Mr. Speaker, I move—

In accordance with the practice in the past, I deemed it fit after the First Reading of the Water Amendment Bill to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee so as to clear the principles contained in the proposed amendment to the Water Act (Act No. 54 of 1956). Hon. members may perhaps proceed on the assumption that the proposed amendments should not have been referred to a Select Committee, but I think it is a good thing to have had them carefully considered, particularly if we have regard to the fact that in a relatively arid country like South Africa, effective water legislation is of major importance for obvious reasons. For that reason we ought not to differ on the methods to be employed in order to afford proper attention to this strategic natural resource.

I tabled an explanatory memorandum giving the reasons for the proposed amendments some time ago. Hon. members will also notice that the Select Committee proposed certain further amendments, with which I am in agreement and which in my opinion clarify the intention of these particular provisions to a larger extent.

I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with all the proposed amendments in this House, since they have already been explained in the explanatory memorandum, but I do consider it necessary to refer hon. members to certain matters.

The importance of subterranean water resources in the water economy of our country requires no explanation. A great deal of research has been done in this regard and comprehensive research programmes are still in progress. My department has found it difficult, however, to evaluate information gathered in terms of the existing legislation, mainly as a result of the unreliability of such information.

†In this connection I want to stress that the proposed amendments to sections 31, 32 and 33—in clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill now before the House—will not hamper my department’s efforts to gain as much information about subterranean water as possible. I think hon. members will agree that it is wise to collect information on a selected basis in areas defined for this purpose and to make sure that the information so gained will be of some use in the research projects on this valuable source of water supply.

The amendment proposed to section 58 in clause 6, will no doubt please hon. members. The proposed phrasing of the section as further amended by the Select Committee now covers all the instances in respect of which a report is to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament in connection with Government water works of which the estimated cost exceeds R1 million. It will also be compulsory to submit a report to Parliament in all cases where, as a result of a revision of the estimated cost, the latter is increased by more than R1 million. The proposed amendment, if agreed to, will ensure that members of Parliament at all times are well informed about expenditure by my department.

*As far as the amendment of section 63 by clause 7 is concerned, I want to point out to hon. members that however strange it might seem, there are indeed farmers on Government schemes who for some reason are not interested in practising irrigation. The position is that prior to a scheduling board holding a meeting with a view to scheduling land on a particular scheme, a list of rateable areas must have been open to inspection at particular places. When the meeting is held and a farmer—because of the fact that he is not going to irrigate—does not attend such a meeting, or does not send a delegate in his place, he cannot, by virtue of his absence, object to or request the removal of the scheduling to be allocated to him, from the schedule of rateable areas. In that case the scheduling board will inevitably ratify the scheduling and the irrigator will be liable to pay the water rates whether or not he uses the water. It is true that from time to time the scheduling board will hold further meetings on the particular scheme in order to revise the schedule of rateable areas, and the farmer who is not irrigating will then be able to request at such a meeting that the scheduling revision board remove the scheduling allocated to his property from the schedule, but up to that date, however, he will have to pay water rates and there is no way in which remission can be granted. A scheduling board consists of officials appointed by me for the purpose who perform this task in addition to others. There are a considerable number of Government schemes where scheduling takes place. In recent times irrigators have been scheduled on 45 schemes, and although the programme of meetings is planned properly in advance, there can never be absolute certainty as to when it will be possible to hold the next meeting on a particular scheme. Hon. members will concede that it is unfair to make a person pay for something which he does not use and that it is no more than practical for the Minister of Water Affairs to be empowered to remove at the request of the irrigating farmer, that farmer’s scheduling from the schedule of rateable areas. Instances of this nature are minimal, however, but it is essential to make provision for exceptional cases as well.

The proposed amendment, if agreed to, does not deprive the scheduling board of any of its powers, however, nor does it have the effect that the removal of the scheduling at the request of an irrigator will be permanent. A subsequent owner may again apply for scheduling and even the farmer who changes his mind and decides to irrigate after all, may apply for scheduling at a later stage.

I consider it essential, too, that if the Minister of Water Affairs is given the power to reduce or remove an application a farmer’s scheduling from the schedule of rateable areas, it is also practical for the Minister to be given the power to increase the scheduling allocated to a person. In the Committee Stage I shall consequently move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

As far as the proposed insertion of sections 110A, 110B and 111A by clauses 11 and 12 is concerned, I want to point out that the basis on which the staff of local authorities are taken over by water boards, as well as the regulation of certain affairs of such staff, is a principle which has already been accepted and which is based on section 10 of the Black Affairs Administration Act of 1971. The proposed insertion by means of the amendment proposed by the Select Committee, will ensure that staff involved in such a take-over will receive fair treatment. On the other hand it will also prevent possible unfair exploitation of the situation by such staff. I want to point out even at this stage that the principal Act already makes provision for a water board to purchase a water supply scheme or acquire it by means of negotiation or otherwise. The establishment of water boards will increase in future, as well as the take-over of large-scale water supply schemes of local authorities by such boards with a view to effecting the more effective utilization of local water resources on a regional basis. Essential services may obviously not be interrupted as a result of such a take-over.

Mr. Speaker, the Water Act of 1956 is a highly technical and complicated piece of legislation, and it has become the practice in this House—and the hon. the Minister has followed this tradition in this instance—to send legislation of this nature to a Select Committee. The Select Committee, on which I have had the privilege to serve, has examined this piece of legislation, has reported back and has recommended minor amendments. I therefore think that it can be said that this Bill is an agreed measure. We certainly have no quarrel at all with any aspect of it.

The Bill covers quite a large diversity of matters. For example, the definition of a Government water work is amended to include water works that have been acquired by the Government, but still embraces the aspects of the definition already in the legislation, aspects referring to water works constructed or maintained by the hon. the Minister.

Quite important, I think, are the amendments contained in clauses 2, 3 and 4. These clauses amend the procedure required when water-boring operations are undertaken. Firstly, the provision compelling water-boring contractors to register is abolished. It has evidently proved impracticable to collate geo-hydrological data on every borehole sunk anywhere in South Africa. The data proved to be scientifically unreliable, and there was so much of it that it proved impossible to coordinate in any practical way at all.

Now a different procedure will apply, as the hon. the Minister has said. He still has the right to collect data whenever he deems it necessary. In any particular area, should he so deem it necessary, all he has to do is define that area in the Gazette and he will get the information he requires. Water-boring contractors boring in the particular area will have to keep a journal of the progress of operations for study by the Ground-water Section of the Geo-hydrological Division of the department. The necessity to supply useless information has thus been done away with. We can only say that a little more of this approach in Government departments would be of advantage.

There is also a clause which authorizes the Minister to supply or distribute water to departments of State, local authorities or anybody else he may wish to supply, not only from Government water works which he is already authorized to do in terms of the Act as it stands, but, in terms of the Bill, also from any other water work which he controls whether owned by the Government or not.

The hon. the Minister referred to clause 6 and said that it would probably please members of Parliament. I should like to say to him that it does because it makes it compulsory that the Minister tables in both Houses of Parliament a report before the commencement of all works the estimated cost of which exceeds R1 million. The wording of the Act is certainly improved by this amendment and parliamentary scrutiny and control will be more thorough as a result thereof.

There are other clauses in the Bill to regulate the procedures as far as the employment terms are concerned of employees who have been employed by local authorities but are transferred when water works are transferred to fall under the control of water boards. There are procedures governing such matters as pensions and medical aid. These matters are being dealt with very adequately.

There are also further matters which are dealt with, e.g. the regulating, levying and payment of rates in respect of irrigable land. We have no quarrel with any of these. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House at all more than I have done. I just want to say again that we have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House who served on the Select Committee for their cooperation as far as the Bill is concerned. In a country like South Africa, with its limited water resources and the continual utilization and integration of those resources, constant attention should be given to the Water Act. We are very grateful for the fact that we have enjoyed very cordial co-operation in this field on both sides of the House over the years and that both sides have shown a very positive spirit in trying to make the best of this matter. I should therefore like to thank hon. members very sincerely.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the most important amendments during his Second Reading speech and I do not think I could improve on what he said. I should like to say that I support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Piketberg has on numerous occasions served as the chairman of Select Committees appointed to consider water legislation and I think it would be entirely fitting if we were to bring to him a tribute for the way in which he handled the affairs of such committees up till now. I really think a Select Committee is one of the best ways in which Parliament can function, because in such a committee members are able to get together, outside the glare of publicity, to decide on matters which are really very contentious. On many occasions such matters affect vitally very, very important rights of people in municipalities as well as in the farming community. The way in which these matters are handled I think is a tribute to Parliament and a tribute to the system of Parliament. I think this House can reasonably pride itself on the way in which water matters are handled. We should like to put on record our gratitude for the fact that this is a tradition upon which Parliament has embarked many years ago, and we hope that this tradition will continue to be followed in the years to come.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned the fact that provision is made for the take-over of municipal staff by water boards. He has also mentioned that it can be expected that there will be a continual progression in this way so that more and more of the wholesale supply of water—if I may put it that way—will come under the control of various boards in various parts of the country. The result will be that the operations of municipalities which have been generating revenue in the past will come under the control of the boards and this will mean that this activity of municipalities will be phased out. I wish to say to him that when the department’s Vote comes up, I shall be raising certain matters in regard to the water board at Umgeni in my particular area since there appears to be almost a deadlock confronting that board.

Like Howick station.

No, it is not like Howick station. At Howick station we have everything we want, including water from the hon. the Minister’s department for the new toilets. The point I wish to make is that in the area I represent there have been certain hitches. As yet we have had no particular problems because there has been no take-over of municipal staff whatsoever, in spite of the fact that the board there has been in operation for four years. I think that the experience we have had in the past, particularly with the take-over of administrative staff of municipalities by administration boards, will certainly stand this department and the water boards concerned in good stead as we now move into what is a new phase of operations for the boards.

Sir, I welcome this legislation. There are certain problems that still have to be worked out and we shall obviously take the opportunity of the hon. the Minister’s Vote to deal with them. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to express my support of the amendments contained in the Water Amendment Bill. It is true that from time to time, situations arise in practice which require amendments to be made to the Water Act, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated. In particular, I should like to dwell for a few moments on the proposed deletion of section 31 of the principal Act and on the amendment of sections 32 and 33 of the principal Act. In the explanatory memorandum made available to us by the department, it was pointed out, inter alia, that the expansion of the Geohydrological Section meant that amendments had to be made to these sections.

Before I focus attention on the amendments to the said sections, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of making a few remarks on the Geohydrological Section. One of the most important functions and tasks of the Department of Water Affairs is continual investigation of and research into the control and utilization of ground water. Some of the previous speakers, including the hon. the Minister, pointed out the importance of the underground water resources to our country. This is one of the most important sources of water supply. Particularly since we now seem to be entering a drought cycle again, it is essential that as much information as possible be obtained in connection with ground water and its utilization throughout this country. Consequently the Department of Water Affairs has a Scientific Services branch whose functions include this type of research. The Scientific Services branch consists of three sections, i.e. the Geohydrological Section, the Applied Hydrology Section and the Hydrologic Research Institute.

If one examines the tasks and functions of the Geohydrological Section, one sees that some of the most important tasks of this section are to investigate and carry out research on the occurrence of water in various geological formations and on methods and techniques for finding ground water and selecting drilling sites; and to advise the department on the control of underground water and the issuing of permits for its utilization. I have merely touched on a few of these functions. As has been indicated, one of the most important tasks of the Geohydrological Section is to obtain as much information as possible in connection with ground water. The deletion of section 31 and the amendment of sections 32 and 33 also have a bearing on this. Section 31 is being deleted because in terms of that section, as has already been indicated, building contractors throughout this country had to register at the department and had to supply all sorts of information. They also had to keep a journal in which the diameter and eventual depth of each bore-hole had to be indicated. They also had to indicate the depth at which water was tested as well as the rate of flow of the water during the test. In practice this turned out to be not quite practicable. There are hundreds of boring contractors throughout the country and this information could not easily be checked. For that reason the amendment in the Bill has been proposed so that, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, a more selective approach can be followed and information can be gathered on a more selective basis in areas which the Minister will notify in advance in the Government Gazette, and research can be carried out in these areas. In this way information can be obtained more easily. The amendment provides that before anyone can sink a bore-hole in a designated area, he first has to notify the Secretary for Water Affairs in writing before drilling may commence. The other requirements in respect of the information which such a person has to record in the journal remain, and can then be obtained from it. In this way the Department of Water Affairs will obtain the information required on ground water, the geological formations, where to locate drilling sites, etc.

As I have already indicated, this information is of great importance to our country, particularly in areas where the main water resources are often underground water. It is important for the supply of water to our cities, to the farmer and all others concerned. I think that the farming community in particular should be grateful for this great service which the Department of Water Affairs is rendering our country. It is a national task which they are performing, and we are thankful for it. We are also indebted to the officers and in particular to the Geohydrological Section for the work which they are doing in this regard. I cannot neglect to thank the legal draftsmen for the choice and descriptive language which gives full expression to what is being proposed in this Bill. Other hon. members have already indicated that the Water Act is certainly not one of the easiest laws to read, but I want to say that if one sees the language in which the concept and idea which have to be expressed are phrased, one feels sincerely grateful to the legal draftsmen for that part of the work which they do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere thanks for the support of hon. members for this legislation.

†It is always a pleasure to be able to thank people and to express appreciation for their support. In this regard I want specially to thank the hon. members who served on the Select Committee for the invaluable work which they did there. To do this they at times have to make an in-depth study to learn more about the ramifications of this very involved legislation. I therefore want once again to express my appreciation to hon. members who served on the Select Committee.

*I should also like to express my sincere thanks to the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Piketberg, who has been performing this task for many years and who makes a very fine contribution in this capacity.

Furthermore I want to refer to what the hon. member for Mooi River said about the water boards. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of saying that water boards are going to play an increasingly important part, as I said in my Second Reading speech. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that we are handling these matters with great circumspection where local authorities are concerned. There is perhaps some disagreement between the local authorities and the Umgeni Water Board with regard to approach, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am meeting the Umgeni Water Board about their problems shortly and will then iron out their problems. However, it is important that the Water Board should see its task as the supplier of water in bulk. They are not taking over the distribution of water within urban areas. This is not the task of a water board at all.

A water board has a special task with regard to the control of larger water works which are built by the department or by the board itself. I now want to hold out the prospect to him of a further debate on this matter when the Water Affairs Vote is discussed, because we are experiencing practical problems with this development. This matter can then be discussed to good effect in this House. In fact, it is tradition that the Water Act is common property and is discussed by all. A thorough study is also made of it by á Select Committee. I want to emphasize that it is not a question of making a custom of having a Select Committee examine all statutory amendments. However, it affords hon. members the opportunity of making a thorough study of this difficult piece of legislation rather than sometimes discussing it superficially, perhaps, in this House. It affs everyone an opportunity to contribute towards streamlining this legislation in the interests of our country.

The hon. member for Marico also made a very interesting contribution with regard to the service which is rendered by my department’s Scientific Services branch, particularly the Geohydrological Section. This section performs an important task in connection with our underground water, the strength of which we have to determine as it decreases or increases according to activities taking place, such as the pumping out of water, etc., so that we can keep a proper record, because underground water is going to become increasingly important in future. As a matter of interest I just want to point out that during a recent visit overseas it was found that large cities such as Tokyo and Taipeh had already sunk meters owing to the pumping out of underground water. A city such as Taipeh, which was situated above sea level, has now actually sunk to below sea level due to the pumping out of underground water, and very drastic measures will have to be taken to prevent any further pumping out of underground water. This is but one aspect which one can point out. In South Africa it is not really so important that the ground level may sink and the earth crust be disturbed as a result of the pumping out of underground water, because we have too little water which can be pumped out and perhaps lost. We must keep ourselves informed. I want to thank the hon. member for Marico for his special contribution. Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 7:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have been authorized by the hon. the Prime Minister to say that he did not have the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Wynberg in mind when he made an interjection in reply to the question at issue by the hon. member for Wynberg. What I have just said should, however, not be construed to mean that these two hon. members could have been the only ones in issue.

Since my time has expired and there are still a few questions outstanding, for instance the question put to me by the hon. member for Wynberg, I suggest that these stand over and be dealt with during the discussion of the Defence Vote.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this matter was considered by the Select Committee on Plural Relations and was agreed to unanimously on the assurance given by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the people concerned had been adequately consulted and that their consent had been obtained to the transfer and sale of their land. This involves a fair amount of land. It involves the acquisition of land in the Transvaal, in the district of Pilgrims Rest, for the purposes of additions to the land held by the people of Lebowa, and it also involves something like 14 000 ha of land in the Orange Free State in the districts of Bloemfontein and Dewetsdorp. A number of White farms are being acquired for the purposes of adding land to Bophuthatswana and to the Qwaqwa homelands. As I said, agreement was reached unanimously by the Select Committee on the assurance that everybody had been consulted, and I simply want one further assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister, viz. that before any removal of people into the areas which are now being added to the homelands are effected, the people themselves are consulted and their consent obtained and that adequate provision will be made as far as housing and other facilities such as schools, etc., are concerned. If we get that assurance we have no objections to this being passed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have to tell the hon. member that we shall consult with these people once again. As far as the area Thaba Nchu in the Orange Free State is concerned, we have conducted a full census. My problem at the moment is not that these people do not wish to go to this new area. My problem is that these people are exerting tremendous pressure on me in order to obtain the new area. My problem is now to get this matter through the House and through the Other Place so that the area can be proclaimed a released area and the people can go there. Therefore there is no question at all of the people being unwilling to go there. The contrary is true, and at the moment it is we who have to succeed in making the land available for those people as soon as possible. We did not merely call a meeting of those people; we conducted a true census. They have been told that land will be made available to them and that those who wish to go there, must register their names. Furthermore we have also given each of them a map, which indicates that such a person was involved in the survey and that he is prepared to move. Every one of those people had a choice, and now that they have made their choice, they are exerting pressure on us to make the land available to them. There are no other problems in this regard. Therefore I cannot tell the hon. member that I shall consult them again, for they are exerting pressure on me now and therefore it is not necessary that I consult with them.

As far as the other facilities to which the hon. member referred are concerned, I just wish to say that the Government of Qwaqwa are ready to build schools, but the necessary land is not yet available. At this stage we cannot grant permission for this, for the land does not yet belong to the Trust. However, when the land is available, planning will proceed immediately. It is already ready on paper, but the plans cannot be carried out in practice because we are not yet the owners of the land. However, when we do own it, we will immediately implement the plans.

I wish to assure the hon. member for Houghton once again that this aspect—which she is always discussing—is not at all relevant here. The contrary is true. The people wish to go there, and the hon. member must not delay me any further; she must now help me so that I can do what those people desire of me.

That is exactly what we have done.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 17(23)(b) of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, provides for the imposition of a fine not exceeding R200 where a teacher appointed under that Act is convicted of misconduct, while under similar provisions of the Public Service Act, 1957, a fine not exceeding R400 may be imposed on a Public Servant in such a case.

In the light of this the Executive of the CRC decided on 26 July 1978 that the authorities be approached with a view to amending section 17(23)(b) of the Coloured Persons Education Act to bring it into line with the Public Service Act. After this amendment, subsection 23 will read as follows—

The Government has decided that the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, should be amended to this effect, and therefore I move that the amendment as indicated in the Bill, be agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech is so self-explanatory and clear that it does not require much further comment, and therefore I rise merely to say that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members in these benches I should like to say that we too support the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated the necessity of bringing about this amendment in order to bring the Act into line with the Public Service Act. As this amendment has been recommended by the Executive Committee of the CRC, we support the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Tiger’s Eye Control Act which is aimed at the implementation of internal control over tiger’s eye, came into operation on 1 November 1977. Since the control measures became effective, the Department of Mines has become aware of the considerable extent of the tiger’s-eye industry. During the passing of the tiger’s eye legislation through this House in 1977 I said that we would know within a year or two whether the measures which had been adopted would be as effective as we envisaged and, if they were not effective, Parliament would reconsider the matter and take corrective steps.

Experience gained since the implementation of the Act has shown that in certain respects there should be adjustments to the Act, firstly, to facilitate the task of the South African Police and secondly, to combat smuggling more effectively. As hon. members are aware, the Police are empowered in terms of the Act to take action against persons who contravene the control measures.

In 1977 it was not intended to make the control measures in respect of tiger’s-eye too drastic. However, it now appears that the control measures, particularly in regard to the conveyance of tiger’s-eye, are not effective enough because the Police find difficulty in clamping down on offenders. At present the transport of tiger’s-eye is only controlled from the point of extraction and not from other centres to which it has already been conveyed, and for police purposes this is not sufficiently effective. One can appreciate the fact that because there is not total control over the conveyance of tiger’s-eye, the hands of the police are tied, because under the existing measures the smugglers have a lot of latitude.

Another problem which arises is in regard to those persons who mine tiger’s-eye and convey the product to their own cutting factory or their own storage depots at other centres. These people allege, and perhaps correctly, that no transaction is involved and therefore they need not obtain a buying permit. This attitude makes effective control impossible.

