Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

We shall oppose the third reading of this Bill because of two clauses, Nos. 3 and 4. The necessity for this legislation arises because in the case of clause 3 there are fears that the administrative steps contemplated by the Government in terms of the legislation passed in 1964 may be declared ultra vires; and in the case of clause 4 the Government has to meet the position where the court has in fact already declared the steps taken there to be ultra vires and illegal. As far as clause 3 is concerned, we opposed its aims and consequences in 1964, and we are still opposed to it. It seeks to extend the migratory system with all its evils of the destruction of family life and insecurity to the rural areas, as well as to urban areas where the Government in fact so desires. Clause 4 extends the powers of the Government to declare prescribed areas in released areas as well as rural areas. This was not contemplated even by the Government members when the 1964 legislation was passed, because it was understood then that released areas, in terms of the definition of the areas to which the Act would be applied, were excluded. The Government, however, sought to apply it to the released area of Evaton and the court ruled that that was not possible. This Bill now, in terms of clause 4, will in fact apply the law to the released area of Evaton. It seeks to go no further as far as released areas are concerned, because the Minister has withdrawn one of the provisions which would have given him the power to extend it to any released area.

Our objection to the provisions of clause 3 applies even more strictly to clause 4, because, a released area is an area where Bantu are allowed to own property and in fact one would expect them to be free to move about in that particular area. The Government’s reason for introducing these measures is to be able to control the movement of Bantu and living conditions in congested areas. Now, we are just as keen as the Government to see that there is proper control in congested areas, but as we pointed out in our second-reading speeches, there are other methods of dealing with the problem, and we are still as opposed to the proposition now as we were in 1964 when the legislation was passed in its original form, and we will vote against the third reading.

I, too, am going to oppose the third reading of this Bill. I objected at the second reading to the two clauses which the hon. member for Transkei has now discussed, as well as to two other clauses in the Bill. The reasons I gave during the second reading still obtain because there has been no change during the Committee Stage of this Bill. I objected to the basic provisions which give the Government complete control over the mobility of South African-born Africans, and also I see no justification for setting up links between the so-called tribal authorities and urban Africans, most of whom have lost all connection with the homelands and consider themselves as urbanized people and wish to be considered as ordinary citizens of the towns in which they live. For the reason that this Bill extends the authority of the Minister in all those spheres, I, too, will vote against the third reading.

I do not think it is necessary to discuss this matter any further. It has been discussed carefully. The hon. members for Transkei and Houghton put forward no new arguments. The only thing the hon. member for Transkei did was to say they had been opposed to this legislation in 1964, and that they were just as opposed to it to-day. I am very sorry that the hon. member and his party have made no progress and have not become more sensible since 1964, but I am not giving up hope and we will simply carry on and see what the position in another four years will be.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

When the Group Areas legislation first came before the House, we on this side of the House warned the Government that the legislation lent itself to a great deal of hardship. Over the last few years this warning has proved to be justified and our worst fears have been proved correct. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe the time has come when we on this side of the House have every justification in calling upon the Government to appoint a full-scale commission of inquiry into the functions and operations of the Department of Community Development. Sir, every race group that has been affected by this Department—and there is not one race group that has not been affected—has been sorry to fall within its tentacles. We find that in the main it is helping no one; that it merely serves to confuse, confound and constrict the population of South Africa. We have heard it said here that this Department is the biggest estate agency in the world. One can add to that that it is certainly also the most heartless estate agency.

In the last three years, according to the figures given to me by the hon. the Minister, the Department has sold over 6,000 houses and 179 blocks of flats. Being an estate agency of the size that it is, it has the great advantage that if business is not good as far as it is concerned, it merely alters the law and digs deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets. The Department has not assisted in solving the problem of the shortage of housing, and when they build houses, they build houses for that section of the population that can well afford accommodation in any of our main cities of South Africa. We have had the experience in Durban and elsewhere that blocks of flats have been built for people who are certainly not of the poorer class.

One might say that they are of the class that can well afford to find accommodation, and there is plenty of accommodation of that sort all over the cities concerned. We have had the experience, where flats are built for the Department, that these flats do not in any way measure up to the flats built by private enterprise. We find that houses built by the Department and which sell at the same prices at which speculative builders sell, appear to deteriorate at a much faster rate. Sir, the problem of the shortage of housing has not been solved by this Department. We have the position here in Cape Town that hotels take over the leases on blocks of flats and turn them into hotel annexes. This does not solve the problem of the housing shortage either.

Sir, I want to raise a matter, apart from housing, and that is the question of the hardships created by this Department for the various population groups. I want to quote here a paragraph of a letter addressed to me by a member of a population group which has been affected by the activities of this Department—

If this was an isolated incident, I would not have brought it to the attention of this House but in Durban I know there are numerous cases of this happening, day after day. There are cases where the favoured few seem to get hold of the right sort of property while the others have to go without it. I make no apology for saying that an investigation into this Department is not only necessary—it will also serve a good purpose for every population group affected by it. We have had numerous cases of people being evicted from their homes, leaving these homes standing empty year after year. In that way they deteriorate. In cases where there were expropriations, people have had to wait years for their money, and not only that. When they get the money ultimately, they find that they have been paid no interest. We have had cases where people were evicted from their homes without there being any alternative accommodation available for them. Why should the Department evict any person from his home if he cannot be offered alternative accommodation?

To take members of the Coloured group or of the Indian group and kick them out of their homes and offer them no alternative accommodation, is a disgrace and a shame on South Africa and on everybody supporting that type of thing. What is more, this has been going on for very long. We as a Christian country cannot any longer tolerate these inhumanities to our fellow human beings.

In areas like Durban the homes of Indians are expropriated at prices bearing no relationship whatsoever to the costs they have to incur to settle elsewhere. If we allow this to continue, we shall stand convicted for years to come. There are so many aspects of the activities of this Department that it is impossible for me during the time at my disposal to deal with them all. Consequently, I want to confine my remarks to saying that the time has come when this most ruthless of Departments, this heartless Department, which deals with so many different sections of the population, and which has ignored the inconvenience caused to people when they have to be shifted from one place to the other, that the activities of this Department must be investigated from top to bottom, and if the hon. the Minister does not agree with me in this, then I say the Government has something to hide.

I think that it is necessary for me to reply now to a few aspects raised so far. Since the scope of the activities of the Department is so extensive, quite a number of the aspects of its work have already cropped up. Therefore, if I do not reply at this stage, but wait until the end of this debate. I shall be on my feet for a very long time if I wish to reply properly to all the points that have been raised.

Let me begin with the request made by the hon. member for Umlazi, i.e. the appointment of a commission to inquire into the activities of the Department of Community Development. I want to point out to the hon. member that in his argument he made the basic mistake of suggesting that it was primarily the task of the State to provide housing. Of course, that is not the case. The responsibility of providing housing is primarily the task of the local authorities and, in fact, this is what the Slums Act explicitly provides in section 3 (b). In that subsection it is provided that it is the duty of every local authority to see to if that in general and as far as circumstances permit the inhabitants of its district are provided with suitable housing.

Therefore it is not primarily the duty of the State to provide the inhabitants of the country with housing, but this is in fact primarily the duty of the local authorities. The Government’s contribution is to provide auxiliary machinery. To enable local authorities to carry out properly the task imposed upon them by I this Parliament, the State has established auxiliary machinery in the form of a National Housing Fund, the National Housing Commission and the Bantu Housing Board. All three of these bodies operate within the framework of the Department of Community Development. The aid granted to local authorities by the Department, in the first instance, is in the form of assistance in respect of the financing of housing. Building plots and the services required in that connection have been included in that. This applies in the case of people from the lower income groups of all races. The other day we dealt here with the various income groups and explained what each of them was entitled to.

In addition to this financial assistance, the Department provides local authorities with technical advice. For instance, the Department undertakes research in order to effect, for example, the standardizing of structures and to arrange the services in such a way that the best possible standard may be possible at the lowest possible costs. The services Of the C.S.I.R. have been enlisted for this task, and to establish a commission of inquiry into this aspect is not really to the point. In fact, everybody will agree with me that throughout the world building research institute of the C.S.I.R. is being recognized as one of the best institutes of its kind. I had the opportunity of speaking to the head of the Canadian building research institute, an institute which also receives world-wide recognition for the work it carries out. Subsequent to that the director of that institute visited the Republic and amongst other things he paid a visit to the building research institute of the C.S.I.R. in Pretoria. He informed me afterwards that the institute in South Africa had made greater advances in the field of research concerning housing for the lower income groups than any other bureau in the world has done. It is therefore unnecessary to investigate this aspect.

I said that too.

In addition to these services the Department also supervises the work done by local authorities so as to ensure that local authorities perform their duties. It activates local authorities which fail to do so. As regards the smaller local authorities, they are requested from time to time to undertake physical surveys in their areas so as to determine the actual housing needs. Subsequent to that those in need of housing are classified into the various income groups so as to ascertain what category of aid they qualify for. In accordance with that the smaller local authorities are then assisted in working out and providing the schemes they themselves require. Technical and other assistance are being provided in that regard.

The position in respect of the larger local authorities, particularly the urban areas, is that in the housing department of its town clerk each local authority has machinery which deals with these matters, the task of which it is to determine needs. The hon. member for Umlazi is making a major argument out of this, namely that nobody knows what the housing needs are. Where must one go to if one wants to find out what these needs are? It is not the task of my Department to determine these needs; it is the task of the local authorities to determine these needs in their own areas.

It would be good if you knew, would it not? It would help.

My Department activates them from time to time and encourages them to determine those needs, but at this stage I am not prepared to take over the functions of the local authorities.

You have taken them over in every other respect.

We must choose between these two alternatives: it is either my task or that of the local authorities. I stand by the view that it is correct that this is the task of the local authorities, because they are best equipped to gauge the circumstances within their areas. They are best equipped to make physical surveys. They are best equipped to assess the trends in their areas, and they are getting from my Department all the technical and other assistance they want. In accordance with their needs and the demand in their areas they must then draw up a programme for the implementation of services. That is why my Department provides the income groups which fall within the scope of the activities of my Department, with the necessary financing, once again in respect of services, housing, and so forth.

Therefore the hon. member for Umlazi can and should, in the first instance, go to the local authorities if he wishes to find out what the actual needs are. But now it is also true, as the hon. member for Langlaagte said, that where one deals with local authorities in a metropolitan area, one often comes across the case of a person whose name is not only on the waiting list of one local authority, but also on those of adjoining local authorities. In that way his name may appear on the waiting lists of three, four or five different local authorities. Merely to add up those cases and then to attempt to determine the extent of the need, as one of the newspapers on the Witwatersrand did recently, gives one a quite distorted picture of the position, because one finds duplication of names on the waiting lists of various local authorities. That is why my Department has found that even the physical surveys made by the various local authorities —surveys made by means of a mere arithmetical addition of the names on waiting lists —do not reflect the actual needs, and that there are many other factors which should also be taken into account. That is why my Department obtains from time to time projections made by the C.S.I.R. as well as by demographers, whom we employ to make the necessary investigations. These projections give us an indication of the trends in connection with housing needs. On that basis we look at what is being done, and we see whether the general picture in respect of the provision of housing falls within the course indicated by the demographers. In a previous debate I indicated how both the Government and the private sector had succeeded in the past year to come very close to that goal which is being set on the basis of the research done by demographers. In other words, I have indicated that as regards the provision of housing in general, especially in respect of Whites, the position in the country is sound at the moment. As regards housing, the Department of Community Development only steps in in cases where local authorities have obviously fallen far behind in regard to making provision for their needs, or where emergency housing is required as a result of immigration programmes and rapid new development taking place in an area, which makes it difficult for the local authority to handle everything by itself.

The third respect in which the Department steps in, is in cases where new projects and new kinds of projects in connection with housing have to be undertaken on an experimental basis. Let me mention the example here of Bothasig in Cape Town which is an experimental scheme for testing a certain type of house-building and its acceptability to the public. It is a huge success. In the same way Algoa Park, with the pre-construction methods applied there, is in the first place an experimental scheme. Even if we were to lose on that scheme, it is an essential experimental scheme for testing the achievements and possibilities of those private enterprises that have entered the field of preconstruction. I myself am not completely happy about the planning of that area and the lay-out of the scheme itself. The flats are in a particularly good condition and are good flats. In that respect, too, it is possible to effect changes, because any person who has built a house usually finds that once that house has been completed, there are changes he could have effected here or there. We are therefore not concerned about minor changes that can be effected. It is the scheme in itself which is a necessity. I shall return to the question of pre-construction later on.

While I am speaking about Algoa Park, I might just indicate that the reason why a number of the flats are unoccupied at the moment, is that three years ago there were 2,000 persons on the waiting lists of Port Elizabeth in the income group for which these flats were built. Port Elizabeth itself simply could not make provision for this, and that is why the National Housing Commission stepped in and said: Since there is such a great need in these income groups, this is an opportunity for launching this experimental scheme in connection with pre-construction. In the meantime the development of Port Elizabeth has not come up to those expectations. In the first place, the motor-car industry did not experience the development that was expected; instead there was a recession in the motor-car industry. As a result of that people have been leaving Port Elizabeth on a large scale.

Is that why you are selling that development property of yours?

Which one?

In Port Elizabeth.

Which one?

We can talk about it later on.

Hon. members should not discuss matters of which they know nothing as yet. I shall deal with this question of the sale of properties in a moment, and then I shall deal with it in full. I want to emphasize that the number of flats that are unoccupied in Port Elizabeth at the moment, are unoccupied, firstly, as a result of this circumstance and, secondly, as a result of the fact that because they were of the pre-construction type—where a large number of units were completed at the same time—800 new flats were made available over a very short period of time. From the nature of the case the leasing of such flats cannot be done as rapidly as the delivery takes place, especially where the work is completed at the same time. The leasing of units is going on systematically and is progressing particularly well. In addition it is possible, and it will be considered, to convert those flats into sub-economic dwellings to help the lower income groups until such time as those people can be provided with inexpensive housing elsewhere and those flats can once again be made available to the economic group. Such an interim arrangement can and will be made if necessary.

Therefore I do not think it is necessary for the housing arm of my Department to be investigated. In a moment I shall come to another reason for my saying that it is not necessary. However, I just want to emphasize here that according to my own observations and those of my Department, it is noticeable at present that local authorities are slow to provide the public with sub-economic and low-rent residential units. It is obvious that local authorities are giving preference to economic houses for selling purposes. I have nothing against the provision of houses for selling purposes, because we want to encourage house-ownership. But in every community there is a certain number of persons who cannot or do not wish to buy houses, owing to financial or other circumstances.

Is it a very extensive number of houses that these municipalities build for sale?

Yes. The vast majority, I should say 90 per cent of the houses with which Whites are provided by the municipalities, form part of selling schemes. Very few houses are being made available in the form of letting schemes. In respect of the non-Whites the position is exactly the opposite. In that respect the local authorities are over-anxious and more than willing to provide the non-Whites with sub-economic and inexpensive housing. However, they are, as I have said, slow in doing so for the Whites. In one case a certain local authority explicitly told me, “We do not want to house the poor families in our area; they can go and live in another area.” There I said explicitly that it was the duty of every local authority to house those lower-income group people who work in its area. That is why I issued instructions last year already that when an application for an economic housing scheme was received from a local authority, my Department had to make sure that that local authority was actively engaged in a scheme, irrespective of the stage it had reached, to provide inexpensive and sub-economic housing. I shall not appropriate funds for economic schemes until that is the case. I hope that this will be instrumental in wiping out the existing backlog. This is at the same time a reply to one of the questions put by the hon. member for Umlazi. He wanted to know whether we were perhaps providing houses that were too expensive for the people to live in. It is the local authorities that are so slow in providing inexpensive and sub-economic houses. Must my Department intervene every time because local authorities are not providing that type of housing? Must the local authorities be allowed to get away with the fact that they are only providing housing for the higher income groups and that consequently my Department has to provide for the lower income groups every time? After all, for the local authorities to expect that from me, is unfair. My Department grants assistance where it is justified by circumstances, and in cases where it can lend a helping hand.

The only other matter which could possibly be investigated in regard to the housing arm, is the financial implications of house-rent for the population. In that connection we have more than enough information. On my overseas tour last year I inquired in all the various countries into their housing and financing methods and so forth. One can hardly compare these aspects, because circumstances differ from country to country. For instance, in one country certain methods can be applied which simply cannot be applied in another country. Let me mention a few examples. Let us take countries such as Portugal and Italy where the employer and the employee make contributions towards a fund out of which housing is provided. In Portugal the lessee pays approximately 16 per cent of his wages in house-rent, but prior to that he and his employer have jointly paid roughly 21 per cent of his wages into the fund in order to provide the house. In other words, in reality he pays much more than one-fifth of his wages towards the rent of the dwelling in which he eventually lives. In other countries again, the lower income groups are subsidized to a large extent as far as their house-rent is concerned. However, they bear a much heavier tax burden than is the case here. I asked the Governments in question what their experience had been and why that was being done, and they replied that it was their policy to impose heavy taxes on the lower income groups and then to return that money to them by way of subsidies, so as to ensure that their incomes were being used for the right purposes. With one hand they take away the money by way of taxes, and with the other hand they give it back by way of a subsidy. In that way they ensure that a portion of the worker’s income is being used for an essential necessity of life such as housing. This approach is totally different from the one we have in our country. This is to a large extent an encroachment upon the freedom of the individual. I think that we, with our free economy and less socialistic approach, cannot follow this method. We have therefore gathered information about all the various methods followed in all these countries in this regard, and to my mind it is simply unnecessary to want to investigate this matter now.

Let us look at the other arm of my Department, i.e. the Community Development arm. The Community Development Act provides explicitly that the Community Development Fund in my Department is being established for the purposes of developing certain areas, promoting community development in such areas, controlling the alienation of affected properties, and assisting persons to acquire or hire immovable property. Consequently my Department, through the Community Development Board, is obliged by law to act as an intermediary so as to see to it that affected properties are placed in the right hands. When affected persons have to be resettled, it is necessary for them to have their money free. They do not immediately find a ready buyer who would pay the market-value price for their properties, and this is where my Department steps in and pays that price. In that way the money of such a person is freed and he can be resettled.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred here to the so-called harsh action taken by my Department. He referred to “ruthlessness”. I repudiate the accusation completely. My Department’s approach throughout—and I have considerable proof to this effect—has been one of absolute obligingness. When a case where unfair treatment was meted out, is brought to my notice, I see to it that the matter is put right. In recent times the hon. member has brought to my notice only one case of so-called “ruthlessness”. It was a case where a person had sold his property before the Act had been amended in respect of the appreciation contribution, when he was obliged under the Act to pay that contribution to my Department.

He still has not got his money.

In that case the hon. member asked that he should be exempted from the payment of the appreciation contribution. We cannot do so; that is impossible. One cannot act outside the provisions of the Act. The hon. member refers to cases where there have been lengthy delays in regard to payment, but the owner is often to blame. If he is prepared to accept a reasonable amount, the payment is done very soon. It is only when he resorts to arbitration, as he is entitled to do, that delays take place. In such cases, of course, one cannot pay out until one knows what amount has to be paid out. As soon as this is finalized, payment is effected at once, and if hon. members would bring to my notice specific cases where there is any delay, I would go into them and put them right, because it ought not to be like that. Delays only occur where there is an actual reason why finality cannot be reached at once.

I say that my Department is obliged to act as an intermediary so as to ensure that those affected properties are placed in the right hands. The Development Board is often obliged to buy the properties so as to enable such disqualified persons to resettle elsewhere. In that regard the hon. member for Port Natal also referred to cases where certain persons were required to resettle elsewhere without alternative accommodation having been available to them. That is not true. In every case where a disqualified person is obliged to resettle elsewhere, a house is available and is offered to him, provided that he falls into the income group in which he has to or can be provided with housing. In every case where he falls into the category in which he himself has to or can provide his own housing, plots on which he may settle have been made available. But now we must remember that many of these disqualified persons are wilful. They remain where they are and do absolutely nothing to acquire another plot in the qualified area or to build a house there. This is particularly true of those people who are capable of providing these things for themselves. They do not do anything before I give them notice that they have to move. Only then do they start and only then do I receive their appeals and requests to be allowed an extension of time, and then they delay the building of their houses in the new area as long as they possibly can. I cannot permit the object of the Group Areas Act to be defeated by private persons in that way.

In those cases where persons are not willing to meet on their part the obligation imposed upon them by an Act of Parliament, I shall do my duty in terms of the Act by compelling them to take those steps. In addition the Development Board is the instrument of government which has to provide for the financing of replanning and redevelopment in respect of areas that have lagged behind. In this process of purchasing the properties of unqualified persons, and especially in the process of redevelopment, you must bear in mind, Sir, that no area can be redeveloped unless all the properties in the area which is about to be redeveloped, are in the hands of one body or person. Most of the time one has to replan streets and services. I cannot do so across properties which are in the hands of other people. One cannot undertake the rezoning and the reclassification of an area if it belongs to a large number of owners. That is why it is essential that the properties should be in the hands of one body, and that body is either the local authority or the Community Development Board; and since the local authorities do not have the necessary finances at their disposal, it is normally the Development Board which owns those properties. That is why my Department has a large number of properties at its disposal. Those properties are in turn disposed of as quickly as possible. In the case of properties purchased from disqualified persons, such properties are disposed of as soon as it is at all possible. I expected my Department's revenue from the sale of properties to have been more or less R5 million in the past financial year, but owing to the rapid resale of those properties to private bodies and persons, that amount was closer to R10 million.

It seems a good business.

My Department advertises these properties from time to time. In the larger areas it employs strings of real estate agents who have to sell these properties on a commission basis, because it is essential that the turnover should take place as quickly as possible, and that those properties should come into the hands of qualified persons as soon as possible. My Department is geared for that, and this is being done.

May I ask a question? Does the Department ever advise private individuals before the agencies are aware of what properties are available?

Any person who is interested in any area is welcome at any time to approach the regional offices of my Department and to learn what properties are available. This happens on numerous occasions, and any person who is interested in property can at any time make inquiries at the regional offices and tender for such properties. In this way it is available to the public as a whole. As regards the sale of these properties, there is no favouring.

It was said here that through these sales my Department was making good profits. It does not only make good profits, but often suffers great losses as well, because it often has to buy up properties, especially those of disqualified persons in the white area, where the structure on the property is of such a nature that it actually constitutes a drawback as far as the property is concerned, since one has to demolish it. But one has to compensate that person for the house in which he lived, irrespective of the poor condition of the house. In those cases my Department suffers considerable losses. On the other hand, in cases where in the course of time there is appreciation in value owing to development and owing to the normal appreciation of properties, my Department makes profits, but it is geared for that and that is how it ought to be. I do not think that there are any objections to this. I think it would be unfair towards the taxpayers of this country if properties were not sold at the best possible market value prices. If I did not do so, my Department would have to answer for that before the Committee on Public Accounts. I may not neglect to meet my obligations towards the taxpayers simply because certain individuals would like to obtain certain plots from my Department at a cheap price. Since mention was made here of the sale of properties, let me refer to the flats in Durban. The hon. member for Port Natal also referred to that matter, and on several occasions references have been made to them by other hon. members. Hon. members will remember what criticism was expressed in this House in the past and is still being expressed against those flats. All those flats have been leased and offers have now been received from private bodies which want to buy those flats from my Department at an economic price.

