With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. It reads as follows:

1. 1. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters relating to Television has been accepted by the Cabinet in its essentials. The Cabinet has also approved in principle the introduction of statutorily controlled television service for South Africa [interjections], which will form an integral part of the Republic’s broad educational system as a whole and which will be based on a foundation designed to ensure that the Christian values of this country and the social structure of its various communities are respected. [Interjections.]
2. 2. Considering that such a service will make great demands on, inter alia, our country’s financial resources and manpower potential; that it does not warrant priority over other, more essential, projects; that considerable preparatory work will still have to be done; and that there are several, especially technical and financial aspects that call for closer study and investigation, it is obvious that it will not be possible for the service to start transmission for another four years at least.
3. 3. The service will be entrusted to the S.A.B.C., which will have to introduce it as an integrated radio and television service with the necessary provision for effective control and making the greatest possible use of its existing facilities.

4. 4. As regards the nature of the proposed service, a few of its main features may be mentioned:

   1. (1) Statutory provision will be made for a body which, on behalf of and in the interests of the public, will serve the Government and the S.A.B.C. in an advisory capacity in regard to the general character of the service, as indicated above.

      In addition, control will have to be exercised by officers in charge of the S.A.B.C. and by the Control Board of the S.A.B.C, by the viewing and listening public, by means of a continuous scientific research project and, ultimately, by Parliament.

   2. (2) The service will necessarily have to be introduced in phases, and initially there will be a service of about 37 hours a week on one channel only in English and Afrikaans, with completely equal treatment of these, the two official languages. In the light of experience gained and results obtained, a decision will be taken on separate services in English, Afrikaans and the main Bantu languages.
   3. (3) From the outset the service must be presented in colour which can also be picked up on black-and-white sets. A decision will be taken later, on technical grounds, on the particular type of colour technique to be adopted.
   4. (4) The service will have no sponsored programmes, but only a strictly limited number of approved spot advertisements before and after programmes.

5. 5. With a view to the expert, scientific and technical planning of the details of the service and to the necessary co-ordination, a technical advisory committee is to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the S.A.B.C.’s representative on the committee. consisting of an equal number of representatives from each of the following:

   The South African Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Human Sciences Research Council, the South African Bureau of Standards, the Armaments Board, the Industrial Development Corporation, and the Departments of Commerce, of Industries and of National Education.

   The secretarial work will be undertaken by the S.A.B.C.

   This advisory committee, which will have the power to appoint subcommittees for specific investigations or tasks, will be required to advise the S.A.B.C., and through this body the Minister, on any matter that it considers important to the introduction and development of the most efficient service possible within the framework of our resources and circumstances, but in any event at least on the following aspects:

   1. (1) The financial implications;
   2. (2) The training of staff;
   3. (3) Television by means of radio waves and/or by means of cables;
   4. (4) Licensing of closed circuit and cable systems, and control of programmes over these systems;
   5. (5) Safeguards against exploitation of the public by the importation and manufacture of obsolete receiving sets.
6. 6. The Department of Industries is being directed to promote, in co-operation with other interested parties, the establishment of a local industry for the manufacture of receiving sets and for the further development of an all-embracing electronic industry in collaboration with the Armaments Board.
7. 7. The amending legislation to give statutory effects to the foregoing decisions, will be introduced in due course.
8. 8. In conclusion, the Cabinet wishes to issue a very serious warning to the general public not to buy receiving sets at this stage or commit themselves to the hiring or purchase of sets at some later stage. Today’s most up-to-date set may be obsolete in a few years’ time; moreover, technical progress is likely to result in lower purchase prices. In order to utilize the manufacturing facilities to be established to the best advantage and to prevent injudicious spending, severe hire-purchase conditions in respect of television sets will be applied during the initial years.

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned last night, various comments had been made by hon. members on the other side of the House on the sympathetic and friendly treatment which the hon. the Minister has received, in contrast with what happened last year. The hon. the Minister is on the eve of an overseas journey, where I believe he will be required to deal with many innovations, with the revision and improvement of many aspects of our overseas information service, and we on this side of the House wish him well. We believe that he will have a difficult task; that he will find that overseas information services are indeed a complicated and difficult task. Where in the past the hon. the Minister has indicated to this House that he is, in general, complacent and satisfied that the Department of Information is carrying out its duties and is meeting the criticisms of the Opposition to the full, he will in fact find, when he goes abroad to deal with these intractable problems, that there is much to be done, that there is much to be resolved and that there is much which needs his personal attention. Nevertheless, Sir, aware as we are of these difficulties, we are in no mood to attack the Minister unnecessarily severely at this stage. We do sincerely wish him well.

We hope that the effect of his journey will be to bring about some of those improvements in our overseas information service which we feel are necessary and in some cases overdue. Sir, I would like to illustrate what I mean when I refer to these deficiencies in our overseas information service, and I can do no better, to begin with, than to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria District. The hon. member for Pretoria District was good enough to refer to an article which I wrote some time ago, to which I attach no particularly high value. Nevertheless he referred to this article and accused me of introducing into this article certain barbs, certain “angels”. Well, Sir, I have looked again at this article and I find that the barb or the “angel” to which he referred was the following. I wrote—

Sir, as a general principle I find this quite unexceptionable, and I would challenge the hon. member for Pretoria District to say what it is that he finds objectionable or that he thinks his own party may find objectionable in this phrase. I go on later in the article to explain, in referring to these desiderata in the projection of our image abroad, that as applied to South Africa there are certain other things which are valid and relevant. Sir, the sensitivity of the hon. member for Pretoria District reminds one of a fairy tale which used to be told to us in our youth. Hon. members may remember the story of the princess who lost her way and was taken in by peasants and given room in a little hut. She explained that she was a princess; they did not believe her, so in order to test the truth of her statement they gave her a bed with fourteen feather mattresses and below the fourteenth feather mattress they put a little green pea. She went to bed and in the morning they examined her when she was dressing and found that she was black and blue all over.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

The hon. member for Pretoria District in his sensitivity reminds me very much of this princess. Sir, if one were to apply the same test to the hon. member for Pretoria District, I am sure we would see his body black and blue all over, which proves that he is in the true line of descent of the Verkramptes on that side of the House.

But not black, just blue.

The hon. member for Algoa also made some references, which, I think, illustrated that he also understands very little of what foreign information services are about. I return to that allegation. Having said that a country’s strength is its willingness to respect opposition views and the rights of minorities, which was a general statement, I went on to apply this to South Africa in-particular. I said—

I went on to say—

The hon. member for Algoa took exception to our suggestion that, in projecting an image of South Africa, it was necessary, in showing the strength and tolerance of the country, to indicate that we have a strong Opposition Press and a strong Opposition Party; and that it was also necessary to indicate some of the views held by those Opposition institutions. He rose to ask what the foreign world would think of us if our information service were to try to propagate the Bantu policies of the United Party. Well, no one is asking the information services to propagate policies. But we are asking that they should explain what is going on in this country and to give a broad picture of this country as a whole.

In the short time available to me, I would like to refer to two other principles which I regard as important. I do not want to traverse ground which I have traversed before. The hon. the Minister has been kind enough to say that he agreed with many of the arguments put forward by me in the House last year, which I have repeated in this article. On the eve of his journey overseas I would like to draw his attention to two of these principles, which I think are particularly relevant at the present time. The first of these principles is that a foreign information service should restrict its activities to a few carefully selected aims. These objectives should be chosen with a view to the country’s main strength, for example economic rather than political in the case of South Africa. I read the excellent report of the Department of Information very carefully. If there is one criticism I would make, it is that there appears to be a bit of a scatter-gun effect. A lot of small targets are dealt with on a sort of shotgun basis. I believe that there are a few things which are very important and that economics, being our main strength, is in fact that aspect of South Africa’s image which could best be projected abroad.

Last year an international exhibition took place in Osaka in Japan. It took place in Japan, which is a country which, according to predictions, will in due course overtake Russia and become the second economic power of the world. To South Africa it may possibly be the most important country in the world from the point of view of trade and economics, because Japan is a country which has very few raw materials of its own. The United States has almost all the raw materials and processed products it could possibly require. Japan is a country which may. in fact, lean very heavily on South Africa for raw materials and semi-processed goods. The Osaka 1970 Exhibition took place last year and was attended, I believe, by 100 million people from all parts of Asia and the rest of the world. It was the scene of splendid exhibits by 70 nations. South Africa was distinguished by its absence. I happened to be in Japan and in Osaka shortly before the exhibition took place and I was spoken to by a number of Japanese businessmen, who expressed to me their great disappointment and, to some extent, their displeasure that South Africa, with whom they had close business relationships, was not taking part. I know that that is not entirely the responsibility of that hon. Minister. The Department of Commerce and Industries also has a part to play in international trade exhibitions. However, there is some reference on page 25 of this report to a number of industrial fairs in which the Department of Information has participated. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, when such opportunities occur again as occurred in Osaka last year, his department should take the lead and that this hon. Minister should take the initiative to get together all the resources, including private enterprise, which I think failed to give its support last year. [Time expired.]

*Dr. R. McLACHLAN: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to repeat an expression used here a few times yesterday afternoon, and say that this has been a “tame” debate. There may be various reasons for this. On the one hand I think this has been a tame, and if I may describe it as such, decent debate because the hon. the Opposition has apparently taken to heart the advice which the hon. the Minister gave them last year. But I think there is a second reason for this as well. I think hon. members on that side of this House have not yet completely recovered from last week’s severe battle. The hon. member for Von Brandis speaks of “black and blue”. We have a good Afrikaans expression describing the same condition, and that is “pimpel en pers”. Well, the hon. the Opposition is still “pimpel en pers” after last week’s battle.

Yesterday evening, through the mouth of the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. the Opposition tried to drag the hon. the Prime Minister into this debate by reproaching the hon. the Minister of Information for what had taken place at the Press conference. This sort of double-talking by the hon. member for Orange Grove will be shown up to an increasing extent. What did the hon. member do here yesterday? He was disappointed because the hon. the Prime Minister had not made the mistake of discussing at that conference matters which should actually be discussed in this House. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is reproaching the hon. the Minister of Information. I wonder how the hon. member for Kensington is going to be criticized by Hogarth de Hoogh this coming Sunday, because if he were to defend his actions, one would have to consult those notes yet another time.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred here to his own article. The hon. member quoted a few points he had written in his article, but remained silent about one important matter. He referred in his article to one of the basic principles to which the information service must pay attention. He said—

What is the hon. member for Von Brandis trying to tell the outside world with these words? He wrote this article under the heading: “South Africa’s Overseas Information Services”. What is the hon. member trying to tell the outside world? He is trying to tell the outside world that this information service of the Government is not reliable. If this is not the case, why did the hon. member write these things? Why did the hon. member remind the information service that it must pay attention to reliability in its reporting?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of National Education made an important statement this afternoon. I should like to link up with that by saying that it was interesting to see what a fuss that side of this House made in contrast with the well-considered report submitted here by the hon. the Minister. When I page through the report of the Department of Information, I find that it says that films still are one of the most important media for promoting the objectives of the Department. In recent times films and television have been properly and intensively utilized to that end. As far as films are concerned, I just want to refer to a single sentence in this report which in my opinion ought to be recorded in Hansard. On page 21 of the report I read the following—

In May, 1969, a film distributor declared that the South African film campaign in the United States of America was “the best government orientated film programme” in that country.

All we ask for is some appreciation from that side of this House for this sort of work we are doing.

I want to refer to television now. Just to show those hon. members that this Government is not so terribly antagonistic towards this scientific aid, I simply want to mention the fact to hon. members that the information services have been using this aid very effectively. We have numerous examples of this in the report before us. One of the reasons why success is being achieved overseas in the presentation of films on television, is the fact that sound tracks are translated into the language of the country concerned. The sound track is translated into that country’s idiom so that the people may follow, understand and appreciate it more readily. I shall mention a few examples to hon. members. In Argentina, for example, one particular film had more than 100 television broadcasts. In Australia the film “Kutlwanong” was transmitted over two country-wide channels for 18 consecutive months. In Belgium, departmental films were presented on the Flemish as well as on the French television services. In Canada, 34 French and English versions of our films were presented. It is said that the interest in those films is still on the increase. Success was also achieved in Monaco, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain. In Switzerland, five films were presented on television and repeated on a later occasion. Perhaps the United States is the most important to us. The film “Three Wise Men of the World” appeared on television no fewer than 5 000 times. Its popularity is still increasing. Eleven other films are being presented and are being screened approximately 120 times a month.

Where the announcement was made this afternoon that we are going to get television in South Africa, I believe that it will be possible to utilize this service just as profitably in South Africa as overseas. We shall put it to the same use here as overseas. The success it has achieved there, bears testimony to two things. In the first place, we have the quality of the films presented which makes the films acceptable to the people. In the second place, there is the way in which South Africa is being presented overseas. If it were not for these things the people would not have been asking for our films. I make special mention of the way in which South Africa is presented, because we do not present the standpoint of the National Party; we do not present “ugly” matters—as the hon. member for Von Brandis said in his article. South Africa is presenting its best in those films. If South Africa achieves success through these presentations, and people want to link the National Party to that success, as the Opposition does in its simplicity, they would not be mistaken. They would be correct in thinking this, because it is not in vain that this country has been governed in a stable way for 23 years. It would be true as well, because the success achieved with this, is the fruit of the National Party’s policy. This being the case, surely one must expect people to associate the Department of Information with the National Party eventually.

I believe our Department of Information has achieved tremendous success in this, and that it has done important spadework for South Africa. When we, too, get television in South Africa, we shall be able to build profitably on that.

Mr. Chairman, the report submitted by the department is more comprehensive than usual, this year and in general it makes a very good impression. My criticism of it is that we should like to hear a little more in future about the problems with which the department is contending, the difficulties it is experiencing, the shortcomings from which it is suffering and also with what failures it is meeting on its way. Hon. members will realize that it is difficult to provide constructive criticism if the department itself creates the impression that everything is going as well as possible and that they require no further assistance and advice from Parliament.

What has struck me in particular, and this, unfortunately, is the only point of criticism I can deal with before the debating time would have expired, is the following: For more than five years we have been hearing about the Government’s outward policy in Africa. On page 26 of the report, reference is made to “the establishment of direct relations between South Africa and its neighbouring states, the momentum of its ‘Africa policy’ ”. But that is all. This is the only reference in the entire report to Africa and our neighbouring states. In the entire report of the activities of the hon. the Minister’s department, there is no indication of any awareness of Africa. In addition, there is no indication of any African programme or even of the starting of such a programme.

Judging by the report, there is no trace of the so-called Africa policy in any of the activities of the Department of Information. In the section “Publications aimed at overseas countries”, we read that information is being disseminated in Europe, South America and in America, but there is no trace of the dissemination of information in Africa. The same applies to the distribution of films. Under the heading “Exhibitions”, I see that the department did have a part in the Swaziland Anniversary Show in Manzini, but this is the only reference to activities in Africa. The Liaison Services Division reports that it distributes publications in Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru, but there is no word on any activity in Africa. In the subdivision, “Guest Programme”, the report covering a period of two years, states that the department officially invited 167 guests to South Africa in this period. This is something we approve of and welcome. According to the report, 55 of these official guests came from America. What I should like to know, however, is how many of the rest came from countries in Africa. Will the hon. the Minister be so kind as to tell us? Is there one amongst this total number who visited South Africa as an official guest from a country in Africa? The hon. the Minister and the Department introduced various of these visitors to me and to other hon. members of the Opposition. We always welcome the opportunity of giving them also our picture of South Africa, but I must say that every face we have ever seen has been a White one.

I do not think it ought to be difficult for the hon. the Minister to do something about the matter. Only two weeks ago there was an article in Die Burger under the heading (translation) “Ghanese newspapermen: journalists want to come to South Africa”. In it the following was said (translation)—

Four of the leading reporters and columnists in Ghana have indicated that they were prepared to visit South Africa in order to see the situation in our country for themselves and in order to speak to the people in the Republic.

Ghana is one of the countries which are eager to enter into a dialogue with South Africa, and it seems to me as though here the Department of Information can set the ball rolling. I must ask what the Department is doing in order to create the suitable climate for the promotion of the dialogue to which we are all looking forward. In my opinion the Department can make a start with it in this way.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he is going to introduce a guest programme, even if it is only for visitors from our neighbouring states. I think we would be making a mistake if we were to accept our friendship with our neighbouring states simply as a matter of course. We already have it that there is a drifting away from us, namely Botswana. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it would be much better for his Department to prevent any drifting away where friendship exists, rather than to try to restore any damage afterwards. We must remember that Botswana has the same vote as America in the U.N. and, in addition, it is a member of the Organization for African Unity. In any case, this applies to our other immediate neighbouring states as well. I think it is extremely important that the hon. the Minister and his department should focus on this part of Africa, to start with, in order to create the right climate for us. I must say to the hon. the Minister—I am saying this in a friendly sense—that I am somewhat surprised. He himself is a person who makes very forceful speeches on our task in Africa. He waxes lyrical when he speaks of the fact that South Africa should focus on Africa. Like a young Rhodes he encourages his audiences to become aware of Africa. [Interjections.] Only recently he made a speech (he may tell me if I am misquoting him; I do not have the speech here) in which he spoke of the decline of the West and the rise of Africa, and of the feet that we should pay more attention to Africa. I welcome this. I do not agree with him about the decline of the West, because this has already been said for a 100 years. He regards change as decline. [Interjections.] Let us differ on that. What he maintains, is that our task lies here in Africa. We have been saying that for many years. But the difference is that the hon. the Minister is now in a position of power. He is now in the position not only of being able to talk, but of being able to take action. In reality he is in fact our second Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is important. What we expect of him, if he really believes in his standpoint that we should focus on Africa, is that by this time he should have had a strong Africa programme for his Department. But I see nothing at all of this in this report. There is no sign of it. While I and all of us wish the hon. the Minister success with his journey to America, to the “declining West”, I am still sorry—I think hon. members here will agree—that he will be bypassing Africa, literally as well as figuratively. I sincerely hope that we shall soon hear from the hon. the Minister and from his Department—and next year we shall pay special attention to it and put questions on the matter—that he is going to direct his information, liaison and guest programmes towards Africa to a much larger extent than has been the case up to now. Otherwise we shall have no option but to continue believing that the Government’s Africa policy, as it is called, does not have much substance.

All I still want to say is that the hon. the Minister may be very sure of one matter. The West is going to determine its attitude towards South Africa to an increasing extent in terms of Africa’s attitude towards us. There is not the least doubt about this. They are going to see whether we are able to come to an agreement with Africa. I am absolutely sure that if we were able to come to an agreement with Africa, there would be no further trouble for us in the leading Western countries. If we were able to establish better relations with Africa, with the rest of our own Continent, we would succeed in bringing about much better relations with the Western states. For this reason I do not have the least doubt as to the part of the world to which the hon. the Minister and his Department should pay special attention in future.

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must leave soon, I should like to reply to his speech first. Perhaps he can stay awhile to hear the reply before he goes, if that would suit him. I shall then go on to deal with the debate as I have determined in advance it shall be dealt with.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout began by asking us also to mention the problems, difficulties and failures of the Department in the annual report. Those problems which the Department experiences in the performance of its task are of course brought before the Minister administratively, when the necessary discussions are held and the problems solved. Now I do not know what purpose it would serve to include these matters in the annual report. Whether we had a specific problem and solved it in a specific way, or whether we solved that problem in some other way, the fact remains that the successes and results are there. This is reflected very clearly in our annual report.

We can be of assistance with advice.

I quite agree. We welcome the advice cordially, but the hon. member must also be a little original and do his own research. Why should we present him with everything on a platter? He can put a little of his own time into studying this matter. That is the hon. member’s task, calling and duty.

