With further reference to my statement to the House on 3rd June in connection with certain remarks contained in the book “Sticks and Stones” by Mrs. Joyce Waring, I have to inform the House that Mr. D. G. Malan of Voortrekkerpers Bpk., publishers of the book, came to see me in my Chambers on Friday and has submitted an apology to both Houses in the following terms:

Mr. Malan has also given an undertaking that the apologies submitted by Mrs. Waring and by himself will be published in all copies of “Sticks and Stones” distributed by Voortrekkerpers in future.

*Under the circumstances I recommend that no further action be taken in the matter.

A similar statement will be made in the Senate this afternoon.

When the hon. member for Umbilo spoke in this debate on Friday, he expressed doubts about certain speakers who were going to take part in the welfare conference which is to take place one of these days. I would, after all, like to remind the hon. member that conditions in the past 21 years have undergone a tremendous change. These days the people taking part in such conferences are appointed on the basis of their professional knowledge and experience in welfare work and, not as in previous years, in order to expound particular ideologies. Sir, in those days, which the hon. member perhaps remembers, when the David Murrays, Hoernleys, Batsons, Wagners and the Arthur Blaxalls were the chief speakers on such occasions, they introduced Race Relations into debates on welfare matters.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I only have a few minutes at my disposal. The hon. member had half an hour to speak on Friday. My point is that the hon. member once more wants to draw some of those people into our welfare debates. We are not prepared to do so. We are now making use of people who have professional knowledge of these matters.

Sir, this afternoon I should like to make a particular plea in the interests of the subsidization soheme for trained social workers employed by voluntary welfare organizations. I should like to make the statement that in our welfare planning, in our entire welfare programming, there is nothing as important for us to-day as professional knowledge in social services. Sir, connected with this professional knowledge there are a great number of factors which we must take into consideration, but the most important to us in practice is the sound principle of sound co-operation between the Department or the State on the one hand and the voluntary organizations on the other, and this is based on two basic points of departure. In the first place it is, for us, a matter of a sound division of labour between the State and voluntary initiative and, on the other hand, the principle of the State subsidizing these services. But the State undertakes the subsidization because it wants to enable voluntary organizations to do this work. It is unnecessary for us to say that if the State were to take over these services, we would obviously have to appropriate several million rands more in this House for welfare services. Sir, the problem is that the formula according to which the State subsidizes the services at present—and I am now speaking in particular about the social workers—is based on the principle of a number of approved posts for the various organizations. Its whole purpose, as the hon. the Minister of Finance said last year when this subsidy was increased, is to enable the voluntary organizations to pay a proper salary to these people. Sir, throughout the many vears in which these schemes have existed, this is one of the few branches of the private sector where professional officers are paid a smaller salary than in the Public Service. At present it amounts to the fact that the Department is paying an amount of R1,620 in respect of one approved post. For a few senior posts the subsidies are initially greater, but if we make an analysis of what it really costs the organizations to retain such a social worker in their employment, the average subsidy per post is probably less than 50 per cent of the actual costs. Sir, since the welfare services are becoming increasingly more specialized and more expensive, present day public support for these services is progressively decreasing. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to draw sufficient funds from the private sector for this purpose. Therefore I should like to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister that in future, when it comes to a change in this scheme, he will regard it as a logical consequence that, when Government Department salaries are increased, these subsidies will automatically be increased proportionately. Sir, the money paid to these organizations is paid in order to enable them to pay their employees, in proportion to the salaries paid by the State to its staff. At present, whenever the State increases its salaries the organizations have to come to the Department with a plea for an increase of the subsidies. On each occasion this takes up a tremendous amount of time; a great deal of valuable work is lost and we lose staff. There is no danger that these organizations will draw staff away from the State, because the voluntary organizations are always paying smaller salaries.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to another matter, i.e. in connection with the Minister’s policy statement in respect of the care of the aged. We appreciate this policy statement. It is very clear to us what the hon. the Minister is contemplating here. He probably has good reasons for asking whether we are handling this entire matter correctly; whether we are not perhaps heading for a situation where we will have too many homes for the aged, while we could, perhaps, care for them in another way. But I want to issue a strong warning against the idea of the establishment of a formula. Here we are told that about 8 per cent of the aged live in institutions, while this percentage abroad is much lower, but we have no scientific proof that countries quoted here—France, inter alia—do, in fact, care sufficiently for their aged. What we should like to issue a warning against is the possibility of adopting the following as a point of departure, i.e. that if a particular city or its environs has a certain population, there would probably be a specific percentage of old people, and that a specific number of houses should therefore be provided. An idea for which I want to plead, if the Minister wants to carry his policy further, is that we should give increasing attention to the establishment of a smaller type of institution, so that each small town or area could have its own home for the aged. These must not be large homes, accommodating an entire community, but smaller units. [Time expired.]

This is the first year in which the hon. the Minister holds this portfolio and we want to congratulate him on his appointment. This is, of course, a demanding post. The Minister has a particularly great responsibility because he is unfortunately dealing with the under-privileged, the poor section of the nation, the aged. This is a problem which increases in extent every year. There is consequently no doubt that the Minister must be a dedicated person. He must be sympathetic; he must have foresight; he must be progressive; in other words, he must be verlig (enlightened). We read in Veg that he was previously extremely verkramp (unenlightened), but that he is now extremely verlig, and we are very glad about that. Although there is room for all these people in the National Party, the person in this post must not be one of them, and we are very glad of that. [Interjections.] It appears to me as if there are some hon. members who are disappointed that the hon. the Minister is so verlig, but we are very glad.

Where is Albert?

I should like to make a few remarks about the pensions paid to war veterans. I readily want to admit that our pension laws for war veterans are very good ones, but this still does not imply that they are altogether perfect; there are still certain shortcomings which we should like to see corrected. We have already learned that we have to put forward our case here year after year, and after three or four years the Minister accedes to the request, and we want to make the hon. the Minister this promise that what we do not get this year we shall ask for again next year, and the following year, until we do get it.

There are three groups of war veterans and their dependants Upon which I should like to focus the hon. the Minister’s attention. The first group consists of the war veterans of the 1914-T8 war. They are still subject to the means test, but I also want to concede that that test has been considerably relaxed and we are very grateful for that. But our standpoint on this side of the House is that we should do away with that means test. Our standpoint is that many years ago this House accepted the principle in respect of war veterans—and I am referring to the war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War—that the means test had been altogether abolished. We should also like to see the means test for this group abolished. There are no longer many of those people left. That war has been over and done with for 51 years. There are few of them left, and they are getting old to-day. I do not think that we should continue to discriminate against those people.

I want to call upon the hon. members for South-West Africa. This group of war veterans, for whom I am pleading, consist, for the most part, of the men who took part in that South-West Africa campaign. Whether we agreed with that policy at the time or not, the fact remains that we owe our present jurisdiction over South-West Africa to them, and I really think that the hon. members of South-West should stand up and support me in my appeal to the Minister for the abolition, once and for all, of the means test in respect of those people.

Then there is a second group of war veterans whom I also think have not yet received their rightful share. I am speaking about the Bantu who took part in the last two major wars. We know that this hon. Minister is the man who has to administer these laws, and if he is sympathetically disposed towards this matter we shall make a great deal of progress. For the record I would, to-day, just like to mention a few figures to the Committee in connection with Bantu who took part in the last two major wars. In the First World War 82,000 Bantu served South Africa. In the Second World War there were a little less; 80,000 of them gave their assistance. Of those 80,000 no less than 182 were killed in action. 1,655 were taken prisoner and 101 died in the camps. Then there is the important point, i.e. no less than 60 of those Bantu were decorated for the bravery they displayed on the field of battle. The fact remains that if we should ever be involved in a war again, we would once more make use of these people and they would stand by us. We can no longer continue to discriminate against them and to exclude them from our definition of war veterans. I consider it no more than fitting that we should accept that position and give them what they deserve.

Then there is the third group for whom I plead here every year and whose case I want to put to the Minister again to-day. This concerns the pensions of the widows of people who died in the last two wars. The widows did receive military pensions when their husbands were killed. There are some who subsequently married again, and immediately after their marriage they no longer received any pension. We find nothing wrong with that, but there are some of them who have lost their second husbands, either through death or divorce, and then they cannot recover their pensions. I do not think this is right. If those widows had not lost their first husbands in the war, they would not have lost their second husbands. I think that it is only fitting that when a wife loses her second husband she should once more be entitled to the pension which she received after the death of her first husband. We must remember that even the widows of those who died in the last world war are quite old by now. Many of them cannot provide for themselves any longer, and there are quite a number of them who are destitute and who need help. I want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister that this matter should receive his attenion and that a plan should be made, in some way or another, whereby a woman, on losing another husband, would at least be entitled to the pension which she lost in the first place when she got married.

The hon. member made a fine contribution, but this is actually the first time I have been able to listen to a “verkrimpte” speaking authoritatively about “verkramptes” and “verligtes”. I regret the fact that he did so, because I do not think that this is the criterion which he should use to determine whether the Minister is endowed with the qualities that go to make a good Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions.

I should like to mention a few small matters which I regard as vital to the physically disabled people at the Sonop Settlement in the Brits constituency, and I briefly want to bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention. But before I come to that matter I would, on behalf of the Advisory Board, the Settlement Board and the settlers of the Sonop Settlement, like to express our sincerest appreciation to the Minister. He paid a brief and fleeting visit to the old-age home there and to the Sonop Settlement, and he approached their problems in a very sympathetic manner. He also learned of the deficiencies and the shortcomings involved in the system, and he also spoke appreciatively o-f all the excellent aspects of the settlement. He left a very favourable impression, and the settlers asked me to convey their sincerest appreciation to the hon. the Minister. As the Minister knows, a matter was discussed on that day about which those settlers felt very strongly, i.e. the large gap between the allowance received by the settlers and the ordinary allowance received by the aged, known as settlement tenants, who also live on the settlement. The settlers felt that their allowance was a meagre one and they have brought this to the hon. the Minister’s attention. He said that he would go into the matter. In fact, we are under the impression that there was also an investigation in respect of the settlements for less physically disabled persons. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give us some information in this connection to-day. I just want to say that married couples at the settlement receive about R35 per month, where there are no children. Married couples with children receive the usual children’s allowance. Those who are unmarried receive about R27.50. However, we feel that this is too meagre an allowance. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have made frequent representations to the Department in the past. People are under the impression that Sonop is a productive institution. The hon. the Minister has now visited it and he knows that this small settlement is situated in a part of my district where there are still great risks attached to farming. I think that it has now been determined that Sonop is not a productive institution. It is rather a place where one can live happily in rural surroundings. We must not expect them to be able to draw any supplementary income from that farming which could compensate for the great gap between the allowance given to settlers and that which the settlement tenants receive.

The hon. the Minister also visited the old-age home. He saw how the old people have to endure the cold weather during the cold winter nights. Now that the district is being electrified and now that the wires are running past the settlement, the Advisory Board asked that the old-age home should be electrified and that heaters should also be installed. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to say something about this to-day as well. Seen from a hygienic standpoint, the sanitary facilities leave much to be desired. We also want to ask that those facilities be improved.

There is something else which displeased the residents; actually I cannot say that it displeased them, because the hon. the Minister saw that they were overwhelmed with gratitude for what was being done there by the Department. These people are not refractory. A fine spirit prevails among those old people. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this grievance cannot be put right. The grievance is concerned with the fact that when, for example, a man dies and his wife remains behind, and there are, perhaps, no children, or the children have left home, she cannot go to an old-age home and she has to leave the settlement. I think that this is also one of the needs which they informed the hon. the Minister of at the time, and I want to ask that additional provision be made for the housing of single persons. Provision must be made for these single people, whether they be widowers or widows who are without children and yet strong enough not to need to go to an old-age home, so that they are not taken out of the community. I have said that Sonop is not a productive institution. The entire district is an intensive irrigation district and all the canals are cemented ones, except the small canals at the settlement. Those people have small gardens and irrigation is a demanding activity, particularly for those who are physically disabled. I have heard that they were to make representations to the Department of Water Affairs and now I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for those small canals to be cemented as well.

You must address the Chair.

I could even address the hon. member if he would only listen and not interrupt me. The hon. the Minister saw what those people are doing there on their own initiative. He saw the fine festival hall which they erected there. I am not making these representations to the hon. the Minister because the people are unhappy, because I think they are very happy. It is a fine community. But I feel that, since we are still giving one-and-a-half morgen of land to certain of the settlers who are physically disabled, the Department should give serious consideration to the provision of additional housing facilities. With additional housing we could also gradually accommodate those single people. Thus we could have a fine spirit prevailing there. I want to say here that there is, in fact a fine relationship between the settlers and the officials.

They are merely unhappy about their representative.

Are they unhappy with their representative? Oh, what a terrible mistake that hon. member is making! He should just make a study of my facial expression. Merely by looking at his facial expression I can see how very unhappy he looks. But I shall not allow myself to be put off. I am dealing with a very serious matter here. It does not appear to me as if those hon. members feel the same way about those settlers as I do. It would be a sad day if the hon member for Transkei, for example, were the representative there. It would be a bad day for South Africa and for those people. I am not making this plea with any ulterior motive. We know those people.

You are only in favour of border industries.

Of course I am in favour of border industries. But I am not dealing with that now. I am dealing with a very serious matter. This is in connection with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and our old physically disabled people. But in that hon. member’s time that Department was so badly administered that one could call it the Department of Social Adversity. To-day the place bears the wonderful name of Sonop. It is a fitting name. But in those days it was only a sunset as far as the old people were concerned.

We established the Department.

It is a pity that they have interrupted me now. But I hope the hon. the Minister will be amenable and not take any notice of those utterances about “verlig” and “verkramp”. I hope that he will be so disposed as to treat these physically disabled people in such a way that they will be even happier than they are to-day.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. Chief Whip that we on this side of the House do support him. The remarkable thing about this debate is that everybody supports everybody else in any plea they should make. The plea he has made is of course a very worthy one.

I have offered my felicitations on a previous occasion to the hon. the Minister on assuming this new post. To-day I should like to say what is uppermost in my mind when I come to this Vote, namely to say a word about his staff. On the rare occasions that I have had to discuss any matter with his staff I have found them a most remarkable body of men. It is the most difficult staff to fill in the whole of our Civil Service. Men in this Department need special qualifications. I know in another country we had the case of Lord Beveridge who became a national hero because he had those? qualities that we expect to find to-day in the’ members of the staff of our Social Welfare and Pensions Department.

I should like to support the plea that has been made by the hon. member for North Rand. We who have served in the past naturally think of our old comrades. He mentioned the men of the First World War. I am proud to say that I was in the House when Mr. Eric Louw in introducing his Budget in 1955 surprised us all with his very pleasant announcement. By the way, at the time there were stringent regulations about the control of money. Under the heading “War Veterans” he said the following:

Subsequently he said:

I will not mention the cost, because I think the estimate was out. However, it would cost the State a considerable amount. Finally he said this:

I can testify that whenever old soldiers met, not necessarily of that war, when he was with us they toasted his health. Now that he is no longer with us we revere his memory. I am very glad to have had the opportunity to say this. How many of them are left to-day? When one looks at the Estimates one sees that under Head F the amount voted for pre-1914 South African War pensions is only the insignificant amount of R27,000. I have put questions on the Order Paper from time to time and would like to refer to some of them here. In 1965 there were still 9,000 of the old and bold still alive and drawing a pension. In the beginning of this year I asked how many of them were left in 1968 and the answer was only about one third of them. They say that old soldiers never die, but they are dying pretty fast now and their numbers are fading away very rapidly. This is my plea in support of the hon. member for North Rand. Why not extend the privilege to the men of the First World War? The men who went to South-West Africa entered the Defence Force at the age of 18 years. They were 18 years old in 1915 so they must have been born in 1897. They are all over 70 years of age now. In fact, these of 72 years of age will be about the youngest of them. What risk does the hon. the Minister then run if he should say that he will extend that right to men of that period? I want to plead with the hon. the Minister not only to give this matter his serious consideration but also that he will use his influence with the hon. the Minister of Finance to make this concession.

I now want to refer to Item J on page 302. When the hon. the Minister became Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions he had the honour of introducing his first Bill which was a non-contributory pension Bill. I know I am not permitted to discuss details of policy but I notice that the first item under this heading reads as follows: “Government contributions to pension funds and the Government Employees Provident Fund”, for which an amount of R29,387,600 is voted. It is an excellent gesture by the Government to make this contribution. I have advocated for many years now that the State pensions for civil servants should be non-contributory. That is the modern movement and in all great institutions to-day they are moving in that direction. As a matter of fact our State is moving in that direction because the contributions by the State have been increased and the contribution by the civil servants reduced. I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions really to make history in this country, namely by using bis influence to have a commission appointed to discuss the whole question of the Acts of 1955, for the Permanent Force, the Police and so on. I think this is an excellent opportunity for him to do so.

I now come to something that we all have to deal with in our constituencies. I want to make a plea on behalf of the old folk in Johannesburg. I support what the hon. member for Brits has said, but in Johannesburg which is a great city, there is a tendency to say that these people should not stay there and that they should go to some centre where they can live more cheaply. The point is that they have spent their lives there and that they wish to spend their old age on the scene of their own activities. These are people who have worked in Johannesburg, who have lived there all their lives and whose families arc there, if they have families. These people deserve some special consideration. The great problem of course is rentals. On various occasions I have discussed this problem of rentals with social workers. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that, when he has an opportunity to use his discretion, he will use it very favourably on behalf of those aged people in Johannesburg. I think it is our duty These old people have served their country well, they have done what we required of them in their youth and middle age and it is our duty to look after them in their old age.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to a matter which the hon. member for Kensington raised and to which reference was also made by the hon. member for North Rand. However, I do not want to suggest by this that I am not sympathetically disposed to the matter which they mentioned. We must nevertheless bear a few facts in mind in respect of the war veterans of the 1914-T8 War. We may take it that all the participants in that war have already reached the age of 70 years. In their case the means test has been relaxed considerably, and none of them are earning, by their own physical endeavours, an income—in the form of a salary or a wage—which is still being taken into consideration. If my facts are correct there were still 13,796 of these people on 31st December, 1968. 10,300 of these were receiving a war veterans’ pension. It was calculated that if we were to abolish the means test in order to make provision for the remaining 3,496 as well, it would entail an additional expenditure of R2,721,000. There is therefore a financial implication involved to which the late Advocate Louw also referred at the time. It is very interesting that, during their 1968 congress, the Springbok Legion, i.e. the B.E.S.L., also conceded that the abolition of the means test in respect of these people would actually serve no purpose, because it would afford no social aid to anyone who needed it. Those who need social aid are already receiving it. I mention these few facts, not because one is unsympathetic to those cases, but because there are facts in that connection which we must take into consideration.

Is that the South African Legion?

Yes. In this modern world of ours the development which is frequently advantageous to a whole community unfortunately also proves disadvantageous to certain people in that community. I now want to refer to something which is taking place in my constitution, but this is also something which is taking place on a nation-wide scale. I am mentioning this matter on behalf of my own constituency, but it is one to which the hon. the Minister should give attention, because it may also crop up at other places. I want to clarify the matter as follows. In my constituency there is an urban renewal scheme in progress. The Department of Community Development expropriates certain properties and takes possession of them because it subsequently wants to demolish them in order to provide new housing there. In that area one finds several people, particularly aged pensioners, who own their own homes. The Department of Community Development purchased their properties. Those buildings are not being demolished immediately and the people concerned are being allowed to continue living in those dwellings for a certain period.

However, they must rent the dwellings from the Department of Community Development. The Department has a formula according to which they pay the rent. I want to mention the example of a single pensioner, a lady, who received R5,080 for her property. According to the fixed formula she must now rent back this small dwelling from the Department. She is now paying R44,26 per month. She is a pensioner who receives a pension of R32 per month. Up to now she owned the property and apart from the expenses involved in a small amount of upkeep, electricity and water and her ordinary daily upkeep, she had no other expenses. She could therefore manage on this R32 per month, but this new dispensation is seriously affecting her. Apart from the fact that she finds it difficult to pay such a large rental, she also has a sum of money in the bank.

As far as I know, this amount will not affect her pension, but there is the additional danger that Such a person could be prevented from obtaining a pension as a result of the amount of money which is in the bank and the interest earned on it. One could now say that the interest could be used to cover the additional monthly rent. But many of those people do not have a sound knowledge of investments, etc. Besides, the extra money earned in respect of interest will not make it much easier for her to afford the high rent. It is therefore my humble request to the hon. the Minister that this problem be discussed with the Department of Community Development. Rent subsidization may be necessary during the transitional period, until subeconomic houses have been provided for these people. This can serve as a transitional measure to try to help them over this position which has developed.

There is still another matter which I am interested in, a matter arising from debates conducted during this Session. Reference was made on several occasions to the use of drugs. Their dangers were pointed out and methods were even suggested for the possible combating of this maladjustment which has now developed in our society and is continually increasing. People who, within society, become maladjusted in one way or another, nevertheless are, or eventually become, the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare. If this is not directly the case, it does, nevertheless, apply on the financial level, since the Department has to help several organizations, which are engaged in the treatment and rehabilitation of these people, with subsidies. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent his Department is already involved in the question of the use of drugs and the rehabilitation of people whom one would like to cure of this terrible practice. If this assistance is not being given directly, I should like to know how much money the hon. the Minister’s Department has already given to voluntary organizations in the form of subsidies, in order to help them to do this essential work within our society. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would give us some information in this connection.

AND PENSIONS: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my gratitude towards the hon. member for Umbilo for his words of congratulation to me in my new capacity in this post. It is a tremendously large department and its duties are comprehensive. It affects the lives of people and I want to assure him right away that I will deal with this post with all the dedication at my command because I am by nature inclined to be accommodating and helpful where it affects such people. To the other hon. members who congratulated me on this nomination, I assure them of my best services at all times in this capacity.

I consider it apposite that I should, by way of introduction, first say a few words about the scope of the activities of the Department. I should like to have this placed on record. We need to know precisely how the Department is constituted, and how it functions so that we can determine precisely what the various facets are which still have to be dealt with. This is one of the largest government departments and is responsible for an extensive and great variety of services. The establishment of this Department is at present 1.530 and organizationally the Department is subdivided into four main sections, i.e. (1) professional welfare services, (2) social auxiliary services, (3) general auxiliary services and (4) civil pensions. I am going to try to indicate the task of each one of these sections in brief outline. I am doing so so that you can get a total picture of the task of this Department. The division of professional welfare services consist of approximately 680 posts, of which most are trained social welfare officers. The most important functions of this section are extraneous services which include family care, case work, institutional services, group services and auxiliary services at courts. Through its network of nine regional and 25 branch offices, which are distributed throughout the country, the Department is able to give constant attention to social services, where the problems arise, i.e. within the community itself. The second branch of this section is situated in the head office itself, and is primarily concerned with research and information services, regional and branch office control and liaison with private welfare organizations, universities and the national Welfare Council. Special subsections are also devoting exclusive attention to family care services and care of the aged. These are two new sections which were established last year in September. The second section deals with social auxiliary services. This section controls all social pensions. In this section there is a staff of approximately 550 people. For example, they handle 70,000 postal articles each month. If you work it out, it amounts to more or less 2,000 postal articles per day. There is an average of 4,000 new applications for social pensions each month. Approximately 1,300 social pensions allowances and war pensions are being paid. Apart from the social pensions and allowances, subdivisions are also responsible for welfare organizations, institutes for children, homes for the aged and subsidies for private welfare services. This section is doing, as you will note, a tremendous amount of work with the staff at its disposal.

Then there is the general auxiliary services section. With a staff of approximately 120 this section consists of the accounts section, the work study section, a section dealing with data processing for the computer and the staff section, dealing with new appointments, transfers and resignations. Staff training is also incorporated into this and deals mainly with the training of officers in order to acquaint them with their new duties. In addition the section also concerns itself with medical services which relate to military pensions, the Military Pension Council, medical boards of appeal and the Military Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

The fourth section is responsible for civil pensions. The approximately 107 officials employed in this section are responsible for the administration of nine pension funds. 17 pension schemes and 4 provident funds. It is very difficult to say precisely how many members the combined funds and schemes have, but if we only take into account that included in these funds are the Public Service pension fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Service pension fund and the Provincial and Territorial Service Pension Fund—these are only four of the 32 funds and schemes controlled by this section-—hon. members will have an idea of the tremendous scope of the work of this section.

I will try to sketch the activities of the Department to hon. members as briefly as possible. These are the four facets in which the Department is employed. Actually it is not possible to explain everything so briefly, but I am just trying to give the hon. members a total picture. However, if we bear in mind that for the present book year approximately R130 million has been appropriated for the functions of the Department, and we add to that the fact that the various pension funds and schemes controlled by the Department stand at more than R600 million, then hon. members will have an idea of the scope of the work which is being done by the Department.

I wanted to furnish hon. members with this information at the outset so that we could get an idea of the scope of the work which is being done. I immediately want to add nr" tribute to those paid by hon. members opposite, as well as those on this side, who paid tribute to our officials, the head office as well as the regional offices, the branch offices and the welfare workers throughout our country who are doing this wonderful work with so much dedication and devotion. We pay them for part of the work, but a great deal of it they do out of devotion because they really feel a fondness for this specific task. That is why it is my duty and my privilege to say thank you very much to them.

