This clause makes provision for increasing the number of directors of the Land Bank from eight to ten. Could the hon. the Minister explain the reasons for this increase to us?

I already did so in my Second Reading speech, when I said that the work of the Land Bank has increased to such an extent that eight directors cannot attend to it properly. Another consideration is to make regional representation possible, in other words, the additional members will represent regions.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

From the attitude I adopted on the Second Reading of this Bill, the hon. the Minister would know that I intend opposing this clause, completely. I already gave my reasons for it, inter alia that I consider this to be an abrogation of certain fundamental rights of the citizens, mainly the right of peaceful assembly. I listened with attention yesterday to the hon. the Minister’s arguments in his introductory speech and also in his reply to the debate. However, I have not been convinced by those arguments. Accordingly I intend going right ahead in opposing this clause.

Certain arguments have also been advanced by Opposition members to justify their stand in support of this clause, which they admit is one of the two important provisions of this Bill. The hon. member for Durban (North) actually welcomed this clause because, as he said, it put the Minister of Justice right out of the picture thereby removing all possible suspicion that political considerations may have influenced a decision to prohibit a particular procession. Well, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that he re-reads subsection (3) of this clause. If he does that, he will notice that this puts the Minister squarely back into the picture in that it gives him the power to waive, in his sole discretion, the provisions of subsection (1) in any area. In other words, he may exclude certain areas … Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear myself think, let alone talk.

Order!

Did you hear the result, Helen?

Yes, but we are not dealing with by-elections now but with the rights of citizens to assemble for peaceful processions. As I was saying, the Minister will have the power to waive the provisions of clause 15 in respect of certain areas. He can suspend its provisions in respect of Pretoria if he likes. If there is a pro-Nationalist city council he may decide to leave it entirely to that council to decide whether it is going to allow any procession, perhaps processions upholding certain laws which the Government has passed but which other people may consider to be objectionable. In other words, there may be processions of students from, say, the Pretoria University upholding section 6 of the Terrorism Act, to quote an example of something which can happen. In that event, the Minister will leave it entirely to the city council to decide whether or not that procession may take place. In other words, the hon. the Minister still has some right under this clause of exercising his political discretion in this regard. By that I do not mean to say that he is going to do it. But I think it is quite wrong to say that the hon. the Minister is completely out of the picture because he is not. Equally in respect of areas where there are strongly anti-Government local authorities. There might well come a time when the local authority of Johannesburg, for instance, is much more strongly anti-Government than it is now and the Minister will then certainly see to it that clause 15 is not waived in respect of the municipal area of Johannesburg. The hon. member welcomed clause 15 because according to him any person who offends against the clause when it becomes law will then only be liable to the penalties prescribed under bylaws. He said in his argument that instead of people who organize and take part in processions declared unlawful in terms of this clause being liable to the very stringent provisions of, say, the Riotous Assemblies Act, they will now only be liable to penalties prescribed under municipal by-laws.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister agrees with that or not, but I would like to point out that having been found guilty under such a by-law people are still subject to all the stringent penalties that apply under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with that. If one looks at section 1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act … [Interjections.] Sir, I wish we could get a little law and order here, if I may ask for it.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I am constantly being pulled up if I interject and I think that should also apply to everybody else.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members on both sides not to sit conversing aloud.

You would be surprised …

On a point of order, Sir, are hon. members allowed to stand around in the aisles?

After Klip River, yes. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, could we have an adjournment for five minutes to allow hon. members to discuss Klip River and then perhaps we can reassemble and get on with the business of the day? I was trying to point out that it appears to me—and if I am wrong then either senior or junior counsel (I am not sure which is which between the hon. member for Durban (North) and the hon. member for Zululand) will tell me so—that having been found guilty under the municipal by-law, in terms of clause 15 … [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not stop conversing aloud now, I shall take action. I cannot hear the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, I am trying to point out that persons would then be liable for all the very stringent penalties under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Which section?

Order! The hon. member for Boksburg must not converse aloud.

Section 1 of Act No. 8 of 1953 has a marginal note which reads “Increased penalties for offences committed in certain circumstances” and provides—

The penalties are very stringent indeed—

I shall be glad if junior counsel and senior counsel over there will please put their heads together and tell me whether in fact I am right in this regard. Am I right? Would the hon. the Minister perhaps give me an indication?

You are right.

The hon. the Minister says I am right. Well, I must say that in this regard I would rather have been wrong, but I knew that it could not be possible that the Government would be introducing an amendment to existing legislation which would make it easier for people to hold processions to protest against the Government. Obviously not!

Only if they protest against the law.

But, for goodness sake, nobody protests against anything else. People do not protest about there being too many dogs on the sidewalk.

When they burn their passes, for instance.

Sir, people always protest against laws in South Africa. That is the only reason why protest meetings are ever called or why processions are held. Take the history in this country of protests, demonstrations and processions over all the years during which the Government has been in power; they have always been against laws which the Government has passed. Even the pass laws are laws, for Heaven’s sake! I do not therefore take the same benign view of this clause 15 that hon. members of the United Party took yesterday. [Interjection.] Sir, I do not know why I take notice of that silly hon. member at the back. His interjections are always completely off the point. Listening to the speech of the hon. member for Zululand, one would have thought that it was the Minister’s intention to make it easier for people to hold protest meetings. His whole speech consisted of an explanation to us as to how much simpler it was going to be now for people to hold processions. Well, he is in favour of clause 15 because according to him a magistrate is obliged to hear all sides on the application before him and if he fails to do so his refusal can be upset on review; that is what he said. Nowhere in this clause, as far as I can see, is there any provision enjoining the magistrate to conduct any such hearing as the hon. member mentioned. There is nothing whatever in this law which says that you must have hearings and that he has to consult the interested parties and that he has got to consult the police and that he has got to consult the city council which has already given permission. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton insists on opposing this clause, quite consistently, as she opposed it in the second reading. But what the hon. member has in fact said is that she has no faith or confidence whatsoever in the integrity of the magistrates of this country who are going to have to apply this law. That is what it comes to. This is however one of the reasons, as I indicated yesterday, why we welcome this as an improvement on the existing situation. As the situation is now: Firstly the local authorities approve or do not approve of the holding of a procession, for all the reasons there are. Then if the hon. the Minister of Justice feels that the request of a magistrate to invoke the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act is justified, he may issue such an order under the Riotous Assemblies Act prohibiting a procession. That is a very drastic step to have to take. As far as we are concerned, this Bill is an improvement on that situation for the reason that you have an independent judicial mind coming to bear on the question as to whether or not, apart from the municipal concerns, i.e. traffic etc., the procession might endanger law and order. Now, surely this is an important matter. Someone should decide whether it might or might not endanger law and order. Is the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude that everyone should be allowed to protest in the form of a procession whether or not it affects law and order? If that is so, then let her say so. But surely we should be concerned that law and order should be maintained when there is a procession. The rights of other people, apart from those involved in the procession, are involved. Here the provision is not just that a magistrate should do it but in effect, in the bigger cities, that the chief magistrate, the most senior person with the greatest experience and responsibility, should decide whether or not it may affect law and order. Does the hon. member for Houghton agree with us in this respect that it is desirable to prohibit a procession if it will endanger law and order?

It depends on the circumstances. I am not prepared to say “yes” or “no”.

But does the hon. member agree that in principle it is a good idea? She will not give us a straight answer, Sir. As far as we are concerned, and that is why we are supporting this Bill, in principle if a procession will endanger law and order then it should be prohibited, and the only question which remains is who should determine that. We have pleaded for years that the courts should be brought into the picture, and here you bring the chief magistrate of the area into the picture.

Do you think that the Johannesburg procession should have been prohibited?

I am not in a position to judge, standing here, when I live in Durban, whether the Johannesburg procession should have been prohibited. But let me say that the chief magistrate, living in Johannesburg and knowing the situation, will hear the applicants. I have read what Mr. Gush said as to how this will be applied if it becomes law. In fact, not only does he say how he will apply it, but everything he says is inherent in this clause. He will hear the applicants, the people who wish to have the procession, he will hear the police and the local authorities; and he will hear representations from anyone else. Is this not the only and the best way to do it? There are two issues, as I say. The one is that if it will endanger law and order, do you want it to be prohibited?—and the hon. member for Houghton will not give a straight answer. Our answer is, “Yes, it should then be prohibited”. And then we come to the second point as to how it will be determined whether it will or will not endanger law and order. We suggest that a senior judicial officer, namely the chief magistrate, should decide on the matter, having heard every one’s opinion, as is being provided by this clause. I think if the hon. member for Houghton could answer those two questions, we could perhaps understand why she is objecting to it.

I did not get the second question, but I did get the first question.

Does the hon. member want to ask a question?

Yes, may I ask the hon. member what his second question is?

The second question is, if it is agreed that a procession will endanger law and order, what will then be the best method of determining whether it will endanger law and order or whether it will not? We suggest the best method is to have a senior judicial officer to decide whether it may or may not take place, after having heard the evidence and after having heard all the interested parties.

Mr. Chairman, I will refer to the hon. member’s question right now, but firstly I want to say that there is nothing in this law which makes it necessary for the magistrate to hear anybody at all. Subsection (2), which is the so-called protective subsection which the members have referred to, simply reads, and I quote—

All it says is that if he, and only he, has reason to believe, and that is all.

“Reason”.

Yes, that is all. In his opinion he believes that. That is what he has reason to believe. Whatever the grounds, he does not have to call in anybody. He can make up his mind absolutely off his own bat. He does not have to consult a single solitary soul. He may do so, but he does not have to. It is not inherent in this legislation at all as the hon. member for Durban (North) has said. He can say to-morrow that he does not want such and such a procession and nobody can accuse him of not using his reason. He is protected completely in this regard.

That is no answer to the questions.

I am coming to them. The hon. members must give me time. The hon. member for Prinshof must not be so impatient. Are these questions of law and order and the prohibition of meetings? Obviously circumstances at the time have to be taken into consideration. Let us take the latest example that we have, namely the prohibition of the procession of the Johannesburg Witwatersrand University students in June this year. What was the situation there? The city fathers, namely the United Party City Council, I presume are no more keen on breaking law and order than are the hon. member for Durban (North) or the hon. member for Zululand. Having consulted the police, according to the hon. Minister, who advised them that they should ban the meeting, they decided in their wisdom that the procession—by procession I simply mean a means of assembly—could go on. In the event they were proved right. There was no disorder. In a minute I will refer to the hon. Minister’s reply to that question. Who am I to say now that the magistrate who subsequently banned the procession had more wisdom and more intelligence or brought a more judicial mind to bear upon the subject than the duly elected city fathers of Johannesburg? I would rather trust their judgment in this regard. It so happens that it was proved correct. Who am I then to say that? I say that they have made the right decision, because one has always got to weigh up the circumstances and after all nothing is ever sure in life. You get into a motor-car not anticipating a breakdown and not anticipating an accicent, but it still happens. But you have to take the probabilities and hope for the best. That is all one can do. One must also take into account the abrogation of normal civil rights. Wherever a crowd of people gather, there is a danger that there might be some disorder. Does this mean that one must prohibit all meetings? Of course not. In fact, the only meetings I know of which have been disrupted recently have been meetings attended by Nationalist Party members during the recent general election. Incidentally, I am not the only who thought it was quite wrong that the City Council’s decision should have been overruled by a magistrate after the city council had said “yes”, and after they had consulted with the Police. Who else thought it was wrong? None other than the hon. member for Yeoville, the Transvaal Leader of the United Party. What did he say? he said—

I am glad that the hon. member has come in. I am quoting his excellent statement when the procession of the Witwatersrand students was banned by the chief magistrate of Johannesburg, the same gentleman who is now going to be given absolute powers under this Bill, in spite of the fact that the City Council of Johannesburg had allowed the procession to take place.

Speak up, Helen, I cannot hear a word.

I continue—

I hope the hon. member for Durban (North) is listening to this. I read further—

I still say that.

The junior and senior counsel do not say that. They are very worried about the fact that I am now protesting against the abrogation of the right of assembly in clause 15 of the Bill under discussion. Perhaps the hon. member would like to read it. He will then see what I mean. When a meeting takes place I can never guarantee that there will not be disorder, but like the hon. member for Yeoville I believe that it is the right of every citizen to demonstrate and that when a lawful demonstration, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, “such as that of the university students was to take place it became the duty of the police to afford citizens protection in the exercise of their rights. It is a denial of democracy if the Minister concerned submits to threats of violence against lawful demonstrators and calls on them to desist from their awful activity because the might of the State is not available to protect them”. This is precisely the point I made in the Second-Reading debate yesterday and precisely the point I now want to make in reply to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday. He said that after the Johannesburg City Council had given permission for the procession to take place despite the fact that the police had warned them, the procession was banned on the initiative of the magistrate and with the Minister’s concurrence. It is not, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said, that the Minister initiated the banning of this procession. This meeting was banned in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. I then said that in the event the meeting was a peaceful one. The hon. the Minister’s reply to that astonished me beyond words. The Minister said that all sorts of bodies had gone to the chief magistrate of Johannesburg and had warned him …

Under oath.

I do not care whether it was under oath or not. If they warn him he must accept it. Presumably they do so genuinely and they do not need to do it under oath. I would accept that they were genuine. The Minister said that all sorts of people warned the magistrate and that the meeting had only been peaceful because these people had been taken by surprise when the meeting was held. What an admission for the Minister of Justice to make! He says that because a lot of disruptive people had the impertinence to go to the chief magistrate of Johannesburg and say that they intended to break up the procession, permission to hold which had already been granted by the city council, that meeting and procession were cancelled. I think that is an appalling admission.

What meeting?

The Johannesburg meeting in June, the one you pronounced on so brilliantly.

You mean the procession, surely.

All right, the procession then. The same principle applies. It is the right of assembly, but only a moving assembly or a procession. It does not alter the point I am making with regard to the hon. the Minister that he, in fact, has given way to the threats of disruptive elements. Why did the hon. the Minister not turn around and say “You dare to try and disrupt this procession and I will bring the full strength of the Police Force upon you to see that you do not do that!”? Surely that was his duty as Minister of Justice. That is what he should have done. This means that he has given way to blackmail. He has given way to the blackmail of disruptive elements threatening to disorganize a peaceful procession. Surely hon. members must see that. Do they not see an analogy? How many voices were raised in protest when the demonstrators in Britain managed to get the cricket tour called off! Voice after voice in this country protested that the British Government had bowed down to blackmailers and unruly demonstrators. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, It was very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. member for Houghton, because she uses generalities which confuse the issue that we are trying to debate and made the point she was trying to make completely unclear. The hon. member for Houghton normally has a clear mind and debates with clarity. I can only assume that she is clouding the discussion in that manner because she has discovered that she has backed the wrong horse. What does she say? Throughout the argument she has used the expression that this is a threat to, a prohibition of, the right of peaceful “assembly”. It is not. Throughout she has used the expression that this clause prohibits the holding of meetings. It does not. It is no use saying I am talking about “black” when I use the word “white”, which is precisely what the hon. member has done throughout her speech. This measure relates only to the holding of processions which endanger law and order. That is all. Processions which do not endanger law and order are not affected by this clause. Meetings of any kind which are not processions, do not come into the ambit of this clause at any stage. Let us get that point clear.

The next point is that the hon. member said that nowhere is the magistrate concerned obliged to hear interested parties. I cannot see how anybody in his senses can come to the decision that he has reason to believe that the holding of a procession will endanger law and order unless he has heard the representations of those who are concerned with it. I feel quite satisfied that if he were to come to a decision without hearing anybody and it were challenged in a court of law. that decision would be set aside on review. That is what I said yesterday, and I hold that view now. Consequently, it is not correct to say that this clause lays down that the magistrate can come to a decision which will stand under scrutiny or challenge without hearing the interested parties. The hon. member for Houghton does not seem to appreciate that there is an improvement in the situation if the person who has to take the decision as to whether a procession should take place is a judicial officer rather than the hon. the Minister himself. Indeed, I think the hon. the Minister himself would feel happier if the decision were taken and were imposed by a judicial officer rather than a person in public life who is subject, naturally, to political pressure. Any Minister, of whatever government it may be, in situations of this kind, would be subject to political pressure. By placing this responsibility on a judicial officer, the Minister is divesting himself of being in a position where he is subject to those pressures and placing the duty on a judicial officer, who is far less subject to political pressure, and who, indeed, in most cases would not be subject to political pressure at all.

Order! Hon. members in the cross-benches must please keep quiet.

Whichever way you look at this, it is an improvement on the existing state of affairs. It is not correct, as the hon. member for Houghton had said, that this measure imposes a ban on the holding of processions. It does not.

It can.

Certainly it can, where law and order is endangered. The hon. member for Houghton has not yet answered the question put by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely: Is she in favour of the holding of …

You mean, “Am I still beating my husband?”

No, not at all, Is the hon. member in favour of processions being held where law and order is endangered? I agree with the hon. member for Houghton to the extent that if there is a peaceful procession taking place, it is wrong for the Minister or anybody else to allow that procession to be disrupted by external elements and then to blame those holding the procession for the disruption. Nobody on this side and, I should imagine, in any political party, would hold with that point of view. I certainly do not. But what has that to do with the clause we are discussing? In the case of the procession to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, leave was granted for it to be held and I do not imagine that that leave would have been granted if the circumstances at the time had not indicated that it would be a peaceful procession. In the same set of circumstances a magistrate, having to face that situation, would likewise probably grant permission for such a procession to be held. The fact that there is an intrusion into that procession afterwards, has nothing whatever to do with this clause or the manner in which it is likely to be applied.

The hon. member then went on to refer to what she believed was an invasion of the right to protest. Once again this is a generality which does not relate to this particular clause. The right to protest is not impinged or removed by the clause we are dealing with. One has the right to protest as much as one ever did have. That right is affected in so far as one may wish to protest by means of a procession which is likely to endanger law and order. If people wish to protest in a manner which is likely to endanger law and order, I think we are correct in saying that that should not be allowed. That is the only extent to which this clause impinges upon the right of protest. Any other form of protest, such as a peaceful procession or meeting, will not be affected. Consequently I think one is entitled to say that the reasons which the hon. member for Houghton has given for her opposition to this clause, are without foundation.

[Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, hon. members can go and discuss the Klip River by-election in the lobby. There is plenty of room there. I wish to discuss this Bill which is before the Committee to-day, not Klip River. Sir, I must reply to the hon. member for Zululand. Of course, I shall return the compliment about …

I hope the hon. member is not going to repeat everything.

No, Sir. On the contrary, I am coming to new arguments altogether. I do not think that I have repeated anything so far. The hon. member took me to task because I used the word “protest”. When I used that word regarding a procession, I meant it in the sense of being Dart of the general mechanism of protest. I did not mean protest in general. A procession, as the hon. member has admitted, is part of protest generally. It is one of the means of protesting and it happens to be used in this particular case. Wherever I have used the word “protest” I have meant “by way of a procession”, because I was referring to this particular case.

And a meeting too.

Yes, it is the same thing. It is part of the mechanism of protest.

You should be a bit careful.

Sir, the hon. member has come in a bit late. He should be a bit careful too about the big utterances he makes.

I stand by everything I have said.

Well, it is a pity that his party does not stand by everything they say. In this case, who prohibited the meeting? The judicial authority, in which the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Durban (North) have so much faith. It was the very same man.

It was not as a judicial officer. He was acting under the Riotous Assemblies Act.

Yes, but he was acting under his initiative, not under the hon. the Minister’s instruction. He was acting on his own initiative. The hon. the Minister said so yesterday, and he has again agreed to that to-day. The magistrate, after hearing threats from various bodies and warnings from the Police, acted on his own initiative. In that case he used the Riotous Assemblies Act. Under this law he does not need the Riotous Assemblies Act, but he may still take the step of banning the procession.

Of course he may.

Right! Now I want to point out this to the hon. member who said “… and where there is a peaceful procession, as in the case of the Johannesburg procession, in that case no reasonable magistrate would forbid it”. What he does not realize is that the magistrate did forbid it and it was a peaceful procession. So where does the logic of his argument come in? He seems to think that the magistrate did not ban the procession, or only forbade it at some stage of it.

He banned it at a later stage.

Of course it was not at a later stage. He forbade it the very day that it was due to take place. He forbade it the morning when it was due to take place. The procession went ahead nevertheless, though in a less extensive form and then the students were arrested.

They had a procession where they stood on the sidewalks …

No, he has got it all wrong! This was the same procession where they marched to John Vorster Square, which was the exact permission they had obtained from the city council. They were arrested at John Vorster Square.

They followed a different route.

No, it was exactly the same procession which took place, but less, extensive.

The hon. member must not argue with the hon. member for Houghton while she is speaking.

The hon. member said that the circumstances which I outlined—that is, of the Johannesburg procession—indicated a peaceful demonstration both before it took place and in the event. He also said that in these circumstances there was every likelihood of a magistrate having granted permission for that particular procession. However, the magistrate was the very person who banned that procession. Now does the hon. member see why I do not have this unlimited faith in the judgment of magistrates? They do in fact ban processions which turn out to be peaceful. Who is ever going to be able to judge beforehand exactly what the possibilities are? The city council of Johannesburg thought it would be peaceful and, as I pointed out before, the city council is a timid body. It does not take these decisions lightly. It has been known to ban processions, demonstrations and meetings on previous occasions. On this occasion it granted permission but the magistrate, in his wisdom, cancelled the meeting. That is then the whole position. I do not know why the hon. member does not see it.

Who makes the decision? That is the whole point. Everything is subject to human judgment. I do not know that the magistrate necessarily, as a judicial officer, must always be in so much of a better position than the city fathers of Johannesburg, who also have access to information and who also presumably consult the police. In fact, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tells me that they always consult the police. Sometimes they have the courage to ignore the advice of the police, because they do not think it necessarily is as impartial as it ought to be. That is what they did on that occasion. They ignored the advice of the police and they gave permission for the procession to take place.

The hon. member for Houghton is using the same argument over and over again.

If I may say, Sir, I am replying to the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. members for Zululand and Durban (North). They have argued against me in this regard and I am trying to reply to their arguments. However, I do think I have covered most of the ground that can be covered as far as this clause is concerned. I do not take the point of view which the hon. members have taken that this is an improvement of the situation. On the contrary, I think this is no improvement at all. I think it considerably worsens the whole situation and is a restriction on what was a much broader right of assembly in the form of a procession than will exist now. From now on it will be much easier for processions to be banned, than it was on previous occasions.

Mr. Chairman, the matter is quite simple. In the first place we must accept that there is no prohibition on processions—absolutely no prohibition at all. The hon. member and her friends can hold as many processions as they like; there is no prohibition on that. At the moment the position is that she must obtain permission for that. If such a procession will create no disorder, permission will definitely be given. However, a local authority does not always have all the facts at its disposal. Someone now has to decide whether a procession may possibly disrupt law and order. Who is in the best position to decide about that? Is the city council by itself in the best position to do so, or should it be the city council in consultation with the magistrate of the district? To me it is quite simple to see that it would be better if the magistrate also had a say. What is the existing position? If the City Council of Johannesburg were to grant permission, the magistrate would only be able to stop it in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. If he has reason to believe that the procession is going to cause disorder, his only way out, under the present position, is to recommend to the Minister that the procession be prohibited in terms of the provisions of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Say, for the sake of argument, that the procession is prohibited, but the people concerned nevertheless contravene that Act. The result is that they make themselves liable to the imposition of sentences prescribed by the Riotous Assemblies Act. In terms of the provisions as they stand here, the city council may grant its permission for a procession to be held and if the magistrate is of the opinion that it will create no disorder, he also grants his permission. If the city council refuses it in the first instance, he does not come into the picture at all. Suppose the city council grants its permission, but the magistrate prohibits the procession. What would happen then if the people concerned nevertheless contravened the prohibition? All the magistrate would do then would be to declare them liable to the sentences and burdens of guilt imposed on them by the by-laws. At the moment a fine of R50 is the maximum provided for by the bylaws of the Johannesburg City Council. But the hon. member was quite right …

But!

Where there is a procession protesting against a law and they contravene a law in the process, they are subject to the Act of 1953. There the hon. member is correct. But surely law and order must be maintained. After all, one cannot allow a lot of people to take the law into their own hands in spite of the fact that the magistrate prohibited the procession under the Riotous Assemblies Act. The hon. member apparently has no confidence in our magistrates, or otherwise she stands for unruliness and lawlessness. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to view this provision objectively, this cannot be interpreted in any other way than that she either has no confidence in the magistrates …

Not unquestionably.

… or does not mind there being lawlessness or disorder.

It is a question of people’s democratic rights.

We too believe in those rights. We have no objection to peaceful processions. There are many things for or against which protests can be organized—for example, for better housing; even against the decision of the World Council of Churches. But there is a kind of procession in the course of which action takes place and to that action there will be reaction. And now someone has to decide what must be done under those circumstances. In my opinion the magistrate of the district is the best person to decide about that; he is the man who has to maintain law and order. Under the circumstances I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending this clause for adoption.

