When the House adjourned last night I had told the House that we should make every effort to stay in the World Health Organization. I went on to make suggestions to the Minister as to how I felt he should act and do his utmost to help the pensioners, especially those living on the borderline, and I made the suggestion that he should issue monthly vouchers to these pension cases so that they could change these vouchers for food or clothing.

Now I want to come to another very important matter which I think everybody in this House realizes has to be adjusted. I refer to the means test. The means test was introduced here in its present form almost 12 years ago. During this long period we have not had any changes in the valuation of this means test, and I feel that the time has come that we should review the present means test set-up and see whether we cannot alter it and make it more realistic and bring it into line with present-day cost of living and with the real position and the present real value of money. Unfortunately, Sir, the means test affects those people who need help most, and what was good and valid ten to 12 years ago is of no real value to-day when it comes to putting up a barrier and preventing certain people from getting what we consider to be a pension to keep alive. That is what it means, that they are going to be kept alive by the pension that the Government is granting. The means test cannot be fixed for all time. It has to be altered from time to time and has got to keep pace with the changing values of our economy and the value of money. We have failed to do that during the past ten to 12 years. We have raised pensions, we have given more money to the pensioners, but those who did not get a pension ten or 12 years ago are still not getting a pension. Sir, there are too many borderline cases to-day that are being refused pensions because of this insurmountable barrier, and we in this House have to make up our mind to break this barrier down so as to allow more people to get the pension, people who deserve it. Because a person, as has been said over and over again, happens to be thrifty and manages to accumulate a small property or a small amount of cash, that person is debarred from a pension, and it is making that particular person worse off than a person who has nothing at all. The person is worse off, because unless he sells his property, or realizes his small little capital, he cannot get a pension. How are we going to help these people? The fear of bringing down the value of the means test is that we may let in too many people into the pension scheme and that it may cost the Government too much money. Mr. Speaker, we have got so much money for defence; we must find money for these deserving people. They are our defence as well. They belong to us. We must look after them. We have got to do something, and the least that we can do, if we cannot do away with the means test entirely, is at least to make it more realistic. Let us give these people a chance to keep going. I do not know, and the Minister does not know, how many people should receive help. We do not know in this House to what extent we should alter the means test. The time has come—as a matter of fact it should have been done years ago—to institute an investigation immediately to see how we can alter this means test, how we can alter it in such a way that many of the people who have applied during the past few years for pensions, and have been refused because they are borderline cases, can be given a pension. We must find out how many of these people there are. The Minister’s Department has got a lot of details that will give us a basis on which to work, and from there we can work out how many borderline cases we have got and how many more people we will probably let in into our pension scheme. It may be 10,000, it may be 50,000. We do not know. But I do know that we must do something immediately. It has got to be a drastic alteration. There are too many people who write to the papers, there are too many people who appeal to Members of Parliament and too many people who go direct to the Minister and his Department appealing for pensions, and the time has come for us to do something about it. If pensions can be raised from time to time, so the means test must be altered in favour of the pensioner so that he will be let into the scheme. The ideal would be naturally for us not to have the means test at all, but until that happy day comes we must make provision for those people whom we think ought to be allowed to receive a pension from our Government.

In the few minutes that I have got left there is one other matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the rise in pensions that he has given to the Coloured people and the Bantu people. It is quite unrealistic. It comes to a matter of 14 cents per day to a non-White. Now it is difficult with our present cost of living to spend the 14 cents. In other words if a man wants to use up some of this morsel that is being granted to him from the rich man’s table, he would probably have to wait four days; he would have to accumulate this increase for four days before he would be able to buy half a loaf of bread. Taken on the whole it is all ight, but if you take it from day to day the amount that has been granted to the pensioners is so small that it becomes almost negligible. I would say to the hon. Minister that when he makes a rise in pensions he should not do it proportionately, because the proportions are so terribly small that they become negligible for the very, very lowest of our income groups. If he raises the pensions he should raise them realistically and give those people a little more than this cent a day. The cent a day is welcome to them, but how they are going to spend it is another thing, and as I say, they have to wait several days before they can accumulate these extra cents to buy something.

I want to appeal lastly to the Minister to take into consideration the scheme I put forward at the beginning of the year in which I asked him to build in every new township, to make provision in every new township, houses for the infirm and the aged. Sir, voluntary organizations have done their level best to cope with this demand, but it is a special type of housing that is needed, it is a special type of accommodation that is needed, and for that reason I have found that the voluntary organizations cannot provide sufficient accommodation. There are too many of our old people who are infirm, too many of our old people who have become crippled with arthritis and disease who cannot get accommodation in these homes that have been provided ostensibly for all the ill and old people, or should I say the old people who are ill. I ask the hon. Minister to go into this matter and see if he cannot provide in every district at least one home that can accommodate 10 to 15 people and have somebody in the home to look after the infirm. I am sorry that my allocated time is up and that I cannot proceed along these lines, but perhaps one of the other members on this side ol the House will continue where I leave off.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised some very important matters here, of which the means test was one. I should like to remind the hon. member that the Government has from time to time given some relief as regards the means test. It goes without saying of course that all of us are very sympathetically disposed to less privileged people, and that hon. members on both sides of the House will always plead for increased social pensions. But one thing is very clear: I do not think there has ever been a Government in South Africa that has done more for the less privileged people than the present Government and the present Minister of Finance. There are other hon. members who will reply to the hon. member on the points made by him. I should like to refer to a small group of people who have unfortunately not been dealt with under this Budget, and they are the little group of physically disabled persons on social welfare settlements. These people have been overlooked in various Budgets, and I should like to urge the Minister of Finance to give particular attention to these people. On those closer settlements such as Sonop, Karatara and Ganspan we are dealing with people who are called chronic invalids. The Minister of Social Welfare has introduced certain classifications, and that has resulted in certain people having become entitled to these increased pensions at Sonop, among them certain war veterans and certain people who are entitled to old-age pensions, while a small proportion of the people on this settlement do not receive it now, and they are those very people, the physically disabled people. I have already spoken to the Minister as well as to the Minister of Social Welfare and I hope there will be the requisite funds to label these people with the same tag, so that they will also participate in these increased pensions.

However, I have risen to deal with an entirely different matter. During the recent Budget debate, agricultural matters have probably been discussed to a greater extent than in any other previous Budget debate. Farming in general, animal husbandry, agriculture and various branches of the agricultural industry have been discussed here. Soul-stirring pleas have been made in connection with the ravaging drought in our fatherland which has had catastrophic consequences for our farmers. I am thinking of the hon. member for Groblersdal and the hon. member for Waterberg who have painted the moving scenes in those afflicted areas. This drought is worse than the drought of 1933, and we are grateful to the various Departments of State for the sympathetic manner in which they are acting to assist our people. I should like to say that in my own constituency the tobacco farmers have been hard hit as a result of withering droughts and destructive hailstorms and blistering heatwaves, and I have felt that I should avail myself of the opportunity to-day to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of the tobacco farmers. I know the Minister of Finance will not take it amiss of me, for the Treasury is one of the largest shareholders in this industry. In order to place the tobacco industry on a healthy economic basis once and for all, it is necessary that at least five requirements should be satisfied. A first important requirement is that the Government, and more particularly the Minister of Economic Affairs, should take immediate active steps against what we regard as undesirable and unfair imports of tobacco leaf and cigarettes to the Republic of South Africa.

Do you smoke?

You have no idea. I am a heavy smoker.

Order! The hon. member must not be personal.

Not only do I smoke, Mr. Speaker, but I also take snuff. I should like to say that the farmers are deeply concerned about the ever-increasing importation of tobacco products, particularly from Southern Rhodesia. From 1957 to 1963 the imports of tobacco rose to 44.4 per cent, and at the present time it already amounts to 22 per cent of the total national consumption of tobacco products in the Republic of South Africa. The farmers are very concerned about this, for they concentrate upon their own domestic market; there they are still receiving economic prices, and if imports are to collar this domestic market, it goes without saying that they will be saddled later on with supplies of tobacco that cannot be sold and chronic gluts, which will then have to be exported at much lower prices than can be obtained in the domestic market. I think the principal cause of these unfair and undesirable imports is the disparity between customs tariffs prevailing between Southern Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa. I do not wish to be reproachful; I know the trade agreement is refused to the Republic of South Africa, but I should like to appeal to the Minister of Economic Affairs that when the trade agreement expires, he should try, in a very nice, tactful manner, as he always does, to rectify this matter, so that the customs tariffs can be equalized between Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa.

I just want to show the distorted and unfair customs structure between the Rhodesias and the Republic. If we export one pound of tobacco from the Republic to the Federation, 50 cents customs dues are levied, and when it is imported into the Republic from Rhodesia, it is only 35 cents. When we export cigarettes to Rhodesia, the customs duty is 112.50 cents, with an additional 15 per cent ad valorem, and when cigarettes are imported into the Republic it is merely 35 cents. It is a completely unequal, almost distorted customs duties structure, and we hope it will be rectified. But I should like to appeal to the Minister of Finance himself in particular, and say that there is a second very important requirement to make this tobacco industry completely sound and that is that a Minister of Finance should see to it that the tobacco industry is never taxed to the hilt, but that he should always apply a judicious excise duty. I do not wish to be reproachful. I should like to admit at once that our present Minister of Finance has always been sympathetically disposed towards the tobacco farmers. He has never come forward with an increased excise duty, although his predecessors did so. But I should like to make it very clear here that the tobacco farmers in recent times have gone through a very critical time, particularly in consequence of the high and burdensome and almost excessive duty announced in the Main Estimates of 1958. That was an excessively high duty. I do not wish to make reproaches, but successive Ministers of Finance, those of the United Party too—in this connection I am thinking of Mr. Hofmeyr and later on Minister Havenga and Minister Naude—were all firmly under the impression that when it comes to excise duties, one can never reach saturation point as regards excise duties, and that consumption will virtually never reach saturation point. They reasoned that if you tax tobacco, there will be a drop, but it will not be something worth mentioning, and it will recover immediately, and you will once again have a rising graph, and eventually you will once again have normal consumption. That is what they thought. But what happened after 1958? The consumption of tobacco and cigarettes and tobacco products dropped to a disturbing extent. The consumption did not increase, but for a long time it not only remained static, but even dropped. From 1957 to 1963 kiln-dried tobacco alone dropped by nearly 4,500,000 lb., and that is a very serious matter, for now not only imports are collaring the domestic market, but the increased excise duty also results in reduced consumption. This has caused deep concern in the domestic market, where up to now fairly economic prices have been obtained. So I should like to take this opportunity to say that I think we should be very cautious here as regards the tobacco industry. After the increased duties were introduced, we experienced a period of stagnation, but later on it even dropped, and I should like to quote the figures to the Minister. The excessive duty was introduced in 1958. People thought consumption would recover immediately. But even the revenue from excise duties shows that consumption for the first time remained static and that consumption virtually reached saturation point. The excise duty also became static. In 1961 the Minister collected, in the form of excise, R64,150,618 from cigarettes, and more than R5,000,000 from pipe tobacco. The next year, 1962, it was R46,032,000 from cigarettes, even less than the previous year and the next year it was only R46,036,000 too. There you have three successive years, and it shows incontrovertibly that for the first time in the history of the tobacco industry we have had such a depressingly high duty that our excise duty has virtually reached saturation point. That should be a note of warning to the Minister, for he knows it is a very attractive source of taxation. It is the goose that lays the golden egg. Had we not introduced the high duty, and had we had a judicious duty, we would have had a much better result, and we would have been collecting exactly the same excise duty to-day, but then we would not have given the industry such a hard knock.

Do you support the industry?

Yes, I support the industry; I do not support the United Party though. I should like to say to the Minister of Finance that not only the excise duty has become an imminent danger. Fortunately, after three-four years consumption is now recovering and there are signs that there is an increased consumption in our country, and we are thankful for that, but the Minister really must not regard that as the green light to come along with a new onslaught now. The Minister knows there is another imminent danger, and that is the danger of commissions of inquiry into smoking habits as the possible cause of lung cancer. I shall not dilate upon that.

We should like to hear you on that.

Yes, the hon. member will hear me, but some people hear but do not understand. Now I should like to come to the third requirement. To put the tobacco industry on a sound economic basis once and for all, it is necessary, and the manufacturers should see to it, that they produce a cigarette within a short time that will ensure 100 per cent safety against all noxious ingredients in tobacco smoke. There are many people who are stampeded, in the same way as the hon. member who interrupted me, people who are stampeded by the report of the American Medical Commission of Inquiry into smoking habits as a possible cause of lung cancer. Do you know what those people are demanding? That the tobacco factories should be closed down, and that the tobacco industry should be destroyed. I think that is senseless, because there are indications that within a short while the smoking habit will be 100 per cent completely safe.

Is it not safe today?

Some people say it is not quite so safe, and for that reason we would like to make quite sure. I think it is safe. You also thought in 1948 that you were safe, but you were quite unsafe, and to-day, after all these years, the hon. member is as unsafe as he has never been in politics. The day will come when the scientific research workers will enable manufacturers in our country to remove suspected noxious elements from the tobacco smoke. When that day dawns we shall smoke to our heart’s content.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If the factories were to find a means of removing what they regard as the harmful elements in tobacco, how many years will it take before they will be able to prove that it is so? It will probably take 30 years.

The hon. member surely has very little confidence in science. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that research has helped the farmers to survive one crisis after another, and I am confident that we shall shortly be producing in South Africa a typical South African cigarette consisting of 100 per cent South African tobacco leaf, which will provide 100 per cent safety, also to that hon. member, and which will have a salutary and enjoyable and tranquillizing influence on the uneasy mind of the hon. member who asked me this question.

How many cigarettes does the hon. member smoke in a day?

If the hon. member were to smoke as much as I do, there will not be a glut. They are working on a filter which now already is removing 90 per cent of a certain element, and 60 per cent of another harmful element, and therefore it would be a foolish and senseless thing to want to dismantle the tobacco industry. This tobacco industry is an established industry. It is one of the oldest industries in the country. It is an industry with a tradition; it is an intensely specialized industry, and do you know that there are 25,000 families who are dependent upon the tobacco industry for their livelihood, and there are tens of thousands of small farmers who concentrate upon intensive tobacco farming? What is more, more than 150,000 Bantu workers are engaged on those farms in the tobacco fields. Millions of rand have been invested in drying kilns and equipment. Even the tobacco factories are employing approximately 6,000 employees. But the Treasury itself is a large shareholder. From 1960 to 1963, during these four years only, the Treasury derived R211,295,775 from the tobacco industry alone.

Not from the smokers?

No, but the smokers cannot smoke if the tobacco farmers are not there to produce the tobacco. They are indivisibly bound to each other. When I refer to the tobacco industry I see a long chain with various shareholders. I see the farmer and the manufacturer and the smoker, and the Treasury collects its share from each of them. During the first few months of the year there has been increased consumption, and when next year the Minister has a big surplus, it will be due largely to the fact that he will have collected more in excise duties.