I should now like to reply to a few of the points which were raised. I want to begin with the hon. member for Umbilo. In the first instance he referred to our National Welfare Conference, which is going to be held from 24th to 26th June. He asked why we have specifically excluded the English language universities when it comes to persons who are going to read papers at that conference. I want to begin by saying that this conference is essential. The essential need for it has already been emphasized by members on the Opposition side. The persons who are going to read papers are people whom we regard as experts, each in his own field. I want to assure the hon. member at once that this conference will in fact be a countrywide conference. Full justice will be done to bilingualism at this conference. Papers will be read in both languages either turn and turn about or partially in the one language and partially in the other language. There is no possibility of an attempt being made here to eliminate one sector of the population completely. I want to assure him right away that this is not the case. It so happens that the professors who are being asked to read papers all come from Afrikaans language universities because they are in our opinion the people who are expert in their specific field. We are for example asking Professor Cilliers of Stellenbosch and Professor Erica Theron, also from Stellenbosch, who are known throughout the country in this field to do so. We are also asking Professor Pieterse of Pretoria, and also Professor Eloff of Potchefstroom. There are of course quite a number of officials who are experts in their specific field and who are reading pacers in that connection. There is for example Dr. Winder, Mr. Olivier, Mr. Auret and Mr. Van Vuuren, who are going to touch upon certain aspects. In general however I want to assure the hon. member that there has been no attempt to eliminate one group. On the contrary, our only purpose was to make use of the best talents we had available in order to make a great success of a matter which is essential in the interests of welfare services with a view to the future. The hon. member, and other hon. members as well, also spoke about the care of the aged. In this connection I should like to mention a few things. Last year I made a statement at Bethal in regard to our policy in this regard. We have, inter alia, effected a change here, and I now want to explain this briefly. However, let me first state that we can never, in my opinion, do enough for our elderly people. They are the people who laid the foundations for this country with its stability, security and all the other advantages we are enjoying to-day. That is why we can never do enough for them.

However, we must take into account the practical aspects of finance. We must decide on what sections of our vast and important task we must allow emphasis to fall at a given juncture. The Government must decide to which project preference should be given at a given juncture, i.e. to Water Affairs, to Defence, or whatever is most important at a given juncture. I as the Minister responsible will of course continue to put in my plea for the necessary funds for inter alia, the care of the aged.

My approach to the matter of care of the aged, is that it falls into three categories. In the first instance I think that our elderly people will welcome this, and I think that is as it should be, i.e. that we should regard them as part of the community. They must, as long as it is in any way possible, remain part of their community. We must not when they become old, want to eliminate them and set them aside, no matter how good the homes for the aged are in which we place them. We dare not place them there and wash our hands of them and say that we have done with them. No, Mr. Chairman, they want to feel that they still form part of the community, that they are still needed. There is nothing so frustrating for an elderly person than the feeling that he is redundant. This, then, is our task—to see to it that they will not be redundant. With a view to that we must keep them where they are as long as possible. This is the little place they have built up for themsleves and where they have decided, of their own accord, to stay. We must keep them there for as long as possible. Now the fact of the matter is that under those circumstances there are community services which we can render to them and as far as this is concerned, I think there must be a complete adjustment on the part of all organizations engaged in welfare services. Let me illustrate what I mean. Perhaps those elderly persons who are living in their own little homes need certain things. In this way, for example, they may not have their own means of transport. For that reason it is necessary that some young married couple or other, or the welfare organizations in that town or vicinity should “adopt” these elderly persons as their responsibility and render this service and others which they need to these elderly persons. For example they can take these elderly persons to hospital, or to the doctor, if that is necessary, or take them to church. That service can also be reciprocal, as I have also experienced in my own constituency. For example, when a young couple would like to go out for the evening, they can leave their small children with those elderly people. Usually these elderly persons take great pleasure in looking after children. In any case they feel that they are still useful and that they still form part of the community. The hon. member’s plea for “Meals on Wheels” also fits in with these community services. I want to inform the hon. member that I will have this entire matter investigated in the light of this new approach to see whether we can implement this new approach in practice, and how we can accommodate these welfare organizations. As I have said, we will have the entire matter investigated, and I hope, when we meet here again next year, to make a further statement in this regard. I think this approach is a good one, i.e. to see whether, with the aid of community services, we can keep these elderly persons in those little places where they prefer to stay.

The next stage arrives when our elderly persons are no longer able, owing to circumstances beyond their control, to remain in their own little place. For example, one of them may pass away, or their financial means may become reduced to such an extent that they can no longer afford to live there, or they may, owing to illness, require special attention. This phase does not necessarily imply institutional care. It is in this respect that we have perhaps made a mistake in the past. We have perhaps been too ready to send elderly persons to institutions when problems arose I think we ought, at this stage, to continue to keep them in the community, although under different circumstances. In order to do so we shall have to provide them with housing, not necessarily in the form of a home for the aged, but preferably a little place where they can still live together with the necessary conveniences, and continue to receive their children and friends. For example, we can erect flats under the management of a house father and house mother. These need not do everything for them, of course, but they are there when the elderly people need their advice or assistance. In this way we will still create a feeling of independence among the old people. Perhaps they can still continue to make their own little garden, their own tea and receive their own guests, in their own way; in other words, something quite different from what would obtain if they were to be taken up into an institution. There are numerous possibilities. For example, in our platteland towns old houses which are no longer being used can be converted into places where these elderly people can live; there is a possibility of laying out housing schemes with the assistance of the Department of Community Development in order to accommodate these people. But, as I have said, these two stages are in fact a housing problem and not a problem of care as such.

The third stage is reached when either one of the married couple has reached such a stage of physical or mental frailty that he or she needs medical care. Only now do we reach the stage of institutional care. For that reason we must create institutions on a semi-medical basis where the elderly people will be able to receive the necessary medical care. That is the third stage as I see it.

To make provision for these things we are also at the moment instituting a full-scale investigation into the entire matter. We are already maintaining liaison with all the Departments concerned. At this juncture already, in advance, I want to make an appeal to all our voluntary welfare organizations, such as churches and others that devote their attention and means to the care of our elderly people to begin thinking and developing in this direction. In this way, I think, we will be able to best serve our elderly people. In respect of existing homes for the aged I wish to express the desire that we should see to the needs of the frail aged there as well. It happens so often that one partner of the married couple becomes debilitated to such an extent that he or she has to go to hospital while the other remains behind and does not know what to do. Hence the idea that the existing homes for the aged should be supplemented and that one fifth of the accommodation in such an institution should be set aside for the care of the frail aged. In addition we often have the problem that some of these elderly people find themselves in hospital, and that after a time the doctor or the medical authority simply decides that a cure is no longer possible. The attitude is then adopted that these people are the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare. The bed is needed for someone else, and these old people are in many cases simply left in the street, or let me put it this way, their family members are notified that they can no longer remain there and that they should come along and take them away. In this connection I ordered an investigation and had a survey made in order to determine what the need is. I began in the Witwatersrand area and had a thorough survey made there. I just want to report to the Committee that I will, during this week, go to the Transvaal to undertake an inspection in certain places. It is our intention to take over the whole matter of care of the aged in this sphere, in the sense that we will ourselves look after the elderly people who are already there or will have them cared for by private initiative. We shall do this in respect of all these frail aged because we believe that we have a duty towards them and that we simply cannot leave them on their own in their old age. For the information of the hon. member I just want to add that the regulations drafted under the 1967 Act will be announced in a few months time, and that the investigation has been completed. There are certain institutions where some of the elderly people are at present being accommodated which will not comply with the regulations. We will therefore have to be prepared to take steps in such cases and to lend assistance where necessary. This announcement will be made within the next few months. It is essential that this step be taken because it has come to my attention that some of these elderly people are being accommodated under the most deplorable conditions, and that in some cases advantage is in fact being taken of their position. We will no longer allow this to happen.

Mr. Chairman, thus far the question of care of the aged. The hon. member also referred to the per capita subsidy which is being paid in respect of buildings. The formula, which the hon. member also quoted here, is that the Department covers up to 75 per cent of the expenditure on furniture, to a maximum of R90 per person. I just want to inform the hon. member that provision is being made in these Estimates for an additional R200,000, and that it is now possible therefore to increase this subsidy to R180 per person, as long as it does not amount to more than 75 per cent of the total costs of the equipment. I also want to add that out of this same fund we are providing all kinds of other services for these people, such as a library and other conveniences which they may perhaps need. However, the subsidy can be increased to R180 per person.

The next matter I should like to touch upon is the question of drugs which was raised by the hon. member for Germiston. From time to time it has come to my attention as Minister that the abuse of drugs is beginning to assume increasingly serious proportions. It is a pity that this should be the case, but it is one of the facts one must face up to. We have recently read in newspaper reports how school principals, chemists and the police have expressed their concern in regard to the numerous school children who are becoming involved in the drug peddling. Many of these children are being used or misused by unscrupulous adults to peddle drugs. The National Advisory Council on Alcoholism, reported as follows at its meeting which was held on 14th November, 1968 (translation)—

The inter-departmental advisory committee on the need for care, misconduct and crime among children and juveniles, which held a meeting in March, 1969 in order to discuss the matter also focussed attention on this matter, and then reported to me. After thorough consideration I have decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to go into the entire matter of drugs. The terms of reference of this committee have not yet been specifically laid down, but the committee will inquire into more or less the following matters: The kinds of drugs and the effect they have on people; the nature and extent of the misuse of drugs; details in regard to this misuse; the etiological factors of misuse; the social consequences of the misuse of drugs; preventative and combating measures; and the organization and co-ordination of services to prevent smuggling. The names of the members of the committee will subsequently be announced, but I have seen fit to give the following departments representation on this committee: The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Department of Health, the Police, and the Department of Justice, and in addition at least four members of the public who take a particular interest in this matter. I am thinking for example of the National Council for Alcoholism, the Welfare council, the Pharmacists Association, the Medical and Dental Council, etc. I am therefore announcing that a committee will be appointed to institute a thorough inquiry into this matter and to bring out a report, after which we will then devote careful attention to the matter. I should like to report this to the hon. member for Germiston.

In addition I should like to deal with a few other matters which were mentioned here. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) spoke about the rehabilitation of alcoholics, places for after-care and possible decentralization. At the moment we have Magaliesoord, as the hon. member knows very well. We will definitely, when we develop further in this direction, bear the needs of the Northern Cape in mind. When one deals with matters of this kind then it is to my mind logical and the right thing that these people should be kept as close to their families as possible. For that reason it is perhaps not the right thing to concentrate them all in one place. I therefore welcome the idea which was expressed here, and when we find that expansion in this direction is necessary then we will also bear in mind the request of the Northern Cape and possibly the Eastern Cape—Port Elizabeth and that area.

In addition the hon. member asked me a question in regard to handicapped persons, to which I should like to reply in full. We are dealing with physically handicapped and spiritually handicapped persons. At the moment the position is that when children are mentally handicapped but still capable of being trained —and this is a rather relative concept—then they fall under the Department of Education and certain institutions are established where they are being educated up to a certain standard. People who cannot be educated and who are certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act of 1916, fall under the Department of Mental Health. But I nevertheless feel that there is a group of people who do not fit into either of these two categories, people who are not receiving care or attention. I feel that the concept of a handicap should receive our serious attention. In this connection I consequently want to announce that my Department has taken the lead in this matter; that discussions are already being held and will be taken further with the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department of Labour, with its sheltered employment market; that we will formulate a policy in regard to the entire question of a handicap; and that we will go into this matter fully, particularly when we are dealing with people above the age of 18 years. These people cannot be incorporated into the normal labour market. It is therefore essential that my Department devote the necessary attention to this matter. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this question of handicap will be investigated jointly by these four Departments. We have already made a start with this matter, and I shall at a later stage make a further statement in this regard.

I then come to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) as well as the hon. member for Brits, in regard to the settlement position. I want to state at once that I made it my task, soon after I was appointed to this post, to visit Ganspan in Kimberley and also Sonop to see for myself what the position there was. These settlements were originally laid out in order to provide accommodation to ex-diggers and foresters. Subsequently the settlement for semi-disabled at Groblersdal was transferred to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and this Department retained responsibility only for the settlements for the disabled. In due course however vacancies arose at the settlements and it was decided to rent the premises to elderly pensioners with families. It appears however that disabled elderly couples with children will have to be given preference, and the policy in future will be that the settlement scheme will be expanded and that the settlement lease scheme will gradually fall away. No person who is at present there will be eliminated, but in future we will definitely give preference to the settlement scheme itself and will therefore not allow any further lessees there. But no person who is at present there will be removed; the present lessees will be able to remain, but no new lessees will be accepted.

Sir, expansions are being envisaged in respect of housing. I am having this matter investigated at the moment. I want to inform the committee what I found at Ganspan and Sonop: I found that a married couple originally came there with their children and lived there. The children grew up there and in fact it became their home, it was their little inheritance. Eventually the children left home. One member of the married couple passed away and the widow or widower remained behind and now he must suddenly be uprooted and sent into the world, and he does not know where to turn to. In the case of people who are there at present and who have, as a result of circumstances, found themselves in this position, we are now giving consideration to establishing single quarters in the settlements where such single persons can be accommodated in the same community and can remain on there without any disruption.

In addition I should like to make the following announcement in regard to settlement allowances. I have already obtained consent to this, i.e. that allowances to settlers be increased at the same time as the increases in respect of all social pensions and allowances. It is being envisaged that the allowances of a single settler with dependent children be increased from the present R27.50 per month to R37.50, and that of a married couple in all cases from R35 per month which they are at present receiving to R52 per month. The allowances for children will remain the same as those in respect of those who receive maintenance allowances. This will entail a considerable increase. To bring the matter onto a more realistic basis, however, I decided to make a few amendments as far as the price of the milk which is being supplied to these people is concerned. I do not want to go into details of the amendments now, but I should like to announce that these allowances will be increased.

The next matter I want to touch upon is the question of the supply of electricity to both these settlements. I went to look at the settlements and found that it is essential that electricity be made available there. Consequently I can announce that provision has already been made for this on the Loan Estimates, and that in September of this year tenders will be called for the supply of electricity to Sonop and Ganspan. There is one last matter I want to mention in this regard, and that deals with the improvement of sanitary services. This matter is also receiving attention. Sir, with this I have in general dealt with the settlement position. I want to thank hon. members for having touched upon this matter. This is how we are looking after the interests of these people, and I am pleased to have been able to have made this announcement in this connection.

I then come to the request made by the hon. member for Westdene to the effect that we should increase the subsidies which are being paid to welfare organizations in respect of female social workers. I want to say at once that this matter is being given consideration from time to time, but I would not like to commit myself to stating that these subsidies will automatically be increased when salary scales in the Public Service are increased, because there are certain problems involved. We realize the problems only too well, but when one is dealing with the question of subsidies I feel it is the task of the organizations themselves to adjust the salaries of these people from time to time in order to retain their services, without the Government stepping in, but we will give consideration to the matter from time to time, according to circumstances. When we feel that it is essential that the subsidy be increased and that a case can be made out for it, then we will give it our favourable consideration. However, I do not want to commit myself by saying that we will automatically increase these subsidies when salaries in the Public Service are increased, because this may not always be possible.

The hon. member for North Rand asked a few questions in regard to war veterans’ pensions. I do not want to argue with him about his verkrampte/verligte story. I think that what we are dealing with here is much more important than that. I come firstly to the war veterans of the 1914-’18 war. The hon. member for Germiston has already replied to the hon. member’s question to a certain extent by explaining what the position at present is. I want to inform the hon member that we have recently, just prior to the consideration of the present Estimates, taken the entire matter into consideration. After thorough investigation it was then decided that we would lift the means test as the hon. Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech. The investigation disclosed that it is not at this stage possible for us to abolish the means test in its entirety, but the fact that we have brought relief in regard to the test proves that we are thinking in that direction and that when the time comes we will move in that direction. Now the hon. member need not say that this is because he has regularly put in a plea for this matter. It just so happens that he is pleading a good cause, which we will remedy in any case. The fact of the matter is that we have felt that these three groups, namely the protesting burghers, the soldiers of the first world war and those who were involved in the Bombata uprising must be placed into one category, and we have already granted relief to them in connection with the means test, as has now been announced. The fact that we have made a start with this matter is an indication that we will from time to time reconsider it, and as time passes we will try to accommodate them.

In regard to Bantu war veterans, I want to inform the hon. member at once that even if they are receiving pensions and even if they are war veterans, they do not fall under this Department at all; they fall under the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I have nothing to do with pensions for Bantu. This matter must be raised under that vote, where it belongs. The third question concerned widows of those who died in the First and Second World Wars. I want to say at once that we are sympathetically-disposed towards the widows and that, as the hon. member knows, they are receiving pensions. But when such a person marries the Government feels that it is the responsibility of the second husband to make provision for his wife. I just feel that because a first husband was an ex-soldier we cannot continue to care for her, even after three or four marriages. But I do not want to exaggerate the matter. I just want to say that if she marries a second time it actually means that she is beginning afresh; she has a new breadwinner and She is in a new financial position which may perhaps be better than her previous one. As responsible people they ought to make the necessary provision. At this stage we cannot comply with that request. The matter will receive attention in due course, but I do not want to make any promises now.

The hon. member for Kensington also addressed a few friendly words to my staff, and on their behalf I want to thank him very much, because they cannot make a speech here. He also discussed the means test which I have already dealt with and his next point dealt with the contributory or non-contributory pension schemes. The hon. member has already raised the matter under one of the items of legislation which has been introduced. I furnished a reply at that stage already, and I have nothing to add to that. I just want to say the matter has been investigated in all its aspects. I had a good look at the matter.

Last time he did not really want to accept my arguments, but this is in fact the case—I went into it again. The associations of Public Servants have made a special request that the contributory pension scheme should not be done away with in its entirety. They want to keep on making a contribution, and the reason why they want to do so is that they want to retain some control over their pension privileges. The moment they do not make a contribution and the State is the only contributor then the full control of the pension fund is in the hands of the State. They have abdicated all say and have no longer any right to govern the privileges, etc. To them it is a serious matter that they should not lose that control. The hon. member stated that this is in fact being done in other countries. I want to say at once that in Britain, where there is a non-contributory scheme, new small schemes which are contributory, are to my knowledge, arising so as to compensate for the fact that the non-contributory scheme is inadequate, in spite of the fact that the State still has to contribute large sums annually in order to help the non-contributory schemes. However we still welcome the idea of private pension funds. The Cilliers Commission did not offer us a solution in regard to the possibility of transfer, to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred. This appears to be a tremendous problem, particularly if a man has contributed for 40 years to one fund and then wants to transfer to another fund. This is not an easy matter, but I have had another check made of the Cilliers Commission’s report and I shall give my personal attention to this matter again. But at this stage I do not yet have an answer to the problem.

May I ask a question? When the Minister introduced the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Bill, did not the Transvaal Teachers’ Associations lose all control over their funds, and did not all these other contributory pension funds lose all control because it now comes under one central fund?

No, the fact remains that these people still have their committees which we consult. We are not forced to do this, but we are still consulting them. They are stdl making a contribution and because they are making a contribution we are still consulting those bodies. In reality their strength lies in that consultation. That is as the matter stands at the moment and I am not prepared to go into it any further. I think that I have now dealt with all the matters so far, and I shall prefer to enter the debate at a later stage, if necessary.

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. the Minister. It is full of promise. It sets out principles which this side of the House has pleaded for for many years. I have before me a document issued by the Minister’s Department which gives us certain principles which the Minister has laid down in regard to the care of the aged. It is full of promises. The interesting thing is that it was delivered as far back as November, 1968, more than six months ago, and in several places the Minister talks of his Department considering this and that. But we would have been happier had some of these committees or the members of his staff come to some conclusion so that we could have seen some action in order to fulfil these three principles which are admirable and which we support. I think we will look forward to the hon. the Minister’s speech next year and hope that instead of promises he will be able to tell us of advances which he has made, and that the advances will not be small. On the last page of this document we find this statement with reference to co-operation in regard to the care of the aged. It says—

Sir, there never was a truer word said, and it will also go down in history as one of these things which we hope will be fulfilled by next year.

But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the medical services which are given to the aged and which, though they may not be the responsibility entirely of his Department, nevertheless should be controlled, and if necessary financed and helped, through his Department. What happens when an old man or woman is ill and needs medical help? In some places like Cape Town it is the responsibility of the local authority. In this case, too, the local authority has made admirable arrangements. It assumes responsibility and provides medical services at any time of the day or night without any red tape whatever. What does the ordinary old man do? He has to contact a magistrate and ask him to send the district surgeon to see him, or in some places he may call any doctor without the guarantee of payment, the Minister may let it be known that the Department will effect payment. All these are schemes which are successful to some extent but which do not fit together the pattern required by an aged man or woman, especially living alone.

I think his Department should co-operate with the other Departments. The Department of Health has control over the district surgeons. The provinces generally control the ambulances, though not always. He should make provision, no matter where or at what time, by which the aged sick, at any time of the day or night, can easily obtain medical attention, and will be sure that the person who comes will be aware that the Department of Social Welfare, or some other Department with whom an arrangement is made, will meet the expense, not only of the doctors’ services but also of the ambulance. There are three types of aged. There is the mobile man, who needs medical attention but can by his own means get to a public hospital or clinic. There is the man who is transportable. That means he cannot get there on his own, but he can be carried there, whether by a public bus or by some other arrangement which will take him to the hospital and take him back home, so that he can live in his own home.

And, lastly, of course, there is the non-transportable person who must either be hospitalized or must be placed in a home, depending on the degree of attention he needs. The most important in many respects is the transportable man, and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a welfare society, St. Giles, which deals with a great number of cripples. Sometimes they run a bus, with the support of the hon. the Minister, and they go round collecting these cripples and take them to some institution, usually a provincial hospital, where they can receive special treatment. Of course that makes a great difference to them. The society could, of course, also take the physiotherapist, the masseur or the electro-therapist, to such a person, but that is not a very useful method when compared with the method of collecting the patients who, during the ride alone, will often reap benefits because he meets others like himself. He sees others improving, generally his spirits are kept up; and he does not have to worry about meeting the costs.

Then of course I think the Minister should co-operate with the other Departments. I would also like to suggest to him that he should make some contact with the S.A. Nursing Council and ask them to give thought to the idea of developing a nurse who would be specially trained in the care of the aged. It is in itself a science and, added to the ordinary nursing training, it would give the Minister great help in his work, his primary work being to keep the aged in their own homes. Special nurses should be trained, and of course they are trained in some respects. There are the district nurses, the health visitors, those dealing with tuberculosis cases, and psychiatric nurses who are also specially trained. These people are on the whole subsidized by the local authority, which recovers the cost, or at any rate seven-eights of the cost in most cases, of running these services. This is a good service. The hon. the Minister should find out how this service works and he should ask and consult with the Nursing Council, which has all this work in hand. He should ask them to take part in and give consideration to it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Central), who has just resumed his seat, referred to the basic principles of the policy which was announced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member also expressed his regret about the fact that the hon. the Minister had not yet reported on progress having been made. But I think that the way in which that hon. Minister has dealt with the portfolio is proof of the fact that he made a profound study of his task. The announcement of this policy alone is something for which we should thank the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. member may rest assured that next year the will, in fact, have tangible proof, of the progress which has been made, from the speech which the hon. the Minister will make on that occasion. In the second place the hon. member referred to the treatment of diseases. He referred to its urgency and efficiency. I want to agree with the hon. member wholeheartedly as far as that is concerned. I should like to leave it at that. I am sure that the hon. the Minister has the interests in respect of the treatment of our aged, who are ill, at heart. The utmost care is being devoted to them, to ensure the utmost efficiency and speed.

I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister’s speech at the opening of the Silwerjare old-age home. It was gratifying to note that emphasis was given to the fact that our old people should be happily incorporated in our society for as long as possible. In order to achieve this, one must bear in mind that the choice of the old persons’ dwellings should be their own choice and should not be made as a result of circumstances forcing a decision upon them. We are very glad that the hon. the Minister mentioned that. Five thousand of the 9,102 inhabitants of our old-age homes do not receive subsidies. When we subtract this number so that only those old people remain who are cared for, our percentage is fairly consistent with that in the United States of America, England, France, Belgium and Germany. In South Africa the figure is about 3.5 per cent. That percentage represents the number of old people living in old-age homes. The hon. the Minister said that he had in mind that those people who were uncared for, or the people who were healthy, could be accommodated in dwellings other than the ordinary old-age homes. Possibly there are a bit too many “young” old people in our old-age homes. This is proved by the fact that the conditions prevailing there are the same as those in Noah’s day, when people ate and drank and got married. We are glad that the opportunity is also being created for them there, but perhaps they are also the people who could be cared for separately because they deserve it.

I wonder if I am not going to skate on thin ice now, but in any case, here I go: I want it placed on record that welcome new voices are being heard among the old guard in our Cabinet with the addition of dynamic younger men, men with a pioneering spirit. The path is being cleared and time is being bought by the various Ministers who hold the portfolios, as in this case which we are dealing with now. The hon. the Prime Minister, indeed a colussus, a man of measured words and calculated actions, is taking the lead himself. For the hon. the Minister and his officials this work is not a humdrum departmental activity, but a song which is sung every day in the interests of our old people.

I want to be fairly outspoken at a later stage in my speech. There are many children in orphanages to-day because their parents have abandoned them. There are also many old people in old-age homes because their children have abandoned them. Both groups deserve our loving care. The children deserve our care because they are a future asset, and the old people because they were a past asset which gave us our children and so many other fine things upon which we can build to-day. Parents who dump their children in orphanages, and children who leave their parents to languish in old-age homes, are punishable loafers who are shirking their duty. The legally destitute, particularly children, are few in number. There is a prayer which reads as follows—

To the best of my knowledge the Minister is empowered by law, inter alia, to deal to a certain extent with parents who simply dump their children and so leave them to the care of the State, by letting them pay, i.e. by withholding their wages. I do not know whether I am right, but if that is so, I ask the hon. the Minister to use this power to pressure those people to breaking point in order to teach them where their duty lies in respect of the children they themselves created. There are children who are well off; who live in their parents’ elegant house in the best suburb of town. For the sake of convenience these children leave their parents in the State’s care, with a possibly small and insignificant allowance. On the other hand, there are also others who live on their parents’ fine farm and who cultivate it for their own benefit. They, again, dump their parents on the State while themselves making a minimal contribution, or perhaps no contribution at all.