Clause put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, clause declared agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

This clause gives the power to this council and committees thereof to call witnesses to appear in connection with inquiries. But this clause limits the calling of such witnesses to Coloured persons. It is inconceivable that the council and its committees can function properly without having to call persons other than Coloured persons. The power to compel witnesses to attend is a different matter and is dealt with in a later clause. As regards clause 2, the definition of “witness” is so restrictive that I think it should be deleted and, accordingly, I move as an amendment—

Order! I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill to a class of persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

May I address you on that, Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

The question is whether my amendment is an extension of the provisions of the Bill or not. This clause provides for the calling of witnesses. That is the principle which is involved. The description of the witnesses, whether they be male or female or Coloured or otherwise, is purely descriptive of the principle. I suggest that the principle is the calling of witnesses, and not merely the calling of Coloured witnesses. I submit, Sir, that the amendment is accordingly in order.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Sir, may I address you further on this clause?

The hon. member may proceed.

I trust that the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member cannot address the Committee twice in succession.

Sir, the position as I see it is this: The principle involved is, after all, to hear witnesses, and the question of what witnesses …

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may not question my ruling.

The power given to this council to nominate its own committees is sound in principle, but I can full well realize that in future such a select committee of the council may not be able to perform its work properly if, for example, it is restricted in the calling of witnesses to Coloured witnesses.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss that matter if it is not embodied in an amendment, and I have ruled that amendment out of order.

Sir, I am speaking on the clause now.

The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the clause.

I accept your ruling. What I want to discuss here is the practical application of clause 2. I can imagine that in future this council may find it essential to appoint, say, a select committee on a matter relating to education, or to inquire into, say the University of the Western Cape. White lecturers are members of that university’s staff, and if this clause were to be passed as it stands …

Order! The hon. member is evading my ruling now. The hon. member may speak on the contents of this clause only.

I am doing so. I want to explain why I am opposed to this clause as it stands. I think if this restriction is to be imposed on the council, it will complicate the proceedings of the council as such to a considerable extent.

Order! The principle that this would be restricted to Coloured persons was accepted at the Second Reading, and for that reason the hon. member may not discuss any matter in this Committee which falls outside the scope of the clause.

On a point of order, Sir, is one not allowed to argue against the entire clause? I want to vote against this clause.

Yes, of course the hon. member can.

I would like to suggest, with respect, that the hon. member was in fact arguing against the clause itself and not against the specific words.

This clause confines witnesses to Coloured people, and the hon. member may not discuss that.

Can he not give reasons as to why he wants to vote against this clause, for this reason?

No, that argument should have been raised at the Second Reading.

How can one argue against the clause if one is not able to give reasons?

The hon. member can only argue against this clause if she has moved an amendment. Such an amendment was moved and I did not accept it.

Sir, I am not interested in the amendment. I am against this clause. I want to vote against it in toto.

The hon. member may do so.

I want also to say why I want to vote against this clause in toto. I am not putting my argument forward, Sir, but I am speaking on a point of order regarding the hon. member for Newton Park.

Order! I put the clause.

Sir, may I advance the argument that …

Order! The hon. member may not speak twice in succession.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not really trifling with this council in introducing a clause of this nature, He is simply trifling with the council. He is giving it a façade or pretence of having the right to have an inquiry or an investigation and then he restricts the powers of the council to the calling of Coloured witnesses. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether that is a power or a privilege which is worth while to this council and whether it is necessary to introduce a clause of this sort which makes a farce of the proceedings, as we know them, of Select Committees in parliamentary procedure? Because if this clause is passed as it is now, it will restrict the council to calling Coloured persons only. I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that it would be better not to have this clause at all and to allow the council, in its ordinary way of functioning, to seek co-operation on a voluntary basis from such persons as can assist the council in the carrying out of its functions. The Minister must realize that this is a curtailment of the functions and effectiveness of the council.

Order! The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling now.

Sir, with the greatest respect, I am not.

Order! Does the hon. member want to argue with the Chair?

No, certainly not, Sir. May I continue? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a further question in regard to the type of inquiry envisaged in this clause. He did not indicate to us in the Second Reading what is envisaged by him in the practical application of this clause in regard to the functioning of the Coloured Council. The Deputy Minister said this was a matter which would arise in the Committee Stage, and as he is giving power to call Coloured persons to appear as witnesses, will he be good enough to inform this Committee of the type of investigation which he feels this clause might possibly benefit the Council in the form in which it is before us? I hope the Minister will indicate this because we had that problem in the Second Reading.

May I by way of explanation just tell the Committee what is intended by referring to Coloured witnesses? I think the aim is quite clear, in clause 2, namely to provide that only Coloured people should be under any compulsion to be called and to be examined as witnesses.

But that is clause 3.

The aim is quite clear. It is stated in clause 2 but in clause 3 it is taken a little further. If you take away clause 1, then clause 3 comes into the picture. The hon. member for Houghton in the Second Reading said a very true thing and it was unbiased, which is not often the case. She said that this is simply something to govern the internal conduct of the Coloured Representative Council. But this council is only empowered to inquire into matters relating to the functions entrusted to them, functions relating to the affairs of their own people. For that reason they cannot be given the coercive power to call and examine under oath people of other national groups. That is how we see it. [Interjection.] I am explaining the intention, which you will also find in clause 3. However, this does not mean that a person of any other race group may not be invited as a witness to give evidence or to produce documents which may help this council in arriving at a conclusion in their investigations.

But you said they may only call Coloured people.

Yes, call only Coloured people. That is so. I said it at the start, because the functions entrusted to them, only relate to Coloured people.

What I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this. Let us assume those people while considering something affecting their own internal arrangements would like to call on the Secretary to this House to give evidence, my contention is that it may not happen because they may only hear the evidence of Coloured people. That is the point at issue.

That is not quite so. He might be invited on his own and then he might assist them.

But they may only hear Coloured people.

He cannot be compelled. Clause 2 leads to clause 3 and hon. members will find that it is so. As soon as you are able to call somebody as a witness he is under compulsion to give evidence. I just want to tell hon. members that these provisions do not mean that the Commissioner of Coloured Affairs, for instance, who is a white person at the moment, may not require officials under his authority, should they be White or not, to provide the council with information they might need.

That is wrong.

We want free co-operation in this instance between the various groups. This does also not mean that any person of any race, and I now want hon. members to take the whole Act into account, who under section 16 offends against the dignity of the council or is guilty of contempt against the council as had been specified in that section, may not be tried in a court of law and properly punished. I might be wrong, but I cannot recall any instance of this kind in years. However I have been told that some 27 years ago a person of a different race, namely a Bantu, was called to come as a witness before a Committee of this hon. House. Therefore, I think hon. members are just stating hypothetical oases and the rarest of cases, but there is still this method of extending an invitation. The Coloured Affairs Commissioner can also send an official to provide information. Therefore I am sorry, but I cannot agree to the objections against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the remarks which have been made by the hon. the Deputy Minister have made us even more determined not to include in this legislation a clause which is ineffective and useless and which could provide no function so far as the council is concerned. It is better not to cloak it with this pretence of formal inquiry and let us leave it at what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, namely that the Secretary of the Department can run the council and tell it what and whom it can have in the way of witnesses. Let that power extend to Coloured persons, as well as to Whites, Indians and Bantu, as has been suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister. For that reason we will oppose this clause. I am sorry the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to realize that it inhibits the effectiveness of this council’s functions by restricting witnesses to Coloured persons. Accordingly we will oppose this clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 dealt with the right to call witnesses. This clause deals with the power to compel the witnesses to attend. It seems to us on this side of the House that there should be a means of compulsion and again I have put on the Order Paper a proposed amendment. With regard to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I can anticipate that you will give a similar ruling as far as this amendment is concerned. I will therefore merely confine myself, without moving the amendment, to the objections we have to this clause. Our main objection to this clause is that it is ineffective and that it does not provide a means for the council of carrying out its functions. It will result in the council being dependent on the goodwill of an individual attending the council as a witness on the invitation of the council itself, or on the invitation of the Secretary. This again will make the effectiveness of this clause of very little if of value at all. If witnesses must be called, you usually find that the witnesses who are most reluctant to come voluntarily are the ones who are the most important. That frequently happens before the clearing up of some particular matter. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this council which is concerned with the social welfare of the Coloured people and their housing, will not always only require Coloured persons to appear as witnesses at investigations. Is that really what the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks, because that is the effect of this clause. Only Coloured persons can be called upon to appear before this Committee in terms of this Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we will oppose this clause as well, because it is really only putting up a pretence which we are against as far as the affairs of the Coloured people are concerned; it is not a real power. We will oppose this clause for that reason. I want to say to the Deputy Minister that in spite of all the pious talk of “selfbeskikking” and so on that we hear from that side of the House we have doubts about the sincerity of that argument when one sees clauses of this sort put into what is to be the sole political forum which Coloured persons have in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to object strongly to this clause. Because it is your ruling, I cannot argue about the actual detail of it, but I must say that this clause goes counter to everything that we have been told in this House about building up the Coloured Council as a really important executive administrative body for the Coloured people. Not much longer than a few days ago we were told that the whole object was to put the Coloured council on a similar basis to that enjoyed by the House of Assembly. I wonder what members of the House of Assembly would say if they had their rights restricted as far as people who are summoned as witnesses are concerned, as the case will be in regard to the Coloured Representative Council? This clause is clearly designed to make quite sure that the council will act only within its own limited circumference. Since all of us live in the same multi-racial South Africa, since the Coloured council is inevitably going to have dealings with other races, since all the affairs of the council are inevitably going to mean contact with the other racial groups in South Africa, I think this is a very limiting clause and I wish to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, to speak of self-determination for the Coloured people as the hon. member for Green Point has just done, is sheer nonsense. We on this side of the House have always said that that is the direction in which development can and must take place, but we have not envisaged it for this decade. The fact of the matter is that the Coloured Council has limited powers with regard to Coloureds only. The council has nothing whatsoever to do with Whites. The Commissioner has at his disposal the Whites who are still working for them. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned this in his Second Reading speech and the hon. member for Newton Park also mentioned it under the discussion of clause 2. For example, if the Coloured Council wants the professors and lecturers of the University of the Western Cape to give evidence to it, the Commissioner may instruct them to do so. We admit that this Coloured Council has limited powers. As yet it does not have a full right of self-determination, only self-determination with regard to the powers delegated to it, but it can still develop to full self-determination. The Coloured Council has no other powers. This parliament has authority over other matters. This Parliament, and this Parliament alone, has authority over the Whites in South Africa, and not the Coloured Council or a committee nominated by that council.

Mr. Chairman, I think one should at least be completely practical as regards matters of this kind. No one has any objection to the Coloureds being called, requested or instructed to give evidence. But one should foresee the situation that such a Coloured who may not have all the necessary information at his disposal, may be placed in a very uncomfortable position when he has to give evidence. This clause will simply have the effect that a Select Committee appointed by the Coloured Persons Representative Council will not be able to fulfil the same functions as, for example, a Select Committee of this Parliament. [Interjections.] And then the hon. member still says, “at this stage”. But it is exactly at this stage that one wants to give these people the best information and guidance. Now this restriction is being imposed, i.e. that only Coloureds may be called. To my way of thinking this clause is unfair in that we expect from the Coloureds, who do not have as much experience as the Whites of matters of this kind, to be the only ones who may give evidence. I think it is unfair to place that burden on their shoulders alone.

Order! The hon. member must not evade my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can rather be perfectly frank with one another. That is always the best. I have been frank from the word go. Let me put it as follows: I have explained the aim with regard to the inclusion of Coloureds. In the second place, as far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I want to emphasize the fact that he created the impression that it was a pretence that these people had any power. I have told him very clearly that to a certain extent these people have restricted authority, but that authority is to deal with their own people. Now, with regard to people investigating a matter concerning their own people with the assistance of their own people, the hon. member speaks disparagingly of self-determination. There is still a way open to get people from elsewhere. This will be so in practice. We in this House last summonsed someone of another race 27 years ago. They will still be able to use the services of such a person, but not under compulsion. That is the point. To me it is somewhat ridiculous of him to say that we are making a farce of self-determination by giving them as a lower body certain powers in such a way. I want to ask hon. members to accept this Coloured Persons Representative Council as something which exists. It is a fait accompli. There is nothing we can still do to that. But it is a lower body. Since the hon. member for Houghton spoke of the reference to Parliament as a body which has an Act which is in agreement with the Bill before this House—this clause actually is one of the most important—I just want to tell her that this Parliament is the highest legislative body in South Africa. White South Africa still has to act as guardians over the Coloureds at this stage and lead them along the road of constitutional development. But the less we split hairs in this House with regard to aspects such as these, the more respect the Coloureds will gain for us and the more rapidly they will be able to progress along this road.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper, as follows—

Hon. members will notice that clause 16 (1) provides that any person who “is guilty of any act or omission which in terms of the standing rules and orders of the Council is declared to constitute a contempt of the Council” shall be guilty of an offence. The Standing Rules and Orders of the Coloured Persons Representative Council are virtually identical to those of this Parliament. They may even amend their Standing Rules and Orders. In other words, by future amendments to their own Standing Rules and Orders they can create an offence. Even in the case of this Parliament the question as to what offences may be described as contempt of this Parliament has not been finalized. If the highest legislative body in the country has not yet reached finality with regard to an aspect such as this, I think a lower legislative body should not be granted that authority either. That is why I move this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move:

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have no objections to the Third Reading of this Bill. As indicated at the Second Reading, we support this measure. It gives the necessary powers to the Coloured Persons Representative Council to be a legislative body. There are certain matters which arose in the Committee Stage, and we have already drawn attention to our objections to the restrictions which are contained in certain clauses. I want to say that we on this side of the House will support all measures the Government wishes to introduce to extend the authority of this council, to enable it to look after the affairs of the Coloured people themselves more effectively and extensively than at present. We trust that this Bill which is before us, of which we approve and which we accept in its present form except for the reservations which have been mentioned, will be a forerunner of other measures to give more power to this council, to make it more effective and, particularly, to make it representative through election by the Coloured people.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, we listened attentively last night to what the speaker on the Opposition side said in connection with this important Vote. Before going further I should like to associate myself with what he said by stating that we on this side of the House also want to express our heartiest congratulations to Mr. Van Vuuren, the new Secretary, and to welcome him very sincerely to that new post. During the short time since he assumed office, he has furnished very clear proof of being a man who feels very strongly towards welfare matters, and that he is a person who always approaches these problems in the right way. We foresee a period when he is going to mean a great deal to us by way of the necessary guidance and sympathetic treatment we shall receive from him, and which we have also received throughout from his department. We want to wish him a very fruitful period of service as Secretary of this department.

The previous speaker raised quite a number of matters. One wishes there were an opportunity to go into these matters in greater detail. In a very short period of time one cannot, unfortunately, do this. But I am very glad that we are slowly beginning to move away from the earlier tendency of speaking exclusively about pensions when this vote comes under discussion. The previous speaker covered a much wider field, and pointed to the great diversity of activities falling under this department. If one thinks of the great work being done by way of the subsidizing of voluntary welfare organizations, of which there are a few thousand, if one thinks of the interest in the care of the aged, and at the same time the care of children, if one thinks of the work being done by the department in research, and one sees the good reports regularly published, excellent research documents, one can have nothing but appreciation for the progress that has been made. One can say that it is rather interesting to see how pensions have been increased in the course of time, and how the means test has gradually been slackened so that a larger number of persons than ever before can to-day qualify for pensions. Since we are now speaking about the research being done by the department, and the documents being made available from time to time, let me say that it is worth the trouble to see what a high standard is being maintained. The department distinguished itself with the annual reports it published. The previous speaker referred to the Welfare Board and its activities. All of us hope that the first report of this body will give us a deeper look into its activities. But on the basis of what I have already seen and observed, I want to claim that the Welfare Act, that made possible the establishment of this Welfare Board and its regional boards and Committees, is doing a very great service for our country. All the boards appear to be very active, and are cultivating the welfare fields of our country very thoroughly and making our people more welfare-conscious. A great deal is being done to improve the co-ordination of the activities of the various voluntary welfare organizations. In fact, this co-ordination has never been as efficient as it is now. Earlier there were large shortcomings in this co-ordination, and there was a great deal of overlapping. But this is now being eliminated by the thorough work being done by the Welfare Board, its regional boards and committees.

There are a few matters I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention under this Vote. In the first place I want to tell him how gratefully cognisance was taken of his statement that an agreement has been reached between Education and Social Welfare in terms of which Social Welfare would be responsible for children, from their 18th year, who were suffering from severe mental retardation. This is a great concession. When such a tragedy strikes a family, the parents perhaps see their way clear when the child is young. But as he grows older the parents also grow older, and as this happens they become concerned about what will happen to that child when they are no longer there. In Kimberley we have the example of an outstanding project for children, which will fall under the Department of Higher Education. We also have a housing scheme there, Kenilworth, where the other children can be housed until the day they die. It is actually a form of sheltered labour on a communal basis. The people at the head of that fine undertaking tell me that parents have already come to them with the greatest amount of gratitude, because they feel easy in their minds because their sons or daughters are being well cared for. My plea is that the care of these children will not only embrace the provision of a roof over their heads, food and clothing, but that the department will continue to do whatever research can be done to make those children productive no matter how mentally retarded they may be. Surely everyone has a particular aptitude and interest. In countries overseas these children are brought to within 60 per cent productivity. Our department must, therefore, also view its task towards these children in a broader sense than mere care.

The second matter I want to raise I have already raised on a previous occasion. The Minister said last time that there would be proper care for the senile aged. There is one other group about whose placement I am in doubt. The Department of Health cannot do a great deal for them. I am speaking of people who are suffering from incurable diseases, and who may even be reasonably young and not necessarily senile. There may be persons among them who are only in their twenties, and who are suffering from incurable diseases. Hospitals cannot do anything more for these people, the beds are needed for other cases, and these people must now simply go and die somewhere else. In overseas countries there are special places set up for this type of person; here there are no such places. Usually such people are suffering a great deal of pain at that stage, accompanied by anxiety, and the people who must care for them do not always have the means with which to do so. We do not want separate hospitals to be built for these people, but the department must help in making it possible for these people to be kept in existing hospitals until they eventually die. [Time expired.]

The hon. member must forgive me if I do not follow his line of reasoning. There is, however, one thing I should like to say to him and to other colleagues of his who served on the Select Committee on Pensions. We on this side are bitterly disappointed in them. For two years in succession now that Select Committee submitted a recommendation to this House, a unanimous recommendation. But yesterday the Deputy Minister of Transport turned that recommendation down.

He did not turn it down; it was referred to the Government.

We know what has happened when cases like these were referred to the Government before. Yesterday it was left to members on this side of the House to fight for the adoption of that recommendation. Not one hon. member on the other side supported us in that, although it was a unanimous recommendation from the Select Committee. They even went so far as to against their own recommendation. Of that, we on this side take a very poor view. Furthermore, looking around the Chamber I notice that very few members from the opposite side who serve on the Select Committee on Pensions are present here now.

My colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, raised quite a number of matters yesterday. I should like to confine myself to two matters, matters which we on this side have been bringing forward year after year. Both these matters concern the welfare of ex-servicemen.

In the first place there are the ex-members of the Native Military Corps of the last war. They played a very important part in that war. The corps numbered something like 78,000 and 1,700 of them were killed, died or were declared missing. They made a considerable contribution to the war effort. Every time in the past when we pleaded for these unfortunate people to be considered as war veterans …

Are you referring to Natives?

Yes, of the Native Military Corps.

Then you are raising it under the wrong Vote.

No. This is a matter for the Government. I want to appeal to this Minister to take the matter to the Government. It does not only concern the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, it does not concern the Department of Bantu Administration …

The Vote before the House is that of Social Welfare only.

… and it does not concern the Minister of Sport either. It concerns the whole of the country. I should like the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, and the Minister of Sport if he takes any interest; the Minister of Defence, I rotice, is not here—to help me in my plea for these people. When we have raised this matter in the past we have been told that these people were non-combatants. If they were non-combatants, then by the same token the personnel of the nursing services of the medical corps and our administrative personnel must similarly be termed non-combatants. Yet in the case of Whites and Coloureds, these people fall under the term “war veterans”. It is only right therefore that these people should also fall under this term.

Sir, to show how fallacious is this argument about non-combatants, I would like to read out one or two citations in respect of people who earned decorations during the last war, and then I would like to ask members of this Committee to tell me whether these people were non-combatants. The first citation I want to read is in respect of non-European Corporal Radebe—

Then I want to read just one more and that is the citation in respect of Lance Corporal Job Masego—

I think these two cases will suffice to show that the argument that these people were non-combatants is a fallacious one.

Sir, I want to say that whether we believe in separate development and in independent Bantustans or not, if South Africa is again to be committed to a war in the future, we will have to make use of these non-European people to help in the defence of South Africa. Whether they serve in the so-called non-combatant units or not, we shall have to look after them. These people have served South Africa well and we cannot at this stage let them down by further ignoring their claims to a pension.

The next batch of ex-servicemen that I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister are the 1914-'15 war veterans. These people are still subject to the means test. Now let me say straight away that we know that the means test has been relaxed considerably, for which we are very thankful. But many years ago when the Anglo-Boer War veterans were released from the means test the Minister of this Government that we have to-day, said that it was 50 years since the war and it was time that these people should be recognized now. Sir. the First World War has been at an end for 52 years now and I think it is time that similarly the means test must be relaxed for these people.

Relaxed?

Completely taken away, the same as in the case of the Anglo-Boer War veterans and those who took part in the Bombata Rebellion. These people are all getting towards the end of their lives now. I do not think there are many left under 70 years of age and they have not very much longer to go. They have done very well for South Africa. Most of them were concerned in the South-West African Campaign and I look to my hon. friend over there, the Whip, to come to my rescue. It is a pity you cannot take part in this debate, Mr. Chairman, because you are the people who should be thankful to them and you should support us in getting for those people what they deserve.

When the hon. member for North Rand spoke here yesterday about the report of the Select Committee, I really thought he was speaking honestly and sincerely in the interests of the applicant, but from the manner in which he returned to the matter this afternoon, I think that he was not being honest and that he wants to make politics of it. I find it most disappointing of the hon. member to have dragged this matter into the debate again this afternoon. The members of the Select Committee from this side of the House voted for the proposal of the Deputy Minister on the basis that new facts had come to light, and because this side of the House has confidence in the Government. If the hon. member for North Rand has none, then I am satisfied.

Did you also have that confidence last year?

I want to come to another matter. If we look at the Estimates for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, we find that in 1962 the total expenditure under this Vote was R76 million and this year the figure is almost R150 million. This proves two things to me, firstly, that the Government is definitely not unsympathetic to those people who are dependent on the Government in one form or another for their livelihood, and, secondly, that one is disturbed when one sees how much money is spent on people in our community who are not self-reliant. Not all the people who receive pensions are dependent in the true sense of the word. I want, nevertheless, to quote a few figures to show the real extent of the number of people whom we have to deal with. There are 102,000 persons in receipt of old-age pensions, 19,000 war veterans receive pensions, and a further 19,000 receive disability allowances, giving a total of more than 140,000: 14,000 families where there is no breadwinner receive maintenance allowances. 10,000 children are cared for daily in children’s homes and 10,000 aged persons are cared for in 178 homes for the aged. Every year approximately 3,000 white children are found to be in need of care. The point I want to make is that something has gone wrong in the lives of all these people who are dependent on the State in this way. At some stage or other something has gone wrong with that basis which should have made them self-reliant in their social and economic lives. Now these people are dependent on the State. The fact that the Government is prepared to help these people, is an indication that we are not unsympathetic to those people. We can argue as much as we like, but unless preventive work is undertaken in respect of those people who run the risk of becoming dependent, this number will increase tremendously.

I am therefore especially grateful for two directions upon which the Department has embarked. In the first place, there is the extension of the Department’s occupational services, and, in the second place, we have the subsidizing of voluntary welfare organizations in regard to the employment of social workers. The fact is that this year we are ploughing R150 million into welfare work. This figure will apparently increase each year. No industrialist and no economist would be prepared to put R150 million a year in hard cash into any business which he might undertake, unless he had also made large-scale provision for experts to manage that business. That is why I want to-day to put in a strong plea to the hon. the Minister once again that we must guard against the danger of over-specialization in our welfare work, which could lead to our neglecting the basis of our welfare work, viz. the family care services. The welfare organizations have already given a large measure of co-operation to the Department in order that a basis can be devised on which the subsidy formula can work. I believe that at the moment there is another report of this nature before the Department. The organizations are now insisting that, at this stage, they should be given a reply in regard to a possible new formula.