As far as the conveyance of tiger’s-eye is concerned, the measures proposed in this amending Bill will result in general control over the conveyance of tiger’s-eye. Those persons who transport their own tiger’s-eye and do not need to obtain a buying permit will in future have to obtain a permit for such conveyance.

The provisions of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, and the Precious Stones Act, 1964, which lay down that money paid to the police in a trap by a suspected illegal dealer in unprocessed precious metals or uncut diamonds shall be forfeited to the State, had been specially inserted as a further deterrent because even the heavy fines which may be imposed do not in themselves have the desired result. It is therefore proposed that a similar provision be included in the Tiger’s-Eye Control Act to act as a deterrent to those who, in spite of existing control measures, persist in smuggling tiger’s-eye. As far as the trap system is concerned, I can assure hon. members that traps are used only as a last resort in each particular case and then only when there are sound reasons for believing that some person is involved in illegal activities.

In terms of section 8 of the Act every bona fide cutter of tiger’s-eye or a dealer in tiger’s-eye or a person who processed tiger’s-eye had to submit a statement to the Secretary for Mines before 1 December 1977 specifying the mass of tiger’s-eye in his possession as at 1 November of that year. It now appears that there were people who purchased large quantities of tiger’s-eye just prior to the implementation of the Act and did not submit the required statement because, so they alleged, they were not bona fide cutters or dealers in tiger’s-eye. The question now arises why large quantities of tiger’s-eye were purchased if there was no intention of dealing in the commodity or processing it. Bodies or persons connected with the tiger’s-eye industry are concerned about these circumstances and it is therefore being proposed that all persons who have more than 500 kg of tiger’s-eye in their possession be compelled to notify the department of this fact for control purposes. Persons who have already submitted a statement of the mass of tiger’s-eye in their possession in 1977, and persons who in terms of the existing legislation are obliged to submit a monthly return, will, however, be exempt from this provision.

Section 3(l)(a) of the Tiger’s-Eye Control Act refers to the concept “holder of the right to tiger’s-eye”. This concept is not defined in the Act but the meaning thereof is to be found in the Mining Rights Act of 1967, certain provisions of which apply when the legal position has to be ascertained regarding the prospecting for and mining of tiger’s-eye on certain land. Cases have occurred where certain people have tried to attach a meaning to the aforementioned concept to suit their circumstances. It seems desirable therefore for the sake of clarity to have the relevant definition in this Act as well.

I should also like to mention that the proposed amendment was discussed at a meeting of the South African Gem Cutters’ Association and that the members of this association found that further measures were necessary to protect the tiger’s-eye industry in the Republic. They have therefore signified their approval of the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Bill before the House are straightforward. The explanation given by the hon. the Minister of the various clauses of the Bill needs no further elaboration. Therefore, we will support the Bill. However, I should like to make only one comment and ask only one question. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to answer this question when he replies to the Second Reading. It would be interesting to myself and to hon. members of my party if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication of the value of tiger’s-eye production and sales throughout South Africa. It is quite an interesting aspect of this issue. If there is any indication we should be glad to hear from the hon. the Minister. What we actually want is an approximate estimate of the value of tiger’s-eye…

Volume-wise?

In terms of volume and of monetary value, if at all possible. I want to add that we are delighted about the fact that the hon. the Minister has taken the trouble to state here in the House that only as a matter of last resort will traps be used in the process of the control over tiger’s-eye. We do understand why the control is necessary. We believe the provisions as outlined in the Bill are sensible and reasonable. Therefore we will support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I should like to express my support for the hon. the Minister in connection with the improvement to the existing legislation dealing with tiger’s-eye.

Japan has its pearls, Burma its rubies, Australia its opals and South Africa its tiger’s-eye, something peculiar to this country, something only to be found in this lovely country of ours. By means of these amendments to the existing legislation the hon. the Minister intends to develop this exceptional semi-precious stone, its mining and processing, and the trading therein, in the best interests of South Africa. When the Tiger’s-eye Control Act came into operation in 1977, the hon. the Minister of Mines predicted that better control over tiger’s-eye, which would prevent tiger’s-eye pouring out of the country, would bring about a tremendous improvement in the price of tiger’s-eye. According to my information—and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us further information on this—his prediction has been realized and today the tiger’s-eye producer is getting a very much better price for his product than he received prior to the introduction of control.

We all know that this legislation has been introduced to benefit the cutting industry in South Africa. I should also like to express the hope that it will have the result that the illegal export of tiger’s-eye from South Africa will be restricted to a minimum and that the cutters of South Africa will be in a position to become the sole manufacturers of tiger’s-eye products in the world. If one saw a woman in any other part of the world who was wearing a ring, a brooch or any other ornament made of tiger’s-eye, one would like to be able to say that that product was manufactured in the Republic of South Africa. For that reason we say thank you to the hon. the Minister. We are also grateful for the fact that the department has been so wide-awake and over the past two years has kept an eye on the mining of tiger’s-eye and the processing industry, and also for the fact that the officials discovered the shortcomings in the legislation, shortcomings which are now being eliminated.

We should very much like to see South Africa having its own Idar-Oberstein, which is the cutting town of West Germany, and the beautiful semi-precious stones of South Africa, and more specifically tiger’s-eye which is only found in South Africa, being processed in this country so that tiger’s-eye can develop into a precious stone of which we can rightly be proud.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are equally concerned about the preservation of those things which are fairly unique or semi-unique to South Africa, those finite commodities which one cannot replace easily and which are unique products of the geological history of this part of the continent We therefore agree with the hon. the Minister’s proposed improvements embodied in this amendment Bill.

I should, however, like to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that I do not think it is quite correct to say that South Africa is the only source of tiger’s-eye. I think there is also quite a considerable source in South West Africa. So, although I do agree with the sentiments that the bulk of tiger’s-eye does, in fact, come from South Africa, the processing expertise certainly being here, I hope that the effect of the amending legislation will not be only to increase the price, and therefore the profitability for those people involved in working with these stones, but also that, as the hon. the Minister has said, the long-term objective will, in fact, be to preserve and control a scarce resource.

On behalf of the NRP I should therefore like to tell the hon. the Minister that he will have no difficulty with this party when it comes to preserving and controlling the scarce resources of South Africa, in particular our semi-precious stones.

Mr. Speaker, I expected hon. members to support this legislation. From the nature of things it is a good Bill because its aim is to make something which is valuable to South Africa even more valuable.

†I should like to deal with the question which the hon. member for Pinelands put to me regarding the estimated value of tiger’s-eye at the moment. We do not export tiger’s-eye in its rough form, but I did allow the export of semi-processed tiger’s-eye. Some years ago we did allow the export of tiger’s-eye in the rough form at about R4 or R5, but last year I refused a price for the semi-processed tiger’s-eye. When tiger’s-eye is semi-processed, it merely boils down to cutting one or two sides of the rough mineral, and I therefore feel that the term “semi-processed” is misleading. The price which I refused was about R45, and when application was made again, I refused the higher price of R55. It then came to light that people were prepared to pay more than R60.

R60 per kilogram?

Yes, we always talk of rand per kilogram when the price of tiger’s-eye is discussed. Being an optimist I venture to say that one day we shall see the price of tiger’s-eye reaching something like R200 or more per kilogram. We must bear in mind that South Africa and South West Africa are the world’s only suppliers of good quality tiger’s-eye. The tiger’s-eye which is being produced in some southern American States is by no means of an equal quality to ours. I think there is a good future for the production and processing of tiger’s-eye in South Africa.

*The hon. member for Kuruman referred to just that when he spoke of a possible increase in its value. I believe that this industry could become one of exceptional importance for South Africa. It is a great pity that such large quantities of tiger’s-eye have left South Africa in a raw state so that large quantities of it are still available overseas. However, one can expect that as the stockpiled amount diminishes the value of tiger’s-eye in South Africa will automatically increase. It is a semi-precious stone which will be of great value as a foreign exchange earner for South Africa in the future.

I was asked what the present value of the export of tiger’s-eye would amount to. It is difficult to reply to that properly because we do not have all the details in our possession. But I expect that within the foreseeable future it will be in the region of between R15 million to R20 million a year. At the moment the export of this material is probably not worth R1 million. The point is also, though, that at the moment not much is exported.

While we are talking about this I should like to say, as the hon. member for Kuruman has done, that it is a great pity that we have not developed a big processing industry locally. South Africa is the producer of tiger’s-eye and yet other countries process it. One would really like to see some or other organization coming forward and undertaking the processing of tiger’s-eye on a large scale so that South Africa will not only become known because of the availability of tiger’s-eye but also because it is a processor of tiger’s-eye jewellery. I really do hope that some or other organization will come forward and start this. I do not want to belittle the extent of the work that has already been done but I look forward to having an industry with greater scope than the sporadic processing we find today. I really hope that this will happen in the near future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was last adjourned, I was dealing with a specific aspect, i.e. the problems which have arisen with the control in Natal. Hon. members will recall that, before the adjournment of the debate, I was discussing the control aspects and pointed out the multiplicity of controlling bodies. To take it further for a moment, I want to explain that real conflict situations arise and that the conflict between the various parties is more or less attributable, firstly, to the conflicting interests of the tourist industry, which are naturally very important to Natal, and those of the fishing industry, which are important to the fishing industry itself. Secondly there are the conflicting concepts of nature conservation in the narrow sense as opposed to economic exploitation within reasonable limits, in other words it is once again the sensitive area of the conservationist on the one hand and reasonable utilization on the other without prejudicing the continued yield capacity of the resources. Thirdly there is the divided control which exists there as a result of which, for example, a licence for commercial catches is issued by one body while the utilization thereof is dependent on another authority. I maintain that inherently this must inevitably lead to conflicts, particularly when there is no one decision-making body that can deal with the problems.

The investigating team made certain proposals to me and on the basis of those proposals officials of the Sea Fisheries Branch held talks on 9 and 10 April of this year, with the authorities in Natal as well, in search of a solution to this specific problem. Let me say at once that it is very important that those conflicts be eliminated and that a decisive answer to them be found. Hon. members will understand that it would be wrong of me to adopt a final standpoint on this matter before the report on the talks that were held is made available to me. However, it is my intention, as soon as the report of the talks becomes available to give an immediate decisive answer on what action ought to be taken in future.

I want to point out that the specific resources which are being exploited at present along the Natal coast represent a wide series and that the yield from those resources has a high monetary value. According to the information at my disposal the species which are mainly exploited by means of boats from the lagoon are open-sea line fish. Commercially approximately 1 400 tons and non-commercially approximately 800 tons are exploited per annum. That gives a total of 2 200 tons per annum. The quantity of sardines which are caught during the well-known sardine runs along the south coast amounts to between 50 and 250 metric tons per annum. Then, too, there are still the oysters, rock and beach angling fish, rock lobster and bait varieties. For the sake of interest I want to point out that the value of the annual fish production amounts to approximately R11 million, half of which is caught on a commercial basis. This emphasizes the important consideration that approximately 50% by value of the resource utilized is exploited non-commercially. I think that hon. members will agree with me that this means that it is nevertheless sold commercially, even though it is not an ongoing process. That is also the explanation for the change in the definition from “commercial” to “for sale”. The intention is also to be able to ask the people who catch large quantities of fish non-commercially and then sell part of their catches to submit statistics so that we can keep tally of the total catches.

What about the angler who takes the fish he catches home? Surely his catches are not taken into account.

No, probably not. But the point I want to make is that the total value is R11 million, of which approximately 50% is derived from commercial catches. This inevitably implies that the remainder is caught non-commercially. This gives one an idea of the value of the fish which are caught non-commercially. Shrimps excluded, however, it is clear that amateur interests are predominant in this connection.

I have great appreciation for the contribution made by the hon. member for Maitland—who is not present in the House now—in this connection. I should not like to intervene in the dispute between him and the hon. member for Hillbrow, but having now listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to tell him that “if he can suck as well as he can blow, it should not take him very long to have the sea in the north as well"!

Have you ever hit the yellowtail?

No, not yet. I am a conservationist. Ask everyone. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Maitland asked that we should uphold the same principle in respect of the products of the sea as we do in the case of our flora and fauna, viz. that we should issue licences, as happened in the case of game. In terms of the provisions of the legislation it is possible to do so, but I do not think that it is practical or acceptable to do so at this juncture. I want to suggest that we should not, at this juncture, go so far in respect of the utilization of the fish resources that we proceed to issue licences for amateur catchers or anglers. I do not think that it is necessary at this juncture and I should not like to place any impediment upon people who wish to practise a lawful sport. I think one would be able to make a practical distinction, and it seems to me the hon. the Leader of the House agrees with me. I just want to state here that the hon. the Leader of the House had a problem with his caucus because he agreed with the Opposition members that “when you hit the yellowtail, you cannot stop”. [Interjections.] However, we have arrived at an amicable settlement in this particular connection and he and I are still members of the same caucus.

It is perhaps important that I do not dwell again on the research aspects to which I have already referred, but on the co-ordination of research in South Africa. I think it is well known—if it is not, I should like to state it—that the Sea Fisheries Branch which falls under the Department of Industries is by far the largest institute involved in marine research. The universities in our coastal cities—and here I am referring more specifically to the universities in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth—undertake marine biological research. The University of Cape Town has an efficient department of oceanography. Various other organizations, for example the South African Museum, the Port Elizabeth museum, the Oceanographic Research Institute in Durban, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Natal Anti-Shark Measures Board take care of certain aspects of marine research. The research which is done by all these organizations is co-ordinated by the S.A. National Committee for Oceanographic Research. The Sea Fisheries Branch plays a leading role here and ensures that there is no duplication of effort and research. The Sea Fisheries Branch is essentially engaged in applied research while the other organizations to which I have referred concentrate on research of a basic and descriptive nature. Out of this broad spectrum of oceanography the Sea Fisheries Branch is inevitably unable to give attention to all these aspects, nor do I think that it should. I think that room should be left for our universities to undertake research in this specific connection as well and to make their own contribution for us, for after all we must ultimately derive the professional officers and the specific discipline from them. I think we will only be able to do so as long as an element of research remains allocated to these specific organizations. Consequently positive efforts are being made to select the projects of the organizations in such a way that they are supplementary to one another on the one hand and also supplementary to the work of the Sea Fisheries Branch on the other.

In this connection I also want to point out that the scientists of the Sea Fisheries Branch regularly attend international symposiums or meetings on specific marine subjects and that as a result they remain conversant with recent developments and trends in this field of research. Researchers are sent to overseas organizations to undergo training on special aspects, for example population dynamics, plankton surge and primary productivity studies on marine life. The Sea Fisheries Branch also has fixed obligations to the following international commissions: the International Whaling Commission, the International Commission for the Preservation of Atlantic Tuna, the International Commission for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources of the South-east Atlantic Ocean and the London Dumping Convention. At meetings of these bodies the researchers of our own department and of our country play a leading role. In addition to this joint research programmes are also being carried out, inter alia, the whale marking programme in the South Atlantic Ocean, the mesh selection studies in conjunction with West Germany as well as research on the Atlantic tuna. I am pointing out these facts because I should like to give hon. members an impression of the scope of the industry itself and of the contribution South Africa is making internationally on a scientific level.

Reference was also made to the benefits of extending our fishing zone to 200 miles. I do not think we can over-emphasize the importance of the extension of our fishing zones. Before the extension of the zones our demersal resources, i.e. the bottom fish species, were subject to fishing pressure on the part of foreign powers. The control of the resources now falls directly under the jurisdiction of the coastal state which is able to allow the resources to recover completely since they are renewable resources. I think it is an important milestone that has been achieved. I only wish it is possible for the same thing to happen as quickly as possible in regard to South West Africa. The highest priority of the research section of the Sea Fisheries Branch will now be concentrated on the zones, with the emphasis falling in particular on the determination of the scope of the staples, the rational exploitation levels and the exploitation of other species, for example chokka, horse-mackerel and tuna which have up to now not been utilized to any substantial extent by the South Africa fishing industry. In the process new exploitation techniques will have to be developed and introduced. Although the determination of the extent of the marine resources of the South Atlantic Ocean will not have as high a priority as those of the extended zones, the Sea Fisheries Branch will, with the acquisition of a new multipurpose deep-sea research vessel, be able to operate actively in this area as well. South Africa is extremely strategically situated to utilize this possible potential, thus ensuring that in spite of the population explosion, no protein shortage will arise.

With reference to what I have already said, I think hon. members will agree with me that we are greatly indebted to the scientists who are available in limited numbers, yet are doing an enormous amount of work in this specific important industry. In conclusion I should like to request hon. members who will serve on this commission of inquiry to undertake their functions in the knowledge that we are dealing here with an important resource, that over the years established practices have arisen as a result of specific circumstances, practices which have led to vested interests developing, and that when we deliberate on this matter, we shall not go to this commission with preconceived ideas, but with an open mind so that I can be provided by advice by hon. members to enable us to realize to best effect the objectives to which I have referred.

Finally, I want to say that from now on I shall view the conservation concept in respect certain areas as one of the most important aspects. By now we have already given practical expression to the concept of conservation along our coast in various respects, for example by declaring the west coast to be a nature reserve which will ultimately be controlled by the Parks Board, by declaring the island of St. Croix on the east coast to be a reserve, and also by doing the same with part of the False Bay coast. In this connection I just want to emphasize that I am asking for the co-operation of hon. members in this respect. What we are discussing now is a highly emotional subject. Conservation as such is of course a very sensitive matter and one that is fraught with emotion. To reach a decision amidst all the various interests or to take decisions which please everyone is not possible. That is why measures are necessary in this specific context. But I give hon. members the assurance that we shall take the yield capacity of a resource into consideration as far as the exploitation of that resource is concerned. As regards the allocation of exploitation rights, I shall listen with attention to what hon. members have to tell me. Thirdly, as far as the conservation aspect is concerned, the Sea Fisheries Branch will give this matter all the attention it requires.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he expects the commission to complete its work before the end of this year, i.e. before the next session of Parliament?

I expect the commission to complete its work before the end of this year because I have already indicated that I should like to revise the entire Sea Fisheries Act. I hope it will be possible for me to do so during the next session. If not, it will not be possible to convert the recommendations in the report into legislation if the recommendations, wholly or partially, are acceptable.

I want to let this reply suffice. Once again I want to say that I appreciate very much indeed the interest of hon. members in all the facets of this very important and in fact very fine industry.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was last adjourned we had had a very full discussion on the question of the wider availability of light wines at certain outlets, but in view of the fact that that debate took place some time ago, perhaps a brief recap of the situation at that particular time of the debate would be in order. We are not debating the question of the prohibition of alcohol under the Bill before the House. That is certainly an issue which has not occupied any of the debating time here and is certainly an issue which does not arise. However, we are debating the issue of the wider availability of alcohol, albeit in one of its less harmful forms, i.e. in the form of light wines. We have heard many arguments which have highlighted the favourable aspects of wine consumption. Speakers have referred at length to the civilizing influence of wine if it is consumed along with food. But I wonder whether there is anyone here who has not all too often seen the unvicilizing influence of wine, especially here in the Western Cape, particularly where it is taken in excessive quantities under circumstances which are somewhat less than the optimum. Alcohol itself, the active ingredient of our alcoholic drinks, is present in all kinds of liquor, whether it be wine or hard liquor. But we are not discussing that today. All those substances contain alcohol, however, and there can be little doubt at all in the medical field today that if alcohol had been discovered recently, it would be classified as a habit-forming substance. I believe that that is absolutely beyond question. But over many years alcohol, in its very attractively packaged forms, has been rendered socially acceptable. It is dispensed in elaborate forms, in measured quantities and mixed with all sorts of mixers. The fact remains, however, that alcohol is still technically a poison. Its side effects and its after-effects confirm that classification.

I feel it is incumbent upon us in this House to look not only at the immediate level of matters before us, but also at the technical implications of legislation like this and, in this instance, at the technical aspect of the effects of alcohol on the brain, because this is where it has its impact. I believe these matters should be looked at, and I hope I shall be allowed the latitude to make a few observations in line with current medical opinion around the world today.

Current medical opinion has it that the alcohol molecule shares certain undesirable properties with the opiate, narcotic molecules. The brain contains millions of receptor cells, and alcohol and the opiates appear to have a special affinity for certain of these receptor cells, the enkephalin receptors. This affinity, or blocking of the receptors, not only produces the state of euphoria, which we know and which is readily evident when someone has taken alcohol in moderate quantities, but it also has the effect of reducing the production of certain natural substances by the body, substances which are termed “endorphins”. These, in turn, affect the body’s response to pain. Hon. members might ask what this has to do with this state of affairs. It is suggested that it is because of this mechanism that the opiates and alcohol so quickly become habit-forming and the withdrawal of these substances becomes so painful and traumatic an experience for the individual who has become addicted to them. In other words, the body itself comes to need these substances for normal activity, and addiction therefore becomes not only psychological, but physiological as well. In other words, the body eventually needs that substance just to be able to function. The phenomenon that we call “the taking of the hair of the dog” is probably caused by this chain of events, chemically speaking.