Here I conclude the first part of my speech, and I want to proceed by saying something about family allowances. There is a continual insistence upon family allowances in order to promote larger families. But, to begin with, it must be stated that the white birthrate in South Africa does not fare so badly at all by comparison with other Western countries. This is proved by the figures which I had at my disposal. Unfortunately these figures were a little outdated and applied only to the years 1955 and 1957. In Canada the birthrate was 24.9 per 1,000. In New Zealand it was 24.8; in South Africa, 24.5; in Australia 22.6; in France 18.5; in England 16; in Switzerland 17.4; in Holland 21.3; and in West Germany 16.5. This places South Africa third from the top in a list of nine countries with only 4 per 1,000 less than the highest and 8 per 1,000 higher than the lowest. I would say that this is quite a favourable position. The average annual birthrate in 20 Western countries, during the period 1955 to 1957, was 19.5 per 1,000 as against 24.5 per 1,000 in South Africa. This is to say, an average annual birthrate in South Africa of 5 above the average. In those 20 Western countries put together the birthrate per 1,000 members of the population decreased from 25.3 in 1919 to 19.5 in 1957. In South Africa it decreased from 29 in 1919 to 24.5 in 1957. Therefore the figures compare quite favourably. The Piek Commission of Inquiry into family allowances was appointed in 1959 and furnished its report in 1961. They found that a comprehensive family allowance system would not be efficient and desirable for the promotion of larger families. It would not be efficient because it was also applied abroad, and nowhere was it actually reported that any success had been achieved. Neither is it desirable because the application of financial means in order to stimulate larger families cannot actually be justified on moral grounds. The family congress of 1961 also found that economic factors were not the most important determinants of smaller families. The Piek Commission which I mentioned a moment ago, was also of the opinion that our people ought to be inculcated with another attitude in respect of family growth by means of education and not by means of the stimulus afforded by financial contributions. The establishment of a body for family policy was recommended for this purpose. On 1st July. 1966, the National Welfare Act, 1965, came into force. This Act was, inter alia, aimed at the promotion of family life. The Act also makes provision for the establishment of, inter alia, the Family Life Commission, which the hon. the Minister mentioned a moment ago, under the National Welfare board. In addition to other tasks the Family Life Commission was established to carry out the recommendation in connection with a body for family policy. In addition the Commission must also investigate family growth and the attitude of our people in this connection. From time to time the National Welfare Board must advise the Minister in connection with the work of the Family Life Commission. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister one small question. What progress has been made with the promotion of family life, with special reference to family growth, as a result of the work of the Family Life Commission since the National Welfare Act came into force on 1st June, 1966? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterberg has referred to some of our young old citizens or old people, but I still prefer to use the term “senior” citizens when I refer to old people in South Africa, who have given their lives and energies to our country. It is an apt term and one which we can emphasize more. I want to express my gratification and satisfaction to the hon. the Minister for the announcement he has made this afternoon in connection with the committee which he intends to appoint in regard to drug dependancy and drug addiction. I believe that this is a most timeous announcement. This is a growing problem and one only has to look at the figures to appreciate that it is a problem that is assuming more and more urgent proportions as the days go by. The admission to the official retreats and rehabilitation centres has shown a three-fold increase over one year. While this figure only represents a fraction, namely one-twelfth of the total number of admissions so far as alcoholics are concerned, I believe that we are faced with a growing problem. It is, therefore, gratifying to know that this hon. Minister is aware of it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can indicate to me whether I heard him correctly. In the announcement of this committee did he mention that he would have a representative from the Department of Education?

No.

I would then like to commend that to his consideration. Only recently the hon. the Minister of National Education indicated the concern with which he viewed drug addiction and the urgency which he felt this problem should be dealt with. He has indicated maximum co-operation from his Department, and I believe it is essential that that Department should also be included in this committee which will investigate the problem. I also want to say how gratified I am to know that there will be a representative of my profession, namely pharmacy, on that committee. I believe that pharmacy can play a very important part in any deliberations which may take place, or in any steps that may be taken. I know that pharmacists are acting independently at the moment, because they are very concerned about the growing incidence of drug addiction, particularly among young people.

I want to come back to the Estimates and want to refer to Item N of the Vote. This item deals with retreats and rehabilitation centres. Under the expenditure for State retreats and rehabilitation centres, we find that the amount allocated this year is R181,000. We admit that this amount is more than twice the amount which was allocated for the financial year 1963-’64. As far as the rehabilitation of alcoholics is concerned, the amount that is allocated this year is R46,000. Here again we have an amount which is more than twice the amount allocated in the financial year 1963-’64. The amount allocated for the rehabilitation of alcoholics this year is R25,000 less than it was last year, however. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that less money is spent on a problem which is increasing year by year. We only have to look at the number of inmates in certified retreats and rehabilitation centres to see that there has been a much larger intake. In fact, last year 466 people were admitted to these centres. This represents a figure more than double that of the previous year. When we realize that this problem of alcoholism is costing the taxpayer, by way of the State, up to R78 per month per capita, we see that this is not a subject which we can treat lightly. When we realize the large number of people involved in this struggle the figure is estimated at 100,000 alcoholics, plus the family unit of each, say five to a family, suffering the moral degradation, poverty and unhappiness which are caused by the problem of just one alcoholic in the home, we realize that we have a big problem on our hands. We must also not lose sight of the loss in productivity, both in terms of value and labour, which comes about as a result of alcoholism. Earlier this Session the Minister of justice said that the welfare organizations were waging an uneven struggle, and I believe that that is so. He also said that it was the task and the duty of the State to do something about this matter. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has plans for future expansion to deal with this increasing trouble and whether he can tell us what the nature of these plans are. I know that the hon. the Minister referred to the decentralization mentioned by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) but I should like to know whether he has given attention to the question of “halfway” houses so that, where it can be arranged, these people will remain as citizens in the community in which they live.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell this Committee what his attitude and the attitude of the Department is, in regard to the unlimited and uncontrolled high pressure advertising of alcohol to which mainly the youth of our country is being subjected. I find this a very disturbing matter. I want to mention just one example to show how this facet of advertising has influence in every section of our life to-day. If the hon. the Minister were to go just a few weeks back in the files of one of our Cape newspapers, he would see the advertisement of a very smart looking limousine. On that limousine stands a glass and what is apparently, a bottle of wine. In the hands of one of the people standing next to the limousine is a glass poised for drinking. The advertisement for this particular motor-car reads as follows: “Kicks out 155 horses right into the small of your back the moment your foot hits the floor”. That may be so, but what worries me is that in my opinion there is an insidious attempt to encourage ‘"drink and drive”. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is a bad combination. I believe that this form of advertising is not used merely for the benefit of the public but to increase sales. We know that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is increasing and we also know that the number of victims is increasing year by year. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he will give some indication of his attitude to this matter.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central), namely the provision of medical services for senior citizens. This matter has come before the House and this Committee on several occasions during the past three or four years. We know that the Department of Health and that of the hon. the Minister are closely involved in this particular problem. I also know that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in 1967 said that he would see whether something could be done to achieve better co-ordination. From this booklet which has been published it is quite obvious that one of the main objectives of this hon. Minister will be to achieve greater co-ordination. I am very glad to hear this, because I believe that it applies particularly to the medical services rendered to our old people. We know that the older a person gets, the greater are the demands on the health services of the country. It is unfortunate to notice at the same time that the number of district surgeons is not increasing in relation to the number of aged people. We know that although the local authorities, the provincial authorities and other echelons of our health services help aged people in many areas of the country, it is our district surgeons who also fulfil this vital function. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will effect this co-ordination urgently because I sincerely believe that many of our senior citizens are not aware of the facilities which are provided for them by the State, at no cost Jo them. I believe that as a result of this many of them delay treatment or going to a doctor because in many cases they feel that they will have to incur personal expense. I believe that this delay on the part of our senior citizens for reasons of economy is something which in the long run is costing the State far more money than would be the case if medical advice were sought sooner. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to respond to the speech of the hon. member. There are two matters I should like to deal with briefly. In the first place, I want to break a lance for the blind in our country. I am not speaking particularly of the elderly people or of those who are still very young. I am speaking of middle-aged people who, in most cases, are healthy, physically strong and intelligent. I am speak in of people who would like to work but who owing to circumstances, are suffering from enormous disabilities. These people can be helped. Many of them help themselves to a certain extent. But if we want to place them in a position at all where they can do useful work and where they can do their share to alleviate the enormous labour shortage that exists in so many spheres, they have to be given some training. From what I have heard and learned, it seems to me as if Braille may be one of the factors which could play an important role in this connection. From the nature of the case, one can easily understand that this is very expensive. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister now what has been done in this connection. Could this service possibly be extended and does his Department have at its disposal information as regards the number of blind in our country which are neither too old nor too young but who may be trained in some work or other to help us to solve the labour shortage?

There is another matter I want to discuss. During the last two decades a great number of married women have joined the labour market. As a result of that certain problems have arisen. Misgivings were expressed by church bodies, educational organizations and possibly even on the part of the State because it was accepted that the child of such a working woman and mother was neglected by virtue of the fact that such a mother was not-in a position to give the necessary attention to their children. When examining this matter more closely, we should, in the first place, not merely accept the fact that the children of such mothers are neglected in every case. Sometimes financial and domestic circumstances are such that those children are, in fact, cared for properly. However, to my mind we are near the mark in accepting that a large number of those children are not cared for properly and that they are left in the care of non-Whites for most of the day. In view of the considerable labour shortage and the excellent services rendered by married women it would seem to me as if we must accept the fact that the married woman appeared on the labour market with the intention to stay. I think all of us are highly appreciative of the work they are doing. But, Sir, that does not detract from the fact that we are concerned about what becomes of scores of children of such parents. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether, despite the work that is being done by the Department by means of subsidies and auxiliary services, it is not possible to do even more. We know that créches have been established as a result of steps taken by private initiative. We also know that the Department subsidizes the acquisition, erection or renting of such institutions. We are highly appreciative of these services. However, I should like to know what the possibility is for even more to be done. When asking this. I do not necessarily mean that higher subsidies should be paid. I mean we cannot allow this valuable material, the child, to be wasted or simply be left to his fate as a result of circumstances. What I have in mind, is that, through the initiative of the State, we should do our best on a large scale, or at least on a fairly large scale, to see to it that these children are cared for in the same way as we try to see to it that our elderly people, or whatever we call them, are cared for throughout our country, even in small villages and small communities. In the same way as we are trying to see to it that they are cared for, we should, to my mind, try our very best as far as these children are concerned to save what can be saved. I should not like to be misunderstood; I want to say again therefore that I do not suggest that we are losing all the children of working mothers. In this connection I am also thinking that, since the State is lending a helping hand with this problem, people should not get the impression that we are creating opportunities for them to get rid of their children and that they can merely expect the State to take care of these children. I think we should simply concentrate to ensure that the children who are being cared for in a certain institution during the day, are only children of whom both father and mother work and who perform a useful task. We should help them, through their services, to help the State. However, these institutions in which these children are cared for, should under no circumstances be allowed to become institutions where these children are simply left to be cared for by others and that parents be allowed to shirk their own duties and obligations in this way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, highlighted some very important points regarding the blind and the children of the working mother. This is of course a very serious aspect of modern life. It is one that is not going to reverse itself. It is something the Government will have to take into serious consideration. They will have to go into the whole question of the training of these children, not so much to take the place of their parents, but to ensure that they take their place in life. The hon. member for Berea referred to the use of drugs. I have no doubt that when the proposed commission investigating the use of drugs sits, the question of the child whose parents are working will come up. As a matter of fact, I hope it will be one of the terms of reference of that commission, i.e. that they must go into the question of training these children. We have a Department of Sport and of Recreation. Maybe this Department can play its part in correcting this position. This is not a local problem, but worldwide.

I should like to join other hon. members in welcoming the Minister to this Department. His speech this afternoon is like the proverbial new broom and I hope it is going to remain like that. With his background of education and as information officer of his party, I hope we shall see results. If not, we shall call him to order next year. While it was nice listening to the Minister about what he is going to do. I wonder whether it would not have been better to have had it recorded in the annual report of his Department. If that had been done, we would have had more to work on now. I think the Minister knows that we have not had a report for quite a long time. We would have liked to have had the statistics he quoted this afternoon in a report in front of us: it is not easy to nick them up as he goes along. I notice the Minister has also produced a brief pamphlet. At the end thereof he says that if any difficulties are experienced people should go to their Member of Parliament. In this connection I want to tell the Minister that we have had the most wonderful co-operation from his officials. Over the years they have kept us informed of the position as regards pensions but notwithstanding this there are still occasions when we have to appeal to them to enable us to help someone who has pension troubles.

When I look at the Budget this year, I am reminded of what the late Dr. Donges said when he introduced the Budget of 1962. He said a budget in present day South Africa could be reduced to three main elements. He placed security against external disorder first; then economic progress with stability within the context of the Government’s policy; and then the alleviation of a lot of the handicapped and other less fortunate members of the community to the extent that our resources permit. The welfare of our people, the less fortunate people and the aged, is one of the most important of our functions. In the Budget this year, R129 million is provided for this purpose. Of that R4½ million is necessary to run the Department, leaving R125 million to be distributed amongst the beneficiaries. Against this we are spending R272 million on Defence. I have nothing against that bur the welfare of our people has an importance of very high order too. The Minister of Finance had great difficulty this year in getting rid of his money. He has a substantial amount locked away in the form of nest eggs and reserves. But I wonder whether this was not the time to be a little bit more generous towards our pensioners. Every year we have to make these pleas for increased pensions and the Minister announces an increase in pensions of only R1 per month—he is then dishing out crumbs only. There is no reason whatsoever why the means test cannot be removed for the 1914-T8 pensioner. There is, after all, only a handful of these people left. When one comes to the old aged pensioner, we find that he has to live on R33 per month and that in view of the high cost of living, increasing rents and purchase tax, it is well nigh impossible to live on R33 per month unless, of course, you live in a filthy and dirty little room. So we have to listen to pleas to-day from hon. members on both sides of the House to the Minister for assistance for those in need. And they did so from their hearts. I wonder whether the Minister, who is a new and a young Minister, could not say that now was the time to put our house in order. Let him introduce a national contributory pension scheme. I am not talking about converting our country into a social welfare state, but with the money we had available we could have provided for something more solid than what we have at the moment. Pensions are not charity; we owe it to our people for what they have done to our country. We must provide for them; that is our duty. With that in view we should lay the foundation for a national contributory pension scheme. We would then not have this drag and grind every year in asking for a few more crumbs from the Minister. Let us rather put the whole thing on a proper basis. We are a prosperous country; nobody can deny that. Now is the time to adopt the policy of this side of the House and to lay the foundations for a national contributory pension scheme. We have got the money; so, do not let us come here, scratch round and give an extra R1 to the poor pensioners of this country. [Time expired.]

We have become accustomed to hear poor arguments from the side of the United Party, but we have seldom had such a poor argument as the one advanced by the hon. member for Salt River when he compared the amount that is going to be spent in respect of Social Welfare with the amount spent on Defence. What he is actually doing, is to imply that we are going to spend too much money on Defence and that we should take some of that money and spend it on Social Welfare. This goes to show how short-sighted they are. They are not concerned about the dangers that will be threatening us to-morrow or the day after—as long as they are able to dole out money to buy votes, because this is all the hon. member wants to do by advancing such arguments.

Nonsense.

Sir, in view of the fact that a section dealing with the care of the aged has been established by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the idea of making a scientific study of the problems and needs of our aged and then to deal with such problems in a specialized way. The care of our aged is a real problem, and the problem is likely to increase as the average life-span of man increases. Of course, the result will be that the number of aged will increase. Unfortunately, it is a fact that conditions of life have changed as well. While children have regarded it their duty in the past, to care for their parents, we find to-day that elderly people are forming less and less part of the family to which we have become accustomed and which included grandmother and grandfather. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that children are accepting it more and more as a matter of course that care of the aged is the duty of the State. But fortunately we have a National Party Government that knows and fulfils its duty towards all the age groups and sees to the welfare of our aged with much sympathy and consideration. Sir, I do not only want to thank the hon. the Minister; I also want to congratulate him, but I do not only want to congratulate him either, but I want to support him wholeheartedly in the attitude he adopts that the aged, while they are forming part of the community, should be preserved as an independent part—and this I want to emphasize—and that they should not be placed in homes where they have to sacrifice a great deal of their independence and where they are to a large extent forgotten by the community and their children. I just want to quote what was said by the hon. the Minister at the inauguration of the old age home at Bethal (translation)—

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the city council of Boksburg has displayed farsightedness in that it complied with this situation which the hon. the Minister said was the ideal situation. About a month ago elderly people moved into 220 flats. But unfortunately there is no community hall for those people, and I want to plead with the Minister to provide a small community hall. I am sure that it would be an ideal living unit for those elderly people if we could only have a small community hall at that block of flats. I doubt whether one would find such a happy community of elderly people in the whole of the Republic as those living in Boksburg. For interest’s sake I also want to mention that the smallest living units are let to them at R9 per month while the larger flats are let at R14 per month. However, what is most important as far as I am concerned, is the fact that those people are living there independently and that they are able to care for themselves, and that their children can visit them there and that they are assured of the company of people in their own age group.

Sir, as regards the care of infirm aged, I should just like to get the record straight as regards one minor matter to which such a great deal of publicity was given by enemy number one of not only the National Party, but of the whole of the Republic of South Africa, namely the Sunday Times. On 9th March of this year they reported the following under a prominent heading—

The report reads further—

This is the kind of report the Sunday Times is prepared to publish for the sake of making political gain. The hon. the Minister of Health said he knew nothing about this matter, but the Sunday Times did not even go to the trouble to ascertain what the real facts were. On 25th April I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare in this House; I asked—

The hon. the Minister replied—Yes. He also made a statement on this matter. I want to appeal to the Sunday Times in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to one or two issues that form part of the Vote that is presently under discussion. The first issue is in the nature of a question. Recently, Sir, this very admirable document “Care: the Welfare Services for South Africa’s Peoples” came to hand. I must admit that it reads a little bit like a Unesco document, but apart from that I am interested in its introductory paragraph where it says—

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister where that percentage comes from. When he spoke to us earlier to-day, he mentioned a total amount of R600 million, and I think he included in that amount very massive sums which he referred to as pensions. I assume that these are contributions made by the Government towards the pensions of their own employees. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that issue for us too. Sir, our total Budget at the moment on ordinary Revenue Account comes to R1,500 million; the loan portion is over R600 million. This gives us a total of well over R2,000 million, and 41 per cent of that total comes to over R800 million, which is a massive amount. I have tried to total up in this Budget all the items that I feel one could conceivably bracket under the term “social services”. Even if I include substantial sums for Police and Prisons—because some people might feel that those form part of social services—I arrive at a total of something like R400 million, which is nowhere near 41 per cent; indeed it is only 25 per cent. But there is a further issue that goes with it. If in fact this figure of 41.7 per cent is correct, then I am going to suggest to the Minister that we are getting very close to a social welfare State and this is, after all, something which is repeatedly and very vehemently denied by the Government. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would eludicate these issues for us.

Sir, I want to refer to something else; this concerns the age at which our people retire in this country. I believe that there is a rigidity of mind which operates in this field, a rigidity that is no longer permissible. I think in this new age in which we live we should have a far more flexible approach to this particular problem. We are now entering the new technological era and we cannot do it with an eighteenth century approach, with a sort of “ossewa” attitude of mind, when it comes to the retirement of people. Perhaps you will permit me, Sir, to give some of the statistics which bear on this issue. The economically active portion of our total white population at the moment is given at about 1,100,000; these are the Whites who are economically active. In this country, in many sectors, it is still understood that white males retire when they reach 60 and females when they reach 55. This in general is the attitude also in the Government Service, and the Government Service employs something like 40 per cent of all economically active white persons in this country. If we could prevail upon these people to work longer than these specified periods—and I am assuming now that the average age of retirement is roundabout 60— then I suggest that it is going to have wide repercussions on our total economic pattern. I do not know precisely how many people are involved. Our total population census figures indicate that in the age group 60 to 64 there is something like 3 per cent of our white population. I assume that in the economically active group we have the same sort of percentage. Assuming that we could get only two-thirds of this group to work longer, then it means that an additional 2 per cent of our economically active people in South Africa would remain available on the labour market every year. And 2 per cent is a considerable figure, Sir; it comes to 25,000 man years per year. That is what we could get additionally to what we have at the moment; it is in fact as many people as we get through immigration. The economically active immigrant group that comes into the country probably amounts to about 25,000 people. If we could persuade them to work for five additional years, it would make a tremendous difference to our national income. If I were to take these figures and extend them to the total economically active group in South Africa—I know that non-Whites do not normally retire at a fixed period—but if I could take 2 per cent and apply it to the total economically active work force in South Africa and get them to work a year beyond the existing retirement age, it would give me an additional 150,000 man years every year.

I estimate that this probably would add R100 million to our gross domestic product. I think our attitude to this whole issue has been far too restricted. I think a much greater flexibility of mind is indicated and I would like to see that the hon. the Minister in the planning of his Department and in the injunctions which go out from him will set an example in this regard. I think it is generally understood now that chronological age is no longer a useful index in the retirement of people, because physical and mental vigour very often have nothing to do with chronological age. As I said before, Voltair wrote some of his major works when he was over 60. Marshall Blucher took part in the Battle of Waterloo when he was 70. Gladstone was elected as Prime Minister of Britain for the third time when he was over 80, and here, in South Africa at the moment, we have the hon. member for Ermelo who is nearly 70. I concede that some people on the Government side would like to retire him, but at the age of 70 he is still very active in this country. This merely helps to illustrate what I have in mind. I think that to persevere with the existing approach in South Africa would lead to a most wicked waste of the most precious industrial commodity we have, namely the talents of our people. I suggest, therefore, that this matter be reconsidered and that we adopt a far more flexible attitude towards the question of retirement.

Reference has also been made in this discussion to this document “Care of the Aged”, which reflects the speech made by the hon. the Minister earlier this year. I must admit that when I received it I also looked at it with great anticipation because it did indicate that he was going to state the national policy in regard to this whole matter. Now. I must admit that I found it a very pedantic dissertation. I do not think it has added in any way to our understanding of this matter. I think the Minister made one key point here. He built up an elaborate case to try to persuade us that we spend far more in South Africa on the institutional housing of the aged than they do anywhere else in the world, but having built up this very elaborate facade, he proceeded to knock all the props from underneath it, because he then said that all over the world it had been shown that the more you spend and the more institutional housing you provided, the lower and the poorer your services were for the aged in the community; and he ended up by saying almost plaintively in his speech that “it would appear that the enormous increase in the number of houses for the aged in our country is an accusation against us, in certain respects”. I think this sets out very clearly what I have in mind … [Time expired.]

Apparently the hon. member for Hillbrow had some problems with percentages and he had a great deal to say about what percentage was right and what was wrong, but I think the most important percentage he should take into account, is what percentage his and his party will have in this House after the next election and whether he will be included in the percentage that will be here or that will not be here. The percentages mentioned by the hon. member have proved nothing at all. When one looks at the present Estimates under the Post Social Welfare and Pensions, it is gratifying to see that provision is being made for the enormous amount of amost R129 million, and to this one can add the amount of R1.5 million which appears in the Supplementary Estimates. I say this is gratifying, because this is the clearest example of the fact that we have a Government that looks after its people and sees to it that part of the wealth of the country is utilized for the needy among the population. When one looks at the sub-votes, this becomes even more clear. I just want to mention a few of them. For example, we see that an amount of almost R8 million is provided for war pensions and gratuities; R14.5 million for civil pensions and gratuities and, together with the Supplementary Estimates, an amount of R59 million for war veterans’ and old age pensions. R1l million is allocated for child welfare, while more than R1.5 million is provided for care of the aged and infirm. If figures mean anything, these examples speak more clearly than human beings and angels. In view of this I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department and pay tribute to them.

I want to raise another matter and I should like to say a few words about what I regard as the basis, the actual crux of our national life, the family. History teaches us quite clearly that when the family deteriorates and ceases to exist, the nation goes under as well. There are many examples of this. We are thinking of the Greeeks and Romans and certain West European states and others.

We have heard a great deal about Calvin and Calvinism lately, and also here the family constitutes the basis on which the nation is built. This is obviously not only how Calvinists feel about the matter, but it applies to the whole of Christianity. For that reason I regard it as sound, good and right that the Government should give so much attention to the preservation of a healthy family life. When saying that a great deal has already been done for the family in South Africa, I am thinking of tax concessions, medical assistance, housing, and so forth.

We also had the Piek Commission nearly 10 years ago, which inquired into and reported upon matters concerning the family. The hon. member for Waterberg referred to this matter earlier in the debate as well. This commission had performed a major task considering the voluminous report that was submitted and the considerable amount of information that was collected. This report may still be studied fruitfully even to-day. Nevertheless, I feel there are a few important matters, such as the size of the family, direct allowances and so forth. The Commission possibly allowed itself to be influenced too much by the middle-class idea of what an ideal family is and, comparatively speaking, less emphasis was laid by the Commission in its report on the more needy group of our population. I would have liked the Commission to have given more attention to these matters in their recommendation. At the beginning of this Session the hon. member for Wynberg spoke about a population explosion during the debate on a private motion. One thing that would be most welcome among the white population, would be a population explosion and if it is necessary for this population explosion to be brought about by means of direct allowances, say for example an allowance for every white child after the second child, there is much to be said in favour of it. We have the problem that people with large families are struggling to-day. This is something that may possibly be investigated and dealt with as a whole by the commission the hon. the Minister mentioned a moment ago.

