Mr. Chairman, as has already been pointed out, Sir, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in the past the regulations made in terms of this Act were only applicable to those persons who entered the country by sea and not those who entered it by air?

We have our officials at the airports; the same regulations are applicable to those who enter by air.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I wish to reply further to questions which have already been replied to. The question of housing for the aged was raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) and by several other members. I quite agree that as far as possible one should always endeavour to improve housing as much as possible. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1961 we had 84 homes for the aged and 19 more under consideration. This compared favourably with the position at it was in 1948-9 when there were only 25 subsidized houses. These are all in respect of White aged persons. As hon. members know we always encourage the private sector to establish these houses and the response has been very good indeed. Three thousand White aged people are being accommodated under subsidized schemes. As I have said, private welfare organizations have responded splendidly. In 1961 other improvements were made, for instance the subsidy per capita was increased from R8 to R10 in respect of the infirm people in these homes. Also in 1961 the subsidy for furniture was increased from R30 to R90 per inmate. Moreover, I can say, Mr. Chairman, that the means limit has been raised from R28.4 per month to R40 per month, thus providing for people to receive the subsidy. Hon. members can rest assured that everything is being done as quickly as possible to provide more and better accommodation to the aged of our country. I can also say that these improvements have been very well received by welfare organizations, especially by the National Council for the Care of the Aged. Since these improvements have been made I have not had any further representations.

The hon. member also asked me about the possibility of appointing an inter-departmental committee. I think the hon. member suggested the appointment of what one may call an overall committee, to go into all aspects of pensions, grants and gratuities and benefits administered by my Department. I can say this that whereas the work of this Department covers such a wide field, different committees have from time to time been appointed to investigate different aspects of social welfare. It will be very difficult indeed again to submit these matters to an over-all committee of inquiry. As I said previously in the course of my reply, social welfare work, as we all know, can never be static. Social welfare work is like Shelley’s “Cloud”, an ever-changing phenomenon. I have given the House a full explanation as to the working of the existing machinery, founded on the triangular basis of church, State and society. In this way the whole field is covered by the work of what one might call standing committees of people who take an interest in the cases of those in need, in the closest collaboration with the Department. All the different aspects of this field are covered in different ways. Perhaps the first committee is this House in Committee, and that is why I have asked hon. members from year to year to put forward suggestions for improvements that can be investigated. I can give hon. members the assurance that all suggestions put forward by them will be duly attended to.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what his attitude is in regard to the establishment of an inter-departmental committee to investigate the relaxation of the means test, firstly with regard to the income received by applicants and secondly with a view to raising the property values beyond the present figure of R2,400.

I have already given my reply to that question as regards the means test. I have said that it is very difficult either to abolish the means test in toto or to relax it. As a matter of fact, this means test has been relaxed from time to time, but it is a very difficult question. It would be very difficult indeed to appoint a special committee of inquiry to go into these points. I have also told the hon. member already that we investigated the whole question of housing and that we could not find a solution. We are still going into this matter and if we can find a solution I shall be only too willing to have the matter investigated further.

The hon. member also raised the question of the compulsory contributory pension scheme in the private sector. This matter, as the hon. member knows, has become a hardy annual. Someone once said that it had become an “annual hardy”, but in 1960 a statement was made on my behalf by the then Deputy Minister to the effect that it was not the intention of the Government to establish such a scheme to displace, wholly or partially, the present machinery in regard to social pensions. On that occasion he added that after very careful consideration had been given to the matter it was resolved not to embark on such a State scheme as far as the private sector was concerned, but to encourage private pension schemes on a contributory basis. I asked hon. members at the time, and I again ask them, to assist us by urging the private sector to establish such private pension schemes. As the hon. member also knows, these private pension schemes fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. Legislation was passed by this House about three or four years ago in terms of which a Registrar of Pensions was appointed so that proper control could be exercised over these pension schemes. Under the circumstances and in view of the vast amount of additional cost involved, I cannot accede to the hon. member’s request. I may also add that I sent an official of my Department overseas to investigate these pension schemes overseas. His report was also in the negative.

*I just want to say a few words in connection with the pleas made by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. W. L. D. M. Venter). I wish to thank the hon. member for his contribution and for the way in which he has dealt with a number of intimate aspects of the problems which confront us. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) is a person with very wide experience, particularly as far as child care is concerned, and he always makes a valuable contribution to the debate when we discuss the question of child care. Amongst others, he spoke feelingly about family life. I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who does not feel strongly about this matter, because as long as we are able to keep family life and the family structure in this country on a sound basis, we will be doing what every one of us ought to do and that is to ensure the future of our nation. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) has also confirmed what I had emphasized, and that is that parents should be encouraged to care for their children themselves as far as possible, and on the other hand children should also be encouraged to care for their parents when they can do so. That being the position, it is essential that we should do as much as we possibly can in this country to establish family life on a sound basis. Let me put it this way: It is our task and our duty to make our nation family conscious and to centre all the activities of our national life round the family. The hon. member referred to the family year. Most of us were concerned with the family year and with the Family Congress which was held in 1961 as a result of it. I also wish to thank the hon. member for the appreciation which he expressed in that connection. As hon. members will know the main objective of that Family Congress was to concentrate on the upbringing of the family. The focal point of the discussions at that Congress was the stabilization of family life as a means of security for the future. It must be clear to every one of us that the strength of the continued existence of our society on an orderly basis lies in this, that if you save a family—every hon. member who is interested in social work will know that this is true—you save the child, and if you save the child you save the future of the nation. The hon. member also asked what the outcome of that Family Congress was. That Family Congress found that the guarantee and the maintenance of the family structure was not always a question of economic value; that it was, in the first instance, a question of personal relations. It is where those personal relations are disturbed in the family circle that the family circle disintegrates, and from that disintegration usually flows the question of economic relations. With that in mind and after a lengthy discussion, that Congress resolved that a deputation from the continuation committee of the Congress should come and see me. They came and spoke to me shortly afterwards—the chairman of the Congress, Dr. Nicol. Dr. Luckhoff and Prof, de Villiers. I had a long discussion with them. Amongst others I also discussed with them the question of formulating what could be called a basis for family policy to be applied in future in the circumstances in which the world and South Africa found themselves to-day. After that, as hon. members know, I appointed a committee to investigate the question of family allowances. The terms of reference of that committee were very wide and it investigated that question very thoroughly. I received the report in January already and I assured this House that as soon as it had been translated I would be only too willing to Table that report. It is a very valuable report; it is a report which I think not only every member must study, but it is a report from which we can obtain directives and suggestions for the guarantee we are looking for to protect family life. I also asked that the continuation committee should continue to have discussions with my Department and they are doing that at the moment. I will also see them again on a later occasion and we will ask the chairman of the committee which is inquiring into matters concerning family life, to co-ordinate the entire position, and to have a discussion with them in that connection. I hope that when we have attended to this during the recess and when we have come to finality, I will be in a position next session to enlighten the House more in this connection.

The hon. member for Springs asked me why the bonuses were only paid in respect of the basic pension and not in respect of the supplementary pension in the case of war veteran pensions. I may just say to the hon. member that in this connection representations were made to me recently by the B.E.S.L. with whom we are continually in touch, and I can assure the hon. member that this question is receiving attention. He and other hon. members also raised the question of waiving wireless licence fees in respect of pensioners. Although I am Minister of Social Welfare, I do not think I can rightly be expected to look after the welfare of the Department of my colleague. That is a matter which really falls under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs but because we always refer suggestions which are made here to the Departments concerned, that has already been done in this case. It was done in 1960 and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has conveyed that request to the Broadcasting Corporation Board who replied and said that after thorough consideration they were sorry but for reasons mentioned by them they could not consider that. Hon. members will appreciate that is a question which I cannot decide upon.

The hon member also spoke about those people who were discharged from work colonies and where the maintenance grants were stopped the moment those people were discharged. I can assure him that the allowances are not stopped immediately a person leaves a work colony. They are continued until the end of the month in which he is discharged. If he is discharged at the beginning of the month, the allowance is paid for the current month. If he is discharged right at the beginning of a month, he still receives the allowance for the balance of the month. There is this further provision that if the person is healthy when he is discharged from the work colony, he must start work and those people are in general not discharged unless they can go into employment immediately after their discharge. I will in any event go into the matter again and if any improvement can be effected in this respect, I will be only too willing to do so. The hon. member also raised a few other matters and I want to give him the assurance that we will also give attention to those matters and see what can be done.

The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) who is not here at the moment referred to Sonop. He asked that the settlers at Sonop should also be brought under the new scheme which is in operation for tenant farmers on settlements. That has already been done at Ganspan and we are already doing that at Karatara. Settlers can choose between being settlers or tenant-farm settlers. It will not be possible for settlers who do not qualify for a social pension or allowance, to change over. We are also changing over to the same system at Sonop. The hon. member also referred to the increased allowances of the settlers on existing settlements, and I can tell him that this matter is already under consideration.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised a very important matter when he spoke about the loneliness of the aged in our midst. I agree with the hon. member that the aged very often suffer on account of loneliness, and that is why we have these homes for the aged, established and cared for by private welfare organizations, as I have already stated in this debate. A great deal is being done by these private organizations to make the aged feel that they are not absolutely isolated from society, and that is why we do not want to abolish these homes which are being run by the private sector. In these homes the inmates are brought into close contact with the rest of the community, and this gives the inmates the feeling that they are not altogether isolated. That is why I have been trying all along to encourage the establishment of these homes for the aged.

The hon. member has also asked that the first visit by any doctor to the inmates of these homes when they become ill should be free of charge. I can only say that when these people do become ill, there is always somebody, either a relative or a friend or someone in the private sector, who gets in touch with these people, and the person concerned can then get in touch with the district surgeon immediately. Free medical services and hospitalization are then made available immediately. If there are any difficult cases, especially in the cities where people may be really isolated, we would like to get the particulars from hon. members so that we can give our attention to that matter as well.

*I have already replied partly to the questions put by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) in connection with the means test. That also applies to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I have already said that if we extended the means test the number of pensioners will increase to an incalculable number. In 1959 I had this question investigated to determine what it would cost. The information which I obtained at that time was the following—and the costs will be much higher to-day: If we abolished the means test in the case of persons over 70 years of age, it would have meant an increased annual expenditure of plus-minus R20,000,000. If we abolished the means test in the case of persons over 75 years of age, it would, in 1959, have cost plus-minus R11,000,000 per annum. I have already stated that the means test plus pension was R180 per annum in 1947; in 1962 that was raised from R180 per annum to R324 per annum. In other words, it has been raised by 80 per cent. In the case of the war veterans the increase was not 80 per cent but actually 225 per cent, whereas the average cost-of-living figure throughout the years has been only 65 per cent. I may also add that a married couple who do not possess anything may earn R30 per month jointly and in addition they receive the monthly maximum pension of R24.50. We are, of course, trying to improve the position gradually in accordance with circumstances, but it will be impossible for us to abolish the means test completely or to give an undertaking that we will relax it to this or that extent. That will be impossible because you simply cannot determine what additional costs will be entailed.

The hon. member also referred to the case where a child lived with its grandmother. I just want to tell hon. members that they can bring individual cases to my notice and I will immediately attend to them. Perhaps this is a matter which comes under the definition of “guardian” in the Children’s Act; it is a question of whether that grandmother is the guardian of the child in terms of the Act or not. I should, however, very much like to have the details of such individual cases so that I can attend to them.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has referred to the case where one of the two aged spouses who live in a house dies, and where the surviving spouse finds himself in the difficult position of having a higher means test applied to him whereas he only receives a single pension. I may tell the hon. member that this matter was already put right in 1961. It was done in this way: Where an aged couple live in a house and one of them dies, the surviving spouse continues to receive the full pension which he or she received previously in spite of the increase in the value of that house, subject to the condition that person must occupy the house. People who were already single when the change was made, were also placed on the new basis, and the only condition imposed was that they should occupy that house. There may be cases where the people do not know that this is the position, but that is the position to-day. We felt that it was necessary to effect this improvement and it has already been done.

The hon. member made an interesting speech in respect of the demands laid down by the community for the care of our aged people. There are certain essential requirements which they need and which they cannot do without. I agree with the hon. member, but I merely wish to add that we are trying to provide them with those essential requirements by way of contributions on the part of the Government but that the private sector and relatives should also do so as far as possible.

The hon. member also specifically referred to the question of establishing homes for the aged. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) also referred to little townships for the aged. The hon. member for Drakensberg associated herself with that to a certain extent but she said that she did not believe in little townships for the aged; that she was more in favour of the so-called “cottage schemes”, within the community itself; smaller schemes under which individual houses can be built for them in the community itself. We see, therefore, Sir, that when it comes to the practical side of the matter hon. members often differ amongst themselves. I can tell both hon. members that we are already engaged on the establishment of “cottage schemes”—single houses in a small complex, everything together—or the establishment of little townships.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) made certain suggestions in connection with the provision of houses. I have already replied fully to that, but I may just add that the suggestions which he made here, to me privately, at a later stage will be thoroughly investigated. We will consider those suggestions of his. I wish to thank him and all other hon. members for their positive contributions to this debate, and for the manner in which hon. members have given their attention in this Committee to this very important matter.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) asked that we should continue to pay hospital allowances until the person is in a position to take up employment after he has left the hospital. He referred to ex-servicemen in this connection. I just want to tell the hon. member that if such an ex-serviceman appears to be unfit to take up employment when he leaves the hospital and cannot resume his employment, he can apply for a supplementary pension and this will always be readily considered, until such time as he can take up employment again. The hon. member also spoke about the abolition of the means test, particularly in the case of the war veterans of World War I. I can just say to the hon. member that the means test in respect of the war veterans of World War I has from time to time been considerably raised. It was R180 in 1947. To-day it is R324 per annum in the case of persons over 70 years of age. In that case there has been an increase of 80 per cent and in the case of persons over 70 years it has been raised to R644 per annum, which means an increase of R257. The hon. member will agree with me when I say that the total abolition of the means test in the case of these people is a difficult question and one to which you cannot give a reply readily. I will go into the matter and let him have my reply at a later stage.

We did so in the case of those who fought in the Anglo Boer War.

Yes, it was done in their case, but the hon. member will agree with me that in that case the number of people affected was very small and they had to wait years and years before anything was done in that respect, whereas in the case of those who fought in World War I they practically started to enjoy benefits under the schemes immediately after the cessation of hostilities.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L H. van Niekerk) made an interesting speech on personal relationships, to which I have already replied. He also spoke about a matter to which I have already referred, namely, surplus food. He asked us to see to it that surplus food was made available for social welfare purposes. I can just tell the hon. member that is not such an easy thing. I will bring this matter to the notice of the Minister concerned and the hon. member is of course also at liberty to raise it under the Vote of the Minister concerned and to inquire from him whether that can be done and if not, why not.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) pleaded for marriage guidance. The hon. member spoke with feeling but I think he makes one mistake when he speaks and that is that he exceeds the speed limit. He talks at such a rate on such a number of subjects, that it is difficult for anyone to follow him; even the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) cannot follow him. But that is just by the way, Sir. The hon. member pleaded for marriage guidance but he referred more in particular to marriage guidance at school. I just want to tell him that a National Council for Marriage Guidances already exists where these problems are discussed. As far as I know this National Council for Marriage Guidance is doing excellent work but as far as the schools are concerned, I suggest to the hon. member that he approaches those people who are more specifically concerned with it, and that is the Provincial Administrations under whom schools fall. I think the hon. member probably knows more about the workings of the Provincial Administrations than I do. I just want to add this in all sincerity that this is not only the task of the schools, and of the Government and the National Council for Marriage Guidance; it is also the task of the parents in every home.

The hon. member also referred to the inadequacy of the recent increase in existing pensions. I have already explained how these increases are gradually effected in the course of time.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) with his singular knowledge of this matter as a medical man, inter alia, gave us a comprehensive survey of what was done in the past to improve the schemes and of the increases which were effected. I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. member for that, as well as to other hon. members for the contributions they have already made and to those who will still in the course of this debate come forward with suggestions with a view to improvements. I just wish to repeat that we are doing everything in our power to improve the lot of those who need our help and assistance.

The hon. the Minister has spoken tor more than an hour, before the debate was adjourned and again to-day, and I have listened very carefully for some crumb of hope, something positive and something tangible to come from his reply to the debate in the interest of those cases with which we all have to deal, the cases of human tragedy and suffering, which are the hallmark of social welfare. We have heard words, words and more words, platitudes and promises, committees of investigation, “this will be done” and “that will be considered”, but I have yet to pick out of this debate one positive, practical suggestion, where the Minister says: “We realize the hardships and we are not merely going on investigating them. We are going to do something tangible about it.” With the exception, of course, of housing for the aged where he gave us specific figures of progress made.

The hon. member for Umbilo pleaded tor a departmental committee. It was rejected. There were pleas that the Minister should do something in the field of entertainment so that old age pensioners could enjoy free radio licences. The Minister says that he has tried but that it has been rejected and that it is not his business. There was a suggestion that food surpluses be handled through Social Welfare; the Minister passed it on to the Department of Agriculture—it will be investigated. Surely, Mr. Chairman, we cannot evade the responsibilities of social welfare by passing these matters off to another Department. If the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs won’t, for instance, grant free licences to old age pensioners, then the Department of Social Welfare must make provision. The same with food surpluses. The Minister of Agriculture is not going to give away food for nothing. He is going to say that it must be paid for, and then it comes back to the Department of Social Welfare.

To every member in this House, on both sides, who has to deal year in and year out with these cases, who year in and year out goes into some of these homes—many of them hovels—where people are living below the breadline, where they have virtually no clothes, where they struggle through on next to nothing to eat, where they have no money to pay for illness, except through public hospitalization when they are often too old to get there, illness is a very serious matter. It is all very well to say that they can send for a district surgeon. The Minister refers to the part charity must play. But there are people, and I have come across these cases over and over again, where charity has not found them, where they have lain in a bed without being discovered. I can mention the case of a man who, for 14 years, had been bedridden until somebody happened to find him just by chance. Then we were able to find out his real hardships and difficulties, and it was possible to get that corrected. Actually he had been underdrawing his allowances for many years and it just happened through a library service that the real situation came to light in connection with this person. But these cases are cases which occur again and again, human tragedies for which we as society have a responsibility. I submit that all the words and words and words, the pleas that we make in this House from both sides, do not help the sufferers. It does not help them if we talk about these cases once a year. It does not help to hear that matters will be investigated when no positive practical relief is forthcoming. I really do feel that this House and the Government—it is not a political issue—should recognize in this age where society and life is becoming more selfish, where life moves faster, where people are more concerned with their own affairs, where families are broken up and there are no longer children or parents or close relatives taking an interest in their own family, that in these changed circumstances there is a change in the ratio of responsibility of the Government. Twenty or 30 years ago, family bonds were much tighter. There were all these other organizations which would seek to provide the help to which the Minister keeps referring as an essential part of social welfare, but to-day a greater responsibility devolves on the State as such.

I want to mention one group to which the Minister has not referred. It is a group which is now going to be excluded from unemployment insurance benefits by a measure passed by this House and at present before the Other Place, which is going to throw hundreds upon hundreds—perhaps thousands—of people on to the streets without benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have asked the Minister of Labour over and over again what he is going to do for these people. All we could get was that it is not his business, that it is a matter for social welfare. I want to ask what the Department of Social Welfare has done to plan for this new group of people who are going to require help, within a matter of months—people who prior to this were entitled and were drawing unemployment benefits, people who are willing to work but cannot get work. Now they are going to be cast onto the streets without unemployment benefits and their only source to turn to is the Department of Social Welfare. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do in regard to that class of persons who are going to become his responsibility in the very near future? It is no use waiting another year, and then coming to this House again and the Minister saying that he will appoint a committee and he will go into it. By that time the hardship will already exist and we want to have it dealt with before the hardship becomes a reality.