Did the offer come from the buyers?

Yes, from the buyers, and since I cannot negotiate with one single person simply because he makes an offer, I am throwing this open to the public and calling for tenders, in the knowledge that there are persons who are interested in buying the flats at an economic price. But now everybody who would like to buy the flats, even the hon. member for Durban (Point) if he is interested, is being afforded the opportunity to buy them, provided that they want to pay a reasonable price. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in a recent issue of a world magazine on architecture, those flats were commended as architectural masterpieces. That is how people’s taste differs. The hon. member for Port Natal and the hon. member for Durban (Point) and I may perhaps not think so, but in a world magazine on architecture those very flats were pointed out as examples of architectural masterpieces and of what can be done in the sphere of architecture.

Which blocks?

It is the block near the race-course. I cannot remember its name. I repeat that it is my task to dispose of those properties as quickly as possible so that the money may be returned to the Fund and be utilized for other purposes again. In this respect I just want to clear up a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Umlazi said that I had allegedly announced that three different advisory committees would be appointed to advise me in connection with the implementation of the Group Areas Act. That was pursuant to a report in the Daily Mail of 1st May, where reference was made to a deputation of Durban businessmen who had had discussions with me. On that occasion not one single reporter was present. Not one single reporter approached me in regard to this matter. They must have obtained their information from one of those businessmen, and it is clear that the information is wrong. I repeat that the information is wrong. I never held out the prospect that committees would be appointed to advise me on the implementation of the Group Areas Act. What I did envisage —in a moment I shall deal with it in detail— was that later on when we reach the stage where there are proper co-ordination and cooperation among the State, the local authority and the Provincial Administration in regard to ultimate plans, over-all plans for cities, we would also be able to appoint private bodies such as the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce, the welfare bodies, the transport authorities, etc., to an advisory body, which would advise, on the part of the private sector, these bodies that are jointly responsible for the planning and development of the towns and cities. This is something quite different from the implementation of the Group Areas Act.

I said that it was unnecessary to have the activities of my Department investigated by a commission or committee of inquiry, for hon. members should bear in mind that I already have certain full-time statutory boards at my disposal. There is, for instance, the National Housing Commission. Let me read out to you who the members of that Commission are: The chairman is Mr. J. H. van der Walt, a retired head of the National Housing Office of former years. The vice-chairman is Professor T. H. Louw, a consulting quantity surveyor and professor in the faculty of architecture. The members are Mr. T. B. Floyd, a town-planner ; Mr. M. J. Joubert, a medical surgeon; Professor R. Straaten, a medical doctor and professor in Public Health at the University of Pretoria and at the same time a qualified social worker and sociologist; Dr. W. B. Anderson, a sociologist and professor at the University of Port Elizabeth; Mr. J. M. Rothman, a retired provincial secretary; Professor Erica Theron, professor in the Department of Sociology and Social Work at the University of Stellenbosch; Mr. A. T. W. de Klerk, an attorney, and Mr. J. R. Steenkamp, a farmer. Therefore you will see, Mr. Chairman, that in this Housing Commission experts in various fields as well as laymen have been drawn together.

Once every three months they must meet for a full-scale meeting, which usually lasts from two to three days. They have been instructed—and they do so—to meet by rotation in the various cities of the country and there to conduct personal investigations into the whole question of housing. This is therefore a body which from time to time conducts regular investigations into housing circumstances and conditions all over the country and which then advises me and my Department. In addition, their task is, of course, that of approving schemes and funds, etc., which is usually done by the executive committee and approved by the Board. Besides that I also have the Community Development Board, another full-time board. There are five fulltime members and two part-time members. The full-time members are Mr. Strydom, chairman, a deputy secretary in the Public Service; Mr. M. P. Prinsloo, a retired undersecretary in the Department of Community Development; Dr. A. G. Kellerman, a sociologist; Mr. H. P. Malan, a retired deputy secretary in the Department of Housing, and Mr. C. V. du Toit, a chief accountant. The part-time members are Mr. Eben Cuyler, M.P.C., a businessman, and Mr. J. H. van der Walt, the chairman of the National Housing Commission. This Board also meets in the various centres of the country, and it does so every three months. In addition, its executive committee meets daily in Pretoria. Therefore, side by side with my Department, with its various technical and administrative officials, we have these bodies conducting the necessary investigations.

The hon. member for Umlazi asked, “Are we not creating problems by removing whole communities instead of supplying new houses?” Mr. Chairman, the removal of slum areas and of unqualified persons usually living either in slum areas or in backward areas, is an essential prerequisite for obtaining building sites and development sites for housing schemes, and in that respect the hon. member for Langlaagte is absolutely correct. While there are backward and poor areas in and around the city centre, one cannot merely move away from the city centre and simply develop towards the perimeter all the time. Let me take Durban as an example. Should we, for instance, simply have left Riverside and Cato Manor as they were and only have provided housing at other places? We must clear up those areas, as we did in regard to Sophiatown in Johannesburg in order to launch a new housing scheme there. These things go hand in hand. One cannot do one and neglect the other. I want to add that I am determined that we should terminate mixed residential conditions, where they still exist, as soon as possible. Over the past few years we have restricted to a minimum the funds required for resettlement, our aim having been to have as much money as possible available for housing. But now that the housing position is improving, we shall in future make more money available for resettlement in order that we may clean up our cities.

The hon. member for Parow referred to a deficiency that existed in this regard, i.e. as regards this resettlement and development. This is a deficiency of which my Department and I are well aware, namely the lack of proper co-operation and co-ordination among local authorities, provincial administrations and my Department. As the position is at present, my Department can by law identify any area as an area for redevelopment and freeze development there until such time as re-development can take place. By way of legislation, without having any regard to local regulations, my Department can also develop townships and do certain other things. As regards the development and progress of their respective areas, local authorities do a very great deal off their own bat. But the necessary co-ordination and co-operation in this regard do not always exist. It often happens that there are problems and impediments. Let me mention one example to you, Sir. The hon. member for Berea referred to the Coloured township Wentworth and to the delay that occurred in connection with its development. That is true—there was a delay, an unnecessary delay. But does the hon. member know what it can be attributed to? The City Engineer informed my Department that he simply could not make the sewage mains available within a period of five years or so. It was only after the Secretary for my Department had reported the City Engineer to the Mayor and the matter had subsequently been investigated that it was found that the mains could in fact be provided. Only then could they proceed with the planning of the scheme. Well, the development of that scheme is now being proceeded with, and we hope to develop between 13,000 and 14,000 plots there within the next two years. At the same time other areas are being developed so that, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, the position in Durban will be considerably better within the next two or three years.

Another problem is the absence of a yardstick by which we can identify backward areas—not so much areas in which unqualified persons are resident. Sometimes local authorities wish to give preference to the development of a certain area whereas my Department wishes to tackle another area. We do not have any yardstick by which we can judge. On the Witwatersrand, as the hon. member for Langlaagte said, there is a considerable number of places that ought to be re-developed, but, as I am saying, we have not yet developed a yardstick to enable us to determine what has to be given preference to, since there is no proper ultimate plan for the whole area. But discussions with the Administrators have already been requested for the purpose of trying to devise a method and obtaining a modus operandi in accordance with which we may obtain more co-operation among local authorities, provincial administrations and the Department in connection with these matters. I hope that in this way we shall find a modus operandi which will effect better co-operation between local authorities and the Department, without the Department taking over the functions of local authorities. The object is rather to assist local authorities financially and technically in getting their town planning—their guiding plans, their ultimate plans—drafted properly, and to devise methods which will make it possible for us to reach decisions jointly as to what areas should be given preference as regards development.

The hon. member for Salt River referred to District Six. Since this area was proclaimed, 53 Coloured families have already been resettled in their own areas. The programme for the resettlement of all slum dwellers and lessees is being continued at a rapid rate. All the physical surveys of the socio-economic and structural aspects, the use of land, and so forth, have already been completed. We have already reached the point where we can appoint consultants to put forward proposals, after which we can re-plan the area in detail. The pattern we shall follow will be to submit to three or four leading planners, independent of one another, proposals in connection with the new development and lay-out of the area. Subsequent to that we will designate a senior and leading consultant to assist Corda in considering the proposals made by these three or four consultants. Once a decision has been reached in regard to the course to be adopted, the senior consultant and the other consultants will form a team for drafting, with the assistance of as many experts as may be necessary, a final plan for the area. In this way we hope to draft a plan for the whole area within 18 months to two years. It is simply impracticable to start with development now, before such a plan for the whole area has been drafted. We must ensure that the use of land and the development there will fit in with the urban development in general. We hope, therefore, to be ready to start with physical development within four years after the proclamation of the area. Boston in the United States is often held up to us as an example in this regard. There it took them six years before they had drafted a general plan for re-development, and that was done in respect of an area smaller than District Six. In addition they have a staff of 540 working on that renewal project alone. The planning and implementation is expected to take 15 years. Therefore, when we talk of a period of ten to 15 years in the case of District Six, it is not too long if we measure it against what is being done elsewhere. I think that the entire project, including the re-development, ought to be completed within the next ten years. I just want to add that disqualified persons are not moved without their being provided with alternative housing, and that the existing unoccupied spots are areas that have already been cleaned up, particularly by the City Council in terms of the Slums Act. These are for the most part properties which have been purchased since 1938 by the City Council, in terms of the Slums Act, with housing money. Many of these areas will be necessary as green belts. As I say, one cannot start development before the whole plan for the area has been drafted. Serviceable buildings are not demolished but maintained as far as possible and inhabited as long as possible.

Now I want to say a few words about preconstruction. This matter was raised by the hon. member for Umlazi as well as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North). I want to point out that over the past few years authentic manpower surveys have shown that there has been a rapid decrease in the number of artisans employed in the building industry, and that there is a serious shortage of artisans and apprentices in the building industry. Let me furnish the figures to hon. members. The number of White artisans in the building industry was 38,880 in 1961, and 40,717 in 1963, a fine improvement. In 1965 it dropped to 32,749. The figures in respect of Coloureds and Asiatics jointly, are as follows: 1961— 12,725; 1963—12,967; and 1965—12,389. Therefore, also in respect of Coloureds and Asiatics there was a drop from 1963 to 1965 as far as the number of artisans was concerned. The figures in respect of the number of apprentices employed are as follows: In 1961, there were 4,463 white apprentices. In 1963, there were 2,812, and in 1965 there were 2,745. It is clear, therefore, that there was a drop in the numbers of apprentices employed in the building industry. One sees the effect of this in the fact that the present average age of white artisans in the building industry is 47 years. This is alarming, and the age is rising. Similarly, as far as the Coloureds and the Asiatics were concerned, there was a drop of 1,792 to 1,409 from 1961 to 1963, but after 1965 there was a slight improvement, i.e. to 1,808. I think that the building industry and the Apprenticeship Board should now pay serious attention to this alarming state of affairs. My personal opinion is that the training of apprentices in the building industry is outdated, that it is no longer necessary to-day for every artisan in the building industry to be able to do every type of work in connection with the building of a house. There could be much more specialization in the training, and consequently a shorter period of training. I think this is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Apprenticeship Board and the building industry. But since this is the position, since the number of artisans is decreasing rapidly, since an insufficient number of apprentices are being trained, it is essential for us to think of the future of the building industry and the construction industry in South Africa. We must be positive in our thinking in this regard. We must consider that in view of the growth in population, the growth in industrial development and auxiliary services which are necessary and have to be catered for, the building industry will be faced with a serious challenge in the next 30 years, and that with this shortage of artisans the conventional building industry will simply not be able to fend for itself. That is why we must do something positive in this regard. The Government has therefore decided that preconstruction should be promoted in South Africa. The problem in connection with preconstruction is that the private sector has in effect simply been unable to render any substantial contributions to large-scale pre-construction. The simple reason for this is that it entails major expenditure to establish a factory which manufactures pre-construction building materials. If such an undertaking does not have an assured market over a period of time it cannot incur the capital expenditure for establishing the factory.

I referred to this in the past and also to what was being done in certain overseas countries, namely that in order to establish the pre-construction industry, government bodies became shareholders in such companies. After serious consideration this Government decided that that would not be done in South Africa. I want to repeat that the Government will not take up shares in pre-construction factories, but that a method should be devised in terms of which we shall, in some way or another, be able to guarantee to the pre-construction factories in given areas, an assured market over a period of at least five years. At the same time attention will be given to providing the conventional industry, too, with more certainty in regard to building programmes and building projects so that they, too, may undertake projects on a long-term basis instead of merely working on a year to year basis.

This matter has been referred to a committee of officials to be worked out in detail in conjunction with the Tender Board, since it will entail a deviation from our normal tender procedures. As soon as we have received their report, this matter will receive further attention.

So you are accepting my five-year approach.

I am the one who mentioned five years first. The hon. member heard it in the speech I made after I had come back from abroad. However, it does not matter, because we are agreed, and that is the important point.

The hon. member for Karoo referred to several matters, and one of them was the delay in connection with applications for permits. I want to make it clear now that it has repeatedly been said here and elsewhere that persons who want permits should apply for them at least a fortnight in advance. However, there are numerous cases where large functions are involved and where the persons concerned apply for the permit at the last moment, offering the excuse that they had overlooked the necessity of obtaining a permit. Since by that time they have allegedly sold tickets and completed all the arrangements, I am confronted with the accomplished fact of either causing the public to lose that money or of placing the organizers in a very embarrassing position, or of issuing them with the permit. I want to repeat my warning that in future I shall pay much stricter attention to this period of 14 days. I am simply not going to allow persons to place me in such an impossible situation for all sorts of reasons—and I wonder whether at times these late applications do not involve a certain measure of wilfulness. I want to refer to the case to which the hon. member for Karoo referred, the case to which the Diamond Fields Advertiser also referred, namely the cricket match in which Basil D’Oliveira was to play. The hon. member said that the permit had been received only one day before the time. That match was to take place on Friday and Saturday, 2nd and 3rd December, 1967. The application was received at the Kimberley office of my Department on Monday, 27th November, only four days before the match was to take place. Is my Department to blame for the fact that the organizers received the permit only one day before the time? Surely, it is their own fault. In addition the application explicitly requested permission for the players only, and not for the public as well.

Did your Department at Kimberley recommend it? That is the point.

Yes, that office recommended it.

So it took all that time for permission to come from Pretoria?

The application has to go to Pretoria and that is why a period of at least 14 days is required. Arrangements of this nature should not be made four days before the time. Why was the application submitted only four days before the time? It is obviously the fault of the organizers of the match and not that of my Department. My Department issued the permit three days after it had been received. My Department took three days to consider the application—both in the regional office and in the head office—and to issue it. I honestly feel that this is a very short period and that the hon. member cannot object to it.

The hon. member also referred to the location of Indian shops near the Coloured group area. Is the hon. member pleading that the Indian shops and traders should be placed in such a way that it is difficult for the Coloureds to buy from them?

That is not the point at all.

If that is the case, what is the hon. member objecting to? He is throwing principles overboard very easily. He is trying to create the impression that he is pleading for the Coloureds here, that he wants to safeguard their interests, and for that reason the Indians may not be placed near the Coloured area. But that is not true either. The Indian traders are not specifically placed on those sites so as to have them close to the Coloured area. The area where they are being placed, is close to the area where the market will eventually be developed, close to the future market area; in other words, the point where all race groups will be concentrated. Consequently all race groups will be able to buy from these traders. The best place for locating businesses of that nature, is where there is a concourse of all race groups and national groups. That is what was taken into consideration.

What about the second one?

That is also near to a fairly busy industrial area. Which one are you referring to now?

The latest one.

That is where the market is going to be.

No, the market is on the Transvaal road.

The hon. member also said a few words about the standards of sub-economic houses. He is obviously not in possession of all the facts. Flooring and ceilings are generally permissible for sub-economic houses. Any local authority can have these fitted, if it wants to do so and if it applies for them. Furthermore, large families, non-Whites as well, are not placed in two-roomed dwellings—up to four-roomed dwellings are permitted. The rental varies in accordance with the size of the house. The Coloureds in the sub-economic group usually pay between R4 and R6 per month for these sub-economic dwellings. It depends on whether it is a four-roomed or a two-roomed dwelling. Why does the hon. member say that large families are being settled in small houses? After all, that is not true.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) referred to the poor standards of old-age homes. I just want to inform the hon. member that the old-age home to which he is apparently referring, is being erected under the supervision of the local authority in question. When the plans were approved, my Department noticed that the unit cost only amounted to R800 per person, whereas the permissible unit cost amounts to approximately R1,200 per person. My Department immediately made inquiries to ascertain why a place of such a poor standard was being built, and the reply was that they did not want a better type of institution in view of the fact that only people from the very lowest group would be housed there. The local authority is responsible for that particular place being built in that way. I want to see whether there is a possibility of compelling local authorities to maintain at least a minimum standard in respect of old-age homes. The hon. member also mentioned several other matters on which I shall reply to him in person. I do not think it is necessary for me to do so in this debate.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the Malays in Simonstown. I agree with him about their constituting a specific national group. I agree that Malays in general should, in cases where they prefer it, be settled in communities. We shall approach this problem most sympathetically, and if the hon. member so desires I shall furnish him with particulars in regard to what we have already done in this connection. I do not consider it necessary to do so here.

As regards the fishermen, I had an interdepartmental committee constituted, a committee consisting of officials from the Departments of Community Development, Coloured Affairs, Planning, and from industries to find the best possible solution for meeting the needs of the Coloured fishermen in the best way.

I think I have replied to most of the points raised in this debate up to now.

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. the Minister referred briefly to the world’s biggest slum clearance project, namely the District Six project, and I should like to take this matter of urban renewal a little further with the Minister because it is clear that it is fast becoming one of the major tasks of his department. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to elaborate a little more on the short but very interesting statement he made in the Other Place concerning his intentions regarding urban renewal and slum clearance projects in the Republic. We should also like to hear from him whether his investigations during his recent overseas visit, when he also visited the U.S.A., put more and new information at his disposal, compared to what his department already knows.

Before I go any further, however, I want to thank the Minister and his very efficient officials of the Department of Community Development for the very expeditious and assiduous way in which they have tackled this rather pressing problem in the past year or two.

The first point I want to deal with now is this. In view of the increasing ramifications of urban renewal schemes in South Africa, I wonder whether a separate Department of Urban Renewal with a separate director or secretary could not be established under the control of the Minister’s department. The matter has become so urgent that urban renewal cannot be treated any longer as just a small cog in the vast community development machinery. If a separate department is established, I am sure the Government will be able to pay better attention to the vast question of urban renewal on a far more co-ordinated scale than has been the case up to now. I am also convinced that a separate Department of Urban Renewal will be able to tackle certain important matters regarding urban renewal and slum clearance more speedily and more effectively than in the past.

There are certain aspects I should like to mention and which I am sure could be tackled very effectively by such a department. Firstly let me say that I think the country would like the department to capture the imagination of the people in every city, and one way to do this is to start a gigantic slum clearance project or urban renewal scheme in every major city in the country. To do this, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, it is urgently necessary that every urban renewal area where such a project is to be undertaken must be clearly and distinctly identified so that one knows exactly which area is to be cleared up. Furthermore, all dilapidated and depressed properties in the area should be acquired either by the local authority or by the Department of Community Development. In order to provide for the effective planning and financing of such a distinctly defined area, the planning and finance costs as well as the yield from the sale of stands must, I feel, be precisely calculated beforehand. If a local authority is not in the position to supply the finances to acquire the land or to pay the planning costs, I want to suggest to the Minister that the Central Government should provide loans at a reasonable rate of interest. It is also essential, as the Minister pointed out, that seeing that the Government is at present contributing some R80 million a year towards urban development and urban renewal, the Government should have a say in the comprehensive urban planning of any particular city. It is therefore with great satisfaction that we have learned that the Minister is thinking along those lines, in other words, to take just these powers without infringing the powers of the provincial authorities.

Much of the urban deterioration which we have experienced over the years in South Africa and also in my own constituency has been caused by the lack of co-ordinated planning, and also by the lack of purposeful city planning. It is not only the Government and the local authorities which must tackle this vast problem of urban renewal, but I think it should also be tackled by the private sector. I hope the Minister will in future do everything possible to stimulate the interest of the private sector so that they may contribute their share as well. I see no reason why private housing agencies, for example, or private companies should not undertake urban renewal as well, provided it is done under the supervision of the Department of Community Development. In order to stimulate interest on the part of private entrepreneurs in the redevelopment of such a slum area, I think it would be a good idea for the Government to take the lead wherever possible by starting a Government scheme or erecting Government buildings, because we all know that whenever the Government is interested in a new area it serves as a new growth point for other private buildings as well. I am also convinced that this matter should not be approached only from one angle. There are other angles also, but I do not have enough time to deal with all of them. But in the first place measures should also be taken to prevent buildings and private residences from deteriorating into slums. In America they have what they call urban conservation measures, and this takes the form of a strict building code to which all specifications in regard to the structure, the building materials, etc., must conform. I am very glad that in this respect the Minister has already briefly stated in a speech in the Other Place that he is thinking along the lines of having a national building code drawn up eventually. It will indeed be a very happy day for this country when a national code of that nature is eventually introduced. I think private house-owners should also be encouraged to do that by having housing loans or renovations loans offered under favourable conditions by building societies or by the Government making tax concessions to people who want to renovate or restore their own private houses. I also think that a big publicity campaign should be mounted in this country to enlighten the public about the necessity of having their properties restored, as well as to tell them that if they do not do so, when this national building code is introduced, they will be committing an offence under that code if they do not look after their own buildings and their private houses. But having done all these things, I also feel that these urban conservation efforts will be of no avail if the families removed from these depressed areas are not helped to adjust themselves psychologically as well. When they moved into a new environment, into the new towns, as they are called in Britain, we have seen all over the world that in that new environment they allow those new properties to lapse into the same state of physical decay as the properties where they came from, if they are not adjusted to that new environment.

Finally, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to do everything possible to have more city and town planners trained in this country. There is an alarming shortage, I am told, of these people, and it is an urgent prerequisite for implementing urban renewals and for replanning and redevelopment that this position should be countered. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Minister demonstrated this morning that in addition to his well-known energy and ability to embark on joy rides and other activities, he can give a very detailed and conscientious reply to questions. The marathon reply he gave this morning is one which it would not be possible to deal with in the brief space of ten minutes. However, one or two points arise from it to which I must refer. I want to thank him for the courtesy with which he dealt in detail with all the points raised.

