that the word “Asian” be omitted, whilst the word “Coloured” is left. Nor can he say that I do not know whom I represent whereas he knows that he represents the Asians. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must discuss the merits of the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, to some extent the hon. member for Durban North has made, to my way of thinking, a reasonable point. He says that once we take away the association of 20 persons, we may as well fall back on section 31. I want to point out to the hon. member, however, that the only difference is that section 100sex was introduced to enable the Coloured and Asian people to enter the liquor trade in their own group areas, without complying with the more stringent requirements for licences in White areas. That being so, I can take into account what the hon. member said, i.e. that it can be brought to the Board’s notice—indeed, I can tell the hon. member that it has already been brought to the Board’s notice—that one must raise the standard of licensing in this particular instance. I remember a case in Pinetown in Durban where we actually took away a licence because the standard had dropped too low. I think the hon. member has a point, however, when he says that we must be careful not to let the standards go down because that might well affect the Indian hoteliers, etc. What we will do, therefore, is to ask the board to be very careful to keep the standards fairly high for the individual licensees. That is as far as I can really take the matter.

Amendments (1), (3) and (4) negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 90:

Mr. Chairman, clauses 90 to 94, if I may just mention them generally, re-enact the principle that permission to sell in bars to females and to employ females in connection with the serving of liquor shall be the subject of a specific application to the hon. the Minister. It is not our intention to vote against these provisions which are improvements upon the existing legislation. However, in terms of the first of these clauses I should like to make a representation. Generally, even after the implementation of this Bill, the whole licensing procedure remains a very complicated matter. Not the least of these complications are the procedures to be followed prior to a person being allowed to employ women in connection with the sale of liquor and the provision in terms of which bars to which women have access require a special application which must include plans and other details. I want to ask: Is it not time that the procedure for the approval of, for instance, ladies’ bars should be simplified? Is this really the subject matter for advertisement, for example? In relation to employees, would it not be easier if the rule were that women may be employed in connection with the sale of liquor in all places other than in men’s bars? In the major cities it is virtually impossible to obtain competent barmen and my advice is that experience has shown that women are efficient and satisfactory employees and that the public in any event prefer to be served by them. I think that, while the Government is in the mood to move away from discrimination based on race, it should do something positive to move away from discrimination based on sex.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that clauses 90 to 94 exist for the sole purpose of facilitating and simplifying the matter.

It is still too complicated.

It is entirely unnecessary for the Liquor Board to be carged with the responsibility—I am referring to clause 91—for the appointment of barmaids. These privileges may now be granted automatically, together with the licences. The applicant need not already be in possession of a licence. In other words, this privilege may be granted simultaneously with the licence.

Clause 92 deals with the presence of prohibited persons on licensed premises and in clause 93 we again have the case of ladies’ bar privileges, to which the Liquor Board had previously to give consideration and in respect of which it had to make recommendations before the Minister could grant authority in that regard. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to burden the Liquor Board with such duties. This can now simply be dealt with together with the application for a licence. I think that this procedure simplifies matters considerably.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that we can simplify all this by way of regulations. Then we shall indeed take into consideration all the things the hon. member proposed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 91:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has chosen to speak on clause 90, which deals with the prohibition of females in any bar, restricted premises, etc. I prefer to deal with this matter under clause 91 which makes it possible for them to be there. I think that that is much more important than the prohibition under clause 90. It is more positive. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in relation to the amendments which this clause introduces, why he no longer trusts the Liquor Board to consider the question of whether barmaids should be allowed or not. Under the existing provisions, the Minister would act on the recommendation of the Liquor Board. I want to know whether this amendment is due to jealousy or superior judgement, or why it is that the Minister now feels that his taste and his discrimination are superior to those of the Liquor Board and that he does not require their recommendations. In terms of the amendments, he or a person acting under his directions will decide on this issue.

With reference to the amendment in line 3 on page 150, I think we are entitled to ask what directions he is going to give to a person in determining whether barmaids may be employed or not and what shape, size and hair colour will count when the question of barmaids is being considered. The provision stipulates that he must give directions. He must direct a person. We want to know what factors—what shape, whether square or triangular, what colours and sizes and other qualifications—will determine the issue. At the moment there is only an age factor taken into account. What criteria other than the age of 18 will determine who may be employed? What other statistics will be kept in regard to this important clause, which contrary to clause 90, permits the employment of females? The present procedure where they have to appear like cattle before a magistrate and have to walk round in order to be judged fit and proper and staid enough to be employed, is, I think, an insult to the female sex, and I hope that will not be the sort of direction which the hon. the Minister will give to the person whom he directs to deal with this matter.

Mr. Chairman, this matter is being settled departmentally. The magistrate no longer looks at the girl’s figure, her size, her appearance, and so on. He is more interested in her character.

What instructions are you going to give the magistrates?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 99:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate. At present a debt outstanding to a bottle-store must be settled before the first day of the third month succeeding the date of supply of the liquor. For example, liquor sold on 15 February must be paid for by 30 April of the same year, failing which the debt prescribes and no action can be brought thereafter to recover the money owing. This provision has always ensured that suppliers of liquor are very circumspect in granting credit and reasonably efficient in collecting their debts. They have to be because the time for collecting their debts is very short and the time for the initiation of action is very short as well. On the other side, customers by and large do not as easily over-extend themselves, knowing that their accounts are payable within a short time. In an indirect way this limitation on credit facilities reduces the availability of liquor to those who cannot afford it. I am not the ally of those who go overboard on the evils of alcohol. But it must be recognized that liquor throughout the world has, more than any other freely available product or commodity, caused, in its abuse, misery and hardship to husbands and wives and to the families of those who drink too much. Liquor debts cause financial stress and deprivation to families. The present format, or restriction, at least acts as a brake on over-expenditure on liquor to the detriment of the family. Also, in these times of inflation and financial austerity, we, the public, should be moving toward buying for cash and not away from it. This provision, as it stands in the Bill at present, extends the period of prescription by a further month. This will mean, for example, that a purchase made on 15 February will now have to be settled only by 31 May of the same year, and not by 30 April as in the past. Certainly, as the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, this amendment is to the advantage of the trade because it means more credit for liquor, a longer time within which to collect it, and obviously it will mean marginally more sales.

There may well be the argument that computers take a little time to get accounts out, but I have found that the efficient trader can get accounts for sales made during the month out at the month end. Our duty as House of Assembly is not solely to the trade, but to society as well. All of us sitting around here have to ask ourselves whether we are in favour of making it even easier than it presently is to obtain credit for liquor, knowing full well that it will inevitably result in more liquor sales, more debts, more court actions and more trouble for many families. I am opposed to this extension, and I ask that the hon. the Minister reconsider his position in relation to this particular aspect of the amendment to the Act and that he revert to the existing position, which I believe to be quite adequate for all concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in the main we do not agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton as we believe that the proposed amendment to the Act is a reasonable one as it adjusts the situation as regards the present accounting system which most bottle-store owners apply in that if goods are purchased after the 25th of a month, one receives the account only during the following month and not at the end of the month in which the liquor was actually purchased. I must say that I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Sandton. He has spoken vehemently against the granting of any credit at all, throughout the entire business world it seems. He spoke about this previously, and if he wanted to remain true to his convictions he should have suggested that it be made almost impossible for bottle-store owners to grant credit and should not have gone merely half-way by saying that we should revert to the existing situation.

