Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few loose points to which I first want to reply before I deal with the debate in general. I admit that many of these loose points were made purely as debating points but I feel that they should not be left in mid-air. The first is this: I said that our policy of separate development was not being transplanted from South Africa to South West Africa but that the policy of separate development was a natural development within South West Africa itself. The construction which was placed on that statement was that I had stated that there were no common features between separate homelands there and separate homelands here. The question was asked, for example, what difference there was. I want to point out that these remarks were entirely beside the point the point I made was that there was no question of transplanting our policy because separate homelands had come into being naturally in South West Africa and that we were simply going to build on the pattern of homelands which already existed there. In other words, this is not an arbitrary transplantation of an ideology from South Africa to South West Africa. We are simply building on a foundation which naturally exists there already. To attach this other interpretation to my statement therefore is not only wrong but also misleading, perhaps deliberately misleading so as to give other people the erroneous impression that we are advancing false arguments here in an attempt to distract attention from the fact that there are in fact separate homelands. Let me also add that in arguing as it did about the establishment of a northern territory, with a character of its own, a Black-dominated northern territory, the United Party actually announced its own Bantu homelands policy for South West Africa; it admitted that there were historic reasons for the existence of a Bantu community which ought to be able to govern itself. Secondly, in arguing as it did, the Opposition made another admission. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition practically destroyed his own argument that there can be no political independence or no political development leading towards independence, without economic viability. After all, the same problem that will exist in the other Bantu areas, the problem that they will not be able to become economically independent, also exists in the northern areas. The Opposition nevertheless accept the proposition that it should be possible for an independent area to come into being in the north, naturally on the same basis as the basis in which we believe, and that is that political independence and economic independence need not go hand in hand in the case of smaller entities, but on the basis that the politically independent area will be able to lean for assistance on a larger economic neighbouring community, of which it will be able to form a part. In other words, in accepting the proposition of an independent territory in the north they are really abandoning the basic ground on which they continually seek to attack the homelands policy.

Who said they would be independent? Not we.

The argument which was advanced here was that the northern area should have its own Legislative Assembly; that the latter should be an independent body; that it should really control a federation of the various ethnic groups, and therefore the principle of self-determination will also have to be applied to it. In other words, it can become independent. I was under the impression that that is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said, but if I was under the wrong impression then I ask the Opposition now whether it means that in addition to all the other things that they reject they also reject the principle of self-determination for such an area? Because if that is the case their policy becomes even more unacceptable to the outside world than I am going to submit it is already. That disposes of the one debating point which was raised here in an attempt to confuse our references to a homelands policy of its own for South West Africa.

A second point which hon. members on the other side made was that I waited too long before announcing the attitude of the Government and that I could have avoided all the uncertainty which existed in the minds of hon. members on the other side and in the outside world if I had taken the opportunity in Windhoek of announcing what was subsequently announced in the White Paper. My reply to that is that a Government chooses its own time to make its decisions known, and that that time depends on the circumstances. I was fully aware of the problems when I spoke in Windhoek. I was even aware of the first intimation from the countries to which I have already referred. In other words, it was not as though I spoke there in ignorance of certain objections to which my attention was drawn later on. I was fully conscious of these objections when I spoke there. I deliberately and steadfastly adopted the attitude that I had come to South West Africa to hand over the report to them officially and to inform them what the basic trend of the report was in certain respects, and I did no more than that. I emphasized over and over again that I was not in a position to deal with any of the Government’s decisions and that I did not wish to do so because the Government had not yet considered the matter and had taken no decisions yet. I also gave the reasons why the Government had come to no decision, and that is that the Government wanted to await the reactions of the various sections of the population of South West Africa: that the Government did not want to take decisions in advance and thus encroach upon the right of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa to make up its own mind on matters in connection with which the initiative ought to come from the Legislative Assembly. In other words, it was not my wish and it was not within my power to take any decisions and indeed it would not have been right for the Government to take decisions and to announce those decisions at the meeting in Windhoek. These facts are all well known, and it was just another debating point therefore to say that in order to clear up confusion in the minds of others, we should have made an announcement earlier even if it amounted to a violation of the right of the public of South West Africa first to air their views before we came to any decision. I was not willing to do so and I think I was perfectly correct in refusing to do so.

A third debating point which has been made here is that in appointing a Commissioner-General we allegedly appointed him within the framework of the homelands policy, and that in those circumstances the appointment should really be cancelled. I want to make it clear again that, although the appointment of this Commissioner-General may be a useful appointment under the homelands policy, it is not an appointment which necessarily goes hand in hand with the homelands policy. It is true that, in discussing the homelands policy, the Odendaal Report recommends such an appointment, but the idea of appointing a Commissioner-General there is one which occurred to us a long time ago already. As a matter of fact, even before the Odendaal Commission was appointed, we had already negotiated with this same Prof. Bruwer and had asked him whether he would not be willing to go to the northern areas as Commissioner-General in view of the fact that he knew these areas well, since he had done research there, and since he knew the language well. In other words, long before the Odendaal Commission was appointed we tried to persuade him to accept such a post. The creation of this post has nothing to do with the Report of the Odendaal Commission therefore, although the Commission does recommend such an appointment. The idea to introduce a system of Commissioner-Generalships originated much earlier of course; it dates back to the days before 1959, when that plan was disclosed here in dealing with the Bantu Authorities Act. The reason for that was this: We, the Government, were continually being attacked on the ground that we had no contacts with the Bantu communities under our care; that there was not sufficient consultation with them. We tried in vain to convince the Opposition and others that the entire machinery of the Department of Bantu Administration and of the Department of Bantu Education was designed to ensure the closest contacts with these people. The argument which was advanced against that was that the official machinery was there for the purpose of giving instructions, and that, consequently, it was not consultative machinery, but administrative machinery and machinery for the purpose of giving instructions. In actual fact that is not true, because the way in which the service functions ensures that the officials are kept in the closest touch, not with the agitators, of whom we cannot take any notice, but with the leading persons in the Bantu community whose views we must take into account. We, nevertheless, realized that, in addition to the official Public Service machinery, a further means of consultation should be provided, through the medium of direct political representatives of the Government in the homelands of the various ethnic groups, and not only in the homelands of the ethnic groups, but also in the White areas in which the members of the ethnic groups come to work. That is why we have appointed in the homelands of the various ethnic groups in the Republic persons who are in direct touch with the Government and who are fully aware of the Government’s policy, persons who, on the one hand, explain the Government’s policy to the Bantu in the course of conversations with them—they do not give instructions—and, on the other hand, inform the Government of the reactions of the Bantu communities. In other words, here we have a special form of creating close links between the Government and the Bantu communities. There is no reason at all therefore why such a person should not be appointed in the northern areas, in Ovamboland, whether the homelands policy is carried out there or not. This appointment was made with that specific object, and it is not going to be rescinded. All I need add to that is that I also stated at the time that if any homeland became an independent state, that is to say, when it reached the last stage of its development, the Commissioner-Generalship would assume a different character. The Commissioner-General would then no longer be the consultative link between the Government and these populations, but his post would be equivalent to that of a diplomat representing one country in another. As far as that is concerned, there is no reason either why I should depart from the attitude which I have adopted previously.

The point has also been made that there is a shortage of manpower and that because of that shortage it will not be possible to carry out the work referred to in the White Paper. When a similar point was made on one occasion in connection with health—I think it was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself—I said by way of interjection, “That is why there is the second group of recommendations.” The second group consists of those recommendations about which administrative decisions will have to be taken from time to time as the work progresses. That point was then taken up and interpreted as meaning—I want to quash this misrepresentation immediately—that I had suggested that developmental plans along these lines were no more than bluff because such decisions would not be taken administratively because of the shortage of manpower. That was of course not what I meant at all. I meant that an ideal objective was stated in this report, e.g. in respect of health services. In view of the shortage of medical men in our country, and in fact throughout the world, even this would be a great ideal. One realizes that one cannot attain such an ideal immediately and that one may be handicapped by the lack of practical means, but one still aims at rendering the maximum service, and the administrative decisions one will have to take from time to time will have that object in view. One therefore does not say beforehand: I will not do this because I do not have the manpower. Because one sets this as the ideal, one tries to recruit or to train the necessary manpower, or one makes alternative plans. In connection with health services for the Bantu, I have for example already said before that the time had perhaps arrived to introduce a different form of training, a middle class training, as it exists in some countries of Europe, where under the guidance of a medical man, assisted by medical aides, who have not enjoyed quite the same level of training, greater services can be rendered than it would be possible to provide with a limited number of fully-trained medical men. In the thickly populated countries of Europe something like this already exists. In the sphere of dentistry, for example, in Germany, in addition to the dentists there are the dental mechanics who extract and fill teeth under the supervision of a more qualified person. If we want to cater for these enormous masses of Bantu in South Africa, particularly by means of their own trained people, such an intermediate stage of training will be necessary. I am just making the point that when one is faced with a shortage of manpower and one says: “Yes, but in view of that I have left the decision in the hands of administrative organizations”, that does not mean that one can abandon the attainment of one’s ideal, but that in this way all possible measures can be applied to perform the task and to approach as nearly as possible to the attainment of the ideal. I do not like people to allege that we are busy with a bluff here when we are tackling the matter in all earnestness.

Then we again had the story about all the dangers. Now suddenly it is alleged to be dangerous for South Africa and for South West Africa if different Bantu homelands should develop here because they will fall under the control of communists. It is the same scaremongering that we had in regard to South Africa. Basutoland and Swaziland and Bechuanaland can be allowed to become independent, because that takes place under British control! Then homelands are not dangerous! Or if they are dangerous, that is just accepted by the Opposition. Then it must just be so! But if we promote development in areas which are equally entitled to their own development, the United Party says that those areas will be subjected to communist influence and that they will become dangerous. They never reply to the counter-argument we always put up against that, viz. that it would be a much greater danger to the world, for South Africa, for Africa and for the Whites, if those Bantu, who are supposed to be so susceptible to Communism, in fact become the dominant majority group in the whole of South Africa. Surely then the whole of South Africa will be the area which will become subject to those communist influences and interference from outside.

Who will control it there?

Now the same story is being told in connection with South West Africa. How valueless it is is particularly evident from the fact that the United Party is prepared to have a homeland north of the red line. They even want to make it big; they want to make it a federated area covering the Kaokoveld and the eastern Caprivi. But that will not be dangerous, in the sense of communist interference, because it is a Bantu homeland created by them and not by us! That shows how ridiculous all this scaremongering is, and I need not say more about it.

I want to point out further that throughout this debate the United Party was concerned with “debunking” the attempt to do something for South West Africa. They criticized or attacked every point. I am going to mention six or seven of these points to prove how they have tried to belittle and to water down every positive thing that we want to do there. Accordingly, they sarcastically posed the question: How will the development there be financed? Who will pay for it? Where is the money to come from? Can we find the money? I can reply to that quite easily by putting the counter question: If the United Party had been in power, would it have left South West Africa undeveloped? Would it have left it in the lurch? Would it have done nothing more there? If the United Party comes into power, will it exercise its guardianship or not? And if the reply is that of course development will take place and that the United Party will fully perform its guardianship obligations, then I in turn ask: How will they finance it? What financial resources have they? Will South Africa have to pay for it? In fact, they themselves gave the reply by saying that they were in favour of large-scale development there and that they were willing that the taxpayer in South Africa should help to pay for it. Why then arouse this suspicion and cast doubt on the possibility of our financing this sort of planning?

Secondly, they make an attack on the Kunene Scheme. On the one hand they ask why such a “colossal plan” is being proposed. Then they say it is impracticable and ask where we will get the manpower from, and where are the resources? They do not believe that it can be completed in five years. They do not ask whether Dr. Van Eck. who signed the report as the expert adviser, considers that it can be done. No, they must try to put some political substance into their arguments by directing all these insinuations at me. For the rest, they come along with the suggestion of generating a little electrical power in the south and a little in the north. And then they make the accusation that the details have not been worked out, etc. Let me say this in reply to all that: If they think that they can establish a unit in the northern areas and they begin by breaking down the basis on which that unit could have a moderate viability, i.e. both through agricultural progress and through having a source of revenue from the provision of electricity, if they do not grant that area this great scheme, then they can just forget about establishing that northern area. Then they undermine in advance their own proposition that one should try to give maximum viability to an area before making it politically independent.

They go further in their attempt to belittle everything. They say that we want to provide too many transport facilities. For example, we want to establish too many main airfields, 16 in number. If only the hon. members would study the report and see where those airfields will be established, they would see in the first place that they are not going to be Jan Smuts airfields; and secondly, in regard to the main airfields, that it is essential that widely separated places like Windhoek, Walvis Bay, Luderitzbucht and Runtu, in the far distant Okavango, should have airfields. In the same way an airfield will be necessary at the administrative centre in Ovamboland and at the place where the electricity scheme has to be developed. An airfield will also be necessary in the south, at Keetmanshoop. So hon. members may go through the list and ask themselves whether it is not reasonable to have an ordinary, suitable airfield at all these places where both passenger and freight aircraft can land. That is all that it is intended to provide there. That is ridiculed as if it is nonsensical. Too many transport facilities!

Further, they advance the argument: If the authorities buy the farms, who will look after those farms? As if one would just leave these farms to lie there and deteriorate! In the first place, these farms can all be let, perhaps to the people who sell them because they want to put an end to the uncertainty, but in the transitional period would still like to farm on those farms. Therefore until such time as the State utilizes those farms for any specific object, the State will of course look after them, as it has always done when it acquires land. Such, land is properly looked after. Then the Opposition attacks the appointment of an expert committee and the appointment of a liaison committee, as if it is not normal practice, when steps have to be taken in the economic sphere, the financial sphere or the administrative sphere, to have the matter thoroughly investigated by expert officials in order to work out the detail. Surely that is the normal practice. The Opposition does not want us to continue along those lines because they do not want the development of South West Africa to take place. The United Party also wants the liaison committee, which has to arrange matters in the transitional period, to be eliminated because they say that the Deputy Minister and the Administrator are there and they can arrange these things amongst themselves. It is quite possible that the Deputy Minister and the Administrator will both serve on the liaison committee. The point, however, is that when one is dealing with a plan of large-scale development—even though we do not touch the matters in regard to which decisions cannot yet be made—a large development plan in regard to which two authorities have to co-operate, it is obvious that the people in the two Administrations who have to deal with the matter must be brought into contact with one another. Instructions cannot simply be issued to them. Such a committee is a useful factor in sound organization. But that has to be belittled also!

The United Party should not now go and pose in South West Africa as a party which is sympathetic to the socio-economic development there. It should be seen as it really is, as a party which tries to belittle everything in regard to a plan drawn up to do something great and good for a territory which has been entrusted to us.

A further point made by the Opposition is that the Department of Bantu Administration should be handed over to South West Africa, because that is supposed to be what the world demands. But do they have no knowledge of what happened in the past? In the first place, right from the beginning the duty was put on the Republic itself, on the guardian, to assume responsibility for the non-Whites. At that time it was considered so important that this responsibility was entrusted to the Prime Minister’s Department. During the time when Dr. Malan was Prime Minister, he felt, inter alia as the result of overseas pressure, that the then Union Government should act more directly in that respect. He called me in and said that my Department of Native Affairs should take over the responsibility there, because the Prime Minister’s Department could not keep the machinery going to carry on those activities, as the outside world desired. Therefore a closer link was then established between the guardian and the ward, viz. that the affairs of the non-Whites in South West Africa would no longer be handled by the Prime Minister’s Department by means of messages sent to the Administrator, who really controlled non-White affairs, but they were directly handled by the Department of the Union Government which was the expert department here for that purpose. After that was done, however, we still received reproaches, inter alia from UNO, that the Central Government, the guardian itself, did not do enough in regard to those matters, but still allowed the South West Africa Administration to do too much. In spite of the fact that a Department in the Republic took the responsibility on itself, the accusation was still made that we did not do enough directly. When, for example, the Carpio Commission was here, one of the points of attack, not only by members of that commission but also by UNO officials who accompanied that commission, was that the Republican Government evidently did much for its own Bantu in the Republic, but that it should itself do more for the Bantu there and also for the other non-Whites: that it should take a greater share of the administration into its own hands. When I replied to that as Prime Minister I had already stated that we would make a more thorough investigation as to what we could do, inter alia, by the appointment of an expert committee of inquiry, it was readily accepted and it was said that they were very glad that we had adopted that course. That is the demand made by the outside world. But now hon. members opposite, in complete ignorance of such negotiations and information available to us, make these demands they have made.

The question was also put as to where the promised legislation was, if they sought to prove that our intentions were now different from those announced at the opening of Parliament in the Presidential Speech. The fact is that legislation has already been passed which is of importance to these plans set out in the White Paper and which we already then had in mind. Legislation was passed which was intended to make it possible for us, in connection with large schemes such as the Kunene Scheme, to make use of institutions, or affiliations of the institutions, existing in South Africa. It will probably be necessary to make use of the machinery available to the I.D.C. or to Escom in connection with those developments, both in regard to the financing and placing of loans either in the Republic of South Africa or abroad, and in regard to the expert detailed planning and implementation thereof, and thereafter possibly the control of the distribution and the sale of power. Therefore the promised legislation is there already. It is not necessary to ask me where it is. The prospect of more legislation being introduced if necessary has already been held out.

Then a point was made in regard to the shifting of populations. It is said that we are dealing here with a tremendous shifting of populations, that more than half of these people have to be removed. I want to say a few words about that. Firstly, the number of persons who may be concerned in such removals is not as great as was stated here. It is in fact a large number compared with the total non-White population of Southern South West Africa only, but in fact it will not be a very large-scale process. One of the undoubtedly good removals which we undertook here, viz. in the Republic itself, merely the shifting of a location, namely the removal from Sophia-town and Martindale to Meadowlands, which was undoubtedly a beneficial step in the interest of the Bantu, comprised more people than will be concerned in all the removals in South West. When the Bantu saw where they were going to, they were keen to go to Meadow-lands. Propaganda was made against it; the “leave them in the veld” story was later proved to be untrue. To-day those people are living there in excellent residential areas, supplied with all kinds of services, schools, recreational and other facilities. These people are glad that all the attempts made by the Opposition to prevent this scheme from succeeding and to sow suspicion have proved to be a total failure. The same will happen here. Nor is there any idea of trying to force these people to leave. In this case also it will be proved that people of one group want to live together. Population removals per se are not so bad. If a population removal leads to improved conditions, greater viability and more prosperity, then it is in fact a good thing. It should not be seen as an ugly form of forcing people to go to unsuitable places. It should be seen as the bringing together of people who like to live together, and who will accept the removal if they know that it will improve their position. Then there is also the following: When non-Whites live in a number of separate reserves, and if some of the reserves become too small for them so that there is over-grazing and the water resources become exhausted and the position of these people becomes worse and worse, what is the guardian expected to do then? Is he expected to say that they must just remain there and die of hunger? Or does one expect the guardian to say: “I must make a plan to improve your living conditions?” And if the improvement of the living conditions can best be done by accommodating that community in one large area of its own, even though the people have to be removed from smaller, neglected areas, there is no harm in that. On the contrary, just bringing the whole community together will give rise to possibilities for the development of those people, to occupations they can fill, to professional services they can render to their own people, and the position of authority in which they will be placed. By bringing communities together, a need arises for professional people like doctors and teachers and shop managers, etc. If in addition there can still be urban development in the area of that community because it need no longer be spread out in small rural communities, the opportunities for and the position of these people will improve enormously. What is wrong with that? Therefore a population removal cannot be seen as an evil per se. Regard should be had to the end results of our objective. Everything contained in this report is directed to the development of much more viable communities in very good and large areas, and to the potential of urban development, perhaps with small industrial development in the beginning, so that the possibility of providing jobs of all kinds for the children who grow up there will increase. Large schools may even be established to train these children to render services to their own community. I therefore deprecate the fact that the impression is being created and disseminated that we are dealing here with a reckless removal of populations with a view to suppressing them, whereas we are dealing with an improvement of the conditions which will induce these people to live together happily and which will enable them to live there more prosperously and to have all kinds of opportunities which they would not have had if they lived in isolation.

Another point which was raised here is that there is supposed to have been a conflict of ideas on the part of the Commission of Inquiry in South West Africa. On the one hand Dr. Van Eck is supposed to have spoken about dealing with the territory as a whole, while on the other hand, in the other portions of the report, particularly in the political section, provision is made for a division of the territory. That is also a nonsensical argument, because what happened? All the members signed the report as a whole, and the allegation that each one was just responsible for his own portion of it is not true. Each one drafted his section of the report, but thereafter the Commission as a whole sat and discussed every letter and every sentence and every chapter of the whole report, jointly. They not only assumed joint responsibility by signing the whole report, instead of each one just signing his own section of it, but in fact they jointly went through this report over and over again and they all subscribed to the report as a whole. In addition, there is still this, that we continually say that there is a difference between political independence with the possibility of every person having his separate opportunities among his own people, and economic mutual dependence by which the various political units still get a joint viability. Therefore the idea of an economic unity with political separation is basic to our whole policy and basic to every word we have said in this debate. But still hon. members come to this House and say that there is a divergence of outlook between what is said in respect of the economic development and what is said in respect of the political development!