I also want to deal briefly with the question of the aged in pursuance of what was said by quite a number of hon. members this afternoon. We find that some of our elderly people are still healthy and independent enough to look after themselves—as the Minister has said too—and one is grateful for that. In other cases the children are still looking after their parents but then we have the third group of elderly people who do not know where to go and who are possibly admitted to old age homes. They are well cared for in those old age homes and they are happy among others of the same age group who share their interests. It is only regrettable that there are not enough of these old age homes and that existing old age homes have long waiting lists. The old age homes in Pretoria West are run by church organizations, that is the Reformed Church, and they are doing excellent work there, but according to reports I have seen, these organizations are experiencing a problem in that they are finding it difficult financially. They are quite dependent upon public contributions and allowances from the Provincial Council and the State. It would help them a great deal if these allowances could be increased, while the State would, at the same time, be freed of the burden to have to build so many expensive buildings and administer them.

I just want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Department for the magnificent work they are doing and for the interest that is displayed throughout the Department, from the Secretary downwards, in the task they have to fulfil. When considering the magnitude of their work as well as the amount appropriated under this Vote, namely R128 million, and when considering the available staff in the Department, we quite appreciate the amount of work they have to cope with.

I also want to express my appreciation to the Minister for the attitude he displays towards the work of the Department. The Minister has demonstrated to us that his approach to this matter is one of interest and utilization of whatever is available to make the best of this matter.

There are three matters I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. One of them falls under care of the aged and concerns single persons. Then there are two other matters which fall under child care, for which an amount of more than R10 million is provided for in the Estimates. In the first place, under child care I want to deal with créches, or rather put a question in this regard and make a request. In the second place, under child care I want to deal with orphanages for orphans who have lost both parents and whom I should like to see removed to the country districts where hostels and schools are becoming empty. In the first place this concerns the question of single elderly persons. When considering that 50 per cent of the social pensioners are actually widows, we realize that they have to live somewhere and that they have problems as far as housing is concerned. I am surprised that the United Party and the Progressive Party instead of pleading endlessly for the Bantu people do not sometimes plead for our elderly people. I am referring to building units in the constituency of the Deputy Chairman of this House, to Silverkroon. There are many elderly people living there and when one of them dies those who stay behind do not know where to go and this creates a problem for us as far as housing is concerned. These people are still in a position to help themselves and for this reason we are grateful towards the Minister that he wants those people who can still fend for themselves to do so, but these people have to be accommodated. I want to plead with the Minister that consideration should be given to this matter because research has to be carried out in this connection, namely that these building units be planned in such a way that the individual who is left behind, can stay on in these building units, or that other building units should be made available in which they could be given single flats.

I now come to the following matter I want to deal with under child care, namely créches. In the first place I must say once again that I am highly appreciative of the approach and the attitude of the Minister, namely that we should keep those children in the community and that the community should still be held responsible for those children. For that reason I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation towards the various institutions and church organizations and even employers who have established certain institutions which cater for children in the vicinity of the places of employment of their parents. At present 185 créches are registered with and subsidized by the Department in this way. It is with gratitude that we take cognizance of this. There is particularly the question of créches for children of pre-school age. I also have in mind the child who attends school. Research could be conducted into the best methods of helping these children. The State could guide private bodies as to how these matters should be dealt with. It would be best for the Department to undertake research and furnish this information to private bodies as well as employers.

There is also the question of the orphan who has lost both parents. To the best of my knowledge and according to the information at my disposal, some of the hostels particularly in the smaller villages in the country districts are becoming empty. The schools are therefore becoming empty as well. I have wondered whether the hon. the Minister could not, in conjunction with the Department of Higher Education, initiate investigations with a view to placing of orphans in the hostels in the country areas. They will be able to attend school there as well.

Mr. Chairman, I was more than surprised when I heard the rubbish which came from the hon. member for Hercules. The hon. gentleman accused this side of the House of never pleading for the benefit of the white people, but of busying ourselves only for the benefit of the non-White population. I never thought it possible that a man would come to this House and talk such nonsense. [Interjections.] Then, the hon. member who spoke just before him, the hon. member for Boksburg, said that when we ask for anything for the white people, we only do it to catch votes. What a lot of nonsense they talk. I should not take any notice of those backbenchers.

Just let them enjoy themselves.

The population explosion which is going to occur in South Africa and which has in fact already started, was mentioned a little earlier on. That is one of the problems the hon. the Minister will have to deal with. As a matter of fact, he has two problems. Firstly, he has to put right his house, as it is at the moment. Secondly he has to prepare for the future. He will also have two problems in the future. Firstly there will be the natural increase in the population and secondly there will be the increase of the elderly people which will result from the advances which are being made in science and in medicine. It is this last group who will need a lot of attention. This last group is going to be the group of people who will be kept alive much longer than the present average span. It is possible that this age group, Which will then consist of people entering their eighties or their eighty-fives, will find it necessary to come to the State and ask for help. I said the other day in this House that it is going to cost a considerable amount of money in the future for the medical services alone, to assist this extended age group. What is the hon. the Minister going to do to provide these people with a means of livelihood? It is my opinion that the great majority of these 80-year-olders will not be able to fend for themselves.

Over and over again it has been said in this House that one cannot depend on families to look after their parents. Not only does this come about, but it must also be realized that when a person is 80 years of age, his children, very often are already in their sixties. They will find it difficult to look after themselves. So there is the problem. There must be something in the suggestion that has come from this side of the House over and over again that the time has come for the contributory pension scheme to be introduced. I do not know on what this Minister and the previous Minister based their estimate of what it costs a pensioner to live. Figures come about somehow or another. I do not know how it ever started. And there is an increase given year after year. But this increase never takes the form of recognition of a basic amount that is necessary to live on. One gives a 10 per cent or a 5 per cent increase to what is there already. But the way to work out a pension is surely to find out what it costs a normal person to live on. Then it must be said to the pensioner that an attempt to give them a pension as near to that figure as possible will be made. But to have an amount voted and to divide that amount by the number of people who are to be given a pension is not the way to do it.

Firstly, one must find out how much it will cost to live. Then that amount must be multiplied by the number of people who will receive the amount. Then one can know what the vote should be. The pensions as they are worked out now are not only unrealistic, but are so discriminatory that they are leading to difficulties. I know that the hon. the Minister is not responsible for the pensions of Coloureds and Bantu, but does he think that the Bantu who at the moment receives a pension of R4 per month receives anything near the amount that is necessary to keep body and soul together? If one starts at this basic amount, multiplies it by a half and then again multiplies it by a half one comes to near enough of what the Minister is now giving the white persons. But that is not sufficient to keep the white person in any degree of comfort. I have here with me figures which were laid before a court of law for a family consisting of a husband, a wife and three children. These are basic figures that have been given in a court of law. If I divide this amount by five, I find it is absolutely essential for any one person to require R50 as a basic amount to live on.

I suggest that that is the figure on which we should base our pensions with the cost of living as it is to-day. I do not want to go further into this matter and will leave it there. However, as proof of what I have said, when I walk down Adderley Street I find beggars on every street corner. To-day I took note and I found that there were 11 beggars in Adderley Street. Some of these beggars are trading on their affliction. There were several blind people; there were several cripples; there were the usual knockabouts, „the bums” as I call them, and the alcoholics. I counted 11 of them in the short space of a walk from the Gardens to Garlicks. I think it is a blot on our social welfare services to find that these people are allowed to beg in the streets. There were two people who were trying to implement their income by selling small articles. Whether they have a licence to sell or not, I do not know. But I think the time has come for something to be done about these people, who stand almost motionless or sit on a stool almost motionless vegetable like, with their hands out waiting for the public to come pass and give them a coin or two.

I am sure these people are already receiving a pension. They are supplementing their pension from the amount they get from begging. Some of them must be doing very well. I am sure of that. Otherwise they would not have gone there to beg. I am sure they stand there in the cold and in the rain as well as on a bright day. But I should like to see the hon. the Minister being a little firm with these people, however sympathetic I am to the people who cannot earn a living; however sympathetic I am to the person who is disabled. I feel that it is the job of the Government to-day to provide a shelter for these people, to see that they are properly dressed, to see that they are properly housed and to see that they are properly fed. If we can get them off the streets, I for one will be very pleased.

I said last year that I was perturbed about the difficulties many paraplegics are having in looking after themselves. It is all very well when a paraplegic is living with his family. They see to him getting out of bed and into his chair. They see to his hygiene. They help him with that. But there are many paraplegics to-day who do not have the assistance of their families. I think the time has come that we consider these paraplegics. These are the people with active minds who want to lead a normal life, who do not want to be a burden on the State and on their families. They want to do what they consider the normal person does. How are these people who are unable to carry out some of the simple daily wants, going to be looked after? I think the time has come for us to have institutions for them in the large towns where they can be housed and helped. It is no good having them spread about in various parts of a city. I should like to see, as I have said over and over again in this House, a village where paraplegics can be housed, where there can be institutions for the blind, where the cripples can be looked after and rehabilitated, where all these persons can be looked after. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the gallery of prominent men in South Africay to-day, men who began their lives when this country was going through difficult times and when most of us were still poor and when one thinks of the sacrifices their parents and other grandparents had to make to educate them, it is quite clear to me that the South African nation is a very proud one and one that is anxious to be self-supporting. For that reason I find it a bit confusing that the Opposition should paint a gloomy picture here. I cannot quite understand what they are aiming at, because one moment they say we should not create a welfare state while the very next moment they say the hon. member for Rosettenville should first make a survey of what is necessary to provide in the needs of every pensioner. After we have made the calculations, we should multiply it by the number of pensioners in order to get the amount that has to be appropriated. I want to say right at the outset that I also believe that we should rather guard against converting this beautiful country, South Africa, into a welfare state. To teach our people to be self-supporting, is to my mind the basic task of this Department. I believe it their aim to do just this.

I feel I should express my appreciation and gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his Department this afternoon for the welfare work they are doing as regards care of our aged, the indigent, the blind, the deaf and so forth, and at the same time to express my appreciation and gratitude for this most important work of rehabilitation. I want to say this afternoon that we have achieved something with these Estimates that any other country in the world will find difficult to equal. It may also be that we are fortunate to be in the position where we can vote such large amounts of money for welfare work. That is why we want to express our gratitude and appreciation to those people on whose shoulders this task rests. We want to tell them that it is with gratitude that the country takes cognizance of what they are doing. We want to wish them everything of the best with their future task.

But I want to associate myself with those hon. members who have said that we are somewhat concerned about the fact that the amount spent on particularly old-age pensions, are continually increasing and that the number of people who apply for old-age pensions is increasing as well. After all, I think the aim should be to stop this increase in numbers and that the number of people should decrease every year. I believe that the people who have reached the age now where they are entitled to apply for old-age pensions, are mainly people who started their careers when work was fairly pentiful in South Africa. Those of them who enjoyed good health and were physically fit for work, should by this time be self-supporting as regards their old age. I believe that we have to reach the stage where numbers, as far as this is concerned, as well as the amounts of money spent in this respect, should decrease, except for those people who receive old-age pensions and who receive an increase in pension every year owing to the increase in the cost of living.

However, we find to-day that our people are inclined to resign from a job as soon as their pension contributions have accumulated to quite a substantial amount after having worked for a few years for the State or for one firm or other where they have contributed to a pension fund; they do so mainly to get back their pension contributions. In this way they go from one employer to another while they never accumulate for themselves a pension for their old age. One wonders whether the time has not arrived that this practice should be stopped and that it should be made compulsory for pension funds to be transferable when an employee leaves one firm and joins another and that such pension contributions should not be paid out to the employee. I believe this will make for greater stability in our labour force. Workers will then be less inclined to change their jobs because they will know that they will not be able to obtain cash to spend because their pension will be transferred to their new employer where it will be allowed to accumulate further. I want to suggest that we would save many working hours if this were done, because many of the people who resign to obtain their pension contributions, may be without work for a few months; as long as they are spending that money. I believe this may possibly be a start to make our people self-supporting, especially as far as their old age is concerned. I have a great deal of sympathy with those people who are really indigent, people with physical disabilities and are unable to do any work themselves. But as regards those people who are physically capable of doing work in a country where work is so plentiful and where we are really coping with a labour shortage, I do not think it is necessary that there should be such a considerable increase in pension moneys paid out to elderly people. This may possibly be the case up to the present, but I believe we should make a point of reducing those numbers and that we should also, as was the case in the old days, make the younger people feel proud to care for the elderly people when they become indigent and are in need of care. I believe we can do a great deal and we can save the State a great deal of money if we would look after those elderly people ourselves and give them the care they really need. I do not believe that parents, when they are old and in need of care and are placed in old-age homes, will be living under the same sympathetic circumstances as with their own children. In this connection I believe the Department could do a great deal to point out to our people what their duty is as far as the aged are concerned. We should not simply dump them in old-age homes; we should rather accommodate them in our own homes. There may be many ways in which elderly people could be placed in the care of others. For example, one often finds farms on which people would like some elderly persons to stay to supervize the running of the farm during their absence. Further consideration may possibly be given to this matter as regards the accommodation of these people so that the State may save considerable costs in this way. I really want to plead that we will see to it and that the Department will make a point of seeing to it that South Africa will not move towards a welfare state, but that we should make particularly the White persons in South Africa feel proud of being self-supporting; self-supporting while they are still young, self-supporting when they are middle-aged and self-supporting when they have grown old. I believe every one of us should be proud of this. It is our self-respect which is at stake, when it comes to the care of indigent people; I believe we can retain our self-respect by being self-supporting, and for that reason I plead that the Department should make a point mainly to see to it that our people should be self-supporting and that they do not always ask for alms. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by confirming anew the standpoint of the Government and of myself in this connection, that it is not our policy to convert South Africa into a welfare state. I want to make it quite clear that that is not what we have in mind and that we are not working in that direction, because we believe that in a young, progressive country such as South Africa, with all its possibilities and its potential, we need a nation that must be able to stand on its own feet and that we should not let our people develop in that direction or let them think that that is the direction in which to develop, i.e. that the State has to do everything for them, a position one finds in so many countries overseas. The fact of the matter is that we want to teach our people to be self-supporting and we shall continue to work in that direction, because we believe that that is necessary in a country like South Africa.

To this I want to add at once that welfare work in South Africa, as I see it, rests on three specific pillars. The first is the voluntary welfare organizations which are made up of different people who have the inclination to do this work. These people realize themselves fully in this work and sometimes they make tremendous sacrifices because they are happy in doing this work. We welcome the work these people are doing and we give encouragement in this regard as far as possible. The second pillar on which our welfare policy rests is the various churches and denominations in our country. Because of their own calling and their composition of these churches feel that they are called to do welfare work amongst their own members as well as amongst other people who are not necessarily members of the same faith, as is only known in our various churches.

The third pillar is the Department of Social Welfare and the State. On their part they render assistance mainly by means of financial aid and professional assistance and knowledge and by making contributions in the form of subsidies or loans or whatever. Together these three pillars form the three foundation stones on which our welfare services rest. We should prevent this entire task from being passed on to the State and the others from being eliminated. I do not deem that desirable as far as South Africa is concerned, and I want to make this very clear.

Now I should like to reply to a few of the questions put by hon. members. In the first instance the hon. member for Durban (Central) put a few questions to me. Even at this stage he wants to see the fruits of the announced policy in respect of care of the aged. I just want to tell him that a decision in this direction was taken as a result of thorough research. After we had undertaken all this research, we eventually took this decision. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that we are developing in that direction at present. The hon. member cannot expect results at this early stage. We expect the results to be evident within a year or two, but this is the direction in which we are moving. I am sure the hon. member will realize that we are moving in that direction very rapidly but that the results will not be evident immediately. In the second place I want to tell the hon. member that the Department of Health provides medical services to the aged and to pensioners. The hon. member did in fact say that the Department of Health was responsible for this. On the production of their letters of authority these people can obtain medical services immediately. It is not necessary for them to look for a magistrate. That used to be the practice but it is no longer necessary to do so. By the mere production of their letter of authority these people may claim these services. It is no longer necessary for them to obtain a letter of authority from the local magistrate. In addition to this, officials of my Department are available and render assistance everywhere If necessary, they will assist these people as regards transport, advice or whatever may be needed. I want to thank the hon. member for his suggestion in connection with liaison with the Nursing Council and nurses as such. I think this is a good suggestion and I shall definitely give it my attention. I also want to thank the hon. member for the friendly way in which he participated in this debate and I want to assure him that I appreciate his contribution very much.

I now come to the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. member dealt with care of the aged, but more specifically with family welfare. I should like to deal in brief with a few matters in this regard. The Family Life Commission appointed in terms of the National Welfare Act, 1965, is an advisory body without executive powers. Consequently provision had to be made for the necessary administrative machinery as a channel for the implementation of measures for the promotion of family life in practice. For these purposes a special division for family life was established in the Department on 1st September, 1968, so as to devote special attention to family life. This includes all aspects of family life, such as divorces, family planning, family welfare, etc. A special division was established for this purpose on 1st September last year. Now the commission and the Department are able to join forces against factors threatening family life and measures can be devised and applied for the preservation of sound family life. A great deal of progress has been made in this regard. The first matter which enjoyed their attention was the question of divorces. I am able to report that a great deal of progress has been made with regard to a full inquiry into the causes of divorce and that I expect a report in this connection within the foreseeable future. Thereupon we shall try to employ practical measures for combating this problem. The emphasis in the entire offensive in respect of family life must fall very strongly on practical measures. Programmes launched for the preservation of sound family life must be capable of implementation in practice. We can very easily theorize about all kinds of solutions, but if these are incapable of implementation in practice, they are useless. For this reason it has been decided to have a comprehensive investigation made into the entire subject in other Western countries, and the decision has been taken that a senior officer of my Department will make a special study of this matter. He will depart for Europe shortly to conduct a special investigation into this matter. I want to add at once that I am not one of those people who believe that everything that comes from abroad is better than that which we have in South Africa. I believe one can learn from overseas countries but from my own experience I know overseas countries can often learn from us as well. Therefore I want to say that I am not committed in any way. A senior official of the Department will go overseas to investigate what is being done in this connection in the Western countries.

He will prepare a full report and in the light of his findings I shall reconsider the entire matter and in terms of that we shall take steps in this connection. As I announced earlier in this debate, a nation-wide congress on planning will be held this year. At the moment consideration is being given to holding a national conference on family life during 1971, and at that conference this matter will be discussed at length. I just want to add that the amounts made available for family allowances are interesting by way of comparison. In 1961-’62 R1,183,000 was spent on maintenance allowances and R35,3OO on family allowances. For the financial year 1969-’70 we are budgeting for an amount of R7.5 million for maintenance allowances and R1,490,000 for family allowances. This illustrates that much more is being spent in this field and that attention is being given to larger families. I want to thank the hon. member for Waterberg for his kind words in connection with our policy regarding care of the aged and for his fine word-play, for which we have come to know him, in connection with this matter and for the serious way in which he approached this matter. We know the hon. member as a person who has this matter near to his heart, and he really made a very fine contribution in this connection.

The hon. member for Berea put a specific question to me in connection with the drugs committee.

†I just want to say to the hon. member that I will immediately consider the possibility of including a representative of the Department of Education on this committee. I will contact the new Minister of Education and we will discuss the position. I think it will be profitable to have a representative of that Department serving on the committee.

*In connection with alcoholics the hon. member pointed out that there apparently was a large decrease in the amount requested on the Estimates for this purpose. I want to inform the hon. member at once that the decrease in the amount requested on the Estimates is attributable to the fact that the provision in respect of after-care homes was overestimated during the previous financial year. The actual expenditure was considerably less last year than the estimate for that year. In other words, an over-estimate had been made. The figure of the present estimate represents a much more realistic approach to the entire position. There are not as many after-care homes as we originally thought there were, and consequently this estimate is more realistic. I do not want to say, however, that this amount is the final one. If more funds are required we shall be able to find those funds with the assistance of the Treasury. This simply is a more realistic approach in respect of the actual expenditure incurred in this connection.

The hon. member requested me to state my point of view in connection with liquor advertisements. I want to tell the hon. member at once that what we are concerned with here is a normal position of a person wishing to sell his product and advertising it as effectively as possible. I should like to illustrate my standpoint by way of an example. We are constantly urging people to drive more slowly and more carefully but at the same time the petrol companies and car manufacturers are manufacturing more powerful petrol and more powerful engines day after day for cars in which one can reach higher and higher speeds. These two objectives seem to be in conflict. In my opinion the secret in this connection once again is moderation and its practical application. While one man places his advertisement and has the right to do so, it is the task of another man to educate people so as to ensure that these developments will not be abused. I should not like to go so far as to suggest that we should prohibit all liquor advertisements because in that case I would not be adopting a realistic attitude.

I did not suggest that.

No, I accept that. What we are concerned with here is a practical phenomenon and we must adopt a realistic attitude. We can do whatever we like, but people in the liquor trade will advertise. I do not think the example mentioned by the hon. member was an attempt to get people to drive under the influence of liquor, as was suggested by the hon. member. I think it merely was a comparison for the sake of illustrating that the feeling one gets when one has such a powerful engine under one’s control is similar to the feeling one gets after one has taken one of these drinks. I do not think the intention was that one should first take a drink and then put your foot down on the accelerator. I do not think that was the intention. I think this disposes of the matter raised by the hon. member for Berea.

The hon. member for De Aar dealt with care of the blind. I want to tell him at once that as at 31st December, 1968, only 887 people were in receipt of a blind person’s pension. This number decreased gradually which to me is a very fine indication of more and more blind people becoming self-supporting and being absorbed into society as a result of the means test which exists. This means that they are earning salaries which place them beyond the means test as a result of which they no longer qualify for blind persons’ allowances. This to me is an encouraging sign. This is in the spirit of this entire debate, because we want to make people self-supporting. (My personal experience of the blind is that they do not want sympathy. They do not want one to pity them either. They only want the opportunity of leading a normal life and we are offering them that opportunity as far as possible. Where there are some of them who cannot, find their own way, we shall render special assistance to them by granting them blind persons’ allowances. I think this disposes of the question of the blind.

The hon. member also raised the question of créches for working mothers. In this connection I may perhaps mention that at the moment we have 214 registered places of care in the country of which 185 are créches. The majority of these créches do not need subsidies as the working parents themselves are able to pay for the care of their children, and they do so. On the other hand we feel that we should not pay too many subsidies for encouraging the establishment of créches because then the parents will try to evade their responsibilities. The fact remains that we do not want to solve the manpower shortage by employing mothers, because in that case we will defeat the end we have in view with regard to the population increase. We must definitely maintain the balance. Our present manpower position makes it necessary for us to employ women to some extent. However, I do not want to encourage this too much because the moment we do so we shall have to pay the price and that is that there will be no increase in families. This balance must definitely be maintained. At the same time we shall establish créches where these are required by circumstances. My Department will give the necessary attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Salt River raised the question of the annual report of the Department not being available at this stage. I should like to explain the reasons for that to the hon. member. Because of the establishment of two new divisions, i.e. care of the aged and family welfare, and also because of the fact that a special inspection was conducted by the Public Service Commission at our request into the entire question of the administration and organization of the Department, we felt that this was not a suitable time for preparing an annual report. At the moment the whole matter is in the melting-pot, as it were. But in due course, when there is greater stability in the Department and when we know exactly where we are standing in the various fields, we shall present a report. The real picture will then be given next year. I shall deal with the other matter raised by the hon. member in due course.

The hon. member also dealt with the question of the abolition of the means test for the 1914-’18 war veterans. In view of the fact that so many hon. members dealt with this matter. I should like to mention a few facts in this regard. From the nature of the case virtually all war veterans of World War I must have reached the age of 70 years. For war veterans who have reached this age a relaxed means test has been laid down by legislation. This test is not as stiff as the ordinary means test. In addition no income in the form of wages or salaries which such a person earns by his own physical exertion is counted as income in the application of the means test. The only deduction which can therefore be made is that all these war veterans who in any way are in need of social assistance are already receiving such assistance. Especially when the fact is taken into account that the means test has been further relaxed in the latest Budget, I am of the opinion that we should accept that the people who are really in need of that pension, people who are indigent, do in fact qualify for a Pension now. To this I just want to add that if we were to give this pension to everyone without applying a means test it would be very difficult to ascertain exactly how many people would qualify. We do not know how many of these people we still have in the country. We have certain estimates.

There must be only a handful left.

No, they are not a handful. That is precisely the problem. According to my information more than 10.000 people are in receipt of the war veterans’ pension at the moment. I do not know how many more there may possibly be in addition to those 10,000. However, there are more than 10 000 people who receive a war veterans’ pension from that source at the moment. To give an estimate of the numbers is very difficult. The fact remains that in that case one would be spending money on people who are not indigent. Those who are indigent already receive the necessary preferential treatment as a result of the relaxed means test. As I said before, the fact that we did make an exception and have given them a separate relaxed means test, is proof of our line of thought. We shall keep an eye on the position from time to time. To this I want to add at once that if we were to start here, we would be running the risk that the next plea would automatically be from the veterans of World War II for the relaxation or abolition of the means test in their case for exactly the same reasons. Eventually the ordinary pensioners would be able to say, “I have also made my contribution here although I did not go overseas to fight. I want the means test to be abolished for me as well”. Eventually we shall reach the situation of a complete abolition of the means test. I should not like to move in that direction. We are keeping an eye on the situation from time to time and we shall give attention to this matter.

