I should like to make an announcement with regard to the Business of the House. The business to be dealt with next week is the work which has been placed on the Order Paper, but we shall give preference in general to the legislation introduced by the Minister of the Interior in his capacity as Minister of the Interior and also in his capacity as Minister of Education, Arts and Science.

I may also say that the plan is to have our recess from 30 March to 9 April.

Inclusive?

No, exclusive. The Budget debate begins on 26 March and in order to have four full days for the Budget debate it will be necessary for us, even though it has not yet been decided by that time to sit on Tuesday nights, to sit that Tuesday night, 27 March. The Minister of Finance will then not have the opportunity to reply on the following Monday, because on that Monday we shall be in recess. Therefore the Minister will reply during the morning of Friday, 30 March, and thereafter we will adjourn for the recess. That means that in all probability we will not sit on the afternoon of Friday, 30 March.

The opportunity to discuss private members’ motions will then be carried over to the first Monday on which we meet again, and we shall set aside the afternoon for private members, and the way the time will be divided between motions and private legislation that afternoon will be determined later after consultation between the Whips.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate on the second reading of the Bill to be resumed on Friday, 2 March.

I move—

1. (a) easing the burden of higher living costs and spiralling prices;
2. (b) introducing a contributory national pension scheme;
3. (c) considering making paid annual leave a right and not merely a privilege; and
4. (d) recognizing the encouragement of a stable and prosperous middle-class to be essential for the achievement of good government and sound progress.

In moving this motion, I think it is necessary that we should try to avoid any misunderstanding that arises from the use of the term “white collar worker”, especially from the Afrikaans translation of that term; that Afrikaans translation in this case is “werkers wat nie hande-arbeid doen nie”. I suppose that is the correct translation, strictly speaking, but had I been consulted about the translation, I would have suggested something different, not a negative translation. Because the purpose of this resolution is certainly not to exclude any group of workers from the benefits that we suggest should accrue to the working people of South Africa. The purpose of this resolution is to draw the attention of the House and the Ministers concerned to the plight of a great many of the people employed in South African industries, trade and commerce, and to draw particular attention to the plight of the white collar salary workers who, Sir, in many, many cases are in a very difficult position. They are to a large extent a vast army of unknowns, who have no dramatic platform, no trade unions to fight for them, no representative bodies, no vociferous newspapers to support them. Because they do their job steadily day after day, nobody notices them, nobody remembers them. They are caught in a no-man’s land between trades and professions. They are not part of the prohibitiveness of commerce, although commerce could not exist without them. There is nobody to fight for them except us, and they may not fight for themselves, the immemorial right of an employee to withhold his services—they do not strike, Sir, and if they were to strike, there would be a public outcry about their lack of social consicence, about their lack of responsibility and about their ingratitude. Indeed, Sir, I may say, one of the major tests of the social conscience of any state is the care and the solicitude it shows for its white collar workers.

Sir, I want to assure you that this resolution was not moved here merely for the sake of having a resolution on the Order Paper. Many of these people have real trouble to-day. Only this morning in my newspaper I read of the plight of a certain section of the white collar workers in South Africa, and those are the people employed by the Government in the South African Post Office, and I want to read to you this short newspaper report as a background to our discussions—

That was published after this motion of mine was placed on the Order Paper. It is striking confirmation that the time has come that Parliament and the Government should give attention to the problems of the white-collar worker.

The other question that I think I should meet immediately, because it will come sooner or later, is: Does my motion cover all races in South Africa? I want to say at once that it covers all races as far as that is practicable. The situation in South Africa, whether we like it or not, is that certainly a large section of our Native race is still in a primitive stage of tribal development, and it becomes extremely difficult to apply measures of social security to those people in the same way that you can apply them to the White people and the Coloured people and the Asiatic people and the detribalized Natives. I think this problem was adequately examined and dealt with as long ago as 1944 by the Social and Economic Planning Council of those days which published a report “Union Government No. 14 of the year 1944” on social security and in paragraphs 129 to 135, they dealt with this problem of the horizontal coverage that can be given to the people of South Africa by such measures, and there they make certain suggestions, which I think are valid even to-day and have been applied in certain respects. We know, for example, that workman’s compensation applies to urbanized Natives, with some income test. This commission also made the interesting observation that these social security measures should not apply to those Natives who still have a holding in the reserves, even if they work in the cities, because then the protection offered to them in their old age and in case of sickness or if any of the viccisitudes of life strike them, derives from their tribal customs and their would be protection for them because of the fact that they still have a holding in the reserves. But I think, Sir, that we in South Africa should very seriously consider extending, wherever possible, our social security measures (about which I shall say more in a minute) to all races in South Africa according to our ability to do so and in accordance with the needs that exist.

Sir, my motion speaks in the first instance about the cost of living, and I think we should have a look at what has been happening especially to our people of fixed income in South Africa in recent years. In this connection I am very grateful to the Department of Economics of the University of Stellenbosch who annually publish a most valuable survey of contemporary economic conditions, and some of the figures I am going to give you now will come from the latest report of the University of Stellenbosch. It is interesting to see from the tables contained in the first introductory portion of this report what has been happening to the money and the value of the money of the ordinary salaried man and the wage-earner. We find that from June 1947 to June 1960 our net national income rose from R1,494,000,000 to R4,478,000,000 in 1960, a tremendous increase which every South African must be proud of. But in the same period the per capita income of the South African citizen rose from R166 to R218.6. This means that, while our net national income trebled, the per capita income of the people, the real income, only increased by one-third.

There you should at once also deal with the savings of the people.

It seems to me that for the benefit of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) I should put this in a different way. Sir, the table which this Department of Economics gives is based on the figures supplied by our own Department of Census and Statistics, on page 7, and they point out that from June 1952 to June 1960 the average increase in the cost of living in South Africa was 2.8 per cent per year, but in that same period the average per capita income only increased by 1.4 per cent, the real income. I think even the hon. member for Krugersdorp will understand that means that the cost of living in South Africa in the period I mentioned has been increasing twice as fast as the net per capita income of the average worker. And if we take into consideration that this is the average income and that it is not equally distributed amongst all sections of the population, and for the reason that I have given that most of the white-collar workers are either not organized or else organized in associations which for ethical and reasons of public interest do not indulge in high pressure collective bargaining and threats of strikes, you will appreciate that this 1.4 per cent increase in the per capita income has perhaps benefited them less than any other section of our community. I think these figures warn us to be very cautious about making easy, facile and superficial comparisons. It is not my purpose to talk politics this morning, but to illustrate the dangers inherent in such superficial comparisons, I want to remind you of certain propaganda that my hon. friends opposite like to make during elections. They take a man, say with an income of R2,000 a year and they say: Now look, in 1948 he paid so much in income-tax, but to-day, under the Nationalist Party, in 1960 or 1961, he pays no income-tax at all.

Good old Nationalist Party!

Good old Nationalist Party! But what dishonest propaganda from such good people! Because the question that one should ask is: After a man of a £1,000 income in 1948 had been taxed and after a man with a R2,000 income in 1961 had paid no income-tax, what could he buy with the money that he had left? The simple answer is that in 1948 he could buy almost three times as much with his money as he could in 1961. That is the test. I do hope that in this debate, in trying to weaken the impact of the argument in favour of the workers of South Africa, we will not be given a long list of figures showing the improvements that have been made since 1948 without relating them …

You are afraid of that.

No, I am not afraid. All I ask is to make fair comparisons. I am as eager as any member in this House to advertise to the world what an enlightened community we South Africans are in looking after our people. All I ask is that when making these comparisons, we should not create wrong impressions, we should not be lulled by such false comparisons into a false sense of contentment, into smug feeling that all is well with the people in South Africa who have a fixed income. In making those comparisons, we should be just. Hon. members should deflate the figures to adjust them to the increase in population and to the decrease in the value of money. “The Economist” has calculated that the Rand if it was worth 10s. in 1948, is only worth 65 cents to-day. I think we can determine for ourselves what is the lot of these people to-day if we try to find some criterion to determine how they are managing on their present incomes. I have tried to find such a criterion, and I think the best one I could find was to try and find out how they manage with their debts. Can they live within their income? Are they in trouble? I want to say with regret that the hon. the Minister of Justice finds it too much trouble to assist the people of South Africa in determining that small fact, because I do believe that the best criterion of what is happening to our people is to look at the number of summonses that are issued in South Africa for debt. That tells you whether the people are managing or not. I have some figures here. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) some years ago, (you will find the figures in Vol. 99 of Hansard, Col. 332) asked the Minister of Justice how many summonses for debt were issued in the Union during each of the years 1947 to 1958. The Minister gave the figures quite easily for the years 1952 to 1958. The others he said were not available. And we find that in 1952 throughout South Africa, 287,887 summonses were issued for debts. That is bad enough. But you know that by 1958 that figure had almost doubled to 483,930 summonses for debts! Sir, on 26 May 1961, the same member asked the hon. the Minister for later information. It was refused then and the excuse was that it was too much work to give the figures for that year. The year before it was not too much to take the figures out for eight years And then, although the Minister was warned on 26 May 1961, that these figures were of value to some members of Parliament who were concerned about the lot of the ordinary man and woman in South Africa, and that these figures were important to us, when he was again asked the same question on 27 June 1961, he again refused. This morning, my friend the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked the Minister for the latest figures, after the Minister had had indications from two members of Parliament that they considered this to be in the interests of the people of South Africa, and again the hon. the Minister of Justice refused to give those figures. Why? It may mean too much work for the Minister, but it is difficult to understand why it should be too much work to-day whereas it did not mean too much work three years ago. According to newspaper reports at the end of last year the issue of summons in Johannesburg and Pretoria had broken all records in the 12 months before October 1961. The estimate is that for the whole of South Africa they far exceeded half a million. These were summonses for debt, Sir, more than half a million in one year.

What is the reason?

I will tell the hon. member what the reason is. The reason is that people have not got enough money to live like decent people. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that for every person who is summonsed for debt, there is probably another one who has received a letter of demand from an attorney and who has gone and offered so much per month and has had his offer accepted. Others again borrow money to pay their debts so that summonses will not be issued against them. I think it is safe to say that twice the number of people who are summonsed, are in some financial trouble, have difficulty in making ends meet. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that.

When that is the situation, Sir, one must ask oneself what provision can such people who are in financial trouble make—unless they live frugally and below the standards that are accepted in South Africa as decent living—for the exigencies of life. In order to understand that I think we should have a look at the social security measures that exist in South Africa to-day. We find, Sir, that the State makes available to the people, all subject to a means test, the following social security benefits: Old-age pensions, pensions for the blind, invalidity allowances, mothers’ grants, maintenance grants for children in certain circumstances. In addition, in industry and trade, subject to supervision by legislation of this House, people are insured against unemployment, they are protected against occupational disability and diseases, they receive maternity grants and in certain circumstances they receive a limited sick pay. What is interesting to me, Sir, is that everyone of these measures, with one exception, existed in South Africa in 1948. The exception is the sick pay benefit under our unemployment insurance scheme. All the others were introduced in South Africa between the years 1910 to 1924 or between the years 1933 to 1943. The one new social security measure which was introduced into this country by a Nationalist Party Government was old age pension at the rate of £1 10s. 0d. per month, which was good at the time; I am not arguing about that.

I want to suggest to a Government with such a record, in contrast with other governments of this country, that the time has come to give some attention to an extension of the social security system available to the people of South Africa. I do not say that they should not concentrate upon idealogical measures. I do not think they should but I understand that they cannot help it, because their survival as a political party depends on that. But the survival of many ordinary people depends upon their giving their attention to other matters as well. I am suggesting that the time has come that they should start. I am not suggesting that they have done nothing. They have done a great deal to improve the benefits and to patch up measures and legislation and schemes introduced by other governments. There have been some remarkable improvements, but not a single new scheme was introduced by them except the one that I have mentioned. And, Sir, there are things urgently necessary as I shall show.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that while we are discussing the lot of our salaried and wage-earning people of this country there is not a single full-fledged Minister of the Cabinet in this House.

They do not care.

Mr. Speaker, if you want proof of complete callous indifference just look at those empty benches. I think apart from the insult to private members on their day, it is one of the most callous exhibitions of indifference I have ever experienced.

Where is the Leader of the Opposition?

When I ask what provision can these people make, these people who are burdened by debt and who are struggling to make ends meet in a country which is apparently prosperous, then I ask which are the two major difficulties in that direction for which he has to make provision? What provision should every man be able to make out of his earnings for the protection of himself and his family apart from those social services which I have mentioned? I think the House will agree with me that there are two things that demand priority from every husband, from every mother, who earns money and that is provision for his or her old age and provision for the cost of medical expenses which may hit any family to a degree for which nobody can make normal provision. This question of the care of our old people has been discussed in this House on private members’ days every year, I think, over the last 10 years. Mr. Pocock, the then member for Sunnyside; for many years made this his special province.

He did not drag in politics.

The last thing I wanted to do when I started my speech was to bring politics into the subject. But I want to repeat, Sir, that I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw the attention of this House to the indifference on the part of the Cabinet towards this matter. As much as I want to avoid politics, I want to know where is the Minister of Labour, where is the Minister of Social Welfare, where is the Minister of Finance. Any one of them should at least have given some impression of interest on the part of the Government in the fate of the ordinary workers of South Africa. Where are they? There are only 19 members of a Government of over 100 members in the House at the moment. I may say this, Sir, that if this were a political debate, if we were discussing Bantustans or something like that, the serried ranks would have filled every seat on the other side.

At the moment we pay a maximum old age pension of R23 per month subject to a means test of R180 per year. In the circumstances of to-day, with the cost of living as high as it is, this is totally inadequate. But it becomes even more paltry and even more useless, when you consider that this is still subject to a means test. Although the Social and Economic Planning Council reported in 1944 that once our national income reached £1,000,000,000 per annum, the means test would be unnecessary, the means test still exists in spite of the fact that our national income has reached a figure of over R2,000,000,000 per annum. It is a degrading system; it is a system which means unnecessary administrative work; it is a system which penalizes the thrifty and the decent citizen in South Africa. It has often struck me that if a married couple work hard all their life and put all their available savings into a house so that when they are old and can no longer work, they will be assured of a roof over their heads, they cannot get an old age pension if that house’s value is above the means test. But the spendthrift, the person who takes no care for his own future, can get the maximum pension. I think that is anti-social and unwise. It can only be justified when the State cannot afford to do better.

Do you want the means test abolished?

I will answer that. I have answered that question before. Mr. Pocock has answered that before but I shall answer it again. What we suggest, Sir, is that there should be, in the first instance, a contributory national pension scheme which will assure all South Africans of a pension when they reach the age of, say, 65. In addition, and subject to a means test—because we are not one of the wealthiest nations in the world—there should be a supplementary pension paid to people who require it to meet their needs.

I now want to make a further suggestion. The Government is a cautious institution. I want to suggest to the Government that they should start on the right course immediately this year.

Why did you not start when you were in power?

Shall I for the benefit of that hon. member repeat the list of social security measures that were introduced into this House by governments other than the Nationalist Party, by the old South African Party Government and by the old United Party Government? Shall I repeat that with the exception of the old age pension, and with the exception of sick pay under the Unemployment Insurance Act, they have not introduced a single new measure for the people of South Africa? How dare the hon. member ask me a question like that? I want to ask the Nationalist Party that if they must leave the minimum number of members to listen to this debate, to leave members who know something about this subject.

The suggestion I want to make seriously, Sir, is that instead of reducing the pension to-day on the £ for £ system as the man’s income starts to exceed the means test, the Social Economic and Planning Council suggested that for every £ of income that exceeded the means test, the pension should be reduced by 17s. 6d. I want to suggest to the Government; they can start with that. I hope this suggestion will be conveyed to members of the Cabinet. Other members on this side will go into greater detail in regard to a national contributory pension scheme. We feel that is priority number one; that is the greatest need which the people of South Africa have to-day, especially as it is becoming more and more difficult for people to save money out of their income under a Government who has frozen cost-of-living allowances from 1948 to 1953 and from 1953 to to-day. The other thing is that we feel that something special should be done to assist families to meet unexpected and abnormal medical expenses.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has on more than one occasion pleaded for that; he has had motions on the Order Paper about that and spoken to them. I understand that this question is being investigated by some committee or some commission but I want to express the hope that something will be done about this urgently. Our information from existing medical aid societies is that 72 per cent of the people of South Africa, excluding the Natives, are not covered against medical expenses. We all know that the cost of medical treatment and the specialization in the practise of medicine, place a tremendous burden on the ordinary man in the street.

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to his motion.

Sir, I am speaking under Clause (a) of my motion “easing the burden of higher living costs” and the burden of higher living costs is such that the ordinary family cannot provide for these contingencies out of their normal income. I am making concrete suggestions as to how they can be assisted. I do not want to expand on this except to say that what we suggest is not a medical benefit scheme where the right to choose his own doctor is taken away from the patient, nor do we suggest a State medical scheme under which all the doctors become civil servants—we do not want to have more people in the unfortunate situation of the civil servants—we suggest a medical aid scheme subsidized by the Government …

The hon. member must not go any further into that.

I will not go any further, Sir. I have made the point that I wanted to make.