Another point which was made is that the process of the financial linking-up of South West Africa with South Africa was rejected by the Holloway Commission. In other words, eleven years ago that was not acceptable. That is so. But in the meantime conditions have changed radically. Therefore it is really irrelevant that a Commission in the circumstances prevailing 11 years ago (when there was no idea of these enormous plans which should really be implemented jointly) decided that there was no reason for a link-up. That has nothing to do with decisions which may be taken to-day when a financial linking-up is particularly necessary in order to have a joint effort for the implementation of something which is very great and which is of vital interest to both areas. Let there be no doubt that it is just as important to South Africa that South West should be prosperous and peaceful as it is to the people in South West. Our interests are inextricably bound up with one another. The Republic has as much interest in all the schemes for the great developments there, because it will benefit from them, both economically and politically. The fact that 11 years ago there was a Commission which adopted one standpoint, and that under different circumstances a different attitude is now being adopted in regard to this linking up, by ourselves and by the new Commission and by the population of South West Africa and by the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa, is not strange at all.

Reference was also made to my remarks in regard to Mr. Randall. If anyone had read the Hansard report of my explanation in regard to Mr. Randall’s remarks, he would find nothing wrong in it. This attempt to arouse feelings by implying that I attacked a friend of South Africa, which can result in his becoming ill-disposed towards us, has no substance. It would be a deplorable state of affairs if every foreigner who says something good about South Africa thereby buys our silence when he says something against South Africa, or something wrong about South Africa. I am very grateful for all the nice things he said and also for the article written by Mr. Randall, and I told him so personally. But at the same time that does not mean that when he tells me in an argument, “But I do not agree with that”, I must say, “Because you were so friendly, I will just concede that point.” No, then I argue with him and tell him where he is wrong, and he does not take it amiss. When, however, this gentleman does something in public which in my opinion is wrong and which can create the impression that he was deliberately sent here to influence the public to exert pressure on the Government, then I must say what I did. If I have to condemn something like that, even in public, then I must do so. Thereby one does not necessarily give offence to a friend. If the friend takes offence, he is not a true friend. Then he did not adopt his standpoint on principle, because it is not possible to force people away from what they have expressed as their own honest convictions merely by saying something which they do not like. Seeing that I have had to revert to this matter, let me add something else. The hon. member says that America adopts a certain attitude because it maintains the rule of law. Now I must say that this sort of argument makes no impression on me, because I look at what happens further away in the world. I remember that a short while ago there was a revolution in Zanzibar, and after that revolution the representatives of the great powers were ousted from that territory because those great powers did not immediately recognize the new rebel government. Presumably they did not want to do so in terms of the “rule of law”. But what happened? Immediately afterwards, when the threats began to accumulate, they recognized that rebel government and their representatives went back to the country of that rebel government. Was it the “rule of law” which counted here, or was it the principle of international expediency? People are not impressed by that sort of argument. One has to do what is sensible and useful, and that is the yardstick by which Governments have to make their choice.

The proposition was then advanced that we were not applying the principle of self-determination. It was alleged that in spite of the wishes of those communities we were establishing separate areas for them. That is not true. What we are going to do is to create opportunities of development for those groups and to give them the right of self-determination in their own areas. We are giving them the opportunities; it is for them to make use of those opportunities. Indeed, as far as the northern areas are concerned we are creating an opportunity for the separate ethnic groups to govern themselves independently at some future date. As a matter of fact, that is the existing position in a slightly different form. But the United Party, in creating a northern federation, really wants to force the various ethnic groups into one society; it does not say that they can choose to form one entity. As far as I am concerned they are free to make that choice. If the groups which hitherto have refused to cooperate prefer that course, let them do so. There was a time, when I was Minister of Native Affairs, when the seven Ovambo tribes would not even co-operate with one another. When I tried to arrange a meeting to address five of the Ovambo tribes, they refused to meet on one farm because they wanted to maintain their own apartheid. Eventualy they were persuaded to come when a galvanized wire fence was put up which separated the areas in which the different groups were seated, and the Chief sat in front. For the purposes of meeting me it was accepted that each tribe would be sealed on its own land. That was how far they went in their willingness to co-operate—and they were all Ovambos. But the United Party wants to force together the people of the Kaokoveld, who are not Ovambos, and the Okavangos, who are not Ovambos either, and the two sections of the Caprivi who are not Ovambos either. Furthermore, it is the United Party—not we—who are prepared to throw overboard the idea of self-determination. As far as I am concerned, if the different groups wish to come together of their own volition at some stage or other of their development, they are free to do so. But what we are promoting is what they have to-day and what they want to do. That is all we are doing. That is why it is not correct to suggest that we are throwing the idea of self-determination overboard.

Having said that, I now want to get away from what I called the loose debating points; there were others as well, but I have said enough to prove that the attacks made upon us here were without substance.

I want to look at the broader picture now, and I want to put this question, which is the basic question in the whole of my argument: What is the basic difference between the Government’s policy and the United Party’s policy with regard to the future development of South West, particularly in the political sphere? I want to use three yardsticks to test that basic difference. The first yardstick I want to use is the attitude adopted by the two Parties themselves; the second yardstick is the policy which the outside world wants us to apply, and the third yardstick is how we in this country view this matter, particularly having regard to the position of the Whites.

Let us first compare the attitude of the two Parties with regard to this problem. It is perfectly clear that the Government adopts the trusteeship principle; the Government accepts its position as trustee; it acts in the spirit of the mandate, and in accordance with that spirit it has taken certain obligations upon itself; it has taken upon itself the obligation to promote the well-being and the progress of those people. It has to do what it regards as being in the best interests of the inhabitants. It was appointed as trustee and its duty is not to ask what others want or how it can secure peace for itself with other states; the question which it has to ask itself basically is this: How can I promote the best interests of the inhabitants? Our policy is based on our belief that whatever others may say, the only way in which we can test our policy and our actions is by asking ourselves whether we are honestly and sincerely doing what a Christian guardian can be expected to do for the peoples entrusted to his care.

As against this, what is the United Party’s approach? The United Party’s approach is this: “How can you satisfy the outside world; how can you make sure that the outside world does not become annoyed with you?” The Opposition does not ask. “What is in the best interests of the inhabitants?” but “how can you satisfy other people in other countries?” If foreigners want to use South West Africa as a football in international politics and if certain Africa States want to use South West Africa as the thin end of the wedge to cause discord between South Africa and the West, the only question which the United Party asks itself is how, in spite of that, it can ensure that South Africa does not get into trouble. In other words as against the basic concent that the duty of the trustee is to promote the well-being of the inhabitants, we have this opportunistic policy of the United Party, whose sole concern is not to benefit the inhabitants but to see how it can avoid trouble with countries in the outside world, even if they are countries which have selfish motives and which are prepared to make attacks upon South Africa to promote their own interests. I want to make it clear that the first big clash between the United Party and the Government is a clash between opportunism and principle, between the selfish search for prestige (for which they are prepared to sacrifice everything) and the Government’s attitude of saving, “Even if I have to fight for the interests of the inhabitants and even if it means hardship for me, I am nevertheless going to do for them what I as trustee think is right.”

As I have said, there is a second angle from which I want to approach the basic difference between the two Parties, and that is the reaction of the outside world. In other words, what possibility is there of either of these policies satisfying the outside world in the long run? What are the chances of success of the two policies in this connection? And here I am not talking about immediate reactions because we all know what the immediate reactions are. I am talking about the long-term chances of succeeding in satisfying the outside world. The United Party labours under the illusion that their political measures will succeed in satisfying the outside world. I do not believe it for a moment. Basically the agitation in the outside world, as far as South West Africa is concerned, is based upon the principle of one man, one vote; let us make no mistake about that. It is true too that there are some Western nations who are asking that concessions be made and who say that they are not asking at this stage for one man, one vote. But the basic object of this whole agitation on the part of the Afro-Asiatic majority in UNO is “one man, one vote”, and that also applies to South West Africa. That demand is not being met by the United Party, nor does the United Party support the further demand which is bound up with it and that is the demand that the majority must govern. Our attackers in the outside world say that South West Africa is the Black man’s country. What is the United Party’s offer?

The United Party offers to establish a northern area which it is satisfied will be governed on the basis of “one man one vote”, because it accepts the northern area as a Black area under Black domination. The fact that it wishes to make it a federation means, of course, that it will be dominated by the Ovambo. The other minority groups there will have to come under the tyranny or the power of this one group which has never before exercised authority over them. But let us leave that aside. That is the first leg of its solution. Then we come to the second leg and that is the establishment of a southern area, which will also have its own legislative assembly. What is to be the position in that legislative assembly? That legislative assembly is to be under White domination. They are going to make sure by means of manipulation that that is the case. It is true that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has a somewhat different approach which is much nearer to the principle of “one man one vote”. He argues this way: The Whites, together with the Basters and the Coloureds, form 50 per cent of the population and the remaining non-Whites will also constitute about 50 per cent; in other words, the guarantee for the Whites lies in the fact that there will be a 50-50 balance. He thinks that by conceding the principle of “one man one vote” in those circumstances the Whites will have an opportunity to make their influence felt sufficiently. I do not want to go into that at this stage; I shall come back to it later on. I am just pointing out that by means of manipulation a southern state will then come into being in which the White man will continue to rule.

But what is the third leg of their attitude? The third leg is that there is to be a federation between the northern area and the southern area. The federal government of the northern and southern areas will then be the dominant authority, and if, as the United Party says, the White man is to continue to retain the leadership in that federation as well, it will have to retain it by means of manipulation, by means of a Constitution which places the White man in a position of power in a federal government which represents a Black territory and a mixed territory, in which the White man already has a representation of 50 per cent only—if it is as much as that—and in which he has already obtained a degree of authority out of proportion to his numbers. Sir, I ask any person with common sense whether that is going to satisfy world opinion. On the principles of allowing justice to be done, is the United Party going to comply with the demands which are continually being made by the outside world by adopting that method to maintain White supremacy over the whole of South West Africa? And let me also add this: The Opposition have attacked us here and they have said that we must not develop the homelands idea because when the Arden-Clarke proposal was rejected, the homelands idea was rejected by implication. But their own idea of a dividing line, a partition, between the northern and the southern areas is tied up much more closely than any other proposal that one can put forward with the proposition put forward by the Clarke Commission. In other words, in suggesting a separation between the north and the south, are the Opposition not going to come into conflict with the United Nations in the same way as the Arden-Clarke Commission did and in the same way that our policy, according to them, will be rejected by the United Nations? Will the plans put forward by the United Party put a stop to the agitation against South Africa? Here I want to call a witness to prove that it will not in fact put a stop to it. That witness sits in this House; I refer to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who has already attacked the United Party’s plan in the course of her speech here. And if that happens here, will the same thing not happen in the outside world? Will the policy of the United Party not be attacked (just as our policy is attacked) on the ground that it does not go far enough and that it is not satisfactory? What the hon. member for Houghton said here is symbolic of the attacks that will be made upon the United Party’s policy in the outside world and by certain sections of the public in this country. That is why I say that that test shows that in putting forward this policy the United Party is not offering a solution as far as the outside world is concerned. I repeat most emphatically that they will not succeed in practice, nor on the basis of any principle. With their proposal they do not comply with the principle which is laid down in the mandate that the trustee must serve the best interests of the inhabitants, nor do they satisfy the other principle and that is that they must also satisfy the people concerned. Even though their partition policy may satisfy the Ovambos, is it going to satisfy the Hereros or the Basters if they allow these groups to be swallowed up in the southern state which they propose to establish? These people are also striving for independence and for a share in the government of their own affairs; they do not want to become minority groups in a White dominated southern state. In other words, what the attitude of the United Party amounts to is that the numerically stronger ethnic groups will dominate the numerically weaker ethnic groups, or that Whites are going to rule over non-Whites. Neither of these alternatives will resolve the clash which is being instigated abroad, but in addition to that they fail to comply with the principle of trusteeship. Their policy will lead to majority government—majority government by the Ovambos! I contend that as a result of that situation there will be so many clashes in South West Africa, as there have been in other parts of Africa, that the result will be an economic collapse, even before the advent of a Black dictatorship, which will certainly be the outcome, just as it has been elsewhere.

As against that let me state the Government’s attitude. I contend that inevitably in time to come the Government’s attitude will convince the outside world, and it will do so because it is based on various sound principles. The first is that no homelands will be brought into being by compulsion; the homelands which are there at the moment in embryonic form—I readily admit that—will be helped to grow in accordance with the principle of trusteeship. It may be a gradual development or an evolutionary one, but every group of the population is being led, according to the circumstances prevailing in the area, towards ever-increasing prosperity and independence. In other words, the trustee is doing its duty and we can talk with conviction in the outside world about the way in which we as trustees are carrying out our duties, not by using compulsion but by guiding the inhabitants of South West Africa in such a way that every group, however small it may be, will have its own chances and its own opportunities. After all, the basic principles of justice require that we should not allow the development of one imperialistic group but that each group should be able to enjoy its full rights: The Whites, the Ovambos, the Hereros, the Okavangos, the Namas, the Damaras and the Basters.

Then I come to a second point as far as Government policy is concerned. As I have already indicated, the picture painted here by the United Party of a compulsory shifting of population groups is a false one. These homelands will in fact be made available for their own political development. There will be more and more opportunities for them to occupy higher posts in their own homelands; they will have increased economic opportunities and they will have property rights, which is what the outside world demands. They will also have the right of self-determination. These are the demands which are being made by the outside world. The outside world demands emancipation, better opportunities and the right of self-determination; the trustee is expected to look after the nation under its care until it reaches that stage, and eventually there must be no domination of one group by another. Inherently the solution that we put forward satisfies all those demands which have been formulated in the council chambers of the world.

Furthermore, there is the question of economic viability. That is not a prerequisite for political independence. It was not a prerequisite in any other part of Africa. In fact, it is said on the platforms of the world that countries prefer standing on their own feet, in spite of finding things difficult, to seeking economic independence in the first place, and we have also seen that happening. Most of the new states of Africa live on what is given to them by the world states, and not on what they produce themselves. Therefore this Government acts according to the principle of regarding the development to political independence as being of paramount importance, but at the same time assisting them, as their guardian, to achieve economic independence and progress. We do in fact assure their viability, but that is not made a prerequisite for political independence. That is also in accordance with world demands.

Further, we have adopted the standpoint that there must be economic co-operation, but in addition we make provision in our policy for the possibility of political co-operation. However, we do not seek this by means of a federation in which there will be a dominant group and in which a majority group will rule a minority group. Our principle is that in the highest body there should be consultative body, that for political co-operation with one another there must be consultation in regard to common interests on an equal footing, as in a commonwealth. Therefore there is inherent in our policy the principle of developing the possibility for economic co-operation and the possibility for political co-operation, in accordance with what is being attempted in present-day Europe. After having said all this, it must be clear that this is not an inflexible policy. In fact, it is a policy which indicates a direction and formulates certain basic principles which allow much scope for movement. Therefore it is my standpoint that the positive features of the Government’s policy are such that if the outside world can be prevailed upon to realize it—and I do not despair of that at all—they will be able to support it. Then we will have a chance of securing the racial peace which cannot be secured under the policy of domination of the United Party.

I therefore lay it down as a principle that we envisage the eventual right of self-determination for each of the smaller and larger racial groups in South West Africa. Secondly, we offer protection for every group in their development towards the highest functions within each group, including self-administration in all spheres. The report proves this very clearly, and the education envisaged is directed towards that object. Thirdly, and this ought to console the hon. member for Houghton, the limitations imposed on the freedoms of people (as we find practically over the whole world where anybody lives in the territory of somebody else) fall away as soon as everybody can enjoy his own freedom in his own territory. Even the type of rules which one applies to protect oneself in one’s own territory, to which she objects, will then be seen in a more realistic and constructive light. Human rights will have more opportunity to develop to the full in terms of our policy when separation takes place and the nations exist alongside each other, than in terms of the United Party policy, according to which attempts will be made to maintain the position of the Whites for as long as possible in a mixed community, as they want to try to do. Therefore, in respect of human rights, we comply with international demands as well. In other words, the international criticism will still be there, but we will have adopted a clear standpoint based on principle. There is the possibility of convincing everybody who wants to think reasonably, except the communists or those who want to make the whole of Africa Black-dominated, that we are following a course which provides justice for everybody in the international sense.

Having said this, I want to make one admission. It is that although I do not believe that the United Party can succeed in convincing the outside world by means of its policy, there will be certain nations which may be prepared to accept the United Party and its policy because they think that, by using the United Party, they will be able to destroy both its policy and ours. In other words, I am not only saying that the policy of the United Party will not pass the international test, but I admit that there are some nations which will use the United Party and its policy to destroy South Africa and also South West as well as White domination.

Now I want to apply the test of the effect the policies of the two parties will have in this country. I first want to come back to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the guarantee for White domination lies in the 50-50 ratio in the southern area. Remember that he included the Basters and the Coloureds with the Whites in order to get that 50-50 ratio, in the same way that he wants to add the Coloureds in South Africa to the Whites. Basically, therefore, the whole guarantee which he wants to give South West is that 50-50 ratio, calculated in that way. Then there must still be manipulation, viz. a form of constitution which will give the Whites the major say in a mixed assembly, because in the southern legislative assembly he gives representation to every racial group through their own members. Now the Whites must see to it that they are in the majority. How large this majority must be is not relevant now, but it will have to be reasonably large in order to maintain the position of the Whites. In addition, we will then have the Federation with the Black North. In that Federal Parliament the United Party must once again give a guarantee to the Whites. How can it do so? What guarantee is envisaged for the White people of South West in that Federal Parliament? But now I go a step further. He wants to federate that federation with the Federation of South Africa. In regard to the Federation of South Africa, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quoted with approval Sir John Maud, who is alleged to have said that it would be a good thing to have a federation of South Africa, South West and the three Protectorates. That Federation of South Africa, seen in this light, is therefore already a mixed federation, and I already have doubts in regard to the authority which the Whites can exert in it. But now he wants to federate that federation with the other federation in which he can also only keep the White man in control by manipulation. We are now to believe that in all this there are guarantees for the Whites both in the Republic and South West Africa! On the other hand, what guarantee is there in such a policy for the non-Whites of South West, because we are approaching the matter to-day from the point of view of everybody in South West Africa? Does it not mean that in that dominant federation, the Federation of South West Africa and South Africa, which in the final result will be controlled by the Black majority of both countries, the Ovambos, the Hereros, the small number of Basters, the Namas and the Damaras will all be oppressed? Surely this great Federation will be controlled by a clique holding the power, or by a democratic majority Government of Blacks, but the millions in the Republic will dominate the few hundred thousand non-Whites of South West also. What happens then to the principle of guardianship and the satisfaction of those people? There is no guarantee in the United Party plan for the Whites of South Africa or South West, nor is there any guarantee for the non-Whites of South West. They are doomed perpetually to be minority groups, some of them so small that they will have to disappear. Where is the protection in that policy now in terms of the mandate? No, I think I must recommend that the United Party take stock, and then they must admit that they are harbouring in their midst a liberal outlook, which implies one man, one vote, which goes as far as the Liberal Party desires, further even than the Progressive Party desires. Only the Liberal Party accepts Black domination in this way. If the Opposition, when they applauded the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, did not realize this, they must now ask themselves anew what will become of them if this idea is carried to its logical consequences. As against that I say that as far as the Government is concerned it passes the test of what is sound internal policy. All it envisages is a future for each group on its own, a future to which each group is entitled. In other words, the Whites, also the Whites of South West Africa will retain their authority, and each one of the groups, small or large, will have their own opportunities and their own authority. The policy of the Government, complies, therefore, with the requirements for the continued existence, and the right to exist, of each group, and does not mean the destruction of any Black group and not the destruction of the White group. This contrast also reveals the big difference between the United Party and the Government.

In conclusion: I have been asked that we should not vote on this motion because if we did the world would learn of our differences. While that request was made on behalf of the United Party I must say that I reject it completely. What else has this debate already done than precisely to reveal those differences? I should like the world to know what the differences are. Those differences only exist between the parties in Parliament. I also want the world to know that the White people of South Africa, and I believe most of the non-White people of South Africa, also those of South West Africa, will support the Government in this matter as I have set it out. The differences which have been revealed here are parliamentary differences and not national differences. In addition I want to ask this: If we refrain from voting on this motion will that hide the differences after the United Party have gone out of their way to emphasize those differences as sharply as I have proved by way of summing up.