An article that appeared in The Sunday Tribune just over a week ago, referred to the undesirable and excessive talking of alcohol by young school children. The article was accompanied with certain photographic evidence. This is apparently becoming a serious and very real problem in certain areas of the Republic. I believe that when a society has reached the stage that events like these are reported in our bigger and more widely circulated Sunday newspapers, we should take a very careful look at legislation such as that before us today. That is why I have asked your indulgence, Sir, to go into the technical aspects to which I referred earlier on. While there are many arguments for the civilized, normal and social consumption of alcohol, I believe that when we change the availability and extend the outlets at which alcohol is available to the general public, we should look very carefully at the implications it could have on the social structure. To refer to alcohol only in glowing terms and only in terms of its civilizing influence, only serves to glamorize it and to give it a false acceptability which those of us who know better or should know better, should perhaps try and counter with arguments, if necessary of a technical nature, to give the other side of the picture, which is always present.

I am very disturbed at the trend of the article in The Sunday Tribune and at the trend that young people apparently are taking more and more to alcohol. Some of them have to be sent back home after weekends when they have indulged too freely at home. I therefore believe that it is desirable that legislation of this nature should be approached on the basis of a free vote. I think that we will have a very wide divergence of opinion in the Committee Stage and it will be interesting to hear which hon. members will support this measure. From what one has heard there is a fair number, particularly on that side of the House, who are going to support this legislation. I believe it is incumbent on them to answer some of these points and restore a balance to the debate so that when the vote is taken, it will be taken advisably, so that we can know what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, for all practical purposes this subject has in fact already been thrashed out. From the very outset I listened very carefully to all the arguments advanced by hon. members on both sides of the House in regard to the aims of this Bill. As a Bolander, I just want to make a few brief comments in regard to this Bill.

I recognize that there are arguments, weighty arguments, for and against this Bill. I do not wish to disregard the arguments advanced by hon. members opposing this legislation. I have on occasion stressed the extent, in particular, of the abuse of liquor among the Brown people. I do not wish to deny this. On the other hand, however, it is also true that apart from our fishing industry, which we have just been discussing, and our grain industry in the Western Cape, one of the most colourful and finest industries, viz. the wine industry, is also to be found here. The White and Brown people have built up this industry together.

Having listened to all the arguments by hon. members on both sides of the House, I want to add rhetorically what has already been said by hon. members on this side of the House. I should like to repeat two arguments. The free distribution of wine is in the broader interests of everyone. [Interjections.] It may sound paradoxical, but a less controlled liquor trade is vital. Why do I say this? Show me the statistics that show any connection between the number of liquor outlets and the use or abuse of liquor. I challenge anyone to show me such statistics in this important debate. They do not exist. Analysis of the statistics will show clearly that this is not true. Smuggling, exploitation, unhealthy brews and abuse of liquor over week-ends should rather be ascribed to the unnecessarily limited availability of wine. I could mention and point out to hon. members several examples from the Boland where, if there had been a better system of distribution, we would not have drunk people on the roads on Friday and Saturday afternoons. That is the truth of the situation. In my humble opinion, the general drift of this legislation gives effect to the absolutely correct philosophy in this regard. I wish to express a few thoughts about this philosophy, this philosophy underlying this fine Boland industry, the production of light wines. As far as a description of the effect of the product of the vine is concerned, we encounter innumerable examples in the Afrikaans language. I shall refer only to a few. We say for example that a person is “gekap, gehap, gebyt of gekaait”. We also say that someone is “nat, gaar, geblaas”, or “hy loop sterk”. These are expressions which occur in abundance in the Afrikaans language. [Interjections.] It is also, of course, true that wine has always seemed to be the catalyst in the process of dreams, of adventure, of romance, of excitement and of joy and abundance. In this regard I should like to refer to what a well-known poet had to say—

Looking at the influence of wine from a philosophical point of view, it is fitting to refer to a fine paragraph by the author F. A. Venter, in his book Die Middag voel na Warm As. I do not think it is necessary at this point to quote from Poppie Nongena by Elsa Joubert. I want to quote one of the finest paragraphs from Die Middag voel na Warm As. F. A. Venter farmed for many years along the Olifants River. With the cooperation of his Brown labourers he developed the wine industry to a fine art there. He also took note of the specific contribution of the Brown people on his farm to the development of this fine industry. Now I should like to quote one of the finest paragraphs in South African literature, a paragraph in which this fine industry is described in a striking way. I quote it so that it can appear in Hansard too and will be there for all time. Hon. members must please listen carefully now because F. A. Venter writes about the activities on his farm and how he describes the entire atmosphere there—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moorreesburg reminds me of the Minister of a small country congregation who, despite the protests of many members of his congregation, was not a teetotaller. They were very worried about their Minister. One member of the congregation decided to give him a bottle of peach brandy on condition that he acknowledged it publically from the pulpit on Sunday. On that particular Sunday the minister got up to preach and said he would like to acknowledge receipt of the bottle of fruit and the spirit in which it was given. So I should like to say that the hon. member for Moorreesburg has, once again, brought into this Chamber an air of glamorization rather than of hard reality.

He put forward one basic thesis on which he built his case, and once one destroys the thesis, of course, he has no case left. His thesis was that the freer distribution of light table wines is in the general interest. That, however, is simply not true. I want to ask the hon. the Minister right away whether he has received any requests or representations whatsoever from the general public asking for the freer distribution of table wines, something this Bill makes provision for. [Interjections.] My second question is whether the hon. the Minister has received any representations from any sources whatsoever, particularly from churches, the S.A. Temperance Alliance and other similar bodies, asking him not to proceed with this legislation. I am asking this question because we have not, as yet, heard very much about that.

One does not have to be a drunkard or an alcoholic to support this particular legislation. That I concede. One does not, however, have to be in favour of prohibition, nor does one have to be a teetotaller, to oppose it. The fact of the matter is that table wines and all other alcoholic beverages are freely available in many outlets throughout South Africa. In my own constituency, for example, and in many other similar constituencies in urban areas, it will be found that there are more than an adequate number of outlets where people can purchase wine and any other alcoholic beverage, if they so desire. In fact, there are many people, in the urban areas in particular, who believe that there are far too many outlets, people who would, again and again, give evidence to justify their opposition to the provision of further licences.

An outlet in a residential area causes a great deal of trouble and grief to the people living in the area. I know what I am talking about because I have had a great deal of difficulty in my own constituency where thousands upon thousands of people signed a petition, but to no avail. One already has outlets right in the heart of certain residential areas. What happens if the supermarkets start doing the same sort of thing? The problem is going to be compounded, not resolved. I therefore cannot support the legislation.

[Inaudible.]

Of course that hon. member will dispute what I am saying, but what worries me is that it is in the interest of big business that this legislation is before us. [Interjections.] They are the people who have made representations, who want more and more outlets. The next we shall have, is an outlet right at the door of this Chamber. We shall have them all over the place. [Interjections.]

Instead of water!

I think there are some hon. members who would like that very much indeed! [Interjections.] What fascinates me about this debate is that I understand that our hon. friends in the NP have a free vote …

Since when?

If they do have a free vote, it is quite remarkable that the only thing on which the NP is unanimous, and on which there is no difference of opinion, is this: Let us give wider distribution to table wine. I cannot understand that. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am waiting for the hon. member for Rissik. I should like to know what his former congregations are thinking of him right now.

In a more serious vein I want to point out once again that although we are dealing with one specific product, viz. light table wines, we must bear in mind that some of the people who go into supermarkets very often abuse alcohol, and some of them who abuse alcohol are those who drink wine. There is no question about that and particularly in the Western Cape there is a history and a tradition where people, and particularly those who have received wine as part payment for their labour, are bearing the consequences of those years. This is a very serious problem in our rural areas, in the platteland and also on the Cape Flats and other areas. We can look at statistics, but I only want to mention a few because I do not want to delay the House unduly. In relation to alcoholism and health I should like to give one quotation signed by several very eminent physicians here in Cape Town—

That is the Groote Schuur hospital—

That is how serious the situation has become.

Give us some quotes on dagga.

There is no question about it, if one takes a look at world statistics, that we in South Africa are facing a very serious problem of alcoholism. These figures are beyond dispute and therefore we must not have all these lovely quotations, attractively shaped bottles and nice advertisements. This is a very serious problem. I do not think that we are helping to solve the problem by making wine more freely available. There are plenty of places which are open and where alcohol is now available.

Why do you speak about alcohol and not about wine?

It is alcohol. [Interjections.]

I need not even reply. I have a very fine chorus to the left of me.

Order!

If I may join in the song, I should like to tell the hon. member that he has obviously not realized that when he drinks wine, he is actually taking in alcohol. [Interjections.]

No, it is not alcohol. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member know the difference between milk and wine?

What about whisky? Is that alcohol? [Interjections.]

Now I begin to understand why the hon. member has not opposed this Bill. He does not know that wine has alcohol in it!

Ignorance is bliss.

It is incredible! I wonder how much wine he has drunk that he is able to come with that sort of statement. It is unbelievable! In any event, let me tell him that Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola are freely available at supermarkets and that, therefore, we do not have to have other soft drinks like wine available there. Or does he consider it to be grape juice?

What do you use at communion?

Let me illustrate this further for the benefit of those who have not realized what they have been drinking. Take for example the question of alcohol and crime. Of all the hon. members in the House, the hon. the Minister is perhaps best qualified to know of the very strong link that exists—I am talking purely of his professional capacity as such—between alcohol and crime. He will know of the serious increase in crime in the urban areas and that very often people, having committed serious crimes, will plead as their only defence: “I had a few too many drinks; I was drunk; I did not know what I was doing.”

That is absolutely right.

This happens again and again and now the hon. the Minister wants to make wine more freely available. I do not believe we can accept that. I believe that, when at the end of this debate a division is called, we are going to find that a great number of hon. members on that side of the House will vote against this measure.

Do you want to bet on that? I shall bet you a case of Constantia wine.

Let me next refer to the link between alcohol and road accidents. A symposium under the sponsorship of the hon. the Minister of Transport as recently as 6 November 1978 pointed to the incredibly large number of accidents that were directly attributable to the consumption of liquor in some shape or form. Why do we not accept this? Why are we not prepared to accept that this is a very serious problem in South Africa? Why do we dress it up?

It has nothing to do with the distribution of liquor.

Well, it is now going to be made available in the supermarkets. People can get it there and open their bottles immediately. Sir, this debate has gone on for many weeks now and therefore I cannot recall exactly who it was, but an hon. member on that side of the House actually said that the housewife would be able to go to the supermarket and buy wine as part of the grocery bill. [Interjections.] There can be no question but that this will be a further temptation, particularly for the people who can least afford it, particularly for the poor who previously…

Now they are smuggling.

… if they wanted to buy wine, actually had to go to a bottle-store. We all know how seductive supermarkets are. I believe that this is unforgivable. We just cannot do this. It can destroy the fabric of our society.

Child abuse provides another example. Those of us who have worked for the church or have undertaken social welfare work know that very often the highest incidence of child abuse is to be found amongst the poorer element of our society.

That is no argument.

Very often abuse of alcohol is associated with child abuse. Now one will in effect be saying to the poor people when they go to the supermarket: Instead of spending all your money on food, also spend some on alcohol in the form of table wine. I do not think that this is necessary. Hon. members on the other side of the House and indeed some on this side have argued the case of the person who wishes to purchase light table wine or any other kind of alcohol. However, people have every opportunity of doing so. No one is prohibiting them from going to a bottle-store. Why must we now suddenly make more outlets available? How many more people are going to benefit…

Do you want to make it less readily available?

No, I am saying that it is being made more readily available.

But you want to make it less readily available.

No, I am not saying that. I am merely saying that the scope must not be widened further. Why should it be brought in to our supermarkets? [Interjections.]

If you say you can get it anywhere…

Order!

That is a very different problem. If I am right in saying that one can get it anywhere, then why on earth should it be extended to supermarkets? What is the case that is being made out? There is no case to be made out for it except that more wine will be sold. They want to sell more cases—that is their only case. I do not accept that.

Child welfare societies throughout the country find that a large percentage of their case loads consist of poor families with alcohol problems, families with alcoholics. So one must get away from the idea that alcoholism is only caused by brandy, whisky or gin. The fact of the matter is that a great number of alcoholics in the Western Cape are on cheap wines.

What about the alcoholics in the Transvaal?

The Transvaal is a lost case. I cannot give all my time to the Transvaal as well.

I want to make two last points, the first of which concerns children’s homes. Statistics of children’s homes—not just general views and opinions, but actual statistics and hard facts—bear out the fact that, at some of these institutions, approximately 75% of the children placed there come from homes in which either the father or the mother, or both, have alcohol problems or are alcoholics. I believe that we cannot allow this kind of freer distribution, particularly since it is closely allied with the places where people go to buy food—that is the basic reason why people go to supermarkets. The people go to the supermarkets and the hon. the Minister is now going to make it possible for them to buy wine there instead of food.

I now come to my last point. One of the arguments which we have heard in this House over the past few years and which is a very valid one, is that if as regards our economy we are to face the future with some confidence and if we are to achieve the growth rate which is necessary to provide jobs for all the people of South Africa, then one of the key answers to this is increased productivity. If one looks at the facts and the figures which are given by large business houses as well as small business houses, one will find that here too there is a very real problem. Towards the end of 1977 we heard that R500 million is lost annually through alcoholism. According to the South African Safety First Association, alcoholism costs the national economy a conservatively estimated R500 million per year. The association claims that the toll that alcoholism takes on man hours and productivity in industry and commerce is staggering. In this regard they say the following—

One is appalled at these facts and figures. The only argument I am making…

Where do those figures come from?

I quoted it.

I know you quoted them, but where do they come from?

I actually quoted the source.

Where do they come from?

It is information provided by the South African Safety First Association. They did a survey on business houses.

And it is an estimate?

Of course it is an estimate. But let me say that it is stated very conservatively. Even if the figure is halved, I do not think the hon. the Minister and I will disagree that it is a very serious problem in industry. That is the only point I am making.

I know that this Bill does not go out of its way to encourage alcoholism. I set it out at the very beginning that one does not have to be an alcoholic or a drunkard to support this legislation—although I suppose it helps—or that one has to be a teetotaller to oppose it. I believe that for the reasons which some of us on this side of the House have listed, we should reject this piece of legislation and ask the hon. the Minister, in light of these facts, to think again and to maintain the present distribution rather than to extend it, in particular in linking it with supermarkets.

Mr. Speaker, right at the start of his speech the hon. member for Pinelands said that his party was allowing a free vote on this matter. I accept that this means that they allowed a free conscience vote on the matter. I think that it would be very easy for the hon. member to vote according to his conscience, but he should tell us according to which conscience he spoke. He said virtually everything said by both sides of the House. On the one hand he said that this Bill would not really promote liquor abuse—but he continued to oppose it. The other morning I heard it said in the course of a historical survey, “Datum”, which is regularly broadcast on radio—I think I heard the figures correctly—that Simon van der Stel announced one morning that according to a census he had undertaken, there were 500 people living in the Cape at that stage and that up to then 1 000 vines and 5 000 oak trees had been planted. When he said that, someone asked him why he had had so many oak trees planted. [Interjections.]

I must dwell on the hon. member for Pinelands for a moment. I should like to know from him why, in the course of his speech about a matter of this nature, which cannot stir up emotions much, he should insult the poor people of South Africa. He said that the poor man would now unfortunately be led astray. In other words, according to him the rich man is quite capable of deciding for himself on the matter, while the poor man, specifically because he is poor, has so little power of judgment that when he sees a bottle of wine in a supermarket he has to buy it. All the hon. member said was that this party was a rich man’s party possessing sound judgment and opposed to this measure, but that a poor person lacked judgment. He therefore implies that the poor people are not Progs and that only the Nationalists and the Coloureds would support such a measure. He regards the poor Coloured as being too stupid to decide for himself.

You are too “verlig” for me.

The hon. member dragged in another political issue here. He said that it was not a matter of the interests of the farmer but large financial interests and the fact that big money talks. Before that hon. member became an employee of Oppenheimer, all the Rhodes Fruit Farms in Groot Drakenstein were bought out by the Oppenheimer interest group. Did the hon. member know that they have title deeds to every farm? The hon. member probably also got a section of the map.

Nothing.

These large financial interests go a great deal further. Those long octopus arms have a grip on this too.

For the hon. member’s sake I just want to repeat one thing which has been said a great many times. After all, the aim of this Bill is not to make more liquor available but to make more dry wine freely available. The hon. member must tell me just one thing. We are concerned about the same people. In that regard we are ad idem. We are concerned about the people who abuse liquor and about people who cannot help themselves and buy and make brews to drink. They filter methylated spirits through a loaf of bread and then drink it. It is people of this kind about whom we are concerned. The issue, then, is not one of light wine or the free availability of light wine, but the fact that guidance is necessary in this regard. People must be told how to use wine with food. That is the point of issue.

In certain respects I want to agree with the hon. member. Summing up the speeches made thus far, there are three arguments against the freer availability of liquor. In the first place, in whatever form it is made available, it encourages alcoholism. In the second place, it is maintained that it is being made more freely available to the youth, and the hon. member for Pinelands does not want that. Reference has also been made—and in my opinion quite rightly so—to the effect on the vested interests of people at present engaged in this industry. On the other hand, reference has been made to the advantages, viz. that matters are made easier for the bona fide consumer of wine and the bona fide wine farmer when the product is made more freely available.

I do not wish to speak only as one who worked for the KWV for eight years and who has a great deal of respect for the organization. In addition, I believe that this organization is doing a great deal to stimulate and encourage the correct usage and the correct consumption of alcohol, and in this case of wines in particular, and also to furnish guidance. However I do not believe that the KWV or the organized liquor trade is doing enough to furnish guidance to Brown and Black people as regards the consumption of light wines. We see that people are too quick to refer to the Coloureds and to speak on behalf of the Coloureds when the question of liquor abuse is discussed. I do not say that the Coloured is the biggest consumer of liquor, but per capita he is the biggest consumer of light wines. I therefore believe that it is for the KWV and the organized liquor trade to train more Brown and Black people to provide guidance among their own people. These people who speak in each other’s idiom should themselves tackle this problem.

Leaving aside the consumer, it is a question of two interest groups. There is the primary producer on the one hand who wants the best price for his product, and the established liquor trade on the other. Only, we must not make the mistake of seeking to drive these two essential poles in the liquor trade into two camps by means of our speeches in Parliament. However many of our supermarkets we grant licences for the sale of light wine, the organized liquor trade will remain the biggest distributor of the farmer’s product. Consequently it is of cardinal importance that the organized liquor trade and the primary producer, with the KWV as spokesman and the State as regulator, should seek to look after the interests of all the interest groups as far as possible. Because I am convinced that the legislation at present before the House also seeks to achieve this, I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not be too much of a shock if I refer to the content of the Bill and one of the clauses in particular around which the debate so far has confined itself. Sir, I am not for a moment suggesting that you have allowed debate which was not relevant to the Bill, but all the debate so far has in fact been linked to clause 2 which deals with the repeal of section 30. This provision has been used as a basis for arguing that such repeal will either increase the sale of wines and produce a better market as was argued by those in favour of the Bill—or that it will therefore increase alcoholism, as was argued by those against the Bill. Let me say at once that I am going to oppose the Bill.

Hear, hear!

I do not think that my colleagues who say “Hear, hear!” so enthusiastically, will say it much longer, because I want to start by shooting down completely the whole argument that, if one makes liquor available in grocery stores, there will be a vast increase in liquor consumption. It does not work that way. Section 30 of the present Act provides in effect that in the Transvaal wine licences can be granted to grocers. Section 30 provides for a limit of 30%, i.e. where more than 30%, by volume, of the sales comprise of wine, no grocers’ wine licences will be granted. The only change the Bill is going to bring about in this regard, is that it is going to delete the proviso that if more than 30%, by volume, of wine is being sold, grocers’ wine licences cannot be granted. However, in the rest of South Africa, outside the western Cape, any grocer can apply for a licence, and many licences have in fact been granted. The experience in the Transvaal, where licences have been granted to grocers, is that it has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the total amount of wine consumed. All that it has brought about is a transfer of the sale of wine from existing liquor outlets, i.e. bottle-stores and off-sales, to supermarkets who obtain these licences. The total amount of wine sold has, however, not varied more than the average increase sales have shown throughout South Africa. Therefore the argument that the repeal of this section is going to lead to widespread drunkenness and a vast increase in the consumption of wine just does not hold water.

It holds wine.

Yes, it holds wine and also profits for certain people. That is the real motive behind the repeal of this provision. It is not going to change drinking patterns; it is simply going to change the outlets…

The intake as well.

No. It will only change the outlets in the western Cape from legitimate liquor dealers to a new source. This will only take place in the western Cape.