If I may now summarize let me say this: Official statistics show that the cost of living is rising twice as fast as the per capita income of our people. Many of our people find their income rising more slowly than the increase every year in the cost of living. Our people are in debt; they find it difficult to make ends meet far more than ever in the history of South Africa. This is proved by the number of summonses that are issued for debt in this country. We hope that the machinery available to the State to adjust incomes and salaries will be employed even faster than they are to-day, although we are grateful for the improvement that there has been in the administration of the Wage Act. We hope and ask the Government—we are not pleading on our knees—but we ask the Government in the name of the citizens of South Africa as of right, that in the light of modern development throughout the world, our South African citizens should also enjoy protection against the unforeseen events of life of which medical expenses and old age are the most important.

I second the motion that has been moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and in doing so I should like to associate myself with the view that he expressed that it was a great pity that members of the Cabinet who are directly concerned with these vital matters affecting the white-collar worker and salaried employee, such as the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, should not be present in the House to hear this debate. However, we do have in the House the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Defence who has just entered the Chamber. In regard to the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs he would have heard from the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville of the plight which is facing many of our ordinary salaried workers,—the man in the street, and that plight can be attributed to a great extent to the slowing-down of the development of South Africa and the development of our economy. So I do hope that the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs who intends to participate in this debate, will give us some indication as to what plans the Government might have to bring about that necessary expanding economy which in turn will bring about greater prosperity and raise the living standard of a large number of our community, indeed of all members of our community. During the past few years when the tempo of that development has slowed down, we have seen an increase in unemployment, we have seen the great financial struggle that has taken place by the ordinary man in the street. The natural resources of our country should be developed and exploited to the full and because they are not exploited in that fashion we have not had that expanding economy which creates new opportunities and a greater future for all our citizens. In this regard, with that position developing, particularly over the past few years, we find that numerous people experience various hardships. It was disappointing that the hon. the Minister of Justice was unable to supply the figures showing the number of summonses for debt that have been issued during the past few years. Therefore, the only alternative that we have in ascertaining those figures is to piece together the information that we have obtained from other sources. The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the figures for the Witwatersrand and other parts of the country. The figures that I have been able to obtain pertain to Durban where for the year ending 28 December 1961, 51,076 summonses for debt were issued compared with 46,819 for the year 1960. So you can see from these figures, Sir, that there is a steady increase in the issue of summonses for debt. And this is an indication and a barometer to show the difficulties with which people are faced to-day due to living standards and the high cost of living. In regard to the high and increasing costs of the necessities of life, such as food, shelter and clothing …

Food?

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is perhaps not aware of the high incidence of malnutrition that exists in South Africa to-day. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Cradock does not suffer from any malnutrition. But I can assure the hon. member that if he were to visit some of our hospitals and see the advanced stage of malnutrition and the diseases that are caused through that malnutrition, he will realize that it is invariably due to the lack of sufficient food protein and due to the fact that with the increased cost of living, people have to save in one or other direction and it is a great pity when that economy has to be made in regard to food. While these people are suffering from malnutrition the hon. member for Cradock might be interested to hear that only last year in the Farmers’ Weekly of 31 May 1961 a statement appeared to the effect that according to Dr. F. K. Mitchell, Medical Officer of Health of the Cape Divisional Council, skimmed milk was dumped in Table Bay at the rate of 2,300 gallons per day. The reason given was that it was uneconomical to market this valuable foodstuff. Here, Sir, we have the scandalous situation where people are suffering from malnutrition and a vitally important food that will assist in combating that malnutrition, is dumped because they are concentrating on other ideological issues instead of concentrating on issues which so vitally affect the health of our nation.

The question of the present-day living standards and the position of our salaried workers is such that due to the burden of the high cost of living, they are often unable to make provision for their old age. They are unable to look forward to a period of security, financial security, during that period when they will be unable to work. It is for this reason that a certain section of our community is indeed suffering to-day. They are the people who thought they had made sufficient provision for the latter years of their life by means of life or endowment policies or capital investments. Some of these people who retired perhaps ten years ago and who thought they could live comfortably and maintain their normal standard of living on £35 or £40 per month, find that with the decrease in the purchasing power of their money, they now have continually to lower their standard of living. They are living on a fixed rate of income. They do not enjoy the benefits which those people who are in employment enjoy, such as reviewed cost of living allowances and normal pay increases, to meet that rising cost. To these people in particular the present burden of the high cost of living is becoming considerable, indeed, in some instances almost unbearable. These people then have to move from premises that they may have had for many years perhaps and change their entire standard of living to meet the reduced standard of living that they are called upon to face. These people look forward to the Government to come forward with some plan and to give its attention to these vital matters concerning the increase in the cost of living and the burden that they are called upon to shoulder. Invariably there are other persons who, perhaps for economic reasons, have been displaced in their form of employment, who are over the age of 45 years of age, have a great deal of difficulty in finding other employment. I want to say, particularly to members of the Government who advocate private pension schemes, that one of the difficulties that exist is that these people are not accepted on the staff on a full-time basis and that they are therefore unable to join such a pension scheme. Therefore when the time does come when they are unable to continue their employment they are faced with severe hardship of having to maintain themselves on an old age pension, if they are so qualified. On the other hand, a person who has made provision for his old age through insurance policies or through the accumulation of capital, finds that because of that accumulation of capital, he is disqualified from drawing an old age pension so as to supplement the ordinary income that he is receiving. I feel that this discrimination on those economic grounds is most unfair in present day circumstances.

The question of a contributory national pension scheme which is part of the subject matter of this motion, is one which members on this side of the House have put forward on almost an annual basis. I and my party feel so strongly about this matter that it may be that this issue will be placed before this House on every possible occasion. Because we sincerely believe that it will go a long way towards the solution of our problem, the problem of old age. The position to-day is that people try to eke out a living on their old age pension, and we as public representatives know that as public representatives we receive appeals over and over again from persons who do not qualify for a pension for certain reasons, or from people who receive reduced pensions for some reason or other. These people have great difficulty to exist on those hopelessly inadequate pensions. Not so long ago a survey was made in Durban where they toured various areas where aged persons were living and the revelations of that report shocked a number of people to such an extent that they formed an organization to assist and help those aged people who were living in drab conditions in backrooms throughout the city. I think it is of the utmost importance that pending the introduction of a contributory pension scheme, the present position in regard to old age pensions should be reviewed. I think there is not a single member in this House who would dare to suggest that the present old age pension is sufficient. Therefore it is hoped that when the time comes pressure will be brought to bear on the Minister of Finance to do something to increase the pensions that are being paid to-day. Because, Sir, the inadequacy of these pensions is something which requires the urgent attention of the present Government. We realize that in terms of the estimates each year, considerable sums have been and are being voted for old age pensions and other social security measures. The current estimates for the year ending March 1962, reflect an amount of something in the region of R43,000,000. As the number of old age persons increases year by year so will that figure increase considerably. Realizing that increased pensions will bring about a greater drain on our finances, we think that should be supplemented by a contributory national pension scheme. The question of the increasing number of aged persons each year was brought to our notice in 1959, when the Secretary for Education announced that a survey was to be made in regard to 3,000 aged persons, wherein it was stated that the percentage of persons over 60 years of age in 1910 was 4 per cent, and now it is 10 per cent of the entire population. On to-day’s figures it would mean that approximately 300,000 persons are over 60 years of age, and by the time we reach the turn of the century we will have about 700,000 persons over 60 years of age. So you can see, Sir, that this is a very real problem, when we consider the increasing number of persons who, due to the advances in medical science, have had the span of life extended. Only recently a medical man stated in a lecture in America that the span of life has been extended ten years over the past 20 years. Whereas to-day it is 70 years, It used to be 60 twenty years ago, and in the beginning of the century it was only 47 years. So with this ever increasing problem, urgent attention must be given to the entire problem of our aged.

Other matters which should receive the attention of the Government to alleviate the hardship suffered by the aged is in regard to accommodation. I mentioned earlier people living in such drab conditions that more funds should be made available for sub-economic schemes to provide cottages and flats for the aged.

Did you say sub-economic?

Yes. Invariably we see large sums of money being voted for housing for other racial groups and we do not object to that, but I feel that some consideration should be given to the development of more sub-economic housing, flats and dwellings, for the aged; it is true that there are a large number of old-age homes and welfare and charitable organizations which do a magnificent job of work in this regard, but the available accommodation is always inadequate. I know of institutions in my own constituency which have long waiting-lists of over 200 people for the homes for aged women. In addition, there is a large number of elderly people who have a great deal of pride and are not prepared to live in such homes, but who would be prepared to do so if they could live independently in flats or cottages.

The whole question of pensions to-day turns round the application of the means test and that is subject to the most severe criticism of our present system. If we look at the means test to-day which undoubtedly discriminates against thrifty people, we find that the ceiling set by the means test for free income or means is far too low and is not realistic. If a person is earning R180 per annum, he qualifies for the full pension, but it is proportionally reduced for every R12 per annum in excess of R180 per annum by R12 being deducted from the basic pension. Therefore the minimum pension that can be received is R12 per month and it also means that the maximum income allowed is R312 per annum, which is R26 per month. So if any applicant receives an income in excess of R26 a month, he does not qualify at all for a pension. I am indeed sorry that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare is not here.

Where are all the Ministers?

Because this is a matter which disqualifies a large number of the aged from obtaining a pension. It is those people who are suffering most hardship through the increasing cost of living, those who just fail to qualify for a pension as the result of the means test. They are people who have not been fortunate enough to be members of a pension fund. They are the white-collar employees of yesterday, who are suffering increasingly through the high cost of living and spiralling prices. The whole application of the means test, particularly in regard to free income, requires immediate review by the Government. The Government should also investigate the possibility of raising the amount allowed in regard to home ownership, the valuation of a maximum of R2,400. Up to that figure the applicant is entitled to the full pension, but thereafter deductions are made up to a certain amount and then he is disqualified for a pension. For the basis of that calculation I think the Government should give immediate attention to raising that amount. It must also consider the fact that a large number of municipalities have revalued properties which will adversely affect applicants in future, by that ceiling not having been raised accordingly.

The whole question of the means test has been discussed for many years. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) referred to the year 1944, when there was a Select Committee on Social Security under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and of which the Minister of Finance was also a member. It was strongly recommended that the means test should be reviewed. On page 19 of that report they said—

Also in 1944 when great progress was made in regard to giving attention to social security measures, the South African National Conference on Post-War Planning and Welfare Work was held in Johannesburg, and at that conference the effects and defects of the means test were fully discussed, and the conference resolved that the means test should be abolished gradually in respect of old-age pensions. So this matter has been receiving attention for many years and I think the time has come for action to be taken so as to bring about a relaxation of the means test, and when a contributory pensions scheme is introduced to abolish the means test; because with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme we suggest that it will be possible to abolish the means test entirely in the case of people of 70 years and over. The administration of the present means test must cost a considerable amount of money. We all know that when we approach the Department in regard to any matter, huge files are produced. These files involve expensive administration and continual adjustment. When there are financial changes in the position of the pensioner, adjustments have to be made. We know that sometimes it is found that over-payments have been made and those over-payments have to be refunded to the Department with retrospective effect, which often results in severe hardship to the person who has been receiving a pension, thinking in all good faith that it was the correct pension, but who then finds that a mistake has been made and that he has to refund a certain amount. Sometimes the Department wishes that amount to be refunded in a lump sum, but in most cases they are sympathetic and it is deducted on a monthly basis, but that also results in hardship to these people who are struggling with the high cost of living. So it is obvious that the retention of the means test involves costly administration and therefore the argument that is sometimes used against the introduction of a contributory pension scheme that the cost of administration will be very high can be negatived by the fact that we would be obviating the enormous administrative costs involved in the application of the means test.

The whole question of introducing a contributory pension scheme has been mentioned in this House already by numerous speakers in the past. They have given details of the scheme and therefore I do not intend to go into the details again. However, briefly the contributory pension scheme in principle will mean that people will contribute towards a pension fund which will supplement present-day pensions and by doing so they will have the right to claim a pension when they reach a certain age, 60 years in the case of women and 65 for men. But from the age of 60 to 70, the applications should be subject to a limited form of means test, because there are many persons of that age who can still work and contribute towards the economic development of the country. But no means test should be applied to a person over 70 years of age. We also believe that the present pension should be increased to an amount of R25 per month, plus an amount of R15 per month to be derived from the contributory pension fund, thereby making a pension of R40 per month, which will be more in line with present-day costs of living. So the introduction of this scheme will mean a pension of R40 a month for all people.

For all people? Even the rich?

Yes, for all people over 70 years of age. We believe there should be a limited form of means test for people between 60 and 70, but the amount of pension to be paid to those people should also, provided they qualify, be R40 a month; but for those over 70 there will be no means test and they will receive a pension of R40 a month.

The question is then raised how this is to be financed. The scheme suggested by the former member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) quoted figures based on the population ratios of that time, whereby the contributions would vary from 30 cents a week from employees under 21 years of age, and after 21 years of age a varying contribution of not more than R1 a week after 30 years of age. Naturally these figures, in view of the present-day ratio of population, are not accurate, but they do give a basis on which a scheme could be established. Naturally it would require thorough investigation by actuaries to see what effect this would have and to see whether it is actuarially sound.

In passing, I might mention that other countries have introduced such schemes like Britain, and there are other schemes such as in New Zealand where they have an all-embracing social security scheme. I have been fortunate enough to see the figures in regard to the New Zealand scheme, where the Government pays from the consolidated revenue fund something like £15,000,000 per annum towards that fund and the contributions received by way of deductions total £30,000,000 for that year, but that includes all the benefits granted under the social security scheme, which goes very much further than the scheme we are suggesting here.

May I ask a question? I just want to know whether the scheme will be applicable to all races, or only to the Whites?

We believe that in the beginning this scheme will be applicable only to the Whites, but as time progresses and the scheme proves successful we can consider extending it to the non-Whites. This contributory pension scheme, we believe, will do a great deal towards relieving the present hardships being experienced by old people who are unable to provide for their old age and those who have made provision but who are sometimes disqualified from receiving a pension. It would become a right and not a privilege for these people to draw an adequate pension.

Therefore I hope that the House will give careful consideration to this motion and that the Government will pay attention to these very urgent problems which are facing our people. I believe the time is passed that we can merely sit back and watch people struggling under these present-day conditions. The time has come for action and we urge the Government to take that action.

I want to move the following amendment to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)—

1. (i) the Government’s sympathetic and constant attention to the interests of all employees;
2. (ii) the tangible concessions that have already been granted to pensioners;
3. (iii) the encouragement of, and the effective control that has been instituted over, pension funds; and
4. (iv) the large measure of success that has been achieved in combating the increase in the cost of living.”.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to two speakers this morning and I want to deal first with the pleasant part before I have to deal of necessity with the unpleasant part. I should like to say a word or two first therefore about the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield).

The hon. member really made a contribution to the debate this morning. He made a very discerning speech, portions of which one can certainly agree with. His remarks on the means test were listened to with great sympathy, also by members on this side of the House. He referred to old people who have used their savings to buy a house and who are now precluded from receiving a pension. The Government views the position of these people with sympathy. Those elderly people who have passed the age of 45 or 55 and who find difficulty in obtaining employment with the result that they are unable to build up a pension for themselves, have our sympathy. There is also the problem of the provision of housing for the aged. I want to say at once in connection with his speech that the Government is definitely not unsympathetic towards the interests of the workers in South Africa.

But now we come to the unpleasant part of the debate, and that is the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville.

He struck some hard blows.

In making that speech he did the workers a disservice. All he did was to strike some hard blows against the workers. We have several new members in this House and I think they realize this morning why the hon. member has had to go from one constituency to another in recent years. First it was Alberton then Vereeniging and now it is Yeoville. They also saw the reason why the hon. member’s party is going downhill so rapidly.

Are you helping the workers now?

I am helping them, because I want to save them from a United Party Government.

I want to express my regret at the fact that the hon. member has made a political issue out of this important matter. He started talking about election propaganda. I just want to remind him of the fact that there is no election in the offing; we have just had an election. When a Government has been in power for 14 years it is only to be expected that certain people will be dissatisfied, but they cannot even get those people to vote for their party. After 14 years the number of people who vote for this Government is still increasing. The hon. member has been in this House a long time and should know better, but he comes along with this distasteful remark about members of the Cabinet who are not present. He knows as well as I do that in the interests of this country it is essential to hold Cabinet meetings during sessions of this House. He knows that was also the case while they were in power, but he refers to this in spite of the fact that the leader of his party is not in his seat. Of all the United Party frontbenchers he is the only one in his seat. That is an impression which is being created throughout the country and it is one which is not in keeping with the dignity of this House. The Ministers are attending Cabinet meetings in the interests of the country. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, who is here now, has been instructed to put all important matters before the Ministers. I think it is cheap propaganda and nothing else.