What can be the result if we do not vote on this motion? The only result will be doubt as to whether we are going to carry out the positive suggestions. In other words, in that case there may be uncertainty amongst the Bantu and there may be uncertainty amongst the public of both states, and there may be uncertainty in the world outside as to whether we are prepared to continue with the big upliftment schemes, educational schemes and health schemes in South West Africa. I want to remove every vestige of doubt as to our determination to continue with the economic development and that is why I am asking this House for its confirmation of that. But apart from that, just think of this problem! If we do not vote there can be doubt as to whether we are prepared to adhere to our decision not to take any steps in regard to certain matters. In other words, what members of the Opposition said gave them much relief, namely, that there cannot be any doubt in the mind of the Court or in the minds of other litigants that it is not our intention to take any steps in regard to certain matters pending the decision of the Court, can also be doubted. Surely the acceptance of the motion before the House confirms the acceptance by the House of Assembly that we shall not take any steps in certain matters. There must not be shadow of doubt as to that. I cannot, therefore, help the United Party out of the stupid attitude they have adopted in this debate. By voting against the motion as the Leader of the Opposition has announced they will, the United Party will reveal itself as the Party which is not prepared to perform this large-scale economic and social upliftment work in South West Africa as our ward. Surely that is all the memorandum contains. The excuse that, because they do not approve of the broad direction we are following, the United Party is also forced to refuse to support these positive plans, is simply not good enough, because by saying what it has said—and it did say it—it can explain that it does not approve of the direction but is only voting for everything that is concrete in this motion, namely, the Kunene scheme, the provision of transport facilities, the acquisition of farms, educational and health measures etc. It refuses to vote for those. I cannot save it. Let South Africa and South West Africa and the world outside take cognizance of the stupidity of the Opposition.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Loots. J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan. A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J-.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg. M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.: van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? Sir, the successful functioning of any Department will depend in great measure on the efficiency of its staff and the numbers of its staff. Looking through the Estimates for this year I am quite perturbed to see that there has been a gradual drop in the numbers of the staff in the various branches of the Department of Social Welfare. I find that in eight of the 13 sub-divisions of this Vote there is a shortage of personnel. In some cases there is a fairly big shortage and in other cases it is small. I think it is very important, bearing in mind the growing services which have to be provided by the Department, that these shortages should be eliminated. It is all very well for us on this side of the House to criticize these shortages, and we do bear in mind the fact that there is a shortage of staff throughout the Public Service, but with the growth of our population this Department particularly must go out of its way to recruit more people for the Department of Social Welfare.

Sir, social welfare is fortunate in the sense that the Department’s workers can be supplemented and are being supplemented by voluntary workers. In no other branch of our Public Service do we have as many voluntary workers assisting the Government to perform this work as in the Department of Social Welfare. There are so many voluntary workers in so many of our towns and cities that it has almost become the function of the voluntary worker to take over these services with a subsidy from the Government, instead of the Government having full control and being helped by the voluntary workers. The work done by these voluntary organizations is very important and there is no time like the present for us to express our apreciation of the work done by them. The Minister has in past years told us what splendid work they do and we have always fully agreed with him. But these voluntary organizations cannot go on like this. I and other members on this side of the House will put forward ideas later on as to how we can supplement the staff that we have at the moment.

In the first place I feel that better use ought to be made of students who are studying sociology and medicine at our universities. In sociology and in medicine particularly I think the time has come for these students to do practical work in social welfare, and if they are going to do practical work, full use must be made of the material that we have available. If the hon. the Minister feels that he is short of field workers then he must try to get the universities interested in providing field workers from the ranks of students. Actually in the universities there are groups of people who band themselves together to do social welfare work. Here in Cape Town, in Shawco and in Cafda, you always find groups of university students behind these organizations, always willing to help, and the same applies to other university towns. But this work must not be done on a haphazard basis, without control. Let me make myself perfectly clear: What I mean is that social welfare work should form part of the curriculum of university students. In the same way as a medical student goes into the wards in the hospitals and learns clinical work, so I feel that male and female students should be given the opportunity to do practical work, under supervision, for the Department of Social Welfare. It would do medical students a power of good if this was brought about because too many doctors who later work for the Department have never had the opportunity of doing this type of social welfare work. If the recruits for the Department were taken from the ranks of general practitioners who go from house to house in their ordinary daily work, then obviously you will get people with experience, but the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in the main the recruits come from the younger doctors or the younger social welfare workers who have not had an opportunity of doing practical work. I say therefore that we must go out of our way to find ways and means of attracting more people to the service. We cannot go on depending on the voluntary organization to provide these services for the Minister’s Department. What these voluntary organizations are doing at present is absolutely remarkable. They do their work with great zeal and they are very anxious to expand their services, but in the course of a tour which I made recently in the Republic I found that there was not a single voluntary organization which had enough money to do its work properly. I found that they were not doing anything on a lavish scale; that they were providing the bare minimum, essential services. I found that none of the houses which they were using as their headquarters were elaborate structures, and in every case I found that apart from the supervisor they did not have a single full-time person in their employ. What happens is that voluntary workers come in to assist in the morning or in the afternoon; the ambulance services are provided on a voluntary basis to take cripple persons from the homes in which they are being looked after to their own homes. It is true that the Government pays these voluntary organizations a subsidy. Sir, we are a wealthy country and I feel that there should no longer be such a thing as street collections to raise money for these social welfare services. Why should a voluntary worker who has undertaken to do a particular type of work for a particular group of unfortunate people, still have to go to the public, cap in hand, asking for alms? Sir, those things should not happen in our country. We who boast of so much wealth, sit here in this House and listen to the Minister of Finance announce that he is going to give R750,000 to the aged out of a tremendous surplus! Sir, that money is gratefully accepted but it is not recurrent expenditure. This is merely a crumb for the aged from the rich man’s table for this particular year. Sir, this is not nearly enough.

You are exaggerating now.

Sir, the Minister is trying to do his job properly but I feel that his hands are tied. He is not given enough money to do his work properly. I can imagine him at Cabinet meetings pleading, like the street collectors, for more money for these worthy causes. But I am going to suggest to him that he should be prepared not only to do this work but to investigate the possibility of linking up the medical services with social welfare services. If we could do that then perhaps we could get more people interested in social welfare. At the same time the various branches of social welfare, which are so intimately connected with health services, can then be linked up with health services. Sir, I said here a month or two ago that there was scarcely a single branch of the social welfare services that was not intimately linked up with health services. Take the cripples, the blind, the lame, the alcoholics, the cerebral palsied; they are all intimately connected with health services. In fact I cannot think of a single branch of social welfare work that is not intimately connected with health services, and for that reason I think the time has come when we should take away the health portfolio from the present Minister of Health and to hand it over to somebody else, somebody who is able to see that the type of work which the present Minister is doing is done properly. It is a little bit beyond him and it should be handed over to somebody more competent.

Will you speak up, please.

Did you hear that remark? We want the Prime Minister to hear it, not you.

Sir, we find that in the welfare and probation section of the Minister’s Department, the number of workers has fallen from 446 to 421. There are 25 fewer people working in that Department. I do not know whether the Minister has ever grumbled about this shortage of personnel. I can see no hope of his improving the position unless he is prepared, in addition to what I have suggested, to increase the salaries of these specialists doing this type of work. You cannot just take people from factories and from offices and ask them to do this sort of work. Each one of these people working for the Department of Social Services is a specialist in his own sphere and he should be paid accordingly. The Minister cannot simply take anybody for this type of work. Not enough graduates with a B.Sc. in sociology or social welfare work are coming forward, and when these people do qualify at universities they are offered such attractive salaries outside the Public Service that they naturally accept those posts. I say to the Minister, therefore, that the salary scales must be reviewed again.

I want to pass on from this departmental difficulty that the Minister has to one or two other matters. I think more should be done to follow up the person who has been discharged from hospital. Very often a victim of a motorcar or road accident of some kind has to have medical attention after his discharge from hospital. Social welfare tries its best in many cases to follow up these cases but it is becoming more and more difficult to find voluntary workers who are prepared to look after these convalescents once they have been discharged from hospital. They are not sick in the sense that they still need medical treatment but they they do need welfare treatment. There is very often a shortage of food in the house of such a victim of a road accident. In many cases the wife has to go out to work to take the husband’s place as breadwinner while he is convalescent. If the wife is knocked down, the husband can only continue to work if he can bring somebody into the home to look after the children. These children could, if proper arrangements could be made, be taken to a creche and looked after there, but then we come up against the transport difficulties, and it is here again that the voluntary social welfare worker comes along with an ambulance and takes the child from his home to the creche. I bring this point to the Minister’s attention because I feel that more should be done by the State to help people who find themselves in this unfortunate position. I read in the Argus just a day or two ago a statement made by the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Cape Town to the effect that he was absolutely shocked at the number of car-crash cripples needing attention. Sir, it is this sort of thing that is going to put an ever-increasing strain on the Minister’s Department, because these cripples, in many cases, have to receive rehabilitation treatment, and during that period their homes are neglected. The Minister should undertake a full investigation to see what can be done to help these people to overcome their difficulties.

Sir, it was my intention to talk for a short while about the difficulties of the pensioner, but we have decided on this side of the House that we will rather raise this matter in another part of to-day’s debate. There we will go into the question of pensions and of difficulties experienced by pensioners a little more carefully and in a little more detail. We want to discuss with the Minister the question of the means test. All of us on this side of the House, and I am sure hon. members opposite who are interested in this matter, will go out of their way to see whether we cannot do something to relieve the present stringent measures of the means test. Something has to be done. I shall not deal with that in further detail. One of the other members on this side will do so. But I can say that we are not at all satisfied, and the people outside this House are not satisfied, that the means test, as it exists to-day, is a fair measure. It has to be reviewed and altered. It is far too drastic and we must alter it drastically so that those people who are at present excluded from deriving the benefit of a pension, a benefit they should be getting, can come in and enjoy that little in their old age.

I said some time during this Session that those people who previously received a bonus plus the old-age pension were still in the same position as they were before, all old-age pensions were brought into line. To-day they are all on the same level. But I am sure the Minister will find that those people who were getting the bonus are in almost the same position as they were previously. They cannot come out on their pension; they have no other source of income. They are absolutely helpless. They depend entirely upon the amount of money that comes from the Minister and they have to use that for clothes, accommodation, food, etc. I suggested to the Minister that he should investigate the possibility of issuing food vouchers to those people on the days they get their pension, so that the money they spend on food to-day could be used for buying an essential article of clothing or something like that. It will enable them to buy a little more than the bare necessities. Mr. Chairman, when a person gets old, bread and tea and a little milk are not enough for him to live on. We all know that it happens, and they have to live on that. If they were issued with a food voucher they would be able to buy a little more, such as a little fruit. That is not asking a great deal but it becomes a treat to these people. The fruit we get in our own dining room, the fruit we regard as an everyday occurrence, becomes a banquet to them. It is simply out of the ordinary for them to have a plate with a pear and an apple and a bunch of grapes on it. That is something which only happens when they have a function or when they are taken on a day’s outing. I say, Sir, if they could get a little treat like that it would do them the world of good. It is not asking much. How much would it cost? I want to ask that these people be given a food voucher for R2 every month. It is not going to amount to a large sum of money. And in this country I should not have to ask for this in Parliament. It should come voluntarily. It should not have to be brought to the notice of the Minister. Just think of the food that has gone to waste over the past few years, Sir, because there are not sufficient ways and means of preserving it. When I think of that I do not think we deserve the good things that have come to us because we have wasted too much. That wastage must stop, Sir. We have had a warning in the Northern Transvaal. We must take heed of that warning. We must learn from that lesson. Not a single piece of food, whether it be liquid or solid, must be wasted. Milk must not be thrown down drains. It must be converted into dried milk and preserved. Fruit must be canned; meat and fish must be frozen. Whatever we have in plenty has got to be preserved and given to those unfortunate people who have not the money to buy it. It matters not whether they are White or non-White. They are entitled to get it when the time comes. I feel the pensioner’s time has now come for him to receive something of this sort.

My time is running short and I promised not to go on too long with this matter. There are other matters in regard to which the hon. the Minister must start taking a hand in developing. I have mentioned the question of perhaps taking over the Department of Health. I go further: I think the Department of Housing should fall under the Minister of Social Welfare. How does housing fit in under the Minister of Coloured Affairs? Why should the Minister of Coloured Affairs have control over housing? He has enough on his fork as it is. He deals with Coloured education and all their affairs. Because the Coloured people need housing why should he be in charge of all housing? For that matter, the Bantu people need housing. Why is the Minister of Bantu Administration in charge of housing? I say housing is of such great importance to-day especially, the provision of housing for the aged and for those people who are coming into the country, people who are not yet settled and still need some social welfare help, that it is the duty of the Cabinet to see that the Minister of Social Welfare has that particular branch under his wing. Instead of there being an empire for the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, instead of there being an empire for the Minister of Coloured Affairs, I think Social Welfare, Pensions and Housing should fall under the Minister of Social Welfare.

You want another empire?

I do not want an empire but I want an efficient Department so that there will not be any overlapping and so that we can overcome the difficulties which arise because of this separation. Why the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is in charge of Health I do not know. Those are two totally different things, whereas Health and Social Welfare fit together. There will probably be a great deal to do; he will probably have to have an Under-Minister to help him. But I would much rather see that than what is happening at the moment. When we deal with the Minister of Health we shall again raise these shortcomings.

Finally I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House appreciate what has been done in the past year. We know his hands have been tied because he did not have enough money to give what he wanted to give. We want to pay tribute to his staff who have shown that they are efficient social welfare workers. They are not just officials but they are social welfare workers. Those of us who have had dealings with them must say that never on any occasions did they not go out of their way to please us. If there is a Department which deserves praise in this Government of ours it is the Department of Social Welfare. Not one of us on this side is not thoroughly pleased with the work that Department has done. It is a pleasure for me, Sir, to say to the Minister that we value the help those people have given us on this side of the House whenever possible. [Time limit.]

Having listened to what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said a moment ago I think we can associate ourselves with his concluding remarks and express our gratitude and sincere appreciation for the services this important Department renders to the State and to the community. In saying that we include the Minister and his staff, as well as those who render the field services. Those valuable services they render are well organized and we appreciate it greatly. The hon. member for Rosettenville said many things with which we cannot agree with him 100 per cent. He emphasized the fact that there was a shortage of necessary staff. He must realize that this is a Department which performs extremely specialized work. We do know there is a shortage of trained social workers. But that is not only the position in this field, but in all fields. That is also the position in the field that hon. member represents, namely, the medical field. There is a shortage in every field to-day. The development is so great that the universities cannot remain ahead in providing in the needs. But where he refers to the way in which the people are being trained I can tell him he is wrong if he thinks the universities do not provide the necessary facilities for the practical training of social workers. As a matter of fact, it is an integral part of their training that they should do practical work. All of us who are connected with welfare organizations know how those young students are placed in the care of specific organizations during their holidays so as to get practical training. Those organizations then have to submit a proper report to the university concerned. They have to state in that report how the student acted under certain circumstances, and so forth. As much as one would like to see medical students getting more of this training under their course it is naturally, from the nature of things, not possible for this Minister and his Department to dictate to them. That is a task that hon. member, who knows the medical profession, can perform. He would be making a great contribution to our social welfare services if he could persuade the medical schools to arrange their courses in such a way that more students could be active in this particular field. The community will certainly benefit by that.

The hon. member expressed his disappointment that voluntary social welfare organizations were so poorly housed and that they were handicapped in so many ways. I want to say this to the hon. member: I do not know which particular welfare organizations he has in mind. There are already between 2,000 and 3,000 registered voluntary welfare organizations. But the main national welfare organizations, the National Council for Mental Health, the National Welfare Council, the National Council for Child Welfare and all those big councils say exactly the opposite to what the hon. member says. Only recently I read what the National Council for Mental Health said in their report, how they paid tribute to the Government for the funds that were made available to them, how they were finding it easier to make ends meet. We find therefore that the opposite is really true. They express their appreciation for what the Government is doing and for the funds which are made available to the welfare organizations to do the work.

I expected the hon. member to return to the question of pensions. This is the third occasion this year that we have discussed the question of pensions in this House. If we go into the record of this Government over the past 14 years there is hardly a year in which improvements have not been effected to pensions. That was done practically every year. At the same time attempts were made to relax the means test to an increasing extent. As far as pension concessions are concerned we can say this: When we consider what the pensioner gets to-day, and we consider the value of money and we consider what he got before this Government came into power and what the cost of living index figure was in those days, we can only say that the increased pensions, with due regard to the cost of living index figure, have meant that every pensioner is in a much better position to-day than he was under the Government of those days.

They are still hungry.

We realize that. The hon. member for Rosettenville suggests that a food voucher for R2 should be issued monthly to each pensioner. But that is not such a small item as he suggests. There are 138,000 pensioners. To make a further R2 available to them every month will mean over R3,000,000. That is why we say it is not such a small item. I am sure the Government would like to do very much more. We can suggest various ways in which improvements can be brought about. I want to mention one which I think is already enjoying the attention of the hon. the Minister. There is, for example, the question of the houses which some pensioners own. Say, for instance, a person bought a house ten years ago and paid R1,400 for it. With the appreciation of property values the value of that house may have doubled or trebled to-day although the house has actually deteriorated. We know that places the pensioner in a difficult position. But I know this Minister is considering that, because of the sympathetic way in which he attends to matters, and in view of the fact that he has already introduced a more simplified form of calculating pensions.

There is one other matter I should like to emphasize and it is this. To-day all those institutions which have anything to do with family life deplore the way family life has deteriorated. We had the family year. During the past week, for example, an important Church body expressed its concern. We also know that that is the one subject the hon. the Minister never gets tired of discussing in this House. We know that important legislation will be introduced next year in connection with voluntary welfare organizations and the Minister has indicated that in constituting the new National Welfare Council emphasis will be placed on family care. When we think of the increasing number of children who are committed and we think of the increasing number of divorces we realize that we are dealing with an outgrowth of society which can be fatal to the community. That is why we shall appreciate it if the Minister and his Department would continue to place the emphasis on family care. A great deal can be said about what the Department has already done over the past years, how it has devoted its attention to this matter, how it has tried, by means of proclaiming welfare organizations, to undertake the care of family life and how it has tried to promote family life in this country. We want to ask the Minister and his Department to place the emphasis to an increasing extent on that because, to the extent to which we have sound family life, to that extent do we keep the cells of the nation healthy and can we expect to have a sound nation. We appreciate what the Department has done and what it has already achieved in relieving distress and in caring for the poor. Finally I once again wish to express our gratitude for these special allowances which will be paid to all the pensioners this year, whereas they were only paid to the poorest of the poor last year and whereas many welfare organizations, many aged people and many of the old people’s homes were embarrassed because those old people could not understand why, as they saw it, a distinction should be made between the one pensioner and the other. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the plight of the retarded children in South Africa and the problems that beset those who have undertaken, voluntarily, to care for them. Perhaps it is a commentary on our approach to social welfare generally, certainly to the problem of the retarded child, that in our budget there is such a tremendous disparity between what is provided for the care of children generally and for the other, shall I say, less civilized needs of a civilized community. And this is the position at a time of great expansion in our economy—I am not going to refer to the unexpected windfall about which the Minister of Finance told us a few days ago—at a time when this country has a thriving economy, when we are assured every day that this is the most dynamic and most progressive economy in the world. It is a sad commentary that, whereas we are expanding tremendously many of our present services, we are doing nothing of the sort when it comes to the care of children. Those who have any regard for the welfare, moral as well as material, of the community will be struck by the fact that in the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account for the year ending 31 March 1965 six and a half pages of these Estimates are taken up by the needs of the prisons and the Prisons Department, and only half a page by the needs of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions! This is merely one comparison.

Looking at the “Revised Estimate of Total Cost” in each case, you will find that the revised estimates of total costs, as far as prisons are concerned, is R13,358,620 whereas the revised estimate of total costs for social welfare and pensions is R789,250—approximately l/20th of what is contemplated in regard to our Prisons Department. Quite apart from the detail—his Department certainly has more detail than any other—I have used this illustration merely to show the hon. Minister how faulty our approach is to this question of social welfare, under which I wish to discuss the welfare of the retarded child. To-day, apparently, we think of the needs of prisons as being 20 times greater than the needs, financially, of the children who need the help of the Government. I do not blame this Minister, Sir; it is a question of policy. But perhaps he could use this very argument to which I have drawn his attention in order to make sure that this imbalance between the Loan Account spending on prisons and the spending on our children is corrected in the near future instead of the annual assurance we have from this very kindly Minister that he is doing his best. He should use every lever, within the Cabinet and without, to make sure that this imbalance is corrected.

Dealing with the retarded child, we know that the Government, through the Department of Social Welfare, does provide some assistance. Provision is made under Vote 19 for R75,000 for non-State places of safety and detention, with which I am not particularly concerned here, and for an amount of R1,210,000 for children’s homes. The question is whether we are in fact doing enough to help those people who have taken it upon themselves—in most cases as a duty—to look after the retarded children. Are we doing the right thing by them not only in regard to the quantum of money, but in regard to the way this money is spent? I think I should say to the hon. the Minister that many people who are interested in this matter and who speak with some authority—even if the Minister doubts my authority—believe that because no provision is made for the mentally retarded child below the 60 per cent I.Q., except in such mental institutions as Alexandria, Wit-rand and Waterfall at Howick …

Order! The question of retarded children does not fall under this Vote.