But I have to hurry. I should like to make a fourth point, which is absolutely indispensable to place the tobacco industry on a sound basis, and that is that provision should be made for the requisite research facilities. In this connection I should like to congratulate the Government on what it has done, and the tobacco industry itself too, which used funds from the Central Tobacco Board for putting the tobacco industry on a sound footing. What is more, this research helped the tobacco farmers to survive one crisis after another. I remember the time when we were planting the wrong type of tobacco and when a chronic surplus faced us. Mr. Havenga then said we should plant the right type of tobacco, and research helped the farmers, and at great loss we immediately switched over to the new type. Now we do not only have the right type and the right quality, but we are in a position to build up an export market, and last year the tobacco industry already earned more foreign exchange overseas than the wine industry in South Africa. R4,800,000 in foreign exchange was collected. I am mentioning these things because I know the Minister has a soft spot for the tobacco industry and I should like to thank him for being the person who had so much foresight and vision that he made R1,000,000 available for research and publicity, and we are at the present time using this R1,000,000 to render cigarettes so safe that the hon. member who asked me the question need have no fear, but that he can buy a packet of cigarettes immediately, and he will look much better after having a smoke than he appears at the moment.

There is a fifth point I wish to make, and I hope effect will be given to this. It is in connection with the economic survey we want the Government to institute. It is necessary that a thorough and searching economic survey of tobacco production be made as soon as possible. The Minister of Agricultural Economics will recall that in 1954-5 and 1955-6 a thorough inquiry was instituted into the high costs of production of tobacco, but subsequently it was discontinued. What we are asking now is that a full economic survey be undertaken embracing the whole tobacco industry. Those, then, are the requirements to be complied with in order to place the tobacco industry on a sound basis. It will be to the joy of the Minister of Finance, in the interests of the State, as well as being of great assistance and benefit to the tens of thousands of small tobacco growers in the Republic of South Africa.

Having just listened to the hon. the Chief Whip I have come to the conclusion that if the hon. the Minister again shows such a large surplus at the end of the next financial year, he will be doing the wrong thing if he celebrates it with a drink. It will be better perhaps if he celebrates it by lighting a fat cigarette. I have seldom listened to such a convincing speech in the interests of the tobacco industry from a man who does not smoke himself. What interests me particularly is the fact that the hon. the Chief Whip is one of the few members on the other side who have actually discovered that there are, after all, a few groups of people in this country whose position is such that they do have cause for complaint. And the hon. the Chief Whip did in fact complain very strongly. I do want to say to him that his remark that the hon. the Minister is always sympathetically disposed towards the tobacco farmers as far as excise duty is concerned, is perhaps not entirely correct. Looking at the figures I find that the Minister expects the huge sum of no less than R61,000,000 next year from excise duty. The Minister may be sympathetically disposed towards the Chief Whip, but if this is the way in which he shows his sympathy with the tobacco farmer then I would rather steer clear of him if he ever decided to become unsympathetic!

What also interests me is the fact that the hon. the Chief Whip has not found it necessary to put forward a similar plea on behalf of the wine producers. After all, the wine industry is another goose that lays golden eggs for the State. But perhaps we should look to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) to plead the cause of the wine industry. The hon. the Chief Whip also found a few other groups with whose position he was not entirely happy. He said that more benefits should be given to the physically disabled.

I said they would get more benefits.

I agree with him but I am glad, at any rate, that he realized this. What I do not agree with is his statement that this Government has done as much for the old-age pensioners as has ever been done for them before. I am aware of what has been done for the pensioners, but the Government did no more than its duty. As a matter of fact, when we look at the prosperity in South Africa I contend that we are doing far too little for these people. But I shall come back to this point a little later.

That is just election talk.

Perhaps the hon. member over there does not realize that we are not going to have an election this year.

This Budget has been attacked a good deal and praised a good deal in the past few days; it has been described in various ways, but I think the description which the Government likes least of all perhaps is that this is a Budget for the rich man. That description is one which I think the Government does not like for obvious reasons, because if ever there was a Government which regarded itself as the protector of the poor man in South Africa, it is the Nationalist Government. There is also another reason, of course, why they do not like that description and that is that they know that it is not entirely devoid of truth. Let us examine the position. The man in the street sees only one thing in this Budget; he knows that he contributed his share towards this huge surplus of R88,000,000. And what does he get out of it? Nothing. The man in the street with an income of less than R4,600 gets nothing out of this Budget. But that is not the only way in which the man in the street has been forgotten; it is not only in this Budget that he has been forgotten. I want to point out that the man in the street, both in this Budget and in the budgets of the past few years, has been treated harshly by this Government.

I want to refer in particular to the White Paper, for which one is indebted to the Minister because it is a very interesting document and it contains various sources of information. On the one hand it reflects our economic progress, but what I find particularly interesting is the fact that in this White Paper we see to what extent indirect taxation has increased over the past ten years. When we look at the figures we find that ten years ago direct taxation amounted to R306,500,000 and that ten years later it amounted to R488,000,000, an increase of 59 per cent therefore. Indirect taxation increased from R132,000,000 in 1954-5 to the huge figure of R304,000,000 in 1964-5, an increase of no less than 129 per cent. While direct taxation over these ten years has increased therefore by an average of 5.9 per cent per annum, indirect taxation has increased by 12.9 per cent. And when we look at the last two years, the financial year which has just closed and the next financial year, we find that as far as direct taxation is concerned the Minister in fact expects a decrease of almost R5,000,000, but as far as indirect taxation is concerned he expects an increase of about R20,000,000.

I think there are two conclusions that one can draw from these figures. The one is that as a political party the Government side is only too well aware of the very clever ways in which one can hide indirect taxes. An indirect tax is declared once, it remains in operation for years, and the public forgets about it whereas direct taxation is levied every year, and it is about direct taxation that the public is worried. Indirect taxation is a sort of hidden tax. Direct taxation, on the other hand, is what the Government boasts about when they tell us that taxation has not been increased. Although that is what we are told, the White Paper shows convincingly that there is an increase of ho less than R20,000,000 in indirect taxation. In brief, this indirect taxation is a hidden tax; it is a tax that one pays without noticing it. It is a sort of “pick pocket” tax.

But there is a second ineluctable conclusion to be drawn from this high indirect taxation and that is that very little distinction is drawn between the poor man and the rich man. The Minister is not unaware of the fact that under the system of indirect taxation the ordinary man, proportionately, is hit much harder than the rich man. Sir, if we lived in a society in which the economic position of our people was more or less the same, then it would not matter much. But in South Africa in particular where on the one hand we have people who are millionaires and on the other tens of thousands living on the bread-line, and even below the bread-line, I believe that any system of indirect taxation should be applied with the greatest degree of circumspection. I do not think the hon. the Minister has devoted sufficient attention to this point over the past ten years, and that is why the poor man is again being hit very hard indeed in the Budget this year. We need only look at the figures. The poor man, who is just as fond of his cigarette as the rich man, is taxed on the same scale as the rich man. He is just as fond of his drink as the rich man, and indeed he does not drink much less, but nevertheless he pays the same tax as the rich man. Take motorcars. The ordinary man in the street is just as anxious as the rich man to own a motor-car; he also has to use petrol but the State taxes him on the same scale as the rich man, to a total tune of almost R24,000,000 on motorcars and an additional R24,000,000 on fuel. And the part that shocks one is that even matches are taxed. The duty on matches is more than R500,000. If my argument is correct that the poor man receives fewer benefits than the rich man, then it seems to me that for every match that the poor man strikes the rich man must strike five matches. That does not seem to be right to me. The fact remains that these people are hit with the same whip; they are being hit hard by this Government which alleges that it is pre-eminently the Government which looks after the poor man. Then there is still the customs duty which in the forthcoming year will produce R96,000,000 and which covers thousands of articles which are used by the poor man as well as the rich man. The poor man pays the same duty on those commodities, but I contend that this duty hits the ordinary man much harder than it hits the rich man. The Government is applying a system of taxation which in proportion to their income hits the ordinary man much harder than it hits the more well-to-do person, and that is why I say that over the past ten years, as the White Paper indicates, this Government has not gone out of its way to help the less privileged.

I should also like to say a word or two about old-age pensions. I have just said that little or nothing has been done for the man in the street. I want to say too that for the oldage pensioner this Budget contains nothing, if anything at all. I am well aware of the fact that over the years the Government has made quite a number of allowances to pensioners, but we are not living in difficult times; we are living in times of great prosperity, and I believe that the people of South Africa are prepared to be taxed so that the old people of our country can share this prosperity. When we think how high the cost of living is and what high rentals these old people have to pay for their small houses; when we think of the thousands upon thousands of complaints which reach members day after day and which appear in the Press from time to time, we realize how difficult it is for these people to make ends meet on a total sum of R27 per month. In many respects the pensioner has to live the life of a recluse, and in this Budget the Government had an opportunity such as it has never had before to lift the pensioner out of his recluse-like existence and to ensure a better living for him.

When we look at the means test we find that the position there is equally impossible. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fischer) has already dealt with this. We all know that the pension stood at R144 in 1951. The Government then introduced the bonus system. These bonuses have grown over the course of the years to R180 per annum but the basic pension of R144 has never been touched; it has remained unaltered. We now find that, when the means test is applied it is not applied to the whole of the pension, that is to say, the pension plus the bonus; if the pensioner has any assets the means test is applied not to the total pension of R324 but to the much smaller figure of R144 which was fixed as far back as 1951. There are thousands of people who have certain assets but as a result of the application of the test they fail to make the grade. The result is that while they may own a small house they have no income at all. I have been asked by numerous people, “If I own a house, does the State expect me to eat the house; what am I supposed to live on?” We find that old people who have reached the eve of their lives own a small house—a fact for which we should be grateful to them, because the people who built houses for them-selves are the people with a sense of responsibility—but they have no money to live in that house. I think this position should be radically changed because it reflects no credit on a prosperous country like South Africa. Sir, I do not want to say much more about the question of house-ownership. I personally came across a case where within the space of two or three years the value of a house had doubled. Here we had a man who, when he was 65 years of age, said that he was healthy enough and that he did not propose to apply for an old-age pension because he was still able to work. At that time his house was worth, let us say for the sake of argument, R4,000, but five years later, when he was 70 years of age and no longer able to work, he wanted to apply for an old-age pension. But during those five years the value of his house had doubled to R8,000, and after he had done his duty all those years he was told by the State: “Your house is worth so much now that you do not qualify for an old-age pension.” Let me add at once that when the Department of Social Welfare saw this case in its true light, after I had explained the position to them, they were prepared to co-operate; this man has now been given a pension, but there must be many similar cases in South Africa where the people concerned have not been given this assistance and where they are living under the most impossible conditions to-day. I do not think anybody with any sense of values can really believe that our old people are well off on R27 per month. In addition to that we must bear in mind that these old people also have to pay indirect taxes—and here I am thinking of wireless sets which are sometimes their only source of enjoyment. They pay just as much for their licence as the wealthy man does. The licence fee is a high one, and what do they get for it? This is a matter in which born sides of the House should support the hon. member for Rosettenville and ask the (government to appoint a commission as soon as possible to examine the means test as it applies to the old people of South Africa so that our old people can once again lead decent lives.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) has done his best to convince us that the Government is over-taxing us. It is scarcely necessary to say that he failed hopelessly. In spite of everything he said it still remains a fact that South Africa is one of the countries with the lowest scale of taxation in the world and that our people believe that as long as this Government remains in power they will not be over-taxed.

But I should like to come back to the matter which was touched upon by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter). Let me say at once, before hon. members overwhelm me with questions, as they did the hon. member, that I am not a smoker and that I have no monetary interest in the tobacco industry. I can say, however, that I am particularly impressed with the great perseverance of the tobacco farmers; I am particularly interested in their modern methods and in the success they have achieved, and I am sure that like myself everybody else is very proud of the progress made by our tobacco industry, which has established itself in many parts of the world and which has put South Africa’s name on the world map. But after all these achievements on the part of our tobacco industry we now find that an almost world-wide propaganda campaign has been launched against the use of tobacco. The position is so bad that in certain circles people are even urging that legislation be passed to prohibit the use of tobacco. They base their demand on the assumption that cigarette smoking supposedly causes lung cancer. This assumption has naturally frightened almost everybody except the heavy smoker. Like many other people, however, I realize what tremendous harm this campaign causes not only to the tobacco farmer but also to the industry and to the workers in the factories, and I believe therefore that the time has come to sound a warning note against overhasty conclusions and against possible unnecessary action. I ask myself therefore, as many others have asked themselves before, whether cigarette smoking really causes lung cancer. I contend that as yet this question has by no means been answered scientifically and irrefutably. There is a great difference of opinion amongst world-famous scientists and I believe that a great deal of research will still have to be done before we get the answer to this question. There are large groups of learned people who are rather inclined to believe that lung cancer is caused by a virus. There are some people who believe that it has something to do with our eating habits. Others believe that the greatest role in the causation of lung cancer is played by hereditary qualities. In recent times attention has been given to the possible consequences of contaminated air, and the question now being posed is whether air contamination does not play a major role perhaps in causing lung cancer. I believe that the answer lies in a number of factors and perhaps combinations of factors, but I am perfectly certain that lung cancer is not caused by just one factor that we can conveniently single out as the sole cause. It has definitely not yet been proved convincingly that cigarette smoking plays any role at all in the causation of lung cancer. That is something which first has to be proved, and once it has been proved it will still have to be established to what extent it bears any relation to other possible causes. That is why I say that we should not simply allow ourselves to be stampeded and that we should not go so far as to hang a suspected accomplice and then allow the real murderer, which might perhaps be air pollution, to go scot-free. The fact that this danger does exist is proved very clearly by a report issued recently by a group of German scientists, all members of university staffs. These scientists are attached to seven different universities and institutes and they worked under the leadership of Dr. Reinhardt Poche of Dosseldorf and Dr. Kneller of the University of Bonn. After years of study they have come to the conclusion that cigarette smoking does not cause lung cancer. They are rather inclined to believe that lung cancer is caused by air contamination by industries and motor-cars. They made extensive experiments.

I do not want to go into details but I want to mention just one experiment as an example. They divided the population into occupational groups and they came to the conclusion that the incidence of lung cancer was highest amongst those persons whose work is associated with modern traffic—chauffeurs, bus drivers and traffic officers who continually inhale gases discharged from exhaust pipes. The next group consists of those people who are employed in industry and who come into contact with dust and who constantly inhale air contaminated by smoke. They checked all the various groups until they came to the group which comes into contact with contaminated air least of all, that is to say, persons who work in offices and in homes. Their finding was that the death rate from lung cancer was lowest amongst this particular group, but what is important is that these are the very people who are the heaviest smokers. This group of scientists established that the average age at which one contracted lung cancer was from 55 to 60 years and they found that this figure had remained constant from 1908; but what is important is that they also found that that figure had remained constant in the case of the non-smoker, the light smoker as well as the heavy smoker. Well, if cigarette smoking plays such a big role in the causation of lung cancer then surely one would expect a slight variation in this figure; one would expect the heavy smoker to contract lung cancer at an earlier age. They came to the conclusion that cigarette smoking had nothing to do with lung cancer. Professor Poche, who was in charge of this investigation, concludes his report on this note—

On another occasion he said this—

In this connection it is interesting to note that Professor Tybus of Newcastle, England, has worked out that in England where 180,000,000 tons of coal is burnt as against 11,000 tons of tobacco, the amount of carcinogene benzpyrene discharged into the air as a result of the burning of coal is 1,500,000 lb. as against only 8 lb. in the case of tobacco.