The precedent has been created.

Yes, but we do know when to apply the brake when it is necessary for us to do so. This should remain in our hands.

The hon. member for Boskburg made a contribution with regard to care of the aged for which I want to thank him very sincerely. He also made specific reference to the position in his constituency. I want to tell the hon. member that I am aware of the fact that this project is in progress in his constituency at the moment. I want to tell the hon. member in anticipation that if he can arrange a visit to Boksburg for me during the recess. I should like to take a look at the whole situation. We can then give consideration to the service centre which the hon. member calls a community hall. The hon. member is at liberty to invite me. I am always available to be invited.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) dealt with the question of the aged, and I want to thank him for the way in which he did so. We are aware of the fact that the hon. member has quite a number of elderly people in his community and that special attention has been given to them and has to be given to them. The hon. member for Hercules, in addition to dealing with the question of the aged, also delivered a plea in connection with children’s homes. His request was for children’s homes to be moved to the rural areas, if possible, and for children to be accommodated in hostels in the rural areas. Now I have to say that many of the children we have in children’s homes at present are not orphans. They are children who come from broken homes or from homes in which there is estrangement between the mother and the father. In the meantime these children are placed in foster care. Our endeavour is to try to save family life wherever possible. We educate people, we do liaison work and social work to try to save the marriage. The moment home circumstances once again are such that the children can be returned to the parental home they are returned to the parental home. This is the ideal state of affairs we should like to see, i.e. the family being together as it ought to be. For that reason we keep, as far as possible, the children in children’s homes which are as near as possible to the parental home. For that reason it may be unrealistic to try to take these children to the rural areas to hostels, etc. We prefer to keep them where the main problem exists and that is in our urban areas where we have the children’s homes. We keep the children in those homes from where they go to their parental homes or to the mother or to foster parents during the holidays. As soon as we have made so much progress with our work that the circumstances in their own homes are such that the children may be returned to those homes, we do so. For that reason it is desirable for us to continue in this way rather than in any other way.

I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I wholeheartedly subscribe to his point of view, as I said at the beginning of my reply, i.e. that we should educate our people to make provision themselves for their youth, their middle age and their old age. In my opinion it is a fine attitude to adopt, i.e. that a person should have backbone and should provide for himself if that is at all possible. On the other hand we also realize that according to the Bible we shall always have the poor with us, and that we shall therefore always have to make provision for a particular group of people. Provision must be made for them and we cannot ignore them.

I want to associate myself very strongly with the other idea expressed by the hon. member. I know that it often happens that a person who makes pension contributions to some Government institution, for example the South African Railways, etc., suddenly finds himself in financial difficulties for some reason or other whereupon such a person resigns simply to obtain his pension money in a lump sum which will enable him to get out of his debts. He pays his debts, rejoins the service the next day, starts working again and starts from scratch to build up his pension. In other words, instead of having made provision for his old age, he has used his pension money to get himself out of temporary financial difficulties. When he retires one day his pension is so small that he cannot live on it. He then falls back on the State for all these other assistance services. I want to condemn this practice in the strongest terms possible. It is the task of everyone to make provision for his old age in that way. I think we should go into this matter so as to see whether some measure cannot be taken in an attempt to render this practice impossible. This, however, is a very difficult matter. When a person has paid in a certain amount the present practice is that his pension is paid out to him in cash when he leaves the service. I do not think this can be prevented. Legally this is his money which he has paid in. We shall see whether something cannot be done in connection with this matter. I should like to place great emphasis on the fact, however, that I do not like this idea at all. I disapprove of it in the strongest terms. I think this is a totally wrong idea. While one is strong and healthy one must make provision for the day when one will no longer be so strong and healthy. This money ought not to be used when one finds oneself in temporary financial difficulties.

There still are two members to whom.. I want to reply. The hon. member for Rosettenville made specific reference to the way in which the amount of the pension was determined. I want to say at once that an investigation has been made in this connection. As yet I have not received the final reports. The hon. member posed the question what amount of money was actually required, from a scientific point of view, for one to be able to exist. We have the position that an amount Of pension has been determined in the course of years. With that amount as a basis further amounts are being added annually. This year I, as Minister of Pensions, had that choice in that the Minister of Finance had placed me in that position by informing me that he had R3 million available for that purpose. I, as Minister of Pensions, then had to say whether or not I wanted that amount of R3 million, whether I wished to accept that amount on behalf of the pensioners. The moment I do, it means R1 per person per month. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is of the opinion that I should have said that I was not interested in the R3 million and that that amount should rather be carried forward and be used for something else and that I wanted R6 million the next year or R9 million the year after.

You could have said you did not have enough.

I could have said I did not have enough, but one can only cut the coat according to the cloth. That is why I am making it very clear that pensions are adjusted from time to time. The fact of the matter is, however, that those hon. members are the last ones who have any right to talk about these specific matters as becomes clear when we look at their own record during the time they were in power. Now, one does not want to reproach people unnecessarily. In 1948, during the time those hon. members were in power, pensioners received a pension of R10 per month.

It was very low.

Yes, it was very low. It was R10. If my deductions are correct, the cost of living has increased by approximately 183 per cent since that time whereas pensions as such have increased from R10 to R33, that is pensions have increased by more than 300 per cent. In other words, measured in terms of any yardstick, our pensioners to-day are better off than they ever were under United Party rule, and that in spite of the decrease in the value of money and the increased cost of living. Because they had made that mistake we need not make the same mistake. That is why I said right at the beginning that we would never be able to do enough for our own aged but that one also had to be realistic. One has to proceed step by step in this regard. In the meantime I shall in any event receive the report for which I have asked, i.e. a scientific calculation of how much one needs to exist. Once again I want to add at once that the State does not intend providing the full amount of what is needed to exist to all pensioners. I do not want to generalize, because in some cases, where there is no other support, pensioners will have to receive more. In such cases this is already being done. In many cases infirm elderly people already receive, in addition to the ordinary pension, an allowance of R17.50 per month. This already brings them very close to R50.50 per month. This is the figure which the hon. member used. In cases where it is necessary to do so, this amount is being made available. However, we do not want to generalize the granting of that additional amount.

As regards the beggar situation, I want to tell the hon. member that that does not fall under my Department. One may call it an indictment, but in many cases this is a psychological phenomenon. I know of wealthy people who beg on the streets simply because that is something in their mental make-up. The people who ought to take action in this connection are the local authorities. Actually this entire matter falls under them. That is why I want to leave this matter at that.

In connection with the physically handicapped, I want to tell the hon. member that we are moving in the direction he has in mind. We shall continue to move in that direction.

Finally I come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think he struck the only discordant note in this entire debate. I want to tell him at once that I am sorry he participated in this debate, because he was the only one who struck a discordant note in a debate which on the whole was conducted calmly, properly and to good effect. [Interjections.] In spite of the noise coming from the neighbours of the hon. member, I want to remind him that he quoted from the publication “Care” which was compiled and distributed for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions by the Department of Information. On the first page the following statement appears: “The annual expenditure on social services (not spelt with capital letters, if the hon. member would only notice) by the Government alone adds up to 41.7 per cent of the Budget.” If these words had been spelt with capital letters as follows: “Social Services”, they would have meant “Welfare Services”, but “social services” not spelt with capital letters, as they are spelt here, means everything mentioned in this book. What is mentioned in this book? There is for example, all welfare work amongst the Bantu. All medical services as such are social services. All medical services to all the population groups form part of this. All the education services are social services. All education services to all the various groups are included in this. Services in connection with the Indians, education, assistance to the chronically ill, sufferers from bilharzia, etc., are all covered by the words “social services”. When one adds all these things, one finds that it does in fact add up to 41.7 per cent of our total expenditure.

Does it add up to R800 million?

It adds up to 41.7 per cent of the total amount. This figure is correct. I want to stress to the hon. member that this amount is not spent on Social Welfare alone. This is what is spent on all the services mentioned in this book.

What is the exact amount?

I mentioned a percentage. No amount is mentioned in the book. It merely mentions the figure 41.7 per cent. If the hon. member had calculated the amount correctly, I say that is in fact the position. The hon. member may check this if he wants to do so. In that case he will find that the percentage is correct. I just want the hon. member to have clarity as far as this statement is concerned. It is not an attempt to suggest that the expenditure on Social Welfare alone adds up to that percentage. It includes all other aspects of the national economy as such.

The second matter which the hon. member raised is a matter which in point of fact does not fall under me at all. The suggestion he made was that people should keep on working after the age of 70. This, in essence, is a matter which falls under Labour. I just want to tell the hon. member that my concern is with people who do not work. That is the very reason why they receive pensions. People who are in employment do not fall under me, they fall under the Department of Labour. However, the hon. member raised this matter under my Vote and for that reason I shall reply to him now. Up to the present time the free income of a person, as regards the determination of the pension he would receive, was only R16 per month. As soon as a person earned more than R16 per month, his pension had to be reduced immediately. In order to encourage people to keep on working, we specially increased this amount in the latest Budget. Now it is possible for a married man to earn R72 per month and to receive his full old age pension nevertheless. This is the increase which was announced in the latest Budget. This was done with a view to achieving the same object as that which the hon. member advocated, i.e. to encourage people to continue working after they have reached the age of retirement. A person may earn R72 per month without that affecting his pension. Therefore he will still be able to receive his maximum pension. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the age of retirement is a matter for the Public Service Commission, but numerous people rejoin the Public Service after they have retired. There are hundreds of officials who have retired but who have been re-employed in the Public Service. I think that this entire matter is receiving the necessary attention and I do not think we need give it any further attention. In addition to this there is a further concession. The earnings of people over the age of 70 are not taken into account in any event for the purpose of determining the amount of a pension.

Sir, I assume that this debate has now been concluded. I want to express my gratitude to all members who participated in this debate. On a previous occasion in the Other Place I said this, but I want to repeat that it affords me great pleasure to be in charge of this Vote. That will always be the position. In conclusion I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor in this portfolio, namely Minister Maree. I want to say that I am following in his footsteps. I want to thank him for the work he did in this connection and I want to assure him that we shall continue on that course.

Votes put and agreed to,

Revenue Vote 50,—Immigration, R6,000,000:

Mr. Chairman, in regard to Immigration I just want to say briefly that it is once again my task to pay tribute to a worthy predecessor in the person of Mr. Trollip. [Interjections.] The sighs one hears on the other side, are proof to the effect that he is a worthy person. In this regard he pursued a policy which was in accordance with the policy of the Party. I am grateful for being able to succeed him. I want to add that as far as the policy of immigration is concerned, we shall from time to time consider the matter and make adjustments, if necessary. I want to conclude by saying that the Deputy Minister, who shares with me the responsibility for immigration, will take charge of this Vote. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, as the Committee knows, immigration is not a matter in regard to which there are any significant differences in principle between the Government and the Opposition, no matter what the position may have been in the past. Consequently the comments we have to make on this side, or the questions we have to ask, are not concerned with the principles as such but with the procedure followed and the results obtained by the Department. This is the first occasion on which we have the benefit of a departmental annual report. I should like to say at once that we are very satisfied with the quality of the report submitted to us. The report was drafted in a very concise manner. It is a good thing that it also gives us, amongst other things, a survey of those years which preceded the State assistant scheme. I must say that to my taste this is what a report to Parliament ought to look like.

It is also said in the report that South Africa is an immigration country. In that respect we are mentioned in the same breath with America and Australia. As we are a young country, I think that it ought to be like this in our case. As a young country we ought to be an immigration country. But what troubles us, is the fact that we are to such a large extent an emigration country as well. I do not think that in the case of a young, prosperous country such as South Africa is, this ought to be the case. According to the statistics furnished in this report roughly 74,000 people left the country permanently over the past six or seven years. According to the report South African citizens constituted the largest single group to have left the country permanently. It is rather interesting to note that, out of the total of 74,000 people who left the country permanently over this period, more than 25,000—in other words, 34.5 per cent—left for other countries in Africa. In other words, they preferred other African countries to South Africa. Seeing these figures does rather give one food for thought, especially if one considers how quick we always are to pass judgment on conditions in other African countries. The point I want to make is that to my mind this is too high a figure; that we are still an emigration country to too great an extent. I want to admit that the rate of gain is a fair one, but in this way even the rate of emigration is to my mind too high if we consider the advantages a country such as South Africa offers its people. I do not think it is of much avail for us to go out of our way, to do our best and to spend large amounts on luring people to this country in order to meet shortages, to encourage immigration and to integrate immigrants if, on the other hand, thousands of our own people are leaving the country. It seems to me as though this is a matter which the hon. the Minister ought to investigate. I think the time has arrived for us to make a thorough study of the reasons why people are still leaving the country on such a large scale. The hon. the Minister can appoint a committee or a commission to go into this matter. If he is favourably disposed towards this idea. I hope that he will perhaps be able to report to us in this regard in the course of the next session, because I note that amongst the 74,000 people who emigrated, there were more than 40,000 dependants. I must assume that that figure of 40,000 is made up of children for the most part. If 40.000 young people are lost, it represents a major loss in terms of the future of our country. It seems to me as though the best form of immigration is really to create conditions which will prevent our remaining an emigration country to the extent to which we still are one to-day. Sir, we were struck by the Secretary’s comments on the integration of immigrants. I should like to read out what he said on page 11, paragraph 14—

This is a strong word to use here—

Sir, this can hardly be phrased in stronger terms, and I want to agree with the Secretary in that regard. I must honestly admit that I myself am rather pessimistic about this matter. My own views on the matter are that we still have too many elements in this country that are constantly trying to make our people believe that everything which is foreign constitutes a danger to the country. A danger complex has been created in respect of the outsider and those things which form part of our broader Western civilization. One could mention many examples; one sees them in the newspapers day after day. This type of thing has an effect on the outlook of people; it has an effect on their attitude towards immigrants, and I want to say that the Government is not entirely blameless. In the past the Government created an attitude towards immigrants which is to be deplored. I think the Government will have to do something towards using its influence to a much greater extent in order to obviate this type of thing. I do not wish to suggest that we have an easy solution to the question of integrating immigrants. In the past most of our immigrants came from English and Dutch-speaking countries, and the question of immigration was therefore not such a difficult one for these people; but the situation has changed and we now have a large-scale influx of immigrants from other countries. In Johannesburg, for instance, to mention only one city, I am told that there are 40,000 German-speaking people and more than 70,000 Portuguese speaking people. I am merely mentioning these two groups. Therefore, to a certain extent we already have a new situation as far as the integration of immigrants is concerned, and that situation will have to receive the serious attention of the Government, for this position is being complicated by the fact that we have two White language communities in South Africa. The obvious way, as I see it, is that we should not become impatient. It serves no useful purpose to become impatient and to expect the impossible from immigrants. The attitude we ought to adopt, is to view the matter from both angles. A duty does not only rest on the immigrant, but also on us. They are not the only people who will have to accept foreign customs, i.e. ours. They come from countries which have a rich cultural legacy, and we on our part shall also have to s*art thinking of the contributions they can make to our way of life and show the necessary appreciation for such contributions. As you know, Sir, immigration is confined to Whites, and I should very much like to hear what procedure the Department is following abroad, where there is no race classification, in doing its screening. Is this merely done on the strength of a photograph; is it merely done on the strength of the appearance of the people who wish to come here? To my astonishment I see that in the application form which immigrants have to fill in, they are asked. “Are you and all the persons concerned of pure White descent?” To me this almost sounds like an advertisement for soap powder: “This soap powder washes whiter than white”. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the difference is between “White descent” and “pure White descent”. How far does “pure White descent” go back? I should also be pleased if he could tell us at what stage the immigrant receives his identity card here, and whether this is merely based on appearance and his own statement that he is of “pure White descent”.

In the first instance I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister on their appointments to this Department. I am sure that we can expect them to carry on the good work done in this regard by their predecessor, Senator Trollip. I also want to congratulate the Department on this outstanding report which they submitted to us. I found it significant to note in this report that over the past seven years we had a total number of immigrants of 260,000, of whom 37 per cent came from the United Kingdom and 63 per cent from the rest of Europe. If we study this report further, we note that as against these 260,000 immigrants there were 74,000 emigrants. Our total gain in immigrants was therefore 186,000. I feel that it is important for the public to know what these immigrants are in actual fact. It gives me great pleasure to be able to bear witness here to the fact that the policy of the Government is being implemented in a strict manner, because it appears from an analysis of immigrants that in the professional and technical occupations our annual gain was approximately 13,000. The gain in the administrative and clerical group came to almost 16,000; in the farming and fishing group we gained 4,000 immigrants; in the mining and quarrying group we gained 1,000: we gained 35,000 tradesmen and production workers and just over 1,000 transport workers; service workers: 2,700; other occupations: 6,900; independent: 2,700, and dependent (children, etc.) 102,000. Sir, it is estimated that it costs a country almost R15,000 to train a person from birth until he becomes a productive person. If we have regard to the fact that over the past seven years we gained approximately 80,000 active immigrants and if we multiply that number by R15,000, we find that as regards manpower we in this country have become roughly R1,200 million richer. This is apart from the financial and other assets they brought along to this country. I think that we have indeed gained a considerable deal by these means. Sir, I do not wish to suggest that we should assess the value of these people in this way, but 35,000 of these immigrants, as I have already quoted, have been employed in industries. If we did not have the benefit of their knowledge and their work, we would not have been able to maintain our planned industrial growth. We should like to maintain our growth rate at 51 per cent so as to enable us to remain a strong economic country. Sir, it is extremely important to be a strong country economically. Our security lies in our economic strength. We know that other countries do not really like our domestic policy, and we know that there are certain countries which would like to get hold of South Africa because of its strategic situation, but because we have a strong economy, we are an important trade partner of the great Western powers, which will help to maintain our economy and which would not like to see a change taking place in the southernmost point of Africa. But apart from that our strong economy enables us to maintain a sound and a powerful army and defence force to safeguard us against invasions. Sir, it has also been calculated that in order to maintain a growth rate of 51 per cent per year, we shall require approximately 13,000 to 14,000 trained persons, in addition to the natural growth of the white population. We and our people must realize that we can only recruit those 13,000 to 14,000 workers abroad if they have to be white workers. If we do not obtain those immigrants, it will have the effect that our industries will have to employ more and more non-Whites. That would cause the policy of the National Party to fall through in that we would in that case not be in a position to return the Bantu to their homelands. Consequently it is of supreme importance for us to continue with our immigration policy and, if possible, to expand our recruiting activities further. I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that we have had so much success with our immigration policy, but I think that our real growth rate is not 51 per cent but 61 per cent, and that we shall therefore have to obtain more immigrants. Sir, the previous speaker referred to the fact, of which mention is also made in this report, that the rate at which immigrants are being integrated is rather slow. I feel that something should be done towards speeding up the integration of new South Africans. In the first instance, the Government can do a great deal in this regard, and is in fact doing so, by introducing language laboratories in the major centres where new immigrants may learn both official languages. Furthermore, in many towns nursery schools are being established where new immigrants and even their own children can learn to master the two official languages. I also feel that the old inhabitants of this country should show more willingness to help newcomers to feel welcome in our country. But I do not merely want to leave it at that; I myself feel that the immigrant should not only expect us to lend a helping hand but that he on his part should also try to adapt himself as soon as possible to the customs and practices of our country. If they should do that, then I hope and trust that our immigration policy will only be developed to the advantage of our country. I hope that the hon. Minister and his Department will still have great success in the further recruitment of immigrants for our country.

As regards the speech made by the hon. member for Geduld, I just want to say that it always amuses me when a person compliments the Government on its immigration policy, for in looking at the figures furnished in the report, we find that from 1949 to 1960, i.e. in 12 years of National régime, we gained 176,000 immigrants, but we lost so many that the net gain over this period of 12 years was only 39,000. It is no use levelling reproaches, because the water has passed under the bridge, but if we had had a positive immigration policy in those years, when there were so many people in Europe who were looking for another home, the white population of this country would also have been much stronger numerically.

However, I want to agree with the hon. member for Geduld in his plea for a more positive immigration policy. Then there is something else, i.e. the applications for naturalization lodged by immigrants who have been in this country for a while. In order to form a picture of this situation, I should rather start talking about the immigrants who entered the country during the years 1961 to 1963, who could have applied for citizenship in the years 1967-’68 or 1968-’69, five years after entering. Over that period, from 1961 to 1963, we gained 76,600 immigrants and five years later only 17,000 of them applied for citizenship. In other words, approximately 20 per cent of the immigrants who entered the country at that time, applied for citizenship, and to us on this side of the House that figure is alarmingly small. I should like to mention what happened in another country in the southern hemisphere, and I can refer to Australia, as well as to Canada in the northern hemisphere, which gained a very large number of immigrants and which did not nearly have the same rate of emigration we had. Let me also say that many of the immigrants who came here over the past year, were emigrants who had previously left the country and subsequently returned as immigrants, and many of them also came here from African countries. Whether we can maintain the same rate of immigration, I do not know, unless we open more immigration offices. I should like to mention that over the period 1964 to 1968 the total number of immigrants who came here amounted to 205,000; 38,000 left the country, and the balance is 176,000. If I look at the figures for Australia over the same years, i.e. 1964 to 1968, we see that their total number of immigrants was 717,000, or almost three-quarters of a million, as against our 167,000. I become quite jealous when I think of countries such as Australia and Canada, which are capable of maintaining such a rate of immigration, and in which immigrants are not exposed to the dangers we are exposed to in this country. Here we have something which is obvious. I did not take the trouble to find out what Australia’s immigration rate was over the five years preceding 1964-’68, but if their naturalization laws are similar to ours and if they gained the same number of immigrants over the five-year period preceding 1964, we find that over a period of five years they had—and this is the actual figure— 229,000 applications for citizenship which were approved. They had three-quarters of a million immigrants and approved more than a quarter of a million applications for citizenship. This comes to almost 30 per cent, and then we ask ourselves what went wrong in this country in that these people come here to earn their living and enrich themselves, but do not want to accept our citizenship.

At the moment we have 13 recruitment offices for immigrants overseas, in nine countries, as shown on page 4 of the report. I know that this is, of course, not only the function of this Department, but I just want to point out to the Minister that the last two immigration offices to be opened in Europe were opened in Austria in 1965 and in Germany in 1967. This means that, apart from the office in Germany, 1965 was the last year in which an immigration office was opened in Europe, and in this country where we have such a shortage of White labour, as the hon. member for Geduld said, and where we are running the risk that the natural increase of the Whites can never keep pace with the increase of the non-White population, we must take positive steps to obtain more immigrants. It is so much more essential that we do everything in our power to obtain more immigrants. I have mentioned these examples on previous occasions, and they do not only have a bearing on Australia, but also on other countries.

Do you know what the position is in Australia, where foreign capital for the establishment of industries is entering that country? The requirement set by that Government is that those industries must bring along with them a large percentage of their own workers, and not only their technical workers, but all workers. I mentioned the case of the Chrysler Company in Adelaide, which is an American company, and that in respect of some departments in the factory they had to import 90 per cent of their manpower. I mentioned that in the painting department of that particular factory 90 per cent of the workers were Italians. But in this country foreign capital may enter and those people may establish industries—and I am not coming out against the establishment of industries—but whether this is exclusively foreign capital or partly foreign capital, coupled with local capital, there is no proviso to the effect that these people must at least bring along their own technical workers before establishing an industry here. In other words, they are drawing on the already depleted White labour force we have here, and they are aggravating this shortage. We welcome industrial development, but the fact remains that if other countries can lay down those conditions, we can probably do so, too. This is one way in which we can give immigration an impetus which we cannot give in another way. In spite of the Botha appeal and the Botha families in this country, White families here are becoming smaller, whereas there is no downward trend in the size of Bantu families, nor in the case of the Coloureds. The mere fact that we as Whites find ourselves in such an unfavourable position as against the non-Whites and that apart from the natural growth there is no alternative for us if we do not bring immigrants to this country, forces me to join the hon. members for Geduld and Bezuidenhout in saying that the time has arrived for us to import not only skilled workers, but also other workers. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that we should take note of this. This is not the first time we have said this; we have repeatedly attempted to bring this home to the Government, i.e. that we cannot afford to place too many skilled workers at the disposal of new industries which are being established at such a high tempo. There are very few new industries in this country which have brought along with them as much as 50 per cent of their skilled or technical workers. They are drawing on our limited labour force, and the time has arrived for the Department to give very strong consideration to applying a method similar to the one being applied in Australia. We on this side are trying to suggest every possible means whereby immigration will be promoted. [Time expired.]

In the first place I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Geduld and also extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister on their respective appointments. We also know that because of the competence, the capacity for work and the zeal which these two hon. members have, together with the co-operation of the Secretary and the staff of the Department, they will make a great success of this important task of immigration. In addition I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this fine report. It is very clear to us now what the functions of the Department are. This is a very illuminating report. The fact that we are dealing with a very important Vote and that the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and East London (City) introduced this debate, involuntarily makes one think of last year’s debate, when the very same two hon. gentlemen introduced the debate. At that time the debate was also conducted on the same calm level, although there was a sting in the tail.