I now want to come to another aspect of the hon. member’s speech, and that is the incorrect information which he gave to the House. He says that the means test in respect of old-age pensions is R180. That is not true and the hon. member should know it. The means test is R324. The hon. member has juggled with figures which, he says, he got from the University of Stellenbosch, but he has extracted from those figures only a half-truth. He reminds me of the person who was in the employ of a certain Department. He had to submit a report about 100 forestry workers who were employed somewhere. There were two women who had to keep house and cook for them, and then one of them got married to one of the forestry workers. This person then reported that 50 per cent of the women had married 1 per cent of the men. I want to warn the hon. member to be careful with his figures. One can easily juggle with figures as he did here this morning.

But he has come here with another argument, and that is the number of summonses which is supposedly increasing at present in South Africa. That is so, but after all that is not the whole truth. Why does he not tell the House that in those same years, when there was an increase in the number of summonses, private savings in South Africa also increased tremendously? And why does he not state that there has been a marked change in our people’s way of living in recent years? We know that the hire-purchase system is a very great factor in these summonses. We know that luxuries to-day form a much greater part of our people’s possessions and their way of living than they did previously. But now he makes one small point and he tells the House a half-truth by giving only the figure for summonses. He has definitely not rendered the worker a service. We in South Africa are too enlightened and too well informed to allow ourselves to be impressed by this speech. On the contrary, I think the only thing we can say about the hon. member’s speech is that it has perhaps served one useful purpose: it at least offers one the opportunity of trying, on the basis of facts and investigations and experience elsewhere and on the basis of sober, practical hints, to render the workers and pensioners a service by continuing this debate.

I should like to ask myself in the first place, since we are dealing with employees in South Africa: What are the important considerations to any worker when he thinks of himself and his family and his future? What are the important considerations that we have to bear in mind and which the Government must consider when we deal with the interests of our workers? The first is that there must be sufficient opportunities for employment. The second is that the wage must be remunerative, at least to such an extent that a reasonable standard of living can be maintained. The third is that the ratio between earnings and the cost of living must be such that a good standard can be maintained; the fourth is that there must be a reasonable measure of provision for old-age.

In regard to opportunities for employment I want to say that there is no unemployment in South Africa, and that particularly in respect of those persons to whom the hon. member’s motion specifically refers, there is no unemployment whatsoever in South Africa. For those who can do office work there is no unemployment whatsoever. Everyone of them can find employment. As a matter of fact there is a great shortage. This position in South Africa can be attributed to one great truth, and that is the development that has taken place in this country as the result of and thanks to the sober and stable Government that we have in this country, and as a result of the faith which not only internal entrepreneurs but also foreign investors have in South Africa. The hon. member for Umbilo asked what the Government was going to do to encourage and promote further opportunities for employment and development. I do not wish to reply to his question, but I went to refer him to the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament. The whole plan for the future is set out in that address.

But I want to mention a second thing, and that is if we think of opportunities for employment in South Africa and compare them with those in other countries, South Africa is in a very good position. In America there is unemployment to the extent of 8 per cent of the population. In South Africa it has not even reached the international figure of 2½ per cent. And we must not forget that this Government is up against a problem with which other governments do not have to contend. In other countries all the work which is done by the Black man in this country is done by Whites, but in spite of this there is work for practically everybody here.

What about the White collar workers over the age of 45?

I simply said that in this respect the hon. member for Umbilo touched up on a matter that certainly has our sympathies. I shall deal with the older people later on. But I want to put it beyond any doubt that as far as the future is concerned, also, there is no cause for anxiety about unemployment.

The second thing is that the wage must be sufficient for a reasonable existence. That is the position with regard to earnings in South Africa to-day, and I also say, not as the result of any study I have made of it because I have not had the time to do so, but after general observation even in the U.S.A., that the standard of living of the average person in South Africa is even higher than that in America.

Whites?

Yes, Whites, and the standard of living of the Black man in South Africa is higher than that of any Black man in any other part of the world. Nowhere else in the world does one find people with such sparkling health as the Zulus of his own province. To tell the truth, the hon. member is typical of the condition of the Black man.

But now we must ask ourselves, for this motion deals with it, what the Government’s role is in connection with the earnings of our workers in the future, and the reply to that is that the Government is not responsible for all the workers, but that the Government can only set an example in respect of those people in its employ, that is the people in the Public Service. And what is the position in the Public Service? During the past ten years the Government has annually brought about improvements in the Public Service amounting to R21,600,000. And the hon. member for Yeoville has the audacity to speak of “the unfortunate position of the civil servant”. I repeat that we are not at the moment discussing either whether it is sufficient or whether there is room for improvement; I just wish to remove the false impression created by the hon. member for Yeoville. While that is the overall figure I should like to mention just a few figures in connection with specific spheres of employment in South Africa to show how the Government has set an example to all employers in this country. In the Department of Health the following average percentage increments were granted, and these apply to all scales of medical personnel: In 1951 there was an increase of 11 per cent, in 1953 of 17 per cent, in 1955 of 8 per cent, in 1958 of 22 per cent and in 1960 of 8 per cent. I do not wish to create a false impression, and I wish to add that the relatively high increments in 1953 and 1958 are due to the partial and later on the general consolidation of cost-of-living allowances, but the fact remains that here we have a striking example of what has been done. Let us look at the Department of Prisons. I shall give three examples only: A chief warder started at R900 × 50 × 1,000 in 1948; to-day it is R1,400 × 100 × 1,800 × 100 × 2,040. In 1948 a warder started at R400 with increments of R40, rising to R800. To-day it is R720 × 60 × 900 × 100 × 1,700. In 1948 a Grade I wardress started at R680 × 40 × 800; to-day her scale is R1,200 × 60 × 1,400 × 60 × 1,600. Let me give one more example—our police service.

And to what extent has the cost of living risen in the meantime?

I shall come to the cost of living figures in a moment. In 1946 a colonel earned R2,400; to-day he earns R4,500. It has almost doubled.

And his money is only worth half as much.

The hon. member says that his money is worth half as much. Half-an-hour ago we heard from the hon. member for Yeoville that to-day the Rand is worth 60-odd cents. I think he said 65 cents. Well, 65 cents is by no means half. It is this kind of loose talk which made them lose the election; it is this kind of story that the hon. member spreads in the Bushveld. The hon. member for Yeoville has told us that to-day R1 is worth 65 cents—not 50 cents. In 1948 a head constable earned R1,000 and his maximum was R1,200. To-day he gets R1,700 with a maximum of R2,160. A first grade sergeant started at R900 rising to R1,000; to-day he starts at R1,400 rising to R2,040; in 1948 a constable got R400 with a maximum of R800; to-day he starts at R720 with a maximum of R1,700.

What do the Coloureds get?

I haven’t the figures here for the Coloureds, but they have received similar increases. I have these figures in my office if the hon. member wishes to have them. Let me mention another aspect. The Government has set the example in increasing basic salaries, but there are many other factors which come into the picture. The hon. member for Yeoville produced a list here and stated that all these things were done during the régime of the United Party and that nothing new has been done by this Government. But what is new is the fact that the position of the workman has been improved to a great extent during this Government’s régime in comparison with his position in the days when the United Party was in power.

That is why we are sitting on this side.

Let me put this simple question, not to politicians, but to the man in the street: Are our people in South Africa better or worse off to-day than they were in 1948?

Worse.

One can see that all this is new to the hon. member. Overseas visitors to this country express surprise at the high standard which is maintained in South Africa. I repeat that I am not arguing that there is no room for improvement; what I am doing is to remove the false impression created by hon. members on the other side. The Government set this example in the Public Service that in 1956 a scheme was instituted whereby public servants, who would not otherwise be able to build or buy a house, are now able to get a 100 per cent loan. Secondly, since 1956 the Government has been granting medical assistance to public servants by subsidizing their Medical Aid Associations, and last year the subsidy amounted to R240,000. Thirdly, when cost-of-living allowances were consolidated a great improvement was brought about with regard to the pension privileges of public servants. Fourthly, widows’ pensions have been increased. A holiday savings bonus has been instituted, and fifthly, there is also a Public Service bursary scheme to enable public servants to receive academic training. Several hundreds of bursaries are awarded annually. I have mentioned these things just to substantiate my statement that wherever the Government is able to set an example, it sets a fine and thorough example, and secondly, as a result of these favourable working conditions which it creates in the Public Service and for those who work for it, other employers are also obliged to grant to their employees privileges which are equal to or better than those given by the Government.

I do not wish to dwell at length on the cost of living; I simply wish to state the fact that the cost of living in South Africa is among the lowest in the whole world, and secondly that generally speaking the increases in both salaries and pensions in South Africa have more than made up for the rise in cost of living during recent years. I shall let the House have the figures later on to prove this, but I should think that the hon. the Minister will give the House authoritative figures in this connection.

Now I come to the suggestion that a contributory national pension scheme should be established in South Africa. I want to say at once that it has always been and still is the policy of this Government not to introduce a contributory national pension scheme in South Africa, and for that reason I wish to reject the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville, and in doing so I wish to tell him at the same time what the policy of this Government is with regard to pensions. The policy is as follows: We accept and subscribe to the principle that during the working life of the individual provision should be made for his old age; secondly, we accept the principle of contributory schemes; thirdly, we accept the proposition that contributions should be on a bilateral basis from employers and employees, and fourthly, that it must not be in the form of one national pension scheme. By encouraging the establishment of funds connected with the circle of employment of the individual and by the establishment of Government machinery we wish to encourage private pension schemes and ensure that proper control is exercized over the assets of pension funds and, that the interests of the pensioner are protected, and furthermore, that this system is supplemented by the social pensions for those in need of assistance. That is the attitude of the Government and of this side of the House. But now the hon. member will want to know why we reject a contributory national pension scheme. The first reason is that the expenditure connected with such a scheme would be much too high and the State cannot afford it, for the simple reason that as soon as there is such a contributory national pension scheme, the Treasury would have to make its contribution and the burden of that contribution would be much greater than the burden at present resting on the Government with regard to social and other pensions, and that would mean one thing only—much higher taxation. I know that hon. members opposite would welcome nothing more than to see that the Government is forced to increase taxation. That would not save them.

Increased taxation will come in any case.

I do not know what the Budget proposals are going to be but let me say this in connection with taxation in South Africa. We in South Africa, in comparison with the rest of the world and having regard to he responsibilities of the White man here at the southern tip of Africa, are paying much too little taxation. I repeat that I do not know at all what the intentions of the Government are; we are not consulted on these matters, but one thing is very clear to me, and that is that the taxpayer in South Africa is better off than the taxpayer in any other part of the world. Perhaps his position is too good if one takes into consideration our responsibilities here at the southern tip of Africa.

With regard to the contribution of the State in respect of a contributory national pension scheme, I also wish to refer to this report from which the hon. member read extracts to us, the report of the Commission of which the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) was chairman. Their finding in 1948 was this—

Then they go on to say—

What did they say about a national income of £1,000,000,000 in that connection? Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that same Committee worked out that when our national income exceeded £1,000,000,000, those difficulties would disappear?

No, the hon. member is not representing the report quite correctly. What actually happened was that the Treasury was asked to work out precisely what it would cost. If what the hon. member has just said appears in that report, I am prepared to eat my hat, because I read through the report in 1954 and in 1960 and I have just read through it again. That does not appear in the report.

He was taking a chance.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has read it too; the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has read it as well, and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has read it too, but I cannot expect him to say that what the hon. member for Yeoville has said is not true. The Treasury was asked to estimate the costs, and now I shall tell you, Sir, what their finding was, from that report—

No, I am sorry, that does not come from that report. But the United Party then appointed a departmental committee to go into this matter. They then also specially examined this aspect of persons who were already 60 years of age at the time or who would pay in contributions for only a few years and then get a pension in the event of a national pension scheme being introduced. They came to the conclusion that—

In other words, to begin with, £276,000,000 and then, in respect of these two groups of people alone, that is, those who no longer contributed and those who would pay in for a few years only, the State would have to pay in £12.800,000 per annum for a period of 40 years. That is stated in the report. But the then United Party Government took a decision in the matter, and that decision was as follows—

That is their finding: “The Government after careful consideration have reluctantly come to the conclusion …”If the speeches made here this morning on the question of a national pension scheme are not propaganda, what is propaganda?

Weak propaganda.

Let me read out just one more conclusion arrived at by the old United Party Government—

That is the important point. The Commission to which the hon. member referred also came to the following finding, with which I wish to conclude—

On the score of cost I do not think that the Government can consider a matter of this nature at this stage. But a second point is that the collection of contributions and the administration of such a scheme would cause endless problems in South Africa. I do not think that we have the necessary officials to administer such a scheme.

But now there is a third point. The hon. member has dragged politics into this matter, and I now want to refer to another illogical argument on his part or rather show how the Opposition adopts one attitude one moment and a different attitude the next moment. When they plead for a contributory national pension scheme, there is one basic requirement without which you cannot have the scheme, and that is that there must be a population register. What is the attitude of the United Party? They opposed the population register. They are still saying that we are carrying passes. What was the finding of that very Commission of which the hon. the member for Constantia was chairman in 1944? They said—

This refers to the code for the introduction of a national pension scheme—

And then they also found—

Let me quote the hon. member for Constantia again. What does he find in this connection? He calls this thing by its name, and this, Sir, is the party which says that there must not be a population register in South Africa. They now come and ask for a national pension scheme, knowing that a population register is one of the basic requirements of such a scheme. I want to quote the hon. member for Constantia—

The hon. member for Yeoville is also required to carry a number now. Do you know what he is asking the House? He is saying to the House, “Give us a national pension scheme in terms of which I shall be required to carry a pass.” The hon. member for Constantia says further—

Mr. Speaker, I leave it at that. I do not want to go into that aspect, but let me just point out that the two hon. members contradicted each other. This is an issue which will have to be decided in their caucus. The hon. member for Yeoville says that this is a matter which affects everyone—White and non-White —and he used the words, “Whites, Coloureds and Blacks—everybody”. The hon. member for Umbilo said very clearly in reply to a question by the hon. member for Prinshof that it would be only Whites to begin with—in the interim. How long that “interim” period will be, we do not know. The hon. member for Houghton was obviously very disappointed with the reply. Perhaps I should not say it, but when one thinks of the election campaign now in progress in Durban the hon. member should be pleased.

I just want to mention a last reason why there cannot be a national pension scheme in South Africa, and that is that the whole world is making the mistake of wanting to fight Communism with Comumnism’s own tactics. You cannot fight Communism with Socialism and the introduction of a national pension scheme in South Africa would be nothing but a socialistic system in South Africa. Let us accept the proposition once and for all in South Africa that Socialism must have no place in the future of South Africa and that it should have no place here. If there is one thing which will save this country, whether it concerns pensions or whether it concerns medical services or anything else, it is that we in South Africa should maintain private initiative, that it should always remain the backbone of South Africa, and that we must not destroy it with a socialistic scheme such as this. I feel very strongly on this matter.

What is your definition of Socialism?

We are not now dealing with definitions of Socialism.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism.

I know what the hon. member’s argument is. Because he has added the word “contributory” he now says that Socialism has been eliminated.

It has nothing to do with Socialism.

I am not here to act as the hon. member’s teacher.

Somebody should have taught you.

One of the reasons why we in South Africa are opposed to a national pension scheme is that it is a socialistic system which would destroy the individuality of our people.

There is a last point which I want to mention, and that is that during the past years pensions in South Africa have been increased considerably. The impression created here, namely that the Government is unsympathetic, because allegedly there are no Ministers present, is not correct. The Government does not give attention to the position of the pensioner sometimes only; the Government gives its attention to it every year. Let me give the House the figures. In respect of all pensions there was an increase of R4,500,000 in 1952; an increase of R4,550,000 in 1953; an increase of R2,700,000 in 1954; an increase of R5,820,000 in 1955; an increase of R5.400.000 in 1956; an increase of R4,000,000 in 1959; in 1960 an increase of R3,306,000, and an increase of approximately R4,500,000 in 1961. Let us look at the individual himself in respect of old-age pensions. I am now referring to Whites. I do not have time to give all the figures, but there have also been increases in respect of the non-Whites. In respect of old-age pensions for Whites the means test in 1947 was R180; to-day it is R324, an increase of 80 per cent. In 1947 the maximum basic pension was R120; to-day it is R276, an increase of 130 per cent. Let me quote these figures once again: An increase of 80 per cent in the means test, an increase of 130 per cent in the old-age pension. We now come to cost of living. In 1947 the cost of living index figure stood at 139; it now stands at 229. That is an increase of only 64.28 per cent. Let us now look at war veterans’ pensions. In 1947 the maximum was R120; to-day it is R372, an increase of 210 per cent—an increase of 210 per cent in war veterans’ pensions whilst the increase in the cost of living is only 64 per cent. I think these figures speak for themselves and I leave it at that, for I do not think that there is any figure which proves more convincingly to the pensioner in South Africa that this Government, as far as it lies within the power of any government and as far as taxation structure of the country permits, has done as much as it could have done and perhaps more.