I want to say at once that the manner in which the Minister rejected the appeal for an inquiry was simply passing the buck and whitewashing. On the one hand he passed the buck for anything which he did not like and everything that was wrong to the City Councils, and on the other hand he shrugged off any criticism of his Department. It will be impossible to deal in detail with that other than to say that this continual shifting of responsibility from the Department to the local authority, and from the local authority back to the Department, merely leads to delay after delay, and the person who suffers in the end is the one who is waiting for housing. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Minister’s statement that the position in regard to housing for Whites is healthy. I cannot accept it because of the case after case that one comes across with this problem of a man with his wife and family of four or five living in one room and asking where he can find a home. He goes to the City Council and they say it will take four or five years on the waiting-list. He goes to the Department of Community Development, and often they cannot help him either. In fairness I must say to the Minister that I have had nothing but courtesy from the officials of his Department, both at local level in Durban or at head office level, but they do not have the facilities to offer. It is no use offering a man who earns R100 a month a flat at a rental of R75 a month, leaving him R25 a month on which to live. There are not the facilities available, and because I know from personal knowledge of case after case of people either living in flats or houses for which they are paying too much, or else living crowded together in a room or two or with relatives, I cannot accept the Minister’s self-satisfied assurance that the position in regard to white housing is so healthy.

I clearly stated that I was not satisfied with the position in regard to the lower income groups.

It is the lower income group that is suffering. There is plenty of housing for the rich man. In my own constituency something like 14 blocks of flats have gone up in the last few years. If you can pay R80 a month for a one or two-bedroomed flat, you can get it. You have to pay from R80 to R150 for it. That constitutes no problem to the rich man, but if the man can only afford to pay about R30 or R40 a month, or even less, he is in trouble.

The position is being aggravated. The Minister said that this question of selling buildings, etc., was common practice, and that it turned over the money, but one of my complaints against it is in regard to the people who are looking for accommodation. I want to give him a specific case. I questioned the Minister on 11th April last year in regard to flats built in Durban and their cost. There was a block of flats, Streliziahof, which cost, for the land and the building together, R286,000, and Ulindihof cost R187,000. The Department should not be a profit-making institution. It is there to serve South Africa with the taxpayers’ money. Therefore one assumes that in determining its rental it is simply aiming at covering costs, and not at exploiting the public. I want the Minister to tell me whether the rentals are based on basic costs, or whether in fact rentals fixed by his Department aim at making a profit for the Department. When these buildings were offered for sale, only a few weeks ago, I find that Ulindihof was advertised for sale, and not by tender as the Minister said in his reply. He said they were put out to tender. But here I have an advertisement in the Natal Mercury of 16th April, 1968, and it does not say that it is for tender, as the Minister told the House. It gives a description of the block of flats and says it is for sale at R117,782. It is a fixed price which is R10,000 more than the building cost to erect. The other one, Strelitziahof, was built at a cost of R286,000, and it is offered for sale at R310,000, giving nearly R25,000 profit. Now, if the rents established when the Department of Community Development was running this were simply economic rentals to cover costs, and the Department is selling it at a profit of R25,000, the new owner who obviously buys it as a business proposition wants a profit also, even if it is only 8 per cent as laid down in the Rents Act. That means that those tenants will now have to pay a far higher rental, firstly to give the Department its R25,000 profit and then to give the new owner an 8 per cent profit on his investment. I cannot see how that sort of negotiation can be regarded as being in the interests of the public whom this Minister must serve.

Sir, the Minister spoke of the basic determination of value. What he forgets is that when a person is shifted from a house in an affected area, that person gets compensation on the value probably of an old house. I had the case of a Coloured woman who came to me in tears. She had been offered R7,000 odd. Eventually, by negotiation, the Department brought it up to R8,000. But in that house for which she was going to get R8.000 she herself, a crippled husband and a mentally deficient son and three other children were living in half the house and she let the other half for R40 per month. She supported her mentally deficient son, her crippled husband and her other children with that income of R40 a month which she received by way of rental for half the house and with her own wages. Nowhere else can she get a house where she can house her family and get an income of R40 per month. All she can get for R8,000 is a house just to house her own family. How is she going to live? Eight thousand rand may be a fair valuation but the Minister forgets that these people are being paid that sum for an old building and they are having to spend that money on a new building at far higher costs. [Time expired.]

I do not want to react to the points touched upon here by the hon. member for Durban (Point). Most of the points he touched upon, such as the question of the determination of rent, were dealt with by the hon. the Minister in his previous speech. The hon. member for Durban (Point) probably found himself in the same situation here to-day as the hon. member for Umlazi was in the other night. The hon. the Minister, with his preceding announcement and explanation, took the wind out of their sails to such an extent that they had to mark time in their speeches. I must admit that I am in almost the same position because what one wanted to advocate here has already been announced by the hon. the Minister. But we in the Cape Peninsula and immediate environments still have a problem which we should like to bring to the urgent attention of the Minister and his Department. The problem is that we in white areas are, to an increasing extent, having to contend with Coloureds who are making a public thoroughfare of our white areas to an excessive extent. For the most part, this movement of Coloureds in our white areas takes place at night. The problem arises from the fact that uncontrolled numbers of visitors are allowed to visit the Coloured servants in these areas, and not only to visit, but to spend the night with them. In terms of the Group Areas Act it is possible for those visitors to remain overnight with such a servant on 90 occasions per calendar year. In certain of our areas the position has become so critical now that I feel myself at liberty to say that in certain parts there are almost as many non-Whites spending the night as there are Whites in that area. In other words, a situation could arise where one would have back yard locations in the white areas. All we need do is see how many Coloured men leave those white areas in the morning with their lunch pails to go and perform their daily task elsewhere. I am certain that in most cases the white owners of those dwellings are not aware of these unauthorized persons who spend the nights with their servants. There are cases—and I believe that there are many such cases—where the Police are quite unable to take action because the owners are afraid to prefer charges. They are afraid that they may lose their servants; that the servants will leave to go to another employer who is more favourably disposed in this regard. Recently I saw in the Press that the Police had, during one of their nightly raids, disclosed malpractices which had arisen as a result of this situation in certain of our best residential areas, but they are not able to take steps against all these persons who spend the night there. One asks oneself whether it is not time we did something to combat this sordid situation. What I am asking to-day is not that a total prohibition should be imposed on Coloured servants sleeping in in the white areas, but that we should take steps against this uncontrolled number of visitors and those who spend the night with servants in the white residential areas. Nor is this problem restricted to our residential areas where we have separate dwellings. Possibly the situation is far worse in flat complexes. I am sorry the hon. members for Sea Point and Gardens are not here this morning. I should like to request their friendly co-operation in these representations. If they did not agree with this, then we would at least know where they stand in this matter. We have this situation in regard to flats that various types of living quarters for servants are being provided. In some cases there is a separate block at these flats where the Coloured servants are housed, a separate block in which there are at night large numbers of persons sleeping over. Then there are the other cases where servants’ quarters are provided on different stories of a specific block of flats. Of course it is not a desirable situation to have this concentration of Coloureds bordering on one’s white flats, because there are people who can do nothing about it, and who take exception to Coloureds being accommodated adjacent to them. Then there is a third type of Coloured servant quarters, and one finds this particularly in the more densely populated flat areas. One finds that inside the flat a small room has been provided for a servant without provision being made for any separate entrance for that servant. In other words—and this is definitely the case in Sea Point—this is a situation of shared living quarters which people who are basically opposed to it find goes against the grain. Of course these servants can also receive visitors who may spend the night with them on 90 occasions per calendar year. I really feel that it is time we cut out this canker, and that we cut very deeply. I realize only too well that we often run to the hon. the Minister with our problems when we as Whites actually created those problems for ourselves, but now it is also true that there are many innocent people involved in this matter who are really suffering while others are getting off scot free. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to plead for an amendment to the Act here this evening; you would not allow me to do so. I am merely pleading for a change in the regulations. If we should allow this uncontrolled situation to continue, we will ultimately arrive at a situation where a Coloured family will be accommodated in almost every backyard. We would then, to an increasing extent, have to deal with an integrationistic situation in those flats with interior servants’ quarters, an integrationistic situation in regard to people whose moral values have been dulled as far as these things are concerned. I want to promise the hon. the Minister our support in advance here in the Cape Peninsula if he and his Department should decide to combat this situation with very strict measures. Since we are promising our support I believe that I can also speak on behalf of the hon. members for Gardens and Sea Point here, who have recently become so apartheid-conscious. [Interjections.] Yes, Simonstown as well.

What do you suggest?

I therefore hope that we will have the co-operation of the Sea Point people as well. Nor must we forget the hon. member for Newton Park, because there are such flats in his area as well, although they do not have many Coloured servants there. But he does not know what the situation in regard to such flat-dwellers is. At Richmond he does not have the problem of his Coloured servant living in his farmhouse without a separate entrance, but he need only go to Parson’s Hill to see what the problem there is. There are solutions to this problem, but a restriction must be imposed by the hon. the Minister against this excessive sleeping-over of servants in our white areas.

We have just had a second exhibition of buck-passing adroitly performed by the hon. member who has just sat down. He has mentioned the problem; we know that that problem exists in every place where you have domestic servants. They must have their facilities, or are they not to have visitors? The hon. member does not want to do away with servants, but then he does not know where to house them, so he says, “I pass the buck to the Minister; here is the problem, and I hope that you will have the wisdom of Solomon and tell us how you are going to solve it.” The hon. member has posed the problem to the hon. the Minister without offering any suggestion as to how it can be solved.

I want to revert, if I may, to the hon. the Minister’s statement that responsibility for housing primarily rests with the local authority. Sir, the hon. the Minister should realize that over the last few years the Government has done everything it possibly can to frustrate the local authorities in their efforts to tackle the problems of planning and of development of housing. It has passed laws to say that it can ignore every municipal regulation. The hon. the Minister has said that he can ignore town planning conditions. The hon. the Minister has introduced laws to say that he can ignore conditions of title, and he is now busy assuming unto himself the right of a licensing authority. He can ignore all the building regulations which are prescribed by local authorities and, furthermore, if the local authorities want to build anything they must put the plans up to the Minister’s Department. And then, Sir, he says that the local authorities are not accepting their responsibility. I want to give him one example where a body, which is not even a local authority, attempted to deal with housing. What happened as a result of Government action? The hon. the Minister will be aware that some years ago a housing scheme was started by a non-profit company, a company registered under section 21 of the Companies Act, to provide home-ownership for Coloureds in the Somerset West area. What happened? This company, financed by private individuals and co-operating with a building society, embarked upon a scheme in terms of which they obtained a piece of ground at a very reasonable price from the owner of the property. They subdivided the ground and built a number of houses in the Coloured area. These houses were sold on the home-ownership basis to Coloured owners. A number of Coloureds were interested in acquiring land for themselves and it was arranged that they could obtain 90 per cent bonds, without a cent of assistance from the Government, but through this organization they could get 90 per cent bonds; so a number of them set about buying their plots. They were paying off the purchase price on an instalment basis, and as soon as they had paid 10 per cent they could proceed to build their homes. Everyone of these was done with permit, authority, and approval. This was a Coloured area to be developed as a Coloured residential area. Out of the blue, three years ago, the Government said: No, this is now going to be a white area. I must say for the Department concerned that they saw to it by purchasing rapidly the ground that was unsold or on hire-purchase, that the Coloured people could get back the money that they had been paying. But they frustrated a 100 Coloured people and that they certainly frustrated a number of white people who were interested in housing.

You must raise a matter pertaining to that area with the Minister of Planning.

I am just coming to this point. That is where an attempt was made to provide housing. The hon. the Minister said I must raise that with the Minister of Planning. That is exactly the point I am coming to. The Minister of Planning goes on declaring group areas, and the area is then cascaded into the lap of the Department of Community Development. “You get on now and do something with it.” Where is the coordination? How is it possible that a scheme like this can be approved at one moment where housing is required, and the next moment it is collapsed in the way that this one has been.

Let me take another instance. This hon. Minister has now had deposited into his lap the Macassar Beach township at Eerste River. What is happening? First of all, the Minister’s Department has to set about fixing proposed basic values. Does the Minister know that everyone of those basic values was upset when they went to the Revision Court and that everyone was increased? Every owner had to wait until those valuations could be revised. The valuations, even as they are now, result in a loss to every white person who purchased property there. But what is happening to the Coloureds and the development of this area as a Coloured township? Are they going to pay interest on the capital investment which the Government has made, or are they going to get these sites at a figure which they can afford? I ask that because I have an instance here of a person in the lower income group who inquired last year for an opportunity to buy a property which was for sale in the Goodwood West area. He was told that there was no property for sale. This year he has been offered a vacant residential plot in this particular area at the price of R1,300 for 5,000 square feet, which is some R650 higher than that property was worth a year ago. It has appreciated, and now he is being asked to pay the appreciated price. I refer to these matters, because here we have again the problems which exist because of this lack of coordination. In 1957, 11 years ago, Rylands Estate on the outskirts of Cape Town, was declared an Indian group area, and was handed over to the Department. The Indians in Cape Town have been told: Get out of the white areas; you must move to Rylands. There was an announcement two days ago that something has been done about putting on services, 11 years after this was proclaimed a group area. So far as the Department was concerned, in 11 years it has built 35 low-cost houses, which were built in 1963. They built 12 for the higher income group in 1967. This is a resettlement of the Indian community in the Cape Peninsula.

I believe there are three aspects which fall under the hon. the Minister’s Department, which are interrelated. The one is the group areas determination; the other is the group area implementation, and the third matter, which was referred to by the hon. member for Turffontein is the slum clearance or urban renewal. I believe that, if ever there was a time for an inquiry into the Department to see how these three aspects can be coordinated, and better co-ordinated, it is now, as has been requested from this side. The senior staff of the hon. the Minister’s Department are swamped, as one knows, by their responsibilities. We have reports from the Minister’s other arm of public works that it is impossible for them to find the technical and professional staff that they require. The reasons are obvious, namely the rates of pay offered to architects, town planners, and so on. Of course they will not get the staff. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe very strongly that unless there is an investigation now into the whole future of housing and the overlapping that exists between the Department of Planning and the Department of Community Development, as well as the Department of Social Welfare when it comes to the question of the housing of the aged, we are going to find ourselves in this country in some serious difficulties in the not too distant future. These are urgent problems. The country is in need of housing. This housing problem cannot just be solved by saying that when people can afford to pay for reasonably priced accommodation, they must go and find it for themselves. That is what is happening in the Sea Point/Green Point area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat began to sing another song after the hon. the Minister had dealt with this major request in regard to an investigation. The hon. member is now advocating an investigation into the activities of the various Departments, in other words, Departments which are divorced from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He is now dragging in other Departments. They are beginning to sing this new song now after the hon. the Minister gave an adequate reply here this morning to the objectionable idea that the activities of the Department of Community Development, after all the indubitable success and progress it has made, should be investigated. What is more, the hon. member stated that the municipalities and local authorities are frustrated as a result of the extensive powers which are being granted to the hon. the Minister enabling him to take action without their consent.

Only last year the Removal of Restrictions Act was passed unanimously by this House after it had been referred to a committee of inquiry. Not a word of protest or objection was made by any member on the opposite side. In terms of that Act considerable powers were granted the hon. the Minister. Where does this sudden frustration come from which they are looking for in regard to our municipalities? There were many complaints on the part of hon. members opposite. Most of them were imaginary. I do not want to mention them one by one, but want to refer to another matter which is important to me. I want to refer to urban and physical deterioration. There are only two methods of dealing with this matter.

The first is to apply active urban renewal, as is being done in most modern cities where this problem occurs, and as it is already being done by the hon. the Minister and his Department on a large scale. Important projects have already been set in motion. Where there is existing urban deterioration, the reply is the active implementation of urban renewal. We have many examples of that in history. One example of this is Paris. If it had not been for Eugene Hausman who, almost 100 years ago, made a start with the beautiful boulevards, new bridges and new state buildings in Paris, Paris would not subsequently have been one of the most beautiful cities in Western Europe.

Other examples of this are Birmingham and Glasgow where, many years ago, major urban renewal schemes were undertaken so that the inhabitants to-day are able to reap the benefits. South Africa presents a different picture. Relatively speaking our cities are much younger than the cities of Europe, and particularly Western Europe. The problem of urban deterioration or physical decay, is of much more recent origin in comparison with the cities of the Western world. It is so that in the thirties and forties—and hon. members on the opposite side will as usually deny it—urban deterioration on a titanic scale began to take place here. In 1948 when this Government came into power urban deterioration in these areas was an established fact. However, the hon. the Minister and the Department is already engaged on major projects in this regard. We from the Western Cape can testify to the tremendous project which is going to be tackled in regard to the South End area.

I should like to refer to the factors which make for urban deterioration. Experts on this problem mention many factors which cause urban deterioration. However, there are two phenomena which in my opinion are the most important of all. The first is when one allows a mixed population in the same residential area, when persons of different population groups live in the same area. We have many examples of that in South Africa. In my constituency there was such an area where Whites, Indians and other non-Whites lived together during the thirties and forties. This situation prevailed until, in terms of the Group Areas Act, that area was proclaimed a white area, and in terms of the Community Development Act the people were accommodated in their own separate areas. To-day that part of the constituency is a peaceful residential area. Then, too, I should like to pay great tribute to the hon. the Minister and his Department for this major task which has been performed in this area.

The other factor is that of incorrect development, this takes various forms. As hon. members also mention here, one finds incorrect development when areas which previously were exclusively residential areas are subsequently zoned for light industries. Consequently the houses, which in many cases are occupied by people in the lower income groups, are neglected because the plots on which the houses stand are sooner or later going to be utilized for light industrial purposes.

Another phenomenon we find is that in modern times broader or new streets are planned in existing and built-up town areas, streets which will not be built soon, but which the local authority in question wants to lay out in the future. Consequently the owner takes no further interest in his building in that area and which will subsequently have to be demolished because it does not pay to spend money on the maintenance of that building. This we find in our country as well. I see it in my own constituency. I know of numerous houses which are going to be demolished when new streets are built.

That is why I want to make the submission that the Central Government, through the hon. the Minister and his Department, should acquire a measure of co-responsibility in regard to planning and developing of our cities. When I say that, I do not want to be misunderstood. I on this side of the House have great appreciation for what many of our local authorities have already accomplished in many areas. But I think there should be co-responsibility, in consultation with our local authorities, in order to prevent the incorrect development from taking place. I have no doubt that the Minister and his Department with their resources, knowledge and other experience will be able to make a tremendous contribution to the benefit of our local authorities if the Minister can find ways and means of effecting co-responsibility with the local authorities, in consultation with those authorities, in respect of the planning and development of our cities.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal explanation, my attention was drawn to the fact that during a speech I made this morning I spoke about a 25 per cent profit. I must ask permission to correct that because it should be R25,000 profit and not 25 per cent. In order that there may be no misunderstanding I ask permission to correct it.

Mr. Chairman, we were not surprised to hear from the hon. the Minister this morning the figures he gave us regarding the drop in the number of artisans and building workers in the building trade. We have known for some time that this has been going on. Unfortunately, one of the reasons for this drop is the fact that the industry has been faced with controls. Building control and rent control. It is the old story that every time you set up a control it has its long-term effects and it has a broadening effect because it spreads throughout business and industry.

I have the figures for the period before 1965, before anything of that nature had an effect on the industry.

I think the Minister is correct when he mentions the matters which he is going to tackle, that is the question of the training of artisans, and the fact that he will give the building industry the assurance that there will be continuity of building. I think this will help the situation considerably. The Minister could of course have taken another line which would have helped the industry. He could, in consultation with the trade unions, allow the Bantu to play a greater part in industry. The interesting thing is this. When the Minister talks about industrial housing, he is allowing the Bantu to do more. Because what is industrial housing? It is in the main houses built by Bantu labour under white supervision and that are taken from the factory to the sites where they are erected by white labour. The Minister is using Bantu operatives now and he might as well extend the system to normal building operations.

In his opening speech in this debate the Minister gave us certain new figures regarding bonds, loans and wage ceilings. I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Umlazi. The Minister has told us that if a man has an income of not more than R5,000 per annum he will be able to get a 90 per cent bond not to exceed R9,000; that is a bond on a property costing R10,000. I think here the Minister has not matched his figures. The average person who to-day earns R5,000 a year does not live in a house that costs R10,000, he lives in a house that costs more. Therefore what the Minister is trying to do will not be achieved at the top bracket of the figure of R5,000. I hope the Minister will consider lifting that ceiling value of the house because it is not a practical one.

What I really wanted to raise with the Minister is this question of the purchase of land surrounding the urban areas. In his speech when he took part in the Part Appropriation debate the Minister told us his department was giving attention to the whole question of availability of land and was negotiating the possibility of purchasing land around metropolitan and town areas where there are growth points. He could then, among other things, provide for the sustained and systematic development of these areas. He also said the matter was being investigated in consultation with the municipalities to see whether a better method could not be found of eliminating speculation in land earmarked for middle and lower income groups. I hope the Minister will be able to give a little more information on this new development, namely the purchase of land in the peripheries of the large cities and towns in conjunction with municipalities, to provide for housing. I think what the public wants to know is this. First of all, what does the Minister mean by the middle and lower income groups? Who is he going to provide this land for? When he purchases land and develops it by changing it into a township, will the land only be used for housing to be provided by the Minister’s department? Or will the land be sold to the public for development by the public themselves? Perhaps the land will only be used for uneconomic development by the Minister. Can the Minister tell us? Depending on his answer to the question whether the land will be sold to private individuals, will the Minister tell us whether he intends co-operating with land developers?

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

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch I was discussing with the Minister the statement he had made in the Part Appropriation debate, namely that it was the intention of his department in conjunction with the municipalities to buy land on the peripheries of our metropolitan areas and towns. I was asking the Minister to tell us what his intention was in this matter so that not only the public but those people who are interested in the purchase of land and land developers could also know what was happening. There has been an enormous amount of land development over the past two or three years. While it is true that the price of residential land just as that of industrial land has risen considerably, there is no doubt that the land developer has been performing a service to the community, because the land is at least available. We have discussed with the hon. the Minister previously some of the factors that contribute to the increases in the price of land which we have experienced, such as the delay in the establishment of townships, etc. I do not however want to deal with that matter today. What we would like to know from the Minister is generally what this statement of his really means in so far as the public is concerned and in so far as those people who normally develop land are concerned. For whom is he going to provide this land? Is the policy going to be a long-term one? I mentioned in the Part Appropriation debate that the purchase of one area of land really did not take the matter very much further, because as soon as that had been acquired and utilized the same problem would crop up again. It might be that to achieve what the Minister wants to achieve he will have to have a long-term programme of purchasing land, so that as the cities and the towns expand he will always be in a position to make provision for that housing he has in mind. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could tell us what his plans are.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown said at the beginning of his speech that Bantu labour should be utilized to a greater extent. Here, once again, we have the old difference in regard to policy between this side and that side of the House. We on this side of the House believe in the protection of the Whites in white areas. We believe in a colour bar. But on that side what is believed in is economic integration, with its end result—social integration. The people outside realize this and we on this side have a sufficient sense of responsibility to realize this at all times, and to accept it. Secondly, the hon. member for Parktown mentioned the restriction of R10,000 in respect of the middle income groups. He said it was inadequate. He also expressed concern in regard to the purposes for which the land is going to be utilized, the land which is being purchased by this Department. The hon. member must not take it amiss of me, but it is obvious to me that he is concerned because this land is going to be used, as laid down by the Department, to make provision for housing for all sections of the community, and that we are not dabbling in snobbishness and status-mania as the hon. member for Park-town is doing. Since we are in Committee and I only have a short time at my disposal, I want to use my own constituency as an example in my speech. As background I want to state at once that the Department of Community Development has accomplished a tremendous task, and not only in regard to the amount of money which was made available to the local authorities of Rustenburg. In the short period of five years no less then three-quarter million rand has been loaned in my constituency to the local authorities for economic and sub-economic housing schemes. More than 200 units have been erected, and the National Housing Scheme has also lent money to the private sector. That is not all the Department has done. On the contrary, if it were not for the close contact and cooperation, and the advice which has been made freely available, this measure of success would never have been achieved. The local authority was absolutely at liberty to approach this Department, and a great measure of success has been achieved with these schemes. Since it is my privilege to live near to my people and be aware of their problems, I want to say this statement made by the hon. the Minister will alleviate the bottle-necks which exist there. It will greatly benefit these people in the sub-economic and economic groups, and those in the middle income groups. These differences in interest will mean a great deal to my people. However, I want to concentrate on the middle income group this afternoon. I want to state that these concessions which have been made by the hon. the Minister, particularly in respect of our own housing commission in regard to the limit of R300 per month will now make it possible for many Government officials to qualify to live in these houses. It is of vital importance to the Government officials for the simple reason that from the nature of their work and their conditions of service, they are subject to frequent transfers. I want to express the hope that local authorities throughout the country will make a survey and make provision for these people who are serving them.