I should like to refer to last year’s debate. It is all very well to say that we have done well, but last year those two hon. members had many misgivings about this Department. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose here and wanted to know what would happen in the years ahead; the Vote had been reduced by almost R1 million under the sub-head “Assistance to Immigrants”, and he had many misgivings to the effect that we would not be able to maintain the same tempo. The hon. member for East London (City) also expressed his concern about the number of immigrants which would show a downward trend, after he had compared the 1966-’67 figures and had noticed that there was a downward trend. He expressed the same concern he has just expressed here again, i.e. that we would not obtain immigrants from the Continent of Africa since that fountain had now run dry, and he flung his hands into the air and wanted to know what would happen now. I am referring to the question the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the Minister last year (col. 5930, Vol. 24 of Hansard)—

These are the misgivings which were expressed by that hon. member. He thought that pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government, but to his dismay he had to find, if we were to analyse this year’s report a little, that he had unnecessarily been such a Jeremiah, and the same applies to the hon. member for East London (City). Their prophecies of doom were in vain. Let us look at this year’s report, and then we can see what results were achieved in regard to immigration, in spite of this reduction of R1 million. Without sacrificing selectivity, without sacrificing a balanced immigration scheme, we succeeded in obtaining 40,548 immigrants over the past year, the third highest number we have ever gained in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, before business was suspended for supper I was calling attention to the success which had been achieved in regard to immigration over the past years. In spite of the fact that the Vote had been reduced by R1 million and the fact that we could no longer obtain the same number of immigrants from the African countries, the total number of immigrants showed an increase of 1,611. I say that this is indeed an achievement.

If in the years that lie ahead we want to maintain an economic growth rate of 51 per cent, we shall, as the hon. member for Geduld said here, require between 12,000 and 13,000 economically active immigrants together with their families. We shall therefore require between 30,000 and 40,000 immigrants in all. It is the task of this Department to see to the recruitment, as well as the screening, transport, reception, the temporary accommodation and the employment of these people. This is the function of the State.

Now we come to the integration task. I want to say here at once that it would be foolish if we were to make citizenship compulsory for these immigrants. We now have these immigrants in our midst and we must remember that they are in a foreign country. They are faced with a foreign language, a foreign way of life, a foreign culture and with foreign morals. The first thing the immigrant looks for in this foreign country, is friendship. We cannot expect them to sacrifice everything. It is asking too much to expect these people to sacrifice their language, traditions, etc., at once. It is in this respect that the ordinary citizen can step in and also do his national duty towards these immigrants. Once we have gained the friendship and the confidence of immigrants, we shall have made a great deal of progress. If we have made them feel at home, we shall also find that when they have problems they will return to those who previously extended a hand of friendship to them. As citizens it is also our task to establish organizations or to act individually under the guidance of the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie—this is the organization which actually deals with the Dutch-speaking immigrants—or the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association of Southern Africa. There are certain tasks which we can perform, certain positive duties which we as citizens of the country can fulfil. Amongst other things I want to refer to a few of these tasks.

What I consider to be one of our primary tasks and our bounden duty is to make the acquaintance of immigrants when they move into our community, to help them and to advise them as far as their housing problems are concerned. If the immigrant is a person with school-going children, I think it is nothing less than our duty to inform him as to the school to which he should send his children and to help him to find a school for his children in a foreign country. This is in fact our bounden duty. [Interjections.] Yes, there may be hon. members to whom this is of lesser importance. But I think it is extremely important for the survival of this country that we should also furnish those people with a point of contact as regards the church and the faith to which they belong. All of these are tasks which we can fulfil.

We can go further than that. The house of that family which arrives here in a foreign country, has to be furnished. We can grant assistance in that regard. We can advise them on the right type of furniture they will need here in South Africa. We can integrate the women in the community. We can integrate the family by arranging evenings for immigrants, where they may meet the leaders of the community. I am trying here to outline what we can do. We can help elderly immigrants by finding the necessary points of contact for being assimilated in the community perhaps in institutions as well, if that is necessary.

I have tried to point out a few tasks which we as citizens of the country can fulfil. If we do these things, I think that we will find that the immigrants who come to this country will find it much easier to be integrated in our community and that they will find it much easier to see their way clear to accepting citizenship of this country. This is not merely the function of the State; it is also the function of us as Whites of this country to act positively as individuals and to fulfil those tasks.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to associate myself with my colleagues who, in a very friendly manner, referred to the appointment of both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to express the hope—and I think I have every reason to do so—that this Department will be made a special Department in the future, since long before their appointment to these very high offices, both of those gentlemen proved themselves to be people who are sympathetic towards the question of immigration in South Africa. I am saying this to the Deputy Minister in particular, a person who has over a long period shown that the integration of immigrants in particular is a matter of very great importance to him.

There is one thought which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister. But before dealing with that, I just want to deal in passing with certain remarks which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made earlier on in this debate. He held forth on the large number of people who were emigrating. In the same breath he blamed the immigration which was taking place on the actions, attitude and disposition of the National Government. I want to say that I believe that he deliberately tried to deceive this Committee. Surely, this is not the case, and he knows it. I can point out to hon. members how positively this Government is devoting attention to immigration by reading out to them what was said by a previous Minister who was responsible for this portfolio. At the time Minister De Klerk said (translation)—

Surely, what is meant by active immigration, is a serious attempt at bringing and keeping immigrants here. Sir, is this wrong, if this is the attitude of this Government, if this is the attitude and policy of the Government in respect of this matter? Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to make us believe that this Government adopted a negative attitude towards this matter. But the reverse is in fact true. It is the United Party which is responsible for the attitude towards immigrants which prevails in this country. I shall prove this. General Smuts is the person who said in 1946, “Bring them in in their thousands; good ones and bad ones, it does not matter.”

That is quite false.

Now hon. members can understand why an attitude of suspicion did develop in the minds of the people of South Africa towards everybody who immigrated. Hostility towards our new citizens must inspire them to emigrate once again.

Order!

Would the hon. member for Bezuidenhout kindly withdraw those words?

Which words, Sir?

That it is false.

I said that the quotation was false, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I am not accusing him of being false; I am merely saying that the quotation is incorrect. I shall withdraw the word, but it is an incorrect quotation.

The hon. member may proceed.

But I could go on and prove further what their attitude was in respect of immigration. I am giving the following quotation which dates back to the days when Mr. Strauss was the Leader of the United Party. I quote—

But that is not all. Later on in his speech he referred to the religious impediments which existed in South Africa in respect of prospective immigrants. Then he said that not only skilled immigrants, but anybody could come. The whole caboodle was welcome to come. They were in favour of that. Can hon. members appreciate why anxiety arose in the minds of our people? Then the hon. member added that it was this Government which was responsible for the existing attitude towards immigration. I could go on in this way, but I only have a minute left.

This is why I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in the light of the delicacy of the question of integrating the immigrants, he would not consider appointing in his Department ladies who could pay house to house visits, especially in the larger centres, particularly with a view to assisting in solving the problems experienced by female immigrants.

Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to dig into the past as the hon. member did, but I do want to suggest that it is time we have an indication from the hon. the Minister of Immigration as to whether the Government has changed its policy with regard to permanent residence. The Government is discriminating against certain sections of the community. The position is that minsters of religion who come to South Africa to settle are not allowed to take up permanent residence in South Africa. I took up this matter with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor and he told me that it was the Cabinet’s decision that all ministers of religion could only be here on a temporary basis. On no consideration whatsoever could any other decision be made. I think it is very unfortunate that the outside world should know that as far as South Africa is concerned, people of various professions can enter South Africa and after a time they can apply for permanent residence. There is no discrimination against any of the professions. The only profession against which there is discrimination are ministers of religion. I think this is very unfortunate. The Cabinet decision which is not widely known …

Many of the ministers of religion are agitators.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman …

Order! I am dealing with the hon. member. What did the hon. member say about agitators?

Mr. Chairman. I said that many of the ministers of religion who are not allowed, are agitators.

The hon. member may proceed.

If the hon. member referred to agitators, then the Government has full power to deal with agitators. But to damn a whole class of persons as agitators is irresponsible and it damages the good name of this country. I should like to give one example of a man who served for many years in Central Africa and who was invited to a congregation in South Africa. He came here with his wife and family and settled in South Africa. He brought his furniture and his motor car and he was required to pay full duty on these items. Because he only came here on a temporary basis, he had to pay full duty on his furniture. As an immigrant he would have been duty-free. He had to pay full duty on his motor car and now that he has settled in South Africa he cannot take out a driver’s licence, although he has an overseas driver’s licence and he can get an international driver’s licence, which has to be renewed from time to time. What hope is there of expecting this man to become a good South African citizen? The whole time that he is in this country he is doomed to be a temporary citizen. The only fault that he has in his character is that he is a minister of religion.

And a Christian.

Yes, as a matter of fact he is a man with a Christian faith and he is a member of one of the leading faiths in this country. I think it is a shameful attitude on the part of the Government. I suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister who tonight may not have the authority to sneak on behalf of the Cabinet, should ask that the Cabinet take this matter in review. I think it is essential for the Government to give a better image of South Africa so far as overseas countries are concerned. If we expect the country to have a balanced community so far as immigrants are concerned, it is time for the Government to review this decision. For example, supposing we have members of a community in a particular country who came to this country and liked this country and then wrote overseas for their padre and asked him to come out. The padre would be in the invidious position of being able to serve the congregation which he served overseas and they can get permanent residence in South Africa but he could not get permanent residence in South Africa by virtue of the Cabinet’s decision. I regard it as grossly unfair. It shows a standard of immaturity which even this Government does not deserve.

I hope that the Deputy Minister will look into this matter because it is time that this decision taken by this Government at an earlier stage is reviewed. I do not think that it is a sound decision or that it is a fair decision on the ministers concerned, because the Government has full powers, if a person who has applied for permanent residence misbehaves himself or acts against the laws of the country, to deal with that person without taking this blanket decision damning every minister of religion as a person who is not wanted in this country and who is only a temporary visitor.

Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Pinetown mumbled like a pot of thin porridge boiling slowly and I could not hear a word of what he said. But I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in regard to immigration. He said that he was very pessimistic about the integration of immigrants in this country. He said that the Government was not without blame for the unfavourable position created with regard to immigrants. He read out to us passages taken from this fine annual report, but he omitted to read the first paragraph of Chapter IX. In this paragraph the following is said about the integration of immigrants—

I should like to tell hon. members here about a personal experience I had. In my constituency we have the largest concentration of immigrants there is in any part of this country. I can confirm this, because over the past three years more than 2,500 immigrants have been settled in the vicinity of the Atlas factory. As a very enthusiastic and not a pessimistic citizen, I also tried to organize my people in order to integrate these immigrants. Seventeen different languages are represented there. We arranged a function where all these groups came together so as to become integrated. We arranged for a barbecue, for pancakes, for folk-dancing and even for a concertina player, and I as an M.P. undertook to integrate them by means of speeches. I went along and, just as the hon. member for Hillbrow does, I stood in front of the mirror and prepared my speeches in seven different languages. These new citizens had to be integrated now. The function duly took place and 133 persons were present. I can assure hon. members that the persons who were present there, were all the folk dancers, all the pancake bakers and concertina players of my constituency, and that there were only two foreigners. There were only two, and I had mastered seven languages so as to address them and integrate them! That is why I am glad that the task of integrating immigrants is not merely being carried out through the efforts of the Government or the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” or the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, but I realized that it was the task of every citizen and every individual to integrate those immigrants. Those immigrants are people just as we are. There I realized that the best way to integrate them, was to admit that they were also Whites from other countries. They are not only Whites, they are not only immigrants, because most of them are no longer immigrants. But we must admit that they are not merely Whites and that they are not merely immigrants, because most of them are no longer immigrants only. They are settlers. They would like to regard themselves as such. They came to this country to be residents here and to settle here. They must realize that they have the same interests I as an individual have. It is only by means of the family context that we can draw those people closer to us and to our traditions. They are also people who have families. They also have their problems. They do not know this country. They do not know its working conditions and they do not know its climate. They do not know what to plant. They have the same customs we have. They also eat food. They also have children who get ill. If we consider tho.se aspects in respect of which we have common interests and are able to sympathize and cooperate with them, we shall gradually be able to integrate them as real settlers and not as immigrants. They do not want to be regarded as immigrants because the word “immigrant” means a person who enters the country. They are people who want to settle here, and they are proud of it. I should like to put it to the House that these people have the same problems we have. As citizens of this country it is our duty to explain our circumstances of life to them and to make these things acceptable to them. In this respect I want to pay tribute to the local authorities which are trying to inform them and to tell them how we can cooperate harmoniously in a multi-racial country. We can only accomplish that by also regarding them as people who are really entering this country as settlers.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the discussion of the Immigration Vote has been conducted on such a high level this afternoon. In the second place I should also very much like to pay tribute to our predecessor. the Hon. Mr. Trollip, for the able way in which he handled this portfolio. I should also very much like to give praise to our departmental secretary, Mr. Durant, and his entire staff, for the very competent way in which they are handling the activities of this Department in the interests of South Africa. We know that these activities are not always the easiest to handle. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members in expressing appreciation to the Department for what, in my opinion, can really be described as the excellent immigration report, which has been tabled. For this we express our sincere thanks and appreciation.

I want to say at once that it is also a very great privilege to me to serve under Dr. the Hon. Connie Mulder, who is taking charge of this Vote in his capacity as Minister, and to work in such close contact with him. I say that it is a very great privilege to me to serve under a person of his calibre.

He and I, and also the Department, are laying particular emphasis on the following aspects in connection with immigration; in the first place we are laying emphasis on very strict screening of immigrants. I may tell you that, since we took over these positions, we have been continually improving our screening machinery, because we believe it to be in the interests of the country that our immigrants should be screened very strictly. It is a salient feature of our Government’s immigration scheme that we bring only skilled persons to this country. In the second place it is distinguished by the fact that we can probably pride ourselves to-day on having the best immigration scheme of all immigration countries in the world that I know of. I am speaking responsibly when I say this.

It is an old scheme. What about our policy in 1948.

I do not want to make politics of this matter now. [Interjections.] You know me very well. I am very fond of indulging in politics, and I shall do so on another occasion. Just allow me to continue discussing my Vote now. The fact of the matter is that we are getting a very good type, a very good calibre of skilled immigrant into the country. This must be stated as a fact. We are trying to improve our screening to an increasing extent.

The second point on which we are laying a great deal of emphasis is that we stipulate that the immigrant should not oust an established South African from his employment. In other words, every immigrant who enters the country must meet a specific labour need in South Africa, otherwise there is no room for him in South Africa. We can state as a fact that we do not bring immigrants into the country who oust any of our people in South Africa from their employment. This is very different from the position we had under the old United Party policy. [Interjections.] In any event, it lies so far back into the past that even those hon. members cannot remember it any more.

In the third place the Minister, the Department and I are laying particularly great emphasis on the requirement that every immigrant we bring into the country must be able to integrate with our people easily, otherwise he is not welcome in South Africa. The hon. member for Brentwood also referred to this in passing. Such an immigrant must be assimilable with our white nation. He must come to reinforce our white nation here. Therefore he must fit in with our national circumstances and our national character. I say that we are laying great emphasis on this.

What is the test?

We lay emphasis on his having to be able to assimilate with us easily. As a result of economic pressure and as a result of circumstances that prevailed in a certain period, it was necessary for us to bring people into the country on occasion who perhaps did not always quite meet the requirements I have just mentioned. We make it our object not to admit people into the country who cannot be easily assimilated with our white nation.

What is the criterion?

I shall produce proof to you in a moment of the very considerable extent to which we have intensified our screening procedure during the past six months. I shall prove to you how a different trend is coming forward in our immigration pattern, and will come forward even more strongly in the course of this year, because we are placing the accent—and this brings me to your question as to what criterion is applied —on immigrants from our countries of origin. With countries of origin I mean the countries of origin of both the Afrikaans- and English-speaking sections. We are placing the accent on bringing people into the country from our countries of origin.

The fourth point, on which we are laying a great deal of emphasis, is that we make it our object to cause the immigrants we are bringing into the country to become fully bilingual as quickly as possible. In practice this means that they must also master Afrikaans, because most of them already have a reasonably good background in English. It is our declared approach to do everything in our power, precisely because we want immigrants from our countries of origin, who must come to reinforce our White nation here, to ensure that they will at the same time learn both the official languages of our country, because to that extent they will become good citizens of the Republic of South Africa. This is our policy. If I wanted to make a good old political speech here tonight. I could have talked at length about the old days of the United Party, and what they did with their immigration programme at that time. But I leave that aside for the present. I have stated my four points positively, strongly and clearly, and there cannot be the least doubt about them.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please tell us how the present policy differs from that of the United Party in regard to immigration?

Sir, they now want to lure me into a political debate on this Monday night. I shall answer the hon. member quickly, but he must promise me that if I give him a crushing reply he will stop trying to lure me into a political argument. I shall tell hon. members very quickly. In the old days of the United Party …

The good and the bad.

Yes, I do not even want to talk about that. In the old days of the United Party they did not have a balanced immigration programme such as we have to-day, because they brought in their immigrants mainly from one country. They made the people here in our country dissatisfied about immigration. For years we suffered as a result of the sins of the United Party, because they did not have a balanced immigration programme. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us from which country the greatest number of immigrants came to South Africa last year?

The hon. member knows the answer to that question just as well as I do. I need not reply to that question. [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to tell hon. members that my patience is running out.

May I ask a question.

There is a great deal of time left for the hon. member to make a speech. First allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to finish. He says he does not want to reply to any questions.

But the Deputy Minister has resumed his seat!

May I ask the Deputy Minister whether the Portuguese and Cypriots meet the requirement of having known one of the official languages?

No, I do not want to reply to that question now, because the hon. member himself knows that he has an enormous ulterior motive with it. I just want to say that the United Party reminds me very much of a baby. Once a little boy had to write an essay on a baby, and he wrote: “At the one end a baby has a mouth and at the other end it has ‘no responsibility’ ”, The United Party is also discussing this question of immigration without responsibility. Now they want to entice me into it as well.

Answer our questions.

I think that everybody will have to admit that the immigration scheme of the National Party is a very successful one, because since 1961, when this scheme got into its stride, we have brought more than 202,000 immigrants to this country. If we should express this in terms which even the United Party would understand—and then the terms would have to be terribly simple, as hon. members on this side will appreciate— we would be able to populate the following cities and towns solely with these immigrants we have brought into the country: Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg, East London, Kimberley, Klerksdorp and Upington. I want to repeat that our immigration scheme offers our people very good security, because we do not bring immigrants into the country who cannot meet the requirements I mentioned. As I have said, we will not bring immigrants into the country who cannot meet a specific labour need here. The immigrants we bring to the country have reinforced our economy to a considerable extent. Expressed in one single figure, I may just tell you that the estimated value, expressed in cash, of immigrants who have come to South Africa since the National Party’s immigration scheme got into its stride, amounts to no less than R800 million. The net gain of economically active immigrants in the professional field whom we have brought into the country is 14.476. The number in respect of managers and administrative workers is 3,398; 9.200 clerical workers have been brought in. The number in respect of salesmen and similar occupations is 4,000. Those who are engaged in agriculture number 4,400. The number in respect of mining is 1,192. The number in respect of transport and communication is 1.464. The number of immigrants in factory and construction works is 37.329. I am only sneaking of economically active persons now. Then there are 2,992 service workers that have been brought in. Then I am not mentioning the 33,429 schoolgoing children the country has gained as a result of immigration. Hon. members are probably all aware that, in the economic development programme recently announced for the Republic of South Africa, it is stated that if the immigration level is maintained at an average of 30.000 persons per annum, as in the case of the years 1963 to 1967, and as was also most definitely the position in 1968, the position on the white labour market will improve greatly, and that the demand for white labour will exceed the supply by only 3,000 by 1973. I am sure that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this, because he likes to speak about this matter. I now want to point out to hon. members that according to these particulars and this classification the annual net gain of economically active immigrants was 12,300 over the past five years. But this figure does not include one single scholar of the net gain of 5,000 per annum, which has been maintained since 1963 and has entered our labour market since. This is a very important fact, because it is so easily overlooked and left out of account. Conservatively speaking, I can say to all who are sincerely interested in the manpower position of this country that since 1967 we have to add a further 700 workers from the ranks of these immigrant children annually, which brings the gain of economically active persons as a result of immigration to at least 13,000 per annum. This is putting it as conservatively as possible.

You are juggling with figures.

No, the hon. member may look at these figures for himself. I am not juggling with figures. I want to add that this very closely approaches the target set by Dr. Van Eck in their programme and the report they issued. In that report the target we should try to achieve in order to maintain a 5½ per cent economic growth rate is put at between 13,000 and 14,000 skilled immigrant workers per day. Now I want to make the point that the Minister and I are very much aware of the manpower shortage. We want to serve the country to the best of our modest abilities. Therefore we are most certainly taking note of this question of manpower shortage. That is why I explained the position as I did a moment ago, i.e. that we are really trying to make a contribution by bringing immigrants of good calibre, especially from our countries of origin, into the country in order to turn our manpower position into a very favourable one within the next two to three years. But I want to proceed. [Interjections.] No, we are not dealing with the matter referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

It has become very clear to us that we cannot expect to draw many more of these skilled immigrants of high quality, especially from our countries of origin, to South Africa merely through advertising. We must make use of the best recruiting techniques, especially in our countries of origin, in order to achieve the desired results for our country. It is our experience that the good worker is primarily interested in receiving an offer of employment even before he decides to leave his country. I want to point out to hon. members that during 1964-’65 we spent R101,182 on advertisements for recruiting purposes abroad, over and above the department’s own expenditure on advertising and publicity. Do hon. members know what the result of that was? The result was that in 1966 we had an all-time record year for immigration in South Africa, in that we received approximately 48,000 immigrants. Now I want to say something which I think our people should take cognizance of in connection with this matter. Based on a proper scientific analysis of this situation, we decided, on the strength of the experience and the evidence we have at our disposal …

All your people?

Look here, keep your …

Order!

Yes, all our people. On the strength of the evidence and the experience we have, we want to recommend very strongly to our large industrialists and employers not to hesitate to spend funds themselves on overseas advertising campaigns and recruiting missions, especially with a view to recruiting in our countries of origin. I want to make it very clear that in this connection our department, the hon. the Minister and I myself will offer assistance free of charge in the form of advice, liaison services and other auxiliary services overseas to such industrialists as want to make use of this offer. All they need to do is to come to our department with their plans and intentions in good time and to indicate how much they are prepared to spend on their part. I want to stress to-night that my department and we ourselves will go out of our way to help our industrialists as much as possible in this connection, especially if they will also lay the emphasis on immigrants from our countries of origin, as we are doing. I have no doubt whatsoever, especially in the light of the very large contribution our industrialists know immigrants are rendering to them, that it would be a very small quid pro quo on the part of the industrialists to be more interested themselves in recruiting workers from our countries of origin. I repeat that experience has taught us that if negotiations are being conducted with an immigrant and he meets the industrialist for whom he is to work and he knows what kind of work can be offered him, and he can discuss this with the industrialist, we will make much more progress in getting the right kind of immigrant fro-q our countries of origin to come to South Africa.

I said that I would indicate to hon. members how our immigration pattern had changed considerably recently in favour of our countries of origin. From Belgium, for example, there was an increase of .7 per cent in 1968; from Germany there was an increase of 2.8 per cent; from the Netherlands there was an increase of 1.2 per cent; from Australia 1.1 per cent; from Switzerland .4 per cent: from Scandinavia .1 per cent; and from the United Kingdom 10.4 per cent. We therefore succeeded in increasing the number of immigrants from our countries of origin by 16.7 per cent in one single year. Against this the immigration figure from other countries decreased with a corresponding 16.7 per cent. I immediately want to add in all modesty that this is no mean achievement. I repeat that the trend in that direction is increasing, and we are in fact working harder to cause the trend to go in that direction, because we know that the people from our countries of origin are acceptable to everybody in South Africa and are easily assimilable. I want it to be known that this is the position. Now, I want to say that we are aware that there are serious problems with workers as regards the building industry. I may just tell hon. members that the Minister, the department and I have gone out of our way to assist the building industry in attracting, especially from our countries of origin, the necessary good immigrants for the building industry. We have taken certain measures. I do not want to go into this matter any further. I wanted to give hon. members full details about these measures, but I leave it at that for the present. The building industry has already been informed in this regard. We have gone out of our way to help the building industry to get immigrants, especially from our countries of origin, to help to meet their labour requirements here.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the emigration figure. He said it was too high. He asked that an investigation be instituted into the emigration figure, which was too high. I should like to reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on that point. Taken over the past 8 years, 41.7 per cent of our emigrants were South African citizens, and not persons who had come to South Africa under our scheme. Hon. members can appreciate that 41.7 per cent is a large percentage. Even to-day 3,000 of the 10,000 emigrants are South African citizens, while only 66 per cent are former immigrants. The hon. member knows this. I am very serious now, because it is an important matter that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised here. If one asks oneself where these emigrants are going to, it is very important just to look at the figures in this connection. Over the past 8 years one-third, i.e. 27,045 of the 79,516 emigrants, went to countries in Africa. It is still the position today that one-third of our emigrants are going north. Now, the important point is—and the hon. member will immediately grant this—that these emigrants are not lost to the Whites on this continent. If one reduces the emigration figure of 10,000 so that …

This sounds a little imperialistic.