We asked the hon. the Minister again about a contributory pension scheme. It has become a hardy annual, as the hon. the Minister calls it; the question of the means test comes before this House year after year and year after year we talk about it. We all agree that the means test mitigates against thrift and that the person who is thrifty in his life is discriminated against when it comes to social welfare benefits. Then we do nothing until the next year and we come back and debate it again. It has happened again this year. We have discussed the means test in regard to old age pensions, the means test in regard to war veterans. We discuss it and we agree on it, and then we all shrug our shoulders and say that there is nothing we can do about it, because it is going to cost too much money. Then we come back next year and spend another three or four hours out of the whole year giving attention to these cases which I believe should form a much more important part of the responsibility of every Member of Parliament and of Parliament itself. I am afraid once again this year we will go away and come back next year and get more words but very little done in these cases of genuine hardship. There were innumerable aspects which were raised in this debate, point after point where the hon. the Minister thanked members for raising these matters and where he promised to go into them. The Department will go into all these matters. But the Minister knows that most of these points have been raised before, last year and the year before. In the pleasant atmosphere when Social Welfare is discussed and there are no politics involved, it is very easy to say: Thank you for your suggestion, I will investigate the matter. And then everyone says “Thank you very much”. And then we have to wait for another year. Suggestions even came from hon. members on the other side of the House, not new suggestions, old suggestions… [Interjection.] I admit not from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker); I have never yet heard any suggestion from him in regard to an old age pensioner or anybody else. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has made the speech which he has just made. Had he sat on this side of the House he would never have made such a speech, because as a member of the Opposition it is the easiest thing in the world to plead with the heavens to descend on to the earth. We are dealing with a position which demands the attention and understanding and goodwill of every member of this Committee. The hard fact remains that everything which is done in the sphere of social welfare must be paid for by the taxpayer and we know to what extent the taxpayer is already contributing towards pensions and the rest of it. I do not think there is anybody in this country who is on pension, irrespective of which field of life it is, who complains about the way in which this Government is looking after them. They are also grateful for the amounts which appear in these Estimates. Those people realize that the money does not fall out of the sky. Somebody has to pay for it. We have to provide the funds and you cannot recklessly spend the money of the taxpayer, Sir. We have been told that we only have words and words from the Minister. I am convinced that members on the other side of the Committee also realize that we have a very sympathetic Minister, and we do not promote a good cause by making such an allegation without proving it. All we had from the hon. member was words, words and words.

I have an instruction from the branch of the Vrouefederasie of Lichtenburg, which proves the exact opposite of what the hon. member has just alleged. A few years ago the Vrouefederasie of Lichtenburg had the bright idea of establishing an old people’s home there. They approached the public and received very strong financial support. It was ultimately decided to commence with the building. The National Housing Commission was concerned with this; they had to provide the building; Social Welfare in turn subsidized the project, and the third party which was concerned with the erection of the building was the Committee of the Vrouefederasie. They constructed a semi-detached building and it is the policy of the Department of Social Welfare not to subsidize semi-detached buildings. When the building was completed the Vrouefederasie decided to let the 36 inmates move in, but the Department of Social Welfare decided that they could not subsidize those 12 inmates who would live in the semi-detached building. A deadlock was reached. I was asked to approach the Minister as well as the Secretary for Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare and the National Housing Commission were doubtful, and the Women Committee on the other hand. The Minister and the Secretary of Social Welfare gave the women the benefit of the doubt. Had it not been for that concession those buildings would have remained empty and the 12 inmates for whom they were originally intended would have been unable to take occupation. Yet we have to listen to the ranting of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who has no practical knowledge of these matters. I am convinced that in the person of the Minister and the head of the Department, we have two persons who are as sympathetically disposed towards this whole matter as you can expect in the whole world. It is merely a question of stating your case in the right way. On behalf of the Vrouefederasie of Lichtenburgh I wish once again to thank the Minister and the Secretary for Social Welfare for their decision.

I want to come back to the means test and in doing so I want the hon. the Minister to understand that I am not asking for any new principle to be introduced in respect of the means test, but I want to ask him to extend a facility which he granted last year and which has been a great help to many old people. You will remember, Sir, that two years ago we asked the hon. the Minister that where a husband and wife were enjoying the old-age pension and in the means test the value of their home was not high enough to preclude them from each getting a pension, consideration should be given to the position of the remaining spouse if one were to die. We pleaded that in such a case she or he should retain the old-age pension and the facility of that home. Last year in this House the hon. the Minister stated that had been granted. Now I want to go further: I have had to deal with single women who had inherited their homes and who were in a very difficult position. I quoted one case last year, but I have heard nothing that has been done about this very hard case. I referred to a woman who had lived for 70 years in the one house, inheriting the house in the end from her mother who died in her nineties. The heir was almost a complete invalid herself, and she lost her old-age pension on the day that she inherited that home. She was left without a penny other than her home, which she had promised her mother she would leave to a very elderly brother, who was then in his eighties. She would not sell it. There are several cases of that nature. Her application was turned down. The same applies to another woman of 70 years of age who does not own a home, who has not inherited the house, but who only has the usufruct of the house, and who apart from that has not got one bean of income, not a cent; she has to live entirely on charity; because of the value of that house, a very old house, becoming dilapidated, she cannot get a pension. Every eight years there is a municipal valuation, and as a result she is precluded from getting one penny. I have put the case forward several times and have done everything possible, but without result. If I have had, as is the case, some five or six cases during the last three years, how many cases must there be in the Union! Not such a great number that it would wreck the financial position of our state, but surely enough cases to realize that there is a necessity to extend this facility to those old people who in two instances I know of have nursed their parent in the last years of their life. It seems to me a tremendous hardship, especially where an old lady, an invalid, has just the use of the house, but has no power to sell it. She stays there and the trustees have a say over the house. They say that under the terms of the will they cannot give her permission to sell the house. She has the use of the house for her life, but she has not got one penny income. She was a teacher, but because she taught music and other things not in the service of the Government, paying her way all her life, she is now suffering tremendous hardships. I ask the Minister again, as I did last year, to investigate that case and see if the facilities which are now given to married couples where one of the married couple dies, cannot be extended to these single persons.

The second point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is the question of the use of surplus agricultural products through the social welfare societies. The hon. the Minister replied to hon. members, but I think the reply was not satisfactory. The hon. the Minister says that it falls under the Department of Agriculture. But surely the hon. the Minister as Minister of Social Welfare, could, as they did during the ’thirties, distribute thinking like dairy products and others at cost of production to people on the welfare society books, so that they could get these surplus products at cost of production. I am sure that with the help of the control boards, that could be arranged to the benefit of everybody concerned. Every one of these cases on the welfare societies’ books has been investigated, and those people through the local authorities were in those years allowed to obtain dairy products and certain other surplus products at cost of production, and the producers were only too happy to let the Department of Social Welfare have those surpluses at cost of production prices. I think the hon. the Minister will do everybody a service if he will take this up again as part of his Cabinet responsibility, so that those surpluses can be used to best advantage of the country as a whole. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to go into that point particularly with the Minister of Agriculture.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) saw fit to attack the hon. the Minister and to insinuate that the hon the Minister has contributed little towards the debate and that he will not investigate requests that have been made in the course of the debate or consider the recommendations of hon. members.

I wish to plead the cause of a small group of people under Item K, under the heading “War Veterans’ Pensions”. This is a small group of people whose numbers are getting smaller and smaller and who will possibly disappear within the next ten years or within the next decade. I want to plead the cause of the war veterans of the Second War of Independence who left South Africa in the course of time and moved to African countries north of our borders, namely the Congo, Kenya and Tanganyika, Uganda, Nyasaland and so forth, people who are to-day again returning to the Union as a result of the chaotic conditions which have developed there because of the uncertainty which exists there. Unfortunately, however, those people who are returning to the Republic do not comply with the residential qualifications in respect of the granting of a war veteran’s pension. The regulation reads as follows—

The case I have in mind at the moment—I have a number of these cases in my constituency—is that of a person who is still deemed to be a South African citizen. In other words, they do qualify for the war veterans’ pension in that respect, but they do not comply with the residential qualification in view of the fact that they have not been living in the Republic for five years out of the past ten years. In many cases they are people who were well-to-do in the areas which they have left, but who are poverty-stricken at the moment. It may be that they are too proud to apply for old age pensions, although I do not think they will come into consideration for that either. We know that they can follow the procedure, for example, of submitting a petition to the House of Assembly in which case every petition is treated on its merits, but that is a very, very cumbersome procedure and I wish to plead with the Minister to waive that residential qualification in those cases. I may point out that a precedent has already been established in the case of war veterans who fought in the Second War of Independence, those who emigrated from Angola. The present Government did that in 1959. An even better precedent was established by the United Party Government in 1938 when such a concession was made to war veterans from the Argentine. In view of the two precedents which have been established, I wish to plead the cause of the war veterans who qualify for the war veterans’ pension in every respect, but not in respect of the residential qualification. I think this is the right psychological moment to make my plea, and on behalf of those war veterans, I wish to ask the Government and the hon. the Minister to do something about it.

I feel that there is no part in our life here in South Africa that shows us up in a better light than the social welfare work that so many of our people do, voluntarily and unselfishly. They don’t do it spasmodically, but they go about it year after year without ever asking for any personal reward. Arising from that work, there is a movement afoot which I think we should bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, a movement to establish a town for those people who are retarded mentally or through some accident of birth, and it is felt that by doing this type of work and bringing together these large groups of people who are to-day separated in various schools and homes, and so on, we may be able to correlate the work in a more satisfactory manner and give these people, who in many cases have become terrific burdens to their families, some permanent home and a feeling of security.

The people who are going about this work to-day and who are setting out in developing this plan, are most sincere and serious in their efforts, and I feel that before they go too far in the matter, the hon. the Minister should meet these people and discuss the project with them. It would be a pity if they spend many hours of time and spend money in trying to develop such a scheme, only to find later that it is unworkable. These people have gone already as far as drawing up plans for such a town.…

Could you give me more particulars, please?

After the Vote is passed, I should like to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister and to tell him all about it. But as I say, they have got a grant of land stretching over many acres and they have gone as far as drawing up plans for this type of work. I feel sure that the hon. the Minister has not been informed about this project and I think the time has come, before they go too far in the matter, for him to know more details about it, because I can only envisage that this project will cost many hundreds of thousands of rand and at some stage or other the Government will be asked to put their hands in their pockets and to help in the running or the establishment of this project. For that reason I feel that the time has come now that he should know more about it and that those people who are interested in that project should reach him so that they can discuss it with him, and he shall determine then, with a special committee of the Social Welfare Department if necessary, whether the project is feasible. I should not like such a scheme to go forward and then to find that it is a white elephant, or alternatively that sufficient funds are not available to run it properly.

The second point I want to raise may appear very minor, but actually it is of major importance in respect of social welfare work, especially in the field of cerebral palsy and in the field of retarded children who have to be cared for. Sir, the cerebral palsy child to-day is looked after in a school and almost invariably lives at home. I am afraid from what I have seen and heard that there is a strong possibility that the link between the home and the school may fail. That link is the transport group. There are various voluntary organizations which carry children from their homes—and from elsewhere of course—to their schools. This work is done voluntarily and it means that those organizations have to find money to replace the transport, these caravans, motor-cars and small buses, etc., which they have. I am afraid that one of these days we are going to find that there are not sufficient funds to continue with this transport effort. The Minister will then perhaps be faced with the unexpected position that the schools are there but there is no transport whatsoever between the homes and the schools of these children. I will also discuss this matter with the Minister after his Vote has been passed and give him details.

Those are the two points which I think the hon. the Minister must go into and I will be only too pleased to meet him at his convenience to give him any further information he may wish to have.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the debate which we have just had. It is peculiar but the hon. members who have spoken from the opposite side have given the lie in a devastating manner to the attitude which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has adopted. During all these years that hon. member has not constituted a contributory factor to the debates on social welfare work at all. All he does is to raise hares. I asked hon. members in a very decent, and courteous manner that if they had any suggestions to make they should make them because I was very anxious to hear those suggestions. It is obvious, and even the hon. member for Durban (Point) ought to understand this, that no Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions can simply get to his feet in this House and say: I accept everything that you say. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) cannot understand that, he ought not to be here. But in spite of that the hon. member gets up and talks the nonsense which he did this afternoon, and that after a debate such as the one we have just had. After he had finished, two hon. members on his side of the House made their contributions to the debate which I appreciated very much. Let us differ from one another, but let us at least differ on a basis which is worth while. We had the case of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) who has just told me that concession was made last year in connection with pension matters which he greatly appreciated. He went on to say that all he wanted to ask at this stage was whether I could not extend that concession. How do the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (Point) weigh up against such an attitude; how do they compare; how do they reflect compared with such an attitude? The hon. member who has just spoken told me in a very decent way that certain organizations were operating amongst the public outside. He expressed his appreciation and I appreciate the appreciation which he has expressed to the numerous welfare organizations who, without any remuneration, devote so much of their valuable time to welfare work. He mentioned certain organizations which I do not know about. He mentioned those things to me otherwise I would not have known about them. At the commencement of my speech I referred to the case of the blind persons in Johannesburg and that people from Johannesburg had told me that the blind persons there were in a very difficult position. I personally went and investigated the position thoroughly. I assisted the committee there to collect money and within a period of five months they collected R20,000. That was what the public of Johannesburg did. It is not a political organization. The chairman of that undertaking is English-speaking, Mr. Ramsey. One of the members who is really a pillar of strength in that organization is Mrs. van der Merwe. I went there and attended to the matter. I mentioned several cases during the course of my speech where improvements had been effected over the past years and where we had tried to effect improvements. I mentioned the case of the National Council for Ageing Persons. That National Council was established during the time that I have been administering this Department. Most of the increases which I have mentioned were effected in recent years. But the hon. member for Point has no taste for that; he ignores that; he does not want to know anything about that. He only wants to act negatively and to talk a lot of nonsense in general—yes, he says, all we hear every year are stories and stories and nothing is accomplished. The first member opposite who spoke under this Vote was the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He referred to the tremendous increases in the amounts which had appeared on the Estimates for this Department in recent years. He pointed out that there had been a tremendous increase, and seeing that he referred to that increase, what has happened to it if nothing was done with it, if it were only simply a matter of hollow promises, as the hon. member for Point wanted to make the public and this House believe? I am not speaking for myself. The hon. member can say about me what he likes. My integrity is unblemished as far as this matter is concerned and he can say about me what he likes in this House. With a speech such as that the hon. member cannot detract from what I have tried to do, and not only I but my Department and the legion of welfare organizations—we have always worked together because there is continual consultation. He cannot blemish my integrity and he cannot detract from that love to serve.

In fairness to the hon. member I want to say this that he did say” formerly family bonds were much tighter than they are today That position may be due to the development which has taken place. But if I have to do what the hon. member says I should, we will be undermining that sense of responsibility towards the family completely, “these bonds will be less tight than they are to-day”, That was exactly what I was pleading for and that was the matter which I emphasized so much when I said in my speech that we should tighten these family bonds as much as possible. I say again to the hon. member and to everyone, that I am deeply convinced that if we do not retain those family bonds and if we do not keep the family structure intact as a unit, a sad future awaits us in this fatherland of ours. The hon. member also raised the question of unemployment insurance. He wants to know what happens to the people when they no longer draw unemployment insurance benefits. Those people have made their contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; periodically they receive unemployment benefits but later on they no longer receive them. He wants me to give an assurance that they will receive those benefits. Mr. Chairman, that scheme was introduced by the Department of Labour as an insurance scheme, subject to specific conditions which have applied all these years. It is an insurance scheme with the same element of risk which you find in any other insurance scheme. Certain people enjoy the benefits but others do not. People do not know when they are going to die. Nor can they say when they will be unemployed. That difficult day may, however, arrive. In principle it is an insurance scheme against that difficult day which may arrive. When that day does arrive they can draw the benefits. Let me just say this to the hon. member that when anybody finds himself in such a position—when he is unemployed and he cannot find work and he can no longer draw benefits under the Fund—the doors of the Department are open to him and he can apply for grants-in-aid under the assistance schemes which operate to-day. There is nothing to prevent him from applying.

In spite of what the hon. member for Point has said, I adhere to what I had said that I will always feel myself at liberty to appeal to the good sense of hon. members of this Committee to conduct this debate in the spirit of making suggestions to improve the position. Wherever possible I will carry them out but it is not possible to carry out all of them.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) referred to a certain concession which I made last year. I know the hon. member appreciates it as well as welfare organizations. We are glad whenever we can do something. He mentioned the case of single women who have inherited the homes in which they live. There are apparently such specific cases. I want to tell the hon. member again that when specific cases are brought to my notice I will immediately go into them. We must bear the fact in mind that when we make a concession or when we make provision for something, we must consider how wide the effect of such a provision will be. We must bear in mind whether it can be carried out in practice.

I will be very pleased, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would furnish me with these particulars. If he does so I shall reply to him writing as soon as possible. I have done so previously. I have written letters to several members. If hon. members wish to ask me anything at any time I will be only too pleased to give my reply to them in writing.

I want to say at once that concessions as far as usufruct cases are concerned, are fairly liberal. Taking everything into consideration this is my information that these concessions are fairly liberal. If somebody’s case has been turned down it must be assumed that the value of the property over which he enjoys a usufruct must be fairly high and must render a reasonable rental. In these circumstances it is hardly likely that the person concerned has no income at all. I reiteriate, where there are hard-luck cases, individual cases, I will be only too pleased if the hon. member will furnish me with the information so that I can attend to those cases.

*The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) asked me a question in respect of the war veterans who fought in the Second War of Independence who may return to this country in these times in which we are living from areas outside our borders. Historically he quite correctly referred to what happened in 1938 when people returned from the Argentine to their fatherland. Completely unprejudiced, the hon. member said that was done during the regime of the United Party. After that we had the people from Angola. We made provision in their case. To-day we have the position that people are returning. We keep our fingers on the pulse of the whole position. People may come, for example, from Kenya, from Nyasaland and even from other places. I can, however, assure the hon. member that we are attending to this matter in order to ascertain to what extent we can circumvent that residential qualification so as to make provision in the case of these people. In the case of Kenya especially arrangements will have to be made. A person may want to come here from Kenya but he may still have possessions there. Those possessions cannot be sold. There is no demand and he comes here without a penny. The position is that we will have to be assured as to what he actually possesses there. They will have to give certain definite undertakings, if we are successful in these arrangements, that when those means are again available to them at a later stage they will once again fall back upon their own resources, as is the position in our own fatherland. These are the points which hon. members have raised, Sir. I merely wish to say that the hon. member for Rosettenville referred to another very important matter, namely the co-ordination of care.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also raised the question of establishing a town for people who are retarded so that all the organizations can be correlated as one. I want to tell the Committee that some time ago I visited the Rudolph Steiner school at Hermanus and I was greatly impressed by the wonderful work which is being done at that school—it is a little township of its own. It is a place in the sun for these retarded people. In collaboration with my colleagues, the hon. the Minister for Education, Arts and Science and the hon. the Minister of Health, I have made arrangements to send officials to investigate the position at the Rudolph Steiner school and to report to me as soon as possible.

*I think I have more or less replied to everything that has been said so far. If there are any points to which I have not replied, I shall be pleased if hon. members will tell me. Once again I wish to express my appreciation for the manner in which this discussion has taken place and the particularly instructive and objective spirit in which the debate has been conducted.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21,—“Interior” R3,257,000.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? The funds to be voted for the Press Commission fall under the Vote “Interior”. At the outset I wish to give this assurance that I do not want to say anything about that portion of the report which has already appeared and the recommendations contained therein…

Have you read the report?

I do not want to say anything about it, in the first place, because of the fact that it is only half a report. Or at least, we hope it is only a half and not only a quarter. And in the second instance, because the hon. the Minister said that having studied the report the Government had decided not to do anything about the matter at this stage.