Statistics prove that, at present, in the western Cape wine, by volume, comprises 65% to 70% of the liquor sales in the area. By value, it amounts to 40% of all liquor sales. Already, therefore, between 65% and 70% of all liquor sold in the western Cape is wine. I do not think that anybody is going to suggest that, by having grocers and supermarkets as liquor outlets, the 70% is going to be increased to 90% of the alcohol consumption in that area. In the rest of South Africa the average varies between 10% and 20% by volume, while the value is insignificant by comparison. This is therefore not going to affect the rest of the country, because nowhere else in South Africa is there any prohibition on grocers’ wine licences, which can be granted already. All this measure is going to do in this regard, is to transfer the sale of liquor from existing licensed outlets to supermarkets and grocery stores. What is going to happen? Liquor is going to be used as a “loss leader” in that it will be offered at cut-throat prices in supermarkets to attract customers, who will then also buy other products there. It will therefore be used as bait. Let us take a look at the original Bill that changed the law when the whole liquor pattern was changed by Parliament. The intention of the legislation of 1963 was to change drinking patterns. However, a very large part of that change was to enable hotels to become classified and graded, and thereby to obtain off-sales licences. The quid pro quo for hotels having to spend anything up to R100 000 or more was that any hotel which spent that money for classification purposes would then get an off-sales. The hotels of South Africa complied, people borrowed money and the Government made certain promises, but it materialized afterwards that only five star hotels could get anything. The small privately owned hotel had to fend for itself. That was just one of the promises that was broken. Those owners found the necessary money and improved their hotels in order to get the privileges of off-sales. It is a known fact that at the moment many of those outlets are struggling. My complaint, and the reason why I oppose this measure, is that if this measure is passed, certain hotels will go out of business or reduce their standards. I refer to those hotels which are balancing their financial problems in respect of accommodation against the profits they can make through their off-sales. This is going to break many of those people who in good faith accepted the good faith of the Government and Parliament who said that, if they improved the standard of their hotels, they would get the benefit of off-sales. Because grocers’ wine licences were then being mooted, the protection was given, or, rather, the sop was given to the wine producers that if sales exceeded 30%, there would be no competition from supermarkets. If we are genuinely trying to get people to drink light liquor instead of hard tack, the hon. the Minister should include beer under this legislation because beer only consists of 8% alcohol by volume compared to the 12% to 14% of wine. By volume beer is the lightest drink and has the lowest alcohol content. If this were a move to try to move people away from a drink with an alcohol content of 40% by volume to a lighter drink, beer would have to be included. However, the healthiest drink, the young sportsman’s drink of the past, the Government taxes out of existence.

The excise tax on beer is forcing young people to drink hard tack or wine. Therefore, this blows the good intentions of the Government sky high. If they were genuine, they would say that wine and beer could be supplied by supermarkets. This is just the pressure of the wine lobby. [Interjections.] It is the wine lobby bringing political pressure to bear on the hon. the Minister so that supermarkets can use wine in a trade war. It is not done to please the wine farmers or to give them additional outlets, but to give the supermarkets a weapon to use in the trade war.

At the moment the liquor stores are having a price war.

The hon. member says that there is a war on now. Let me tell him that 50% of the retail trade today has merchant involvement in the trade. In other words, already half the retail liquor outlet have at least some involvement by merchants. It is not the intention of the law, but it is happening now. Secret discounts are being given, and the hon. the Minister knows that secret discounts are being given. Secret, quantity discounts are being given as a result of which the legitimate hotelier with an off-sales is battling today against the bulk wholesalers and the discount liquor houses. All this is going to do is to make things more difficult. We are going to experience greater difficulties in the hotel industry. It is also going to become more expensive for those who have to travel and stay in hotels because the incentive, or slight advantage, to hoteliers as a result of off-sales is being taken away.

Let us look at some of the other provisions as well. There is an innocent-looking provision here involving co-operatives. It seems quite innocent. Clause 3(1)(a) simply states that a licence may be granted “to a person who is engaged in viticulture or to an association of persons the majority of members of which are engaged in viticulture”. This does not refer to the normal wine co-operatives to which wine producers supply their grapes, the co-operative producing the wine. This refers to an association of individual wine farmers producing their own wine. So what it creates, in effect, is a retail wine shop consisting of as many people as may care to come together and declare themselves to be a co-operative. Each of them may perhaps be producing six or eight different types of wine, and 20 people each supplying eight types of wine would mean 160 different kinds of wine being sold all over the place in a so-called “co-operative”, quite contrary to the original idea embodied in the concept of a wine farmers’ licence which is a licence—and this I agree with—authorizing a person to sell his own produce.

Could you give me the name of one such co-operative?

But that is the intention.

It is to be established.

Yes, it is to be established. I quote again—

That is exactly what it means. It is not for a wine farmer, however, to sell his produce. It is for a co-operative to sell the produce of all the members of the co-operative. It is creating, in fact, a new kind of licence, and if my hon. colleagues who are opposing the Bill had wanted to oppose it on the grounds of increased availability, this is the clause they should have based their opposition on because this is the clause in terms of which wine can be made more freely available. In doing so, however, this is going to take away sales from legitimate trade outlets. Wine purchasers will now not purchase their supplies from normal trade outlets because they will get a selection of estate wines from these co-operative associations.

When I therefore look at the Bill as a whole, I firstly cannot believe that it is going to achieve the objective the wine lobbyists think it is going to achieve, that of increasing sales. Nor do I think that it is going to do the damage that the opponents of the Bill believe it will do by creating more easily available wine and therefore more alcoholism. What I do believe is that it is going to affect people with a bona fide interest in the hotel industry, people who are providing a public service. I think it is going to be to their detriment and to the detriment of the travelling public. I also believe that when one is interfering with private rights, one has to tread very warily indeed.

I say that because in this Bill one is taking away established rights, rights limited by legislation and by the fact that the hon. the Minister may decide who should get a licence. These benefits are being taken away and put into the hands of people who are not concerned with the wine trade itself, people who will not use wine for the lofty purposes we have heard so much about here, using it rather to promote other business by drawing people into their shops.

I am therefore opposed to this Bill, being probably the only person who is opposed to it on the grounds of what the Bill will actually do. I am not opposed to it on moral grounds, because I do not believe that that is an argument relevant to this particular Bill. It is, I admit, quite relevant to the increased consumption of alcohol, but I do not believe that that would, even in part, be the effect of the Bill. I believe that as a Parliament we are debating this Bill on the basis of a completely wrong premise. In doing so, we are doing an injustice to established rights and businesses that do not deserve that kind of treatment. I therefore oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point has just made an excellent contribution to the defeat his party is going to suffer in the by-election at Swellendam. The hon. member is perhaps not aware of the fact that the Swellendam constituency consists mainly of people connected with the wine industry, and I therefore wish to bring this to his notice. [Interjections.] The hon. member has obviously not yet tried to ascertain what the constituency in which his party has put up a candidate, looks like. [Interjections.] The farmers of Montagu, of Ladismith, of Bonnie-vale and of Swellendam are certainly not going to feel very happy about the speech the hon. member for Durban Point has made here. [Interjections.]

We shall see when the voting takes place. [Interjections.]

I have some appreciation for the speech by the hon. member, in the sense that to a certain extent he has in fact steered the debate back to the business aspect. It is true that we shall certainly not quarrel with one another on the moral aspects of the consumption of liquor or alcohol. We are all opposed to the abuse of liquor. Hon. members on both sides of the House have in fact stated that clearly. However, let us look at what the hon. member for Durban Point has now said. He has said he is not convinced that the sales will increase. I hope that is correct.

I said it would not increase.

That is correct. Well, we do not know, of course. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has pointed out that there are no statistics whatsoever available on the basis of which it can be proved that a greater number of outlets results in an increase in the sale of wine. As a wine farmer I am hoping, of course, that the sales will increase.

At the same time I wish to make the point that the sale of wine in South Africa can increase considerably without necessarily promoting the abuse of liquor. It is not necessary that there should be more cases of drunkenness as soon as more liquor is sold. That is certainly not inevitable. The hon. member for Durban Point has stated, furthermore, that in the northern provinces the system whereby grocers’ wine licences can be obtained, is already in existence. The hon. member has also alleged that it is mainly in the Western Cape where the situation will now change.

The hon. the Minister has stated in his Second Reading speech that the KWV and the wine farmers regarded this limitation—the limitation of 30%—as a discrimination against the Western Cape. For years now, we have heard the wine producers in the Western Cape grumble and complain about this specific limitation. Why did this discriminatory limitation in respect of the Western Cape have to exist? The Western Cape is, after all, traditionally the wine-producing region of South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban Point has also stated: “It will not change the drinking pattern.” I wish to say a few words about that too. People in the liquor trade can confirm that today we talk about a so-called old wine market and a so-called new wine market.

And you are an old wine man.

Now wait a bit. If the hon. member for Pinelands would only listen, he might perhaps learn something new. I therefore ask him just to give me a chance. What I want to say now may perhaps interest the hon. member for Pinelands, because after all, he has spoken about the moral aspects of the use of wine. I should therefore be pleased if he would now listen to me. The old wine market, which was to be found mainly in the Western Cape and in which the Coloured was traditionally the greatest consumer, was one in which people bought wine with a view to obtaining alcohol. That was the old wine market, the old traditional wine market. The market into which the Coloured entered, was one in which he bought wine in order to obtain alcohol. During the past number of years, however, a new wine market has developed, and this is the wine market where people buy wine not for the sake of the alcohol, but for the sake of the wine and the tradition connected with wine, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg put it so well. The hon. member for Pinelands is not listening now. [Interjections.]

The position is that the old wine market has declined over the past number of years. There are statistics to prove this. We as wine farmers in the Western Cape are not concerned about that, because we have observed that our new wine market—ie. the market in which wine is bought for the sake of the wine itself and not for the sake of the alcohol—is growing.

What else has happened? The living standard of the people who had constituted the greater part of the old wine market—they are for the most part the lower paid Coloureds—has improved, and with the improvement in their standard of living, they have moved away from wine. They have moved away from the old, traditional pattern of wine-drinking, and what has taken its place? They have started drinking hard alcohol in the form of brandy, gin and other types of hard liquor. Why has the Coloured done this? He did so because he had begun to regard it as below his dignity to be seen in that little bar or off-sales liquor store in the back street where he had to buy his liquor. He did not want to be seen coming out of there with a can or a bottle of wine. That is how I see it—and I think I am correct—and I now come back to the hon. member for Durban Point who says we shall not experience a change in the drinking pattern. I predict that when we make wine available in our supermarkets and our grocery stores, we shall cause part of the old wine market which has vanished, to revive in the form of a new wine market. The man who traditionally bought wine for the sake of the alcohol and then changed over to hard spirits, will now buy some of these decent, bottled, good wines because they are available at a place where he and his wife do their shopping on a Saturday. I am convinced that as a result, we shall experience a change in the drinking pattern as far as our lower paid people are concerned.

That is a very weak argument.

No, the hon. member will see that happen. The hon. member for Durban Point has stated, inter alia, that the grocers would now make use of wine to attract customers. I want to know from him whether this is happening in the north where grocers already have wine licences. It is not our experience that the wine counters are being used to attract customers. Why does that not happen? The hon. member has stated that the price of wine would be reduced to an abnormal level at the wine counters with a view to attracting the public to the groceries. People in the trade surely know that the price of wine cannot possibly be reduced to an abnormally low level. This is the position owing to certain costs connected with the industry. What is more, what will also happen, is that the licensee of the off-sales liquor store who is going to open his wine counter with the approval of the holder of the grocers’ licence, is not going to reduce his prices at the supermarket abnormally, because if he does that he will, after all, prejudice his own off-sales liquor store.

The hon. member has also referred to the co-operatives. What he does not appreciate, is that the co-operative is an extension-piece of its members. If a co-operative holds a wine licence for its members, it is still to the benefit of its members and not to the benefit of the co-operative as such.

I also wish to say something in connection with the licences of wine farmers. Last week I had the privilege of attending a meeting of farmers in the Wellington district. The farmers of Wellington had requested the magistrate, the public prosecutor and the police chief there, to attend the meeting because they wanted to talk about the abuse of liquor through the smuggling in that area. I had been invited to attend the meeting, and I found the arguments and the discussion very interesting. It was very clear to me that this group of farmers, who were all wine farmers, were concerned about the fact that their product, of which they are proud, was being abused.

There is one item in the trade which, in my view, is largely responsible for the smuggling and the abuse of liquor, namely the so-called “Swart vark”. Most hon. members of this House are very probably unacquainted with this term. Let me say what it is. “Swart vark” is a plastic container of approximately 25 litres which is filled with wine and which may freely be bought from licence-holders. [Interjections.] In my view, it is unworthy of wine to sell it in that way. It detracts from the respectability of the product. I wish to state that wine is a noble product. It is so noble that we use it in our church ceremonies and that our most solemn toasts and ceremonies are proposed with wine. For that reason I should not like to see a further extension of this “swart vark” trade, because it must necessarily lead to drunkenness and abuse. This also makes matters easy for the pedlar.

I have great appreciation for the step being taken with this legislation. After all, liquor licences remain under control. There is no question of every Tom, Dick and Harry now being able to obtain licences or, as the hon. member for Pinelands put it, of wine simply being sold at the front and back door of Parliament. There is no such thing. The issuing of licences still remains under control.

But there is also another important aspect of this legislation. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has described the dignity and the beauty of wine. Today it is the privilege of the man of means to use this worthy product in all dignity with his evening meal. Is the poor man not often deprived of that privilege as a result of abnormally high prices? I think the poor man is also entitled occasionally to have a bottle of wine on his table and to taste the privilege. I believe that although the free distribution of liquor will not effect a dramatic reduction in prices, it may result in wine also being available more cheaply to the general public so that the poor man with good taste will be able to enjoy it.

The first part of this Amendment Bill deals for the most part with administrative matters. I think these are sound changes and I therefore gladly support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about the old wine market and the new wine market, all in an effort to establish another new wine market. If the producer has a problem with his product, then my advice is that there should be a difference in price between the old and the new wine market. In that case an additional wine market will be unnecessary. This may solve the problem if there is in fact one.

The hon. members for Moorreesburg, Worcester and Paarl spoke in complimentary terms about the fine characteristics of wine. I do not have the vocabulary to praise the characteristics of wine, but I do have the experience to know what they were talking about, because I, too, come from the muscadel area, like the hon. members for Pretoria East and Moorreesburg. We hail from an area where we grew up with this product. I feel so strongly about the use of this product, so in favour of its use, that I am considering the possibility of asking my caucus’ permission to introduce a private bill in terms of which all South Africans who drink whisky, are to be placed on a separate voters’ role to be represented by three maize farmers in Parliament.

I shall most definitely not vote for you!

But I am not a maize farmer. I am going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill for one reason only, and in this regard I cannot agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that the wine pattern is not going to change. The pattern is going to change because the volume which will be consumed, will change. I cannot agree with him where he objects to an association of wine farmers obtaining a licence. If that is the only objection, I cannot go along with it, because I have no fault to find with a co-operation being established by a group of wine farmers or producers. However, I do find fault with this legislation since it will make wine available at supermarkets. Over the years we have learnt that women and children in particular have much respect for a liquor store. Even today there are women who will not enter a liquor store to purchase liquor. Young boys and girls know that if they are under age, they cannot buy at a liquor store as the licensee will ensure that his licence is not jeopardized. Consequently he will ask the young person’s age. Now, however, wine is going to be made available in supermarkets. A young person is sent to the supermarket to purchase a pound of cheese. He walks past the wine shelf in the supermarket and takes a bottle of “cold cheese” with him. [Interjections.]

We know that the consumer organizations in South Africa warn the consumer. The consumer organizations’ advice is that if the housewife goes to the supermarket to do shopping…

What do you do with your father’s liquor cabinet?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow that interjection to pass. My father was a teetotaller. I only became bad when I was older! [Interjections.]

The consumer organizations in South Africa advise the housewife and other consumers not to go to a supermarket without a list of their requirements, because the temptation is there, when you are walking through a supermarket and see the beautiful displays and advertisements, to buy involuntarily an item you do not need, or to buy something completely different to what you originally wanted to buy. This also applies to the housewife who goes to the supermarket to buy groceries.

Now she walks past the wine shelf and involuntarily buys wine. When it is an adult, I cannot really find fault with that, but a young boy or girl may also do shopping in that store.

They may not buy there.

The hon. member for Stilfontein says that they may not buy it there. That is correct. But at the point where a client pays for his groceries, there may be a woman who is not conversant with the law and who does not think of asking the boy how old he is. Who is going to stop a 13, 14 or 15-year-old boy who walks past there with a bottle of wine among the groceries he has purchased? This is the objection I have to this Bill. There is no point in our closing our eyes to the facts of this situation.

Do you still remember how you hid away a bottle of wine from me? [Interjections.]

Yes, but that was between good friends.

You hide away the good stuff.

No, a good friend hides away the stuff from another only when he sees that he has already had enough. [Interjections.] I want to repeat that we should not close our eyes to the facts and that I have no objection whatsoever to the market of the product being expanded. I believe and I am convinced that there are sufficient outlets for wine. If it is necessary to open additional liquor stores, I think licences may be granted, but subject to the same conditions applying to existing liquor stores. However, we must not make it possible for the youth to obtain liquor more freely. In Die Vaderland of 20 February 1979 a very interesting article appeared under the heading “Alkoholisme onder jeug neem toe”. I just want to make a few brief quotations from that article.

This measure has not yet come into operation.

We should like to take preventive measures before it is too late. I quote from this article—

This was said with reference to an investigation conducted by teachers and Alcoholics Anonymous. I quote further—

That is attributable to bad parents.

Yes, it is attributable to bad parents. The hon. member for Stilfontein has just touched on a very important matter. In a moment I shall read out more in order to indicate what the parents’ responsibility is. Since the child already has the habit of slipping out during breaks for a drink, he can just as well slip out to the supermarket during that break to purchase a bottle of wine, particularly if he has forgotten his sandwiches at home. I quote further—

Why do the children want to talk about it? The article continues—

Surely you are not standing for mayor now.

I know that I am not standing for mayor. I am making a plea for the sake of our young people and I am asking that unnecessary temptations should not be placed in their way. I know of so many cases of people who in their youth already abused liquor and when one day they…

Now you are being insulting.

No, I am not being insulting; not at all. The hon. member for Johannesburg North said, if I remember correctly, that only a small percentage of alcoholics are cured, because alcoholism is a disease. However, an alcoholic who is totally cured is the exception. He always retains that germ of alcoholism in him. We must therefore prevent young men from becoming alcoholics at an early age. The danger is—and it is put very clearly in this report—that many teenagers believe that the only way of being sociable, is to drink. This is the danger. He sees the adult drinking and then he wants to do the same. Under the present dispensation, however, he may not be served at a liquor store, but in future he will be served at supermarkets.

At the moment his father buys it for him.

When the parent buys it for him—and I have no fault to find with that—and accustoms his child to using liquor moderately and decently, I have no fault to find with that. If his father buys it for him and he is taught under supervision not to abuse liquor, I have no fault to find with that. But when he purchases the bottle himself and finishes it behind a school wall, I object to that. This article continues by pointing out that some children take their refuge to liquor because there is no parental control over them and because some parents—and this is a point which the hon. member for Stilfontein made—are alcoholics themselves. On the other hand many parents who are not alcoholics, are so busy with their own affairs that there is no parental control over their children. If this is the case, I do not think that we should take the chance of extending facilities and making it easier for youths attending school to obtain liquor.

In his speech the hon. member for Paarl explained very well, when discussing the fine characteristics of wine, how his mouth was watering for a meal of fish and a bottle of wine to go with it. That is fine and that is how it should be; that is how wine should be used, but the danger is that some people see only the fineness of the wine and not that of the meal. If the two do not go together, then wine is abused. The danger is that when someone walks through a supermarket and sees the beautiful advertisements, he forgets …

How do you bring the two together?

You bring the two together on the table and most certainly not on the shelf in the shop. Hon. members probably know the story of the chap who went to buy liquor and food and of his friend who hit him for spending as much as a sixpence on bread and as little as 19s. 6d. on wine. This situation will arise here too. He will now enter the supermarket and see the beautiful advertisement and the fine display. He will only see the wine and forget the food. This is the danger. But it should be as the hon. member for Paarl said. Wine should be accompanied by a tasty meal. For that reason I do not see my way clear to supporting this measure, despite the sympathy which I may have with the producer. I repeat, I hail from a wine-producing region, but although I myself am a consumer of wine, I cannot support the wider availability of wine by voting for the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that liquor legislation is one of those types of legislation on which one can never hope to reach unanimity. I do not think I have ever heard so many tongue-in-the-cheek speeches on a Bill as today in this House and in this debate. I want to tell the hon. member who has just taken his seat that I do not think that any of the examples which he presented of juveniles who abuse liquor can be ascribed to this legislation which we are still dealing with at this stage. These evils already exist and for the most part concern children and youths who steal liquor and obtain it in other ways. It has nothing to do at all with an increased turnover. However, I shall refer to this again in a moment, in another context.