The hon. member devoted the rest of his speech to the Africa programme and to Africa. Let me tell the hon. member straight away that in practice, of course, all other liaison follows upon diplomatic liaison. In all our programmes, in which we are negotiating with various countries, the movement is firstly on the official level. An exchange of diplomats or an agreement takes place. Subsequently other staff are added to such an embassy or mission. Then a trade representative, and if it is necessary a military representative, or an information representative is subsequently added. But in foreign relations, as the hon. member will understand, the first step is always formal interviews and formal ties on a diplomatic level; and as soon as this takes place in Africa, we will automatically follow as the time for that becomes opportune. We cannot do everything the first day. We must deal with the matter gradually.

But in the meantime we have in fact had quite a lot to do with Africa in another way and on another level. Since 1964 already we have had a control post for Africa in our office, viz. the so-called Africa desk in the Department. This section deals with literally hundreds of enquiries per week from African states, and even supplies publications to correspondents in countries who are not exactly in favour of a dialogue with South Africa. The specific aim at this stage is to reach the libraries, educational institutions and State departments there, and in this way to prepare Africa for the fact that we will in future have closer contact with them.

In conclusion I just want to tell the hon. member this. The hon. member says I wax lyrical about our task in Africa. I want to inform him that it is my personal conviction, and on that score I fully support my leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, that Africa is very definitely our main task, that we are an inseparable part of Africa, and for that reason we must play our role in Africa. But this Government has never seen its task in Africa in the same light in which Cecil Rhodes saw his task in Africa, Cecil Rhodes who wanted one great state from the Cape to Cairo under the British Empire and British Imperialism. That has never been part of the policy of this Government. If you state that as an ideal for Africa, it is the perfect method of ensuring that Africa rejects it immediately, because free states who have obtained their own freedom, do not immediately want to be subjected again to a greater imperialism. That is why we will liaise with Africa on another level, on the level of friendship as good neighbours liaise with one another, who have a common interest in a part of the world they have in common. In that sphere we shall definitely continue and shall bring our task to a successful conclusion. If that answers the hon. member’s questions, I should like to let that suffice.

I should also like in passing, while I am dealing with this topic, to say a few words in regard to what the hon. member for Von Brandis said. I shall return to him in the course of my speech. He put a question to me in regard to the exposition in Japan. In this connection I just want to inform the hon. member that as far as it is practicable we participate in various exhibitions wherever we can. He quoted quite correctly from the annual report that we have in numerous cases already done so in the past. The Department of Information often acts as the responsible Department with the aid of many of our other departments, which then collates the necessary material and in that way deals with the matter, and consequently gives the necessary publicity to it, as we have done with wondereful success in numerous countries in the world. We were definitely not represented at this exposition in Japan this year, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will give this matter our attention, with a view to the future, and in this connection I hope that we will subsequently be able to report on this matter.

I come now to the principle matters, but the hon. member for Kensington asked me in passing why, on this occasion, the report appeared biennially. He said the report was late. The report covers the period up to 31st March, 1971, and I really do not know how it could have been more up to date than that. More rapidly than that we could not have completed it. The hon. member’s objection is that it now appears biennially. I should just like to put him in the picture. There is a specific reason for this. In the year in which there is a parliamentary election and there has been an announcement that we shall have two short sessions of Parliament, it is customary not to present the report because it creates certain problems. Then we present the report the following year, for a two-year period, but after that we return to an annual report basis. There is a good reason for this; there is nothing sinister in regard to the fact that the report appears biennially.

Sir, I now want to return to the general discussion as it has progressed so far. I understand that the hon. member for Orange Grove is at this moment preparing a speech on the standpoint of the United Party in regard to the television statement. I can quite understand that he will now have to say something very important, and I wish him every joy with it.

Are you now in favour of the little black box?

The hon. member heard the statement from the Cabinet and will not succeed in distracting me from stating my standpoint. Sir, I should like to deal with this matter as I have prepared it, in spite of the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove is not present here at the moment. I hope that he will come in during the course of the debate. Actually I am almost astounded by the standpoint the Opposition adopted in this regard yesterday. Hon. members who are here, and members of the group on both sides, and the Press will recall only too well the tone which was adopted in this same debate last year. I want to remind hon. members, and specifically the hon. member for Orange Grove, that I rose to my feet at the very outset of the debate last year and made an appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House to deal with this specific vote, the Information Vote, on a level on which one would like to see this matter being dealt with, because it was a show-window to the world, as I put it, and because one does not like to display rubbish in one’s show-window. I made an appeal to hon. members that we should maintain a high level throughout the debate. The hon. member for Orange Grove did not want to react to my request; he paid no heed to it and he let fly last year with a tremendous tirade against the Government and against me, against politicking, against the department and against our officials, both at home and abroad. He ridiculed them and delineated them as being people who cannot do their work. He asked that the Department be done away with; that certain sections be given to other departments, etc., etc. We subsequently replied to all his arguments, and the hon. member has this time adopted a moderate and sensible approach to this matter, as we requested him to do last year. As a result of his improved conduct this year, I cannot therefore have a go at him and give him the necessary dressing-down. When a person listens to good advice, you must have appreciation for the fact that he is in fact paying heed, and for that reason I shall gladly reply this time to the questions he put to me.

In the first instance, the hon. member asked me the reason for what he called the tremendous increase of almost R1 million in the expenditure of my Department. I just want to tell the hon. member briefly what the reasons for that were. In actual fact there was only an increase in two sections, namely Section A, which deals with salaries, and in the second place the Publicity Section. The increases are in one case R294 000 and in the other case R664 000. There is no problem as far as the salary increases are concerned. Salary increases were announced; everyone accepts that, and the staff was increased. As far as publicity is concerned, we have to deal in the first place with increased printing costs and the increased circulation as a result of the greater demand for departmental documents and the success which we have achieved with them. Hon. members will recall that I stated very clearly in the Additional Appropriation debate that the additional amounts we required were principally due to the successful work of the Department. There is a constant increased demand for documents published by our Department. If one begins to achieve success and people begin to take an interest, surely you cannot say to them that you cannot give them those publications because you do not have the money to make them available. The more success we achieve, the more the number of posts will increase, because we must reach these people through our promotional efforts.

Our departmental expenditure has increased tremendously. Let me furnish the hon. members with a few figures. The hon. member for Kensington referred to Panorama and South African Digest and said that he was disappointed in these two publications in this sense that not one of them gave an over-all picture of South Africa. I shall return to that in a moment. I just want to tell him briefly what the full concept behind it is: With Panorama we have a specific purpose, a specific pattern in mind. A magazine like Panorama is not intended to give full detailed particulars in regard to everything we want to tell the people; it is geared more to the idea that we are dealing with a modern world in which people have become reluctant to reading. When a person is reluctant to read, then he wants to get an over-all picture at first glance of what is going on. That is why the S.A. Panorama is well-produced and is printed on good paper so as to make a good impression. It contains as many photographic articles as possible, to which a person’s attention can immediately be drawn, at the same time giving him an over-all picture of what is going on. This is the aim with S.A. Panorama·, it is not to give an over-all picture of South Africa.

A second aspect of the success of S.A. Panorama is that it has at this juncture been appearing every month for more than 16 years and its circulation is continually expanding. People throughout the world have grown accustomed to this publication. In reality it is a long-term investment, a long-term promotional effort. S.A. Panorama has become an honoured and accepted guest in many homes, even in homes where there is hostility towards South Africa. This is the case because this publication has over the years retained its objectivity and has in this way disseminated the true facts about South Africa. As I have already said, we are not attempting to disseminate an overall picture of South Africa by means of S.A. Panorama. To get that over-all picture, there are a few other publications. For example, there is the S.A. Digest, a publication which is aimed at presenting the facts about events in South Africa in an objective manner. It does not itself comment upon these, but for the most part quotes the comments of other persons on those events. This is the aim of the S.A. Digest. All matters of current importance in South Africa are dealt with each week in the S.A. Digest, with an objective statement of the facts, and with quotations of the opinions of people who want to adopt an attitude in regard to those events. The S.A. Digest has also been tremendously successful, and forms a wonderful companion piece to the S.A. Panorama. In addition to that there are still all the advertisements we are placing, and all the pamphlets and brochures we are distributing. From all these things taken together people ought to get an over-all picture of South Africa. But I shall return to this again later.

For the sake of the record, I just want to point out the circulation figures of our publications. The English edition of S.A. Panorama has a circulation of 110 000 monthly; the Afrikaans edition, 35 000 monthly; the Netherlands, edition, 20 000 quarterly; the German edition, 60 000 every two months; the French edition, 35 000 every two months; and the Spanish edition, 5 000 quarterly. S.A. Panorama goes out into the world in these six languages and bears abroad the message of South Africa in this specific manner. Results have consequently not been lacking. Requests are continually coming in. The hon. member for Kensington, who is a journalist, will understand this. There are continual requests from newspapers, from magazines and from people for an article or a series of photographs or for something else for which S.A. Panorama can be used. Numerous articles in S.A Panorama are taken over—for example by the Readers Digest, by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, by Collier’s Year Book, by Der Stern and Schweizer Illustrieerte and by others. Everywhere we find organizations and people who ask us to make these things available to them. We receive requests for Panorama even from politically-minded people, people whose disposition towards us is in general not a friendly one. I want to mention a few examples. For example, a senator in America made the following comment—

We found our interest in South Africa deepening as we read this excellent publication.

From Australia: “I have read S.A. Panorama with interest, and having had a lifetime of interest in the printing industry, I congratulate you on its presentation. The contents are both interesting and informative and the printing is of a very high standard.” These are examples of the opinions we receive from other countries. But the best proof of our success lies perhaps in the negative effect it has, for example on a person who is not favourably disposed towards us and is concerned that South Africa may perhaps make progress. Such a person wrote in the Nationale Zeitung in Basle, a socialistic publication of no mean format, on 28th March, 1970, that he was concerned about this subtle propaganda from South Africa falling into the hands of their young people and perhaps influencing them. That is how effective Panorama is in its entire approach!

I want to say something about the South African Digest. I have already stated what its aim is and what it comprises. The English circulation at home is at present 45 700 and abroad 48 800. Almost 100 000 copies of this specific publication are sent out into the world every week. The Afrikaans edition, which is a year old, has a home circulation of 7 800 and a circulation abroad of almost 2 000. This publication is being distributed in quite a number of countries which I am not going to mention now because I do not want to spend any time mentioning them. This is the success which has been achieved. I am replying to the question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove as to why our expenditure has increased. I have mentioned Panorama, I have mentioned salaries and I have mentioned the South African Digest, I quite understand why the hon. member was not here.

Now we come to the next reason for our increased expenditure, i.e. our regular non-White publications. We have magazines for our various Bantu peoples. On that score as well they have been so successful that there has been a continual increased demand for these publications. I am going to mention a few of these magazines for the record and for the information of the hon. member. I cannot pronounce all the Zulu names, because I do not know any Bantu languages. Our Zulu magazine has increased in circulation by 18 000 to a new circulation of 70 000. The Tswana magazine increased by 19 000 to 71 000. The North Sotho edition increased by 15 000 to 77 000. The Tsonga increased by 9 000 to 46 000. The South Sotho increased by 18 000 to 49 000. The Venda increased by 3 000 to 30 000. The Xhosa magazine increased by 13 000 to a new circulation of 76 000. In this way these magazines are being sent out to the Bantu. They read these magazines very keenly. The increased circulation is also a very clear sign that they are interested in what is going on around them and that they, too, are constantly looking into matters and want to be conversant with these matters.

Are you referring to the newspapers now?

I am referring to magazines. The newspapers are still coming. The Zulu newspaper, which is a monthly publication, has a circulation of 30 000. The Xhosa newspaper, also a monthly publication, has a circulation of 52 000. We have quite a number of newspapers in South-West Africa for the various population groups. There, too, the circulation figures are constantly increasing as a result of the success we are achieving. This success must therefore be followed by increased circulation. This Department is literally fulfilling its task to its population both at home and abroad. All population groups are being kept fully informed about matters affecting John Voter and John citizen. That is what we are doing and shall continue to do.

The last reason for the increase is the expansion of our departmental brochures. We have a steadily increasing demand in this connection. I am talking about our various brochures, such as our publication called Quiz, which is our patent and which is available in various languages. There are various pamphlets such as Health and Healing, Stepping into the Future and quite a number of other brochures. We are receiving more and more requests for these brochures. This is to my mind the proof of the wonderful success of this Government, of the Prime Minister and of the policy we are following. There is in the world increasing curiosity as to what is going on in South Africa. For 20 years numerous countries and nations have condemned us without knowing what is going on in South Africa. Now they want to know what is going on there and I am receiving constant requests for brochures in regard to what this or that is, or in regard to what the solution is to this or that problem. We must continually be supplying this information. This is to my mind proof that we are beginning to achieve success and that what the Government is doing is beginning to meet with a response in the rest of the world. That is why there is this increased interest and increased demand for brochures. That is why we have to continue with this task and why an enlarged edition is justified in this connection.

The second question the hon. member for Orange Grove put to me was in connection with my proposed overseas trip. I want to make a few remarks about this now. It is physically impossible on one trip to visit all the information and immigration offices. It is physically impossible to deal with and to see, at the same time, all the persons with whom one must inevitably come into contact in the various countries as far as both departments are concerned. It is a practical, physical impossibility. The time factor and the exhaustion factor make it simply impracticable. I want to say at once that I do not intend undertaking a trip again next year to visit the immigration offices. I want to reassure the hon. member in that connection.

You might as well send me.

No. This trip is for the most part an information trip, although I will definitely pay a visit to immigration offices in certain countries where I want to deal with certain matters. On this information trip, as such, I shall do a few things about which I shall say more later. For example, the hon. member asked me why I was not going to pay a visit to our information offices in Belgium and Vienna. I just want to tell him that it is easier to arrange, and has in fact been so arranged, that the officials from those offices will come to Amsterdam where I shall see them. Vienna is a little out of the way. Although I shall visit immigration offices in various countries, the Secretary for Immigration who is accompanying me, will go to Vienna to make the necessary contacts there. There is no problem in this regard. The same applies to South America. The Secretary for information is going to South America, and I shall join him later when we will then go on to North America and complete the rest of the journey. I hope that satisfies the hon. member as far as that part of his question is concerned.

As I have already said, the principle aim of the journey is to visit Information offices. As Minister of Information I gladly undertake this journey. In short the purpose of the journey is as far as I am concerned the following. Firstly, to observe at first hand the extent of the task in the various countries and how it differs from one country to another. I have been overseas before, in a personal capacity and I have a vague idea of what is going on here. Since

I am now the responsible Minister, with this specific task, I think it is my duty to go and see precisely what is going on there and acquaint myself at first hand with what the circumstances are, what the facts are, what the day-to-day problems are which our people have to cope with there, and then return to give the Cabinet the necessary advice so that we can improve the matter in the interests of South Africa as a whole. That is the main purpose of my journey. In the second place, I want to establish whether, and in which way, we can further improve the Information Service and adapt it to circumstances so that we can obtain the best results for South Africa. In the third place I want to establish whether we are covering the field adequately with the existing offices and the existing staff and whether and where additional offices or staff are required.

I should like to go and see what the position is. It is a gigantic task if we think that in a vast country like America we have three information offices at the moment. My personal feeling is that those three offices cannot cope with the task. But I am going to see for myself what the position is and I shall return with recommendations and make the necessary additions, if circumstances justify doing so. In the fourth place the purpose of my journey is definitely to make renewed contacts with our officials there, the men in the front lines who have to wage the battle for South Africa every day, the men who have to do the information work there. They must be brought directly into contact with the official Government policy as such so that they may in turn convey the information directly. We want to make direct contact with them, as is fitting of a Government which not only appreciates its people but also wants to maintain the closest liaison with them. Since they are fighting in the front lines, they must remain in constant contact with us here in the rear who determine the policy they must defend out there. I am therefore going there to inform them anew in regard to these matters.

In conclusion the purpose of the journey is to take a look at the extent of the task and to determine in what way it varies from one country to another with reference to local circumstances and, under those circumstances, to do the best it is possible to do for them, so that an adjustment can be made to every country’s needs. I have now finished dealing with this specific matter, but I shall in a moment say something more about the overseas information service.

The hon. member for Orange Grove told me, inter alia, that he was concerned about the problem I will have, inter alia, in defending quite a number of matters. For example he referred to the sports policy and asked how this matter would be handled. I just want to inform the hon. member that the Department of Information is in reality the nervous system of the entire State as far as its announcement of policy is concerned. I regard it as being such. The moment the Leader, who is the head of the party and the head of the Government, adopts a standpoint and states it as official policy, it is the duty and the task of the Department to convey it immediately in as fresh a form as possible and as precisely as possible from the mouth of the leader to all our information offices wherever they may be and to say to them: “This is the policy; watch the local situation and see to it that the information is conveyed immediately.” I also want to inform the hon. member that the gist of the debate under the Vote of the Prime Minister is at this stage available at virtually all the offices and that, as far as the sports policy is concerned, a special pamphlet is being drawn up for distribution throughout the world so that our people in every office will know precisely what the Prime Minister said and how the policy is being interpreted. These instructions were already given even before the hon. member asked about it. It is our task and our duty.

Can it not be arranged for a copy of this to be sent to every member of the House of Assembly?

I shall send a copy to every member of the House of Assembly who takes the trouble to make inquiries. But I am not going to send them to people who do not take the trouble to make inquiries. I have no objection to every person who makes inquiries receiving one.

I want to leave this specific aspect and come to the next aspect I want to deal with. This is also with reference to the hon. member for Orange Grove’s additional question. It deals with Press liaison as such, The Press Liaison Officers and the work arising out of that. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Stellenbosch replied in a very effective manner to that specific attack by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I just want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that I have his Hansard here and I am referring in particular to what he said after my statement in this specific connection. When I stood up here and said that I was going to seek closer liaison with the Press and that I was going to do my best to ensure that these people do not, in the actual sense of the word, close doors against the Press to the Government, to the Ministers and to senior officials, but that they open them, the hon. member adopted the following standpoint, and I am quoting from column 4764 of last year’s Hansard—

I want to concede at once to the hon. member, because he and I are both veteran politicians, that it was a surprise. He did not know what I was going to say in my statement, and he had to react immediately. After all, he could not immediately condone such a step. He had of necessity to condemn it, and that is why he said this. I do not blame him for doing so. He found himself in a very difficult position last year when he had to make this statement. It came unexpectedly, and therefore I understand it completely. The fact remains …

It was very obscure.

No, I am not being hard on that hon. member, but I want to say this in his favour, that he was placed in a very difficult position and that he had to say something straight away. That is why he did not know how to handle the matter. In addition, he said he did not know either whether there were not perhaps ulterior motives behind the matter. However, how did the Press receive this matter of Press liaison? They are after all the people who are actually involved. Now I am deliberately not going to quote what the Afrikaans-language Press said, because they of course gave this announcement a friendly reception. We quite understand that, and the hon. member will of course tell me that it will not help to quote them, because they are my people. But I want to see how the English-language Press accepted it. In the leading article of The Star of 23rd September, 1970, the editor said—

It is in the public and in national interest that this should be achieved and Dr. Mulder will have the full backing of responsible newspapers in his bid for better communication.

That is how the Press accepted it. I am now quoting from the leading article in the Sunday Times, which dealt with that specific matter—

The Argus, leading article of that date reads—

These people did not express themselves unconditionally in favour of it. They had their misgivings as well, and I am quoting again from the same article—

They did express those misgivings, but the overall attitude was quite satisfactory and favourable.

This Press liaison service has been in operation since October of last year. We are now in the month of April already, and it has by now been in operation for a period of five to six months. What have these people done in the meantime? With the exception of Bloemfontein, which I have not yet been able to visit, they have discussed this matter with all the newspaper editors of important newspapers in all the main centres. They have done so in Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Kimberley.