It may be that the Department feels concerned about the possibility that there may be a certain measure of overlapping among the voluntary organizations which receive the subsidies. In this regard too I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if the basic principles are maintained, which have now been successfully applied for 15 years, the co-operation of the organizations will be forthcoming. This principle is the acknowledgment of the cultural ties and the religious ties of the indigent person. If the co-operation of the welfare organizations is sought on this level or if consultations take place, I believe that the co-operation of the organizations will be obtained. I personally have no fear that a great deal of overlapping exists or will result because they appoint more and more social workers to the field service, but it is a fact that the voluntary services realize that the core of our social work lies in the personal work performed by the trained social worker at home. If the work is not done at home, we run the risk of having to establish even more institutions. Statistics have proved this to us, and we have experience of it, that our family care apparently reached its lowest point in the early fifties. There are various reasons for this which I cannot go into now. I can merely say that they were at a really low-water mark. At that time there was an enormous increase in the number of cases declared to be in need of care. From 1955, when we had a new deal as regards co-operation among the organizations and better relations with the Department, and vice versa, the number of cases declared to be in need of care showed a tendency to even out, and this is being maintained up till to-day. There is a slight increase, but it is not really out of proportion to the increase in our population. Therefore I feel that if we can make our family care services even stronger and if we can even expand them, we can keep the number of our institutional care services on a lower level.

I want to say the same in regard to our care of the aged. The hon. the Minister and his Department stress the necessity of domestic care for the aged. The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned the question of “meals on wheels” here yesterday. I think these people are doing outstanding work, but this is merely physical help which is rendered, while there is a great need for expert domestic care for those people in conjunction with the family care services which we can create in the private sector. There are many of these organizations in existence, but only a limited number of social workers are engaged in this work. I trust that the Minister will subsidize these family care services so that they can be expanded even further. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman the hon. member for Westdene said that we should guard against the over-specialization of welfare work. In principle I think this is a sound statement to make, but I feel that there is still ample scope for improvement, something the hon. member for Umbilo has dealt with at length.

My hon. Leader said at the beginning of this Session that we in South Africa should work towards a more sympathetic community, “a compassionate society” as he put it. I want to elaborate on this. I want to refer particularly to our elderly people and I want to put in a plea with the hon. the Minister once again that he should give serious consideration to the possible introduction of a national contributory pension scheme in South Africa and the abolition of the means test.

We can only work towards a compassionate society if we take positive steps to make our elderly people happy and active members of our community and to make our elderly people feel that the community and the future generation do not regard them as useless, old and decrepit citizens.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the three categories of people which comprise a nation, namely the youth, those people who are in the prime of their lives, and the elderly people. He also said that the middle group should take care of the youth, on the one hand, but also of the elderly people, on the other hand. Now, it is possibly a psychological phenomenon that I as a member of the younger group want to support those in the senior group in our common dependence on those who are in the prime of their lives. There is one problem which the elderly people and the young people have in common, and that is housing. As we all know, it is very difficult to-day for any young married couple to get a home of their own. For that reason we as young people have sympathy with the elderly people and with the elderly people who possess a home of their own and who are being discriminated against in the application of the means test, should they apply for a social pension. I am thinking now of the elderly people who have led a normal life, who have contributed their share towards the community, who have worked hard to get a home of their own, who were not fortunate enough to enjoy the benefit of a pension scheme in that particular sphere in which they were employed and who are now compelled to apply for a social pension when they reach the age of retirement. We assume that their income is such that they will have no income when they reach the age of retirement, but that they do have a home of their own and that they now have to ask the State for a special pension. Then they come up against the means test. They come up against a regulation, laid down by this Government, which goes against the grain of so many of these elderly people. Things are being made difficult for these people who have taken care of themselves, who have made sure that they will have accommodation in their old age and who merely want to qualify for a social pension from the State. If they possess a house to the value of more than R8,000 they do not qualify for the full pension. If they possess a house to the value of anything between R8,000 and R14,400, the amount they are entitled to is reduced to R6, R4 and even R2. We know that in most cases one cannot even buy a plot for R8,000 to-day particularly on the Witwatersrand and in our urban areas. One can say that there are very few houses in South Africa to-day to the value of less than R8,000. The point I want to make in saying that, is that this affects many elderly people who possess a house when they reach the age of retirement and whom are affected by the means test when they apply for a pension. These people have to sell their houses first. They must, as it were, spend their capital before they become entitled to a pension; because they do not qualify for a pension if their income exceeds R48 per month. I do not think there is any sense in this. We should praise these people for having been able to take care of themselves as regards housing under their specific circumstances without having had the benefits of a pension scheme in their sphere of employment.

Speaking of housing, Sir, I think the time has come for the hon. the Minister to plead with the Minister of Community Development that, when housing schemes are planned or initiated in South Africa in future, a certain percentage of such housing should be set aside for our elderly people. I think that this could mean a great deal to our elderly people, even if it were only 7 per cent or 10 per cent. A house, a place of their own, remains a valuable asset to our elderly people. They do not want to be dependent on people who are in the prime of their life, as the hon. the Minister has called them.

I want to express a few thoughts on a contributory pension scheme for our elderly people. In reply to the hon. member for Umbilo during the Budget debate the Minister advanced certain reasons why such a scheme would not be possible in South Africa. He said, inter alia, that it had not worked in Britain and that it would not work in South Africa either. I do not think that is an argument. If the existing pension schemes in South Africa, whether they are of a private nature or whether they are State pension schemes, are successful, why can they not work on a national basis? The Minister also mentioned the question of the devaluation of money. Surely, the same problem applies in other pension schemes. The third argument advanced by the hon. the Minister was to the effect that our elderly people falling into that specific category at the moment will have to make financial contributions. Surely, if we were to do that it would be a sacrifice we would have to make. When speaking of their ideological Bantu policy, this Government pleads with the people of South Africa to make sacrifices. Surely, the Whites in South Africa could be asked to make the same sacrifices as regards our elderly persons. If we cannot afford it, let us get away from these narrow-minded arguments advanced against a State lottery. Let us utilize this as an auxiliary means. Both young and old in South Africa want a State lottery. I am sure that, if a State lottery were to be used specifically for this purpose, namely to initiate a national pension scheme, and if we were to hold a referendum in the country on this point, the Government would come off second best. This is a very sound auxilliary means.

Finally; I want to mention just one point as regards the loan levy. In the course of the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Finance we objected most strongly to this matter. However, since the hon. the Minister does not want to make more money available for our elderly people, I want to put in a plea with him once more to consider recommending to the hon. the Minister of Finance that the loan levy be abolished for our elderly people. One comes across many elderly people who are incensed about this matter. During the last election I addressed a meeting in my constituency. A newspaper report was published on that meeting, as follows—

People wrote numerous letters after the hon. the Minister of Finance had increased the loan levy from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. Many letters appeared in the newspapers in which the authors asked whether they could not be exempted in this case. In order to establish a compassionate society, we should win the confidence of the elderly people and we should also make it as pleasant as possible for them in the twilight of their lives. The means test and the fact that they are not entitled in a normal and natural way to a pension in their old age creates unpleasantness among them as well as all of us. I believe that we can solve this problem if we were to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into this matter thoroughly in order to try to introduce a contributory pension scheme in South Africa and to abolish the means test. When one reaches the age of 60 or 65 years, one knows that one will receive a pension and that one will not be discriminated against when one possesses a house of one’s own.

I think that after a little while, if the hon. member is still sitting in this House, he will talk less nonsense and will prepare himself better before he speaks here on a matter which he knows nothing about. I just want to mention something to him about the means test, in connection with owning a house. His figure of R8,000 is completely wrong. A person may own property to the value of R10,600, and that is only 75 per cent of the municipal valuation which is usually much lower than the market value that is taken into account. Then the person can receive the full pension. Before he discusses any matter again, I want to give him some advice, which is that he should first make certain of this facts. It is typical that we continually have to listen to the reproach from their side that this Government is not doing enough for our aged. I want to say at once that a Government could probably never do enough for its old people. We should very much like to do this as well, but there are other factors which also count, such as the cost aspect of the matter. I think that as far as care of the aged is concerned, the United Party are the last people to talk. If the hon. member wants to go into the matter, he will see that before he saw the light of day the United Party in 1948 was paying our elderly people a meagre R10 per month in pensions, while it has now been increased to R35 per month. But the hon. member merely glanced at the Estimates, and he saw that there was R149 1/4 million which was being utilized for Social Welfare and Pensions. Surely that is not all. It is not only the R68 million as indicated in the Estimates which makes provision for pensions for the aged. What about the housing which has been povided by this Government? Millions of rands are-being provided by the Department of Community Development for the construction of homes and sub-economic housing for our aged. But that is not all, Since he discussed the shortage of housing for the aged, I want to tell him that the blame can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the local authorities, which do not make use of the loans which are being made available by the Department of Community Development at a rate of interest of one twentieth and three quarter per cent. I find it typical that it is the city council in which his constituency is situated, Johannesburg, which is a United Party city council, which comes forward with such reproaches here because they are neglecting their duty in respect of the aged in a disgraceful manner.

I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the care of the aged division which has been established by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to give specialized attention to the care of our elderly people. I want to tell him that I think it is a praise-wothy view that the aged form an integral part of our community and that it should be made possible for them to remain full-fledged and happy members of normal society for as long as possible. We have in our modern life the unfortunate phenomenon that we no longer have, as in the past, three generations living together, where the grandfather and grandmother, together with the grandchildren, form part of the family. This is a lamentable phenomenon, since it is the privilege and the duty of the children to care for the old people. That phenomenon is disappearing. In my opinion the responsibility for the care of our aged rests on the children. It is being said too easily these days that it is the total responsibility of the Government to care for our aged. Then, too. there is the general view that our aged should be accommodated in homes. All this will mean, is that they will be removed from the society where they were so happy for many years. This is a pity, because many of our old people of 65 years and more, are still strong and healthy and they would like to live an independent life for as long as possible.

In this respect the hon. the Minister deserves praise for his approach and policy to have our aged feel independent in our community for as long as possible. I shall mention an example. I now want the hon. member fo Turffontein to listen carefully. If he wants to take the trouble, he can come to Boksburg and there I will show him a block of flats consisting of 220 flats, where 250 elderly people are being accommodated. Each of those flats has its own kitchen in which the elderly people can prepare food for themselves. The flats are fitted out in such a way that members of the family and friends can be received there. I doubt whether there is any other place where 250 old people are so happy and feel so independent as in those flats in Boksburg. What is most important to me however is the degree of security offered to the aged there. Each one of them retains his self-respect. The lessees pay for them themselves. If the hon. member for Turffontein wants to listen, I can tell him that the rent amounts to R14 at the most.

I want to associate myself, however, with the hon. member for Umbilo who yesterday evening put in a plea in respect of the 75 per cent of the municipal valuation of properties which has to be taken into account in the allocation of a full pension. As the hon. member said, we all know that the valuations of properties have increased tremendously. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that percentage cannot at a pinch be reduced to 50 per cent.

I have another problem, and I really do not know what the solution to it is. The problem concerns assessment rates. The valuations have increased to such an extent that persons who want to remain on independently in their own homes are finding it very difficult to pay these rates.

I should like to advocate another matter to the hon. the Minister. It has already in our society become customary for a bonus to be paid at the end of the year to virtually all employees, Now I want to ask him whether he will not consider paying a Christmas bonus to our aged. I am now referring only to the aged who are completely dependent on a social pension. I think that the Minister will in that way gladden the hearts of many of them. It will enable them to provide themselves with additional and the most necessary needs during that time of the year.

I want to conclude by congratulating the hon. the Minister on the take-over and establishment of those homes for our infirm aged. Despite the shabby and undeserved criticism which appeared in the Sunday Times last year, he had the courage of his convictions to save many of our infirm aged from neglect. Those institutions were aimed at capital gain and not the care of our aged. We are very grateful to him for doing so. We wish the Minister everything of the best in the further construction of homes for the infirm aged.

If the hon. member for Boksburg had continued, as he did in the middle of his speech, to support the pleas of the hon. member for Umbilo to the Minister, one would have been able to say that he made an excellent contribution to this debate. However, he made an unwarranted and deprecating attack on the hon. member for Turffontein, an attack for which he cannot be forgiven. What the hon. member should have done was to have congratulated the hon. member for Turffontein on an excellent address, delivered not in a sense of carping criticism but in a sincere desire to help the aged. The hon. member for Boksburg did not do it, but I should like to congratulate that hon. member. He is a young man and shows good spirit and understanding. He spoke of the very thing the hon. member for Boksburg complained about, that young people should be more aware of their responsibilities towards the older members of our community. We know the Minister is interested in the question of the aged. I know that because of some of the speeches he made. In these days I think we have to be a little more practical. After all, at the moment we house only some 7 to 8 per cent of our over 65’s in the Republic for whom we made provision for housing. I do not say that this is a matter for severe criticism. I should like to draw attention, however, to the fact that there is still a very long way to go before we would really have done something in the interests of the unfortunate pensioner who finds himself being forced out gradually from an integrated society and forced more and more to fend for himself on his own. In the process of the central areas of cities being renewed, a number of buildings have been demolished, displacing aged persons and forcing them to go and live in dwellings where the rent is much higher. Their plight is a serious one and it is for them that I should like to appeal to the Minister to take active steps, more than merely to satisfy himself with the theory that something ought to be done for them. I know that something has already been done but that is not enough. As a matter of fact, the position is becoming more serious. In my constituency I come across quite a number of these older men and women living on their own in rooms in delapidated buildings. In Jeppes a large area has been frozen in view of an urban renewal scheme. Consequently, they are forced to continue to live in these delapidated homes because of. firstly, the lack of other suitable accommodation and, secondly, the rent. I have here a story of a woman from Durban published in Tafta. She writes as follows—

This magazine’s comment is that there is a large group in this predicament. It is a problem which is acute not only in Durban but virtually in every big city in our country. I know the Minister subscribes to the view that one should avoid herding these people into institutional accommodation and that they should preferably be housed in accommodation where they can to a large extent be independent and where they can continue to care for themselves. I would like the hon. member for Boksburg to know that in Johannesburg there is a scheme already completed providing exactly that what is talked about, i.e. a modest bachelor flat with a lounge/bedroom, a kitchenette and a bathroom. There is a little garden in front and there is, generally speaking, a neighbourly feeling amongst these people who occupy what appears to be a row of cottages but which because of the community of interest is most satisfactory for people in the over 65 group. What I feel is urgent is that the Minister should take some practical steps to provide more of this type of accommodation. He should collaborate, with this end in view, with the hon. the Minister of Community Development. With aged homes we would always need the assistance of the voluntary worker, particularly for the management of such homes. It is impossible for the State to man an aged home by itself but needs the help and assistance of members of the community in which such a home is situated. Such an intermediary scheme, i.e. between an integrated society and an old age home, could redound to the credit of our country if the Minister could initiate it on a larger basis. I am sure the Minister is with us in this respect; as a matter of fact, I think that is his approach as well. But we have to take it a step further. I do not think we should be so much concerned with the question of investment. There will be a small return because the pensioner will pay some modest sum. At the same time it will remove from a considerable number of our citizens, who to-day number about 8 per cent of our community, this heavy cloud of insecurity, this fear which never seems to end because of the progress and improvement in our cities, something which must of necessity take place in the course of time. Durban is in a very bad situation in this respect, as the hon. the Minister may know. There is already some concern within the Department of Community Development. In this article, for instance, there appears this statement with which I think the Minister will agree—

This refers to permits for demolition to enable owners to replace these buildings, which are becoming a financial burden to them because of rates and because of the high value of these properties, with something which is more viable economically. We must realize, Sir, that 8 per cent of the members of our community are virtually defenceless, they have no capital to meet this particular need, and at the same time they have the difficulty of making ends meet on the pension they receive. However, that is an entirely different aspect on which we have already approached the Minister. He knows our attitude and is aware of the plea that has been made to him. I do feel that pending any final solution in this matter, that is to say, the amount required by a pensioner to enable him to live comfortably without any sense of insecurity, the question of accommodation is even more vital than the question of food and nourishment. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Jeppes will forgive me if I do not follow him. However, I just want to quote to him, as well as to the hon. member for Turffontein, what my father, who turned 93 the day before yesterday, has often said to people, i.e. that as far as the care of the aged is concerned, no government has ever done as much as this Government has done. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the staff he has in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, a Department from which I have always received the most cordial co-operation and from which I have always received sympathetic attention whenever I raised a matter with them. Just as this matter is near to the heart of the hon. the Minister, so it is also near to the heart of every member of his staff with whom I had dealings in the past. Sir, the hon. member for Westdene quoted many figures here to show what was being done in the sphere of social welfare and pensions. However, I want to add a few. In April, 1967, I pleaded for a subsidy and allowances for old age homes in the true sense of the word. The allowances used to be R3.50 per person for those who were stronger, R10 for the infirm and R17.50 for those who were physically extremely weak. The present Minister took over in 1968; he devoted his attention to this matter, and as from 1st April, 1970, an amount of R4.00 per person is being paid to the aged who are still reasonably strong, R23.50 to the infirm and extremely infirm in cases where the services of a trained nurse are available, and R33.50 per person in cases where such services are not available. It is with a great deal of gratitude that we in this Committee take cognisance of these improvements. As regards the sub-economic groups, the maximum permissible income has been raised to R80 in the case of single persons and to R160 in the case of married couples—a tremendous improvement. The furniture subsidy for old age homes has been increased from R90 to R180 per person; this is over and above the other benefits which have been introduced by the hon. the Minister. Sir, in a policy statement which the hon. the Minister made in the course of a speech at Bethal in 1968, he set himself the ideal, as far as the care of the aged is concerned, of keeping the aged in the community as long as possible, of keeping them in their natural environs and of ensuring that they would be provided with living units when, owing to circumstances, it was no longer possible for them to live in their natural environs. It is only after that, when the aged become infirm, that they are placed in old age homes.

Within the framework of this fine ideal, I should now like to plead for one group of aged persons, i.e. for those who are single. Those who are single represent a large percentage of our aged. I also want to mention this for the information of all of our welfare organizations, individuals and local authorities. On 31st December, 1969, there were 104,896 old age pensioners. Only 35,516, or 33.8 per cent, of these pensioners were married, whereas 69,380, or 62.2 per cent, were unmarried. There were 18,323 war veterans’ pensioners, of whom 12,375, or 67.6 per cent, were married. That leaves us with 5,948 who were unmarried, i.e. 31.4 per cent. In looking at the total, we see that on 31st December, 1969, the total number of social pensioners were 123,419, of whom 47,891, or 38.8 per cent, were married and 75,328, or 62.2 per cent, were unmarried. This gives us an idea of the extent of the number of social pensioners who are single persons. I want to repeat that I wish to bring this to the attention of all welfare organizations, and especially local authorities, i.e. that they should also think of these people, especially in view of the fact that local authorities have at their disposal funds which the Minister of Community Development has granted them for this purpose.

Then I want to come to the second point which I want to mention, and I should also like to do this within the framework of the hon. the Minister’s praiseworthy ideal in regard to the care of the aged, i.e. the provision of accommodation to all groups in one large complex. In other words, what I should like to see, is that, within the framework of this ideal, the aged will be accommodated in one large complex; in other words, that provision will be made for sufficient land for the erection of such a whole complex, where single quarters may be built for single persons, and then the next part for the married couples, or those who are still reasonably strong, those whom I want to call the self-help group, and then the old age home with all the amenities which go with it. Now, my experience has been that in cases where the stronger persons are accommodated in these living units, these aged people have one major concern, i.e. that they are always asking this question: If I were to die, what would happen to the one who is left behind? This causes them concern, whereas when we have them in such a complex, we know that provision will have been made not only for single persons who need it, but also that this person who is left behind after the death of his partner in life, can be transferred to the single quarters. Furthermore, they can also be transferred directly from this self-help group, from the living units, to the old age home when they become mentally or physically infirm. In addition we have this advantage, i.e. that, according to the ideal the hon. the Minister set himself, there will be a kitchen, a clinic, a recreation hall—all the amenities of this kind—so that the stronger people may benefit from these amenities. It is for this reason that the hon. the Minister’s statement of policy is such a fine one to me. Even these aged persons, and now I am referring in particular to this group of people who can still help themselves, are fond of helping one another. When one of them is ill, one will always find that the other one who is in better health will offer his help and take pleasure in visiting the patient in order to cheer him up. I hope that I have made these two matters sufficiently clear. I have done this in order that the hon. the Minister and his Department, as well as local authorities and other welfare organizations, may take cognisance of these matters. [Time expired.]

At this stage I should like to refer to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (South). He referred to mentally handicapped persons over the age of 18, and then he also spoke about the report on the treatment of persons suffering from severe mental handicaps. At the same time I want to inform the House about what is being done not only in regard to mentally handicapped persons who are not certifiable, but also in State institutions as such. I must say that I found it particularly interesting to hear about the major project which is being undertaken in Kimberley. What I found particularly striking in that regard, was the idea that we would have to move in the direction in which we shall, in some way or other by means of State institutions, have to help those who are not being cared for and who will never be able to care for themselves. Preference must be given to such persons being admitted and cared for in institutions where the State and the community co-operate and where such persons may be cared for from the cradle to the grave. I am thinking, in the first place, of physically handicapped persons, but also of those physically handicapped persons who are to a certain extent mentally handicapped as well. What I mean by the latter group, is those persons who are handicapped to such an extent that they are not certifiable and cannot therefore be admitted, as mentally insane or defective persons, to institutions for the mentally insane or defective. Although the care of physically and mentally handicapped persons is nothing new to the Department— which has been caring for them for years and in respect of whom amounts of R85,000 and R38,000 have once again been appropriated in these Estimates, amounts which, to my mind, are rather small—I must add that, particularly over the past year, the care of mentally handicapped persons, along with that of physically handicapped persons, has been receiving the attention of the Department. The point was raised here that those who are lagging behind in life, always found themselves in a difficult position. There are many parents who have children who are, to a smaller extent, mentally handicapped but who are also physically handicapped, and then those parents are afraid that if they should die, there would be nobody to care for them. Apart from the committee of inquiry into the care of persons suffering from severe mental handicaps—as a result of which the Department has now accepted responsibility for those who are over 18 years of age and who are not certifiable, and for the establishment of work centres for such persons—the Department itself has also instituted an investigation in regard to these persons. A report, a Departmental report, has been published. The number of persons in the country who were found to. be physically handicapped to such an extent that they had to be admitted to institutions, did not seem to me like the number which I had worked out by myself. However, I must add that my method of determining this number was, of course, a most arbitrary one. At the moment they are carrying out a further inquiry, whereby they will determine more effectively to what extent we have in our society handicapped persons who do not qualify for admission to existing institutions and for whom nobody wants to accept any responsibility. In the meantime consultations took place with responsible organizations, i.e. after the first report had been published and after a start had been made on the second one. Consultations took place on the standards of institutions for these people. As hon. members know, one must, in all of these cases, determine the need first, and I believe that this has already been done. Subsequently talks were held and decisions were taken on the standards for the establishment of institutions for such people who could not look after themselves. At this stage I must say that a great deal of unanimity has already been reached among the various organizations. I can say that suitable institutions will be established in due course. As far as these institutions are concerned, we are in the planning stage. What we have in mind is to start, albeit on a small scale, constructing institutions in such a manner that there will be no need for us to feel ashamed when they are compared with those in countries abroad. Nor is it desirable to start building a large number of institutions simultaneously, for in treating these persons a great deal of specialized treatment is necessary for which the services of various professional people are required. I am thinking, for instance, of the psychiatrist, the physician, the occupational therapist, the social worker and the nurse. Because the services of various people are required, a start will first be made in the larger centres. After the standards have been planned, the cost has to be taken into consideration. Then a subsidy basis has to be worked out. We are working on that now. At the moment I do not want to enter into the details of the standards, for this could only confuse us at this stage. However, I can say that the standards which will be set for these buildings, will be such that the buildings will meet the demands of the time. There will be no need for us to feel ashamed of these buildings. The commencement of any project requires that a building be provided first. At the moment we are working out the subsidy schemes, and I think that we may leave the matter at that for the moment. I may just say that it is being envisaged to place, as soon as next year, an amount on the Estimates so that a start may be made with the construction of these buildings, although the necessary funds are still a problem at the moment. Land has already been made available to organizations for the construction of such buildings. In due course this project will be extended in scope, because we have all four provinces in mind. However, more investigations are still to be carried out, and therefore I am unfortunately not in a position at this stage to furnish more information about this scheme.

Then I also want to say something about other State institutions. There are quite a number of State institutions, the so-called settlements, State retreats and places of safety and detention, all of which are the responsibility of the State. As regards retreats and rehabilitation centres, I may say that unfortunately we have only three of them at the moment. We have one at Swartfontein, one at Magaliespoort for men, and then another one for women. Furthermore, there are a number of certified retreats, to which the State makes contributions. These retreats have actually been established for the purpose of treating alcoholics or drug addicts. We have two few institutions of this kind, and the idea is also to have decentralization of retreats in this respect. The indications are that a need for such a retreat exists in the Western Cape. At the moment we only have a certified retreat in this area. Such a retreat is launched by welfare organizations, and the State only makes a contribution. Thought is being given to building in the Western Cape a State retreat for alcoholics and other persons who are in need of care and must be rehabilitated. Then there are also the places for safety and detention. To visit such institutions is an experience. Children are being kept there subsequent to their being committed to those places by the courts. Some of them are juvenile offenders and others are merely in need of care. We have seven such institutions in our country. We have Glendillen in Pretoria, Jubileum in Boksburg, where only younger children are admitted; in Johannesburg we have Norman House near Germiston; in Durban we have Excelsior, and I can tell the hon. member for Umbilo that that building is being added to and the whole complex is being improved …

That is a very old building.