The existing Act refers to the third month, the proposed amendment makes it the fourth month, and the hon. member for Sandton wants to keep it at the third month. It seems to me that the motivation for moving this amendment was, as the Dutch say, “ydele spyt”. It is the same as quibbling about the English and American pronunciations of “tomato” and “potato”. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Sandton that this extra month justifies the plea which he made tonight. He is very worried about credit and he is telling us in which direction we ought to move, but a short while ago he in fact voted in favour of liquor being available on an election day. It seems to me that what we have here is hair splitting. I should have been able to understand his wanting to return to the old provision if we had been dealing with the complete abolition of credit or with a motion that the period be extended to twelve months.

The hon. the Minister stated the matter quite clearly in his Second Reading speech. I believe the hon. member for Sandton understands clear Afrikaans very well. I say that because he has been in all the good parts of our country, such as that “wall” which they call Aliwal, for example. Consequently, I know that he understands Afrikaans very well. The hon. the Minister stated quite clearly that this amendment has been requested by the commercial sector by Fedhasa. I am afraid that if Fedhasa knew that that hon. member wanted to retain the existing provision, the PRP would not gain any votes from any member of Fedhasa in future. The hon. the Minister stated very clearly that the reason for this amendment was that most business undertakings had switched over to computers and that for some reason, it appears to be difficult for them to get out their accounts so that payment may be collected before the end of the third month after the debt has been incurred. I do not believe that they would have approached the Minister for nothing or that they would have requested him to introduce this amendment for no reason. I believe that this makes matters easier for them, since they have switched over to computers. When all is said and done, this is all they are asking for. I feel that if the hon. member had emerged with a completely new amendment, that it should be repealed completely, for example, or if he had proposed a longer period, I could have sympathized with his amendments, but since he wants to retain the third month instead of making it a month longer, I feel there is no sense in it.

Mr. Chairman, in this particular clause there is only one loser, and that is the supplier. The consumer does not suffer any loss of any kind. He can gain by not paying his account. The wholesaler does not enter into it at all, but the poor supplier is the fellow who suffers, and I firmly believe that we should look very, very carefully at this. We should agree with the amendment as it is printed here, and that is that we should move on to the fourth calendar month succeeding that in which the liquor was sold or supplied, because, in this modern day and age we have computers. However, as has already been pointed out, the computer does not necessarily speed up accounting. As a matter of fact, I believe, that more often than not, it slows it down. One finds that…

Particularly Army pay!

Yes, particularly Army pay, and, of course, bottle-store accounts. I believe that the hon. member for Sandton has himself made the observation: “It will result in marginally more sales.” Those were his words. Surely, we are making a fuss about nothing if it is going to result in marginally more sales.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that amendment. It is quite correct that in this instance Fedhasa asked us to grant an extension of one month as far as prescription was concerned. They explained to us that they were experiencing problems in sending out their accounts. I accept their bona fides and I also accept that that extra month will do no-one any harm. We are granting that extension simply to be of assistance to those people.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the argument of the hon. member for Aliwal. However, the question is: What is our duty? Is it our duty to serve the trade? This whole liquor legislation is geared to the trade. Is it our duty to serve the trade, or is it our duty to do as best we can for the public of South Africa? What I am saying, is that the overriding duty is to the necessity to ensure that we act in the interest of the public. I believe that it is not in the interest of the public to extend credit for liquor, which will ensure that more liquor is sold, and on account, not for cash. I am surprised that the hon. member for Pinetown has not stood up and given us of his wisdom in this matter. I feel that he will support this very strongly. He has remained silent, so I will fight the case. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in the extension of credit for liquor. I believe that it is not in the interest of the economy. I believe it is not in the interest of the public, and I believe that, if one has an efficient organization running a liquor business, the can collect their debts within a three-month period. We will therefore vote against this clause.

Question put: That the word stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven’t Hooft, R. J. Lorimer, G. B. D. McIntosh, G. N. Oldfield, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, and Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg) appeared on one side.

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Progressive Reform Party and Messrs. G. B. D. McIntosh and G. N. Oldfield dissenting).

Clause 102:

Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the ordinary man in regard to the obligations which are now to be imposed on the holder of a wine and malt liquor licence. At the moment the burdens imposed on such a holder of a licence are heavy enough in that he has to stock the products of at least eight producers or manufacturers of wine and has to stock the products of at least seven brewers of malt products. In addition to that the amendment before us requires that these articles must be “prominently displayed”. It becomes an intolerable and expensive burden on the small restaurateur to comply with these terms. We have listened today to the hon. the Minister of Finance announcing further increases in the cost of those refreshments which are enjoyed with a meal in restaurants, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to go on with the amendment which he has here, because it is merely increasing the ultimate cost of the service to the patron of a restaurant. If display of the various commodities is to be added to the mere having and stocking of them, it must result in additional cost, cost which has to be passed on to the patron of the restaurant. I realize that all the hon. the Minister can do is not to go on with the proposal he makes here and that he would need some other opportunity to deal with—I did ask this during the Second Reading—the introduction into South African restaurants of a wine-of-the-house service. I think it is in the interests not only of the producer, but also in the interests of the consumer, the patrons of these restaurants, that that should be done. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to this and perhaps not proceed with this amendment, which is clearly a financial burden, and also consider making it possible to obviate the large stock which has to be carried under existing conditions of the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have already replied, during the Second Reading debate, to the last point the hon. member raised here. I told the hon. member—who was not present at that stage—that I am rather sympathetically inclined towards the idea of a wine-of-the-house, which will in all probability be a cheaper wine and the kind one can buy by the glass. However, I am afraid I cannot grant the hon. member’s other request. I do not think it is very expensive for the holder of a bottle licence to stock eight types of wine or keep them on his shelves. The crux of the matter is that because South Africa is still a rather small country, there is a tendency for the large companies in South Africa to apply some form of control of the outlets. Of course this is quite legal, but they do have an immense influence. That is why it is still necessary in South Africa at the moment to state that he must keep at least eight types of wine and display them prominently there so that people can see them. The same holds for brandy and beer. There are, in actual fact, only two large breweries, but there are various types of beer. As regards a restaurant, the licensee only has to advertise on his wine-list. He does not have to exhibit the product. He advertises on the wine-list and, of course, has to keep stocks of those wines as well. If one goes to a restaurant, one is inclined to ask the restaurateur what wine he recommends. I do not think it is very difficult or very expensive for him to have various types of wine on his wine-list. I think it is actually an advertisement for him; having a wider variety is also very good for the industry. So I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. member’s representations.

I should like to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 158, in line 36, to omit “1” and to substitute “14”;
2. (2) on page 158, in lines 44 to 45, to omit “the commencement of that Act” and to substitute “1 November 1940”.