Therefore, with the exception of Bloemfontein, this has been done in all the main centres. There has not yet been time to do so in Bloemfontein, but we will do so as soon as we get a chance. In any case, they told the newspaper editors what assistance they could offer them and in what way they were available, how they could be contacted if assistance was required and if they wanted more information, and in what way they intended co-operating with the Press. In this way doors can be opened between the Government and the Press and in this way the information can be made available. They contacted every State Department, and they explained this system to them. There, too, the doors have been opened to the Press. In all cases this met with a very favourable reception.

In addition they have made contact with the foreign Press. They have made contact with the foreign Press corps which is represented and accredited here and they have conducted the necessary discussions with them. They, too, have been informed about the situation. The necessary proof of that has also been forthcoming. Numerous inquiries have already been dealt with successfully. In practice this matter is working well at the moment. We are always open to constructive criticism or to further improvement. At the moment the position is that instead of their being the buffers between the Press and the Government, they have in reality opened doors for the Press. The Press has testified to this from all sides. They are testifying to this in publications, etc., and I need not read out any quotations here. The hon. member already knows as well as I do that this Press liaison service is working well. The Press accepted and are grateful for it. It has therefore been a great success, in spite of the hon. member’s misgivings last year.

I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Is the Press liaison service also responsible for giving occasional résumés of Blue Books which have been laid upon the Table? I am asking this specifically with reference to this television report. In that case a résumé was submitted. Is the Department of the hon. the Minister responsible for that? If that is the case, we would have liked to have had it.

This is only done with matters which we deem to be important, and when matters can lead to misunderstanding. In those cases we sometimes supply background information. We can also arrange a Press conference with a specific Minister. We then invite the Press to come and put all the necessary questions to the Minister. We have already arranged a few successful Press conferences with Ministers. We also arrange Press conferences with senior officials and with those who can supply the necessary information. But in numerous cases the Department draws up its own White Papers, statements and memoranda, or what have you. My Department had nothing to do with drawing up the television report. I think that the department concerned, the Broadcasting Corporation, or some other person, drew up that report. Of course the Department is also responsible for the release of statements, speeches, etc. Seen as a whole, I therefore want to say that Press liaison—and the Press themselves will testify to this—has been a great success. I hope that this liaison will be taken further in future. The spirit in which and the attitude with which this is being done in this case is favourable, and we shall continue to do this, because our intentions are very good and quite clear. There is nothing we want to hide; we want to make the true facts available and we want to accept the criticism which is levelled. We want to state the true facts and do not want to be criticized on the basis of misrepresentations or lies which are sent out into the world. This is the position, and this is why it has been introduced.

I must also say a few words now about the Press conference of the Prime Minister, a matter which the hon. member for Orange Grove also touched upon. Last year the hon. member also had many misgivings about this idea of a Press conference. Once again, I want to quote his Hansard, but I want to say at once in mitigation that the hon. member had not expected it, and that he had to react to it immediately. He immediately wondered what sinister motive was behind it. In Hansard, volume 30, column 4763 of 22nd September, 1970 the hon. member said the following—

That is the angle from which the hon. member for Orange Grove welcomed or accepted this announcement last year. What are the actual facts? So far only one Press conference has been held.

It was not a success.

Was the Press conference, in your opinion, not a success?

It was well arranged, but the hon. the Prime Minister did not reply to all the questions.

I quite understand that. In the hon. member’s opinion, the Press conference was a failure. I do, however, want to say something in regard to the Press conference, arising out of the attitude the hon. member has adopted. In his speech yesterday the hon. member praised my Department and me for the way in which the conference had been arranged. However, the hon. member said that the hon. the Prime Minister and some of the newspapermen were not prepared, that they did not make the best of this Press conference, and that it eventually ended up by being a bit of a failure.

I wanted to motivate my statement, but as you know I was ruled out of order.

The Press conference is part of my responsibility and I shall now reply to that statement of the hon. member. It is part of the work of the Department, and I must comment on it. I want to say at once that the Press realized that they were dealing here with a special occasion, i.e. the first Press conference of a South African Prime Minister. Consequently, the press behaved themselves accordingly. That does not mean to say that the press buttered up to the hon. the Prime Minister, if I may use that expression, or that they were in league with him, or that they toadied to him, or that they were afraid to ask questions. The Press put very probing questions on numerous matters. They put probing questions in regard to the total freedom and independence of the Transkei, the defence situation in respect of Simonstown, the relationships between church and State, television, the Publications Board, Kuanda, visits of African leaders, the dialogue with Africa, and other questions. These are the kind of questions the Press put to the hon. the Prime Minister, in a responsible way.

He did not reply to all those questions.

It is quite logical that when the time is not ripe to furnish a reply in regard to a certain matter, the hon. the Prime Minister will not furnish that reply. If the hon. the Prime Minister undertakes to expose Kaunda under the discussion of his Vote, he does not do so at the press conference, but does so under his Vote. As the hon. member heard, he subsequently did so in a masterly fashion. He kept his word, and there are no problems. If the press wanted to anticipate the matter, they were unable to do so. The hon. the Prime Minister kept his word. I was present at that Press conference and we know how the Prime Minister, as he usually does in such circumstances, excelled and distinguished himself and also demonstrated that he was at his best in a question-and-answer situation. With his background and his specific knowledge, he is at his best in direct dialogue and as a result of that he distinguished himself here, and, as far as possible, he replied to all these questions successfully and satisfactorily.

On a point of order, Sir, when I reacted in a similar way yesterday and wanted to quote some of the questions which had been put to the hon. the Prime Minister, I was ruled out of order. Is the Minister not out of order now?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed. I regard it as a task which does in fact rest on the hon. the Minister, and for that reason he may discuss it.

I shall not go into what was said at the conference. But what the hon. member wants to argue about, is this. Yesterday he wanted to discuss the colour policy and other policies. That is not what I am doing. I am discussing how the matter works. But the hon. member once again has his misgivings now. and that is why I am once again quoting a journalist. This is what the editor of the Cape Times says—

That is what a journalist said about this matter. Now I do not intend arguing this matter any further. We will continue to hold this Press conference in future and it will probably develop its own pattern in its own way. I accept that the tone of the questions may perhaps be different but I want to add to that both the South African Press and the Prime Minister will keep this conference on the level on which it should be kept and will not allow it to deteriorate into a comical farce as it has done in certain other countries where one has a mere slanging match and people shouting one another down. That we will not do in South Africa. But a Press conference which is openly a liaison and which leads to frank discussions between the Prime Minister and the Press, such as this one, will in future be held, and it will in due course develop its own pattern. I am looking forward to this development and being even more successful and useful in future.

Now I want to say a few words about the task at home in general. You will recall, Sir, that last year the hon. member based his main attack on me on the fact that I had said that I saw it as part of the task of the Department to explain the policy of separate development, which is Government policy, not only abroad, but also at home among all its people, White and non-White. As a result of that I was accused of politicking. Now I want to inform the hon. member that I have not run away from that standpoint. I still adhere to it and I have done so specifically this year, viz. to convey the policy of the Government to the people, to the White and non-White inhabitants of South Africa. It is my task and my duty, and whether the Department of Bantu Affairs or Finance or Labour is involved makes no difference. I must convey the information to the public. The duty of this Department is to acquaint John Citizen with what we are doing and where we are taking him and what we are envisaging. It would be a disgraceful action on the part of the Government if it were to keep the public in the dark and tried to do all kinds of things on the sly. We would be failing in our duty if we were to do that. I want to state my case clearly. The hon. member has acted very featly this year, and I want to say to him at once that I appreciate the manner in which he spoke. That is why I am reacting in this manner today. Last year the hon. member tackled the matter in quite a different way, and consequently he received an answer couched in other terms. This year he tackled it as one would expect a responsible member of the Opposition to do, and that is consequently why he is receiving a reply in a different spirit. But the hon. member must not think that I am running away from my standpoint I stated last year.

The words and deeds do not correspond.

Is the hon. member saying that I said things in words which I did not convert into deeds? In other words, he is stating that I did not do what I said I would do. On 2nd October last year the hon. member put a question to me in Parliament as to whether films, slides or other material, excluding regular periodicals and newspapers have been produced and drawn up since 1st January, 1968, in order to explain the policy of autogenous development to inhabitants of the Republic and South-West Africa and if so, what was the name, language medium, and at what cost, etc. The question he asked is very clear: Are you, Mr. Minister, continuing to do what I accused you of doing last year, viz. of conveying the policy of separate development to the public of South Africa, Whites and non-Whites? That was the question, and I furnished him with a reply. I mentioned the names of the films to him one after the other; I mentioned the names of the publications to him: I mentioned to him in what languages these appeared; I mentioned the circulation. I gave him all the facts· I told him about the pamphlet to the Rehoboth citizens and of the entire series of nublications in which we explained very clearly the policy of separate development to the voters of South Africa and also to the non-Whites of South Africa. But—and this is the gist of the matter— I concluded by telling the hon member in the debate last year that I would continue with this task, but that I would never drag in National Party politicking, but that I would expound Government policy affecting the voter; that it was not my duty to convey party politics, but that it was in fact my duty to convey to the voter what affected him, and that this was what I was doing. I told the hon. member last year, as he will recall, that I challenged him to watch what I was doing in the year which lay ahead and not to come forward subsequently with a lot of wild accusations and statements, but to show me in this debate this year where I had specifically overstepped the mark, according to him, and then to attack me on these grounds, and that I would then reply to him. Sir, I have waited for an attack, but none has been made, nor will one be made, because this Department knows what its duty is and what is in the interests of South Africa. We will see to it that the Department does not play politics, but Government policy affecting the voters will definitely be conveyed by the Department in such a way that it will never be possible to accuse us of dragging politics into the matter.

What you regard as Government policy, I regard as Nationalist Party politics.

The hon. member says that what I call Government policy he calls National Party politics. In other words, I am playing politics in this Department. Let me make this very clear to the hon. member: This Party has a political policy and that Party has a political policy. This Party’s political policy has been tested against the opinion of the voters, of the people, in a democratic state and the voters preferred this Party’s policy to that of that Party. This Party’s policy therefore becomes Government policy now …

The policy of the country.

… becomes the policy of the country and is implemented in practice.

It is nevertheless a political policy.

I maintain that there is a political policy and a Government policy the hon. member must not misinterpret me. The policy of the Government is being implemented. and it is the talk of the Minister of Information and of the Department of Information to convey Government policy in all its aspects to the voters outside, because what this Government decides on any matter whatsoever, affects the voter. But what that party decides in its wisdom, in its caucus rooms, does not affect the voter because it is not being implemented, because that party is in opposition. Does the hon. member understand it now. The policy of that party does not affect the voters in any way. If that party were ever to take over the Government, then it would be the duty of the Department of Information then to carry out that policy and to explain it to the voters. Sir, let us understand one another well: I shall not swerve from this course I am following. I shall continue along this course; it is my task.

Sir, I have another two matters I want to touch upon before I resume my seat. I want to say a few brief words about the guest programme, i.e. that we have been tremendously successful in that sphere. I intended reading out all kinds of quotations here from various letters written by guests who were here, but I am not going to do so; it is not necessary. Hon. members will accept my word for it. We have had 167 guests here from more than 20 countries, and in addition to that assistance has been rendered by the Department in some way or another to 553 visitors. In the case of all these people we were in my opinion 99,9 per cent successful. not in the sense that these people went back and suddenly became pro-South African. but in this sense that they returned to their countries with the realization that the problems of South Africa were far more complicated than they had ever imagined. In the second place, they realized that the people in South Africa were openly and very frankly engaged in solving a difficult problem to the best of their ability with the insight they had, that the people had not adopted a dogmatic standpoint in regard to the matter, but that they were practical people with their feet planted firmly on the ground, conducting an open dialogue with an Opposition in Parliament in regard to these matters, and that they were in all respects earnestly and honestly engaged in and were filled with a desire to solve the problems to the satisfaction of every member of the population. White and non-White, as well as the world outside. if that were practicable.

They also realized that this country had a free Press. Most people who come here, cannot read Afrikaans; they read the English-language newspapers. When they come to my office they say: “Do you know, if I had not heard the standpoint of the Government from you, I would never have found out what it was; all I read in the newspapers is criticism of the Government and not one single positive opinion”. This is a thing that proves that we have a free Press in South Africa. It is carried to the world outside that this is not a state in which the Press is being restricted. We shall not restrict the Press unless it carries on in a reckless manner. I know that a responsible Press will not do that. We attach great value to the freedom of the Press. We shall always do that.

This guest programme as such has been a great success. A great many people return and write articles in which they say to their own people: “Look, I was not converted in the 21 days or four weeks I spent in South Africa; but I now realize their problem, and we who are sitting 6 000 or 8 000 miles away from them must not condemn those people so readily. We should rather go and take a look at their problems and then we will have a better understanding of what they are faced with.” We shall continue with our guest programme as in the past. I wish I could expand it. Unfortunately the funds are not available to do so, but we shall continue with it at the same rate as we have been doing over the past few years.

I now want to conclude with a few ideas about our overseas officers as such and the work which is being done abroad, as well as the methods. Here I want to refer in particular to the short article written by the hon. member for Von Brandis, as well as the arguments which were raised here today. Before I come to foreign matters, I must just say that I have now listened to speeches from both sides of the House. I want to say at once that we conducted the debate on a much higher level this year than last year. We all admit and accept that. Much more effective and more positive contributions were made. I am grateful for this. I now want to make a provisional appeal to hon. members. Let us at least try to keep the debate on this Department on that level, in spite of whatever may happen. If I step over the mark, I am looking for trouble and the hon. member for Orange Grove may again act as he acted last year. He did the wrong thing last year, if he is entitled to do so, I wish him every joy with it.

We have no objection to your rising to our level.

The hon. member’s problem is that only after I had spoken last year and made all these announcements was he able to rise to the level to which I had already attained. That is his problem. This year he is on that level. I welcome him there from the bottom of my heart. I hope he stays there. I want in addition to thank the hon. members on my side and also on the other side of the House for the debate and the way in which it has been conducted.

I want to express a few specific ideas about our foreign affairs. In the first instance the complaint was made—and I think it came from the hon. member for Orange Grove—that too many foreign information officers emanated from the National Party-oriented or Afrikaans newspaper world. I want to inform the hon. member at once that there is no closed selection or closed ranks for these people. The fact of the matter is that posts for the Department are advertised in the normal way, and people apply for them. A man is appointed to that post according to qualifications and ability. But the hon. member’s question was such that he was not able to obtain all the information. He referred specifically to the heads of overseas missions. But I have a number of people at head office who were associated with English-language newspapers. I have people in other positions in the Department who were associated with English-language newspapers.

I shall phrase the question more generally.

Yes. But I immediately want to concede to the hon. member that he is correct; there are more people in my Department who were formerly associated with Afrikaans-language newspapers than with English-language newspapers I want to concede at once that he is correct on that score. There is no argument about that. But the fact remains that the posts are advertised and that the people make application and are appointed. It may be that the English-language newspapers pay their people higher salaries and that it does not pay them to come to my Department; I do not know what the reason is. But the fact remains that there are no closed ranks. Every man with the necessary background has a chance of being appointed. In fact, we would welcome it if well-disposed, objective persons from the ranks of the English-speaking sector were to join us, because we could use them to good effect in the English-speaking countries of the world. There is therefore no problem.

I should like to spend a few minutes on the article written by the hon. member for Von Brandis, and I want to say at once that I think the hon. member oversimplified the problem—in this sense that he seemed to create the impression that if only a few little principles were applied, the problem could be solved. I want to admit that it is clear that the hon. member has a very good concept of the problem. However, it is not as easy as he tries to make it out to be. For example, it is easy for the hon. member to say that one should try to sell one’s country on the basis of its strong points—for example its economy. But the fact remains that one cannot dissociate one’s country from its Government and the policy of its Government. Let me mention an example, which immediately places the hon. member’s statement in its correct perspective. Britain under Wilson presented an entirely different image to the outside world than Britain under Heath, in spite of the same economic strength, the same potential, the same resources, etc. Yet there was a tremendous difference between England under Wilson and England under Heath. [Interjections.] Hon. members think they have the instant solution, but I maintain that you cannot dissociate your country from its Government. An information officer cannot therefore devote all his attention to promoting his country’s economic resources and other strong points while keeping those things in which the world is really interested quiet, things favourable or unfavourable to your country, but things in which the people overseas are interested. For example, there is the policy of separate development, the policy of multi-nationality and race relationships. If an information officer were to keep these quiet, he would immediately be branded as a man whose credibility, could be called in question because he would only be telling half the story. Consequently they would afterwards begin to disbelieve the other half of his story as well. I maintain therefore that our officers must give the full information, accentuating the right points, without flinching. For let me say this as something I am convinced of: We have nothing to flinch from. The policy of separate development which we are applying at the moment is, as surely as I stand here, the solution to our problems in this country, and if the outside world could only be brought to understand this concept correctly, and not as they think it is, they will also in due course understand that this is the only solution.

Including petty apartheid?

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt adequately with that story, and consequently I am not going to discuss it again. One often finds that one of our information officers is asked to address a conference, or something similar, on our economy, for example, or our imports and exports. He then devotes his entire speech to that theme and supplies detailed particulars, percentages, figures—everything necessary to make his case clear. But during question time questions about separate development, apartheid and things of that nature, are immediately put. These are the things the public there is interested in, and it will be of no use therefore to try to apply the over-simplified solution of the hon. member for Von Brandis. It simply does not work out like that in practice.

Another argument which was raised last year in particular, was that officials of the Department of Information should not carry out our task of conveying information overseas, that it is wrong for them to do so, that it should be left to our diplomats. That was their standpoint last year, that trained diplomats should perform this service. What are those information officers doing there then? But this year the hon. member for Von Brandis writes an article entitled “Cow-catcher of Diplomacy”, and who is this “cow-catcher”? The information officer. He is the man who has to prepare the way to enable the diplomat to do his work. In other words, here we have a completely different attitude to the one last year. Then the information officer was not necessary, and the work had to be left to the diplomat. This year, we must lead the way, so that the diplomat is able to do his work. That is the present attitude. Apparently the hon. member has also gained a new insight now, the insight that there must be the closest liaison between the diplomatic service of the Department of Foreign Affairs and all other accredited persons—the immigration officer, the information officer, the trade officer, military attaches, agricultural representatives, or what have you. Each of them is an expert in his own sphere and as such is indispensable in his position; he has a duty to perform and therefore cannot merely be pushed aside. But I am pleased that hon. members opposite have now accepted that attitude. It has been the experience of many of our information officers that it is in this way that they are best able to perform their task.

To the hon. member for Von Brandis I want to say in conclusion that his article in general was welcome in so far as it contained positive criticism. As I have said, he over-simplified the matter and presented it as a typical example of numerous letters. I am aware of the specific situation. I am aware of the overall situation. I am aware of the fact that the specific medical practitioner went there for post-graduate study. I have the name of the person who wrote the letter available. I do not want to mention it across the floor of this House. I think the hon. member will understand this. But I have seen the letter myself. I just want to say to the hon. member that that letter was followed by an interview not with the ambassador, but with the specific information officer. Apparently that person was quite satisfied when he walked out there. He was aware that he had not understood the problem very well. I am not going to mention his name, because that might cause embarrassment. The hon. member will understand this. But the fact of the matter is that a satisfactory solution was found in that man’s case.