The building as such will disappear, so to speak, because the whole complex is being modernized. Work is already in progress so as to make that institution a much better one than it is at the moment. Furthermore, there is an institution in Cape Town, namely Tenderden, and in Port Elizabeth we have an institution called Protea. There are seven of these institutions. It is not being suggested that these institutions are adequate, but these particulars nevertheless show that all over the country the Department is in a position to meet, by way of State institutions, the great need in respect of such children. Furthermore, there is the Felix Brummer institution in Bloemfontein. I just want to mention to hon. members the various settlements which we have. There are only three State settlements, i.e. at Karatara in the Knysna district, Sonop at Brits, and another at Ganspan. In any case, as far as the settlements are concerned, the main object in recent times is, of course, to accommodate physically handicapped persons there, in order that those settlements which are for children, may afford those children the opportunity of growing up in the rural areas. Sir, I know that my time is very limited, and for that reason I think that I should try to finish. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a matter which I think is common cause on both sides of the House, namely the plight of pensioners—I refer to all pensioners—as a result of the continuous inflation of prices, which, I think, has become part of our way of life these days and which is reflected in the declining value of money and the continuous increase in the cost of living. I think that all persons whose incomes depend wholly or mainly on pensions are faced with the spectre of a declining standard of living on account of this continual increase in the cost of living. Pensioners once they become pensioners, are one class of people who have lost all bargaining power over their incomes. They have lost that power, because what they had to offer in terms of labour and service while they were able to work before they retired, has been lost to them once they had retired. Unless they had been able to make provision before retirement to take care of the fact that their pensions are continuously going to buy less and less, they have to depend after retirement either on such things as bonuses that may accrue to them from actuarial revaluations of the funds that provide their pensions or they have to rely on the generosity of their previous employers or on that of the State. Now, let me say that the majority of pensioners made no such provision prior to retirement for the very reason that they were not in a financial position to do so. I regard it as a very unsatisfactory position that the majority of persons who during their lifetime contributed to pension schemes should, when they retire, have no right to any increment that would enable them to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. This applies not only to privately administered or underwritten pension schemes; but with one notable exception, to which I will refer in a moment, it also applies to the State pension schemes which comes under the control of the Government. This also applies to social pensions, because there is no provision in any of these pension schemes for any form of automatic increment to enable pensioners to meet the problem of increases in the cost of living. This does of course not mean that the State has done nothing for these pensioners. In fact, it is seldom that a year goes past without pensioners of one kind Or another receiving some kind of benefit. Civil pensioners have, over the past 10 years, to my knowledge received a number of adjustments to the bonuses on their pensions. They have received improved supplementary allowances and higher minimum pensions. They have also had the benefit of an improved formula on which their pensions are based. My point is that, welcome as all these benefits are, they do not come as a right to pensioners when they retire. They are granted these benefits gratuitously and the benefits can therefore not be relied upon by pensioners. Surely a pensioner is entitled to an increment such as this to enable him to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living.

The one notable exception, to which I referred earlier, is the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund, which provides for pensions to be increased automatically by 2 per cent per annum, compounded, for a period of 20 years. I regard that provision as an admirable one. It conforms to the most modern precepts of pension funds idea. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the incorporation of a similar principle in funds for civil pensioners. I think this is an idea which is quite practical because it will involve only a gradual increase in expenditure on this Vote. If the increase is dealt with in this way, as an automatic increase, it will be possible to forecast the actual increase on an actuarial basis. This will make budgeting far easier than is the case with the present erratic and stop-go means of improving pensioners’ incomes. I also suggest that if pensioners are given the right to receive gradually increasing pensions, it would not only help to solve the problem of the spectre of the increased cost of living, but would also help the State to set an example to pension funds in the private sector of our economy. I believe that that example would be followed with alacrity.

Finally, I want to sound a word of warning in this regard. The South African Railways and Harbours Pension Fund provides for the automatic increment of 2 per cent per annum. I do not consider that 2 per cent per annum is sufficient to take care of this problem. Two per cent per annum compounded over 20 years amounts to a total increase of less than 50 per cent. In the past 20 years the cost of living has risen by 75 per cent. If railwaymen had to rely on their 2 per cent increment, it would not have taken care of the increased cost of living. Fortunately, of course, they have received other suplementary allowances. I believe that there should be an automatic annual increase of 3 per cent, compounded annually. Over a period of 20 years this would provide a total increase of 80 per cent. In view of our experience over the last 20 years, I would say that this increase would cover the increase in the cost of living. Sir, I should like to put forward this suggestion with all the force I can muster and I hope that the Minister will give his favourable consideration to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, when silence was imposed upon me a moment ago, I was discussing State institutions. Now I want to continue by saying that an institution similar to the State retreats for alcoholics, etc., which we have in the rest of the province, is now being considered for the Eastern Cape area as well. However, at this stage it is impossible to give positive indications in this regard. But I want to mention that this year we have made available certain aids for use by the South African National Council for Alcoholism and Dependence on Drugs. For instance, five films dealing with alcoholism and drugs have been made available to this council. They will be shown to audiences in the Republic for the exceptionally long period of six years. The films have a great deal of educational value. I believe that they can do a great deal towards counteracting this phenomenon. Then I want to mention something interesting, i.e. that admissions to these rehabilitation centres and retreats indicate that the higher scholastic group of people, those who receive higher salaries, are being admitted to these institutions in greater numbers than was the case before. However, the largest percentage of admissions is still composed of less skilled people, the labourer groups. At the retreat for women it has been found that there are more admissions to these institutions in the higher age groups. This may be as a result of the greater protection which they enjoyed at home. In an attempt to have at these institutions more intensive social services, and therefore better treatment as well, the State has created four additional professional posts at these retreats and rehabilitation centres. I have already explained to hon. members the changed policy in regard to the settlements. Actually, it is not a changed policy. It amounts to a greater share being granted there to physically handicapped persons.

Furthermore, the construction of an old-age home, consisting of single quarters for aged persons who are unmarried, is being envisaged at Ganspan. I am merely mentioning this for the sake of members who are interested in this matter. In January of this year the contractor started with the implementation of the contract for the installation of electricity at Sonop. I think that electricity will be available at the Sonop old age home in October of this year. At Ganspan the position is more or less the same. But at Karatara electricity cannot be installed before 1972, when Escom power will presumably be available.

In conclusion I just want to say that in recent times a great deal of attention has been devoted, both locally and abroad, to dependence on drugs. As hon. members know, the hon. the Minister appointed a committee last year to investigate this particular problem. Overseas tours were undertaken and the committee has, so to speak, completed all its work, and has already started drafting a report. This report is expected to be available at the end of this year. We cannot anticipate it at this stage. After the publication of this report, this matter will receive positive attention. A very interesting thought which has occurred to us recently, after our inquiry, is that, just as is the case amongst the Coloureds, there is a certain percentage of work-shy people amongst the Whites as well. They move along with the other people, but they do not want to work. Especially in the cities it is possible for one to find dozens of young people who are simply leading a life of idleness. With the new hippie cults and what it entails, this is something which one can in fact expect. The State will have to ask itself whether in that respect it does not have a task to perform as well. At this stage I shall leave it at that.

I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the desirability of the automatic adjustment of the pensions of retired public servants. The hon. member for Constantia approached this matter from another point of view, and suggested that the pension be supplemented annually by a certain percentage so as to adjust it to the increased cost of living. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would tell us what his attitude is in respect of the stated policy of some of the teachers’ associations in South Africa. These associations are advocating a system whereby the pension is tied to the post filled by the person concerned at the time of his retirement. What they are suggesting, is that the pension should be tied to the post. The advocates of this system adopt the attitude that the retired school principal, teacher, public servant or inspector of schools will always remain a representative of his profession in the eyes of the public. Accordingly the circumstances of life of such a retired person who is receiving a pension, are not only of personal importance to him, but also to the other members of his profession, since they may have a tremendous influence on the status which the public associates with that profession.

Sir, the civil pensioner usually finds that, when he retires, his pension is adequate, but unfortunately this lasts for a few years only. All his wonderful dreams about how he is going to enjoy his retirement and the places he is going to visit during his travels, fade into nothingness, and as a result of the factors mentioned here by the hon. member for Constantia, i.e. the depreciation of the monetary unit and the rising cost of living, he then finds that his pension is inadequate. The moment this happens, the pensioner finds himself in a difficult position. He can lower his standard of living, but if he does this, he does something which neither he nor his profession would like to see happening. He has another choice as well, and this we find particularly in the teaching profession: if his health is good, he may continue to work, but even this is something which members of his profession would not like to see either, for they feel that this is no incentive to younger people to join their profession, because if this is done, these younger people see that people who have been employed in that profession for many years, are receiving inadequate pensions.

In this regard I want to mention that the greatest advantage held by this system whereby the pension is tied to the post, is that the pension is automatically adjusted to increased living costs. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in the majority of cases salary increases are granted because of increased living costs. If one could work out a system whereby, whenever the salaries attached to certain posts are increased, a pro rata increase in pensions could be effected at the same time, one would automatically have the position throughout where the pensioner would be able to maintain the standard of living which he maintained as a school principal of an ordinary teacher. This is something which we should like to see.

To my mind this principle is not a new one. What I am asking here, is in actual fact merely an extension of the principle, Sir, I should like to read to you what was stated in the explanatory memorandum on the Second Finance Bill of 1970. I do not wish to suggest that what I am going to read here, is an exact example of what I am advocating, but we find that under clauses 11 and 12, there are references to the proposed increases in pensions payable to widows of people who held high offices. This is what is said in this memorandum—

In other words, I think we have already made a great deal of progress towards accepting this principle, and what I am advocating here will merely amount to an extension of this principle. Sir, I should like to mention a specific case. It was my privilege to teach on the same staff with a person who retired in 1951 as a chief inspector of schools. At present this person is 79 years of age, and he is still teaching at a boys’ high school. Sir, I should like to read his letter to you—

Sir. what I am going to read out now, will show you what I am advocating were—

The person who wrote this letter, made one mistake. I think that the figure of R355 which he mentioned here, is more or less the pension which a teacher will, in terms of the new scheme, receive upon his retirement. But if one calculates this on 47/65ths of the salary of a senior inspector who would retire to-day, I believe that the amount will be far in excess of R400—perhaps close to R500—per month.

Sir, I can tell you that there are some teachers’ associations, such as the N.T.S. in Natal, which have benevolent organizations which grant assistance to persons who used to be members of the teaching profession. They still represent the profession, even if they are pensioners. One finds that some of these people have to try to live on an income of R50 to R100 per month, that they are not in a position to supplement their pensions and that their health is poor. One can therefore understand why these associations feel so strongly about the matter. Their plea is that the pension should be tied to the post, for then one would find that pensioners would automatically be compensated for increases in the living costs. I am not only advocating this system for teachers; I am advocating this system for all retired persons who are receiving civil pensions. This system can be investigated. The new pension need not necessarily be the same as the pension which a person would receive if he were to retire to-day, but I believe that a basis must be found in terms of which it will be possible to supplement the pension all the time. Under the present system the only method is the supplementation of the temporary allowance, and in some way or other this temporary allowance is based on the original contributions made by the pensioner. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Central) made one statement with which I cannot agree. The hon. member said that the younger people in the teaching profession, which he used as an example, were not fond of seeing that those who had already retired, were still rendering service in the profession. I think the hon. member is perhaps making use of his personal views or those of a few other persons, but it is also possible for us to state the opposite. There are many younger people in the teaching profession today who welcome the fact that those who have gained valuable experience do in fact remain in the profession for a few more years so that the younger ones may benefit by their valuable experience. And those older teachers who join the profession again or stay on in the profession, are not ousting one single young person from the profession. If this is the position in his province of Natal, the hon. member would be well advised to settle the matter with the Provincial Administration, but in the Transvaal, Where I come from, this is definitely not the case. Furthermore, the compensation which the hon. member wanted to be created in respect of the depreciation of money, will definitely not be able to bring the pension of the person whom he mentioned here as an example, up to the level of the example he furnished to show what the position is at present. The supplementation is in fact effected by way of bonuses. I think we are dealing here, just as is the case in regard to the views being held by the hon. member for Constantia, with something which is very technical. The fact that up to now only one pension fund, that of the Railways, has taken this matter into account, shows us that this matter still requires a great deal of study, and I wonder whether it is fair to expect the Minister to furnish us at this stage with a reply to a matter as technical as this one.

But I want to refer to another matter, and I want to tie this up with a reply which the hon. the Minister of Planning gave here the day before yesterday to a question in respect of the life expectancy of people. It was interesting when the hon. the Minister mentioned those figures, and the figures which he had at his disposal were those in respect of the period from 1959 to 1961, where the life expectancy of white men was 64.73, and that of women was 71.67. It seems as though we are merely wearing ourselves out and bearing the anxieties for those who are fortunate enough to live on our labour and for whom it is therefore possible to have a longer life expectancy. But let us leave it at that. We may apparently accept that there is a difference of seven years between the life expectancy of men and that of women, and now we may also accept that if this is the case, widows must be in the majority. The number of widows is increasing all the time, but this is not strange either, for if we were to go back to Biblical times, we would see how much attention was given at that stage already to the care of widows. But I merely want to use this statement as an introduction in order to point out that because of better circumstances of life and much more effective medical care, the number of aged people in our society is increasing from year to year. A few years ago a survey was made by the Bureau for Educational and Social Research, and they calculated the anticipated increase. They calculated that in 1971 there would be 417,000 aged persons, and in the year 2001 approximately 700,000. Now, the position is that many of these aged persons are still physically strong. They still have a share in the activities of the community and they still have earnings of their own. Physically and mentally they are still very strong. On the other hand, the position is also that there is a large group of these aged persons who are in need of assistance from the State, assistance from the church or assistance from charitable institutions. We are aware of the basic needs of the aged. One of the basic needs is a regular income. The State is already meeting that need to a very great extent by way of various forms of pensions to the aged. Another need is medical care. By means of district surgeon services the aged are also receiving medical services rendered by the State. Then there is the need for housing. We have heard a great deal about it. In that regard, too, the State has been providing housing at very low interest rates. In the way of finance, or in the field of medical care provision is being made for the aged. Furthermore, it is constantly being taken into reconsideration whether the financial means which are granted, are adequate in extent, or Whether an improvement or increase should be effected.

Then there is a fourth need, or rather a problem which we have with our aged. It is the problem of becoming more and more lonely. This problem cannot be met by physical means, for I believe that this problem is of a social and psychic nature. In many cases the aged person himself is responsible for the state of loneliness in which he finds himself. We often find that when his physical and mental powers begin to decline, he withdraws from the community. Later on he imagines to himself that the community regards him as a burden, and then he prefers to go and live on his own. In the same way the community itself is partly responsible for these aged persons not being absorbed into the community and also for their being begrudged a niche in the community. Many of our aged are being cared for in homes, where they can make contact with people of the same age groups. Even if we are dealing here with a psychic or a sociological problem, I do think that we can help these aged persons in a physical manner —in other words, financially. Means can be employed in order to break the monotony of their existence and to obviate this loneliness. Apart from the accommodation which we are going to offer to them, we should also see whether we cannot allow them to move about more freely. What I have in mind, is a considerably reduced excursion rate, which is to be worked out in conjunction with the Minister of Transport. Even the pension booklet may be changed to such an extent that it may indicate every year whether or not the person concerned has availed himself of that concession of a special excursion rate.

If we help the aged by these means, we shall be helping them to move around to some extent and to break away from the monotony of their existence and to obviate that loneliness and that decline, which set in as the years go by. I believe that the hon. the Minister will take the trouble to discuss this matter with the transport authorities, and I believe he will try to see whether it is possible for us to do more for our aged along these lines.

Then I want to say something in regard to housing for the aged. In each of our larger local authorities there is a housing division which makes surveys of the housing needs, and therefore they also have an indication as to what the housing needs of our aged are. In this respect the hon. the Minister should perhaps enter into the picture once again. I think the time has arrived for local authorities to submit annual reports to the Minister as regards both the number of aged and the housing needs in their areas, so that the Minister may determine whether, depending on the information obtained from such areas, housing provision should be made for the aged in a certain area. It may even be made compulsory that in such cases a certain percentage of housing loans should be set aside for our aged.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the debate I first want to perform a very pleasant task, which is in the first place to welcome the new Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, even though he has already participated in the debate. The fact that the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to appoint a Deputy Minister for this Department, is certainly proof of how this Department has grown, how its work has increased and how the need for a Deputy Minister has become ever greater. I also want to say at once, for the information of hon. members in this House, that the only way in which I think one can co-operate with a Deputy Minister is to delegate certain powers to him in full so that he has control over them and so that one knows precisely, when certain matters are being discussed, which will be dealt with by the Deputy Minister and which will be dealt with by the Minister. Of course, I remain ultimately responsible for the entire Department. For that reason I wanted to state briefly that the matters which have been delegated to the Deputy Minister are in the first place all cases of physical and mental retardation. As a doctor by profession he is well able to control this work. In addition, all institutions for alcoholics and drug addicts, our settlements as well as any other similar institutions, fall under him. Provisionally that is what have been entrusted to him, while I shall deal with the rest of the Department. He has already made a speech, before I was able to welcome him, but, in any case, I want to extend to him a cordial welcome to this Department.

Secondly, hon. members will note, and hon. members on both sides of the House have also referred to this, that we have a new Secretary here in the bench. Before saying a few words about Mr. Van Vuuren, I should also like to say something about the retired Secretary, Mr. Vorster, who occupied this post for a number of years. As far as Mr. Vorster is concerned, I have here a few interesting statistics. He began his service on 17th May, 1923, as a Grade III clerk in the Department of Native Affairs. He was attached to the Public Service until 1970, a period of almost 47 years. On 1st October, 1937, this Department became a full-fledged State Department, and Mr. Vorster was at that stage a member of the staff. He is therefore just as old as the Department of Social Welfare, as far as his service is concerned. He has been with the Department since its establishment. Since Mr. Vorster is now retiring after a career of excellent service in various departments in the Public Service, I want to wish him a pleasant rest and tell him that we will always think of him as a man who fulfilled his task to the full and who in all respects knew his duty as official and carried it out conscientiously.

I want to extend a cordial welcome to Mr. Van Vuuren, the new Secretary. Comparatively speaking he is a relatively young man, who humanly speaking can occupy this post for quite a number of years, and who can therefore make his mark on this Department for a considerable period of time. Mr. Van Vuuren entered the Public Service on 1st November, 1944, in the Department of Justice. Subsequently he worked for quite a number of years for that Department, and on 1st April, 1968, was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, where the “Social Auxiliary Services” division fell under his specific guidance. During the past number of years he has acquired good experience, and he is at present in charge of this Department. I want to extend to him a cordial welcome to this post and express the hope that he will be spared to render his services to us for many years and that he, with his exceptionally clear insight, and with calm and quiet consideration, will succeed in building up this Department to the degree of excellence we should like to have. I want to thank the hon. members for Umbilo and Kimberley (South) on behalf of Mr. Van Vuuren, who cannot do so himself, for the friendly words they addressed to him during the course of this debate.

I am not going to spend a very long time replying to this debate. I just want to say a few brief words, and will then deal with the matters as they were raised in this debate. I want to review in brief the successes and the achievements of the Department during the past few years. I want to do so for the information of hon. members, and for the record. As far as housing schemes for the aged are concerned, it can be mentioned that negotiations with the Department of Community Development on effective standards for adjusted housing for the aged have already reached an advanced stage and that results can be expected in the immediate or very near future. As far as the institutional care of the aged is concerned, I could mention that my Department has, for more than a year now, been insisting that organizations establishing new homes should make provision for approximately one third of their number of residents to consist of the infirm. In this survey it will be seen that some of the questions put to me will be replied to. From 1st July, 1969, to 30th June, 1970, 20 new homes and extensions to 10 existing homes have been approved. The total number of residents is 1,984 of which 1,265 are infirm, and 719 are normal aged. Organizations have responded very favourably to my Department’s appeal, and on this occasion I also want to convey to them my sincere gratitude for doing so. Not only the churches and woman’s organizations, but all kinds of other welfare organizations in all four provinces, have co-operated very well with my Department here, and have reacted to this appeal. I am very grateful to them for the humane attitude displayed in this specific connection.

We have also taken steps to determine the need for institutional care of the infirm on the Witwatersrand, where there were specific bottlenecks. Various members referred to that, particularly on the East Rand. A survey, which was made during February and March, 1970, indicated that (a) 975 infirm are already being cared for in existing homes, and (b) that 550 infirm aged will in the near future have to be cared for, and that we will have to make provision for a further 320 infirm within the next few years. In order to encourage homes with infirm aged and to employ trained nurses, provision has been made for the subsidy to be increased to R33.50 per resident per month, on condition that such a home employs at least one nurse for every 16 infirm persons. I want to be honest and say that I think this accommodation has provided the necessary inspiration for many of our organizations to treat and to care for infirm persons on a larger scale. I am grateful for that. At present there are 74 Whites and nine Coloured trained nurses in the employ of subsidized homes for the aged.

At present 156,616 persons are receiving social pensions and allowances. If the pension of every pensioner were to be increased by R15 per month, it would entail an additional expenditure of more than R28 million per year. Since such a general increase would inevitably have to lead to an increase in child allowances and the maximum pension payable to civil pensioners, the actual expenditure will be far, far greater.

I should just like to raise one or two additional points in regard to this year. A report on family life has already been submitted to the Commission for Family Life for comment, and will receive further attention as soon as the Commission’s comment has been received. As far as crèches are concerned I can mention that my Department is at present attempting to find a suitable formula for the financing of the establishment of crèches and that, as soon as this is done, it is hoped that we will be able to give more attention to crèches. I think this is a matter which is becoming of greater urgency in the present circumstances where the manpower shortage is so often supplemented by “woman power”. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Estimates of my Department has increased by R18,811,000, or a little more than 14 per cent, in contrast to last year’s Estimates. As far as the amount of the increase is concerned, we are outdone only by the Votes of the Provincial Administrations, Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and Higher Education. It is my opinion this speaks volumes for the way in which this Government has the welfare of the less well endowed section of the population at heart, and cares for them.

†Mr. Chairman, it is regretted that my Department’s annual report could not be tabled during this year. The reason for the delay is that my Department was inspected by a Public Service inspector and his report, especially the last section thereof, has just been received and naturally the recommendations could not as yet be fully implemented. I wish, however, to undertake that the report will be available at next year’s session.

Since October last year social pensions and grants have been increased by at least R3 per person per month. That is an approximate increase of 9 per cent. This means that the expenditure in respect of social pensions alone was increased from R69,741,000 to R78,467,000, which means an increase of R8,726,000 during this year. Some of these concessions which have been made have far-reaching effects. Notwithstanding this, the means test in respect of veterans of the first world war, of the Zulu uprising of 1906 as well as the protesting burghers of 1914-'15 has been relaxed. For example, the value of assets in order to qualify for a maximum pension has been increased from R8,000 to R13,200, whilst the maximum value of assets to qualify for a minimum pension was raised from R16,400 to R18,400 during this year. These improvements, inter alia, resulted in the increase of certain pensions by as much as R11 per month. Naturally, this is not all. We went further and introduced exemptions of R20 per month in the case of the income of an unmarried person and R40 per month in the case of a married pensioner or beneficiary, before applying the means test. The result is that a married couple can earn as much as R72 per month and still qualify for the maximum pension or grant.

In the case of civil and Railway pensioners, the minimum pensions payable have been increased from R47 per month to R52 per month in the case of single persons, and from R94 per month to R104 per month in the case of married persons, or persons with dependants. The bonus payable to civil pensioners has during this year also been increased by 5 per cent, while those persons who retired prior to 1st October, 1958, received further relief by way of bonuses which vary from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of their basic pensions. Expenditure in respect of civil pensions increased from R14,569,000 to R18,583,000 during the year under review. In addition, the contributions by the Government to the respective pension funds were increased by more than R3 million. Provision has also been made that, with effect from 1st April, 1969, the retirement benefits of civil servants will be calculated on their average salary over the last three years of service instead of the last four years. As recently as 30th March, 1968, these retirement benefits were calculated on the average emoluments of an official over the last seven years of service. This concession resulted in the substantial improvement of retirement benefits of many civil servants.