There is just one last point which I want to mention. In connection with this matter I want to bring something to the attention of the Minister and with that I want to conclude. The question of control over pension funds etc. I shall leave to my seconder and other speakers. I have already taken up enough of the time of the House. But there is just one point in connection with old-age pensions which I want to bring specially to the attention of the Minister of Pensions, and that is that as far as our old people are concerned, we should also take particular note of one factor, perhaps the main factor in their lives, namely loneliness. Loneliness is increased by lack of funds, and it has never been brought home to me as forcibly as in recent months what a cruel factor it can be in one’s life if one is really lonely. I was told by a lady with whom I am well acquainted that she was sometimes at her loneliest when she found herself in the busiest city of South Africa. I could never understand this. I have now realized this to some extent, having been alone in a distant country without my own people; everything was of the best and everything was good, but one thing lacked, and that is that one did not have the company and friendship of one’s own people. One was lonely. This is but a small part of the loneliness which old people have to endure. In Los Angeles I saw old people crowding together on the square, where somebody would play the piano to provide a little music to entertain the others. I had never fully realized what a cruel factor this question of loneliness could be in the lives of old people, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Pensions very earnestly, next time the question of pensions is considered again, to see that greater cognizance is taken of this factor, that is whether we cannot, by means of an increased pension, a pension which will enable the old person greater opportunity to overcome this loneliness, perhaps compensate him a little more for the loneliness of old-age. for, as I have said, lack of funds increases one’s loneliness in life.

I second the amendment. Sir, I came and sat here this morning expecting a great deal because I thought the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) would submit certain concrete proposals to the House because he had come here to plead for those workers who are not to-day covered by the Industrial Conciliation Act or the Wage Act. But I must say that I have been disappointed in my expectations. I have seldom seen anybody perform such an egg dance as the hon. member for Yeoville has. He is a very good friend of mine, but one was really sorry to see how he used his talents this morning for propaganda purposes. In the course of my speech I shall deal with certain points that he made but I want to deal with a few of those immediately. The hon. member pleaded that the Government should introduce a medical aid scheme and I now want to point out that the United Party introduced such a scheme in the Transvaal in 1946. They did not have the courage to introduce that same scheme in the other provinces; they tried it out in the rich province of Transvaal. After that scheme had been in operation for a number of years it was found that the expenditure connected with it had a crippling affect on the taxpayers.

It was a scheme to provide free hospital services.

Yes, but I want to show what the results were in respect of what the hon. member had said.

It was badly administered.

I want to give the hon. member the facts about the present-day position since the free medical scheme has been abolished. The position is that the public only contributes 8 per cent of the money spent in the Transvaal on hospitalization and that the taxpayer contributes 92 per cent. Furthermore, because it is no longer a 100 per cent free medical service, the position to-day is that the person who requires hospitalization gets it. Previously under the scheme of the United Party those people who needed hospital services could not get them, because the hospitals were filled with all sorts of people who were not entitled to be there.

Yes, it was badly administered.

I want to point out further that the hon. member has given the wrong information to the House, although he probably did not do so on purpose. He is correct when he says that the legislation in respect of social services, as he called it, was introduced by the old United Party Government. But the hon. member forgets to mention the new services that have been added, such as sick benefits, maternity grants and the cash payments, equivalent to six months’ benefits, that is paid to the widow on the death of a contributor. We have improved the benefits payable under existing legislation in that we have increased them.

We laid a good foundation for you to build on.

It may have been a good foundation but we have affected great improvements to bring the position into line with present-day circumstances. When you study this motion, Sir, it becomes quite clear that the hon. member really felt that he no longer had the right to plead for the workers in general. He did try this morning, however, to correct the impression that his motion has created, but when you read his motion, you have to conclude that those workers who fall under the direct control of the Government as a result of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act are being cared for and that the Government has done its duty towards them. So in consequence the hon, member is only pleading for the so-called white collar workers, the office workers, because their position cannot be attended to by the Government because there is no legislation that covers them.

I want to say this, Sir, that the United Party will make no impresssion on the workers with this propaganda that it is trying to make, because living conditions are good in South Africa to-day as a result of good government by the National Party Government. We are to-day passing through a flourishing period that very few other countries in the world are passing through. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. De Wet) has indicated that our standard of living is one of the highest in the world to-day. But let me say this clearly that the machinery of the Wage Act and of the Industrial Conciliation Act is also available to office workers if they want to be classified under those Acts. Practically all employees in big companies have their own staff associations, some of which are registered. Here I have in mind building societies. They have their own staff associations, the “Building Society Employees Association”, and if they want to avail themselves of the Industrial Conciliation Act they have the right to invoke its provisions provided they can persuade their employers to do so, and if they want to invoke the provisions of the Wage Act, they can do so in case of a dispute between them and their employers. I want to mention an instance. In the insurance world you have the Society of Insurance Officials to-day. Some time ago there was a dispute between them and their employers. They could not come to an agreement. The provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act were then invoked, they asked for arbitration, and a wage determination was made which is still in operation in the insurance world to-day. So you have the Society of Bank Clerks. These are big office-worker groups that have organized.

I now want to deal with the question of how the cost of living of those people is affected by prevailing circumstances. Mr. Speaker, the general economic advance that we have undergone during the past 13 years and to which the Government has paid special attention, has enabled all workers to make a living on particularly favourable conditions. When you compare wages and salaries, you find that the increase in wages and salaries has kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. I want to prove that. Salaries and wages are determined in the last instance by supply and demand. That is a basic economic principle. I want to point out that the development in the economic field has created a great shortage of skilled labour in the country. Private employers bid so high for the limited number of employees, that the Government has been forced from time to time to increase the salaries of its own officials, not only to enable them to make a better living, but also to compete for the available labour. When you consider what a civil servant earns—the Government is responsible for that—you see that the average income of civil servants has risen by 72 per cent in this country. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned the figure of 64 per cent in respect of the rise in the cost of living. However, the increase in the average earnings of civil servants, White and non-White, has been 72 per cent. When you take the position of a railway official, you find that the wages of railway officials (this figure only applies to Whites) have risen by 63 per cent. In other words, provision has been made for the increase in the cost of living in the wages and salaries that the Government pays its officials. So if the Government finds it difficult to get sufficient officials for its Civil Service and Railway Service in spite of these increased wages and salaries, it can only mean that the private employers are offering higher wages and salaries than the Government. In other words, if you argue on that basis, it means that the white collar worker of this country is in a position to make a reasonably good living in South Africa due to the general improvement in our economic position and due to the demand and supply that exist. Not that we do not view with sympathy any improvements that can be effected. All of us would like to offer them better conditions than the existing ones. Take the case of our national income. He did, it is true, mention the net per capita income, but as I have said since 1947 the cost of living has increased by approximately 64 per cent whereas our national net income has risen by 154 per cent. In addition to that our national savings have increased from 9 per cent of our national income in 1947 to 29 per cent of our national income in 1960. That means that a tremendous amount has been saved. Take consumer goods. The national expenditure on consumer goods, which again indicates our standard of living, has increased by 173 per cent. That is not expenditure on luxury articles, but on consumer goods. In other words, over the past 13 years our national standard of living has continually risen.

The hon. the member for Yeoville once again with the old story that we have heard so often, but I think if you consider the actual facts there is very little substance in the motion of the hon. member. I admit that it is a popular subject. I know of many trade unions who have asked for the introduction of such a scheme. But I think if we want to be honest with the workers, we should put the real facts clearly before them and tell them what will be achieved under a scheme such as the one suggested by the hon. member. You must tell them that if such a contributory scheme were introduced, what benefits they could expect. What will they achieve by that? I want to point out to-day what they can hope to achieve by referring to the scheme which is in operation in England. You know, Sir, that when you talk about anything that the British Government has done, it is all right as far as hon. members opposite are concerned. Whatever the British Government does is the best in the world. That is why I want to analyse their scheme. The countries who have introduced such schemes did not obtain the results that the workers expected. They did not yield satisfactory results.

When will they abolish it?

I want to deal with the scheme of the British Government. I want to show what they have achieved under it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the British National Insurance Scheme was established in 1946. A scheme has been in operation ever since 1925, but the present scheme was introduced in 1946. Originally in 1946 the scheme cost the British Government £30,000,000 per annum. In 1957 the expenditure had risen to £124,000,000 per annum and in 1960 to £170,000,000.

State expenditure.

State expenditure alone. The report of the Government Actuary of the British Government points out that for the year 1958 the contributions made by employees and employers to that scheme amounted to only 7½ per cent of the contributions.

When business was suspended I was showing how under the National Insurance Scheme the British Government had contributed 92½ per cent of the expenditure, and that in spite of the fact that it was a contributory scheme the contributions of the employees and the employers constituted only 7½ per cent of the revenue. It is not surprising therefore that the British Government became so perturbed at the increasing expenditure that they had to do something about it. In addition to that in 1958 the Labour Party in England promised a new contributory scheme to the British public, a scheme under which between £3 and £15 in benefits would be assured. The Conservative Party then had to do something to make a counter offer to the British public. They then placed a scheme on the Statute Book which they called the “Graduated Contributory Pension Scheme”. That came into operation on 3 July last year. Before I analyse the results of this scheme I just want to tell you, Sir, what pension a pensioner in Britain received under the old contributory scheme. In 1948 the weekly pension of a single pensioner was 26s. per week and for a married couple 42s. per week. That was when we in South Africa were already paying our pensioners £5 per month (and £10 to a married couple). In 1958, when the scheme reached its peak, the weekly pension of an unmarried pensioner was 50s. and that of a married couple only 80s. per week, at a time when we were paying our pensioners, without contributions, a monthly pension of £10 10s. (or £21 to a married couple if both qualified for a pension). That is in comparison with 80s. per week or approximately £16 per month under a contributory scheme in Britain. It is quite clear that scheme did not come up to expectations, in spite of the fact that the British Government was perturbed about the fact that the costs in connection with the scheme were continually rising. The Actuary of the British Government calculated that the deficits under that scheme would be as follows: 1961/2 a deficit of £144,000,000; 1971/2 a deficit of £316,000,000; in 1981/2 a deficit of £428,500,000. That was why the British Government decided to put the so-called “Graduated scheme” in operation on 3 June 1961. The so-called “flat rate scheme” still exists. Workers who earn less than £9 per week contribute to the old scheme. Under the existing scheme which is in operation to-day the employer and the employee jointly contribute £4 1s. 1d. per week and in return for this contribution the unmarried person receives a basic pension of £2 17s. 6d. under this scheme and a married couple £4 12s. 6d. per week. In other words, in return for his contribution of £4 1s. 1d. per week the pensioner receives a pension of £2 17s. 6d. per week, or £4 12s. 6d. per week in the case of a married couple. If he earns over £9 per week up to a maximum of £15 per week, he may become a member of the “graduated scheme”. Under this scheme the employee and the employer jointly contribute £1 1s. 6d. per week up to £1 9s. 4d. It is expected that the State’s contribution will rise from £187,000,000 this year to £238.000,000 in 1981/2. The question that arises is what does the pensioner receive under this so-called “graduated scheme”? Hon. members must remember that under the basic scheme a pensioner receives £2 17s. 6d. per week if he is unmarried and £4 12s. 6d. if he is married. Pilch & Wood who recently published a book on pension schemes and they tell us what additional benefits the British pensioner will receive under this “graduated” scheme; they come to this conclusion—

Therefore, if that is the scheme that the British Government has given to the public of Britain, I think we all agree that scheme will not suit our circumstances and that it cannot meet our needs in South Africa. That is why it is this Government’s policy to encourage private pension schemes, and I am pleased to note that since the passing of the Pension Funds Act, there has been a great increase in the number of registered pension schemes. In 1958 there were 2,771 registered schemes; in 1959 that number had risen to 3,075, in 1960 to 3,374 and at the moment there are 3,640. I mention this to show that the effect of that Act has been the annual establishment of a great number of pension funds for employees. In 1958, 675,000 persons were covered under this scheme; in 1959 this figure had risen to 803,000. I do not know what the figure is to-day, but if you consider to what extent the number of funds has increased, namely, that there are approximately 500 more funds than there were in 1959 and if you consider that as yet there are no State funds, you realize that a great many workers are covered under existing schemes. We have three State pension schemes for the Civil Service, the Police, Prisons and the Defence Force; we have the Railway scheme, and there are approximately three provincial schemes for each province, one for teachers, one for hospital staff and a third for the ordinary staff. It would appear, therefore, that anything between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000 workers are already covered to-day under these schemes. We should like, therefore, to continue in this way, and, as in the past, I should like to plead to-day for the introduction of legislation as soon as possible to compel these private schemes to conform to certain requirements. In the first place, as far as the various schemes are concerned, it should be made compulsory for benefits to be transferred. The hon. the Minister announced last year that he approved in principle of such legislation. But unfortunately it appears that this legislation will not come before us this year yet. As I have said, a very large number of employees are already covered. The purpose for which a pension scheme is instituted is to a large extent, frustrated however. There are far too many employees who resign from their jobs who draw their benefits and fritter them away before they reach retiring age. The Registrar of Pension Funds mentioned in his first annual report that he had made a test of ten funds chosen at random and had found that 48.2 per cent of the payments made in that particular year were in respect of repayments to people who had resigned from their jobs. In other words, almost half of these payments were made to people who had not yet reached retiring age.

Why do they resign?

They resigned because they went from one job to another or because they wanted to lay their hands on the money. Hon. members on the other side must not shake their heads so quickly. I shall also give them another finding. I have an article here which proves that it is the young employee who does not value his pension yet who resigns in order to get back his contributions.

And then he buys a motorcycle.

This is done by the person who still has his life in front of him and who does not think of his old age, and then he goes out buys a car or a motorcycle. It is not the cost of living which troubles him, but he misuses the pension fund in order to obtain a little cash and then he wastes it in this way. Many of these cases later become a burden to the state, and I feel therefore that we should introduce legislation to protect these people from themselves. I think that we should accept the principle that it is the duty of every individual to provide for his old age himself. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville and also with the hon. member for Umbilo that it is wrong, unreasonable and undesirable that thrifty, careful and industrious people have to provide for those who waste and squander their money during their working years. Mr. Speaker, our people cannot afford it either. I want to point out that we tax the young productive citizen in order to provide pensions for the aged. It is the young people who still have their lives in front of them who are being taxed to-day to provide for these people who already have their lives behind them. I do not say this unsympathetically, but I am pointing out the real difficulties that we have in connection with these schemes.

In addition to that our people are living longer nowadays. As a result of medical science, etc., our people are living longer and the number of men over 65 and women over 60 is increasing in proportion to the total population. I do not have the latest figures in this connection. The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned certain figures. I want to mention the figures for England. These figures cannot be applied to South Africa completely because our people do not age quite so fast, but they are nevertheless significant. In 1911 one person out of every 15 in England was a man over 65 or a woman over 60. To-day one out of every seven falls in those age groups, and it is expected that in 1979 one out of every five will be in that age group. In other words, the number of people who are taxed to provide pensions for the older people is becoming smaller in proportion to the population. For this reason I say that it will be a great burden that we will be placing on the productive part of our people if we are going to have this state contributory scheme, which is nothing but a form of taxation. That will be the position if we introduce it in South Africa.

The hon. member for Umbilo has said that their policy is that it should only apply to Whites. What he said was really in conflict with the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this—and it is a fact which we must accept—that in our industrial life to-day there is a greater and ever growing number of industrial workers who are non-White and for whom we shall have to make provision under the present old-age pension scheme. This is a fact which we shall have to accept. This amount cannot be calculated at the moment. But it cannot be argued away that it will constitute an ever-growing burden on the population unless steps are taken very quickly. I would seriously urge therefore that the legislation referred to should be placed before the House as soon as possible. The sooner we get this legislation, the sooner the vast majority of our population will be covered by these schemes. Delay is going to be very costly. In my opinion there are two things which such legislation will have to provide for at once. The first is the transferability of benefits from one fund to another. If an employee resigns from the service of employer who has a fund in existence, he must be able to transfer his benefits to the next fund where he is employed, if there is such a fund. If there is no such fund, steps should be taken to see that the contributions already accumulated by him are frozen; in other words that he will not be able to get back his contributions until, he reaches retiring age.

I want to go even further to-day. Apparently both sides of the House accept that there should be a compulsory scheme; that is accepted in principle. The Opposition say that it must be a compulsory state scheme. We say that there must be schemes which will cover the workers. The state scheme in England as well as the so-called “graduated scheme”, has shown, that a pension scheme must be dependent on the contributions of the employers and the employees, otherwise, unless we accept this, the burden eventually becomes too great for the state. I feel therefore that we should urge, if we cannot introduce compulsory schemes immediately, that at least a commission should be appointed to investigate whether we can make it compulsory for private pension schemes to be introduced for all workers. Mr. Speaker, if we accept the compulsory scheme of the Opposition, we shall be compelling every employer and employee to contribute to that scheme. Why then cannot we compel the employer and employee to contribute to a pension fund, without the intervention of the state? Why does it necessarily have to be a state scheme? In other words, it appears to me that the time has arrived for us to introduce a compulsory scheme under which all employers and employees will be compelled to introduce schemes which will cover the workers.