The liquor legislation which exists in South Africa today, and what we are dealing with again today, is indeed the result of a long evolutionary process in this sphere, a process which began in 1928 when we introduced centralized liquor legislation for the first time, after the various pieces of liquor legislation of the four provinces had in fact been consolidated by way of a compromise. The legislation which we are amending today, was placed on the Statute Book in 1977, after a great many amendments in this regard had been effected between 1928 and 1977. I think the Liquor Act has virtually been rewritten in comparison with its old form. The consolidated legislation was piloted through Parliament by the present hon. the Minister of Justice, assisted by the present chairman of the National Liquor Board, Mr. Eric le Roux. This hon. gentleman is, of course, a terror to those people who contravene liquor regulations or who are authorized to trade in liquor and do not do so properly. On the other hand he is at the same time the friend of the hotelier, restaurant owner and liquor dealer who mind their p’s and q’s. However, he remains a terror to everyone who appears before him with an application for a liquor licence, although he is often a terror with a smile. However, I shall not elaborate any further on this matter now.

I believe that we in South Africa have a very good Liquor Act. The amendments which will now be effected from time to time, will be minor ones, will result from further experience, and, therefore, amendments which are really part of the control of a commodity. What we are in fact dealing with here is the control of the distribution of a certain commodity.

All the hon. members who participated in this debate, should really have adopted a standpoint, and there are only three standpoints which one can adopt in this regard. There is a total prohibition, on the one hand, free distribution on the other, and in between we get controlled distribution such as occurs particularly in a large wine-producing country such as South Africa. The reason for our having a Liquor Act is that we apply controlled distribution. Not one of the hon. members who said that they were going to vote against this legislation, wanted to express themselves in favour of total prohibition. I believe that once one has passed the stage of prohibition, one should normalize the distribution in commerce as much as possible. I shall also go into that matter further at a later stage.

In the same way as an evolution occurred in our liquor legislation, I believe that we in South Africa have also experienced an evolution in liquor consumption as such over recent years. I think that our liquor consumption has become far more sophisticated over the last few decades in particular. Where sophistication sets in, I believe that abuse decreases. I think that one can really say that as a result of the refinement of our liquor consumption and the development of our liquor culture, we have relatively less liquor abuse in South Africa at present than we would have had if the old drinking pattern of the post-war phase in South Africa had continued.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Pinelands is not present in this House. I wanted to ask him very specifically what he was really trying to advocate today. He was in fact trying to make political capital and nothing else out of this legislation, because he did not adopt a definite standpoint on this legislation. He spoke of poor people and the underprivileged who have a very ugly drinking pattern, particularly in the Cape Province, etc. However, he did not say whether he advocates controlled liquor distribution, total prohibition or something else. He did not say whether there are perhaps specific colour groups whose liquor consumption should be controlled to a greater extent than that of other groups. He adopted no standpoint on that whatsoever; all he did was simply to fire a salvo of wild shots and then walk out. If he wanted to be honest, he should have said that he advocated total prohibition. I want to tell him that unless one puts a complete stop to and prohibits grape production or the production of any fruit from which alcohol may be derived by means of fermentation, people who want to obtain liquor, will always obtain it, however unobtainable one tries to make it. This has been true from the time of Noah already and the hon. member for Stilfontein will agree with me in this regard. The more difficult one makes it for the consumer to obtain that liquor, the more one exposes him to exploitation by the supplier.

We must be very honest on this matter. I have great understanding for people who have conscientious objections to it. There was a Chinese emperor who at one stage had all of China’s vineyards chopped down. In their place he caused poppies, the plant which produces opium, to be planted. We know what opium did to China at the beginning of this century.

The other day I had the opportunity of talking to a Coloured man and he told me stories about days when they could not yet obtain liquor freely. [Interjections.] He is a Transvaal Coloured man. Today he laughs about it and I joined in his laughter. Volumes can be written on the plans those people had to devise in order to obtain liquor and the ingenuity which they displayed in the process. That is where the fast consumption of liquor originated among Coloured people particularly in the Transvaal. If he obtained a drink in some way in a shebeen or wherever, he had to knock it back as quickly as possible since he did not know when the policeman would come around the corner and take it away from him.

He also told me another story and I think that I can ask for time to tell it. At that stage he was the owner of a considerable number of taxis. He said that he had a Coloured with a very light skin who was a driver. He said that this Coloured daily paid in more than any other driver. He could not understand this, until he asked him straight out about it one day. There is a special name for it; unfortunately I have now forgotten what it is. It appeared that all that that driver was doing, was to drive daily from Pretoria to Rustenburg, Brits, Krugersdorp and elsewhere. Everywhere he went he had a whole number of clients for whom he bought liquor at liquor stores. They paid him his taxi fare, and his taxi drove all over the place when he was driving. That is the ingenuity that that man displayed.

I understand there was also a system in terms of which someone could obtain a permit per month. When someone obtained such a permit, he simply ensured that he was on friendly terms with the owner of a liquor store. Let us say his quota for the month was, say, 12 bottles of beer, a bottle of brandy, a bottle of whisky, etc. We let him relate the story himself—

In this way, he said, they ensured that they got what they wanted throughout the month. What it amounts to, therefore, is that we have to admit that someone who wants liquor, will obtain it, and whenever he wants it, too. We also know that we cannot fall back on prohibition, or even on the semi-prohibition which we had earlier in South Africa. We should remember that there have already been riots in South Africa, and that a part of the cause of those riots was indeed the prohibition on the supply of liquor to particular population groups.

I think that the hon. the Minister of Justice, who has to control liquor legislation, must have the wisdom of a Solomon, the patience of a Job, and in any case know what he is about. The hon. member for Durban Point alleged that the legislation under discussion will break the hotels. According to him it will break many of the hotels who applied for classification and were subsequently graded. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is unsympathetic towards hotel owners. I am aware that from time to time he holds talks with them, as with the other interest groups. I want to put it to the hon. member for Durban Point that I do not believe that the proposed increase in outlets will have the negative effect of breaking hotels. The sale of wine as such at hotel off-sales does not comprise such an important part of the total liquor sales of hotels, and the profit on it is also not so great that an hotel can in fact be broken by it. Therefore, I do not agree with the hon. member. I also think that his argument amounts to a complete exaggeration of the consequences or possible consequences that this amendment could imply for the hotel industry.

With regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to point out that, as I know the hon. the Minister, he would examine the matter again if this fear were realized. The issuing of grocers’ wine licences will be controlled in any case. These licences will not be freely available and the test will still rest on the question of whether a need exists for a specific new outlet Only when the hon. the Minister has taken those factors into consideration will it be decided whether such licences will be granted or not. As I know this hon. the Minister, and with the extensive say that the various interest groups have, I do not think that he will simply ignore this type of danger. As I have said, he must really have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. The reason for this is the variety of interest groups which are represented in the liquor industry as such. There are the primary producers, who have a case. Then there is the wholesaler, who also has a case. There is also the retailer, the hotelier with his off-sales facilities and the restaurant owner with his particular interests. Inevitably there are conflicts among these interest groups from time to time, but I think they would agree with me when I express my appreciation for the attitude of the hon. the Minister when they go to him with their problems. I should like this placed on record today. It is an almost impossible task to satisfy everyone, but I think the hon. the Minister has, in so far as it is possible for him, accommodated the various interest groups very well.

Finally, I just want to say that the use of liquor, in contrast to liquor abuse, is a question of education. This is not something which one can regulate with legislation because, as I have said, the person who wants drink, will obtain it This is a question of education which I think should begin in the home, should be continued in education, should be supported by the church and should ultimately be examined by the whole community. I believe that if we educate our young people correctly from an early age, and point out the difference between the refined use of liquor on the one hand and the dangerous abuse of liquor on the other, we can eventually bring about a balanced and sound drinking pattern for South Africa under the umbrella of this legislation and the amendments which will become part of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Waterkloof made out a very good case in his speech for the total abolition of the Liquor Act In a lengthy speech he said, inter alia, that anyone who wants to get hold of liquor, will succeed in doing so, regardless of the controls which might exist. [Interjections.] That is very clearly an argument in favour of the abolition of the Liquor Act, even in its present form. [Interjections.] Another strange thing in the arguments of hon. members on the other side is the fact that they are maintaining, by implication and sometimes explicitly, that the greater availability of liquor will not lead to increased liquor consumption, and it is immaterial whether we called it consumption or abuse. Why, then, is this amendment Bill before the House in the first place? This legislation is obviously being introduced because the previous amendment in terms of which liquor could be made available in grocers’ stores, did not work effectively and the number of liquor outlets did not, in the opinion of the liquor producers of our country, increase adequately. I think hon. members will concede that it will now be considerably easier to create more outlets for liquor and that it can be expected that much more use will be made of the amendment Bill before us now than was made of the existing one as regards the supply of liquor by grocers.

I am not necessarily implying that it will result in liquor purchases soaring out of all proportion, but it would be unwise to deny the fact that the potential is at least there for liquor purchases to be increased by this amendment. It is true if one bears in mind the availability of liquor and realizes that the selling hours are being extended and the variety of outlets increased. We must also bear in mind, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made so clear to us, that the amendment of the Act will result in certain groups of people who did not have access to liquor outlets before, now being able to obtain liquor.

If one reflects on the possible effect of the amendment on our society, particularly in the light of certain substances which are to some extent comparable with liquor—this is something which the hon. member for Berea referred to—one cannot help becoming aware of the double standards and hypocrisy of which we as a society are guilty in dealing with this matter. I am saying this with all due respect, because I believe this is criticism which could be levelled at the whole of society. It remains inexplicable that South Africa which adopts such a strong standpoint with regard to other and even relatively innocuous drugs, is particularly tolerant when it comes to the availability and consumption of liquor. There is no doubt that the criterion of social acceptability is responsible for that Social acceptability makes all the difference when it comes to considering why liquor is so readily available whereas any other drug is, quite rightly, dealt with so strictly.

Persuasive arguments have been advanced as to why we should support this Bill. Some of those arguments—I must say this, with all due respect—border on hypocrisy. The little gem which we were presented with in this debate came from the hon. member for Worcester who told us that the members of the board of directors of the KWV are good churchmen and that some of them are even members of church councils. The fact that one is actually prepared to advance such an argument is an indication to us of the dangerous territory we are venturing into and the thin ice we are skating on when we discuss these matters. It is always disillusioning to realize how easily vested interests can ride roughshod over moral standards or bend them to such an extent that they can hardly be recognized as standards.

If the late Simon van der Stel—perhaps it was Jan van Riebeeck—had planted dagga on Signal Hill instead of wine-grapes in Constantia in the mid-17th century, I should have liked to have seen what our legislation would have looked like today. [Interjections.] Perhaps we in this House would now have had to consider amendments to legislation dealing with the dagga trade and the hon. member for Worcester would have told us what good churchmen and what good Christians the directors of the Co-operative Dagga Growers’ Association of South Africa were.

In a more serious vein I want to turn my attention for a moment to the possible effect this legislation could have on my constituency and the surrounding areas. For many years drunkenness, and more particularly so in the case of vagrants, has been a major problem in Green Point, Sea Point, Tamboerskloof, the city centre and further to the south as well. I have always been careful not simply to blame this on the particular situation of liquor outlets instead of on the availability of liquor in itself.

Are you talking about your voters now?

No, the hon. member would do well to listen further.

There are and remains too many other factors which could also play a role in this problem. However, local bodies such as the taxpayers’ association in the said areas have, inter alia, often opposed the establishment of additional liquor stores and the issuing of further liquor licences in the area. On occasion I have given them my support because it cannot be denied that an increase in the number of liquor stores could result in an increase, however small, in liquor consumption. Local bodies, particularly in Cape Town and the surrounding areas have in fact gone further and requested a decrease in the number of liquor stores, more particularly with non-Whites in mind. The hon. the Minister of Community Development even appointed a committee of inquiry which specifically recommended that liquor stores for non-Whites in this area should be closed.

Earlier this session there was a debate on the unhealthy social conditions in Green Point, Sea Point and surrounding areas and four hon. members on the other side of the House took part in that debate, viz. the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens, Maitland and Durbanville and the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I informed them that I was going to refer to this matter again and I requested them if possible, to be present. On that occasion they indicated that what was wrong in those areas, could possibly be blamed on the public representatives concerned. They adopted a standpoint on the problem of the liquor stores there and came forward with proposals for rectifying the matter. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens spelled it out very clearly and I should like to quote him.

Where is he?

I am very sorry that he is not here, because he knew that I was going to refer to his speech. He stated clearly that there were too many liquor outlets in the particular area and that that was the cause of the problem. I quote him (Hansard, 23 February 1979, col. 1193)—

So it is quite clear what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens’s standpoint is in this regard. I should like to know—and I hope some of his colleagues will put the question to him—whether he is going to oppose this legislation, whether he is going to keep his word and give effect to his own particular identification of a social problem. It was not I or any other Opposition member who said that liquor outlets were the cause. It was he who identified it as such. Now I should like to know whether he would have the courage of his convictions to oppose this legislation.

The hon. member for Durbanville in turn said the following (Hansard, 23 February 1979, col. 1221)—

Once again he identifies the problem himself. He alleges quite clearly that liquor is the cause of the problem in that area.

But he is dealing with a completely different problem.

No, it is not a different problem. They are talking about outlets for non-Whites. Let me help the hon. the Minister to draw that fine distinction. He was arguing against outlets for non-Whites. If one makes liquor counters available in supermarkets, what will happen to the apartheid measures which are prescribed in the Liquor Act? I should like to know. Surely this means that there will be no apartheid measures applicable in supermarkets. What is happening to the so-called apartheid measures now?

The hon. member for Durbanville continued and referred disparagingly to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He said (Hansard, 1979, col. 1222)—

Now I should like to know who is bearing the standard of the liquor producers. Who is bearing the standard for the liquor interests of Sea Point or Green Point or any other part of the country?

What was the main theme of that debate? Did it not deal with persons of colour in that area?

No. But I am very glad the hon. member for False Bay raised the question of race. He is now bringing the matter closer to its naked reality. At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens tried very hard to prove that it was not a matter of race, but of social problems. For that reason they identified—most probably quite correctly—liquor abuse as one of the problems. But where is their sincerity now that they have identified the problem? Is the hon. member going to keep his word by opposing this legislation and by preventing more liquor outlets to be established in those areas? Is he going to vote with us against this legislation? If the hon. member for Durbanville votes in favour of this legislation, then he knows just as well as I do that there will be more liquor outlets in that area as well as in his own constituency.

Who said that?

There is no doubt about it. What is the hon. member implying by that? It is very strange that hon. members support legislation but then expect the Liquor Licensing Board to reduce the number of liquor outlets, contrary to the spirit of the legislation. That is what it amounts to. The hon. member wants the Liquor Licensing Board to prevent the increase in the number of outlets or perhaps even to limit them while he himself in this House supports the increase in the number of outlets. The hon. member for Maitland was a little more careful in the standpoint he adopted on this matter. He was a little more careful in dealing with the liquor question because he probably remembered that he had even gone so far as to call for the establishment of a wine museum before he took part in the discussion. That is the extent of his veneration for the noble beverage.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development also mentioned that very clearly as a reason. During that debate he quoted statistics which demonstrated that non-Whites were per capita buying far more liquor in Sea Point than Whites. He gave the statistics of the amounts of liquor bought by Whites and non-Whites, as well as the population figures for the respective areas. An interesting aspect of these statistics is that while non-Whites are buying less than one-third by volume of spirits that Whites in that area buy, they are buying three-quarters and two-thirds by volume of the sweet wine and light wine respectively which Whites in that area buy. As far as the problems of drunkenness and liquor abuse in that area are concerned, the problem very clearly lies with wine and not with spirits. The figures prove that. If hon. members on the other side of the House ask for figures, they are here. They gave them to us themselves. I hope they will find the time to look at them once again. Is the hon. the Minister of Community Development now going to vote in favour of this legislation?

He voted against grocers’ wine licences in 1963.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Umbilo has told me that the hon. the Minister of Community Development voted against it when there was a concession in terms of this legislation on a previous occasion. I should like to know whether he is now going to do so again. Is he going to support this Bill which is going to lead to increased liquor sides or is he going to keep his word and oppose the Bill? The hon. the Minister of Community Development appointed a committee to investigate the iniquitous social conditions in Sea Point and Green Point. He was very taken up with the report of this committee. I should like to ask hon. members now to listen for a moment to a recommendation of this committee, a recommendation which appears on page 12 of its report. It reads—

That is the matter of liquor outlets—

If any malpractices exist, one has to take action against them. Surely that is clear.

I understand, but how does the hon. the Minister want to combat the malpractices? The recommendation continues—

Surely the hon. the Minister knows that such a measure would be worthless if this Bill is passed. I am asking now: Is he going to stand by the standpoint which he adopted and is he going to oppose this Bill? The hon. the Minister made it very clear that he accepted these recommendations and that he was very satisfied with them. I should like to know now whether he is going to keep his word, or does he expect the Liquor Licensing Board to bear the standard and rectify the mistakes made in this House when legislation is passed here which does not promote healthy social conditions and law and order?

Are you referring to me now?

No, I put the question to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. How does the hon. the Minister of Community Development reconcile his standpoint in respect of the committee’s report with his support for this Bill? [Interjections.] It is now apparent that he is going to vote for this Bill because an hon. member made it clear that as far as the NP is concerned, there will not be a free vote.

The Minister said there was a free vote. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Minister of Justice will tell us there is going to be a free vote we shall be very satisfied.

You should attend the debates and listen.

I did.

Then you did not understand them.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus told us that it was not necessary for the NP to allow a free vote on this issue, because when they had a group discussion on it, there was not a single hon. member who had any doubts about this Bill. [Interjections.] Those are the words which the hon. member himself used. I do not know whether he meant a discussion by the Justice group or in the caucus. He may as well tell us that. I should like the hon. member for Potgietersrus to tell us whether there was not even a muted squeak from the hon. members for Durbanville and Cape Town Gardens. Did they not say that they had adopted standpoints with regard to liquor outlets? I should like to know that, because then we shall know how sincere they are and to what extent we can take their word when they adopt such standpoints in public and try to turn them to political advantage. Then we shall know to what extent they can be trusted. My standpoint is simply that the problem of liquor abuse in South Africa, and particularly in our urban areas, is a big one. What the exact effect of the ready availability of liquor is in that regard, I cannot say with any certainty. We can however, venture a very intelligent guess, and once again I put the question: Why more outlets if the idea is not to sell more liquor? Until convincing evidence on this aspect is given and until steps are taken to strengthen our social structure to such an extent that the other causes of liquor abuse are removed, I simply cannot lend my support to this kind of legislation and must oppose it.

Finally, I should just like to raise one more aspect with the hon. the Minister of Justice. Earlier in this session he replied to a question by the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member for Sandton asked him whether he intended retaining the colour bar in liquor stores and if so, why. He replied that he still believed in separate liquor stores, with separate entrances and that there should be separation in bottle stores. The reason which he advanced for that, was that it would lead to friction if people were allowed to mix. The hon. the Minister must give us an indication of how he reconciles that standpoint of his with the standpoint that liquor will now be made available in the supermarkets, where everybody mixes freely. Or must we now accept, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s theory, that light wines do not cause any friction, but that friction becomes a problem when it comes to spirits? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am firmly convinced that if there has ever been a debate which deserves the serious attention of all of us, it is the debate taking place here at the moment. I should very much like to follow some of the speakers this afternoon, but because time is limited, I will not be able to do so. I was disappointed with what I heard from the hon. member for Green Point. I tried to establish whether he had any principle, for he was using this debate as a pretext for mentioning one matter after another in an arbitrary way. I almost wondered whether he—like the hon. member for Houghton who pleaded for the legalization of dagga about a year ago in this House—was also making such a request to the House.

To my mind there are basically three matters at issue here. In the first place we are dealing with principles and values which are upheld by people, and those principles and values are based on a particular outlook on life which every person has. That is the one side. On the other hand we are dealing with people. We are dealing here with man, the nature of his character, his type of personality and also the environment in which he moves. We cannot merely look at man’s personality without also inquiring about his background and circumstances. Then, in the third place, when we look at the legislation before us, the following aspect is evident, which I want to describe briefly as the problem of alcohol. If we take alcohol merely as an entity, we can in the first place produce it from grapes. We can also obtain alcohol by processing wheat in various ways. Sugar, etc., can also be used for this, and then there are all the deciduous fruits as well. The fact is that we are dealing here with the fruit of the vine in the sense that alcohol is seen as the product of wine grapes. As far as I am concerned, however, the question in this regard is whether we are laying down any principles or whether we are merely allowing ourselves to be carried away by this entity and are associating it with certain figures, statistics, prejudices, misconceptions and hypocritical points of view.