Let us take another item in the Budget, namely the subsidy payable to qualified social workers in the employ of voluntary welfare organizations. These subsidies increased from R950,000 in he previous financial year to R1,430,000 this year. That represents a growth of 50 per cent in one year. When we look at the funds made available for the care of the aged, we find that, notwithstanding the several million rand allocated for this purpose, the general allocation in respect of care for the aged increased from R1,600,000 to R2,321,000. Then one must bear in mind that an amount of approximately R12 million, which was made available for the erection of homes for the aged, has not yet been taken into account.

The subsidies which are at present paid to homes for the aged, together with social pensions payable in respect of inmates of sub-economic homes, fully covered, to the best of our knowledge, the expenditure incurred by the management of old age homes. As a matter of fact, it is known that in the case of one of our largest old age homes, which makes provision for frail and physically infirm persons only, the new subsidy scheme which my Department recently introduced, together with a share of the pension to which the home is entitled, fully covered the unit costs of the home, which amounts to R65 per person per month. I may mention that from information available to me, it is clear that as a result of the improvement in our subsidies from R3.50 to R4 per month for the normal aged person, and from R10 to R23.50 per month for frail and physically infirm aged persons, old age homes are financially in the position to care properly for our aged, although we shall still give further attention to this matter. Various organizations not only expressed their appreciation to my Department for the improvements. but also confirmed that the present subsidy is, as far as they are concerned, adequate. If we compare this with the cost per unit of R9 per day per bed in Transvaal hospitals, R10.56 per day in Cape hospitals, and an average of R16.54 per day in the three main Natal urban hospitals, there can be no doubt that we succeed in caring for our aged in the most economic manner possible.

*Sir, I can discuss this matter further, but I think that I shall leave these aspects at that now. I want to make haste to reply to the specific points which were raised, one by one. I hope to deal with them as rapidly as possible. Firstly I want to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. As usual, he introduced the debate on a very high level. It has already become customary for me to thank him and to congratulate him on this. He makes a study of his task, and definitely knows what he is talking about. That is why I am grateful that in this Department I always have to deal with such an opponent. One appreciates it if one is always able to conduct a debate with a person on such a level. The reports of the four commissions, which have been appointed, will be included in the report of the Welfare Council, which we expect to be able to lay upon the Table next year. This will definitely be available to the hon. member.

The hon. member once again raised the argument which he advocated last year and which he advocates every time in respect of our pension scheme as such, i.e. the contributory scheme. I want to make clear to the hon. member that personally I have an open mind to a contributory scheme as such, in this sense that nobody is eternally committed to the system at present in force. However, I must first convince myself that such a contributory scheme is a better scheme, and is one that can be applied, etc., before I will be prepared to revise the whole matter. Unfortunately, I have once again received evidence that these schemes do not fully remedy this matter. I want to say at once that this year we are appropriating more than 7 per cent of our total expected income for the expenditure of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Of the amount allocated to my Department, more than 52 per cent, that is more than R78 million, is being spent on social pensions and allowances, including allowances to childrens’ homes. Approximately 160,000 adults and 45,000 children are benefiting from the moneys thus appropriated, to say nothing of the R8 million which are also being appropriated for war pensioners and their dependants. If we also take into account that more than 90 per cent of our social and disability grant pensioners receive the maximum pension or allowance of R35 per month, then I think that in spite of deficiencies in the system, we are not so badly off. I know that the other side of the House is reproaching us and maintains that in spite of everything we are doing we are not doing enough. I have said this I do not know how many times in the House, and members know that it is my standpoint that one can never do enough for the aged of one’s country. I have explained that standpoint already, and I do not want to take up any time in doing so again. I nevertheless want to say that in comparison with what we have previously alleged the Opposition did, what we are doing is in fact very good. Nevertheless I do not even want to hide behind that.

I have here before me a report which has just been drawn up in Britain: “National Superannuation and Social Insurance: Proposals for earnings-related social security”. This is the report which was drawn up for the British Government, and the date is January, 1969. This is a fairly recent report, from which I am now referring to the system at present in force in Britain. I shall only read three quotations from it to show how they feel about this contributory scheme to which such high praise has been accorded by hon. members on the other side. On page 5 of the Report it is stated:

That is the standpoint in regard to which a report was brought out in London. Let me go a little further. The conclusion in the first part states (page 11):

This is a report which was brought out in Britain in regard to this specific matter. Then they also referred to the question of private pension schemes such as we have here in our country. Their conclusion on page 45 of this report is as follows—

I want to say at once that if one has again, in 1969, received evidence of a situation in Britain, which is applying the scheme which hon. members wanted to recommend to us here, then it is with hesitation that one asks whether it should not be considered. I want to add at once that they are rejecting the scheme now, but they are not proceeding to adopt another scheme. They are going to change the same scheme and adjust it with newer and increased contributions and other formulas, etc., to try to get to work. The fact remains, as is stated very clearly throughout this entire report, that the scheme which the hon. Opposition is recommending to us is not satisfactory. That is my reply once again, in spite of the arguments which I raised in previous debate in regard to this specific recommendation. It is at the same time also a reply to the hon. member for Turffontein, who also raised this matter.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked me for alleviation of the means test, and in that connection he was supported by other hon. members. I want to give the hon. member the assurance at once that pensions which have been allocated on existing valuations will not be affected. We are all aware that new valuations have been made in various cities and areas, and that these new valuations are considerably higher. On 7th August, 1970, the following letter was sent per telex, on my instructions, to the Department in Pretoria in regard to this specific aspect—

I did this before the hon. member came forward with this plea here. The telex goes on to say—

I am quoting this to indicate to the hon. member that I have already considered the matter. I am waiting for this information and on that basis we will reconsider the entire matter. The hon. member said in passing that we might simply have to write off an amount of R6 000 or R10,000 before we begin making valuations. I am afraid I cannot agree with that because one will of course find that there is an anomalous situation in regard to the rural areas, where the valuations are lower, as against the urban areas, where the valuations are higher. That is why I prefer the percentage system to the general amount system.

I asked for 50 per cent.

Yes, the hon. member asked for 50 per cent. We must watch the purse strings. I have already asked the Department what the financial implications would be if we were to increase the concession to 40 per cent.

The question was raised here of disabled persons who took on some light employment or other and as a result forfeited their pension. It sounds like a contradiction, but the fact remains—perhaps the hon. member is not aware of this, that disabled persons receiving disability pensions because they are unfit for work, can nevertheless work, and, in the case of a married couple, earn up to R72 per month without this affecting their pension. In other words, the concession of free income is applicable to them as well. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of this, but this is in fact the case. I know that the amount is not a great one.

The point was also raised here that couples who get married lose their pension because their assets are jointly calculated. I understand this very well and this is one of the problems I really do not know precisely how to deal with; this is a very thorny matter. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will once again have a look at this matter. It is not an easy one; it is a matter which one will have to study very thoroughly.

In addition the hon. member discussed the regulations in terms of the 1967 Act in regard to minimum standards for homes for the aged, etc. I should just like to give a short report on this, which will also serve as reply to the representations of quite a number of members. In the first place, as the hon. member himself knows, the regulations were promulgated last year. At present I am not applying the regulations strictly, for if I were to apply the regulations strictly, I would be saddled with quite a number of problems because there are numerous homes for the aged or institutions which do not at present comply with those requirements. I am therefore applying the regulations gradually and with flexibility; I am giving people extension for a year to get their places in order and bring them up to standard. But in spite of that I was obliged to adopt essential measures in numerous cases. I was compelled to close down quite a number of these homes for the aged, or so-called homes for the aged, completely, and to remove all the people from thence. Fortunately, I was in a position, with the aid of a certain company, to get these people accommodated. There are now institutions of this nature on the East Rand, on the West Rand and in Port Elizabeth, and negotiations are at present in progress in Cape Town to accommodate in this way, during a transitional stage and as a temporary concession, people whom we have to remove from places where they were really being neglected and exploited by persons who were doing this more for the sake of gain than anything else. I just want to mention this to the hon. member. He also says that there were too few community services like meals on wheels. I just want to say that I want to see all these community services operating around a service centre. We are considering giving an organization R30,000 to establish such a service centre. The services must emanate from there. That is how I feel about this matter. We can then consider subsidizing the meals supplied, or subsidizing them to a greater extent. To be honest, I do not think we should subsidize home services and I shall tell you why I think so. Home services, visiting elderly people at home and cheering them up and helping a little with transport, is to my mind part of those charitable services which one expects from welfare people, and I do not want to pay these people to do this. I do not want to subsidize it. It seems to me to be the kind of service people should render of their own accord. We are then prepared to consider the subsidization of laundries and even to subsidize all kinds of other services, as we are already doing in various aspects. The hon. member also raised the problem of Tafta. I paid a personal visit there, and I have a great deal of sympathy for this. I have the greatest respect and esteem for the work which is being done there. Excellent work is being done by that organization for elderly persons, and I am very please with it. I understand their problem. But their problem does not arise as a result of a lack of subsidies. I understand this very well, but how to cope with the problem, is a very difficult matter. The problem is that before the first people can be accommodated there, the institution must be there and all the equipment must be there, the furniture must be there and the kitchen must be in order, as well as the eating utensils and the linen. These things entail tremendous expenditure, and then only does the first resident arrive, and only when the first residents are there, can we pay the subsidy. They cannot fill the building with residents from the very first day. During the first month or two it is half full or three-quarters full, before it has its full complement. It is this first period, during which they do not receive the full subsidy, which causes the problem. I cannot approach the Treasury for assistance. I do not think that is possible. I am at present considering—I do not want to give any undertaking—whether to try to remedy this matter with other funds, but I have not yet reached a final decision. I am prepared—and this is something else I am considering—to pay these institutions subsidies in respect of linen and eating utensils, which is a large factor, and on the dishwashing machines they have there and to increase the subsidy on furniture, etc. We want to try to accommodate these people in all these cases. I do not know whether there are any other matters the hon. member for Umbilo raised. If there are, he must draw my attention to them, but I am trying to reply as quickly as possible now.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) congratulated me on the reports, which he said were of a high standard. I just want to say to the hon. member that the report of the new Council is at present being translated, and I hope to lay it upon the Table in 1971. I want to say that the standard of our Department is a high one, and the reason for that is that we have dedicated officials who are really performing a labour of love. But in our professional division we also have people who really take an interest and who are equipping themselves fully for their task. During the past year or two, four of our professional staff have obtained doctors’ degrees in some direction or other of social science, and one is at present writing his doctoral thesis. There are many others who are working on their masters’, honours’ and other degrees in this direction. In other words, we definitely have here a group of dedicated men, who through intensive study not only equip themselves and then want to carry on normally, but who further engross and immerse themselves in their subject, in order eventually to get to know everything about it, and I therefore want to pay high tribute to them and express the conviction that our people are fully equipped to deal with this matter.

The hon. member for North Rand touched upon two matters to which I want to react. The pension to ex-soldiers, of the non-Whites whom he specifically mentioned, is a very meritorious case. However, I am sitting with the impossible problem of being unable to react to this because the pensions of non-Whites are not my responsibility. However, I want to say to the hon. member that in spite of that I shall take up this case with the Minister concerned, and see what can be done. But I just want to say to him that this war ended in 1945 and for three years until 1948 his party was in power, and they did nothing for these people. I am not blaming the hon. member, but I just want to point this out. But in spite of that I shall take up the case with the Minister concerned on his behalf and see what can be done.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the War Veterans’ Pensions Act contains a definition of war veterans, i.e. a white person, Coloured person, Chinese or Indian, and that it was piloted through this House by his predecessor, and that it is in fact his responsibility?

I want to say that it was piloted through before the various Departments took over. At present there is a Department for every race and those Departments are responsible for their own pensions, and also for their own war veterans’ pensions. In other words, the pensions for Bantu war veterans, falls under the Department of Bantu Administration, that of Coloureds under the Department of Coloured Affairs and that of Indians under the Department of Indian Affairs. My Department only deals with Whites, but in spite of that I will raise the matter. He also requested that the means test be abolished entirely for ex-soldiers of the First World War. The hon. member proceeded from the premise that we abolished the means tests for the burghers of the Second War of Independence or the Anglo-Boer War, after a certain number of years, and the same number of years have now elapsed after the First World War, and that is why he is asking us to abolish it for them as well. But the abolition of the means test for the burghers of the Anglo-Boer War had nothing to do with the number of years which had elapsed after the end of the war. What it is concerned with is the fact that those citizens fought without compensation and without anything being paid out to their wives, or any care being taken of them, and the battles took place here in our own country and they suffered deprivation in all spheres and from all sides and they received nothing during the entire period of the war. That is why the Government felt it was a debt of honour to those people, and it was paid to people who fought on both sides in that war, as you yourself know.

But with the 1914-18 War it is a totally different situation. Those people received compensation although not very much while they were fighting, and certain allowances were paid to their wives and children while they were away. I agree that it was very little, but it is a totally different principle. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member in regard to this situation, but I think he is in the wrong corner when he says that we must do so because a certain period of time has elapsed. There is a totally different principle at stake. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that I announced a further alleviation of the means test last year. I have just dealt with it, and we will watch the position from time to time, but my problem is that if I were to abolish it completely, I would be abandoning the principle of there having to be a means test and then it would merely be a question of time before the people who fought during the Second World War also ask for it. That is my problem, and that is why I cannot accommodate the hon. member further.

The hon. member for Westdene raised a few very interesting matters and I want to thank him for doing so. Inter alia, he furnished a very neat summary of the word of my Department. I want to agree with him at once that I think his point of departure was correct, that if a family care services could be improved, all the other problems of the Department would automatically diminish I want to assure him that I will in that connection see to it that we give this matter our immediate attention and will investigate the entire matter in order to see what can be done. Then the number of people declared to be in need of care, will be less, and all the other problems will decrease in number. I just want to say that it is my personal conviction, and that it will be conveyed to my Department thus, that we believe that social service should as far as possible be rendered by voluntary welfare organizations. To be able to do this, I am one of the advocates of our preferably increasing subsidies and not decreasing them unnecessarily, so that welfare organizations can, with financial aid from the State, continue to do the work. If they do not continue to do the work, it automatically means that the entire responsibility rests on the State itself and then we would be developing in the direction of a welfare state. For that reason I am in favour of that development and I am in favour of this entire situation. I want to assure him that I will go into that specific point.

The hon. member for Turffontein raised the matter of a contributory pension scheme. I have already dealt with this. The hon. member for Boksburg has furnished a partial reply to the question put by the hon. member for Turffontein in regard to the fact that we take 75 per cent of the valuation for aged persons. I have just discussed the matter of valuations here and the fact that we will now make a further adjustment. I have said that I will consider the entire matter and that we will consider further concessions in this regard. In this connection we must from time to time review these matters one after the other until we eventually reach a point where we can accommodate our people according to their needs. The fact that a man owns a house used to be a total disqualification for pension purposes. Fortunately this has been amended by this Government and that is why we cannot remove everything unconditionally. For that reason we must still continue to do so on this basis and this matter is still continually under review. In regard to the question of a State lottery I have on a previous occasion adopted a standpoint on the principle. I still adhere to that and I am not going to spend any more time on this. The hon. member asked that the loan levy be abolished. This is a matter which he should raise with the Minister of Finance because he deals with loan levies. If he can persuade that hon. Minister to do so I would be very grateful because many aged persons are also addressing requests to me to the effect that a solution should be found to this matter. However it is the hon. the Minister of Finance who controls these matters now and not I.

The hon. member for Boksburg in a few short words here gave a fine summary of what we have done in respect of housing facilities for our elderly people. As I said last year already Boksburg has set a wonderful example for us in that respect. He left another idea in our midst here and I want to react to this briefly. He mentioned a Christmas bonus for our people. My Department made a quick estimate of what it would cost if we were to give all our elderly people a Christmas bonus of R5. It would cost the State an additional R800,000. I shall go into the matter. I must say at this stage already that there is one other administrative problem connected to this. It is namely that all our old-age pensions are at present being paid out by means of a computer. The computer works automatically. It is set and every month its programme is the same. If a new amount were suddenly to be added one month it would mean that the whole matter would have to be re-programmed. And the next month it would have to be programmed back again. This is an administrative matter but I shall go into this matter further in any case. I am however making no promises in this connection.

†The hon. member for Jeppes referred to the question of housing. The provision of housing schemes for the aged is at the moment receiving our attention. Minimum standards have been suggested to the housing commission. I want to agree that the demolition of buildings is a very difficult problem and that it creates problems to us. We are doing our utmost to solve this problem but the question is always where to get alternative housing. We have two or three schemes in Johannesburg and are aware of the fact that some of the old-age homes on the East Rand had to be done away with and we have started with new homes over there. That is being done with the help of certain companies but quite a lot of it is being done by ourselves. It is a very difficult problem but I can give the hon. member the assurance that this is always under the attention of my Department. I again want to give him the assurance that we will be very sympathetic in this case. We realize the problem and we will try to solve it to the best of our ability.

*The hon. member for Hercules made a very good speech and gave a very good summary of what is being done for our elderly people. I could see that he had made a very thorough study of his topic. He made a plea for the solitary aged. I just want to inform the hon. member that it is already possible for the solitary aged to be accommodated in the block of flats scheme as it already exists and that is why if the city council makes the necessary application as I have already said there are loans available for that purpose and the scheme is also available so that they can be accommodated there.

They can still be themselves, they can still be independent and they can still as the hon. member for Boksburg explained have their own little kitchen and their own lounge and be quite independent and yet at the same time enjoy the protection of being together in the company of other people. The company they enjoy solves the problem of solitude. They have a communal lounge where they can have a conversation together and I think this system is working very well. It all depends whether the local authority makes application in order to put that system into operation. Then as far as making a home for all groups together in one complex is concerned I am in full agreement with the hon. member.

I spoke yesterday evening of an ideal but then it was in a completely different sphere. The ideal situation would be to bring housing for the aged the institutional care for the infirm and the service centres and community services together within a reasonable space of time because—and this is a psychological fact —people at that age are uprooted and transplanted with great difficulty. Once they have been incorporated at a place or in a block of flats or a housing scheme one would only like to move them to an institution in the immediate vicinity when their condition deteriorates so that they can receive further care there. If the condition of one member of a married couple deteriorates in such a way they will be able to move together. One cannot keep the one in a housing institution and the other in a care institution. I want to concede to the hon. member that this is a very good ideal and that we should seek to achieve it. Whether one will be able to do so however is something which we will still have to find out.

†The hon. member for Constantia talked about the deterioration of the value of money and then he made the point that it should be an automatic right as is the case with the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund where a 2 per cent rate of interest is paid on contributions that the rate should be increased to 3 per cent. We do not have this kind of scheme but we work on a sliding scale as the hon. member may be aware. We also have a bonus system working on this sliding scale. This means for example that a person who went on pension before 1st October 1944 receives a bonus of 45 per cent. Of that only 15 per cent comes from the Pension Fund and 30 per cent from the Revenue Account. This bonus has been increased recently by a further 5 per cent to 50 per cent and this sliding scale comes down from 45 per cent to 30 per cent 20 per cent and so on. It means that persons who have left the service after 1st October 1969 receive a bonus of 5 per cent. At this stage I am not in a position to tell the hon. member if we will change to the other scheme. At the moment the possibility of effecting an annual automatic increase is being investigated at the moment but I cannot give the hon. member a final reply in this regard.

*The same applies to the hon. member for Durban (Central) who discussed the same matter. I just want to inform the hon. member that we made the following adjustment as he himself will know. Previously pensions were calculated over the last seven years of service. Then they were calculated over the last four years of service and eventually last year only over the last three years of service. This entailed that persons who retired quite a few years ago are receiving a much poorer pension in comparison with people who retire now because the salary scales have in the meantime been increased and the pension of such a person is worked out over his last seven years of service where it is to-day only being worked over the last three years of a person’s service. This is unfortunately one of the problems we have but we are trying to supplement it with the system which I have just explained to hon. members. I see one problem in the system which the hon. member proposed of linking the pension to the post. This will mean that if a post is worth R4,000 when the man retired and the salary of that post is then increased to R6,000 the pension of such a person would also have to increase …

On a pro rata basis.

I understand. I have been informed that this system was applied in Germany in some form or other and that it was not entirely successful there because it was found that this facilitated inflation. I am not certain of all the facts and do not at this stage have sufficient knowledge to discuss this matter. However I will go into this matter and on a subsequent occasion furnish the hon. member with a reply.

The hon. member for Germiston raised two matters here. The first was that I should take up with the hon. Minister of Transport the matter of supplying cheaper transport and special tariffs for elderly persons once every year so that they could come down to the sea. I shall take up the matter with the hon. the Minister but I think the hon. member should also raise it in the next transport debate. I do not think it is a bad idea and we can have a look at it but it creates certain problems. I think I have dealt sufficiently with the housing question and that is why I want to leave it at that. I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. member for his contribution in this connection.

In the few moments which are left to me I should like to deal finally with two matters. These are matters which were raised here and I think it is necessary that they be dealt with. In the first place I want to mention that the Department is responsible for a great many children who are under State care. In most cases the children go as far as Std. 10 at school and even if they had the ability to go to university many of them come from broken homes and cannot study further as a result of financial and other problems. I have broached this matter with my colleague the Minister of National Education. He will in the discussion of his Vote make an announcement here in this connection. Provision is going to be made for a scheme of which he will furnish full details in terms of which it will be made possible for at least 50 of those children a year to receive university training. I am glad that we are able to do this and that I was able to make a provisional announcement in this regard here.

Secondly with reference to this report I should just like to say a few words in conclusion about disasters. This is my last point with which I shall conclude. In recent times we have suffered a few disasters. We had the Port Elizabeth disaster followed by the Boland disaster and now a further disaster in East London. I should just like to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I am grateful and I want to express my cordial thanks in the first place to the Department of Defence for excellent and very efficient services which were immediately rendered in all three of these cases.

Then too I want to thank the Department of Community Development for excellent service rendered particularly in the case of the Boland disaster where they have supplied housing as rapidly as possible. I want to express my gratitude to the disaster committees which were immediately established to deal with the problems which arose as well as to local city councils for what they did. In conclusion I want in all gratitude to express my thanks for the contributions from the public from all parts of the country who contributed generously to these disaster funds. I think that in all three cases it was proved that our people in spite of the fact that we have become so-called materialists still have a heart for what we deem to be necessary. These matters were all dealt with and supported very well and I want to express my sincere gratitude.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 45.—“Immigration”, R6,253,000:

Mr. Chairman, at the end of last session there was tabled the first report of the Department of Immigration, which covered the period from 1st April, 1961 to the 30th June, 1968. I must say that it was very welcome to have this report available. I should like to compliment those who are responsible for drafting this report that they have produced. Not only is it easy to read and well set out. but it is full of information of the moat useful kind. It gives a very useful picture indeed of what has been taking place in this Department during the period from 1961 to 1968. The figures are set out in three different groups.

The first group covers the period 1924 to 1938, the second group the period of the war. 1939 to 1945, and the third group the postwar period, 1946 to 1960.

I should like for a moment to dwell on the post-war period 1946 to 1960. The figures for immigrants show a total of 250,000, in round figures, while the figure for emigrants is 162,000. This gives us a net gain for the 14 years of the post-war period of 90,000 odd people coming to South Africa. That at first sight appears to be double the net gain of people coming to South Africa achieved during the period 1924 to 1938. On the face of it, this is a satisfactory position, until one analyses the figures for the post-war period setting out the number of immigrants and emigrants and the net gain or loss for each year from 1946 to 1960. If you take away the people who came to South Africa—that is to say the net gain—for the years 1946 to 1948 from the total for the period, which was, for the greater part, under the United Party administration, you will find that there has been a net gain up to 1960 of 39,000 additional people coming to South Africa, i.e. less in the whole post-war period, setting aside the period of the United Party administration, than from 1924 to 1938.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned I had reached the stage where I was dealing with the figures given in the first report of the Department of Immigration. I was about to compare the figures relating to the post-war period, excluding the three years of United Party administration, with the figures for the period 1924 to 1938. It appears from the figures for the post-war period given in the report that there was an impressive inflow of white immigrants, but if you take away the nett gain during the first three years of that period, namely from 1946 to 1948, under a United Party administration, you find that the nett inflow was only 39,000. That is less than the inflow of immigrants during the period 1924 to 1938 and one must remember too that the post-war period was a time when emigration from Europe was at its height. The best of the people from our countries of origin felt compelled to leave war-torn Europe. They were looking for places abroad in which to start a new life. Let us compare for a moment the attitude of the late General Smuts at that time with the attitude of the newly elected Nationalist Government. I refer to the point of view of General Smuts merely to illustrate the difference between what he believed to be the state of affairs then and what we see now. He wanted immigrants for two reasons. The first was to reduce the disparity in numbers between White and Black in South Africa, because he believed that if that were done, it would reduce the tension which had persisted in this country for some time.

Where did he say that?