There are certain other objections to a State scheme that I want to mention to-day. In the first place, a State scheme just becomes a political football between the political parties. I have already mentioned that the Labour Party in England put forward a new scheme in 1958 and the Conservative Party then had to make a counter offer. They had to introduce a new scheme as a counter offer to the scheme of the Labour Party. In this way one party will always be able to outbid the other at elections. But the second is that such a State scheme would undermine the independence of our people. As a people we are already making ourselves too dependent on the State, instead of assuming the responsibility of looking after ourselves. I have already indicated that a State scheme provides no solution to the problem of expenditure connected with such a scheme, because the State will always use the funds. If you have a contributory scheme, then the State is going to use those funds for some capital expenditure or other. When the amount has to be paid, the State will tax the taxpayers in order to be able to pay the pension. In other words, a State contributory scheme is no solution for the problem because the pensions are always paid out of taxes. There is no hope that the State’s expenses will be diminished, because the State uses the funds of the scheme in the same way as the State to-day borrows the funds of pension schemes through the Public Debt Commissioners. Far from easing the burden, a State scheme does nothing in this connection.

In addition to that, private schemes will promote the mobility of labour. It is a good thing for a young economy to have mobility of labour. Stagnation is harmful in these times. We must, therefore, allow our workers to move about, in accordance with the law of supply and demand, in search of the highest offers for their services. Furthermore, reference has been made here to the older workers. One of the reasons why workers over 45 have difficulty in finding work is that almost all pension funds, as far as I know, provide that an employee over 45 cannot join. One can understand why a pension cannot be granted to such an employee, because his contribution would be very small. But if the transfer of benefits were allowed, then it would not matter if he went from one employer to another, because he would be able to transfer his benefits, and then the pension fund would no longer be an obstacle confronting the older worker who seeks employment. We know, for example, that a person over 45 cannot be appointed on a permanent basis in the public service. The reason for this is that he cannot contribute to the pension fund. Such legislation would also tend to prevent the young workers from resigning from their jobs in order to get hold of benefits. In other words, it would also tend to reduce the labour turnover. In addition we would have these funds available for investment in the country. The savings of our people would increase greatly if the whole population were covered by pension schemes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by putting forward one last plan. We talk now-a-days of the so-called white collar workers. Demands are made in the Railways and Public Service for a five-day week. I should like to add my plan for a five-day week. I know there are people who think that it cannot encourage productivity, that on the contrary it reduces productivity. But it is a fact that most industrial workers already have a five-day week. Actually it is the office worker who still does not have it. And, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that it will bring about greater productivity. The fact of the matter is that to-day a full half-day’s work is no longer done on Saturdays. An investigation was made by the Phillips Company in England. They sent a questionnaire to a large number of employers and the answers showed the following: With a five-day week it was found that productivity improved in 17 of the institutions; in 20 there was no change and productivity dropped in only one. Absenteeism improved in 25, showed no change in ten and did not deteriorate in a single case. In other words, there was an all-round improvement. In respect of late arrivals there was an improvement in 16 cases, no change in nine, and no deterioration in a single case. As regards personnel turnover, nine showed improvement, 12 no change and in only one was there deterioration. Then as far as personnel recruiting was concerned, 19 cases showed improvement, nine no change and in no case was there deterioration. There was an all-round improvement. I think, therefore, that if we accept this, there can be no doubt about the result if an investigation is undertaken. I think it is in the interests of family life. To-day we have more and more married women who are working.. The number of women who go to work will increase further because we have such a labour shortage and such great industrial development. I say that it will provide a greater opportunity to married women to give attention to their families and to do their shopping on Saturdays so that they will not have to ask for time off from their work to do it. Since we are talking about white collar workers to-day, I wish to suggest in this connection that a thorough investigation be undertaken and I want to ask whether it is not in the interests of this country, where we should like to increase the productivity of our workers, to introduce such a system.

Notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled by both the mover and the seconder of the amendment to the motion before the House, I believe that the House is indebted to both the mover and the seconder of the motion for a very precise delineation of the need that we face in South Africa for a better approach and a more practical approach to the question of social security. Whereas this is in fact a wide and comprehensive motion that I cannot possibly deal with in the short time at my disposal, I propose to devote the time available to me entirely or largely to the examination of that part of the motion which deals with the introduction of a national contributory pension scheme.

I think no one will deny that it is the duty of the State to assure every citizen of the opportunity to live a useful, happy life and to enable him or her, as the case may be, to enjoy the fruits of his or her labours. This becomes of paramount importance when circumstances diminish the earning capacity of the individual, and what is even more important, that at the end of the working life of an individual, he should be assured of a reasonable subsistence in his declining years, when he is no longer able to work. The responsibility of the State in all developed countries is naturally and constantly increasing because, as has already been pointed out, it is a phenomenon in South Africa that people live longer than they did, say, 50 years ago. In fact, this is a world phenomenon and hence we have the science of Geriatrics, conferences on Gerontology—things that when I went to school, were not even known by name. To-day they are matters that concern every civilized country in the world. In the case of South Africa—I think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) cited the example of Britain—our own Bureau of Census and Statistics has given us facts and figures which show the increase in the life expectancy of both sexes. For example, whereas some 50 or 60 years ago, at the turn of the century, the life expectancy of a woman was 48 and that of a man approximately the same, to-day the average life expectancy is 70. I know some people argue that women live longer than men because they do not work quite as hard, and then they proceed to enjoy the fruits of the man’s labour. That is something about which one could say a great deal, but I do not propose to deal with the matter at all. As has been pointed out, this trend towards longevity increases the degree of responsibility on the part of the State towards the citizen. Another factor that increases that responsibility and which is of special interest in South Africa, is that in a developing country which South Africa still is, and which we hope it will continue to be for many years to come, we are constantly moving out of an agricultural into an industrial economy. The well-known drift to the towns, Sir, does not require any elaboration by me. This fact is again amply borne out by our own Bureau of Census and Statistics in their latest bulletin, that of last month. There they show that there has been a tremendous increase in the ratio of the urban population to the total population of South Africa. For example, in 1936, out of a total population of 9,587,863 the urban population was 3.214,049. In 1960, less than a generation later, out of a total population of 15,841,128, the urban population was 6,970,285. In other words it grew from 33 per cent, that is, the ratio between the urban population and the total population in 1936, to 44 per cent in 1960 and factually during the 25 years that I have referred to, there was an increase of 33⅓ per cent in the urban population itself.

It is very simple to point to these facts and figures and I dare say equally simple to find another set of facts and figures to controvert whatever I am going to say in relation to the figures I have produced. But I want to say, Sir, that whether or not I agree with what has been said by the mover and the seconder of the amendment, I do agree that a positive attempt has been made in South Africa to protect a part of the population— and I emphasize “part of the population”— from the evils that arise from unemployment and to provide them with that degree of security which we all, I think, have common cause about and which should be enjoyed by every person at the end of his working life. Much has been achieved, for example, by the Unemployment Insurance Fund but this fund is clearly not the complete answer however well-meaning the intention of the Government may be with regard to the continuation of the policy at present under review in this House. I believe that the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot be held up to be the complete answer. For example, in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in respect of the financial year 1960-1, there is reference to the deficit which has arisen in this fund over four successive years. In 1957 the deficit was Rl,445,457.92; in 1958 the deficit was R4,165,738.58; in 1959 the deficit was R7,219,093.39 and in 1960 the deficit was R7,419,493.75. And the Secretary for Labour in his report goes on to say that—

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that whereas in the report which I have just quoted, the Secretary for Labour says that there has been no fall in the incidence of unemployment, we have heard a statement here this afternoon from the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) that there is so much opportunity for work in South Africa that there is in fact a shortage of trained people. Now, of course, we know that is only true in certain sectors or employment. To generalize in the face of the facts contained in this document, simply asks for the rebuttal which I think it is necessary for me to give.

Another positive contribution towards the problem of providing social security in South Africa has been made, I think, again for part of the population, by the existing pension funds to which reference has already been made. I have here the First Annual Report— to which one of the hon. members opposite has referred—of the Registrar of Pension Funds dated 31 December 1959. This is in some ways a revealing document, because in the first place the Registrar defines a pension fund under the Act and he says—

“The State has no right to intervene.” So that when some of us are to-day advocating, or at least trying to get the House to discuss, a national pension scheme, it is no answer to say that there are certain pension funds, because it is perfectly clear that those pension funds, save and except to the extent that they may be regulated by the State in legislation, have nothing to do with the case whatsoever. They have nothing to do with the question of a State or National contributory pension fund. The Registrar then goes on to say—

This is, of course, where I must disagree with the Registrar, because I think the inference that can be drawn and which I draw from what he said earlier on, is that it is in the interests of the Government not merely to encourage the establishment of more private pension funds, but once and for all to establish a State or National contributory pension scheme. What demonstrates beyond any question the fact that such a scheme is needed, I think, again appears from the very same document in regard to the increase in the number of members of these private pension funds. In 1958 the total number of members of the private pension funds was 675,404; in 1959 the number was 803,293. That is an increase of 128,000, almost 20 per cent in one year. Surely this points, apart from any question of the popularity of pension funds as such, to an underlying desire on the part of the people in this country to take part in some of a scheme that will give them the kind of social security that they are entitled to. I for one—and I say this in common with my two colleagues who have spoken before me—believe that there is ample evidence that the time has in fact come for South Africa to adopt a suitable system of social security as has been done in other countries.

I want to say that social security, unlike the curious approach adopted by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, is in no way related to either Socialism or Communism. I was startled by one of the objections the hon. member had to the establishment of a national contributory pension scheme in South Africa. He said that the Government would never establish or introduce such a scheme; it had always been its policy to refrain from establishing such a scheme and he said that “We do not want our people to turn to Socialism”. He said in effect, “you cannot fight Communism with Socialism ”. “ The in stitution of a national pension scheme” he said “means Socialism”. And he said that the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was “a socialist scheme. We are opposed to the destruction of the individuality of the South African citizen by a socialist method”. It is not for me to read the member for Vanderbijlpark a lesson on the differences between Socialism, Communism and Capitalism.

It won’t help anyway.

But it is in fact open to him at any time he chooses to do so, to consult me privately about giving him the definitions and the differences. For the purpose of my argument it has been proved over and over again that a national contributory pension scheme can and does operate efficiently and harmoniously in a capitalist society.

Where?

In America. Now, Sir, this is an interesting thing. According to the Press the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark recently visited the United States. I have done that in the past, too, but I do not know what he looked at, frankly, because apart from a reference to the fact that he was lonely, he did not indicate that he had studied anything at all in the U.S.A. Now that is his business, but for him to come along and ask me “where”, and when I say, “in the United States”, for him to express surprise at that answer means in effect that he has been walking, driving or flying around the U.S.A. blindly, without observing anything. In the U.S.A. I think he will find—eventually—in any sort of study of the subject, the best example, but before I give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), the information I have at my disposal, to which he is welcome, I want to deal with another country about which he may not have the same doubts that he has about the U.S.A.

Israel?

No. I have been fortunate enough to observe the operation of a system of social security in Germany. Does that suit you better than Israel? A few months ago I was fortunate enough to be the guest of the Federal Government of Germany for several weeks. I toured the country and took advantage of the opportunity thus given to me to listen, to look and to inquire and to find out something that I did not know about that country. There we have an example in Europe, before we proceed further into the Western Hemisphere, of a country which has very successfully operated a system of social security, because Germany was one of the pioneers in Europe of a system of social security and social security legislation. In fact, they introduced a comprehensive old-age insurance scheme, as far back as—and I don’t think the hon. member will even guess the date—1889. Similar systems were subsequently developed in other European countries and Government officials, as a rule, in those countries had learned that chronic want and necessity among their people was not only an economic liability but a political danger, a political danger, obviously, to the State—and perhaps there is a certain moral that we may draw from it here to-day. In this way it was quite natural for political parties to become involved in such important and popular issues at elections, because of the great poverty that existed there, and in some parts of the world still exist, side by side with great wealth. It is an odd circumstance that Bismarck himself, the so-called “Iron Chancellor”, the man with a heart of steel (which may or may not be stronger than granite—I am no expert on materials) himself was responsible for passing the social security laws at that time and partly because, according to history, he hoped that would increase the economic stability of his country and reduce the Government’s and the State’s vulnerability to attacks from the Left. So much, to begin with, then, for this contention that a comprehensive national pension scheme is something from the Left, is Socialism, because if anyone calls Bismarck a socialist, then I am prepared to sit down now and give the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark the balance of my time.

One of the significant things about the German system of social security is the fact that it survived two disastrous world wars and a series of disastrous monetary inflations, and it is still in full operation to-day. I can only say that looking at Germany as I did a few months ago it seemed to me …

“Are you an admirer of Germany?” [Interjection.]

I am indeed, because perhaps unlike some other hon. members of this House, I am prepared to give credit where it is due. I am imbued with admiration for the spirit of the people of that country, from my own observations, because I have seen what they have done since 1945 to rehabilitate and reconstruct a country which had virtually been reduced to rubble. That has nothing to do with the one point of view or the other about the war. It is simply a question of a super-human approach by an entire nation to its own problems. I would recommend that when next the hon. member goes overseas he should go to Germany and see what they have done under this system of social security which is so leftist as to be completely beyond his acceptance.

Will the hon. member kindly give us details of the German scheme?

Yes, I intend to give the details of a social security system or scheme. That is what I said in the beginning, but by way of introduction to the question which has been raised by the hon. member there in regard to the objection to the scheme, that it does not suit our way of life, that it is socialist and communist, I perhaps digressed in order to give some information about the general position in Germany. The scheme about which I intend giving as many facts as I have is the scheme in America which the hon. member visited so recently. But I just want to round the first point off by saying that there, in Germany, you have the example of a country which under a comprehensive national pension scheme has been able to get a dynamic effort from its people to the point where it is a model for the whole world of the kind of reconstruction that is possible after a tremendous disaster. Sir, you only have to go to a city like Cologne where at the end of the war there was a population of 40,000, because there was no habitation for more and hardly enough for the 40,000, but to-day there is a population of 800,000 and it is still growing; and that city is not merely a place where there happens to be a certain cathedral. It is a very important commercial centre and an important Rhine River port, and the efforts of the people in making that city of 40,000 in 1945 a growing city of more than 800,000 people now is, with all due respect to the hon. member there, something which points a certain moral in regard to the value of a social security system which is comprehensive.

Now I want to carry on with the question of the social security system in America. I believe fundamentally that once the citizen knows that, other things being equal, he can look to the State for his basic needs and even for certain comforts in his declining years, he then becomes imbued with the idea that he is under an obligation to the State during his working life to give the best kind of performance, to create and to produce and to contribute something towards the society in which he lives. If that is not the case, then all the evidence which anybody can adduce in South Africa to the argument that a partial social scheme is desirable will still point to the contention I am trying to make.

I prefer to use the analogy of the U.S.A., if only because there are certain alleged similarities between the two countries. It is for the individual to decide whether that is so or not. Perhaps it is because both are vast countries and young countries, endowed with great natural resources, and both are multiracial, not in the sense that there are more Blacks than Whites in the U.S.A., but that their population derives from many European races. Of course, there is something to be said in regard to the multi-racial aspect of the U.S.A. when you consider that one in every ten of their population is a Coloured person, but that is not the basis of my contention at all. The American system of social security simply applies the principle—and I would like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark to listen to this carefully and to controvert it if he can —of private insurance, or a private insurance scheme to old age and disability pensions, to unemployment insurance and to every other kind of benefit. I have not over-simplified it: that is factual. Any insurance company in the United States, if given the opportunity, will be able to provide, subject to its financial resources, a complete social insurance scheme for the entire United States, because that is the way that a private scheme operates there It amounts to this, that through payments over a period of years the individual and his family establish a right to those benefits and they are eligible for those benefits regardless of need, whether they have or have not any income from any other sources. In fact, in the U.S.A., as may be well known to some hon. members here, a Ford or a Rockefeller or a Carnegie or a Vanderbilt is as eligible for the benefits of the social security scheme as any pauper. In other words, the security system is there for all, and not just for the sick or the needy or the old.

Now, Sir, you must remember that America is in fact the prototype of the capitalist society, and not of the Communist or the Socialist society. Surely that must have been observed by the hon. member over there. Yet in that capitalist economy, the prototype of free enterprise in the modern world, you find the most convincing evidence to controvert this belief that only a Marxist doctrine can guarantee social security or social justice; because I say that America has proved beyond any doubt that social security laws can and do operate efficiently in a capitalist society. This system has been in operation now since 1936 and it came about apparently under exactly the same pressures that we are now experiencing and have been for some years, because urbanization and the mobility of labour tended to isolate the family, as it has done here, and to weaken communal ties. In America, as in South Africa, the individual was more and more compelled to rely primarily on his own efforts in order to earn a livelihood. In actual fact, for the great majority everywhere in the world to-day, constant employment has become a necessity and the unproductivity of old age has become a very grim prospect. Under the administration of a special agency —and this is something we should bear in mind when there is so much talk about the State’s inability to administer it because you would need so many more people—under the system of administration of social security in the U.S.A, over 90 per cent of workers gainfully employed are covered by social security. The main exceptions, oddly enough, are self-employed doctors of medicine and Federal Government employees, who are really protected personnel having their own retirement pension plans. But despite the fact that it does operate and has operated now for 25 years, and operated successfully to the extent where it covers 90 per cent of all those gainfully employed, Congress in this “socialist” country of the United States at this moment is considering further legislation in order to improve that system of social security—not to scrap it, and not to revert to the private pension funds, the unemployment insurance funds and the old age pension funds and all the patchwork funds such as we have in this country, but to improve this comprehensive social security scheme.