I am still coming to the point I want to make. I just want to mention these facts first. If one reduces the emigration figure of 10,000 by subtracting this group, and calculate it as a percentage of the total emigration figure, it comes to 17.7 per cent. The hon. member for East London (City) compared this percentage with that of Australia, and I should also very much like to do so. The percentage for Australia came to 22.8 per cent in 1964. But even if we calculated the total emigration figure as a percentage of immigration, our figures are only 3.2 per cent higher than those of Australia, which—and this is very important— on account of its situation is in a much more favourable position than South Africa. The point I want to make is therefore that our emigration figure compares very favourably with that of Australia, or with that of any immigrant country with which we can compare our immigration position. This is the position, especially when we take into account our situation, because hon. members must bear in mind that we form part of Africa, and that one-third of our emigrants go to Africa. Hon. members can see, therefore, that I can quite justifiably make that point. In comparison with Australia we are also closer to Europe. Moreover, our immigrants in South Africa are very mobile on account of the fact that we are no longer living in the ox-wagon era. As a result of aeroplanes and other modern means of transport our immigrants are very mobile, and we must bear in mind that we allow our immigrants absolute freedom of movement in South Africa. If these people want to emigrate, we allow them to do so by all means, and we do not place any obstacles in their way in order to exert pressure upon them if they want to leave the country. We know from experience that once a person has had a taste of South Africa, he develops an urge to come back here. It is very interesting to see how many of the emigrants who leave the country return to South Africa on account of the charm that this country exercises upon one. We are therefore proud to say that South Africa is a free country, and that immigrants have no restrictions whatsoever upon their movements. I personally know of immigrants who only came to settle in South Africa permanently after returning to other places in the world four times, and they became good immigrants.

You are speaking of exceptions now.

No, it is absolutely true. As it behoves me to do, I now want to reply properly and comprehensively to something else that was said in regard to these matters by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is the chairman of the relevant group on that side of the House. There was a time when we had a considerably higher emigration figure, and the hon. member referred to it. This was in the year 1950-’51, when 30,000 emigrants left the country in two years. I again do not want to talk politics, but we all know what the story attached to that is. It was two years after the National Party Government had come into power. What happened then? This country was said to be the skunk of the world.

It is still the skunk of the world.

Then those hon. members said … [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish I had the opportunity to show hon. members on the opposite side how they came here at that time with all those ugly words which I do not even want to use. They used very ugly words towards this side of the House, and made the world afraid of this “terrible” National Party Government. The immigrants who had come into the country under their scheme of no discrimination were of course so frightened by all the propaganda made against us by the United Party in 1950-’51 that within one year 30,000 of those immigrants left the country. Now I say that the position is much better to-day, and in the light of all the facts we are constantly trying to keep our emigration figure as low as possible. Hon. members opposite may now try and tell us when last they saw a slanderous story in the papers about emigration and about emigrants leaving the country on account of the fact that they did not like South Africa. This sort of thing has become very rare, and we are very proud that this is the position. Futhermore I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on my part, on the hon. the Minister’s part and on the department’s part, we are doing, and we will in an increasing measure do, everything in our power to make this emigration figure, which I have now shown to hon. members to be not unduly high, and which compares very favourably with that of Australia, the lowest in the world, if that is at all physically possible. I concede to the hon. member that we must do everything in our power to ensure that there will be no need for one single emigrant to leave the country. We shall try to do this to the best of our ability.

Every single immigrant to get Cabinet status immediately.

This shows what good immigrants they are. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also raised another point here, i.e. the classification of our immigrants, and according to which methods immigrants are recruited abroad. As the hon. member pointed out, an immigrant must fill in the following question on his application form: “Are you and all the persons concerned of pure White descent?” Now the hon. member asks what “pure White” is. If the hon. member does not know what a pure White person is, it is no feather in the cap of the main United Party spokesman on immigration matters. I can very soon tell the hon. member when a person is pure White. The Aliens Act provides very clearly that the Immigrants Selection Board has certain discretionary powers and, as you know, Sir, this is a purely statutory board. Section 4 (3) (b) of this Act reads as follows—

How does one test that?

I shall come to that. No discretionary powers were therefore granted to the statutory Immigrants Selection Board in regard to this question. They may only bring pure Whites into this country, and there must not be the slightest doubt about this. If this debate were a political one, I could have made quite a few insinuations in regard to what was said by the hon. member this afternoon, but I will spare him that. I want to make it very clear, however, that the Act explicitly provides that that Board has other powers, but that in regard to one matter it has no power, i.e. that, under our present immigration scheme, it may only bring pure Whites into the country. There must not be the slightest doubt about that. The hon. member asked what a “pure White” was.

It seems as though he is objecting to that.

The hon. member asked how we made sure that a person was pure White. A very serious insinuation has been made in this connection; I need not point that out. How do we make sure? To put it bluntly, we make “darned” sure, because it is essential that we should be very sure about it.

Was Simon van der Stel pure White?

I want to remind the hon. member that Simon van der Stel must have come in under a United Party regime, because under a National Party regime only pure Whites would have come in.

Would you have accepted him?

I am beginning to wonder whether we would have accepted that hon. member under a National Party regime if he would have wanted to come in as an immigrant. Joking apart.

That is a reflection and a bad one too.

No, it is no reflection. It was only a little joke. The first thing we do is to have the person who wants to immigrate fill in on the form that he is a pure White. [Interjections.] Give me a chance. He must fill in that he is a pure White. It is sometimes found that people make false declarations. Now I shall indicate step by step how we make sure that he is a pure White person. If a person landed here and it appeared that he was not a White person, or that he was not a White person by appearance, etc., and that a mistake must have been made with the filling in of that form, that person is guilty of an offence. In this connection the Act reads that that person’s permit for temporary or other residence must be withdrawn immediately. Now, I can assure you that the hon. the Minister of Immigration and I, during the short period we have occupied these posts, have often withdrawn temporary residential permits, as well as other residential permits. We are very strict about it that there must not be the slightest doubt about this. I am very strict about it myself. If I have any doubts about the bona fides of the testimony that is filled in on such a form, I do not ask myself any further questions at all, and I am immediately prepared, because I do not want to take any chances in respect of our people in South Africa, immediately and summarily to withdraw the permit that was issued. However, this is something which seldom occurs. About this there must not be the slightest doubt either. Now I come to the other steps. I said a moment ago that such a person had to fill in the form, in which he has to say that he is a White person. This, then, is one way in which we make sure. However, there are other very important steps too. To his form he must attach a very clear photograph of himself and of his next of kin. A person’s appearance can be judged on that, not so? Then there is a third and very important criterion. Our people must know this, apropos of the question that was asked here. That question was an important question and was not asked for nothing. Such a person, or most of them, at any rate, then have to appear before our immigration officers overseas. That is the next criterion. To give hon. members an idea of the extent of personal contacts with prospective immigrants, I want to mention the following figures. In Portugal our immigration officers interviewed 2,077 persons as against fewer than 1,000 who applied, and in Italy they interviewed 9,566 as against fewer than 1.000 who applied. In Greece, 1,837 were interviewed. In the United Kingdom 28,000 were interviewed as against 17,000 who immigrated. In Australia T19 were interviewed as against a much smaller number who immigrated. In the Netherlands 2,110 were interviewed as against 1,200 who immigrated; in Belgium 2,588 as against 790; in Switzerland 1,194 as against 874; in Germany 7,465 as against 4,240; in Austria 5,925 as against 1,700; and in France 2,192 as against 403. This is therefore the third criterion by means of which we make very sure that only White persons enter the country.

But there is a fourth criterion as well. This criterion is very important. If a person should get past any of the three gates I have mentioned and landed here in Cape Town or at any of our other ports, or at one of our airports, our department has its well-trained immigration passport control officers there. If such an officer has any doubt about a person when he reports there, the necessary steps are taken to stop that person and he is not admitted. That is the fourth step.

What do you do then?

Then any permit he has is summarily withdrawn. We are not dealing with Bantu Affairs now. The hon. member must try to understand.

Do you send him back?

Of course we send him back. We immediately withdraw his permit and send him back. These are excellent measures existing in our Department. After the matter in connection with “Settlers can be Reclassified” had been raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout under the Interior Vote, our department went to a great deal of trouble to determine what the position is: the department is not aware of one single case of a person who emigrated to the Republic of South Africa and whom it was necessary to reclassify. This department is not aware of one single such case. That is an effective and very definite reply to that hon. member’s suggestion that it was possible under the National Party Government’s immigration scheme that people who are approved immigrants but who are not pure White persons, might perhaps enter the country. We will not allow this to happen under any circumstances.

I have now replied fully to the questions asked by the hon. member, except to the question regarding the stage at which an immigrant receives his identity card. When an immigrant who has obtained the necessary permanent residential permit overseas, arrives in South Africa and is admitted by our immigration passport control officers, his particulars are sent to the Department of the Interior. A duplicate is sent to the immigrant and his family. At this stage he may collect his identity card at the Department of the Interior. In other words, it happens when he has obtained his permanent residential permit. People who enter the country on temporary residential permits obtain their identity cards in the same way, that is to say, after they have completed the necessary forms at the Department of the Interior. This is the position in that regard.

The hon. member for Geduld and all the other hon. members on this side of the House strongly emphasized the question of the integration of our immigrants. That is how it should be and it is necessary that it should be so. I am very much indebted to everyone for the fact that this was done. In my humble experience the integration of immigrants is a perfectly simple matter. Integration is not a complicated and difficult task. Integration is a perfectly simple, normal, human action. It simply boils down to being natural, friendly, normal, human and hospitable towards a foreigner who is entering the country as an immigrant. That is all. That is the basis, the beginning, the alpha and the omega as far as integration is concerned. The immigrant must just feel at home in his new fatherland. He must feel that we are not against him. He must feel that we are prepared to offer him the hand of friendship and that we want to make him feel at home in his new fatherland. If our citizens will only be prepared to do this, then we shall be acting in accordance with President Kruger’s striking words to the immigrants of that time so many years ago: “I place you under the care of the old citizens.” If our new people are placed under the care of our old citizens in this way, our integration campaign will be able to make much more rapid and better progress. There are three main categories in connection with integration, i.e. the worker, the wife and the child. The worker need not be afraid that the immigrant will push him out. The wife can practise good neighbourliness, There is no reason why our beautiful tradition of hospitality cannot flourish and be revived in its full glory in the new era. As regards the child, I have already said that we are doing everything in our power by means of out language media to make our immigrant children bilingual as far as possible.

I do not want to take up much more of the Committee’s time. I just want to say that we cannot, as the hon. member for East London (City) asked, simply open offices abroad at will. It is not such a simple process. The hon. member must not make the mistake of thinking that we can do that. I should like to give him full particulars in this connection, but as a result of the limited time at my disposal, I cannot do so. We have a large number of immigration offices to-day.

You have all the time you need.

The hon. the Leader of the House has told me to finish up now. [Interjections.] We have a fairly large number of immigration officers, and they are well staffed. In countries where we have no immigration offices, the embassies are doing the work for us as though there were immigration offices, and we are doing very good work there.

The hon. member for East London (City) also raised the question of citizenship. That is quite a different matter from integration. Citizenship comes into the picture when a person who has been in the country by means of a certificate, applies for South African citizenship after four or five years, according to circumstances. The hon. member compared the position here with the position in Australia, but that is not fair, and I shall tell him why. In Australia they have always accepted unskilled workers. We have never allowed unskilled workers to immigrate to this country.

So what? Just look at the nation they have built up.

I am still coming to the point I want to make. Australia has accepted stateless persons and refugees by the thousand. One can understand that a stateless person or a refugee who has no country of origin, has no choice. He must apply for citizenship, and that is why their citizenship figure is higher than ours. I want to repeat that we are making good progress with the acquisition of citizenship among our immigrants. We must only get our own people so far as to help with integration and the acquisition of citizenship and then we shall make better and more rapid progress in this connection.

The hon. member for Springs said that we should appoint ladies to visit the immigrants in our larger centres and to help them to solve their problems. I just want to say that we do have excellent integration organizations. I want to refer hon. members to the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” and the 1820 Settlers Organization. It is up to them to make use of this suggestion made by the hon. member for Springs. Unfortunately my Department cannot undertake that work, because we are acting in a different sphere. By way of heavy subsidizing, as the hon. members will see in the statements, we are helping these integration organizations. Those people must make use of this suggestion, and I think that they can make use of it profitably.

The hon. member for Pinetown also asked me a very important question. Again I do not want to go into the political aspects of the matter, although there is a good deal to be said about this matter, as every hon. member in this House knows very well. The hon. member asked me a question in connection with clergymen. I have great pleasure in saying what the position in connection with clergymen is as I shall explain in a moment. I have the Minister of the Interior’s permission to make this announcement, although the matter actually falls under his Department. On account of the fact that we had negotiations on this matter quite recently, I have permission to make this statement to hon. members now. The position is that clergymen will in future be able to apply for permanent residence in South Africa after four years’ temporary residence here. If a clergyman has been in South Africa for four years, he qualifies for this, and if he has all the other qualifications, he may apply for permanent residence in South Africa. As regards the acquisition of citizenship I want to say that after four years’ residence in South Africa he has to reside here for five years more before he can obtain South African citizenship. A clergyman who has been resident in South Africa for four years, can therefore now apply for permanent residence. Five years later he may apply for South African citizenship. If he proves, however, that he is fully bilingual and if he can pass this test, he may of course apply for citizenship sooner. [Interjections.] I know those hon. back-benchers will not know what this is about, but the hon. member for Pinetown knows very well what it is about. He will know that it is a very important announcement that I have made, and he will appreciate it too. While I took pleasure in mentioning this, I want to express the fervent hope that with this we have now come to the end of the matter that was referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown to-night, i.e. that we shall no longer find clergymen making pronouncements upon our local circumstances here, often in a very unsavoury way, and landing themselves in hot water as a result.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? What is the position as far as the possessions of these people are concerned? When an immigrant comes to this country he is allowed to bring his possessions in duty free. Will this concession also apply to ministers of religion?

Mr. Chairman, this matter does not fall under my department. I think it falls under the Department of Customs and Excise. The position is that people who come to South Africa on a temporary permit do not qualify for exemption from paying excise duty. As I have said this matter does not fall under my Department but under the Department of Customs and Excise. If they some to South Africa on a temporary permit, they are therefore not exempted from paying these duties.

*Unfortunately I can do nothing further about this. I think I have now replied to all the questions of hon. members. I want to conclude by saying that our immigration effort is meeting with great success. I want to appeal once again that we should do more to make our immigrants feel at home here and to integrate them, and that there must be the necessary confidence that we shall only bring people into the country who will be easily assimilated into our White nation and will make a contribution in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister challenged us on several points during his long address. I feel sorry for the Leader of the House not because of the time he might think has been wasted but because of the bricks that have been dropped. I also feel very sorry for the hon. the Deputy Minister. This has been the first opportunity for Deputy Ministers to show their metal after the announcement of the hon. the Prime Minister that an ambassador has been recalled to South Africa to take up a ministerial position. This Deputy Minister has been placed in the unfortunate position of having to defend the immigration policy of the Government. He was very clever in getting up and paying tribute to Mr. Trollip, the previous Minister of Immigration. Why was Mr. Trollip the most successful of the Ministers of Immigration of the Nationalist Party? He was the most successful for one simple reason, namely, that when they made him Minister of Immigration he took over the United Party’s immigration policy. [Interjections.] That hon. Deputy Minister and some of the hon. members on those benches who are now shouting, were not here when Mr. Trollip took over as Minister of Immigration; they were also not here when Mr. Trollip was questioned in regard to the Nationalist Party’s immigration policy as to screening. He was asked whether it was any different from the immigration policy of the United Party. Mr. Trollip replied “No.” Then he was asked whether it differed in any other way from the United Party policy and he replied that it did. We asked him what it was and he said, “Under United Party policy nothing was paid towards the fares of immigrants coming to South Africa, but under Nationalist Party policy we are now paying the fares of immigrants to bring them out to South Africa.” The older members, such as the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the House, who now sit there reading their papers, will remember that under United Party policy two ships were set aside to bring out immigrants from Europe to South Africa at no cost to the South African Government. Dr. Dónges, as the first Minister of Immigration of the Nationalist Party, then said that he wanted to thank the Union Castle Company for agreeing to cancel the contract. General Smuts asked what this cost and he replied that it did not cost them a penny. It did not cost the South African Government a penny to have two ships set aside to bring immigrants out to South Africa, because the immigrants wanted to come to South Africa. Now we hear from this Deputy Minister that he wants immigrants from the “stamlande”. Where is he getting the immigrants from? Where is the majority of immigrants coming from? They are not coming from the “stamlande” only any more; they are coming from all over Europe now. Where is the member for Ermelo? Why is he not here to-night to talk on immigration? Where is the hon. member for Innesdal? Where are they? Why do they not come and tell us about what they think of the immigration policy of this Government?

But to get back to the “stamlande”, why did Dr. Dónges and the other Nationalists at that time want to cancel General Smuts’ immigration policy? Because they said it was bringing about an imbalance in the ratio between the two White race groups here. They said that too many immigrants were coming from Britain. The majority of the immigrants were coming from Britain. I want to ask this Deputy Minister now, or any Nationalist here, where is the majority of the immigrants coming from now? Is the majority coming from Holland? Are they coming from France or Germany, the “stamlande”? Where are they coming from? They are coming from Britain. Where are they trying to get them mainly from? From Britain! Why are they trying to get them mainly from Britain?

It is a “stamland”.

Yes, it is a “stamland”. But it is also the only Protestant country. That is why they want them from there. Now they have seen what is happening. I remember what happened when I went out and fought the first election after that in 1953. Most of these members were not here then. The hon. member for Brits was here. He sits there smiling now. He knows it is true. What was the attack on General Smuts’ immigration policy? “Hy wou die Afrikaner ondergeploeg het”. That is why General Smuts’ policy had to be changed. What do they say now? Who wants to plough the Afrikaner under now? Yes, the Deputy Minister there! Mr. Chairman, I remember so well …

Order!

… and you will remember too. Sir. Yes, I am glad you are calling the Committee to order; I cannot make myself heard. You will remember so well, Sir, why were immigrants not allowed then? It was because there would be no housing for the Afrikaner. There would be no work for the Afrikaner youth. We should have brought in builders. The Deputy Minister spoke about the shortage of building contractors. We want to get in building contractors. Hon. members know that the master builders had an opportunity of getting in 1,500 artisans. But because of red tape they could not. Now the number has dwindled. What is our shortage in this country now? We are short of houses. We are short of artisans. We are short of everything!

Nats.

No, we are not short of Nats, but we are going to be short of them very soon. I want to ask the Deputy Minister something. He said that there was a test to make quite certain that they are going to be “suiwer blank”. When they test them overseas to make certain that they are “suiwer blank”, what test do they apply? Will they apply the test under the Group Areas Act, the test under the Mixed Marriages Act, or the test under the Population Registration Act? I want to know from the Minister, which qualification do they apply? If they pass them under the Mixed Marriages Act, they will not qualify here under the Population Registration Act. How must the civil servant overseas, who passes them, know whether an immigrant is going to qualify here? How does the official here in South Africa know? Who knows under what law they must qualify? It is no good the Minister looking the other way. I want to know under what law they test them. What law applies here? We have enough trouble here in South Africa. If the officials cannot or wrongly decide the matter is referred to courts of law. Every time the courts of law give judgments against it, the Government changes the law. How can a poor immigrant who wants to come out here know for which race he will qualify? Is he going to qualify under the Group Areas Act? Is he going to qualify under the Mixed Marriages Act, or is he going to qualify under the Population Registration Act? The hon. the Minister did not tell us. He said it was quite clear. They are so careful in their screening overseas that we only get “suiwer blank” here. If the immigrant gets here and he qualifies … [Interjections.]

Order!

I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he qualifies under the Mixed Marriages Act will he be allowed to stay here in a group area? If he qualifies under the Group Areas Act will the hon. the Minister allow him here? What law does the hon. the Deputy Minister apply? It becomes important for this Minister because he is the Deputy Minister, who talks about de facto and de jure. [Laughter.] We want to know whether a White immigrant is a White immigrant de facto or de jure. If he is de jure, he wants to know under what jus, under what law. The hon. the Minister should not laugh. He might think that it is a joke but it is not a joke for an immigrant who comes from overseas and who is then sent back because he is de facto White but de jure not. It is not a joke. It is not a joke for the immigration officials who are trying to get people to come out to South Africa. They send people out here whom they have assured will be accepted as White people. As soon as the people get out here, they find that the hon. the Minister qualifies them under a different law. They thought they were coming here under the Mixed Marriages Act and they find that they are to be judged under the Population Registration Act, so they are sent back. What sort of advertisement is that for our Government? What sort of an advertisement is that for South Africa? Does an immigrant who comes here expecting to be accepted fully as an immigrant have to find that he is not acceptable under our laws and that he has to be sent back?

And he has to be sent back because he is not White.

He then finds that he has to be sent back because of the different interpretations of the law. He thought that he was qualifying under the law, but when he got here he found that it was different. This Government is going to run into continual trouble under the immigration laws. [Time expired.]

Vote put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Votes 40 and 41, Loan Votes K and B and S.W.A. Votes 20 and 21, standing over.

Revenue Vote 40.—Community Development, R11,670,000, Loan Vote K.—Community Development, R79,750,000, and S.W.A. Vote 20. — Community Development, R2,200,000 (contd.):

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, my colleague, the Minister of Community Development, is indisposed, and for that reason I shall, on his behalf, give certain replies with reference to the debate conducted here last week.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the matter of non-Whites who, according to him, were settled at places far from their places of employment. I want to tell the hon. member that an inter-departmental committee under the chairmanship of the General Manager of the Railways was appointed as long ago as 1954. This inter-departmental committee is constantly keeping a watchful eye on this matter, and this committee advises the Government so that it may be ensured that as few problems as possible arise for the non-Whites.

In addition the hon. member asked whether the Group Areas Act was applicable to South-West Africa as well and whether it would be made applicable to that territory. The reply is that it is not applicable at present nor is it the intention to make it applicable.

The hon. member also put a question in connection with the Chinese. I may tell the hon. member that there are three group areas for the Chinese. One is at Kimberley, one at Uitenhage and the other at Port Elizabeth. The group area at Port Elizabeth in particular is a well-developed area as is the one at Kimberley. As regards other centres which do not have group areas, the various applications for permits of residence are considered on merit. I may just add that this in fact is a matter which falls under the Minister of Planning, but I do not want to reply on his behalf this evening.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) expressed his gratitude for the assistance rendered during the time of the floods. I may just tell the hon. member that it afforded the Government great pleasure to have been of assistance.

The hon. member also put a question in connection with the demolition of living quarters. I want to tell the hon. member that the Government takes severe action in this connection. The policy is not to grant any application for the deletion of a building if it is possible to renovate the building economically or if alternative accommodation is not available. The hon. member asked for this information to be publicized more by us if possible. I want to assure the hon. member that every endeavour will be made to publicize these details by means of press statements. Attention will also be given to the possibility of finding ways and means of bringing this to the attention of the public more regularly.

The hon. member for Boksburg raised the question of malpractices as far as rent control was concerned. I just want to tell the hon. member that an eye is being kept on the points he raised here. I want to give the information that a reasonable rental laid down by a rent board is based on the rental value of the property as assessed by the Rent Board. On the basis of this rental value the rent board allows the landlord to charge 8 per cent on the value of the building and 6 per cent on the value of the land.

The hon. member also raised the question of premiums. The hon. member said that buildings were being insured at much higher premiums which caused the rental to be increased. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that only the amount of the premium paid is taken into account and that that has very little effect on the rental.

Then the hon. member raised the question of Indian traders who were infiltrating into white areas. This, of course, is a contravention of the Act. To do that is illegal, and when such an offence is committed, it becomes a matter for the South African Police. It is the established practice in the Department to refer cases which come to the attention of the Department to the Police. I should inform the hon. member, however, that the public is also at liberty to bring such cases to the attention of the Police.

†The hon. member for Green Point complained about the annual report of the Department not being available. I think that falls away now, since the report has been tabled on the 2nd June.

It was not here at that stage.

Then the hon. member stated that the housing shortage was acute and that 28,000 units were required annually for Whites. I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says that the housing shortage is acute. This figure the hon. member has given the House is more or less right. According to figures of the Department, the figure is something like 27,000 per year. I should like to point out to the hon. member that in the year 1967, 28,003 housing units were built for Whites. Of that number 23,300 were built by the private sector and 4,659 through the local authorities. That means that 28,003 houses had been built in 1967, while 27,000 were built in 1968.

Then the hon. member asked for particulars of the 100-per-cent housing loan scheme for Government employees. The reply is as follows. The maximum loan available is R15,000. The loan is made available by building societies. As the hon. member probably knows, an interest subsidy scheme is being introduced whereby the Government will subsidize the interest payable by its employees according to a sliding scale depending on their salary notch. In the case of an employee earning less than R3,000 per year, his interest payments will be subsidized to an extent which will require him to pay no more than 4 per cent. In to-night’s paper I have noticed that building societies won’t be making any funds available for a certain period. I am sure my hon. colleague will in due course state the views of the Government on this matter. All I want to say at this stage is that it will be odd if no funds are made available to civil servants. Building societies make something like R400 million available per year. Of that only R9.3 million is required by civil servants. Consequently, I want to say that I think building societies could provide in the needs of our civil servants seeing that the Government has made provision for subsidizing the interest rate.

The hon. member also complained about the high cost of construction of houses for younger, and accordingly lower, income groups as well as about the high price of building sites. But both the Department and local authorities still succeed in building and selling three-bedroomed houses at between R5,600 and R6,000. To me it is amazing that it is still possible to build a three-bedroomed house for under R6.000 inclusive of site. Therefore, this is a great achievement by the Department in comparison with other housing available. Cognizance is taken of the fact that a purchaser should not pay more than a maximum of 25 per cent of his income on housing. It is, therefore, completely incorrect to say that those with an income of not more than R300 per month are expected to pay an exorbitant instalment for housing. This is not correct in respect of houses the Department builds. I may also inform the hon. member that the Administrators of the four provinces have been contacted with a view to seeing what could be done towards reducing the high cost of building sites. One suggestion which has been made is that a fixed percentage of available building sites be not sold by public auction but out of hand at predetermined and reasonable prices to individuals in certain income groups.