In recommendations in reports such as this one only assume a meaning if and when the Government reacts to them. I think, however, that there are certain things in the report which deserve closer attention and which we should go into. Hence the following:

The Commission was appointed in November 1951. It is only 11 years and three months later that the House of Assembly has been favoured with the first part of that report. It is a bulky report consisting of two big volumes with 809 pages altogether, plus 19 supplements consisting of a further 1,947 pages; innumerable tables, 39 maps, some of which are very tastefully and neatly coloured and which must have cost a great deal. It is indeed a monumental task which would have caused surprise or commanded admiration had it not been for the fact that it had taken such a long time and had it not consumed such a great deal of valuable time. Nevertheless, one is surprised at the mass of detail which must practically be unequalled—I do not think it has been equalled in the report of any commission which has been laid before this House. Perhaps the reason for this mass of detail is partly due to the fact that certain members of the commission were very ignorant on the subject. As a matter of fact only two members were experts. I am referring to a former Minister and a former chief editor of the Volksblad, Dr. van Rhyn, and Mr. Archibald Frew of Reuters. They were experts. Both of them, however, only served on the Commission for a short time, with the result that the remaining members had to study the widespread and diverse branches of the newspaper industry from the start. That took time of course. That necessitated the collection of a mass of detail to serve as a basis for the inquiry. There are literally pages and pages of what our Netherlands forefathers would have called “waarheden als koeien”. In other words, truths of which everybody is aware. There is endless repetition and deductions which in my opinion are not always indicative of logical reasoning. An immense amount of detail has been collected and there are repetitions ad nauseam. All that go towards making the reading of the report a difficult task and also a somewhat boring one.

Mr. Chairman, when you have read everything you cannot avoid asking yourself whether the same deductions and the same findings could not have been arrived at with less work, in a much shorter space of time and at a much lower cost than the nearly quarter of a million rand which have already been spent on it.

What has happened now? After all this time only a partial report is submitted. There are only two recommendations of any significance. That is the outcome. That is the result of all the labour and all the time taken—only two recommendations of any significance. And one of them actually throws the onus for further investigation back to the Government. There is a small number of lesser findings but they are all buried under a mass of monotonous detail and repetition, analyses and unnecessary arguments. One can indeed call out: montes parturiunt et mus inflatus nascitur, which when translated means: The mountains are in labour and a flatulent mouse is born. It is difficult not to suspect that there was an irresistible urge to draw out the proceedings as long as possible. I have to qualify what I have just said, and say that nobody denies the value of a large part of the report. I refer in particular to the wide and complete exposition of the entire newspaper industry in South Africa: We are given the whole picture, how there is co-operation and collaboration between the various owners; who is in control of what or who can exercise control. You cannot do otherwise than give the Commission credit for that. They have performed a tremendous task. As far as circulation and distribution figures are concerned, however, as far as readers and potential readers of newspapers and similar matters are concerned, you must bear in mind, Sir, that all that is based on the 1951 census figures. You must conclude, Sir, that this data is out of date. That is an unpleasant awakening. The conclusions which are drawn can hardly be regarded as authentic and reliable. During the 11 years there has at least been a natural increase in the population. Over 11 years the reading circle of South Africa has grown. During that time there has been a great movement of the population from the platteland to the urban areas. All that must considerably change the figures which are used here. But it is not only in this respect that the report is out of date. To judge from the reaction of prominent Press organizations—and I refer in particular to two of the most important organizations which support the Government party—it seems that the conditions as painted by the Commission are also out of date in other respects. The report creates the impression that the relationship between Sapa and the Afrikaans Press is not satisfactory. The Burger, on the contrary, states that the contribution of the Afrikaans Press to the news service of Sapa is no longer as insignificant as alleged in the report. The Volksblad states that the English Press organizations which are the co-owners of Sapa do not use their power on Sapa in an endeavour to disregard the Afrikaans Press. You get the impression from the report that the Afrikaans Press is struggling to exist. The Burger takes exception to this and states that the Afrikaans Press is no longer a struggling child to-day, but is a virile young man which can be left to himself, and I quite agree with that. Anybody who has watched the progress of the Afrikaans Press during the past years knows that is the position and that the Afrikaans Press can stand on its own legs. Having produced all this the Commission has only fulfilled half the instructions given to it. That is all it has been able to fulfil. That took 11 years. The second half must still be tackled. Mr. Chairman, how long will it take to carry out that task? The first half of the report comprises 2,758 pages. How long will the second report be? Will there be further reports later on? The first part has cost nearly R250,000. How much more money will have to be provided? The hon. the Minister can tell us what sum has to be voted this year. If the same tempo is to be maintained in the future as in the past, how much of the next report will also be out of date? That will be inevitable. If that has to take an equally long time, how much more out of date will the data and the assurances be? According to the report the Commission is very concerned about the unilingualism of English-speaking journalists. That seems reasonable but its own report has been drawn up in English only. How irreconcilable! What must you think of that? The Commission has still to report on numerous important matters, inter alia what assists in creating an enlightened public opinion on political questions at issue. They will first have to find a definition as to what is actually meant by “enlightened public opinion on political questions at issue”, and that will be quite troublesome. As long as there is political prejudice, and as long as that is reflected in the Press, which is unavoidable, there cannot be an enlightened, unprejudiced public opinion on political matters, because people buy and read those newspapers which offer them the things in the political field which they want to read. You cannot get away from that. That has been the experience of all newspapers in the country. The Commission is looking for something which it cannot find. Anything like that simply does not exist in South Africa. In a country like ours where party politics is such a deciding factor, you look in vain for unprejudiced public opinion. The numerical strength of the Commission has in the meantime dwindled to only four. You can, therefore, take it, Sir, that they will require much more time and that their task will be even more difficult. South Africa awaits the next instalment of this serial with interest. So far it has been a tedious business, and the results have been poor. If that has to continue I think it is advisable for the Government rather to leave the matter at that and not to continue with any further inquiry.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) was the first speaker on the Opposition side, not because he was the first speaker, but because he asked for the halfhour to discuss the report of the Press Commission. Of this half-hour he used only 17 minutes and then he had nothing more to say, and that whilst he was discussing a document which, as he himself said, contains almost 3,000 pages. The hon. member objects to the fact that the report he saw was printed only in English. [Interjections.] How long does the hon. member think it would have taken to translate that report, together with all the schedules? Was he prepared to wait until it was translated, or did he prefer to see what the Press Commission had done so far? The hon. member, it seems to me, has done what most hon. members in this House have done who have looked at the report thus far; he has just paged through it a little. I do not believe that he read those 3,000 pages, because then he would have told us more about the contents, but he told us very little about that. But the hon. member now wants to know what the Government is going to do about the report. Sir, he did not have to make a speech about it. Surely he knows that the Government stated a long time ago, after the report appeared, that it would postpone any action in connection with this report until such time as the further portions of the report are published.

Another ten years?

The hon member says another ten years. I say another year. Perhaps the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) can tell us how many years it will still take. I do not think it will take long now. But the point is that here we have half the work of this Commission, which made a very thorough study of Press matters. This thing has great historical value, apart from its practical value, and we are grateful to the Commission for all the information contained in the report, and I hope that in the portion which still has to appear more data will be given, which will be a revelation to us in many respects. I say that instead of asking for the half-hour, the hon. member could simply have put a question on the Order Paper to ask the Minister what they were going to do with the report, and then he would have received the reply already given, that we are awaiting the final report. I do not think the Minister would have told the hon. member much more than he has already told us.

But whilst I am on my feet now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question about something which affects his whole Department, in regard to the Public Service as a whole. He has not been in charge of this Department for long yet, but I want to ask whether he has considered the question of the future expansion of the Public Service and the salaries attached to the higher posts in the service. What I have in mind is this.

Order! That matter can be discussed under the next Vote.

I am more concerned with the Minister’s policy.

That can also be discussed under that Vote.

I really want to deal with another matter, which does not affect salaries directly. I am discussing the policy, under the Minister’s salary.

I must inform the hon. member that if it affects the Public Service then he should not discuss it here, but under the Public Service Commission.

Just let me say what I have in mind and then you can decide whether I should raise it under another Vote. It is the fact that there is continual expansion in the Public Service, which is necessary for the country.

That falls under the Public Service Commission.

Then I shall raise it under that Vote. I just want to say that I hope the Press Commission will not allow itself to be frightened by the speech made here by the hon. member for Rissik, and that they will carry on and let us have their final report even before the Opposition has read the present report.

I can well appreciate the difficulties of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), who obviously has not read the report of the Press Commission.

Neither have you.

I do not pretend to have read it, but the hon. member who initiated the debate has done so. [Interjections.] That hon. member is well qualified to speak on it. None of the hon. members who interjected have read the report at all, I am quite sure. Sir, this Minister’s Vote is somewhat circumscribed because we have three pieces of legislation which concern his Department. The Publications Bill makes it impossible for us to discuss publications in detail because that legislation is still pending. The Population Registration Amendment Bill gave us an opportunity of criticizing the Minister’s Department last week, and the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill is also pending, so if the Minister is not kept busy here for such a long time as in the past he will not put it down to the fact that we have nothing to criticize, but rather to the fact that our criticism is spread over a wider field.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Vote 21, Census and Statistics, and I would like him to indicate when he expects his Department to complete the analysis of the last census which took place in 1960. I would also like the Minister to indicate what progress has been made in his Department. Generally one would say that there has been improvement in latter years, but I think there is room for better co-operation between the Department of Census and Statistics and the commercial and agricultural community who are asked from time to time to complete census forms to provide the Department with information. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that to-day we live in a mechanical age and many business firms lay down their programme for collecting information through mechanized means, and it is often quite impossible to comply with the requirements of the Department when a form is submitted just after the end of the financial year. For example, if a form is issued by the Department of Census and Statistics, requiring information for the year ended 30 June 1962, that form may be issued in July, and the Minister may require the form to be completed by the end of September, and in many cases it is quite impossible to fill in the form in that time. First of all, the form is set out in such a manner that it requires information which is set out under various headings. It means that they read a section from the expense account and then a section from the revenue account, and a great deal of time is spent in sorting out the information, or alternatively they do a tremendous amount of guesswork, because at the end of the financial year, with the additional work thrown on the staff in preparing balance sheets, etc., that gets priority and the filling in of this form takes a very bad second place. So eventually when the form is completed, if it is done accurately—and I question whether it is done accurately in many cases—it reaches the Department two or three months late and generally after a final warning, and eventually the members of commerce and industry who read the statistics published accept them with a certain amount of reservation because they realize how much guesswork was contained in their own forms. I suggest that the time has arrived to consider planning ahead. If he proposes getting information, he should indicate what he is going to ask for in 1963-4, so that when companies commence their new financial year in 1962 they will have some indication of the kind of information they will be asked for in a year’s time. Then when planning their mechanization or collecting their statistics they can make provision for the information required by the Minister. To-day various State Departments require information and they go to the Department of Census and Statistics and ask them to collect it, and one knows the procedure. A complicated form is published in the Gazette, and a much more complicated form is sent out in due course to the people concerned, and it is quite impossible to re-arrange the whole business system to comply with the requirements of the Department, so there is a hasty collection or estimation of information, and nothing is heard again for three or four years. What we sadly need to-day in planning for agriculture and industry is regular information, not necessarily annually—in certain cases it would have to be annually, and in other cases every three to five years, but it should be compiled in a form which will indicate well in advance the type of information required by the Department. One appreciates that in many cases the information required is wanted by agriculture and commerce and industry for their own purposes, and if we are going to plan properly for the future of the State and for the future welfare of all concerned, it is essential that the planning should be done on a sound basis and that the basic data on which the planning is based should be accurate; and that can only be done if sufficient notice is given to the people who have to provide the information. In the past, time after time forms have been issued at the end of the financial year and it is quite impossible to give accurate information. Only a year ago I saw a form issued to all garages to supply certain information, how much was earned in repairs and how much of it represented labour and how much represented material of a local nature, and how much was purchased. There was the biggest lot of guesswork imaginable in the majority of cases. I should say over 50 per cent of it was guesswork. If the Minister wants such information, a much better way would be to go to the industry concerned and indicate, say a year in advance, what information will be called for. Then the firms concerned can plan their records accordingly and give the necessary instructions to their staff, and they can introduce an additional column in their books of account giving this information, or alternatively, can provide for an extra column in their mechanized bookkeeping system in such a manner that at the end of the year when the form comes along the information is readily available in the books. In that way we will save manpower and time and ensure that the figures given to the Department are more accurate and on that basis the Minister can provide a better service and will cause less friction between the departments concerned and the public.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) made an attack on the Press Commission. Because the Commission has not reported fully yet, it does perhaps not behove me to reply to his allegations but I do so for the sake of the record. I ignore the testimonial he gave in regard to knowledge of Press matters the Chairman of the Commission and Mr. Lamb and Mr. van Coller and I have, and that he gives a good testimonial only to Dr. van Rhyn and the late Mr. Frew. But I should like to ask the hon. member whether he has read the reports submitted so far?

Yes.

Well, I do not believe he has read everything. [Interjection.] If that is the case, he will understand quite clearly why it has taken so long and why the Press does not like that report. The Commission has frankly told everything connected with the Press, and the newspapers do not like to take the medicine which they so liberally dish out to other people. [Interjections.] I cannot understand why hon. members interrupt me so much. They are concerned to know why the Press Commission has sat so long. Let me read this to the hon. member for Rissik, another document which he definitely has not read, namely the report which this Commission submitted to the House last year. The hon. member has not read this document either, nor has any hon. member opposite read it.

On a point of order, I object to the words “has not read it either”, because thereby the hon. member implies that I have not read this report.

I allege that the hon. member has not read this document in which we explain why it took so long, otherwise he would not have made such a nonsensical speech. I want to read it. This is what the Chairman of the Press Commission wrote to the Minister of the Interior, who tabled it here—

On a point of order, may I ask whether the cost of this translation is to be borne by the Press Commission?

Sir, the hon. member is just wasting my time—

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Standerton. I would like to ask the Minister in regard to one or two items under his Vote. Under the population register reference is made to a senior Bantu Affairs commissioner. What is the precise position? There is no money voted under this sub-head this year. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the exact position is. Then I am concerned at the amount of expenditure on temporary assistance, also for the population register. The note indicates that there are 229 additional staff units at a cost of R230,000 as against 338 other staff at a cost of R298,000. The expenditure under this subhead seems to me very heavy indeed, and when one bears in mind the importance of the population register and the fact that temporary assistance in the past, and I suppose in future, will be of a kind that cannot be relied upon to do very efficient detailed work, such as is called for by the population register, it seems that we are spending a great deal of money on a large number of temporary staff. Would the Minister tell us what his views are with regard to the future? Are we to continue year after year employing a large number of temporary staff on such important work, or is the intention to build up a permanent staff sooner or later? The money voted for permanent staff this year is less than last year, although it is also true that the temporary staff are drawing less than they did last year. But it is still a very large number of personnel and it is a very large sum of money that we are providing for temporary staff.

I was recounting how many pages the Press Commission had to struggle through just in regard to the South African Press, namely 270,000 pages of newsprint. I continue—

How much more?

I know the hon. member does not understand this at all, but he should not advertise his lack of understanding so widely—

The hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock) did not even have the courtesy to remain quiet and to listen to how comprehensive the work is. I want to give him the assurance that what we have submitted now was only to report on the concentration of control, technically and financially, and the distribution of newspapers, but not on the content of those newspapers or on the content of foreign reporting. I can assure him that the Press will like the rest of the report just as little as they liked this part of it.

The medicine is still coming.

Yes, the report about the content of newspapers is still coming, and then the hon. member for Rissik can discuss it.

I just want to make one remark about the unilingualism of the report. It is not that I do not know English, or that Judge van Zyl, or Dr. Diederichs or Dr. van Rhyn or Mr. van Coller do not know it, but there were two English-speaking members of the Commission, Mr. Willie Lamb and the late Mr. Archie Frew, and they were not able to read the Afrikaans text which he drafted, and at their request, merely as a courtesy to them, we wrote it in English and the report was drafted in English. It sounds strange to me, that when we on this side really made a concession to those people who insisted that persons who shared their views should also be appointed, we should now be reproached for the fact that we made this concession out of the kindness of our hearts and out of our innate courtesy. It is one of the things for which I will never forgive that side of the House, that they blamed the Minister for the fact that this document was drafted in English only.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) referred to the fact that the newspapers object to our statement that the contributions of the Afrikaans Press to Sapa’s newspool is so small. It is small, Mr. Chairman, and it may be that the Afrikaans Press feels just as badly about it as the Commission did, because Sapa’s newspool is contributed, for the greater part, by the English newspapers. The reason for that is very simple, namely, that there are many more English newspapers. There are also other reasons. The matter goes much further than simply the newspool. As hon. members will see from that report, Sapa has a contract with Reuter to give Reuter an edited news report. Although it gives its full news reports to the other world news agencies, it gives Reuter an edited report, and that gives Reuter the opportunity to come into the market before the news is cold—in any case, a few hours before the other news agencies’ reports arrive overseas. Because that newspool is derived only from the English sources, it means that Sapa is obliged to give Reuter news which has been collected by the English newspapers alone.

There is still another reason. The Burger and the Volksblad and the Transvaler and the Vaderland are Afrikaans newspapers, and a large number of Sapa’s officials, over the period investigated by us, were unilingual. The editor-in-chief was unilingual. He could not judge of what entered his office; he had to leave it to his staff, many of whom were unilingual. That news is given to Reuter, and that is the news which is sent overseas. Is it not justifiable if that forms part of the terms of reference to investigate that and to report fully on it? But I can imagine that the newspapers do not like this report. I can also quite understand that they would rather pigeonhole it. I hope the Minister will be prepared to publish this first part of the report so that we can see who the persons are in control of every one of these newspapers. We should know when we quarrel with the Sunday Times, we must not revile Stanley Uys. He is only a “pen-pusher”. The man who should be blamed is Edmunds, Chairman of S.A. Associated Newspapers. When we refuse Delius permission to sit on the Press gallery, it is not he who should be put on the carpet, nor is it Mr. Victor Norton, editor of the Cape Times, who should appear before the Senate to receive a rebuke, but it is Mr. Clive Corder, chairman of Cape Times Ltd. It is he who is responsible for that product. It is the owners of the newspapers, and we ought to publicize that.

I would like to start with a few questions put to me by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), and firstly I want to point out, for the sake of clarity, that under the sub-head “Population Register” it must be understood very clearly that it is not only the Population Register that is involved there. The Population Registrar also has under his charge the following: The compilation and the maintenance of the population register, racial classification, the manufacture and issuing of identity cards, the sub-division Births, Marriages and Deaths which undertakes the following duties: the maintenance of a central register of all births, marriages and deaths; the issuing of birth, marriage and death certificates; the appointment of marriage officers and, fourthly, the handling of cases where the Minister’s approval of child marriages is applied for.

I want to reply to the few questions which have been put to me. The senior Bantu Affairs Commissioner was seconded to this Department during 1961-2 only. He is no longer with my Department and for that reason no provision is being made for his salary.

Why then does he appear on the Estimate?

Only because he was there in the last financial year. We have the amount for 1961-2 printed in the Estimates; nothing appears for 1962-3.

In regard to the question of temporary assistance, a great deal of sorting or practically routine work is being done by these temporary females as well as by male pensioners. We find that they are very well suited for this type of work. The volume of work fluctuates from time to time and for that reason we feel that it is perhaps better to avail ourselves of the services of temporary assistants instead of appointing permanent officials for that kind of work.

There is no intention permanently to increase the staff?

No.

With regard to the amount of R900 which is contributed by the South West Africa Administration, I thought this did not apply there. Can the hon. the Minister tell me why that is so?

We supply registration services to South West Africa and they pay R900 for those services.

*The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) referred to the great difficulty experienced in regard to the sending out of the various forms. I want to tell him that I quite agree with him that many of the forms are sent out, particularly by the Division of Census and Statistics, often without taking into consideration how much work is entailed and how impossible it is to collect the information. As Minister of Labour I also had the experience that it was sometimes unreasonable. But when I took over this Department I felt that the Division of Census and Statistics should perhaps be completely re-organized. I have now appointed a Committee which will sit for the first time one of these days, consisting of Dr. J. H. Steyn, the economic adviser to the Prime Minister and the former Secretary for Finance, as Chairman, Mr. D. J. C. Steyn, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. I. T. Meyer, the Secretary for the Treasury, and the Secretary for the Interior, Mr. G. du Preez. My instructions to them are the following—

I want to agree with the hon. member for Pinetown fully that economic statistics are of the utmost importance to us in this country, and it canno be tolerated that there should be unnecessary delay in the furnishing of economic statistics. It is such a delicate matter that when the investigation has been made, the results should be published as soon as possible thereafter. I think that this is the right start, viz. an investigation by a committee of eminent officials. On it we have given representation to the Public Service Commission, the Treasury and the Department of the Interior, and we have appointed an economist of great repute. I did not want to appoint a commission of inquiry, but rather an inter-departmental committee which can make the necessary investigations this year still. The Statistics Board feel as I do, that there should be reform and improvement in regard to this matter. I want to thank the hon. member for what he said here, and just tell him that we are devoting attention to it.