But it is still Socialism.

Well, as I say, I am not prepared to argue that point, because if anyone says that America is a Socialist country then he has never even heard of America, let alone having been there.

But it is becoming socialist.

Oh, I see, it is now getting socialist. I notice that in the last 30 seconds America has turned socialist, according to that hon. member. I think I should tell President Kennedy.

Now for a few details of this system. The old age, surviving dependants and disability insurance are all financed from contributions by employers and employees, at the rate of 3 per cent of a worker’s taxable income up to a maximum of $4,800 a year, or R3,500, which is about R300 a month. (I think it will be convenient to convert the dollars to rands, with the permission of the Minister of Finance). On this income of R3,500 a year, the employer and the employee would each contribute R105, or a total of R210, and it would then cost the employer and the employee each under R9 a month. This rate of 3 per cent will increase, according to the present plan of the American Government, gradually until 1969, when employers and employees will contribute on both sides 4.1/3 per cent, while the self-employed man will pay 6 ¾ per cent.

On the other hand, one should examine the benefits. In America a man is eligible for retirement at the age of 65, and a woman at the age of 62, but pensions are payable only after the individual has substantially retired from gainful employment. In actual practice most Americans, and I think most people in this country, prefer to work beyond the age of 65, so that they now have, according to their records, a retirement age, on the average, of 68 years. The formula used for computing the benefits—and all formulae are related to past earnings—has frequently been increased, even the monthly payments for people drawing pensions under a set scheme, as the cost of living has increased. This is very important, because the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made the point that because of the constant increase in the cost of living, which is not purely a South African phenamenon, one must in the interest of the community as a whole have regard to that increase in considering any benefits or pensions to be given to any section of the population Now the maximum is $127, or R91, a month for a single person. Here, Sir, I would ask you to make a mental comparison between the R91 a month, which is the old age pension in the U.S.A., and the R23 per month in South Africa. And the old age pensioners that I have met in America are very much the same as our own aged here. They are not millionaires but people who live as best they can on a restricted income, and yet we have the position there that they draw four times the amount that they do in South Africa, and the cost of living, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will know, in the U.S.A. for the average person is not four times greater than it is here. Now this payment of R91 a month is increased by 50 per cent to R136 a month for a married couple when both have reached the age of 65, and they pay special attention to the needs of the widow, so that a widow, child or aged dependant parent surviving the insured person receives a maximum of R69, and a widow with one child receives R137, and a widow with three or more children, R812. I cite these figures to show the benefits from a comprehensive social security scheme which, if one is to believe the mover and seconder of the amendment, should have beggared the U.S.A. by now, because it is ruinous; the cost is impossible. Yet I am giving you the facts, Sir, about a country which by common consent and to this day is the richest in the world.

But what I want to emphasize is that one of the major differences between our attitude here and the attitude of people in countries where a social system of security has worked for many years is that they regard it as a right and not as a privilege. I think the hon. member for Yeoville, as well as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) made that point. That is how we should approach it here. But in addition to a social security system, there are in these countries also other schemes similar to the ones we have which augment the income of the person who is already receiving these benefits. In other words, it is not left entirely to the social security system to take care of the individual. There are thousands of profit-sharing plans in industry, a thing which is very slowly being examined in this country. In fact, nearly 4,000 new schemes of that nature were established in 1960 in America, profit-sharing schemes between the owner and the worker in industry. Apart from that, there are 23,000 business organizations which have retirement plans covering 19.000,000 workers. That is in addition, I must emphasize, to the social security benefits. How can one call this a bad thing in any sense of the word? Why is it wrong for an American labour union like the Coalworkers’ Union to bargain with the owners of the coal-mines (and they will have to foot the entire bill) and as the result of their own negotiations, to obtain for the coal-miner on his retirement a payment of R72 a month over and above whatever he may get from the social security scheme? What would our workers say to that? The facts are there for anyone who wishes to examine them, that in any country which has adopted, not the British system, which has been set up here as the “Aunt Sally”, but which has in fact adopted and operated a comprehensive social security scheme where the contributors are the employer and the employee, that in every case it has been successful and still is to this day. Therefore one is surprised that only the British example was cited by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). He says in effect that he has looked at the British system and it does not work, and then he proceeds to give chapter and verse about the British system, well knowing that if you were to consider adopting it, he would be the first to advise against it. Could his time not have been better spent in examining a system that does work, and works well?

I did not say it did not work.

I have here some of the statements the hon. member made. He said he quoted the British system because everything British was admired by this side of the House. Therefore by inference the converse is true, and everything British is not admired on that side of the House. But then he goes out of his way to take the British system in order to set that up as the clay pigeon and to shoot it down, when all the time, had I known that he was coming into this debate, I would have said to him: Here are the facts and the figures on the American system; now take up the time of the House by telling us about a good system, not a bad one.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said in effect that he has every sympathy, and so has his party and the Government, with the worker. In fact, if I am not mistaken, he referred to sympathy no fewer than eight times in about two sentences. But it is more important to do something for the people of this country than to keep on shouting about your sympathy for them. Only in a system of social security will you ever be able to do those things for the individual that you claim you would like to do. We were also told by the hon. member about the increase in the salaries of State employees. Now, I took down some of those figures. They are very impressive, but although everything in the State garden is lovely, everybody cannot dwell in that garden. What about all the other people for whom there is no room in that lovely garden? What is the use of telling us that a colonel in the police now gets R2,400 a year? How many colonels in the Police Force are there, compared with the people in the country as a whole, not to talk about the old-age pensioners?

Then one of the objections in relation to the expense to the State which has been emphasized by both members was that it would cost R278,000,000, according to certain actuarial figures to start one here. Sir, that kind of thinking, with respect, is completely obsolete. You do not set up a fund to-day in order to take care of everybody who may live during the next 2,000 years, on an actuarial or any other basis. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, but also the blessing thereof. If we in South Africa could do something to take care of the present generation, we will do far better than by arguing about the fact that by setting up a scheme we may not be serving the people 100 or 200 or 2,000 years from now. The need is for to-day and for to-morrow. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) was at great pains to tell us what a good system they have in the U.S.A., and particularly in Germany, and we listened with interest because any scheme like this has definite advantages in so far as the recipient of the benefits is concerned, and such a person will definitely support it, but I have been listening attentively and waiting for the hon. member, who made such a thorough study of the scheme in Germany, to tell us what the cost of it is. But he kept quite silent about that, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also remained quiet about the cost of such a scheme.

He mentioned it. He said it was 3 per cent.

But he did not give us the globular amount. The hon. member for Yeoville tried for 25 minutes to say something about his motion. He spoke about the advantages of it, but kept quiet about the cost. I can understand why he did so. He does not want to divulge that fact. He wants to depict the bright side of the motion, the advantages, but not its cost. The hon. member might have said how it would affect taxation, but he remained quiet about that. After having listened to the motion, it reminds one of the typical things we had during the election. They make all the beautiful promises possible—the Minister of Transport estimated that they had made more than 300 promises—but we hear nothing about the cost or where they would find the money for it. Here we have precisely the same thing again. Promises are being made to the workers. A compulsory, contributory pension scheme is being held out to the workers, from which they can derive benefits. There is even another part of the motion which says that annual leave must be a right and not a privilege. It stands here in black and white, but none of the speakers said a single word about that. It is quite clear to us that the whole of this motion is simply intended as propaganda so that they can say that they moved it in this House, but they never realized the consequences, nor will they submit that to the House.

The hon. member for Hospital referred to Germany, but I cand tell him that in 1958 the Department sent an official overseas to investigate the system in Germany, Belgium, Britain and Holland, and after thorough investigation it appeared that not only would the cost of it be too high, but its administration would make too heavy demands on us and would in our circumstances be practically impossible. It was not only this Government which came to that conclusion. The Government of those hon. members also instituted investigation before they lost power, and they also found that it could not be applied here.

At that stage.

Now they say “at that stage”, but the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) stated this morning that in 1944 already there were these social security reports. That Government was in power for four years after receiving those reports, but did they do anything in that regard? They cannot even say that it was war-time. They could not even say that they had to spend so many millions on the war, or that they could not devote attention to it. The war stopped in 1945 and they were in power for another four years during which they could do something practical for the worker, but even with all those reports they had they could not retain the support of the worker and that is why they lost the election in 1948, just because they did not care about the worker. Thereafter the picture changed.

I want to go further. To-day we have in this country quite a number of private schemes which are encouraged by the State. Therefore contributions towards these private schemes are taken into consideration for taxation rebates, and for that reason also a few years ago we went even further and control was instituted over them. It was even made possible for the more prosperous man to deduct his contributions to annuity funds from his income to an amount of R800 if he belonged to such a scheme. Those schemes work particularly well in South Africa. It is interesting to note to what extent use is being made of these schemes ever since control and order were instituted. The latest data show that these voluntary pension funds have increased tremendously. I want to give the House the figures, just approximately, since 1958 to 1960. The number of private schemes increased from 599 to 674; the subscription ones increased from 2,140 to 2,770; private funds increased and even municipal funds increased. There was therefore a great increase in these funds. But apart from that, the members, the people who derive the actual benefits, increased in number. In regard to the private funds, a change came about because the Mutual Aid Societies Act withdrew a large part of it, and therefore this figure shows a decrease, but in 1959 there were already 450,000 people concerned in these private schemes. More than 200,000 people were concerned in the mutual schemes. They increased to 224,000. We find the same tendency throughout, even in the municipal schemes.

The assets of these private undertakings increased from 1958 to 1959 from R355,000,000 to R412,000,000 and the assets of the municipal schemes also increased. They are not even included in this figure. Right throughout there was a tremendous increase in the number of these schemes, and these schemes afford every worker the opportunity to choose. He chooses the scheme which best suits his particular circumstances and his requirements. But apart from that, there are certain industrial agreements entered into since 1958. The number of workers covered by that increased from 110,000 to 119,000. The annual contributions also show us to what extent these schemes are supported, because from 1958 they increased from R37,000,000 to R44,000,000. That just shows what support they enjoy.

The same tendency applies to the payments, lump sum payments and others. But I want to point out that these schemes, which are encouraged by the State, are to some extent also compulsory pension schemes in the sense that the people who will draw the benefits contribute themselves, together with their employers, but the State also makes its contribution in so far as these contributions are not taxable. The State therefore assists those schemes in this way. The establishment of this other scheme which is advocated here will mean that everybody will have to contribute this tax and thereafter there will be a division of assets. But the big difference is this. Because hon. members opposite realize the high cost connected with such a scheme, they proposed that these benefits should apply only from the age of 70 or 75 years. But the actual need of every worker does not arise only from his 70th or 75th year; his need arises the day he stops working, and it is there that these pension funds start making provision for him. Reference was made here to schemes in other countries. What do they cost? Let us look at the taxation being paid in other countries. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) referred to the United States, where he says they have such an excellent scheme, but I would much prefer paying taxation in South Africa than in the United States. Let us look at this middle group, the white-collar group. If one earns R2,000 in the United States, one has to pay R56 in taxation, as compared with R13 in South Africa.

How many atom bombs have we?

The hon. member is the biggest one. A man having an income of R4,000 in the United States has to pay R474 in taxation on it, whereas here he will pay only R166. We can compare our position here also with that in the United Kingdom. There we find the same position. A person with an income of R4,000 there pays R764 in taxation, whereas in South Africa he pays only R166. These figures show that this group of people to whom hon. members refer are much better off in South Africa, and that they can spend a much larger proportion of their income to satisfy their requirements themselves than in any of those other countries mentioned here by hon. members.

Reference was also made here to old age pensions, and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) went into it very thoroughly to show to what extent there have been improvements in regard to this privilege. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) referred to the Socio-Economic Report of 1944, which said that the basis of the means test should be increased. The hon. member for Vanderbijl Park thereupon pointed out that this basis has already been raised, and that the increase was more than the corresponding increase in the cost of living. Also in regard to our pensions there was in general a very great increase. Our old age pensions have since 1948 increased by 130 per cent, whilst cost of living increased by 64 per cent. In 1947 the State spent just over R6,000,000 on old age pensions; for the past year the figure was 23,000,000. There was also a similar increase in regard to veterans’ pensions. The same tendency can be seen in regard to disability pensions for Whites. The rise in the cost of living was kept in mind, and the increase in the benefits was much higher than the increase in the cost of living.

Mention was also made here of housing, just to mention one of the facilities provided. In 1949 there was a total of only 25 homes for the aged of all races in the country; in 1961 there were 83 only for Whites. Reference was made to the aged and it was said that more could be done for them. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the loneliness of our old people, and in this respect there is perhaps a great opportunity for welfare organizations to make more use of these facilities than is the case at present.

I also want to refer to the question of leave, which is also mentioned in the motion. It is significant, however, that not one of those hon. members opposite referred to it in their speeches, and I take it that the reason why the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), as well as the other speakers opposite, did not refer to this matter was that they discovered, after having placed the motion on the Order Paper, that provision had already been made for those people. The hon. member for Yeoville then realized that they could do no good by arguing this matter further.

Let us just see for a moment what the position is. The fact is that our industrial legislation provides for leave as an annual right for most workers, whether they are manual workers or not. There is no differentiation on the ground of race, colour or religion. It makes no difference whether a person wears an open-necked shirt or a white collar, nor does it matter whether he draws his wages by the week or by the month. Everybody affected by this legislation is entitled to paid annual leave. The Factories Act of 1941 applies to all factories in our country, and as hon. members know, there are thousands of people employed in the factories wearing white collars and drawing salaries. There are the clerks, the typists, the accountants, the managers and foremen, and Section 21 of the Factories Act provides that all these people must get a fortnight’s annual paid leave.

But apart from the Factories Act there is also the Wage Act and the wage determinations which are made to control the conditions of service of the employees, and practically without exception these wage determinations make provision for clerical workers, i.e. those people who are salaried workers, as well as for manual workers. They all share in this annual leave, as well as in sick leave privileges. One of the latest determinations made under the Wage Act is that for the commercial distributive trade which came into operation on 1 October last year, and it applies to all the cities as well as to the larger towns in the Republic. Over 100,000 salaried workers are benefited by it, and they are entitled to three weeks’ ordinary annual leave, as well as to three weeks’ sick leave. But apart from these wage determinations under the Wage Act, there are also of course the industrial agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act, which also make provision for leave. The great majority of these agreements also apply to clerks and other employees who are not regarded as ordinary factory workers. There is practically not a single industry in this country which is not subject to some or other wage determining measure. No such measure is published unless it provides for annual leave.

Why are you reading Mr. Trollip’s speech?

This is not Mr. Trollip’s speech. Why could the hon. member not refer to it? Nobody could write a speech for him on this subject. This annual leave is not only a privilege; it is a right. It is a right which the worker can demand, and if that right is not granted to him he can go to court without incurring any legal costs. But there is of course also the other group employed by the building societies, the banks and the municipalities, and on the whole they are well organized. It is the attractions of this employment which results in their drawing many workers to them. All their conditions of service provide for this leave referred to by the hon. member in his motion. I concede that in some of our smaller towns some of these agreements in regard to wages are not applicable, but there the Shops and Offices Act of 1941 applies, and it is applicable to shops, cafés, butcheries and hairdressing saloons, etc. It also provides for leave as a matter of right and not as a privilege. You therefore see, Mr. Speaker, that these white-collar workers, the salaried people, are not as badly off as this motion wants us to think. It is clear that the Government is not asleep and that it is continually trying to improve the position of the worker.

The Government has now decided—and I have authority to make this public—that during this Session still legislation will be introduced to amend the Shops and Offices Act of 1941. This Bill will provide for ordinary annual leave as well as sick leave. Its scope is very wide, and when it becomes law it will apply to any office where book-keeping, typing, writing or any form of clerical work is done, including the work of a cashier or telephonist. In other words, it will be binding on the offices of attorneys, accountants, brokers, estate agents, advertising firms, auctioneers, etc., to mention just a few. I trust that this explanation will satisfy the hon. member for Yeoville that in this broad field I have mentioned leave is not only a privilege but a right of which the workers can make use. But I must point out that this question of leave still remains a matter of the relations between the employer and the employee, and any sound business man who wants to treat his employees fairly will see to it that this aspect of his human relations will always remain sound. The fact that the hon. member for Yeoville did not mention a word about this matter in his speech is probably due to the fact that he, after having adopted his motion, discovered to what an extent provision is being made for the worker in this regard.

Quite a lot of attention is devoted to the question of the increase in the cost of living. The hon. member for Yeoville did his best to show that economically things are not going well for South Africa and that the worker is badly off. We know that type of propaganda. They did their best, even during the last election, to convince the voters of that, but did not succeed in doing so. We admit that in South Africa, as in any other country in the world, there has been an increase in the cost of living, but we also know that since the Nationalist Government came into power, it systematically tried to keep the cost of living as low as possible. Not only were strong economic considerations at stake in so far as inflation and a decrease in the value of money are concerned, but here in South Africa we have a particular reason, namely that we have the gold mines here, and the fact that the price of gold has never risen in relation to the dollar since 1934; and in regard to sterling, since 1949 when we devalued our currency.