Under this Vote “Children’s Homes” …

If the hon. member does not use the term “retarded child” he will be in order, but if he uses it he is out of order.

I can leave out the word “retarded”, if necessary. In so far as children’s homes are concerned, Sir, there are children who have a special problem. It is a question of a certain lack of intelligence which becomes, in turn, the problem of those who care for them. I wish to make this point—that in these particular institutions or homes, if it is a State-supported institution, the teacher must have attained a certain educational standard, to begin with. That creates a very real obstacle, because it does not follow that the teacher who has acquired the necessary educational standard has the right psychological outlook to be of the maximum assistance in that particular post. Then you also have the fact the good and suitable teacher can, in terms of the Public Service rules, be moved about, thereby doing great damage not only to the institution but to the child who has been cared for by that particular teacher. Furthermore, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that these places suffer from a lack of boarding facilities, which is a very serious matter as far as the children are concerned, and their parents. Other people have approached this question in this way—and I for one support the view—that greater stress should be laid on the continuity of teaching, because these children require attention and help not only during the normal school hours but day and night. I think the hon. the Minister knows that better than I do. This, therefore, makes it imperative—not only desirable, but imperative—that these children should be looked after in smaller units, almost in family units, of six to seven.

Order! To which children is the hon. member referring?

I am talking about children in children’s homes under Vote 19, in which there is an allocation of R1,210,000.

The hon. member may not discuss retarded children.

Sir, since you have entered the Chamber I have not said a word about retarded children. The hon. Minister furthermore knows that this is the kind of work that requires a special aptitude on the part of the person or teacher who sets out to help the child. One might say it is the work of a dedicated person rather than of the professional educationist or the professional child welfare specialist. This becomes very important if a certain separation can be achieved in these homes in terms of age groups. There is, for example, a special problem in regard to children of the ages from six to 12.

You are on the wrong Vote.

Sir, I have had the ruling of yourself and your predecessor, but apparently there is now a third chairman in the Committee. Six to 12 years, that is the pre-puberty age, is a very different category from, say, the puberty age of 12 to 18 years, and then again those two categories differ very widely, in terms of the needs of the children within those groups, and the age group 18 to 21 or 23. [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with the tributes paid and congratulations extended to the Department by both sides of the House. I think the fortunate thing about this Department is that this matter has the sympathy of the Minister and the Secretary down to the whole machinery dealing with it. The matter I really wish to raise, and which I think does not perhaps receive sufficient attention in this Committee and in the country, is that we are inclined to pay tribute to a Department when we can measure its work in terms of rand and cents. I wish to emphasize, however, that this Department does work that you cannot measure in terms of rand and cents, work of which the country as such cannot in consequence get a true and complete picture. I wish to emphasize the work the Department does to save family life, particularly where it uses church welfare workers throughout the country. Last year I had the privilege of studying the annual report of what had been done in my own constituency, and I was pleasantly surprised when I read about the large number of families which were more or less broken up, but which were saved because of the tactful and considerate approach on the part of the welfare workers, both male and female. Many of those broken families were again brought together as families. I take it that what happens in my constituency happens throughout the whole of South Africa. That is why I cannot pay enough tribute to the work done by that section of the Department which co-operates with the Church as far as this type of work is concerned. They are doing a tremendously big job. When we continually say the welfare of society depends on the standard of family life, I think the work that Department does is of great significance and that we should give it all the credit it deserves. That is why I shall be pleased if, when practical suggestions are made in future, suggestions which are always well intended, we pay attention to them and if the Minister as well as the Secretary would pay attention to them. I do not wish to cast any reflection on anybody who controlled the Department in the past, but we shall undoubtedly produce very good results with the new machinery which has now been set in motion, nor do I think it can be greatly improved upon. Because that machinery operates so smoothly and because it complies with the high demands made on us by social welfare to-day, I again want to emphasize that we should not take rand and cents into account, but that we should place the emphasis on restoring family life. I wish to pay tribute to the Department and the church institutions which function under the Department. I hope the Secretary and the Minister will pay attention in particular to those well-intended suggestions, practical suggestions, given from time to time. I also wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) when he expressed the hope that those people who were academically and professionally probably as well trained as one could wish for, would get the necessary encouragement. I know it is the policy of the Department to encourage them and I know the Department has the best and the best-trained people in its service. I wish the Department everything of the best.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) pointed out that there was a shortage of staff in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) then said that facilities were available at the universities for the training of those persons. But, Mr. Chairman, there is no real connection between these two matters. There are sufficient facilities available at the universities but the fact that the hon. member for Rosettenville wanted to bring to the attention of the House was that as soon as these people had completed their studies at the various universities they left the Department because they were able to command far higher salaries at other places.

I was speaking about practical training.

Yes, but the hon. member first spoke about a staff shortage and then he mentioned the question of the practical training of doctors, two matters which have no connection with one another at all. But I do think that all of us accept the fact that there is a shortage of staff. There is a certain pattern to be noticed as far as this Vote is concerned, and I think that we should devote some attention to it. I note that there has been an increase in the amount of the Vote, as of course has been the case as far as all Votes are concerned. In this case there is an increase of more than R3,000,000 as far as the total amount of the Vote is concerned. But there has been a decrease as far as subhead K, “War Veterans’, Old Age and Blind Persons’ Pensions and Disability Grants”, is concerned. There is a decrease of R225,000 under that sub-head. As far as sub-head O is concerned, “Aid to Indigent Persons and Related Subsidized Services”, there is also a decrease from R224,000 to R179,000, while under sub-head P, “Care of the Aged and Infirm”, the amount has decreased from R841,000 to R781,000. We may ask, then, what is responsible for the general increase in the total amount of the Vote, and we find this in sub-head J, “Contributions to Pension and Provident Funds”, under which there is an increase from R15,000,000 to R19,000,000. This is responsible for the fact that the total amount of the Vote has been increased by R3,000,000. This to my mind is not a good omen, particularly as I notice that there has been a decrease in the amount to be voted for old-age pensions and so forth, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation in this regard. In spite of what hon. members opposite tell us, even the hon. member for Kimberley (South) had eventually to say something about the means test. He said that he was sure that the hon. the Minister was interested in this matter and that he would do something about it at some stage. We on this side of the House know of course that the hon. the Minister is sympathetically inclined in this regard and that he has the welfare of these people at heart. I think that he will agree with us that the time has come for something to be done in connection with the question of the means test. I think that in a previous debate the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that he went overseas on a study tour in order to ascertain how old people were treated in other countries and how welfare services in other countries were administered. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to give us a report on his tour, whether he will report to us on his findings on that tour.

I have already dealt with this matter during the debate on a private member’s motion, but I shall deal further with the subject this afternoon.

I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give us his impression of what is being done there.

There are a number of matters that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. One of them is that most of our old people, or at least a large number of them, live out their days in old-age homes. These homes have been set up by welfare organizations through the medium of loans which they have received from certain Departments. Those old people are well looked after. There is one matter that I want to mention in this connection and that is that most of them have no transport facilities. No motor-car or other means of transport is available to an old-age home of this nature. If an inmate of an old-age home falls ill, he has first to obtain a note from the magistrate before he can be given free medical attention. Once he has this note, the district medical officer will give him medical attention free of charge. How on earth is that old person who is ill in bed to visit the magistrate? I think that the hon. the Minister should arrange with the hon. the Minister of Health that the district medical officer can be called in without the necessity for a note from the magistrate. As things are now, that old person himself has to apply for that note; he has to go down to the magistrate’s office and ask the magistrate for that note personally.

Not at all!

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

I would like to refer briefly to a matter to which the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) referred, namely, the appreciation of the work of the staff of the Department, and to perhaps just pause for one moment and associate this side of the House, and I am sure members on the other side will do similarly, with the reference made to the passing of some well-known personages who at one time played their part very effectively and well in the building up of this Department. I refer to the names mentioned on page 6 of the report for the years 1959-62 and I think we should place on record our appreciation of the services rendered by men like Dr. van Sehalkwyk, Mr. de Ridder and Mr. van Heerden.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that in the same report of the Department on page 21, dealing with homes for the aged, a certain policy is outlined to the effect that whilst the Department of Housing will continue to provide the capital loans that are necessary for the building of aged homes, future loans will only be granted in cases recommended by the Department. I think well might it be so because the demand for homes for the aged continues to grow apace. In recent years we have had a lot of reconstruction going on in some of the principal cities in our country, and the aged are the persons who have suffered most because they have been evacuated from homes which some of them have occupied for many years at very low rentals and they have been forced, unfortunately, to find other forms of accommodation. On the pension, which at the moment is only R27, it is of course impossible to obtain reasonable accommodation if an aged person is to live on his own and at the same time be able to have sufficient to provide his means of livelihood. So the urgency and the demand for homes for the aged continues to grow. In addition to that, we have the further problem that the number of the aged continues to grow. As a result of better medical care and better medical attention the longevity of our people is increasing and as a result the number of people over the age of 60 continues to grow year by year in appreciable numbers, and our responsibility towards these people continues to increase. Now there is one feature in regard to the building of aged homes to which I would like the Minister to particularly pay attention, and that is the necessity of providing some form of non-acute convalescent accommodation coupled with the building of an aged home. We know that there are non-acute hospitals in the country.

Clinics?

No, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what is done in regard to non-acute hospitals, where a person who is chronically ill, who does not need detailed nursing, but just needs care, is taken in. Most of these places are far removed from the big towns where the preponderance of our aged persons find themselves, and it becomes a very difficult matter for a family to remain in constant contact with them. In one or two of the aged homes which have been built in recent days, provision has been made for what they call a “convalescent section”, which is virtually a non-acute hospital attached to the aged home, so that when a person enters an aged home, the principle that a person who enters need never leave is established. In other words, if the person were to get infirm owing to his age, if he were to get ill but remain in a chronic sickly condition, there should be beds provided at that aged home where the person can be accommodated and where a certain amount of nursing can be provided. Sir, in our welfare funds we provide for a subsidy of, I think, R10 per person per month towards the cost of this care, but I can tell the hon. the Minister—he knows it himself because he is very interested in this work—that one or two aged homes have provided 25 per cent beds for that purpose, that is to say if you have a home for 100 persons, you provide approximately 25 beds in what is called a convalescent section, but which virtually is a non-acute hospital. If that is done, it will give a great deal of comfort to the aged, and it will enable these old people to continue to remain in the environment in which they probably spent a fair number of years; they can be visited by their relatives, and they will get a great deal of comfort from the friendships which they have made over a period of time. This is a very important factor, because one of the greatest complaints of the aged in our country, as in any other country, is the complaint of loneliness. How much more is this aggravated when a person has to be taken say, for instance, from the Witwatersrand to Warmbath to a non-acute hospital, which is 100 miles virtually from the Witwatersrand. I do feel that if the hon. the Minister, taking advantage of his now over-all control of the provision of aged homes, would be able to establish a new principle in the building of aged homes, and that is that in addition to having the reasonably able-bodied person who can look after himself accommodated, that person should have the security that as the years go by and his infirmity grows, he can remain at that particular home, remain in his environment and need never have the fear that he or she will have to be removed a far distance away; that would be a blessing to many people.

I know that the hon. Minister of Finance in regard to the additional surplus which he found has allocated R750,000 towards aged homes, but I do believe that that is a meagre sum and virtually a pittance as against the demand that is growing. I think we are going to find considerable difficulties in our modern way of life if we expect aged persons to remain housed with their children. The modern tendency is that children, sad as it is, do try and shed that responsibility and it is a constant fear in the minds, particularly of the pensioners, that they are not certain what is going to happen to them. About four or five years ago we had approximately 90,000 aged pensioners who could become potential occupants of aged homes. At that time we only had aged homes throughout the country for approximately 2,730 persons, so that virtually we had hardly scratched the surface of the problem. I know that the Department has done everything in its power to encourage the establishment of homes for the aged and to provide subsidies for the purpose and also to provide accommodation for them with friends or families. I think, however, that we should look a little further and should be a little more ambitious with regard to the provision of this form of accommodation. I trust that in giving this matter thought the Minister will see whether he cannot bring about a principle whereby he can include, when building a home, provision for these non-acute facilities which will give that security which I think the aged want. [Time limit.]

I briefly want to raise a matter which I know is very close to the hon. the Minister’s heart and which is also in the minds of other people who are interested in social welfare matters. This is in connection with the social welfare settlements for physically disabled persons and also for the aged. There are three of these settlements. One is at Ganspan near Kimberley, another is at Karatara between George and Knysna and the third, which has the attractive name of Sonop, is in the Brits constituency which I represent. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that at the beginning of 1962, after an inquiry had been made into these settlements and after certain experience had been gained by the Department and also as a result of practical considerations, it was decided to effect a classification of settlers. Before 1962 we had to deal with the old regime under which all settlers received a certain allowance and were subject to certain regulations; they were all dealt with in virtually the same way. Although those settlers were also to a large extent entitled to old-age pensions or maintenance allowances, or to disability allowances, they forfeited these pensions or allowances as soon as they were accommodated on the settlements and they were paid a settlement allowance, plus a certain allowance for their children. But, as I say, from the beginning of 1962 the hon. the Minister introduced a change in policy at the Ganspan settlement. That settlement was gradually converted into what we call a settler-lessee scheme. This scheme was also applied to Sonop in about the middle of 1962 and later still to Karatara. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that during the Budget debate I made representations on behalf of these people and asked the hon. the Minister whether representations could not be made to the Treasury to ensure that settlers who did not receive the increased pension would receive the benefit of the increase which was granted in regard to social pensions. At present I think that a family on one of these settlements receives about R20 per month. The increase in the ordinary social pension was about R2.50 per month and the settlers felt rather dissatisfied because they did not receive this increase. We now have two classes of people on the same settlement—the settler-lessees and the ordinary settlers. They feel that they have been discriminated against and there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction, although they are always very grateful for what the hon. the Minister does for them. We know that the hon. the Minister is intensely interested in those settlers. He has chatted with the people there and we know that he is fully acquainted with the position there. We are very grateful that he introduced a change in policy to enable most of these settlers to become settler-lessees so that they could receive increased pensions. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be able to tell us whether these people will also be paid the increased pensions.

There is a second matter about which I feel very concerned and about which the settlers themselves are also disturbed. When I visited that settlement recently the settlers themselves and the Advisory Council drew my attention to the fact that a far smaller allowance was being paid in respect of the children of settlers than was the case in respect of those of the settler-lessees. A settler only receives R2 for every child of pre-schoolgoing age while the settler-lessee receives R6 for each such child. For a child attending junior school a settler receives R3 and the settler-lessee R8. If the child is attending high school, the allowance is R5 to the settler and R10 to the settler-lessee. I investigated the matter myself and found—I do-not want to mention names—that settler A had one child at high school and four children at junior school, for whom he received R17 per month, while settler-lessee B had one child at high school and three children at junior school, for whom he received R34 per month. This is happening on the same settlement where the children play together and attend the same schools. It is this difference in the allowances paid that is regarded by the settlers to be rather unfair. This fact does give rise to some measure of dissatisfaction. I want to mention a second case. Settler C has two children at high school for whom he receives R10 per month while settler-lessee D who also has two children at school receives R20 per month. The families live next to one another; the one family receives R10 and the other R20. The hon. the Minister may say that a distinction has been drawn between a settler and a settler-lessee. That is so and I admit that the change brought about in this regard has been to the good. But one feels that where one has to deal with chronic invalids, as is the case at Sonop, one has to be very careful. We did not know that it would have this effect. One does not want to create bad feelings between these people. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says that he has rectified one aspect of the matter and now the other aspect needs rectifying. I think that he should rectify both aspects and then everyone will be happy.

My difficulty is finding the correct scale.

There are people on those settlements who became needy as the result of adverse circumstances and if we want to rehabilitate them we must not draw a distinction between their children. Is it not the thought of these settlements which makes us sympathetically disposed towards these people and which softens our hearts in their regard? Would it not be a most productive capital investment to improve the allowances payable in respect of these children? I am not criticizing the hon. the Minister and what I have to say must not be construed as such. The hon. the Minister has done a very great deal indeed. I do not want the Opposition to laugh at me and to say that I am criticizing the hon. the Minister. Even though we are dealing with a matter like social welfare the Opposition are still trying to make political capital out of it. The hon. the Minister has effected this great improvement but there is still a certain amount of dissatisfaction. I am trying to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister as sympathetically as I can. I ask him to make those increased pensions payable to those settlers as well and to give his attention to rectifying the great difference that exists between the children’s allowances paid to settlers and those paid to settler-lessees. What is wrong with that? If hon. members opposite want to make this a political matter, I can refer them back to the old South African Party regime when the allowance was 12s. per child! But I do not want to do so. I am not talking politics now. [Interjections.] If we were to follow the policy of that party we would not have a Sonop (Sunrise) but a Sunset! Have hon. members of the Opposition no sympathy with these people at all? [Time limit.]

I wish to refer to sub-head N, the rehabilitation of alcoholics. I notice that under this sub-head an amount of R33,000 is allowed for in the Estimates, which exceeds by R13,000 the amount in the previous Estimates and is R6,000 more than the year before that. The question I should like to ask the Minister is this: Is this amount just to keep pace with the increasing needs, or is it to provide greater assistance for the organizations which are assisting in this question of alcoholism? In the Minister’s second-reading speech on the Retreats and Rehabilitation Bill last year he made four points, and I wish to refer to the third point he made. He said the Bill envisages the certification, approval and subsidization of private welfare organizations for the care and treatment of alcoholics in the community, as well as in institutions. Then the Minister went on to say that it appears clearly that alcoholism has assumed such proportions that it should be regarded as a serious national problem. This claim seems to have been substantiated by the liquor trade, because in recent statistics released by the trade the statement is made that the annual consumption of brandy in South Africa is now nearing the 5,000,000 gallon mark, and they still say that South Africans are among the hardest drinkers in the world. So there is need for the establishment of these centres, both State-operated and those run by private individuals, and the need seems to be growing, because the incidence of alcoholism is obviously increasing. If figures can prove anything, I wish to refer briefly to authentic figures concerning the under 17 age group of Whites in South Africa. These figures are rather startling, because in 1955 there were nine prosecutions resulting in seven convictions, and in 1962 there were 33 prosecutions resulting in 31 convictions. In regard to the Coloureds, the number of prosecutions and convictions was higher, but the actual incidence seemed to remain on a more stable basis. There again, taking the under 17 age group for Coloureds, in 1955 there were 101 prosecutions resulting in 96 convictions, and in 1962 there were 112 prosecutions resulting in 95 convictions. When we come to the age group of 17 to 20 years in regard to Whites, we find that in 1955 the prosecutions numbered 352 and these resulted in 334 convictions, but in 1962 there were 551 prosecutions resulting in 526 convictions. In regard to the Coloureds in this age group, the figures seem to show that the incidence was from four to seven times higher than the comparative figure for the Whites. As far as the Bantu are concerned, the figures show that the incidence declined slightly, and as far as the over 21’s are concerned the over-all figure for all races shows that in 1962 there was a decline in the number of prosecutions and convictions in terms of the Liquor Act. But the fact still remains that in 1962 there were over 127,000 convictions for liquor offences, and of that number there were more than 67,000 convictions for drunkenness, which is more than half. I feel that I have shown that the incidence of this problem is increasing, but these figures are only part of the picture. They only represent the people who have been involved in breaking the law, but what about the people with no court record, who also contributed to the big thirst that makes South Africa one of the biggest spirit-drinking countries in the world? An overseas authority claims, as far as the consumption of alcohol is concerned, that of 70 alcohol drinkers, nine drink too much and three become alcoholics, and he claims that 10 per cent of social drinkers will become alcoholics. Section 12 of Act 86 of 1963, the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, gives power to the Minister to make grants out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose to any association approved by the Minister which has as its objects the prevention or combating of alcoholism and the treatment of alcoholics, and I should like to appeal seriously to the Minister to provide as much assistance as possible to the voluntary organizations which take under their charge the care and rehabilitation of alcoholics. Many of these centres owe much of their success to the fact that the voluntary workers who have been alcoholics themselves are prepared to devote a large part of their time and energy to helping their less fortunate colleagues, and it seems such a shame, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, that these people should have to use their valuable time, when they render such a valuable service, to stand cap-in-hand asking for money. Their energies should not be diluted in that way, but should be confined solely to treating the people for whom they can do so much good. So I appeal for this assistance to the organizations who make use of such people because I believe the State organizations and institutions are not in the position to use that type of person, and this voluntary help is playing an increasingly important part in dealing with the big problem confronting us.