I cannot give the hon. member the reference, but that is generally accepted as his point of view. Secondly he foresaw the economic growth which lay before us in South Africa, as a result of the industrialization which took place during the war. For these reasons it was clear to him that the White population of South Africa would have to be supplemented. What has happened in the years that have gone by since then? We in South Africa in 1970 are faced with a critical shortage of white man-power. We are doing our utmost to bring in immigrants to fill the vacancies in the expanding economy which we are fortunate to have at the present time. I think we should consider now what the position would have been had the United Party’s immigration policy been implemented. By and large, it is now accepted by this Government, and has been for ten years. [Interjections.] I should be very interested to hear, in the course of this debate, how the policy which is being implemented by the Minister at the present time, differs from the manner in which it was administered by the United Party Government in the years 1947 and 1948.

Let us consider what the position would have been, had the policy of the United Party, as it was implemented in the years 1947 and 1948, been followed through in those barren 10 years before the policy was re-accepted by this Government in 1961. From 1948 to 1961 there was virtually no immigration. Indeed, Sir, in some of the years we had a net drain away from South Africa of our necessary white population. If one looks at the figures which are set out in the report of the Department, had the United Party’s immigration policy been continued through those years, you would have had some 200,000 additional white people come into this country. That would have been a net gain of 200,000 people. That figure, however, excluded the natural increase of those people. If it is borne in mind that almost a generation has passed from that time up till now, and allowing for the likely natural increase of those immigrants, we would have a net increase in the white population of South Africa of a half a million or more.

It was only intended to undermine the Afrikaner. [Interjections.]

Is it not strange that when immigrants come in under the United Party administration, there is this danger of the Afrikaner being “ondergeploeg”. But when they come in under a Nationalist Government —exactly the same people and treated in exactly the same way—then that danger does not exist. I hope sincerely that during this debate somebody will explain to me how this danger has suddenly receded since the Nationalist Government came into power. This is something which I do not understand. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member who referred me to that, to an article which appeared in the Journal of the Federated Chamber of Industries of March, 1970. It is written by a Mr. P. G. McDaniel. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that the hon. member for Zululand tried once more to make politics out of immigration by coming along with the story that we have taken over the United Party’s immigration policy. Nothing could be further from the truth than that very allegation. In the past the United Party has always been prepared to import the good and the bad from Britain, just as long as they would come. The National Party’s policy is to allow only the select immigrants that we need. It is a policy that differs widely from that of the United Party. That simple “story” of theirs about us allegedly taking over their policy is absolutely malicious and altogether untrue.

This evening I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on their success in once more having brought us selected immigrants to South Africa last year, and 41,000 at that. Of that number, 13,700 were economically active. 67.7 per cent of them came from our countries of origin. This is a great improvement on the position in past years. We want to congratulate them on that. We trust that they will maintain this pattern of immigration. I am also convinced that it is necessary for us to obtain skilled immigrants, to provide for the industrial demand. With our growing industrialization there is an increased demand for skilled white labourers. This is quite a bit greater than the natural increase in our population. With the lasting growth of our industries the demand for skilled labour is still increasing. If we do not now increase the numbers of our immigrants, in order to provide for this demand, we must either decrease the growth rate of our industries, or we must allow non-white immigrant labourers to enter and try to train them to provide for that demand. We find that in the past few years a steadily decreasing amount has been investigated in industrial development in this country. I am of the opinion that this is not a desireable situation. The Opposition complains a great deal that the Government is responsible for the downward trend of investment, because insufficient non-white labour is being made available to industries. That is not true, because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made it known here that of the 130,000 application for additional non-white labourers in our industries in the metropolitan areas. 90,000 were granted. This shows that this Opposition cry that we should allow non-Whites into our metropolitan areas for the expansion of our industries is altogether without justification. The shortage is therefore in the white artisan sector. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not desirable to increase the number of immigrants by another few per cent, thereby supplementing the skilled labour shortage. I do not ask that our doors be thrown open, but we should see whether we cannot, in this way, obtain a few additional men in trades where we have a shortage of labour.

Sir, from time to time our prople ask that we should deorease the number of immigrants, because the immigrants do not integrate very well as citizens in South Africa. Sir, I want to state here that it is largely due to the established inhabitants that the immigrants are unable to adapt themselves more quickly. Since it is this Government’s policy to maintain the two official languages in the country, I want to ask whether the Government cannot do more to help our new citizens to master the two languages. I am thinking here, for example, of the language laboratories being made available by the Department of Higher Education at our technical colleges. Here, during the first six months of their stay in South Africa, immigrants are given the opportunity of acquainting themselves with the two official languages of our country. I do not feel that enough use is being made of this aid, because during the first six months the immigrants are chiefly engaged in obtaining a place to stay, and becoming accustomed to their new surroundings and their new jobs. They therefore have little time left in the first six months to go to the language laboratories. Is it not possible for us to make the language laboratories available to the immigrants for a longer period of time? Is it not also desirable to make advanced lessons available free of charge, thereby helping the new citizens towards a better mastery of the official languages of our country, because we are thereby promoting our whole policy.

Since more than half of the immigrants, about 23,000 are young people and children, it would possibly be very profitable if we could establish nursery schools in the complexes where the immigrants are chiefly concentrated. In these nursery schools the preschool child could then already make contact with both official languages. But, Mr. Chairman, the adaption cannot be made by the Government alone. It is the task of the established population to let the immigrant feel at home in his new fatherland. We find that the English-speaking portion of the population do their best to let new South Africans feel at home here. They do so through the 1820 Settlers’ Association, through the Rotarians, the Round Table and other English-orientated associations. They go out of their way to adapt immigrants as citizens, and I must compliment them on that. But I regret that I cannot say the same for the Afrikaans portion of our people because in my humble opinion we are not doing quite enough to help immigrants to adapt themselves. I should like to appeal to our Afrikaans organizations, particularly those who are not yet involved in this, as well as to those who are already giving assistance, to do more in this connection. I want to appeal to the A.T.K.V., the Rapportryers, the Volkspelers-laërs, the various sports groups …

And the Broederbond.

… and even the Broederbond, as well as the women’s organizations, to make it their aim to welcome our new arrivals here and to let them feel at home. The M.E.I. does good work. But I do not think that this association can do everything alone. Let us, therefore, once and all realize that it is in our own interests to assimilate our new citizens as soon as possible. In that way they can then become an integral part of our people. But, Sir, it is not only the Government and the established population that must co-operate in making the new South Africans feel at home; I feel that it is also the duty of the immigrants to adjust themselves mentally to such an extent that they are willing to accept citizenship here, together with our customs and habits, and to assist us in building up this country in the future.

Mr. Chairman, “ex die Nasionale Party semper aliquid novi”! Tonight I have heard something which I do not think many members of this House have been privileged ever before to hear. We have heard the annual contribution from the hon. member for Geduld, making a fervent plea for increased white immigration. He prefers immigrants he says from our countries of origin, to black immigrants. This is something quite new. White immigrants are now preferable to black immigrants! Whoever suggested otherwise? Not only that but he has made a fervent plea—and I hope that the bodies to whom he directed this plea will take notice of what he said—to no lesser bodies than the Broederbond and the Rapportryers to help to assimilate the immigrants, the enemies of the Afrikaner, as they were alleged to be 22 years ago!

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing for which South Africa will never forgive this Government and that is that 22 years ago it placed a dagger in the heart of white South Africa by causing immigration to dry up. [Interjections.] Sir, the Minister will agree with me if I assume that there are certain accepted methods of attracting immigrants and that there are certain reasons for emigration. I think probably the most effective method of attracting immigrants, so far as the Department is concerned, is by way of advertising media, by means of Government-sponsored advertising overseas and also advertising by means of private enterprise from South Africa. I suppose also that it is logical to assume that the reasons for emigrating from our countries of origin are the aftermath of wars, depression, over-population, lack of opportunity and perhaps a change of government in some countries.

But I believe that there is a much more important stimulus, a much better reason for our being able to get immigrants. That is if the immigrants who have come to South Africa are made to feel happy here because they in turn will encourage members of their families and their friends overseas to come and join them in South Africa. I think that this depends very largely on what I would call the after-arrival care given by the Minister and his Department to immigrants once they have landed here and established themselves in South Africa. I think that this is a vital step to take and I wonder sometimes whether we do enough, and apparently the hon. member for Geduld also wonders whether we do enough. I would like to ask the Minister what precisely the Department does by way of aftercare of immigrant families who have come to South Africa. For how long after they have arrived in South Africa are they under the care of the Department? What efforts are made by the Department or other Government Departments to see that they are assimilated and to see that they are integrated into South African life? The big danger, of course, is that if they are not looked after for an adequate period after their arrival, they are going to become disillusioned and discontented and this in turn will have the effect of discouraging other immigrants from coming here. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the possibility of our immigration system in London not being up to scratch. There have been one or two instances brought to my attention from time to time and more recently there was the case of a hovercraft engineer. This man has qualifications which are scarce in South Africa. He applied in London at the beginning of the year and his application for permanent residence was received on 23rd April. His case went to the Selection Board for screening on 18th May. Not unnaturally he booked passage to come to South Africa at the end of June. At the beginning of June I was called into the picture because he had not received permission to come to South Africa. No satisfaction could be obtained from South Africa House as to whether he would be granted permanent residence or not. To cut a long story short, this immigrant and his wife, both very desirable types, were ultimately given a further screening by the Selection Board on 22nd July as a result of my representations and they are coming out at the end of September. I submit that that is a very long period for an immigrant to be kept waiting at considerable inconvenience and expense having sold his house and given up his job. I do feel from my experience of other similar cases that the system is not working in South Africa House as well as it should.

Another matter is that I believe it is vitally important for the Minister to create here in South Africa a climate of acceptance among our own people of immigrants. I believe that he should go out of his way to show the advantages of immigration in strengthening our white population and in providing the necessary economic skills and also the capital for our development. I think he should go out of his way also to reassure our people in South Africa that the presence of immigrants will not disturb either the religious or the language balances in South Africa and that they will not introduce harmful influences into South Africa. In other words, it is his duty to try to create a climate of acceptance for immigrants. We need them and they must be made to feel welcome by us. I think he must go further than he has done so far and assure our people that this process of selecting immigrants is a selective process, just as the process of the United Party was 22 years ago.

Then I think there are certain duties that fall on the shoulders of the immigrants themselves. I think they should come here prepared to understand our people and our problems, to learn our languages as soon as possible and to accept the privileges and responsibilities of South African citizens. I wonder whether the Minister would not consider the possibility of making South African citizenship more easily available for immigrants. He knows what the present system is. They have to be here for five years and then they can apply for citizenship on payment of a fee, but I think there might be a better system whereby immigrants could be granted after five or seven years, a form of automatic citizenship unless they specifically state in advance that they do not wish to become citizens. I think if we did this the Minister would go a long way towards removing the doubt and resentment among some South Africans at the presence of immigrants who do not become citizens.

It is very clear to me that the members for East London (City) and Bezuidenhout are the United Party members who have always ushered in this debate. I must now say they made a mess of it, but the hon. members who took part this evening have made a greater mess of it. I shall come, in a moment, to the accusations which these two hon. members made about the Department of Immigration and its policy. Permit me, in the first place, to associate myself with the hon. member for Geduld, because I should also like to pay tribute to the Department and to the hon. the Minister for the successful immigration year, 1969. I think it is one of the most successful years we have ever had since the establishment of this Department. We have gained an additional 41,446 immigrants during this year. This is the second largest number that has ever entered the country, except in 1966, when the conditions in Africa assisted in giving us larger numbers. Apart from that, this year we had only 9,018 emigrants. For that reason we can justifyably say that it has been the most successful year that the Department has ever had since its establishment. This is not a doubtful statement. Looking at the departmental report that appeared last year, and to which the hon. member for Zululand referred, I can support this statement with facts. Apparently he did not know that this report had already been dealt with in this House last year and that he is just a year behind the times. This report, which covers the period from 1st April, 1961, to 30th June, 1968, and which was tabled last year, indicated that during that period we obtained 260,568 immigrants and that 74,261 emigrants left the country at the same time. If we calculate this as a percentage, 28.5 per cent of the newcomers left the country during that period. Now hon. members will also remember how the hon. member for East London (City) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout carried on here about this large emigration figure, this 28.5 per cent, and how they made a lot of noise about it The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went as far as to ask that the hon. the Minister should carry out a study and report to this Committee this year on the reason why that figure is so high. He referred quite sarcastically to the fact that in recent times our people were emigrating to certain countries in Africa, because conditions there are now allegedly better than in our own country. The hon. member for East London (City) tried to compare us with Australia as an immigration country. That was a very foolish comparison he made, because Australia also allows unskilled workers to immigrate. However, I should like to come back to this year’s figures. With this same calculation of 41,446 immigrants and 9,018 emigrants, we find that only 21.7 per cent of the number of immigrants left the country. It is a tremendous improvement if the percentage for the period 1961-'68 was 28.5 per cent and has now decreased to 21.7 per cent. This means an improvement of 6.8 per cent. I now ask those hon. members, who made so much noise about the emigration figures, where they now stand. They remain silent!

We therefore have the right to say that this Minister and his Department can rightly be proud of a record in respect of the most profitable year for immigration in this country. These ambitious achievements did not entail the relinguishing of principles; on the contrary, in this achievement there was greater selectivity, specifically for the following reasons. Since we only obtained 25.2 per cent of our immigrants from our countries of origin in 1961, this has increased to 52.8 per cent in 1967. As the hon. member for Geduld said, the percentage has now increased to 67.7 per cent. I say that it is indeed an achievement to maintain these figures while having the greatest degree of selectivity and while the Department has found it difficult to retain the balance among our countries of origin.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Zululand. He spoke of the golden years of 1946-’48. If I were he, I would hide my head behind an anthill and draw a curtain over those years, because those are the years in which the Denys Reitz said: “Bring the good and the bad”; let them suppress the Afrikaner. Those were the years when 92 per cent of the immigrants entering the country came from the United Kingdom, because they then wanted to smother the Afrikaner with immigrants. Now he wants to come along here and refer to those years. [Interjections.]

Order!

1949-’51 were the years when we had a loss. Those were the years after the 1948 election, when they made the world afraid of South Africa, and when they said that the banks would close. Those were the years when we lost many immigrants. I say that if I were they I would draw curtain across that period. We have no objection to immigrants that come from the United Kingdom, provided that the balance is maintained, because even to-day the percentage is 37.1. From the abovementioned statistics it is very clear that there was greater selectivity, which resulted in more immigrants coming from our countries of origin, immigrants that can more easily be absorbed into our people. Since a higher scholastic qualification was laid down in recent years, it is that much more remarkable that we achieved this during the past year. We have been attacked by the Opposition in the past, and we are now being attacked by them again, because we are bringing in too few immigrants and should double the numbers. Last year the hon. member for East London (City) said that we should bring unskilled people into the country. To do what?

Never!

The hon. member may read about it in Hansard; he will find it there. Even during this year as was the case this evening we were attacked because we did not bring sufficient immigrants into the country. If we take our basis and what to maintain the accepted policy of a 5½ per cent growth rate in terms of our economic development programme, we have succeeded in bringing about 13,000 economically active immigrants into the country every year during the past few years. During the past year we again brought 13,700 such immigrants into the country. This is indeed an achievement. We shall now give a reply to the United Party that says that we must bring in more immigrants. We can, but then we must be prepared, in the first place, to relinguish selective immigration. In the second place, we must relinguish balanced immigration. I want to repeat that we shall then have to forego a balanced immigration programme. In addition we shall have to be prepared to lower our standard of selection. This we cannot do. Neither are we prepared to lower those standards.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, you are only in this House on borrowed time, and you must not waste mine. In this connection I also want to refer to an article that appeared in Die Hoofstad of 19th September, 1970, about the congress of the South African Iron and Steel and Allied Industries Union. Apparently the misunderstanding arose there that if immigrants are recruited by private bodies they are not subject to the same standard of selection as persons recruited by the State. That is a total misconception. Those people who are recruited in that way are subject to the same standards, the same selection, the same selection board and the same basic principles laid down for immigrants. It is only when you have bodies bringing people to this country to do construction work, that those people can come to South Africa with temporary permits.

I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister that we should not slacken our standards of selection. I want to ask him to pay strict attention to not disrupting, by immigration, the percentage ratio between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this country, because we may then cause friction between the language groups. [Interjections.] My further request to the hon. the Minister is that he will do everything in his power to ensure that immigrants will become bilingual as soon as possible after they have been brought into the country.

I now come to the last aspect, namely the question of selection. The United Party must now tell us whether they are prepared to lower the standard of selection. Are they prepared to amend the provisions of the Act so that the standards can be lowered? The hon. member for Albany put a question about what the requirements of selection were. The first is that the immigrant’s moral behaviour should be good. Is the United Party prepared to relinguish that?

Never!

They say no. The second requirement is that a person entering the country shall, within a reasonable period after his arrival in the Republic, identify himself with the white inhabitants and be able to become a desirable inhabitant of the country. In other words they must be assimilable in the white population of this country. Does the United Party want to relinguish that principle? Thirdly the people who are brought into the country must not be a threat to our own employees in this country. We must not bring people from overseas who will fill the posts of our own people and take these away from them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I was very interested to hear the interjection earlier on by the hon. member for Koedoespoort who went almost purple in the face to repudiate the suggestion I made that the policy which the Government is implementing now as it has done since 1961 is the same policy in respect of immigration that the United Party had advocated in the immediate postwar years. I said that they were the same and then there were violent interjections from hon. members on the other side of the House. I have here the Hansard of the 13th June 1962 and I wish to quote what the then hon. Minister of Immigration said in column 7873/4 and I hope hon. members opposite will listen. He said—

We did not have to induce the immigrants to come to South Africa with financial assistance whereas this Government under its policy is doing so. Then he want on to say—

There you have it, Sir, the complete refutal of the contention of these hon. gentlemen from the mouth of their own Minister.

But then there was the speech of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who was very angry with the United Party Government because he alleged that in the immediate postwar years the immigration policy of the United Party Government was wrong because it brought in such a high percentage of immigrants from the United Kingdom. Any one who has an equal respect for the English and the Afrikaans-speaking people might not be inclined to agree with the views which the hon. member holds. But what are the facts? He obviously has not read the report from the hon. the Minister’s Department because if one looks at that report one will find that in respect of the post-war period which is the period of administration of this Government 61 per cent of the total immigrants in South Africa came from the British Commonwealth.

I said 1946 to 1948. The figure was 92.2 per cent.

I am speaking of the whole post-war period which covers almost entirely the régime of this Government. If one compares the figures for the United Party régime in the pre-war period with the figures for the Nationalist Government régime in the post-war period one will find that the immigration in the pre-war period from the United Kingdom is 47 per cent while the post-war immigration from the United Kingdom is 46 per cent almost exactly the same figure in respect of the Nationalist Government’s postwar immigration from the United Kingdom and the United Party Government’s pre-war immigration. But of course where the hon. gentleman is hoist with his own petard is that during the period when this Government stopped the immigration scheme immigrants were still available from the “stamlande” on the continent of Europe. They could be recruited there. However in terms of the present-day belated implementation of the immigration schemes in many of the “stamlande” on the continent of Europe we are no longer allowed to recruit immigrants. The United Kingdom and the countries along the Mediterranean seaboard are some of the few left in which we can actively recruit immigrants. Let us not have too much talk about how the United Party régime let down any section of the people in South Africa the Afrikaner the English-speaking or anybody else when it comes to the implementation of immigration schemes.

Now let us come to the question of the assimilation of the immigrants. I read an interesting speech by the hon. the Minister delivered to the “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” on the 27th August, 1970. I may say that I agree with many of the sentiments that the hon. the Minister expressed there particularly sentiments in regard to the assimilation of immigrants into our South African way of life. I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Geduld with regard to our making immigrants bilingual as far as we can. He correctly said as also appeared in the speech made by the hon. the Minister that by and large the immigrants come from countries where there is some familiarity with the English language. To seek work they go to the big towns which are to a large extent English-speaking areas. Consequently one can expect that they will acquire the use of the English language in most cases before they acquire the use of the Afrikaans language. I respect the idea of the hon. member for Geduld that greater facilities should be made available in the technical colleges for the teaching of Afrikaans. As is known and I think the hon. member touched on the point a man does not learn a language simply because the facilities are made available in a technical college for teaching that language. A man learns a language when he goes to a foreign country because he feels that he is sympathetically received by that group of people whose language he acquires. It is not sufficient I suggest if one wants the immigrants to learn Afrikaans merely to make available teaching facilities for them. It requires more than that. The hon. the Minister touched on that in his speech which I referred to. There must be an acceptance of the immigrants in one’s family circle in one’s sporting circles and in one’s home circle. There must be a general acceptance of him. He will then acquire the language of the group of people with whom he feels at home.

This means not merely a formal acceptance on formal occasions, but it means that we must see the hon. member for Potchefstroom, the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Carletonville and a few others actively sponsoring immigrants through the social and cultural organizations in which they have influence. We have to find, as I have indicated, that prominent immigrants will be proposed for the Rapportryers, and that they will be proposed for the various cultural organizations and … [Interjections.] Yes, even for the Broederbond. I believe that we must face up to this if we genuinely desire bilingualism to become fully accepted by the immigrants. To achieve this all the organizations which are prominent in the Afrikaans-speaking community must to an extent be made available to the immigrants. We can visualize the time when immigrants from Czechoslovakia, Austria, Italy and many other countries, be they Roman Catholic or otherwise, will be sponsored by the hon. member for Potchefstroom as members of the Rapportryers. Then you will find that there is greater bilingualism amongst the immigrants to South Africa.

But this has a bearing beyond mere language. I am one of those who believe that not nearly a sufficient number of our immigrants become naturalized. They come here and work well and develop a status in our society, but they do not become naturalized South Africans. I regard this as one of the greatest tragedies that we have at the present time. It is only when they feel that they are accepted in South Africa, that they will take the step of becoming naturalized South Africans. I believe that this acceptance by us, as a people, of the immigrants is the first step and a major step in persuading these people to take out South African nationality and to become fully and finally South Africans in the full sense of the word. It means an acceptance of the point of view of the hon. member for Geduld and the carrying out of the many things which the hon. the Minister stated in his speech on the 27th August, to which I referred earlier on. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Zululand referred to a remark and a few interjections which I made while he was speaking. In 1947, Dr. Malan, as Leader of the National Party Opposition in this House, stated the policy of the National Party in connection with immigration. I have referred to it on previous occasions. The basis of the Government’s policy in connection with immigration is exactly the same as that of Dr. Malan when he was still Leader of the Opposition. That is what the policy of the Government is based on. The United Party can argue as they please in connection with the years in respect of which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that a veil should rather be drawn over them. They can argue as they please, but it remains a fact, an unshakable truth, that the immigration policy of the United Party was based on an ulterior motive at that time. It will not help them in the least to groan and moan about it. We have the proofs and they have already been mentioned several times in this House. At that time the United Party regarded Britain as the only country of origin. It was the only country of origin which they considered. Therefore the figures which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned are correct. The United Party tried to attract people in this way with the sole ulterior motive of ploughing the Afrikaner people under. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietersburg may not speak from the bench in which he is now sitting.

On 14th August, 1946, General Smuts made that well-known speech about “the good and the bad” in Pretoria. Immigrants would be admitted without being screened. Both skilled and unskilled persons would be admitted. The United Party may just as well accept this matter as such, because the facts are correct. Now the hon. member for Zululand says that from 1948 to 1961 practically no immigration took place. One of the bases of the Government’s immigration policy is that only such immigrants as are skilled in the kinds of work in which there is a shortage of labourers will be admitted, so that immigrants will not virtually be taking the bread out of the mouths of the established citizens. Now I want to ask the United Party where these people were to have found work in the years 1948 to 1961 without taking the bread out of the mouths of the established citizens? The real economic upsurge in this country only came after 1961. The industrial progress took place after those years. Therefore it was necessary to apply this State-aided immigration scheme during those years. But I think the United Party still has an ulterior motive. This is why they are carrying on in this way. If they want to proceed on the basis laid down by them, then it is just another flagrant example of their opportunism. The object of the United Party still is to see whether they cannot persuade the immigrants, and particularly the immigrants from Britain, to throw in their voting strength with the United Party in due course. To my mind this is their object and they can repudiate this statement if this is not the case. As a matter of fact, at some of their congresses a couple of years ago they encouraged these people being drawn in so that they might in due course be absorbed into the United Party, so that they might become members of that party and then be used as voting power against the National Party. The policy of the National Party in respect of this matter is that the immigrant must be settled in as soon as possible, that he must become a true Republican, that he must become a true South African and that he must seek his own political home in due course. This is the policy of the National Party in this regard.

Sir, we know that the settling-in of immigrations was an easy matter some years ago, in that we attracted immigrants on a large scale from the Continent of Africa as a result of events on this Continent. Up to 1963 we still attracted the greatest percentage of immigrants from the Continent of Africa, i.e. 53 per cent, but since then the field of recruitment for immigrants has switched to Europe and Britain. It should in fact be an easy matter now to settle in immigrants, because since the establishment of the Republic there is no longer any question of two constitutional loyalties. There ought to be only one loyalty, and that is the loyalty with patriotism towards the Republic of South Africa.