I think it is extremely important that all of us should at least try to be consistent this afternoon when we discuss this matter. When I say we should be consistent, I refuse to associate myself with the witticisms and frivolous remarks made by certain hon. members in the House today. In this regard I am thinking in particular of the performance of the hon. member of Pinelands, of whom I had expected much more. Much more is at stake here than mere figures with which one can play and juggle. I think that very few basic standpoints of principle have been stated with regard to this matter this afternoon, standpoints which could enable us to take a stand on principle.

I have already said that we have to be consistent in this regard, and if we wish to be consistent and to refer to the dangers of alcohol and also to the problems arising from it, such as alcoholism, and if we wish to allege that by drinking too much, one will become an alcoholic, then we shall have to make certain drastic changes across the whole wide spectrum of our culture. For instance, we cannot simply tell the wine farmers to destroy all their vineyards merely because certain people become alcoholics because they drink too much wine, but we shall also have to tell the tobacco farmers that we shall have to remove their industry by force from agriculture, because there is a possible link between the incidence of lung cancer and the use of nicotine. In this way the problem could be multiplied. One could also talk for instance, of eataholics, workaholics, smokeaholics, etc. I could go on like this, for here we are dealing with man’s abuse of certain commodities. One can eat oneself to death, drink oneself to death and work oneself to death, but I have never heard of anyone who died of idleness. I am rapidly identifying someone on that side of the House who is suffering from this disease. We must ask ourselves today whether we wish to remove alcohol, tobacco, cholesterol—and too much work from our society.

I have said that we have to be consistent in our standpoint in this regard and that we have to base it on principle, but I shall not presume to say that this is my standpoint which I am putting, as the hon. member for Green Point did a short while ago, for I am concerned here with a standpoint, a principle, which is much greater than I; one which I feel quite free to raise here this afternoon. When one considers the Biblical standpoint with regard to our social conduct as a whole, one clearly finds one criterion which we have to apply with regard to our whole existence. If I may take alcohol as an example today, I want to put it to hon. members as follows: The Scripture does not prohibit the use of alcohol and other alcoholic liquor. However, it is wrong when, for example, the drinker uses the miracle at Cana as a justification for excessive consumption of alcohol. The abuse of liquor is sinful and holds the danger of addiction. I believe that the standpoint of each person who believes in the Bible should be that the Scripture does not prohibit the use of alcoholic liquor, but condemns its abuse, just as the Scripture also condemns any other abuse.

When I page through the Scripture, it is wonderful to see that the very first miracle of which we read is the miracle at Cana where the Lord changed water into wine. However, this does not give any person the right to abuse any beverage containing alcohol, for then he sees the essence of the whole matter in a totally wrong light. The miracle at Cana concerned transformation. Where the Lord is doing something, sinners become saints and sorrow is transformed into joy. Two young people who were embarrassed were spared their embarrassment. Because of what His disciples saw there, we read that they believed in Jesus Christ. This is the crux and essence of the matter. It is a miracle of spiritual joy and gratitude. It was done within the bosom of a Christian family. Therefore, if we wish to discuss the principle of this matter, we cannot say that to drink wine is sinful per se. We can expect any person who consumes wine or alcoholic beverages always to keep the norm of moderation in mind and to set a Christian example. What is very important is that when we are dealing with these matters, there must be instruction and information must be made available in respect of our families, our children and also our attitude towards the Lord, in our public appearances as well.

I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, while I am also supporting this Bill. This concerns a matter in which the Government complied with a request made by the church in a different connection. The request was to reduce the permissible percentage of alcohol in the blood from 0,15% to 0,08% with regard to people driving under the influence of alcohol. This was done and I think that the Government deserves the greatest gratitude and appreciation for this. In conjunction with this, and particularly for the sake of the young people, we can provide that the lable on each bottle of liquor should state what the percentage of alcohol contained in that type of liquor is so that people will know and will be able to identify what they are buying. I think this is an educational process, for we are dealing here with a matter of great importance in the social structure. This is not the same as in the case of dagga, for instance, where we are dealing with a subculture and where it is consumed under abnormal circumstances. No comparison can be made. One cannot link a plea for the consumption of dagga in public to the consumption of alcohol, as the hon. member for Houghton did. This is an absolute anomaly and the two matters cannot be compared.

I wish to conclude by just mentioning the following very important aspect. When it comes to our view of this matter, so many people are hypocritical towards other people. On the basis of the principles which we uphold, I reject the idea that all alcoholics—and here I wish to plead for understanding for these people—became alcoholics because they have been more diseased than other people since childhood, because they have been more sinful than other people since childhood and became addicted for that reason. However, sin and disease are not two opposite phenomena which can be played off against one another, but only two different manifestations of the same human frailty, i.e. the bitter fruit of the fall of man. I want to place these statements on record so that when we come into contact with these weaker brothers or sisters outside, we will have greater understanding for their problems. I also wish to repudiate what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said. Today the real rehabilitation figure with regard to alcoholics is between 40% and 50%, and this is as a result of the tremendous progress which has been made in the availability of medical, psychiatric and spiritual services to these people. In this spirit, and also in the light of the fact that we have said in this House that we are dealing with principles and values, that we are dealing with people with certain weaknessess, people who are in fact broken and who are faced with tremendous problems, I wish to ask that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water, that we should not blindly brand alcohol as the prime culprit, but that we should realize that the fault lies with man himself in the first place. Therefore my request is that we should debate and take a stand on this matter in a balanced and sober manner. In fact, this is the only true principle on which we can approach this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend taking part in this debate. However, I have been goaded into doing so by the hon. member for Brits, who has, as usual of course, made one of his inaccurate statements when he alleged that I had voted in favour of the free use of dagga. That is completely untrue. [Interjections.]

Order!

In 1971, when the Drugs Abuse Bill came up for discussion here in the House, I was the only person who voted against that draconian measure. I did so for very good reasons. I did that because mandatory prison sentences were laid down for first offenders who possessed marijuana or dagga for personal use. For them a mandatory two-year sentence was laid down, while a mandatory five-year sentence was laid down for second offenders, as well as a mandatory five-year sentence for first offenders convicted on a charge of dealing in dagga or marijuana. I knew perfectly well that that would result in cluttering up our prisons with thousands upon thousands of people, of course almost all of them Blacks, people to whom the use of marijuana was simply part of their normal culture. That is exactly what happened. In one single year 13 000 Blacks were sent to gaol for private possession of small quantities of dagga. 13 000 Black people were sent to gaol in the first year after that Bill became law. The result has been that over the years South African courts, magistrates and judges have one after the other protested against this legislation. The law was changed last year, and that was the important point.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Houghton is now adopting precisely the same method… [Interjections.]

Order! What is the point of order the hon. member wishes to put? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton is talking about dagga. Therefore she is now… [Interjections.]

Order! What is the hon. member for Brits dealing with now? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton…

Order! The hon. member for Brits must please resume his seat. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be wasting more of my valuable time on the hon. member for Brits. However, at the time when that Bill was being debated here in the House, I pointed out that the real addiction in South Africa, the dangerous addiction to which everybody’s attention should be drawn was alcohol. There is no doubt… [Interjections.]… that the rate of alcohol consumption in South Africa is horrific. That is the only way I can describe it. I have said that I was not going to take part in this debate, but I might add that I am also in two minds about whether it is even worth voting on this measure because I do not think that it is going to make a great deal of difference, in the long run, to the consumption of alcohol if there is not an intensified educational programme, in South African schools, on television and elsewhere, about the real dangers of the addiction to alcohol. I do not think it is going to make an awful lot of difference at all. I am not, however, about to vote for an easier method of obtaining alcohol which, as I have said, I believe to be the greatest addiction from which South Africans suffer, and that applies to all races, I might say.

I happen to know that in hospitals in this country there are very few people who are suffering from the effects of an addiction to dagga. Indeed, in many countries of the world it is now considered a misdemeanour, and not a crime, to be in possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use. I know, however, that in the hospitals throughout South Africa there are hundreds of people who are alcoholics. I therefore do not think that at this moment in time we should be engaged in increasing the outlets for alcohol. As I have said, I do not think it is going to make a great deal of difference, except that what is passed in this House can, to a certain extent, be considered as implying condonation as far as the general public is concerned. This is supposed to be the highest forum in the land, and if we decide that it is fine to have more outlets for liquor, that is what people in South Africa will accept as having been condoned by the legislators of this country. This is a wine lobby Bill and nothing else. [Interjections.] Why should I care about increasing the profits of the wine farmers? I could not care less about that.

If the hon. the Minister wanted to do an intelligent thing, he would first of all have to consider further reviews of the marijuana legislation because large numbers of people who should not be going to gaol are still being sent to gaol. Secondly—and this is perhaps more important—he ought perhaps to consider the whole question of allowing restaurateurs easier access to wine and malt licences. To me the sensible thing would be to allow people, in a civilized way, to sit down to a meal and to have a glass of wine with that meal. That seems to me perfectly acceptable.

Why not at home?

It is a very different thing from sending a youngster round the corner to the grocery store to pick up a bottle of wine. People go out for an evening, they are ready for the occasion and they sit down, like people do in every civilized country of the world, and have a glass of wine with their meal.

Then they get behind the wheel of a car and become a danger.

Well, I am afraid they do that in any case when they take their wine with them into a restaurant and drink too much. As I have said, what we really need in South Africa is an intensified educational programme about the dangers of the excessive use of alcohol. I want to make it quite clear that I am not a teetotaller myself. I do have a drink, but I try not to drink to excess.

You are a dagga fancier.

No, I have never even tried dagga, although I must say that I would be very interested to do so in order to see what effect it has. Let me tell the hon. member why I do not try dagga. I know that if I tried dagga I would go back to smoking ordinary tobacco again. One puff and I am gone, so I am therefore not prepared to try dagga.

So you are a “smokeaholic”.

I used to be, but I have kicked the habit. So I am not about to expose myself to the dangers of tobacco again. What we really need, therefore, are programmes of education to warn people against the excessive use of alcohol and, I might say, the excessive use of tobacco as well. That would be the sensible thing to do. I am not about to vote for a wine-lobby Bill, largely because I have been goaded by the exaggerated, untrue statements of the hon. member for Brits who is probably one of the wine lobbyists. I shall certainly be voting against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton’s comments about the hon. member for Brits I find quite extraordinary because the hon. member for Houghton—and I say this with great respect—is well known to have been soft on the question of drugs when that question was at issue.

Tripe.

I am just stating it as a simple fact. I remember seeing the Hansard—and I can find it now if I am allowed a moment—where the hon. member took a view that showed that she was soft on the use of marijuana. Now the hon. member adopts a tough standpoint on the civilized use of wine.

[Inaudible.]

Having said that, let me say that I agree fully with the rest of what the hon. member said. I think that it is not a problem of distribution but a problem of the civilized use of wine which flows from a proper education and a proper background so that wine can be used in a civilized way.

I was not going to take part in this debate, but the hon. member for Green Point attacked the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens while that hon. member was not in the House. He twisted what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had said earlier this session, claiming that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens should vote against this Bill because, if he did not, it would not be consistent with the view he had adopted on that earlier occasion.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to accuse another hon. member of twisting a certain member’s statements.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it The hon. member for Green Point in fact misinterpreted what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had said. In quoting the figures he did quote he actually strengthened the argument of this side of the House, and I will quote from Hansard to substantiate that. At the time the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was speaking about prostitution, drunkenness, health hazards, venereal disease, muggings, unlawful attacks upon people and so on. It is quite true that he spoke about that, but what this Bill is about is the civilized use of wine and the figures which the hon. member for Green Point quoted in fact contradict the arguments he raised. Let us look at the figures. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had the following to say.

*I quote (Hansard, 23 February 1979, col. 1193)—

Next the hon. member came to unfortified wines. He said that only 331 litres of unfortified wine were sold to Coloureds. Therefore the consumption of unfortified wine in Sea Point amongst the Coloureds is not a problem.

That is a printer’s error. The figure should be 331 000.

Mr. Speaker, I read what is in Hansard and I do not know what the…

It is a printer’s error.

I think there is one point which should be emphasized very strongly.

†If there is a problem of alcohol abuse or wine abuse in a particular area then the advice should be not to extend the licences or, if necessary, to reduce the number of licences over a period. This Bill does not make provision for licences to be dished out willy-nilly everywhere and also in places which may or may not be unsuitable.

That would be against the spirit of the legislation.

The Bill does not state that. That is not the intention of this Bill. This Bill simply tries to go further in the normalizing of the use of wine in society. It tries to promote moderation and the attitude that wine is a normal product that need not and should not be abused and should find its place alongside toothpaste, cheese, bread and any other commodity. Similarly one should not kill oneself by the overconsumption of animal fats or meat or butter fats or whatever. These commodities can, of course, also be bought in a supermarket and one can kill oneself through obesity. Wine in supermarkets will be a normal product which should be consumed quite normally.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, if he is comparing the abuse of alcohol with the abuse of food, he can tell me how many crimes have been committed and how many road accidents have been caused lately by people who have been overeating.

It is a clever argument and certainly it is true.

One cannot compare the two as being equal.

No, but overeating is a social crime. If one looks at the number of man-hours lost and the way in which the lives of people who are in their prime are cut short as a result of over-eating and a lack of exercise, one sees that in a sense it is a crime against the State. In a sense some of our best brains are lost to the nation as a result of over-eating. A man dies of a heart-attack at the age of 40 because he has been abusing food. This year is Health Year, a year in which we want to show people that they must not abuse food and tobacco and that they must exercise. Therefore we are now considering a Bill which will further normalize the civilized and moderate use of wine. [Interjections.] Just as one will not find alcoholism in a household where there is a normal, moderate and civilized consumption of wine and where a child will get a little glass of watered-down wine at the Sunday dinner table when he is small and a little bit more when he is bigger, so one will find less abuse taking place when there is a moderate and civilized distribution of the same product. It will then not be fun any more to go to a back-street bottle store to buy liquor. People will grow up with it as a normal commodity. [Interjections.] I want to remind hon. members of the role this industry has played in the culture and the economy of the Cape. It is all very well writing off and attacking an industry and making the kind of damaging remarks hon. members have made about this industry. The short-term effect of this will be that the farmers of Montagu and Bonnievale will reject the Opposition candidate in Swellendam, but the long-term effect of it will be worse, because hon. members on that side of the House are painting farmers as a lot of drug traffickers, people who are producing an unholy product.

Who said that?

That is the inference that can be drawn from their remarks. The farmers are, as has been graphically shown by hon. members on this side of the House, taking a strong stand against the abuse of the product they produce and love. It is a fact that hundreds of thousands of people of Colour earn their living working in and benefiting from this industry. This industry was the platform, the springboard from which civilization in South Africa grew. It was a great stabilizing force in the previous centuries. Now we see a natural evolution taking place to normalize the product in society. However, what do we hear from hon. members on that side of the House? They are not being consequential. Usually they are in favour of a measure of this kind. With regard to censorship they say that people must choose for themselves and that one must not ban things. They say that people must be allowed to read any publication they like and that it must be left to them to decide for themselves what they want to read and see, but now that wine will be sold in the supermarkets, they suddenly no longer trust society to decide whether they want to buy wine or not. They are completely inconsistent. They will allow a man in a bookstore to succumb to pornography which will twist his mind and soul, but wine is suddenly something different to them. Is it perhaps already a backlash from what hon. members are experiencing in Swellendam? Is their attitude perhaps due to the fact that they do not represent wine-producing constituencies? The hon. member for Houghton said: “I could not care less about the wine farmers,” but we do care about the wine farmers, because in caring about the wine farmers, we also care about the hundreds of thousands of people of colour who work in that industry. Hon. members on that side of the House make themselves guilty of being fuzzy on this issue. I recall a quotation that Morris Udall mentioned in respect of President Carter during the run-up to the last presidential campaign in America In talking about Carter, he said—

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief remark about the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, viz. that if one wants to argue a case one can, of course, rationalize almost anything. The worst arguments I have ever heard is the argument comparing the consumption of alcohol with the eating of food. That is really verging on the ridiculous because it is quite clear that one actually has to consume food to live. One cannot avoid consuming food, but it is not essential to life to consume alcohol. There is no such thing.

I want to state my position on this issue very clearly. I believe that South Africa has a drug abuse problem and an alcohol abuse problem. I want to make it very clear that I am hard on all habit-forming substances, whatever they may be. I do not support the concept; I am against it. I speak here personally, as this is not a matter on which there is a party view. I am hard on all habit-forming substances. I want to make that quite clear. I shall vote for no measure which encourages the consumption of habit-forming substances, and this specifically includes alcohol. I shall not vote for anything which encourages a greater consumption of alcohol.

What about dagga?

Yes, I shall vote against dagga. I am against dagga. I do not support dagga I am opposed to dagga and I make no secret of it. I have never said anything to the contrary. I want to make it quite clear that I shall vote for no measure which increases the number of outlets in which habit-forming substances can be sold. So I shall vote for no measure which will increase the number of outlets in terms of which alcohol is sold. I am also—and I want the hon. the Minister to know it—opposed to the existence of any liquor outlets in residential areas. Let me make that quite clear. I certainly do not want any liquor outlets in my constituency. It is a residential area.

You are a dictator Harry.

No, it is what my people want. My voters regard the existing liquor outlets in Yeoville as a cause of trouble, a social problem and as a cause of difficulties. I believe that if one wants outlets for liquor they should be put in business areas and not in residential areas. Problems must not be created where they are quite unnecessary. As far as I am concerned the liquor outlets which exist in my constituency at the moment are already a social problem. They already create problems. I do not want further outlets for liquor anywhere and I certainly do not want further outlets for liquor in my constituency because the voters who have elected me to this House do not want any. That is why I shall vote against this Bill.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in considering legislation such as this we are, in my opinion, all seeking a moral justification for our standpoint. One’s standpoint is most certainly influenced by the fact that the wine industry also has a dark side, viz. liquor abuse. Unfortunately I am unable to agree with hon. members on that side of the House when they summarily equate the abuse of alcohol and alcoholism with wine and wine consumption. We on this side of the House recognize the fact that we are dealing with a problem of liquor abuse and we recognize that wine abuse falls under this heading.

However, when we seek to justify or motivate our standpoint in this connection many other considerations apply. In the first place, the old moral and ethical principle that the abuse of a thing does not justify prohibition of its use, applies. Hon. members on that side of the House advanced several interesting arguments this afternoon, such as the loss South Africa suffers in manhours, calculated in financial terms, as a result of alcoholism. However, I could advance a similar argument by saying that due to the many motor vehicles on South African roads, thousands of people die every year and our country suffers tremendous harm as a result. Hon. members will surely concede this and they would surely agree that we should not take motor vehicles off the road for that reason.

While we are taking a closer look at the wine industry and considering increasing and extending outlets for natural wines, I should very much like us at least to distinguish wine—I do not say separate, because that is difficult—from other forms of spirituous liquor. I find it very interesting that when reading the Bible, as many of us do, a distinction is consistently drawn between wine and spirits. These two drinks are never equated, and a distinction is drawn throughout.

I wish to remind the House this evening of what a very respected member of this House who is no longer with us said on one occasion when he made two very interesting statements in this connection. I regarded him as an authority on wine and the wine industry. He said, inter alia, that over the years, civilization had followed in the footsteps of the wine industry. I do not want to say that this is true in all respects, but in my opinion it is interesting that over the centuries, civilization has developed very well in those countries where the wine industry has also developed. The other very interesting statement he made was that the church kept the wine industry going for centuries. There were times when this industry too, had its low water marks. At the time the Roman Catholic church planted vineyards at all the monasteries where it was possible to do so and the monks made their own wine. This again was linked to celebration of the Holy Communion. While I say this it is interesting to note—we cannot get away from it—that there are several statements concerning the biblical meaning of wine. The fact is that in the Scriptures, wine is linked to one of the most important and fundamental sacraments of the Christian church. The hon. member for Pinelands will agree with me. I am convinced that the majority of scripturalists would also agree with me that it was not grape juice, but wine.

Constantia cabernet!

I cannot endorse the interpretation by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in this regard because I am not sure of that.

As far as our own country is concerned it is also interesting that the people of that part of the country where the wine industry had its origin, the Western Cape, have also been the bearers of our civilization. I will not say that they have been the only bearers. In any event, the wine industry which they have been engaged in has not caused their downfall. On the contrary. By their labours they have given South Africa the most beautiful cultural riches. Today people from the interior come to view the old wine farms of the Boland, whether Laborie or Boschendal. We all recognize that they are beautiful. Those people all had a specific outlook on life and standards. Apart from the exceptions to be found throughout the world, they did not abuse the product that they made. That is something we can bear in mind. That is why I should like this House to take account of the fact that wine and the wine industry as such cannot be held responsible for the abuse that occurs.

I must also refer this evening to the report of the then Malan Commission in the period around 1962. One of the most important recommendations of that commission, which carried out an in-depth investigation, was that natural wine should be made more freely available in South Africa. The reason why this was not done was not that this House was not in favour of it but because there were other considerations. For example, the existing liquor trade saw in it a threat to their own position and enterprise and advanced serious objections on the basis that at that stage it would mean their downfall. However, the report of the commission stressed the important point that natural wines should be made more freely available.