I am not in a position to speak on behalf of all these organizations, but I should like to take one specific case because I feel it is probably a typical example of many others. I refer to the Lulama Treatment Centre, and I say in all seriousness that the sponsors and staff of that centre live dangerously, due to financial uncertainty. They have to rely mainly on municipal and provincial subsidies and other financial assistance from members of the public. But the provincial grants are inadequate and as far as I know State grants are non-existent. The main difficulty with these organizations seems to be the subsidization by the State of services undertaken by qualified social workers, and as far as I know the S.A. National Council on Alcoholism is the only welfare organization with a national council which is not in receipt of social worker salary subsidies. At the annual general meeting of the Durban Society late last year it was reported that no salary subsidy is made from the Department of Social Welfare, and yet Lulama relies very heavily on voluntary services. There are seven general practitioners, one consultant psychiatrist, one part-time social worker, one physiotherapist and a panel of four clergymen engaged on the treatment and rehabilitation of cases, all on a voluntary basis. It seems to be established that alcoholism is a malady, and it seems to be a special problem even to the physicians themselves. I was interested to read a report by a Canadian medical practitioner, which stated that in a questionnaire sent to 1,500 doctors in Quebec, 853 replied, 97 per cent asked for information on the treatment of alcoholics and 88 per cent of those who replied said that present medical training was insufficient to prepare them for treating alcoholics. So it is a specialized problem and I appeal to the Minister to give his most generous support and assistance to the people who are treating a disease which to-day is considered more damaging than cancer and tuberculosis combined. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) mentioned a number of figures here but he used them so out of context that one cannot allow it to go unchallenged. He compares the figure for the whole Prisons Vote with the amount that is being made available for children by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and he then contends that we as a country are doing 30 times more for our prisons than for our children! This is such a distortion that I cannot deprecate it strongly enough. It is rather like taking the estimates for the Johannesburg City Council and comparing the mayor’s entertainment allowance with one single donation to a charitable institution and then saying that Johannesburg is spending more on its mayor’s entertainment than on charity! That is precisely what the hon. member did here to-day. I think it is far-reaching for an hon. member to distort the position in this way. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who launched the attack, made just as mean and reprehensible an attack upon the person of the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

He made a very unjust attack upon the hon. the Minister. He said that the hon. the Minister was incompetent and ought not to occupy the post of Minister. He said that somebody else should be appointed in his place but immediately after saying this he came along with a truly Judas kiss and said: “But we appreciate what the Minister and his Department have done”. It was a Judas kiss; it was the action of a traitor.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them but I regard the hon. member’s conduct as extremely unfair and reprehensible. This Government has done more for war veterans and pensioners than any Government before it. I want to mention certain figures to bear this out. The cost of living has risen by 68.2 per cent since 1948 and over the same period pensions have increased by 170 per cent. In other words, the pensioner is better off to-day than he was in 1947. I do not say that we are doing enough. One can never do enough but I do want to emphasize that the Minister has been attacked here unnecessarily and unjustifiably.

The second point I want to mention is that for the first time in our history this Government made the Department a full-fledged Department under a separate Minister. Is this fact appreciated by the Opposition? No; on the contrary, they continue with their cruel attacks. Sir, I do not want to pursue this matter. I think I have dealt adequately with the Opposition. I want to bring a few points to the attention of the hon. the Minister and in doing so I want to mention one matter in particular. I think I speak on behalf of all of us here when I pay tribute to the extremely capable official who died during the recess. I refer to Mr. Chris Crouse, the Parliamentary Clerk of this Department, a man with whom all of us had to deal almost every day and a man who did most praiseworthy work. I feel that we should make special mention of this fact in this debate.

I want to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is the question of a usufructary interest in applying the means test. We frequently find that fixed property in an estate is bequeathed to the children, subject to a usufruct in favour of the survivor. That usufruct is counted against the survivor by the Department because it is regarded as income, which is assessed at 3 per cent of the market value of the property in the case of old-age pensioners and 2 per cent in the case of war veterans, plus the income from farming operations, minus the interest which still has to be paid on the bond. In other words, in practice the position is that that usufruct means simply that the pensioner has a haven to which he can return when he wants to. When a pensioner lives with his children in the city the cost of supporting him is not taken into account in applying the means test but if he happens to have the usufruct of a piece of land, whether it means anything to him in practice or not, in many cases it disqualifies him from receiving a pension. I feel that we have reached the stage where we should consider this matter purely on its merits. If a usufruct is of no real cash benefit to its owner, it ought not to count against him.

The other matter which I want to touch upon also relates to the means test. The means test is applied on a monthly basis; a monthly return has to be made. We find that there are many people who do seasonal work; they only work for six months of the year. In this building we have many pensioners who only work here for six months and for the remaining six months of the year they are without an income. The assistants at swimming baths also work in the summer only. If such a person’s income is spread over the year, if his income is calculated on an annual basis, he can still qualify for a pension. But his income is calculated on a monthly basis for the six months during which he receives an income and this disqualifies him from receiving a pension. The result is that such a person prefers not to work because he loses his pension if he works. Is it not possible to spread the income earned by such persons over the full year?

Then I want to mention another matter, and this was really my main reason for rising to speak. I refer to the group of people whom I want to call the forgotten war veterans who are adversely affected because the means test is applied to them. I hope hon. members will not be shocked but I refer to the rebels of the 1914-5 rebellion. In 1953 when we abolished the means test in respect of war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War, it was abolished not only in respect of the soldiers who fought for the Republics but also in respect of the solders who came to this country from Britain to fight against the Republics, if they settled here afterwards. The means test was abolished as far as they were concerned and they now receive the full war veteran’s pension. The Government was prepared to forgive and to forget. The means test is not applied as strictly to war veterans of the First and Second World Wars as it is applied to ordinary old-age pensioners. But no concession of any kind has been made as far as the rebels are concerned. I do not want to defend the rebellion for a single moment, but I want to state most emphatically and clearly that those rebels were the predecessors of the Republic of to-day. Fifty years ago they wanted to achieve by military means what we have now achieved by constitutional means. The soldier who fought for the Government in the rebellion has been given relief as far as the means test is concerned; this also applies to soldiers who fought in other countries during that war. But the rebels who also fought for the ideals in which they believed, ideals which on the occasion of the referendum also appeared to be the ideals of the majority of our people, are being discriminated against inasmuch as the means test is being applied to them strictly. I feel that this is an injustice that must be rectified; that is why I call them the forgotten group of war veterans. [Time limit.]

I want to come back to the subject of alcoholism, Sub-head N, in respect of which the amount has been increased this year from R20,000 to R33,000. I should like first of all to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year I questioned whether the amount provided for under this sub-head would be sufficient. The hon. the Minister told me in reply to my question that it was contemplated that there would be a complete revision of the allocation of funds once the Bill which we were discussing at that time, the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963, reached the Statute Book. The Minister himself said that when he embarked on the new scheme it was going to cost very much more than R20,000 a year. In the report of the inter-departmental committee on the treatment of alcoholics it is recommended that a sum of R400,000 should be provided for. I would therefore like to have some more information from the Minister as to whether he proposes to increase this allocation from R33,000 to R400,000 as recommended by his own inter-departmental committee.

Then I would like to touch on the maintenance grants to the dependants of alcoholics. Alcoholism, that is to say, compulsive drinking, has become one of the greatest threats in the modern world to-day. The vastness and the manifold aspects of the problem of alcoholism are undisputed. Alcoholism not only has an adverse effect on the health of the individual but also on the economy of the country. Sir, it is estimated that there are 900,000 alcoholics out of our White population of over 3,000,000 in South Africa. Only about 3 per cent of these are of the hobo type and some 97 per cent try to cope as best they can with the problem at the occupational and domestic level, and of those 97,000 just about 2,000 are treated annually at the various homes and agencies in the Republic. To a number of these unfortunate people alcohol is a mental and physical poison and medical opinion, as the hon. the Minister is aware, now regards alcoholism as an allergy disease. But, of course, it is not only the ruined physical and mental health of the alcoholic that gives one cause for concern; it is also the effect that it has on others. After all, the alcoholic does not live in a vacuum; there are others who are affected—his friends, his doctor, his minister of religion sometimes, and of course, the unfortunate victims of his performance in driving a motor-car, but most of all it affects his family, and this places a heavy burden on the already overworked social services. Section 30 of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act which we passed here last year provides that allowances may be paid to inmates of these rehabilitation institutions in respect of any work performed by the alcoholics. A proportion of that allowance is also paid to the dependants of the alcoholic. Sir, through my work on the board of the Tara Hospital and also through association with Toc H which conducted an alcoholic retreat near Johannesburg, a retreat known as The Gables, for 12 years, I have come into contact with some of the misery and degradation and poverty of the dependants of these alcoholics. There are many families which have been hit hard by the fact that the breadwinner is an alcoholic, and often by the time an alcoholic is institutionalized in one of these retreats like The Gables, voluntarily or compulsorily, he is out of work and in debt and there is nothing left for the family to fall back on, with the result that the members of the family often become the responsibility of Social Welfare. The earnings of an alcoholic in such an institution are altogether inadequate to maintain his family. The mere fact that an alcoholic is institutionalized hampers his chances of rehabilitation when he knows that his family are trying to live on a pitifully small income. Sir, often these families live in poverty, and sometimes it means actual malnutrition and physical suffering and it more often means squalor and depression and bad health. I feel that the time has come when these maintenance allowances should be reviewed. The Act which we passed here last year will only be a success if we succeed in curing these alcoholics. Their cure, however, can be retarded if they know that their families are not being well looked after outside. As the Minister knows, these maintenance grants are payable to the dependants where the alcoholic breadwinner is temporarily unable to maintain his family. Sir, I would like to quote a passage from a letter from one of our welfare organizations, which has this to say on the question of the rehabilitation of alcoholics—

As the Minister knows, a committed person is covered under Section 30 of the Act. His wife and children receive a very small allowance. The maximum that the dependants of a married man can receive is 22½c per day; his compulsory saving is 7½c per day; the cash payable to the inmate is 2½c per day, making a total daily allowance of 33½c. It appears from this table that the 22½c per day payable to the dependants of an inmate is held in trust. It is only paid out on the release of the inmate. During the inmate’s detention in these places a maintenance grant is therefore payable to his dependants in terms of the Children’s Act. The grant is based on the number of children and the income of the spouses. The maximum grant in respect of a mother is R12 per month; the maximum grant in respect of each of the first two children is R6 per month, and the maximum grant in respect of the third and every further child is R4 per month. The amount of means that a family may have without affecting the amount of the grant is R15 per month for every adult, man and wife, and for every child an additional R2.

Taking into consideration the additional grant of R2 per month in respect of a child in a primary school and R4 per month in respect of a child in high school, one arrives at a total figure of R42.68, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell this committee how a wife, with say, three children could exist on that figure, after making an allowance for just over R8 per month for rent, which represents one-fifth of the income. One welcomes the additional grants that were made last year in respect of children in primary schools and high schools, but I feel that the hon. the Minister’s Department should initiate a complete review of these maintenance grants with a view to placing them on a much more realistic level than the present allowance. [Time limit.]

The record of this Government over the past 16 years proves that the interests of the pensioners are indeed close to its heart and that it is not indifferent towards the lot of the pensioners because during the past 16 years various improvements have been effected to the allowances paid to pensioners. During the past 16 years the pensions have been increased on no less than 16 occasions and on no less than nine occasions improvements have been made to the way in which the means test was applied. It was announced last year that a married civil pensioner would receive a minimum pension of R84 and that an unmarried pensioner would receive a minimum pension of R42. Over the past 16 years such a fantastic improvement has been effected that we can only express our sincere appreciation for it. In spite of these improvements, hon. members opposite often told us during this Session that the Government was not doing anything to improve the lot of the pensioners. I, therefore, think it is my duty to give a few figures to show how pensions have been improved since the Nationalist Party has come into power. In April 1947 the basic pension was only R10 per month. In April 1948 it was increased to R12. In 1951 it was increased to a total of R14, including a bonus of R2 per month. In 1952 the total pension including the bonus was increased to R16, in 1953 to R18, in 1954 to R19, including a bonus of R7. In April 1955 the pension was increased to R21, i.e. the basic pension was R12, with an additional amount of R7 and a bonus of R2. In 1959 the total figure was increased to R22, in 1960 to R23, in 1962 to R24.50. In 1963 an additional amount of R2.50 was paid to the poorest of the poor. That additional amount of R2.50 was also allocated to all other pensioners in 1964. The total pension an old-age pensioner draws to-day is therefore R27. But that is not all this Government does for the pensioners. A great many improvements have been effected in regard to the means test. In 1947 the maximum was R180; in 1948 it was increased to R240, in 1951 to R324. Apart from that there have been various relaxations in regard to the assets they can possess. Before April 1953 a person could have assets to the value of R1,600 without those being taken in account for the purposes of the means test. That amount was then increased to R2,400 in the case of married persons. But those assets over and above R2,400 were then calculated at 5 per cent and deducted from his pension. This is called the super levy and my plea is for this to be abolished. Since 1953 the earnings of people over the age of 70 were no longer taken into account for the purposes of the means test. In 1954 the means test was relaxed in the case of war veterans over the age of 70 years. His free income was increased from R180 to R500, in other words, R1,000 in the case of a married couple. In 1955 the means test was completely abolished in the case of war veterans of the Second War of Independence. In 1956 the age of dependant children was increased from 16 to 18 years. In 1959-60 the distinction that was made earlier between pensioners living on the platteland and those living in towns and cities was done away with. All pensioners were placed on the same basis. In 1961 the residential qualifications were relaxed. At the same time a further concession was made as far as the means test was concerned in that where a couple owned a house and one partner died, the means test was applied as though both the husband and wife occupied that house. In 1963 a further improvement was effected as far as investments were concerned. Since 1963 the first R800 of any investment was calculated at 1½ per cent and the balance at 2½ per cent, irrespective of what that investment actually earned. The income of farmers is calculated at R144, and where people make donations to heirs R1,000 is deducted per annum as though the donor would have spent it. All these concessions were made during the past few years. But the biggest and the most important concession was made this year and that was in Connection with civil and railway pensioners. Mr. Chairman, I know of civil pensioners and railway pensioners who only received a little over R10 per month in 1949. To-day those same people receive R84 per month. If that is not a remarkable increase I do not know what one can regard as a remarkable increase. In spite of all the improvements that have been effected we have not had a single word of thanks from that side of the House. I think this is the fourth time pensions have been discussed, and not once did a single member opposite get up and express his gratitude to the Minister for these improvements. That only shows you, Sir, how completely hon. members opposite have lost touch with the electorate. They do not have their fingers on the pulse of the people outside; they do not know how the people feel in respect of this matter.

Ungrateful.

Yes, they are ungrateful. Mr. Chairman, before I sit down I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider seriously the abolition of the super levy which was introduced in 1930 when it was very difficult to calculate the exact income of pensioners. There are many cases to-day where the pensioner owns a property which he himself occupies. The value of that property has since greatly appreciated with the result that the owner of that property does not qualify for a pension because of the super levy. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider abolishing this super levy. I think it will give very - great relief in the case of deserving people. [Time limit.]

Sir, we have listened with interest to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch). I would like to remind that hon. member that on every occasion where a concession has been made to social, civil or other pensioners, we on this side of the House have always welcomed it. We have never said at any stage that nothing has been done by the present Government to improve the lot of the pensioner. What we have said, and quite rightly, is that the Government can do far more for the social pensioner. I think if the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) carefully analyses the position, if he bears in mind the enormous surplus which the Government has at its disposal, he will realize that very little indeed is being done by the Government to alleviate the plight of those persons who deserve relief. The hon. member read out a long list of increases which had been granted over the years, but he must bear in mind that there has been a considerable decrease in the purchasing power of the money that has been placed in the pockets of these social pensioners. I do not think there is a single member in this House who would dare to suggest that our present social pensions are adequate. Indeed, if I remember correctly the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions himself has pointed out that the social pension is not intended to be the sole means of support of the pensioner; it is a supplementary grant. In order to maintain anything like a decent standard of living the social pensioner has to find support from other sources. The plain fact of the matter is that they have to rely on charity from others to maintain a decent standard of living.

I wish to deal principally with the Minister’s policy, with particular reference to the allocation of funds under item K, “War pensions, old-age and blind persons’ pensions and disability grants”. When we look at this Vote we find that out of the total of R84,000,000, over R40,000,000 is allocated to this particular sub-head. As far as the Minister’s policy is concerned I should like to hear from him whether he has made every possible effort within the Cabinet to obtain a greater allocation of funds for the social pensioners for whom he is responsible. The Minister is responsible for the welfare of some 126,000 social pensioners. The Minister’s Department has been stripped of all responsibility as far as pensioners belonging to other racial groups are concerned. The Minister’s Department is only responsible for the welfare of White pensioners. Sir, it was stated in the Budget speech that R3,450,000 out of the surplus of R88,000,000 would be allocated to social pensioners. When we come to break down and to analyse those figures we find that of the 126,0 pensioners, some 84,000 pensioners have not received the special allowance, whereas some 42,500 social pensioners have received that allowance. In other words, approximately one-third of the total number of White social pensioners have received this special allowance. The increased amount, which merely represents the cost of this special allowance of R30 per annum or R2.50 per month, will therefore be R2,520,000. We know that the Minister of Finance has announced an additional surplus of R40,000,000, and that he anticipates an increase of R18,000,000 in revenue, which means that altogether the Government has an additional R146,000,000 available. This increased expenditure of R2,500,000 on social pensions represents only 1.7 per cent of the total surplus; only 1.7 per cent of this huge surplus is being allocated towards the alleviation of the lot of the White social pensioner. We find on examining the position that only two-thirds of the social pensioners will receive this benefit. The neediest of the needy who were granted a special allowance last year are receiving nothing whatsoever out of this surplus. Sir, it has come as an acute disappointment to this side of the House to find that these people, who are in dire need, are getting nothing out of this surplus. The Government has set aside the sum of R750,000 out of this windfall of R58,000,000 for the provision of homes for the aged. We have no details of this amount and I do not propose therefore to pursue this matter. We do not know whether this amount is intended only for the White social pensioners or whether this is the amount to be spend in providing homes for the aged of all racial groups. However, this sum only represents 1.3 per cent of the total amount which is being made available from this additional surplus. I believe that the present position of our social pensioners warrants more attention from the hon. the Minister. The fact remains that the necessary funds are available. We are a young prosperous country with a buoyant economy. Surely we should find ways and means of spreading the present prosperity to those sections of the community who need assistance. I believe that the Government has lost a golden opportunity in not granting more assistance to our social pensioners this year, bearing in mind the huge surplus which it had at its disposal. If our social pensioners get no relief from the Government at a time of economic buoyancy, what hope have they of receiving further assistance in times of economic stringency? I believe that a country can be judged by the way in which it cares for the less fortunate and needy sections of the community. I believe that the older people who toiled hard throughout the years to build up this country should be treated with greater consideration now that the country is enjoying such great prosperity.

I believe that the hon. the Minister has lost another golden opportunity in not taking advantage of the big surplus to bring about further relief as far as the means test is concerned. I know that the Minister is anxious to make concessions where he can, and I believe that the Minister has a golden opportunity here to make further concessions. He has had the advantage of a trip overseas, and we hope that he will tell us in the course of this debate what his findings were abroad. We hope that he will be able to announce that the Government is prepared to afford greater relief to those persons who are in dire need of assistance. I believe that we have reached the stage where, as far as social welfare services and the care of our aged are concerned, we cannot embark upon a haphazard course of merely granting a small concession here and a small concession there, however much such concessions may be appreciated. I think we have reached the stage where the responsible Minister should give us a clear outline of his policy so that we can know where we stand.

As far as the means test is concerned I do not wish to weary the Committee by going into details, but when we examine the position we find that some ten or 11 years have elapsed since there has been any alteration in the amount permitted as free assets. When we look at the revaluations which have taken place in all the major municipalities, I believe that the figure of R2,400 which is permitted as free unencumbered assets should be raised to something like R3,000. I know that I will be challenged immediately to say how many people will be involved and what this will cost the country. I believe that the hon. the Minister must be courageous in this matter. We have reached the stage where courage is required from the hon. the Minister to make worthwhile concessions as far as the limit of free unencumbered assets is concerned. I think the figure should be increased from R2,400 to R3,000 for a married person or a single person who Wholly or partly occupies his own property. Then there is another aspect of the means test which causes a great deal of concern and heartache to those persons who just fail to qualify for a pension. We must remember that with the increases in bonuses which take place from time to time, the gap grows between those persons who just fail to qualify for a pension and those who just succeed in qualifying for the minimum pension. As we increase the bonus so the minimum pension is increased, and it will now be R16 per month. If a person qualifies for a basic pension of R1 per month he will now be able to qualify in fact for a pension of R16 per month because of the additional bonuses. [Time limit.]

I wish to express my appreciation for the positive spirit hon. members on both sides of the House have revealed in the discussion of this subject. I have often told hon. members that social welfare and pensions are matters which affect all of us. It affects many individuals whose welfare has been entrusted to us. When we approach it objectively we not only do ourselves a service but we do a service to those people whose interests we are trying to promote.