What this boils down to is that the definition of wholesale trader, which appeared in section 1 in 1940, appeared in section 14 of the consolidated Act of 1970. The whole matter, as it stands, refers to the 1970 Act but should actually refer to the 1940 Act, which came into force on 1 November 1940. It is therefore just a small technical amendment I am moving.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said in expressing his sympathy with the idea that there should be a wine-of-the-house, but what he has not indicated is whether he is in favour of a special dispensation for restaurants who wish to have a wine-of-the-house solely. That is not sold as a proprietary brand, but by the glass or carafe, without having to comply with the other requirements. The hon. the Minister has said that these are not costly. But take an average restaurant with tables for 20 to 24 people. If that restaurant has to stock the wines of eight producers, they must start off by having a refrigerator in which there have to be at least 24 or 32 bottles of white wine being chilled, because the restaurant owner does not know which wines are going to be ordered by the customer, the patron. In regard to the displaying, it does not merely mean displaying by putting names on a wine list. The Bill which is now before us requires it to be prominently displayed. I think the hon. the Minister should realize that there are ordinary people who merely want a glass of wine with their grill or whatever they might have in these restaurants. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate whether he has in mind meeting that position and not enforcing the wine and malt regulations as they stand in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I do not intend removing the provisions. I was under the impression that the hon. member meant that a restaurant should be able to say that it has a specific wine which it can sell by the glass, i.e. a wine-of-the-house. That I can accept, but I cannot accept a restaurant having only a wine-of-the-house. We in South Africa cannot accept this. The hon. member is thinking more of the European restaurants where they really have a wine-of-the-house which comes from their district. However, we do not have the same position in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member must please indicate which amendment he is going to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the provision in terms of which the hon. the Minister is now intending to impose an additional burden on the holder of a wine and malt licence, to the effect that he must now display, as well as hold stock, of these various quantities.

To what amendment is the hon. member now referring?

To clause 102. If you would refer to line 55 on page 156 it states: “At all times available and prominently displayed” table wines of eight producers. My problem in this regard is that it is an increasing cost for the holder of a wine and malt licence to have to do this display, while the only benefit which he can give to the ordinary man is to allow the holder of a wine and malt licence, if he so desires, to only have a wine-of-the-house. That is the point I should like the hon. the Minister to consider.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the hon. member for Green Point about the displaying of wines. In all the years I have been in practice it has been my interpretation—and it has always been accepted as such—that as long as a licensee has sufficient supplies of six types of brandy and eight types of wine, he does not have to display all the products. For example, I can hardly imagine a room large enough to allow four dozen wines of a certain type and five dozen brandies of a certain type to be displayed on the shelves. My interpretation has always been that the licensee should merely see to it that he has eight types of brandy and six types of wine on his shelves so that a person entering his restaurant can see the various types. If someone wants a case of a certain type of wine or brandy, the licensee must be able to fetch a case of the specific type of wine or brandy from his storeroom. I cannot envisage the legislator expecting the licensee to display his entire stock on his shelves. After all, what does the holder of a liquor licensee have a storeroom for? It is surely for storing his stocks of liquor in. My interpretation of the legislation is therefore that the licensee does, in fact, have to display the various types of wine and brandy, but that he does not have to display every last bottle he has, as long as he can just display eight types of brandy and six types of wine on his shelves.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we on this side of the House are happy to accept the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister. We hope that our co-operation will be reciprocated in the few clauses that are left.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 108:

Mr. Chairman, I would like a little more elucidation from the hon. the Minister on these two groups he is going to have, the designated police officers, who are apparently still to continue, and the new inspectorate whom he is going to employ. As I gathered from his reply to the Second Reading, these latter are going to be superannuated policemen who have retired and who will then be employed on inspections. Apart from the fact that this will mean expanding the force that will be enquiring into all sorts of things which I will not go into, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister firstly what expansion he envisaged in his total inspectorate and what specific difference there will be between the superannuated inspectors and the designated police officers. I will take it no further than to ask that question at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to speak to clause 108 before the hon. the Minister stands up. Let me say immediately that I believe the police are overburdened with extraneous work and outside duties, so much so that over the years their law-enforcement functions have in some cases been quite seriously impaired. I therefore welcome any move to free policemen from administrative work for other departments and authorities, thus reducing their workload in matters not strictly of a police nature. I am sure the hon. member for Umlazi will agree with me. On the other hand, I do take the point raised by the hon. member for Durban-Point during the Second Reading debate, and again now, concerning the ever broadening bureaucracy involved in the administration of liquor legislation. I think an answer is called for. The duplication of various inspectorates and responsible authorities is a source of considerable annoyance, confusion, and I think even frustration, to licensees.

Let us take an example. In the case of an hotel the hotelier already has to comply with, firstly, the requirements of the police, secondly, the classification officer, who is usually not the same policeman, thirdly the hotel board inspector, fourthly the liquor authority in regard to the licence itself, fifthly the health authorities and then various other authorities such as Bantu administration boards and the Industrial Council. The hon. the Minister is now adding a further new group of officers to this list. It not infrequently happens that the requirements of one official clash with the requirements of another. This is confusion confounded and means more time and money wasted. Surely the time has now come to rationalize, to modernize, to consolidate and to streamline the whole operation of this Act and its requirements under a single, specialized inspectorate. This must be done so that licensees are responsible to only one body and so that they will be able to devote their time to running their businesses instead of spending so many man-hours in trying to satisfy the requirements of various officials. I ask the hon. the Minister to react to those views.

Does the hon. member for Sandton wish to move his amendment?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for reminding me. I shall now deal with the proposed new section 118(3)(b). We have no objection to an inspector requiring to see the books or documents which a licensee must keep in obedience to this Act, and I believe that that is what this section intends. On the other hand, the section is worded somewhat more widely and enforces the right of any inspector to look at any document or book kept on the licenced premises or under the control of a licensee. Surely this goes too far and may encompass private documents not related to the conduct of the business. The only protection afforded the licensee is a somewhat nebulous one, leaving the decision to the subjective opinion of the inspector. My amendment does not vitiate the efficacy of the provision but precludes unwarranted intrusion into private matters unrelated to the workings of this Act. I consequently move—

Mr. Chairman, this is another of those superficial and facile approaches. The hon. member for Sandton is now saying that an inspector or anyone investigating someone who is keeping a double set of books, one on the counter to be seen and one under the counter which is the real set of books, may not ask to see the real set of books as long as he is shown one as required by the Act. I am not prepared to co-operate in assisting people to evade the consequences of dishonesty, and therefore I think one should be entitled to inquire into any relevant book which is part of the record which may disclose an offence.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

The hon. the Minister has already replied, in his Second Reading speech, to the amendment I have moved. I am therefore going to be very brief because I realize now that his mind is closed to this matter and I therefore do not think that any suggestion I might make is going to make any impression upon him.

Do not be so pessimistic.

However, I do want him to consider the following and I do want it placed on record. These inspectors are now going to take over the functions of the police. In the past the police used to inspect hotel premises, etc. I believe there is something about a policeman that is very special.

A sailor, not a policeman.

No, a policeman! Under those circumstances it was not necessary for a person to disclose the fact that he was a policeman. Although the hon. the Minister might say that he intends appointing ex-policemen to these posts, in the main, there will, of necessity, be people who are not ex-policemen.