It is for that reason that I ask that we distinguish wine from whisky, cane spirits, etc. [Interjections.] We are dealing here with an industry which occupies a special place in our own country and in the history of the civilized world and which deserves special recognition from us. I therefore support this legislation wholeheartedly. In doing so, I am aware of the painful fact that there are many people who abuse spirits and wine as well and I am really sorry that this is so. However, I stand by the point of view that this does not justify us calling such an industry into question, because there are so many other things which would be placed at issue by the same consideration. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made it very clear to us that there is a difference between wine and alcohol, as well as between wine and “Bols”. The hon. member also told us, amongst other things, that the wine industry and wine as such could not be held responsible for the abuse of wine. I should like to tell the hon. member that I agree with that. However, he should for a moment also consider the fact that the legislators of a country can be held responsible for the abuse of wine. [Interjections.] That is what this legislation is all about. Persons who are opposed to this legislation, have nothing against wine and it does not mean that they are unable to enjoy wine and are unable to realize that it is a part of civilization, as the hon. member said.

At first, I did not have the intention to participate in this debate. In the second place, I should like to make it very clear that I also thought at first that one could possibly vote for the legislation. When one thinks about the availability of alcohol or wine as such, one sees in one’s mind’s eye cases of people who are unable to obtain it and then consume methylated spirits, etc. One also thinks of the social evils which arise from it. I realized, however, that the point at issue here, was not the non-availability of wine, because wine is at present freely available throughout South Africa in every city and town. It is not a question of…

It is the Railways which profits by the sales of wine.

Well, there we have a different story again. [Interjections.] If the Railways profits from it, we shall really have to do something about the matter. [Interjections.] One of the most important reasons for my entering into the debate, is that hon. members who support the legislation, raised arguments which gradually convinced me that this was legislation which in fact was not deserving of support. It is very clear that the point at issue here is not the more civilized use of wine as such. I think the hon. member for Durban Point made that very clear.

The provisions of this legislation is the result of intensive and successful lobbying. [Interjections.] Hon. members who said that they were in favour of the proposed legislation, know that their concern is not really an educational task. Their real concern, from which the eventual success of this will become evident, is the extent to which the legislation under discussion is going to result in the consumption of wine on a larger scale. [Interjections.] That, in reality, is the point at issue. The point at issue is not the piece of fish which is enjoyed with a glass of wine. Neither is it the beautiful music and romantic atmosphere which accompany the enjoyment of wine. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the stubbornness of some hon. members also amazed me. One would be inclined to say that they are not aware of what is really happening in life today, that they have never heard of temptations.

Good heavens! [Interjections.]

Yes, we know that the hon. member for Standerton allows himself to be tempted very easily.

†There is, of course, something else of which hon. members seem to be quite unaware. They appear to create the impression that they are completely unaware of the highly successful methods of pressurized advertising one finds in the retail trade today, that they are totally unaware of the methods employed by large supermarkets and chain stores. We all know that these institutions devise all sorts of ways and means by which they virtually force people to buy things which they do not really want to buy. I do not want to mention any supermarket in particular. However, we all know how they go about selling their merchandise. One of their favourite tricks is to announce that for, say, the next 30 seconds until the bell goes, a certain product, for example chocolates, will be sold at a reduced price. Immediately everybody runs to join the queue for that particular product. This is how it is done and how people are forced to buy things they do not really need.

Another important aspect, one that has also been referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point, is the breach of faith committed by the Government towards the hotel industry. That too should be a matter for serious consideration and should convince hon. members not to vote in favour of this particular legislation.

*The point at issue in this instance does not concern the question of morality at all. We must accept that wine and other alcoholic beverages will be abused always and everywhere. What is more important, however, is that we as legislators should not knowingly take steps which will create additional temptations for people. We should have regard to the fact that we are dealing with people of all age groups and people who come from a large variety of cultural backgrounds. For that reason I believe I should be failing in my duty if I were to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have now, we may say, debated this matter for several days. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of this House most sincerely for the contributions they have made. Very little was said here on which we really differ from one another. On this side of the House there is no one who wants liquor to be abused in any way. That was really the gist of the arguments of those who indicated that they were going to vote against this legislation. I want to state very clearly that as far as my department and I are concerned, we are totally opposed to the abuse of liquor in South Africa. We are doing our utmost to ensure that people drink in moderation. In fact, the whole purpose of the Act is to control liquor consumption. Without it there would be no control. If we had been in favour of people being allowed to abuse liquor, surely there would have been no sense in controlling liquor. However, the legislation as a whole is aimed at meeting the reasonable requirements of people, and it is in this sense that this legislation is before this House.

How does one control by extension?

Is 70% not a reasonable requirement?

My department and I, in fact the whole Government, have great respect for and much sympathy with, the views expressed by those who are opposed to the excessive consumption of liquor. We can understand and appreciate the fact that they have certain fears and reservations whenever there is the possibility that circumstances may give rise to the greater consumption of alcohol. We are strongly opposed to the abuse of liquor, a fact that has often been stated in public and in this House by members from these benches. I have also, on several occasions, expressed the view that in my opinion the liquor industry, from the primary producer through to the retailer, has a duty to play a leading role in investigating the problem of abuse and in taking the initiative in a programme designed to educate the general public in the temporate and civilized use of alcoholic beverages. This is still my considered opinion. I want to give opponents of this measure the assurance that, as in the past, all applications for liquor licences will be considered meticulously, with due regard to the public interest and to views that have been expressed by hon. members on the other side.

*However, there is something which I think hon. members have lost sight of. They have debated the matter in general, and I am pleased about that. I think it is very important that the voice of all moderate people should be read by the public, the voice of people who say that liquor must be consumed in moderation and even the voice of those who say that we should not consume liquor at all. In such a debate a general discussion is important. However, hon. members have forgotten one thing, and that is that grocer’s liquor licences do in fact exist. Therefore, nothing new is being added here, absolutely nothing. There are already grocer’s liquor licences in South Africa.

Not in the Western Cape.

What does the hon. member mean by saying “not in the Western Cape”? Of course there are grocer’s liquor licences in the Western Cape too. The only reason why the provision of 30% was introduced was that one could expect that the liquor industry in the wine areas would be able to meet the requirements. For that reason, grocer’s liquor licences were not necessary. That is why 30% was decided on in a completely arbitrary way. There was no reason why the provision should be 30%. There was no statistical evidence which led us to decide on 30%. However, 30% was decided on as a curb on grocer’s liquor licences, simply because the usual liquor store licence in the Cape was adequate to meet that need and because it was also their principal source of business.

What has changed?

Then the curb was lifted. The curb was originally introduced with a view to finding out what would happen in the rest of the country with grocer’s liquor licences. The object was to see whether abuses would arise out of the provision of these licences. The matter was tested over a period of approximately 10 years, and we found that the grocer’s shop licences did not lead to any increase in the consumption of wine.

So I am right.

Surely I said so. I said we had found that there was no increase in the consumption of wine in those areas. For that reason it was no longer necessary to apply the 30% curb in respect of grocer’s licences.

Now another problem has presented itself. We did not want to introduce additional licences on a large scale, for a very simple reason. If we examine the liquor trade—and I make bold to say that since I have been in this Ministry I have made a study of the liquor trade pattern as it is being established in free enterprise—we see that there is an unhealthy trend in the liquor trade pattern. The hon. member for Durban Point identified this trend. The trend is that the wholesale producer is dominating the retailer. The wholesale producer is creating so many retail outlets for himself that an imbalance is being caused in the liquor trade, and a cut-throat competition could arise which could result in a monopoly. To counter that monopoly, we want to try to give the independent liquor store licensee—so the situation is completely different from what the hon. member for Durban Point accused us of—an opportunity to provide a larger and better area distribution—I am not saying there will be more—for people’s requirements. However, we want to concentrate this in the hands of the liquor store licensee who is totally independent so that they cannot be taken over at a later stage by the wholesale producers. We are trying to counteract the monopoly, and therefore provision has been made in the Bill for the 30% to disappear, because it has been found to be unnecessary. It was arbitrary in any case.

A great number of farmers, the KWV and many people in the Cape said that the curb was unnecessary and felt that it was an impediment to sales. I cannot say whether it was an impediment or not. We do not know exactly what the drinking pattern will be when liquor becomes available in grocer’s shops in the Western Cape. I want to state very clearly that I am completely independent. We are now being accused of being a “wine lobby”. However, I want to say to hon. members that my department is not associated in any way with the KWV, the wine farmers themselves, wholesale producers, retailers, Fedhasa, off-sales or any other type of licences that may exist. We have only one interest at heart and that is …

The sale of wine.

No, Sir, that is not true, and the hon. member knows that is not true. We want a reasonable distribution of liquor in accordance with the reasonable requirements of our people. That is what we are interested in, and we should also like to oppose monopolies. We should like people not to ruin one another financially by means of price wars, take-overs, etc. We should like to have a normal distribution trade. I know what I am talking about, because I have already spoken with all the interested parties in the liquor industry and they all agree with me that there is, in fact, an unhealthy trend in the liquor trade. The wholesale producer, the wine licensee, the farmer, the KWV and hotels—everyone—will tell you that a movement back and forth among the various branches of the distribution trade is an unhealthy trend. This is what we are trying to counteract. It is not our policy to grant grocer’s wine licences to all. Grocer’s wine licences will be obtainable, but applications will be dealt with by the Liquor Board purely on merit. Preference will be given to the independent liquor store licensee who can obtain a wine counter in a grocer’s shop.

Nobody is fighting against that.

I shall now come to the arguments raised by the hon. member.

Nobody is fighting against that.

In that case the hon. member should vote for this measure. The Liquor Board also has the right to examine the contract when such an agreement has been negotiated between independent liquor store licensees and the owners of grocer’s shops. In this regard, too, we shall not allow a monopoly to arise or the small liquor store licensees to be taken over. The contract will have to provide that it is a lease. In order to stimulate the shop-owner’s sales to some extent, so that he will also have an interest in it, we shall allow him to keep a percentage of the returns on sales. In other words, the rental will consist of a net rental which the Liquor Board regards as reasonable plus a small percentage of the profits from sales so that he does not have to say to clients that they should not buy wine at the wine counter because that wine does not belong to him. Now he will have a personal interest in it, but he will not have a predominant interest in it so that he eventually takes over the small shop licensee. That is the idea. After all, I have enough knowledge of liquor to know that I cannot lay down the law of the Medes and Persians in this regard. Liquor is a strange thing. The liquor trade has its own currents which could give rise to situations which are completely different from what we planned or conceived of. However, this Bill is an honest effort to bring about a better balance in the liquor trade and to ensure a wider distribution of wine, something which is necessary. In a little while I shall say why it is necessary.

It has been alleged here that we are a country with a tremendously high consumption of wine. I requested the department to look into the statistics. Perhaps hon. members will be interested in these. I want to furnish figures for the per capita consumption of liquor in the Republic from 1963 to 1977, firstly the per capita consumption of spirits in 1963. This figure is expressed as an absolute alcohol figure, or an AA figure. This means that the amount of pure alcohol consumed by every person is calculated. As far as spirits are concerned, the figure in 1963 was 2,06 litres of pure alcohol. By 1977 it had dropped to 1,12 litres of pure alcohol. The consumption figure with regard to unfortified wines is not expressed in terms of pure alcohol, but in terms of volume. The per capita consumption of unfortified wines was 4,74 litres in 1963 and 6,43 litres in 1977. In other words, there was a rise in the consumption of these wines. I am pointing this out because I refer to another trend presently. The per capita consumption of fortified wines was 2,84 litres in 1963 and 2,47 litres in 1977. In other words, there was a drop in the consumption of this wine. The per capita consumption of beer was 6,18 litres in 1963 and 19,18 litres in 1977. An hon. member asked me why we did not allow beer to be sold in grocer’s shop as well. The reason for this is that there is a tremendous distribution of beer at present in spite of the fact that it is expensive. For that reason it does not require any further distribution.

The figures therefore show a reduction in per capita consumption in the case of spirits and fortified wines, whereas they indicate an increase in the consumption of the lighter types of liquor, table wines and beer. South Africa occupies the 22nd position on the world list of wine consumption per capita. Wine-producing countries—and we are a wine-producing country—such as Italy, France, Portugal and Spain occupy the first five places, with Italy as the largest consumer, viz. 107,5 litres per capita. As far as the world consumption of spirits is concerned, South Africa occupies the 32nd position, with countries such as Poland, Luxembourg, Hungary and East Germany at the very top of the list. As far as beer consumption is concerned, South Africa occupies the 35th position with its 19,18 litres per capita, as opposed to West Germany, which is at the top of the list with a consumption of 151 litres per capita. When all types of alcoholic beverages consumed in the world are converted into litres of pure alcohol, it appears that South Africa occupies the 37th position on the world list with a per capita consumption of 3,3 litres. France is at the top of the list with 16,5 litres. Then Portugal follows with 14,1 litres; Spain with 14,0 litres; West Germany with 12,5 litres; England with 8,4 litres, and the USA with 8,1 litres. Therefore, the allegation that South Africa is one of the greatest consumers of alcohol in the world is based on completely incorrect facts.

These figures are interesting. Table wine consumption stood at 803 406 hectolitres in 1963. Owing to an intensive advertising campaign which was launched after that, this increased to almost 2 million hectolitres. That was the figure for 1973. In other words, from 1963 to 1973 there was an increase of 144%.

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

Let me just finish first. I shall give the hon. member a chance in a moment. Since 1973, however, the consumption has dropped. The figure for 1978 is 1 732 763 hectolitres. In other words, consumption has actually declined. This decline in table wine consumption has also manifested itself in the consumption of other types of liquor, notwithstanding an annual increase in the number of outlets. For that reason I say it is incorrect to say, not only that South Africa is a great wine-drinking country, but also that our consumption has risen. It has dropped.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the rise in wine consumption was not associated with the fact that liquor was made available to other race groups, to Blacks in particular, and the economic quandary in which South Africa found itself?

That cannot be disputed. The hon. member puts it as a possibility. It is possible.

With regard to hotels the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned the fact that this legislation could have a detrimental effect on hotels. This is not true of course. In point of fact, this legislation was introduced specifically to assist the hotels. Previously the off-sales section of hotels, particularly in the Cape, could never obtain a wine counter in a grocer’s shop. Now they are being granted that right. If they can negotiate such a wine counter, they then have an additional outlet with which to support their hotel industry. Why, therefore, these people become so panic-stricken when the Government is assisting them and is prepared to do so, I do not understand.

I want to state as policy that it is envisaged that grocer’s wine licences—initially, in any case—will only be granted to those liquor stores and hoteliers who have no links whatsoever with the wholesale producers. In other words, we want to stimulate these people so that they are not taken over by the wholesalers.

Incidentally, I may just say that in terms of section 32, wholesale producers may not in any event obtain such a licence or acquire a financial interest in it. It is also provisionally envisaged—and I want to state this, too, as policy—not to let a grocer’s wine licence be established in a grocery attached to a wholesale producer or a beer brewery. The liquor store licence-holder or hotelier who wants to apply for a grocer’s wine licence, will have to negotiate a contract with the grocer in order to obtain space in his store. In the case of all new applications for wine licences, one of the most important tests will be the interests and needs of the public. These tests apply to all applications, including applications for grocer’s wine licences. No large-scale increase in the number of new grocer’s wine licences is foreseen in the immediate future.

I now want to go on to deal with the various arguments raised by hon. members. There were really not many arguments, because the majority of arguments were in general terms and amounted to personal standpoints adopted by hon. members with regard to liquor, liquor consumption and liquor abuse, arguments with which I agree completely. The hon. member for Hillbrow was opposed to the measure in general. He said that it would result in a general increase in liquor consumption. I have already indicated that there will not be a general increase. The hon. member for Worcester expressed appreciation for this legislation and for the other concessions in his very interesting speech.

I expected that.

No. That hon. member always makes an interesting speech. He is a person who hails from the wine-producing regions. He therefore knows what he is talking about. That is always evident from his speeches. That is more than can be said of other hon. members. The hon. member for Durban North also made a very interesting speech, and it was clear that his speech did not always find favour with his colleagues in his party.

We have a free say.

The hon. member for Durban North had the courage of his convictions and because he showed that courage, I found his speech very interesting. As far as the speech of the hon. member for Constantia is concerned, I just want to say that for the first time I do not want to quarrel with that hon. member either. That hon. member requested me to follow the European pattern in this regard. He wanted us to do away with all forms of licensing. Am I correct? He wanted us to do as the people in Europe do…

I did not say so.

The note I made during his speech reads:” A well-balanced speech.” The hon. member also requested a freer distribution of liquor…

I advocated a move in that direction.

You should not listen to him.

No. I had to listen to the hon. member, because he made a good speech. That hon. member should bear in mind that liquor legislation has not only been in existence since yesterday, but has been with us for a long time now. For instance, there was the “Code of Hammurabi”.

†The Code of Hammurabi existed in Babylon 2000 years B.C. This code stipulated the conditions under which wine could be bought. The seller who gave a short measure, was to be thrown into the water. In England, at the time of Richard III, the 16th century, an importer of wine was obliged to bring 10 to 11 yew-trees with each cask of wine. These were used to make the long bows which the Englishmen used to build up their Empire. They did that by importing wine and by enforcing the importer to bring 11 yews to make these bows. There were strict controls in those days. Officials boarded the merchant ships to supervise the cargoes and to test the quality of the wines, and the king imposed a tax on every load. That also added to the coffers of the village. Although the wine was cheap, the common people did not drink freely. Each town was only allowed a specified number of taverns, exactly as we have it today, and no man except the peer or one with a considerable income was permitted to keep more than 10 gallons of wine at home.

*Hon. members can therefore see that even in those years a degree of control was already applied. It therefore surprised me that someone like the hon. member for Yeoville spoke as he did.

You are in favour of drunks.

I do not feel like entering into another argument with the hon. member now. The hon. member for Yeoville is very fond of pointing a finger at others. He cannot believe that anyone could oppose him. When he has spoken it is another law of Hammurabi! [Interjections.] They say there is a difference between the French and Boland wines. A well-known Afrikaans author says that the difference is that the French wines make one laugh, sing and dance, whereas the Boland wine makes one stubborn, leads to one rolling up one’s sleeves and making political speeches. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the hon. member for Yeoville has drunk the Boland wines. [Interjections.] That is all I can conclude from his attitude. The hon. member always wants to pick a quarrel. He is a Boland wine drinker.

Do you then drink French wines? [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Namaqualand and Potgietersrus made very good contributions, and I thank them for that. The hon. member for Umbilo made his usual well-considered speech. I respect his standpoint. However, I do not think he ever considered this specific legislation. I must say that I think that the hon. member for Paarl made one of the finest speeches on wine I have heard in this House in years. I admit that I was particularly impressed when the hon. member for Paarl began to thank me and extol my exceptional ability, etc. One appreciates that, particularly when, like me, one does not receive many compliments of that nature.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that a connoisseur and a well-to-do man would not buy wine in a grocery. I found that a surprising statement. It may be that the well-to-do man will not buy there, but it is not only the well-to-do man who drinks wine. He says that there will only be a certain class of person in the Western Province, White and Brown, who will purchase wine there. I want to differ from him on that score. It is not only the under-privileged person who buys in a supermarket, but everyone who is in search of lower prices. I do not think that if people go to a grocer’s shop which has a wine counter, one could say that it is the lesser privileged class that would buy there. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Springs made a very good speech. The hon. member for Berea stated that liquor is the “most elegantly presented poison” in the world. He says that it teaches pupils to drink, which is, of course, not true. The same provisions applying to a grocer’s shop licence apply to the usual liquor store licence. Where one would therefore stop a small boy in a liquor store when he wants to buy liquor, one would also stop him if he wanted to leave the store with it. What, then, is the difference? No one may sell liquor to a person under 18 years. If such a person enters a shop, takes a bottle of wine from the shelf and comes to the paypoint, the person there will tell him that he has to take back the liquor since he may not take it away. That is an offence.

The hon. member for Morreesburg entertained us with a quotation from F. A. Venter’s evocative prose. The hon. member for Pinelands made his usual speech. He was in a better position today to carry out his mission-work, because there will be a free vote here. For that reason I was surprised that he preached so little. I thought that he would seize the opportunity to incite us all against liquor, because this is perhaps the first and only opportunity which the hon. member will have to bring hon. members on this side of the House round to his way of thinking. The hon. member asked whether we had received representations. Yes we have. We received many letters and petitions from individuals, church organizations and temperance societies from the Western Cape in particular, in which the abolition of the 30% restriction is strongly denounced. On the other hand, however, we also received representations from the KWV. [Interjections.] The KWV is, incidentally, a very important and outstanding body, one which cannot be accused of a lack of decency. We also received representations from the S.A. Agricultural Union on behalf of thousands of farmers who are represented by that body.

At the moment there is a total of 5 038 authorized liquor outlets in the Republic. In other words, there is one outlet for every 5 000 members of our population. I honestly believe that that is not too many.

Do you simply ignore the churches?