I shall not say much but I gave an undertaking that I would say something about my study trip overseas. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) asked for that as well as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) and others. I wish to give a brief summary of my impressions. I just want to add that to implement those impressions will not be a matter of a few weeks or a month or two. They are delicate matters of the utmost importance because they affect people. I had discussions with various Ministers of State, senior officials and people at the head of various social welfare projects of which there are a legion. On one occasion I had a long discussion one evening with an official who was at the head of a welfare organization in his country and again the following morning. I said to him: “You and I must understand each other well. I want to know what system you follow, what your problems are, how you apply that system and what success you have had, but that is not all I want.” Then he said: “I shall show you a file.” He sent for the file and after we had conversed for some time he said he understood me very well. He turned the file over and said: “Mr. Serfontein, I realize now what you are looking for; you are looking for the person under that file and how the services affect those people.” I told him that was exactly what I was looking for. That was why I visited institutions. I visited the places where those people lived. I was well received throughout. I want to say immediately that we can learn a great deal from them; we can learn a great deal from various countries in Europe, but I want to add that they too can learn a great deal from us. My approach was that we should learn from each other where possible. We all have problems and our problems are of a different nature. Our approach is the same, however, and that is to make our various nations as happy as possible. In many countries they have heard about our Children’s Act and they asked me how it operated. They were very favourably impressed by it. They were also impressed by our field services and our whole organization which always enables us to get to that person underneath the file. Our organization is such that we know how the money is spent either by the State or by church organizations or by societies on financial assistance to those people. They were greatly impressed by that.

Where their approach to family and child care in general differs so fundamentally from our approach in South Africa I just want to dispose of that in a few words. Wherever I went I found the greatest measure of frankness. Something which impressed them was the fact that in our specific measures we placed the emphasis mainly on two things. The first is: What becomes of our children? Provision is made for that in the Children’s Act and we were all in agreement as far as that was concerned. And the second is: What is our approach to those children? Which is the best place where you can do the best for that child? Our approach that our policy should be to concentrate on the family greatly impressed them. I want to state implicitly that it is easier for us to do so than it is for them in those war-devastated countries of Europe. They experienced a greater measure of family disruption in those European countries than those countries which were fortunate enough not to experience the realities of the war. They had to do much more reconstruction work. They had to give attention to the material things and consequently they could not give attention to those things to which we have already been giving our attention for a long time. Not only was family life disrupted to a great extent during the war years but they tell you frankly that they have not yet had the opportunity of giving the attention which they thought should be given and which we were giving in South Africa to the question of family life. A great statesman once said all politics were family politics. That is very true in the long run. All our activities in this House affect the people of the country in the long run and ultimately it affects that family structure. If anything goes wrong with the family structure things go wrong with us. I visited many children institutions. The children are well looked after in those. Let me give two examples. I spent a whole day in Germany in one of the Tagesheime. It is a wonderful institution; it is a neat building and well managed. The children are brought there early in the morning by their parents and fetched in the evenings. You find babies in the cradle and children who already go to school. We spent the whole day there and had a meal with them. That Tagesheim provides in a need but I told them that it was not a “heim”; that it was not the same as the family circle. At night that child only goes and sleeps with its parents in the flat. That flat is just a place to sleep. The Tagesheim is complementary; it provides temporarily in a need but it does not provide in the crucial need which has to be provided in if you wish to build up a nation which is convinced that by saving the family, it saves its children, and by saving its children it saves its own future. These things I have mentioned bring me to an announcement I wish to make. We are doing a great deal to-day but we shall definitely have to give attention to the care of our own children. Save what you have and build on that for the future. That was also what the Piek Committee recommended in their report. Hon. members are entitled to ask me what has happened to that report. We have referred it to the various Departments. The main point in the Piek Committee’s report is that we should not pay family allowances because that would only be money we paid out without having any control over it. The kernel of the Piek Committee’s report is—and all educationists will agree with this—that you should build the family circle and that you must save the child. If you save the child you ensure the future. The Piek Committee say in their report it is not a question of money but a question of human relations and human values. Mr. Chairman, the continued existence of any nation at any time in its existence depends on whether it places the highest value on that which is the most important, and whether it regards as most important that which outweighs everything else. And the one consideration which should outweigh everything else in the mind of every person is how the children are being cared for. The Piek Committee recommended in their report that a board for the promotion of family life should be established. As I have said I have referred that report to the bodies concerned for consideration, educational bodies, the Administrations, social welfare organizations and so forth and have asked them to submit recommendations. I have also asked those Departments which are concerned in this matter to make recommendations. It was my intention to introduce legislation this Session but after the matter was discussed by the National Council of Social Welfare Organizations, a council representative of over 2,000 welfare organizations in the country, they sent their executive committee to me and they asked me please not to come forward with legislation this Session. They asked for an opportunity of submitting the matter to the regional boards and other bodies so that they could send in memoranda. That report is today in the hands of the National Council of Welfare Organizations and if there are no hitches we shall introduce legislation next year. It is hoped that the establishment of a board for the promotion of family life will flow from that. We shall have to correlate all the data in order to see what should be done. The fundamental fact remains, however, that any country in the world must ultimately turn its attention to the soundness of its family life and if it does not do so it will go under and disintegrate gradually.

I just want to say something in connection with the care of the aged and social pensions. In this connection I have already in various debates made certain announcements concerning my experiences overseas. I think I have already said that the matter has been thoroughly considered and placed before the Government. After deliberating the matter the Government wisely decided that it was impossible and ineffective for us in South Africa to introduce a contributory pensions scheme on a compulsory basis. I have already said that. We investigated the pension systems in overseas countries and how they approached the question of caring for their aged. As far as their pension schemes are concerned in some European countries they are contributory and in others not. I did not come across any two countries in Europe where they are in complete agreement. I did not come across one model scheme in Europe where they could tell me that it covered everything as far as pensions were concerned. They simply do not do that. I want to give a few examples of what I came across there.

I investigated this matter very thoroughly for about a week in England. There are two assistance schemes. The one is the National Security Scheme which is run on a contributory basis. The other is the National Assistance Scheme which is exclusively financed and controlled by the State. Everybody is compelled to contribute to the National Security Scheme. Then they have another system in England, which I think is a good system, called “the flat rates system”. The employee pays R1.06 per week, the employer pays 86 cents per week and the Government pays the rest. I want to give the case of a married pensioner. A married pensioner gets from R24 to R53 per month. That is the scale whereby it operates. In South Africa a married pensioner gets R32 to R54 per month. There is no real difference between the two scales, Mr. Chairman. They are practically the same and in England it is a contributory pension scheme. There the people say they are entitled to it because they have contributed towards their pension, but what they receive is not as wonderful and does not meet all their needs to the extent we sometimes think. I now want to mention something very important. I inquired very thoroughly into this matter, I spent a whole day with Lord Ilford the chairman of the National Assistance Board. He accompanied me on visits to a few institutions. This system has already been in operation for 16 years in England. As hon. members will know when you introduce such a system the State has to make considerable contributions initially because there is no money in the “kitty” to start with. Once the contributions start coming in it is only necessary for the State to supplement the amounts to be paid out. After 16 years 20 per cent of the people in England cannot make ends meet on their pensions and have to receive additional assistance from the National Assistance Board. That assistance comes from the State and it is granted not only subject to a means test but also subject to what they call a “needs test”. That is the National Assistance Scheme.

My officials and I spent a day at the Rijks Bank in Amsterdam, which is the institution which controls all those things. The manager of that bank and the Ministers of the two Departments concerned, namely, the Minister of Social Welfare and the Minister of Social Problems and National Health told me that scheme did not cover everything and that the local authorities always had to give assistance. The Dutch Treasury contributes approximately R100,000,000 per annum in the form of assistance, assistance which is subject to a means test. People pride themselves on their social security scheme; they say it is a wonderful system but it was introduced in circumstances which differed greatly from the circumstances in South Africa. Our position was very different from theirs after the war and is still very different. But they pay R100,000,000 in the form of financial assistance because large numbers of people do not contribute. When I asked them what they did in the case of those people who did not contribute they said: “What can we do?” When I asked them what they did in the case of a man who was healthy and fit to work but who did not work they said to me: In such a case we pay his contribution. But they added that they did not have people like that but you do find people like that in every country, Sir. The scheme is so ineffectively controlled that when those people do not pay, those people who refuse to do anything about financing their own families, the State pays their contributions simply because the control is not water-tight.

I investigated the position in Germany. In Germany the State pays an amount which is equally divided between the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelist Church. Those churches spend it as they like. There is simply no control. A great deal is done by the State as far as housing is concerned, but there is simply no control. You find the position in all countries that when the contributor is asked to contribute more he says: You can increase my contributions but then you must increase my pension. That leads to an increase in the wage structure which in turn has an effect on production costs which encourages inflation. That gives you a vicious circle. Once you have embarked along that road you simply cannot exercise any control.

After my investigations two aspects of the non-contributory scheme are, to my mind, very significant. I can well understand hon. members saying to me: We know you are doing your best; we appreciate it, but can you not make a change here or there? I appreciate that because I have always said, and I repeat it to-day, that this type of service to the less privileged section of the community is not static, it is a service which changes from time to time, a service which makes fresh demands when it changes, demands to which we have to adapt ourselves as they are made. But two fundamental principles are very clear to me. I shall be pleased if hon. members on both sides of the House would say to me: “No, there we do not agree with you.” The first principle to which I subscribe 100 per cent is this: People should be encouraged to make provision for their own old age as far as possible. We should not discourage that. The second principle is this that society as such should be trained and encouraged to continue to take an interest in the case of its fellow human beings; you cannot just simply shift people around; they move in the society. You have to keep their interest in and their love for that society alive. Something which struck me in particular in England and in various European countries was that they did not isolate their old people into a separate community. They keep their aged inside the community circle. I spent a whole day at Stephanage. That is one of the most wonderful institutions in England. There are children; the place is surrounded by factories—you can practically call them border industries. It is about 28 miles outside London. They settle the old people within the community. That was one thine which struck me forcibly. Something else which struck me was the fact that they try to move the old people away from the thickly populated urban areas. I visited old people in an institution accompanied by Mr. W. Johnson. On the one side you have that part of London which has not yet been rebuilt after the war and the institution on the other side. I entered those flatlets and spoke to the old people. One old lady said to me: “Mr. Serfontein, you know I have been living for 30 years in those ruins. I am very glad to have been able to live, for the past five years, in this lovely flatlet. I shall live here until I pass on.” The tendency throughout the world is not to let the old people remain in the urban areas if it can be avoided.

On my return I was convinced that one of the first things we should try to do for our old people in South Africa was to provide better accommodation for them. I think we are well on the road to providing that improved accommodation. We can accommodate them in two different ways. We are investigating the position and hence this grant of R750,000 for the construction of more old people’s homes. I want to make an appeal to hon. members of this House, particularly those who represent urban constituencies where you have had slum conditions, to encourage welfare and church organizations to come forward. I know there are difficulties, I come up against them daily. Those people know they can get a loan at 1/20th per cent for 40 years from the Department of Housing for the construction of old people’s homes. But the difficulty is to find the land. Land prices have increased greatly, particularly in the urban areas. Hon. members who have looked for land know that is the position. Because we know what the difficulty is and because we wish to expedite matters we want to give the necessary impetus, by means of this R750,000, to people to go ahead with the construction of old people’s homes, because there are long waiting lists in the existing ones in the urban areas. That accommodation must be provided. They can now get additional assistance. They can get it in the form of a single grant.

Only for Whites?

I am only dealing with Whites. It is not a loan; it is an out-and-out grant. Every application will of course be dealt with on its merits. But if the demand is there I do believe we shall succeed in expediting the establishment of old people’s homes. The position is that the bonuses and the allowances and the pensions are increased every year. But the moment they are increased the lessor simply puts up the rent of that little room in the slum area. Those old people do not benefit by the increase. Their position remains the same. The rent is simply increased and next year we are told that the old people cannot make ends meet with their pensions; we must give more. By means of this R750,000 which is intended for the acquisition of land and furniture, we hope to give the necessary encouragement so that more old people’s homes will be erected. In this connection I want to say that I have had long discussions with the Minister of Housing. We were in Europe to gether and the discussions started there already. A great deal can be done by way of providing other accommodation. Where new communities are established, even where_ new housing schemes are tackled in an existing community, it will be ensured that a certain percentage of the houses will be on a sub-economic basis so that the old people will be able to afford to live there. Those houses will be reserved for them. Thirdly, I want to say this—I have already referred to this in passing—that we must meet those people who have already invested in a little home of their own. We are investigating the whole position and we want to make provision for those people who have to some extent made provision for themselves. We want to try to show appreciation of the fact that they have provided for themselves. We want to take that into account in the application of the means test. That is my reply to the question put by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. van Rensburg). We are dealing with the matter. I want to warn hon. members that this is a very difficult matter to handle but I think it is essential that we carry it through. It will cost a great deal.

There was something else I saw in Europe which I should like to investigate further and which I want to mention here and that is the system of delayed pensions. It means that somebody is allowed to continue to work and is paid his pension at a later age. You have to provide him with some incentive to work longer and to draw his pension at a later age. You have to give him some encouragement so that he will not lose because he applies at a later stage. This system operates in various countries in Europe and I was quite impressed by it. I am also investigating that system.

I again want to assure hon. members that any suggestions from any side of the House will be welcome. If they can make suggestions to improve on what we are already doing, we shall be only too anxious to hear what hon. members have to say so that we can all help in providing the necessary service to our poor, to our pensioners, to those people who have to have welfare services.

Before I sit down I want to reply specifically to a few questions put to me and I shall do so in broad outline. I have already replied in broad outline to the hon. member for Umbilo. I just want to tell him that I know that, as in the past, he will never hesitate to come to my office at any time he wishes to discuss anything in connection with social welfare. Our door is always open and the hon. member avails himself of the opportunity of coming to my Department with his difficulties. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) spoke about allowances to the families of alcoholics, alcoholics who enter institutions voluntarily or who are forced to go there. I may just mention that the Committee of Inquiry on Alcoholism has recommended that that should gradually be introduced over a number of years. Under sub-head M the amount for this year has been increased by R39,600 which shows that we are giving effect to that recommendation of the committee. That amount is gradually being increased. I understand that there are people who find themselves in a difficult position if a member of the family has to go to an institution either voluntarily or under force. But when the breadwinner finds himself in an institution either because he entered it voluntarily or because he was forced to go there you cannot expect the State to accept full responsibility for its dependants. I invite the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and other hon. members to go to Magaliesoord. They will find that an experience. I go there every year and I inquire after the welfare of the inmates. I myself sign all the certificates of those who are discharged. I am told that many of them come back. Human nature being what it is I am inclined to think that if you look well after their wives and children they will easily come back. The better you look after their families the easier it will be for them to come back. They like Magaliesoord.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) raised the question of the income which is reckoned over six months. I can just tell him that the income is already reckoned at the average over the year. It is no longer reckoned at the average per month. As far as that is concerned, therefore, we are already complying with his request, perhaps even on a more favourable basis. The hon. member also spoke about the war veterans of the 1914 and 1915 Rebellion. I shall give attention to that. That is of course a matter that will have to be decided on at higher level but I have listened to the representations of the hon. member and I shall attend to them.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) referred to the increase of R50,000. I am informed that the increase is due to the per capita subsidy in respect of places of safety of the Rand Aid Association and the increased subsidies to clinics. Provision is also made for the Staanvas Hospital which was recently opened in Pretoria for alcoholics. I must admit that I was disturbed, although I knew more or less what the position was, to learn that because of alcoholism 120,000 cases of contraventions appeared before the courts.

I want to thank the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) for his reference to former officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The officials of the Department have an extremely difficult task and I wish to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very heartily for the testimonial they have given the Department, the head of the Department and the entire staff, for the wonderful work they are doing. I deal with them every day of my life. I know they often work overtime and I know they are doing their work to the best of their ability. I wish to state particularly that their doors are open to the public of South Africa particularly vis-à-vis the Members of Parliament who represent the public. I just want to tell hon. members that it is true that people live longer these days. That was also my experience in Europe. I was told in France that people lived so long these days that it had become a problem on its own. They told me that had it not been for the war they would actually have had a surplus of young people. In addition, they told me, the old people lived so long that they reckoned it would take more or less 15 to 20 years before there would be an equal balance between the birth rate in the country and the death rate. There are many old people and to be quite honest it seemed to me that not only did it take the old people longer to grow old but that they grew younger. The hon. member referred to the R750,000. I have already dealt with that. The hon. member for Drakensberg is unfortunately not here but I have already dealt with the housing question she raised.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) spoke about mentally retarded children and he made a comparison between what we spent on social welfare and what we spent on prisons. I just want to point out to him that in 1958-9 this Department spent R60,000,000; in 1963-4 it spent R80,l 16,000 and that we are budgeting for R88,125,000 for 1964-5. From 1958 up to the present there has been an increase of R27,290,000, an increase of 45 per cent. That is a considerable increase. I have already dealt with the various matters raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). He again made an appeal in connection with the taking over of Departments. I can just tell him that his views about the question of linking Departments are, of course, his own personal views. He may raise the matter here and suggest that this Department should be linked with that Department etc. but that is hardly a subject for discussion under my Vote.

Sir, I think I have more or less replied to all the questions. If I have overlooked anything I can give hon. members the assurance that we go into the speeches again and if hon. members require any information I once again invite them to approach my Department at any time or to write to us. The heads of the regional offices which are squattered throughout the country are also always prepared to listen to anything concerning the welfare of the nation.

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Minister seems to have made up his mind that it is not practical to have instituted in South Africa a contributory pension scheme. He mentioned that he had investigated certain systems overseas, none of which he found suitable for adaptation in this country. I feel that it is not beyond the ingenuity of South Africa to devise a scheme whereby all persons will be able to claim a pension as a right, and not merely as a privilege. We on this side of the House have put forward on at least one occasion in the course of this Session the basis upon which such a scheme could be evolved, and I do hope that the hon. Minister in the policy statement that he has virtually made now has not turned his face completely against the possibility of introducing a scheme whereby we can bring about a far happier state of affairs for our people. Great Britain and other countries have a successful scheme, and there is the comprehensive scheme of social security in New Zealand, where the New Zealand Government from time to time have not altered the scheme to any great extent and they have found their scheme most practical and to the benefit of all concerned. Similarly a scheme in Sweden, which is partly contributory and partly carried by the State, has been a great success. I think it is possible for us to devise such a scheme in this country whereby all persons will be able to qualify for a pension. Sir, if you look at our present scheme, you will find that it is a much criticized scheme. We know that as far back as 1944 a Select Committee on Social Security also came to the conclusion that the means test was not a suitable scheme. Indeed in the Vaderland on 15 September 1962—this is a translated copy of a leading article—the following appeared—

They then go on to state—

That is the point of view expressed by the Vaderland, a view which I think should receive careful consideration. The whole system of the means test discriminates against certain persons who have made provision for their old age. When the hon. Minister spoke just now he said that all persons should make provision for their old age.

No, I said that we should encourage everybody to make provision.

Yes, Sir. I would like to say that a number of these people who have in their opinion made provision for their old age, find now that they have not made sufficient provision because of the decreasing purchasing power of money. I think of people who have taken out endowment policies, insurance policies …

I did not say that I expect all people to succeed, but I said that we should encourage all people to do so.

My point is that by having a means test we are not encouraging those people to make provision for their old age. That is exactly my complaint that this present system does not encourage that state of affairs. Look at the limits that are placed on a person when he applies for a pension. If you look at the free income for instance that is permitted, even though it has been increased from time to time, it stands at the present time at R180 per annum, and thereafter R12 per annum in excess of the R180 per annum is deducted from the basic pension, which means that when a person reaches the amount of R312 per annum from any source he is disqualified from obtaining a pension. And that, Sir, can hardly be described as a means of encouraging persons to make provision for their old age. They might have investments, they might have endowment policies and thereby receive an income in excess of R26 per month. Then they find that they are not entitled to claim any relief in the form of a social pension. A person who manages to just receive a pension will draw the minimum amount of R16 per month; the person who just fails draws nothing. In other words, persons who think they have made sufficient provision for their old age are being discriminated against. That is why I repeat the plea that I made last year that the hon. Minister should endeavour to raise that amount still further. I want to make the suggestion here this afternoon that the hon. Minister should consider raising that free income to R240 per annum before any deduction is made. If it is then based on the same basis, it would mean that a person could get up to R372 per annum before being disqualified from drawing any pension. That is one form of relief that could be given to them, and it would be one means by which persons could be encouraged to make some provision for their old age. If the hon. Minister does not wish to raise that amount, then I think he should find another system of applying this particular provision of the means test. For instance, the additional amount that is added to the basic pension, could that not be consolidated into the basic pension? The additional amount now stands at R84 per annum. If that additional amount was incorporated into the basic pension, it would then also bring in those persons who are now disqualified from a pension due to the fact that they are earning more than R312 per annum. I think an adjustment to this particular figure should receive the very careful consideration of the hon. the Minister. There is another point and that is in regard to the provision that is made by a person who buys a property and pays off that property over, say, a period of 30 years. It is an unencumbered property, there is no bond. He too is at a disadvantage because of the level that is placed of R2,400. When my time expired earlier, I mentioned that I believe that the hon. Minister should give his consideration to the possibility of increasing that to R3,000 in the case of a married person. And for a single person who is not wholly or partly occupying his property at present that level is R1,200 and that could be similarly increased to R1,500. Without going further into the details of the means test, I think we perhaps have now reached the stage where the Minister can give consideration to abolishing the means test for the world war veterans of World War I, from 1914-18. We know that the means test was abolished for those persons who served in the South African War, the 1899-1902 War. I see no reason why we should not at this stage take this into consideration and extend that same privilege to the persons of the First World War. I know there are certain provisions whereby the means test is more lenient for a war veteran over 70 years of age, but on going through the Estimates—and I do not want to bore the Committee by quoting numerous figures—for the last three years, looking at the amounts expended on the war veterans’ pensions, I find that it is steadily decreasing by approximately R500,000 per annum, and if we compare the 1963-4 figure with the expected figure for 1964-5, we see that same pattern. The amount will decrease as the years go by because naturally there will be fewer persons living who will be able to qualify for that pension. I feel that we have now reached the stage where the hon. Minister can consider the extension of that privilege which is allowed to the South Africa war veterans to also include those veterans of the First World War.