There is one problem in regard to the statement made by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Parktown stated that the solution lay in the fact that the limit of R10,000 was too small. It is not too small. In relation to a income of R5,000 I do not believe that more ought to be spent on a house than R10,000. But the bottle-neck to-day, and the Department cannot be blamed for this, is attributable to one reason only, namely that the prices of residential plots have been increased disproportionately in places where there are points of growth in the Republic of South Africa. Around our cities and towns where large-scale mineral exploitation is taking place, the prices of residential premises have been increased quite disproportionately. I want to state that one of the most vexing problems is the fact that those private companies which made a start with town planning schemes, laid out large plots, mostly as a result of their business acumen. They do not make provision for smaller plots in the same way as a local authority has to make provision in order to be able to qualify for loans from the Department. Most of these new urban areas have been laid out on a snob basis. This constitutes social evils for the development of our nation. I cannot associate myself with any status-mania. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to persuade local authorities, where there is land which belongs to them, to make it available for housing and that this should be done on the pattern which has been laid down by the Department of Community Development. Then you will find that there are smaller plots, but plots which are closer to essential services, because ultimately the taxpayer in such a town must bear the expense of the capital himself.

It would be of great value if local authorities could be persuaded to establish their own residential areas. Essential services would be cheaper, it would be easier to comply with the pattern which has to be followed by the Department, because I refuse to believe that with all these new residential areas which are being established, the local authorities in those areas do not have adequate land which can still be used for this purpose. With smaller plots we will find that it will be possible to leave larger tracts of land open, and lay out parks which can be utilized by the community. The local authorities which are now cooperating with the Department—this is the case in Rustenburg—are faced with a tremendous problem. Several years ago when they foresaw that the development of minerals would take place on a large scale, they began to undertake new residential area planning, in close co-operation with the Department. It was found that notwithstanding the advance planning, there were a tremendous amount of channels through which this residential area planning had to go before the residential plots could be made available. This was some years ago, and it has not yet been done to-day. Now I want to suggest that the private companies have business acumen and can spend more time on it, and that is why the proclamation of these areas takes place at a more rapid rate, because there is continuity in regard to the scheme with the various departments through which it has to pass. I want to suggest that, since the Minister has appointed a committee to see whether matters can be expedited in any way, these two factors, namely private companies, which are laying out new residential areas, and local authorities, should be related to each other. I am talking about local authorities which also want to lay out residential areas. And the local authorities ought to receive preference in regard to the provision of residential plots. You will then find that when a person from the private sector spends R10,000 on a house, it will not be an unrelated matter. But the problem is that the private sector has to compete with major undertakings such as mining organizations, and others, which purchase plots in order to alleviate the housing shortage for their own employees. It will then be possible for the middle income group to purchase land at a fair price in those areas where there are growth points. The difference between a private company and a local authority is that the point of departure of the local authority should be to make available residential areas without any profit motive. All they ought to pay for are the services and the value of the land. But that is not the case with private companies. In that case there is only one motive, and that is to make a profit, and this brings about a completely disproportionate increase in the price of the plot and the price of construction of the house. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to these ideas, as well as to the delays which are being experienced in regard to the proclamation of residential areas. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rustenburg made the point right at the outset of his speech that the United Party was trying to dilute labour in the building industry by suggesting that greater use should be made of Native labour. I think that is a very important point, and I am sure the Minister will assist us by answering the point put to him very pertinently by the hon. member for Park-town, namely, if black labour is not to be allowed to participate in the building of houses, will the Minister take steps to prevent black labour from being used in the manufacture of the component parts of prefabricated houses? Because he knows that to a very large extent black labour is used in those factories and then the prefabricated house is brought to the site and white labour spends some hours erecting the building. I think the Minister should give us an analysis of how many man-hours per house, including the making of the component parts, are spent upon a prefabricated house and upon a house built by the orthodox, normal methods, and how many of those man-hours are provided by black labour and how many by white labour. It will be a most interesting comparison and it will do much to expose the falsity of the argument that we of the United Party want to create unfair competition with white workers; because if that is so, the unfair competition is coming from the prefabricated houses which the Minister favours, and there is a larger proportion of black labour used in the manufacture of prefabricated houses than in the building of orthodox houses.

But when we discussed the Main Budget on the motion to go into Committee, I raised a matter with the Minister in a friendly spirit, namely his extraordinary expenditure when he travelled overseas, and I gave examples which on the fact of it seemed to be quite shocking. I made it perfectly clear that it was merely a prima facie case and that we were keen to hear the Minister’s reply. The Minister immediately responded, defending his expenditure, and he indicated that members of the Opposition would be free to inspect the actual documents, the actual vouchers in his Department at any time. This offer by the Minister was taken up on behalf of the Opposition by our Chief Whip, the hon. member for Von Brandis. He took this up with the Minister before the Easter Recess, and the Minister, for good reason, I take it, replied after the Easter Recess and then indicated that he stood by his undertaking to make full information available, but he had certain difficulties. One was that he was told that the vouchers could not be taken out of the Accounts Department of his Office and it would cost at least R400 to make photostat copies of the various documents. Therefore he suggested that the only way to inspect the documents would be for one or more of us to go to Pretoria, where this information would be made available to us. Now, we understand the Minister’s difficulties, but I think it is not satisfactory. The Minister in the meantime made available to us an itinerary of his journey as Minister of Housing and gave us an analysis of his expenditure under certain heads. I think I should say at once that we find that unless we can accept the offer made by the Minister and see the actual vouchers, this is completely unsatisfactory as far as satisfying anybody that the Minister’s expenditure was reasonable. There is not enough information here, and what there is strengthens our doubts about the extravagance of the Minister when he travels overseas. [Interjections.] I say that the information given to us by the Minister, far from satisfying us that the Minister acted reasonably on his travels, strengthens our opinion that the Minister acted extravagantly.

I want to give one example. We find from the figures the Minister has given us that he went on a trip to Europe and to the USA., including Canada for a few days, in a party of six, and this party spent R74 per day per person. That included fares and other travelling expenses, hotel expenses and diverse expenses like tips and gratuities and entertainment by officials. We find that the air fares amounted to R10,330.75 on a trip of 63 days for six people. It means that the air fares were on an average R27 per day per person. The hotel expenses were, in the case of Europe, about R19, and in the case of America about R20 per day. Let us take it at R20 per day per person. Other transport costs, apart from the air fares, were R12.9 in Europe and R18.5 in America per day per person. The longest period was spent by the Minister’s party in Europe, but let us assume that they spent an equal time on the two Continents. Then it is fair to say that this expense item would average R15 per day. That gives us R27 for air fares, R20 for hotel fares, R15 for other transport, making a total of R62.3, but the average expense was R74, which means that there was another R12 per day per person for six persons for 63 days not accounted for.

No, it is accounted for in the statement you have. It is the last item.

That is the point I am coming to. I have not included this last item. I will come to that last item now, but leaving that out, there is R72 a day for the party not accounted for, R12 per day for each person. But then in addition—not as part of this, but in addition—we are given this item under “Miscellaneous expenses”, namely: Prescribed allowances to officials, R16 per day in Europe and R20 per day in the U.S.A. for entertainment expenses, gratuities, etc.”

That is the prescribed allowance and the amount in some cases also includes expenditure in connection with services that were not given in the hotels.

That strengthens my case. In other words, officials are given in Europe R16 a day, and in America R20 a day for expenses, and in addition they also get allowances, where necessary, for entertainment and gratuities, making a total of R4,100 for the four officials over 63 days. That means, surely, that these other miscellaneous expenses for officials must be covered by that amount, and it strengthens my argument that there is still R72 a day unaccounted for. It is R12 a day per person, or R72 per day for the party. That is still unaccounted for, because it was not included in this last amount. I think the Minister should tell us what happened to that amount. How does he account for that? We cannot account for it because we have not seen the vouchers. We have been given globular figures, which I have analysed now, and we find that for the party R72 a day is unaccounted for, but officials get a special allowance over and above the expenses given here, which I assume would account in their instance for the extra expenditure. So it would seem that the R72 per day is for the Minister alone, or perhaps for other people who accompanied him from time to time. But we do not know. [Interjections.] It was a party of six, but in the case of four of the officials that is accounted for because they get a special allowance. I want to know what the Minister did with R72 a day? This Minister has not given us the answer and the facts are not available to us in Cape Town. Why not in Cape Town? Why cannot these documents be brought to Marks Buildings? Why should we have to make an expedition to Pretoria to get the information? What does the Minister want to hide? I want to believe that there is nothing to hide, but these figures reveal a most shocking state of affairs, and I think the Minister owes us a much more thorough explanation than he has given us. I have had the advantage of discussing these figures with members on this side of the House who are accountants. [Time expired.]

I am surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville is unable to read and interpret a simple statement properly. The explanatory statement which I made available to the Opposition divided the expenditure in regard to my overseas trip into various items. Firstly there was the question of airline tickets. The cost of airline tickets is determined by the various places one visits. I stated emphatically in the letter to the Chief Whip of the Opposition that the places visited were determined after careful negotiations between our representatives overseas and the various Government Departments in the countries I visited. After they had been determined in this way, the full itinerary was submitted to the Government for approval, and it was approved by the Cabinet. As far as travelling expenses are concerned therefore, in regard to airway tickets, there is no single item where there can be any question of extravagance. I think the hon. member will concede that I am right in this.

I think that visits to many of those places were totally unnecessary; it was a “joy ride”.

The hon. member may think that it was a “joy ride” but let me inform him that my Department and I have to deal with various local authorities each day as well as with the various organizations who are faced with these problems, and that one has to inquire into the different circumstances in the different countries; the circumstances differ from place to place. One cannot visit only the major cities, one also has to visit the smaller places which have problems similar to those in South Africa, and one has to investigate different kinds of circumstances. We may differ in regard to that, but then it is merely a question of judgment in regard to what is necessary in the interests of the country, and what is not. In this case the Government decided that this itinerary was satisfactory. Secondly, I furnished information about the hotel expenses. In Europe it amounted in my case to R19.60 per day; in the United States and Canada it amounted to R20 per day. The hotel expenses as far as my wife and I were concerned included the renting of accommodation plus all meals and other refreshments, and it included the renting of accommodation, without meals, of the officials. The hon. member will see in the comparative statement which I furnished to the Opposition and in which I also furnished examples of the journeys of my colleagues, Minister De Klerk and Minister Haak, that in the case of Minister De Klerk the hotel expenses on his European journey were R20 per day, whereas mine were R19.60 per day. In the case of Minister Haak these were R23.30 per day, as compared to my R19.60. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) has no knowledge of these matters, and he should keep quiet. I stated emphatically in the explanatory letter that in the case of my journey this amount per person per day for hotel expenses ought to have been lower than in the case of my colleagues, because in my case the party consisted of more officials, and because the accommodation obtained for the Minister and his wife is usually more expensive than the accommodation obtained for the officials, although it is in the same hotel.

Did you take a bridal suite?

That is why the average expenditure in my case is less. The difference between the travelling expenses of Minister De Klerk and my own would have been even greater if it had not been for the fact that Minister De Klerk visited countries such as Portugal and Spain, and other countries in Europe where the expenses are relatively lower than they are in other countries. In the United States and Canada the hotel expenses in my case were R20 per day, and in the case of Minister De Klerk R36 per day.

What did he do?

But the hon. member for Yeoville said that his expenses were quite reasonable and fair. I have now stated why, in his case, they should have been more expensive than in my case.

Why?

The hon. member did not listen; I am not going to repeat it four times. Now take transportation expenses. The transportation expenses in Europe in respect of Minister De Klerk and his company were R11.50 per day. In the case of Minister Haak and his company they were R12.50, and in the case of my company and myself, they were R12.90 per day. In the United States and Canada they were, in the case of Minister De Klerk and his company, R16.20 per day, and in my case, R18.50 per day. In my explanatory letter to the Chief Whip of the Opposition I stated that in the case of both my colleagues they were able, owing to the small size of their company, i.e. a total of four persons, to make use of one vehicle, whereas in my case, with a total company of six people, I had in all cases to make use of at least two vehicles, and in a few cases where the social welfare official had to go to a different place, we even had to use three vehicles. This happened in exceptional cases. For those reasons the average cost per day must of necessity be higher in my case than in theirs. All that amazes me is that there was so little difference between mine and theirs. But now the hon. member for Yeoville has stated that if the cost per day, the hotel expenditure plus the transport expenditure, is taken and compared with the daily total expenditure of R74 per day, there is still a remaining amount for which no explanation has been furnished. But this amount of R4,100 is included in the total amount, from whence the average of R74 per day was derived. If the hon. member works out what the expenditure was in respect of the prescribed allowances for the four officials who accompanied me, for the period they were in Europe, at R16 per day—this is the prescribed allowance they received in order to pay for their accommodation and meals etc.—as against the R20 per day which they received in the United States, then he will find that that in itself is more than R4,100 which is indicated here, because the meals they enjoyed in the hotels where they were staying were included in the hotel expenses and were recovered from them out of these prescribed allowances upon their return to South Africa. There is no single amount for which an explanation has not been furnished; it is all included in the statement which I gave the hon. member, and it is clear from the statement that my expenditure compares favourably with that of my colleagues.

He ought to apologize.

If he has any criticism to make, then he should not level it at me alone; it should be leveled against the entire pattern according to which all Ministers travel overseas, because all of us act in accordance with the same pattern. But, Mr. Chairman, it is not only we who travel overseas. When the United Party was still in power, they also travelled overseas, not only Gen. Smuts, but other Ministers as well, and hon. members must remember that the cost of living and the standards at that time were much lower than they are to-day. Here I have the details of the cost of one journey undertaken in 1947 by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Mining. It cost an amount of £33,724, more than R67,000 for one journey, and they merely went “home”. They did not undertake the study tours which we undertake. In our case it was an essential study tour. Hon. members are asking me continuously to have an investigation instituted into the direction in which my Department is going, and here I instituted a thorough investigation, as I said to hon. members on a former occasion.

Why do you not tell us the whole truth in regard to these Ministerial journeys? Why do you not tell us that it was two Ministers, and four Departments, that were involved? Why do you omit to mention all that information?

That is the information which stands here in Hansard, “The Minister of Economic Affairs and of Mines”.

It was two Ministers.

Even if it was two Ministers, it was still more expensive than my journey. Mr. Chairman, I have, on a previous occasion, pointed out emphatically that my Department and myself spend an annual amount of at least R600,000 and more on consultant fees for having schemes drawn up in regard to which we must form a judgment.

Will you give us that Hansard reference?

It is volume 96, 1958. The information was furnished in reply to a question. I do not know in what column it appeared; I can furnish that information to the hon. member at a later stage.

I furnished hon. members with full information. They are welcome to look up the receipts. They ought to know that the receipts and accounts are filed in the accounts section, and that the receipts have to be retained for the Auditor-General. One cannot merely eliminate those receipts; some of the accounts may get lost; this can happen quite easily, and it is simply not done. Since I have now given hon. members a clear indication that the costs of my journey compare favourably with the costs of the journeys of my colleagues, I cannot see why I should incur the additional costs of having special copies made for submission to hon. members. It would be much cheaper for hon. members on the opposite side to send one or two of their members to Pretoria to have a look at those receipts. They are welcome to do so. My Department will afford them every co-operation in order to peruse those documents. Mr. Chairman, I can give you the assurance that when Ministers of this Government undertake study tours overseas, then there is no time for “joy rides”, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) suggested. We look after our affairs in a responsible way. We conduct interviews and hold discussions not only by day, but also to all hours of the night. Very little time remains for private matters. In all the time I was overseas I went to private shows on four nights, for which I paid myself. For the rest my time was fully occupied with official work, interviews and inspection tours. I paid private visits to places such as a few opera houses, and for these visits and other private visits to shows I paid out of my own pocket. The one exception was when I was invited by the local authority of Berlin, as their guest. The officials who paid visits to the aforementioned places also paid for that themselves. No Government expense was incurred for anything which we did in our private capacities. We paid for that ourselves.

I shall now refer to matters which have been quoted here in the debate. The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the selling of flats. I want to tell him that the expenses which were originally furnished in respect of the flats does not include my Department’s administrative costs and supervision expenses. Actually they disappear in the administrative costs of the Department. They are actually included in the calculation thereof. When one sells a project of this nature to a private investor who is interested in it—provided we find someone who is prepared to pay a reasonable price—then an amount in respect of that has to be added. We cannot erect buildings which have been erected in the time of officials of the State, buildings over which they have maintained supervision and control and in regard to which one perhaps had to pay inspection fees and consultation fees, and then sell them at the actual building costs. The other costs must to a certain extent be included.

Then the reply to my question was incorrect, because I asked what the costs of the land and the buildings were.

The hon. member ought to know what the position is where officials have to deal with a matter. I am thinking for example here of the chief building official, the quantity surveyors, the technicians and administrative officials. It is not easy to calculate the time they spend on a specific project in financial terms. But this aspect has to be taken into account very carefully when the project is sold to a private entrepreneur.

The hon. member also asked whether we originally charged more rental than we were entitled to, whether we wanted to make a profit out of it, etc. It is general practice with all building projects that after they have been completed but before the final accounts have been closed, an amount is charged which is slightly more than the final account is expected to be. It is only human to decrease the rent or the purchasing price later on, rather than to increase it. That is why all sale houses, rent houses, etc., are loaded in the initial stages in regard to the rental or the selling price. When the final accounts are closed the price is adjusted so that it equals the normal tariff.

Were they adjusted in this case as well?

In this case they were adjusted and decreased, yes. At present the rental is lower than the rental a private investor would charge if he had bought that place at that price. That is the private buyer’s own affair. If he buys at that price he will, taking into consideration the rent control formulas, be entitled to a higher rental than the tenants are at present paying.

That was my point precisely, that the tenants would have to pay more.

It is a matter which has to be settled between the buyer and the tenants. If the tenants prefer to go somewhere else then provision can be made for them there. I also want to make it quite clear that it must be borne in mind that this is not a National Housing Commission scheme. It was a Development Board scheme which was simply introduced as a temporary relief measure in order to render assistance where the need existed. It is clear that the need in respect of that income group has, in the meanwhile, disappeared in Durban and that is why it is no more than right that the Development Board should withdraw from it in order to free its money and invest it in some other place. It is not, in the long run, a proprietor who has to sell properties. It must intervene to try and alleviate pressing conditions, and subsequently it withdraws. This has a bearing on what the hon. member for Green Point said here. The hon. member for Green Point referred to the prices at Macassar and asked what was going to happen. He wanted to know whether the Coloureds were going to pay the same high rentals. Now, the hon. member must bear in mind that my Department is not involved in the determining of basic values. It is not my Department which determines the purchasing prices. This is done by an independent panel of appraisers which are appointed, and if the owner is not satisfied with their evaluation, the matter goes to arbitration.

They are appointed by you.

Yes, they are valuators who have been appointed by me but I do not prescribe to them. Does the hon. member now wish to intimate that I and my Department prescribe to those people the valuations they have to lay down? It is a drastic charge and I want to reject it completely. The fact that I appoint them does not mean that I influence them.

That is not my point; I am simply saying that they did not do good work because they were not qualified.

One finds time and again that valuators differ as to their valuations. I can inform the hon. member that in my capacity of Minister of Public Works I recently had a property valuated, and I asked three different sworn appraisers to valuate the property. Their valuations differed by as much as 33 per cent one from another. Ultimately the basic value is determined, and that is the value at which I purchase the property. If I do not purchase it for that price, then I purchase it for at least the market value. If It is less than the basic value, then we pay the person concerned a value depreciation contribution of 80 per cent. It will probably be true in the case of Macassar that those prices will be higher than the prices at which we ultimately sell to the Coloureds. Hon. members must bear in mind that the basic value is based on Macassar as a beach resort for Whites, which of course is a very expensive place. Everyone knows that if one buys a plot at the beach one is in fact paying much more for it than its intrinsic value, merely to have a place near the sea. That is why it can and will happen that my Department will lose on the transaction when it sells to the Coloureds there, because those properties will be sold to them at the market value which they will have for a Coloured housing scheme and not for the value they had as a white beach resort. My Department is geared to do precisely that. The contrary is also true. The hon. member referred to Goodwood West. He stated that the land had been purchased at a certain price and that the Department subsequently made a considerable profit on it. But what he did not inform the House about is the fact that services were laid on there before they were sold again, services for which my Department had to pay. He did not include that in his figures. Surely the hon. member knows how expensive it is to lay on services to-day. Services are a tremendously expensive item.

I want to come to the hon. member for Parktown, Yeoville and others, who spoke about the question of the utilization of Bantu artisans in the building industry. Let me make it very clear that this Government stated emphatically in the past and still maintains to-day that we will not use Bantu artisans in the building industry in white areas. The Bantu artisans in the building industry are being trained and are, as soon as they have completed their training, being used in the Bantu areas and Bantu residential areas for the construction of Bantu houses. But now hon. members are asking me whether—and I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will listen to this now—Bantu labour cannot be utilized in regard to the pre-fabrication of houses in factories. How many were being utilized for this purpose, and what was the result, they wanted to know. I do not have figures at the moment. I do not know how many unskilled Bantu labourers are at present being utilized in the conventional industry. A great number of unskilled Bantu labourers are being utilized. In the pre-fabrication factories, the factory manufacture of buildings, Bantu are only being used as unskilled or semi-skilled labourers and not as artisans. That is the difference. If we can solve our problems in this way, and if, where we have an adequate supply of non-white artisans, we can produce factory manufactured buildings in a border industry with unskilled and semi-skilled Bantu artisans and then simply erect them in the white area using skilled Whites, with the aid of unskilled Bantu, then we can to a certain extent solve the problem.