In connection with the question when we can expect more details in connection with the census that was held in 1960, I can assure the hon. member that there is an enormous amount of work to be done in that connection; that the details are being worked out and that as they become available they are sent out and published. It is done as soon as possible. I am sorry that it is impossible for me at this stage to mention a definite date as to when we can expect to have more details.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) that I regret that he has so sharply criticized, not an interim report, but a partial report, and particularly for this reason: The hon. member made this allegation: “It is a voluminous report which we would have admired were it not for the fact that it took such a long time to publish it.” In other words, I infer from the hon. member’s criticism that he would have admired the report had it not cost R250,000 and had it not taken so long before it was published. The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has said a few words in regard to that matter. The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) would have been correct if the Government had asked for an interim report, but the Government asked whether the report could not be delivered partially or in instalments, and just because the report is being delivered in instalments I now already want to issue the warning that if the second instalment comes—and it has not yet been completed—I do not think the Government would be doing justice to this report if it were already to take decisions based on the various instalments. My recommendation to the Government was, in fact, not to concern itself for the present with this first instalment, because we were still to receive the other instalment. I have been informed by the Chairman of the Press Commission that the second portion, if I remember correctly—because he did not give it to me in writing—would comprise about 1,000 pages, which have already been completely reviewed by them, and that they are now making it ready for the printers, so that the copies can be printed and made available to us. We expect that there will be another two instalments, and that the one instalment will become available towards the end of this year and the other during the course of next year. I just want to say that the fact that one instalment has now been delivered to us does not mean that they have again to start working on the next instalment right from the beginning. But I cannot guarantee when the next report will be delivered, and actually, as the responsible Minister to whom the Press Commission was handed over only in January, I feel that I can carry on discussions with the Press Commission further when Parliament is not in session. The Chairman only came to see me once in regard to certain problems he had. The Opposition is of course quite entitled to discuss the costs of the Press Commission. In so far as the cost for this year is concerned, provision is made in the Estimates for R37,000. That will be the total ocst in this financial year. This amount does not appear under my Vote, because the Estimates had already been printed when responsibility for the Press Commission was transferred to me. I think we should not calculate the cost in thirds and say that one-third cost R250,000 that two-thirds will therefore cost R500,000 and three-thirds R750,000. I think that would be the wrong sum to make. The work has practically been completed.

In so far as the number of members is concerned, the Government was faced with the position that the work gradually progressed so far that it would be quite wrong again to appoint the same number of members to fill the places of those who died or fell away. That would be quite wrong, because then the new members would again have to study ab initio the whole modus operandi and everything that has been done so far. That would cause further delay instead of helping. It is for that reason that the number of members has now, to our own great disappointment, been reduced to four. All of them can no longer work as hard as one would like them to, and there are also other difficulties connected with the matter. I can state to-day that the few members working on it do not work the ordinary hours. They are working much more overtime than is really good for their health. I want to express the hope that hon. members will be satisfied with these explanations. The Commission has been appointed, and it would be quite wrong at this stage, when the kettle is almost on the boil, when the steam is already emerging, to kick over that kettle because we are in too much of a hurry and cannot wait to make our coffee. If we do that, we will have nothing at all. I want to agree with the hon. member for Rissik that it is a very interesting report, even though it contains certain findings which we expected them to arrive at. But it is just as well that the whole of the Press should know what the position is. I must tell hon. members that we have had inquiries from libraries all over the world, and particularly from university students, in connection with this report. We should not at this stage anticipate what we think the findings of the Commission will be. Nor do we have the right to say that, judging by the method adopted in issuing the first portion, the same method will be followed throughout, and therefore I want to ask hon. members to be cautious. We should be glad that we are rather getting these reports in instalments, because it seems to me that the completed report will be a very lengthy and voluminous one.

I do not propose following the lines taken by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in his speech in relation to the Press Commission save to say that it seems to me both undesirable and improper for a person who is a member of the Press Commission, prior to its report having been made, to attack, in a public speech in this House, certain of the organs and facts into which he is presently inquiring. Surely that sort of thing could wait until the Commission has made its report, and surely we can expect commissioners, in public commissions of this kind, to refrain from making comments of that nature until the findings of the Commission are made public. It is certainly not the way to inspire confidence in the findings which that body may eventually make.

The point on which I rise to speak at the present time is one which is small in compass but is of considerable importance, and that is the conduct of returning officers at polling booths at the time of general elections. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one instance which I have in mind which illustrates the point I want to make and that is that it is essential that these returning officers take charge of their polling booths and that they exercise control and authority there. The example which I have in mind took place in my constituency during the recent general election, where the Commissioner-General to the Zulu ethnic unit was allowed by the returning officer concerned at Nongoma to escort voters unchallenged right into the polling booth itself. I refer to a certain Mr. Nel who is the Commissioner-General in question. Whichever way one looks at it, that gentleman had no right, save to record his own vote, to be in that polling booth.

Did you object to it?

If he was not an authorized party political representative he had no right to be there, and if he was an authorized party political representative, then there was something equally undesirable and improper perpetrated, because he, as a public official had no right to be appointed to such a party political office. Sir, no doubt he is an important personage. At Nongoma particularly he is a very important personage, but I would like the Minister to impress upon his officials that no matter how important a Commissioner-General may be at Nongoma, the returning officer concerned is far more important in dealing with matters pertaining to the running of the polling booth of which he is in charge. This, as I have said, is a small point but an important one because it affects the whole conduct of elections, and the importance of the thing is that elections should be properly conducted at the local level.

Did you raise objections?

The information came too late for an objection to be taken in time. But the matter does not end there, because we are living in a time when there is a multitude of important official personages in our society; we are having more and more important officials created and those posts are filled virtually entirely from the ranks of the governing party. In those circumstances it seems to me vital for the continuance of our electoral system that persons in charge of polling booths be instructed to ignore the official status of these people and that the regulations in regard to the conduct of polling booths be adhered to strictly. I would ask the hon. the Minister to investigate that particular case and to give this House the assurance that he will issue instructions to see that not only does it not occur again in regard to this particular official, but that it won’t occur in respect of any official, no matter how important he may be in his own sphere.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) mentioned this specific example in the course of his speech. I have no objection to the fact that he expressed the general opinion which he did express and that he asked that instructions be given that persons should not misuse their position in the future. But why mention this specific example, Mr. Chairman, when his office-bearers at the polling booth did not raise this matter with the returning officer? How is the returning officer to know that a particular person is not an official of one of the political parties?

Now you are talking nonsense!

I do not know how big the place is to which the hon. member referred; I do not know whether it is a very big place, but I take it that in certain small places there will be returning officers, perhaps ordinary clerks, who do not know all the commissioners-general. The returning officer in this case may have been an official who was sent from a place like Durban which is far away. I have no objection therefore to the general trend of the hon. member’s speech, but I think it is wrong on his part to mention this particular person here without first having raised the matter with the returning officer to see whether he could not get satisfaction from him.

I should like to break a lance here for my colleagues who, geographically speaking, represent large constituencies. I am in this position that I have one of the smallest constituencies as far as area is concerned, although it has a large number of voters. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the Constitution delimitations take place on the system that an average quota is obtained by dividing by 150 the number of registered voters in the Republic, and thereafter the Delimitation Commission may use its discretion to unload sparsely populated constituencies by 15 per cent or to load densely populated constituencies by 15 per cent. In 1910 the Cape Province, under this procedure of delimitation, retained 51 out of the 121 constituencies while the Transvaal retained 36 out of the 121. In 1952 the Cape Province retained 52 out of 150 and the Transvaal 68 out of 150; in other words while the number of constituencies in the Cape Province remained the same, although the total number of seats had increased from 121 to 150, the number of constituencies in the Transvaal practically doubled, that is to say, from 36 to 68. I think the reason is that while there was reasonable economic development in all the provinces, there was an immense revolution in the Rand areas, and the fact of the matter is that judging by present trends, the Cape Province will have to relinquish three more constituencies to the Transvaal if a new delimitation is to take place to-morrow. These three constituencies will disappear from the Cape platteland. Moreover…

Order! The hon. member is now advocating legislation.

I have almost finished outlining the background and I hope, Sir, that you will give me a little latitude. Apart from these three constituencies which the Cape platteland will have to relinquish to the Transvaal, the position is that with the tremendous urban development in the Cape Province itself, in all probability two additional platteland constituencies in the Cape Province will go to the urban areas; in other words, at the next delimitation the rural areas of the Cape Province will probably lose four seats. The position to-day is that the Cape Province already has a few rural constituencies which are unbearably big.

No, the hon. member cannot continue along those lines.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister then whether he does not think that the time has come to bring this matter to the notice of the Cabinet? I regard this as a very important matter and I want to ask him whether he will not take up this matter with the Cabinet. Certain schemes have been put forward in the past to check this development, but I believe that this balance will be restored in due course in a natural way. I would ask him therefore to refer this matter to the Cabinet. I believe that the development of the Orange River scheme will again restore the balance, but that is a project which will be completed over a period of 30 years, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not ask the Cabinet to give very serious consideration in the meantime to the question of freezing the number of constituencies in the provinces for an indefinite period?

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not advocating legislation. I am asking the Minister to submit this matter to the Cabinet.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot pursue that point.

It is becoming clearer day by day that in the field of international sport we are going to find ourselves in one difficulty after another, and the outcome of that is undoubtedly going to be that we are going to be pushed out of every form of international sport. If such a thing were necessary because the whole life of this country depended upon it, then one would willingly endure it. But I believe that if there is one aspect of Government policy which is unnecessary, it is its interference in sport in this country. I have said here on previous occasions that our main difficulty to-day, in the sphere of human relations, is to be found in the fact that the Government interferes too much in the private lives of our citizens. The Government wants to control every person’s comings and goings down to the last detail.

That is not true.

I do not know whether this is generally realized, but outside the political sphere the Government is interfering more with the private lives of the citizens of South Africa than even the Kremlin does in Russia. [Interjections.] It would seem that there are some hon. members who dispute that, but we are the only country in the world where the authorities decide in which bus a person should ride; in which taxi he may ride; where he is to sit in a bus; which entrance to a public building he is to use; in which part of the city he is to live; with whom he may mix socially; what work he may do, etc. I could mention more than 100 of these don’ts and may-nots, but then I would have to deviate too far from the point that I want to make here. I repeat, however, that even under the Kremlin there is not as much governmental interference, outside the sphere of party politics, as we find in this country in the private lives of our citizens.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the items provided for under this Vote.

The very latest step is the Government’s interference in the sports life of the people. It decides whether a champion may take part in a championship or not; it decides who may take part in a motor-racing event; it decides whether a person may play on a particular course, even if the club concerned is prepared to allow him to do so; it wants the right to decide how certain teams are to be constituted. And then the Government is not even logical always. Read the statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in connection with South Africa’s participation in international sport: If we are to be allowed to send two teams to the Olympic Games, one for Whites and one for non-Whites, then it means that a White South African team would compete abroad with a non-White South African team in a way which is not permitted in this country itself. Apart from that, and unlikely as it is that the Olympic Games would permit such a departure, namely, to allow two South African teams to take part there, separated on lines of colour, I can think of no more unfavourable advertisement for South Africa than the fact that Whites and non-Whites from South Africa are allowed to run against each other in separate teams but not with each other in the same team. I feel that we have reached a far-reaching position in the life of this country; there are few things which have brought so much discredit upon our country as the dictates of this Government in the field of sport—and that is still happening every day. There is only one way out of the impending difficulties for us, and that is for the Government to restore the freedom of association. In other words, it must confine itself to matters which normally fall under the Government of a country, and for the rest it should have sufficient faith in the public to believe that they will regulate their social life according to the needs and the desires and the customs of the community. I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently whether he has no faith in the people and in the White public opinion of South Africa? Has he no faith in the firmness of the traditions and habits and customs of our people? Does he really believe that if he does not intervene by means of laws and dictates that our people will stop maintaining the tradition of separation in sport? Mr. Chairman, separation in the field of sport is supported in broad outline by the vast majority of South Africans, and they have no desire to depart from it. There need not be the slightest fear that if the Government stops interfering, the White South African will depart from what is a deep-seated tradition. But the quickest way to bring that traditional way into disfavour, is the way in which the Government is setting about things at the moment. The activities of associations such as Churches and sports bodies can safely be left to the forces of tradition and of individual preference and conduct. My plea, for the sake of South Africa, is that the Government should keep out of social activities such as sports; that it should not drag its policies into the field of sport and that it should leave it to the common sense of bodies such as the South African Olympic and National Games Association which, after all, have always taken tradition into account, to make such arrangements as public opinion permits, arrangements which will no longer earn for South Africa the ridicule and scorn of the world. I am not the only person who adopts that attitude. There are people on the Government side who fully agree with me. Let me quote, for example, what the editor the Burger wrote in the issue of 3 February 1962. I quote the report verbatim (translation)—

I fully subscribe to this attitude adopted by the Burger, and my plea is that the Government should not interfere in the affairs of associations; that it should have greater faith in public opinion, and that it should restore the freedom of association, the freedom of people to regulate their affairs according to their traditions.

I had not intended taking part in this debate, but I should like to say here that I have just listened to one of the most shocking speeches to which I have ever listened. I have never listened to such gross maligning of South Africa. I have refrained in the past from criticizing that hon. member because I have had a certain amount of respect for him. I am one of those who went out of their way to keep the hon. member in the National Party caucus, and I challenge him to mention a single case where I criticized him unnecessarily and went out of my way to make things difficult for him. But his political conduct is of such a nature that the time has come when he should be exposed. I know of no Liberal Party supporter in our country, I know of no Luthuli, who has ever said in this country that more restrictions are placed on pleople in South Africa than in the Kremlin. I have never heard Luthuli say such a thing.

Do you deny it?

His whole speech was devoid of truth.

Prove it, then.

I am going to prove it. His speech was a concatenation of inaccurate statements in connection with the true position in South Africa. I do not know what the hon. member’s object is. I want to show how incorrect his speech was, what a false impression it must create and how far it is from the truth. Naturally it would have been much better if we could have continued on our traditional lines without having to pass certain legislation. But why is the Government obliged to pass legislation, and why was the previous Government obliged to pass legislation? Because there is a bunch of liberals and agitators in our country who are intent on breaking down the traditional colour bar, and the hon. member is beginning to associate himself with them. He comes along with the statement that this is the only Government in the world which tells people on which buses they have to travel. Is he not ashamed of himself for saying such a thing? He belonged to the old National Party which told people in which trains they had to travel and in which trains they were not allowed to travel. He belonged to the old United Party, the Coalition Party, which told the Bantu in which trains they were allowed to travel and the Whites in which trains they were allowed to travel. Was the position here also worse in those days than it is in Russia? He belonged to the National Party which told people on which buses they had to ride and on which buses they were not allowed to travel. Was the position also worse in those days than in Russia? Did he also object to it then? The hon. member talks about separate entrances. Was that not the position under the old Coalition Party? Did he not approve of it when he was Coalitionist?

It is still wrong.

When did he discover that? When did he discover that the position here was worse than in Russia? He now says that it is altogether wrong. He says, “Who is the Government to tell you with whom you may mix socially?” I want to ask the hon. member to reply to one question. He is supposed to be so brave politically, but I have come to the conclusion that he has no courage at all. I challenge him to say whether he is in favour of Whites and Bantu swimming together?

Don’t talk nonsense!

Now he calls it nonsense. But if this Government were to say that mixed swimming is not forbidden, he and his friends would immediately see to it that mixed swimming was introduced. His friends would see to it that mixed swimming took place. If they had their way, they would see to it that in the Sea Point swimming pool Whites and Coloureds and Bantu all swam together. If they were given an opening, that is what they would do. That is why the Government is obliged to pass a law against mixed swimming. The hon. member says that even in Russia people are not told with whom they should swim. But he lacks the courage to advocate mixed swimming.

That is not the point.

Of course it is. South Africa has all these difficulties with the Bantu, with the Indians, with the Chinese, with the Whites. It is becoming all the more difficult for us under existing world conditions to regulate those things, and we want to pass as few laws as possible to regulate them. But we have to cope with the agitators, with the people who want to wipe out all dividing lines. They want to break down the dividing line in the field of sport, in the social sphere and in all other spheres. Let me ask the hon. member how the Government can prevent the dividing lines from being broken down when people are constantly looking for loopholes in the law? How can the Government prevent it other than by passing laws?

Very easily.

How can it be prevented? Athletic meetings have just been held for the Bantu at Welkom and for the Whites at Queenstown. How can the hon. memper prevent mixed athletic meetings from being held at, say, the Wanderers in Johannesburg when people are intent on bringing about mixed meetings?

May I put a question to the hon. member? How is it that until 1949, without any laws, nothing of this kind hanpened?

Does the hon. member not realize that it was possible in those days because the Liberals had not yet launched this strenuous campaign of theirs? There was no such thing in those days as this tremendous agitation for the wiping out of all colour bars; there was no such thing as this tidal wave of propaganda that is sweeping through the world. Formerly, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, we accepted this as perfectly normal. It was just as normal to have this separation as it is normal to wake up in the morning. It was perfectly normal to say that a Bantu may not travel in this train and the White may may not travel in that train. We regarded it as perfectly normal. We regarded it as perfectly normal to say that Whites may sit on certain benches and the Bantu on other benches. That was always the position under the Governments which the hon. member supported.

That is not true.

Does the hon. member want to deny that in the days of the old Coalition Party, of which he was a member, there were benches which were marked: “Europeans only” and others marked “Non-Europeans” only? Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself? He knows that was always done until this tidal wave swept over the world, until Mr. Macmillan made his speech here in the coffee room. It was regarded as normal until we had these deliberate attempts on the part of very influential people. Attempts are being made to-day at UNO to destroy this colour bar in every sphere. And the only way—it is very unfortunate that should be so—to obviate it, is to pass laws. We would naturally have preferred not to have passed laws against mixed marriages; we would naturally have preferred not to have passed the Immorality Act if it was not necessary. Naturally the hon. the Minister would have preferred to remain silent about mixed sports if the old traditions had continued to be observed. But those elements refused to allow things to take their traditional course, and the Government is forced to-day to go further than previous governments did. But the pattern remains precisely the same. And if one refuses to defend this pattern, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does, then one cannot maintain the dividing line. But if the hon. member says that the position here is worse than in the Kremlin when the Government seeks to uphold this dividing line, then he must declare himself openly in favour of the breaking down of the colour bar. You cannot go and plead in the rural areas or even in Bezuidenhout for the continuance of the traditional dividing lines and then say, when the Government seeks to prevent people from breaking down the colour bar, that is worse than what Khrushchev is doing. You cannot do so, not if you are honest. But let the hon. member have the courage to stand up and propagate what he has just indicated; then I shall have respect for him, as he ought to have. Let him stand up, please, and tell us which dividing lines he is willing to break down. Is he willing to allow large-scale mixed sport? Because as surely as the sun is going to rise to-morrow morning, if the Minister exercises no control and says, “Do as you please,” there are going to be mixed meetings every week and within a year from to-day we are going to have mixed rugby matches. [Time limit.]