In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Air Contamination Dr. Halliday of the C.S.I.R. says on page 11—

Other research workers in South Africa agree with this finding. Their finding too is that the rate at which lung cancer increases in the Republic, just as in countries abroad, is determined by the size of the particular industrial centre. According to our own Department of Census and Statistics it appears that the aver age number of deaths due to lung cancer in Bloemfontein is only 4 per annum. According to the population figures one would therefore expect the figure in Durban to be 12 or 13 but in actual fact it is 48. There are many persons who believe that this is an indication that air contamination might well be responsible for the increased incidence of lung cancer, particularly when we look at the figure for Bloemfontein which has a dry, clean air and which is not a large industrial city. The graph over the period from 1940 to 1961 indicates very clearly that the death rate due to lung cancer in the cities of Johannesburg and Durban increased twice as rapidly as it did in Bloemfontein and 2½ times as rapidly as in non-industrial centres. In his article, “Lung Cancer Among White South Africans” in the British Medical Journal of 31 October 1955 Dr. Dean says that the Whites of South Africa smoke more cigarettes per head than the population of any other country in the world, and yet according to the 1958 annual report of the World Health Organization, South Africa, in spite of the fact that the Whites here smoke more than people in any other country in the world, has the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the world. In the Daily Telegraph of 8 February 1964, Kitchen writes—

He goes on to mention that the average number of cigarettes smoked in England in 1960 was 2,760 per person and in America 3,810 per person, and yet the lung cancer death rate was 481 per 1,000,000 in England as against 203 in America. People in New York smoke the same number of cigarettes per head as the population of Idaho and yet the lung cancer death rate in New York is four times as high as that in Idaho.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been trying to prove that lung cancer is caused by contaminated air; it is not quite so simple. On the contrary this problem is far too complex to lay the blame for lung cancer at the door of one particular factor. What I am trying to indicate, however, is that there is still an enormous difference of opinion amongst the scientists of the world. I have tried to show that it has not yet been proved scientifically what the cause of lung cancer is and that it has definitely not been proved that cigarette smoking has anything to do with it. It is true that there is such an assumption, but that assumption is based mainly on statistics and not on scientific research. I have mentioned statistics here which could equally prove that lung cancer is caused by contaminated air. This fact is clearly brought out by the following persons: Let me first quote what Dr. Harry Greene of the Yale University has to say—

All that the Government has are statistics by a statistical association and the statictics do not mean much … At the present time I do not believe that cigarette smoking has anything to do with cancer. I am in favour, however, of continuing experimentation. Somebody, some day, will come up with the answer to the cause of cancer.

Dr. Rigdon of the University of Texas says—

Dr. Berkson of the Mayo Clinic, the world-famous institution says—

It should be clear to all of us therefore that we should not simply blindly follow those who condemn smoking but that we should approach this problem patiently and judiciously and on a scientific basis. We do not close industries or factories because various industrial diseases are contracted in various industries. Nobody on earth would try to launch a campaign that we should close the gold mines because mine workers contract pneumoconiosis. Nobody would be so foolish as to launch a campaign that swimming on the Natal coast should be forbidden because sharks claim numbers of victims there. No, what we do is to try, along scientific lines, to establish the cause of the problem and, once having established the cause, we try to cope with the problem along scientific lines. It goes without saying that here too we should adopt the same method. Fortunately we have our Tobacco Research Institute in South Africa, an institution which is already doing research in this connection. This institute is already doing research into the cultivation and the processing of tobacco, the composition of tobacco, the smoking technique, etc. What is very gratifying is the fact that they have obtained the co-operation of Onderstepoort as well as of the University of Pretoria in this important work. I think I am quite correct in saying—indeed I am convinced—that we will be leaving this matter in safe hands if we leave it in the hands of our scientists. Even the chairman of the Terry Commission, the Surgeon-General of America, admits that that commission gave no final verdict as to the possible effect of filters in cigarettes. Even he admits that this is a fertile field for investigation; he admits that it is possible that the filter may have the same effect as a reduction in the number of cigarettes that one smokes. Here then we have the various lines along which we can tackle this matter in my opinion. I am sure that everybody is grateful to the Government for the fact that it has placed R1,000,000 at the disposal of the tobacco industry for research and I repeat that if we leave this matter to the scientists I am convinced that we shall be leaving it in safe hands.

I am sure we are all indebted to the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) for his learned dissertation on the causes of lung cancer, and I agree with him that the cause has not yet been proven. I think the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) can sleep for a fair number of years on both ears without worrying about the possibility of smoking being forbidden. It is one of those things which will take many years to prove and in fact it may never be proved because there are so many other factors involved, as my hon. colleague has mentioned. I do not wish to follow him any further; I do not think that this is altogether the forum for a debate on the cause of lung cancer.

I wish to speak particularly on the question of the shortage of doctors. The Government for the moment seems satisfied that there is a shortage of doctors and that the situation is apparently likely to become worse. The Medical Council has made all possible arrangements for importing doctors from other countries, but there is not much of a queue of doctors waiting to come here. In fact few indeed wish to come here. The medical schools have been asked to increase the output and they have agreed, but they have agreed to do this within the limits of their present facilities. The Government have asked them to go beyond these facilities. To this the universities have largely replied that while they are willing to increase their facilities the Government must give them the funds to do so. If the Government is so anxious to get people to qualify as doctors then it must provide these funds now. The present intake can be increased within the next year, because it is usual in each university to take the number that that university can accommodate plus a certain number to allow for wastage the first year. The selection at the end of the first year is strict. Then there is also a group of men and women who come in from the smaller universities to the medical schools and places must be found for them. There are others who have the B.Sc. degree, which fits them to enter the second year. I do not think, judging by the present signs, that the hon. the Minister of Finance is aware that it is possible for most of these medical schools to start the second-year courses, that is to say, the second year commencing in February 1965, with almost the numbers that they will be able to handle, but they cannot handle them unless the funds are given to them to create more laboratory accommodation and to provide more laboratory equipment. The medical schools are stretched to their limit already. If therefore the Government really feels that it has to supply more doctors, it is up to them to supply the funds now. The University of the Witwatersrand, for instance, can accommodate 50 per cent more students if it is given the funds to add the necessary three storeys to its new medical school. It was not the intention of the university to add these three storeys at the moment because they had no funds, but if the Government will provide funds now, these storeys could be added to the building which is at present being erected. The University of Cape Town cannot take any more medical students unless it is given funds to build more laboratories and unless it is supplied with more apparatus. The University of Stellenbosch unfortunately has not yet reached its full potential and can therefore only go a certain distance, especially as it is handicapped because of the fact that it has a smaller hospital at its disposal. Sir, the problem of providing adequate laboratories is an urgent one. It is urgent because the students will be seeking admission next year and, as I have said, they cannot be accommodated. If the Government, however, will meet the universities soon, there can be a rise of almost 40 per cent in the student intake. It must be remembered that the finished product is only delivered at the end of seven years. The universities are handicapped by the fact that they are now reaching the stage when their equipment is obsolescent. They have not been able to replace it; they are short of funds, and I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should make available loan funds to the universities for the provision of costly apparatus and that he should give them a long period for amortization. The purchase of apparatus will not wo sen the problem of the shortage of manpower in this country because little, if any, is manufactured here. Almost all has to be imported. I am told by a university authority that the cost rises roughly by about 5 per cent a year because there are so few people who manufacture apparatus. The University of Cape Town, for instance, has costly medical apparatus worth over R200,000, which has been supplied to it free by the Americans. How long this will go on I cannot say.

With regard to the increased allowance under the new formula, the Government should make more capital available to the universities so that they can build increased areas for their work, play and student amenities. The Government is apparently delighted with the new Cilliers formula for the subsidization of universities but this is a one-sided delight. The universities have certain reservations. The Government looks forward apparently to a perfectly satisfied group of universities from 1964-8, but the universities are not even satisfied to-day. The findings of the Cilliers Commission were based on figures submitted to them by the universities early in 1961, so the figures on which the commission’s findings are based and on which the formula is based are already three years out of date. Instead of overcoming the difficulties of the universities, the new formula will merely lift them up a little and they will gradually drift back into further debt until 1968 when the formula will be revised. If at each quinquennial revision the figures are always roughly three years out of date, it is obvious that the universities will never be able to make ends meet. Surely some more practical means could be devised so that there will be a gradual change over the five years and then a revision at the end of those five years, taking into account the growth of staff and the introduction of new faculties. Consider, Sir, the position of the two coastal universities. Both are obviously called upon to introduce faculties of oceanography. The University of Cape Town needs a new ship badly. We must have information not only about the contents of the waters around our coasts: not only must we know what fish there are, where they go, why they die and why they disappear—all these things should be placed in the hands of the universities—but we must also know what our continental shelf holds. A country with the enormous mineral riches near the surface that we have, riches which are probably unequalled in the world, cannot possibly accept that such riches cease at the high watermark. We know that already because people have found diamonds in certain areas, but it is not only diamonds; there must be many other minerals which ought to be investigated, and this work can only be done by the universities. It is not worthwhile waiting for private enterprise to do it. Surely it would pay the hon. the Minister of Finance to investigate the question of asking the rich fishing industry of the country to help to finance these investigations; to ask them to take part in these investigations, or even to ask the mining industry or the agricultural industry.

I want to turn now to the question of the control of research. The hon. the Minister of Finance has now introduced a further 1 per cent relaxation of companies tax for the purpose of encouraging the granting of bursaries. In 1960 he allowed 1 per cent for technological research and he subsequently widened the scope of the type of research permissible. The universities, short as they are of capital funds, could obtain large sums of money from industry and commerce if the Minister would increase the percentage of income exempt from tax to roughly 5 per cent. One university informs me that they received nearly R500,000 in one year. If the percentage exempt from tax had been 5 per cent it would have received R6,000,000. The Minister will not miss the little bit of tax which would have been collected on this amount.

These universities are also handicapped as far as freedom of research is concerned. They always have to go to the C.S.I.R. to obtain funds. It is true that under the new formula there is a sum of R600,000 which has been thrown into the pool, for so-called free research by the universities but when one thinks of this in terms of the number of universities and the amount of research that requires attention, one realizes that it is a relatively small amount. In any event it is a drag upon universities to have to work at the behest of the C.S.I.R. They all speak highly indeed of the treatment they receive, but the C.S.I.R. Committee members point out themselves that very often they are dragged away from their work to Pretoria at difficult times. In any event I cannot see why the C.S.I.R. should control medical research. Why must the medical schools be tied down almost to a dictatorship from the C.S.I.R.? Surely if the councils of these universities, to which the Government itself looks for advice and help, can be entrusted with the training of the youth of this country, they can be trusted to decide among themselves what research they will do. The present system leads to unnecessary delay and makes it difficult for the universities to extend projects over a period of longer than a year or two, it makes their position very difficult and they are unhappy. This is one of the factors which is driving young men away from this country because year after year they see that inadequate funds are provided, whereas that does not apply in some other countries. There is a grave shortage of technological workers in the country, not only medical technologists but technologists in every form, such as engineering and so forth. The Whites have provided and are providing almost to the limit; the Whites are already strained to the limit to provide the professional men, the engineers and the doctors, etc. and they cannot supply much in the way of technologists who must be university trained men with a university degree. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the potential which exists amongst the Indians. My personal experience of the Indians in technological work is that they have a capacity for learning which is on a par with that of the Whites. There is a large pool amongst these people competent to be trained. They can in that way begin a professional type of occupation which will meet the case once put by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that the Indians could not expect always to be traders. That is quite true. They can provide a large number of technologists. They have the brains for it. Perhaps a similar state of affairs exists amongst the Coloured people. But I have not sufficient knowledge of these people to be able to speak on the matter. I commend to the hon. the Minister’s notice that he should as rapidly as possible provide for Indian training in the new Indian University of the highest quality in technology.

Lastly I want to say a few words on the professors’ salaries. The hon. the Minister of Education yesterday put out his chest and said he had raised the salaries. He spoke as though he was giving them a fortune. He spoke as though that would be the last claim they could possibly make. When I looked through the salaries, Sir, I was shocked. These men are the intellectual elite of the country. They are the people by whom future Cabinet Ministers must be trained. These are the men who have to train the future leaders of the country and what are they offered? If we want to stop the drain of our young men away from this country we must show them that at the top of the tree is a prize worth having. That is one of the reasons why the youth, the professional youth of this country, go away. They go away because they see something at the end of the road in this country which is not particularly worth struggling for, they see prizes just as good if not better in other parts of the world. We have to compete in the world market for brains. We have to fight the world market which is short and which comes to us to see what we can spare and we can spare none. I think the professors’ salaries should be revised very soon.

The course of this debate has unfortunately from time to time been interrupted. Hon. members talk about certain specific matters and then they switch over to other matters. I have been sitting here listening since Friday. In view of the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), it is necessary for me to deal with certain matters on this occasion. Social welfare and pensions have often been discussed, but then the debate was switched over to other matters. In any case, this is the third occasion during this Session that the same subject has been debated here. We have had two motions, and amendments were moved to those motions. The same matters were discussed over and over.

That shows how serious we are.

I can see you are serious. I also know precisely why hon. members of the Opposition are serious. Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members of the Opposition are disappointed about what is really being done in this Budget. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) must not interrupt me now. I can see from the expression on his face how disappointed he is because the people outside received this Budget in the way they did, including the pensioners.

Which people?

The electorate throughout the country. This matter was discussed on 14 February. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) moved a motion with three legs, that the scale of pensions should be reviewed, that the means test should not be applied so strictly, and that suitable accommodation should be provided particularly for the aged. In the discussions on 14 February the hon. member admitted certain things. Inter alia, he made this admission which has now unwittingly been controverted by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman)—

That is an incontrovertible fact, Sir. The hon. member for Umbilo admitted it, but the hon. member for Maitland denies it. It is true that those pensions were increased. They were increased by 170 per cent by this Government, above what they were during the time of the United Party régime. The proportionate increase in the cost of living over the same period was 68½ per cent. In other words, pensions were increased to a much greater extent than the cost of living increased. Where do hon. members of the Opposition get the right to accuse us of not having kept pace with the increased cost of living? These figures have been given time and again in this House, but nevertheless they continue with this accusation.

What about the means test?

Now the hon. member suddenly asks: “What about the means test?” He asks that question because he feels guilty in regard to these increases. The hon. member is a lawyer and I thank him heartily for the admission of guilt he has just signed. He has signed it, and that is the end of the matter. He therefore agrees with the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member for Umbilo stated a second proposition. He said—

He said that on the same date. But that is no secret. Hon. members on both sides of the House know that the system on which we work is that the State does not shoulder the total responsibility for caring for all needy people. Hon. members have subscribed to that system for years already, and still do, as I shall indicate in a moment. The private sector collects a tremendous amount of money. I have often said before that I think it is a good thing for us to keep alive the interest of the private sector in regard to caring for the less privileged sections of the population. I think it would create an extremely difficult position in South Africa if we were one day to lose the interest of the private sector in that respect. Why do hon. members not get up and speak frankly? Why do they not say frankly: “Abolish that interest of the private sector completely and let the State alone shoulder the responsibility of caring for the less privileged?” Why do they not say that?

This year again R2,650,000 was added to the pension benefits, by way of special pensions. That is for the Whites alone. If we add the non-Whites, the total is R3,450,000. Increased contributions have often led to a rise in the cost of living, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said in his speech. Now that was the standpoint of the hon. member for Umbilo on 14 February. On 28 February we had a motion in this House moved by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter). The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) moved an amendment to that motion. He must have moved that amendment on behalf of his party, or else I do not know on whose behalf he moved it. This was his amendment—

Therefore the Government has to make provision for their minimum needs. Does the hon. member agree that the Government should provide for the minimum needs of everybody? It makes no difference how many there are; it makes no difference whether in the course of the years they did not themselves make provision for their old age, in spite of our being so proud that there are still so many people who make provision for their old age themselves. The hon. member agrees that the Government and the Treasury should make provision for the minimum needs of pensioners and the less privileged and needy sections of our population. Provision has to be made for that by the Treasury! Now hon. members of the Opposition have the temerity to say in the same breath that they are not in favour of a welfare state. Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Opposition talk so inconsequentially that with the best will in the world one cannot get anything specific from them. On 28 February the hon. member for Durban (Central) said the following—

That is diametrically opposed to his amendment. Then he goes further and says—

In other words, he does not favour any contributions being made by the Treasury to the workers’ pensions. But on the other hand, in terms of that amendment, he wants everything to come out of the Treasury. Sir, what is to be gained with such propositions and such speeches in this House?