I believe that, as is traditional throughout the world where a person operates in a way that constitutes an invasion of the basic privacy and personal rights of an individual, such an inspector should produce, without waiting to be requested to do so, a document to show that he is in fact an official examiner. One can envisage the situation where the licensee is of a timid nature and the inspector is an overbearing person. In such a case it may well be that the licensee will not have the temerity to ask for the authority of the inspector. This could lead to abuse. What I want to get home to the hon. the Minister is that the inspectors will in any event have to carry their certificates with them in case they are asked in terms of the legislation to disclose them. Is it then any more difficult for them to be instructed that on each occasion they must simply show their identification and say: “I am from the inspectorate and I should like to see your books?” I believe that that applies to lots of people because the word “persons” is used. Therefore persons in control of books, i.e. bookkeepers, for example, can also be asked to disclose what is required.

I believe that if the inspectors were simply to exhibit on arrival at the premises their certificates of authority, that would not be asking too much, and I believe it could possibly lead to the avoidance of any abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, viz. that he is going to appoint ex-police officers on the inspectorate. I can speak feelingly on the whole question of licensed premises. In the past I, as a policeman, was busy for five solid months a year on liquor work. As commandant of a district, a busy district at that, I had no officers under me in days gone by and I had to do this work myself. I was the officer designated and for five solid months from July to December I dealt with nothing but liquor.

A lot of hon. members who come from the country will remember how from July or August the hoteliers started painting their buildings. That was always the signal that the inspectors were coming round. I agree that this work should be taken away from the police as far as possible. Let specialists, people who have worked with the Liquor Act in the past, do this work because they will know what it is all about.

As concerns the production of a certificate of appointment, I agree that there are times when one should produce such a certificate when one goes out to inspect books, but there are also times when it is politic not to produce one’s appointment certificate or disclose one’s identity, and that is when one goes there to see how the hotelier is conducting his business, not only in the day but also at night.

Therefore I absolutely support the amendments contained in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. member for East London City to the proposed new section 118(3)(a) which reads as follows—

Here is the important point—

In other words, it is very clear that the inspector has to inform the person concerned of the purpose of his visit. Then he is identifying himself.

Even I can go and say that.

Then it comes down to the fact that if this person has any doubts about the bona fides of the inspector, he can demand, in terms of the previous provision, that the inspector present his certificate. In other words, it is not necessary for the inspector first to have to say: “Here is my certificate; this or that is going to happen.” He simply introduces himself in the normal way and states his purpose. If the person subsequently doubts his bona fides, he can at least present his certificate, but I cannot see any reason for the inspector to present his certificate immediately upon arrival and state the purpose of his visit. I therefore feel that we ought not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London City.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I should just like to say that I think the hon. member for Durban Point gave a very good reply to the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. It is an amendment I cannot accept for the reason given by the hon. member for Durban Point.

In connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City, I think the only difference between myself and the hon. member lies in the fact that I say that if someone asks one for one’s certificate, one must show it while he, on the other hand, says that when the inspector arrives he should show his certificate in any event. I am afraid that I would then really be paving the way for technicalities to be brought up in court, because if I, as an inspector, forget to show my certificate and the person does not ask me to show my certificate, it can be said later, after I have asked him to show me documents which he, however, refuses to do, that I committed a crime by failing to show my certificate. I say it is possible that that technicality may be raised. I do not think we should place the onus on the inspector to show his certificate at once, but he must have it on him so that if someone challenges him and asks if he is really an inspector, he is able to show his certificate.

Do you ever watch “Blitspatrollie”?

I am pleased the hon. member for Umlazi supported me. I also want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that there are not many liquor inspectors. There are simply the designated policemen who operate mostly in the rural areas. In the large cities there will be ex-policemen who are proper inspectors of the hotels and restaurants.

I spoke about the specific number. What will the new establishment be?

Unfortunately I cannot tell the hon. member how many there will be. We are already in the experimental stage at present, I think in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg, and we are appointing officers as inspectors in these areas. We shall appoint more and more of them depending on how well it works.

Increase or replace?

We shall appoint more and more of the ex-police officers as inspectors.

An increase of the grand total or a replacement?

Replacement, not an increase.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 109:

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question: In constituting the national board, why is the Minister being released of the duty to nominate a highly qualified person? This board with its burden of work cries out for qualified appointments and, despite the possible departmental policy of appointing senior officials to the board, which I fully understand, I believe that this policy should be written into the Bill. Similarly, the persons appointed by the State President should be more than just ordinary citizens. For instance, I believe that one such appointee should be appointed for his specialized knowledge of the trade. He should be one who would be conversant with their practical difficulties. I would not like the National Liquor Board either to follow the path of other Government appointed boards and be the repository of retired, unsuccessful Nationalist back-benchers, many of whom are sitting in this House today, or to become the final “dankie” for political services rendered. The industry demands better, and how better, Mr. Chairman, can it be done than to write it into the Bill? I therefore move the amendment which stands in my name and say Mr. Chairman, that it does not destroy the State President’s right to choose, but gives a guide-line in respect of at least one member on the board. I move as an amendment—

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 112:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As motivation, I would like to say, Sir, that since 1928, when the Liquor Act was first introduced, the amount that could be charged in respect of repairs that had been forced upon a lessor had been 10%, and for some reason or other the hon. the Minister is now raising it to 12½%. We cannot really get to the bottom of the reasoning as to why it should be raised to 12%% when it was 10% since 1928. We believe that it is related to the question of a reasonable return on an amount which has been expended, and we therefore believe that under the present economic situation it would be more realistic to apply a figure of 15%.

I am prepared to accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 113:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 135:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 139:

Mr. Chairman, in connection with this clause there are only two questions that I want to ask. The first relates to the new proposed section 166(hA), which is to be found on page 198 of the Bill. It relates to the sports grounds, as the hon. the Minister will remember. I merely want to know the background to the amendment and the intention of the hon. the Minister in relation to that amendment. The second question relates to the proposed new section 166(r), on page 200 of the Bill. I understand the word “gambling” but I would like to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind when he uses the term “any unlawful game”, which, I assume, is separate from gambling. Could the hon. the Minister just enlighten us on that?

The term “unlawful game” refers to any unlawful game which may be unlawful in terms of another Act.

What about a game of matches for a drink?

No, I do not know. The hon. member may try it. I do not believe that is unlawful.

What about a round with the dice?

I do not believe that is unlawful either.

What about dominoes? [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as the first question of the hon. member for Sandton is concerned, this has been inserted because of the request by the hon. member last year. The hon. member for Durban Point also uttered the same request. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. the Minister has tried to be very clear, but I am still none the wiser.

Well, then you will remain like that!

Clause agreed to.

Clause 145:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 204, in line 41, after “(2)” to insert “The Minister or”;
2. (2) on page 204, in line 42, after “application” to insert “or appeal”;
3. (3) on page 204, in line 47, after “application” to insert “or appeal”.

Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased to see that the hon. member for Simonstown has stuck it out listening to me tonight. He has proved an excellent audience. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this clause will provide welcome relief from the complexities of licence applications. Over the years, applicants …

Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the hon. member for Sandton that I am prepared to accept the first amendment, but not the other two.

Thank you. I am pleased to hear that. If I might argue that one aspect then, I would like to state that the position is that the hon. the Minister considers appeals. He is now not prepared to accept amendments affecting that. This does not in fact mean that it will bind the hon. the Minister any further than he is presently bound. It merely gives him a power which he has not previously had. This will provide welcome relief. It allows of condonation of errors and will ensure a tremendous amount of saving by applicants. If it is confined merely to applications, it covers only half the story. Could I ask the hon. the Minister why he is not prepared to accept the amendment in relation to appeals?