Speaking for myself, I do not need any Nationalist Member of Parliament or legislation to tell me how I should conduct myself in this country. Having said that I will get on with my own case. The Minister, in reply to questions of mine in respect of the removal of the language test in the Public Service gave the following replies: On 20 February I asked whether the language tests for promotion in the Public Service have been abolished and, if so, for what reasons. This was part of the reply: No, the standard language tests for promotion in the Public Service have not been abolished. In terms of the powers vested in it… the Public Service Commission has, however, decided that officers and contract employees who come into consideration for promotion to posts of which the maximum notches of the salary scales (a) in the case of the professional division, do not exceed R3,120 per annum; (b) in the case of the Technical Division, do not exceed R2,640 per annum; (c) in the case of the Clerical Division, do not exceed R2,160 per annum and (d) in the case of the General A Division, do not exceed R2,160 per annum be exempted from taking the language tests. The promotion of all officers and contract employees to posts of which the maxima of the salary scales are higher than those indicated above, shall in the future still be subject to the successful completion of the tests.

On 23 February I asked: What is (a) the number and (b) the percentage of public servants who are not exempted from passing languages tests for promotion.

Order! The hon. member can raise that under the following Vote.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, as I see it the Public Service Commission carries out the policy of the Minister and this is the policy of the Minister.

The hon. member can discuss that under the following Vote.

I shall do so Sir, thank you.

I also wish to react to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has said.

Before the hon. member goes any further; I should not like to see the discussion under this Vote develop into a discussion on colour matters. Hon. members must confine themselves to matters concerning sport. I will not allow a wide debate on colour matters.

I will observe your ruling strictly, Mr. Chairman. I now wish to react to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said about the attitude of the hon. the Minister to sport. I wish to ask the hon. member this: When he talks the way he does in connection with sport, what is he really doing? Does the hon. member not realize that he is pleading for the opening of fronts? If we open the sport front, does he not realize that is one of the fronts through which the Liberals, the enemies of our country, want to negotiate a break-through? The hon. member has been in politics long enough to know that what I am saying is the truth.

I do not believe that.

The hon. member cannot be as stupid as that. It was only the other day that I warned the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against that hon. member and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to-day seen how correct I was when I warned him the other day. I want to warn every hon. member opposite against that member. He will embarrass every one of them very greatly, as he has embarrassed the official Opposition to-day. The hon. member has pleaded to-day that we should throw our sportsfields open—for whom? Not to those who are worried about it that they cannot take part in sport together with the Whites. No, Mr. Chairman, those people who plead that we should throw our sportsfields open are concerned about one thing only and that is whether they can bring that about, because once they have broken through one front, they will, as surely as day follows night, tackle another front. That is the reason why we do not want to open these fronts, as the enemies of South Africa want us to do. That is my reply, pure and simple, to the member for Bezuidenhout.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite this question. I notice that hon. member and his Leader are preparing themselves, are making preparations, to join the United Party. They want to join that party. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they approve of the attitude which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has adopted to-day, whether they support him in his plea? Those hon. members will have the opportunity of getting up and telling us whether they support the hon. member in his attitude. The views which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout holds these days are that he wants to break down everything. What does he want to break down? He wants to break down our traditional policy, apartheid in sport; it is traditional in South Africa to take part in sport separately. That is what the hon. member wants to break down. The hon. member wants to break down the stability which we have in South Africa and to which separate sport has contributed, and thus disturb the good relations between the various racial groups. Mr. Chairman, I can well imagine what will happen in this country to-morrow or the day after once we throw the sport front open and the enemies of South Africa break through. Every sport gathering will be a blood bath. Does the hon. member not know what we are doing? With the application and the maintenance of our policy of separate development and with the arrangements we are making, we are maintaining a great national structure in a stable position. That is what we are doing. I do not know whether the hon. member knows this but when you court you often do very strange things. You sometimes break your promise and you sometimes forget your past. The hon. member is courting: he is flirting with a party and I want to warn that party against that hon. member. Your future with that member will be as you, have seen it to-day.

The hon. member must not refer to “you”; he must refer to “hon. members”.

Mr. Chairman, there is something much deeper than we think in the suggestion made by the hon. member to-day. I want to ask the hon. member and other hon. members whether we in this country, like the world outside, but we in particular, are not trying to overcome the big crisis in which we are.

You are creating one.

What has caused this crisis? The hon. member says we are creating it. Is there a National Party elsewhere in Africa, for example, in those countries which are also faced with this crucial problem—with this crucial factor of race relations—in the crisis? Because we are saddled in this country with a great variety of colour groups the crisis we are passing through is all the more serious; the task which rests upon us to overcome that crisis and to avert the consequences is all the more greater. Does the hon. member not realize what we are doing? Does the solution lie in breaking down everything that has been built up in the past; in undermining the basis of our stability? I agree with what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has said. I wish I was in a position to do so, then I would have given that hon. member a blooming good hiding in his bench.

Order! The hon. member is threatening, and he must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. I just want to tell the hon. member that I think what he has said is a disgrace; in view of the crisis in which we find ourselves, and in view of our genuine desire to overcome this crisis, I think it is a disgrace to allege, on the eve of what is happening at the moment in South Africa, that our Government’s actions are worse than those of the Kremlin. I do not think we will ever forget that. I personally will never forgive the hon. member as long as I live.

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me as though the hon. member has made a great impression upon the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk).

Order! The hon. member must return to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member also says that the Minister and the Government have no faith in their own people. That is no argument. In that case I can argue that it is because we have no faith in our people that we appoint a Police Force, and why we pass laws. That argument carries no weight. [Time limit.]

I do not propose following the outbursts of the previous speaker. A few minutes ago the hon. the Minister replied to observations which I had made in regard to the statistical services and indicated that he was appointing a special committee to go into this matter. I hope that when the Minister does appoint this committee he will include in its terms of reference the question of getting expert advice on the collation and centralization of statistics. At the present moment the Minister’s Department uses Hollerith calculators. The Minister knows that the modern trend is towards electronic computers. A tremendous amount of information can be stored electrically by means of electronic computers; far more than can be stored by old-fashioned methods. When information is available it is possible to micro-film that information and it can be stored in a much smaller compass than is the practice to-day. I hope the committee will not recommend decentralization. I submit that decentralization will be the wrong policy to pursue.

That is one of their terms of reference.

I realize that is one of their terms of reference but I am giving the warning now because information made available has many uses. If information is decentralized then information which is centred in one department may be required by another department. If information is decentralized over the various State departments, the cost of introducing computer collation will be almost prohibitive; it will be very unlikely that it will be introduced in the near future. As the Minister rightly said statistics must be fresh; statistics must come out promptly. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is advisable that the most expeditious way of not only collecting the statistics but of collating and presenting them should be introduced in the Minister’s Department. I do hope that the Minister will give this committee power to call in expert advice to deal with this question of collation by computers. I realize that this is a job for a specialist department and all the members of the committee may not necessarily have that experience of computers. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister should give those officials power to call expert evidence, because I am quite sure that expert evidence will convince the committee of the necessity to centralize the statistics. The amount of information which must be tabulated and collated on a modern computer will make the information readily available in the shortest possible space of time and will overcome many of the defects which obtain under the present system and about which the members of commerce and industry and agriculture are complaining. It will assist in economic planning; it will assist in future planning if the vital statistics of this country are readily available. I hope the Minister when doing the investigation, will include in the powers of this committee the power to call expert evidence on computers so that when a decision is taken it will be taken in the light of the best modern knowledge available on this subject.

I do not want to reply to the language that has been used on the other side against me personally. Unfortunately it is a characteristic of hon. members on the other side that they do not confine themselves to the case that has been put up; they steer away from it and then they come forward with one false accusation after another of a personal nature. In point of fact the attack which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) made upon me were directed against the Burger. My plea, and I adhere to it, was that the Minister and his Government, in matters affecting people’s social life, for example, in sports and church bodies, should have a little more faith in the traditional customs of South Africa. I was not pleading for anything to be broken down; I was talking about the way in which things are being handled in this country. I believe in the greater power of tradition and custom and that it is wrong for the State to interfere in detail in the private lives of citizens. After all, how did we manage for 300 years?

Order! The hon. member cannot debate this matter in broad outline; he must confine himself to the field of sport.

I should like to do so, Mr. Chairman, but some very bitter things have been said here and I have been challenged to state my attitude again. My attitude still is that I have sufficient faith in the traditional customs of the White man in South Africa. Sports associations would not lightly venture to go against the traditions of the vast majority of the White race. That is why it is not a question here of breaking down anything; it is a question of the methods applied by the Government and I adhere to what I said previously. Just as little as I would like to see the Government interfere with the way in which our churches regulate their affairs, so too I am opposed to the Government’s continual interference with sports arrangements. Bodies of this kind have always functioned in the past in accordance with the dictates of public opinion. As a matter of fact, the Government’s boast is that White public opinion is so strongly in favour of a colour bar that it is returned to power time and again. If that is so, then surely there is substance in my argument that the traditional way of regulating things is the best and, moreover, will do less harm to South Africa’s name than the present interference in all matters by the Government. It is not the Government’s duty to decide whether a particular person may take part in a championship! Would the world come to an end, would our traditional way of life collapse and would the White man go under because Papwa takes part in the championship? Such lack of confidence in our traditional way of life is incredible. It is because of the faith that I have in our traditional way of life and its power in regulating things and regulating relations that I repeat my attack and again urge the Government to interfere less in the ordinary life of the citizen.

I should like to reply to a few of the further matters raised. I do not see the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) here now, but I just want to tell him this: If what he says is true, and I accept that it is, then it is a serious matter and I will give the undertaking that my Department will investigate the matter. The provisions of the Act must be implemented, and it is quite correct that this should not happen, if the facts given to us by the hon. member are correct. I will have the matter investigated.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) was frequently called to order by the Chairman, and I do not want to reply to him and thereby land in the same position. I just want to tell the hon. member that we have the Electoral Act and the various provisions in regard to how delimitations are to be made. If the hon. member considers that more is necessary, apart from these four principles according to which constituencies must be delimitated, he must make his representations to me and I will consider them. But as he has put the case here, I cannot say yes or no to him.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has to-night considered it desirable and useful to mention in this Committee Stage a matter such as the question of participation in sport. I should like to join other hon. members in expressing my disapproval of it, and also for other reasons. I think the hon. member has encouraged precisely the very thing he does not want me to do, because he has now by his speech tried to drag into politics the whole question of sport and participation in sport. I believe the other hon. members of the Opposition will act more wisely than he has done, and that they will not make themselves guilty of the same conduct of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made himself guilty, by actually attempting to drag this matter into politics. And I say that with due regard to my responsibility in this connection. There has always been the best co-operation between the sports bodies in South Africa and any previous Government, and not only this one, and the mutual belief that what is done is in the best interests of South Africa, and that the action taken interprets public opinion, for which the hon. member now suddenly pleads so hard.

Now what has happened precisely? I would certainly have taken the opportunity, if I thought that this was a political matter in regard to which the Government’s standpoint had to be defended, to make a statement in this House. But I deliberately did not do so. Why did I make that statement? My predecessor, the present Minister of Finance, made a statement in 1956. There was never any reaction to that, and nobody ever doubted that what he did was done with honest intentions. The only reason why I repeated that statement and expanded on it was because there was some uncertainty, on the part of certain bodies, as to what the standpoint of the Government was. Where did that measure of uncertainty come from? I do not want to say that it was done with ulterior motives, but people started inviting other nations left and right to come and participate in sport in South Africa. We had the difficulty that these people did not know precisely where they stood, or some of them pretended not to know where they stood. Then there are others, the ultra-liberals referred to by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), whose object definitely is the ruining of the traditional method of handling sport in South Africa, and who deliberately set out to create problems instead of trying to create a good spirit. I want to say, Sir, that the great commotion that took place here to-day is that hon. member has actually become a tool, not even in the hands of the Opposition, it seems to me, to try to drag something into this debate which is not at home in this debate.

Then where is it at home?

Nowhere; it should be left in the same hands of the federated sports bodies, of the national sports bodies, which will handle and control their own affairs much better than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could ever do. All he is doing is to spoil their case. Let me tell the hon. member that there is the closest contact with these responsible sports bodies, sports organizations and federations. They continually write to the Government asking what they should do in a particular case or what advice we can give in some other case. There is not a single piece of legislation which determines these relations. But it is based on mutual understanding, and we find it both in the files of the previous Government and of this Government, and the hon. member now wants to throw a spanner into the works to spoil these relations. Sir, let me tell the hon. member this: I am fully confident that in so far as the development of sport in South Africa is concerned, and with reference to this statement which I issued in March, there will still be the same good relations which have always existed. We can furnish proof that it is not necessary to begin making concessions to pressure from abroad in this sphere. Because it must simply be expected that we will not allow it. But the Government has been very liberal in its attitude and it simply sets out from the standpoint that in so far as public opinion and tradition in regard to sport in South Africa are concerned, we expect that when tourists visit our country they will accept and respect our way of doing things; and when we send teams overseas, they must also know that we do it in our way, but when we are in their country we respect their approach to sport. But we will not allow any body inside or outside South Africa to dictate to us what we should do in this country. Because we have just one basic standpoint, to which we will adhere, and that is that in regard to South Africa’s participation in sport, that is based on our traditional standpoint. I want to ask the hon. member to consider for a moment what can happen here in regard to mixed sport. He mentioned Papwa as an example, but has the hon. member considered the consequences if a mixed team should come to South Africa at this moment? But that is not what is concerned here. The hon. member should not allow that impression to be created abroad. It was very clearly said in this statement that we adopt neither a superior nor an inferior attitude in regard to sport. On the contrary, we have already stated that it is the duty of those who know more, namely the Whites, to assist the non-Whites, to whichever group they may belong, to practise sport in the same spirit and on the same level of efficiency as the Whites. We will therefore assist them; we are their guardians.

I can only repeat that what the hon. member tried to do here this afternoon, and that unsavoury comparison he made between the Kremlin and South Africa is objectionable to us. I can only say that he hon. member has used words here which do not redound to his credit, which can do our country no good, and which cannot serve the interests of the matter he advocated here. He can only cause confusion. Therefore I can only express my gratitude for the fact that the official Opposition did not try to make use of this in an attempt to derive political gain. I fully appreciate that, even though they may differ from me as to the way in which I handled the matter. But this is not a political matter. The hon. member has lost more than he realizes. In any case, he has revealed to the whole world where he stands.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—”Public Service Commission”, R1,180,000.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in discussing a Vote of this nature, where thousands of our fellow-citizens have made a career or serving the public and the country, he will join with me when I express the thought that our country would like to see the most efficient, contented and the most well-paid Public Service that it is possible for any country to have. I make that observation because I want to refer to certain statements that the Minister made last year when addressing the Conference of Public Service Associations in October. I do not want the Minister to say tonight that I am quoting him out of context. I am quoting what is relevant to what I want to put before the Minister, and I have here the report of the Minister’s statement to this conference as reported in the Star of Wednesday 25 October. The Minister discussed the position of the place that the Public Service should hold in the country, and he had these observations to make. He said that in Germany public servants were regarded as conceited, money-wasting bureaucrats, with a tendency to misuse their power. The Minister made that statement when referring to the place of the public servant in the monarchical form of government, particularly referring to the place of our public servants in the past while South Africa was still a monarchy. Then he went on to say this—

The Minister drew a parallel between the position in France and in Germany and said this—

He said, further—

The Sapa report ends there, and I take it that because this report has never been contradicted the Minister will accept what I have quoted here as being correct. Now I want to ask the Minister what he meant when he said this? What concept was he attempting to preach to the public servants of our country when he said that they would not be servants of the people or the public whom they serve, but they should be servants of the State? In my view, and in that of this side of the House, it expresses a very dangerous concept of the functions and the position of the Public Service. I think one may say that in such observations there are very dangerous under-currents. It creates the impression that it is the Minister’s view that the public servant is independent of Parliament and merely a tool of the Government in power; that he is a tool to be used by the Government in power and that he owes no responsibility to Parliament. It implies adapting the administrative machine of the country to the wishes of those who hold power. I say that is a totalitarian concept, which has applied in totalitarian countries, that the official is the servant of the State and not of the people whom he serves. I think, therefore, that in discussing this Public Service Commission Vote it is necessary that we should have a clear statement from the Minister of the Government’s policy in this regard, and of what in fact the Minister meant when he made these statements and advocated such thoughts to the public servants.

It is necessary to ask this because the Chairman of the Public Service Commission also addressed the Conference of Public Service Associations at that time, and he addressed them before the Minister did, and he had views which appear to me to be at variance with those of the Minister, because he said this, as reported in the Press. He said—

That statement clearly implies that it is the function of the public servant to dedicate himself to the interests of the public whom he serves, quite contrary to the Minister’s concept that it is the job of the public servant to dedicate himself to the behests of the State. I ask the Minister because I think it is important that we have a clear statement of policy in this regard, because I see that in a further interview with the Press, when the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was asked to comment on the Minister’s statement, he was very chary of making any direct comment, but he did say quite clearly that he considered it was the function of the public servant to serve the public of the country.

I want to take the Minister a stage further. At an earlier meeting, also in October last year, the Minister had a meeting with the heads of the various departments, which also included the heads of the Provincial Administration departments, if I remember correctly, and he told them that what was considered necessary at the present time was an overhaul of the present merit system of promotion in order that a diligent official could have every chance of winning his reward for hard work, and he posed the question to the heads of these departments whether the Public Service is not perhaps losing its best men, not because the salary is insufficient, but because these men were frustrated by red tape? The Minister was obviously addressing the heads of departments on the question of shortage of staff and the difficulties being experienced in the Public Service in this regard, and he was dealing with the question of wastage. I want to ask the Minister this. It is interesting to note that in nearly every report over the past few years reference has been made by the Public Service Commissioners to the shortage of staff and the difficulty of obtaining suitable personnel. I do not want to enumerate these difficulties, but it is clearly shown in the 1960 report of the P.S.C. that the authorized establishment had increased from 1953, at which time it stood at 119,300, to 148,500 as at 1 December 1960. In other words, there has been an increase in the authorized establishment of some 26,000 odd posts. Whilst the establishment has increased, the latest report of the P.S.C. reveals that the number of posts on the establishment not filled by permanent incumbents presently total some 16,800, and if you analyse the figures in this report further you find that resignations from the Public Service over the same period total no less than 54,301, and that is—let me emphasize—not in all the divisions of the Public Service, but only in the clerical, professional and technical grades and the general aid division. When you examine these shortages in the light of these figures, I think we should say to the Minister that the position can hardly be described as satisfactory. I have quoted these figures for this purpose, because the Minister is on record as having said that his ultimate aim, in order to get an efficient service, was to get a smaller and more efficient Public Service. With the 26,000 increased posts and the 54,000 resignations, I think it is pertinent to ask the Minister how he hopes to achieve this? He has told the country that the drain of man-power from the Public Service must be stopped, but at the same time the Minister tells the Public Service officials to work harder without expecting any immediate material gain. The plain fact of the matter is that until the rates of pay or the rewards of public service are of such a nature for men of ability in our flourishing economy that they have the inducement to spend a lifetime in the Public Service, this unsatisfactory position will remain. Therefore it is no wonder that we get reports such as this House saw recently of a magistrate, a respected citizen, a man who exercised authority over his fellow-citizens, had to resign in order to get better employment as an ordinary clerk in some commercial concern.

Then there are one or two other points on which I think the Minister should give the House and the country some information. The 1959 report of the P.S.C. refers to the steps taken for corrective treatment for officers with occupational adjustment problems, and the latest report available, that for 1960, indicates that this new step taken to adjust these maladjusted officers was first taken only in the Pretoria area, but that it was hoped to extend the scheme to the other major centres. Is it necessary that such investigation should take place? Is it necessary to conduct these investigations, because the figure quoted of 254 cases in Pretoria alone, of officers needing corrective treatment, is a high figure. Are no steps taken when men are employed in the service to sort them out for the jobs, to give them aptitude tests, to see that the posts in which they are placed are suitable to their temperament, their ability, their education and their other qualifications? I think the Minister should indicate whether steps of that nature are being taken before people are employed in the Public Service.

Then there is the question of language tests to which I would like to refer. The two latest reports available of the P.S.C. reveal that no fewer than 10,000 officers were tested, and only 5,600 were successful. But what is disturbing to note is that the largest percentage who failed these tests comprised those who failed in English. Can the Minister give us any further information, because it is now rumoured that because of the difficulty of getting applicants, these language tests will be suspended for some time.