No, I do not.

*The hon. member for Pinelands is very fond of making propaganda about that. For that reason he comes forwards with his same old sentence which he hopes will reach the newspapers and then may be used against us. The hon. member knows that I stated categorically that we were in favour of the temperate use of liquor. Now I challenge the hon. member for Pinelands to tell me whether he never drinks. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Pinelands drink or does he not drink at all? [Interjections.]

Answer my question first. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member drink or does he not drink at all? He must tell us the truth. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I demand that the hon. member tells us that. Does he drink or does he not drink at all? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

What is the hon. member saying? Is he saying that he drinks? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should just like to remind the hon. the Minister… [Interjections.]

No, I should first like to hear the hon. member’s reply. [Interjections.] I am not going to listen to his questions now, because he does not listen to mine. [Interjections.]

You must reply to my question first.

The hon. member must first tell me whether he drinks or not If he says that he does not drink, he ought to blush now. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member says that he does drink, I put it to him that that is exactly what I want to say. I want people to drink temperately—nothing more and nothing less.

Tell me whether you have ignored the churches?

I have nothing whatsoever against the churches. I am in favour of the churches. I am in favour of the temperate use of liquor. That is all.

The hon. member for Pretoria East made a well-considered speech.

†The hon. member for Durban Point expressed the view that more outlets would not necessarily bring about an increase in the sale of liquor.

*Perhaps I agree with the hon. member. However, I am not quite sure. We experienced this in the Transvaal. What the case will be in the Cape, I do not know. However, on the basis of our experience in the Transvaal, this is so. It did not result in increased consumption of liquor. However, we do not know what will happen in the Cape. The hon. member alleges that it will become a “loss-leader”. As far as I am concerned, it cannot become a “loss-leader”. After all, I have already explained that the licence will not be granted to the grocer’s shop itself. It is a liquor store licence holder who will obtain a wine counter in the shop.

Both.

That is true. I stated it as my policy.

Both are possible.

Both are possible. I stated clearly that, in our policy, we give preference to the liquor store licence holder, the unattached liquor store licence holder who can obtain a wine counter in a shop. The hon. member went on to say “Hotels will go out of business because the off-sales will not be doing business”.

†That is not correct. I have already explained that the off-sales can also obtain a wine counter in a supermarket. They can also get it. As a matter of fact, that is what they are there for.

Big deal.

Why does the hon. member say “big deal”? What does he mean by that?

The supermarkets will keep it to themselves.

How can they keep it to themselves? [Interjections.]

Order! Too many hon. members are taking part in the debate. They still have the Committee Stage and the Third Reading. It is not necessary for them to reply to the hon. the Minister now.

The hon. member asked me: “Why can beer not be included in such a licence?” I furnished him with the figures in connection with the consumption of beer. Does the hon. member not realize that the illegal distribution of liquor consists largely of the distribution of beer? We confiscate hundreds of thousands of litres of beer per week. The only liquor which we confiscate weekly, is beer. We even confiscate the trucks which convey the beer to the shebeens. For the most part it is beer.

What type of beer? Bantu beer?

I cannot say what type. In any case, what does the hon. member mean when he asks what type of beer? Ordinary beer, of course.

Ginger beer.

The hon. member for Malmesbury made a very good speech. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central stated that a child was not allowed to enter a liquor store. That is correct. He may enter a grocery store, but he may not leave with liquor.

Who is going to stop him?

The person who receives the money has to stop him, of course. He does not have a choice. [Interjections.] What prevents him from entering a liquor store? The person who stands behind the counter has to say that he may not enter. In the same way the person in the supermarket has to tell him that he may not take out a bottle of wine. [Interjections.] In my humble opinion the hon. member for Waterkloof made a very good speech in the sense that he also praised the chairman of the Liquor Board. One can, of course, include the whole Liquor Board here, because I am aware of the amount of work which these people do and I know what they mean to the liquor industry. One can approach any sector of the liquor industry and they will tell you unanimously that the Liquor Board is one of the most highly skilled boards there is.

The hon. member for Green Point played local politics a little. He tried to score some political points off his colleagues around him. I do not begrudge him that, nor do I want to argue with him about that. He asked whether the Minister believed that apartheid—that is what he called it—should exist in liquor stores or not and also asked how I reconciled that with the wine counters and liquor stores. That was his question, not so? [Interjections.] We have found that there are people who really want to drink; spirituous liquor or spirits as well as wine. One only has to look at how those people arrive at the liquor stores, and after all, I know what I am talking about. Go and look on any Saturday morning, in the Cape, the Transvaal or any other place, at those stores when the people enter them. He drinks, or has perhaps already drunk; he is drunk or sometimes semi-drunk. Under those circumstances friction could arise, because everyone who enters that shop, is there to obtain liquor. In other words, they do not go there to purchase groceries. They enter to purchase liquor. Often they are people who have already had a tot or people who go there specifically to buy a large quantity of liquor. However, they go specifically to purchase the liquor. That is how friction could arise. That is our experience. I have personal experience of that. I can show hon. members many letters coming from the Cape and the Transvaal. That hon. member knows, because they held a symposium on Sea Point. I concede that these are the public’s complaints. They say that they want the Coloured’s liquor among the Coloured people and not in White shops. Is that correct?

There are some who say so.

But surely that is what that hon. member came to say here this evening, and surely it is true. [Interjections.] The reason is that friction arises. It is not the colour of the people’s skins that is involved. What is involved is the friction that could occur among people. Where is the hon. member for Sea Point now? Let the hon. member for Sea Point come and talk to me. I shall show him letters from his constituency, letters on liquor stores which ought to scare him for the next election. [Interjections.] Grocer’s shops usually occupy large premises. That is the first point. The people go there to purchase groceries and by chance one or two bottles of liquor. That is a completely different pattern. The people go there principally to purchase groceries and not liquor. For that reason this rule does not apply there. For us the issue is not the people themselves. For us the issue is the possible friction that may arise. That is what is at issue.

Connie did that much better!

The hon. member for Brits made an interesting speech. He spoke of all the evils that could possibly cause one’s death. That is quite correct. Surely there are other evils apart from liquor. Hon. members have just been riding this played-out old hobbyhorse, but surely there are many other evils. Somebody spoke about motor-cars. That is the greatest evil of all if they are not used moderately and correctly. [Interjections.] There are also other types of evil. The hon. member for Houghton decided to fight as usual, because someone said something about her. I do not know what she really wanted to say.

I want to conclude by also thanking the hon. members for Maitland, Yeoville, Piketberg and Durban Central for the contributions they made.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Blanché, J. P. L; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Lorimer, R. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, J. A. van Tonder and A. J. Vlok.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I wish to deal briefly with the basic aspects arising out of this Bill.

Release of prisoners

As long ago as 26 January 1978, I gave the Commissioner of Prisons authority to approve of the release on parole of prisoners with sentences not exceeding two years without my prior consent. In terms of the existing provisions of the Prison Act, the Commissioner may not delegate these powers in terms of section 93(3) of the Act further than to commissioned officers of or above the rank of brigadier. The administrative process in respect of the release of prisoners on parole can, however, be facilitated if the approval of release on parole of prisoners with sentences not exceeding two years can be delegated by the Commissioner to selected officers who need not necessarily hold the rank of brigadier or a higher rank. This problem is being overcome by empowering the Commissioner by law to authorize such releases.

Furthermore, provision is also being made for express authority for the issue and execution of a warrant for the arrest and detention of a parolee who has failed to observe a condition of his release on parole.

Treatment, training and employment of prisoners

At present no effective legal sanctions exist for the treatment, training and employment of all sorts of prisoners accommodated in hospital prisons for psychopaths, and these lacunae are being eliminated.

Execution of warrants in respect of judgment debtors

No legal provision exists on how two or more warrants of detention in terms of section 65(9)(d) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, as amended, issued on the same day or in short succession and applicable to the same person, should be executed.

Over the years, however, this department has regarded the periods indicated on various warrants as accumulative and not as concurrent, except where it was expressly indicated as such on the warrant. Such a provision is considered essential in order to remove any uncertainty that may exist in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. We consider it to be introducing an improvement in the existing prisons system. We are particularly pleased that the power of the Commissioner to grant parole has been increased because we believe it is an important improvement in our prison system to allow as many men as possible to be released from prison on parole. This is now being considerably extended in terms of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister did not refer to clause 1 of the Bill, the clause which substitutes a word in the Afrikaans text of the principal Act. I am no expert in the Afrikaans language and therefore cannot really discern the need to substitute the word “ontvlug” for the word “ontsnap”. I have looked up these two words in the dictionary and there does not seem to be very much difference between them. However, there must be some reason for this and perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain this to us in the Committee Stage.

I also note that the punishment for an attempt to escape from prison, an attempt involving violence, is being reduced from a maximum of 10 strokes to a maximum of seven strokes. Hon. members will be well aware of the fact that I am, in principle anyway, against corporal punishment as I believe it to be a brutalizing form of punishment. Therefore I am pleased to see that the total number of strokes, at least in this respect, is being reduced by this Bill.

We in these benches shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed surprising to hear that the hon. member for Houghton and her party supporting a Bill dealing with the Prisons Act, because our experience normally is that the hon. member and her party act differently. I am pleased when the hon. member for Houghton can also discern improvements, because sometimes improvements are proposed that she cannot discern at all. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton has a problem with the words “ontvlug” and “ontsnap”. I think the word “ontvlug’, effects an improvement to the terminology. I think the explanation is that a gas or something that is invisible, can “ontsnap”, but that a human being or an animal “ontvlug”. I think that is the meaning. I do not know whether, after so many years, the hon. member for Houghton will have to “ontsnap” or “ontvlug” from this House. She can make up her mind about that.

Neither. I shall be here long after you.

The Bill actually embodies two basic elements. The first of these is that the administrative processes are being shortened to the benefit of the prisoner. In the second place, certain amendments and corrections are being effected to the terminology for the sake of legal certainty. I also wish to state briefly that this Bill affirms existing practices and action by the department.

Where the first clause reduces the number of strokes from ten to seven in a case of escape or attempted escape accompanied by violence—in this regard the hon. member for Houghton, too, is being satisfied—this is being done to bring this provision into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act So this provision is definitely to the benefit of the prisoner.

A very important amendment is also being effected by clause 2, which makes provision for a further delegation of powers to the Commissioner of Prisons in that he is being empowered to grant parole to a prisoner who has to serve a total prison sentence for a period not exceeding two years. Up to now, the maximum in this regard has been four months. However, the Commissioner remains bound to the existing policy with regard to sentences and the remission of sentences. This, too, is definitely a beneficial change for the prisoner, and it also amounts to a shortening of the administrative process.

A further important provision in clause 2 empowers the Commissioner to authorize and issue a warrant for the arrest of a prisoner in the event of such a prisoner having failed to observe the conditions of his release on parole. This is a provision which creates legal certainty, because it confirms the legal provision that no prisoner may be detained without a warrant.

The Bill also provides that any person, whether temporarily or otherwise detained for observation in a hospital prison for psychopaths, shall receive the treatment and training prescribed by the Commissioner. It would destroy discipline if a prisoner were to be able to allege that this provision in the Act was not applicable to him as he was not a patient of the State President, even though, for one reason or another, he found himself in a hospital prison for psychopaths. Even under these circumstances, the process of treatment and the training of the prisoner remain to his benefit. It is always directed at his rehabilitation and his complete recovery and at preparing and equipping him to become a member of society again.

I particularly welcome the provisions contained in clause 4, too, which relate to the detention of judgment debtors and which put it beyond any doubt that the periods of the orders shall run successively. This means that a judgment debtor has to be detained for the total period imposed by the orders. At present, a judgment debtor can raise the defence that he has served the period of the orders, as soon as he has served the order imposing the longest period. In the absence of this amendment, it could have meant that the ends of justice might be defeated in that judgments of the court were not being carried into effect It would also prejudice the interests and the rights of a judgment creditor if we were to omit this legal provision to that effect. Indeed, this provision now creates legal certainty.

In conclusion I should like to say that we have understanding of and appreciation for the work being done by all officials and staff in the service of the Department of Prisons. This work is for the most part being done under difficult circumstances. The department is devoted to its task and its main objective of equipping people in prison to become full and equal members of their communities once again. This department is often exposed to unjustified criticism, but in my view it should simply continue to maintain the high standards which are being maintained in the interests of the prisoner, because this lends prestige to the department. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also intend supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, because we believe it is an improvement. There are certain aspects of the Bill that I should like to comment upon. The Bill mainly deals with the question of parole. The hon. the Minister has indicated in his Second Reading speech that the Commissioner of Prisons is to have increased powers in regard to the release of prisoners on parole. The Bill also provides for the issue of a warrant of arrest and for the detention of a prisoner who fails to observe a condition of his release on parole. It is on this particular aspect that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister certain questions. From the provisions of the legislation, it appears that this would result in perhaps a greater number of prisoners being released on parole. I believe that this has to be taken into account when one considers the report of the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa. In this report there are certain aspects, concerning the supervision of parolees, which give cause for concern. The commission found, for instance, that there is a tremendous shortage of probation officers, and the whole question of supervision of these parolees is of great importance, as can be seen from the aspects that are highlighted in this report.

Consequently provision is made here for the issue of a warrant of arrest This is obviously necessary in the administration involved in the release of a person on parole and, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, this matter has to be rectified. However, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members of the House to certain aspects in this regard. In the report of the Viljoen Commission it was found that supervision of Black and Coloured parolees, in particular, left much to be desired. There are simply not a sufficient number of social workers who are registered as probation officers.

The commission also deals with the question of the number of Coloureds who have been released on parole and finds that the after-care and supervision of these persons are the cause of great concern. It also deals with the supervision of Blacks who are released on parole and finds that this causes the biggest problem of all because there are literally thousands of Blacks who become eligible for release on parole and who are, in fact, so released. It is for these people that the need for the services of probation officers is the most urgent. The report highlights the fact that as a parolee, the person concerned is still the responsibility of the Department of Prisons. We know that in welfare organizations there are often registered social workers who act as probation officers, so parole matters are often referred to various welfare organizations.

As far as the Black population is concerned, there appears to be a tremendous shortage in this regard because there are insufficient welfare organizations to undertake this task. However the parolees released on parole are the responsibility of the Department of Prisons. An important recommendation was made for the establishment of a parole board to be presided over by a member of the judiciary. I think it will be opportune if the hon. the Minister could indicate to hon. members of the House whether that particular recommendation has been accepted or not and whether the basis for the release of prisoners on parole, with additional powers now being extended to the Commissioner of Prisons, cannot be extended so that more prisoners may be released on parole. It would appear from the comments made by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for Houghton about this Bill that it is indeed an important aspect of the rehabilitation of prisoners that they should be released on parole. We welcome that step and wish to see it being implemented. However, there might be practical difficulties.

Would you please repeat the particular recommendation of the commission?

The recommendation in the report of the Viljoen Commission dealt with the establishment of a parole board to be presided over by a member of the judiciary. The report also indicated what powers the parole board should have. I do not wish to detain the House by repeating all these recommendations. However, the basis of the recommendation is found on pages 152 and 153. From the report it becomes clear that the establishment of such a parole board would facilitate release on parole and further supervision, so that persons who might contravene certain conditions of that parole can be dealt with.

In terms of this Bill provision is being made for the issuing of a warrant for the arrest and detention of a prisoner who fails to observe a conditions of his release on parole. Therefore the additional step that has been taken in this Bill relates to the person who does not abide by or observe the conditions of his release on parole. I am worried about the mechanics of having a greater number of persons released on parole without having those persons under proper surveillance, something which should be provided for so as to serve the purpose for which the person was released in the first place, i.e. to bring about a greater rehabilitation of the prisoner. I do hope that the hon. the Minister can give some indication about whether he is satisfied that the machinery will, in fact, allow the surveillance of persons released on parole to bring about a greater degree of rehabilitation.

The NRP supports the Second Reading and we would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could supply us with further information in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, after opposing the hon. the Minister’s previous Bill, we shall now, as a consolation prize, support the Second Reading of the legislation before us. It is very clear that the Bill eliminates uncertainty in regard to certain matters in the existing legislation. Of particular importance is the fact that it is now being ensured that patients in psychiatric institutions will be kept occupied. It is a principle with which we agree whole-heartedly. We believe that people should be kept occupied, unless of course, as is also stated clearly here, someone is exempted from this for medical reasons.

In the last clause another uncertain point is clarified. It appears as though a measure of uncertainty existed before as to the question whether someone should serve certain sentences concurrently or separately. Because we are convinced that this legislation duly clarifies certain obviously obscure points of law, it gives us pleasure to support the Second Reading thereof.

Mr. Speaker, the only reason why I rise now, is that I was somewhat annoyed about the rather smug lecture on language which the hon. member for Klerksdorp gave the hon. member for Houghton just now. Far be it from me to pose as a linguist. It is precisely because I feel myself to be ignorant about this matter that I took the trouble to consult HAT about the two words “ontsnap” and “ontvlug”.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp tried to tell us that only gas, for instance, can “ontsnap”, while a person or an animal can “ontvlug”. If I remember correctly, that is what he said.

That is what he said.

I, too, believe that is what the hon. member said.

I said I thought so.

The hon. member said he thought so. Well, then I should like to quote, purely for the information of hon. members, what HAT says about these two words. With regard to the word “ontsnap”, HAT states—

The following examples of the usage of this word are then given—

The word “ontvlug” is not dealt with as extensively. It is only stated—

In any case, this is not a matter of life and death. It appears to me as though the difference in meaning between these two words are in any case extremely small. The HAT gives the usage of “ontsnap” in the sense that someone can escape from a prison. Under the circumstances I just wish to associate myself with the request which the hon. member for Houghton made to the hon. the Minister—a request which the hon. the Minister received very courteously—that he should please inform us with regard to the reason for this particular amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to participate in the crossing of swords between the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Klerksdorp. I leave them free to bring their heavy artillery to bear on one another.

I gladly comply with the request by the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know whether the hon. member has the principal Act before her.

Yes, I have it here.

Then I refer the hon. member to section 48 of the Prisons Act. For the sake of clarity, I shall first quote the Afrikaans text of section 48(1)(b)—

I now read section 48(1)(a). Now the hon. member will understand why we have decided rather to revert to the use of “ontvlug”. Of course I agree with the hon. member for Parktown. The two words “ontsnap” and “ontvlug” are synonyms. However, in the Afrikaans text of section 48(1)(a) the legal draftsmen wrote—

Then, immediately after that, the word “ontsnap” is used. The legal advisers then said it was not elegantly put to use the word “ontsnap” in (b) and to have repeated references to “ontvlugting” in (a). They then decided to change the word “ontsnap” to “ontvlug”.

Yes, to be consistent.

Therefore that is all this is about.

†Let me now come to the question of the hon. member for Umbilo. I want to state quite categorically that this does not mean that more parolees will be coming out on parole. That is certainly not what it means. What it actually means is that it makes it administratively easier for the department. Let me tell hon. members that I am sure they would be surprised to see the number of parole applications that come through my office every morning, applications in respect of prisoners whose terms of imprisonment exceed two years. I have even more applications for parole before me for consideration every morning than the Commissioner of Prisons, because I think that putting a man out on parole is a very important matter, and to endorse what the Parole Board has recommended means going through a tremendous amount of documentation, in fact a stack about a foot high, virtually every morning or every second morning.

So it is a question of delegating the work.

Yes, In fact, it is a question of the Commissioner delegating work involving short-term prisoners to people at the prisons. There is a fixed policy, of course, as far as short-term prisoners are concerned. If they can get into a high category—category A—right away—in other words, if they are good prisoners—they are automatically considered for parole after a certain period. In other words, the person involved is a short-term prisoner. It is usually not a very serious crime that he has committed and if his conduct is such that he should be let out on parole, it is easier for the lower-ranking officers to put him out on parole. That is the work the Commissioner is delegating. I delegate to the Commissioner the work involving prisoners with sentences of less than two years and deal with the others myself.

The recommendation of the Viljoen Commission was not accepted because we find that the present Parole Boards actually do work very well. Parole Board members sit regularly; they go and see the prisoners and they have the reports of the Psychologists and social workers. They go through all those reports and also have personal contact with the prisoner. I do not think it is possible for a practising judge to do all this. I think it would prove to be a tremendous onerous task for a judge if he were to be appointed chairman of the Parole Board unless, of course, one took one of our ex-judges. But I think it is better to have the ex-judges in Parliament than to have them on the Parole Board! That is the whole story as far as I am concerned. We did not find it expedient to draw people from the Bench—in other words, practising judges—for this sort of work because the prison Parole Boards are, in fact, providing an excellent service.

What about the problem of the supervision of people on parole?

No, there are not many problems as far as supervision of parolees is concerned. I shall, however, go into the whole matter the hon. member has raised, and if there is anything I need to add to what I have said now, I shall do so in the Third Reading debate. I shall try to give the hon. members more information then.

We can have the Third Reading now.

Don’t you make arrangements now!

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the points.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.