Then we had the chief speaker in this debate and his amendment. He talks about “planned and increased provision of sufficient funds in order to provide better social services and to improve the position of social pensioners, particularly of the aged and the infirm, by a drastic relaxation of the means test”. The hon. member for Constantia therefore still believes in a means test. He does not agree with either of those two hon. members. The hon. member for Rosettenville should tell me if I have misunderstood him. I would not like to misinterpret him. According to what I heard, he, inter alia, said the following in the speech he has just made—

In other words, they want to do away with the means test entirely. But he is the very man who in a previous debate stated that he was not in favour of a welfare state.

One does not create a welfare state by doing away with the means test.

I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member. He knows I appreciate the interest he and other hon. members have in this matter. He stated further—

People in Europe also said that; people in the welfare states in Europe said it, and they also said so in Britain. I studied those systems and found that in Britain, in spite of their welfare services, 20 per cent of the people were not adequately covered by those services. In Britain it is 20 per cent, but it is even much higher in many other countries. Those are the people who do not make a contribution; the State pays their contributions.

The hon. member for Constantia now moves his amendment in general terms. I think that when a matter like this is being discussed and the main speaker moves an amendment with three legs, those three legs should at least be able to stand on their own feet. But in his third leg he merely says that funds should be made available. That is general and vague; he did not expand on it. The hon. member did not say where the funds should come from. He did not say that the State alone should provide those funds. He did not say that the State should only make a contribution to those funds which are to be established. Why did he not suggest a contributory pension scheme as being the policy of his side of the House and be done with it, so that one at least would know where one stood? The hon. member for Constantia advocates the same system. He made a long speech and said: “There is no policy; there is no planning.”

Hear, hear!

I can quite understand why the hon. member says: “Hear, hear!” When the hon. member for Constantia had finished speaking on that subject, he said: “But the planning still rests on the foundation of a means test.” I repeat that after this debate had been in progress for a long time, and after this subject had been discussed periodically, we heard nothing more about those funds. We did not hear how the funds should be constituted; we did not hear on what basis those funds should be established.

I have dealt in this House repeatedly, during this year and in former years, with the improvements which have been effected by this side of the House in regard to the position of the pensioners. On 14 February I said that after my investigation in Europe in regard to this contributory pension scheme I found no country in Europe where a contributory pension scheme was adequate to cover everything.

I could not find one. In England, for example, the contribution is R1.06 a week and there are still 20 per cent of the people who cannot be provided for out of that fund. In addition, they still have the comprehensive scheme of the National Assistance Board and the County Council Scheme, and a multiplicity of other schemes which render complementary services. This question of the system has surely already repeatedly been discussed in this House. In 1944 the United Party Government instituted an investigation. They considered the report and said that in view of the nature and the circumstances of our population the system which is still in force to-day should be retained. They said that in view of the composition of our population—we have a heterogeneous population and not a homogeneous one—the system we are using to-day should be retained. It is therefore United Party policy. Thereafter there were repeated investigations, with the same result. I have given details in regard to the schemes overseas. After everything that has been done we come to the same conclusion, namely that the hon. member for Constantia still wants to retain this system.

I just want to point out what changes have already been made. During the past year subsidies were increased as follows: On 1 April 1961 the subsidy for the infirm was increased from R8 to RIO per month per capita; on 1 April 1963 the grant for furniture in old-age homes was increased from R30 to R90 Der inmate. That was an appreciable concession. In 1948 there were only 25 subsidized homes. The amount on the Estimates in 1948 was R40,300. In 1963 there were 101 such homes and the amount on the Estimates for subsidies was R714,000, and a further 25 homes for the aged are still being built. They will be available shortly.

I want to tell hon. members that, with all the experience I have gained, I would be the last person to get up and say that we have now found a panacea for all these problems with which we are faced. I say with the greatest emphasis that we will always have to cope with this problem, no matter what changes we make, no matter whether we have a welfare state or not. The position in Europe is that they are continually making changes from year to year as circumstances change. I have so often said in this House that this sort of thing is not static. One cannot do something to-day and say it will be permanent; from time to time it will have to be changed. It has to be adapted to the demands and the changed circumstances of the times.

The hon. member for Maitland said that nothing had really been done. I now want to give the figures: In 1947 the means test limitations plus the pensions amounted to R180 per annum; in 1948 k was increased to R240 per annum; in 1951 it was increased to R324 per annum, and thereafter bonuses and special allowances were added. In 1951 the bonus brought up the total pension to R168. That was what the people received. In 1953 it was R216 per annum; in 1954 it was R228 per annum; in 1955 it was R252 per annum; in 1959 it was R264 per annum; in 1960 it was R276 per annum; in 1962 it was R294 per annum, and now it is R324 per annum.

You should compare that with the national income shown in the Budget.

Even when compared with the national income in the Budget I think it amounts to 10 per cent of the Revenue Account in the Budget. It meant an increase of 170 per cent over a period during which the cost of living rose by 68 per cent.

Hon. members have asked me to reconsider these various matters. I want to tell hon. members in all sincerity that I gave them the undertaking that I would institute an investigation in Europe. I have implemented that undertaking. I came back and I have already said twice in this House that in various respects we can learn from the European countries, but they can also learn from us. I was received there with the greatest goodwill. They asked me what we did here, and I asked them what they were doing. We came back with a mass of legislation and literature which we have to study thoroughly. We must try to see what we can find there which is adaptable to our circumstances; we can make use of it. In the same way, they asked us to make certain information available to them. I have been saying for years that the position is not static and will not remain static.

I now want to refer to a question put to me by the hon. member for Rosettenville. He asked me why the amount of the subsidies was decreased by R91,000. I just want to tell the hon. member that infirm people are increasingly being removed from the hospitals as old-age homes and homes for the infirm are being provided. The costs in the hospital amount to R25 per month per person; in the old-age homes that amount of R25 per month is reduced to R10 per month. Old-age homes are being built everywhere in the country. In Cape Town an old-age home will soon be built to accommodate 200 aged people. Many of those old people will be able to leave the hospitals. When they are placed in these oldage homes the cost will be reduced accordingly. The Estimates for next year are based on the previous year’s expenditure. It is very difficult to make an estimate. It is difficult to determine precisely how many of these oldage homes will be available. However, I want to reassure the hon. member for Rosettenville. Although the Estimate for next year is based on the previous year’s expenditure, the policy still remains the same. The policy has not changed at all. The formula for the subsidy remains the same and the payments will be made accordingly.

I wish to refer to a few other matters. I have already said on former occasions that I came across certain things during my visit overseas which we could fruitfully investigate and then perhaps adapt to our needs. One of those matters is to give old people the opportunity to work longer, old people who are physically healthy. I have said that this was one of the aspects I investigated there. We are busy dealing with that matter. I added that there they have a system of delayed pensions. If a person feels he is still healthy enough to work then he states he does not want his oldage pension at 65 years of age. He continues working. His pension is then delayed, but he receives an increased pension one day when he draws it. That is also an aspect which we are now investigating thoroughly. I have already had consultations with my colleague the Minister of Labour to see how we can help each other in regard to the provision of work for old people who are still able to do a certain type of work. I must also consult the relevant departments. These are not matters which can be decided in a moment. For all these years I have taken hon. members into my confidence. I have said that we are dealing here with human beings, with the interests of the individual, and that we dare not experiment with it. We must make a thorough investigation and be very sure before we make any changes. We must know that those changes will be for the better. That needs much actuarial calculation and consultation with various departments. This is one of the matters which is not now being mentioned here for the first time. I have already said previously that I was dealing with it. The hon. members of the Opposition are much too inclined to say that it is actually they who always take the initiative and then we just follow suit.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Durban (Central) is the first to agree. Now he can perhaps tell me what has happened to his suggestion that the State should make no contributions at all towards social pensions. What has happened to that? I have just read it out to him. But let me get to the crux of the matter. There is another matter which I have already said we are busy with, and that is the provision of accommodation for the aged. I have already said that I have gone to much trouble to have this matter investigated thoroughly. I was particularly interested in and devoted particular attention to the matter of the accommodation of the aged in the countries I visited. Something which I liked is the system I saw in Britain and also in other countries, but in a particularly nice form in Britain, and that form rests on two principles. The one principle is that one should get the aged people out of the slums of the large cities. That is a very sound principle. They are brought to new townships, of which ten have already been established around London. Difficulty was experienced in getting these people out there, but a start was made and those institutions made a deep impression on me. The second principle which also made a deep impression on me, and something which I have always advocated myself, is that one should not isolate the aged. When they are accommodated they should not all be put into one township, in a single group. Give them the chance to feel that they still form part of society. Give them the impression that their lives are still of value to us. They are the people who did much to bring us to where we are to-day. I had consultations immediately on my return, and in fact I had consultations with my colleague, the Minister of Housing, when I was still overseas. I also had consultations with him after my return, and as hon. members have noticed, an announcement was made in the Press a few days ago that provision is being made for new housing schemes everywhere in the country at a very fast rate. As he put it, this would not take years, but months. We have already discussed the matter, and our Departments are busy negotiating with one another. We should like to make provision for our old people in all such schemes. Here at Bosmansdam and at every place where there will be such schemes we now want to try within a period of months to establish accommodation for our aged, so that they can be better housed in those communities which will be established there. I have also stated previously that what particularly impressed me was the flatlet system, but linked with this system is the communal centre, so that when these old people cannot care for themselves any more they go to the communal centre in the vicinity where they can obtain meals or anything else they need. [Time limit.]

The last portion of the speech of the hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, is one with which we on this side of the House are in full agreement with and which we welcome, and that is in regard to the problem of suitable accommodation for the aged. It is a matter which has in recent times taken a different concept as to previous years whereby these persons were accommodated in large institutions. The system to keep them in the community is an important principle and is one which is welcomed.

However, there are other aspects which we must discuss during the course of this Budget debate and which must be replied to. The hon. Minister has indicated that we on this side of the House do not accept the fact that the present Nationalist Government has from time to time increased pensions. We have never denied that fact. We have always said that pensions have been increased from time to time, but those increases have merely kept pace with the decrease in the purchasing power of money. Indeed the Government would have failed in its duty if it had not increased pensions from time to time. The State responsibility to try and counter poverty among certain sections of our community is indeed a very great one, it is one which we realize must be shouldered by the Government in a responsible manner. We are not unaware of the fact that they have from time to time increased social pensions, but we doubt whether those increases have been commensurate with the decrease in the purchasing power of the money that has been made available to them. Another point is that we also acknowledge the fact that in social welfare work it is imperative that the co-ordination of the State and the Church and welfare organizations should be maintained, and on that particular basis we have formulated our policy on this side of the House. We have never agitated in favour of a welfare state as such, but at the same time no one can deny that an adequate social security scheme is required in South Africa to ensure that security is provided in time of need. We have seen in recent times that President Johnson of the United States of America stated in his State of the Union speech at the beginning of this year that he was going to declare war on poverty in the United States of America. He highlighted social security as one of the measures that would have his attention. No one can say that the United States of America, a country of free enterprise, is now becoming a welfare state. But they are conscious of the fact that security in time of need is of paramount importance in regard to the governing of any country which takes cognizance of the fact that that security should be provided.

There are other aspects which I would like to deal with at some length. But I think that many of the details concerning the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions can be dealt with when the Minister’s Vote comes under consideration. However, I can assure the hon. Minister that although he might be a little disappointed that this is the third occasion that we on this side of the House have introduced a debate on matters affecting old age persons and pensioners, that we certainly intend to continue to press further on this particular issue in the interest of those persons concerned until such time as we believe that their position has been sufficiently alleviated.

Let us look at the Budget before the House to see what relief is afforded to the needy persons. Last year in the Budget debate the hon. Minister of Finance said that a special allowance of R2.50 per month for White pensioners, or R30 per annum per person, was being given to that section of the community which had no assets and was indeed the neediest amongst the needy. He said that their need was highest. Now if you look at the Budget proposals, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that section does not receive a single cent in regard to the R88,000,000 surplus in this Budget, and a large number of persons is involved. The most under-privileged section amongst the needy are these persons who have no assets whatsoever, and if you remember the Pension Laws Amendment Act of last year, you will remember that it was clearly defined in that Act as to what limit those persons shall have. For instance the White social pensioner would receive R30 per annum provided he had no other income in excess of R60 per annum, and proportional amounts were allocated to the non-White section of the community. Sir, the introduction of the special allowance system brought about a great deal of disappointment and dissatisfaction amongst social pensioners, because they found that after the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions had undertaken the enormous task of checking these files, only a small percentage of those pensioners qualified for that special allowance. Consequently many of these pensioners were disappointed in that respect. To look at these figures, we find that amongst the White social pensioners, there are altogether (old age pensioners, war pensioners, blind persons and disabled persons) 126,469 White pensioners and of that number 33 per cent have now received a special allowance, viz. 42,457. That means that approximately 84,000 or 67 per cent of the social White pensioners will now derive the benefit of the increased R2.50 per month, from this Budget. It is satisfying from our point of view to know that those 84,000 persons are going to receive some financial relief and benefits from the surplus. However, it is a pity that the increase was not a greater increase, an increase of perhaps R3.50 per month or R42 per annum, which would have meant that the 42,000 persons who have no assets whatsoever and have no other income would also have received a small increase in their pensions. Those 42,000 persons will receive nothing in regard to this Budget.

The position in regard to the non-Europeans is even more serious when one studies the White Paper that was made available by the Minister of Finance. Here we find that these persons are having to live on extremely meagre pensions due to the position of having a proportional ratio of 12:6:5:2 in regard to the various racial groups, and in terms of the Pension Laws Amendment Act of last year they are also subject to another means test before qualifying for the special allowance, and in spite of the various restrictions for receiving the special allowance, such as other income from other sources, being a very small amount of R60 per annum for Whites, R30 per annum for the Coloureds and R25 for Asiatics, we find that a large number of these non-European people still qualified for that special allowance. So according to figures that were supplied to me in reply to a question, we find that in the Coloured community of the 68,957 social Coloured pensioners, some 62,650 received the special allowance, that is 91 per cent. This means that the remaining 6,307, or 9 per cent of the Coloured social pensioners, will receive this year the increased amount of R15 per annum, which is being given to them. As far as the Asiatics are concerned, there are 10,981 social pensioners and of that number 8,079 are already receiving the special allowance of R12.60 per annum. That means that only 2,902 Asiatics will receive anything of the R88,000,000 surplus. Of the Bantu, there is a total number of 317,300 social pensioners and here I have had extreme difficulty in trying to assess what the Bantu community will receive in regard to increased pensions. The difficulty is that whereas in respect of the White pensioners, the Coloured pensioners and the Asiatic pensioners, the various Departments were able to supply figures of those racial groups as to how many received this special allowance in respect of last year’s increase, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is unable to supply any such figures. I understand from that Department that the Bantu persons to qualify for that special allowance last year, had to apply for it, and it appeared that not many of the Bantu persons seemed to be aware of the fact that they could have applied for that increased special allowance last year of R5.10 per annum, and unfortunately, a large number of the Bantu people will now have missed the opportunity of receiving one year’s special allowance of R5.10 per annum. However, they will derive some benefit from the present Budget proposals.