Another point on which the Minister should indicate the Government’s policy is this. At the last meeting of the Public Service Joint Advisory Council certain recommendations were made and one of them, which I understand has been the subject of discussions over quite a long period, was for the introduction of a compulsory medical benefit scheme. I understand that as the result of the discussions that took place in the Advisory Council, where all the staff associations are represented, it was stated by the P.S. Commissioners that a committee had been appointed to investigate the matter further. I ask the Minister whether he can make any statement, and whether it is intended that a comprehensive, compulsory medical benefit scheme will be introduced for the benefit of all public servants.

Then I come to what has been considered for a long time as a ticklish question as far as public servants are concerned, and that is the question of a five-day week. I think it is generally accepted that in commerce and industry to-day the principle of a five-day week operates, but it does not operate in businesses or in commerce or industry where it would be to the detriment of the public as a whole. At this last meeting of the staff associations, representations were made by the Council to the P.S.C. along these lines, and I quote from the report of the P.S.C., as follows—

It also made a second recommendation in this regard and stated—

In other words, the staff associations are fully aware of the responsibilities of public servants to the general public, and there is no suggestion of a general closing down of Government offices on Saturdays to the inconvenience of the public as a whole. But the contention of the staff associations is that if other businesses, even including local authorities, can operate on reduced staffs on Saturday mornings to attend to the requirements of the public, so that the public will not be inconvenienced, why should the same position not apply in the Public Service? It is interesting to note that the decision of the P.S.C. in this regard was one of outright rejection. I would like to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived, if he is concerned to build up a stronger, smaller but more effective Public Service, when he should consider all these aspects which deal with the conditions of the man who is prepared to devote his whole life to the Public Service, to serve his fellow-citizens and his country. As long as the public servants of the country feel that they occupy a position of lower merit, which is not recognized on an equal basis, especially as far as the higher ranks of the service are concerned, which are equivalent in privilege and status to those who hold high positions in commerce, so long will we not have an efficient Public Service, and for so long will the Public Service continue to draw only people of moderate merit, and not the best. I think the Minister will agree with me that it should be Government policy to draw the best men for the Public Service, because they are the men who carry the burdens of the country and not the politicians who come in one year and go out the next year. I could draw attention to many more such points, but time does not permit of it, but I hope the Minister can give a clear statement of Government policy in regard to these matters.

Then there is one final point I wish to raise, and I would be failing in my duty to my own constituents if I did not mention it, and which is one I have continued to do as long as I have been in this House, and that is the position of the women in the Public Service. I am not going to deal with the matter at length. I want to be consistent in the plea I have put up here year after year, that a woman should be treated on the same basis as a man, on merit, and should be paid the same salary for doing the same work. The time has, in my opinion, come when all avenues in the Public Service should be opened up to women, and to get equal pay for equal work. There is no defined policy as far as the Government is concerned. In some Departments it is the practice to shunt women into dead-end jobs where they do not have the opportunity of doing equal work. There are other Departments where women do the same work as men, but draw lower salaries than the men. Then there are other cases where the women have young, inexperienced men as their subordinates, but who earn higher salaries than these women just because they are men. The plain fact of the matter is that a man who can hold down a job will not object to competition from women, but the man who dislikes the thought of a woman being on the same level with him is one who dislikes competition in any case. I would suggest to the Minister that the general run of men in the Public Service are prepared to meet the competition from women and the extent to which they support these women’s associations in regard to these representations that have been made for many years, and even by the official journal of the Public Service for over 30 years—I think that shows that the time has come that the Minister should give a clear statement of policy in this regard.

I rise to elaborate on the subject introduced by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that women should get equal pay for equal work, I want to remind the hon. the Minister that the Advisory Council for the Public Service have year after year asked that consideration be given to this. I want to say to the Minister that this is a movement which is afoot right through the whole civilized world, and the feeling is there that where women are doing the same kind of work and are doing a job equal to that of a man, they should get the same salary as men. It is a recognized fact that men and women receive the same training. They go to co-educational establishments where they receive exactly the same training. They have to pass the same examinations, and it is only after entrance into the Service that the differentiation is made and women are paid less when they are doing the same job as the men. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that this will have tremendous repercussions. Perhaps he will say that the economy of the country cannot afford it, but when an examination of this matter was made by a Royal Commission in Britain, the finding was that the repercussions would be negligible, and it was found that when this was applied in Britain the economy of the country could easily stand the strain. Therefore I hope the Minister will not say that to me. I do not say that it should be applied outright in one year. Perhaps it could be made applicable over a number of years, and so stagger the effects on the economy of the country, although it was made applicable in one year in Britain. I want to draw attention here to the fact that a UN resolution which was passed by a number of civilized countries was put into operation in those countries, and therefore I say the Minister should be able to do it in this country. I have here several resolutions from the UN Economic and Social Council and I find that in their resolution of 7 March 1962 they say the following—

I find in another resolution, also of the UN Economic Council that they say—

And so in resolution after resolution I find the same thing. I find that another resolution urges member federations to continue their efforts to press Governments to eliminate discriminatory laws and practices and create acceptance on the part of the public and employers to give married women full opportunities for employment on the same terms as unmarried women, and they go on to say that the pay must also be equal where the woman does the same work as the man. I want to stress that point. I do not ask for increased pay for women where they do not do exactly the same work as the man. I have referred to the legislation passed in Britain on this point. Another resolution passed at UN reads—

That theme runs right through all these resolutions at UN where both the Western and the Asian nations are represented.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was saying that the trend in the modern world was that more and more women had to work because of our new economy in an industrial world. It is a “must” these days for women to work because of the rising cost of living. There are many women in our own public service and I think the hon. the Minister will admit that he has found them an essential and stable labour force. They are a stable element in our life. I have had some difficulty in trying to get the correct figures as they are not shown in the Commissioner’s report. But I think I am right in saying that some 42 per cent of our public servants are women. There are certain posts in the Public Service where the salary is attached to the post and not to the individual who occupies the post. The women who are in such posts—although there are not many of them—have given yeoman service. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that where that has been the case those women have performed as good a job of work as any man could have done and that they have well deserved the salary which was attached to such posts. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take a lead in this matter. There are many sections in our Public Service where women out-number the men. I think for instance, of telephone operators. Most of the telephone operators are women. I think of the position here in the Houses of Parliament. We have very efficient female telephone operators in this building; we also have a couple of men who operate the telephones. I find that the men draw bigger salaries than these very capable and able women telephone operators who give us wonderful service day after day. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take the lead in this matter. Because, Sir, if the Minister obeyed the requests which have been made to him from his own Public Service Commission association, then surely the teaching profession, local government and the nursing profession will follow him and industry as such will also follow. I want to stress that there is no discrimination before a woman enters the Public Service. She has to undergo exactly the same training; she has to attend a co-educational establishment; she has to pass the same examination. It is only after entrance into the Service that they are paid according to sex even if they are doing the same work. That seems to be extremely unfair, Sir. I think the men in South Africa will admit that it is extremely unfair. The South African man is a fair individual. Where I am saying this, I realize that I am speaking in a man’s world. I repeat that the South African man is a fair individual and that he realizes that where the job is the same the salary should be the same.

As I have said we find that more and more women have to work in this modern world of ours. Previously it was only the unmarried women who had to work but to-day the married women also have to work to assist their husbands. I think that the equality between the sexes which allows a woman to achieve a full professional and civil life, does not detract from family life but adds to it in multiplying the sphere of interest shared by the parties to a marriage. Educated and trained women are surely better fitted to train and advise their children. Surely that fits her better to be a proper mate for a well brought up and well-balanced husband. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister to take this step. I find that the Act in England which provided for equal pay to men and women is a very simple Act. As a matter of fact it has only two clauses. It has only one operative clause which reads—

Nothing could be more simple, Mr. Chairman. I have previously indicated what the trend is in modem life and in the Western world. I have indicated how many of the Western nations have adopted this principle. I have also told this Committee that England has adopted this principle. This Bill was passed in 1954 in England. Canada followed in 1956 and many other countries have followed. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to hearken this appeal which has been made to him by the women of South Africa. Where I speak to-day, I am speaking in a House where there is equal pay for equal work, so I am not pleading my own cause. I am pleading the cause of hundreds of thousands of women outside this House. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that if he really wants to become a popular Minister he should hearken this plea which has come from his own Public Service Association. I want to tell him that if he wants to be in good company and if he tells us to-night that he will introduce legislation to this effect, he will find himself in the company of Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has just said that he wants the United States of America and private industry to provide equal pay and employment opportunity to women. Mr. Kennedy thinks that the same recognition should be given to women to-day to take part in public life as that given to them as mothers and housewives. Surely this is an opportunity of a life-time for the hon. the Minister. I can hardly imagine his refusing the appeal I have made to him. He will be so popular and he will be in such good company that I do not think he realizes how popular he will be.

I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). I find that in her plea to the hon. the Minister she has made several important mistakes. In the first place, Sir, let me put it to her as a woman member of this House, as a mother, and ask her whether she does not agree with me that many of the evils which we have in South Africa to-day are tied up with the fact that our womenfolk, our mothers, are not in the homes to look after the children. Whether we wish to admit it or not, Sir, the fact remains that something has gone wrong in South Africa. That is so. It is not a pleasant admission to make. If we think of the products which our schools and universities turned out in the past, we have every reason to be proud of our fellow South Africans. What has happened in the meantime?

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I am sorry to put her out, but my time is limited. The fact that our women have left their homes and have taken up business careers.…

Have become members of Parliament.

I would not say that. I want to be fair to the hon. member for Drakensberg. I really think she can make a great contribution to this House on behalf of the womenfolk of South Africa and I admire her for it. The point I wish to stress is this: We in South Africa must unfortunately admit that our young folk are definitely going back. They are not coming forward. The youth of olden days did not behave the way present-day youth behave. The fact remains that we would like to see a change in the position but how can we change it when the woman’s influence is absent in the home? We must admit to-night that our divorce rate is the second highest in the world to-day. Only Denmark exceeds our figures. Why? Is it not due to the fact that our women are not in the homes: that is where they should be. They are out in business doing men’s work. I am not for one moment saying, Sir, that they are not making their contributions. But the fact remains that, as we of the old school look at it, the woman’s place is in her home. But she is not there to-day. The child is left to the tender mercies of a nanny, and often a Black nanny. That Black nanny has to rear that child of six, seven or eight years of age. What is the result, Mr. Chairman?

You!

Mr. Chairman, I do not see any reason for mirth. This is a very serious matter. The fact remains—and we cannot get away from it—that if that Black nanny rears that child she certainly leaves a certain impression on that child’s mind. Is that desirable in this country? Is that the type of child we want to see taking over the reins of government in the future? I certainly do not think so. Let me say this to the hon. member as regards the question of the salaries which are paid to women in this country: South Africa is a country which pays homage to its womenfolk. We place them on a pedestal whether they deserve it or not—often they do not. The hon. member for Drakensberg will admit it, Sir, that they often do not deserve to be placed on the pedestal where we place them. However, the fact still remains that this country honours its womenfolk. This is a country with a unique history as far as its womenfolk are concerned. In the past the womenfolk of this country have borne the brunt of the struggle. I predict that if we wish to become the nation which we wish to become in the future, the South African women will have to play their part, not in the business world but in the home. I cannot stress this point strongly enough.

The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke about our parliamentary staff. She mentioned the women telephone operators in this House and all over South Africa. We are proud of the fact that a young country like South Africa can produce women who are capable of doing that work. But the fact remains that your night services are done by men. [Laughter.] The hon. member comes here and pleads with the hon. the Minister to treat the women in our Public Service more generously. May I suggest to the hon. member that the Minister and this Government have given all the recognition necessary to the womenfolk of this country. Women are recognized in so many walks of life as the equal of the men that we do not know what more we can do. But I have my doubts whether they can hold their own in comparison with men. In all the senior posts it is necessary for the Public Service to employ men to put the final touch to the different services.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) was certainly very interesting. I am very glad to hear that his party is so definitely and firmly set against the principle of the rate for the job as far as the women in the Public Service are concerned. He did not admit as he should have admitted, that if it were not for this Government the family’s fight for a living would have been easier; the fight for our children’s future would have been easier and perhaps our womenfolk would have been able to model their lives on the lines suggested by the hon. member. As far as I am concerned, I am completely and utterly on the side of my colleague, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk).

When I raised the question of the language tests earlier in this debate, I was told to raise it under this particular Vote. The Minister, in reply to questions of mine on the removal of the language tests in the Public Service, gave the following reply on Tuesday 20 February 1962—

I followed that up with a further question on 23 February—

I repeat that, Sir—

In reply to a question by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in regard to the staff position the Minister replied as follows—

Mr. Chairman, on page XV of the Estimates you have a schedule of the salary scales in the “addendum reflecting scales of salary which are common to all Departments and which are not shown in the Votes”. The only Public Servants with a higher salary figure than R3,120 mentioned by me, are the Secretary, Postmaster-General and corresponding officials. That is the first batch. Then Deputy Secretary and corresponding officials; Under secretaries and corresponding officials; Administrative Control officer, Principal Accountant, Principal Cost Accountant. And then the lowest grades: Principal Administrative Officer, Senior Accountant and Senior Cost Accountant. Those are the only positions in the Public Service which are apparently regarded as not being the most junior grades. The people on the R3,120 scale are the Senior Administrative officers, Accountants, Grade I. Cost Accountants, Grade I and O. & M. Officers, Grade I. Their maximum salary is R3,120. They are apparently regarded as being the lowest grade in the Public Service. Mr. Chairman if ever there was a misleading reply this is it. How many senior posts are there? There are five classes of posts above this lowest grade of R3,120. Of course, we all know what the practice has been in the past. To be bilingual was to be able to speak Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I as an English-speaking person know. I regard this as the final declaration that English as a language is unnecessary in the Public Service. In the past we know too that these language tests were to keep the senior English-speaking Public Servants down and as an excuse for promoting Broederbonders over them. It seems to me as an English-speaking person that this process is now being completed. The Government is of course reaping its fruits in another direction too. For years thousands of children speaking Afrikaans only have been produced by the schools and universities and have been absorbed into the Public Service. If it had not been for this Government they would have been good South Africans. But they have been indoctrinated with a hatred for the English and a contempt for the English language. Mr. Chairman, I say that any English-speaking person who joins the Public Service is a fool. [Interjections.] I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister for the abolition of these tests. To tell me that these are the most junior grades is just fantasy. The extraordinary part of it is that we are continually told that we must stand together in unity. This is not the way to create unity, Sir. If we are in trouble, as they keep on telling us we are, I suggest to this Minister that this sort of practice, that this sort of act, is the most ill-considered act from his point of view that could be committed. I only have to mention what happened recently. A certain gentleman in Durban assured us that there is only going to be one language here in future, Afrikaans. [Interjections.] I would like to take a bet on with you, old man. Recently the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) in this House tried to point out to us that the English-speaking people comprised only 9 per cent of the population of South Africa and that unless we fell in behind the Prime Minister we would meet the same fate as his people. Perhaps we have other ideas, Mr. Chairman; perhaps we will find a method of coming to terms with fate, which will take little cognisance of Nationalist Afrikanerdom as at present being run. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, let me assure the hon. the Minister that we English-speaking people have no intention of losing our language. I would like all English-speaking people to re-read Keppel Jones’ book.

I wanted to wait a little before replying, but after this last speech I just want to express my deep disappointment that in this era in which we are living there are still people who call themselves South Africans and who can use the language which was used by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). I do not want to make myself guilty of making the same type of speech as the one made by that hon. member, but I want to express my deep disappointment, and I should like to have the assurance, at least from one of the hon. members opposite, that they do not agree with it. I feel that the people of South Africa at this period have had more than enough of artificial divisions between races, and particularly between the two language groups in this country, such as the hon. member for Benoni has been shouting about here like a Rip van Winkel. I just want to give him the assurance that in so far as the Public Service and the language tests in the Public Service are concerned, and in regard to the attempt to achieve bilingualism in the Public Service, there is not a word of truth in the doubts he expressed. I can assure him that it is a difficult task for the Public Service Commission and for everybody concerned with the matter to maintain a proper standard of bilingualism in the Public Service. I must say frankly that strenuous attempts are being made, not to teach English-speaking people Afrikaans, but to teach Afrikaans-speaking people English. There is really an honest attempt to promote bilingualism as far as possible. I want to appeal to this side of the House not to belittle themselves by replying to the allegations made by the hon. member for Benoni. I do not think we should do so. I do not think it is worth while devoting attention to it. We are here to serve a cause, We are not here, like the hon. member, to talk a lot of nonsense and in that way to try to drive in a wedge between Afrikaans and Englishspeaking people. Let us derive political advantage wherever we can, but in Heaven’s name let us abstain from making such irresponsible accusations as those made against us by the hon. member for Benoni.

Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein apologized to me for not being able to be present to-night because he has another urgent appointment. I accept that. I will reply to him in absentia. He has again quoted a speech of mine from a newspaper. He said it was a Sapa report. I daresay that is so. He just took a small extract from that speech, which I made before the Association of Public Servants. The hon. member, inter alia, directed these words to me: “What did you mean by the following words: They should not be servants of the public but servants of the State?” Then he himself came to the conclusion that I was propagating a totalitarian state, a Nazi state. He asked me for a clear statement in regard to my policy. I told the hon. member that if he was really so interested I could have given him a copy of my speech. I had a copy with me. What I did at that meeting is this: I told the public servants that on 31 May 1961, we had changed our constitutional Head of State; we changed from a monarchical to a republican form of government. I then sketched what the actual position of the public servants under the monarchical form of government was, viz. allegiance to the Crown, to Her Majesty. I gave a long exposition with which I do not want to weary the House. I pointed out, inter alia, that we were now faced with a new choice. We had always been public servants, and we would now have to decide whether we wanted to remain public servants or whether we wanted to become State officials. Then I made this point, and I should like to read it to you verbatim, Sir. I said—

Just before that I referred to the State official in France, but that is not so important that I need quote it. I then continued to say this—

Because I referred to the expertness of the German, the accusation was immediately made in some newspapers that I now favoured a Nazi State. I continued to say the following in my speech—

Those are the lines on which I spoke and if any hon. members are interested I can make this speech available to them. I think it was a very good speech, not because I made it, but I think it was good to see our public servants in this actual light, as being experts who are the co-rulers of our country. I continued to say in this speech that any Minister is dependent on the sound advice and the co-operation of his senior officials and therefore it was absolutely necessary for these people to become State officials, and not simply sit around in an office waiting to serve and help the public. Of course they must serve the public, but to make this gross accusation that there was a Nazi idea behind it. does not reflect favourably on the speech and does not redound to the honour of the public servants themselves. The public servant in South Africa simply has not got that mentality, and why he should allow himself to be led by a Minister who expresses these few ideas is something I cannot understand at all. I am very sorry that half the speech was quoted again and that the whole background of it was not given, and I hope that we will now understand clearly that the only object was to make patriotism the yardstick. One knows what trust-worthiness the civil servant in Great Britain shows, everything in the name of the King or the Queen. It is a well-known fact, and I also mentioned it in my speech, that the police officers in Britain do not go about armed in order to maintain law and order. They maintain law and order in the name of Her Majesty. All that has been built up during the course of the years, and I said that we are republicans and do not idolize any person, neither the State President nor anybody else, but we regard patriotism as the highest motive. That is what should inspire every State official. If I am told that I acted wrongly, then my reply is that I think we should investigate the person who says that, because the fault lies with him.

The hon. member also objected to the statement I am lleged to have made in a speech to the heads of Departments. I am supposed to have said that we lose many members of the staff because public servants feel frustrated. I want to repeat that I warned the Public Service that if they carried on in that way then such a feeling would arise. I said that we must get out of the groove of considering only seniority and promotions being made only on the basis of seniority and that if there was a man with a high intelligence quotient, who showed initiative and the courage to tackle something by himself, then we should not keep that person down, but we should promote him as soon as possible, and that seniority should not be the only yardstick for promotion, and under the merit system which is now applied in the Public Service such a person should be promoted more quickly. There are many things which count as merits. Therefore I repeat that they become frustrated if they have to stay in the same grade for years.