But then one needs far fewer artisans.

One needs far fewer artisans for that, but then one prevents the utilization of Bantu artisans in the white area. This is an important point.

One would be depriving the white artisans of work.

But there are none. The hon. member must not say this to me; it is merely another election story. Nor will he get away with it. The point is that pre-construction, factory construction, will never replace conventional building methods. It can only be an auxiliary means, a supplementary means. Nowhere in the world has it replaced conventional building methods. What it is physically possible to do in regard to conventional building methods, will be done. In other words, we are not depriving the white artisans of work. They will continue to have every opportunity. Because, in the long run, one cannot compare factory construction with conventional building methods. It may perhaps be possible for one to erect houses more rapidly with the latter methods. It may under certain circumstances assist one, but it can never replace conventional building methods entirely. That is why I said—the hon. member was not here then—that at the same time as we were encouraging pre-construction we would also make special arrangements to afford equal treatment to conventional building methods in long-term projects.

The hon. member for Parktown addressed an inquiry to me in regard to the purchasing of land. It is a long-term project. The intention is not merely to purchase land sporadically, as the need arises. The intention is to see to it continually that there is always land available which can be utilized for the housing of lower and middle income groups in our major urban complexes and at places where difficulties are being experienced with growth. That is why my Department, in consultation with the local authorities, will from time to time and as land becomes available and development makes this possible, purchase land. As development takes place this land will also be developed. This land will not be reserved solely for the income group which falls within the limits of the National Housing Commission. We want diversified communities there, as far as this is possible. We also want to bring in the higher remunerated persons, the persons who are economically better off, into those areas, for the sake of the social influence which they have on the underprivileged, and on the neighbourhood. To a certain extent therefore these people will be able to obtain plots in these schemes on which to build, but these purchases will, for the most part, be made for the lower paid and middle income groups, in other words, those persons who fall within the scope of the Housing Commission. The exception will be that a group of other people will sporadically be distributed throughout the area. For the rest the higher middle income group and the higher income groups will as usual have to have recourse to the normal market. I am in entire agreement with what the hon. member for Rustenburg said. He said that local authorities who owned land should make it available for housing in an orderly way. We have tackled this scheme in conjunction with the local authorities precisely in order to make this possible in future. We will still have to work out the way in which the land will ultimately be made available because, in my opinion there are still far too many local authorities who are offering the public too few plots at a time at public auctions. Only the more well to do people are being benefited by this, and not the lower income groups. In due course we shall have to come to an agreement with them in regard to the method which will be applied.

Reference was made here to urban decay, but I am not going to discuss that again since I gave a full summary of the position in this regard in the Other Place. The hon. member for Turffontein, in the questions he asked me, mentioned precisely those things I had in mind. The reply to the questions he put to me is that we are in fact working along those lines.

I should like to say a few things about the matter touched upon here by the hon. member for Tygervallei. I am sorry that the hon. member for Green Point is not here at the moment. The hon. member for Tygervallei referred to the large number of non-Whites who are at present living in the white areas. He said the problem was that bona fide domestic servants could, in terms of the Group Areas Act, be accommodated on the premises. In terms of the Group Areas Act, unless it is prohibited by regulation, they are entitled to allow all visitors to them to remain with them for a certain period each year. The result of this was that not only the domestic servants, but many other persons as well apart from the domestic servants, were living in the servants’ quarters. He asked me to put an end to this by way of regulation. He specifically asked me the Peninsula members of the United Party what their attitude in this regard was. I should like to know what it is, because I think that it is a serious problem. Loitering and skolly elements are becoming more and more of a problem in Cape Town and its environments. The place where there is the least control at present as far as lodging is concerned, is in the servants’ quarters of many houses. Nor can the employer say anything, because he then loses his employee. That is why it seems to me that the time has come for us to do something about this problem. That is why I am giving serious consideration to it, and I am having an investigation made into it. I am also giving serious consideration to the fact that there are many houses and flats, particularly in Cape Town, where the servant’s room is inside the house or the flat, without having a separate entrance, or separate facilities. That is the case.

Shame!

Must I put an end to it or not? I hope I have the assistance of the hon. member for Port Natal.

You have enough to do without interfering in that matter.

In other words, the hon. member for Port Natal wants to keep them there. I am giving attention to this matter. I do not know precisely what is possible. But I am at present having an investigation instituted into the matter. I shall give this matter my attention.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has referred to his trip overseas and I think that all he has convinced us of is that his own expenses were not as extravagant as those of his colleagues. He compared his daily costs with those of Minister De Klerk and tried to prove that he was not as extravagant as he was. The Minister then threw across the floor of the House the total figure of a trip made in United Party days, but he did not apply the same rules as he applied to his colleague, Minister De Klerk. Minister De Klerk’s total expenses came to approximately R19,073. His own expenses came to R28,071. Then he started to break it down by taking the number of days and the size of the party to show that the cost of the trip per person per day was less. I invite the Minister to apply the same rules to the 1947 trip. The Minister did not give us the folio reference and the details. He did not tell us that there were two Ministers who went overseas without their wives and in addition 17 officials. He did not tell the Committee that these men went to the International Trade Conference at Geneva to hammer out the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. If the Minister refers to Hansard he will see that they went to the United Kingdom and Switzerland to the International Trade Conference at Geneva. Why did the Minister not tell us that? Why did the Minister not analyze those figures on the basis of the cost per person per day. The Minister has not told us the size of the party and the number of days spent overseas. He did not give us the cost per head per day, but he applies that rule when he wants to compare the costs of the Minister of Information. Our criticism is that while the Minister offered to give us details he has not yet given us details which will satisfy us. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not here. It is not his duty to be here this afternoon, but if the Minister of Finance were here he would know the standard he expects from the ordinary citizen.

The Minister of Finance through his Secretary for Inland Revenue demands certain details before a taxpayer can make a deduction under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. For example, if a senior executive goes overseas on business and then makes a claim under section 11 of the Act, he is bound to furnish certain details. As far as the accounts I have seen are concerned, I am satisfied that no Inland Revenue official will allow costs at this rate per day. For a senior executive to go overseas on the basis of R74 per head per day, is extravagant. An Inland Revenue official would query every item and disallow certain sections. I challenge the Minister to go to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and ask him to lay this down as his standard for senior executives going overseas on business. That is a fair standard. I am not talking about the junior official or a junior executive. I am talking about a senior executive, a managing director or a chairman of a company. Ask him whether the Inland Revenue authorities will allow such an executive R74 per person per day as a reasonable item of expenditure and let us have his reply. That is a fair test because, Mr. Chairman, you will find that time after time business executives go overseas genuinely on business, such as export business, get contacts and then afterwards claim expenses from their income tax. When they go to the Department of Inland Revenue, the officials there examine their figures critically. They then say that they cannot allow these expenses because they do not regard them as reasonable. Less than half this rate is the rule.

Does that include or exclude air fares?

It is less than half this rate, including air fares. I went over to the U.S.A. doing almost the same trip as the Minister at less than half the cost of the hon. the Minister. I stayed at the Waldorf Astoria in New York and at Hilton hotels in Phoenix and San Francisco. It was considerably less than half this rate. I did not go on a business trip. I paid my own expenses. I went on an education trip approximately three years ago. My expenses were considerably less than the Minister’s. Why was it necessary for the Minister to go to New York and then spend four days in San Francisco? It is very pleasant in San Francisco. He then went down to Los Angeles. It is true that he could see housing and housing schemes in San Francisco but would he see any different schemes or anything more by going to Los Angeles? [Interjections.] He spent from the 20th to the 24th October in San Francisco. From the 24th to the 27th he was travelling from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Then from the 27th to the 29th he spent in a place near the Grand Canyon. He then spent three days from the 29th to the 31st in Sun City in Phoenix to see the sun setting. He did not need three days to see Sun City. You can see it in a day. Sun City is a city for elderly people. It is a very fine concept indeed, and I myself spent a day there. What we are concerned about is whether this journey was necessary. Was it all essential and did it warrant this standard of expenditure? If the Minister can satisfy me that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, in future will allow this standard for business executives, then we will see a considerable increase in the deductible allowances in terms of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. When the hon. the Minister throws across the floor of the House this figure of £33,724, he should apply the same test to that party as he does to his colleague, the Minister of Information. When he gives us all those vouchers and we are satisfied with all that expenditure, then we still reserve our right to say whether we regard this as reasonable expenditure or extravagant expenditure or even necessary expenditure.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pinetown should take another look at the reply to the question to which I referred. He alleges that there were two Ministers who undertook that journey in 1947. It is clearly stated here, “the Minister of Economic Affairs and of Mines”. The names of the persons who accompanied him are clearly stated in column 4 here. There is no second Minister. The other Minister who went over at the same time is dealt with under another head. In the specific reply which is furnished here, namely in respect of R33,724, there was only one Minister with his private secretary, the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, members of the Board of Trade and Industries and other officials who accompanied him.

How many officials?

I did not count them, because it makes no difference. I mentioned this because I wanted to prove that it is very easy to mention a figure and in this way be reported with banner headlines in the newspapers in regard to the over-all figure. If one compares the one journey with the other, one can only compare it on the basis of the expenditure per person per day, as I furnished this information to the hon. members. In this information it is emphatically proved that in respect of myself and my colleagues there was no fundamental difference.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member stated himself when he referred to the journeys of my colleagues that they were quite fair and reasonable. He said himself that he wanted to congratulate them on having spent so little. Those were his words.

After I saw the analysis, I had second thoughts.

Then it is a matter which you must discuss with the Prime Minister. Then you must tell him that the entire Cabinet is paying visits overseas on the wrong basis, because we are all going overseas on the same basis and under the same conditions. We also have a standard which we have to maintain there on behalf of South Africa. We are not going overseas as representatives of a second-or third-rate nation. We are going overseas as representatives of South Africa. But now the hon. member for Pinetown is trying to justify the case of that side by asking why it had been necessary for me to go to San Francisco and Los Angeles; what could I have seen in Los Angeles which I could not have seen in San Francisco. But apparently the hon. member was never there. Does he not know that Los Angeles is the only city in which, up to two years ago, no buildings higher than two storeys were allowed? The conditions there are completely different. The problems experienced there were building on a flat trajectory over a wide surface area. The situation there differs completely from the one in San Francisco where one can see the best renewal schemes in the world, but where one can at the same time see what one should not do in respect of the under-privileged. Each place has its own particular circumstances. Then the hon. member asks me why it was necessary to spend four days in San Francisco. What the hon. member is losing sight of again is the travelling time between one place and another. The hon. member knows that a day is lost if one flies from New York to San Francisco. A day is lost if one does that. One of those days was a Sunday. Did the hon. member take that into account?

The hon. member also referred to my visit to Sun City. It was not only Sun City I visited. I stated emphatically Phoenix and Sun City. Sun City is one of the places I visited. I also visited the Indian Reserve there and saw their housing schemes.

You could have seen that at the Grand Canyon.

That shows how much the hon. members know about this matter. There is a vast difference between the Indians in Phoenix and those in the reserves near the Grand Canyon. There is a world of difference. Not only are they different groups, but the Indians at Phoenix are urbanized Indians, whereas the other on the other hand are living in rural surroundings. Different types of housing are being utilized there.

Did you see the caves on the way there?

Yes, I did, because the aircraft lands there. From there one rides with the other people to that place. I may add that when I stood there on the edge of the Grand Canyon I wondered which was the biggest, the Grand Canyon or the hon. member for Point’s mouth. [Laughter.] Do hon. members not take these things into consideration? If the hon. member wants to discuss it, he must obtain all the details, and then he must work out which days were Sundays, etc., and he must deduct them. I think it is extremely unfair to adopt that attitude.

One feels disappointed with the behaviour of the Opposition in this House to-day. This behaviour is childish. The Minister very clearly furnished the figures and mentioned the number of days he had spent abroad. Now the Opposition wants to present the Minister in a ridiculous light. If it is true that a great deal of money was wasted, why do those hon. members not accept the offer made by the Minister? Why do they not check those accounts and then come to this House so as to enable us to investigate the matter very thoroughly. Why speak in generalities only? All we had to-day and before was a general discussion. [Interjections.] If the hon. member feels that that amount per day is too high, let him make a thorough analysis of that amount and let us ascertain whether it is too high. As the hon. member for Pinetown has just said here, he wants to compare the Minister to a managing director of a company, but is it fair and just to do so? I now ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he honestly thinks that when a Minister of the Republic of South Africa pays a visit to countries abroad, he should spend the same amount per day as a managing director of a company, or is that merely the amount which can be deducted for income tax purposes? Can a fair comparison ever be made? But is it not merely a case of the Opposition now wanting to sow suspicion? Has it not become the habit of the Opposition to select one of our Ministers and then to try to disparage him? That is what they have been doing lately, but it cannot be done as easily as they seem to think. What we ask of them is to go into the facts and to come to this House with those facts, but not to come here with insinuations and a lot of gossip. Present us with the facts and say, “In this case you have spent too much.” But it is definitely unfair to compare three different Ministers with one another. I think the Opposition is treating this Minister in a very unfair manner. If those hon. members feel they do have a case, let them accept the offer of the Minister to investigate those matters and let them present the facts to this House. But the hon. members are too afraid to institute that investigation. They are too afraid to accept that offer. The only thing they want is that this gossip mongering should continue unabated and they do not want to put an end to it. If they present the real facts to this House, there will be no gossip to-morrow.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14, — “Public Works, R35,991,000”, and Loan Vote B,—“Public Works, R35,000,000”:

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey heartiest congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Public Works on behalf of this side of the House on the excellent arrangements made by the Department on the occasion of the recent inauguration of the State President. As you know, Sir, the Secretary for Public Works and the Parliamentary Officer were the chairman and the organizer, respectively, of this function and I think hon. members on both sides of this House will agree that in spite of very unfavourable and even stormy weather the night before, the officials of the Department deserve every praise for the outstanding arrangements made by them and the flawless way in which the proceedings went off the next day. The arrangements made this such a neat and stately occasion that for a long time to come it will leave an impression on hon. members and other honoured guests who attended it and especially on the public of the Mother City. We want to convey our gratitude and appreciation to the Department and the Minister for these excellent arrangements which definitely added lustre to this solemn occasion.

Allow me a single moment to refer to the announcement made by the Minister during the discussion of this Vote last year, when he said his Department of Public Works was to be re-organized. The report of the Department was tabled some time ago, and now it is gratifying to take note of the enthusiastic and purposeful manner in which the Department has lately been tackling and executing its work. The techniques employed are in agreement with the latest standards of production and control, with the result that buildings are now provided much more quickly than before. In spite of the shortage of professional officers and with very few additions to the administrative staff, this Department has succeeded in virtually doubling its production since 1965. I think that this is a fine achievement which we should not overlook. The Department is at present systematically engaged in a five-year programme of works which includes more than 1,000 projects at an estimated cost of more than R200 million. In order to illustrate what the Department can do, I want to refer to the crash programme in connection with the provision of Indian schools which was launched by the Department at short notice. Within the past 18 months 15 Indian schools have been completed, seven others are under construction and the paper work in respect of 17 other schools have been completed to such an extent that the work can now commence. In addition I just want to refer to the fact that a very important advisory board has been established in the Department in the meantime, namely the Building and Construction Advisory Board, which has been created with the Secretary for Public Works as chairman. The Department has been entrusted with the secretarial work of this board. I want to point out that the Department of Public Works also deals with the legislation in connection with the registration of engineers which is before a Select Committee at the present time, and that the administration of the Act on Architects and Quantity Surveyors has also been transferred to this Department. It is gratifying to see what this Department has accomplished within a very short period, and the re-organization of this Department has definitely had fine results.

In so far as the hon. member for Parow has touched upon the induction of the State President, I must add my thanks to his, to the Department, for the split-second timing of this function. I have certain criticisms, and I am sure other hon. members have too. I believe, for example, that the State President could have been brought nearer to the people who wanted to see him. If I have any criticism to level, I want to level it now and not later. I want to say that the function appeared to be too official. It was not sufficiently “of the people”, to my way of thinking, but I stand open to correction. But I believe that the organization and the split-second timing were very good indeed. Apart from that, I believe that the people should have been nearer to the State President on this occasion.

Having said that, I want to say to the hon. member for Parow that he has been used here as a red herring. He has been drawn across the trail to put us off. Let us look at the report of this Department which was tabled here on the 8th and which was put on our desks on the 9th. I cannot go into the report in detail because time does not allow of it, but its opening words are that “notwithstanding the serious shortage of staff, especially on the professional side, with which the Department has had to content during the period covered by the report”, it again succeeded in doing certain things. I want to go back to the previous Vote, when I brought to the notice of the Minister who administers the Public Service Commission that only 7 per cent of engineers in the Public Service qualify for a salary of R7,000 per annum or more, whereas in the private sector, with a smaller number of engineers employed, more than 40 per cent qualify for a salary of R7,000 or more per annum. The hon. the Minister said I need not worry about that, because the State offers greater security and all that sort of thing. But this report gives the lie to that, and obviously this Minister has not informed the Minister who controls the Public Service Commission of his plight, or else the Minister of the Interior, who controls that Commission, has taken no notice of the facts. What runs right through this report? The fact that this Department of Public Works is grinding to a standstill. In three years’ time it will be in such serious trouble that it is doubtful whether it will be able to carry on. It has already palmed off part of its work to the Department of Community Development. What is the position at the moment? Let us have a look at the staff. I have not the time to quote all the facts which would fully prove my case. But let us look at the question of vacancies referred to on page 5 of the report. Paragraph 8 says—

Then it gives the data, and it is alarming. If nothing is done, this Department is going to come to a standstill because it cannot carry on. I am wondering whether this Department has not been a little too honest and if this does not in fact reflect what is happening in other Departments also. Let us look at it. Out of 724 approved posts in 1967, 121 were vacant. That does not sound too bad, because it is only 16.6 per cent. But let us look at the civil engineers. Out of the 19 posts, 18 were vacant, and I am talking about the entry grades. Take the electrical engineers. There six posts were vacant out of eight approved posts; of the mechanical engineers, two posts were vacant out of seven. Of the quantity surveyor posts, 18 were vacant out of 30. Take the architects. This is a planning department, but 17 out of 33 posts were vacant. In regard to inspectors of works, they were quite well off because they appoint quite a number of people who have come up through the ranks. Take the specification writers. This is where the specifications originate, and here seven out of 12 posts are vacant. I do not want to go on ad infinitum. Where are we going? How can this Minister sit down complacently and hope that his Department will carry on in spite of these figures? These figures are given for three years. I congratulate his Department upon having the honesty to face the situation and to put it down in black and white. This is one of the few Departments that has had the guts to do it. This gives us a picture of the seriousness of the position, and the time has come for the Government to face up to this problem. It goes on to say—

It goes on in paragraph 11 to say—

Then it goes on—

Here they are facing the facts; they are telling the Minister what the position is, but what gets done about it? Absolutely nothing. Sir, the provision of the facilities which are necessary in South Africa, the provision of public buildings, the provision of places to house the services we want, is grinding to a standstill, and we are going to get nowhere. But, Sir, other things are well looked after. In paragraph 7 (c), for example, the report says—

What does that cope with? It copes with ministerial residences. They are well looked after. A special section has been set up because the Department can no longer cope and keep these ministerial residences up to the standards that the Ministers want. So special provision is made to cope with them.

Nonsense; that is not what it says.

The hon. the Minister says “nonsense” but this is what this report tells us. Let the hon. the Minister tell me why this division was founded if it was not established to do exactly what I have suggested? But, Sir, I do not want to be petty. I do not want to deny this Minister the right to have his lawn cut when he wants it cut, or for that matter, any other Minister. Those are side issues. The main issue is the issue reflected here and that is that the Department of Public Works is short staffed and that no people are being attracted to it. By means of promotion and so on the hon. the Minister has kept his most senior posts filled; that I accept. That is easy because all he has to do is to make the conditions of the people working for him better and better and then they stay in the service. But, Sir, if you have not got an intake from the bottom to replace men in the senior posts then you are in trouble. If these figures are correct—and I believe they are correct because they are factual figures—then the hon. the Minister is in serious trouble. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what he has done to stabilize the employment of officers needed for planning in this Department, a most important Department where all planning should originate, from which it should emanate. The hon. the Minister has not got the people to do it and he is not getting them. What has he done about it, and what is being done about it by his colleague who told me not to worry about the situation, and that the Public Service offers more security than any other service? [Time expired.]

I just want to point out that Loan Vote B,—Public Works, R35,000,000, is included in this Vote.

On the 26th April, I asked the hon. the Minister certain questions with regard to repairs and renovations to the naval village in Simonstown, Da Gama Park. He told me that 129 houses were being repaired and that where necessary renewals to the exterior of some of the houses were being undertaken; that tenders for the renovations and the renewals varied from R66,000, the lowest tender, to R218,982, the highest tender.

That is Community Development’s responsibility.

Order! The hon. member is raising this matter under the wrong Vote.

With respect, Sir, this is a matter which falls under the Public Works Department and not under Community Development.

Order! What exactly is the hon. member’s point?

I wish to discuss the renovations and renewals in the naval village, Da Gama Park, Simonstown.

That falls under Community Development.

Surely the maintenance of Government buildings falls under Public Works? Surely tenders are called for by the Public Works Department, and I am now dealing with tenders for these particular renewals and the renovation of buildings.

On a point of order, this is a naval establishment for which the Department of Public Works is responsible in the same way that it is responsible for the building of Post Office buildings and others, and it is also responsible for the maintenance of these buildings. I put it to you, therefore, that the hon. member is quite in order in raising this matter.

The hon. member is discussing the question of the renovation of houses.

I am dealing with the question of maintenance and especially the calling for and the acceptance of tenders.

May I just explain. It is quite correct that the hon. member had put a question to which I replied, but I replied to that question in my capacity as Minister of Community Development because the Department of Community Development was the Department which had called for all those tenders and had entered into all those contracts as they concerned housing in Simonstown and vicinity. The Department of Public Works is responsible for public buildings only and not for housing.

On a point of order, Sir, under Vote 14 on page 86 you will see that there is an item of R8,122,000 in respect of “Repairs and Maintenance of Buildings and Installations”.

That refers to offices and other buildings, not houses.

I think the hon. member for Simonstown is in order on this point.

If the hon. member is referring to houses, he is not in order.

Sir, is it in order for me to deal with contracts which have been put out to tender?

By the Department.

If the Department of Community Development called for the tenders, then the hon. member is not in order.

It was the Department of Community Development that called for the tenders.

I want to thank hon. members who referred to the inauguration ceremony for the friendly words which they addressed to my Department. For many years the Department of Public Works has been known under various nicknames, and I think that we are now arriving at the stage where those nicknames are becoming something of the past. I think that is attributable to the dedication of the officials and to the fine manner in which the officials of the Department are doing their work as, inter alia, the arrangements in connection with the inauguration ceremony prove.