So the over-all picture shows that of the R3,450,000 for social pensioners, one has to assess how much will be paid to the 84,000 White pensioners who will receive benefits, and my calculation shows that it is roughly R2,500,000, and for the 6,300 Coloureds at R15 per annum, it will be something like R94,600 and for the 2,902 Asiatics at R12.60 per annum it will be approximately R36,500, an amount of R2,651,500 in toto. The Minister has allowed an amount of R3,450,000 for the increase in social pensions. That will mean that roughly R798,000 will be available for the Bantu people, and basing my calculations on these figures it would appear that approximately 57 per cent of the Bantu people received the special allowance last year, and the Minister of Finance is estimating that approximately 157,000 Bantu will now receive the additional amount of R5.10 per annum. Looking at all these figures, one can only come to the conclusion that this Budget is not providing any relief whatsoever to the neediest amongst the needy, and the final figures show that of all social pensioners of all races there will be some 274,000 social pensioners who will receive nothing of the R88,000,000 surplus, not one single cent. We are told of the great prosperity in this land, and yet here we are going to see a position whereby the persons who are the neediest of the needy have been completely ignored in regard to these Budget proposals. I believe that it is an act of callous disregard for the welfare of these over 250,000 social pensioners who are looking to the Government for some further assistance to help them to fight against the ever-increasing cost of living and the decreasing purchasing power of their money. The more one looks at these figures, the more convinced one becomes that the hon. Minister of Finance should have been far more generous in his allocation of this surplus. If all social White pensioners were granted R42 per annum (and thereby the other racial groups would also receive a further increase), and taking into account an increase of R42 per annum, making it R3.50 per month for the White pensioner, according to my calculation it would have cost the country R5,902,000 instead of R3,450,000, which would have meant an extra cost of R2,450,000. This is less than R2500,000 and it would have meant that all social pensioners of which of all races there are now some 523,707, according to the latest figures —over 500,000 people—would all have received some benefit and some further assistance from the Government. This is their livelihood in many cases. They are fully and entirely dependent upon that amount of pension. The welfare organizations are having an enormous struggle to assist these people. I know that one of the large benevolent societies in Durban that issues food vouchers and assists the aged with accommodation are having a tremendous struggle themselves to exist financially. They have received financial support in the past from lotteries, which is now being disposed of; they are unable to receive any further financial assistance. I hope that at a later stage the hon. Minister of Social Welfare will make approaches to the Minister of Finance to see what can be done to further assist these welfare organizations.

I replied to a question which had been put to the hon. Prime Minister and gave full particulars.

It is true that the hon. Minister did reply and said that these matters would be dealt with on their merits, but I do hope that we will get more than that from the hon. Minister. We would like a complete review of the present financial assistance to welfare organizations, a review of the basis of subsidies. In the United States of America for instance, in respect of professional welfare officers who are in the employ of welfare agencies and societies the Government is providing 100 per cent reimbursements of the salaries of such professional welfare officers. Consequently they are able to provide more fieldwork which is a very special part of social welfare. However, I wish to deal with that aspect perhaps at a later date, because I want to stress the position in regard to the present plight of social pensioners and the fact that they should have received something more from this Budget, because these are the persons who are the neediest amongst the needy. Sir, we must have a plan to assist these people. As I mentioned earlier, in the United States, President Johnson has declared war on poverty, and I believe that we can follow a good deal of what is being done in that country in regard to assisting persons who are living in dire circumstances to-day. President Johnson came to the conclusion in his speech to the nation on 8 January 1964: “The new Budget clearly allows it, our taxpayers and people surely deserve it”. I believe that exactly the same position exists here in our country to-day. We have a Budget showing R88,000,000 surplus. We have persons living in poverty. We know there always will be poverty. It will not be possible to eliminate poverty completely, but it certainly is possible in the circumstances to bring alleviation to those persons who deserve some alleviation.

The other group of persons whom I think will be extremely disappointed in the Minister of Social Welfare’s speech this afternoon and also the Minister of Finance’s speech will be the persons for whom there will be no relaxation in regard to the means test. Apparently there is to be no relaxation whatsoever in the means test. Time will not permit me to deal with the matter in any detail, and other speakers on this side have dealt with it. However, I want to make a plea to the hon. Minister of Finance to give consideration through the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to increase the number of social pensioners in South Africa to-day by relaxing in certain instances the means test, particularly in regard to the amount that is allowed as an unencumbered asset of R2,400. This figure I believe is some ten or 11 years out of date. We know of cases where people are living in homes to-day where they have lived for over 30 years. By diligent hard work they have paid off their home and now find that they are not entitled to receive any pension whatsoever, whilst other persons living in a similar type of house because they reached the age of 65 at an earlier date and before revaluation took place in that city, qualify for a pension. He is able to enjoy the amount of pension that is made available to him, whereas the other person cannot receive any pension whatsoever. These people are faced with a very difficult predicament of either trying to exist in the house on a small amount that they might be able to receive from other sources, or to sell their home, and if they sell their home and they have the cash available and are not living in their own home they are only allowed a free unencumbered asset in the case of a single person of R1,200. I believe that these are all matters which affect a large number of people, those who are struggling to live in the lower income group, and I believe that these persons are the ones that should receive due consideration from the Government at times such as these when they find that in spite of prosperity, they can hardly keep going. Prosperity is passing these people by. They are not sharing it in any way whatever. And I think that the State should meet its obligations by assisting these people by making it possible for those who are not wealthy people to also qualify for some form of social pension which will make the twilight of their lives just that little happier.

As one of the most senior members of this House, I should like to refer to what happened in the House yesterday, when the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) got up and accused this side of the House of having anti-Semitic feelings. Sir, that hon. member is a very responsible member and one with great experience, and therefore one cannot just view this matter lightly as if it were raised by a younger member who perhaps in his enthusiasm raised the matter in this House when it should never have been raised here. I mention this because I am convinced that in dealing with such a deeply human matter it could cause South Africa tremendous harm. If this were just an accusation against some members on this side for having used certain expressions, it might still have been forgiven, but it is an accusation against this side of the House, and as such I fear that the accusation levelled by the Chief Whip of the United Party may be published to the world and cause us much harm. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has already dealt with the matter very effectively, but I felt that I should state very clearly, and with the greatest responsibility, that we are not guilty of such conduct. The hon. member had not the slightest right to say so, and I want to give him the assurance that no such attitude exists as far as this side of the House is concerned. In fact, I want to go so far as to say that the day when something of that nature rears its head in South Africa it should be killed like a snake, because it can only harm our fatherland. I want to say that since the earliest days of our history in this country the Jewish community has played an honourable role in South Africa. We think of Sammy Marks in the days of President Kruger, and we also think of what the Jewish industrialist, and the business acumen of the Jews generally, means to us in these very critical times in which we live. They are in the vanguard of the people who help to earn the money which enables the Minister of Finance to keep our country prosperous, so that South Africa may live in peace and quiet. We know that we cannot afford not to take notice of what goes on in this country and outside of it. I should like to say that if ever there was a time in the history of South Africa when all the sections of the population, the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people, the Jewish community and every White person in this country, should stand together to help South Africa to prosper and to preserve peace and quiet in a time of crisis, it is to-day. But it should not just remain there. All sections of the population should try to achieve that. Our chance to pass through this period safely depends on whether every man and woman assists our Ministers to preserve and foster a spirit of goodwill. In view of the fact that the communists are very active in South Africa to-day, perhaps more so than anywhere else in the world, we have one weapon against them, and that is to be just and fair to every individual in our country, and our most effective safeguard is to ensure peace and quiet for all sections of our population. If we do not ensure that, and riots and strikes ensue, it will form fertile soil for communist agitation. Therefore I repeat that we need goodwill, peace and quiet in our country. Therefore it is the duty of every good South African to assist in establishing those good human relations in South Africa which will help us to survive these critical times. That is why we are so thankful that the Minister of Finance could introduce a budget this year which reflects how prosperous we are. We know that there are still many needs that should be supplied, and there are so many things which one would like to do if only one had the money. Unfortunately I suppose we will never have enough money to do everything we would like to do, but we are nevertheless thankful for what we are able to do. South Africa’s future lies in our ability to utilize our prosperity for the benefit of all sections of the population and thereby to raise the standards of living of everybody. For that, money and work are required, and we have the labour and the money, for which we are very grateful.

Unfortunately things are not going so well in the agricultural sphere. We are suffering from an unprecedented drought to-day. That has already been dealt with very effectively by some other speakers, but I make no apology for again bringing to the notice of the Minister and the Government the drought which is affecting such a large area in the country. I want to point out that whereas only a few months ago we expected a maize crop which was estimated at 80,000,000 bags, that has now been reduced to an estimated 46,000,000 bags, and in large parts of the country the drought still persists. But it is not only the position of the maize farmer which concerns us, but also that of the stock farmers throughout South Africa. There was not enought rain to provide grazing for the animals in the coming winter. I am thinking of the cattle-farmers in the Northern and Western Transvaal and in my constituency, which areas together represent the greatest cattle-ranching areas in the country. We think also of the cattle-farmers in South West Africa, where after years of drought, good rains fell last year and the grass grew, but it has been trodden out, and if the rains do not come soon there will be no grass later in the year. The farmer is facing a very dark future, and I think it is only right to state the position in this House so that the country will realize what the position is. We are grateful to know that the Government is already evolving great plans in order to combat this position. We have great confidence in our farmers. We know how hardy they are and how they can stand up to hard times, and we depend on them, but I think it is just as well to mention it so that they will know that the Government is not unsympathetic and that we are busy making plans here in order to cope with those difficult problems. I do not want to go into further details. I think I have stated the matter as a whole and I just want to mention one final point, and that is in regard to the matter I have already briefly raised in the Part Appropriation debate, namely the system of divisional councils in the Cape Province.

The position is that the farmers are now saying that they rent their farms from the divisional council or from the Provincial Council of the Cape Province. Since 1950 the taxes on farms and town properties in the Cape Province have increased by 152 per cent. In 1950 the amount was R2,495,719, and in 1962 it was already R6,298,882. It is not necessary for me to say much more about it. I have stated the matter briefly, but I just want to add that it is felt that one can only load a person or a province to the stage where the burden can no longer be borne. It is said that it is the last straw which breaks the camel’s back, and I am afraid that in the Cape Province we have reached that stage in so far as taxation on property is concerned. If one takes a large district like Vryburg, it contains a large Bantu area which is almost as large as any to be found in the Transvaal, but that Bantu area pays no taxes to finance the building of roads. In other words, the small number of White inhabitants who still live in the district of Vryburg have to pay all the taxes for the whole area, with the result that their burden is becoming so heavy that they simply cannot continue to pay any more. I gave the figures the last time I spoke and I do not want to give them again. I know the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet will also give the House some information in this regard. I just want to say that the time has arrived for this House to give effect to the spirit of Union in the Republic and that we should not seek to shelter behind the provincial boundaries, thereby treating the citizens of certain provinces as the orphans of the State as a whole. I would like to make a serious appeal to members of the House to bear these matters in mind. The Minister has appointed a commission and we are eagerly awaiting the report in regard to this matter which is of vital importance to my constituency and also to the whole of the Cape Province.

I listened with interest to the calm and dignified speech made by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne), a man whom I have always admired, but he will forgive me if I do not pursue the matter he raised initially in his remarks. I feel that the attitude of this side of the House has clearly and authoritatively been expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), the Chief Whip of the Opposition, and I have nothing further to add. But one thing I do say as a relative newcomer to this House and as a backbencher, that I for one will watch the attitude of hon. members opposite in future with a great deal of interest.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Pinetown referred to the million forgotten people in this Budget. He was making a direct reference to the people in the income bracket below R4,599, the average man in the street who is still asking what he gets out of it. It seems to me that the attitude of the Minister of Finance has been one of complacent indifference. His answer I think boils down to this: We are spending R210,000,000 on defence; that is the price of our isolation, we are spending R13,000,000 on the Transkei chasing ideological impossibilities, and we are setting aside another R20,000,000 just in case it is needed in South West Africa for the same reason. But what is the reaction of the man in the street? When the boom-blunted perception of the “volk daarbuite” descends to ground level, I believe that they will want a change in Government, because the Government is losing touch with the man in the street. I do not say that without reason. I take as my basis the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Family Allowances which was released in June 1962, and which has been available for study and consideration since then. The Committee made recommendations to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the Department of Housing, and the Department of Health. Various questions have been addressed to these various Ministers in connection with their attitude to the recommendations made in the report. Their answers have been enlightening but very depressing. I will quote the first question which was addressed to the Minister of Finance. It asked the Minister whether any recommendations arising from the relevant chapter of the report had in fact been considered, and the answer was “yes”. Then he was asked whether they had been given effect to by his Department and the answer was “no”. Then he was asked if they were given effect to, what recommendations and what financial benefit has been derived there from by taxpayers each year since 1962. The answer was that there were no direct advantages to taxpayers arising from the recommendations made. This rejection of any suggestion is in spite of the fact that the Committee criticizes the present rebate system and refers to it as a most undesirable state of affairs if the ideal of larger families is to be achieved. Then in conclusion the committee says—

The next question was addressed to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. It was worded slightly differently and the answer was more encouraging. The question asked the hon. the Minister which sections of the report had been considered and given effect to, and the Minister replied that the first portion of the question had been answered by the answer to a similar question from the hon. member for Umbilo, who takes an interest in matters of social welfare, but in so far as the question is concerned in regard to the amount of money involved which had been allocated by his Department in excess of normal expenditure, and arising out of the recommendations in the report, the Minister said this, that in respect of maintenance grants in the year 1962-3 an additional R123,000 had been spent and in respect of family allowances R7,000, and in the year 1963-4 in respect of maintenance grants R661,000 had been spent, and in respect of family allowances R75,000. According to the report of the Auditor-General, 694 family allowances were paid in the year ended 31 March 1963, involving an amount of approximately R160,000. I am not deprecating this expenditure, but I want to compare it with the amount allocated and spent during the same period by the Department of Immigration in granting assistance to immigrants. The amount of R1,675,000 was spent in this respect. Juveniles immigrating without their parents received up to R120 allowance. No mention is made of the means test, but the money is made available where necessary. It has been said by the Minister that the cost per immigrant, to bring them to South Africa, is approximately R155 per capita. Bearing this in mind, is it not reasonable to assume that an expectant mother, a South African citizen, should receive some direct assistance financially from the State for the new young South African she is about to provide? I am not alone in that thought. Professor van Zyl of Stellenbosch University also suggested that the time had come for South Africa to consider this matter. He said: “Suid-Afrika moet nou wakker skrik.”

The next question was addressed to the Minister of Education, Arts and Science and the answer was a brief one which I wish to quote. The question was the same, asking what money had been allocated, and the reply was that what was recommended in this part of the report has for the past 30 years been an integral part of the educational programme of the Department of Education, and therefore the quesion of additional expense fell away. When one considers the report of the committee on family allowances, one comes to the conclusion that this 30-year plan needs a new look in order to achieve better results. The statement by the Minister this week has thrown a certain degree of light on this aspect and one has reason to believe that many aspects will be improved as the result of the decision of the Minister. But in answer to the question he said that no additional money had been allocated for these various matters. The Committee on Family Allowances itself said that there was a very great need for a sufficient number of bursaries and for reasonable loan facilities. Such facilities, they say, would also make it unnecessary for mothers to go out to work. Meanwhile, what do we find in this Budget? As far as bursaries are concerned the amount has remained the same since 1962, namely R26,000, and as far as loans are concerned, they have been reduced from R26,000 to R9,000.