Mr. Chairman, all the person has to do is give notice of appeal. There are no formalities involved. It therefore does not have to be stated in the Bill. He has the right to lodge an appeal with me in certain cases. He therefore simply gives notice of his appeal. That is all.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived and amendment (3) dropped.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 147:

Mr. Chairman, just to demonstrate how a responsible Opposition approaches its task, I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 212, in line 32, to omit “and twenty-five cents”;
2. (2) on page 212, in line 36, to omit “sixty” and to substitute “thirty-five”.

In order to avoid embarrassing the hon. the Minister, I will not argue my reasons.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendments. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I move my amendment which is in spirit the same. It is a minor amendment, but nonetheless still worth moving. It reads—

There are several clubs, restaurants and establishments holding various classes of licences which supply or are required in terms of the provisions of the Bill to supply ordinary meals. To my specific knowledge more than one of them do so for no more than 90 cents per meal. The effect of this provision will be to push up the price of those establishments by some 35 cents per meal per head per day. Therefore I suggest that the amount suggested by me, i.e. 90 cents, be adopted as the minimum and not the R1,25. Naturally, the establishments will, above the amount of 90 cents, regulate their prices to suit their clientele and satisfy their own economics. I feel however that we should not prescribe a minimum which is higher than the amount that is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that I shall accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I do not think that there is much of a difference between 90 cents and R1, and in any event, the hon. member for Sandton forgot to lower the price that non-Whites pay to 35 cents.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived.

Amendments moved by Mr. W. V. Raw agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, fresh and eager as we are to approach the final debate on this measure on this early morning of 8 March, I think it would be appropriate at this stage to say that the last seven to eight hours have demonstrated more clearly than words or anything else could do the wisdom of the amendment which I moved at the Second Reading, proposing that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee. If nothing else emerged from the debate in Committee, what did emerge is that the Opposition raised point after point, issue after issue, many of which—and I pay tribute to the Minister for doing so—the hon. the Minister accepted because they were reasonable and responsible amendments to improve the measure. But, equally, there were innumerable matters on which it was not technically possible to move amendments and where I believe the hon. the Minister is in agreement with the point of view which we have taken on this side of the House. I believe that in a Select Committee these issues could have been considered calmly and responsibly and that we could have created an improved, streamlined and more modernized piece of liquor legislation, more suited to the year 1977. Unfortunately, I believe that we have retained far too much of the mentality of 1928 in a measure which is to be applied in the last quarter century of the 20th century.

It was not possible to deal with it in this House, partly because of the rules and partly because the hon. members on that side of the House played no part whatsoever and made no contribution whatsoever other than to try to refute some arguments. Not one single positive suggestion was made during the eight hours of debate by one single Government member or one single IUP member. The IUP did not even make a contribution at all. The Government members made a negative contribution. Not one single positive suggestion and not even the germ of an idea came forth. There was not even a sign of a little twinkle in the eye that could have led to the germ of an idea from one of those hon. members. They just sit there after eight hours of debate and not even 10% of them understand what it is all about. The few that do understand do not have the guts to make a proposal or a suggestion for an improvement. There are a few—just a few—who know what it is all about but they do not have the courage to get up and say that they agree with what the Opposition says, that we should modernize and streamline this Act and that we should cut out this jargon, red tape, masses of out-dated concepts and ideas, this racial ideology and all the rest.

This is a measure which, when consolidated, will still need amendment after amendment. I pointed out at another stage during the debate that in the 22 years since this Bill has been on the Statute Book, throughout the life of the United Party, it was changed five times. Since the time this Government has started to tamper with it, however, there have been 22 amending Bills in 21 years. There are 150 clauses in this Bill and 218 pages of changes. I count that as one amending Bill. There have been 22 such amending Bills in the 21 years from 1956 until this year. This shows that at the end of those 21 years the Government is still trying to put this Bill into a satisfactory state. They have to come here and hold an all-night session which keeps the House here hour after hour and then steamroller it through, after which they still have not achieved their object.

What is left? We have a hotel organization which is intimidated, afraid, almost terrorized and worried because they dare not buck the power of the machine which now controls them. Tonight we have oiled the creaking joints of that machine to make it more powerful and more intimidating.

Could the hon. member for Durban Point tell us what that machine, that we as members fear so much, did to them in Durbanville?

That is an easy question. Because of the hon. the Minister’s unwillingness to consider reasonable amendments the machine of which I was talking—this Act— was totally incapacitated; it was closed down at Durbanville, because it was the machinery of liquor distribution I am talking about. It was closed down because that hon. member, the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are not prepared to accept the South African White electorate as adults. They want to pamper and namby-pamby them and that is why this machine was incapacitated at Durbanville. I am not referring to the machine of the NP, because we know that juggernaut. That juggernaut is a different kind of machine. It is oiled by different oils and it is lubricated by different spirits, i.e. spirits of Albert Hertzogs, spirits of Broederbonds and other spirits which keep that machine going. I am talking about the machinery of the distribution of liquor.

Order! The hon. member must speak up, because I find it very difficult to hear him. [Interjections.]

I find it very difficult to contain my concern when I am dealing with the spirit which motivates the Government in these matters. It is a spirit which seems unable to keep up with the demands of this Bill, a spirit which is out of date in 1977 and a spirit which has, in fact, died but is dragged along by these hon. members as though it is something to which they cling and which they are afraid to let go of. That is why I get worried and talk loudly. Those hon. members are clutching a straw, they are clutching a spirit which has no substance, a spirit which is no longer applicable to this age and I am trying to get them to come with us to seek new spirits, new ventures and new courage to enter into a new sort of South Africa where we do not need all this clap-trap and where missionaries with a missionary spirit can stand up and say that we have entered a new age.

We have debated this matter for a long time, but we are fortified by the knowledge that this side of the House has played its part in trying to improve the measure, despite the inability of the Government to make any contribution. We were right and we remain right in having asked for a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point is a very friendly hon. member, but I did not know that he could make so much noise so early in the morning. I do not know where the hon. member was, but I have an idea that somebody might have gone to wake him up! The hon. member alleged that hon. members on this side of the House did not make any positive suggestions or contributions. That, of course, is not true, but the hon. member for Durban Point would not know any better because he was absent most of the time. I do not know where he was. The hon. member spoke of “spirits” and of how confused he was. We here on this side of the House do not need “spirits” to give us the courage to stand up here and do what we have to do. In most cases the suggestions coming from those hon. members were so feeble that we could not support them, and that is why the hon. the Minister could not accept them either. We have been debating this long Bill in detail for many hours now. We have listened to good arguments from this side of the House and to poorer arguments from that side of the House.

It is clear to me that the hon. the Opposition have been so intimidated by their discussion of this apparently long and involved piece of legislation that they have, as a result, completely overlooked the quite obviously very positive provisions and advantages. Nor did we receive any evidence from that side of the House tonight to indicate that it would have been justifiable to appoint a Select Committee.