The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the shortage of staff existing in the technical division of the Department. It is true that a serious shortage does exist, just as serious shortages exist in all professional divisions throughout the Public Service. It is not my task as Minister of Public Works to lay down salary scales and conditions; that is the task of the Minister of the Interior and the Public Service Commission.

Have you talked to them about it?

That matter has been looked into from time to time not only by that Minister but by all Ministers who are faced with this problem and therefore I too have from time to time given personal attention to this matter as the shortage is very serious. Hon. members should remember that two years ago the remuneration of professional officers was improved to a considerable extent and that their salary progression during the first four years of their service were accelerated considerably. In spite of that there has been no improvement; a further drainage has taken place for the simple reason that entrepreneurs in the private sector thereupon immediately increased their salaries to a higher level than the Public Service had done.

There are other factors too.

One has this devilish spiral and the Public Service simply cannot keep up. The State makes bursaries available for the training of people who then undertake to remain in the employment of the Public Service for a certain period, but private entrepreneurs purchase the discharge of one official after the other before that period has elapsed, and as soon as such officials have served their full contract period they are employed one after the other by private entrepreneurs at double their salaries in the Public Service and more. I have had the experience in the Department of Public Works that when an official has been engaged in the preparatory work in connection with a specific project and that project is given out on contract to a firm, that firm ascertains in a subtle way what official in the Department has done that preliminary preparatory work. That official is immediately coaxed away from the Department by offers of a much higher salary. As a result of that I have now introduced the provision that if a person is awarded a contract by the Department of Public Works and he employs an official of the Department for the execution of that contract, he immediately forfeits his contract. [Interjections.] This has the effect that more and more members of our present staff are appointed to supervisory posts in our technical divisions. Consequently we are being obliged to an increasing extent to give out on contract all services—architectural services, engineering services, quantity surveying services, etc. The officials the Department still has at its disposal then only do supervisory work in that connection. In this way we are in fact able, with the smaller staff, to cope with the heavier burden which has been placed on the Department, admittedly at a higher cost, because we have to pay the necessary fees to the consultants.

But you will soon not have enough even for this purpose.

At the moment we can still cope, and with the staff we do get, we are in fact able to keep the senior posts filled. As a matter of fact, our problem relates to the less senior posts, those posts to which people without experience or with little experience can be appointed. One cannot employ a person without experience, even if he has the best qualifications, in a supervisory post; he first has to acquire the necessary experience. Our major problem is to keep the less senior posts filled, but we do have the necessary staff for supervisory posts.

The hon. the Minister’s Department is not attracting any new entrants at the moment. How long does the Minister think he can hold on, as he has indicated he is holding on at the moment?

We are giving attention to this matter. We have had several discussions with the Public Service Commission and at present an investigation is also being instituted into the possibility of having supervisory work done for the Department by selected firms of consultants on a contractual basis. Therefore the possibility does exist of having also supervisory work done on a contractual basis.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—Social Welfare and Pensions, R117,643,000:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the half-hour. This is a most important vote in that a sum of nearly R120 million is to be voted by this Committee to-day. During the Budget debate we discussed the various concessions that were made and announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions participated in the debate and replied to some of the points I raised during that debate.

However, certain other matters also require the attention of the Minister. I wish to refer first of all to the Minister’s overseas trip to the U.S.A. and Canada. I know that this matter was raised under a previous Vote, but I wish to raise this matter in an effort to ascertain from the Minister what steps he took in regard to investigating the system of social security in the U.S.A. I believe this to be an opportune moment for the Minister to give a report to this Committee as we on this side of the House have made a particular study of this system in the U.S.A. We have often argued that a contributory pension scheme for all would be in the interests of our economy and the country as a whole but this suggestion has been opposed by the Government. The Minister’s predecessor also went overseas and studied various systems in Europe.

We on this side of the House believe, however, that a study of the American system is of paramount importance. The American system originated in 1935 when they had to face problems very similar to those we are facing to-day and which are present in a young and developing country where you have certain social problems as a result of rapid industrialization. We have a similar position in South Africa. It is to be hoped that the Minister will become more sympathetic towards the idea of introducing a more comprehensive system of social security in this country. During the 1930s certain social security measures were enacted and many of these Acts have been amended and improved since then. The National Welfare Act of 1965 was a particularly interesting Act and during discussions here it became clear what social work is being done in South Africa at the present time.

However, we feel that we are lagging to a certain extent as regards the provision of adequate security particularly for the aged and those persons who have become permanently disabled. If we look at the situation throughout the rest of the world we see interesting developments. I have here a report made available to me by the Social Security Administration of the U.S.A. and it tabulates social security programmes throughout the world for the year 1967. Of the 120 countries listed here South Africa is one of the very few countries which does not have a contributory system of social security, apart from our labour laws, such as the Unemployment Insurance or Workmen’s Compensation legislation. I believe the experience of other countries in the development and application of their social security measures is helpful in providing a perspective of and solutions for the problems we encounter in this regard in this country. The South African economy has, of course, been built up on the initiative of the individual and of private enterprise, and we certainly do not want to see a system embarked on in this country which might lead to a welfare state.

Consequently if we look at the American social security programme—and the U.S.A. cannot be described as a welfare state—we might be able to find a happy medium as far as the provision of a satisfactory system in South Africa is concerned. I believe the American system has not dampened private initiative and indeed if one looks at their reports, for instance the Report on Social Security Programmes in the United States issued by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare we find a comment which I believe is a complete answer to the question as to whether the introduction of a more comprehensive system of social security might not bring about a dampening of the efforts of the individual. The report states the following on page 15—

I think this is an important view and it is based on experience gained since 1935. This is, of course, a matter of principle, of policy, and having returned recently from a visit to the U.S.A. it is hoped the Minister will now give this Committee further information regarding investigations he carried out whilst overseas.

There are other matters influencing our present system which I dealt with during the course of the Budget debate and I do not intend to deal with them in detail now. However, I think the hon. the Minister should give an indication as to whether it is possible to review the position of the means test in South Africa. Earlier this Session legislation was passed which has the effect that the means test will be regulated by regulation and not by legislation, as was previously the case with an amending Bill coming late each session. We understand that the old system will be discontinued and the means test will be regulated by way of regulation. Before dealing with that matter, I also wish to ask the Minister whether he can give us an indication as to when the various Acts governing social pensions will come into effect. During 1967 we passed an important Act. It was first known as the Aged Persons Protection Bill and later it was changed to the Aged Persons Act of 1967. This Act made important provisions for the registration of homes for the aged, it altered residential qualifications, and so forth. Similar legislation was introduced amending the War Veterans Pensions Act, the Disability Grants Act and the Blind Persons Pensions Act. However, none of them has as yet come into operation. I realize the Minister had to delay the coming into operation of the Aged Persons Act until the other social Acts were amended. They have now been amended and it is hoped the Minister will give an indication as to when these Acts will come into operation.

The relaxation of the means test was dealt with during the Budget debate. One important aspect the Minister did not reply to, and I believe that aspect to be of paramount importance. This aspect is the means test as it affects the manpower position in South Africa, as it affects the incentive for persons to continue in employment or to seek full-time or part-time employment and thus alleviate the present manpower shortage. We find the concessions announced during the Budget speech did not in any way improve the position as far as income limits are concerned, apart from the concessions made in respect of family allowances and maintenance grants where in future only half the amount earned will be regarded as the income of persons applying for such allowances. I believe the income limits to be a restrictive factor which do not encourage a person to remain in gainful employment. For instance, the pensioner between 60 and 69 years of age, the age group which perhaps is able to play the major part in alleviating the manpower shortage, has not received any concessions as far the income limits are concerned.

A person between the ages of 60 and 69 who is receiving a social pension or who wishes to apply for one, is allowed a free income limit of only R16 per month in the case of a single person. In the case of a married person the combined income is taken and divided in two. It means that if a person has assets not exceeding R3,600 he can receive a reduced pension if his income is between R16 per month, which is the free income limit, and the maximum of R42 per month. This means if a person is receiving more than R42 per month from for instance part-time employment he is disqualified from receiving any pension at all. I feel the Minister should consider alleviating the position as far as the income limits are concerned and as they affect the means test.

Certain steps were taken to encourage people to remain in employment for a longer period by the payment of a supplementary allowance. We on this side welcomed this decision. However, we find there are various difficulties involved in the payment of this allowance, because it is not paid in certain instances. I feel the Minister should give consideration to having this additional allowance paid more easily. In terms of the legislation passed the payment would depend on the age of the applicant as at the date of application. It excluded one group, namely those persons over 70 years of age who qualify for a war veterans’ pension and who qualified only by virtue of the means test applicable to the war veteran over 70 years of age. That is understandable. They are allowed a higher assets figure because they are permitted to have up to R16,400 and they are dealt with more leniently. However, there are cases where a person has remained in employment until he was over 70 years of age and then made application for a pension, only to find that because of his extended period of service his assets exceed those allowed for applicants under 70 years of age.

When this is the case the Minister’s Department does not approve the supplementary allowance of R10 per month. It means if they do not qualify under the means test applicable to people of under 70 years they do not qualify for the additional allowance. Very often this comes as a shock to a person who has deliberately remained in employment for a longer period of time so as to make better provision for his old age and who was under the impression that he would qualify for the additional allowance. We also have cases of people who have become naturalized South Africans and they find that if they did not become naturalized at least one year before the date of their application they too, irrespective of their age, do not qualify for the allowance.

The question of a person remaining in employment and the position as regards this extra allowance also apply to other aspects of this matter. First of all there is the question of the working wife. The Minister made the concession that only one-third of a working wife’s income would be taken into account for assessment purposes. We find that this concession is also qualified, because the husband must not earn any income from any source whatsoever. I know of cases where a person received a grant from a trade union of R1.50 per week and because of this payment his working wife’s total income was taken into account and then divided for purposes of the means test. If only one-third of her income had been taken into account under this concession it would have meant that in fact only one-sixth of her earnings were taken into account and he would have qualified for a war veterans’ pension in this particular case. I think the hon. the Minister should investigate the whole question of the concession in the light of these circumstances with a view to making a concession in respect of the amount a husband may receive while his wife is in employment. If the wife gave up her job they would both qualify for a social pension. That is defeating the object that people should remain gainfully employed as long as possible.

As regards the question of income limits there is another weakness in our system. I wish to refer to a certain case which I think illustrates this point very well indeed. A certain woman of 64 years of age was almost completely confined to bed following a stroke. She purchased an annuity upon the death of her husband which gave her R45 per month. It was taken out some time ago and allowed her R45 per month. However, this amount is regarded as income. If that annuity was R42 per month, it means that she would qualify, provided she did not have assets in excess of the amount of assets permitted, for a basic pension of R2 per month plus R3 per month bonus, plus R10 per month supplementary allowance because of her age, plus R10 per month attendance allowance, giving her a total of R25 per month as an old-age pension, which, taken at R42 per month, would give her a total income of R67 per month. However, because the means test prohibits her from receiving a pension, due to the fact that she exceeds the ceiling of R42 per month, she is excluded entirely as far as qualifying for an old-age pension is concerned. Now, we know that the means test was relaxed as far as assets were concerned. So, in drawing a comparison with this person’s particular circumstances, one finds that, if this person, at the age of 64, had assets of R12,000 and no annuity, she could qualify for the pension of R25 per month. In addition to that, her interest received on her investment is disregarded as an income, so that, if that amount was invested at 7 per cent, earning her R70 per month, it would mean that she could qualify for a pension of R25 per month, taking into account the various allowances, in addition to the R70 a month, which is earned from her investment, giving her R95 per month. I believe that these are circumstances which arise and which illustrate the difficulty in applying a means test and the administration of a means test. These various difficulties which arise I believe cause a considerable amount of hardship. As one can imagine, a person having to live, and if confined to bed because of ill health, on R45 per month, is exceedingly difficult.

However, the other concessions which I believe the hon. the Minister should pass some comment on, is also in regard to blind persons. We know that encouragement is given to the blind to be gainfully employed, in that only one-half of their earned income is taken into account. When they apply the means test, many of these people do qualify for a blind person’s pension. However, there are cases where increases have been granted in terms of their employment, due to the fact that they have become more productive and useful in their employment. They receive an increase in income from employment, but 50 per cent of that increase is then removed from them due to the fact that their blind persons’ pension is reduced. I believe that at least the hon. the Minister could give a concession to the blind social pensioner, so that only one-third of his earned income is taken into account, in other words, at least the same concession that is applied to a working wife in cases where the husband is not in employment or is unable to receive any income. I believe that the blind are performing an excellent job in South Africa as far as employment is concerned, and they must be given every possible encouragement so as to make themselves more productive in the economy of the country as a whole.

The other points in respect of which I would like the hon. the Minister to give some indication as to his policy, concerns subsidies to various welfare organizations. We know that clubs for the aged are doing a tremendously good job amongst the aged persons in alleviating loneliness and bringing a great deal of joy to many through the services that they are providing. However, these clubs are subsidized on a very limited basis. Indeed, if one looks at the Estimates, one sees that the amount allocated to the subsidization of clubs for the aged only amount to a very small sum indeed. However, there are certain aspects of clubs for the aged, and certain tasks which they are undertaking which I believe are doing a great deal for the welfare of the aged section of the community. For instance, the Vote before us only provides for R5,000 for the whole of South Africa as subsidies for the clubs for the aged under item P. These clubs for the aged have embarked upon other forms of assisting the aged in keeping them out of homes by providing meals on wheels service, and also a home help service to these people. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has up to date not yet agreed to any form of subsidization being granted for this meals-on-wheels service, nor for the home-help service. I believe this is a great boon to these old people, particularly where we find that many of them are widowed, living alone, waiting for accommodation to be provided at the various homes for the aged. Many of them have to wait for a long period of time. Others would rather not be in homes for the aged. They would like to retain their independence and remain within the community, which I believe is the best way for them to spend the latter part of their lives. The meals-on-wheels and the home-help service for these various clubs for the aged, which certain church denominations also are making available in various centres, should be encouraged by the hon. the Minister by granting them some form of subsidy, so that they can expand their work. They are only scratching the surface at the present time, particularly as far as the urban areas are concerned. Every day their task becomes greater and greater, and they should receive some assistance from the hon. the Minister.

In dealing with homes for the aged, I would also like to mention another very severe problem which is facing many of the welfare organizations, and also the welfare officers why are attached to various provincial hospitals. We find that in many instances these aged persons receive medical attention at a provincial hospital. When the stage is reached where no further medical attention can be of any assistance, and they have to receive a form of permanent nursing, there is virtually no accommodation available for this type of person. In Natal there is a provincial hospital for the chronic sick, which has a tremendous waiting list, and I understand that the provincial administration is not prepared to expand this institution, as they feel that it is not their responsibility to provide accommodation for the chronic sick, as far as the aged community is concerned.

I was interested to read in the “Professional Journal for the Social Worker”, in the quarterly edition for March, 1968, named Social Work, an article which is written by a welfare officer at a provincial hospital. The article refers to “Geriatric patients requiring institutional care”. Here the problem is highlighted by the fact that this welfare officer, in common with many other welfare officers, finds that it is virtually impossible to place many of these chronic cases in the proper institutions where they can receive care. For instance, many of these people require attention which makes it impossible for them to return to their homes, or even for their relatives to undertake the necessary nursing that they are required to receive. Consequently, in taking these figures which this welfare officer provides, it shows that the vast number of them are delaying the discharge from hospitals. In actual fact, it is stated that 61 per cent of the cases referred were unable to be discharged as patients, which was due to the lack of institutions which offered nursing care to the aged and infirm. Over the total 12 months there was an unnecessary delay of 240 weeks.

This means that the average delay per geriatric patient was 7½ weeks. These figures indicate how the delay is causing congestion at many of these provincial hospitals, due to the fact that there are not sufficient institutions which are able to take these cases. I believe that the stage has perhaps been reached where the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions should have an inquiry to see what steps can be taken by the State to encourage the creation and establishment of suitable institutions to cater for these chronically sick people who require attention. It was found too that, of these persons, 22 per cent of the sample could in fact afford to apply to economic nursing homes. Only 22 per cent of those awaiting discharge could afford the high costs that are involved in being accommodated at a nursing home for the aged. It means too that this lack of accommodation is a distinct gap in the welfare services that are being provided for in South Africa. The fact is also mentioned here that—

I believe this is another important position creating tremendous difficulty as far as the welfare organizations are concerned, which are caring for the aged in our community.

The other aspect which I believe is important, is the whole question of the position concerning the welfare services provided for the aged, and the subsidization of welfare posts. We know that, in the broader sense, taking into account all welfare organizations, they are concerned over the fact that many of their posts take a considerable time to be approved by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as a subsidized post. In the interim, these organizations have to carry the entire cost of these professional social workers, who are doing tremendously important work, and indeed, in many instances, undertake essential welfare services. They have to carry the entire burden until such time as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has approved of their post.

The other aspect which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, deals with part of the functions of the National Welfare Act, which was passed in 1965. In terms of this Act, provision was made for the appointment of four commissions on various aspects of welfare work. One of those commissions deals with family life. At the time when this Bill was discussed, in considerable detail in this House, it was difficult to ascertain exactly what the function would be of the commission on family life. However, we welcome the news that this commission is investigating the high divorce rate in South Africa at the present time. However, I believe that this whole concept should be taken over a wider field, to cover an investigation of family allowances in South Africa and its effect on family life. We know that the Piek Commission, which reported in 1961, recommended that, rather than increasing family allowances, the existing provision, in terms of other legislation, should be enlarged and extended so as to give a greater degree of efficiency as far as the work is concerned in establishing and encouraging family life. Since then there have been other opinions expressed, for instance the Administrator of Natal, Mr. Theo Gerdener, made a very strong plea for a “cash for babies” campaign. If one looks at the views expressed by the administrator, it is obvious that he had in mind that the present system is not working, in that it is not having the desired effect as recommended by the Piek Commission. If we look at the figures in South Africa, and these are vitally important figures in a multi-racial country, we can see whether the White birth rate can be improved so as to keep pace at least with the ratio of the population groups in South Africa. If we look at the figures for the 1960 census, we will see that white families on census day only amounted to 3.7 persons on an average, whereas the average for Coloureds and Asiatics were 4.9 and 5.3 persons, respectively. If one looks at the figures, one finds that the birth rate amongst the white population per thousand in the year 1911 was 32.2 births per 1,000 of the population, whereas according to the 1960 figures, this had dropped to only 24.2 births per 1,000 of the population. Our system of family allowances is on a very limited basis in South Africa. If we look at the figures that were provided in a memorandum submitted by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, I believe that only 1,335 persons were receiving family allowances in the year 1967, an expenditure of approximately R600,000. This means that our system of family allowances is extremely limited. It means that the Piek Commission which made various recommendations concerning other departments, as well as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, should be further investigated by the hon. the Minister to ascertain whether or not it is possible to devise some other system which would encourage family life and family allowances in South Africa.

The Piek Commission provided information on the various social factors that are concerned with family life in South Africa, for instance, flat life, the employment of married women on an exceedingly increasing scale, the lack of creches, the high divorce rate, alcoholism, lack of preparation for parenthood, religion and depopulation of the rural areas, plus various other items, which show what social factors are involved in studying this problem. The Piek Commission’s report recommends on page 92 that—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have been listening attentively to the whole series of things mentioned by the hon. member who has just sat down. He commenced by referring to the overseas trip which the hon. the Minister had undertaken, and expressed the hope that from the experience the hon. the Minister had gained overseas he would present us with many matters for our consideration. I want to tell him that the Minister was accompanied by very experienced and well-trained observers from his Department. They returned with a mass of information. From that they are extracting for us everything we can learn from that information so as to present that information to us in a form which will enable us to derive the greatest benefit from it. We had the opportunity of talking to some of the officials. They gave us the assurance that they had collected a mass of information which would be properly processed in due course. One thing we should bear in mind is that we should not— like the hon. member who has just sat down —rely too heavily on what is being done abroad and pay too little attention to the fact that we have to develop a welfare policy of our own, one which will be founded on local conditions and will be better suited to our own conditions. What is applied successfully in America cannot necessarily be applied successfully here. Circumstances are quite different. The formulation and development of such a policy require thorough and careful research so that in future it may be applied to good effect, particularly in view of the different circumstances prevailing in the country. I expected that the hon. member would have said something more about what their experience had been over the past two years since the passing of the Welfare Act of 1965, about what their experience had been in the field of welfare services in South Africa. Are the possibilities that we shall be able to formulate such a policy in the future not much greater? Do we not see the signs of much more comprehensive research being conducted? Are the signs not there even at this early stage that we are reaping the fruits of that legislation? As far as welfare services are concerned, that was one of the finest pieces of legislation ever piloted through this House, and we are all very interested to see what the fruits of that legislation and its application will be. As the hon. member said, there are four different commissions, each consisting of highly qualified experts, and each one is concentrating on different aspects of this matter. We are already reaping the fruits. I want to say without any fear of contradiction that as far as welfare services are concerned there has never before been such fine co-ordination as there is at the present time. This is one of the fine fruits we are reaping. We can elaborate on this and say that never before has more emphasis been placed on study and research than has been done since the passing of that legislation by this House. Each of these different committees is drawing up and conducting its own research project in co-operation with the Department. I think we do not take sufficient cognizance of this fact, but since 1963 up to the present time the Department alone has issued no less than 54 different reports on different projects studied by the Department. The Department processed the results of these studies and made them available to us. Therefore I say we may expect a Department which is so energetic, along with a vital board such as has now been established, to formulate for us in due course a welfare policy born on our native soil and based on our own circumstances, from which we will derive more benefit than from a ready-made policy imported from overseas and enforced on South Africa.

As regards the different concessions, I want to say that the hon. member has made a very accurate study of the matter. We are grateful for that. He closely studies the Pension Acts and of anomalies which arise. We can learn from him. For the past 20 years there has never been one year in which concessions have not been made as far as pensions are concerned or in which the means test has not been relaxed. We are already eliminating certain anomalies and I am convinced that we shall be able to eliminate many more of those mentioned by the hon. member if we proceed as the hon. the Minister and his predecessor have been doing. The Minister and his Department are tracing such anomalies. They will eliminate them as they have eliminated many of them in the past. One thing is very clear and that is that when we closely examine these research projects of the Department we find that one matter which arouses a great deal of interest and which the Department has near to its heart is family life in our country —the family and the child in that family. The hon. member said that we should do a great deal more in respect of family allowances. He referred to the important report of the Piek Commission who analysed the entire matter and said that we should not, like France and other countries, grant families a specific global sum, but that we should rather grant them assistance by way of concessions. However, we should not labour under the misapprehension that there are no family allowances in South Africa. There are in fact family allowances for which families, indigent families, families with the required number of children, can qualify. In 1961 R75,000 was voted for this purpose. In 1968 this amount was not R75,000, but R800,000. In other words, we are able to say that the Government is giving the necessary attention to the family and to the requirements of the family to an increasing extent. This is happening not only in respect of those families, but also in respect of children in general. In this regard I want to refer especially to children cared for in institutions. This year a further concession has been made. That allowance has been increased by R3 per child per month. In 1955 that allowance was R96 per child per annum. That has been increased now to R240 per child per annum. That was done after proof had been submitted to the hon. the Minister and the Treasury that the cost of providing proper care for such a child amounted to approximately R400 per annum. We are very grateful for these concessions. If one pays a visit to any of the children’s institutions, one will see that that money is not being used injudiciously but for raising and improving the standard of the care provided in those institutions. In this regard I want to refer in particular to something which is of great importance to us. It will be of no avail to have all the money in the world, to have beautiful buildings and similar things, if one does not have the right staff to care for those children. They, after all, are the ones who have to see to the rehabilitation of those children. In the past this was our biggest problem, namely that we did not always have the right staff for the simple reason that the institutions could not afford to employ them. The institutions could not afford to pay the salaries which trained workers wanted. The result was that we had to be content with employing poorly remunerated people for seeing to what is really the essence of institutional care, and that is the care and education of the child. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree wholeheartedly with the previous speaker that the Department we are discussing at the moment has been doing exceptionally fine work over the past few years. The Department has been very fortunate because this hon. Minister, like his predecessor, is a man who is always prepared to heed the suggestions, the opinions, and the advice from this side of the House. That is why there has been so much progress.