Sir, in speaking of immigration, we must remember that there are obligations on two sides. In the first place there are obligations resting on the immigrant who comes to settle here, obligations or demands which the established citizens impose upon them. Sometimes these demands are very exacting. We expect them to honour the traditions of this country and this people. We expect them actively to integrate themselves with our way of life. We expect them to integrate themselves with our population not only materially but also spiritually. We expect them to assimilate in such a way in due course that the pattern of life of the established population will not be changed or prejudiced. We also expect that the balance of the white population in respect of its religion, its language, its culture, its heritage and its idendity should not be disturbed. Sir, we also expect that immigrants will not try to transplant here on a small scale the state from which they came. We expect them not to remain isolated and unassimilable groups, not to want to continue existing as a unit. We expect them to become bilingual. They are also provided with opportunities of achieving this as soon as possible. We expect their children to be absorbed in the stream of our culture, in the stream of our people, in due course.

In this connection I come to a question which I should like to put to the Minister. We know that voices have gone up to the effect that immigrant children whose home language is neither English nor Afrikaans should go to Afrikaans schools. It is said that the children of Portuguese, Greek, Italian and particularly Austrian and German immigrants who know neither of the two languages learn Afrikaans quite easily. I think a research project is being carried out in this connection, and I should like to ask the Minister whether any progress has been made with that project.

We as citizens living here, sometimes expect too much too soon from immigrants. We must, in the second place, impose a duty on ourselves as well. [Time expired.]

If there is anything necessary to refute the speeches of hon. members opposite, it is this. We have heard to-night that General Smuts had said that everybody should come, the good and the bad. Sir, he might have said the good, the bad and the ugly, because I want to nail this untruth for what it is. General Smuts actually made his speech on 14th August, 1946. When he did so he was referring to the European population and this is actually what he said. I hope hon. members opposite will remember it in future so that we do not have the same old hoary story told every year. This is what the General said then—

He was referring to the early days in South Africa. I would like to remind hon. members opposite that some of their own forefathers were amongst those early immigrants, and it would be very well to remember this. The immigrants they so freely call the good and the bad, that General Smuts was referring to, actually came to this country under the aegis of the Cape and the old Transvaal Republic; and I hope that in future we will have no more of these wild statements. What actually General Smuts did say about the immigration policy of the United Party was said in 1946, when he said this—

As the hon. member for Zululand pointed out, the advent of the Nationalist Party stopped this immigration scheme. The hon. member for Zululand estimated that it probably cost South Africa about half a million white inhabitants, but I would suggest that it cost South Africa nearer a million. But they will not quote that; they will not quote that in this very House General Smuts said in 1947, when he was referring to the offices overseas—

That is the answer to the good, the bad and the ugly.

What was the basis of selection? [Interjections.]

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to another matter entirely. Companies are recruiting immigrants overseas and this is to be encouraged. I wonder how often Chambers of Commerce and Industries are advised of the facilities for getting immigrants overseas. But what I would like to ask the Minister is this. It is a matter about which I wrote to him some time ago, but I want to place it on record. When companies recruit overseas, surely it should be the function of the Department to ensure that those companies do not make extravagant claims to the people that they are bringing to South Africa. We had a case not many months ago, where a company recruited very extensively overseas and it made all sorts of promises to the people it was recruiting, some of them highly qualified men. In many cases the people brought out to South Africa arrived in the beginning of the month and by the end of the month they were discharged after being here for only one month. It is true that they were offered contracts, but in this case some of them only received 50 per cent of their contract and others received 25 per cent. People were engaged overseas. In one particular instance a man was engaged as a draughtsman, and when that draughtsman arrived he was employed as an artisan. People were engaged on the basis that they would be supplied with homes in South Africa, but when they arrived here there were no homes for them at all. They were told that the transfer of their furniture would be paid, but that was not done. I suggest that we cannot afford this sort of thing in our immigration programme and I would like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that when companies recruit overseas they will be prevented from making extravagant claims which they cannot in any event fulfil. What happened in this particular instance was that large numbers of immigrants arrived in South Africa, but one had his contract cancelled while he was actually still on the ship, and this man had sold up his home and furniture to move to a new country. Employment was found for many of them in South Africa, but some of them had to return overseas because there was no vacancy in South Africa at all for people with their qualifications. I am thinking of people like shipwrights who could not find the same type of employment in South Africa. When this happened these people returned overseas and they immediately spread the story around that all things were not as rosy as they should be here. This could have been prevented if the companies which recruited these people overseas were stopped from making these extravagant claims.

The other matter in regard to this particular question which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is that these companies actually completed guarantee forms with the Department of the Interior that they would pay for the cost of returning the immigrants overseas should that become necessary. I would like to ask the Minister how many of the immigrants who returned overseas when they could not find employment in their own field in this country had their passages paid to England or wherever they had come from.

The other matter I wish to talk to the Minister about is the question of housing for immigrants. What housing is available for immigrants in the face of our well-known shortage of housing in South Africa? Do we bring immigrants to South Africa haphazardly and then seek houses for them, or do we have accommodation for them before they arrive? It is difficult enough for South Africans to find accommodation. How much more difficult is it for an immigrant to find accommodation apart from the assistance he receives from the Department.

Finally, I would like to deal with the matter of the language medium in which an immigrant’s child is educated. We had an incident recently here in Cape Town, reported in the Press, about a child who had been educated in an Afrikaans-medium school. Later when the parents applied for health and other reasons to put that child in an English-medium school they were told that they were not allowed to do so. They had moved to another suburb. I would like to ask the Minister what right have he and his Department to dictate to an immigrant in what language his child should be educated. The parent may elect a particular language medium for his child’s education, but what if that parent decides to move to another area and wishes to change the medium of education? If the Department insists that the language medium should remain the same, I would like to ask the Minister this question. When those immigrants are brought to South Africa, are they made aware of our Government’s strict laws in this respect? Because if they are not, you can imagine, Sir, the hurt done to these families to find when they get here that their children are sent to be educated in a language medium which they do not particularly desire.

The hon. member who has just sat down, made two speeches. He quoted from a speech made by Gen. Smuts 25 years ago, and I do not think we can still react to that speech now after 25 years. As far as the second part of his speech is concerned, I quite agree with him in this respect, i.e. that many of the private bodies recruiting immigrants overseas can undoubtedly take steps so as to ensure that those immigrants will be happy people when they arrive in this country. As far as housing is concerned, this line of action can also be followed. I can give him the assurance that in my constituency there are 2,500 immigrants, all of whom have been provided with neat and proper accommodation by a private body. We have been discussing immigration here this evening, and two aspects have become very evident. The Opposition has been bragging about a period of three years, dating back 25 years, and from this side there has rightly been a great deal of talk about the assimilation of immigrants. Before we come to the assimilation of immigrants, it is necessary for us to go briefly into the question of who these immigrants are. Firstly, who does a person emigrate and become an immigrant in a country? The first reason is mainly an economic one. He is offered a better material future in that new country. Some of them emigrate because it is a new adventure to them. Others do so because they feel themselves politically unsafe in their own country. Prior to the election one immigrant told me he wanted to come to South Africa as he had read in the newspapers that ours was a police state and he thought he would therefore feel safe here as there had to be many policemen in a police state. We must also know from which countries the immigrants come.

If we want to understand this matter of assimilation well, we must know that our immigrants come mainly from European countries where the climatic conditions are completely different from those here. They also come from countries in which there usually is a homogeneous population. In England they speak English, in Germany German, but when they come here, they find themselves in a country with a heterogeneous population, with two languages and two cultures equal to one another, and this creates a problem for them. Apart from this, we also have a problem of various peoples in this country. We have 7, 8 Bantu peoples, an Indian community and a Coloured community. A white person from a foreign country comes to this country and he naturally finds this strange. Therefore it is very difficult for him to adapt himself to this. In view of this, I want to ask that we should see these problems which the immigrant experiences in adapting himself, in the proper light. It took the 1820 Settlers three months to arrive at and set foot in this country. To-day it takes 12 hours for an immigrant to arrive in a foreign country. He still has his ties with his country of origin. It is often the case that immigrants who have been here for as long as five years still pay regular visists once or twice per year to their mothers-in-law in either England, or Germany, or wherever they may be. Contact with his country of origin is very close because of the communication system and is not easily broken. Therefore, this is a reason why these people on their arrival here do not assimilate so easily with the inhabitants of the country to which they have emigrated.

It is the fault of the Nationalists.

It has nothing to do with the Nationalist. But now he arrives here in a heterogeneous country. Now I must first say that I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is the Minister of Information as well. His new approach is quite correct, and therefore I should like to tell him that information to the immigrants on the way of life, and the manner of living in this country, on multi-nationalism and on our relations with the various races is very important. I should like to see this Department devoting special attention to these immigrants so that they may take cognisance of the policy of the country, the laws of the country, the customs and the moves of the country to which they come. Then they will also adapt far more easily, and they will also be assimilated far more easily. A great deal has been said about assimilation and what our duty is. I want to point out that employers in particular have a special duty towards the immigrants to make them happy by creating for them facilities such as the language bureaux and recreational clubs to which hon. members referred. In this way immigrants will make easier contact with the inhabitants of the new country in which they have come to live. Not only employers, but also local bodies can do a great deal to provide those immigrants with information on local conditions, particularly on labour relations between White and non-White. It is pathetic that one finds an immigrant who never had a servant in his own country and who is then able to get one in our country. He offers his servant an enormous salary because he has no concept of the salary of such a Bantu servant. Because of his ignorance he immediately creates friction between himself and the local community. An immigrant usually does so unwittingly, but his not knowing any better often causes resentment among our people. The Company for European Immigration does very good work, but we, as the public, can also supplement their work by providing immigrants with information and encouraging them to make real contact with us. It is going to be an advantage not only to himself, but also to ourselves. When we have contact with immigrants, we can also broaden our own outlook on life by taking note of his way of life in his country of origin. I recall how close I felt to Czechoslovakia when I attended a pork braai and a social gathering arranged by the local Czechs in my constituency. One will be surprised at how much one’s life can be enriched by getting to know these people and by telling them about one’s own country and learning about their country and their way of life.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that it took a long time for hon. members opposite to begin to realize that their job this evening is to try to support a very well-presented report by the Department and the obvious effort the hon. the Minister is endeavouring to make to improve the position in regard to immigration. One must congratulate the last speaker for at least showing a little good sense in his approach to the problem. When I listened to some of the other speakers who preceded him on the Government side, I was wondering whether they want immigration at all. I was always under the impression that we have an Immigrants’ Selection Board which deals with all applications from immigrants to enter the country and I know for a fact, for instance, that one cannot inquire from the Board what their reasons are as to why they accept or refuse any application that is made. Hon. members opposite tried to give every possible reason as to how we must ensure that the most difficult passage is enjoyed by a would-be immigrant before he can enter the Republic of South Africa.

The “verkramptes” have spoken.

Obviously there is some peculiar division of thinking in their ranks.

I would like to commend to members here this evening a statement which I read in the Australian Press some time ago. Unfortunately I do not have the cutting. The Australian Minister of Immigration welcomed some hundreds of immigrants at a special function and he said that his country welcomed the culture that they were bringing to Australia from the various countries from which they emanated, that he hoped that they would enjoy their own culture in the country and that they would give the benefit of their culture to enrich the culture of the new country of which they would become citizens. I think that is the approach that we should have.

Canada has received hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite the fact that they have two languages. I think that, if one reads the report, it is clear that in so far as the Department is concerned and the hon. the Minister, I presume as well, what is required is that, on the one hand, immigrants must associate themselves with South Africa’s traditions and way of life and, on the other hand, the established population must accept them without reservation. To achieve this ideal, requires adjustment from both sides. That is really the objective which should be pursued.

The hon. member for Zululand was referring to a statement by Mr. McDaniel, Jnr. president of the Midland Chamber of Industries. I believe Mr. McDaniel himself is an American. He made the following remarks in an article called “Platform for the Month” which appeared in the F.C.I. publication called “Viewpoint”. I quote the article—

He said:

I do not think that we have found any tremendous change in our country because of the influx of immigrants. If anything at all, they are anxious to be absorbed. But we have no right to place obstacles in their way. While we listened to speeches, like that of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who insists on ensuring that there must be a proper balance with regard to languages and wishes to ensure that requirements, a, b, c, d, e, f and g are fulfilled, we wondered how a would-be immigrant could believe that he would be welcome in the country. Does he realize, for instance, that in the course of two years—these are authentic figures—143 immigrants who came into this country brought in R21 million worth of assets and R15 million in cash? As immigrants came into this country, they bring in a tremendous amount of capital. They bring in the value of their effort, their know-how and their skill, and they give employment as well to citizens of our country. They teach, assist and play their part in helping to build up our nation. Every other nation in the world, outside the old established countries of Europe and Britain, has been built up through constant new blood coming in from the “stamlande” as it is called, the countries of origin, as well as from other countries, which share to a large extent the common culture of the West. That is the value of the immigrant in our country. It is all very well to compare figures as to what has happened. There is no question that the Government at one stage completely missed the boat. Only when they found themselves in great difficulty did they take every possible step to ensure that immigrants come into this country. One does not criticize them for that. One is only sorry that they were that foolish and that they did not appreciate the value of immigrants because of a desire to encase themselves in a laager through a fear that their cultural establishment might to some extent be tarnished or destroyed. That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard, because no country yet—you can go to all the younger countries like ours—has in any way been detrimentally affected by the influx of immigrants who have brought their culture and know-how into the life of the new nation into which they are absorbed.

It is of interest to note that in the eight years since 1961, the net gain of 160,000 has doubled that of the previous 14 years, because as one reads in the report, in that year the Department of Immigration came to life and a Ministry of Immigration was appointed. We find that, in spite of criticism earlier in this debate 37 per cent still came from the United Kingdom.

It is not that I particularly support the place from which they come but it is of interest to note that we still find immigrants in larger numbers from the old established countries, which played such an important part in establishing and developing South Africa as we know it to-day, and such a vital role in the economic and cultural life of our community. It is those countries which helped to bring South Africa to the stage at which it is today, a country of which we can all be very proud indeed. We find, for instance that an organization like the South African Foundation has at its head an immigrant in the person of Sir Frances de Guingand. Other people who have played an important part in helping to improve the image of South Africa serve on sub-committees of this organization; all of them come from the various countries of the world and are now permanent residents in South Africa. All of them are anxious to ensure the best relation between our country and their countries of origin so that links can be maintained and bridges be kept open to receive immigrants into this country. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that while we appreciate that additional assistance is given to these people he should try to make provision for them in the country itself to ensure that the immigrant who comes in does not disturb good public relations by displacing people from their homes. Here I feel that the Government can play a very important part because it can make preparations in advance. One admits that in the early part of the past decade because of their anxiety to improve the situation and the fear that they were losing ground as far as immigration was concerned they were not ready and did not make the necessary preparations. Now that we have had the experience of those years my appeal to the Minister is that we must ensure that proper housing is made available to them. We do not necessarily have to place immigrants right in the heart of the cities. We have tracts of land outside the immediate precincts of the cities. The Department in conjunction with other allied Departments can take steps to acquire land at reasonable prices. This is now being done by private entrepreneurs throughout South Africa. The Department can then establish townships to enable immigrants to settle there. I think that it would be an inducement to the immigrant because he is already accustomed to life on the perimeter of a big city. If we have satisfactory transport he will be well accommodated. He will receive the goodwill of the people of the Republic his hosts amongst whom he wishes to mix and amongst which be wishes to be absorbed. I think the stress that has been laid on the value of public relations is the most vital factor of all. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I think there is a considerable amount of ignorance in our country and often indifference as well as antipathy in regard to immigration and immigrants. I have just listened to the hon. member for Jeppes and I must say that when I compare him with the hon. member for Simonstown it is apparent to me that in their way of thinking and expressing themselves the older element in the United Party do revert to the ’thirties and the ’forties to the approach they had to the South African situation at that time. When the hon. member for Simonstown speaks one sees that the younger generation on the other side have been shaped and moulded over the past 22 years by the ideals and forceful policy which have radiated from the National Party in every sphere.

The hon. member for Jeppes was skating on very thin ice. He gave the impression that when one has a policy of immigration under which immigrants come to South Africa from various countries those people regardless of local conditions and local history must each establish within their own groups a colony of their land of origin. This to me is a surprising idea. If that is not what the hon. member insinuated he was not clear in his argument. There is a certain measure of antipathy towards immigration precisely because of the memory people still have to-day of the reckless policy the United Party adopted in the ’thirties and the ’forties. Those hon. members can make extracts to-day of speeches they made at the time and drag the former Minister Mr. Trollip into certain minor arguments they want to develop.

However one must view the immigration policy of the United Party of that time in the light of the broader policy which it wanted to implement in South Africa. When one examines the policy of the United Party especially in the post-war period I have no doubt that they realized that they could lose the next election. Therefore they left no stone unturned to bring people as quickly as possible to South Africa from abroad to indoctrinate them and to keep the reins of government in their hands by those means. If my information is correct the immigrants the United Party wanted to bring in at that time could obtain citizenship within two years. At that time the United Party wanted to use the immigrants in accomplishing their policy of integration or partial integration in such a way that the non-Whites could gain a permanent foothold in the political structure of white South Africa. When one has regard to the policy of the United Party in respect of the Indian the Coloured and the Bantu I have no doubt about this.

The theme of the speeches to-night dealt largely with the assimilation of our immigrants into the South African society. I also want to view this problem in a certain sense from an angle which I shall call in quotes “the theoretical reality”. One is concerned here with the passing of people from a society of one national culture to a society of another and foreign national culture. Man like any other organism is dependent for his existence on the environment into which his Creator has placed him. As in the life process of any living organism the form adopted by human life is the result of the interaction between man and his environment. The result of this interaction is man’s culture or his pattern of living. Culture therefore is a general human product which is an essential consequence of his process of living. It is also scientifically correct to say that there are several variations of culture to be found in human beings. It is a correct assumption to make from this and to assert that each particular people has its own pattern of living or pattern of culture. There is an extremely close connection between a people and its pattern of culture.

The reason for this is that a people and its pattern of culture are evolved jointly in a process of growth. The members of a people form an organized unit in other words a kind of organizational unit. The members of a people are really cells in a larger organism which are arranged in a particular manner to one another. However the cells in such a national organism are most loosely arranged than the cells in other organisms. Therefore the members of one people can go from one national organism and fit into another national organism. We call this in political or general terms the process of immigration. Man thinks and acts independently and can therefore move from one organic context to another. Such a change-over does not however take place without problems. It is from this angle that I want to deal with the difficult question of assimilation. When an infant is born into a particular national society he comes into the world as an immature being only; one can almost say he enters that community as a kind of savage, “a naked savage”. Then follows the difficult process of cultivating the body and mind of this infant to subject him to discipline order and regularity.

This process is known as the process of culturization, the process by which the young newcomer in his own national community is taught the values the rights and the wrongs of his community. Those of us who have to deal daily and often with and are interested in the process of training and education know what a long and difficult process it is to cause our own citizens our own children to mature into a knowledge of what is right and wrong in their own community. If I think now of the Myburghs and the Marais’s and the Malans as I see them sitting over there it sometimes take two or three hundred years for people to learn what is right and wrong here in South Africa especially in regard to the handling of the contact situation between white and black. How much the more are we not faced with this when dealing with new immigrants who as cells come from a totally different kind of national organism into for them a new national organism? Very often these people do not come to South Africa as children; they come as older people people who already have set ideas in respect of all the things which affect their social life. For that reason I say that this process of assimilation is a very difficult one also when it is seen from the angle of this particular branch of science.

Fortunately we have a National Party in power that under its system of selection can say in advance to the newcomer either as an individual or in his family relationship: “When you come to this new country when you come to this new society there are certain requirements with which you must comply in advance.” Therefore, Sir, I want to agree with many other members who have spoken here that we in our community must be much more sympathetic towards those people who come to our national community as total strangers, and we must be far more willing to help those people find their feet here. For this reason I personally have a very high appreciation of those organizations which made it their task to absorb these people here.

I think especially of the company for European Immigration and particularly the branch in Pretoria, the Pretoria Immigrants Committee. There again I want in particular to mention the name of Mrs. Van Wyk, the wife of a minister in our city who is doing so much to have these new citizens accepted in our country. Sir, there are many people who criticize our immigration policy but one can only test an immigration policy when one has seen what has become of those newcomers to the country in the second third and fourth generation. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made a statement here which bore out what we have known for many years. He says that we wanted to bring immigrants into South Africa so that we could indoctrinate them. That was the basis of his first remark.

I said that that was in the ’forties.

Yes, we wanted to indoctrinate the immigrants. Of course, Sir, this explains very neatly why that Government stopped immigration. It was more important to the Nationalist Party that they stayed in power than it was that South Africa should have immigrants and for this reason immigration was stopped for 12 years.

It was never stopped.

What did Dönges say?

The fact that for 12 years we lost immigrants that we should have had has damaged South Africa to such an extent that it will probably not recover from this loss for another 30 years. The hon. member admitted this when he said that the only reason why we wanted immigration was that we wished to indoctrinate them so that we could stay in power. In other words the only reason why that party stopped immigration was to ensure that they remained in power. This is why they stopped immigration.

Sir, this all happened 20 odd years ago and it gets us no further. I want to deal with the statement made here by the hon. the Minister. He said that his task would be to see that the balance between the different language groups the different religious groups and so on was maintained. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how he intends to maintain it. People coming to this country are completely unaware of our problems of our different languages and even our different religions. How is the Minister going to maintain the balance? Is he going to toss a coin when the immigrant comes in and then say: “This immigrant will go on the Afrikaans-speaking side and the next one will go on the English-speaking side?” Is he going to toss a coin to decide this? How is he going to maintain the balance. Is he going to force an immigrant to send his children to a particular school if he does not wish them to go there? I am quite sure that the Minister did not mean that.

But nevertheless he made the statement that his task was to see that the balance was maintained. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he wants immigration he must seek immigrants first; the other things will be second. This, Sir, surely is the most important job that he has. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that whether the immigrant is ultimately fluent in English or fluent in Afrikaans is not of great importance; but the most important thing is that he should be a good South African. This is the important thing not whether he happens to be of one religious group or the other; not whether he happens to sneak the one language or the other, but whether he is a good South African.

This is the most important thing and I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that unless he gets his priorities right, immigration in South Africa will never be a lasting success because he will in fact be frightening away the very people we should be attracting. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what his Department does—I know that it does not specifically come under his Department—to encourage immigrants to learn one of our official languages. Has his Department, for instance, ever proposed that there should be free lessons in the particular language that the immigrant wants to learn? Where can he avail himself of these free lessons? Where in Durban, for instance, can an immigrant learn Afrikaans free of charge, or for that matter English?

At the Klip River Technical College.

Sir, as I said when I spoke earlier, this is the reason why we find it difficult to get immigrants. We find it difficult because they may have heard some of the echo’s of the remarks made by hon. members opposite. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what efforts are being made to teach the immigrant one of the two official languages. Why in Durban, for instance, should the immigrant have to pay if he wants to learn Afrikaans, because the language which is spoken most in Durban is English? Why should he have to pay if he wishes to learn English if that is the language which is spoken most in the town in which he lives? I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should make some provision in this regard or that he should prevail upon the Department of Education to make provision for free language laboratories for those immigrants who wish to learn one of the two languages. Sir, until this is done we cannot really complain if the immigrant does not learn these languages as quickly as we would like him to do.

The other suggestion that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is this: Many of his overseas officials do an excellent job or try to do an excellent job. But I would suggest that perhaps we should set immigrants to catch immigrants. There is no better person to sell South Africa than one to whom it has been sold already. If we wish to recruit immigrants in Holland, why do we not send an immigrant who came from Holland, who is settled here, who knows our problems, our future and so on? Why not send that man back to Holland to recruit immigrants in Holland? Why do we not do the same thing in Germany, France and so on? Because these will be the best people to get immigrants for us. In other words, set an immigrant to catch an immigrant. I suggest that that would be far better than a lot of the propaganda that we put out, because in a lot of the propaganda that we put out we have to compete with unfriendly propaganda in the very country in which we make propaganda, with the result that an immigrant is perhaps a little confused. But if we were to send to France an immigrant who came from France—or Holland or Germany, whatever the case may be—I am certain in my own mind that we would have a great deal more success than we are achieving to-day.

Then, Sir, I would like to return to the question of the Cape Town mother who had difficulty with the education of her child. I dealt briefly with this a little while ago. I would like the hon. the Minister to reply to this particular point specifically, because this has caused a great deal of confusion. We want to know from the Minister how much compulsion is brought to bear on immigrants in regard to the education of their children. Are the parents entitled to admit to the Department that they made a mistake in choosing either English or Afrikaans as a medium of instruction for their children? Take the case of parents who chose Afrikaans in the Cape Province but who have now moved to Natal and who would like their children to be taught through the medium of the other language. I would like to know from the Minister whether these changes are possible? I should like to have a full answer because these are the things which harm our immigration policy. Sir, the Minister need not smile at that; this is the truth.