The hon. member also felt unhappy about the “corrective training He said that in Pretoria alone there were 255 cases, and why do we not apply aptitude tests to these people? Now I want to tell the hon. member that only .3 per cent of officials need that corrective training, and they are not beginners. The people who need this new training are people who have been in the service for a long time; they are alcoholics, and people who have got into debt and people who have had domestic trouble. It is for those people that this is done. It is not intended for the ordinary people who have made mistakes right in the beginning.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) also advocated a joint advisory council and a comprehensive medical scheme. Such a scheme has been investigated already. The Government has investigated, but up to this point the matter has not yet reached finality, but we hope in the near future to reach finality. In regard to the five-day week, the Government has always kept this matter in mind but has not found the time ripe to effect such a change. There are pros and cons, there can be a lot said in favour of it but on the other hand there are weighty disadvantages. [CONTINUED IN AFRIKAANS.]

*I now come to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), who associated herself with the hon. member for Turffontein in regard to equal treatment for women in the Public Service. I just want to tell the hon. member for Drakensberg that equality between male and female public servants has come about in the Public Service to a much greater extent than ever before, and to a much greater extent than she intimated here. I think it would be as well for this Committee to note what has already taken place. For example, there has always been a difference between the pensionable age of a man and a woman, and since 1955 the pensionable age has been the same. In the one category they can also retire at 63 and in the other at 65, just like the men. Where men and women candidates have the same qualifications, commencing salaries are paid which are either equal or as close together as the two relevant salary scales permit. An example of this is the commencing scale of R780 p.a. which is applicable to both matriculated male clerks and female clerks provided the qualifications are the same. I have here a few comparative scales which may perhaps be interesting. I have here the scale of the clerical and administrative divisions. A male clerk is paid on the scale R780 × 60—900, which goes up, with increases of R100, to R1,800. A female clerk in the General “B” Division of the Public Service receives R660 × 60—1,320, and a Special Grade female clerk receives R960 × 60—1,440-1,520. The required initial qualifications for women—and that is where the difference comes in—are lower than those for men. The compass of the work of the female posts is also smaller than that of the men. The hon. member advocates equal pay for equal work, and here is an evaluation of the work: The man’s requirements are higher and the compass of the woman’s work is lower. Where the initial qualification for the woman happens to be the same as that for the man, precisely the same initial salary is paid. Therefore I think we are under a misapprehension in this respect, and the only difference lies in the fact that sometimes a man is expected to have the matriculation qualification, whereas a woman is perhaps expected to have only Std. 8. If the qualifications are the same, they receive absolutely the same salary. Now take a senior clerk. A male senior clerk receives R1,300 × 100—1,800, and then again by R120 up to R2,160. A senior female clerk receives R1,260 × 60—1,440, and then by increases of R80 to R2,160, precisely the same as in the case of a man, except that she starts with R40 less. But her final salary is the same. Here the compass of work of the male posts and the female posts are reasonably comparable, but the increments of the man are larger than those of the woman because of socio-economic considerations. The type of man who is in the Public Service at that stage is of marriageable age, and the woman who is in the Public Service at that stage probably never intends getting married. Therefore if the hon. member for Drakensberg wants to regard that as “madness”, then there is method in our madness as far as that is concerned.

Now I come to the technical division, and here it is absolutely the same. An assistant technical officer, if he is a man, receives R1,300 going up to R2,160, whereas the woman starts at R1,260 and also goes up to R2,160. The initial qualifications are the same and the responsibilities of the man and the woman are regarded as being equal.

But now I come to the higher posts, and here the important point is that the male technical officer receives R2,160 × 120—2,640, and the woman receives precisely the same. There is equality in every respect. From this it appears quite clearly that there are sufficient opportunities for the women and a reasonable opportunity to advance if they want to follow a career in the Public Service.

What about the lower grades?

I have mentioned them and said that the initial qualifications for women in the lower grades are lower than those for men. Where the qualifications are equal, the woman receives the same salary. The compass of the work is also smaller.

I really think this misapprehension should now be cleared up. The woman’s chances of following a career, as I have set out, are restricted by a few things which the hon. member did not mention. This is particularly the case in respect of women who marry, as the result of the present legal provisions and the policy followed. That is a matter which has often been debated and in regard to which no clarity exists yet. But I want to tell the hon. member further that there are certain posts in the Public Service which are difficult posts, far away from civilization, which the girls do not want to accept, and which one cannot expect them to take. How would a woman fare if, for example, she had to supervise a group of Bantu? How would she like to serve in an untamed malarial area, perhaps in the Forestry Department? They are usually in the more protected posts in the cities and large towns, where there is every opportunity for them, and consequently certain work which is much more difficult has to be done by men.

I could expand on this for a long time still, but I am convinced that this so-called inequality is grossly exaggerated, and that hon. members try to prove a case which really does not exist. I want to ask the hon. member not to come along with Kennedy and people like that, people in highly developed countries, and not to ask us to follow the same road. But we have made much progress. Just compare the position 15 years ago with the position occupied by the woman in the Public Service to-day. There is actually very little difference, and what differences there are are based on logical grounds and for very sound reasons, and they are not merely arbitrary.

I think before we pass this Vote, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to say a word of appreciation so far as the Civil Service is concerned. The position surely is this that throughout the year in the course of our ordinary official duties, we continually come into contact with our civil servants, day after day, week after week, and that brings one to an understanding of the work they are doing, particularly at a time like this when party politics are playing a very important part in our daily lives, and when one sees the cut and thrust as seen here in Parliament day after day, in public meetings and elsewhere, one realizes precisely the responsibility which is so often laid on the shoulders of civil servants to try and steer a middle course between Scylla and Charybdis of the various political parties which are continually threatening their safety, and the work which they have to carry out in an entirely unbiassed manner, as far as possible. So may I say that from this side of the House I would like to express our appreciation of what they have done and the manner in which diplomatically and without giving way to the pressure from one side or the other so far as it is humanly possible they have played their part. I am sorely tempted to say that their task is rendered very much more difficult owing to many of the Ministers whom they serve. I am going to resist the temptation to say that. I leave it at an expression of appreciation of the services they render.

It is my privilege now on behalf of the civil servants, who cannot speak for themselves here, to thank the hon. member for South Coast for his appreciative words, apart from the last sentence which of course is ruled out of order. I think civil servants are only too pleased to serve under the present Government because we are very appreciative of their good services. I can state here unequivocally that our civil servants have a very difficult task to fulfil and they do it with honour and my experience over the years has been a very pleasant one, and I work with them in harmony whether they are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking. I have found them to be very loyal and true and they give their best.

I should like to make two suggestions to the hon. the Minister and they both concern the use of language in the Civil Service. We are all anxious to maintain a high standard of what we call “bilingualism”. We are anxious that every civil servant should reach as high a standard as possible in the use of the second language. Now I make the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that we should have in every department of the Civil Service one man who is an expert in the use of Afrikaans, and one who is an expert in the use of English. When statements are made to the public, when any statement is issued to the public, perhaps to the whole world, that expert should revise such statement in the department concerned. One cannot expect that every person will reach a high standard of bilingualism, especially in the use of the second language. It is asking too much. Therefore I suggest that there should be such an expert in every department of the Civil Service. There has been much criticism in recent years of the deterioration in the standard of English. There was criticism the other day even in respect of the S.A.B.C. where special care is taken to maintain a high standard in both languages; we have always to be on the qui vive to make sure that there is no deterioration in the standard of our languages. Deterioration is inevitable in a bilingual country unless we are careful. That is my first suggestion. We have information departments; we have numerous information officers. What I think would be more useful than so many information officers would be language experts in the Civil Service to whom a member of a department can go and say: “Look over this before I send it out; it is a statement I am making to the Press; or it is a special letter that I am writing. Will you just go over it and make sure that it is up to standard?” We must do something of that kind.

My other point is in regard to language tests in the Civil Service. I think it is most unfair to say of a public servant when he is a candidate for a higher post in the service: Yes, he has the seniority, he has the experience, he has the background, but we are not quite sure about the standard he has reached in the languages. We shall have to give him a language test. I think that is unfair. I think what we should do in the Civil Service is this: We should have a series of language tests, say five, perhaps seven; the seventh, the highest test in a language would be in respect of the type of man I described as the expert in the department. You would not expect the civil servants in general to reach that standard. But to every person in the Civil Service you would say: For this post we require the third standard in bilingualism; for another post you would require the fourth standard. For a junior post you would require the first standard which would toe, I suppose, lower language in matriculation. That would be probably Stage I. When we come to the university degree, the man who takes a university degree in both languages, we would regard him probably as of the sixth or perhaps the seventh standard. And the civil servant should be able to take those tests at any time during his service in the department. At the age of 25, if he has the knowledge of languages, he should have passed sufficient language tests to be able to occupy the highest posts in the service. After that what would be required would be experience and knowledge of the working of the service. But you would not say to a man of 45 who is a candidate for one of the plums of the service: We are now going to give you a language test. That I think is unfair. I raised this matter some years ago with the hon. the Minister of Lands when he was Minister of Railways, and the defence the hon. the Minister put up was this: He said that a man might reach a very high standard when he was in the intermediate class at the university, or perhaps his final year, but later on he might have become rusty. I do not think that should apply. I feel that when the man has qualified once, at any period of his life, in the service, he should be regarded for the rest of the time as qualified to occupy a post requiring that grade of bilingualism. It seems to me to be fair. That test would toe applied in the teaching profession. If a man has a university degree, for example in mathematics or science, he would not be required to write examinations in mathematics and science at various periods of his service. Having passed the examinations for a science or a maths degree as a student, he will then be qualified for life. That will remove much of the irritation we have in the service to-day. Many of these men are very disappointed. They feel frustrated in their careers when they are told that at the age of 50 when they are eligible for a new post through seniority and excellent service, they have to pass a language test. I make that appeal to the hon. the Minister. Such a system would remove much of the grievances referred to by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). People are very disappointed to-day. They are not anxious to go into the service, because they feel the future is uncertain. I wish to remove that uncertainty and I make those suggestions to the hon. the Minister.

After the unfortunate speech to which we had to listen a little earlier this evening, one is grateful for the last two speeches from the Opposition benches. Even though we may not agree 100 per cent perhaps with the practicability of the proposals of the hon. member who has just sat down, we do appreciate the spirit in which he spoke. His aim is to obtain the greatest possible degree of bilingualism in the Public Service. I appreciate the spirit in which he spoke. But may I just say this to him: It is clear to every person who enters the Public Service—he knows it in advance—that in order to be able to make headway in the Public Service he must make himself bilingual to such an extent that he can get promotion. And if he is a sensible person, as we believe all people are who enter the Public Service, in spite of what the hon. member for Benoni said, namely that English-speaking people who enter the Public Service are fools (which I do not believe), he will make himself more and more proficient in the other language as time goes on. I do not believe that in order to be bilingual one has to be equally good in both languages. If an official is able to attend to the public properly in the other language, he complies with what is expected of him by his employer, the State. I go so far as to say that if more representatives of constituencies would only follow that sensible course, we would have fewer unpleasant speeches of the type that we had here this evening. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said and pay a tribute to the officials of our State, and I want to pay a tribute in particular to the English-speaking members of our Public Service. I personally know quite a number of English-speaking officials in high executive positions in the Public Service, people who reached the top because they had the will to do so. They did not allow themselves to be stopped by the fact that their home language was the one official language and not the other. I have the greatest respect for those people and I do not believe that they are fools. They are officials of whom we are proud, and they are bilingual to-day. If we want to encourage our young people to enter the Public Service, then the representatives of constituencies here must not make the type of speech that was made here this evening; we should point out to them that as in all other spheres of life, success can also be achieved in the Public Service by means of hard work and a genuine attempt to learn both languages.

I want to confine myself really to another matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the question of Public Service bursaries. We are very grateful for what has been done by means of Public Service bursaries to give our young men the opportunity to receive training. I believe that the best inheritance that parents can leave their children is to give them as much education as possible. At the same time I believe that what the State is doing to train its young people is the best investment that any State can make in respect of its human material. By means of Public Service bursaries young people are trained to enter the Public Service later on. We frequently find, particularly in the scientific fields, that a young man only discovers after having completed the first year at university that he has more aptitude for and is also more interested in research in some field or other, in which the State will not be able to make use of his services. Although he may be expected perhaps to follow a teacher’s course and to take up teaching after the completion of his B grade, he may soon discover that he is more interested in research. He may turn out to be a brilliant student who could be worth a great deal to the country as such, not necessarily the Public Service. But the stumbling block is that he is studying with the aid of a Public Service bursary, and he has the greatest difficulty then in securing his release so as to be able to do post-graduate study. And then he has to pay a very high rate of interest on that bursary loan. The other possibilty is that such a person may complete the course and stay on in the Public Service. But what becomes of him afterwards? He may remain in the Public Service for a few years perhaps and discharge his obligations towards the State, but he may be an outstanding individual: he is enticed away from the Public Service by industry later on and then he leaves the Public Service with rather bad feelings towards the Public Service. I would urge therefore that if in the course of their studies it appears that bursary-holders have more aptitude in a different direction perhaps, they should not be released entirely from their obligations but that an opportunity should be created for them, perhaps by granting further assistance to them at a reasonable rate of interest, to enter a different field. I believe that such a person, even if he does not necessarily enter the service of the State, can nevertheless be a very great asset to the State.

I want to follow to some extent on the line taken by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit). There is one aspect of the State service that does worry me and it applies especially to the type of person whom we consider at the moment is the brain that we are losing. I want to give the hon. the Minister a particular example of what I mean. In Durban we had a man who was considered to be one of the world’s specialists in forensic medicine. This man was employed by the Department of Justice and was accepted I think not only as a leading man in this country, but probably as a world authority. He had reached the stage where he had had so much experience in this country that he felt the time had come for him to make a contribution towards the knowledge of people for the future as well and he applied to the Department for permission to do research work with a view to making a contribution towards knowledge for the future. What happened? This man who had gone overseas, to Britain with a view to furthering his knowledge had been lectured by a man who had conducted some 300 post mortems I understand, and it was found, that whilst his teacher had performed some 300 post mortems, this man had done over 3,600. That man has been refused permission to go and do further studies and research with a view to making some contribution towards the future. But what happened then? The Australian Government has given him what he asked of our Government. They have given him four years at the university with full keep for himself and his family plus a salary, on one condition only and that is that having completed that, he will work for the Australian Government for three years. In other words, the Australian Government has been prepared to give that man four years, have been prepared to finance him for four years to do research in order to make a contribution to world knowledge, on the undertaking that he works for them for three years after he has completed his research work. In other words, they are backing him to the hilt. We were not prepared to do that in this country, and that man has been lost to us. This is I think an example of many men, outstanding men, who have been lost to us here through the refusal of the Government through the Public Service Commission or whatever department, to give these men, these outstanding men and scholars, the brains that South Africa needs, the opportunity to do further research work. This man is lost to us, and the hon. the Minister knows, as well as I do, that we have lost too many of this type of man over the last few years. As a matter of fact, we have lost far too many—men whom we cannot afford to lose. I quote this as an example—an example of a man who was a brilliant scientist and who became lost to us as a result of a straight refusal to allow him to make a contribution—which he felt he should make—towards the future of knowledge in South Africa and in the world. He was lost because he was refused the right to come temporarily out of the realm of ordinary work into the realm of research. This is the type of case to which the hon. the Minister and his Department should pay particular attention.

Order! This is a matter which could more properly be raised under the Education Vote.

But this particular man was employed by the Public Service, Sir, and there are many in his position. He was not a student; his education was completed, and he had reached the point where he wanted to contribute something, where – he wanted to plough something back. But he was not allowed to do that. The refusal came not from the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but from the Public Service Commission whose Vote is under discussion at the moment. In any event, I am thankful for having been allowed to bring this case to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It is now for the Minister and his Department to deal with the matter as they deem fit.

I want to associate myself with the plea which has been made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. smit), and I want to plead more specifically for a more accommodating attitude towards officials who have received their training with the assistance of a Public Service bursary, but who then find it necessary to leave the Public Service before they have served the specified period. South Africa needs trained people in all spheres of our national life, within and outside the Public Service. One cannot get away from the fact that the State also has an obligation in making available trained men. We find that the Public Service Commission lends money to students for training, subject, however, to the condition that when they have completed their training, they have to work for a certain number of years in the Public Service or in some Government institution. The period depends on the size of the loan. What happens in some cases is that these people, before they have served this specified period in the Public Service, receive an offer from a private employer, an offer which is so attractive that they feel obliged to leave the Public Service. In such a case the person concerned is expected to repay the amount of the loan together with 10 per cent interest on it. This is such an inflexible rule that even where a person has served three years and eight months of the requisite period of, say, four years, he is nevertheless required to repay the full sum together with the interest. It so happens also that institutions such as the Western Cape Training College, for example, and similar institutions are not regarded as approved Government institutions where such an official may serve the specified period, in spite of the fact that these institutions are entirely financed by the State. The result is that persons who studied with the aid of Public Service bursaries cannot accept posts in these institutions without having to repay the bursaries. I believe that in this way the door is being shut to deserving and talented young people, who are hit very hard by this arrangement. I want to know whether it is necessary to hit them so hard. In this connection I would plead for a more accommodating attitude therefore.

I should like to enlighten the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) with regard to the matters that they raised here. The hon. member for Parow has created the impression that it is a cruel thing to fall into the hands of the State when one has studied with the assistance of a Public Service bursary. Surely that is not so. Persons are granted bursaries, the size of which depends on the duration of the course of study. When it is borne in mind that these bursaries are granted on the specific condition that if a student is not able to comply with the conditions laid down, that is to say, if he is compelled to break his contract, he has to repay the loan together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent, then it is not a case of being hard as alledged by the hon. member. I want to make use of this opportunity to say that since 1956, when this study bursary scheme was instituted, 1,354 bursaries have been granted, 402 in connection with the teaching profession and 952 in connection with technical posts in the Public Service. In addition to these 1,354 bursaries, a further 390 bursaries have been granted out of funds made available by the various marketing boards. The Government has decided to peg its contribution in this connection to R300,000 in the future. It is true that many complaints are received in connection with the question of repayment, the matter rasied by the hon. member for Parow. In certain cases these complaints are justified. It was necessary, however, to lay down stringent requirements to ensure that people to whom bursaries are granted do not lightly break their contract. After all, it is a very attractive proposition to get the money from the State if one wants to study. But what happens is that fantastic salaries are offered by employers outside the Public Service to people who have received such bursaries, even before they have completed their studies, and it is not fair either just to leave your benefactor in the lurch and to clear out. We cannot allow that. There are other cases, however, where the persons concerned had no intention of breaking their contract and actually spent some time in the Public Service. They are then offered posts in a field in which the State also has an interest—for example, in semi-Government institutions such as universities, etc. This whole problem which is created by Public Service bursaries is at present being examined by the Public Service Commission and myself. As a matter of fact, I told the chairman of the Public Service Commission only this morning to submit concrete proposals to me as to how we can reasonably assist people who do not deliberately misuse the opportunities offered to them by the State. The State will have to keep pace with the requirements of other bodies such as Iscor, Sasol, the C.S.I.R., etc., which also provide bursaries. I think in this connection the State is still being too conservative, or let me put it this way that perhaps we can go on being conservative but less strict. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) mentioned another type of case, that is to say, the case of a person who is not allowed to do another type of work It is not possible for me to formulate a general policy on the basis of one individual case, and I would invite the hon. member therefore to come and discuss this case with me. It is only in that way that we can become wiser. With regard to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I want to say to him that every statement that is issued by a Department is checked by the Translation Bureau. In spite of that certain mistakes may still occur because it is difficult sometimes to regulate everything. I feel nevertheless that there are fewer mistakes than successes. I hope the hon. member will realize that the employment of a person whose sole fuction will be translation would not be justified in every Department. In connection with the question of language tests, I want to say to him that we have already done what he desires. There are six grades of language tests, from Grade 1 to Grade 6. Various grades are prescribed for the different posts. No difficulty is experienced in this connection. There is some difficulty in the case of officials who entered the Service before language tests were instituted. In their case the Government’s policy is not to subject such officials to these tests. I also want to give the assurance that we are not out on a witch-hunt as far as the passing of language tests is concerned.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23.—“Printing and Stationery”: R4,650,000.