Let me inform the hon. House in passing about the problems experienced by our people in overseas countries. Many of our people travel overseas. When they return, they ask us what we are doing in overseas countries. They say that nowhere do they see any sign of what we are doing. I want to reply to that question with a counter-question. What does the ordinary John Citizen in the street in South Africa know about China or Japan or any other country? If a person is not specifically interested in such a country, he knows nothing about it. If that person takes a specific interest, he goes to that country’s embassy and obtains information from the information office. We experience this every day. When a person plans an overseas trip, he studies the countries to which he is going. Then he makes inquiries. He takes the trouble to obtain the information. Usually the information does not fall on his head out of a clear sky. He must make specific inquiries in that regard. Our ordinary travellers going overseas return to say that they are astounded, when they note that the people overseas know nothing about South Africa. They are surprised that our information service is doing nothing. But how precisely must the masses be reached? What expenses does this not involve? Every person overseas who wants to know something about South Africa can acquire the information if he makes the necessary inquiries. This I want to say at once to the hon. members, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. It is not easy to make information available to all.

What is the specific task of our information officer? I want to state his task in this way. I want to compare the task of our information officer overseas with human relationships. In the same way you as a person, when you introduce an intimate friend of yours to a good acquaintance, and discuss him, so our information officer introduces South Africa to the country in which he finds himself. This is the relationship which ought to exist, and this is the relationship our people are trying to achieve. How does it work in practice? First one must have some knowledge of this new acquaintance of yours. How does he approach a matter What does he accentuate? What does he want emphasized? What are his feelings? What must you tell him about your friend that will make a good impression on him? You must have knowledge of the person in question. In this way our information officers must also have knowledge of the country in which they find themselves. They must know about that country’s customs and habits. He must know what counts for a great deal in that country, and not in another. In the first place he must know what the approach there is. In the second place he must know his own bosom friend very well. He must know all his problems and weaknesses and he must also know his good points and good qualities. This must be conveyed with warmth and affection to the other man and he must be told who he is and what he is like. The same must be done in regard to South Africa. After the two have been introduced to one another and your own friend has gone off, it will of course happen, when you and the acquaintance are standing there chatting, that he will subsequently ask you about the poor qualities he has heard about. Then you must be able to reply to that. Ultimately he is going to tell you that he has heard some gossip about your friend. You must be in a position to say that this is false information and mere gossip-mongering, and you must be able to supply the facts. This is the relationship I should like to see, and which I know our men across the ocean are conveying and accomplishing in a very competent manner. This is not being done on a small scale. In America for example, in one place like New York, 188 lectures have been held during the period which has just been reported on. Two hundred television and radio interviews were conducted, and our people there participated in discussion programmes. Often our men there even had to resist militant attacks for the sake of South Africa, this country of ours. People openly stood up and refused to allow him to speak or grabbed the microphone out of his hand. In such cases the chairman was unable to control the proceedings. In this way they wanted to prevent him from speaking. All this our men there are enduring for the sake of South Africa. We must mete out the highest praise and tribute to those men who are fighting in the front lines and who are coping with this matter in such a good way.

I want to conclude.

Hear, hear!

Yes, after such a dressing-down one would say “hear, hear”, if it were coming to an end. This Department will continue, as is its duty and as it has been instructed to do, to convey the image of South Africa, our beloved fatherland, in all its aspects to the outside world, and at home to tell the public of South Africa, White and non-White what the Government is envisaging, what it is doing and where it is going, so that no one will be left in the dark in regard to our purpose and our final destination towards which we are moving.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister thinks that the discussion of this Vote has concluded. because I should like to add a few words. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I should like to wish him bon voyage. I think this is his first visit overseas as a Minister, and he is visiting many countries. I want to say that I think this Minister is able, articulate, a man with deep convictions and perhaps most of all, he is supremely self-confident. I will tell him that he is going to need all those qualities when he goes overseas.

Are you proposing to him?

No, I am trying to give him a little motherly advice, because in this particular field I have perhaps had a little more experience than the hon. the Minister. I may also say that when I go overseas, it is possible that I go with an advantage vis-à-vis the hon. the Minister, in that I go as someone who is known to be an opponent of the Government’s race policies. There is no question about that When the hon. the Minister goes, he goes as a proponent of the Government’s racial policies. He is not going to find it easy. I am sure he knows that that will be the case, that is, if he is going to expose himself to the environs of less, shall I say, secluded atmospheres than the offices of the Department of Information which he is going to visit overseas. I assume that when the hon. the Minister is overseas he is going to take the opportunity of looking around a bit, and perhaps confronting other people and allowing himself to be confronted, so that he can ensure some exchange of ideas. Otherwise I feel that a good deal of the time, trouble and expense involved in this trip is going to be wasted. It will be excellent if the hon. the Minister did give himself the opportunity of exchanging views with people other than South African Government officials in our information offices.

I want to warn the hon. the Minister that he must not think that he is going to be confronted by people who are ignorant about South Africa. It is true that unless people take the trouble to become acquainted with South Africa and South African conditions, they will remain ignorant, and there are many ignorant people overseas, but there are also people who are extremely well-informed about South Africa. They have made it their business to become well-informed. When the hon. the Minister perhaps agrees to appear on a television programme in some debate or other, he must not go there with the attitude that he will know everything and that his opponents will know nothing. I can assure the hon. the Minister that that is not going to be the case. We had an interesting example of this sort of thing in the Press today. The annual general meeting of Barclays Bank in London was held recently, and the astonished directors of Barclays Bank found themselves confronted by a body of people who had obviously attended for the specific purpose of making things as difficult as possible for the governors of the bank. The hon. the Minister is going to find himself in that position, and my advice to him is to realize this. He must not be so supremely self-confident that he thinks he is going to be able to deal with everything easily, that all the facts and figures are going to be at his fingertips and that they are not going to be at the fingertips of his opponents. People have taken a special interest in South Africa because race happens to be the main subject of this last third of the twentieth century. It is a subject of profound interest to everybody and I can assure the hon. the Minister that for every example of positive achievement of separate development he can present, they are going to be able to put some extremely telling and difficult questions for him to answer. I hope he realizes that.

The Minister tells us too that he is going to have to explain what he calls “Government policy” and what other people call “Nationalist Party policy” to the people overseas. I want to wish him the best of British luck when he tries to explain the sports policy. The hon. the Minister might be able to explain what it is, in other words, that we can have mixed teams going overseas and that we can have mixed teams playing against an African team, a Coloured team, a White team or an Indian team in South Africa. He can possibly explain what the tennis situation is, and so forth. But what he will not be able to explain, is the logic of this policy. That will be very difficult indeed for him.

I also do not envy his task in explaining why it has taken a modern, industrial, developed country like South Africa 20 years longer than some of the least developed countries in Africa, to have television. I hope he will have all these answers at his fingertips, because he will need them.

I agree with two things that the hon. the Minister has said in this debate. The first is that what impresses the guests of the Department of Information most when they come out here, is the freedom of the English-medium Press which, as he rightly says, is all that the vast majority of them are able to read. This is so. I sincerely hope that hon. members—and I see one of them not a thousand miles from here, who shall be nameless—who have been contemplating thoughts of censorship and curbs of the Press, will take note of what the hon. the Minister has said, namely that if there is anything that is more designed than anything else to reduce South Africa utterly in the eyes of the outside world, it is to contemplate or even, I might say, to campaign for any restrictions on Press freedom. I agree with the hon. the Minister. This is what astonishes people most after they have discovered that we do not have television. This is the second surprising factor about South Africa.

And when they find that we are not a police state.

Well, in some respects, of course, as far as Africans are concerned, you might say there is a very close resemblance to a police state. But for the White people, there is a Parliamentary democracy and, with a little bit of luck, as they say, the Government can even be voted out of office. However, these are the two factors that mostly impress people.

The other thing that I agree with the hon. the Minister about, is his statement that it is not a good policy to present half truths, because if one presents half truths in one’s propaganda, then the whole truth is not likely to be believed. In other words, the whole credibility of the Government goes overboard. Therefore, I really think that more attention ought to be paid to some of the journals that are published by the Department of Information. I think these journals, for instance, Care, are mostly published for internal consumption, but I presume, not entirely for internal consumption. They go abroad as well. Then there is baNtu.

baNtu is mainly for internal consumption.

Yes, but anybody who lives in this country who is trying to understand the policy, will be aware of many of the half truths and, indeed, sometimes downright untruths that appear in some of these journals. I should like to give an example from the August, 1970 issue of baNtu. Much is written in this issue about the development of mining in the homelands. The following extraordinary statement is made in this journal—

We know that that is a lot of nonsense. We know that the hon. the Minister of Mines has not been able to tackle the question of allowing Africans to do skilled work in the mines in the Bantu homelands. There have been debates in this House about this. Why put this sort of statement into baNtu.

We say it is the policy of the Government.

No, it actually says the State encourages the advancement of Bantu. How do you encourage something by doing absolutely nothing about it? This gives the impression that Africans are already filling the most skilled and lucrative mining posts in their own homelands. It is not true. There is a lof of other stuff in these journals that I could mention as examples. I will take another example from Care. There is a lot of good positive stuff in these journals, but I think the hon. the Minister ruins his publications when he allows that sort of statement to be published, a statement which is obviously a half truth, if not a gross exaggeration. I want to mention another example in Care. I will give the hon. the Minister the exact reference later, but on page 5 of this issue appears the following about welfare work amongst the Bantu:

Whereas the family was a unit of great stability under tribal conditions, urban life imposes strains upon it which all too frequently cause its disintegration.

Anybody who knows anything about the Government’s migratory labour policy and how the Government is deliberately attempting to put as much of the labour force as possible on the migratory labour system, knows that the Government is not doing its best to maintain the family unit among African people. It is absurd to publish statements like that. To read this, one would think that every child who belongs to a working mother could get into a crèche. One would think that kwashiorkor was completely under control. It mentions that aged Bantu are paid old-age pensions. This is true enough, but it very carefully does not mention how much they are paid and how impossible it is to live on the amount they are paid. [Time expired.]

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. In the first place I am fully aware of the task in store for me on my overseas journey. One had a foretaste of it on previous occasions during an informal journey. One gets a foretaste of it in the interviews one conducts with numerous journalists from abroad who come to visit one in one’s office, and I think one gains some experience of the kind of questions they ask. On the other hand, I realize that they come here as guests of the department and that they adopt quite a moderate attitude, but when I am over there I suppose things will be a bit more hectic.

†I really appreciate the position and I can assure the hon. member that I am fully aware of the problems that lie ahead of me. I can assure her at the same time that I will go and do what I think should be done for South Africa, because I believe in what I say. I believe in what we do and I am convinced that the moral basis of our policy is such that I can defend it in any discussion. I realize the problems and that it will not be easy, but at the same time I have the conviction and the courage of my convictions to go there and tell the story as I know it to be true of South Africa.

In connection with the further arguments of the hon. member—I am not going to deal with policy arguments, etc.—in regard to incorrect statements in certain of our brochures, if the hon. member will give us the full details, I will give her a written reply in each case, because I think it is necessary that these things should be 100 per cent correct. Although we are not trying to evade certain situations, or trying to get out of certain positions, at the same time I think we must have our information correct. I will go into the matter and let her have replies as soon as she gives me the information.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 39,—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R158 040 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 22.—“Social Welfare and Pensions”, R1 500 000:

The Vote which is before the Committee now is indeed an important one because it affects the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people who have to depend to a great extent on the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for assistance. Some weeks ago we had a debate in this House lasting the normal 2½ hours dealing with the care of the White aged in South Africa, and we had an opportunity of raising various matters in that debate with the hon. the Minister. This afternoon we do not intend to cover the same ground which was covered in that debate. However, we wish to bring to the notice of the Committee and the hon. the Minister various aspects concerning the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, which we believe still require attention.

I think the first matter which requires urgent attention is the fact that the spiralling cost of living in South Africa today is affecting all racial groups. We find that this is going to create additional problems for the persons concerned, particularly the poor and the needy and those in the lower-income groups. At the same time, because of a lack of sufficient financial assistance from the Central Government, there will be an increase in the pressure of demand on the various welfare organizations which endeavour to alleviate the plight of many of these people. Let us first and foremost take the position of the lower-income groups, and here I include the social pensioners. We know that the Budget which was presented to this House brought about certain improvements and granted certain concessions to these pensioners. Unfortunately, in dealing with this Vote we can only deal with the White persons who are the responsibility of this Minister, but of course we also realize that a yardstick is taken from the amounts that are granted to the White social pensioners and a ratio is applied in allowing social concessions to the non-White group. Consequently the increase that was granted of R3 per month to social pensioners, has in fact meant that they will apply a formula giving only R1-50 increase in the pensions granted to Indians and Coloureds, and only 75 cents a month to a Bantu who draws a social pension. I do hope that in the not too distant future the Government will take into consideration the unrealizatic ratio that is now in existence and will review the situation. This hon. Minister, as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, is responsible for the White social pensioners but we know that the increases granted to the other groups are based on the increases granted to the White social pensioners.

Sir, it is always tempting in discussing this Vote to compare the policy of this side of the House with the policy of the ruling party, the Nationalist Party. We differ basically in that we on this side of the House believe that it is possible to introduce a national contributory scheme in South Africa without making a welfare state of this country. We believe that it would be in the interests of South Africa to have such a system in terms of which everybody will be able to qualify for a pension. However, we are dealing mainly this afternoon with short-term solutions to the situation as its exists in South Africa today. We are looking here today at the position of people who are dependent upon a pension of some kind, whether it be a social pension or a civil pension or a grant, from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

In this connection the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to his stated policy of keeping people in the community for as long as possible. This is an important statement of policy which has been repeated many times by the hon. the Minister and with which we agree, but it is difficult to see how this policy can be implemented while the means test remains in force. It is true that the means test has been extended to a certain extent as a result of the increase in the basic pensions payable but the ceiling of the means test is still low and the pension of R38 per month is very low indeed. Many of these people are only able to remain in the community because they receive assistance from welfare organizations which have themselves been experiencing considerable difficulties in assisting many of these people because they themselves are short of funds.

First of all, Sir, I would like to deal with some aspects of the means test, because this is, after all, a short-term solution to the problem. As long as you have a means test in existence anomalies will continue to arise. Although we welcome the increase in the basic pension and the relaxation of the means test, the present income ceiling in applying the means test does still present a number of problems. I refer particularly to persons who are receiving small pensions from past employers. In many cases the effects of the receipt of such a pension from a past employer is to reduce the social pension that is payable. Many people who have been receiving a pension from a private pension fund and also a social pension find themselves in the difficult position that an increase in their private pension sometimes results in a partial loss of their old-age pension, for example, with the result that they suffer an over-all loss. I had a case quite recently which highlighted this difficulty where a person was receiving R40 per month from a past employer. This pensioner was a widow who was entitled, in terms of the means test, to receive a basic pension of R10 per month; she received an additional R10 per month as an additional allowance in view of the fact that she qualified for a pension after the age of 64. She also received an additional R10 per month as an attendance allowance due to her failing health. She was therefore receiving a total of R30 per month from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. However, immediately her pension from the private sector was increased, she lost her pension from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions entirely. This meant that the increase of some R14 per month that was granted and which increased her pension to R54 per month placed her in a very much worse position than she was previously. Surely, it is not the object to apply the means test on this basis. We know that a pensioner does not lose his pension as a result of a revaluation of property. His pension is paid at the same rate as it was at the time when the person first applied. Therefore, the position as far as the revaluation of property is concerned, allows these people to continue to receive their pension in spite of an increase in the rateable value of their property. This is one of the aspects of the means test to which the hon. Minister should give his consideration. Where a person has been awarded a pension on that basis, the Minister should disregard an increase in that particular private pension, for example, if they should receive an additional amount of pension from the other source, but this will have to be subjected to a certain limit. In that way he can prevent these people losing their social pensions.

There are other aspects of the means test which were incorporated in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. At this stage I do not intend going into these matters in any detail. I think the position is quite clear that there are certain aspects which require clarification. One of those concerns the war pensions for those who are receiving war-disablement pensions. In terms of the announcement of the hon. the Minister of Finance their bonuses are to be increased by some 5 per cent. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this would result in the position that those persons who are also receiving war veterans’ pensions will have their war veterans’ pensions reduced by the equivalent of the increase in their war-disablement pensions. Obviously we do not wish to see a person receiving an increase on the one hand and losing it on the other hand.

Then there is another matter, namely, the assistance to welfare organizations. This is indeed a very important factor, particularly in regard to the Minister’s policy of keeping persons in the community. Here I would like to refer to the position as far as service centres and clubs for the aged are concerned. If one looks at the Estimates one sees that there has been an increase in the amount of subsidies payable to clubs for the aged. In many of these instances the clubs for the aged also use service centres as community centres, whereby they provide ancillary services to old persons who are still in the community. In terms of the Estimates which are before us, we see that this amount for the clubs for the aged is now to be increased from R5 000 to R23 000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned certain matters here which he would like to have seen improved. These are particularly matters with reference to the means test. These are, of course, matters to which the hon. the Minister will have to give attention. I think that every person who makes a study of our pension system, and of the relaxation of the means test, will have to concede that there has been a considerable relaxation over the years. That is probably one of the reasons why the number of pensioners increased from 83 000 in 1955 to 107 000 this year. The means test has been relaxed almost every year, and each year concessions have been made. I definitely believe that, as always, the Government will do everything it can to facilitate tate the lot of the aged. The Government will probably do so again. If we look at the care of the aged in South Africa— and this includes old-age homes and all possible means that have been established for the better care of the aged—I think that I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the standard which we have achieved and are maintaining has never been higher than it is today in our country. This does not only apply in respect of the care of the aged, it also applies to child care. Never before has as much been done for the care of the child as it is being done at present. This was done by way of children’s homes, places of safety and all such places. The standards of those children’s homes and places have increased tremendously over the past few years.

On this occasion I particularly want to thank the hon. the Minister very warmly for the increase in the overall allowances for children in children’s homes. Hon. members know that the needs of children in children’s homes are tremendously acute. With the means that such committees, which finance children’s homes, have at their disposal, they simply cannot provide for all the needs of the children. That is why we are so grateful for the big concession that has again been made this year in respect of children’s homes.

In the few minutes I have left I want to speak about another matter. It is now five years since the commencement, in 1965, of the Act whereby the National Welfare Board was established with its committees and regional boards and their work was defined and mapped out for the future. I want to remind hon. members that in the 1966 report of the Department the Secretary stated the following (translation)—

After we have now had five years in which the Welfare Board has had a chance to function, we can, at the conclusion of that period, testify and say that although there are probably still many patches that can be smoothed out and improved, not only was this object pursued, but a tremendous amount was also achieved in respect of increasing the standards of welfare work, the advice that was given to the Minister by the various committees that were appointed, and also the great and important work that was done by the regional welfare boards. I asked other persons serving with me on the Welfare Board and also those on regional welfare boards what they had found. All of them confirmed that as a result of the regional conferences, and also as a result of the conferences at various places in the areas, we have taken a tremendous step forward in respect of the co-ordination of welfare services so that overlapping of one welfare organization with another was gradually eliminated, and that the various welfare organizations saw eye to eye to a greater extent. I now just want to say that since this board’s period has lapsed, and in view of our gratitude for what this board and all its branches could achieve, we must think of the maintenance of the concept of continuity. I know that it is not necessary to prescribe to the Minister, and neither would I be so presumptious as to do so. I know that he himself probably has in mind that when such a board is constituted this principle should, after all, be very strongly maintained. That this great work done by the Welfare Board, and the important achievements already made, should continue, it is almost unthinkable if an altogether new board is established. On this occasion I want to pay tribute to the persons serving on the various commissions of these boards. All of them are people occupying high positions in this field, people who are very well grounded technically and who can speak with the utmost authority about this great and important work, i.e. welfare work. The board has also succeeded, to a large extent, in affecting co-ordination between the departments and the myriad welfare organizations that exist. I believe that in future this will continue to a very large extent.