But the interesting thing is that when we compare the cost of living in South Africa with that in other countries we find that South Africa compares very favourably with those countries. We can compare South Africa’s position with that of other Commonwealth countries. We find that in South Africa since 1953 there was an increase of only 20 points to 120, whereas the cost of living in Australia rose by 123, in the United Kingdom by 127, in Sweden, 128, Japan, 122, and in France, 137. In all these countries I have mentioned the cost of living increased more than it did in South Africa. It is true that there was not the same increase in countries like Canada and the United States, but we know that this tendency to increase is not found in countries which did not devaluate in 1949.

But we can go still further. The fact is that just recently, particularly during the last three years, we have succeeded in keeping the rise in the cost of living fairly constant and in limiting it to a minimum. Since 1958 our cost of living rose by only 1.8 per cent, whilst in Australia the cost of living increased by 3 per cent, in Canada by 1.2, in France by 4.4, in Japan by 4.3, in Western Germany by 1.5, and in the United Kingdom by 2.2. That proves that we succeeded in limiting the rise in the cost of living in South Africa to a minimum, and that is particularly to the benefit of the worker. We still have price control on essential things like bread, milk, petrol, coal, etc. Price control has been abolished as far as possible, but it has been retained in regard to these essential things. Action is taken when there is a monopolistic tendency to increase prices, which is not in the interest of the public. There is still a subsidy on maize and even on bread. In South Africa we have succeeded in keeping these costs particularly low in comparison with other countries. But apart from that our national income has increased, and the increase in our national income compares very favourably with the increase in the national income of other comparable countries. Our cost of living did in fact rise, but it is also clear that wages rose to the same extent.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred here to post office workers. I notice in the latest report of the Board of Trade and Industries that from August to September last year there was a decrease of 7,000 in the number of workers, of which 4,000 were Bantu, in mining, in the factories, in construction and in transport, but in spite of that decrease of 7,000, we note that the total salaries and wages increased by R1,600,000 in September. We also read here about the increase in wages of which the post office contributed R1,200,000. There was therefore a large increase there. Also in regard to local authorities it appears that there was a reduction in the number of employees, but there was an increase in wages. It is a generally acknowledged fact to-day that during recent years there has been a considerable increase in wages. Quite recently the hon. the Minister of Labour stated that since 1959 and including the first months of 1960 the wages fixed in terms of the Wage Act were R13,000,000 higher than in the previous year. The wages of more than 500,000 persons were affected by it. Even recently Mr. Silberbauer, Director of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association, stated—

I can also refer the House to the latest Bulletin of Statistics, which indicates that in mining and in manufacturing industry, in so far as White workers are concerned—and the same applies to the non-Whites—where there was an increase in numbers, there was a much greater increase in the wages paid to the workers.

The hon. member for Hospital referred to the question of costs. He compared the costs in the United States and in South Africa. I have here an interesting comparison made by the Financial Times, from which it appears that whereas for dinner and bed one has to pay £7 in New York, the average price in Cape Town is £1 10s. In regard to petrol, we are much better off than most other countries, including the whole of Europe. A comparison was made between the price of a food hamper containing 1 lb. of steak, 1 lb. of butter, 1 lb. of potatoes, a loaf of bread and ½ liter of wine in Cape Town and America, Canada and London, and we see that whereas the cost of such a hamper in Cape Town is 11s., one has to pay 25s. for it in America, 20s. in Montreal, and 16s. in London. A comparison was made in regard to clothing and rent between South Africa and other countries, and it appears that of the 25 cities mentioned here, the cost of living in Cape Town is the third lowest, and it is practically a quarter of the cost of living in that city where it is highest. The hon. member spoke about the United States. He himself knows that to have his hair cut he sometimes had to pay $2, and in addition he still had to give a tip of 50c. The hon. member for Yeoville also knows that.

He never had his hair cut there.

He knows that steak costs £2 to £3 there.

I want to conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. The position of the worker in South Africa is much better than it is in many other countries which are in any way comparable with us. Our unemployment is at a minimum. Our prospects are better than in many other countries. Reference has been made here to Canada. I just want to point out that there is 12 per cent unemployment there. Reference was also made to Australia, that other country which is so prosperous, but at the end of 1961 the unemployment figure stood at 109,000, three times more than the number of registered unemployed in South Africa, which includes not only Whites but also non-Whites. If we look at other countries we see that wages in the United Kingdom have already been frozen since the middle of last year; there is the so-called “pause”. The position of the workers there is not by any means as good as that of the workers here. If we look at the prospects, there is no reason for being pessimistic. Our exports prove it. The latest report of the Bureau at Stellenbosch proves it, and the mere fact that the Opposition at the beginning of this week, when the Part Appropriation Bill was introduced, did not even see an opportunity to attack the Government’s economic prospects and economic policy on a single point is the clearest proof of the confidence in this country, and the worker will get his share of it.

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 16 February.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

I move—

This Bill, as stated in its long title, is being introduced to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals, and provides for the control of experiments on animals and to amend the Entertainment Censorship Act of 1931 and the Slaughter of Animals Act of 1934, with a number of amending Acts relating to measures which have been adopted since. The existing laws of our land dealing with the protection of animals are basically founded on Act No. 8 of 1914, which was passed almost half a century ago. There is a long series of amending Acts, starting from about 1922 onwards until 1949, plus other measures dealing with such things and the protection of wild birds (Act 22 of 1934), the controlling of the export from our country (Act No. 6 of 1925), the Slaughtering of Animals Act (Act 26 of 1934), and several amendments to that Act, the Protection of Performing Animals (Act 24 of 1935), which again was later amended by Act 62 of 1955. With the tremendous change which has taken place in practically every phase of our national life—and this also applies to the world at large—it has become imperative that this group of laws be amended to clarify them and, where necessary, to extend them in order to bring them up to date and make them efficient to deal with the conditions as they exist to-day. For instance, there has long been a necessity for the Minister in charge of the administration of the Act to be given much greater and wider powers to make regulations dealing with the protection of animals than he has under the existing legislation. There is also a need for more definite authority to be given to approved officers or officials of the registered animal protection societies in the country which are doing such valuable work, so that they may be allowed to function more freely in connection with the prevention of cruelty to animals and in dealing with cases which come to their notice. This Bill now before the House is an endeavour to meet those needs. It also clarifies the position where there is a certain measure of overlapping an consequent delay as a result of successive measures which have been passed and the amendments thereto, which inevitably result in a certain amount of confusion which has now crept into the general animal welfare structure of the country.

The Bill before the House, I make bold to say, is absolutely and completely outside of the field of politics. I believe that whilst there may be points of difference with regard to particular features dealt with in the Bill—the method of carrying them into effect—I believe that every member in this House would be prepared to support the principle of the Bill, that is to afford protection to the animal life of this country against cruelty and ill-treatment. I believe that it should be possible to approach the Bill—and I believe it will be so approached—on the basis of an all-party measure in which we may all share in the satisfaction of facilitating its early appearance on the Statute Book. I think it will be as well to very briefly, remind the House of the previous history, of the attempts to get this type of legislation through, because the Bill before us in slightly varying forms has been now before the House for some six or seven years. It first saw the light of day in the form of a much smaller Bill, at that stage introduced by Dr. Vernon Shearer. The present hon. Minister of Justice is the third Minister occupying that important position to be asked to implement, or to assist in the implementation of such legislation.

The point is that I was not asked before.

The hon. the Minister is being asked now. The first Bill introduced by Dr. Vernon Shearer was a much more circumscribed Bill and received the approval of the then hon. Minister of Justice, now our State President, who was instrumental in the setting up of a Select Committee to examine the legislation. The Select Committee itself, then appointed, made a most comprehensive review of this kind of legislation; they took evidence from bodies representative of practically every phase of our national life who are concerned with animal welfare or dealing with animal life in the country, and eventually, as a result of their report, a proposed Bill was presented to this House. That Bill was practically identical with the Bill which is now presented to the House. The Bill the Committee presented was largely a combined consolidating and amending Bill and all its main proposals were practically identical with the Bill now before us. Certain amendments, improvements to that Bill, however, were suggested by the Department of Agriculture and the South African Agricultural Union, and in order to try and reach agreement, the hon. the Minister at that time agreed that a special inter-departmental committee would be set up in order to examine those particular points of difference. About that time, however, the hon. Minister of those days was elevated to the position of Governor-General and consequently had no further opportunity of pursuing the undertaking that he had given. But when he was succeeded by Mr. Erasmus as Minister of Justice, discussions ensued with his successor in regard to the previous history of the Bill and the proposed legislation. After giving the matter due consideration, he gave an undertaking which is set out in Hansard Vol. 103 of 1960, in Col. 670, in which among other things the Minister said in regard to the Bill at that stage presented by Mr. John Cope—

That was the assurance given by the then Minister As we know, shortly after that, we went into recess and before the committee which was appointed, or was to be appointed by the hon. the Minister had had time to bring up its report, the hon. Minister Erasmus was appointed to Italy and the present hon. Minister of Justice succeeded him in that office.

Sir, we all know that during the past number of years the Minister of Justice has probably been one of the busiest Cabinet Ministers. Matters have arisen which, apart from the changes in the occupancy of the office, have made it undoubtedly difficult or impossible for any Minister of Justice, with the other more pressing matters on his table at the time, to tackle a matter of this nature. But I understand that the inter-departmental committee set up by Mr. Erasmus has to some extent—I don’t know whether it has completed its work, but I understand that it has to some extent carried out certain of these investigations, and particularly as far as the agricultural section of the Bill is concerned their report has either been placed before the hon. the Minister or is in the process of being placed before him. That of course is a matter entirely at the Minister’s discretion, but I would appreciate very much indeed if the hon. the Minister in due course could advise the House as to what progress has been made with regard to the implementation of the undertaking given by his predecessor and what are the prospects of early legislation of this type? I take it for granted that the principle applies that if anybody succeeds another Minister in office, he automatically inherits the liabilities as well as the assets of his predecessor, and I have no doubt that the present hon. Minister in a matter of this sort would be as willing to assist as his predecessors, Sir, due to circumstances very largely unforeseen and in the main completely uncontrollable at any rate, beyond normal control, substantial delay has had to be incurred in the proposed legislation which has been put before the House, and I would like to express the sincere hope that this third attempt—you know the old saying “third time lucky”—with this hon. Minister may be lucky and that this Minister will have the satisfaction of completing the work commenced by his predecessors in regard to the animal protection legislation, a task in which I am certain he will have the support, the fullest possible support of every member of the House, as well as the backing of the vast majority of thinking South Africans.

I think at this stage it will also only be fair to pay a tribute to the tremendous amount of valuable work done by all who have assisted in the previous efforts to have legislation of this kind placed on the Statute Book, not only the members who have brought the matter before this House but by so many people in all walks of life who have assisted both by advice and practical help in the drawing up of the legislation, to have our code for the protection of animal life, including the bird life of South Africa, the wild and domesticated animals, brought up to meet present-day conditions. I want to include in that tribute, sincere appreciation of the great help and sympathy shown by the various Ministers themselves who have been approached in connection with the matter, their staffs and state officials in general, and I want to say that much of the present Bill flowing from the work of the Select Committee is indeed the drafting of Government Departments and of officials who are specialists in the knowledge of their particular type of animal life and who by their experience are well aware of the weaknesses in our existing legislation and the particular points on which it requires to be tightened up or improved. I will go so far as to say that without their valuable assistance, without that very sympathetic manner in which they have approached this legislation, it would have been practically impossible for the Bill to ever have reached its present stage. I want to pay also a special tribute to that band of devoted workers and officials, senior officials and the staffs and those associated with them as members of the various societies, registered and approved societies, who function in our country for the protection of animal life and the prevention of cruelty to animals. They in turn, are men who as a labour of love come into daily contact with the necessities of the legislation we are asking for to-day, men and women who have given valuable advice from the practical point of view and guided by their day by day experience. To all of them, and to many others who have been associated with these attempts, it is only fair that this tribute should be recorded, because the Bill now before us is the product of no one or two individuals—it is the combined effort of practically all thinking animal lovers, all people connected with animals, right throughout the country, quite irrespective of any other aspect that they may consider in other matters.

Before dealing with the various features in the Bill itself, I want to say that we, our race, our country, our people, pride ourselves on the standard of civilization we have attained; we often quote ourselves as being of the Western way of life, setting up a certain standard of civilization. But that very standard of civilization that we pride ourselves about, that very civilization of which we are so proud, also imparts upon us very heavy responsibilities. One of the acid tests by which any nation’s standard of civilization, its real standard of civilization, can be assessed is its treatment of the dumb wild animal life which forms a part of its national responsibilities. that animal life which Providence has entrusted to our care and which in so many cases has become an essential feature in the daily life of the nation, either from the food supply point of view, from the labour producing point of view, or from the hundred-and-one points of view where animals play a part in our whole set-up. No matter whether they are intended eventually for slaughter or whether they are kept as household pets, or for the other essential domestic uses, or whether they are merely in their wild state, used as national attractions, either in their wild state or in captivity, the very fact that of all the animal kingdom, we the human animals are endowed with the power of thought, the power of reasoning. The power of speech puts on to us that responsibility of caring for the other animals which are not endowed with those same benefits, and who have to rely on man and man alone for their protection and their welfare. One has only to go through a game reserve to come away with that feeling of inferiority when you see the animals in their natural state, the condition they are in compared to their condition in captivity, their domestic condition, to realize how in their wild state they are indeed far better off than many of the animals we have in our care. I think the lesson to be drawn from that is that we have to make the conditions for those animals which it is necessary for us to keep as near as we can to those they enjoy in their natural state, to repeat those conditions as near as we can and to give them the security and the comfort and protection which they experienced in their wild state, where the protection is largely afforded by the strongest taking charge—the rule of the mighty; in our case it should be the rule of civilization, the rule of ourselves through legislation such as the Bill before us. I think that I can truly claim that having regard to the wide variation in the standards of our country, the standards of life, standards of civilization, standards of culture between the various sections of our very widespread population, due also to the very multi-racial nature of our country, in which the gap between the lowest and highest standard of culture and civilization is so great, due to the very widespread nature of our country and the very hard natural conditions often experienced, that South Africa can justly take credit, in the general sense, for its good standard of treatment of our animals. I believe we stand very high in relation to the countries of the world in that respect. Both in the towns and in the country, the mass of our people pay full regard to their animals. I think very few can take exception to the manner in which in the main, animals are treated in South Africa. But we have our weak spots, weak spots which have to be eliminated. We have gaps in our legislation, due to the age of our legislation and the necessity to amend it and bring it up to date, due to the very rapid changes which have taken place in the standards of life, in the whole set-up of life in the country and the people. They have caused gaps to develop in our legislation, and the object of the present Bill is to attempt to fill those gaps, an attempt to bring the animal protection legislation up to date, to meet present day requirements, and also an attempt to provide a better opportunity to those responsible for administering the law to act in the cases where they have found flaws and weaknesses which enable the relatively few who desire to break through the law to ill-treat animals or carry out actions in defiance of such law, to be dealt with more expeditiously.

Sir, I do not propose to weary the House by dealing with a number of cases, examples of the treatment meted out to animals, but I want to mention three cases very briefly to show the House the type of thing which does happen and the type of cruelty for which it is necessary to provide legislation such as this. I want to say that in addition to the national legislation, there are provincial ordinances and regulations issued by local bodies dealing with the protection of animal life, the protection of animals against cruelty, which are complementary to the national law and which make the general converage fairly widespread. But even there you find very startling gaps, and I quote one here in my own province, the Cape Province, were two or three years ago in amending its Motor Ordinance regarding the responsibility of a motorist having an accident and injuring an animal, to stop and to render all the possible aid to the injured animal and to report the accident to the nearest police station, two years ago dogs were excluded from the list of animals covered. Now a dog occupies a very particular place in human life and in relation to human life. The dog is, I think, well known as the friend of man; many of them become almost part of your family whilst they grow up with the family; many of them have grown to trust the human being, And yet, Sir, I have seen myself a motorist behaving in a shocking manner—I want to say here that without question the vast majority of motorists injuring a dog would stop immediately and do all in their power, although no longer compelled to do so by law, to ease its pain and to deal with it. But you do get the callous individual, and I have seen myself a motorist who had run over a dog and broken its back, leaving the poor animal in the road, screaming in agony, a mass of blood and broken bones, in bitter agony, and the motorist driving on without even attempting to stop and remedy the damage that he has done, may well be by accident. I believe that is wrong, Sir. I believe that is not in accordance with the tenets of civilization and I believe it is one of the greatest mistakes that particular feature was eliminated from the provincial Motor Ordinance. This particular Bill re-instates it, and will make it compulsory, in addition to other animals, for a motorist who has injured a dog, to stop and to attempt to remedy the damage that he has done, to bring relief to the dog and to report the accident to the nearest police station. I believe that every dog-lover and every thinking human being will agree that it is correct that should be so. I want to refer to another case. In our own area, in our part of the country, we have been inflicted with many large fires, mountain and bush fires, in many cases not accidentally started, but started by gross carelessness, or in many cases intentionally, fires which in themselves are a breach of law. In assisting to deal with certain of these bush fires out in the nature reserve, 48 hours after the fire was extinguished, I have personally come across a buck with every hair burnt off its hide, its eyes burnt out, its feet burnt into ragged masses of pulp as a result of the embers over which it tried to escape—48 hours afterwards that animal was still lying there whimpering and crying to be put out of its misery. These are things that I think have to be taken congnisance of when on the rare occasions it is possible to apprehend the individuals responsible for causing such fires, not only for the ordinary material damage caused, but for the misery and pain, suffering and agony inflicted on the dumb animals in that particular area. I don’t believe we can tolerate that sort of thing any longer, and I believe action has to be taken to give the necessary powers to people who have to deal with this type of thing. I know it is a difficult thing to bring home. Nobody knows that better than I do, having been associated with this type of welfare work for many a long day. But I believe that we should provide the machinery so that when it is possible to apprehend a person for such a crime, he should be punished.