When they were so afraid, frightened to death by this apparently involved piece of legislation, they flung quite a few unjustified conclusions and accusations in the hon. the Minister’s direction. Unfriendly remarks were the order of the day. For instance, we heard them saying it is a clumsy, long-winded and often incomprehensible jumble of bureaucratic long-windedness. It was the hon. member for Durban Point who said that, while the hon. member for Sandton said it is an incredible centralization of power. The hon. member for East London City said “the Bill smacks of an archaic situation which does not keep pace with a changing community”. The hon. member for Sandton told us it is a web of discriminatory measures and regulations. Fortunately the other side of the picture was also presented to us this evening, chiefly by this side of the House. We know now that the Bill is definitely not what hon. members alleged it to be.

If we consider it in an objective light, we find that the Liquor Act has been drawn up to control the orderly distribution of liquor in South Africa. It is no more and no less than that. With the Bill before the House we are persuing and achieving that objective. It therefore has nothing to do with the so-called abuse of alcohol, as the hon. member for Pinetown alleged. We are all concerned about the abuse of alcohol, but this problem cannot be combated by the Liquor Act.

If we consider it in objective light, we find that the legislation does not give rise to an incredible centralization of power either. Far from it, because at the moment local liquor licence boards are only considering the applications in any event; after that they are submitted to the National Liquor Board and the hon. the Minister for approval. The Bill does change the whole licensing procedure, but only the local liquor licencing boards are eliminated. Their recommendations disappear now, but the final decision-making powers remain with the Liquor Board and the hon. the Minister, precisely as is the case at present. The licensing procedures will also work much more smoothly now because a licence remains in force under certain circumstances and does not annually have to be considered de novo. Only new applications will be considered, and as we have heard, the evidence goes to show that they will be dealt with very much more quickly and with less time lost. The Bill does also keep pace very well with the changing community in South Africa. That is why we are amending the original Liquor Act of 1928 for approximately the 30th time today. We do not stand still; we are amending it in order to keep pace with the times.

However, let us take a further look at what changes have been made in this Act in order to keep pace with our changing community. We had the removal of prohibition for the Black people, and we also had the classification of hotels. We had the introduction of extended hours and the introduction of ladies’ bars too, and there have been many more amendments of this type. Our liquor legislation compares very well with legislation overseas, but there must be sound control; otherwise there will be problems, as in the case of some countries abroad. France, for instance, which has too much freedom as regards the availability of liquor, has created serious problems for itself.

In spite of the changes, our community has always maintained its morals, customs and traditions in this connection over the years. That is why we limit the free sale of liquor, for example on Sundays. It must stay that way, because that is how our people want it. If we consider it objectively, we see that this legislation does not contain discriminatory measures and regulations either, as the hon. member for Sandton tried to make out. On the contrary! The legislation endeavours to bring about equality in terms of the Liquor Act. That is why we removed prohibition in regard to the Black people and why everyone in this country, White, Black and Coloured, can buy all kinds of liquor in South Africa today.

Except for “Mampoer”.

That is also why Coloureds and Indians today can receive full-fledged licences for entering the liquor trade. In this connection the hon. member for Durban Point naturally had an objection to make. I just want to point this out. That is why we are also opening international hotels to Whites, Blacks and Coloureds. There are still numerous other examples I can mention. There are still measures in the legislation which draw a distinction; those measures cannot simply be removed, and we know it. It would give rise to chaos and our specific purpose is the orderly and systematic control of the distribution of liquor. Even though it may seem at first sight as if the Act is unnecessarily long and involved, that is actually not the case. We must bear in mind that provision must be made for many circumstances. The Bill before the House …

Mr. Speaker, in the light of his support of the Bill at the moment, may I ask the hon. member why he did not participate in the discussions during the Committee Stage!

That just shows the depth of this side of the House. This time of the morning we still have new speakers to take part in the Third Reading debate. [Interjections.] The Bill is the result of many years’ experience by extremely competent officials of the Department of Justice, people with whom the interests of the organized liquor trade weigh as heavily as those of the consumer. That is why they try to find the correct balance, as in the case of this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is why we also have evidence of the fact that this Bill enjoys the support of everyone concerned. One can therefore gladly support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I quite like the hon. member who has just sat down. He is very nice to know and he is very good with rugby tickets. We have been debating this matter all afternoon. Several of us here have made a study of just about every clause, but we have not heard from that hon. member the whole day.

Was he here? Did you see him?

I have not seen Him. I know that he should have been here, however, because it is not rugby season. What has happened, however, is that at the end of the debate he now comes along with a Third Reading speech which is a re-hash of many of the things we have been debating all afternoon.

Now you give us something fresh.

After the thunderbolt that was delivered by the hon. member for Durban Point, I think it would be very wrong for any member in this House to deliver a long and turgid speech.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell us where he was when clause 105, especially his amendment, came up during the Committee Stage?

That places me in a difficult position, because I think that is possibly an amendment that might have been accepted.

Well, the situation is this. We are now in the Third Reading stage of this Bill and I want to say only four things in connection with this legislation. Firstly, the liquor legislation, as it now stands, is marginally better than the Liquor Bill was before it went through the Committee Stage. However, I believe that the racial provisions, although slightly amended, are still overpowering in the liquor legislation.

While it is not our intention to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, I believe that the time has come for several things to happen, or to be made to happen by the hon. the Minister, involving the administration of the liquor laws of South Africa. The first thing that must receive attention is the simplification under one authority and one set of rules of the licensing of persons and premises, ensuring a cut-down in delays and a saving in costs. This Bill, while assisting in some small measure, does not get to the root of the problem. Secondly, liquor legislation should not be designed purely or overwhelmingly in the interests of existing rights, but should be framed with a view to the promotion of our capitalistic system, allowing of free competition rather than of bureaucratic favour. Thirdly, the liquor legislation of South Africa treats women as being of inferior status and mollycoddles and protects them to an extent unwarranted, I believe, in modern times. More enlightened legislation in this regard is long overdue. Fourthly and finally, and probably most important of all, is the fact that the Liquor Act, although slightly improved by this Bill, remains a racially based piece of legislation concerned with keeping people and races separate in what in any other country would be regarded as normal activities. I think that the interests of South Africa would be well served if the hon. the Minister, as a matter of urgency, were to appoint a committee of senior people to make an in-depth study of this Act and its regulations and to make recommendations in regard to the rapid phasing out of unnecessary separation and discrimination, thus bringing South Africa in line with what other people would describe as normality.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in Afrikaans which goes: “Daar is net een tou en dit is Chateau, en as hy breek, is daar net een las en dit is babalaas.” At this late hour, or rather at this early hour of the morning, I think that many people have a hangover without having resorted to any hard tack. Perhaps it is because of the late hour of night, or the early hour of the morning, that some hon. members are delivering their speeches in such a sing-song voice instead of speaking normally.

Speakers on the Opposition side raised a few points I should just like to reply to briefly. The hon. member for Sandton, who has just resumed his seat, pointed out that the hon. member for Verwoerdburg did not participate in the Committee Stage. The reason for this is quite obvious. In the first place, we on this side have so many speakers, even at this early hour of the morning, that we could not all participate. We just had to make arrangements about who would sit out and who would participate. That is why we told the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that he could speak during the Third Reading. I do not know whether the hon. member for Sandton can remember what happened in Randburg last Wednesday. The events there simply proved that we on this side of the House do not need much to finish off people like the PRP men with very few of our men indeed. This happened again during discussions in the Committee Stage. I do not want to say anything more in reply to what the hon. member for Sandton said because he, like his party, sees everything in the country in terms of race relations. For them everything in the country hinges on the racial aspect.