There is another small matter I should also like to broach, i.e. the important contribution the Department makes in respect of those suffering severe mental retardation. There is now a delimination to the effect that children under a certain age, who can still be trained, will be looked after by the Department of Higher Education. Children in such an institution, and in my constituency of Kimberley there is such an institution, who are above the previously mentioned age, then become the responsibility, as far as their care is concerned, of the Department of Social Welfare. In Kimberley I was told that I should specially emphasize how active this Department of the Minister is in respect of the plight of those persons, and the appreciation they feel for the great help the Department gives them in the care of those persons. We hope it will continue so that a future can also be worked out for those suffering severe mental retardation, and so that they will not be a burden to others, but can be properly cared for until the day they die.

Now I should just like to raise one matter in respect of children’s homes, i.e. the matter of subsidizing the staff. A subsidy is granted to persons having certain academic qualifications; but the majority of the staff consists of people who have not had that training. Now we cannot offer them a proper salary from the sources at our disposal. This entails that the standards of our children’s homes are not always what they should be. I want to ask that the Minister should perhaps consider the principle, if possible, of paying a subsidy in the future in respect of not only welfare workers, but everyone doing this work, even though they are not qualified, so that we can obtain a better type of person for this work.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley South is a man who takes a very keen interest in child welfare. I appreciate his sincerity in the pleas he makes in this House on behalf of dedicated people who devote much time and energy to improving the position as far as child welfare in South Africa is concerned.

I would also like to mention that we on this side of the House welcome the increases that were announced during the course of the Budget speech by the Minister of Finance. We feel that the increases granted to child welfare are indeed well directed, particularly in view of the fact that many of the child welfare organizations are also experiencing a great deal of difficulty in present circumstances. I would like to mention that I recently saw the report of the Durban Child Welfare Society, dealing with the social case work. This, hon. members will realize, is an essential basis of child welfare work, where the majority of children are directed into children’s homes, investigations and reports are made and preventive and rehabilitation services are rendered. They state in their report—

The report then lists certain problems that have been experienced and continues—

They list them as follows—

1. (a) Rising cost of living not commensurate with income of the unskilled breadwinners;
2. (b) lack of cheap housing for the lower income group.

They then list the others, which deal with the lack of day crèches, marital problems, and the question of divorce. It would be interesting to know from the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the debate, what progress has been made following the report of the enquiry into the high divorce rate in South Africa, which is certainly one of the highest in the world, and which I understand is receiving the attention of the Family Life Commission, which is part of the national welfare set-up which we have in South Africa at the present time. This is indeed a very important aspect of welfare work in regard to which I am sure the country and this House would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether any progress has been made in the strengthening of family life in this country.

When the time expired during my previous speech I was dealing with certain aspects which we believe are short term, but which are indeed important to these persons as regards assistance from the Government and keeping especially social pensioners within the community for as long as possible. I would like to refer again to the question of the clubs for the aged, because evidently it is the policy of the Government to assist these organizations which are administering service centres and community centres for these people on quite a wide and, indeed, an increasing basis. This aspect has gained importance in recent times, partly as a result of the Minister’s stated policy of keeping people in the community for as long as possible. If one looks at the minutes of the National Council for the Welfare of the Aged, and also the conference that was held last month in Pretoria, one finds that there was a full discussion of the question of subsidies for the establishment of service centres, which can be part of homes for the aged but which provide very essential services, paramedical services, recreational services, meals on wheels and meals that are served at the centres, so as to assist many of these people to remain within the community for as long as possible. Many of these organizations are experiencing and have experienced in the past financial difficulties in that they have not been able to extend these services although their social workers have reported that there was an urgent need for such an extension of the meals-on-wheels and other auxiliary services. The National Council for the Care of the Aged is most concerned for this aspect to be further expanded so that it can play the important role it ought to play to keep these people within the community.

Another aspect in this connection is the question of employment. It has been announced in the Budget that in the case of women over 65 years of age, their earnings from employment will be disregarded. This is a welcome step in the right direction. It is important that these people be encouraged to seek some form of employment, either part-time or fulltime. The free limits prescribed by the means test, i.e. R40 for a married person and R20 for a single person are too low. These figures were laid down two years ago, I think, and in the light of salary increases in the meantime, the Minister ought to give consideration to increasing these limits too. I realize that he cannot do it at this stage because the Budget has already been delivered, but he ought to do so some time in future in order to encourage these people to play a greater part in the labour market, both for the benefit of the country and for themselves.

This leads me to another point, i.e. the means test as it applies to blind persons and people receiving disability grants. Only one-half of the income from employment of a blind person is at the moment being taken into account for the purposes of the means test. I think the hon. the Minister ought to create more encouraging circumstances for these people so as to encourage them to be more productive. It is most disappointing to many of them to find, after having received an increase in pay, that half of that increase is discounted. Similarly with persons receiving disability grants. These two ought to be treated on the same basis as those receiving blind persons’ pensions. If the hon. the Minister wants these people to remain active, he must give them some inducement, some encouragement. It is a pity that a person should just sit back and receive his disability grant while he could undertake some form of light employment.

This leads me to the following matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister— the care of crippled persons in South Africa. Some provision is made for assistance to organizations for the rehabilitation of crippled persons. For instance, under subhead O provision is made for R44 200 for the rehabilitation and social care of physically and mentally handicapped persons, while under sub-head R an amount of R8 000 is set aside for the care of the infirm and aged and as a subsidy to homes for cripples. These are very small amounts indeed. If one takes into account the enormous problems these organizations have to face, these amounts are very small indeed. I was interested in an article published in Social Work I Maatskaplike Werk, the official organ of social workers. This article deals with the national conference on employment problems of the handicapped. It says here that a draft Bill was being prepared, the Handicapped Persons Rehabilitation Bill. On pages 42 and 43 of the March edition of this publication, it is recommended that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should be the department that ought to tackle this problem.

At this stage I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his department is giving consideration to the recommendations of this conference, which clearly indicate that there is a great need, as far as the Government is concerned, for legislation and assistance to make crippled persons and the care of these crippled persons more productive in South Africa and to assist them generally. It was estimated that there are some 100 000 persons of all races who require assistance, who are crippled persons. They have not taken into account the fact that there are approximately 40 000 persons who are injured in car accidents every year. This is an increasing problem, which is facing us, due to the high accident rate that we have on our South African roads. I believe it is most important that these people can play an active part in the economy of South Africa and, indeed, in the community of South Africa. At this conference reference was made to architectural barriers that prevent many of these people from taking employment or, indeed, attending certain places of interest, which they would like to attend. It also deals with the question of sheltered employment, which I know falls under the hon. the Minister of Labour, but which is inadequate. It also generally deals with the welfare of these crippled persons so as to assist them and to find legislation which would give them additional assistance and co-ordinate various activities which are for their benefit and their re-integration into the community. (Time expired.]

The hon. member for Umbilo advocated here the interests of a large group of persons receiving financial and other aid from the Department. I want to agree with the hon. member in respect of the aged who are still working. For them there is the means test. Their earnings determine how much they can receive additionally from the Department. I also believe that we must try to keep these aged in employment for as long as possible. We shall perhaps have to take another look at this problem, irrespective of the ceiling we established with the means test. Notwithstanding the financial position and earning capacity of these people, we shall also have to take into account how they strengthen our manpower position. We shall also have to look at what the effects of being industriously active could be, generally, on the minds of those people. I agree with the hon. member. It will perhaps be necessary for us to look at that whole position again.

I believe that the hon. member also touched upon a very important matter at the end of his speech, i.e. that people who are injured in accidents are forming an increasingly larger group in our society. These are also people that we would like to maintain in the service of society. We shall increasingly have to look after the interests of those people who are disabled in that manner.

Initially the hon. member also referred to the divorce rate and to an investigation being conducted by the Department. I just want to tell the hon. member that there we do not differ either. I should like to exchange a few general ideas with the hon. the Minister specifically in connection with this important matter of our family life. I do so because of what the Minister said when he referred to the Drugs Act, which we shall probably have before us very soon. At the time the Minister made a few remarks about the decisive role which a sound family life plays in society, and particularly as a preventive measure, if one may use this term, against drug addiction. We can now speak of our natural resources, or whatever, as the country’s biggest asset. But I believe that at this juncture in time a sound family life is the biggest single asset we possess. I believe that we can reduce the prevailing value of a sound family life to two basic elements.

The first is that it is a preventive measure, a restraining factor, against corruptive elements acting upon society. That is also why the Minister specifically referred to that as a preventive measure against present-day addiction. But, Sir, it is specifically such a restraining factor because it is the nutrient source of what contributes creatively and formatively to the community’s welfare. This cannot be otherwise. If we now analyse the structure of a sound family life, we see its formative value in all spheres of life. This is how I see it, and I want to make the following classification: The family is essentially a labour community. There the members of the family together have the opportunity of being diligently employed. From the earliest age each member learns his tasks, and how to carry them out faithfully. This is specifically where diligence is generally fostered, so that eventually “labour ennobles” becomes the watchword and the rule of life of these people. When appeals are made for greater diligence and greater productivity, they are the people for whom such an appeal is a challenge. They are not going to sit back and see what they can earn with the least amount of work, and then hold out to commerce for a large wage at the end of the month.

Apart from the fact that the family is a labour community, it is also a community of authority. In an ordered labour community everything must function in an orderly fashion, otherwise there would be no productivity. This presupposes proper control. This entails that from somewhere authority and guidance must be forthcoming, preferably from the top—in this case from the parents. That is why the family is the place where the foundations are laid for the acceptance of authority, order and discipline. This we also greatly need at this juncture of time. These foundations are specifically laid in the family context. In addition the family is also an educational community. It is in truth the first training school. It is the first place where true education takes place. Language is learnt there. There the cultural pattern of every individual takes shape. There love is cultivated for that which is one’s own. There religion is developed, and the true practical application of religion comes to the fore. Predispositions are cultivated there, whether for religion, labour or whatever we may have in mind.

Because the family is a labour community, an educational community and a community of authority, I also want to call it a lot community. What are active in the family as formative factors will determine where the members of that family will eventually stand in the future, regardless of whether they are going to live to be 30 or 40 years old. Our destiny is actually decided in the family circle. If we do not have sound families we already have an indication of how our destinies will actually be decided.

I know that the Department has a subdivision for family life, and that they are engaged in certain programmes, but we may not ever leave this important matter of a sound family life solely in the hands of a sympathetic Department. We may never simply leave it solely to the Minister to talk about the importance of family life on occasions such as these when we are faced with the problem of drug addiction. We can fortunately still boast of the fact that we have sound family life, but it is not enough that we merely boast of the fact. It is the task of every one of us to speak about it and above all, of course, to set an example of sound family life in our practical living. I say that it is the task of all of us. Here, where we are assembled as the leaders of the people—not actually united because we sit in two separate camps—it is our task to speak to the outside world about these things and to emphasize them again every day. It is the task of school, church, Press and radio, i hey must continually advocate the preservation of sound family life, focus attention on it, underline its value and ceaselessly celebrate its virtues; because this would yield us dividends. It does not help for us to hold a family year on occasion, or that we have a Family Day once a year; it must not be that sporadic. Every day must actually be Family Day for us all, and if that were the case we would all derive joy from the fact, and this big asset of our people on which we must build will then, in truth, never succumb or be exhausted.

My colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, has expressed some ideas and views to the hon. the Minister on how we on this side of the House think that there can be certain improvements in the activities of his department. He has, however, touched on one subject which I want to come back to. In fact, the hon. member for Germiston District also mentioned it. That is the question of the employment of pensioners. Each and every one of us knows of pensioners today who would like to go out and work, but if they do take employment and earn more than a certain sum of money, the amount of their pension is affected. I think we must have a look at this once more. We cannot allow people who want to work to be kept off the labour market, especially a labour market which is so very short as the one we have today.

This Department of Social Welfare is a department where we do not play politics, and I do not think we should play politics. It is a department which concerns itself with the welfare of our aged, with the welfare of our under-privileged and with the welfare of our pensioners, a department whose task it is to relieve the plight of many of these people, and as such it deserves the support of both sides of the House. Of course we think there can be improvements and we tell the Minister about them as we go along. But I want to say right here and now that I do not want to make a “Thank you” speech to the Minister. But I think it is only fair that I should say to him that it is appreciated that there have been welcome improvements in benefits from his department over the last year in so far as allowances, bonuses and pensions are concerned. We are especially pleased with him about the concessions that we see in this Budget that we are discussing at the moment. In fact, it is the only bright ray in this very bleak Budget and I have no doubt it is due to the efforts of the hon. the Minister, and because of that he is now my favourite in the race for the Premier Stakes. I want to tell him that right now.

Because this Minister has shown himself to be a sympathetic Minister, I am going to plead once more for a little bit more for certain people. I am coming back to a subject which I have raised in this House I think once every year for the last 12 years. I am asking for more consideration for one very deserving section of our people. I refer to the war veterans of World War I.

Let me say at once that very many concessions have been made to them, concessions which are appreciated, but I think the time has arrived when the veterans of that war should be exempted from the means test. Fifty-three years have elapsed since that war ended and I do not think that any veterans of that war are under 75 years of age today. Many of them are in fact well over 75 years of age. Moreover, their numbers are diminishing fast. I believe that at the moment there are about 7 000 of them who still draw this pension. When we look at the Estimates for this year we find that the amount required for these pensioners has been reduced from R620 000 to R605 000, and this amount will diminish faster and faster. Just as the means test for AnglodBoer War veterans was abolished 43 years after the conclusion of that war, my appeal to the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that 53 years have elapsed since World War I, is that he should abolish the means test also as far as World War I veterans are concerned.

*We see in the Budget that an increased amount is requested for pensions for the Citizen Force and Commandos. We welcome this. South Africa’s Defence Force is a citizen force. We must look after these young men. We must bring it home to them, to their parents and to their relatives that the State will look after them if something should happen to them while undergoing their training. We welcome this increase. We realize that this amount will have to be increased annually as the number of men undergoing training increases.

Sir, there is only one other matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. We have mentioned the increase of the bonuses and allowances paid to State pensioners. These people’s pensions and bonuses are increased annually. But, Sir, there are people who draw pensions from private concerns, such as from companies and private employers, and who do not receive bonuses. We realize that the State cannot force those concerns to increase the pensions of those people. In other words, the pensions of those people remain at the same level, and I have been wondering whether it is not possible to meet such pensioners by exempting a certain portion of their income from income tax. This would be a great help to them, especially to those who receive small pensions. Sir, there are people who draw large pensions, and we all tend to think that they need no help because they receive large pensions, but we must remember that these people who receive large pensions are people who have made large contributions to our economy in the past, when they were still able to work. I think we should make certain concessions as regards income tax to them as well, and so alleviate their plight.

Sir, there is another matter I should like to raise. When I raised it the last time, Sir, you ruled me out of order, but I am sure you will not do so again. Therefore I just want to ask the hon. the Minister please to try and persuade his colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, on the definition of Bantu war pensioners. I am not asking him to do anything, because he cannot. And I also want to ask the hon. the Minister …

Why does the hon. member not ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when his Vote comes up for discussion?

Mr. Chairman, that will most certainly be done. But this hon. Minister is such a prominent and influential man in the Cabinet now that I want to ask him yet another question. It is in connection with the gap existing between the pensions of the Whites, the Coloured people, the Bantu and the Indians. I should like to see that gap narrowed. I hope that, in view of his increased status in the Cabinet, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will intercede on our behalf with the other hon. Ministers.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters in respect of which I agree with the hon. member for North Rand. One is that politics should not be made out of this Vote. I am glad that he did not do so either. In the second place I want to endorse the appreciation expressed to the Department and to the Government for this fine Budget for Social Welfare and Pensions. As far as the other matters are concerned, the hon. the Minister will probably reply to him.

I just want to comment on one remark he made. The hon. member said that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is now almost the new Prime Minister. I now want to tell him that it seems to me as if they were so frightened last week that they want to get away from the present Prime Minister now and try another one. But I am afraid that things will be just as tough there.

Mr. Chairman, I should refer to one of the biggest evils threatening the world at this moment, i.e. the question of drugs. The consequences of this social evil are actually incalculable. I do not ohly want to call it a social evil that must be eradicated in this country, but I also want to call it a plague that does immeasurable damage: to the individual, to the community and to the people. The world is not concerned about this evil, despite the damage it is causing. South African youth, our most valuable asset, have not escaped this either. We shall have to do a great deal to fight this evil. When I think of this evil, my thoughts are involuntarily carried back to the very well-known words:

This is not a fight against flesh and blood, but a fight against forces of evil in the air.

I therefore think of the three methods of combating this evil. The first method is education, because prevention is better than cure. In the second place this can be done by way of legislation, punitive measures and control measures, etc. In the third place, rehabilitation. I want to say that legislation, in the sense of this embracing control and deterrent measures, will be discussed here in due course. But I should like to say something about the other aspects of combating this, i.e. education and rehabilitation. As far as education is concerned, a great deal of research will have to be done; the actual origins of this tendency will have to be determined. Research will have to be done about the reasons for it, where it begins and how it can be combated by education. Agents such as the radio and the Press can, for example, be harnessed to make people work-conscious. In my opinion idleness is the foremost reason for this drug abuse. Idleness is the root of all evil, and that is why we find that the adherents of this hippy cult are not fond of work. There will consequently also have to be co-ordination between the various Departments. In so doing they can see what can be done to activate our youth to such an extent that they will be interested in working. The major percentage of these addicts do not work. They live by smuggling and perhaps have an odd job here and there, but the biggest question is, however, that these people are too lazy to work. I have seen how small groups of young people are developing an individual culture; perhaps I should call it a cult. They create an individual group life for themselves, and this has a detrimental effect on our other young people. This is one of the biggest problems we are faced with. As far as education is concerned, I am not thinking of the two per cent who make use of these drugs, I am thinking of the 98 per cent of our youth who could become addicts through the actions of these people. We find, for example, that the hippy tries to be a hero amongst school-children. Whatever the case may be, we find that these people can gain access to sport, to inter-sports meetings and there they make friends with the young boys and girls. Then they try to play the role of a hero in front of these young people. Now I come to the question of rehabilitation, rehabilitation of the two per cent of young people who are addicted to drugs. The hon. the Minister will probably agree with me that this rehabilitation will not be such an easy task. If Japan has, however, succeeded in combating the evil, we can also do so. In 1948 there were 40 000 addicts in Japan. In 1954 there were 30 000 addicts, and in 1956 there were only about 900 contraventions in this sphere. If they could combat it, we could probably also learn quite a lot by doing local research, and we could also do research with reference to the experience of other countries. I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister will, in fact, find a solution when he has these matters investigated and when he has research done in this connection, and that we shall succeed in our endeavours. With respect to the establishment of such centres, it would not help us to place such drug addicts in the same centres in which we place alcoholics, for example. We shall have to establish a separate, an independent centre. We shall have to regard these two evils as two separate evils that each has an individual nature and character. I then want to ask that when these matters are investigated, it should be borne in mind that such a centre would be a closed one. Such centres will have to be closed in such a sense that those people cannot receive visitors, however lamentable that may be. The fact remains that they will do every possible and impossible thing to get hold of these drugs again. Subsequently these people must be placed back into the family circle. We shall find that such a person’s family circle will give very wholehearted co-operation in welcoming him back into the family circle, and they will help him at the same time to get a good job so that he can again occupy a useful place in the community.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will accept that we share his sentiments and that we shall discuss the matter further when the hon. the Minister submits the necessary legislation to this House.