I want to say immediately that we are very pleased about the concessions which have lately been made in connection with civil pensions and that we are particularly pleased about the concessions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in connection with the 10-year restriction on ex-servicemen. This does not mean, however, that we are not asking for more. We want a great deal more. Today I want to make a special plea on behalf of three groups of people who have been mentioned in this House on several occasions for the purpose of obtaining relief for them. I think that now is the proper time for the hon. the Minister to meet our requests. I want to promise him that we will persist in delivering pleas on behalf of these people until such time as he does in fact make these concessions. I think that now is the time to prove to our people that when South Africa needs them in times of emergency, we will help them when they need us. In the difficult times in which we are living it is very important that our people should have the assurance that we will look after them when they are in distress.

The first group of people on whose behalf I want to deliver another plea, is the veterans of the First World War. This Government has accepted as a matter of principle that it will look after the veterans of this War. The means test for persons who participated in the Anglo-Boer War was abolished 50 years subsequent to that War. At the end of this year 50 years will have elapsed since the First World War. At the present time there is not such a large number of these veterans left. Because they cannot pass the means test, many of them at present do not qualify for the war veterans pension. I want to ask the Minister to give serious consideration to abolishing that means test as soon as possible for that group of veterans. These people did exceptionally fine work. Large numbers of them helped us in South West Africa. What would have become of South West Africa and South Africa if these people …

[Inaudible.]

I know that we differed at that time, but now we are able to look back without trying to turn that into a political matter. What would have happened if South Africa had not conquered South West Africa? The mandate would have gone to another power, and South West Africa would then have been lost long ago and just imagine what dangers that would have involved for South West Africa as well as for South Africa. I trust that the hon. members from South West Africa are listening to me and will assist me. These people rendered very good services to South Africa. I think the time has now arrived for us to tell them that we are going to discontinue the means test.

What about the rebels?

This House has already passed legislation that rebels are to receive the same treatment. That is no longer relevant.

The second group of people to whom I want to refer, are those widows of men killed in the Second World War who for some reason forfeited their military pensions. They are either married or divorced or have somehow lost their second husbands. Consequently they have forfeited those military pensions. There are not many of these people left. Most of them are growing old now. I really think the time has now also arrived for the pensions of these women, who have lost their second husbands, to be reinstated.

The third group of people on whose behalf I want to deliver a plea are the Bantu veterans of the last World War. We have often discussed this matter in this House and we have been told time and again that the Bantu who helped us in the last war were not armed. Technically that is so, but there are many of them who were in fact armed and who served South Africa under fire. We are only asking that they should be treated like the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese. That is all we are asking. What is the position today if a white man wants to qualify for a war veterans pension? We do not ask him whether he was armed or whether he served in the North or elsewhere. If he had joined, he qualified for a pension. Then he is a war veteran. We are only asking that this should also be done in the case of the Bantu. They are also growing old and many of them are also suffering to-day. What is more, we have to prove to the Bantu in South Africa that we will look after them as well. When we take cognizance of the pattern in Africa to-day, for example in Rhodesia and in Portuguese East Africa and in Portuguese West Africa, where a war is actually being waged, that provides proof to us that were it not for the Bantu supporting the white man in those areas, they would not have been able to resist those terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever one calls them. We have to see to it that these people continue to support us. We must have their loyalty. This is the way in which we can prove our goodwill to them so that when we need them again we will have their support.

These are the three groups on whose behalf I want to plead, and I hope that in the same way as the Minister has listened to us in the past, he will again listen to us and comply with our requests in this regard as well.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to complete what I was say-and that is that the staff in Children’s institutions is a matter of vital importance. My wish would be for those children’s institutions to have the best and most scientifically trained sons and daughters of South Africa for educating those children. From the nature of the case an institution with its limited funds cannot afford to employ those highly qualified people. The Minister and his Department have already accommodated us to the extent that they subsidise the salaries of the staff who have the necessary qualifications. But this is not sufficient. The institutions are still struggling along with that shortage and they are still compelled to rely on the services of people who do not have those high qualifications. But now I think something fine has happened, namely that the Department of Higher Education, in consultation with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, has earmarked one of the technical colleges in our country, namely the Witwatersrand Technical College, to draw up a correspondence course. There will be no age or scholastic restrictions. In other words, members of the staff of any children’s institutions can enroll for that course. It will be a course which will be given on an elementary level, but which will more or less cover the following subjects: During the first year, principles of social care, child study, recreation and use of leisure time. During the second year the subjects will be the following: Health, hostel management and supervisory services, management of institutions, civics, religion and cultural education. That Department is prepared, if a member of the staff completes that two-year correspondence course, to issue a certificate to such a member. The Department has indicated that it is prepared to acknowledge that certificate for subsidy purposes. Even at this stage I want to express the hope here that the institutions which will make use of this scheme—and I believe that all of them will do so—will use the subsidy which they will receive not for decreasing the other obligations of the institutions, but for increasing the remuneration of the staff so that we can have better staff in those institutions to do this important work of educating those children. I want to predict that this will prove to be one of the biggest steps in the right direction we have taken in recent years in connection with the question of care in children’s institutions.

Now I should like to come to a matter which was also raised by the hon. member for Umbilo. This is a problem which has arisen in recent years. We are doing a great deal in respect of the care of the aged, but we also know that as a result of better and more effective medical care there is a constant increase in the number of aged persons. We now have a larger section of our population who are growing old and there are more of them who are in need of care at a certain stage. The Department is doing everything within its power to provide in the needs of those people by means of housing and institutional care, old age homes, etc., but there is one section of those people whom one really pities, namely those old people suffering from an incurable disease, whether cancer, tuberculosis or whatever. If those people suffer from such an incurable disease the hospitals cannot keep them in hospital any longer. The hospital can do nothing more for them and discharges them. Those people have to go somewhere. There is no hope of their recovery. At that age and under those tragic circumstances they have to be thrown out, so to speak, to look for a place to die. One feels that this is an extremely tragic state of affairs. One feels that it virtually amounts to an indictment against our civilization that we have not yet made provision for those people. The position is as indicated by the hon. member for Umbilo. I too have the survey which appeared in a professional journal on social work of March this year in which an analysis is given of the position in a certain hospital in Pietermaritzburg. But here in Cape Town we can prove the same thing. Simply enquire from Groote Schuur Hospital how many cancer patients they have for whom they cannot do anything more and who now have to be discharged. Where must those people go? Family members do not always have the financial means to take those people. If they do take them, they cannot care for them. They do not have the financial means to incur expensive medical costs. It is not necessary for someone in those tragic circumstances to die in agony. To-day there are effective sedatives but those people cannot afford them. When he needs hospital care and nursing most, that man is, so to speak, thrown out. No-one shows him any mercy. Here in Cape Town there is the Conradie Hospital, for example, to which such people can go, but inquiries have revealed that there is an exceptionally long waiting list. They cannot accommodate those people. I may point out for example, that from April, 1967, to March, 1968, there were 69 such applicants of whom 43 were admitted.

Does this not fall under the Health Vote?

Yes, but it also falls under Social Welfare. This is a matter which also concerns Social Welfare. Both these Departments can co-operate in this connection. There were 69 applications at the Conradie Hospital for the admittance of such cases. Forty-three applicants were admitted; 21 died before it was possible to admit them and the others are still waiting to be admitted. Therefore I think that this is one of those matters which deserves the attention of the Minister, the country, the churches and all welfare organizations, because when does one need more treatment and care than during the last phase of one’s life? Therefore I want to plead along with the hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members who will still deliver pleas in this regard, that this should be one of the matters which will receive urgent attention.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Kimberley South in regard to the care of the aged who are discharged from hospital and still need some sort of medical care. This is not altogether a matter for the Department of Social Welfare, and I would suggest that the Minister gets together with the Minister of Health. Perhaps they could devise a scheme whereby these people will find a place where they can receive treatment and care which need not necessarily entail great expenditure. This of course is not the only division of social welfare that needs further investigation. Dealing with the aged alone I find that it is not only the sick aged who have to be looked after, but those who are merely aged as well. Many of them are discharged from hospitals quite well enough to go home, but they do need some kind of care. There often seems to be a rapid deterioration in their general condition which requires care. I think that it is impossible with the rise in our population rate and the obvious inference that there are going to be more and more of these people, for this department to be able to go from one place to another and provide individual attention to these many people who are going to need help. What can we do? I have pleaded on several occasions for the department to devise a plan whereby we can have a village built for this purpose. The Departments of Community Development and Planning will have to co-operate in this matter as well. We must have a village built where these people can be housed. I was thinking about this very point a few days ago when I was in Johannesburg and I noticed that there is already a tendency for voluntary organizations to establish themselves in the same vicinity. In Johannesburg, for instance, the Civilian Blind Society has established very fine homes and a training centre for blind people. Immediately opposite this institution is the Hamlet which caters for retarded children. In that particular area there is a great deal of vacant land. I would like the Department of Social Welfare to acquire some of that land and start laying out a village. It will be adjacent to the new market near the City Deep Mine. On this piece of ground, which is very big, I can visualize a home for old people which can be built on the same lines as Queen’s Haven. This is within easy walking distance of the suggested site. It is probably only ten minutes’ walk from the Civilian Blind Centre. So you will have Queen’s Haven, the Hamlet and the place for the Civilian Blind in one little complex. I would like to see a home on similar lines as Queen’s Haven for the aged in that particular area. I should also like to see an establishment built there where the aged ill who are discharged from hospital and still need attention can receive it. In the same place we can cater for the blind who do not have their own homes. It is a very tragic thing that is happening to some blind people who do not get accommodation with the other blind. Blind adults lose their parents and are left alone to fend for themselves, and they must find refuge somewhere. What better place can there be than if they can live together in a community? One thinks of the retarded children, but not necessarily cheek by jowl with the others. They could be housed there also if land is available. It could be a complex where you could provide accommodation, dining-halls, recreation facilities and rehabilitation centres, and where doctors and nurses could go from institution to institution, from house to house, and from flat to flat, all in this particular area. It will mean that the district surgeon who is called to visit the aged, or a pensioner, will not have to go from one end of the town to the other just to see one or two people, probably spend his whole afternoon seeing just these few patients. If we could get these people in a nicely established village where the surroundings are pleasant, it would be an admirable thing and it would be a model for other parts of the world.

I am thinking along the same lines.

I am very pleased, because I have busied myself devising ways and means of doing this and I have tried to get some estimates as to how much a thing like this would cost and whether we could get sufficient personnel to run it. This is the only Department where the Minister has so many voluntary organizations working for him and where he has so many volunteers who want to help the unfortunate. I think we must get these people together so that they will know what the others are doing. That will be a spur to them. Surely we could get enough money then from the voluntary organizations, plus what the Government will give, to make a success of this undertaking. I should like the Minister now to investigate the possibilities in this particular area. It is one of the few parts of the Johannesburg complex which would lend itself to it and where land is available. The Minister must please investigate this further. If we could have these institutions as a nucleus, I think the same sort of thing could be done in the other cities.

But before that comes about, we have what we can do as a short-term policy. Again I must say that the medical treatment of some of the aged, the pensioners and of blind people is very unsatisfactory at present. They have great difficulty in getting medical care because they cannot afford it. Unfortunately most of them do not belong to medical aid associations or benefit societies. Most of them cannot afford to pay for their medicines. Again I say that as a short-term policy the Minister should take my suggestion seriously and institute the card system I spoke to him about last year and issue pensioners and blind people with these cards, which will enable them to get medical treatment from any doctor, so that they will not have to wait for the district surgeon. It will also enable them to go to a chemist and get medicines there. An arrangement can then be made with the doctors who, I am sure, will work for the same rates as they do for medical aid societies, or perhaps even less, as long as they know that they are helping this class of person who needs their help. The chemists, I know, will dispense their prescriptions at a much lower rate than it costs the pensioner to-day in the ordinary way. I also spoke to the Minister about the feeding of these people. I know the Dairy Board was going to accept the suggestion I made some time ago and make smaller packings of butter available for these people. You cannot expect an old age pensioner to buy a pound of butter, because they do not have refrigerators to keep it fresh. I say that the Minister must immediately press for smaller quantities to be made available, whether it be butter or milk or fruit. They must be able to buy these things in small containers and at a reasonable price. If it is a quarter-pound, they should not have to pay an extra cent, which some retailers add to the price because you buy a small quantity. If 1 lb. of butter costs 40 cents, ¼ lb. should only cost 10 cents and not 12 cents. [Time expired.]

If there is one section of our social care in which a great deal of research still has to be done, then it is certainly in the field of the care of the aged, and I think we shall agree in general with the idea that drastic measures will have to be taken in the near future to cause research to be undertaken in this field and particularly to attend to the special needs of the aged.

But since a good deal has already been said in this respect, I want to discuss a different subject. I should like to pay tribute this afternoon to the great work that is being done by particular initiative in our country as expressed in practice by the voluntary welfare organizations and by the charitable organizations of the churches. It is impossible in these few minutes to present a complete picture of the great and comprehensive work being done by these people. But if we consider that approximately 8,000 aged and 10,000 children in need of care and about 8,000 retarded persons are being cared for in homes of these welfare organizations; that these organizations employ about 600 trained male and female social workers who perform professional social work amongst these families; and if we add to that that these organizations probably collect more than R8 million and possibly even R9 million per year for these services; and furthermore that the various Government Departments subsidize these activities by between R9 million and R10 million per annum, then this brings us under the impression of the tremendous work that is being done. We are satisfied that this work is of a high quality for the very reason that these organizations are making more and more use of the professional social worker to assist in rendering these services.

The voluntary welfare organizations played a very great part in the establishment of the Department of Social Welfare. In referring to the work done by them and the contributions made by them, I should also like to mention the enormous amounts contributed by newspaper funds towards this work in recent years. I want to mention as an example the Christmas Fund of the Transvaler, which collected the large amount of R131,000 within the space of a few weeks last year, and the Springbok Radio Christmas Fund, which collected R219,000 in a single month. But what is important is that these organizations and these funds give virtually all that money to the voluntary organizations to do the work. These people do not do social work themselves. If they should do it, we could raise serious objections.

I want to mention another matter, and that is the good relationship existing between the voluntary organizations and the Department of Social Welfare. I want to refer to the emphasis which is placed on the importance of family life—the approach adopted by both the Government and the voluntary welfare organizations in their activities that the family is at the centre of things.

If we see what progress has been made over the last 30 years since this Department came into being, then I feel that one matter requires our very urgent attention. I am referring to the fact that although we have a Department of Social Welfare which in fact determine the overall welfare policy of this country, we are finding more and more that various Government Departments are also concerned with some or other branch of welfare work. I refer to the Department of Community Development which provides houses for various people who receive welfare services. I refer to the Department of Education, which is concerned with the child in need of care and the socially disrupted child in the schools of industries. I refer to the Department of Justice, which is responsible for the administration of justice in the case of the child in need of care and the parent neglecting that child. There are many others that I can mention, inter alia the Department of Labour with its rehabilitation services.

We have two agencies at present which provide co-ordination in these fields. In the first place we have the Welfare Board, to which the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has already referred, and the work is being done there, and on the other hand we have the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee, which advises the various Departments on welfare matters handled by those Departments. The Departments of Coloured Affairs, Bantu Affairs and Indian Affairs will also develop their welfare departments soon. We shall eventually have four Departments of Social Welfare parallel to one another, which is quite correct, as we are dealing here with a welfare service rendered to various population groups.

What I want to plead for now, is that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, who at present still exercises overall control over the various Welfare Services and who is aware of the great work performed in respect of the various welfare services by other Government Departments, should take the initiative to ensure what I want to call overall welfare planning.

As I see the position, it is the duty of this House to lay down the broad welfare policy and to give direction to it as it is submitted by the Government, but when we come to each of the particular population groups, the work for each population group should be done by persons belonging to that group. We therefore have four social welfare groups alongside one another, each with its own different welfare organizations, but we also need overall welfare planning for the country as a whole. I believe that it is time for the Department of Social Welfare to take the initiative. Although the present tendency is for the National Welfare Council and its Commissions to pay attention mainly, perhaps—I shall not say exclusively— to White welfare work, they will in future have to cover the wider field as well. In the interests of the non-Whites, in consultation with them, but not necessarily on a basis which might promote integration, we must convey to them the experience and the knowledge which we have acquired through the White organizations and through the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions over the last 50 years, and particularly over the last 30 years. The experience and knowledge must be conveyed to the non-White population groups, which will eventually have their own social welfare departments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) said about the activities of the National Welfare Board. Sir, this Board is made up of a group of persons who are rendering a great service by virtue of their technical and practical experience. [Time expired.]

I do not think there was anything particular in what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down to which I should make any reply, except to remind him that when he talks about the collection of funds by newspapers, he should read other papers as well as those in his own language, because the collection of welfare funds is carried out by most of our leading journals, or by our daily papers and credit should be given to them wherever credit is due, instead of giving credit only to those which come to his particular notice.

Apart from that I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to certain undesirable features of new housing estates, undesirable features which are beginning to show themselves in other countries and possibly also in this country, as investigation might reveal. I refer particularly to the question of life in flats, and I want to pose the question whether it is desirable that our people should be supplied with flats through Government funds; whether the effect on people who live in these flats is desirable and whether their health is maintained in these flats. Sir, there has been a good deal of investigation into the effect on family life of life in flats. I do not particularly wish to refer to other questions; I mention rather the effect on health. Carefully controlled experiments have been carried out by British doctors who have found, in making a comparison between completely similar families, the one set living in flats and the other in houses, that the effect of flat life is deleterious to the health of the family. Amongst those living in flats there is about 67 per cent more illness than there is amongst those living in houses. There is a marked increase in the respiratory illnesses, particularly in the case of children under 10, to such an extent that it is extremely noticeable. The higher up the flat, the more noticeable it becomes. In other words, children living on the fourth floor will show a higher rate of chest diseases than those living on the first floor. This is quite appreciable and can be expressed in percentages. The incidence of bronchitis or pneumonia is 66 times higher amongst those living in flats than amongst those living in houses. Life in flats has an effect on the parents. Women who live in flats suffer frequently from neurosis and from most of the non-organic diseases prevalent amongst women. It has also been found that this illness is recurrent, long-lasting and disabling. The only thing that can be said in favour of living in a flat in comparison with living in a house, is that there are more accidents, minor accidents, to children living in houses. This gives the key to the problem. The key to the problem is that in the case of house-dwellers the children go out to play when they come home from school and they may get hurt. But at least they remain healthy, and it must not be forgotten that these chest conditions are carried forward into adult life, in other words, they persist over a long period of years. The neurosis amongst mothers who live in flats is brought about by loneliness. It is much easier to go out by your backdoor and talk to your neighbour over the fence than it is to come down three flights of stairs and then walk up again, after having had a few words with the baker or the butcher. These women complain that life is too easy for them; that they have nothing to do. They look after their children but there is nothing else for them to do. Shopping is easier because the flat is small, and all they can do is to sit in the flat and mope, without seeing or talking to anybody. If they are taken ill, the husband usually has to take time off from his work, which is undesirable. If a house-dweller is ill, it is not unusual for the doctor who calls to find that he is met at the door by a neighbour. That is the sort of relationship that develops amongst people living in houses. They develop a relationship of neighbourliness. That relationship is not found amongst flat-dwellers. Furthermore, these people are frequently cut off from their families or from their mothers. Children who marry move to a new estate and the parents remain in the old home. These people who are isolated in flats are tragic cases; it is not something to smile about, because the tragedy is that the effect of living in a flat remains with them in later life. We hear people talking to-day about family life. Many a divorce case starts when the wife has to live in a flat and sees nobody else. All she can do is to stay put and care for her children. I hope that the Minister will take an interest in this matter and try to have research done in this country to see whether it is worthwhile for his department to erect these flats.

Then I want to touch on another small matter and that is the provision of hospital attention for the aged sick for whom no provision is made at the present moment. These people do not require a great deal of care from the medical point of view and they do not require a great deal of nursing. They do perhaps need attention for an hour or two a day. The Department of Health has come to an arrangement with a private company to provide the tuberculosis people with hospital care. I am not sure whether this applies to Whites or only to the Bantu. Hospitalization is provided in hospitals which have been built by private enterprise and which from the nursing point of view, are staffed by private enterprise. [Time expired.]

We have seen two facets of the Opposition this afternoon, and I must honestly say that the hon. member for Durban (Central) really saved the Opposition. I want to congratulate him on his constructive effort—the first from that side of the House—to bring a social welfare problem to the notice of the Committee. I am convinced that the Department’s research team will indeed go into the social problems of flat-dwellers. I can assure the hon. member that we have all agreed that a flat is not the most desirable place for building up a family and for building up a nation. What have we had from other hon. members on that side in this debate? The hon. member for Umbilo again brought up the question of the hon. Minister’s overseas journey. None of the speakers on that side tried to find something constructive in that journey. They only criticized. The hon. member for Yeoville was possibly the victim of a social welfare problem, and we are glad that he is well again, but what does he do? He does not ask whether the hon. the Minister did any research overseas, or whether he found new ideas for solving our problems. No, he asks the hon. the Minister: Was the Grand Canyon beautiful? We must not view social welfare only in terms of pensions or in terms of care for the poor and the needy. The task of social welfare comprises much more. After all, it is concerned with the welfare of the nation in all its facets. The work of the Department of Social Welfare was defined by a sub-committee of the Cabinet as being the rehabilitation of the socially maladjusted individual or family, as well as making a study of the conditions leading to social maladjustment or closely related thereto, and the subsequent treatment of those evils. The sub-committee found that it was essential to conduct research into the problems in respect of the practical implementation of the policy and to assess the value of the present services. This treatment should centre round the family and its object should be to return the persons concerned into society.