Further recommendations made by this committee were that education should therefore embrace proper training for parenthood. Girls should receive special attention. A gymnasium for girls should be established. Full use should be made of adult education; there should be more free education and free books, and there should be more assistance in connection with university careers. Sir, there are many problems concerning the increase in our White population which only a dynamic State policy can hope to combat. I have no time now to go into details, but there are certain aspects I feel I should like to refer to. I feel we must take into consideration this aspect of increasing our White population.

The first point I wish to refer to is the question of abortions, the large number of abortions and the permanent sterility resulting from them. One estimate puts the resultant loss of White babies per year at 50,000. Then there is the question of sterility. The committee discussed this aspect and as the result of figures supplied from overseas, from the U.K. and the U.S.A., a figure of 14½ per cent was given in regard to childless marriages, and the committee concluded that although no specific figures were available in the Republic, this figure could well apply to the White population of South Africa. It seems that the fertility rate is falling although it is offset to a certain extent by the drop in infant mortality, but there are other aspects causing anxiety, according to the report. It says that small families are becoming increasingly more general, even among the working classes, and the report predicts that the Whites will take 40 years to increase a population of just over 3,000,000 to just under 5,000,000. Sir, that is a long time. The third point in this regard is the high divorce rate. The figure is given of 4,000 Whites per annum, and it is said by the committee that 60 per cent of these divorces take place during the first ten years of marriage, the period of a woman’s maximum fertility. If one takes into consideration the quarrelling, the discord, the unhappiness, the tension and the ultimate separation ending in divorce, the whole process results in a slowing down of the birth-rate. This, I believe, is closely related to a fourth point, namely the question of the working mother. It is not my intention to deal here with the pros and the cons of the working mother, I believe that it is primarily one of economics in which the State should have an interest. But is the State paying sufficient attention to this aspect of the working mother and what effect it is having on the present generation of children? Anyone who is aware of what is going on in South Africa and throughout the world knows that we have a teenage problem on our hands. Does it not result basically from a lack of mother love and care at an important stage in the life of a young child? Is the State doing all that is necessary to ensure that sufficient care and attention are given to the children of mothers who have to go out and work? I could quote other examples in connection with malnutrition and I could show that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing are not playing the part they could play in this matter. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is certainly issuing pamphlets giving information and films and papers, etc. telling people what they should eat, but what is the use of telling them that when they cannot afford to buy it? And when it comes to the supply of protective foods, the committee itself admitted that the supply and distribution of protective foodstuffs needed investigation. It said that State subsidies should be so applied so as to induce farmers to produce more of the necessary foodstuffs; the householder must be able to buy cheap protective foodstuffs. But what do we find? We find that in so far as the farmers who produce the protective foodstuffs are concerned, they are changing their pattern of farming due to the low prices they receive. Surely intelligent subsidization could overcome these difficulties.

One more word on malnutrition. Some of our protective foodstuffs like fruit, meat and eggs are being exported and we find that eggs, one of the basic protective foods, were being exported last year to the extent of 15 per cent of our annual production. But what do we have on the other side? We have malnutrition and kwashiorkor, of which we had nearly 15,000 cases reported only last year. As far as housing is concerned, I have not the time to deal with the matter, but I do not believe the Department has given serious consideration to the recommendations made by this committee.

In conclusion, I have tried to indicate that the Government is showing a lethargic reluctance in dealing with the vital matters which are not concerned with ideological concepts in South Africa. I suggest that we need a change in attitude and, better still, we need a change of Government.

The speech the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has just made can in many respects be to the benefit of our country and our nation. It is a pity, however, that he dragged in a little politics at the beginning of his speech. He said he was sure if the Government were to go to the country it would not be returned to power. I am sorry for his sake that he said that because that shows that he is completely out of touch with the public outside and he is a member of a party which is equally out of touch with the public. I am perfectly entitled to say that because when I look round this House and I think of all the time I have been here I only see three members here who at that time sat over there in the corner representing the National Party, the party which is to-day in power on this side. There is a big difference between the Opposition of those days and the present Opposition. The United Party of to-day is totally different from what it was in those days. In those days there were members on the Government side who were absolutely South African in the true sense of the word; they differed from us on certain principles but they put South Africa above everything else. In those days it was still a struggle between Afrikaners on the one side and Afrikaners on the other side, in spite of the fact that the old Unionists still formed part of the then United Party, but what has become of the party who sat on this side? The 27 members who sat in the Opposition benches in those days have multiplied to become the powerful Government which is in power to-day. With every election and with every session the United Party has decreased in number. I shall tell you why, Sir. It is because there are elements in the United Party which are un-Afrikaans.

Nonsense!

It is because there are members in that Party who refuse to take the oath of allegiance to the Republic of South Africa. You may tell me, Sir, that when we were in Opposition some of us also refused to take the oath of allegiance. That is right but there is a big difference. At that time we had to swear allegiance to a person, to her or her descendants, whereas to-day you have to swear allegiance to your country, South Africa.

I want to go so far as to say that if a person refuses to swear allegiance to his country he should not be entitled to sit in this House. [Interjections.] Exceptions were made in those days in the case of persons whose consciences did not allow them to take the oath in certain circumstances, that was why they were allowed to make a solemn declaration. But there are members on that side who do not refuse to take the oath of allegiance for that reason. When they had to swear allegiance to a person they were prepared to do so but when they have to swear allegiance to their country, South Africa, they refuse to do so.

On a point of order, is the hon. member reflecting on the Rules of this House, because the Rules of the House provide for either an oath to be taken or a solemn declaration to be made.

I do not intend casting a reflection on all members on that side of the House; I am casting a reflection on certain members of the Opposition. Sir, I want to go even further. Speeches are made in this House which can only be made by persons who did not take the oath of allegiance. That is why those people make that type of speech.

Order! The hon. member must refer to hon. members as “hon. members” and not as “those people”.

Very well, Sir, hon. members, on that side. Some of them are far from being “hon. members”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Sir. We are living at a time when South Africa is being attacked; we are living at a time when the Minister of Justice is doing everything in his power to prevent inflammatory speeches and subversive activities outside. But it is no good taking action only against people outside who make inflammatory speeches if you do not at the same time act against people who make inflammatory speeches in this House. Mr. Speaker, you are here to see that the Rules of the House are observed and you allow members to say things which they are allowed to say under the Rules, and as far as I can judge you have always acquitted yourself well of your task in this House. But speeches are made in this House which are of such a nature that I suspect the members who make them of having no love for South Africa.

Mention their names.

Do hon. members want me to mention the names of those members who did not want to take the oath of allegiance?

No, the names of the members who do not love South Africa.

I do not understand what hon. members really want. But the one thing they do not want is that I should speak the truth, and the truth is that speeches are made in this House which are used against us Overseas. I am convinced that if those speeches were made outside this House the Minister of Justice would give them his serious attention.

Speeches like the one you are making now.

I want to know whether the time has not arrived …

You are pleading for a police state.

The hon. member says I am pleading for a police state! When you get up in this House and plead that inflammatory speeches should not be made, speeches which may lead to unrest and rebellion, an interjection is made on that side that you are pleading for a police state.

Order! I think the hon. member is now going too far.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to regard speeches of an inflammatory nature made in this House in the same light as similar speeches made outside this House.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

Very well, Sir, then I shall go on to the next point. It is the policy of our Government and our country that there should be separate development between White and non-White. The Government pays subsidies and allowances to universities and many other institutions in this country and you would have expected institutions which received financial support from the Government to carry out the Governments’s. policy of separate development in every respect. But what do we find, Sir? In some universities attempts are made to undermine the policy of the Government in every respect. Organizations are formed which try to undermine Government policy at every possible opportunity. Here I have Nusas in mind, for example, a body which has gone so far as to plead that White and non-White should be allowed to live in the same hostel, that they should be allowed to mingle freely on the sportgrounds and in the dance halls. I want to ask the Government when they make allowances to universities to take into consideration whether or not those universities carry out our traditional South African policy. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that hon. member over there is continually interjecting. When you attack him the Opposition is quick to say you are attacking the Jewish race. I just want to tell that hon. member that if he continues with those remarks, I shall deal with, him.

“Neuk horn goed op”. (Give him blazes.)

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I used the wrong words, Sir, I withdraw them.

I do not want to go further into that. But I want to ask the Government to give its attention to universties which try to encourage an un-Afrikaans attitude in South Africa and which cause trouble in South Africa as a result, of their policy of no discrimination between White, and non-White at university level.

[Inaudible.]

Another chatterbox. (Kaaitjie Kekkelbek.)

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to apply the expression “Kaaitjie Kekkelbek” (chatterbox) to another hon. member?

Order! Did the hon. member use the expression “Kaaitjie Kekkelbek”?

Yes.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

I would like to withdraw it, Sir, but …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it. Sir.

I shall not go into that matter any further; perhaps we can discuss it further when the Minister’s Vote is under discussion. There is another matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Government, more particularly to the notice of the Minister of Justice and that is the use of knives and the murders which are committed where knives or other weapons are used. Practically every day you read in the Press about murders that have been committed where knives were used and about the big knives that are found particularly in possession of the non-White population of South Africa. I want to ask the Minister whether steps cannot be taken to exercise stricter control over the sale of such weapons or to limit the sale of big knives to people who can prove that it is absolutely necessary for them to have them. I think there were eight assault cases over the past fortnight, according to newspaper reports, where knives were used. In some of those cases non-Whites broke into the homes of White persons and had it not been for the fact that assistance arrived they would have used those knives.

They also use table knives.

He will not know what that is.

There is another interjection from the same hon. member. I shall tell him something in a moment which he would not like to hear. He will be pleased if knives are used more freely because he would like to see disorder in South Africa. He will encourage disorder as much as possible.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I have never yet heard that hon. member plead for the Whites in this House. When you get up and ask that the Whites be protected against the use of knives you get that sort of interjection from him.

That is a lie.

Order!

I withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is the duty of an Opposition to criticize and the Government need therefore not be at all concerned about the criticism we have had of the Budget from that side. I put this question to one of the Opposition members in the Lobby: “What criticism are you going to level at this Budget? I feel sorry for you because it is a good Budget and it cannot be criticized”. His reply was: “It is our duty to criticize”. Well, the Opposition did come forward with some criticism but in the 26 years I have been sitting here I have never heard weaker criticism of any Budget. Never have I heard weaker criticism from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), the main Opposition speaker in the Budget debate, than on this occasion. I think in their heart of hearts they are very grateful that the Minister was able to present a Budget such as this one. We are often told by the Opposition the Government should not get the credit for the surplus of R88,000,000; that it is purely due to circumstances that the Minister could show a surplus of R88,000,000. Sir, can you imagine what the position would have been had there been a deficit of R1,000,000 or R2,000,000? Would they then have said that the Government was not to blame for that? No, then we would have been told that the Government was so bad that there was another deficit and that taxation had once again to be increased. I think the Opposition together with us are grateful to the Minister of Finance for this Budget. In their hearts they are pleased that they too, can enjoy the benefits which flow from this Budget and that we have such a good Government.

I rise to say a few words in connection with a divisional council tax which is known in the Cape Province as the land tax. I need only mention this tax, Sir, and my blood pressure threatens to go up, so you can imagine how those people who have to pay it feel about it. It verily does their physical and financial health no good. I may be told that a divisional council tax is a matter which belongs to the Provincial Council but there are two reasons why I am convinced we may also discuss it in this House. I think the mere fact that colossal amounts are spent by the Central Government in the form of loans, subsidies and allowances to the Provincial Councils, gives us the right to discuss the taxes which are levied by the divisional councils. The second reason why I think we have the right to discuss it is that it is for the Government to see to it that the taxpayers over the entire Republic are treated on an equal basis. When the taxation pressure is uneven in the various provinces I think it is the duty of the Government to see to it that a uniform taxation system is applied over the entire Republic. The Provincial Councils have often considered this matter but they either do not have the power or they are unwilling to take action, and we consequently ask the Central Government which places so much money at the disposal of Provincial Councils, to step in and to see to it that we have a uniform taxation system over the entire Republic of South Africa.

We are told that if we plead for the divisional councils to be deprived of the right to levy a land tax in the Cape Province it would mean that we were pleading for the abolition of divisional councils. No, we are not necessarily pleading for that, Sir. But if the divisional councils consider their main function to be the imposition of taxes I say they must disappear. In the other provinces, for example, you have road councils and their most important function is to attend to the construction and maintenance of roads. They do not levy taxes yet they carry out their duty. Why then should we in the Cape Province retain the divisional councils in their present form, i.e., with the right to levy taxes? I maintain that we can retain the divisional council system if only another formula could be found to finance them. Naturally all taxes are unpopular but I can assure the House and the hon. the Minister that the land tax in the Cape Province is probably the most unpopular tax in the whole Republic of South Africa. It is not surprising therefore that certain parts in the northern Cape Province have already asked to be incorporated with the Transvaal; it is not surprising that a portion of the eastern Cape Province has already asked to be incorporated with Natal. Those people do not mind to which province they belong as long as they can get rid of this land tax we have in the Cape Province. A large measure of unfairness attaches to this particular tax, but one of the most unfair aspects of this tax is the fact that the divisional councils also have the right to impose taxes within the municipal areas. Your municipalities, your township boards, have the right to levy a tax on immovable property; I have no objection to that but when the divisional councils levy an additional tax on immovable property within that municipal area, I say it is unfair because that owner now has to pay two land taxes. But what is most unfair of all, Sir, is that the less privileged people, the aged who have a little house in the municipal area, the people with a small capital, some of whom do not even have a means of conveyance, people who never use the roads, who do not know what the inside of a motorcar looks like, are forced under this system to pay a land tax. I think this state of affairs in the Cape Province is most unsatisfactory and extremely unfair towards these people.

As far as the farmers are concerned, let me give you an example, Sir, to show you what the effect of this tax is. Supposing there are three farmers, one in the Free State, one in the Transvaal and one in the Cape Province. All three of them own property valued at R30,000; all three have two children. How do the taxes they have to pay compare? In the first instance, we in the Cape Province pay the highest provincial tax, but I leave that there. The two farmers in the Free State and Transvaal do not pay a land tax while the farmer in the Cape Province, who is in precisely the same financial position as the other two farmers, has to pay a land tax of R165. When you take the provincial council tax and the divisional council tax in consideration, you find that the farmer in the Free State pays R126, the farmer in the Transvaal R135 and the farmer in the Cape Province R315. I may add that the divisional council tax sometimes varies from one divisional council to another, but that is what the picture ultimately looks like. I can assure you, Sir, that there are many farmers in the Cape Province to-day who pay more divisional council tax than income-tax. The divisional council tax may constitute a small percentage of the total tax but it is not sound. What is more, the divisional council tax does not remain static. The divisional councils try to keep pace with the development of the country. In other words the divisional council tax on immovable property is continually increasing. The hon. member for Vryburg has already pointed out that from 1950 to 1962 there was an increase of 152 per cent. In order to complete the picture I want to give you the following figures, Sir: In 1950 we in the Cape Province paid R2,495,000 in the form of divisional council taxes; and in 1962 that was increased to R6,298,000. What makes the posi tion worse from the point of view of the taxpayer is the fact that the divisional councils are from time to time relieved of the responsibility of maintaining certain roads in the magisterial districts over which they have jurisdiction. Where a road is declared a national road the divisional council is relieved of its responsibility as far as that road is concerned. Last year the Provincial Council decided to take over the construction and the maintenance of all main roads from the divisional councils. Then you have the special roads in some magisterial districts. All those are roads for which the divisional councils used to be responsible in the past. They have now been relieved of that responsibility in spite of the fact that the tax has not been reduced; it continues to rise and rise.