There is one other point which I would like to deal with and that is in regard to making the lives of the older folk just a little happier. I do not wish to repeat again and again what we have said several times in this House about paying them more in regard to their social pensions, but I believe that their lives can be a little happier in regard to the loneliness experienced by a large number of these aged folk. There are a certain number of these aged persons who are most loath to go into a home for the aged. They like their independence. It is for those persons, and perhaps also for those living in the homes for the aged, that some encouragement should be given to our welfare organizations, to our churches and our local authorities to establish clubs or community centres for the aged. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) adopts the attitude that one should either abolish or relax the means test. I think that we are all in favour of that but we realize that it is almost impossible to do so. If the means test is abolished it will mean that every person above a certain age—at present the age is 65 years for males and 60 years for females—will receive a pension. My attitude, and I think the attitude of the Government, is that it is a privilege to receive an old-age pension; it is not a right to which a person can lay claim. There is a Dutch saying to the effect that it is easier for a parent to support 12 children than for 12 children to support one parent. This discussion reminds me of that saying, which is perfectly true. Children have a duty to support their parents just as parents have a duty to support their children and bring them up. That is something which the Opposition overlook. They adopt the attitude that it is the duty of the State to support our old people and that children do not have to look after their parents. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) advocated the building of what he called a non-acute hospital. He did not tell us exactly what he meant by it but I think we do have something of that kind in the Transvaal. It was brought into being when the United Party was in power in the provincial council. I refer to the institution at Warmbaths. The hon. member for Florida—if I remember correctly—said that about R10 per month was paid in respect of each inmate at that institution. The expression “non-acute” hospital indicates that it is a place for people who are not suffering from a disease but who simply cannot fend for themselves. Do hon. members know what the effect of that non-acute hospital at Warmbaths is? The children of the old people who are admitted to that institution are rich people. They have the influence to get their parents admitted to that institution for a month or two and they do this simply with the idea of getting rid of their parents so that they can go on holiday and enjoy themselves. They know that their parents will be well looked after at a very low tariff. That non-acute hospital at Warmbaths has got completely out of hand. I hope that the hon. the Minister will never consider setting up a similar institution again. The Opposition advocate the relaxation or abolition of the means test. I do not think they realize that if we relax the means test pensions will have to be paid to a larger number of people and that will cost the State more money. We would all like to see the means test relaxed but it would place an impossible burden upon the taxpayers. We have a large surplus at the moment and the Opposition have told us that we should use that money in order to give more assistance to the old people. But if we have a deficit next year and we then have to reduce the pension, can hon. members imagine what the position will be? There will be dissatisfaction and many of these pensioners will not be able to make ends meet on their reduced pension. I would prefer the State to continue to make the privilege available along the present lines.

Sir, I made a plea here for a certain group of persons a few years ago. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to this matter. I refer to persons who save in order to acquire their own property and who are then precluded from receiving a pension as a result of the application of the means test. I want to make a plea for those people—and there are numbers of them. We all have such people in our constituencies. I want to ask again whether something cannot be done to pay those people a pension. Let me make this suggestion. The property they own disqualifies them from receiving an old-age pension. Give them the right to pass a notarial bond in favour of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and let them then be paid that money which is drawn under the bond in monthly instalments. When those people die, that money will then be repaid to the State and the children will simply inherit less from their parents. Statistics have been compiled in regard to life expectancy and I feel that such a scheme can be based on those statistics. If, for example, a property is worth R6,000 and a person is 65 years old and he is expected to live another 15 years, the R6,000 would be divided by 15 to find out how much he will receive per annum. If he dies before the age of 80, the amount will simply be deducted from the bond. If he lives longer, it will be to his advantage but the ownership of the property will then vest in the State. If we do this it will not be necessary to make an amount of R750,000 available for the building of old-age homes because the State will then own these properties in which these old people can be accommodated. I would very much like the hon. the Minister to investigate this suggestion.

I want to mention another matter in passing. Last year the Department gave us the opportunity to visit Magaliesoord. I expected this matter to be raised by hon. members of the Opposition who spoke here about alcoholics. We had the opportunity of visiting Magaliesoord, an institution for the treatment of alcoholics, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the Department for what is being done there for these alcoholics. From 75 per cent to 80 per cent of those cases are fully rehabilitated after two or three years. The official at the head of that institution, Mr. Theron, runs the institution very efficiently. I want to mention his name specifically and say that the Department can be pleased that it has the services of a man of his calibre. I hope that more of those institutions will be established and that more money will be set aside for that purpose to safeguard all of us because it is quite possible that we may be injured in an accident, that we may be knocked down by a motor-car driven by a person who is under the influence of liquor. That work of rehabilitation will prevent accidents. It will also be of great assistance to many families and it will save the hon. the Minister’s Department a great deal of money. [Time limit.]

All that I want to say to the last speaker is that he has followed the line taken by most of us who want to improve things, but he must remember that our policy is not to remove the means test but to relax it until such time as we get a contributory pension scheme going.

I want to speak on certain aspects relating to military pensions. The war in Europe finished 19 years ago, and one would have thought that the struggle on behalf of military pensioners would have settled down to seeing that the amount of the pensions kept pace with the cost of living and the national standard of living. To a large extent this is true, but it is amazing what still has to be done. The last annual report of the South African Legion shows that in the five years from 1959 to 1963 they submitted 1,616 new applications for military pensions and lodged 809 appeals with the Medical Appeal Boards. Over the same period they obtained the following successes. Pensions awarded were 507, gratuities awarded were 112, and the number of pensions increased was 1,870. In addition, there were 1,591 appeals to the Pensions Appeal Board, of which the Legion handled over 95 per cent, and there were 303 appeals successful in greater or lesser degree. I give these figures to show how much alive this war pensions matter is, even after 18 years, and it shows how even at this late stage the effects of war service on health are still coming to light. At this stage I would like to pay a tribute to the Department in regard to their handling of these war pensions, a tribute which is very justly deserved.

Now, having said these nice things, it might be expected that I have no criticism of the Minister in his handling of war pensions, but I have. He is the only one who can deal with this matter. His fight is, of course, with the Minister of Finance, but I do suggest that the moment to stake his claim for his wards—for they are his wards—is now, in this era of great prosperity which has not, however, reached the pensioner. I want to deal with two matters in some detail. The first is the supplementation ceilings and the second is the ten-year time limit in the War Pensions Act.

In regard to these supplementation ceilings, I can do no better to explain what it means than to quote from a recent letter I received from the S.A. Legion—

That means that he will have R760 and the Pensions Department will give him a supplementary pension of R140 to bring the figure up to R900. The letter goes on to say—

The annual report of the Legion says this on this matter—

We are very disappointed that it has not been dealt with this year, but I hope the Minister has decided to investigate this matter during the coming period because it is not fair.

Now, I want to revert to the ten-year time limit in the War Pensions Act. Under this provision any widow married later than ten years after the man’s discharge and any child born after this ten-year period do not qualify for the allowances provided for those who were married or born before the lapse of this period of ten years from discharge. This provision has been removed from all other Commonwealth countries’ war pension Acts, and ours alone maintains this blot. Why should this be? The Legion has investigated the financial effects of its removal and it, together with the National War Fund, have traced 77 cases including 33 deceased volunteers affected by the 10-year limit. The number of dependants included in these cases was ten widows and 125 children who are not considered to be widows or children under the Pensions Act. Sir, I do not like saying this, but to me this is inhuman. I cannot see the reason for not dealing with this matter. The reason cannot be the financial burden on the State, as it has been calculated by the Legion and the War Fund that if these ten widows and 125 children were brought within the purview of the Act and obtained the maximum benefits, the sum involved would not exceed R23,840 per annum, and that is a mere bagatelle. We have a tremendous surplus but we cannot look after these wives and children, and I say it is a shame.

It is a recurring expenditure.

Yes, but it is not much and no other country in the world still has this provision. If there is another reason for this attitude on the part of the Government, I hope the Minister will tell me. But I hope he will not say that death-bed marriages are the cause, because that is a matter which has been fully discussed in every country in the world, and it is perfectly simple to legislate in regard to death-bed marriages. I hope the Minister will tell us why he will not deal with this particular group of people who have such a justifiable claim on the country.

There is one other matter I wish to deal with in connection with war veterans’ pensions, and it is a matter the Minister should perhaps consider at the same time when he is dealing with the case of the 1914 rebels, because it is roughly on the same lines. The war veterans’ pension is after all only the old-age pension plus R8 a month, and at present South African servicemen who enlisted directly in Allied services during the 1939-45 War are not included in the definition of “war veteran”, as is the case with South African ex-servicemen who were seconded from the U.D.F. to Allied units. Secondly, the S.A. Legion has recently been advised that ex-servicemen who immigrate from Kenya, Tanganyika and the Congo are not now required to satisfy the normal residential qualifications when applying for war veterans’ pensions, provided they can adduce proof of their war service as set out in the definition of a war veteran in the Act. The Legion and every right-thinking person is behind the action of the Government in helping the men who come from those territories, but surely our own men who at the beginning of the war for some reason joined Allied armies direct—naturally, mostly with the British forces—should not be treated differently from these people who come here, and from our own people who were seconded to other forces. It is not just, and I hope the Minister will give this matter due consideration.

The subject I wish to discuss with the Minister is not one on which I wish him to reply now—certainly not today, but it is one to which I should like him to give careful consideration. I feel that our system of accounting in pensions is outmoded. I refer especially to Item “H”, civil pensions. The total amount spent on pensions this year has been increased by R3,700,000, and of that amount R3,200,000 comes under one head, civil pensions. With the increase in the personnel of the Public Service and with increases in salaries, this amount will naturally increase. When I say our system is outmoded I mean that we should not say that a public servant will have a contributory pension scheme. His pension scheme should be non-contributory. Now I do not wish to have any confusion with the United Party policy, which is to have a contributory pension scheme for every citizen. I am speaking now of the State’s own employees. It seems quite absurd to say to a public servant: Your salary will be R1,000 per annum, but of this amount 5 per cent will be deducted to be paid into a pension fund. The State will pay in another 5 per cent and the money will be invested. What do they do in other developed countries? The Minister has been overseas and I presume he is familiar with their systems. In any developed country the system is this: You tell the man not that his salary is R1,000 per annum, but that his salary is R950 per annum. The State guarantees him a pension according to the length of his service. Let me give a simpler example. Take the sailor or the soldier or the policeman or the airman. Why should we trouble these men with the amount that is deducted from their pay to be paid into a pension fund? The obvious thing to say to a sailor is: If you serve the State for 25 years, your pension will be assured. Then we shall delete from our lists of accountancy and our submission of accounts in this House the amounts in the pension fund. It is not necessary. We take money off and pay it into a fund and pay it out to the man later; and we need a big staff to do it. It is unnecessary. I make this plea to the Minister that in consultation with the Minister of Finance he should consider whether the time has not arrived to reform our whole system. Now, when would be the best time to reform it? I am now speaking of the timing and not the actual introduction of the system. The time would naturally be when the Government decides that it will raise the pay of public servants. That has to be done from time to time because we have depreciation of our currency. When it is found necessary to increase the salaries of public servants, that will be the time to say they can retain their present salary and the Government will now become responsible for the pension fund. They will be guaranteed a pension, and probably even their widows.

Finally, I wish to say that I am not suggesting anything revolutionary or novel. The servants of Parliament are on that system already. We passed the Bill this year for another group of public servants who are on a similar basis, the Judges of the Supreme Court. They do not have a pension fund either. They are told that when the time of their retirement comes, they will get their pensions. I submit this scheme to the Minister for his favourable consideration, but I do not expect a reply now.

I just want to reply to a few of the points raised. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked about the supplementary pension scheme. I have taken a note of what he said and I give the assurance that it will be investigated. As far as the ten-year limitation is concerned, as the hon. member knows we have discussed that in Parliament over and over and I have given the reasons. Whether those reasons are accepted or not, all I can say is that the position in South Africa is still better than in other countries. These proposals require legislation and therefore we cannot really discuss it.

*The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) asked me about the granting of additional special pensions to the settlers at Sonop. He wanted to know why the settlers did not get it whereas the social pensioners did. That has already been granted. The settlers will receive it. In regard to the other matter raised by him I can only say that that is a matter that will have to be considered very carefully. You are not only dealing with the position at Brits but with the position at other places as well. There is a difference in that the settlers at Brits enjoy privileges which the tenant settler does not enjoy. They enjoy extraordinary privileges as settlers and that accounts for the difference in the allowance for children. In any case I shall again go into the matter thoroughly and see what can be done.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) asked what we could do in the case of a person who had disposed of his property. I have already said that we were considering that aspect in its entirety and that we shall consider ways and means to make concessions in this connection. The hon. member also made a specific suggestion. We have made a note of that although we are already doing something in this regard. I think I have now more or less replied to everything, Sir.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Orders of the Day Nos. III to V and Notice of Motion No. 1 to stand over.

I wish to move as an amendment—

During the second-reading debate on this Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear that this Bill was intended to make provision for distributing electricity to South West Africa through Escom. I want to give two extracts from the Minister’s speech. He said this—

And this short extract—

Sir, we agree with that, and therefore we cannot accept the substitution in paragraph (h) of the words “in any country or territory” for the words “outside the Union” when the Bill is intended to make provision for the extension of electricity facilities to South West Africa. Therefore I move this amendment to the clause.

I want to support everything that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has said. The Minister tried in the second-reading debate to make great play of the fact that the hon. member for Kensington and I did not know the difference between “South West Africa” and “countries outside the Union”. There is no question about it that under this Clause 3 the I.D.C. can operate in any country outside the Republic. Our big complaint is, as has happened before, that industries have been started outside the Republic which finally were operating in direct competition with industries in the Republic. That is what we object to. We feel that this should be limited to South West Africa. The hon. member for Kensington has made many speeches here on the subject of a certain woollen company. We believe that this power should be granted in Section 3 in respect of South West Africa only; that we should not be left in the air, with the I.D.C. having the right, without reference to his House and without any parliamentary control, to assist industries in any other country anywhere in the world; it could be the Protectorates when they become independent, it could be Southern Rhodesia or any of the states to the north of us. We will then be told that the Minister has no authority to prevent the I.D.C. from assisting businesses in these other areas. That is why this amendment has been put forward.

Paragraph (h) of Section 4 of Act 22 of 1940 provides that the I.D.C. will have the right to have the corporation registered outside the Union. It has had that right since 1940. When the 1940 Act was introduced, when the United Party was in power, it specifically gave the I.D.C. the right to have itself registered as a company beyond the borders of the Union. The Government thought it necessary at the time to include such a provision in the Act. We are now asked to limit it to the Union and South West Africa. This right of registration which was given to the I.D.C. in 1940 will be radically curtailed. A drastic curtailment of that right is being suggested here. It was stated clearly during the second-reading debate why it was considered necessary to amend paragraph (h) by substituting the words “in any country or territory” for the words “outside the Union”, because although South West Africa is regarded as part of the Union for certain purposes, as far as registration is concerned South West Africa has its own company registration ordinance and we have our own. Separate registration therefore applies in South West and that will continue to be the position in spite of the law. Reference has been made to a company which operates in the Federation and which is registered there. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has referred to a matter which has been raised in the past by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I take it the company to which the hon. member for Benoni has referred is “Fine Wool Products”. I can only say that I have a note here from the I.D.C. reading “Fine Wool Products has no manufacturing activities in Rhodesia”. That statement is therefore not correct. I still maintain that if we were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington it would amount to a drastic curtailment of the right of registration which has existed since 1940 and I can consequently not accept the amendment.

When the Escom Bill was under consideration this Session, a similar explanation was given on that occasion, namely, that authority was required to extend its operations to South West Africa. We have been brought under that impression in the case of two Bills. I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister should insist that we must say “in any other country”, when we objected to “any other country” where a subsidiary, Fine Wool Products, was established in Southern Rhodesia. They were able to compete with South African exporters. Here we have an industry wholly owned by the Government, the I.D.C., operating in Southern Rhodesia and competing with private enterprise in South Africa. I simply cannot understand why the Deputy Minister cannot accept “South West Africa” instead of “any other country”.

The position is very clear to me. The I.D.C. has had this right to register itself anywhere else since 1940. Why this curtailment of the power of the I.D.C.? The hon. member wants it to be clearly stated that South West Africa is also included. As the Act read the I.D.C. could register there but it is necessary to put it this way because it says in a previous section that for certain purposes South West Africa is regarded as part of the Union. The one is unrelated to the other. What the hon. member has suggested is a drastic curtailment and has nothing whatsoever to do with South West itself. It also applies to the activities of the I.D.C. outside the borders of the Union. It amounts to a curtailment of a right the I.D.C. has had since 1940.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Sir, I would like to question this amendment because it has some features which I feel the hon. the Minister did not cover in his second-reading speech. When this Act was introduced into the House in 1962, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said on the occasion of its introduction that the Inventions Development Corporation was a body established by public funds and that its duty was to make inventions available to people, not to make too much profit out of those inventions but that the Inventions Development Corporation should always receive a fair amount of such profits. When the Inventions Development Corporation was launched, it was launched with a capital of R200,000, of which R50,000 was taken up by the C.S.I.R. The hon. the Minister said in his second-reading speech that so as not to place the Inventions Development Corporation in any preferential position it would be subject to income-tax and to all the provisions of the Companies Act. According to the current report of the C.S.I.R., the 1963 report, page 34, the Inventions Development Corporation has had a successful year in some respects; that it had patent policies resulting in the establishment of new companies—which is all to the good—but in considering this amendment we must bear in mind the fact that the report of the C.S.I.R. paints a very gloomy financial picture of the Inventions Development Corporation. According to the balance sheet, instead of a profit there is a loss of R278. While some profits may perhaps be made in the future, it appears that it is necessary to extend financial relief to the Corporation at this stage. Is that the motivation behind this amendment? It was pointed out at the time when the Bill which is now an Act was debated in 1962 that the Corporation was liable under Section 12 (which this amendment covers) and Section 16 of the Act for precisely the same taxes as any other company and that any payment made to the C.S.I.R. shall be construed as the payment of a dividend, presumably so as to avoid payment of the undistributed profits tax. The amendment proposed here by the hon. the Minister will substitute for “the payment of a dividend” the words, “any payment to the C.S.I.R. will be used by the research council for research purposes”. Sir, while one feels that the purpose of the laboratories and the staff of the C.S.I.R. is to provide research facilities to the State and also to private enterprise against proper payment, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to this Committee how he expects to get any money at all from this corporation, with its deficit of R278, for C.S.I.R. research, or is this word “research” being inserted instead of “dividend” purely for the purposes of tax phraseology? I understand that the reciprocity of this particular clause with the other ones is due to overseas taxation and not to any taxation that the Inventions Development Corporation would have to pay in South Africa, because presumably there would be no tax to pay since it showed a loss of R278.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has referred to the insertion of the words “be used by the research council for research purposes”. The reason for that is to make it quite clear for overseas purposes that, as far as taxation is concerned, the object is not to make a profit but that any profit can be used for research purposes. This amendment is being effected so as to give the same facilities as those granted to similar companies overseas. The object is to remove any doubt and to state it clearly that any profit that may be made will not be used for the purpose of paying dividends but for research purposes. The hon. member also referred to the loss of R278. In the same report of the Council for Scientific Industrial Research they say the following—

Then the chairman says—

In fact one of these patents has been sold overseas and it is expected to provide this company with a reasonable income after 1965. It is possible, therefore, that it may nevertheless be subject to taxation at that stage. It takes time sometimes before these royalties or other income from patents start coming in. We must therefore be a little patient before we shall have an income which will really be worthwhile.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When the debate was adjourned I was discussing the composition of the Mines Safety Committee. My view is that we should give representation on this mines safety committee for the 400,000 Bantu workers who are employed in the mining industry. I feel that representation should be given to the Bantu through a White representative on this committee, a representative who will specially look after the interests and the welfare of the Bantu workers in the mines. I am of the opinion that this would serve as a very useful and satisfactory bridge for the Bantu workers in their relationship with the mining industry. In the event of an accident these people will feel that they have somebody to whom they can make direct representation, to whom they can express their views as to the cause of the accident, and to whom they can put forward ideas with regard to means of safety that should be employed underground to prevent fatalities. Sir, it is for that reason that I move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of this amendment will be that one of the representatives of the employees on the mine shall be nominated specially to represent the interests of the Bantu workers employed in the mines. I do not think this amendment presents any practical difficulties from the Minister’s point of view. I think it can quite suitably be incorporated in Clause 3 and, as I have said, it will certainly serve a very useful purpose; it will give confidence to the Bantu workers and it will establish a very useful liaison.