You are asking the wrong Minister; I have nothing to do with it.

Sir, when one deals with this Government and one asks one Minister something, one is told that the matter falls under some other Minister.

It does not fall under my Department.

That is perfectly true, but the hon. the Minister is the Minister of Immigration. His job is to get immigrants and I am suggesting to him that if he wants to get immigrants, he must see to it that some attractions are offered to them. Do you know, Sir, that one-third of the increase in the number of economically active Whites in the period 1963-’68 was accounted for by immigrants. This shows how important immigration is, so much so that the number of male immigrants who entered the economically active field in one year exceeded the natural growth of the local population as far as economically active persons are concerned. The natural growth was 9,500 males as against 10,872 immigrants who entered the economically active field. Sir, the other great attraction as far as immigration is concerned, is the fact that we do not have to train many of the immigrants. We select people as immigrants who have already been trained and this saves the State a great deal of money. That is why I say to the hon. the Minister that he must ensure that local conditions are made attractive for the people whom he is trying to entice to come to South Africa.

Sir, if there has ever been an embittered person, then it is the hon. member who has just sat down. One can appreciate why he is embittered this evening. He is embittered because he has been hit by a stone from Klip River and that must surely be painful.

At the beginning of this speech the hon. member for Port Natal made what would have been a very important and very serious allegation had it been true, but, as is usual, that kind of allegation, coming from the United Party, is devoid of any truth. The hon. member said the National Party wanted to remain in power at all costs and consequently terminated or put an end to immigration, as he suggested. What are the real facts of the matter? This evening that hon. member spoke in the idiom of the instruction given to officials after the war to carry out in connection with immigration. For example, the chairman of the then Immigration Selection Board, Gen. I. P. de Villiers, said the following in 1947: “That South Africa must get a larger white population, while the British Commonwealth must obtain a firmer basis in South Africa”. This is the idiom in which he spoke this evening. The whole object of the deeds of the United Party Government, when they were in power, as against what the hon. member said about the National Party, was to ensure that the United Party would remain in power at all costs. This is the object they tried to achieve with their immigration policy.

That would at least have brought white skins into the country.

Later in his speech the hon. member also asked what was being done for immigrants so as to enable them to learn the language of the country? But he is a stranger in Jerusalem. I wonder where he has been wandering about. The fact of the matter is this, and the hon. member for Geduld also referred to it earlier this afternoon, that opportunities and facilities have been created at the technical colleges at which it is possible for these people to undergo training.

Free?

With reference to what the hon. member for Geduld said, I have no hesitation in saying that after immigrants have passed courses in Afrikaans or English in Springs, where I come from, they regularly come back time and again for further training in those languages, especially in Afrikaans, and I want to pay tribute to the immigrants who display this foresight of mastering the languages of the Republic at such an early stage after their arrival in South Africa.

As regards immigration as such, surely, as far as the National Party is concerned, it is very clear what the policy of the National Party is. That policy is that immigrants should be allowed to come to South Africa without any tampering with the standards laid down for prospective immigrants, not standards laid down by the hon. the Minister, but standards laid down by this Board in law. How can there be any doubt with regard to this matter?

I want to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister this evening. In the first place, I want to ask whether the Minister will not consider using sympathetic immigrants, who belong to a certain language group, to meet other immigrants from their home countries on their arrival in South Africa at our ports or airports and to speak to those immigrants in their own language and to explain to them the obvious things they have to do and to help them in taking their first steps in their new fatherland? In saying this, I want to say at the same time that we also want to pay tribute this evening to the officials of this particular Department who, despite language difficulties, go out of their way to make these foreign arrivals in South Africa feel at home, particularly during the first days of their stay in our country, and to make them feel that we are proud and glad to welcome them here. I say I should like to pay tribute to those officials. I should also like to say a few words about the assimilation of immigrants.

In the first place, I want to say, with reference to what was said on the opposite side, inter alia, by the hon. member for Zululand, that in the assimilation of immigrants it is not possible to lay down simply with the stroke of a pen what has to be done, but the question is how these persons are to be assimilated, and that is not such an easy question. One cannot say in one sentence that they must be assimilated in a certain way, because assimilation has to take place in the ecclesiastical sphere, in the cultural sphere, in the social sphere, in the educational sphere, and assimilation in each of these spheres is going to be determined by that immigrant’s country of origin. I say it is no easy matter to lay down a hard and fast rule for that. One can lay down certain guide-lines but when it comes to the more delicate and fine mechanism of that assimilation one has to take many aspects into account. And as far as this assimilation is concerned, I want to make a very serious appeal to our native population to go out of its way, in the first place, to give its support to the recognized organizations which have been established to be of assistance with this assimilation, but, in the second place, also to share in the assimilation of the immigrant in South Africa. I do not have the time really to go into this matter of how each individual personally can make his contribution to this assimilation process, but I am convinced of the fact that every one of us can have a share in the assimilation of these people and in drawing them closer to us in the neighbourhood in which we live and in the community to which we belong. But I do not want to discuss that now. I want to address myself more particularly to the hon. the Minister in connection with the work which is being done by one of the largest and best-run organizations in this respect, i.e. the Company for European Immigration, to which reference has already been made this evening. I want to say that the Company for European Immigration is maintaining as many as 11 offices in South Africa and has the very efficient services of 20 full-time workers and five very devoted part-time officials. We must remember, however, that the Company for European Immigration deals with immigrants who are different to those from English-speaking countries in that immigrants from English-speaking countries are people who are conversant with our way of life and our social set-up, with our customs, with our values, with our administration of justice and with our system of government here in South Africa. I say the immigrants from the English-speaking countries are conversant with the conditions they are going to find here. But in the case of immigrants handled by the Company for European Immigration it must be clearly understood that the Company deals with 50 per cent of the immigrants who enter the country. In that case we must clearly understand that that 50 per cent comprises a diversity of nationalities with different and divergent backgrounds and with completely foreign cultural identities. They do not speak the official languages of the country. They come from countries which differ completely from South Africa. [Time expired.]

In the first place I want to say that it is a pleasure for me to reply to this debate and I am in fact replying right at the end of this debate because I wanted to hear all standpoints before entering the discussion. I intend dealing with the debate in the following way. I want to start by referring to speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition and replying to specific questions which were put to me; after that, I shall refer to certain speeches from this side of the House, and then I shall express a few general thoughts. I hope we shall have disposed of the Vote by 10.30 p.m., when it is time to adjourn.

I want to start with the hon. member for Zululand. Initially, he started with the argument about figures. I should like to discuss that right at the end of my speech, but the whole argument of the hon. member was that, as he saw it and expressed it, we had actually taken over the immigration scheme of the United Party. He quoted from an earlier statement by the former Minister of Immigration, Mr. Trollip, and I want to quote to him from the Senate Hansard of 13th February, 1967, column 692, where the same Minister said the following about this specific scheme—

I want to refer to that immediately by saying that subsequently the question of unskilled immigrants was raised. Many of them were available, but as hon. members themselves know, South Africa cannot and could not take unskilled immigrants, and for this reason the stream to us became very much smaller, while the streams to Canada and Australia, although showing some decrease, remained fairly constant, as they could accept unskilled immigrants. This is the first aspect which I want to explain in connection with the specific figures. The hon. member devoted the second part of his speech to the question of settling-in and his standpoint was that the Afrikaans-speaking community, the Rapportryers and other specific organizations which he mentioned—he mentioned the hon. member for Potchefstrcom and others by name—should make the immigrants feel at home and incorporate them in the community, etc. I want to say to the hon. member at once that I do not want to mention the names of these specific organizations, as he did, but as he rightly quoted from my own speech made to the Maatskappy vir Europese lmmigrasie in Johannesburg, and on numerous occasions on which I spoke, it was my explicit standpoint that one had a duty and an obligation towards the immigrant in South Africa and I made a special appeal to the Afrikaans-speaking people to do their share in settling in and incorporating the immigrant and making him feel at home and in this way to draw the immigrant closer to them. In that respect, I am therefore in full agreement with the hon. member’s standpoint and I want to give him the assurance that I am propagating it most diligently wherever I go. When I return to this matter at the end of my speech, I want to say something more about this resistance which has developed in the Afrikaner in connection with immigration and I want to give the reasons for it, but I do not want to discuss it now.

The hon. member for Simonstown apologized for not being able to be present as he had to attend a meeting, but in his absence I shall reply to him as follows. He referred to a case of a person where it took a tremendously long time from the moment the person applied for immigration until his application was eventually approved. Incidentally, as a result of correspondence which I have received from the hon. member, I know exactly which case it is. In this specific case there was not a normal quick screening, but problems arose, not with the person himself or with his wife, but there was a complicated situation involving his daughter-in-law so that there was a longer delay than usual. This is not a normal procedure. I just want to say that a few delays from 123,000 postal articles received per year, 31,000 interviews conducted and 22,000 questionnaires, to mention a few examples, certainly cannot be regarded as a blot on the Department as such. The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned another matter, the “after care” plea, as he called it, what happens to an immigrant afterwards. I want to say at once that the Department of Immigration accepts responsibility for the recruitment of immigrants and that it has its own section which assists with the settling-in of immigrants. But the main task in connection with settling-in immigrants rests with three bodies, in the first place, with two organizations which were established specifically for that purpose and which are subsidized by us and, secondly, with the public of South Africa in general. They are the people who are responsible in the last instance for the settling-in of immigrants. The two organizations are, firstly, the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie and, secondly, the 1820 Settlers’ Memorial Association. Both these organizations receive R72,000 per year as an allowance from the State. They receive exactly the same treatment. The M.E.I., as we call it, has 11 offices with 20 staff members which are distributed all over country, plus hundreds of voluntary workers throughout the country. The 1820 Settlers’ Organization has 11 offices with 34 staff members as well as hundreds of voluntary workers throughout the country. All these organizations do their work to the best of their abilities. Because this was the set-up for many years, it has been maintained in this form. As their names indicate, the 1820 Settlers’ Organization has always devoted its attention mainly to immigrants who come from the British Isles, with English as their home language, while the Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie has paid attention mainly to all other immigrants who do not have English as their home language. Consequently, the position is that when immigrants arrive here, the names and addresses of English-speaking immigrants are made available to the 1820 Settlers’ Organization. They know exactly where the people are. They contact them immediately. They negotiate with them, start settling them in, incorporate them and make them feel at home as soon as possible. They are doing outstanding work. The other evening I attended their banquet, which was addressed by the State President and was held in celebration of the 50th anniversary of this organization. It was also 150 years after the landing of the 1820 Settlers. It is a wonderful organization and the evening was a great success. They are doing outstanding work among the immigrants.

The Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie is supported mainly by the Afrikaans cultural organizations, and especially the Afrikaans churches, and in their turn they do settling-in work with all the other immigrants who are not English-speaking. They are also doing excellent and unvaluable work. Incidentally, I have just received the annual report of the very organization mentioned by the hon. member for Rissik, namely the Pretoria Immigrants Committee. Excellent work has been done there, especially in respect of the incorporation of immigrants such as the Czechs and others. Just to give hon. members an idea of how dedicated these people are, I may mention that one of the Ministers learnt the Czech language and is preaching to those people in their own language. Now one can understand how dedicated one must be in order to fulfil this task in that spirit. I want to pay tribute and express thanks to these people for the excellent work which they have done in this regard.

The hon. member said that we should meet the people. We are not always aware of the exact day or hour of arrival of every immigrant. This is of course impossible. The immigrant is recruited and a permit is issued to him to say that he has been approved and that he can make his own arrangements in order to come to South Africa. Then he makes his own arrangements and comes to South Africa. In many cases we know when they will arrive. When they arrive we meet them. I have statistics here. The Department has met 75 per cent of these immigrants on arrival i.e. 66,324 over the period of two years. Subsequently the Department finds employment for some of these immigrants. It has placed an average of 6,148 per year in employment over the past two years. Many immigrants arrive here with an offer of employment and are therefore placed in service by their employers. There is always room for improvement in any organization but in any case I do not have a guilty conscience about this aspect of our Department’s work. I think good work is being done in this respect by the Department as such.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Port Natal who also made two short speeches. In the first case he discussed the question of companies which are allowed to recruit and which then leave people in the lurch, etc. I suspect the hon. member was referring specifically to the Barends Shipbuilding case. Here we had the position that this company needed persons for a large shipbuilding undertaking. They had all possible prospects. They specially went to Britain in order to recruit people for this purpose. Shipbuilders cannot be obtained in South Africa because the industry is still undeveloped here. When the persons were already on their way back and all the immigrants had been recruited the company landed in financial difficulties here abandoned the whole shipbuilding plan and began to concentrate on ship repairs exclusively. This was a change which nobody could have foreseen and over which there was no control. With the best will in the world we could not have controlled that. I cannot first ask every company to send its books and statements to me before I decide whether it may do recruiting. The result was that an embarrassing position arose. But what happened was that a minimum number of those immigrants actually suffered hardship and although the Department was suddenly burdened with the task when it did not expect it it found work for the vast majority in other spheres of work everywhere in South Africa. Fortunately most of them were settled in and incorporated everywhere in South Africa although as I have said we were suddenly burdened with them out of the blue. Only a few of them who were only trained to do specific work could not adjust in South Africa at all and suffered harship as a result. In this connection I just want to say to the hon. member that there were recruiting organizations and groups of employers that created problems for us. During the 1969-’70 financial year 99 groups of employers launched recruiting campaigns overseas and spent more than R100,000 on advertising. Since 1962-’63 a quarter million rand has been spent in this way. The vast majority of these recruiting drives are arranged in consultation with the Department of Immigration. In this way those firms can benefit from a considerable measure of free services knowledge of the country’s circumstances and requirements and good contacts and advice which my Department and its officers have.

On the other hand I want to add that in recent times we have been concerned about the question of recruiting agencies which are shooting up like mushrooms. Originally we approved certain recruiting agencies after they had been thoroughly investigated by us. They were approved to do recruitment. Initially one or two of them were approved and they have been of great benefit to us. In recent times however I have become concerned about the fact that recruiting agencies are shooting up everywhere. We are now demanding larger guarantees. I also want to say here officially that we do not intend allowing the establishment of any more recruiting agencies. I do not think we need any more in this regard. Our scheme had made sufficient progress and I think we should examine the matter a little more closely because they often embarrass us and make all sorts of promises. When the immigrants arrive here the agencies withdraw and the immigrants are off-loaded onto my Department which must then suddenly intervene in order to try to save the situation. Then the Department and the Government are blamed for a poor immigration effort. I shall make increasingly less use of these recruiting groups and rely more on my own Department in this connection.

The next question which the hon. member put to me was very clearly the question of the language position of a particular immigrant child. I shall furnish him with the reply which I have already given him. It is not the task, the duty or in any way the responsibility of my Department to argue or not to argue about the language mediums for children. In the first place it is a provincial matter because education in South Africa falls under the Provincial Administrations. I am not prepared to enter that field. Therefore I just want to say to him that this is my final reply to him. I am not prepared to discuss or to argue about that. The fact remains that it is a provincial matter about which I do not want to make statements.

The hon. member told me that we should also use immigrants to do recruiting and to find people for us. The interesting problem which I want to put to him immediately is that in many countries on the continent of Europe, namely Germany, the Netherlands and various other countries recruiting is not allowed at all. No recruiting not by us of my Department or even by their own people is allowed. It is not allowed because many of those countries themselves have such a shortage of people that they are having difficulties in all respects with so many millions of so-called “gastarbeiter” from other parts of the world who come to work for them. Therefore there is no pressure in those countries to encourage people to emigrate. Recruiting is not allowed there. In Britain however I do not need to have a recruiting drive because we have enough applications from Britain. We screen them according to our standards and we do not need to undertake a recruiting drive in Britain as we receive enough voluntary applications there.

Don’t you want more?

I do not want to lower my standards for the hon. member for Orange Grove who is again trying to lower the standards. I simply refuse to lower the standards.

The hon. member also spoke about the question of language in Pretoria and asked whether the lessons were free. I want to reply to him at once. If an immigrant reports to such a language laboratory within the first six months after his arrival in South Africa in order to learn one of the two official languages of the country the lessons are free. But if he reports only after six months the language laboratory is occupied with other immigrants. In that case he must pay if he wants to learn a language there.

Only in Pretoria?

Throughout the country where these facilities are available. These facilities are available in many places. Yes, they are available in Durban as well. The hon. member may go and have a look. It is at the technical college as far as I know. Therefore it is free in Durban as well for all immigrants who report within the first six months. If an immigrant reports himself there within six months after his arrival it is free. But if he joins after six months he must pay. I hope this is clear to the hon. member now.

The hon. member for Jeppes put a few questions to me. He referred, inter alia, to housing. Then he also asked me about the immigrants’ culture. In this connection, I want to say to the hon. member at once that if he attended our immigrants’ evenings arranged by the various setting-in organizations to which I referred a moment ago, he would see that it is always one of the most attractive programmes when those immigrant groups whether it be a Portuguese group, an Austrian group, an English group or a Scottish group, whatever it may be, demonstrate their own folk dances and their own national customs in their own national dress to us. We therefore absorb some of their culture and they absorb some of our culture. Our culture becomes enriched and so does theirs, by means of a mutual interchange. There is nothing wrong with that. One is always enriched by acting in this way. In this process we do not, however, want to lose our identity. The hon. member is not asking that of me. I am sure he does not expect that of me.

I think I have now reacted to all the speeches of the Opposition members. I do not think I have omitted any.

And housing?

In a moment I shall speak about housing in general. Mr. Chairman, a few members on this side of the House also spoke. I have to keep one eye on the clock, but I want to reply to them as well. The hon. member for Geduld requested that more immigrants should be brought into the country. This immediately brings me to the position which I want to make very clear to the hon. member for Geduld and to the whole House and the country outside so that everybody may know precisely what our policy in this connection is. I adhere firmly to this standpoint, because it is the official Government standpoint. On the advice of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and many other people, this Government has decided that a sound growth rate for South Africa for the next five-year period would be 5½ per cent. Let us understand one another clearly. This is our point of departure and the decision which was taken. This is the ideal towards which we are striving. Subsequently, it was determined in a very scientific way that after all the Whites who became available in South Africa for the skilled labour market, technically and otherwise, had been employed, there would still be a need for between 12,000 and 13,000 economically active people in order to guarantee that growth rate of 5½ per cent. We shall recruit those 12,000 to 13,000 skilled workers in Europe, especially in the countries of origin, and in other countries as well. If these 12,000 to 13,000 economically active people are recruited and their wives and children are added, it amounts to an immigration figure of approximately 35,000 to 41,000 immigrants. This immigration figure will vary from year to year, depending on the circumstances in various countries. As a result, we have certain standards which were laid down by law and which we have to apply in the screening of these immigrants. The provisions of this Act are very clear. Some hon. members quoted them here. Within the framework of those statutory provisions, we laid down certain policies which demand certain minimum qualifications and standards. I am not prepared to lower those standards. With the standards as laid down at present, we recruited 41,446 immigrants last year. They included more than 13,000 economically active people. In other words, my standards are exactly right. I obtain the number of immigrants I want, I obtain the number of economically active people I want, I obtain the selected people I want because they comply with the standards. Consequently I am not prepared to lower those standards. I want to maintain those standards, because in this way we obtain a sound number of immigrants and not an unlimited number. I want to add at once that no quota system is applied in respect of this or that country. No preference is given to this country or to that country. However, it is stated very clearly that we prefer immigrants from the countries of origin of the South African population. This cannot be faulted. Hon. members must please not misinterpret my words. We give preference to immigrants from the countries of origin of the South African population. This is my reply in that connection. I do not want to say any more about that at this stage. I see the time is passing so rapidly that I shall have to conclude in a few moments.

If you can obtain more than 13,000 good, skilled immigrants, will they be accepted?

I have laid down my standards. Every year I obtain 13,000 to 14,000 skilled immigrants who comply with these standards. That is sufficient for me. If I can obtain more, I shall reconsider the matter. I am aiming at a growth rate of 5½ per cent and I am not prepared to cater for an unsound growth rate which can get out of hand as a result of an over-heated economy.

Other members on my side of the House stated various points of view and I want to thank them for that at once. Several questions were put, to which I want to reply quickly. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned figures and he probably does not expect a reply to that. By means of those figures he proved what the Opposition’s attack was. He made a very effective speech in that connection.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort indicated very clearly what is expected of an immigrant. I want to endorse that. We expect an immigrant to identify himself with the South African population as soon as possible. This evening I want to say something in plain language to the immigrant population of South Africa, the new citizens of South Africa, the new inhabitants. To say to us that they are prepared to learn only one of the two official languages and to speak only one of the two official languages, will just not be good enough in South Africa in the long run. This people is a bilingual people. We live in a bilingual country. Immigrants cannot expect goodwill to be shown towards them if they persist in learning only one language and totally ignoring the other language.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort asked me how far the investigation by the Human Sciences Research Council had progressed. I can only explain the position to him as it exists at present. The report was called for by the Minister of National Education. I think he has the report at the moment. The Cabinet will consider the matter in due course and take the necessary decisions. Unfortunately I can say nothing more in this connection at the moment.

The hon. member for Brentwood said that we should inform immigrants about the heterogeneous population in South Africa. Before the immigrant departs from overseas, we send him numerous pamphlets which contain all sorts of information about South Africa. There is information about certain customs, standards, the monetary system, the composition of the population and all sorts of information which he will find necessary. In recent times, for example, lists of words which he may require have been sent to him. This is a “How to say it” list in Afrikaans or English which is made available to immigrants in eight or nine languages. We try to inform immigrants as adequately as possible about the relationships which exist here. From the nature of the case, however, the adjustment is a difficult one. One must accept that difficulties will arise from that.

The hon. member for Springs spoke about the settling-in of immigrants. I shall come to that in due course and I do not want to say anything about it at the moment. I want to thank the hon. member for Rissik for adopting a practica1 approach in regard to the whole matter.

Now I just want to express a few final thoughts. In the first place. I want to say something in connection with housing. When immigrants arrive in South Africa, they are initially, from their first night here, provided with hotel accommodation by the Department of Immigration. For a period the immigrant is provided with free accommodation, until his employer or a settling-in organization, or whoever, has found accommodation for him. It is not the task of the Department of Immigration to find accommodation for an immigrant. We cannot give preferential housing. How dare we give them preferential housing over our own people? One cannot give the immigrant preferential treatment over one’s own people. Criticism will immediately be forthcoming from our own citizens. From the nature of the case it is therefore a difficult matter. In most cases there are no problems in housing these people in due course. For a period they are accommodated in hotels at our expense. Subsequently, if they cannot find other housing, they may stay on at the hotels where they are at their own expense, until housing is found for them. Many employers are so keen to obtain these immigrants, because they are skilled people, that they provide them with housing. The house is ready for the immigrant. When he arrives, he moves into the house. This happens in many cases. Often they move into flats in the meanwhile.

In the last three minutes remaining I just want to summarize the whole question which was raised in the beginning in connection with the United Party’s policy, our policy, the Smuts situation, etc., and state it clearly after everything which was said here this evening. I want to do this on the basis of a few quotations. There have been so many loose statements about this that I think it has become necessary to make quotations and to furnish the factual sources from which they originate, so that we may get the true perspective. In the first place, I want to refer to General Smuts’ Hansard of 21st March, 1946. Speaking as Prime Minister, he said the following on the Foreign Affairs Vote (Hansard, Vol. 56, Col. 4034)—

I shall conclude this quotation with the following words which General Smuts used in the same speech—

We must remember that this was said in March 1946. Subsequently on 14th August, 1946, the following speech by General Smuts appeared in the Cape Argus—

Now I want to mention a few figures to indicate why resistance to immigration arose in this country. Those objections and that resistance which I now have to break down with difficulty I lay at the door of the United Party. What did they do? The figures explain this more clearly than words. I have here the immigration figures for the immediate postwar years when they were in power. Firstly I want to remind hon. members that we have to deal with a population in South Africa which is Afrikaans speaking and English speaking. This was the case in those years too. In 1946 the immigration figures read as follows: 7,400 from Great Britain, 211 from the Netherlands, 27 from Belgium and one from Germany. I want hon. members to compare the number of immigrants from the Dutch and related countries of origin with those from Great Britain. In 1947 there were 27,004 immigrants from Great Britain, 1,006 from Holland, 119 from Belgium and 28 from Germany. What sort of balance is this between the two language groups here in South Africa? In 1948 when they were in power in the first part of the year and continued to implement their immigration policy there were 25,513 immigrants from Great Britain and a total of 3,066 immigrants from the Dutch and related countries of origin. For this reason the Afrikaner said: The immigration attempt is deliberately aimed at ploughing the Afrikaner under. For this reason resistance to immigration developed and therefore I have such a difficult task at present to break this down if possible. We will have to do this because we need immigrants for South Africa but we shall implement it in a more balanced way and we shall ensure that the relationships are not disturbed.

Vote put and agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.