The divisional councils have machinery today which called for tremendous capital expenditure. They have large offices and large administrative staffs. The late Mr. Olivier, a former Administrator of the Cape Province, on one occasion suggested that the divisional councils should be centralized in order to effect a saving in that way; that there should be one divisional council for a number of magisterial districts. As a result of that suggestion every divisional council raised a hue and cry because every one of them is proud and jealous of its autonomy. Nothing came of that suggestion. Attempts were then made to save, to reduce expenditure. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons why I object to the divisional council tax but there is one thing which has lately worried me a great deal as a farmer and that is that from all sides an appeal is made to farmers to provide their labourers with better housing; The farmer is willing to do so; he wants to do so and he also does so, but the moment the farmer improves the house of his labourer or erects a new house for him, the valuator arrives on the farm and; he values the improvement or the new building and tomorrow the farmer received a taxation assessment in respect of the value of that improvement or in respect of the value of that building. That is indeed no encouragement to any farmer in the Cape Province to improve the housing of his labourers. I trust the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will also give their attention to this matter and at least meet the farmer in this respect. When we complain about this land tax, we are told that the divisional council system is a very old system. Yes, it is very old but it has become obsolete.

To conclude on this point, I think it is the duty of the Central Government to see to it that we have a uniform system of taxation over the entire Republic of South Africa.

In conclusion I just want to refer briefly to a second point and that is the excessively high land prices. Land prices to-day are completely opt of all proportion to the value of the product which is produced pn that land.

That has been the position for years.

No, that has not been the position for years. That is an evil which has only reared its head during the last decade. There is no doubt about it that more than one farmer is in financial difficulties today because he paid too much, for his land. Attempts are made by the Government, through the Land Bank and the Land Board, to bring, land prices more in conformity with the value of the product produced on it. We know that the and Bank even goes and values the land when the farmer applies for a bond. The Land Bank valuator values the land on this basis: What is the productivity of the land? The Land Bank does not take into account the price the seller asks. Supposing the Land Bank is willing to assist an applicant to acquire land by granting him a 80 per cent bond on the value of that land. The seller, however, wants a price which is far in excess of the Land Bank’s valuation and the result is that the applicant can only borrow 50 per cent or less of the purchase price from the Land Bank. In other words, it is absolutely impossible to-day for a young man to return to the land. Of course I am not criticizing the method of the Land Board and the Land Bank of valuating land and granting bonds and loans. On the contrary, I think they are entirely right. Why should you saddle a young man with a burden which he will never be able to shake off? Sir, recently a commission was appointed to inquire into uneconomic units and the sub-division of land; I welcome that, but I say in advance that that commission will come up against problems which will practically be insoluble. It is not an enviable task that rests on their shoulders. While there is such a commission; and while we are all agreed that it is not good for the country to have uneconomic units and that land should be sub-divided into uneconomic units, I want to ask the Government also to appoint a commission to inquire into the reasons for these excessively high land prices and to see whether land prices could not again be brought into line with the value of production of that land.

There is nothing I would, have liked better than to indulge in a discussion on the merits or the demerits of the divisional council rating system but I have other matters I want to deal with so I shall indulge in that, luxury on a later occasion. I do, however, want to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). He seemed to lay the charge that there were certain “on-Afrikaanse”, as he termed it, types of universities developing in South Africa. He made the suggestion that the hon. the Minister might consider some form of financial discrimination against those particular institutions. Well, Sir, I know of no such institutions in South Africa. If he wants to discriminate against these institutions does the hon. member not realize that he will be discriminating against his own people? Does he not realize that in practically every university institution in this country there is a large and growing proportion of Afrikaans-speaking students. My information is that of the students to-day at the Cape Town University nearly 50 per cent come from Afrikaans-speaking homes.

I refer to the statement made by the horn the Minister of Education over the week-end. He stated very clearly that he was in favour of universities retaining their autonomy. I now want to know whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay is opposed to the policy enunciated by the hon. Minister of Education? It certainly seems like it, Sir. It seems as if the county is lucky that we are not, in respect of this discrimination, dealing with the hon. the Minister but merely with the hon. member for Mossel Bay whose utterances are seldom taken seriously.

I also want to refer briefly to the speech made last evening by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). A speech of a quite different character. That hon. member also differed from a member of the Cabinet. He differed from the hon. the Minister of Defence in regard to the policy of manufacturing nuclear bombs. The hon. member for Heilbron called for the manufacture of nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent, as he called it. Sir, Heaven help the people of South Africa when our position gets so desperate that we have to depend on the manufacture of nuclear bombs in order to try to protect ourselves. It is something quite beyond our capacity. We shall in that event be dealing with the giants of the armament world. It is something in which we cannot compete. The hon. member went on to say that unless steps were taken to counter the threats of intervention South Africa would be in danger. There I could not agree with the hon. member more. That is precisely what we have been trying to tell him for the last three or four years. We have been trying to tell him and his Government that our only effective answer to counter intervention is some practical step on the part of the Government to align its attitude more in keeping with world opinion and an attempt to meet the more basic objections to our policies, those policies which are to-day driving South Africa into a dangerous state of isolation. Sir, it is reckless speeches such as that made by the: hon. member for Heilbron last night, that encourage the very intervention he says he wishes to avoid. He went on to say that he welcomed statements like that made by Mr. Harold Wilson in which he threatens to place an embargo on weapons to South Africa, because, he said, those statements encouraged us to become independent and to expand industrially. When he talks about liking people like Harold Wilson he includes Nkruhma of Ghana, Ben Bella of Algeria, or the Emperor of Abyssinia who is to-day taking a leading part in the attempt to drive the Republic out of South West Africa. Are those the people whom he classes as the friends of South Africa, Sir? Does he encourage that kind of attitude in order to encourage economic development in this country? What a shocking disregard of South Africa’s security, Sir! Especially, when it comes from a member whom the hon. Prime Minister has placed in a position of authority on the fringes of the Cabinet, namely, as a senior member of the Bantu Affairs Commission! The position that hon. member occupies makes that statement of his all the more dangerous because it clothed the statement in a, semblance of authority on behalf of his Government. In his absence I want to ask his Prime Minister whether he agrees with the views expressed by his protege on the Bantu Affairs Commission? World opinion towards the Republic being what it is to-day, Sir, I can conceive of nothing more irresponsible than a speech of that nature. Generally it would disqualify the hon. member from serving on a village management board, let alone such an important body as the Native Affairs Commission to which the hon. the Prime Minister has appointed him.

I want to deal with certain matters of defence and, on behalf of this House, I am sorry to do so in the forced absence of the Minister of Defence. We are all very sorry that he is not here to-day and we regret the reason. But I had hoped at least that the Acting Minister of Defence would have been present when we discussed such an important subject, a subject which occupies such a dominating position in the very Budget we are dealing with. In fact, if you take the Cabinet as a whole, the Ministers who are more directly associated with defence matters, are conspicuous by their absence. So I shall address my remarks to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet through those members of the Cabinet who are present, because what I want to say, in general, is beyond the scope of any particular Minister and covers more; something which calls for a Cabinet decision.

I first of all want to deal with the question of responsibility for defence as a whole. The responsibility for the defence of any nation is accepted as something which rests completely on the shoulders of the Government of the day. That, however, does not relieve the official Opposition, as an important part of the parliamentary structure, from the heavy responsibility which the Opposition itself must assume, on behalf of the nation. That is to take every action that it is possible to take, to ensure that, in our case, the Republic is in fact receiving the maximum possible security benefits from the expenditure which Parliament itself authorizes. It is in the acceptance of that principle, Sir, and because we believe there is evidence that in certain important aspects the Republic is not receiving this maximum security value, that, speaking for the official Opposition, I want to examine certain features in our anti-aggression defence buildup and make certain constructive suggestions regarding important defence matters which we believe require the very early attention of the Government as a whole, and not necessarily only the attention of the Department of Defence. To make it quite clear in order to avoid any future misconception may I say that the official Opposition are not opposed to the voting of this R210,000,000 asked for for defence. That goes without saying, Sir.

As has already been said, we are criticizing the fact that the full cost of defence is being charged against the Revenue Account thereby penalizing such a large proportion of the population of the country which would otherwise have benefited. We also object to the practically complete absence of parliamentary control over defence expenditure which is the largest single item of expenditure on the Budget this year. We believe there is evidence to show that changes in the conditions of service, particularly in the Permanent Force, have failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands and increasing responsibilities imposed on the personnel of that force by the acquisition of modern weapons and equipment, to such an extent that the Republic is not receiving the full security these weapons could and should provide for us to-day. We believe a substantial increase in the Permanent Force strength has become necessary together with a much more extensive use of women in certain sections of the Defence Force to handle the instruments and equipment which are peculiarly adapted to service by women. This will help relieve the terrific shortage in trained manpower that is affecting all phases of the Republic’s economy. In conjunction with that expansion and in the light of the experience gained by the introduction of these new weapons, coupled with the increasing demand for manpower to meet the needs of defence production, by outside industry, of munitions and equipment, a searching reassessment has become necessary of the military trainees ballotee scheme, especially with reference to the nature and the period of the training service, both in the light of the change in military conditions, and the necessity to avoid unhealthy competition between defence and outside industry for manpower in what one might call “key” munition positions.

I want to come back to the question of parliamentary control of defence expenditure. The proposals made by this side of the House are fully set out in Cols. 3600 and 3606, Hansard of 29 March 1963. A detailed statement in regard to those proposals will be found in Cols. 2504 and 3606. We then called for the establishment of a parliamentary Select Committee for Defence which will have power and authority in connection with defence matters involving the expenditure of funds authorized by Parliament. We asked that it should have power to call for evidence and papers, if necessary. Also that concurrently with the establishment of such a select committee a parliamentary White Paper on Defence should be issued annually, as is done in other Parliaments where defence plays a paramount part in the security of the country, such as it is doing in our case to-day.

The impact of costs and the uneconomic and inflationary nature of defence demands on industry are increasingly making it necessary for such parliamentary control to be exercised. It is also fair to say with regard to the supply of manpower, particularly trained manpower of the type essential to industry, that such additional control and supervision is necessary. These and the other factors which we outlined previously emphasize the wisdom of our proposal, Sir. Even in the year that is past the change in the general set-up of defence and the increased demands and responsibilities which are devolving on defence have made the appointment of such a select committee indispensable. We now say that not only should it be a select committee of this House but it should be a Select Committee on Defence representative of both houses of Parliament so as to spread the control of defence expenditure more widely, something which we believe is necessary in national interests. Since March last and the present date the Opposition have on several occasions repeatedly made this request. Hon. members will find these in Col. 8602 of Hansard of 21 June. On June 24, Cols. 8623-4, the hon. Minister of Defence said he would see that such a White Paper would be tabled in future. I accept it that the unfortunate illness of the hon. the Minister’s has interfered with that on this occasion. But we do feel that it is essential and we would ask that the hon. the Minister implements that promise of his on future occasions. Such a White Paper should follow the broad principles of those tabled in the United States and Britain but naturally scaled down to the requirements of our own defence and to the extent to which we would require the information.

On 24 June, the hon. the Minister again offered to make defence information available, in confidence, to certain members nominated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We, Sir, are unable to accept that offer. In our view that offer imposes a serious responsibility on the official Opposition, through its nominees who are appointed to meet the Minister. It confers no compensating authority to compensate for that responsibility and it confers no official standing to those members. On the other hand, it may well be found to act as a muzzle when it came to defence matters being considered in Parliament. We are quite unable to accept that as an alternative to a statutory select committee of Parliament clothed in the statutary powers which such a committee would have acting under and with the authority of Parliament.

Sir, there can be no question that defence has now moved into such a dominating position in regard to almost every phase of national life and that it has become of such vital importance to the security of the Republic as a whole, that there can no longer be any delay in providing for far more effective parliamentary financial control and contact with defence affairs on the general lines we have so repeatedly proposed, and which, on behalf of the official Opposition, I again now urge should be brought into being without any further delay.

I now want to touch on the broader question of defence responsibilities themselves. I want to start by saying that there are few people outside the Defence Force itself who have any conception of the terrific changes which science, electronic development, radar and all that goes with it. even when applied to the conventional or semi-conventional types of weapon with which we are now re-arming, have brought about in modern methods of defence. Few people appreciate the increased demands which this type of equipment makes on our trained manpower. It demands that both officers and men should have a high standard of technical and scientific education in order to keep pace with the fantastic rate at which these changes are taking place. That phase of defence which is moving into what one might call the electronic age. Allowing for the wide variation in values, dependant on the nature and extent of any aggression likely, outside of that by any major power with which we shall in any case be incapable of coping with, and seen against the electronic and scientific background I have referred to, there are roughly six basic factors which can be used as yardsticks in judging the effectiveness of our defence build-up. Drastically summarized those are: (1) The maximum destructive potential that can be maintained by our air, naval and military weapons and equipment. (2) Adequate provision for their maintenance under the stress of war, any adequate supply of spares and replacements and, under war conditions, the availability of fully qualified, trained and highly mobile supply and service units. (3) Adequate supplies, at today’s terrific rate of consumption, of the type of munition necessary to obtain the maximum destructive value out of the equipment which we are obtaining plus adequate strategic munition reserves in such key positions in the country as is necessary to maintain these reserves. (4) A nation-wide establishment, with adequate maintenance and efficiently trained manning-power, of the interlocking network of radar and electronic equipment without which the fighting value of the equipment and weapons that we are obtaining to-day would be seriously impaired. (5) Equally important as all four of these requirements, is the ready availability at widespread points over a large area of the Republic of the large and ever-increasing number of qualified, trained and experienced officers and men, competent to fight with both the weapons and their huge supporting and activating network of equipment without which they become relatively useless. (6) Lastly, a nation willingly mobilized behind the war effort and presenting no strategic problem by reason of unrest or dissatisfaction.

Against these six factors I shall attempt to judge what the position is to-day. Those six factors combine into one interlocking defence unit. If any one of them proves to be a weak link the value of the unit is destroyed. It can be accepted, Sir, that in return for its heavy defence expenditure the Republic is and is continuing to receive the type of equipment and weapons, conventional and semi-conventional, which will enable us to resist and perhaps deter any aggression from any of the minor powers who may be foolish enough to attempt that. It will also enable us to render valuable assistance to other powers of the Western world in a time of emergency and to accept the obligations which we carry under the Simonstown Agreement with regard to sea defence.