The hon. member for Durban Point also mentioned the fact that few people on this side of the House made a contribution during the Committee Stage.

Not a few, none of them.

Very well, none of them; let me agree with him on this.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask what Minister is in charge of the House? There is not a Minister in sight. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point said that none of the hon. members on this side of the House made a contribution during the Committee Stage. Being an old member of this House, however, the hon. member should know that this is a Government measure and that we consequently discussed our proposals and made suggestions in advance. He too could also have made suggestions last year when this Bill was laid on the Table for the first time. Secondly I want to point out that several of our speakers participated, pointing out to the Opposition their mistakes and the erroneous ideas in their amendments which the hon. the Minister could consequently not accept.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that in UP days the Liquor Act had only been amended five times, but that it has been amended 22 times since the NP took over. This is, of course, true because we had to amend the Liquor Act so many times in order to rectify the mistakes they were never able to correct. That is why we had to amend the Liquor Act.

I think we had a very good debate on this Bill: in the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and now once again in the Third Reading, and because we had such a good debate, a Select Committee was not necessary at all. I think it is quite unnecessary for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. The evidence is there. We held penetrating discussions on this Bill, and one can take note of the number of amendments accepted by the hon. the Minister—very few indeed.

I also want to point out to hon. members on the other side that next year the Liquor Act will have been on the Statute Book for 50 years, and in those 50 years we have tackled the Liquor Act from every angle, so much so that we have only had to make consequential amendments, and that is why it was not necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

I also want to point out that since the Bill was tabled for the first time, as early as last year, there have been many opportunities to do some thinking. I know the members of the Opposition have not done any thinking, and that is why they wanted to refer it to a Select Committee, but we on this side of the House did do the necessary thinking and found that it is not necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

This Bill, which has now reached the Third Reading stage, has brought a few very good aspects to the fore, aspects which will prove, in future years, that this is a very good measure whose effects will yet be to the benefit of the country. I should just like to mention two of these in passing. Firstly I want to mention the decentralization that is taking place. This is going to save the country time, money and labour, and this can only benefit the country. The renewal procedure, too, in terms of which annual liquor licences are renewed, can save us just as much in time, money and labour and administration. The distribution of liquor and the liquor trade in the country are being made very much more streamlined by the Bill, and this is being done with the support of various bodies in the country. We think of the law societies, Fedhasa and those other people who made a positive contribution to the Bill. That is another reason why it was not necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that we held very useful discussions with a view to the consolidation Bill which will be introduced to this House next year. I think the Opposition will only really have its eyes opened then and realize why it was a good thing to discuss this amending Bill in the penetrating way we did this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member for Durban Point to take note that we have just come alive. He was delightful, as he always is at this time of the morning. I would like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that, while he was out of the House—I don’t know whether he was here all of the time—one third of the members on these benches participated in the Committee Stage of the Bill. [Interjections.] The official Opposition says that none of us was here, but let me tell them in a short while none of them is going to be here. They will all be wiped out. They will agree that they will not last a long time in their present form, as they are dissolving themselves in spirit. I wish to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I think that one of the most effective speeches tonight during the Committee Stage was made by the hon. member for Simonstown, who struck a blow for democracy and for the underdog. I think the hon. member for Durban Point could not have heard the outstanding speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown.

At this time of the night I wish to say that we in these benches bow to the superior knowledge of the official Opposition when it comes to matters concerning liquor. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about a machine that was in gear. I would agree that the hon. member for Durban Point’s machine was certainly in gear, but I would like to say that as far as the official Opposition is concerned, their machine is completely out of gear and going only one way.

Mr. Speaker, at the Third Reading of this Bill I think it is important to take a look at whom the Bill is going to be of importance to if it is placed on the Statute Book. Firstly I think one should take a look at the producers, those people who are responsible for the product which is controlled by these legal provisions. We know we have had no objections from the KWV and the co-operatives representing the producers. Secondly one must take a look at commerce, those people who distribute the product, and also at those who are going to be involved if problems crop up. We have had no objections from the Wine Institute and the law societies. Thirdly it is essential to take a look at the consumers because they are also one of the parties to be protected, people whose interests must be taken care of. They also had no objections to the provisions of the Bill. Who, then, are the people who did object and who asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee? The answer is the official Opposition, the United Party, and they cannot claim tonight to be speaking on behalf of either the producers, commerce or the consumers, except perhaps a few. The official Opposition cannot even determine whom they are speaking for in any constituency.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The PRP also spoke, and the chief spokesman for that party said he was speaking on behalf of the Indians. Those are the objections to this Bill that we have had to listen to.

It is now Pitman for the White man! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member for Durban North’s dilemma. He is the youngest member of this little party and is continually being thrown in at the deep end. [Interjections.] I now want to get back to the Bill. I want to point out that the fact that annual applications for the renewal of licences are no longer necessary is, administratively speaking, a great improvement. That has already been dealt with, however. What is also important, in my opinion, is the fact that the authorizations in terms of the provisions of section 100bis of the principal Act—i.e. authorization with respect to the Bantu—and those in terms of section 100sex—involving the Coloureds and Asians—are now also renewed automatically. What is very important in respect of section 100sex …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I shall be telling the hon. member what he has already forgotten. As far as section 100sex is concerned, this means a great deal. With provision initially stating that there must be an association of either Coloureds or Indians, with no one able to hold more than 20% of the total number of shares or pay in more than 20% of the overall capital, we found those people gradually getting the hang of this kind of industry, and we believe they are now ready to be allowed to apply for these licences on an individual basis and that they are also ready to be allowed to trade, as individuals, in terms of licences of this kind. That is what the NP believes. The NP believes that it must lead every population group to maturity. Thus the NP is slowly and constantly leading them “allmählich”, as the Germans say, but when the NP finds that people are ready to accept their responsibilities, the Government gives them that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to come back again to the question of the provision of liquor on election days. However, this evening a new dimension was added to this argument by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point asked why Bantu are allowed access to pubs and bottle stores on election day while this is denied to Whites, Coloureds and Asians.

No, never!

Yes, surely that is basically what it boils down to, Mr. Speaker. If that is not how the hon. member stated the case, he did not read the legislation in any event. After all, that is the position in terms of section 100bis of the principal Act.

I said that in the homelands the Bantu could obtain liquor on their polling-days.

Mr. Speaker, that is the matter I should like to come back to. If the hon. member would please keep his mouth shut and his ears open, we could get to that now. It is a basic fact, it is not, that in this country we have various population groups, i.e. Whites, Coloureds and Asians, who all vote together in White South Africa. There are separate election days for the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites respectively. We have a different dispensation, however, for the Black man. Those people, even those living in our White towns, vote for their own governments do they not. If their own governments in their own countries, for example Transkei or Bophuthatswana, have provisions in terms of which the pubs are closed on their election days, this does not mean that ours will also be closed.

After all, the principle is that if I work in Paris, I can still vote for my MP in Pretoria. This surely does not mean that all the pubs in France or in Paris must close down. That is the basic principle is it not.