I just want to say how very pleased I am about the fact that the new arrangement in regard to the loan levy has brought considerable relief. Therefore, I wish to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to this hon. Minister, because I believe he has used his influence to a large extent to have the aged over 70 years of age exempted from the loan levy. I have received numerous letters from aged people, expressing their gratitude, but I have also received numerous letters in which these people asked whether the money they had paid in before would be returned to them. From others I have received letters in which they said they were dissatisfied because the age limit was not 65, while others were dissatisfied because not everyone over 70 was exempted from the loan levy. Perhaps the hon. the Minister may exercise some more of his good influence on the hon. the Minister of Finance.

However, I want to confine myself to the social pensioner and the increase of R3 per month, from R35 to R38 per month. I want to say at once that this increase does not keep pace with the increase in the cost of living, the increase in tariffs and the increased sales tax, in any way whatsoever. I want to go so far as to say that without the increase in the cost of living and without the increase in tariffs, our aged would have been better off also without the R3. Simply by looking at a few commodities, a few tariffs and a few price increases, one finds confirmation of what I have just said. However, when we on this side argue that pensions are not adequate, we get the argument from the opposite side that the United Party paid only R10 per month in 1948. Let us assume for the sake of argument that R10 is not sufficient in those years, and then let us look at what the position is today. I want to take the case of a pensioner, an old lady who is dependent solely on her social pension. Let us take a look at the price increases as they affect her in her expenditure on basic foodstuffs, a railway ticket, medical fees, postal tariffs, and a few other personal items. These will only be increases for the period from 1970 to 1971. Firstly, I want to mention foodstuffs. The price of meat increased from 27 cents to 30 cents per half pound. Allowing her half a pound of meat per day, it costs 90 cents extra per month. The price of milk increased from 7,1 cents to 7,3 cents per pint, and allowing her a pint per day, it costs her 6 cents extra per month. The price of butter increased from 39,5 cents to 43,5 cents per pound, and allowing her 2 pounds per month, it costs her 8 cents extra per month. The price of eggs increased from 32,2 cents per dozen to 33 cents per dozen. If we allow her 3 dozen per month, it will cost her 2,4 cents extra per month. The price of bread increased from 9,5 cents to II cents, and allowing her half a loaf of bread per day, it costs her 22,5 cents extra per month. The price of mealie meal increased from 34,5 cents to 35 cents per 10 pounds and this ought to cost her only half a cent extra per month. The price of tea increased from 37,9 cents to 40 cents per half pound, and by using one pound of tea per month, it costs her 4,2 cents extra per month. The price of 75 waft electric bulbs increased from 21 cents to 29 cents, and if she uses two per month it will cost her 16 cents extra per month. How do the increased railway tariffs affect her? suppose the old lady stays in Johannesburg and her family in Randfontein and that she only buys one return ticket per month in order to visit her children. It cost her 66 cents, but now it costs her 76 cents, in other words, 10 cents extra per month. Medical fees increased from R2-40 in 1966 to R3-50 per consultation, and allowing her one consultation per month, it costs her R1-10 extra per month. In addition there still is the increase in postal tariffs as well. The telephone rental is R6 per year now, and this costs her 50 cents extra. The charge for calls per three minute unit was increased from 3,5 cents to 4 cents per call, and allowing her only 10 three minute calls per month, this costs her 5 cents extra. Letters are an essential means of communication. Local postage was increased from 2½ cents to 4 cents. Ten letters cost her 50 cents extra per months. Airmail postage was increased to 5 cents from 3 cents; let her write five letters and these will cost her 10 cents extra per month. Let us take a look at personal items. She buys herself four cakes of soap. The price of a cake of soap increased from 11,5 cents to 12,2 cents. This costs her 2,8 cents extra. She buys herself a little talcum powder. The price of talcum powder increased from 51,8 cents to 59 cents. This costs her 7,2 cents extra. A small box of face powder of 70,6 cents now costs 82 cents. This costs her 11,4 cents extra. From 1970 to 1971, on a few minimal items, the cost of living for any aged person increased by R3-71 per month. And I have not even come to medicine, clothes, groceries, flowers, fruit and vegetables, cotton, washing powder, toothpaste, shoe polish, liquor or cigarettes. A report I read in the Sunday Tribune of a certain Mrs. Bobby Maynard, is complete proof of this matter to me. The report reads as follows—

But an item I have not even mentioned in any way whatsoever, is housing, the rent our aged people are paying for the small rooms in which they are living. It was quite interesting to read the following in the Express—

What is left of this R3 increase per month? I am sorry that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is not present here. He asked in this House: “What does an aged person buy? An aged person buys a cake of soap.”

You are talking nonsense—he never said any such thing.

Look it up in Hansard, in column 1022. It is that cake of soap, that haircut, that half a loaf of bread per day, those small items, those basic necessities, which add up, cent by cent, to rands.

The hon. the Minister warned, and quite rightly too, against over-specialization. He speaks of the right of our aged people to a mere independent existence, a right which must not be affected. Accordingly he expressed himself in the Star of 11th November last year, as follows—-

He said that if the aged were turned into leaners they would be divested of all independence and deprived of any part in the struggle for existence, since this would be a violation of their dignity as human beings. “Some individuals and bodies show a strong tendency to think of the aged primarily as a group who are, generally speaking, dependent and lonely. This is a completely wrong and unrealistic picture of our senior citizens. Over-protection has never served the best interests of any person or group. In fact, this kind of approach has already done a great deal of harm”.

The question arises: Are we making it possible for our aged to maintain their independence of the community while they are medically able to do so? That was why the private motion of the hon. member for Westdene earlier this session was so important to me, i.e. that an exhaustive investigation be made of the social and economic needs of our aged people in South Africa. Drastic adjustments are necessary. An increase of R3 is absolutely meaningless under circumstances of constant rises in the cost of living, because what can one do with R3? Let any hon. member take R3 out of his pocket today and see how far it will stretch. Simply have your hair cut, and that costs you 70 cents. After your haircut, buy yourself a tube of shaving cream and it costs you another 35 cents; a packet of razor blades will cost you 50 cents, and a bottle of after-shave lotion will cost you the same; a toothbrush costs you 35 cents, toothpaste 35 cents and soap 12 cents. How much does that leave of your R3?—only a few cents.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein, who had so much to say about pension allowances for our aged, that he has acted on the wrong premises. Pension allowances payable to aged people by the Government are certainly not meant to be their sole support. When the United Party Government was paying an allowance of R10 at that time it was not the intention that that R10 should be their only means of livelihood. That was not the intention. Old age pension is simply a contribution on the part of the State to make it easier for our aged people to provide in the necessities of life. The norm should be that every person, while he or she is still working, should save something for his or her old age. In addition, children also have a responsibility. Furthermore, there are also charitable institutions and churches, all of which are bodies which assist our elderly people. The past decades saw a change in regard to the treatment of our elderly people, a change which is encouraging and which we welcome. In the past pension allowances were very low and merely meant as additional aids for elderly people to make ends meet. These allowances were certainly not meant to provide in all their needs. The United Party, if ¡they were to come into power, would not be in favour either of the State providing the sole support of elderly people. There are various other methods, other than pension allowances, through which elderly people can be assisted. In the past few old age homes existed for these people. However, a complete change is noticeable today. We are taking steps to provide our elderly people with the care they deserve in society. It is a pleasure to me to visit elderly people and to talk to them and to show my respect for their grey hairs. After all, it was. Solomon who said: “Grey hair is the adornment of old age”. But it is not pleasant to see that an elderly person obviously is in want. This can be compared to somebody who wants to rest under an ancient tree at the side of the road when the tree is spoiled by dry branches. This is the feeling one experiences in the presence of an elderly person who is in need of many things. If everything is well with him, one can learn wisdom from him, the same as when one meditates under an old tree wondering what it would have been able to tell one of the things of the past if only it could speak.

Let us look at the concessions made by the Minister of Finance in his Budget. These were made in view of the effect the increase in the cost of living has on our elderly people. Examples of these concessions are the percentage rebate in respect of the valuation of a dwelling which has been increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. The assets of unmarried pensioners who want to re-marry, are no longer taken into account. In the past they have always been afraid that they would lose the pension allowance if they were to re-marry. Under the present conditions they may remarry and retain their pension. This is an important concession. For people above 70 years of age the income limit in the past was R576 but it has now been increased to R624 in order to enable them to qualify for the minimum allowance, which is another major concession. The limit of R14 400 in respect of the maximum assets has also been increased to R15 200 in order to enable them to qualify for the minimum pension. By the same token, the income of people above the age of 70 years has been increased by R800 in order to enable them to qualify. The additional earnings of a male above the age of 70 years and a female above the age of 65 years, if they were to take up employment, will no longer be taken into account as far as the means test is concerned. In other words, they are allowed to accept employment and they will no longer be disqualified because of the additional income. We also have concessions in respect of income tax. There are also income tax concessions, but let us consider further concessions which apply particularly to the civil pensioners and which are particularly accommodating. The bonuses of civil pensioners who retired prior to 1953 were calculated at 45 per cent, 40 per cent and 35 per cent of their basic pensions. In those years money was worth much more and people were better able to provide in their needs even though these amount were small. As a result of the decrease in the purchasing power of money, the authorities realized that a concession should be made to pensioners of that period, and this constitutes an important concession for which they are particularly grateful. The bonus percentage of all three of these groups has now been increased to 100 per cent of their basic pensions. I think the hon. member for Turffontein ought to read this part of the Budget and the report as well, to draw attention to this and not simply deal with it in a negative way. The scale lower down is as follows: The bonuses of pensioners who retired between 1st October 1953 and 30th September 1958 previously amounted to 30 per cent of their basic salaries. This has now been increased to 80 per cent. In respect of those who retired between 1st October 1958 and 30th September 1962 it was 20 per cent while it is 60 per cent now. So it goes on. For the period 1962 to 1965 it has been increased from 14 per cent to 40 per cent, i.e. an enormous percentage increase. For the period 1st October 1965 to 30th September 1968 it used to be 10 per cent; it is 30 per cent now. For the period 1st October 1968 to 30th September 1969 it used to be 5 per cent; it is 15 per cent now. For the period 1st October 1969 to 30th September 1970 it was nil; it is 10 per cent now. I have said that this constitutes a major concession for these people and that it compensates to a large extent for what they have lost through the years as well as for the loss in the purchasing power which that small bonus, if it had remained unchanged, would have meant to them.

I just want to make a plea in respect of the means test which is still being applied to people who have reached the age limit for old age pension purposes in so far as earnings from employment are concerned. To my mind this should be abolished completely. I have advanced a plea in favour of this before now. I want to ask that, when a female reaches the age of 60 years and has qualified for a pension in the course of her application, the extra earnings she receives when she takes up employment again, should not be taken into account as income. Surely, this will only apply for a period of five years because, as soon as she reaches the age of 60 years, the additional earnings she receives will no longer be a disqualification. The same should apply in the case of a male person from the age of 65 years and above. By doing this many more elderly people will be drawn into the labour market. [Time expired.]

I would like to say to the hon. member for Marico that any concession that the Government makes to ease the position of the means test will be very welcome on this side. Sir, I would like to add my voice to the voices of those hon. members who have already welcomed the concessions contained in the Budget in the shape of increases for social and civil pensioners and the relaxations which have been announced in regard to the means test. But I would also like to associate myself with the hon. member for Turffontein in saying that these increases in social pensions do no more than compensate for the increase in the cost of living that has taken place since social pensions were last raised, and do nothing really to compensate for the increases that are still taking place in the cost of living daily and are likely to continue to take place in the next few months. I would like, Sir, to see the introduction, as far as social and civil pensions are concerned, of an automatic annual increase so that pensioners are automatically compensated for any increase in the cost of living, and do not have to rely on the ad hoc decisions taken by the Government at its pleasure to increase pensions from time to time. This is a principle that has already been accepted as far as the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund is concerned. I would like to see it incorporated in social pensions and in other civil pensions.

Sir, I would like to add a few remarks in regard (to the means test to those already made by the hon. members for Umbilo and North Rand, because although the means test has been relaxed in this Budget as far as the valuation of property is concerned, and in regard to taking into account the assets of a spouse when a pensioner marries, the basic problems that face pensioners, as a result of the means test, have not been met and the difficulties that arise from them remain with us. It is these basic problems that cause more frustration and more bitterness and in some cases more hardship than the fact that the pension itself is by no means a generous one. I consider that the worst feature of the means test is the fact that it is so rigid and inflexible the fact (that means plus pension is fixed at a rigid limit with the result that as long as a pensioner is relying to any extent on a pension as part of his income, there is a fixed limit to his income unless, of course, he has reached the age of 70, when earnings are not taken into account, or in the case of a woman she has reached the age of 65. I know that the hon. the Minister’s reply is going to be that 90,4 per cent of pensioners receive the full amount of the pension and that only 9,6 per cent of pensioners have their pensions reduced as the result of the means (test. I do not think that that proves anything. It ignores the thousands of pensioners who deliberately do not seek additional income by way of employment for fear that the income (they will earn from such employment will affect their pensions on account of the means test. It also ignores the fact that the employers who give their retired employees or ex-employees retirement allowances or pensions, take into account the fact that, if those allowances are above the limit of free income, they will just be paying money to the pensioner and relieving the Government of the obligation to do so. The result is that employers do not pay more than they have to in that respect. I know that the actions of pensioners are not always logical and that in many cases pensioners would be better off if they worked and earned salaries and forfeited their pensions completely than if they did not do so and merely relied on their pensions. But I do say that the fact that there is this rigid ceiling and that, once the free income limit has been passed, every additional rand earned means a rand taken off the pension, is a very powerful psychological barrier and a very real disincentive against pensioners offering their services on the labour market. I would like to see a survey done of the number of pensioners who are not offering their services and are not trying to earn money by way of employment just because they are afraid that that extra income will affect their pensions. I cannot escape the conclusion that, quite apart from all the frustration and bitterness and, in some cases, hardship that the means test causes, it also causes harmful consequence to the economy as a result of the tendency of pensioners to withhold their services from the labour market. This is particularly true for male pensioners between the ages of 65 and 69 and for female pensioners between the ages of 60 and 64, since these are the ages at which they can offer their most constructive contribution. Now that contribution is being withheld. I think that that is an anti-social consequence of the means test, because it is discouraging people from making a positive contribution and a constructive contribution to the community in which they live. The last thing I would suggest is that the means test should be abolished. That would be an irresponsible and extravagant thing to do. I do, however, suggest first of all, that there is a strong case for lifting the level of the means test. There is also a strong case for introducing a measure of flexibility into the means test; for instance by way of a sliding ceiling so that, once the free limit of income has been passed, every additional rand of income earned would not mean a rand taken off the pension, but a lesser amount. In that way there would always be some incentive for a pensioner to earn more income.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia made a plea for the adjustment of cost-of-living allowances to the pensions which are paid. If we had done this over the past few years, pensioners would have suffered heavy losses, because over the past three years their pensions were increased by approximately 23 per cent, as against a rise in the cost of living of less than 7 per cent. The hon. member is therefore not aware of all the benefits which have been granted, otherwise he would certainly not have made this plea.

In addition, he requested that the means test should be relaxed. I want to explain the matter in a very modest way. If we look at the Budget and we see the enormous amount provided for Social Welfare and Pensions, it seems as though we have already become a welfare state, but on closer examination we see that we are still very far from being a welfare state, and that supplementary provision is being made only in order to provide a well-earned and happy old age to people who developed and built up the country in their time. Furthermore, I want to say that it is not the object that these pensions should be sufficient to enable a person to live luxuriously. We must remember that it is a privilege for any child to provide care for his parents in the evening of their lives. Apart from that, there are many other means of assistance in this connection. For example, there are housing schemes for the aged, which are provided on a very adequate standard today. In regard to the care of the aged in institutions and new homes, I want to say that 20 new homes have been provided over the past year and that ten existing homes have been renovated. These homes at present have 1 984 residents. These services are supplementary. Practically all persons qualifying for an old age pension can receive free medical services, which is of course a tremendous help. If they apply they can qualify for it.

I also want to express my gratitude for the fact that attendants’ allowances are now being paid automatically and that it is no longer necessary to apply for them. In addition, the age has been reduced by five years, to 85 There are already almost 160 000 persons who receive social pensions and allowances. Forms are being sent in daily, some of which are being refused because people do not know exactly whait standards are applied. They do not know who can qualify and who cannot. There is already a shortage of staff, and many unnecessary forms are being filled in and submitted. We know that questions in this regard even appear in newspapers. Furthermore, certain concerns are making it a business to fill in forms for people at a fee. I think that in actual fact this is not right, because there are trained staff who provide the correct guidance and help free of charge with the greatest of pleasure. I should therefore like to give a very short summary explaining who may qualify.

In the first place, there is the means test. The means test applies to everybody, except to veterans of the Anglo-Boer War. In addition, certain concessions are in fact made in respect of persons reaching the age of 70 years. It is important to bear in mind that both assets and income derived from earnings, for example income from farming, from business and even from a pension fund, are not taken into account. Income derived from assets is excluded, and must not be confused with income derived from earnings. The reason for this is that the income value of assets is added to the person’s income in order to determine the amount of the pension, whether the person is married in community of property or not. Furthermore, it is important to note that the joint income of a married couple is halved for the purposes of the means test, while the assets are not halved. This is of course a very big advantage for the pensioner. The income of a male person over the age of 70 years, and, as from April, of a female over the age of 65 years, which is derived from earnings, is not taken into account in the means test. In addition, an amount of R40 per month of a married person’s salary is excluded in the application of the means test. In order to qualify for the maximum old-age pension, a person may have an income of R16 per month or possess assets to the value of R8 000. But in order to qualify for the minimum old-age pension, such a person may have an income of R52 per month or possess assets to the value of R15 200. An unmarried person may possess assets to the value of R15 200, because assets are not halved.

In order to qualify for the maximum pension, a married woman may have an income of R32 per month, plus an additional income of R40 per month. In other words, while having an income of R72 per month, such a woman may still receive the full pension. In order to qualify for the minimum pension, a person may have an income of R52 per month, plus earnings of R40 per month. This means that a person may have an income of R92 per month and nevertheless qualify for the minimum pension. In other words, a person may have an income of R1 104 per year and still qualify for a pension.

For how much?

He would qualify for the minimum.

Furthermore, the value of the calculated assets a person may possess has been increased from R14 400 to R15 200. This value will be calculated on the calculated assets, in other words, on the unencumbered value of the property. This is the net value after the bond or loan has been subtracted. Forty per cent of the unencumbered value of the assets is taken into account. Previously it was 25 per cent. All these concessions have been made in order to help pensioners.

As I have indicated, the means test has been considerably relaxed in recent years. Income concessions have been made, especially with a view to allowing people to work without their having to forfeit their pensions. The lot of the aged has also been improved considerably and the standards of the institutions have been improved a great deal. This has been done especially in respect of children’s homes, which previously were in a very poor condition. With the assistance of the State the situation has now been improved considerably. I should like to pay attention for a moment to a matter in Bloemfontein. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District, who has just spoken, broached a certain matter here. I feel that I should just draw the attention of the House to the fact that the minimum pension that he indicated would be available for a person with that income is R2. It is, therefore, not the maximum pension under certain circumstances, as one could deduce from what the hon. member said. However, I feel that I must endorse the spirit in which this debate has been conducted. Many of the hon. members on this side of the House have already thanked the hon. the Minister for the concessions. I should like to request him not to forget in his reply to thank us, the Opposition, for the years of asking, on our part, for certain concessions. In so doing we actually facilitated his task and helped him to soften the heart of the Minister of Finance.