One of our points of criticism is that despite our massive expenditure to procure these weapons and equipment there has not been a sufficiently urgent and comparable step forward to adapt the conditions of service and pay, particularly in the permanent force, to correspond with the tremendously increased demands imposed on it by its scientific, technical and educational standard of training and the increased personal responsibility which applies to officers and men in this electronic age of defence. The evidence is that all branches of defence are being seriously hampered in their efforts either to obtain or to retain in their service the increased numbers of officers and men of the standard required by to-day’s defence forces. There is evidence also that this difficulty is not only due to the Republic’s buoyant industrial position and the consequent higher pay in outside industry, but that the policy of attempting to run the fighting services as units controlled by the machinery of the Public Service Commission is equally playing an important part in hampering the expansion of the defence services themselves. Under the present stress in defence, under what approximates to near war mobilization conditions, control by the Public Service Commission, is playing a very big part in the difficulties being experienced. There is a worldwide acceptance of the fact, Sir, that men in the fighting services, by nature of their profession, are largely forced to live an abnormal type of life. They generally live under exacting conditions and they carry individual responsibility which are in no way comparable (without any reflection on the work of the Public Service), with the more orthodox activities or the regular 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. office hours of the ordinary civil servant who goes home after his day’s work and is able to spend his evening with his family. This difference, particularly in their individual responsibility, is tremendously increased by the advance of modern equipment. It is costing the taxpayers many millions to train manpower to the technical and scientific standards that is required for national security. It is evident from the dangerously large numbers leaving the forces, at their own request, that substantial and early improvements, including long term conditions of service that will attract people to adopt the fighting services as a life-time career, as well as increased remuneration to meet the increased responsibility and knowledge required of them, are urgently required. In the four months from October 1963 to January 1964 the S.A. Navy lost 133 permanent force officers, petty officers and men, including many with over five years experience who had been trained overseas at high cost, to man our new warships. Ninety-three of them left at their own request; not because they had to leave, but because they wanted to leave. That wastage position can be applied generally to the Defence Force as a whole. It indicates a wastage of trained material the Republic cannot afford. It also indicates the urgent need for the immediate improvements which we on this side of the House have been urging. The situation should be examined and immediate improvements should be effected to make service conditions in the forces much more realistic and such that they will attract and retain the type of person we want.

The growing development of scientific and electronic equipment demands a much larger Permanent Force of officers and men whose constant association with their weapons as intricate and complex as they are to-day, is the only way in which to obtain and retain efficiency. We are moving into a military age where part-time units, or even reserves who are not kept in constant training with the present-day type of weapons and supporting equipment to a large extent being reduced in the value of those part-time forces and military reserves when considered in respect to the build-up of front-line defence of the country. We recommend that the changed position of the Permanent Force should be examined immediately with a view to its commensurate increase in strength as fast as possible to put up a force competent and capable of manning the front-line defences in any time of emergency. At the moment the Permanent Force is largely dispersed in their capacity as trainee instructors in the ballott-trainee field. Associated with that request is the question of the reappraisal of our own existing conscriptive trainee scheme in order to ensure that it forms an efficient part of our defence organization against external aggression. No one queries the fact that the existing training system turns out better disciplined citizens at the end of the nine months, it turns out smarter lads, it turns out people who can parade excellently, who can deal with internal unrest and are trained in the use of small arms. But the period is not long enough; the training is not adequate enough to meet the changing conditions—necessarily so because we have not got the facilities, equipment and instructors— to fit them for the front-line, where they may be required. It is also becoming clear that substantitally more intensive training is essential for those who are intended to form part of our front-line defence forces involving the handling of the heavier types of modern weapons. Sir, it is an open secret that except in a few centres there was and still is a serious lack of the specialized type of training which was intended to occupy the last three months of their training period, and the traditional fail-back on square-bashing to fill the gap is not meeting the situation as we require it to be met to-day. It is hardly likely to provide the specialized unit nor the training necessary; nor can it be justified by its cost. The fact that those men are also desperately needed in the economic life of the country as well as the lads’ own need to get back to their own employment, support our request for an examination to make certain amongst other things that defence is not competing with industry by calling up men for military training who in time of war will not be available to the Defence Force, because they will be key men in the munitions industry upon which Defence itself will depend for the weapons and equipment it requires. [Time Limit.]

I first want to deal with the few points on which I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). I wish to confirm what he said when he expressed his regret that the hon. the Minister of Defence because of his illness could not be present today. On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we miss him. We are also sorry that the hon. the Minister was not here to listen to the important speech which the hon. member for Simonstown made here this afternoon I agree with the hon. member where he said that the Opposition played a particular role in our defence programme. He said “It is the task of the Opposition to come with constructive suggestions”. There is nothing on which I agree with him more, Mr. Speaker, than on that statement of his. As far as his suggestions were constructive, therefore, we on this side of the House welcome them. But I do not agree with hint 100 per cent where he said the responsibility for, the defence of the country rested entirely on the shoulders of the Government and nowhere else. I think the defence of a country like South Africa is the responsibility of the entire population and not that of either the Government or the Opposition.

The hon. member also raised many points where I do not agree with him. I shall deal with a few of them. In the first place I just want to say this to him: He attacked the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) because the latter had mentioned the names of certain African states. He suggested that that was extremely irresponsible on the part of the hon. member for Heilbron. But the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) did the same thing last year. When we were discussing the threat to South Africa and from which quarter we could expect it, the hon. member for North East Rand got up and said it was not necessary to mince words and that it could only come from one quartet namely the African states. But when the hon. member for Heilbron says that, he is very irresponsible and somebody with whom the hon. the Prime Minister will have to deal, The hon. member raised another point. He said the time had arrived when a Select Com mittee of both Houses of Parliament should be appointed to supervise defence matters, That reminded me of the suggestion made by the hon. member last year when he said they did not get sufficient information. The hon. the Minister then told him he was prepared to make certain information available to members on that side of the House. I thereupon said that I did not think those hon. members would accept it because that would place them in a difficult position and that was precisely what the hon. member admitted to-day, name ly, that the Minister had indeed offered to make such information available to them but that they refused to accept that offer because that would place them in an embarrassing position. I want to ask this question: If we were to appoint such a super committee of both Houses what more can that Committee do than the Minister is already doing with his staff? However, hon. members can give us more information in connection with that matter. But if the hon. member alleges that “there is a complete absence of parliamentary control in our defence budget”, I maintain that that is surely not true. Just as every account of any Department is subject to parliamentary control every cent spent on defence is similarly scrutinized through the magnifying glass of parliamentary control, and the hon. member knows that. He also knows that the accounts of the Department of Defence are examined by the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts can go into those matters, and do do it, and report on them and those matters can be discussed under the Defence Vote. To allege that there is no parliamentary control over defence expenditure is so much nonsense. The hon. member also said he wanted to put forward certain suggestions in connection with the ballottees. It is a pity he did not make those suggestions. We would have liked to hear them. He is probably not the only one who is not completely satisfied with the training system which is being followed to-day. I do not think it is right that only some of our young men should be ballotted and that only they should be trained and not the others. But the hon. member knows as well as I do that the training is expanding fast and that many more of our young men are receiving the necessary training, and as the necessary facilities become available more ballottees are being taken in. It is necessary, however, first to provide the necessary facilities. The hon. member knows about all the buildings which had to be erected first before those people could be accommodated. He knows we have to have the necessary staff. I would, however, have liked to have had some suggestions from him in connection with this matter. However, I do not see the necessity of training women while there is such a large percentage of our young able-bodied men who cannot be trained yet. When we have reached the stage where we can train all our young men I shall agree with him that we should also train the women.

I would have liked to have discussed this matter with the hon. member but I want to deal with another point raised by the hon. member when he said we required the best possible scientists in our defence to-day because the defence pattern had changed the way it had. But surely we have those scientific brains for defence at our disposal. Surely the hon. the Minister has all the scientific organization in South Africa at his disposal and he has already drawn upon them. He has already drawn upon the Atomic Energy Board and upon the C.S.I.R. and he can also draw upon other scientific sources. The hon. member knows that the Military Academy has the necessary scientifically trained staff. I do not for a moment suggest that we have enough of them but in what respect do we have enough trained scientists and technologists, and which country has enough of them?

I now come to the point where I really differ from the hon. member and that was when he once again stated, as numerous other members opposite have done, that they had no objection to this huge amount of R210,000,000 being spent on defence but that this expenditure would not have been necessary but for the policy of this Government.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I knew that would come. They have been harping on that string all along. When I read the Cape Times on 17 March the day after the hon. the Minister introduced his Budget I knew they would harp on that string because I have, on a previous occasion, said that what the Cape Times wrote in the morning was accepted by the United Party in the afternoon as their policy. On 17 March the Cape Times had the following criticism to offer on the Budget—

Hear, hear!

When I read that I knew we would hear the same thing from the Opposition and when the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) moved his amendment he used the same words and one member after the other likewise used those words, including the hon. member for Simonstown. But then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to the Eastern Transvaal last week-end where he held two meetings, one at Belfast and the other at Middelburg and I knew he would also harp on the same string. What did he say there—

Let us test that statement against the facts and the truth. The first evidence I wish to submit is what Sir de Villiers Graaff himself said at those two meetings. He was speaking about this matter and he said—

The Leader of the Opposition himself spoke about how the borders were moving southwards and he referred to the fact that Northern Rhodesia no longer had a White Government. As far as I am concerned he could just as well have included Southern Rhodesia. I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is back in the House. In Southern Rhodesia, Mr. Dupont, the Minister of Justice said the day before yesterday that there was a state of emergency and that a state of emergency would probably be declared.

Many countries in the world are spending large sums of money on defence but do the Oppositions in those countries say those Governments should change their policies in which event there would be no further trouble and it would no longer be necessary to spend those sums? A few days ago India provided for R814,000,000 for defence in its Estimates. Is there anybody in India who says that if India were to change her policy in connection with the Moslems or the Hindus it would no longer be necessary to spend such a large amount of money on defence? Is there anybody who makes such a stupid suggestion? However, I wish to turn to America which is so often cited as an example. We know what America spends on her defence. There have been discussions in an attempt to try to curtail the huge amounts which every country in the world spends on defence and America has had similar discussions at a disarmament conference; I want to read the following from an American news letter—

So I can go on, Sir, giving you ad nauseum the large amounts which one country after the other spends on defence. I can refer to their concern about the terribly keen competition which goes on to obtain the best brains and the best scientists; about the unrest which exists because of the terrific amount of harm being done to humanity, to show that all the countries feel these amounts are astronomically big. But when we in South Africa spend money on defence, because we feel it is necessary to safeguard ourselves, we have an Opposition which says if we change our policy this expenditure would not be necessary. Is that not ridiculous, Sir?

Let us see how we would have to change that policy in order to be safe. I now have in mind the attempts which have been and are still being made to isolate South Africa, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition. A conference has been sitting at Geneva yesterday and to-day on which 124 countries are represented; I think there are about 1,500 delegates. The first reports are to the effect that the first thing that trade conference will attempt to do will be to prevent South Africa from taking part and to kick South Africa out. That is how South Africa is being kicked out everywhere because of her colour policy. Now the Opposition says: Change that policy and then everything will be rosy in the garden. This Opposition has a colour policy which they tell us about across the floor of the House and which they present to the electorate outside. That policy is to make concessions; the first concession is to allow eight White members to sit in this House to represent the Bantu and also to give the Coloureds representation in this House, together with the Whites, but only to those Coloureds who were on the Voters, Roll before 1954; in other words the male Coloureds over 21 years of age who have acquired certain voting qualifications. Those are the people to whom they will give representation in this House. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker: do you think that will influence UNO; do you think that will influence the Addis Ababa conference and that it will influence the conference which they are to-day having at Geneva; do you think less pressure will be exerted on South Africa because of a meagre, ridiculous representation in this House of eight Whites for 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 Bantu in South Africa? Will that make any impression on America; will it make any impression on UNO? If the United Party intends going further than that they must tell us how far they want to go because when we get to the platteland and tell the public they want to make concessions they are quick to say that is the only concession they are prepared to make. If they want to make further concessions than that they should tell the electorate otherwise they are misleading the electorate. They would be in precisely the same position as we are if they followed the policy they advocate across the floor of this House and in South Africa, namely, that they are prepared to give the Bantu a meagre, miserable representation of eight White members in this House and six representatives in the Senate. There is a party in this House whose policy, I think, will satisfy the world outside and that is the Progressive Party. I think the world outside will be satisfied with the policy of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

But not with her.

And that is ultimately also the policy of the United Party.

Yes, I think the Chief Whip has hit the nail on the head; that is ultimately also the policy of the United Party. If the policy of the hon. member for Houghton were carried out and if representation were given in this House to the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Asiatics, as she desires, then the defence expenditure on the South African Estimates would be spent for purposes other than the purpose for which it is spent to-day; then it would be spent on maintaining law and order as they are to-day doing in the Belgian Congo and in Kenya and in Zanzibar and other African states. That is the position in which you will find yourself, Sir. The hon. member for Houghton is not here at the moment but I just want to say this to her: She said the other day the artillery of the world outside would be concentrated on South Africa if we did not change our policy. She said if ever South Africa were to experience anything like another Sharpeville we could be sure of it that the world outside would exterminate us. Sir, nobody is anxious to have another Sharpeville in South Africa; we shall do everything in our power to try to prevent that but I want to add that nobody would like to have another Cato Manor in South Africa either, nor do we want another Bashee. If we have to tolerate a Sharpeville in order to avoid a Cato Manor or a Bashee, no matter to what extent the artillery of the world outside is directed at us in an attempt to annihilate us, we shall continue to maintain law and order in South Africa. All we ask of the Opposition is this: Assist us to maintain law and order. This amount of R210,000,000 for which provision is made in these Estimates is not intended to maintain internal law and order. We do not need R210,000,000 for that. We shall maintain internal order and we shall see to it that justice is done to every racial group but the Opposition must help us to maintain that order. However, we also want to play our part, as far as the Western world is concerned, if that should become necessary.

I just want to make this one further remark: Last week we took delivery of our third frigate, the President Pretorius. An amount of R20,000,000 was spent on that. We purchased that frigate in compliance with the 1954 Simonstown Agreement, an agreement which we all respect and which we carry out. So far we have spent a large amount on our Navy and if hon. members of the Opposition tell me that had we changed out policy it would not have been necessary for us to spend that amount in order to fulfil the Simonstown Agreement, then surely, Sir, you cannot do otherwise than tell them they are talking through their hats. What I found interesting was this; when we took delivery of the President Pretorius, Sir Eric Yarrow, head of the shipbuilding firm, in a short speech to the crew said, the bonds between his ship building yard and the South African Navy were strong enough to withstand all political or economic tensions. I commend that for consideration to those people who come here and tell us that if we changed our policy it would not be necessary for us to spend these huge amounts on defence. If the Opposition wish to tell the electorate that they have a policy which will comply with the demands of the Western world and in terms of which it will not be necessary for them to take precautionary measures or to spend money on defence, they should also tell the electorate how many concessions they are prepared to make. However I do not think the electorate will believe them, just as they refuse to believe them in respect of other matters.

The hon. member for Somerset (East) (Mr. Vosloo) will pardon me if I do not follow him in this debate. There are some other matters of very great importance in my constituency which I intend raising in the very short time at my disposal. Sir, We are glad that the hon. the Minister of Finance was in a position to announce a considerable surplus. On the other hand it is to be regretted that that money could not be given back to the taxpayers and that we necessarily have to spend so much on defence. But, sir, there is an issue which I have raised from time to time ever since my election as a member of this House and which as a result of circumstances brought to my notice recently I feel constrained to raise here again. I sincerely hope that my plea in this regard will not fall on deaf ears. Sir, from time to time whenever I have had the opportunity to do so I have raised the question of the pensions paid to Coloured people, whether old-age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, blind pensions or disability grants. In 1960 I raised the issue again with the then Minister of Social Welfare, and I discovered then that when old-age pensions were originally instituted they were instituted on the following basis: 12 points for a White pensioner, six for a Coloured, five for an Indian and two for a Bantu. Increases were granted from time to time over the years and when White pensioners were granted an increase of, say, R1, we found that the Coloured pensioner was given an increase of only 25c. The result was that the 12:6 ratio was completely disturbed.