I should like to refer briefly to the work of the Government Printer. Occasionaly one notices that certain printing work is given out by the Government Printer to private firms. For instance, there are periodicals which are issued by the Government with an inscription on the back cover to the effect that they were printed on behalf of the Government Printer by some other printing company. The issue of “Bantu” which has reached me to-day, has, for instance, the inscription “Printed for the Government Printer, Pretoria, by Caxton Ltd”. Further examples of periodicals printed in this manner are “Commando”, “Farming in South Africa”, etc. I should like to know whether wherever it becomes necessary for the Government Printer to have publications printed by private printing companies, the work is given out on tender.

Yes, by tender through the Tender Board.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—”Education, Arts and Science”, R26,159,000.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of the half-hour privilege. I trust that the calmer atmosphere which now prevails, in contrast with that of a little while ago, will enable me to state and to deal with my case as objectively as possible.

It has become the custom, when a new Minister of Education assumes office, to question him with regard to his policy or other matters falling under his control. I do not propose, however, to do so this evening, for the following reasons: In the first place the present Minister of Education stated his policy in broad outline recently in the course of a speech at Potchefstroom, and we were able to infer from that speech what his policy is going to be in broad outline with reference to education in this country. In the second place, a further opportunity will present itself to the hon. the Minister to explain his policy when the Select Committee, which is at present deliberating on the possibility of instituting an Education Advisory Council, submits its report. In the third place I think it will be very difficult for the present Minister to give an adequate reply in the light of the statements already made by his numerous predecessors. I say that advisedly, because this country will not be able to derive any benefit from a portfolio dealing with such an important and weighty matter as education when we find that education has fallen under no fewer than eight different Ministers within a period of 12 years. As in the case of the present Minister, a few of his predecessors were also professional men, in other words, men with a knowledge of education. The most serious defect, however, is not the fact that some of his predecessors were not educationists, but the fact that within such a short space of time there were so many Ministers in charge of this portfolio. Moreover, the position is that out of these 12 years, this portfolio was occupied for five years by one Minister, which means that 7 different Ministers were in charge of education during the remaining 8 years. That is an unsound state of affairs; even the hon. the Minister will agree with me that is so. I say that irrespective of which party is in power. It is not my intention to talk politics here. In any event, we are pleased that the present incumbent of this portfolio is an educationist, and I want to express the hope that he will at all times and in all circumstances act as an educationist and that no further change will be made in this portfolio until such time as this side of the House takes over the reins of Government in the near future!

In any event, what causes me concern is the fact that an important matter such as education is not regarded as being of sufficient importance to be placed under the control of one Minister. In the present case we find that the hon. the Minister has two portfolios, namely Interior and Education, in other words, two portfolios which are equally important. Humanly speaking I think it is impossible in these circumstances to do justice to both posts. I feel therefore that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to recommend to the hon. the Prime Minister that one of these posts should be given to another Minister.

Be that as it may, the hon. the Minister will agree with me in any event that continual changes in this portfolio cannot redound to the benefit of education generally. Indeed the chaos and concern existing at present in respect of certain aspects of education, must be attributed to the fact that all Governments since 1910 have regarded this portfolio, which not only deals with the education of our young people but also with the nation that they will constitute in the future, as one of minor importance. Another unfortunate aspect has always been the attitude that this, that or the other will be done for education provided the funds are available. As the result of this, and sometimes also because of suspicion, sectionalism and pettiness, our universities, for example, suffer because of lack of funds with the result that they cannot appoint the necessary staff or establish the necessary laboratories. A further consequence of this is that the level of education that we aim at cannot be achieved; that sufficient attention cannot be given to students; that the necessary research cannot be undertaken; that the very essential leaders for the future in the cultural, social, economic and other spheres, cannot be prepared for their task.

As far as primary and secondary education is concerned, there is uncertainty with regard to its control. Provincial departments have inadequate funds at their disposal; in primary and secondary education there is divided control and overlapping and half a dozen or even more examination standards. The result is neglect and uncertainty, particularly in the case of the mental deviates. I should like to deal with that subject for a few moments this evening.

Some of these unfortunate children, particularly those with an I.Q. of less than 60, have been left since their birth, because of the uncertainty with regard to their educability or otherwise, to the mercy of their parents, or to the mercy of dedicated men and women. So as not to exceed the time at my disposal, I want to confine myself exclusively now, not to the physically deviate children, although there are many of them, but to the mental deviates. Here we find an unforgiveable state of confusion as the result of divided control. Deviate children with an I.Q. of 60 to 79 fall under the provincial administrations; those with an I.Q. from 80 to 89 fall under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, or are subsidized by this Department. This unhealthy state of affairs, this tug-of-war between the State and the provinces, leads to neglect, overlapping and confusion, and we who sit here as members of Parliament bear the responsibility for it and nobody else. The time has come for us to rectify this matter so that we can hold up our heads again.

The most unfortunate group of mental deviates is the group with an I.Q. below 60—the so-called uneducable—because that is how we regard them, and we do so on the basis of intelligence tests which we know leave much to be desired and for which there is no scientific basis as yet. On the basis of these tests we say to these unfortunate children that they are uneducable. This unfortunate group, as the hon. the Minister knows, is sub-divided into three groups, that is to say, those with an I.Q. of between 60 and 40; those with an I.Q. of 40 to 25 and those with an I.Q. below 25. These children are left to the love and care of their parents or to the mercy of charity or to the mercy of dedicated men and women. Whatever medical practitioners or whatever psychologists may say, there are very few of these children with an I.Q. below 60 who, through routine education, cannot be educated to do some useful work. But they need special attention for that; they need special devotion; they need specialists to educate them so that they can be guided in a direction in which it will be possible for them to become useful members of the closed or sheltered community in which they are going to find themselves later on. I want to quote one example here. Fourteen days ago a child with an I.Q. of 47 became lost here in Cape Town. He disappeared from his mother and walked down the street. Later on he realized that he had lost his way and began to cry. He crossed the street—I questioned him about it later on—and walked into a garage which he thought was the garage where his father usually had his motor-car repaired or serviced. He told the people at the garage that he was lost. He furnished his name as well as his residential address. After the garage workers had brought him to the street in which he lived, he led them to his house. Can anyone say that this type of child is not educable—Of course he is educable! But he needs special treatment and he must be taught in an environment where he will be able to associate with his equals, that is to say, where he can feel at home and where he can be in a sheltered environment. By the way, it is to this type of child that the Rudolf Steiner Schools, which are viewed with great suspicion in certain circles, devote so much love and attention. I also raised this matter last year and pleaded that attention be given to it. I was pleased therefore to learn from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare that he had paid a visit to one of these schools, that is to say, the school at Hermanus, and that what he had seen there had impressed him. But what is the attitude of the State towards this group of children who are mental deviates.

As far as I can ascertain only 3 per cent of this year’s Budget is being devoted to all education except Bantu education. That compares rather poorly with the percentage which has been allocated to some other Votes. But I do not want to make any comparisons. Only R865,000, that is to say, .104 per cent of the Budget is being devoted to the education of the schools mentioned under J, that is to say, for assistance to State-aided special vocational schools. In other words, this meagre amount has been set aside for physical and mental deviates with an I.Q. above 60. Only R10,000 or £5,000 has been set aside for those with an I.Q. below 60, of whom there are not hundreds but thousands, and there are 19 private institutions which are being run for these children. There are hundreds of them who are never admitted to an institution, and yet only R10,000 or .001 per cent of the Budget, or .04 per cent of the amount to be voted for education, has been set aside for them! I repeat that .04 per cent of the amount to be voted for education, or .001 per cent of the Budget, has been set aside for this purpose. As a privileged individual I must admit that I am ashamed of it. I do not blame anybody. I blame myself as much as I blame anyone of my privileged colleagues for this scandalous state of affairs.

But I want to make an urgent appeal once again, firstly, that a survey be made of all children with an I.Q. of less than 60; secondly, that either the State or the provincial councils should assume full control and carry the full responsibility for the instruction of all deviate children. I am not going to say which Department should do it. To me it does not matter with whom the control rests. I know to whom I would give the control if I were the Minister, but I do not mind who has the control as long as it is in the hands of someone and as long as there is not divided control; thirdly, that scientific research should be undertaken into the educability or otherwise of the low-grade deviates, in other words, those with an I.Q. of less than 60, and that there should be a further revision and improvement of the intelligence tests; fourthly, that the necessary support should be given to those institutions which are performing miracles at present with this type of child, the so-called Mongolian. Mr. Chairman, I have no personal interest in this matter. I have no children or relatives in any of these schools, but it is our duty to do something for these people and for these institutions, which devote their energies to the education of the lower class of deviates particularly so as to enable them to assist these unfortunate children. I refer particularly to the Rudolf Steiner school at Hermanus, at Lakeside in Port Elizabeth, and Gresset in Johannesburg, where these children are being trained on the same basis on which children are being trained in England. Rhodesia has the same type of school, and do you know, Sir, what the contribution is there? R60,000 per annum, in comparison with R10,000 here. Let us see what happens in England and how much importance they attach there to this type of child. Contributions are made there from four quarters to assist deviate children, there are four sources of income for them and the average contribution per annum per child amounts to £485. In the first place the Department of Health makes a contribution; secondly, the local educational body pays the full fee of every child whom they advise to go there and of whom they cannot take care themselves; thirdly, the Department of Labour, for example, pays the wages of those who are placed in sheltered employment once they have been through the school, and fourthly, the State contributes to meet the cost of the apparatus that is used in connection with the training of this type of child. That is how much importance the authorities in England attach to this matter.

Here I should like to refer to a certain report. I have referred to research in connection with this matter. In England a survey was made by a Royal Commission which sat for three years to investigate this question of children with an I.Q. of less than 60. The Commission reported in 1957. I want to quote their main recommendations just briefly, because I cannot state the case better than they themselves did. Amongst other things they say—

That is what I would advise for this country too—

I feel very strongly that this type of unfortunate child with an I.Q. of less than 60 should fall under the Department of Education and not under the Department of Health. This whole broad mass of children with an I. Q. of less than 60 ought to be the responsibility of the Department of Education, except of course, those with an I.Q. of less than 25, because we admit that they are not educable. I feel that this is not a health problem in the first instance but an educational problem, a psychological problem, and it is our duty, with the co-operation of medical practitioners, of the hospitals and of the psychiatrists, to see to it that children of this kind receive instruction in a sheltered atmosphere, where they can be alone and happy together but where they can also learn to do useful work in the circle in which they find themselves and where they can keep each other busy in their own way and live together happily… [Time limit.]

I have sat here listening attentively and asked myself the following question: Why does the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) plead for those children? Only one thing can make such a child happy and that is to achieve something. Every person who feels aggrieved, who finds himself in an unfavourable position, can only overcome that feling of loneliness and abandonment, that feeling of injustice, if he achieves something; a wonderful plea has been made here to-night for those children, of whom there are many, children who cannot achieve anything because they are not guided and assisted to do so. Traditionally society is merciless. People jeer at a family if a member of that family is mentally defective or retarded or deformed. They will not uplift him; they jeer at him. I also want to plead for a section of our youth to-night, Sir, in the ten minutes which I have at my disposal. But before doing so, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Hillbrow for the calm and exemplary way in which he has dealt with these educational matters. I have recently often been in contact with him where we have dealt with educational matters of the utmost importance, and I have found his approach to be a very good one, and I have found him desirous of assisting me with my problems. The House does not know about that; this Committee does not know about it, but we hope that the day will soon arrive when a new dawn will break for education. We really cannot continue as we have been doing. After any upheaval in the history of a country, such as a war, every big country usually tackles the question of education first and it reorganizes its system of education. That happened in Germany after the last war and Germany has a tremendous advantage over other countries in the economic field and every other field because she tackled the question of education immediately. England underwent a reform in 1902, as well as in 1919, and in 1944—hostilities had not as yet ceased—that very important Butler Act was passed, a historical occurrence of the utmost importance to England. During her most critical years, when they groped about in the dark in the political sphere. France was quick to put her educational household in order. We need not even mention what was done in Russia and Red China. Let me say at once that we anti-communists are always inclined only to revile those countries without knowing what is happening there in the field of education, but we can use them as an example. America, however, did not do so and when the first sputnik was launched the Americans said “I told you so. Didn’t I tell you so?”, but it was too late. Only then did they fall over each other to smarten up their educational system. To-day they are conducting one investigation after another as to how to smarten up their educational system, but it is difficult to do so to-day. We have waited 14 years and during those 14 years we have not adapted our system of education or reformed it to any extent worth mentioning. I do not want to go into the reasons. Many of the reasons were due to circumstances, but I do feel that something should be done to tackle the whole approach to education. I am even more enthusiastic to-day because the hon. the Minister feels the same way about the matter and because he is so anxious to bring about the necessary reform.

When I talk about an approach there is something I want to mention. You read in practically every newspaper, Sir, that the challenge is there and that we must accept the challenge; a new era is approaching and it challenges us. Technology is a challenge to us and we must accept it. That, however, is a totally wrong approach. We must not wait for the challenge to be issued and then adopt a defensive attitude. We must challenge. The youth must adopt a challenging attitude. The youth must throw down the glove to those problems. You must not wait for the problem to arise and then say you accept the challenge. Psychologically that approach is totally wrong. There is another approach. Hon. members are pleading in this House for more technologists and more technological training, for scientific training; we must keep ahead, but what about the soul of the nation? What about its language and its religion and those things that are sacred to it? Must those be ignored? In 1950 and again in 1958 I pleaded and asked that a balance should be struck between the arts and the sciences, between the deeper psychological things and technology, and the public seems to have gone mad over technology. There must be a reaction to the increasing spirit of materialism in the world, and we will only get that reaction when full value is again attached in our schools and in our universities to the nobler things. One does not only consist of a body and a pair of hands, Sir. You have a mind, but you have more than a mind; you have emotions and a spirit. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I plead to-night for more expert spiritual hygiene in our educational system, not merely a little bit of psychology psychopathology. The days of those esteemed men like Jung and Freud are past. You can practically expect something new in the field of education every morning you open your eyes. Take the intelligence quotient. It has been proved in the Transvaal by figures that the Afrikaner is less intelligent that the Englishman. [Interjections.] That has been the result of faithful adherence to formulae. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not devote much time to discussing what the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) has given us in his inspiring address. I should like to come a little nearer to the Vote. I think my first duty this evening is to congratulate the Department of Education, Arts and Science on having produced its annual report in time for it to be discussed under this Vote. This Department is exemplary in the production of its annual report. Some departments produce annual reports two or three years after the end of the calendar year. Here we have a report for the calendar year 1961 in our hands a week or two before the Vote comes up for discussion. I think that is a matter for congratulation, and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) suggests that they should be put in charge of the Press Commission forthwith. [Laughter.]

I should like to refer to one or two items in the report and also in the Estimates, but before I do so I should like to mention a most unfortunate period through which the Department passed last year when there seemed to be leakages in examinations. There is reference to this in the report, though very briefly, but I think this is an opportunity for the Minister to tell the House and the country what has happened, because only in that way can we restore confidence. Secrecy in the conduct of examinations is very important and I should like the Minister to make a statement when he speaks in this debate.

Now I should like to refer to one or two items in the report. I refer to page 25, to the Nautical Training Advisory Board. That is an important board, and this is the report.

No meeting of the Board was held during the current year. Now we come to page 27 and find that a committee of inquiry into nautical training is sitting. I think that is a very important committee of inquiry. It is going to discuss the present system of nautical training in Cape Town and in the “General Botha”, and the need to train skippers and mates for the fishing industry, in the smaller craft. I think this is very important. But why has the Board not met during the year?

I should like to ask the Minister whether provision is being made for training Coloured seamen? South Africa is a country which depends on its small ships—its little ships, as they say in the British Navy. The hon. the Minister of Defence has now come in at an opportune moment, because in future he will have to look for trained seamen to man his Naval ships. It is from the fishing fleet that we get the seamen for our little ships.

My second point is this. There is another committee, the National Theatre Organization. It is referred to on page 23, and again on page 28. In this case as well a committee of in quiry into the N.T.O. has been appointed by the Minister. At the request of the N.T.O. a committee has been appointed, with the following terms of reference—

Now it seems that all is not well with the N.T.O. It is heavily financed by the Government. Last year, and again this year, the subsidy was R60,000. That is a very big subsidy. I should like to know whether this N.T.O. has realized the expectations with which it was founded. We have all read what that great actor, the late Andre Huguenet, had to say about the development of the Afrikaans theatre. My impression is that the English theatre in South Africa is flourishing and it is not subsidized. I do not think one can do a great deal by subsidizing a National Theatre Organization; something more is required. But there was life in the Afrikaans theatre 20 or 30 years ago. Subsidizing has not assisted in giving us the results we looked forward to. Now, next to the N.T.O., on the same page, is an item “Performing Artistes, R100,000”. I am not sure what this item, “Performing Artistes”, is. I should like to ask the Minister whether provision is made for assisting by a subsidy the Eoan Group of Coloured people in Cape Town. I do not know whether the Minister subsidizes that group, but I do not think the Minister can afford not to subsidize it, because it is a source of very great pride to South Africa. [Interjection.] I should like to know what and who are being subsidized under this item, and I again mention the Eoan Group. Those of us who saw “La Traviata” and the other productions recently realize that this is something of which South Africa can be very proud. I hope the Minister is doing something to assist those people, because they are dependent on guarantees here in Cape Town. They are doing most valuable work amongst the Coloured people, and I hope we are not going to hear the objection we heard some few years ago that they could not be subsidized because they played to mixed audiences of Coloureds and Whites. Because Coloureds and Whites sit together in the audience looking at Coloured performers, is no reason why the group should not be subsidized, but that was the argument raised here some years ago. I hope we have grown beyond that now.

The next item I wish to refer to is Community Theatres, R48,000. Now, these are very heavy subsidies for art and for the interest in the development of art in South Africa. I hope they are yielding the results we expect from them. The next item to which I wish to refer is audio-visual education, on page 112, Item “A”. That is part of the Department of Education. Television in education is used to a great extent in education in Europe, but that is not what we are discussing at the moment. I should like the Minister to tell us something about how audio-visual education is being conducted and subsidized in South Africa, what apparatus is being used, and how that apparatus is obtained. I am covering the ground as rapidly as I can, because there are many important speakers on this side who wish to come into this debate.

The next item I should like some enlightenment on is Item “K” on page 118, Miscellaneous Grants-in-Aid, Africa Institute. Here is an item subsidized last year, and again this year, by R26,000. Now we have received publications by the Africa Institute and I should like to know why this organization is privileged to receive this very large grant. Does the Minister subsidize the Institute of Race Relations? [Time limit.]

There is just a short time left before we have to adjourn, but there are two sub-heads to which I should like to refer under this Vote. The one is F, “Archives”, and here I want to urge that if and when there are valuable archives which are privately owned and which the owners would only be prepared to relinquish upon payment of compensation, sympathetic consideration should be given by the Government to the provision of the necessary funds for that purpose. Unless that is done we run the risk that important facets of our history may become lost to posterity. But apart from that, the time is overdue for steps to be taken to ensure that documents which belong in the Archives, find their way to the Archives and not to other places. Here I am thinking, for example, of the valuable archives of Hoogenhout, of Eerste Taalbeweging (First Language Movement) fame, which was recently obtained by the Library Services of the Cape Provincial Administration. It is by no means clear to me on what grounds such a step can be justified, since the library service in question has no archives or reference function to fulfil. Why should this Library Service have funds for such a purpose while the S.A. State Library in Cape Town or in Pretoria has no funds for that purpose? I should like the Minister to reply to these questions. There is another matter that I am going to bring to his notice in the course of this debate under sub-head L, “Libraries”. But here I am pleading for better co-ordination between the Central Government and the Provincial Administrations as far as the purchase of documents of this kind is concerned, and later on I shall produce evidence to show what happened and how unsound the present position is.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.