Mr. Speaker, a great fuss was also made about section 93 of the principal Act, particularly by the hon. member for East London City. The hon. member touched upon a principle involved and asked why people’s rights should be encroached upon for the simple reason that they are referred to a magistrate. The hon. member also made the important statement that the old provision— the so-called black list provision—is actually the province of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I should like to point out to the hon. member that it is not all that easy to limit departmental functions to watertight compartments. It is, in actual fact, impossible. After all, the Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons also do a great amount of social welfare work. They also deal with pensions and allowances. A very good example is corrective training.

Although the statement that no Act is perfect can be applied to this Bill as well, it is common cause that the Bill is a great improvement and that it makes for the greater streamlining of our liquor control rules and regulations in South Africa than was possible in terms of the present Liquor Act. That is why we all look forward to the projected consolidation legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Pretoria East stated that it was the intention of his party to lead every group to the exercise of power. I want to tell him that I am quite sure that, not only the past six months, but also the debates which have taken place in the House, have indicated that the party on the other side will never be able to lead all the groups in this country to the exercise of reasonable power.

I also want to say that the hon. member made it quite clear that as far as he was concerned there would be discriminatory practice in regard to the closing of liquor outlets in respect of elections for the White and Black people, particularly for those Blacks who come from the homelands. I want to say here and now that this is something that cannot be allowed to endure. While I am talking on that point I would like to come back to the hon. the Minister and the reasons he gave why the Select Committee of 1973 was prepared to open the liquor outlets on election day. I understood the hon. the Minister to say that the reason was because they felt that section 181 in the Electoral Act was no in fact a matter that they should really handle under elections. Is that correct?

That is the only possible reason.

Yes, I also think you said so. I just want to put the hon. the Minister straight on that point, because I had a look at the Hansard of the debate after the Select Committee had reported, which the hon. the Minister probably has not read. The hon. member for Rissik said this, and I want the hon. the Minister to listen very carefully (Hansard, 1973, Vol. 44, col. 8971)—

Of course they are not, the hon. member for Vasco was a member. The hon. member for Rissik said further—

That is precisely the reason for the Select Committee’s decision—because they felt that we had now reached a state of maturity in South Africa. The hon. the Minister seems to want to lead us to believe that all the Select Committee decided on was whether it was right that section 181 should be in the Electoral Act or whether it should be included in the Liquor Act itself.

There are obviously reasons why the whole Liquor Act should be looked at again. I want to say here and now that I am prepared to support the Third Reading of this Bill. I think there are some very bright lights in this Bill, particularly as regards the question of allowing licensees to obtain a renewal of their licences without the necessity for the very cumbersome procedures which we have had to endure for so many years. My request to the hon. the Minister, however, is this: I believe that we should not go into a consolidation of the Act next year without again looking at the amendments to the Act itself. From the debate which took place here this afternoon and this evening, it has emerged very clearly that there are many facets of this Act which again need consideration. The hon. the Minister could possibly do this by producing a completely new Bill and Liquor Act, without opting for consolidation and a certificate. I believe that he may well be able to do that next year. I want to ask him to consider it.

I was extremely disappointed with the hon. the Minister when he dealt with the question of shebeens. This matter was raised last year in the Justice Vote. Hon. members spoke about it with great vehemence, because it clearly emerged from the report of the Department of Justice that it was a matter which should receive urgent attention. In his reply the hon. the Minister himself referred to the request made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, that a commission should be appointed to investigate shebeens. I quote the hon. the Minister’s words from Hansard, Vol. 63 of 1976, col. 10026—

Today those exact words were used again by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading. Where are we now? It is now nine months since that undertaking was given by the hon. the Minister. I shall not go on to repeat what he said here because later on he even emphasized the fact that it is vitally important to appoint a commission of inquiry. I believe that we must ask the hon. the Minister to take serious notice of this. When we come here next year—those of us who will return—we expect that we will be able to hear from the hon. the Minister that he has in fact appointed a commission of inquiry.

He also mentioned that in Pretoria it may well be that the quota will never really be able to be applied, because of the proliferation of hotel liquor licences, and the adjunct attached to them, in view of the fact that there is this proviso that one may have an off-sales store if one subscribes to certain conditions. I just want to drop a little thought into the hon. the Minister’s mind and that is that today the quota is absolutely unrealistic because it applies to White people. The hon. the Minister knows full well that the largest sales of the outlets are to Black people. The quota does not apply whatsoever. This is an aspect I believe the hon. the Minister could well look at when he again considers this Bill in the ensuing year.

Finally, I believe that he is quite right when he says that there should be an in-depth investigation into the distribution, advertising, manufacturing, retailing and control of liquor. All the aspects should be investigated. I endeavoured to find an up to date volume dealing with the distribution of liquor in South Africa. Throughout the libraries that I searched I could find only one book which dates back to 1958 when a certain Mr. J. H. van Niekerk conducted an investigation into the distribution and control of liquor overseas. He did apply it in part to South Africa, but I believe that there is a paucity of this source of information in our libraries and in our knowledge of the distribution of liquor. It is of great importance that we should introduce some form of commission, as suggested by the hon. the Minister, to investigate the whole situation of liquor in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to drag out the debate any further, because we have been discussing this for many hours now. I shall just react briefly to a few of the aspects which the last speaker mentioned. The hon. member once again made mention of shebeens, but I thought that I had made it clear that despite my having said last year that I would give attention to shebeens, it was completely out of the question, after we had left Parliament, for any commission of inquiry, committee or departmental committee even to get near the shebeens to carry out an investigation there. I do not think the hon. member will blame me for not being able to keep my promise, and for that reason I have repeated it here. I am prepared to investigate the matter but we shall have to take present circumstances into consideration. I am nevertheless of the opinion that I ought to investigate whether the shebeens have any real value for the Blacks and how we can control them properly so that the liquor sold there is not of such a nature that the people kill themselves with it.

I do not want to repeat the argument in relation to closed days, but will simply furnish the information that approximately two-thirds of all American States have at least the same closed days as we do, and for precisely the same reasons. In spite of what the hon. member for Rissik said in the debate, I want to repeat that after all, the Select Committee could surely never contemplate making an arrangement which would bind the Department of Justice. That is why I had no hesitation in taking the matter to the Government once again. It was thrashed out from the beginning again and we came to the conclusion that it would be unsound to re-open an election day, as far as liquor was concerned. For that reason, we decided that provisionally, election days would still have to remain closed days.

I want to thank hon. members on this side of the House for their assistance, because over and above the debate they have conducted with me, they have also done an exceptional amount of work behind the scenes and in the groups in respect of the Bill. I want to thank hon. members of the three Opposition parties as well for the work they have done. Looking at the number of amendments moved by the Opposition, one realizes how much work they had to do in such a very short space of time. Moreover, I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Opposition for being prepared to take the Bill through all its stages.

Finally, I think I owe my department a word of thanks, particularly those people connected with the liquor department, for a really interesting and streamlined Bill. The more one looks at the Bill, the more one realizes that it appears here in a new form and that we can build either a consolidation or a new Bill upon it. I think the Bill provides us with the basis of a new format for the Liquor Act and for that reason, it is very important to us. I do not want to keep the House any longer. It is getting late and, as the poet said, “die witte vreugde word koud”. I want to thank everyone once again for their patience and for the amount of work they have put into the Bill.