Sir, under the same clause, I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister once again to give representation both to the Underground Officials’ Association and to the Mine Surface Officials’ Association. These are two separate bodies. One represents the interests of the underground officials, and the other represents the interests of the surface officials. The representation of the daily-paid workers vis-á-vis the underground and surface officials’ associations is in the proportion of 55 per cent daily-paid workers to 45 per cent officials. In view of this proportion of employment, I feel that the Minister should give representation to one representative from the Underground Officials’ Association and one from the Mine Surface Officials’ Association. I think such representation would establish a very useful bridge between the officials and the underground workers and will lead to confidence in the mining industry as such. While on this question of mine safety, I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to the amendment standing in my name to the effect that “a medical officer nominated by the Secretary for Health” should be allowed to serve on this mine safety committee. Sir, in my opinion a medical man is absolutely necessary on this Mine Safety Committee, not only from the point of view of the physical health of the underground workers but also to study such factors as pollution of water, pollution of air and the many other problems that do arise in underground mining. I want to say that the substitution of a medical officer of health for the deputy Government mining engineer, as provided for in this clause, would be useful for another purpose as well; I think it is an anomaly to have both the Government mining engineer and his deputy serving on the same committee. One can envisage a clash of opinion, a clash of personalities, on a committee like this where you have the deputy Government mining engineer possibly disagreeing with his superior—the Government mining engineer—on questions of safety. It is for that reason that I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would be well advised to delete “deputy Government mining engineer” and to substitute “medical officer of health.” I think with all due respect that it would be better to have on this mine safety committee a medical officer of health nominated by the Secretary for Health.

Sir, I have some difficulty in understanding the reason for the appointment of a committee of experts with specialized knowledge to assist the Government mining engineer. You are going to have the analogous position of the Government mining engineer being advised by a mine safety committee, who in turn will be advised by a panel of experts with specialized knowledge, and then under the next clause, Clause 4, we have another special committee who will advise all these other committees in the event of the closure of a mine or in the event of accidents or fatalities. I anticipate the danger here that the Government mining engineer is going to find himself merely in the role of a figurehead, because in the end, if an accident takes place on a mine, who is going to accept the responsibility? Each one of these committees will try to pin the responsibility on to somebody else. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that the Marais Commission, which went into the question of safety on the mines, recommended that the Government mining engineer should have more authority and personal responsibility in order to be able to act quickly and to make his own decisions. I am concerned about the machinery that we are establishing here with all these advisory committees and panels of specialists, with special committees who in turn will advise them; I am afraid that we are going to have a very unsatisfactory position developing if nobody knows just who has to accept direct and personal responsibility in the event of an accident. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept these two amendments standing in my name, and also to give us some indication as to what would take place, with these various specialized committees, if you should have an accident similar to the one that took place at Coalbrook. Who then is going to accept the responsibility and to whom will the Minister look for some authoritative statement? Sir, I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will advise us on these matters. Will he also tell us what would constitute a quorum; who would lay down the procedure to be followed by these advisory committees and panels of experts and the special committee? When would they meet; what would be the intervals between the meetings? Finally, I should like to get the Minister’s views whether he does not see a danger—with this whole series of committees—that the Government mining engineer may find that he has no direct responsibility in his very important and responsible position. I therefore move my amendments—

1. (b) a medical officer nominated by the Secretary for Health; and in line 4, page 5, after “mines” to add “and one of whom shall be nominated specially to represent the interests of the Bantu workers employed at mines”.

I want to support the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). I said in my second-reading speech that I thought it was absolutely essential for a medical officer to be on this mines safety committee. I cannot imagine any mines safety organization functioning without the help of a medical officer. The various mining companies employ medical officers who are experts in this particular branch of work. It would be very easy to nominate a very efficient and helpful person to serve on this committee. Sir, it is not only from the point of view of accidents that it is necessary to have a medical officer on this committee. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has considered how necessary it is for a panel of experts to give expert advice on the conditions prevailing in the asbestos mines. People do not realize to what risks they are subjecting themselves in following this occupation. We have pointed out before that the chances of a person working in an asbestos mine contracting carcinoma of the lung or of other parts of the body are very great. I think the time has come, when we talk about safety on the mines, when we should go a stage further than to think simply of accidents which take place through falls of rock, or accidents that take place on the surface through the mishandling or the breakdown of machinery. We must go further and think about the dangers of exposure to gas, to silica, to asbestos fibres, to coal dust and so on. For that reason I think it is quite obvious that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Springs is an absolutely essential amendment. Furthermore, there is the question of liaison between the research worker and this mines safety committee. I think here again the medical officer can be the link between these two groups of people. With regard to the question of the deputy Government mining engineer being on this committee in addition to the Government mining engineer, I agree with the hon. member for Springs that it is unnecessary for the deputy Government mining engineer to serve on this committee. The hon. the Minister has already made provision for an alternate member on the committee. Surely the deputy Government mining engineer should be the alternate to the Government mining engineer. That would leave an opening for the medical officer. I think we must take these things into consideration. As far as a representative for the Bantu workers is concerned I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot object to that. He may have difficulty in deciding who would be the best person to represent the Bantu. But in that regard he has the recruiting agencies, the welfare officers on the mines, with whom he can discuss this matter, and I think a very good choice can be made from the very excellent people who act as public relation officers for the Bantu who work on the mines. With those few words I again want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister please to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springs. It can only do this committee a power of good.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed—

As the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has said the officials know a great deal about mine safety. I wish to point out, however, that this committee to be established is not a technical committee. Nor is it presented as a committee that will consist of technically highly trained people. The object of this committee is to deal with objections which may come in from all quarters. Underground conditions form only one of the aspects this committee will be concerned with. When technical problems present themselves it will be possible for this committee to call in the best technical assistance on that particular subject. There is nothing to prevent that. As a matter of fact I expect them to call in technical assistance often. The committee is a platform where interested parties can discuss their problems. Its constitution was decided upon after very thorough discussions with all interested parties. We feel that to change it will only create fresh problems. It was felt that the necessary balance would be established if the Government mining engineer acted as chairman assisted by three representatives as suggested here.

The workers do not always regard the officials as people whose interests are identical with those of the underground workers. They rather regard the surface officials as representing the mine owners. That is unfortunately the position. As I have said, after this matter was raised by the hon. member on a previous occasion, it was referred back but it was felt that we should leave the position as it was. The parties agreed to that. If we were to change its composition it would lead to a long discussion and it would probably not be mutually acceptable.

The hon. member also asked that one of the members should represent the Bantu workers. As far as safety on the mines is concerned, the workers regard themselves as representing all the workers. They do not differentiate between the White workers and the Bantu workers. Where it is a question of safety it is the safety of everybody. They do not think it is necessary to make special provision. It would be extremely difficult to say that one particular member should represent the Bantu workers on the mine because safety affects everybody, not only the White workers. There is not one type of safety for the Bantu and another type for the White workers. Seeing that their interests are identical, therefore, I think as the committee is constituted at the moment, the interests of the Bantu will also be looked after.

Reference has been made to the mine safety committee and that somebody with a special knowledge of health conditions should serve on it. This amendment was proposed in the Other Place. I undertook there that I would refer it back to the mine trade unions and the mine owners for discussion. That has been done. The Government mining engineer has gone into this question of having a medical man as one of the members, but after consultation with the Chamber of Mines and the mine trade unions they recommended against it. The Government mining engineer and the mine trade unions and the mine owners not only regard the appointment of a medical man on the committee as redundant but also as undesirable. The representatives of the mine owners and the trade unions on the committee will not be appointed on the strength of their technical qualifications. The mine trade unions in particular think that no professional man should serve on the committee, a committee which is really intended to be a body representative of the Government, the mine owners and the mineworkers, to keep a general watch over conditions and anything which in the opinion of the committee is unsatisfactory from a safety and health point of view. Any problem that arises can then be referred to experts in that particular field. The committee must serve as a forum where matters of policy flowing from dissatisfaction about safety and health conditions can be discussed. In that way the committee can assist in maintaining a good relationship between the Government mining engineer’s inspection division, the mineworkers and the mine management and thus also exercise control over safety and health conditions.

It will be extremely difficult to select one medical man to cover this whole field of occupational diseases on the mine, because the field that has to be covered is tremendously big. The Peter Allan Commission of 1949 already pointed out how wide that field was. Not only do you have occupational diseases but there are others as well. You have the question of the affect of artificial ventilation, temperature, dampness, mine dust, water in the mine, radiation, fumes from explosives, the amount of work done, depth, etc., the prevention of heart complaints, deforming joint infection, bone infection, skin infection, kidney complaints, chronic respiratory complaints and other diseases. It will indeed be a difficult task to appoint one medical man on this committee to cover this wide field. The suggested mine safety committee is not intended to be a research body. The pneumoconiosis research unit under the C.S.I.R. was established for that purpose. This unit attends not only to pneumoconiosis but also to other mine diseases and the whole complexity of factors as they exist in the mines and which have an affect on the health of the mine-worker. This mine safety committee will be at liberty to consult any medical or other professional person at any time on questions of mine safety and health. Whether such professional persons are members of this panel of experts or not makes no difference. They can call in any assistance to help them in this connection. Where it is the opinion of the parties we have consulted, after this matter was raised in the Other Place when the Bill was introduced, that they do not want a medical man, I think we should abide by that.

I want to refer in particular to the last point raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister, i.e., that section of the amendment which deals with the appointment of one member who is a medical man as moved from this side of the House. I could see the hon. Minister’s argument if the wording of this clause was different. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that under sub-section (a) of the new 2bis the duties are laid down and it says “to advise the Government mining engineer on the supervision to be exercised over mines in terms of Section 2 or on any thing or practice which affects or is likely to affect the safety or health of persons employed at mines”. I agree entirely that with regard to the question of safety this is a broad-based committee. I must say, however, that in regard to the important question of health, if this committee is to advise on subjects of health, there should be a medical man on the committee and the committee should not merely be dependent on the gathering of evidence or opinions from other persons. I believe if you want to establish a committee who can effectively advise on matters of health there should be a medical man on it. I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will be prepared to reconsider the views he has expressed. This is called a Mine Safety Committee. It is really a Committee of Mine Safety and Health. That is clearly its responsibility. I really believe it cannot do its job effectively in respect of the second leg of its terms of reference, namely, health, unless it has a medical man as a member. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

We all feel very strongly about the general question of health. Ample provision has already been made as far as health services are concerned. As I have already said, we have the mine doctor himself, there is the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit, there is the South African Medical Research Institute, the Bureau of Doctors, the Minister’s medical advisers and the Pneumoconiosis Risk Committee whose members include one doctor. I am trying to show that the question of health covers a very wide field and that it would be impossible for one doctor to cover the entire field. We have had the opportunity to discuss this matter fully with these people and it is their express wish not to have a doctor on the committee; I am sorry therefore that I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Taurog put and negatived and amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Mines put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

This clause deals with the powers of the inspectors in the event of the closure of any mine as well as with “anything or practice calculated to cause bodily injury or anything injurious to the health of any underground worker or anything which may cause damage to property”. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will admit that these are very wide and very important powers that we are giving to an officer of the Department of Mines. The closure of a mine is a very serious matter indeed, and consequently I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that in terms of the wording of this clause, the power to close down a mine is being given to “any” inspector. In Clause 4 (2) (a) it says—

I do not think it could have been the intention that these extensive powers be given to “any inspector”. “Any inspector” in terms of the definitions in the principal Act means among others “an assistant inspector”. Now, this is a very, very junior inspector, whose salary grade runs from R2,850 and R3,120. Accordingly I should like to urge the Minister not to give these extensive powers to such a junior inspector in the Department of the Government mining engineer. I should like here to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister what happened as a result of the closure of a mine at Witbank a number of years ago and which was referred to by the Marais Commission. At that time a junior official, but senior to an assistant inspector, ordered the closure of one of the coal mines, unjustifiably as events later proved. This resulted in a loss to the mining company concerned of about R250,000 per day. Therefore I am worried if it is the Minister’s actual intention to give these wide powers to a junior official. Consequently I should like these powers to be limited to at least a chief inspector or deputy inspector. That will have the effect of giving the mining industry and the people associated therewith, more confidence than will be the case if the clause, as it now stands, goes through. There is a very serious shortage of staff in the Department of the Government mining engineer through our inability to attract to that Department suitably qualified men. Now we are going to have the situation where an official earning a salary of R2,850 per annum will have the power to order the suspension of the workings of a mine. I think, we should agree to this only with the greatest reluctance.

I should also like to refer to the special commission referred to in Clause 4 (3). Now, what is going to happen in the event of one of these junior officials recommending the suspension of operations at a mine? At the moment the Government mining engineer has the final say in any such appeal. I agree that he should have the final say on whether a mine should suspend operations or not. It is proposed now, however, to give that power to a special commission to be appointed by the Minister. Once again I feel that we are taking away other important powers of a highly specialized and knowledgeable Government mining engineer to give it to a special commission in order to enable it to investigate any appeals. There will of necessity always be a serious time lag with regard to the appointment of such a special commission, whereas at the moment the Government mining engineer can investigate any matter straightaway without any financial loss to the industry concerned and all that which goes with the suspension of operations at a mine. If I may be allowed to make a suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like to suggest that in order to overcome the hiatus between the decision to close a mine and the time before this special committee is appointed, the Minister should agree that two members of his Mine Safety Committee with the necessary technical and specialized background should be permanently appointed to constitute such a special committee for the investigation of such matters referred to it by any inspector of mines where there are unsatisfactory conditions existing in mines, or where there is to be a suspension of operations. That would be more practical than the method suggested in this clause with its attendant delays in the appointment and constitution of such a special committee.

I should like to know the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction to this suggestion which, I must assure him, has been put forward by people with a lot of knowledge of the mining industry as such. These two factors, i.e., the power given to a junior inspector to suspend operations at a mine, and the time lag which must necessary follow the suspension and the hearing of an appeal, will lead to serious trouble in the future. Once again I should like to emphasize that the authority of the Government mining engineer in this respect should be restored. It should not be whittled away as is being done in this clause.

I think we can come to an agreement on this matter. The words in this clause which we do not like are those appearing in Clause 4 (2) (a), namely—

If these words were deleted, it would mean that any inspector would have the power to point out to the management of a mine what was wrong in its mine. After that the inspector would be obliged to report the matter to the inspector of mines. So I think that if these words were deleted, we would meet the objection of the hon. member for Springs. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister give this suggestion his favourable consideration?

Hon. members have referred to the wide powers which have been given to inspectors, particularly in regard to the closing of a mine. But none of them has referred to the right of appeal to the Government Mining Engineer. In this connection Clause 4 (4) reads as follows—

There is authority therefore to act immediately. On the one hand there is the power which is given to inspectors to close mines but, on the other hand, an inspector must, in terms of sub-section (2) (b), submit a copy of such notice to the Government Mining Engineer so that the latter will be aware of the circumstances. Although the order may be issued by a junior official, he is, after all, the person who has made the investigation and who is therefore able to judge whether any dangers exist at a particular stage. If he regards those dangers as being of such a nature that the mine, or a portion of it, should be closed, he can order accordingly. As I have already indicated, there is the right of appeal to the Government Mining Engineer. If such appeal is lodged, the order for the closing of the mine is immediately suspended and will remain valid until such time as the Government Minine Engineer orders otherwise. The danger that the closing of a mine may result in unnecessary loss therefore does not exist because the necessary provision is made for an appeal to the Government mining engineer. I just want to point out that this was recommended by the Marais Commission after the commission had inquired into the Coalbrook disaster. Paragraph 116 of the report of that commission reads as follows—

Hon. members will note therefore that this recommendation has been taken over word for word.

The hon. member for Springs also referred to the permanent committee. We are quite prepared to give effect to the recommendation that a permanent committee of this nature should be established. Indeed, I can appreciate the necessity for having a committee of this nature which will then be able to give immediate attention to any matter that may be referred to it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

This clause deals with inquiries into accidents on mines. Here again we have the following strange wording in subsection (4), i.e.—

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate what type of investigation the head of a State Department, other than the Government mining engineer or one of his inspectors, can ask for? Here again we have the introduction of outside persons into a highly technical division, where one does not want to see unwarranted interference in the efficient operation of the Government mining engineer’s department. This is an aspect with which the Marais Commission also deals. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister once again what type of investigation the head of a Government Department can call for other than investigations called for by the Government mining engineer? I raised this matter on a previous clause, but then the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply on this point. For the sake of the record, he should indicate to us what he has in mind. He should clarify the obscurity which surrounds this provision as it now reads.

I am at the same time pleased to see in this clause that the unfavourable practice which existed in the past—in terms of which a report was submitted direct to the Minister thereby ignoring the Government mining engineer completely—is now going to be stopped. The previous practice led to a great deal of unsatisfactory features, as was pointed out in the report of the Marais Commission. What is more, it was ultra vires the law at the time that the Minister should have been able to get reports and complaints direct from inspectors of mines, i.e. over the head of the Government mining engineer. As I said, I am pleased to see that this unsatisfactory feature is now going to be eliminated. With that I hope there will no longer be any political interference with the working of the Government engineer’s department by any Minister of Mines or other person directly connected with politics. Therefore I should like to commend the hon. the Deputy Minister for having accepted this very important and vitally necessary recommendation of the Marais Commission on this point.

I just want to point out why provision has been made for this right to be given also to the head of a Department. The Department which is referred to here is the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and the reason for this provision is that no trade unions exist through which the Bantu can operate. That is why this provision is being made for the right to be given to the head of a Department. The hon. member said that he hoped that this would not lead to political interference. I want to point out that the Marais Commission found that the reason why the mineworkers approached the Minister was because they could get no satisfaction from the inspector in terms of paragraph (11), nor from the then Government mining engineer. It was only after they had gone that far and had got no satisfaction that they approached the Minister. This was the finding of the Marais Commission. That was when the Minister intervened and when the Minister intervened the strike was called off. It was therefore a very serious situation. There was no political interference; they approached the Minister because they were unable to get satisfaction. We can also refer to paragraphs (14) and (15) which point out that certain requests were refused and that the unrest and friction continued to increase. The trade union ceased to have anything to do not only with the Government mining engineer but with the district inspector under whose inspectorate the gas mine fell. In December 1959, an inquiry was requested and once again this request was complied with by the Minister. This proves that a dangerous situation had arisen. The relationship between the mining trade unions and the chief mining inspector was not what it should have been. This matter was rectified at a later stage, as the commission also discovered. It is wrong therefore to suggest that the intervention of the Minister of Mines at the time was based purely on political grounds. It was because of the unhappy relationship between the mining trade unions and the Government mining engineer that it unfortunately became necessary for the Minister to intervene at that stage.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

In this clause I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the remarks I made about allowing rescue workers to overdo the work they perform during an emergency. Once again I want to ask him if he will please make sure that regulations are made, so that no rescue worker shall be allowed to work for more than four hours at a stretch, after he has been on shift for eight hours. I do not know whether that is clear, but the clause says that no person shall work more than two consecutive shifts underground, except in an emergency. After that I would suggest that the Minister makes sure that no person works for more than four hours in any 12 hours to do rescue operations. The dangers are far too great to the rescue workers.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

In Clause 11 (b) there is a prohibition or restriction in relation to the making or use of roads and railways and the erection of buildings and other structures in the vicinity of the workings of mines. I cannot find a definition of the word “vicinity” in the Act. Is there any restriction as to where these buildings may be erected? It just says “vicinity”. What does “vicinity” mean? Does it mean within 100 yards of the main shaft. or three miles? I particularly want to know because it has been the practice of mines to erect married and single quarters and recreation halls within the vicinity of mine workings, but we do not have a definition of “vicinity”. I should like to know whether the Minister is going to lay down a radius within which none of this type of building may be erected. It is very important in view of the subsidences that have taken place on the Far West Rand, and I think that the word “vicinity” must be clearly defined.

The hon. member wants to know what the distances must be. He spoke about three miles but I do not think he was serious in saying that. The position is that it will differ from mine to mine. It depends upon the depth of the mine. This provision is being inserted mainly because of the cave-in at the Premier Mine, which showed that it was necessary to impose these restrictions in the case of open mines. It will depend upon the depth of the mine and upon the nature of the rock.

What about Carltonville?

No, it is not intended for Carltonville but for open mines like the Premier Mine. It is to cover cases of that nature. This position is governed by regulation; it only refers to open mines.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.