I want to touch on one further example and that is an example which I believe legislation of this nature is designed to deal with. I had occasion as chairman of a special subcommittee of the Meat Control Board to carry out an examination of the abattoir facilities of all the major towns in the Union, the slaughter facilities and various other features including the facilites provided for the accommodation of the animals arriving at the abattoirs and being kept for the necessary wait-over periods, near the abattoirs, before slaughter. I would say that whilst there are very good examples where the cities concerned have done their duty—and I would say that very often the inland towns are ahead of the coastal cities in this respect—that in certain of our major municipalities the accommodation for animals awaiting slaughter is many years out of date, and as a result of their nature, as a result of the insufficiency of the accommodation, and the antiquated methods adopted, they inflict unnecessary pain and misery and cruelty on the animals being brought from the agricultural centres for the food of the cities and waiting to be slaughtered at the abattoirs. Some of them have been in need of overhaul for many years. Action to overhaul is not being taken quick enough. One continually reads of missions being sent overseas, expensive missions to examine the conditions overseas. Three years later another mission is sent overseas to examine the findings of the first commission. But the animals go on suffering. I think it reflects little credit on some of our major municipalities that they have not long, long ago moved in the direction of cleaning up that particular side of their activities. The Bill now before the House helps to provide the machinery to speed up that type of work. I would say that the conditions which still exist in certain areas reflect little credit either on the authorities concerned, or on us as a nation for permitting those conditions to remain even when they are conditions in a local area and not general over the whole of the nation. The last example is the ravages which are caused amongst our bird life by the noble, not so young sometimes, hunters who have to try out the efficiency of their pellet guns and air guns and .22 rifles and who leave behind them a trail of maimed and injured birds, eyes shot out, wings broken, fluttering around on the ground in misery, while the gallant hunter goes home maybe with a turtle dove in his bag. It is illegal, I know, but it is most difficult at the moment for the authorities to be able to deal with that kind of think, and I think the Bill before the House will give opportunities for easing those difficulties, making it possible for the authorities to act in such cases.

The Bill in itself consists of three main sections: Chapter I, apart from the definitions, defines very extensively in Clause 2 the various types of cruelty which the Bill proposes to prohibit. It provides for the treatment of animals, the loading of animals for transport, their accommodation, including abattoirs, feeding, injuries, training conditions, the trimming or cutting of certain animals for certain purposes, the cutting away of parts of an animal, castration, de-horning and various other features. I know that in respect of certain of these provisions there is some difference of opinion between agricultural interests on the proposals of the Bill itself with regard to certain particular proposals. I would only like to make it quite clear, Sir, that the Bill now before the House, as the result first of the Select Committee, and then in part amended as a result of similar objections raised at the time and dealt with at the time, is not presented as a hard and fast agreement on matters in respect of which we can be satisfied that there is a genuine objection. There are points in the Bill which I still believe can be improved, and where it can benefit from further discussions. It was partly the object of the hon. Minister’s predecessors that the departmental committee should go into those points, and may be the hon. the Minister as a result of those investigations has information in regard to what had happened in that respect. But as the mover of the Bill, I want to make it quite clear that I am not digging my toes in saying “This must be the answer”. What I want to see is a Bill which will have a passage through Parliament, and will appear on the Statute Book and which in the opinion of all of us is the best measure that we can produce for the safety and protection of our animals in this country. Therefore if there are genuine amendments which are required, in the normal process of dealing with the Bill, no doubt those amendments can be dealt with. I have dealt mainly with the first two clauses, but on page 7, Clause 2 deals with animals being used for certain experimental purposes and imposes what we believe are genuinely necessary controls in order to see that these experiments are carried out in as humane a manner as possible and by people who in general have the qualifications and authority to deal with them. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 generally deal with the powers of the court. Clause 6 provides authority for the police and pound masters in regard to the destruction of animals injured and which have to be destroyed, and where it is not possible to make contact with the owners. Clause 7 deals with the custody of animals pending proceedings in connection with animals; Clauses 8 and 9 provide the necessary machinery for the expenses of pound masters and the police, and from 10 to 12 the Bill deals with the powers and rights of the police in general in regard to the provisions of the Bill, powers and rights which we believe would make it easier and allow the police and the authorities to take more effective action with less delay. Clause 13 deals with powers which may be granted or used by the officers or registered animal welfare organizations, the S.P.C.A. and other bodies of that nature, where they have trained officials for the protection of animals, and it gives them more scope than they have at the moment in assisting the police and the authorities both in dealing with cases that they come across and in general the administration of the Act. I believe this is a very valuable clause and that it can be of valuable assistance to the Government in their handling of this particular matter. Clause 14 is also very important because it is the Clause which empowers the hon. the Minister to make certain necessary regulations, in some cases in consultation with the Minister of Agricultural (Technical Services) which the Minister will find necessary in order to carry out the provisions of the Act without delay and to the best advantage.

Chapter II deals in greater detail with the control of experiments with animals. It sets out the authorities that can be authorized to carry out these experiments. They must have the permission of the hon. the Minister who has power under various clauses of this Bill, to impose certain conditions under which the experiments must be carried out and the extent of those experiments, the premises, the equipment to be used and various other features connected with those experiments.

Clause 20 lays down that a complete record of any such experiments must be kept available and Clauses 21, 22 deal with the powers of inspectors to enter premises and generally to take action to see that the law is being observed.

Clause 24 again empowers the hon. the Minister to make certain regulations dealing with authority to conduct experiments with animals.

Chapter III is a general and miscellaneous chapter. It deals with amendments to certain existing Acts, such as the Entertainment Act which deals with the infliction of cruelty, pain or terror on animals in order to make them perform some trick; with pictures of animals depicting how this terror is artificially produced. Clauses 28, 29 and 30 bring about necessary amendments to the Slaughter of Animals Act No. 26 of 1934 to meet current developments in the set-up of the country and scientific instruments which are now available but which were not previously.

Clause 31 deals with the killing of bovine and equine animals and Clause 32 lays down the penalties that may be imposed on persons contravening the Act. These Clauses in the main cover the provisions of the Bill itself.

I want to conclude on this note Sir. I am to-day introducing this Bill as a private member’s Bill. I am prepared, if necessary, with the approval of the House to deal with it in its various stages. But I do want to say quite clearly, Sir, that I do not believe that a Bill of this nature, a Bill that deals with such far-reaching matters of national importance, is the type of Bill for which a private member should legislate. I believe that it is the class of Bill that should be dealt with by the Government of the day. It is a class of Bill that has such an impact on our national life that only the Government of the day can hope to deal with it successfully. It is beyond the capacity of a private member in that respect. We have already had certain conditional assurances from previous Ministers with regard to investigations into the matter, upon which they could then finally formulate their decisions and I would be most happy, if the hon. the Minister, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, would give us an assurance that as a result of the investigation conducted so far—or if they have not been completed that such investigations will be instituted in accordance with previous assurances as soon as possible—he feels that legislation of this nature is essential and that the Government itself will sponsor such legislation.

Why did you not ask me before you introduced the Bill?

I tried on at least 10 occasions to make an appointment with the hon. the Minister over the last fourteen days but I have been unsuccessful.

You see me every day.

I do not deal like that. I tried to deal with the Minister in a proper manner in his office. Unfortunately the Minister has been very busy all the time therefore I want to deal with it now and ask that question now. If there are any clauses upon which agreement cannot be reached, I have not the slightest objection to those clauses being held over for further examination. But I appeal to the hon. the Minister to indicate to the House whether or not he is prepared to assist in ending the long—even if it was unavoidable—delay that has prevented this legislation from reaching the Statute Book.

I should like to assure the hon. the Minister that he will have not only my own but I believe the fullest co-operation of every member in this House in that regard. I believe, Sir, that it is a matter of national pride and personal honour, as far as we are concerned as individual South Africans that we should afford the maximum possible protection to our animals and other wild life of our land.

Mr. Chairman, I second, and I should like to support the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) in his plea to the Minister. This is not a Bill which is coming before the House for the first time. This Bill is based on the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Bill which was before the House in 1957. Three of the members of that Select Committee are still hon. members of this House, and I hope they will give their support to the hon. member who moved this motion. It is not necessary to discuss the provisions of this Bill, but I want to say that ever since I became a member of this House, that is to say in 1958, I have been giving this matter my attention. I was constantly in touch with the then hon. Minister of Justice, to-day the State President of the Republic of South Africa. It is perfectly clear that there were certain difficulties but a promise was made to investigate the matter, and it was investigated. Later on there was a change. Mr. Erasmus was appointed Minister of Justice and the matter was repeatedly brought to his attention. particularly by Mr. Cope, a former hon. member of this House, and myself. After the introduction of a similar Bill last year, I personally had discussions with the then Minister of Justice and he told me that the Government intended to introduce particularly the first chapter of this Bill during this Session, and that the provisions of the later chapters would have to be examined further, because I understood that there were certain objections.

I want to associate myself at once with the hope expressed by the hon. member for Simonstown in connection with this Bill. It was introduced in the first place by a private member. It was then sent by this House to a Select Committee where it was discussed over a period of three months—and here is the evidence. But after that had been done and after the Bill had been reported to this House, I understand there were certain objections. I fully agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that it would be much better if legislation of this kind could be dealt with by the Government of the day and by the Minister concerned, the Minister of Justice. I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to do so. It is perfectly clear from the question asked by the hon. member who has just sat down that this matter was not brought to the hon. the Minister’s attention. This Bill is one which is urgently necessary. The existing laws have been on the Statute Book of this country for many years, and the time has come to bring this whole matter to the notice of the House again and to place on the Statute Book a measure which takes into account present-day circumstances. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to say so to this House, or that he will be prepared to say that this Bill can be sent to a Select Committee with the support of the Government, or that he is prepared to investigate the matter further and, if possible, to introduce legislation which will enjoy the support of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that a change is necessary. I understand that the members of this House who were members of the Select Committee—the majority were of course Government members—were not unanimouse in their opinion about all the clauses, but certainly in regard to most of the provisions of the Bill. I understand that the difficulties in this connection are difficulties relating to Chapters 2 and 3. As far as Chapter 1 is concerned, I understand that there are no difficulties. I am sure that if there had been no change in the portfolio of Justice, Mr. Erasmus, the then Minister of Justice, would personally have introduced a Bill in terms of the promise made by him. I hope therefore that the present Minister will be prepared to say to this House that he will go into this matter and that he will be prepared, if this Bill is withdrawn, to introduce his own Bill in connection with this subject. I am also in a position to say that I understood from the previous Minister that the difficulties which exist in connection with Chapters 2 and 3 may quite possibly be removed by certain amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members of this House will agree that it is necessary for White South Africa to have on the Statute Book an up-to-date law in connection with this very important question of animal protection. I associate myself therefore with the plea made by the hon. member for Simonstown to the hon. the Minister that he should give his personal attention to this matter. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to heed the plea of the hon. member for Simonstown I can say to him that he will have the full support of this side of the House in connection with any legislation that he introduces.

Mr. Speaker, the subject with which this Bill deals, is naturally one which is close to our hearts. In the main, I do not think that there is anyone here who has any fault to find with what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and also the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said. It goes without saying that all of us are particularly sympathetic to the matters with which this Bill deals. Not only are we sympathetically disposed towards this subject, but we are all grateful to those people who sacrifice their time and energy and who are prepared at all times to put the case for animal protection. I think there can be no misunderstanding or difference of opinion between us on this aspect of the matter.

In the first place I do wish to differ slightly from the hon. member for Simonstown. I think he painted far too sombre a picture here this afternoon. I think hon. members will agree with me that our people in South Africa have at all times treated our animals well, and still treat them well to-day.

I did say that.

I think it is only in rare, exceptional cases that people have ill-treated their animals. It so happens unfortunately that I only saw this Bill for the first time this morning. In the nature of things I have had very little time to look at this Bill. I have had no opportunity whatever of consulting with the Department about its provisions. The hon. member for Germiston (District) expressed the hope that I would view this matter with sympathy. It goes without saying that I do so. I want to put it clearly too that I know that it is difficult to get along with me politically. Hon. members on the other side cannot get along with me politically. But my door has always been open to hon. members on the other side, and they know it, as far as matters unconnected with politics are concerned. And I am sorry that no one found it necessary to inquire from me or for that matter from my Department whether or not we intended to introduce such legislation. I have again asked the Department whether anyone did inquire and it appears that no one made any inquiries and no one inquired from me personally. I understand that the hon. member for Simonstown communicated with my office twice or three times and that he wanted to see me. I was unfortunately engaged. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the hon. member could have asked me in passing in the lobby whether or not I intended introducing legislation; or he could have written me a note inquiring whether I intended introducing such legislation. Unfortunately this did not happen. My attention has now been drawn to a report in the Star of 22 January from which I see that hon. member for Simonstown is introducing this Bill at the request of the National Council of Women. I also note … and the hon. member may take it amiss if he wishes to do so but I do not think that the best way to initiate this Bill was to say as the hon. member did in the interview which he gave to the Star—

I do not know why it was necessary to cast a reflection in this regard seeing that this is a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with politics. The hon. member goes on to say—

I ask again of the hon. member: Why grant an interview to a newspaper in which these two reflections are cast without taking the elementary trouble of asking me or my Department whether or not such a Bill is going to be introduced. If the hon. member had asked me or, if he could not talk to me personally, if he had inquired by means of a question on the Order Paper, I would have had to tell him that I would be introducing such a Bill shortly, dealing with those aspects of the matter that I am charged with; and I shall come back to the other aspects. I want to say to him that the aspect with which I have to do, has been dealt with and that I will introduce a Bill.

Hon. members will notice from the Bill that three ministries are really concerned with this: The Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Education are concerned with it. The hon. member for Germiston (District) himself mentioned the difficulties of these Ministers and it is unnecessary for me therefore to go into it. Unfortunately events have taken this course, and I wish to say how sorry I am that this matter has come before the House in this way. I did not even have time to read through the Bill; I had no time whatever to study it; I had no time to consult with my Department to find out to what extent this Bill is acceptable. But there are certain principles which have caught my eye and which I must say at once are unacceptable to me and which concern the essence of this Bill. They are to be found in Section 13 (1) of the Bill which reads as follows—

This principle that private individuals should be allowed to bring prosecutions in the courts without restriction is not one which I can accept. Hon. members will realize at once what it may lead to and what repercussions it will eventually have. The usual safety valve as far as private prosecutions are concerned, namely, that it is only when the Attorney-General and the prosecutor have refused to prosecute and have given a certificate to that effect, that the private individual can go to court, does not apply here. The principle contained in this section is not one which I can accept. Then sub-section (2) goes further—

If one reads the Bill, one finds that far-reaching powers are conferred on the police. For example, in Section 11 we find—

Merely suspected—

This is one power, amongst others, which is granted to the police by this Bill and provision is made in another section for private individuals, over whom I have no control whatever, who may be with a society to-day and gone to-morrow, to have the power of arrest without a warrant whenever they suspect anyone on reasonable grounds of having committed a contravention of this Act. Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept a principle which confers such powers on private individuals. But sub-section (3) of that section, in my humble opinion, goes much further. It says—

One can realize how many prosecutions we would have if the societies were to obtain their funds from convictions by the courts. We would have the same position as in the small town where a traffic constable was appointed who was given half of the fines paid by the people he caught. These are principles—to mention just a few of them to hon. members —which caught my eye in glancing through the Bill hurriedly and which unfortunately cannot accept.

Suffice it to say in the circumstances, that in so far as those aspects are concerned over which I have control, I intend introducing legislation. As far as I am concerned the matter has practically been disposed of and I shall shortly be in a position to come to the House. I am sorry that because of the circumstances I have mentioned, I cannot give my support to this Bill.

When will you introduce a Bill?

I think it will be within the next fortnight.

We have been very interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has had to say and we are glad to hear that he is sympathetically inclined towards this Bill. It is unfortunate that the Bill only appeared this morning but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is the same Bill that was introduced into the House the year before last. It is exactly the same Bill and his Department is aware of the contents of the Bill.

In view of what the hon. the Minister has said I think it is just as well that discussion on this Bill stand over until we see what the Minister himself intends doing and I move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 16 February.