In that spirit I want to continue. I want to mention something which, in my opinion, is very positive in character. I want to return to the plea I lodged last year. I advocated the automatic adjustment of the pensions of civil pensioners, specifically according to the system where the pension is linked to the post a person occupied at the time of his retirement. The benefits of this system are that as soon as salary adjustments take place in the Public Service a pro rata adjustment also takes place in the pensions of the persons who were in the Public Service. I do this for two reasons in particular. The one is that we are dealing here with a Budget and we are discussing a Vote in which there are, in fact, suggestions for an adjustment according to our usual system. I therefore believe that it is relevant. The second important reason why I am speaking about the matter today is because when I broached it last year the hon. the Minister specifically said that at that stage he did not yet have the relevant answers and that he would like to go into the matter further. I hope and trust that he has, in fact, done so during this period.

However, I want to make a request to the hon. (the Minister. Last year he did not dismiss the matter, but if I remember rightly, he referred to the fact that this system had been tried out in Germany and that there it had given rise to inflation. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister not to associate the inflation bug with this matter. My information is that there are, in fact, European countries in which this system is in operation in principle. If the hon. the Minister resists that temptation, I do not know whether the hon. member for Rissik, whom I think will be the next to speak, will be able to do so. He will probably try to couple the inflation bug to this matter. For that reason I want to mention the following few points. Firstly, the financial costs involved in he implementation of this plan, particularly in relation to the gross national revenue, are so slight that inflation cannot really be influenced. As a basis for my argument I want to use an article that appeared in the Public Servant of January, 1971. In that article mention was made of the fact that the salary adjustments of 1st January, 1971, in all the branches of the Public Service, amounted to only 0,5 per cent of the gross national revenue. One must realise that if one had this system of the automatic adjustments of civil pensions, one would have obtained a figure of about 0,04 per cent, which is extremely small. Now hon. members opposite must tell me if we are economically so badly off that if such a slight addition is made it would push inflation over the top. In this connection I must also mention the fact that the salary increase of 1st January was an exceptional one. However, when this system comes into operation and one has normal salary adjustments, as must be the case in the Public Service when the time is ripe, and automatic adjustments in pensions also take place on a pro rata basis, one will never be dealing with such an accumulative effect. That is the disadvantage at present, because adjustments are postponed. Eventually the stage is reached where the whole matter has a cumulative effect. This could then give rise to unfavourable trends, one of which is inflation. However, when normal adjustments are made such a situation will never crop up.

We cannot go into this matter too deeply, because then we would come to the question of whether a larger economic growth rate for South Africa is necessary or not. In this connection I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a research project carried out by a certain Mr. Gerald Rhodes, who did this for the Royal Institute of Public Administration, a research project in which there was a special examination of pensions. There he comes to the conclusion, and any other person would also have come to that conclusion, that a greater economic growth rate would in truth profit pensioners tremendously. There are very logical reasons for this, because thereby additional sources would, inter alia, be created from which the increased demand could be supplemented. There is also another very important point. The demand for better pensions, in particular civil pensions, must be seen against the background of the improvement in the living conditions of the workers, in other words, of the people as such. One then comes up against the fact that the elderly people must be entitled to a portion of the country’s prosperity. If one regards the matter in this light one sees that it has merits and that it should receive further investigation. I can also give another reason. The present position can lead to inflation, because it is normally postponed and takes place under unfavourable circumstances. If there is automatic adjustment, however, under the system whereby the pension is linked to the post, (this takes place in good years and in bad years. Thereby the possible effect it could have on inflation is neutralized.

Now the question also arises as to what the fundamental object of pensions is. In respect of this I differ completely from the hon. member for Bloemfontein District, who said that the object is surely not solely that people should live well. I think that the fundamental object of pensions, particularly civil pensions, is that they must enable a person to maintain a certain standard of living. I, and the advocates of this system, feel that under the present circumstances it is incomprehensible that the State can only guarantee that standard, in practise, for a year or for a few years from the time the person has retired. [Time expired.]

I am entering the debate now because, if I waited until the end of this debate, there would be such a mass of things to reply to that one would actually have to speak for too long a time. I want to dispose first of what has been raised up to now and then I shall gladly listen again to further representations which may be made.

I want to start with the hon. member for Durban Central, who has just resumed his seat. After his genial comment that the thanks ought to be mutual, I just want to tell the hon. member that from time to time all good Members of Parliament of all parties plead with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions for the improvement of pensions and circumstances on behalf of their voters, good Nationalist M.P.s as well as United Party M.P.s. For that reason it would be wrong to express thanks to the hon. members of the Opposition only. To all good M.P.s who have been pleading for their people throughout the years, I want to express thanks for their having helped me to achieve this in this manner. For that reason my thanks go to both sides of the House, and not only to the Opposition. I hope the hon. member will accept them in that good spirit.

The fact remains that this Government is in power at the moment, and the fact that the Government has lent us a sympathetic ear and that in a difficult year, from the financial point of view, this Minister of Finance saw his way clear to making these concessions, about which I shall say more in a moment, speaks volumes for the attitude of this Government towards its under-privileged people.

I want to come back to the hon. member’s standpoint, which he also stated last year, in regard to coupling the pension as such with salaries. I have had time to pay attention to this matter, and I now want to tell him very honestly—and he knows me for a person who speaks very frankly—that at this stage I am not prepared to accept it, for specific reasons, but I have not said “No” finally, once and for all. I always have an open mind. If somebody convinces me that circumstances are such that I shall consider the matter later on, I have not closed the book permanently. But at this stage, in the light of what I have at my disposal, and for the reasons which I shall advance now, I cannot yield on this point. In the first place, any pension benefit is calculated on the basis of a member’s salary over a certain period, the period in respect of which he contributed to the fund, which is a factor which has been determined actuarially. This formula in terms of which the pensions are paid, has been determined by actuaries, and therefore it bears a direct proportion to the member’s contributions to the fund and the contributions which the employer makes to the fund, as well as the interest which the fund earns. That is the first statement I want to make as background to my standpoint. To my mind it would be extremely unfair to pay out the same pension to, for argument’s sake, two persons who retired on the same salary but whose service may differ by many years because, for instance, the one person was promoted more rapidly than the other one was, the result being that the one contributed to the fund for a longer period. And if it is to be coupled with the pension, it will from the nature of the case have to result in their receiving the same pension. I feel this is unfair, and that is one of the reasons for it. If the hon. member has a solution to this problem for me, I shall very gladly listen to him. Pensions must necessarily, to my mind, be coupled with the period for which the member made contributions. There are, for instance, and I am now furnishing the statistics in our own case, 36 500 civil pensioners plus approximately 13 000 widows who are receiving the minimum pension and whose pensions have to be supplemented by a bonus, temporary allowances and supplementary allowances. To ignore the periods of service, as this scheme apparently does, and to pay these persons the same pensions, will cause a great deal of dissatisfaction, and rightly so. This means that they should then receive the same pension as do other people who are on a different basis. If I have misunderstood the matter, the hon. member should rise again and explain it to me further, but this is how I see the position at the moment and this is how I understood him last year.

This scheme would be a most expensive one and the country would not be able to afford it. In West Germany, where this system is being applied, the Government actuary, in his latest report which we have in hand, in fact sounded the warning that West Germany could no longer afford it. That is the system which the hon. member is advocating here. This warning is very clear to me. The alternative which we are applying at present, is that of supplementing pensions by way of adding bonuses and allowances, and this system is not only more practicable, but also more effective. In this regard I think it is perhaps necessary for me to furnish the hon. member with just a few statistics in respect of this specific system, and to furnish a few examples of what the position will be under his system as against the position under the system we are following at present. While I have the particulars here, I think I should quote them fully in order to have them recorded in Hansard so that hon. members may then use them at report-back meetings. As a practical politician I know that hon. members will find that this information will come in handy when they go back to their constituencies.

Sir, I want to deal with the concessions made in respect of civil pensions over the past two years, in 1969 and in 1971, and I just want to furnish a few examples of how our system works out as against the system mentioned here by the hon. member. In the first place, in 1969 the guaranteed interest rate in respect of pension funds was increased from 4 per cent to 4½ per cent, which immediately represented a major asset to the pension fund as such. In the second place, the period on the basis of which the average salary is determined for the calculation of retirement benefits, was originally shortened from seven years in 1968 to four years in April, 1968, and eventually to three years in 1969. In other words, the fact that a person’s pension is now calculated on the basis of his earnings over the last three years instead of the last seven years, while he was still climbing to his maximum, means a tremendous improvement in his pension. In the third place, a bonus of 5 per cent was consolidated in the basic pensions in 1969. In the fourth place, a bonus payable in respect of pensioners who had retired prior to 1st October, 1944, was increased from 30 per cent to 45 per cent. In respect of the group that retired during the period from 1st October, 1944, to 30th September, 1946, the bonuses were increased from 30 per cent to 40 per cent, and in respect of other persons who retired subsequent to that date, a bonus increase of 5 per cent was granted. I am referring to the concessions made in 1969.

The minimum pensions of civil officials were increased in 1969 from R94 per month in respect of a married person and R47 per month in respect of a single person to R104 in the first case and R52 in the second case. In the sixth place, the minimum gratuities in respect of male members of the Permanent Force Pension Fund who retire at the age of 50 years, was increased from 5,79 per cent to 6 per cent. The benefits payable in terms of a pension fund regulation in respect of any member who retires owing to an injury sustained on duty, was increased by 10 per cent in respect of every R1 000 by which the member’s salary upon retirement exceeded the salary on which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner had calculated the award. Then there are two other concessions here which I am going to omit because they are not so important.

For the purposes of calculating the full benefits paid out of the Government Employees’ Provident Fund, the interest was increased from per cent to 5 per cent and the means test for the payment of temporary allowances was abolished in these cases. That is how we improved the position in 1969.

Now I come to the improvements which were announced in this Budget and which I am going to furnish in detail for the reason I have just mentioned. As hon. members know, the bonuses were increased. I am not going to furnish the figures here; horn members can find the figures in the Budget for themselves, but I nevertheless want to furnish a few practical, real examples, without mentioning the names of the people concerned; that would be infra dig. I am going to mention the cases of public servants who benefited as follows: In the first case an official retired on 31st March, 1950, with a basic pension of R95-35 per month. That is the pension to which he was entitled on account of the contributions he had made during his period of service. In terms of these new tables his bonus is being increased by 65 per cent, which in his case is equivalent to an amount of R61-98 per month. I think that an increase of R61 on a pension of R95 is a substantial one. Then there is the case of a person who retired on 16th December, 1953, with a basic pension of R71-18. In terms of the new table his bonus is being increased by 50 per cent, which is equivalent to an increase of R35-59 per month. Then I want to mention another case as an example, i.e. the case of a widow. Her late husband retired on 31st March, 1956, and died on 13th May, 1961. This widow receives a basic widow’s pension of R27-33 per month. Her bonus is being increased by 50 per cent, which is equivalent to an increase of R13-66 per month.

I am going to mention one other case, i.e. that of a person who retired on 31st October, 1963, with a basic pension of R1S5-70. Under this scheme his bonus is being increased by 25 per cent, i.e. by R46-42 per month. Minimum pensions, which I explained a moment ago, have now been increased further—in the case of married persons, from R104 per month to R112, and in the case of single persons, from R52 to R56 per month. Then there is another very important concession. The means test for the payment of the supplementary, temporary allowance in respect of the minimum pensions, has been abolished entirely. I honestly want to say that to my mind these concessions are as favourable and as good as we can do for our civil pensioners under the present circumstances. I want to add that I have, in fact, received numerous letters from expublic servants from various quarters, letters in which they told me that they appreciated the concessions and that to a very large extent they were satisfied with what had been done for them. Having said this, I want to leave the hon. member at that.

It seems to me that he has made a special study of the matter and takes a special interest in it. If he wants to take the trouble to submit a memorandum to me or to arrange a special interview with me so that we may discuss the matter, my door is open to him. I shall gladly listen to him and investigate the matter further.

The hon. member for Bleomfontein District was just about to put his question to me and then he could not do so. Consequently I do not know what it is. It is some problem or other at Bloemfontein. I just want to thank the hon. member for his fine exposition of the situation and his thanks and appreciation to the Department and the Ministers concerned. I want to give him the assurance that I appreciate them. If he sends me the question written out on a piece of paper, I shall reply to him in a moment, in spite of the fact that he could not put it in his speech.

†The hon. member for Constantia supported the hon. member for Turffontein in his argument. He said that the increases did no more than compensate people for the increase in the cost of living. In this respect I think I have to say immediately that we have in this case also increased the social pensions more than hon. members think at the moment. First of all, there were also increases during the previous year. But let me put it quite frankly to the hon. member, before I give him any further details, that the fact is that, as regards social pensions as such—I have said so quite often—-we can never do enough to compensate our senior citizens for what they have done for this country. Let me state it quite bluntly and clearly. The problem is, however, as I have said previously, that we can only go as far as the Minister of Finance finds himself capable of allowing us to go in the light of the availability of funds. We cannot go further than the funds available allow us. For that reason, we must be reasonable in this whole matter. We have already done a lot for our senior citizens.

The hon. member asked for automatic annual increases. I can realize that it is a good thing, actually, to ask for. It is quite easy to ask for it. However, the result will automatically be that, even at a later stage, when the cost of living may come down, or there may be a depression, or whatever it may be—nobody has the future in his own hands—according to him increases will still take place every year.

It has been accepted for the Railways.

Yes, I know, but I have not accepted it here for this very reason. You cannot actually foresee the future and you cannot know what is going to happen as far as that is concerned. The hon. member also asked that women from 60 to 65 and men from 65 to 79 should be exempted from the means test and that they should be able to earn any amount without having their pensions affected in any way. Surely, we cannot make all these concessions at one and the same time. As a matter of fact, I think I have stretched the concessions as far as possible this year. I think I have taken the Minister of Finance as far as it was possible in the normal circumstances. The point is that we have, as far as the women folk are concerned, made a concession now. The age limit for them was also 70 years; that has now been reduced to 65. That is a concession which I think the hon. member must appreciate. A further point is that the hon. member must surely know that a person can earn, if he is married, up to R72 per month, without having his pension affected in any way. That is a fact. But I do not think we can go any further as far as that is concerned.

*For the record, in this regard as well, I think it is necessary for us to give just a brief résumé of the social pensions, i.e. what has specifically been done in this regard. I think I should just furnish hon. members briefly with the particulars. I want to do so very quickly. On 1st October, 1969, social pensions were increased by R2 per month in the form of an increase in the bonuses. On 1st April, 1970, we consolidated the pension and increased it by another R2 per month. That was done within six months after the first increase.

I want to deal further with the results of the year 1970. Provision was made for the payment of a disability grant in respect of persons found fit for sheltered employment and employed in a sheltered employment factory. This provision was made in order to encourage people to work. Furthermore, R40 per month of a married person’s earnings and R20 per month of a single person’s earnings are left out of account in the application of the means test. Therefore, this enables him to add to the previous concession that a married person may earn R72 per month and a single person R36 per month before his pension or his disability grant is affected in any way. Furthermore, the scale used in regard to the income of married persons, is used for determining the family allowances payable to widowers, divorced or deserted male persons with at least three children. A mother is now eligible for a maintenance grant after a period of three months had elapsed since her husband deserted her. This used to be six months. This is a further concession.

I want to mention the concessions which are now being made in that regard. This information will come in very handy to the hon. members with a view to report-back meetings. In the first place, the basic pension and allowances were increased by R3 per month per person, i.e. from R35 to R38 per month. I shall deal with this matter along with the next figure. The cost involved in that R3 increase, amounts to R5 800 000. The pension plus means restriction are being increased from R612 to R648 per year. In respect of war veterans over the age of 70, the amount is being increased from R924 to R960 per year. Any person can now qualify for a minimum pension of R2 per month, provided that his calculated income does not exceed the amount of R624. The value of calculated assets for the purposes of qualifying for a minimum pension, was increased from R14 400 to R15 200. The value of the calculated assets of a war veteran over the age of 70, was increased from R17 200 to R18000.

At the same time the reply to the question put by the hon. member for North Rand in regard to the war veterans’ pensions and the means test for the 1914-I8 burgers, is that the value of the calculated assets of any war veteran of the 1914-I8 War, as well as of the Protesting Burgers of 1914-I5 and the Bambata Rebellion, i.e. for the purposes of qualifying for a minimum pension, was increased from R19 600 to R20 400. The hon. member must realize that, if a person has assets to the value of R20 400, he is, after all, not a poor man. It is my honest opinion that in such a case he is not a poor man. In regard to the abolition of the means test the hon. member made out the case that, because we dropped the means test completely after a certain number of years had elapsed since the conculsion of the Anglo-Boer War, we should also do so after the same number of years has elapsed since the conclusion of the 1914-I8 War. To my mind there is a major difference, which I just want to explain to the hon. member.

In the first place, the burgers who fought in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 did not receive any compensation whatsoever while they were fighting. Their wives received no allowances and no aid whatsoever while their husbands were fighting. They had to provide their own provisions, etc. No measures were taken for providing them with all these things. Therefore, in actual fact they lost everything in a struggle for their people and their country, for they got nothing. They lost their property and possessions and, in effect, everything they had. In the first place, those persons who fought in the 1914-I8 War—we have the highest regard for them, for they also made sacrifices—did so voluntarily. In the second place, those persons received the necessary amount while they were fighting. I do not know whether it was much, but for that time it was in fact in proportion to the necessary amount. The survivors were taken care of to a certain extent. I do not know whether they were adequately taken care of, but provision was made for them. But it does seem to me as though there is a difference between the two groups of veterans as such. The means test for the veterans of the First World War is much more lenient than is the one for the veterans of the Second World War. This proves that the Government is sympathetic towards them. That is why I mentioned the figures in respect of the assets which they may have whilst still qualifying for the full pension.

To my mind the principle at this stage is not just, i.e. to abolish the means test completely for them, because it is being accepted as an argument for a different matter. If the hon. member wants to advance reasons why it should be done, we can go into the matter again. However, this comparison is to my mind not a valid one. It applies to both sides that fought, both sides of the three-year war and both sides in the last war. What is involved here is not the specific group.

I am now coming back to this grant. The per capita grant payable in respect of children was increased from R10 to R11 for each of the first three children and then from R8 to R9 for each subsequent child.

Settlers’ grants are equivalent to the social pension, and this grant and the grant in respect of children were therefore increased accordingly.

The valuation of properties were reduced by 25 per cent for the purposes of the means test. This concession has now been increased to 40 per cent as the valuations of properties have increased in recent times, especially in the municipal areas and also as far as the rural areas are concerned. In other words, 40 per cent is deducted from the valuation and only the remaining 60 per cent is taken into account in respect of assets. Therefore a person receives an immediate concession of 40 per cent into the bargain before any calculation is made.

In the fifth place, provision has been made for the continuation of pensions which are stopped upon the remarriage of a pensioner, and this was done because of the fact that assets in a joint estate are not divisible. To my mind this is a very great concession to many people. I am aware of numerous such cases. An elderly gentleman gets married to a woman who is well-off in a certain sense. As a single person he received his full pension and felt that he was independent. The moment he gets married the assets are thrown together and he no longer qualifies for a pension. Now this dignified old gentleman is dependent upon his wife. This affects his dignity to such an extent that I as a man felt that I dared not place a fellow-man in that position. That is why that pension was corrected. After all. one cannot make a person dependent upon his wife.

I think the hon. the Minister should clarify that it is only in relation to the assets, and that income will still be taken into consideration. The income situation as a result of the marriage may still disqualify a person from receiving a social pension. This only affects the assets.

This only affects the assets; the hon. member is correct. After all, I cannot leave the income entirely out of account, no matter how strong the principle is. After all, if a person gets married to a young woman who earns between R500 and R800 per month, he should not expect to retain his full pension as well. Surely, then he has married well, if I may put it that way.

Furthermore, provision has also been made for the attendant’s allowance to be paid out automatically in respect of a person upon reaching the age of 85 instead of 90. I think this is a major concession. Aged people who were really weak, received this allowance upon producing a medical certificate stating that they required constant attention. Everybody over the age of 90 received it automatically. I think that the lowering of the age limit to 85 years is a major concession which will help many of our aged. Their income is, therefore, automatically increased by R10 per month. That is what this concession amounts to in practice.

The earnings of women upon attaining the age of 65, are being left out of account. This is a concession of five years, and I have already referred to it.

Then there is the question of usufruct. The free income from usufruct has been increased by leaving out of account the first R4 800 of the value of the usufruct instead of R3 600 in the application of the means test. This is another major concession. I have often come across cases where a widowed mother inherited a farm from her husband. She has the usufruct while the land belongs to her children. Now, the usufruct is worked out on the basis of a certain formula which comes to a certain amount. With the major droughts and other conditions which have prevailed in the sphere of agriculture in recent times, the position has developed that in name that usufruct is worth that particular amount. In practice, however, it has no value at all. In spite of the fact that they cannot give her anything to help her, she is being excluded from receiving a pension. This increase to R4 800. which is deducted. is to my mind a good concession. It will help many people in that regard.

The supplementary allowance payable to persons who deferred their applications for pensions. his been increased by R12 per year. In calculating maintenance grants— this only concerns maintenance grants and not ordinary social pensions and old-age allowances—the first R600, instead of R480, of a married person’s annual earnings, or the first R300, instead of R240, of a single person’s annual earnings is being left out of account.

In the case of family allowances the amount of the income exempted is being increased from R48 to R60 per year per child. In other words, what this amounts to in practice, is that a married person whose maintenance grant now amounts to R60 per month and a single person whose maintenance grant amounts to R25 per month, can now have free earnings without their pensions being affected. At the same time the exempted amount in respect of children’s allowances is being increased from R48 to R60 per year.

The per capita allowance in respect of committed children has been increased from R27 to R24 per month and from R26 to R28 per month per child in the case of children with mental and psychological disabilities This is the case for which the hon. member for Kimberley South expressed his thanks. Furthermore, the safety allowance payable to an institution or a private person has been increased from 65 cents and 50 cents per day to 75 cents and 75 cents per day, respectively.

You have left out a comma in the memorandum.

I should like to see where the comma was left out. I have now dealt with these matters more or less in that light. Actually, in the process I have also replied to the hon. member for Marico.

The hon. member for Turffontein spoke about the social pensions I want to tell him at once that I realize that he must have made a thorough study of this matter. I do not know where he obtained all the prices, for the prices of goods at these supermarkets vary from day to day and from shop to shop.

Are you trying to belittle my point?

I am not trying to belittle it. I am merely saying that I know he made a study on some basis or other. I want to say at once that I appreciate his point of view. However, as I have already pointed out to him, pensions have after all been increased. After all, there was an increase of R2 in the pensions on 1st October, 1969, a further R2 on 1st April, 1970, and now another increase of R3 was announced in the Budget. This is, after all, an increase of R7 over more or less the same period as the one to which the hon. member referred in his argument.

I referred to the period 1970-’71.

Yes, but in April, 1970, an increase of R2 was granted to them. Therefore, the hon. member should have taken into account at least R7, instead of R3.

But, surely, recently the rail and postal rates were increased?

Yes, that is correct. But the purchase tax, the effect of which the hon. member tried to point our here, was introduced quite some time before. But I do not want to belittle the hon. member’s argument. I want to say at once that I have the greatest sympathy with our aged who are experiencing those problems. But, as I have already told the hon. member, one can only cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. If no more funds are available to one, one cannot act differently. I have here a few figures showing what the increases would actually have been if we bad had to grant bigger increases. I shall deal with them later on.

The hon. member for Hercules referred to drugs and, more specifically, to two methods of combating this abuse, i.e education and rehabilitation. I want to tell the hon. member straight away that I agree with him to a large extent. I want to thank him for the study he made of this question and the special interest he is taking in it. I do not wish to discuss this problem fully now. Hon. members will appreciate that it is hoped that legislation in this regard will be dealt with in this House next week. I want to give him the assurance that we shall take firm action in regard to this question. In fact, I have already said so in public on several occasions. I have already emphasized the suggestions he made in regard to education, i.e to educate public opinion and to get it on our side. However, I want to emphasize them once again, for that is where the strength lies Whenever the public in general takes a stand against some matter or other, it is immediately effective. That is true. We witness that daily. As far as the rehabilitation centres are concerned, I want to say that I have a special section in my department which works along these lines. We also have special proposals in the legislation in this regard. These will to a large extent meet the hon. member’s problems. I want to thank him for taking part in this debate.

I have already replied in part to the speech made by the hon. member for North Rand. As far as the employment of pensioners is concerned, I just want to repeat that these people can earn up to R72 per month without their pensions being affected. In the future we can examine that figure again and perhaps increase it, if possible. We are keen to encourage our aged to work and to be independent for as long as possible. This is a good attitude and a good idea.

The hon. member also requested that income tax in respect of these people be eased. The savings levy is at least not applicable to people who have attained the age of 70. This is the start of a new development. As far as the abolition of income tax in respect of pensioners is concerned, I just want to say that I deal with the aged every day and know that they feel they must pay income tax while they are working. But the moment they go on pension, they feel that they earned their money through hard work, sweat and tears, and that the State should after all not take any of that money. But now two problems are involved here. If the Minister of Finance cannot obtain his revenue from this money, from this source, he has to do so from another source. In that case he either has to increase taxes for the man in the street or increase taxes in respect of something else. But he must obtain this income. The other day he told me that at the moment it was not possible for him to take such a step. The second problem is on what grounds income tax is to be abolished in respect of these people for there are elderly people who are very wealthy. I know there are only a few of them, but directors of large companies also grow old; they also reach the age of 70, 75 and 80. By that time such a person may have an income of between R180 000 and R200 000 per year from assets which may be virtually unlimited. Surely in such a case one cannot say that he should be exempted from income tax. This simply does not sound right to me. That principle is wrong and another scale will have to be found for such cases.

But I do not think there are many who are drawing that pension.

No, I am not talking about pensions which are drawn; I am talking about the exemption from income tax on the pensions and not on the income at that age.

I should just like to explain. I only asked the Minister to exempt the pension and not the other income.

Very well, in that case I simply do not use that argument, but the other one. The other argument is that while that person was working and making contributions to the pension scheme, during his entire working career, he deducted every year, before his income tax was calculated, his contributions to that pension fund; the income tax was only levied after that was done. Now the hon. the Minister of Finance says that on that money which was saved in that way, no tax has therefore been paid as yet. No tax has been paid as yet, for during that person’s entire working career those contributions were deducted before taxes were levied. This is therefore income which has not yet been taxed. That is why the basic standpoint is that tax must be paid on that amount. That is the argument and that is the logic of the hon. the Minister of Finance in this regard.

The Minister of Finance has forgotten that in those days the money was worth much more than it is today.

I accept that, too, but in those days the contributions to, the pension fund were also much smaller than they are today. These factors have also kept pace with each other. I understand the matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member. I have been making pleas in regard to the matter and have examined it from time to time, but I also understand the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister of Finance, i.e. that if we do not obtain the revenue from this source, we must obtain it from another source. However, I think that the abolition of the loan levy in this case is a major concession already. To my mind this is a good starting-point. We can go further and examine the situation. I am not going to discuss the Bantu affairs situation. The hon. member knows why not, and I did listen.

I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston for a very neat speech on healthy family life. I know the hon. member has the matter very much at heart, and I want to support him fully in his whole approach. His approach is that healthy families are the materials of a healthy nation. In 90 and even 95 per cent of the cases where there are social problems, be it unmarried motherhood or drug addiction or whatever, one will find that in most cases such problems result from an unstable family life. I completely agree with the hon. member (that our family-care services should be smartened up in the sense that we should make an appeal to our people to keep the family together as a family unit. It should be kept together as such as a relationship of love, as a relationship of authority and as a labour group. These are the ideal materials making up those small units from which the nation is built. The healthier those materials are, the stronger the national wall will be which we build with those materials. For that reason I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston sincerely for the very neat speech he made in this regard, and I want (to support him fully in his school of thought.

Now I come to the hon. member for Umbilo, and I want to refer to the few matters he raised here. As far as community services are concerned, the hon. member wanted to know what the position was in respect of subsidizing (them. I just want to tell him that the matter has been referred to the National Welfare Board. At the moment we are drawing up a report in this regard, and I must say that I am most sympathetic to this whole idea. By way of my speeches I have already said that I believe community services will have to be granted assistance in some way or other, for they form the crux of the method by which we want to keep our aged in the community for a longer time. Unfortunately I cannot give him the final situation today, but I can give him the assurance that in time to come I shall pursue the matter. I shall also make the necessary adjustments as quickly as it is at all practicable to do so. In the second place, the hon. member spoke about those people who are medically unfit. He referred to the disability grant and said that these people could not go out to work and earn money. However. the problem is the same as the one which I have in regard to old-age pensioners. If a person receives a disability grant, he receives it because he is medically unfit for work. That is the principle of the matter. Of course, if he is fit for work, he is not medically unfit and I cannot grant him the pension either. After all, this is the logic behind it. A concession has in fact been made in the sense that, like any other person, he can once again earn R72 per month. A married person who is medically unfit can earn R72 per month.

It is only applicable to those whose assets are below R4 800 per annum.

Yes, but he can earn R72 per month and at the same time receive his medical disability grant as well. In principle it seems wrong to me to overlook this matter altogether and to say that this man is medically unfit for work and that is why we are giving him a medical disability pension. However, I allow him to go out to work and to earn as much as he pleases. That does not sound quite correct to me.

What about the blind?

The blind are on the same level. Approximately 50 per cent is taken into consideration. But I can examine that. I am prepared to consider it, because we want these people to be independent as far as possible.

†Then we also have the position that the hon. member asked that we should ignore private pensions and increases in private pensions in paying social pensions as such. There is a principle involved in this. The position is that if I were to do that, I must draw a line somewhere. Surely you cannot allow a person to draw a pension of R200 or R300 a month from somewhere else and still receive a social pension.

It must be based on the position at the time of application. Further increases should not affect it.

That is a very interesting angle which I can look at. It is a positive suggestion which I will have a look at in time to come.

The hon. member also talked about the report on divorce, in dealing with the family life situation. We are still waiting for the final report in this respect and as soon as I have this report, I will be able to carry on in this direction.

Then I want to give (the hon. member the assurance immediately that increases in military pensions—and the hon. member for North Rand will also be interested-do not affect in any way social pensions of war veterans. In other words, these military pensions do not affect the war veterans and their pensions.

*There is a last matter which I want to raise quickly. The hon. member for Kimberley South expressed thanks for the subsidy in respect of children’s homes, for which I am grateful to him.

As far as the National Welfare Board is concerned, it has been doing excellent work over the past five years. Through their standing commissions and their regular reports and investigations they have assisted me tremendously and have advised me in various spheres, which was most valuable and to which I attribute to a large extent the success which the department is experiencing at the moment. I attribute (this to the work of the Welfare Board in conjunction with my department. These are the two pillars, along with the voluntary welfare organizations. Now I want to tell him at once that any good Minister will see to it that continuity is preserved as far as possible. One does not unharness a good horse if it can still do good work. We may perhaps not be able to retain the board exactly as it is, but I want to give him the assurance that the idea of continuity will definitely be taken into consideration when the new board is constituted.

Then, in regard to the question of handicapped persons and the whole system in this regard, the hon. the Deputy Minister is actually charged with the aspect of handicapped persons as such. He apologized for not being able to be here, for he is dealing with the Publications Act in the Senate as he is also the Deputy Minister of another department. I can only say that in the main he handles this matter, but we have now placed the whole question of handicapped persons on a very sound basis indeed. We have now made a new classification of handicapped persons, and these people have specifically been allocated to specific departments so that we no longer have people falling between two stools. Now they know exactly where they are. My department is responsible for a certain group of these people, as hon. members are very well aware. The hon. member asked for a subsidy in respect of staff. I am afraid that at this stage there are problems preventing me from making such a concession now. Staff, unlike social workers, may present me with problems in the sense that if we were to subsidize them, we might be faced with problems in another sphere. In fact, we do want to train these people, and once they have been trained, we shall grant the necessary subsidies. Therefore we are trying instead to give them the necessary training, and the moment they have been trained, we shall in fact grant them the subsidies. My problem is that if one grants an unqualified person a subsidy, no matter how devoted to duty he may be, one would actually be opening a door, a step which will create problems for me in other spheres, i.e. if other sections of my department have to refuse certain subsidies to other people who are not fully qualified. I am very sympathetic to the hon. member’s standpoint, and I want to give him the assurance that as far as possible we shall grant assistance in other ways, also in regard to making this training available as far as possible. Furthermore, speaking in general, I am grateful for the spirit of this debate and I want to thank hon. members for it.

We have another quarter of an hour left for listening to further representations.

I found it very interesting today to hear one United Party member after another expressing thanks to the hon. the Minister. They had a great deal of praise for what he has done. But I think they were at fault to some extent. They simply ought to have said: “We thank the National Party very much for the way in which you have been looking after our aged and our pensioners.” It is rather interesting that the hon. member for North Rand even went so far as to say he now regards the hon. the Minister as a good future Prime Minister.

I never said that.

I could never have thought that the English Press could have sown such confusion in their ranks. It is just a pity that there is one little secret he did not let out. They have not told us whom they wanted to elect as their new leader this morning, of is there so much confusion that they are leaderless at the moment after the debacle of last week in this House?

Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein has again given a long dissertation here on the increase of R3 as allegedly being inadequate. For my part I want to say immediately—and I think the hon. the Minister has also said repeatedly—that no one on this side of the House has ever said that R38 is adequate. This Government would very much like to give more, but there are many factors to be considered. I want to ask hon. members on that side to tell us—this is no more than reasonable —what they regard as adequate. We say that at the moment we regard R38 per month as reasonable assistance. Let them tell us what they regard as an adequate pension for an aged person. Let them specify an amount to us. I think the hon. the Minister would very much like to reply to it if they were to tell us the pension should be R100 per month or R80 per month. The hon. member also said that this Government was neglecting its duty in respect of housing for the aged. Sir, it seems to me as if the hon. member is a little fellow who finds it very difficult to grasp something. He came forward with the same story last year, and I then invited him to come to Boksburg one day, where I would show him what this National Party Government was doing in respect of housing for the aged. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member has made that interjection, I should like to tell him this: When I was at Jan Smuts airport last year, one of the members of their Chief Executive—whose name I am not going to mention, because I do not want to embarrass him—spoke about candidates and told me: “We cannot find candidates; we simply have to take those who are available”. Perhaps I should remind the hon. member—perhaps he does not know this—that there were only 23 homes for the aged in 1948, whereas we have 250 at present, including those under construction at the moment. He may be interested to know that 7 per cent of our aged people are in homes for the aged at present; that is what this Government has done for them. [Interjections.] It seems very much to me as if that hon. member no longer knows what he said. I should not like to see him as an aged person, if he already has such a short memory. Sir, the hon. member for Umbilo has repeatedly mentioned a national contributory pension scheme. I should just like to read to him a small report which recently appeared in the Star about what is going on in England at present. The report reads, inter alia, as follows—

The welfare state in Britain was a failure and despite high Government spending, more people than ever were dissatisfied with welfare services, a report published here said.

The report continues—

There I think the hon. member has his reply—and Britain is being held up to us as a model state in this connection.

Why does the hon. member always want to cling to Mother England’s apron strings?

I am very much afraid that the face I have just seen, will also appear on the television we heard about today. May we be spared that.

I should like to bring a few matters in respect of our aged in those homes and housing units to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is a fact that the majority of these aged people live in these homes or housing units without their spouses. I think this makes their life a little more difficult and more lonely. For the sake of interest I may just mention that of the 250 aged people in the flat unit in Boksburg, more than 200 are widows. I am thinking particularly of persons over the age of 65 years. In the light of this, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not perhaps consider having a welfare worker pay regular routine visits there in order to help those aged people with their problems. These are usually problems which are peculiar to these people. Persons using the services provided by the Department of Social Welfare are mostly aged people and the less well-to-do section of our population. Now, it is a fact that there are only three regional offices on the East Rand. i.e. at Germiston, Benoni and Springs. From the last census survey it appears that Boksburg has approximately 40 000 White inhabitants. In view of the transport problems with which the aged and the less well-to-do are faced, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider giving Boksburg its own branch office as well. A great deal is also being done in respect of medical services for our aged, and the less well-to-do, and I particularly want to mention the sympathetic services rendered by our district surgeons and hospitals. I nevertheless want to ask whether it Is not possible to have regular routine visits by the district surgeon or a nurse to those existing institutions or those housing units. I feel that such a nurse will be able to make the task of the district surgeon and the hospitals a good deal easier. They can make life easier for our aged people, because these people sometimes have difficulty in getting to a hospital or a doctor’s consulting rooms.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the Secretary and the staff of the Department very sincerely for their patience, friendliness and helpfulness during the past year as far as our member’s of Parliament are concerned, because we realize that we may be very troublesome at times.

†l am of the opinion that one of the most important social responsibilities that rest on the Government is the care of the unmarried mother and her child. There are four groups of mothers: the divorcee, the widow, the deserted wife and the unmarried girl. The first three are grouped together because they retain their ordinary social standing within the community and so do their children. More often than not the community will sympathize with them on account of their unfortunate lot in life. The unmarried girl does not however, enjoy that social privilege and is ostracized by the community and very often by her own parents. Her child has a stigma attached to it on account of its illegitimate birth which it has to live down or with for the rest of its life. These young mothers and their children are nevertheless part of our society, and it is our duty to care for them, especially for the children, who are not responsible for their illegitimate birth. These girls require ante-natal and postnatal care. It is towards this end that I wish to make a representation to the hon. the Minister for the necessary funds to build such a home in Pietermaritzburg. The building site required has already been donated by the City Council. Fortunately, a precedent has already been established. I believe that the Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk in Observatory, Johannesburg, has been similarly assisted to establish such a pilot scheme. The establishment of this type of home can be a very delicate matter. It must be situated in a good locality and there must be no semblance of it being an institution about the building, whether within or without. At no stage must large blocks of these flatlets be built which can easily develop into a ghetto type of establishment, as has been proved in some large eastern European towns. In many cases local community resistance must be overcome. Instead of this resistance local people should be encouraged to form visiting groups for these young mothers. This has proved invaluable.

In Pietermaritzburg we have a very active child welfare society, headed by a secretary, a highly experienced social worker. They have already established such a home in a rented dwelling house in which several girl mothers have been accommodated. A panel of doctors are tending to their medical requirements, and a teacher visits the girls to help them with their lessons, either for school or secretarial examinations, as in due course they will have to support themselves and their children. The girls usually come from good middle class homes and have been going steady with their putative fathers for long periods. There is no formula for unmarried mothers and their children. In view of this fact, our secretary made an extensive tour of Great Britain and the Continent, visiting homes and examining the work done by their national council for the unmarried mother and her child, to enable her to make a comparison with her own local experience. One fact that has emerged is that these young mothers themselves must decide whether they intend keeping and rearing their infants. They can be guided and advised, but under no circumstances must they be persuaded to give up their babies for adoption. It is a question of mother instinct and can have disastrous results. Even adoption by the grandparents of the child proves unsatisfactory.

What we envisage is a home comprising four or six units, each consisting of a large room, sub-divided and fitted with an electric heating unit, a small fridge and a communal lounge, bathroom and kitchen. A crèche must also be provided. It is our intention that mothers with their children may remain at the home for two years at the most to prepare themselves for the future. Pietermaritzburg has always been prepared to be the guinea pig, so to speak, to untried social welfare undertakings. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister again to help us in this very important matter. If I have a minute left, let me just enumerate the principal necessities that we want to provide the child with over and above his relationship with his mother. I quote—

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.