The hon. member also doubted whether the Department’s co-operation with local authorities was sound and amicable. He quoted Stellenbosch as an example. On the contrary, the relationship of the Department and local authorities in general is very good indeed. In regard to Stellenbosch the position is that at that particular meeting the hon. member referred to, there were only 130 ratepayers present out of a total of 2,000. Accordingly, one ought not to attach too much importance to what transpired at that meeting. I may say that three weeks after the Department decided to step in active and intensive construction of houses at Cloetesville was well under way and 50 completed housing units will be available at the end of July. For all one knows the Department may itself in due course be so fortunate as to receive a vote of thanks for the vigorous progress now being made at Stellenbosch.

Another matter which the hon. member raised makes me rather unhappy and I shall, therefore, have to reply to him more fully. He launched an undeserved attack on what he termed “the reckless and ruthless exploitation of Coloured property owners”. I hope I am quoting the hon. member correctly. His accusation amounted to the Government taking the Coloureds money in cold blood. He accused the Government of buying or expropriating at ridiculous prices and selling at fabulous prices. In this connection he referred to five building plots at the Strand. But the facts are these. The five erven concerned, numbers 2226-9 and 2230-1, belonged to two Coloured owners and were situated within a white group area when group areas were proclaimed in 1959. Then these properties became affected properties. These erven were completely undeveloped and were situated to the seaward side of the golf links. Their basic value at 18th June, 1959, was about R1,000 each. The Coloured owner of Erf. 2228 sold it in 1966 to a certain Mr. Pienaar, a white person, for R1,000. The owner of the other four sites also sold them in 1966 to a certain Mr. Broeksma, for R5,505 all told. In other words, 6J years after the determination of their basic values, these erven were sold by the Coloured owners at their own free will to the two white persons at a price equivalent to that of their basic value. As I have already pointed out, there was no development whatsoever in the area of these sites, so much so that the municipality closed a gravel road serving these sites and included it in the golf course until such time as development would necessitate a road. As a result of this completely voluntary sale by the two Coloured owners to the two white purchasers a pre-emptive right in favour of the Department arose in terms of the Community Development Act. This was exercised and meant that the Department stepped into the purchasers shoes under the same conditions as those under which they bought the erven. In 1968 the Department advertised the sale of these sites by public tender. Advertisements to that end appeared in the Cape Argus, the Cape Times and Die Burger. Tenders closed on the 24th September, 1968. On that date the following tenders had been submitted for the purchase of the five erven jointly. Mr. Broeksma tendered R4,800 cash, having purchased four of these erven originally for R5,O5O. H. A. van den Oever tendered R7,lll cash; D. J. Crafford R10,550 cash or R11,555 on hire-purchase; S. D. Smeda tendered R27,725 each whilst Seegolf (Pty.) Ltd. tendered R100,050 cash. It stands to reason that the highest tender was accepted. Had this not been done the hon. member would in all probability have been the first to accuse the Department of squandering public assets.

But the Coloureds got nothing out of it.

The question which should have been asked is why the Department in the first instance exercised its pre-emptive right, i.e. why it did not permit Mr. Broeksma to pull off his enormous bargain. Hon. members will recall that at that time 50 per cent of the profit on the sale of affected properties over and above their basic values had to be surrendered by its owner to the Community Development Board. I think the hon. member is aware of that. Therefore, the board had always to be wide awake to see that any possible accruals by these means to the Community Development Fund were secured. In the case in question hon. members will agree that the board was indeed on its alert. I do not think there is any question here of these Coloured owners having been done in, as the hon. member intimated in his speech. Now I hope that this answer will not only satisfy the hon. member but has also made it quite clear that there was no question of sucking blood out of these poor Coloured owners.

*In conclusion I want to come to the hon. member for Benoni who raised the question of housing for Whites at New Kleinfontein at Benoni, his constituency. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that the Department has written to the town clerk in connection with this matter. The town council is at present conducting negotiations with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure with regard to the acquisition of land. They hope to be able to carry out a new scheme there in the foreseeable future. At the moment the Department is only awaiting the submission of an application for the scheme by the town council. I may also tell the hon. member that sufficient funds will be available for the scheme.

These are the replies I have to the questions that were put. I hope they cover most of the questions put by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the hon. the Minister of Mines dealing with the debate as far as it has come under this particular Vote. I might just say that he has certainly not answered some of the points which have been raised earlier. There are a number of other points which we wish to raise with the responsible Minister. However, we appreciate that in the circumstances of the hon. the Minister’s illness, there will be no point in raising them during this particular sitting with the hon. the Minister who is deputising for him. Might I ask the hon. the Minister to convey our wishes for a speedy recovery to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. We can deal with these further problems when we happen to gather in this House at some future time.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 41.—“Public Works”, R41,494,000, Loan Vote B.— “Public Works”, R41,300,000 and S.W.A. Vote 21.—“Public Works”, R2,755,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Votes 8, 10, 16, 24, 29, 30, 40, 46 and 49 of Schedule 1, Loan Votes A, B, and E of Schedule 2 and to Schedule 3.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Schedule 1

(Chargeable to Revenue Account.)

Schedule 2

(Chargeable to Loan Account.)

Schedule 3

(Chargeable to Bantu Education Account.)

Summary.

Amendments to Revenue Votes 8 and 10 and Loan Vote A:

Mr. Chairman, Loan Vote A provides for an additional loan of R14 million in respect of the purchase of shares of the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa Limited. In the Procurements Fund there is some R341 million. I should like to know from the Minister why this amount of R14 million was not taken from the Procurements Fund? Why was it provided here as an additional amount under this Vote? It could have been taken from the Procurements Fund. While dealing with this, I should also like to know whether the Armaments Development and Production Corporation of South Africa Limited has as its chairman Prof. Samuels, because some time ago the Minister of Defence indicated to us that Prof. Samuels would be appointed chairman of the Production Board and that he would be asked to give up all his directorships so that he could give his full time to this appointment. In a recent Press report we see that the same Prof. Samuels is the chairman of the board of the new O.F.S. Bank. The hon. the Minister of Defence gave us the assurance that this gentleman would be giving his full time to this corporation. I should like to know whether there has now been a change of policy; if so, why? I should also like to know why this is not included in the R341 million?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain to us the new item, namely “Supplementary provision for payment of postage” under the Treasury Vote of R1,120,000? It seems quite a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member for Pinetown should accuse me for bringing this up under the Vote. I think it is Parliamentary duty that any new item like this should be placed before Parliament and should be voted by Parliament.

I am not accusing you at all.

Well, the question was rather curious. I think the hon. member must have confused two funds, namely the Procurement Fund and the Stabilization Fund. I think he thought that this should have been taken from the Stabilization Fund. The Procurement Fund is the Fund for buying strategic commodities from abroad. This is the loan that has to be repaid, or rather, these are two loans by Atlas Corporation that have to be paid. As hon. members know this Armaments Board is now responsible for the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. There are two loans of R7 million each. The one is due to the National Financial Corporation and the other one has been taken up abroad. These loans have to be paid off during the course of the year at very high interest rates. The State, having guaranteed all these loans in the past, is responsible. This corporation is a semi-State body. Now we propose that instead of taking up loans again from the N.F.C. or abroad, we, as the Government, should rather give these loans. They will be taken from the balance in our Loan Account. We do have a balance in the Loan Account. But the money could also be taken from the Stabilization Fund. I just want to quote this, because in any case, however we finance this loan of R14 million, it will not be inflationary, because the money that is repaid to the National Financial Corporation will be sterilized and not be brought into circulation. The other R7 million will be paid abroad and will therefore go out of the country. So, in any case, wherever we take this money from, from the Stabilization Fund or from the balance on the Loan Account, it will not be inflationary. I think that is the explanation the hon. member wants.

The hon. member for Parktown knows that since the Post Office became independent, the State has to pay for all postage matters. In the beginning of this year it was very difficult to assess exactly what we would have to pay, because the postage was more or less free except for postage overseas. It was very difficult to assess actually what we have to pay as a State for all the various departments to the independent Post Office. We put a certain amount on the Budget for the accounts of each of the departments. After negotiations with the Post Office in April, they agreed on a new figure of about R4,300,000 odd, which was about R1.2 million more than was originally estimated for all the departments combined. This is this extra figure which we now wish to provide for under this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us why, when the other amounts appear under seperate Votes, the difference does not also appear under those Votes? We now have a split personality. We have part of the postage expenditures carried under each separate Vote, while the balancing figure or the additional amount whatever it is called, is now put under the Treasury Vote. It does not seem right to me that we should have this same item appearing in two different places. They must either all be under the Vote separately or all be under the Treasury. We should not have them in both places.

Mr. Chairman, it has been arranged by the Post Office and the various departments that from May the individual departments will no longer pay individually, but that the Treasury will pay for all the departments. However, the sums that were appropriated for the departments are not sufficient for the whole year. The Treasury will have to supply the additional amount. It is a new agreement which came into force after the presentation of the Budget.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote 16:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can explain the increase of R1,599,000 under subhead J—Assistance to the Citrus Industry?

Mr. Chairman, as you know, many representations were made, inter alia by the hon. the Chief Whip on the United Party side, to the effect that the citrus industry was passing through a difficult period, for various reasons. Reasons for this are, for example, that overseas prices dropped, that the freight increased, and the fact that many citrus products are being sent to juice extraction factories (“sapfabrieke”) in this country.

“Sapfabrieke?” [Interjections.]

The conference lines also decided to write off an amount of £200,000. We did not think this was a good thing. With a view to keeping the entire industry sound, we did not want this to happen. These various items are all provided for in this amount of R1.5 million so that we can offer the industry the assistance they need. That is more or less the position. I can give hon. members the detailed figures, but this is more or less what hon. members on both sides of the House and the citrus farmers themselves, through the Citrus Board, asked for. This amount is therefore intended to assist an industry which is passing through a difficult period.

Sir, can I take it from the Deputy Minister’s reply that this increase is due to the representations made by the hon. member for Von Brandis? [Interjections.]

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments to Revenue Votes 24 and 29 put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote 30:

Could the Minister tell us the reason for the increase of R406,000 under subhead H? Is this because of a miscalculation?

No, the hon. member will recall that the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that increased benefits would be granted to social pensioners and increased allowances would be granted to social services, etc. The amount provided here is intended for that purpose.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for the increase of R84,000 under subhead Q—Grant-in-Aid to the South African Bantu Trust Fund?

Mr. Chairman, this is really the technical classification of the funds required for this. This amount of R84,000 is required for two regional authorities in whose areas there are Bantu who have to receive these pensions. These two authorities are the regional authorities of the Tswana and the Ciskei. As the hon. member may know, prior to this year pensions under those two regional authorities fell directly under the Department for the purposes of payments to the particular Bantu in those areas. But those two regional authorities, i.e. that of the Ciskei at Zwelitsha and that of the Tswana at Mafeking, received greater powers of government on an activated basis, as we call it, during the past year. Those moneys are now paid out by them to the Bantu persons concerned, who have to receive them. Since the money is supplied here, it is canalized to them through a separate subheading. This amount is now subtracted from the subhead through which it used to be canalized.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Schedule 3, Bantu Education Account:

Sir, can the hon. the Minister tell us the reason for this supplementary amount R100,000 which is to be voted? The heading of subhead E is given as “Miscellaneous expenses: Contributions: Housing loans for Public Servants”. I note that this is a new subhead. This amount is being voted for the first time under the heading “Housing loans for Public Servants”. This raises certain questions, which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I have not noticed such a subhead under any other Vote. It is obvious that this must have arisen as a result of the announcement of the hon. the Minister of Finance, about assistance to civil servants for housing. However, the question arises; Is the housing under this subhead for White employees of the Minister’s department, or is it for Bantu employees?

No.

I see. It is not for Bantu employees at all. Can I, therefore, assume that this amount is not being voted for assistance to teachers? Is this amount being voted for administrative officers only, who are employees of the hon. the Minister’s department?

One further question arises: As this is a globular sum, is it anticipated that this will be the actual amount required, or is it merely a provisional amount to include this item in the Estimates?

Sir, I can, of course only reply to that part of the hon. member’s question which relates to my Department of Bantu Education. The position is that this amount of R100.000 constitutes the estimated expenditure. As far as I am able to determine, this is not merely a nominal amount. It is an actual estimate that was made. It is now being made available as a result of the new position in regard to housing assistance provided to White officials of the Department. As the hon. member knows, this is a scheme which was announced quite recently.

Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance where he has made provision for a similar amount in respect of other departments?

Under Vote 40.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote 40:

Mr. Chairman, the provision of this amount of R34 million follows the statement of the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech that he was going to make such provision. But at the time he made the Budget speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance told us that he could not tell the House, at that stage, exactly how this money was going to be spent, who was going to benefit by it, and precisely what it was going to do. I know that this is really a matter for the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who is unfortunately not here this evening, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether any decisions have now been arrived at as to the methods to be employed in the disposal of this amount.

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, it has been announced that a scheme will now be made available under which a subsidy in reduction of mortgage interest rates will be paid to officials in certain categories who are house-owners and have mortgages registered against their names, or are making use of the scheme of 100 per cent housing loans. In other words, this covers all possible cases. This system of subsidies amounts to this, that officials with salaries of up to R3,000 per year who qualify, will pay interest on mortgage loans calculated at 4 per cent per annum, while officials in the R3,001 to R7,500 per annum salary group will pay interest at a rate of 5 per cent. The amount of R3½ million is the estimated amount required for the purposes of this subsidy during the present financial year. In addition I may tell the hon. member that the overall amounts of money required for the housing of public servants in previous years, are of course known. This amount has been calculated on the basis of those amounts.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment to Loan Vote B put and agreed to.

Amendments to Revenue Vote 46 and Loan Vote E:

Sir, these amounts are being voted for the first time for new services for the Nooitgedacht Irrigation Board. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us what the object of these amounts is? Can the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs also tell us what the reason for this almost unseemly haste is?

Mr. Chairman, this amount is in respect of a waterwork which was built by the Nooitgedacht Irrigation Board. The waterwork consists of a pipeline, and after 13 years of service this pipeline burst. The reason for this was that the water conducted through the pipes contained a reasonable percentage of acid. The department then felt that they were under a moral obligation to make a contribution. This amount therefore means that a contribution is being made towards the replacement of that pipeline.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment to Revenue Vote 49:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the reason for the extra R1,000 in Item P, namely “Care of the aged and infirm”.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions I want to say that the reason for the increase is that settlers’ allowances are being adjusted as a result of the bonus increase in social pensions and allowances. The total increase on the Vote amounts to R1,574,000 for the financial year 1969-’7O. However, this expenditure is only in respect of six months, as the concessions will only come into effect on 1st October, 1969.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3, as amended, and Schedule 4, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Rehoboth community, with approximately 14,000 members, is a unique community with a fine and interesting, but nevertheless somewhat tragic history of an emergent national group in search of their own safe abode where they can be themselves and maintain themselves.

After a long trek from the northern boundary of the old Cape Colony, a journey which, including a stay at a temporary home near Bethanie, lasted more than two years, they found their eventual settling-place at Rehoboth a century ago. Initially they had to pay one horse per year as rental to a Nama chief. It is said that the land was subsequently bartered for 100 horses and five wagons. Under their celebrated leader, Chief Hermanus van Wyk, supported by the spiritual encouragement and advice of their lifelong friend and minister, the Rhenish missionary, the Rev. Heidmann, they developed their territory, built up their farming activities, strengthened the community with new settlers, established law, order, civilization and unity by drawing up and applying their Paternal Acts, in which provision was made for a chief with counsellors, an assembly, a judiciary and other matters affecting mutual relations. What is remarkable about these things is that they happened in spite of surrounding dangers and treacherous attacks, even by allies. The former were warded off by statesmanship. In the latter case they survived as a result of courageous action and miraculous deliverance. It is tragic that they lost both leaders, Chief Van Wyk and the Rev. Heidmann, in a difficult period of transition and shortly before they entered better times and had to take important decisions.

In contrast to Israel of old, they had no Joshua to succeed Moses. This marked the commencement of the deterioration of this community and of mutual dissension and discord, which eventually manifested itself, as its only compensation, in an exaggerated form of conservatism and suspicion. Hence the traditional opposition to repeated attempts over a long period of time by Administrators and Administrations of South-West Africa and of successive South African Governments to bring about the advancement of that community. This suspicion is so deep-rooted that it cannot be wiped out by arguments or undertakings. I want to emphasize that this suspicion on the part of the Rehoboth Basters is so deep-rooted that it can only be wiped out by positive action and deeds. The object of the measure now before the House is to provide the means to make such positive action and deeds possible during the period of transition.

The Rehoboth Gebiet, for which this Bill makes provision, comprises an area of almost If million hectares and is some of the most valuable farming land for both small and large stock in South-West Africa. According to a comprehensive investigation into the development of this area which was carried out last year under the chairmanship of Mr. A. H. du Plessis, the present M.P. for Windhoek, the area has an agricultural potential of approximately Rif million per annum. However, the present income only amounts to approximately R660,000 per annum. This state of affairs is attributable to factors such as under-development and shortcomings in the farming operations themselves arising out of, inter alia, the following: Firstly, out of certain established practices such as a system of hereditary succession by which the land of a parent must be subdivided in order to give to each child his hereditary portion separately or by their joint possession or occupation thereof. There are, inter alia, 346 private surveyed farms with no fewer than 2,244 owners. In the case of one farm there are 72 owners. There are in fact 126 farms with only one owner each, but 12 of them are smaller than 500 hectares, 17 are smaller than 1,000 hectares and 45 do not constitute economic units. Secondly, the prevailing farming problems arise out of a lack of credit facilities for farm development, stock improvement, etc. Because they cannot offer land as security without the permission of the local Baster Council, which refuses permission because they fear the land will thereby pass out of the hands of the community, the Baster farmers cannot obtain the necessary credit. The result of this is not only deterioration of the soil and of the farming and a decline of the possibilities of earning a livelihood, but also increasing poverty. Numerous owners have to take up employment outside of this area because they cannot make a living on their farms.

As a result of the re-arrangement of the administrative and the financial relations between the Republic and South-West Africa in terms of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, the administration of matters affecting Rehoboth has now become my responsibility as Minister. As this re-arrangement is exclusively aimed at promoting the Welfare and happiness of all the population groups of South-West Africa, I have acquainted myself with the prevailing conditions and the needs and wishes of the Rehoboth community by recently paying a visit to the area. From what I saw there and from what I learnt from the people there, I am satisfied that the prevailing conditions and human suffering as a result of them have become such and that there are so many of the inhabitants who need help urgently and are looking to the Government to provide it, that the granting of assistance cannot be delayed any longer. This Bill is intended as an urgent measure to make provision for this by the establishment of an investment and development corporation which will, in the first place, concentrate on placing agriculture and farming, as the most important means of gaining a livelihood in the area, on a sound basis by making loans available.

Other forms of assistance will be considered in consultation with the Baster Council.

This Bill is based on the Coloured Development Corporation Act, which is functioning well in practice and by means of which we have gained a great deal of valuable experience. The provisions of that Act have therefore been incorporated in this Bill as far as practicable, and only where necessary have adjustments been made in order to fit in with circumstances in Rehoboth. I now want to deal briefly with those provisions of the Bill in which special provision has been made for the Rehoboth Gebiet, or which are not self-explanatory, or which I feel need elucidation.

I want to begin by dealing with clause 1 (v). The Rehoboth Gebiet, as defined, will include State land or land of the Administration of South-West Africa which will be made available to the Rehoboth community. The said land comprises 73,808 hectares which are situated in the Rehoboth Gebiet and belong to Whites. The Administration of South-West Africa has already bought up 62,705 hectares of this land. The proposed provision of this land will remove one of the existing grievances of the Rehoboth community.

As hon. members will notice, clause 3 sets out the objects of the corporation. The objects are the encouragement and promotion of the advancement of the Rehoboth community in the field of agriculture, mining, trade, industry and finance. These objects are stated in broad terms in order to cover all fields which may possibly be of economic interest to the Rehoboth community. If, however, other aspects should subsequently emerge, which have to be included in the scope of the corporation’s work, the Bill authorizes the State President to make provision for them by way of proclamation in the Government Gazette. Of further interest in this clause is the fact that the corporation is meant to cover a period of transition. I want to emphasize that it is a period of transition until such time as the Rehoboth community itself is able to deal with such advancement without assistance from outside.

In regard to clause 4 I just want to draw the attention to the fact that paragraph (b) (ii) thereof provides that loans will be made available for agricultural purposes. In terms of paragraph (c) the opportunity is created for undertakings to be established in which members of the Rehoboth community can take part as shareholders, directors and investors, and in terms of paragraph (d) the corporation may provide capital or other means, and furnish technical or other assistance and expert and specialized advice, information and guidance.

I now come to clause 6. In subsection (1) of clause 6 the corporation and a burgher company are exempted from the required permission of the Baster Council or the Minister to acquire unmovable property or an interest therein or to alienate it. This power is a prerequisite in order to be able to assist members of the Rehoboth community who need assistance, but who cannot be assisted purely because the Baster Council refuses permission out of fear that the land will pass out of the hands of the community. This fear is removed by subsection (2), however, in that the corporation may not alienate land to any person other than a member of the Rehoboth community or other than a burgher company. What is more, subsection (2) (b) honours the existing practice that no person in the Gebiet may own more than 14,000 hectares of land. The objections of the Baster Council to the Bill in the said connection, i.e. that land barons will be created, are therefore being removed. The meaning of this provision is really that Baster land will remain Baster land. The same principle applies in the case of clause 5 (1), in terms of which the corporation may only let buildings to the State, a member of the Rehoboth community or a burgher company.

Clause 10 deals with the directors of the corporation. The provision is similar to that in the Coloured Development Corporation Act, i.e. that the State President shall from time to time fix the number of directors on the board of the corporation, and that he shall appoint them. A few members of the Rehoboth community objected to the idea that it is proposed to appoint only Whites as directors. It is a fact that it is proposed to appoint only Whites as directors. My reasons are the following: It is my responsibility as Minister to see to it that the corporation is placed on a sound basis and managed and controlled on sound business principles. For this not only able persons are needed as directors, but persons with integrity, who will not be subject to pressure or agitation. The latter can make it very difficult for members of the Rehoboth community to act as directors. There is, however, nothing in the provision that prevents members of the Rehoboth community from being appointed as directors when they have progressed to such an extent that they can comply with the said requirements. In the meantime provision is being made in clause 14 for members of the Rehoboth community to participate in the activities of the corporation by way of committees. There are also the burgher companies, which I mentioned under clause 4. The establishment of committees consisting of directors to whom executive duties are assigned, or to whom certain powers of the board are delegated, are dealt with in clause 14. In the case of the latter kind of committee the board of directors may in consultation with the Minister co-opt additional members with special knowledge of the Rehoboth community or the conditions in the Gebiet. Such additional members will have the same powers as other members who are directors. It is at this level that it is envisaged to begin with the training and the integration of members of the Rehoboth community in the activities of the corporation.

Clause 17 provides for the funds of the corporation. This clause and the corresponding provision of the Coloured Development Corporation Act are similar. Provision is made for a share capital of R500,000, which will be divided into 500,000 shares of R1 each. The share capital may, on the recommendation of the corporation, be increased by the State President. The State is the only shareholder and shall take up shares as the State President may deem necessary, and such shares shall be paid for out of money appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. Members of the Rehoboth community objected to the fact that the State is the sole shareholder and that shares are not being made available to them. It really stands to reason that the State will provide the capital. This is a risky undertaking which will probably yield no profits for several years. It is very doubtful whether other bodies will take up shares in it. On the other hand, it is urgently necessary for the corporation to have at its disposal sufficient share capital as soon as possible in order to provide in the extremely urgent needs of the Rehoboth community, and in this instance public subscription, which is subject to uncertainty, cannot be relied upon.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are all in favour of a positive measure which will save numerous members of the Rehoboth community from economic ruin, which will be to the advantage of the entire Rehoboth community, and which will help it out of its serious difficulties as well as reclaim and preserve the land to which they are so attached, for their descendants. This is a practical way of helping the members of that community who want to help themselves, and also of affording that entire community an opportunity of realizing their ideals.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall support it. During the Committee Stage, however, we shall move certain amendments which we think are in the interests of the people who are affected by this Bill. As the hon. the Minister rightly said, the Rehoboth Baster community is a very poor community on the whole. They do possess good land; it is very good land, and I myself have seen this land. It is, however, not within their ability to develop it properly. They have neither the facilities nor the capital required. Neither can they obtain loans because they cannot alienate the land. The people cannot take out mortgages on it. As the hon. the Minister said, it is therefore almost impossible for them to obtain credit facilities. Consequently we think it is right that something should be done in order to help them, as for example by the establishment of this corporation. They have in fact rented their farms to Whites in the past. The conditions were usually that a portion of the rental should be spent on improving the farm. The White farmers who rented them had to sink boreholes or erect fences, etc. It will, of course, be far better for them and in their interests if they can bring about the necessary development themselves with the necessary credit facilities so that they can use the farms immediately. As the Minister rightly said, it is necessary that businessmen should be helped to obtain the necessary funds to start businesses, to develop mines, to trade, and even possibly to establish a bank there one day, etc. We therefore fully agree that this investment and development corporation should be established in order to help the Baster community. However, we understand that the Basters are not favourably disposed towards this matter at the moment. They are critical and full of distrust. The consultations which took place, were not particularly successful, and after the consultations some of them wanted nothing to do with the Bill. According to press reports there was a demonstration recently where they rejected the announcement of aid by way of booklets that were issued. They even had a procession and burnt the booklets. In other words, they are still vehemently opposed to anything coming from the White man.