Many of us in this House have already had the privilege of visiting some of these rehabilitation centres. I am glad to be able to say that none of us has had to go there yet. But we have seen what excellent rehabilitation work is being done there. However, we must keep in mind that no rehabilitation—be it in the case of an alcoholic, a drug addict, or a maladjusted juvenile delinquent—is complete before that person is again fully assimilated into and accepted in his community. I want to consider this important part of the work of the Department for a moment. As I said, we cannot always talk about pensions only. We must also grant recognition to those persons who are undertaking this welfare work, and we must give more attention to them. I am referring to those persons who used to be classified as social workers, but are now known as professional officers. How many of us here realize how much work is being done by these officials? In cases where children are neglected they are the persons who have to go and investigate and who have to submit a report to the Juvenile Court. Then they also have to say what should be done with those children. They are the persons who are responsible for family care if as a result of circumstances parents are unable to feed their families. They are the persons who, when they hear of a person being an alcoholic, must go and investigate the matter. They are the people who have to sit in juvenile courts all day to hand in reports on ill-treatment of children. They have to carry out inspections at homes for the aged, etc. And now we find that most of these people are temporary employees of the Department, and that in most cases they are women. Do we realize that they are often brought into circumstances which may be prejudiced to their persons and characters? This is certainly no enviable work. After all, they do not visit healthy and clean-living people. I have come across cases where these professional officers had to suffer the worst possible insults, but I can proudly testify that these people endure these insults in the execution of their duty. I therefore want to plead with the Minister that efforts should be made to encourage those people, especially the men, to improve their qualifications for their work. Their working conditions should be improved, because, Mr. Chairman, social welfare problems do not occur only among the poor; the problems are creeping up to the higher classes. These people must have great integrity. For example, they must be able to deal with the manager of a large company who is an alcoholic. We cannot simply send a person with only ordinary training there. Such an officer must be able to talk to that person on his own level. I should like us to encourage these officers, through the agency of the Department, by means of bursaries and study leave, etc., to reach the highest level of development so that they may perform their duties in the best possible way. What is more, where we want to restore rehabilitated persons to the community, we must also make use of the services of the community to help assimilate those people and to help them to play their full part in that society. I can mention an example to you. An alcoholic may remain in a home for a year, and he may remain under the care of a professional officer for months after that, but I can assure you that it will take at least two years after that before he has rehabilitated himself to the extent that he is accepted by society as a man who can stand on his own feet. We cannot expect the professional officers to do this work on their own. I want to suggest that, just as we appoint justices of the peace in the legal field, we should consider the possibility of appointing a kind of justice of the peace who will act as guardian for those persons who are in need of rehabilitation in the community itself, not only those who have been in rehabilitation centres, but also the juvenile delinquents. They must know that that person is their guardian, and that he serves as a link between them and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. [Time expired.]

I believe there is a very great ignorance about when one may receive a pension, and I therefore want to raise one or two matters connected with this.

I would like to start by saying how useful I have found the memorandum issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions reflecting pensions as at the 1st October, 1967; and indeed, all the memoranda which are very regularly put out by the department and made available to members of Parliament. I have, like other hon. members, found them of very great assistance indeed in dealing with pension problems. I would like to place on record my appreciation of them and of the speediness with which they are made available to members of Parliament when there are changes. That may be good and well for members of Parliament, but there is a tremendous amount of ignorance on the part of persons entitled to pensions as to their exact rights. This has been brought home to me in the last year very forcibly through an offer I made to help people in this regard. The amount of ignorance of people, who are in truly straitened circumstances but fully entitled to a pension, over and over again, as to their rights, is truly astonishing. I want to give one example only. A lady wrote and said that somebody told her that because she had some investments, she was not entitled to a pension. The actual amount of her investments was R2,000. She had not another penny in the world or any other source of income. She had been led to believe that she could not get any pension. I do not think that this is anything like as exceptional as one might think, because in countless cases people clearly entitled to pensions have not applied. I believe that people do not even know the age at which they become entitled to a pension. They certainly do not know what the means test involves. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what steps are taken to bring the factual position to the knowledge of the public. One is aware that pension matters are referred to in this House and that pension improvements are mentioned from time to time. These are however, terribly complicated for the ordinary person to understand. I must confess that not being knowledgeable on this matter myself. I find the various announcements difficult to follow. I would not be surprised that the average member of the public is really none the wiser as to their rights in regard to obtaining a pension in the first place under these various Acts. I would like to know exactly how the department makes the position known to people on a continuing basis. I want to make a suggestion or two, but it is possible that these are already being done: if so, it can then be taken as read, naturally. Is it not possible, for example, to put up clear notices in every post office with just the outline, the age, perhaps the residential qualification and the means test. This could be done in the simplest form so that old ladies and old gentlemen can be alerted to this fact. Secondly, if it were possible for the department, to make available at convenient points such as their own offices, magistrates courts, or post offices, where people go more readily than to magistrates courts, a very short sheet on the subject, if not a little booklet. If these were available, I believe that they would, firstly, enable people who are entitled to this money, and indeed badly need it, to obtain information and make the necessary application. I think this would save a vast amount of time for the departmental officials. Speaking for myself, I have had the very greatest co-operation from departmental officials where I made enquiries about pension rights. I have gained the impression, however, that they are rather harassed and overworked. They are also short-staffed. The ordinary pensioner going round to the department may go to the offices and then not get immediate attention. Perhaps immediate attention is not possible and I think that, as a result, it is often required that appointments are made. This does tend to discourage people from going there. The hon. member for Umbilo, and other hon. members from Natal, have had the experience of operating an office in Durban where they have helped with difficulties in this regard. People simply streamed to these offices with their pension problems. The fact that they do come so readily, and in many cases are entitled to help, shows that perhaps the departmental offices do not make the pensioner feel quite as welcome with their enquiries as I am sure the hon. the Minister and his department would like to be the case. This is the one important aspect. Then there is the matter of the pension forms. These are very formidable documents and people get a bit frightened off by having to complete them. It is perfectly true that where there is a means test one has got to make enquiries, but these forms have to be filled in and several copies supplied. To older people and people who are ageing, perhaps failing to some extent in their powers, this does represent a pretty big hurdle to take. It is not every old person who is bold enough to approach a more knowledgeable person to help in these matters. The facts of the matter are that very many old people, entitled to pensions, are eking out an existence without a pension because they do not know their rights. If they are aware that they might get a pension they are too nervous and too terrified for some reason, to go and make the application. I can definitely say from personal experience—admittedly only over a short time but very sufficient, where I have had reactions from approximately 70 people in this category of whom very nearly half were entitled to pensions—that there is this gap. I believe we should do more to attempt to close the gap and attempt to put the matter right. I hope that the hon. the Minister will indicate how he sees this, whether it is concerning the department, and whether there are perhaps better ways than I have suggested in the short time available to me and my limited experience, as to how this problem can be overcome. I believe that these people do need the help of the State and I hope that the hon. the Minister will have ideas in this regard.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, must not blame me if I do not follow up on what he said. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to that. After what we have heard from hon. members on both sides of the House, we can only come to one conclusion, namely that we are all very satisfied with the work the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing. We consider that the Department is doing its duty and perhaps more than its duty in respect of the purpose for which it was instituted. What is more. I think we can be grateful that we have in the hon. the Minister a person with such an intense interest in the work which is being done there, and especially for the interest which he evidences in respect of our aged and the soft spot which he has in his heart for them. According to statistics, the number of aged persons over the age of 60, has increased from 1.87 per cent in 1904 to 6.65 per cent in 1960. These figures are in respect of Whites. In conjunction with the increase in the number of aged persons, the problems in this connection have also increased. Pleas were advanced here this afternoon by a few of the previous speakers for the chronically ill. I should like to associate myself with those pleas and I want to describe a group of old people who create many problems, namely that group of old people whom we may call the infirm and helpless aged. They are persons who are physically incapable of looking after themselves and who therefore need constant personal care. They are people who do not necessarily need the services of a doctor or a nurse. They therefore do not qualify as hospital patients. It is this group of aged persons which not only creates a problem at present, but which is also becoming an increasingly great problem as the number of aged persons increases. Many arguments are put forward that those aged persons should be cared for by their children and families. It is no use arguing that it is the duty of the children to care for those helpless aged. In many cases it is not only the children who neglect their duty, but circumstances may prevent the children from caring for those aged persons. We think for example of houses which are perhaps not large enough. We think of economic conditions which do not make this possible, of cases where the wife perhaps has to go and work and where it is impossible for her to take care of these aged persons. But even where the children are willing to do so, it is in many cases physically impossible to expect one person to care for such an old person day and night. But our problem lies also in the fact that many of those old people do not have any children or relatives and that they are simply on their own. We must therefore accept one thing as a fact, namely that this state of affairs does exist and that we have to find a solution for it. Now the question arises as to what should be done with these infirm and helpless aged. The old age homes cannot care for them because the staff and the facilities to care for them simply do not exist. Neither can they go to a hospital because the Hospital Ordinance does not provide for the care of those old people. The hospitals only accommodate persons who are suffering from specific complaints. It is true that hospitals offer temporary assistance where those old people can perhaps be treated for a week or two for some complaint or other. We now have the position where one provincial authority or one department simply hands the matter over to another and we still have the same problem. I think that the time has now come for us to obtain clarity about the seriousness of this question. We as a society have an obligation towards those persons whose condition is such that they do not qualify for hospitalization, or who cannot or do not want to be cared for elsewhere. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that positive measures be taken by the State to provide the best care for these old people who are left helpless in the eve of their lives and who must look to others for help. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would not perhaps consider appointing a commission of enquiry so that we can obtain finality in that matter, because it is a fact that these people simply find themselves in a no man’s land. Personally I think this is perhaps a matter for the provincial authorities to be dealt with in their hospitals, because if institutions must be established for the care of those old people, then it can also not be expected that each town should have its own institution as is the case with old age homes at present. Such institutions can only be erected in a few towns in the whole of the Republic. Then again we will have the problem that those old people will be wrenched away from the surroundings to which they are accustomed and from their families. If, on the other hand, provision can be made in the hospitals for the care of these people, there will also be medical facilities available for their treatment, if necessary. What is more, if they are in hospitals, they are with their own doctor who knows them. They are then also near their own churches and their ministers who mean a great deal in their lives. Therefore I think that this is perhaps a matter for the provincial administration. But I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister if he does not perhaps think it advisable to appoint a commission of enquiry so that we can once and for all obtain finality about who should accept the responsibility for the care of those helpless aged persons who cannot care for themselves, so that they do not find themselves in a no man’s land, and so that their case is not passed from one authority to another.

Mr. Chairman, I think that there is one matter which is abundantly clear from the speeches which have been made this afternoon. From both sides of this House there is an indication of concern as to the wellbeing of the aged. I want to say immediately to the hon. member for Boksburg that there is no need for a commission of enquiry. This matter is one of the subjects within the purview of the Schumann Commission. Reports in this regard are in the hands of the Government. I must say that I have tried all the subtleties of persuasion that I know to extract some information about what is in that report, but I am greeted by a stony silence from the front benches opposite. This is an urgent matter—this matter of dealing with the three classes of aged, namely the healthy aged, the chronic sick aged and the helpless aged. I do believe that something positive must be done in the very near future. Mention was made by the hon. member for Kimberley South of the existence of facilities for the chronic sick for instance in our hospitals. He mentioned the Conradie Hospital. The cost per day for a patient in the Conradie Hospital is R6.78 according to the latest report of the hospital for 1966. It is an awful lot of money to pay for someone who merely needs help and attention and not specialized nursing and medical attention throughout the day. On the other hand you can put up a home, even a convalescent home. For instance, in the Cape Peninsula complex there is the Eaton Convalescent Home and the cost there works out at R2.61 per day per patient. It is something of that nature which I feel must be provided soon. We need hospitalization for taking care of these chronically sick people who cannot be cured and who must live the rest of their days receiving some medical care. It is uneconomic and wrong to occupy hospital beds where the cost of hospitalization is growing every day. I believe that that is the problem which must be met. As I see it the trouble is that there is divided responsibility as regards the different classes of aged persons, the chronically sick and the helpless aged.

There is another problem in regard to the aged which has arisen and is arising in areas such as what I represent. I am thinking of the Green Point/Sea Point area and other areas in Cape Town. This is the problem of the aged who want a home of some sort and who perhaps have a little money. They can pay and therefore are able to stay in boarding houses or residential hotels. But these buildings are being knocked down wherever they are at present. These residential hotels are being knocked down and in their places blocks of flats are being built. These flats are too big and luxurious for these same elderly people who are fit and well. They cannot seek accommodation in these flats. A recent census in the Sea Point area by the Ratepayers Association shows that there are some 2,000 elderly widows in the Sea Point area who are living in rooms or boarding houses, many of which are now being demolished. They present a very real social welfare problem as to where they are to be housed. I believe that in some overseas countries—I do not know whether the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten me on this—there is now an attempt by the Government to assist in erecting blocks of what one might call single unit flats, that is to say, one-roomed flats with a little kitchenette and a bathroom. There is then connected to the block of flats a sick bay or some attention at the ready so that the elderly person living in a flat does not feel all alone and terrified that something may happen to him in the dead of night as a result of a heart attack or something of that nature and have no one to assist him. I believe that in this country we could well do that. We could see to what extent through the Department of Social Welfare or non-profit institutions we could provide homes of this kind for the aged, and there are many people who require such housing. Those are the healthy aged who can pay reasonable rentals. They are not living on a sub-economic basis. They would then have a place which is suitably erected and planned for them.

If I may. I should also like to add to what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Central), when he referred to flat land existence. There is a development now in the Sea Point area, and I understand that the Minister has not said that he is against this proposal of an intensification of building by allowing tower buildings to be erected. The hon. the Minister has not expressed his opinion either for or against these projects. What I am trying to indicate is that it provides housing for additional numbers of persons in the same restricted physical area. It brings another problem in its wake, apart from those the hon. member has indicated, and that concerns the youth of the area. Attempts are made to find facilities for recreation and for sport. Young people should be kept occupied. This is a very serious matter. I have said I think it is a social problem which has to be faced in regard to the housing of the aged and the middle-income group, and in the same way I think something must be done to ensure that in these built-up areas there are facilities for recreation, namely youth centres or whatever one wants to call them. Some of the churches are acting in this direction, but they carry a heavy burden in so doing because they use expensive land, because no open spaces are available. They use expensive land where they erect some sort of a hall or else they use large old buildings which could be much better utilised. They provide a place where the young people can gather in the evenings and indulge in healthy activities. Cities at the seaside are fortunate in this respect. We have a certain amount of space during the summer season and during good weather. I believe this problem to be even more serious in the cities which are being more and more hemmed in and where more and more people are living in smaller areas of the cities.

I now wish to return to the question of war pensions and I wish to say at the outset that my association with the department and with those who handle these applications has been happy. One is left with a feeling of indebtedness to the officials who deal with the applications in Pretoria. One has a special feeling of gratitude towards those people who serve on the various tribunals. They do not have an easy task. It is not easy when someone comes in with a case, where a person claims to have some disability and they have to decide in a fair and objective way whether the case is deserving of a pension grant. I hope the hon. the Minister will convey to the people concerned how much we appreciate the way in which applications are handled at the head office of the department.

I want to come next to the matter that was raised here concerning the Bantu ex-serviceman. I believe we are boggling at a bogey at the moment.

I think you should raise that with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I think this hon. the Minister is concerned because it is a social matter. I think we are anticipating a bogey far greater than it is. I wish to give the Minister certain figures. During the First World War 50,000 Bantu, including men from the high commission territories, enlisted in the armed forces, and during the Second World War 78,000 enlisted. I think it would be a fairly accurate estimate to say that 25 per cent of these men were from the high commission territories. That means there were some 37,000 in the First World War and 96,000 all told in both wars. In the light of the experience of the former high commission territories it would appear that the number of Bantu entitled to a war veteran’s pension would be something between 3,000 and 4,000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, quite a few pleas were delivered from this side of the House in respect of the chronically ill. I do not want to speak again about matters already raised by hon. members, but this is a matter about which I feel very strongly, because we are all concerned in our constituencies with numerous aged persons who cannot care for themselves and with the chronically ill who cannot be admitted to hospitals. One feels that something should be done for these people and therefore I want to associate myself with the hon. members for Kimberley (District) Westdene and Boksburg, who raised these matters here. I want to plead for the hon. Minister to give this matter his serious attention. These people deserve our attention and we have the fullest confidence that the Minister will do something in this connection. I want to associate myself with those representations made to him.

I listened attentively to the speeches made in this debate and I think that it speaks volumes for the Minister that no unfavourable criticism was expressed here. On the contrary, I am sure that the Minister himself will deal with the few points raised here. Even the matters raised by the Opposition were mentioned without their wanting to criticize the Minister. Nor did we hear the annual pleas which we had from that side in the past.

In South Africa there are 143,247 persons who receive social pensions and the amount involved is R65,574,600. It is indeed a colossal amount. The administrative work connected with this is done so well that even the Opposition, the watchdog, did not have serious criticism in this regard. I think it would be a good thing if we looked back and quoted a few comparative figures. Some members of the public are not fully aware of pension benefits. They are not always aware of the benefits which have been made available to them. I therefore feel that it is necessary to quote a few comparative figures and to bring these matters to the attention of the public. I went back to the year 1948 to see what amount was paid in pensions and social benefits in those days. The maximum amount was R10 per month. A married couple could therefore obtain R20. In 1948 the basic pension was R32. Since 1948 the cost of living has increased by 69 per cent, while basic pensions have increased by 320 per cent. This of course speaks volumes. Four years ago, the total maximum in pensions, including all benefits for a married couple was only R54. To-day the maximum, with the allowance, is R64, and if a person worked and waited four years before applying, he can receive an additional pension of R20. This then affords him a maximum of R84 per month. If persons need the assistance of attendants or such people, they can obtain a further R20 per month in attendant’s allowance. This gives a possible total of R104 per month. As I have said, four years ago the maximum amount was R54, and to-day a family can get up to R104 per month. I want to express my sincere thanks to the Minister for that. It is an increase of more than 500 per cent.

I want to go further and mention certain benefits, because the public are not always aware of the benefits to which they may be entitled. The hon. the Minister has announced a certain benefit which will come into force in October, and which will be of particular advantage to the public. I am referring to persons who are already receiving a pension, for example from the Railways. A widow with three children who receives R94 in Railway pension will in terms of the present legislation receive no additional pension. But from October she will receive a pension as well as a bonus for each child, and she will then get R37 extra, which will give her R131 all told. I want to name the cases which will receive maximum benefits. If she has five children in high school, she will receive R59 in bonus, childrens’ allowance and subsistence allowance, which together with the R94 will afford her R153. After October pensioners will therefore receive up to R153 per month. If the widow works and earns R100 per month, then under present circumstances she will not qualify for an extra pension, but after the 1st October she will, if she has five children at high school, qualify for the maximum allowance. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the period in which we are living to-day, where man lives so far beyond his income that one can almost say he is living apart from his income, where well-to-do people are not doing their duty towards parents and children in need of care, where man is so geared to the moment that he makes no provision for the morrow; in these days it has become necessary for the State to pay ever greater amounts to an ever greater number of people by means of allowances and pensions. It is doubtful whether this phenomenon is really conducive to the development of the character and pride of South Africans, but that is not the point here.

This Government has always realized and carried out its duty in this connection. Over the years the allowances payable to pensioners and others were increased from time to time and the conditions to which these payments were subject, were also considerably relaxed. Just like the Government, the taxpayer of South Africa is willing to contribute his share to caring for people who are sick or who do not have the necessary financial means at their disposal. But the taxpayer will object to malpractices in respect of the granting and utilization of these allowances. Unfortunately malpractices do exist to-day, and here I refer in particular to the country districts. I just want to mention a few examples. In the country districts we find that the pensioners, on receiving their pensions, immediately choose the shortest path to the public bars and spend their allowances there, to the detriment of themselves and their dependants. In the country districts there are agents who draw the allowances and pensions on behalf of the non-Whites, and for that they charge a considerable premium. The payment of this premium is also prejudicial to the pensioner and his family. Then there are members of the pensioner’s family who do not want to work but who live off the pensions and allowances which their parents or other members of their family receive. They refuse to work because they have a refuge in the pensioner’s house.

Some people beget children without the intention or the desire to support those children. They know that the State will not only pay the hospital fees, but also look after their children in other respects if they are in need of care. Just as little as the State can allow children to go hungry, so little can it allow a parent who is physically fit to pass his obligations towards his children onto the State. These malpractices are to be found among the non-Whites in particular. One of the corner-stones of our policy is that there should be as little friction as possible between the various race groups, and this matter must receive attention because it causes discord between Whites and non-Whites in the country districts. People say that they do not want to contribute indirectly towards supporting work-shy persons and others who do not want to meet their obligations in respect of themselves and their families while they are able to do so. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister cordially to consider the re-establishment of local committees in the country districts. These people know the persons living in their vicinity and they know their conditions and circumstances, and they can keep excellent vigilance over the utilization and the granting of pensions. We must also give consideration to the problem of parents who are not prepared to work and to pay for their children. These persons ought to be compelled to work in Government works. I feel that a person who is physically fit, should do his share as regards supporting his children. In my constituency, many of these malpractices occur, and I request that these points of friction be eliminated. As I have said, people feel dissatisfied, because although they are willing to contribute towards the payment of pensions to persons in need of care, they are not prepared to contribute money for the benefit of work-shy persons and persons who refuse to carry out or who do not know their duty.

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister in the short space of time left for me. The first matter deals with the representations that have been made on behalf of the physically handicapped. Some of these people may be paraplegics but do not need rehabilitation. Their physical handicap is of such a nature that they do need help to get about. The assistance they require may be the simple matter of helping these people to get out of bed, help them to get dressed and put them into a wheelchair. That may be the sum total of the help they require, but they need that help or else they cannot get out of bed and move about. There are very many of these people. This is the sort of letter one gets, and I have many of them here. This particular letter makes these points. Many of these people live with their parents, enjoying their care and understanding, but this state of affairs could come to an abrupt end at almost any time because of sickness or death of the person who cares for the handicapped individual. This possibility causes such great concern. The question the handicapped people asked themselves is: “Where will we go and what will become of us?” This question constantly hangs over their heads. They need a place to stay, not a hospital or a rehabilitation centre, but a place where they can live together. There are very many of these people and I would suggest to the Minister that he make a survey in those larger towns where there are many of these people to see how many there are and to try and establish, if it is worthwhile, a little home, a living place for these people so that they can have a minimum amount of care and be able to get about in the way they are used to. Some of them are artists, some are sculptors, and they do many different types of work from their chairs.

There is another matter I wish to refer to, and in regard to which I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister. Under sub-head P there is an item “Special grants to Welfare Organizations in connection with the provision of Homes for the aged and infirm.” This special grant was introduced by Mr. Serfontein when he was Minister and much play was made of the fact that R250,000 was voted for these people. I see now that R100,000 is to be re-voted. Will the Minister tell us what has happened to the other R150,000? Did welfare organizations make use of it? Was it granted to them? Originally it was going to be given to them for the purpose of buying land and fencing their properties. Will the Minister in his reply please tell us which organizations received this money, how it was spent and how he intends to spend the balance of that money?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed: