Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an important Vote in that it affects the welfare of many thousands of people, both the young generation and the older generation. I think, in present circumstances, it has become evident that most members of Parliament, during the last few years in particular, have met with various problems that are facing the aged as well as some of the members of the younger generation. This is due to changing circumstances, the rapid industrialization and urbanization of this country, for example. As a result of these changes these social problems have increased steadily. The first question I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister relates to the administration of the legislation that was passed last year, namely the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act. This legislation was passed during the last session of Parliament and came into operation only some six months ago. Obviously, some difficulties will arise when legislation of this nature is put into practice. I feel that there are certain aspects of this matter in regard to which the hon. the Minister can give this Committee further information. I refer to the position of the young drug addict and the question of the gearing of the hon. the Minister’s department for the rehabilitation of these people. I refer also to the preventive measures that must be taken so that the problem may be tackled realistically. Although the Minister has established, in terms of that legislation, various rehabilitation centres, it would appear that not many persons are being committed to them in terms of sections 29 and 30 of that Act. It would appear that the question of the rehabilitation, particularly of the young addict, is one which requires further attention by the hon. the Minister to find out why many of those persons who have been found to be addicts are not finding their way into these rehabilitation centres.

This brings me to another aspect, which is also related to the administration of this Act. I should like to emphasize that we fully appreciate that this Act has been in operation for only a short period of six months, and it is therefore not easy to establish the effectiveness of this legislation. We sincerely hope, however, that this legislation will act as a deterrent to those persons who are now addicted to drugs, or who require rehabilitation for other reasons. I now come to the gearing of the department with a view to the preventive measures that are necessary. It would appear that, when it comes to field work to be done by the department, further attention should be given to family counselling, the causative factors and other ways in which this problem can be tackled by means of preventive measures. That is why I should like to refer to the Estimates which are before us, where a certain amount is to be voted in respect of attendance centres. In terms of the Children’s Act, which was passed some 12 years ago and which was piloted through the House by the present Prime Minister when he was Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, provision was made for the establishment of attendance centres. This was an innovation, and it was hoped that the establishment of these attendance centres would bring about a position where the services of the professional staff of the department could be used to give guidance and assistance to these people, perhaps on a 24-hour basis. If we look at the position in other parts of the Western world, we find that probation officers and welfare officers, working in close collaboration with the Police, are of great assistance when it comes to dealing with children in need of care. However, we find on page 280 of the Estimates, where provision is made for these attendance centres, that although only R1 000 was provided for this purpose in 1971–’72, the amount to be voted for this purpose for the 1972–’73 financial year has dropped to as little as R100. We believe it is important that this type of work should be done and that these attendance centres should be maintained so that young people can obtain assistance and can be treated and rehabilitated if they develop behavioural problems such as truancy and uncontrollability, without having to be committed to an institution. It is felt that these attendance centres can play a very important part in assisting our younger people who require this assistance. Young people, for instance, often require assistance outside the home, and the professional assistance provided by the department at these attendance centres can be of immense value.

Another matter we wish to raise under the hon. the Minister’s Vote is the position of the older generation, social pensioners, who now find that with spiralling costs, it is immensely difficult to survive and to maintain any decent standard of living. Here I refer to the position, generally, of our social pensioners. Certain of these people will, as announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech, be receiving an extra R3 per month, and War Veteran pensioners will be receiving an extra R5 a month. Although this is most welcome, I believe that it is indeed a great pity that this increase is only to become effective from 1st October. In other words, they will only have the benefit of that increase for a period of six months during the current financial year. Many of these people are facing enormous difficulties, and with the rapid rise in the cost of living, a good portion of that increase which they are about to receive in October, will already have been written off. I hope that the hon. the Minister, by making use of the computerization he has in his department, will not find it too difficult to make these increases effective from the beginning of the financial year, because this will be of great assistance to these people.

With regard to the position of the social pensioners, other members on this side of the House intend to illustrate the difficulties that these pensioners are experiencing, particularly as far as accommodation is concerned. We know what difficulties arise when a person has to sell a home due to increased maintenance costs or the death of his or her spouse. This person is then faced with the difficulty of having to dispose of his or her home and to find accommodation in a home for the aged. We believe that the large number of persons living in homes for the aged is not something of which we can be proud. Most of these people have no alternative but to live in a home for the aged. It is impossible for them to live with their children or to find a flat which is so reasonably priced that they are able to make ends meet on the pension that they receive and that may be supplemented to a certain extent from various sources. We must remember that over 90 per cent of the social pensioners are receiving the maximum pension. Sir, the question of assisting these people to remain in the community is of very great importance, and that is why we would like to see an extension of clubs for the aged.

In terms of the Estimates before us, the amount of R23 000 that was voted last year is now to be reduced to R7 000. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us some indication as to whether his department is taking steps to encourage the establishment of more clubs for the aged, which in turn could be developed as service centres. These clubs for the aged and service centres play a very important role in combating loneliness amongst many of these old people and in promoting their welfare. Another aspect of clubs for the aged is that they provide meals at a very reasonable cost to pensioners. This ensures that the have at least one good meal per day. Many of these clubs for the aged and these service centres also administer meals-on-wheels schemes, which they had found increasingly difficult to maintain with the gradual escalation of costs over the past few years. Sir, these are all services which are aimed at improving the welfare of these old people. These services are provided by welfare organizations in an attempt to keep these old people in the community. In this respect we agree with the hon. the Minister, who has indicated from time to time that it is his policy to ensure that these old people remain within the community for as long as possible. It should only be necessary for them, in time of illness, or in the case of infirmity, to seek the sanctuary of a home for aged and infirm people.

Sir, we welcome the increase in the social pension; we welcome the relaxation of the means test, but when one studies the provisions of the means test it becomes obvious that anomalies will continue to exist. Until such time as it becomes possible to abolish the means test and to introduce a national contributory pension scheme, it will be necessary to have a means test, and these anomalies will therefore continue to arise. There is no doubt that anomalies will arise in terms of the new means test, and we welcome the fact that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions tabled a comprehensive description of the means test when the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance was delivered in the House.

I refer particularly to the question of income limits in terms of the means test. The relaxation which has been granted as far as assets are concerned is realistic, but in terms of the income limits, a ceiling of R58 per month is to be placed on the income of pensioners receiving pensions from a private source. These people will then not be entitled to an old-age pension. Where a person receives an increase in his private persion, which brings his income to just over R58 per month, this could result in his losing R23 per month of his old-age pension. This would mean that he would be far worse off in terms of the means test. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Umbilo put a few specific questions to the hon. the Minister about a very important matter. I do not think he expects me to follow him up in his argument. Sir, I want to come back to another matter, to the announcement the hon. the Minister of Finance made in his Budget speech, an announcement I find exceptionally important, and therefore I should like to quote it here verbatim. The hon. the Minister of Finance said—

Sir, I want to accent that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare will have to make the necessary arrangements; that it falls within his compass to make such an investigation possible. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister today to appoint a representative commission as quickly as possible—I believe he will do so—to investigate this very important matter. Sir, I want to allege that at this stage this matter is a source of very great concern to us. I can hardly recall a single year in which urgent thought has not been given to this matter at National Party congresses. I just want to read to you two or three draft resolutions over the past number of years, simply to demonstrate to what extent there is concern in that connection. We obtained the following resolution from Albertinia (translation)—

Then we obtained the following resolution from Matroosberg (translation)—

Then there was the following resolution, in which the matter is mentioned by name, from Vanrhynsdorp (translation)—

Sir, I think it has probably been proved already beyond all doubt that these allowances are abused. It will probably not be disputed either that those allowances are abused by all race groups and employed incorrectly. But when it comes to the question of illegitimate children, I do not think there is another race group that can be compared with the Coloureds. I am saying this not to be derogatory in respect of the Coloured population as such, but I nevertheless believe that today this is one of the greatest sources of concern amongst responsible Coloureds.

Sociological surveys in the Cape Peninsula, and in the Western Cape in particular, indicate that the birth rate amongst the Coloureds verges on the biological maximum, and a very large percentage of that tremendous number of births constitutes illegitimate births. I do not want to try to elaborate on the philosophy of life of certain strata of the Coloured population when it comes to illegitimate births. The hon. member for Prieska, who is not present today, can actually discuss this matter much more colourfully than I can, but the fact remains that the impression is taking root amongst the general public that the State accepts full responsibility for all these children that are begotten out of wedlock without any sense of responsibility.

Sir, it is frequently stated that young Coloured women do not have to work because they make quite a good living out of these allowances which they receive for their illegitimate children. If that is true— I cannot vouch for it—then the State stands accused in its welfare endeavour of actively trying to promote parenthood without responsibility. As laymen we inevitably all have a solution for the problem. Many of our people feel that the natural father, or the responsible father, must be held responsible in this connection, but who is going to determine who the natural father is, particularly in that race group?

The old people had a striking expression, Sir, which you will not allow me to repeat here today, but it began like this: “If one has fallen into a thorn bush how would one know?” I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that if he appoints a commission to investigate this matter he should make the commission’s terms of reference as sweeping as possible so as to investigate not only the possibility of the abuse of the allowances, but also all possible abuses that crop up as a result of such allowances. And if such a commission were to find beyond all doubt that these allowances could possibly encourage illegitimate births, we are convinced that this Minister would not hesitate to restrict them or even put a stop to them. I am now speaking of the allowances.

I want to conclude, but I dare not neglect to convey the thanks of the aged in my constituency—and there are many of them there—for the increase in the pension, even though it is only from 1st October, as the hon. member for Umbilo indicated. Although we should all like to try to give our old people much more at this stage, we nevertheless feel that the present increase is keeping pace with the increase in the cost of living, and for that we owe the hon. the Minister a great deal of thanks.

The increase which the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in the old-age pension is, I think, completely inadequate. When one criticizes the R41 per month incomes of the old-age pensioners today, one has the apologists from the Government side telling one that since they have come into power they have increased old-age pensions more than threefold, from R12 in 1948 to R41 in 1972. Sir, I want to say that this is completely untrue. The claim that the amount being paid today is worth three times as much as the earlier amount, is riddled with misconceptions. For my argument I am going to confine myself this afternoon to three misconceptions in this connection. In the first place I ask myself whether R41 today can purchase three times as much as R12 could purchase in 1948. I want to say without beating about the bush that with the old 10s. of 1948 one could buy two of today’s rand notes, and then one would still get 10 cents change. As a result of the increase in the cost of living, the 10s. of 1948 is worth only 45 cents today. In other words, R41 in 1972 purchases only what about R18 purchased in 1948, and then hon. members opposite speak of an increase from R12 to R41 as a threefold increase. I want to state that it is not a threefold increase, an increase of 300 per cent, but only an increase of 50 per cent or a half in terms of present-day monetary values.

Then there is a second misconception in this respect, and this is what it is. The question I ask myself is whether the incomes of the pensioners have kept pace with those of the people as a whole. In 1948 the net national income of South Africa’s population was R1 591 million. In 1970 the net national income was R9 930 million. In other words, in this period it grew sixfold. The old-age pensioners’ income increased only threefold as far as monetary value is concerned. If the same ratio is applied, and on the basis of the net national income, we should not in actual fact be paying our pensioners R41 per month today, but six times as much as in 1948. In other words, we should be paying them in the region of R70 per month.

Thirdly, there is another misconception, and this is it. Is the pensioner in South Africa today obtaining his rightful share of the Government’s expenditure on the Revenue Account? In other words, are the pensioners obtaining a fair share of the taxation this Government is spending? In 1948 R242 million was handed out on the Revenue Vote. In 1972, according to the expenses before us, we must vote this year for R2 678 608 000; in other words, the Government expenditure on the Revenue Vote has increased tenfold. It is ten times what it was in 1948. If we then want to apply this formula to also give our old people their rightful share in this Government’s expenditure, we must pay our pensioners ten times more than what they were paid in 1948. It would then work out, I think, to an amount of R120 per month. [Interjections.] What are they getting today? The hon. members may shout, but they are the people who go from one platform to another telling the Afrikaner pensioner how well they are looking after his affairs. [Interjections.] However, that is the position we have in this country today. I want to point out that it is a fact that our old people need more money. They cannot make it today on R41 per month. I also want to say that our old people in South Africa deserve more than R41 per month. Thirdly, I want to allege that South Africa can afford to pay her old people more than R41 per month.

You are ungrateful.

The hon. member for Colesberg says we are ungrateful.

Yes, you.

I say the old people are tired of this rotten carrot, which the Nationalist Party is dangling in front of them, of R2 this year and R3 next year. What we need is a drastic adjustment of the incomes of our old people because they cannot, Heaven knows, live on R41 per month. [Interjections.]

I want to come to a second point, i.e. the adjustments that have been made in respect of the means test. I want to say at once that if the Government is applying its policy in respect of pension systems, I believe the adjustments to be drastic ones and I think the old people owe the Government a tremendous amount of gratitude for the increase of the ceiling as far as the means test is concerned. I should specifically like to advocate the position of the married pensioner with the hon. the Minister today, because when it comes to the married pensioner who applies for a pension and has to present his case, we find that the joint income of the married couple is halved before the means test is applied. Today I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he also gives serious consideration to the halving of the joint assets of the married aged.

I want to mention a specific example. I shall mention the example of a certain Mr. Simpson. He will not be ashamed of my mentioning his position here. He is one of the voters in my constituency whom I visited recently. The joint assets of himself and his wife amount to R35 672. Because of the fact that he is married, the means test disqualifies him and his wife as far as obtaining a pension is concerned. However, if we look at the assets of these two people, on a separate basis, the man’s assets amount to R8 500. This would qualify him for the full pension of R41 per month, plus the additional R11 because he did not apply when he was 65 years of age, plus R10 per month because he is a war veteran. He would qualify for a total pension of R62 per month. His wife’s position is as follows: Her assets amount to R27 172, and if one applies the means test to her, she actually qualified for a pension of R25 per month, plus R11 per month because she did not apply when she was 60 years of age either. She is now 77. Therefore she must actually receive R36 per month. Jointly they could therefore, in actual fact, have obtained R98 per month. However, what do we find? I told my hon. friend that he had better divorce his wife and simply live in sin because only then would they qualify for a joint pension of R98 per month.

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

I did not know people could make such a noise when one is stating the case for old people in this Parliament. I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that we should not merely increase pensions by R2 or R3 per month, or make adjustments every now and then. I think that what this country needs at present is a drastic adjustment in respect of our old people. We must look at this matter in its true perspective. Last year I indicated in this House that the increase of R3 per month, which they obtained last year, had already been absorbed in the cost of living struggle last year and that that increase meant absolutely nothing to them.

You are making politics out of that.

If one goes along and has a chat to old people and they show one their budgets at the end of the month, one can accept that these people really have a case to offer and that they have reason to ask us to give their position serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman. the hon. member for Turffontein, who has just sat down, made a few calculations here, and I immediately want to say to him that it is easy to work with figures in that way. but certain of those calculations are not sound at all. The most interesting aspect is that the hon. member condemned everything that has been done, but did not put forward a single positive proposal. Here are other hon. members …

Where is he wrong?

He asks that pensions should be increased, but he mentions no amount. Here are other hon. members on our side of the House who will reply to certain of the allegations made by the hon. member.

However. I want to refer to a few other matters. Since the passing of the Drugs Act last year, a great deal has been said about this Act. A great deal has been said in support of what this Act seeks to achieve, and a great deal has also been said condemning the entire Act or parts thereof. However, it is a fact that we in South Africa are very satisfied and happy that we do have such an Act on the Statute Book, and that we have a Minister who wants to apply and enforce this Act in such a determined manner. We can assure him that we support his determination and his endeavour to stamp out drug addiction entirely. Now, we know that from the side of the judiciary doubts have been raised in regard to certain of the penal provisions of this Act. We also know that the Minister has had certain discussions with the judiciary. I should like to ask whether the Minister has had further discussions with the judiciary and whether the difference in viewpoint and interpretation has been settled. It is necessary to point out that only sections 1 to 17 of this Act deal with the imposition of penalties. Sections 18 to 65, on the other hand, refer to rehabilitation. By far the greater part of this Act deals with rehabilitation and the uplifting of drug addicts. I think it is highly necessary that this should also be emphasized occasionally. While speaking of rehabilitation, I should like the Minister to tell us how the rehabilitation work at Bloemfontein and Magaliesburg is progressing.

Then there is another matter I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. In addition to an employee’s salary, the pension he is going to receive on retirement is of the greatest importance to him. This also applies to persons in the employment of the State and of the provincial administrations in a permanent capacity. The latter group are at present members of four different pension funds and I want to mention them. The first is the Public Service Pension Fund, and then there are the South African Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund and the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund. Then all male members of these funds are also compulsory contributors to the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. Now the question immediately arises why there must be five different pension funds for permanent officials of the Government and why these pension funds cannot be amalgamated. Such an amalgamation will bring us considerable benefits. Firstly, we now have five sets of regulations covering these various pension funds, and if regulations have to be amended, there are therefore five sets of regulations to be amended instead of only one. In these regulations there are many corresponding provisions and in this respect there should therefore be no great problem in amalgamating these funds. But there is a further benefit. It will be necessary to have only one fund valued by an actuary instead of having it done in respect of five funds. This alone will bring us a saving in manpower and, I believe, in money of thousands of rands.

But let us take a look at the assets of these funds. I want to mention the assets of two of these funds only. The Public Service Pension Fund, for instance, has assets to the value of R463 million. The Permanent Force Pension Fund has assets to the value of R82 million. When one looks at this, it seems clear that it will benefit the smaller funds to amalgamate with the other funds.

But, in addition, we have to consider the involved formulae for the calculation of pensions. These involved formulae can also be eliminated. I want to read out to the House the way in which a pension is determined at the moment and then the House must decide for itself whether a person can ever calculate for himself what his pension will be on retirement. It reads more or less as follows: It is a basic pension calculated at a specified factor, which varies in certain circumstances, multiplied by the average salary over the last three years of service, multiplied by the actual years and months of service. To this is added a bonus of 5 per cent, which is consolidated with the basic pension. On the consolidated amount a bonus is payable which varies from 10 per cent to 100 per cent, depending on the date of retirement. In addition, every pensioner receives a temporary allowance, which also varies. That is still not the end. A pensioner whose basic pension, plus bonus, plus temporary allowance, amounts to less than the guaranteed minimum pension, then receives a further supplementary allowance. It is impossible to calculate for oneself what the amount of one’s pension will be on retirement. I believe it will be very beneficial to pensioners if we can consolidate all these things and simplify them considerably. I therefore want to plead for such consolidation. Even though contributions to these funds are made at different rates and even though there are different retirement benefits, amalgamating the funds should not present any real problem to us, because there is the case where 11 different pension funds of the provincial administrations and South-West Africa were consolidated in 1969. We can use that effort, which was crowned with success, as an example. I therefore want to plead that serious attention be given to amalgamating these pension funds and consolidating the benefits.

Then there is a further question that arises from this, i.e. whether the pension benefits payable from these funds should not be improved. Service of 40 years gives an official a pension of approximately half his salary on retirement. An official who has been in the service of the State all his life can hardly be expected to lower his standard of living by about half all of a sudden. I think the time has arrived for the amount in pension to be brought closer to the salary on retirement and not to be approximately half of his salary. The pensions of widows of officials can also be improved if the separate Widows’ Pension Fund is abolished. This can be done if the widows of officials can be guaranteed two-thirds of the pension their husbands receive or would have received. And then there is another matter that follows from this, i.e. that the guaranteed minimum pension also needs attention. These pensions are coupled to social pensions, and this does not seem right to me. One wants to request that civil pensions be divorced from social pensions altogether. A pension fund can, after all, be expected to look after the interests of the pensioners. A person receiving a pension from his employer should not be dependent on social aid as well. In this regard one also wants to appeal to employers to pay decent pensions to their ex-employees and to keep the depreciation of money constantly in mind when pensions are adjusted periodically. Having said all this, I want to make a serious request to the hon. the Minister to have this entire question of pensions for public servants and State pensioners, as well as all other pension funds and schemes falling under the control of the department and administered by the department, thoroughly investigated so that certain of these anomolies may be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Germiston referred to the Drugs Act and the combating of the abuse of drugs. I want to say to him and to the hon. the Minister that as far as the combating of the abuse of drugs is concerned, this side of the House is entirely in agreement with the Government that this evil must be combated. We shall support and assist the Government where we possibly can. The hon. member also spoke about the rehabilitation centres and the work being done by the department. We know that excellent work is being done by dedicated officials and that wonderful results are being achieved at these rehabilitation centres with the work being done there. However, we must remember that there is another aspect of this evil that is of far greater importance, namely that of prevention. Wherever this evil first raises its head, sometimes in a perfectly innocent way, we must immediately combat it. This will save us a tremendous amount, not only in money and labour, but also in sorrow and trouble caused by this evil in our society today.

I should like to return to the question of pensions and to express the opinion that we on this side of the House do not think that the old-age pensions being paid today are at all adequate, especially not if one considers the high cost of living. However, I want to speak about another matter—I think the hon. the Minister already knows what I am going to speak about—and that is the question of our war veterans. We are very grateful that the Government has at last given a little more to the war veterans than to the ordinary pensioner. It seems that, in giving a little more to these people, who were prepared to make sacrifices in their time, the Government has at last realized that our country as such does owe them a little more. We are also glad that the means test has been relaxed to a certain extent as far as the war veterans are concerned. We are, however, convinced that the time has arrived for the war veterans of the First World War to be fully exempted from the means test. There are not many of them left in any case.

When we look at figures furnished by the Minister in this House, we see that there are only about 6 500 of them left. Naturally they are decreasing in number rapidly. We are still pleading that the Government should abolish the means test, as it did in the case of the war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War, as soon as possible. This still remains our plea for them.

The second matter I want to raise with the Minister is the question of the definition of “war veteran”. Here I am referring specifically to the definition as regards the Bantu. I please do not want the Minister to tell me that I must talk to the other Minister. That is passing the buck. This matter is not in the hands of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I do not think it is in the hands of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development either. I think it is a matter to be decided by the Cabinet. We must have someone in this House to plead our case with the Cabinet, and I think that hon. Minister is our man. I again want to ask him to consider this matter, to discuss it with his colleagues and to raise it with the Cabinet. From the nature of the case we must realize that we, the Whites in South Africa, however much we should like to do so, cannot protect and defend our country with our Whites alone. We have always needed the Blackman. We used him, and he rendered excellent service, in the last war. We are also told by the people who are experts in this field today that the only way to combat terrorists and people of that sort is to get the Bantu population in those areas on your side. One of the ways to get the Bantu on our side is to make him understand that, if he helps us, we shall look after him subsequently just as we look after the Whites. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to discuss the matter with the Cabinet again and, if it is possible, to include the Bantu in the definition of “war veterans”.

Now I have only one more question to the Minister. We read in the Press over the week-end—I am glad the hon. the Minister of Defence is here—that a national serviceman involved and injured in an accident is entitled to a pension of only R38 per month, irrespective of how serious the injury is and how disabled the man will subsequently be. I do not know whether the report is correct or not. I wonder if the Minister will be good enough to explain to this Committee what precisely the position is as regards the national servicemen in our Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying, in the first place, how grateful we are for the increase of the allowance to children in children’s homes. A very big job is being done there, and our experience is that the number of children who are committed to children’s homes is growing. Those children are all emotionally disturbed. Now, it is no use just providing them with accommodation, food and clothes and then thinking you have rehabilitated them. Then you still have not got to the root of the problem. Doing everything for that child that is necessary for his real rehabilitation requires a great deal more than just that. The work is always hampered by lack of funds. Therefore this concession which has been made can be regarded as a very wise investment in the youth, in those young people of the future who will still be rehabilitated. We want to say thank you for that, but at the same time I want to raise a matter that was raised by the previous speaker as well. There is another group of people for whom we can also make a much better investment. They are those persons who are called up as national servicemen. The hon. the Minister of Defence quite recently said the following at Sutherland, according to Die Burger (translation)—

We are living in a world where the threats inside and outside the country are increasing. The dangerous weapons which are being designed are becoming more and more dangerous and their victims are tending to increase in number. Under these circumstances one feels that consideration should be given to these people who perform national service.

In my own constituency I constantly see the thousands of young men who come to receive their training at the Danie Theron Combat School. It strikes one that they come from all strata of the nation. It does not matter whether the person is the son of the Prime Minister or a Minister or a public servant, whether it is a young man with academic qualifications or whether it is an ordinary man’s son, the fact remains that they are there, and statistics prove that the victims among those who are on national service are increasing. Now I have asked myself: What exactly is the pension available to these people if some disaster or other befalls them? As we recently saw, such disasters often befall young people. I have ascertained that in the case of a person who has lost both his hands or both his feet or his vision, he receives a pension of not more than R54 a month, plus a bonus. He can also qualify for a small pension for his wife, if he is married, or for his children, if he has children. The total he may receive, the ceiling, is approximately R120 if his potential is taken into account as well. That young man may perhaps be totally disabled. I know of one young man with academic qualifications who will be confined to a wheelchair for life, and who now has to become a lift operator. That man with his fine future has been totally ruined, and now I ask myself: Is it not the duty of the State to care for this sort of case to a larger extent? Must not the War Pensions Act be amended in such a way that a gratuity may be paid to such a person as well? He could not build up a nest-egg for himself to buy a house or to ensure his future. Do we not owe it to those young people, those men, and women too, who protect our safety, to do something drastic in order to give them better pension conditions if they are struck by such a disaster? Naturally it will perhaps be said: “But what about the cost?” I have never heard anyone, from whichever side of the House, complain because large sums of money are spent on the defence of our country. The defence of the country is attended to by those very men who are being trained for it. I think that if we were to go to the public and ask them to pay up so as to make it possible for the pensions of these people who render such a useful service and who have the safety of all of us at heart, to be improved, nobody would flinch from that responsibility which we have to fulfil in respect of such persons. Therefore I want to address a plea to the Minister in this connection. We know of everything he has done by means of bonuses, etc., but in my opinion something more drastic should be done. Perhaps we ought to ascertain whether a formula cannot be found which will give more satisfaction not only to those persons who have been struck by misfortune, but also to us who are out of it and who see what sacrifices they have to make. Therefore I plead with the hon. the Minister for a revision of this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the administration of the Drugs Act. I must say that it is a very curious and anomalous situation that when one wants to discuss the application of the Abuse of Dependance-Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, to give it its full title, with the Minister of Social Welfare, the only realities about which one can speak, concern the application of the punitive provisions of the Act, for the simple reason that the rehabilitation centres are largely non-existent; a fact which I believe the hon. the Minster must have been well aware of when he rushed this Bill through Parliament in three days last year. Indeed, Sir, the hon. the Minister must also have been aware of this fact when he made an extraordinary statement to the Sunday Express about a month after the Act came into operation at the end of last year, when he said—

Where does the hon. the Minister get his figure from, I wonder? I have put repeated questions to Ministers in this House. I have tried to find out the number of people tried, sentenced, and the nature of the sentence which has been passed, and I have been met with repeated replies that the statistics are not available. What I have elicited from the Minister of Police is that in a period of less than two months after the Act was put into operation, 4 463 people had been prosecuted under the Drugs Act. I presume the hon. the Minister must have been referring to these people, or certainly to good numbers of them when he said that 75 per cent of the people “brought before the courts”—which means prosecuted—had been sent to rehabilitation centres. Now, where are these centres? Where do these people go to? There is not one in the country for Africans, to the best of my knowledge. They are, I believe, building one at the moment at Madadeni for Africans. There is not one single centre for Indians. There are two centres for Coloureds, and those are really alcoholic centres. As for Whites, for whom the hon. the Minister is really responsible, two centres are at the moment being constructed at Cullinan, one for men which will, I think, house 36 people, and one for women, also to house 36 people. There is one already in existence for juveniles, which also. I think holds about 36 people, but there is nobody there at all at the moment. There are, of course, a few people presently being attended to in some of the alcoholic rehabilitation centres that exist; I think there are six of these throughout the entire Republic. Then there are a few dozen people—perhaps even a few hundred—being attended to by the welfare societies drug centres. So how the hon. the Minister can say that 75 per cent of the people sent to court are being attended to at rehabilitation centres, is quite beyond me.

Will the Minister tell me also what he meant by saying that a great fuss was being made about a “small number of cases”? At the very time he was saying that, the Press was reporting thousands of cases being referred to the courts. Indeed, anybody who knew about prosecution before the new Act was passed, would know that there would have to be thousands, because even before the new Act was passed, the numbers of prosecutions in the preceding year were just over 40 000. So it is nothing new to say that there are large numbers of people appearing in court for drug abuses. But, Sir, what is new is the enormous burden of work now being thrown on the review courts as a result of the penal provisions of the new Act and the enormous increase in prison population, as a result of the mandatory prison sentences or, anyway, what magistrates took to be mandatory prison sentences. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that as the numbers of persons in gaol are being reduced because of the operation of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration’s aid centres, so their places are rapidly being taken up by those who are being put into gaol under the new Drugs Act. So we are not going to get a big reduction in our prison population as a result of the aid centres. Sir, as at the 24th February of this year 1 236 cases under the new Act had already been reviewed; 676 were pending review, with no doubt many more already on the conveyor belt, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the sentences that were reviewed were reduced, except on the Witwatersrand, where the chief magistrate had the good sense to hold a sort of seminar of magistrates in an attempt to give some sort of guidance as to what should be done under the new Act. In this connection I find the comments of the Natal Bench, as far as review cases are concerned, very interesting. I am grateful to the hon. the Minister of Justice for making this review judgment available to me. This is what they said—

They went on to say—

As I say, out go the pass offenders and in come the drug offenders; that is progress South African style. Sir, two other comments from the review court are, 1 believe, worth recording in this House, which is always so sure that it is doing the right thing. One comment was—

As “minute”, indeed; if one looks at some of these cases, one sees that people are sentenced for being in possession of one dagga cigarette or for growing one dagga plant in the backyard. The second comment

I think if the hon. the Minister would take the trouble to look through the records, or the reports of them in newspapers, he would find that there is an uneven application of this Act as far as persons of different colour are concerned, as far as the different provinces are concerned, and even between persons of the same colour being prosecuted for the same offence. Vastly uneven sentences have been imposed. Sir, what has been the hon. the Minister’s reaction to the criticism of the court and of the many experts—sociologists, social workers and psychologists—who have criticized the administration of his precious Act? Firstly, he said that he could not understand what the judges’ problems were, and secondly, he made it absolutely clear that he was not prepared in any way to water down the Act. Indeed, he said that if he felt that the Act was not being applied with sufficient severity he was going to look for loopholes and he was going to tighten the application of this Act. So we are back to square one, with the Minister charging into this situation like a bull into a china shop, which is exactly what he did last year when he rushed this measure through Parliament in three days, when the Grobler Committee had not even considered the whole question of dagga, the abuse of which is, of course, by far the most widespread in this country. Sir, I want to analyse these cases in order to prove my point. The vast majority of people who are brought before our courts are not pedlars. I will analyse those figures as well, Sir, if I get another opportunity. The vast majority are not pedlars. The vast majority of people who are brought before the courts are people who are using dagga, the use of which is not regarded in other countries in the same serious light as in this country. As the hon. the Minister knows, since he met the members of the United States President’s Drug Commission, as I did when they were out here recently, they had actually recommended in America that possession and private use of dagga should no longer be a punishable offence.

That was rejected.

Yes, it was, but this is what this expert commission recommended nevertheless. Politically, of course, the President could not accept it, because he thinks it is a very good political measure, just as the hon. the Minister thinks it is a very good political measure. I, of course, happen to disagree with him profoundly in both respects. Now, if one analyses the figures—and I will start doing so, although doubt whether I will finish—it is quite clear that thousands of hours of the court’s time and of the time of the Police have been spent even in the short time that this Act has been in operation, on dagga and with offences, often bordering on trifles, on matters that the law is not really supposed to care about, and thousands of people have landed in gaol as a result, which is exactly what I anticipated when I opposed this measure last year and was severely castigated by the hon. the Minister for so doing, and was virtually accused of being in favour of drugs abuse by certain hon.—in inverted commas, I might add—members of the Opposition. [Time expired.]

I am rising straight away to say, first of all, a few words about the question of drugs. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the other matters now. Therefore I want to dispose of the question of drugs first. The hon. member for Houghton, who has just resumed her seat, has already acquired the reputation in South Africa, and in this House she has been acquiring it to an ever-increasing extent with each passing day. of being the official mouthpiece of permissiveness in South Africa, of being the official mouthpiece of all subversive activities in South Africa.

On a point of order, Sir, is that allowed?

What did the hon. the Minister say?

I said she was the official mouthpiece of subversive activities in South Africa.

No, the hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but I want to add at once that she is the mouthpiece for everything that is evil in South Africa; she is the mouthpiece of everything which is un-South African in South Africa. She is the mouthpiece of all people who want to subvert law and order and authority and respectability in our country.

Order! The last statement is out of order, too.

I withdraw it, if it is unparliamentary, but that is the way one feels when one sees the hon. member rising in every debate and stepping in for those things which prejudice South Africa in all spheres. The hon. member quoted to me the judgment given by the Natal Judiciary on this matter, but the hon. member quoted precisely that little part which suited her. The whole attitude of the judgment as a whole was that the Natal Judiciary specifically wanted to make the statement that they wanted to infer by these means how gravely the legislature considered this matter to be, and how gravely the legislature stated the case—that was why it passed such exceptionally tough laws. The entire quotation from the judgment of the Natal Bench which she read out here, is aimed at motivating why the Natal Judiciary is adopting such a strong attitude in regard to the whole matter. But now she pretends that she wants to put the matter right, that the Natal Judiciary is indirectly criticizing the legislation and the legislature for the severe laws it passes. This is completely off the point. The hon. member is very wide of the mark, as usual.

But I thought the Judiciary would have no discretion?

Yes, that is the other argument. I just want to add this. Actually, the entire argument which the hon. member advanced, was put forward because I had said that 75 per cent of these cases were in fact being sent to the rehabilitation centres. There is a minor misunderstanding in regard to the whole article that was published. What my argument is and was and still remains, is that 75 per cent of the provisions of the Bill deals with rehabilitation and that just a quarter of a smaller percentage of it deals with the actual penalties; 75 per cent deals with rehabilitation, from clause 16 to clause 65, and only clause 1 to 15 deal with the penalties. In the light of this position I said that 75 per cent of the Act concentrated on the rehabilitation, but a tremendous fuss was still being kicked up about the first 15 clauses. I did not speak about accused persons and I did not speak about rehabilitation. The report is definitely wrong in that respect. I spoke about the Act and the composition of the Act.

How do you rehabilitate without centres?

The hon. member is referring to my drug centres. Both of them are in operation already. If she had read the newspapers, she would have seen that I inaugurated them in April. They are receiving people at the moment and have already admitted people. And we do not only have two of them. There are many more. But what are the facts in regard to the Drugs Act? I want to quote first from a report in Die Burger dealing specifically with the Cape Province, a report of what was said by Lt.-Col. J. A. N. Grobbelaar, chief of the liquor and drug division of the police here in Cape Town. According to Die Burger he said (translation)—

A month later we find the same situation— once again a brief report on the position here (translation)—

This is the effect of this Act. I also want to illustrate this by way of the official statistics I received from the Department of Police. I only want to take the figures for February and compare them with those for February a year ago, because we are dealing with seasonal situations as this is a plant that is grown. I am referring specifically to dagga. In February, 1971, there were throughout the country 112 cases of charges relating to the cultivation of dagga. By February, 1972, this figure had been reduced to 82 cases. There were 89 cases relating to the abuse of dagga; one year later this figure had been reduced to 71. In February, 1971, there were 3 025 charges relating to the possession of dagga; in February, 1972, there were 2 644. In respect of other drugs there were 26 cases in the month of February, 1971; by February, 1972, this figure had been reduced to 13. To me this is a very clear indication that this legislation is in fact serving its purpose and is in fact succeeding.

Perhaps they are only hiding it more effectively.

The hon. member expressed very strong views on the question of dagga, as though dagga were an innocent plant, quite innocent in the sense that she referred to the fact that recommendations had been made in other countries that it should be legalized.

It is not stronger than alcohol in any event.

There is a very strong difference of opinion amongst scientists in regard to the question of whether or not dagga has harmful effects. I should like to quote from a report drawn up by two American medical researchers, Dr. Hollister and Mr. Gillespie, in regard to the similarity between dagga and LSD. I quote—

Then the report goes on, and they quote our case very clearly—

Then the report goes on to deal with the effects of this situation—

Then the whole picture is outlined, and, in conclusion, we come to the following—

Now, this is the innocent dagga to which the hon. member is referring, and South Africa’s dagga, which is in addition, 20 times as strong as the dagga used in the tests, is mentioned in the same breath with LSD. However, I want to go further. This caused anxiety not only in America, but also in the U.N. I quote—

This is the medical effect and the medical evidence which I have and on the basis of which I as the Minister must act. I am grateful for the fact that I have in this case the full support of the official Opposition in South Africa for this standpoint. Iam deliberately going to quote the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that they adopt the same attitude, and I am grateful to him for these words. I am going to quote the words used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition last year when he was the main speaker on the Opposition side on the occasion of the introduction of this legislation. I refer to Hansard, 1971, column 6087—

This is the starting-point taken by the Opposition, which therefore agrees with us. In other words, 99,9 per cent of the legislature in South Africa agree that dagga should be mentioned in the same breath with LSD and heroin.

That is absolute rubbish.

The 0,1 per cent “rubbish” is sitting over there …

Order! The hon. member for Houghton continually asks me to protect her, but she keeps on with her interruptions. Those interruptons must cease. The hon. the Minister may continue.

That is typical of the liberalist. He is merciless and cruel to any person who differs with him under the name of liberalism. He is mercilessly cruel, and no excuse of any nature is accepted; on the contrary, when people agree with him, he is in favour of liberalism, but the moment somebody opposes him, he is the most merciless person in the world. I want to quote another passage in connection with this question of drugs before issuing a statement in regard to this matter. What I want to quote, is a passage taken from a speech made by President Nixon in the United States—

This is the United States—

That is what the problem looks like in the United States, and now the hon. member wants us to tackle this matter here in a slack and weak-kneed manner. Now, we should not think that this is so far away from us. I want to quote one single set of statistics here to prove how this affects our country, not as regards the numbers, but as regards the harm done. During the period 14th September, 1970, to 30th April. 1972, a private institution in Durban had 69 in-patients and 26 out-patients who had drug problems and were treated for them. Of this number of patients 22 of the in-patients and five of the out-patients were under the age of 18 years. The average period of dependence of all the patients, was from one to three years. Seventeen percent of these patients started taking drugs between the ages of 11 and 13 years. Hundred per cent of them started with dagga and eventually ended with stronger drugs. Sixty-nine per cent of them ended with amphetamine abuse. Fifty-six per cent abused LSD, and 22 per cent of them had had experience of heroin. What was the result? Six of the youths who received treatment in this private institution, proved to be so far gone when they arrived there that they had to be certified as having sustained permanent brain damage and had to be admitted to a mental hospital in Durban. That is what it looks like in South Africa—not in America, but in our country. There we have six youths with permanent brain damage who are in mental institutions at the moment because the legislation is still not strict enough. In spite of this pleas are still made for mitigating circumstances and a lax attitude in this regard. I should like to issue a statement in regard to the whole matter, a statement which I think is necessary under the circumstances. From time to time, while various court cases in regard to this matter were pending, I refused to comment on the whole matter, because one feels, and I still agree with this today, that the courts should go their own way in the execution of their duties. This is quite correct; this is the way it ought to be. The standpoint I want to state very strongly today is that we passed this Act and that it is the duty of the courts to implement the Act as it has been placed on the Statute Book. My intention is not to interfere with the authority of the courts, but in fact to say what the legislature intended when the Act was placed on the Statute Book. It is against that background that one may take stock of the matter to a certain extent. I should like to make a statement in this regard.

†Hon. members are aware of the wide publicity given to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971, and I would like to deal here briefly with the position, without intending or giving the impression that we intend in any manner whatsoever to interfere with the functions of the Judiciary. The following statistics of cases revealed by the Supreme Court will be of interest to hon. members. These figures relate to the very first time the courts sat in regard to this matter. In Natal 24 cases dealt with, there were 17 convictions for possession or use of drugs, seven convictions for dealing and of these 17 convictions for the possession or use, in two cases the sentences were confirmed. In 15 cases the sentences were altered. In the case of convictions for dealing in drugs, five of the seven cases were confirmed, one was altered and one sentence was set aside. In the Transvaal of 21 convictions for the possession or use of drugs, one sentence was confirmed and the other 20 sentences were altered. Of eight convictions for dealing in drugs, two were confirmed and six were altered. In the Cape, out of 19 convictions for possession or use of drugs, six were confirmed and 13 were altered. Of the three convictions for dealing with drugs, one was confirmed and two were altered. Out of the total of 57 convictions for use or possession of drugs in (these provinces, only nine sentences were confirmed and 48 were altered. Out of the total of 18 convictions for dealing in drugs, eight sentences were confirmed, nine were altered and one was set aside. Hon. members will recall that we specially introduced a section into the Act last year to provide lighter sentences for the possession or use of drugs to be imposed in those cases where the courts were satisfied that circumstances existed which would justify a lighter sentence than the prescribed minimum sentence. It will also be observed that of the 75 cases revised by the Supreme Court, 48 sentences for the possession or use of dagga were altered on review. Of those 48 sentences, 27 were altered because the various divisions of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that the provisions of the section to which Ihave already referred, should have been applied. It is not my intention in any way to call into question the propriety of the Supreme Court’s unquestionable power of acting as it did.

Hon. members will also recall that when the relative Bill was debated in Parliament last year, we were particularly concerned that dealers or pedlars in drugs should be severely dealt with and I wish to add that that is still the position today. I accordingly would like to deal more particularly with those sentences imposed for the illicit dealing in drugs which were set aside on review.

Of the 18 sentences imposed for dealing in drugs, 10 were altered or set aside on review. In two of these cases the accused were convicted of contravening section 61 (1) (b) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, 1928. The conviction and sentence of one of them were confirmed on appeal, but the conviction and sentence of the other were set aside as there was insufficient evidence to connect the accused with the cultivation of dagga plants by her husband.

In another case where the sentence for dealing in dagga was altered, the accused was convicted for dealing in dagga by cultivating 56 dagga plants. Three years of the sentence of five years imprisonment were suspended on review on certain conditions, because the court was of the opinion that the small quantity of plants cultivated justified such a step.

I will also briefly deal with each one of the other sentences for dealing in drugs which were disturbed on review—

1. (a) In case A the accused was convicted for dealing in a small quantity of dagga on two separate occasions shortly after the commencement of the new Act. His attorney, through no fault of the accused, did not appear at the trial. In the circumstances the conviction was confirmed, but the matter was remitted to the magistrate for further hearing on the question of sentence.
2. (b) In case B the accused, who had a clean record, is unable to work on account of a knife wound. He has no income and was convicted of selling 10,7 grams of dagga for another dealer. The offence was committed shortly after the commencement of the Act. The court suspended four years of the five years’ imprisonment imposed. The count’s approach to the matter would appear to be that the accused would under the 1928 Act have been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment only. Apparently the accused’s personal circumstances, the small quantity of dagga involved and the commission of the offence so shortly after the commencement of the new Act were factors which were taken into account.
3. (c) In case C the accused sold two packets of dagga of unascertained weight. The court held that the magistrate misdirected himself in that tie held that a minimum sentence should be suspended in very exceptional circumstances only as such an approach would place an unwarranted onus on the convicted person. It was also held that statements made extra-judicially, namely in Parliament, should not have been taken into account.
4. (d) In case D the accused, a washerwoman with one child and a clean record was convicted of selling 26,4 grams of dagga. The court found that the only circumstance in her favour is the fact that she was probably unaware of the new legislation and had a clean record, and that in those circumstances a minor part of the sentence should have been suspended, but that this circumstance is insufficient basis for the court to interfere. Three years of the five years imposed was nevertheless suspended.
5. (e) In case E the two accused were convicted of selling 7 kg of dagga within walking distance of compounds housing 90 000 Bantu. The court was of the opinion that this was the type of offender who deserves no leniency, but nevertheless reduced the sentence of seven years imposed in each case to five years’ imprisonment each as they were probably unaware of the introduction of the Act.
6. (f) In case F the accused, a Coloured youth of 18 years, sold two grams of dagga to a little girl of ten years old. He had one previous conviction under Act 13 of 1928 for being in possession of dagga. The magistrate imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, but apparently did not consider dealing with the accused as a juvenile offender in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, nor did he consider the suspension of a portion of the sentence. The court held that these matters should have been considered. The sentence was set aside and the matter remitted to the magistrate for consideration of the matters referred to before imposing sentence.
7. (g) In case G the accused, a youth of 18 years, was convicted of dealing in dagga in that he enticed another to buy 1,8 grams of dagga from him. He admitted a previous sale of dagga. The reviewing court was of the opinion that this was a proper case for dealing with the accused as a juvenile offender in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, and to impose a whipping in terms of section 345 of that Act. The sentence was set aside and the matter was remitted to the magistrate for the imposition of a punishment under section 345.

The reviewing courts pointed out that there is nothing in the Act which indicates that the normal approach by the courts to the question of punishment should not apply. The governing rule of interpretation is and always has been to endeavour to ascertain the intention of the lawmaker from a study of the provisions of the enactment in question. It is also a well established rule, as a perusal of the authorities will show, that in assessing an appropriate sentence, it is necessary to have regard, not only to the main purposes of punishment, viz.: deterrent, prevention, reformative and retributive, but also both to the individual concerned and the circumstances of his crime.

It follows that all the factors which may be validly considered in regard to sentence in the direction of mitigating such sentence, may be properly taken into account in deciding whether “circumstances” exist in terms of section 7 of the Act. Whether or not the Court eventually is satisfied that a lighter sentence should be imposed, depends upon a moral judgment to be reached by the Court in all the circumstances of the case, including the manifest severity of the Act as indicating the legislature’s view of the seriousness of the offences under the Act. That there must naturally be some limit to what may be regarded as “circumstances” is of course also clear.

The following factors have been held to be potentially relevant factors to be taken into account in deciding whether there are circumstances which justify a light sentence—

1. (a) The age of the accused and his condition, particularly in regard to his cultural, physical, mental and emotional states, etc.
2. (b) The factual context in which the crime was committed and the motive of the accused.
3. (c) The limited quantity and nature of the dependence-producing substance in his possession, including the fact that dagga is almost certainly not as dangerous and harmful as some of the substances with which it is coupled in the relevant penal provisions of the Act;
4. (d) The absence of previous convictions or, if any exist, the nature, number and the dates thereof and the time which has elapsed since the last relevant such conviction.
5. (e) Whether or not the accused is in regular employment and has dependants.
6. (f) The local conditions and incidence of the specific crime.
7. (g) Any pressure exerted on the accused by persons in authority over, or having influence upon him as well as duress or intimidation.
8. (h) Whether or not the offence was committed so soon after the commencement of the Act that the accused was unlikely to have been aware of the new and more drastic approach to the whole question of dagga.
9. (i) The probable affect upon the accused of a long or substantial period of imprisonment.
10. (j) Any other factor, bearing on the commission of the crime, which reduces the moral blameworthiness of the accused.

These factors are those which are normally taken into account when assessing the punishment which is to be meted out to a person convicted of a crime. Hon. members will, however, note that a distinction is drawn between dagga on the one hand and other drugs classified in the same group as dagga, on the other hand. I do not think that it was the intention of the legislature that such a distinction should be drawn. It did not regard dagga as a lesser evil than, for example, heroin, or any other drug classified in the same group as dagga. For that reason, no distinction was made between the punishment prescribed for dealing with or possessing dagga and that prescribed for dealing with or possessing the other drugs classified in the same group as dagga, especially in so far as the minimum sentences are concerned. All the drugs classified in the first group of the Schedule were all considered so harmful and dangerous that they were not only grouped together but intended to be dealt with equally severely.

There never was any doubt that the sentences prescribed under the Act, not even the minimum sentences, could be suspended, either totally or partly. There is no general rule that the court must be satisfied that special or exceptional circumstances exist before it can suspend a sentence. All the circumstances which exist and which may induce the court to impose a less severe or a lighter sentence, are relevant in considering whether or not to suspend a sentence. There is also no general rule that a first offender should always be extended the advantage of a suspended sentence. What must always be weighed up, is the benefit of the accused and of society in deciding what is a fair or equitable punishment.

For purposes of the record and without trying to impose my own views on any court or any other person, I would like to say that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Government is concerned, it is not our intentions that drug dealers should be dealt with otherwise but severely. It was never our intention that a drug dealer who might find himself in pecuniary difficulties, should be treated less severely than any other drug dealer just on account of his own personal circumstances or because his trade is carried on in small quantities at a time. The drug law has been devised for the protection of our people, especially the youth of whatever population group they might belong to. against the drug menace. The small dealer might be selling a small quantity at a time when he is arrested but there is no saying how many small sales have been effected by him by the time that he is discovered.

Drugs, especially dagga. are in any event seldom sold in large quantities. The dealer may conceivably be caught with a large quantity of dagga in his possession but the actual sales are generally conducted on a much smaller scale. But that does not make the drug menace any less severe. There can be no doubt that the large quantities of dagga which are sometimes found in the possession of dealers will, but for interception by the Police, eventually reach the abused or addicts and cause as much harm as the total quantity is capable of causing, whether sold in bulk or otherwise.

I feel that the evil which the legislature has tried to curb by the legislation that it enacted placed the emphasis on drugs rather on the personal circumstances of a dealer who might be unfortunate to be caught selling a small quantity of dagga. The whole Act is aimed at the protection of our people against drug abuse and any person whatsoever can ensure for himself a complete exemption from the provisions relating to dealing in drugs by simply abstaining from dealing in drugs, either in small or great quantities.

I also would like to make it emphatically clear that in enacting the legislation which we did, we did not for one moment intend to make any difference in its application to the various population groups in our country. We were naturally aware at the time that there are people who habitually abuse drugs, whilst there are others who do so occasionally only. We also made ample provision for dealing with the addict, but we certainly never intended that an abuser of drugs should be dealt with less severly just because he belongs to a particular group who was customarily used to abusing such drugs. If we had to apply such distinctions I fear that we may achieve some alarming results where, for example, two men, guilty of exactly the same offence, would be differently dealt with, merely on the grounds of the customs of the group to which the one belongs and which the other might have the misfortune not to belong to.

The aim of the legislature was to protect all its peoples against the evils of dagga smoking. We can only succeed in doing so, if our actions are equally effectively directed against all transgressors, irrespective of the peer group to which they might belong.

I am aware that it has on occasion been said that “justice must be done, but mercy, not a sledge-hammer, must be its concomitant”, but at the same time it is probably well to remind ourselves that the Appellate Division had on occasions found it necessary also to say that “it is not irrelevant to bear in mind that if sentences for serious crimes are too lenient, the administration of justice may fall into disrepute”. No-one wants to pick a quarrel with the courts, and let me add that I have the highest regard for the administration of justice in our country. It, however, remains a fact that it was and still is the intention of the Government and, for that matter, of Parliament, that illicit dealers in drugs should be punished severely, for it is our belief that the evil of drug abuse could not be combated with half-measures. I believe that the intention of the legislature, and the serious view it takes of drug peddling is fully expressed in the legislation passed last year, and that it was the legislature’s intention that the courts should share those views, for that is the reason why it passed the legislation which it did. I am fully aware of the advisability of giving courts a discretion in matters of punishment, for circumstances vary from case to case. We have accordingly, as the courts have rightly pointed out, provided them with the discretion which we thought would be fit and proper to prevent undue hardships, which might otherwise arise from a too general implementation of the Act. We certainly do not wish to deny our courts the right to make use of their powers in this regard in appropriate cases.

I do not want to be misunderstood, and want to state emphatically that it is not my intention or desire to intimidate our courts, or to dictate to them how they should perform their functions or exercise their powers. What I am, however, prepared to say is that if it should appear that the courts do find that the legislation in question does not so clearly express the seriousness of the problem as we thought that it did, or that it does not so clearly express the legislature’s intention to deal severely with drug pedlars, as we thought that it did, I will certainly have to take another look at the legislation concerned. This is no threat; it is a plain statement of a matter of fact.

The drug problem is much too serious and too great a menace to tackle with half measures. It was Parliament’s intention that offenders under the Act, especially those who unscrupulously enrich themselves at the expense and misery of others, should be dealt with severely. Furthermore, the punitive measures contained in the Act were certainly intended to have a psychological and deterrent effect. If the words we have employed in enacting the legislation concerned fail to convey the intention of the legislature as they were intended to do, we have no alternative but to rectify the matter. Thereby I must not be misunderstood, as virtually saying to the courts that they must interpret the Act in any other but a judicial manner. All that I do say is that if we have failed to convey our intentions by the instrument we have used, we will certainly have to take the necessary steps to see that it is so amended, so as to convey our intentions properly and without any misunderstanding.

*Now, Sir, I want to summarize the matter very clearly as follows; the Government is not prepared to make any concessions in respect of the penalties, and especially the minimum or maximum penalties, for drug pedlars in this regard. Let us understand one another clearly; there is no question of any concession in this regard, no matter what pleas are made by whoever. Let me state very clearly on behalf of the Government: We are not prepared to show any mercy to the drug pedlar. Mitigating circumstances were never meant to be applicable to him. I am watching the position carefully, and without making any threats, I want to make this clear. If this is not clearly understood and if the interpretation of the Act is made so wide by our courts that the object of the Act, as it was intended by the legislature, is defeated, I shall introduce amending legislation in order to put this standpoint of the Government beyond all doubt. We are in earnest about this matter, and in this regard we do not want to evade our duty, nor shall we do so. Then I want to say: The Government is not prepared to make, under the fine-sounding name of “individual freedom”, concepts such as reckless licentiousness and permissiveness a virtue in South Africa. Law and order will be maintained here. We refuse to follow certain Western countries in this sphere or to allow matters to get out of hand to the extent to which we see it in certain Western countries, under the fine-sounding name of “individual freedom and democracy”. Even school children are already demonstrating in certain countries and demanding a say in the schools. What has the Western world in effect come to? In South Africa demonstrators of any nature whatever, and drug pedlars of any nature whatever, will immediately be dealt with in a firm and strict manner.

Now I want to express a few thoughts in regard to the drug centres, the rehabilitation centres, in actual fact. As the hon member quite rightly said, welfare centres have been built. As Cullinan we have at the moment room for 36 adult males and 36 adult females. In Bloemfontein we also have accommodation for 36 youths under the age of 18 years, i.e. for 18 males and 18 females. At Cullinan we have 14 male persons who are being treated at the moment; we have six females who are being treated there; in Bloemfontein we have two persons who are being treated—a total, therefore, of 22 out of the possible 108. As far as drugs are concerned, we already have 22 persons who are being treated at this moment in the existing official centres of the Department itself. In respect of alcoholics we have 340 beds available, 290 for males and 50 for females. Then there are quite a number of private institutions, in which the same work is being done and which are subsidized by us, in certain cases up to R37 per person. We shall, of course, watch the position very carefully. Since we still have vacancies at the moment, we are not engaged at the present moment in erecting additional buildings, but we are prepared, as far as the Whites are concerned—this is the only population group for whom I am responsible—to watch the matter and, if it should become necessary, to take the necessary precautionary measures for meeting this problem and affording our people the necessary protection. I just want to add that I sincerely welcome the fact that an organization of young men here in the Cape has launched a campaign to enable people to destroy illicit drugs at a specific place. They have provided a number of chemists’ shops in the Peninsula with galvanized iron drums, in which any person who wishes to get rid of any drugs he may have, may drop such drugs into the drum under the supervision of the chemist. This will at the same time solve the problem which the hon. member for Houghton mentioned here last year, when she said that she might get, say, 30 tablets from the chemist, tablets legitimately prescribed by a doctor, that she might feel well after taking 10 tablets, and that the other 20, which she did not take, would then remain in her medicine chest, where they might land in the wrong hands. Those 20 tablets may now be destroyed in the manner I indicated here. If the hon. member wants to have a clear conscience, she may hand those 20 tablets over to any chemist, who will then destroy them in a lawful manner.

Sir, I wanted to dispose of this question of drugs before coming to the other matters. I am not going to speak now about all the matters that were raised here. I am just going to touch briefly upon one or two matters; then I am going to sit down, and at a later stage I shall then reply to other points raised here.

In the first place, I want to say something about the question of pension funds, which was mentioned here. The hon. member for Germiston spoke about the question of civil pensions. I want to say at once that I do not think any fault can be found with his standpoint. He is quite right in saying that at the moment there are five pension funds handling the question of civil pensions in the Public Service, and that one may very profitably investigate the possibility of these pension funds being consolidated. If we could ensure in full the privileges of the members of the various pension funds, nothing but benefits could accrue from such a consolidation, in that one would then have a much stronger fund and far fewer problems if amendments had to be effected to the regulations. In such a case one would only have to amend the regulations of one fund instead of having to amend the regulations of 5 funds. One would only require one actuarial report. I think the hon. member has put forward very good suggestions, and I shall immediately instruct my department to examine these suggestions.

I also want to say a few words about the points raised here by the hon. member for Kimberley South in regard to military pensions as well as the protection of our Citizen Force units and our national servicemen. Sir, the statistics in this regard are very interesting. I am referring now to persons drawing war pensions. In I967–’68 the number of pensioners or beneficiaries, in the case of wars that took place prior to 1914, was 117, and this dropped to 54 last year. The number of First World War pensioners was 1 543 in 1967, and this dropped to 1 259 last year. The number of Second World War pensioners was 17 300 in 1967, and this number dropped to 16 393 last year. The number of Korean War pensioners dropped from 14 to eight, but the number of persons drawing benefits as a result of injuries sustained in the Citizen Force, showed an increase from 141 in 1967 to 312 last year. These figures very clearly make me feel that we shall definitely have to make an adjustment in this regard, as I see the matter. Whereas the number of pensioners is dropping in all the other cases, the number is increasing in this case, and this is understandable, because more and more men are undergoing Citizen Force training every year. There is another problem as well, namely the fact that the original amounts made available for war pensioners, were based on the tremendously large number of persons who might be injured simultaneously in a war effort. As a result of that the amounts that were paid out, are probably not as high as they could be. In this case we are not dealing with a war effort, but with normal in-service training of our people. From the nature of the case casualties occur in the Citizen Force all the time, and perhaps the whole matter should be taken into reconsideration with a view to a higher basis of compensation. As a result of the drop in the aggregate number of persons involved, the amount has remained more or less constant, although there was an increase of 6,16 per cent in the compensation paid out. But the matter which was raised by the hon. member, is so important that I undertake to refer it to my department. We shall definitely go into the matter to see whether it will be possible for us to pay out higher compensation in these specific circumstances.

Sir, I still want to deal with one or two other matters before I resume my seat. I have already replied to the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to the drug situation; I do not think I need elaborate on it any further. The hon. member raised the question of the young drug addict who, owing to circumstances, would not necessarily be admitted to a rehabilitation centre. Our object in this regard is very clear. We shall as far as possible make the parents conscious of the rehabilitation centres and the possibilities that exist. The difference between South Africa and the United States of America is this: In America the total rehabilitation drive is based on addicts reporting to the authorities on voluntary basis.

I had the members of the commission here and discussed the matter with them, and they confirmed that this was the case. Only persons who surrender themselves voluntarily, are treated in the rehabilitation centre. Only those persons who are completely unable to help themselves and are eventually found lying in a nightclub or in a street, or wherever, may according to law be brought to the rehabilitation centre, where they are detoxified and an attempt is made to rehabilitate them. But there is no intermediate stage, where a person may be forced according to law to undergo rehabilitation. From a conversation I had with them, it appeared, furthermore, that in America only 20 per cent of their rehabilitation cases were successful. It is logical and human for a young person not to come forward voluntarily for rehabilitation until such time as he is absolutely down and out; only then does he voluntarily come forward for rehabilitation. It has been put to me that 50 per cent of these cases die as a result of an overdose of tablets. In 30 per cent of these cases the people suffer permanent brain damage. They go on living, but they are never the same people again. At the moment 20 per cent of them are being treated successfully in rehabilitation centres in America.

Our Act provides that in various stages of the trial, a young person may be committed by the court to a rehabilitation centre, even against his will. Even after he has been sentenced and finds himself in prison, the prison authorities may commit him to a rehabilitation centre. I want to make an appeal to the courts to give consideration to committing to rehabilitation centres more of these people who may benefit by rehabilitation. In that manner the problem will be solved to a very large extent and we shall be able to make much better progress in regard to the whole matter.

Then there is the question of attendance centres. The hon. member’s complaint was that the amount voted this year was only R100. Once again this is a case where practice has shown us that the courts are not making use of the provisions of the Act in this regard. We cannot force the courts to commit people to these attendance centres; consequently the position is —as a result of the experience of the previous year—that we have reduced the amount from R1 000 to R100 because the courts are not making use of them.

The hon. member also spoke about the social pensioners, and he welcomed the R3, but he was sorry that it would only come into force as from 1st October. The fact remains that as a result of the entire means test being changed, the fact that the three means tests have now been removed and that there is one common means test at the moment, every case will have to be programmed anew on the basis of the new means test which is being applied, and because we had to do all these things, we could not finish before 1st April and therefore we changed over to 1st October in order to make it available for a half-year. But the same means test, as it is at the moment, will have the effect that some pensioners will receive up to an amount of R30 per month more. Therefore it is not only R3. The hon. member will understand, although many other hon. members will not, that the means test adjustment will have the effect, with the sliding scale, that certain persons will benefit by as much as R30 per month, and for that reason it is perhaps wrong to speak of R3 per month only.

The basic increase is R3 per month, but with this sliding scale which has been incorporated, people will qualify for pensions they never had before, whereas others who previous received the minimum, will now receive the maximum pension, which, in some cases, may mean an increase of up to R30 per month. The hon. member also referred to clubs for the aged, and said that the aged had to be kept in their environment for as long as possible. I want to tell the hon. member at once that this is the policy, and the whole question of the financing and subsidization of these services and clubs is being reconsidered at the moment with the idea of seeing where we can obtain the funds for remedying the position.

The hon. member for Turffontein also touched upon the question of old-age pensioners, and he stated the standpoint that there were various faulty arguments and calculations in regard to this matter. I do not feel like nor do I intend making political capital out of the pensions of the aged. I said previously—and I want to repeat it —that no government could ever do enough for its aged. The Government must therefore, with the means at its disposal, do as much as it actually can. I want to claim that in the present position, with the present financial conditions in South Africa and the present source of revenue which the Government has for this purpose, namely taxes which come from the taxpayer’s pocket, the Government is doing as much as it actually can do in the interests of the country. I should have liked to give the aged R50 or R60 per month or more, for my heart goes out to them, but one must cut one’s coat according to the cloth. This is a very well-known and appropriate expression in this case.

In regard to the means test scale the hon. member asked that the married pensioner should divide his assets, but this cannot happen for the simple reason that in terms of the new means test a person with assets amounting to R34 000 may still qualify for a pension. If one has to divide them, what am I to do then? Am I to divide them, R17 000 for each of them? Is that the hon. member’s idea? [Interjections.] But this is not what the hon. member asked. He actually asked for this to be doubled, so that the amount should come to R68 000, but I think that is unreasonable. After all, we do not want to pay pensions to wealthy people. If a person has assets to the value of R68 000 he does not need a pension.

Surely they will be paying it back in taxes.

The pension he would receive would be very small, and it would therefore not be taxable. If he has assets to the value of R68 000 in the form of fixed property, he does not pay any tax on them. The fact of the matter is that the new scales are in any case so generous with the R34 000 that in my opinion we need not effect any change to them. I just want to add that another problem would immediately arise if I were to effect the division. If that were done, it would mean that the moment when one of the two persons were to die, the other one would immediately lose his pension because in that case the assets would no longer be divisible. Apart from the fact that such a person lost his spouse and perhaps all the other income as well, he might immediately lose his pension too, because his assets would suddenly no longer be divisible because of the fact that a death occurred in his family. I shall take another look at the matter, but if I have to respond quickly at this stage, I shall say that I am not prepared to effect any changes.

In conclusion, the hon. member for North Rand once again asked us, as I accepted he would, to abolish completely the means test for war veterans of the First World War, and I shall simply accept that in that request he included the Protesting Burghers and the people who took part in the Bambata Rebellion, for normally these three groups are dealt with in one category. Now, the hon. member finds himself in good company in asking for this, for I have received similar representations from the war veterans’ organizations of the First World War, from the Protesting Burghers and from the people who took part in the Bambata Rebellion. It is logical that everybody will ask for that.

I have gone into the cost aspect of the matter. I do not have statistics with me at the moment, but I shall get them and perhaps furnish them later in the course of this debate, but apart from the fact that the cost aspect would be tremendously high if I had to pay the full pension in all cases, I have to contend with another problem. Why was the means test for the war veterans of the Second Anglo-Boer War abolished? These hon. members and the organization which had an interview with me, argued that they took this view of the matter: It was abolished after a certain number of years. It was abolished in approximately 1950, approximately 50 years after that war had come to an end. More than 50 years have passed since the First World War, and consequently I should also abolish the means test as far as this war is concerned. In the case of the Second Anglo-Boer War the argument was not that the means test had to be abolished owing to the fact that 50 years had elapsed. If I am not mistaken the argument was—this applies to both sides that fought in that war—that persons who fought in that war received no compensation while they were fighting. On the Boer side they did not receive anything in any case; no compensation. They fought as volunteers.

Payment was promised to them.

They received no compensation. They received no uniforms and they had to provide their own supplies, for they only received minimum supplies. In addition to that the position was that when they returned from the war, they had lost just about everything at home. They had suffered great loss. As a result it was felt that we owed these people a debt of honour, a debt we had to pay, and for that reason there should not be a means test. We also felt that no inquiries should be made as to whether an applicant had rehabilitated himself or pulled himself together or whether he had become wealthy; we owe those burghers a debt of honour, and for that reason we abolished the means test. That is the principle which is relevant here.

In the case of the First World War people also fought on a voluntary basis. I want to grant that immediately. However, it is true that the people who fought, did receive compensation, although it was minimal, while they were fighting.

3s. 6d. per day.

For that time it was a lot of money, under the circumstances. They received something, and in a certain sense their wives and children at home were at least provided for, too. However, I understand the position fully. I should have liked to be very sympathetic, for then I would be able to satisfy all the parties concerned and the nation by giving this to the Rebels, to the Protesting Burghers, the Bambata people and everybody concerned. However, the financial aspect is such—I shall rather furnish the figure later on, for although I have it available, I do not have it here with me at the moment— that I am afraid that at this stage I cannot do so yet. However, the hon. member should be satisfied with the fact that by way of the relief we have now granted in respect of the means test, those people are being benefited as well. Then the position is also that we have now increased by R2 the normal additional contribution which a war veteran pensioner receives in comparison with an old-age pensioner. Therefore it means that whereas the old-age pension has been increased by R3 per month, the war veteran pension has been increased by R5 per month. This is a concession to our war veterans, which to my mind should be seen in the light of our sympathetic attitude towards them.

But they are losing their means test benefits.

The new means test is much better than the old one.

But now there is no beneficial discrimination any more.

For the sake of administrative convenience the means test has now been placed on the same level for everybody. However, the new means test is such that nobody loses as a result of its introduction; everybody benefits by it, and they benefit by it too. The hon. member for Durban Point is quite correct in claiming that they are losing the means test benefit. However, they are getting this additional allowance of R2 per month.

The hon. member once again raised the question of the Bantu war veterans with me. I have no other answer which I can give him. The hon. member is looking for an intercessor in the Cabinet. I want to tell the hon. member, merely to silence him, that I shall look into the matter, whether or not it is my duty to do so. This is not my task, but I shall look into the matter and discuss it with my colleague concerned with it, and see whether we can do something in that regard. It is not my task, because I have nothing to do with any non-White pension. We shall have to look into the matter of pensions for Bantu war veterans. In the light of the fact that we once again have Bantu fighting on our borders now, this is perhaps a matter which has become topical again. I therefore undertake to look into the matter, even though I am not responsible.

I have already dealt with the question of national servicemen. The hon. member for Kimberley South also raised that matter in regard to their subsidies, etc. I think I have now replied to all the questions.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that all liberalists and everyone who agrees with them will know well enough where they stand with respect to the Government, when it comes to this dagga matter, after the comprehensive statements we obtained from the Minister in this connection.

On a previous occasion, under the Justice Vote, I raised a few matters in connection with the Commissioners of Child Welfare and in connection with our children’s courts. At the time the hon. the Minister replied that he was very sympathetic to the points I mentioned, but that he was only charged with providing the magistrates who must act as Commissioners of Child Welfare. He said that the administration of the Children’s Act is a matter for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. This afternoon I therefore take the liberty of raising the matter under this Vote.

It is universally accepted that we have a fine Children’s Act. This was the case with the 1937 Children’s Act, and it is that much more so with the generally revised 1960 Act. We can summarize the most important objectives of this Act under four headings. In the first place the Act envisages preventing children being in need of care, and in the second place the Act determines how children in need of care must be handled. In the third place the Act determines how people must be dealt with who cause children to be in need of care. Fourthly it arranges for adoption. To sum up, what it actually amounts to is that the Children’s Act envisages the complete protection of children. In its operation, however, the Children’s Act inevitably has a profound effect on the lives of children because it virtually always happens that when a child is subject to a children’s court inquiry the child has not reached that position because of its own actions, but because of the actions of its parents or the people responsible for the child. There is one particular characteristic of this Children’s Act, and that is that a specific attitude and a specific spirit should prevail in the children’s courts because legislators obviously take into account the intimate parent-child relationship that exists.

From this attitude we have the fact that children’s courts are exceptionally flexible. In other words, aspects we do not encounter in the ordinary law courts, are allowed in the children’s courts. This is illustrated by the place which the social welfare officer and the social worker occupy in our children’s courts. I could quote many fine examples of this splendid, praiseworthy flexibility of our children’s courts, but I will always think of one particular case in which a young child of eight appeared before the children’s court, a child whose future had to be decided in that court. The magistrate, that is the commissioner, thought about these circumstances for days in conjunction with the welfare officer and the social worker. On the day he had to give his verdict or his finding, the commissioner asked to be left alone with the child in the children’s court. At a later stage we saw him crossing the street holding the child by the hand. He then went and sat with the young child in a neighbouring caf and ate some ice-cream. There he sat and talked to him like a father. When he eventually had to give his findings later in the day it was clear to us that this was actually a mere formality, be cause the child understood because the commissioner understood. I am underlining this because it emphasizes the important position of the commissioner in our children’s courts.

In my previous speech on this subject, which appears in column 6801 of Hansard, volume 24, I pointed out, however, that notwithstanding these fine aspects, numerous shortcomings also exist and that we still do encounter problems in our children’s courts. To sum up, what it actually amounts to is that the commissioners are not, in the first place, equipped for this particular work and, in the second place, that the commissioners are not engaged on a full-time basis with children’s court work and consequently do not get the necessary practice in handling such matters. In the past year approximately 3 000 children’s court investigations were completed as far as Whites are concerned. About 2 600 adoptions were also arranged. In our White children’s homes 5 000 children are being cared for daily at the moment, and almost an equal number are under foster care, under some kind of supervision or other, or in our industrial schools. They are all children whose futures were decided at some time or other by a Commissioner of Child Welfare. We know that poverty always plays a major role with respect to those in need of care, but with the development of our industrial areas there have been so many additional factors that play a decisive role in the conduct of parents who neglect children and who allow them to go in need of care.

In the light of this, I think, it has become very necessary for our children not to appear solely before a magistrate, a man who is in the first place equipped to handle the purely legal aspects, but that they come before someone who is particularly equipped for this work. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether he would not. by ways and means that he thinks fit, have a study made of this whole matter, whether he does not want to have a study made in consultation with the Minister of Justice to try to determine to what extent Commissioners of Child Welfare or magistrates can be loaned or seconded to the Department of Social Welfare to do this work in very close touch with the Department of Social Welfare. The result would be that these people would be able to make a very intensive study, every time a decision must be taken about the future life of a child, in conjunction with the social welfare officers and the social workers of our volunteer organizations. If we were to do this, I think, there would be many commissioners who would immediately take this opportunity to steep themselves in the study of social work, sociology or psychology, criminology and related subjects. This would enable them to understand more easily the social problems which brought the child and the parent there. Such magistrates can, as far as I am concerned, be made available on a regional basis. I also elaborated on this in my previous speech to which I have referred.

Within the flexibility of this arrangement in terms of the Children’s Act, there are certain things that I think could also profit from our obtaining this close contact between the two departments with these special liaison officials. In the first place, I think, use can be made of these commissioners to implement section 7 of the Children’s Act, i.e. to appoint assessors who can sit with them there. This is something that has almost never taken place as yet, as far as my knowledge goes. I know of one single case far back in history. In the second place, I think, these commissioners can also exclusively be charged with section 5 of the 1963 Maintenance Act. Thirdly, it lies within the sphere of these people to deal exclusively with investigations in terms of section 30 of the Dependence-producing Substances Act, which we heard about this afternoon. Fourthly, I think—possibly the hon. member for Durban North agrees with this—that it can be a useful training school where these magistrates can be trained to handle divorces in future when we obtain family courts. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, directed his remarks at the hon. the Minister, and I take it that the Minister will reply to his very useful advice. I take it that with the hon. member’s position on the National Welfare Board, the Minister will take note of what he has said.

I would like to deal with the final statement made by the hon. the Minister in regard to military pensioners and those other persons who receive benefits. Listening to the hon. the Minister’s remarks, I would like to remind him that when one comes back from a war, one comes back to nothing. One has to start one’s life anew. There are no exceptions. I hope the Minister will keep this in mind. I would also like to support those hon. members who have said that there should be a streamlining of the pension funds. There is nothing more complicated than applying for a pension at a pensions office. It is quite a task to fill in all the forms to qualify for a pension. I am sure that in this age of shortages of manpower the hon. the Minister with the aid of his computer will be able to streamline the application precedure for pensions to a much larger degree than is the case at the present moment. The hon. the Minister made a statement this afternoon as far as the application of the Drug Act is concerned. He spent the major portion of his reply on this Act. He made a very serious statement, and there is no doubt that we on this side of the House will study it and he will get the reaction of this side to it later. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are with the Government as far as the control of drugs are concerned. We will do everything in our power to see that this grave menace, the encroachment of drugs on our daily lives, is stamped out or curbed to a large degree. When one talks about the control of drugs and the rehabilitation of addicts, I might mention that I have had some experience in this field, not as an alcoholic or a drug addict, but with the establishment of an alcoholics’ home. I realize the great difficulties there are in regard to the rehabilitation of these people. The first step is to cure the case. When the person is cured, he then has to be rehabilitated. It is always disheartening to me to find, as far as the Cape Province is concerned, that a gap between the Province and Government exists. When these people leave the centre, they very often return after a while. We have the Slater Home here where we try to rehabilitate not only alcoholics, but also drug addicts. This has been going on for years, long before the hon. the Minister came into office. When these people leave the treatment hospital they should be cared for by somebody else. I always thought that the scheme of sheltered employment we had for ex-soldiers after the war was a very good one and that centres should be established for these people like we have in the Department of Labour. These people should have sheltered employment, because they have to be nursed back to take their place in life. They cannot just be thrown back into life; they are sick people. I hope that the hon. the Minister with these rehabilitation centres can give consideration to this aspect. There is another matter of

which the Government must take note when one talks about drugs and alcohol. In this regard one has to apply preventive medicine. It is no good sentencing these people to ten, twenty or thirty years’ imprisonment. This is not the answer. We have to get to the root of the trouble. When a disease breaks out doctors will try to find out the source of the complaint. At the present moment we have a malaria epidemic. The doctors are not going to the top, but to the bottom to find out what is causing the malaria. The prevailing social conditions are important. The government must have regard to the social conditions we live under, as is done by all other Governments. The examination of the social conditions will cost a lot of money, but it will be worth it. We will never cure these two evils if this is not done. Alcoholics are just as badly, if not worse off as drug addicts. One finds that these conditions exist in the highest and lowest forms of our society. The problems are more frequent amongst the lower income groups, because of the social conditions they live under. It is in this regard that the Government should pay attention and try to overcome the problem. It is no good sentencing these people to imprisonment; this is no cure. One has to delve deeper into this problem and find out what the social conditions are and what causes this behaviour. This is the duty of the Government.

I would like to come back to the question of pensions. I notice that the hon. the Minister expressed his sympathy with the old-age pensioners. We on this side of the House welcome the relaxation of the means test and the increase of R3 per month. We have told the hon. the Minister and his predecessor that we accept anything in the way of an increase in the pensions of old-age pensioners. But, Sir, he knows full well that R41 does not get you very far, as the R38 never got you very far. We accept the fact that he has relaxed the means test, and a lot more people will qualify for a nension. Probably people will be better off in so far as they will be able to buy an extra loaf of bread.

I was sorry to hear him say that he could do nothing as far as the Coloureds and the Bantu pensioners were concerned. I accept that, but these people get a very, very raw deal. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he talks to his Cabinet colleagues, will examine the position as far as the Coloureds and the Bantu are concerned. We always claim—and rightly so— that any increase the pensioner gets comes as a result of the jabs given by this side of the House. I know they tickle the Government’s conscience, and that is when we get this relaxation. There is one thing—I have said this before—that the Government has never put forward to this House, and that is a social security programme. We have never seen a social security programme put forward by this Government. They are only just building on what was left by the United Party in 1948. They quote our figures in 1948 and say: “We are paying them very much better”. They forget that they have been there for 25 years, that conditions have changed and costs have gone up. But if we had been in power matters would have been very much different from what they are today. The Minister and the Government tell us: “We don’t want a social welfare State; the last thing we want in South Africa is a social welfare State; that is what we are fighting against.” But at the same time you find that whenever a job is offered in the Civil Service and in private enterprise, one of the fringe benefits is a pension scheme. Furthermore, the Minister of Labour advises all industrial councils to include a pension scheme in their agreements. As a matter of fact, I think there are very few industrial agreements that do not include pension schemes. So there is an umbrella of pension schemes covering a vast majority of our workers. But not everyone is covered. At the present time thousands of workers get to the age of 60 or 65 and are not covered by a pension scheme. The employer tells them: “Well, you know, you have been a good servant of ours, so we are going to make a presentation to you. We are going to give you a gold wristlet watch and maybe a few rands a month.” Sir, that man goes out into life; he is too old to be absorbed in any other industry. He goes out with nothing, for the simple reason that that particular firm never had a pension scheme, and no provision was made by the Government. There is not one—there are thousands of these people who are not covered by any pension scheme at all. This is where the Government falls down as far as social welfare and a social security programme are concerned; they have put nothing forward for the workers in the way of social security.

Mr. Chairman, we never find the so-called “labour members of the Government side” who support the worker, getting up and pleading for a pension scheme for heir workers. They have a pension scheme on the mines; they have it on the Railways and in the Civil Service, but there are thousands of other workers who have no pension schemes. There are thousands of shop-workers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity to bring a matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention which I have repeatedly brought to the attention of the Department. The Department considered my representations very sympathetically, but I nevertheless feel that the hon. the Minister will be good enough to listen to them this afternoon. Possibly my representations will be fruitful. They are in connection with the opening of a permanent branch office at Uitenhage. Sir, Uitenhage is no longer a town; Uitenhage is rapidly developing into a city. It will probably be a very big city one of these days as the result of the tremendous industrial development, and also as far as the population is concerned, as the latest figures indicate to us. During the past ten years there was a population increase of 9 213. I feel the time has now come for Uitenhage to obtain a permanent branch office. In the past the Department was good enough to serve Uitenhage from Port Elizabeth. A senior administrative assistant from the Port Elizabeth regional office visits the sub-office at Uitenhage only once a week, i.e. on Thursdays, I am very glad for that concession, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is not nearly good enough because the applications for pensions and allowances are increasing daily. During the period 1st January, 1971 to 1st December, 1971, 48 pension cases and 207 allowance cases were handled by those relevant officers. The alphabetical register, which is kept for all races, was consulted and it was determined that about 150 applications for pensions for Whites were received during 1971. The result is that an average of 16 pension cases and 17 allowance cases are handled every month by the magistrate’s office and the sub-office at Uitenhage. But I should like to submit the following interesting statistics to the hon. the Minister. The Department was good enough to make them available to me. Informative data that have a direct bearing on the consideration given to the opening of a branch office at Uitenhage are furnished here. In: Uitenhage the revisions to allowances alone, which the Port Elizabeth regional office must do, average 55 per month. It was also determined, at the three post offices in my constituency, that the following number of payments are made: Old age pensions—613; pensions for the blind—3; war veterans’ pensions—79; disability allowances—208; family allowances—55 and maintenance allowances— 136. Then I would like to suggest for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that if it is not possible for him to open a permanent branch office at Uitenhage, he should at least ensure that a senior administrative assistant is permanently stationed at Uitenhage. There ought to be no difficulties as far as the office is concerned. Provision can be made for such a person in the new magistrate’s office, which will be at our disposal, it is hoped, at some time during the month of October. It is one of the most modern offices in the Republic of South Africa. I would particularly appreciate it if the Minister would give serious consideration to my representations.

I also want to discuss a matter with the Minister, i.e. the customary wage certificates that are issued by employers when applications are made for family allowances. We find that (those wage certificates are sometimes incorrectly issued by the employer, or the certificate does not meet with the requirements of the department. I was just wondering whether the time had not come for the Minister to instruct the department to design a standard form that can be made available to those relevant employers. That form can then be completed when a person applies for a family allowance. The mistake usually creeps in when the employer is compelled to indicate the overtime of the relevant worker on the form—whether he be a factory worker or a railway worker. Overtime is not of a permanent nature, and then that application is dealt with by the department on the grounds of that overtime. In the majority of cases the applications do not succeed, or if there is a revision, faults creep in with the issuing of those wage certificates.

Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister the following in the interests of the voters that I represent. I received numerous complaints, more particularly from the aged, about the paying out of pensions. Is it not possible to distribute the paying out of pensions and allowances over a greater number of days of the month. This would eliminate the crowding of people who have to go and draw their pensions or allowances at the relevant post offices. Sir, it is simply terrible to see how our aged stand in long queues every month at the post offices. These are people who axe already elderly. No facilities have been provided for them at the relevant post offices, and now they have to stand there and wait until their pensions are handed over to them. I feel that if the number of days on which payments are made could possibly be spread out more, it would not be necessary for all our aged to go to the post office on a specific day.

Lastly I want to raise another matter. As a result of this I shall probably be very unpopular with the doctors, but I regard it as my duty to do this. I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to hold discussions, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Health, and to determine whether it is not possible to instruct our district surgeons to give preference to applicants that come to them for a medical examination to have a certificate issued declaring them unfit for work. My experience—and this does not only happen in my constituency, but also in other constituencies—is that the applicants must go to district surgeons who are, when all is said and done, appointed by the State, many of them acting in a part-time capacity. Sometimes applicants must sit and wait in those waiting rooms for hours at a stretch before they receive the attention of the relevant district surgeons. I know that the doctors will tell me that they also have their private practices which they have to look after, but when all is said and done they are appointed by the State to do that work. I would particularly appreciate it if some solution or other could be found so that people, who are referred by the Minister’s department to the district surgeon and must obtain such certificates there, are given a measure of preference. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would seriously consider these few ideas so that these people can be helped on their way more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin I want to express my regret at the fact that we have not received an annual report from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The latest report we have is more than two years old. We are therefore dependent on the statistics and statements the Minister has to furnish us with. But so much for that. Last year I spoke about the aged and the old-age homes. I spoke of the ratio of housing for those who can still help themselves as against housing for those who can no longer help themselves, and I lodged a plea in this connection. This year I want to focus on another point and speak about the young people. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Westdene said in connection with children’s courts. There is a question that involuntarily crops up in respect of these teenagers who are guilty of drug-taking, and are then referred either to industrial schools or, if they have committed an offence, to a reformatory, being sent subsequently, or during that same period, to the rehabilitation institution at Bloemfontein, which the hon. the Minister mentioned. What worries us, and worries us terribly, is the question that crops up in respect of the thousands of people who are charged and found guilty of drug abuse, this cancer in the life of the people, this evil, this terrible thing, this disease. Where are these people committed to? There are many of us who have had dealings with this. I am not ashamed to say that I had a dear friend who was committed to Weskoppies no less than five times in a row. After a year or so, when he was certified by the medical board there are being normal, he was released, and six months later he was in the gutter again. Then they would pick him up and put him in gaol for a few nights, after which he was again certified and committed. Then he would go to Weskoppies again. Eventually, after a matter of years, he was sent to Cullinan. I think I know both these institutions as well as can be expected. I got to know Cullinan before the two new sections were introduced there; at the time I knew it very well. I want to make a statement in this connection, and in this I want to agree with the hon. member for Westdene. Welfare work must be done amongst these people. So many departments are involved in this. The Department of Education has a hand in it. If the teenager is older than 18 years he eventually lands up here in Constantia. Subsequently, if he is not rehabilitated, he is sentenced and goes to a prison. And so these people are lost to us. If the person has passed that age he is committed and he goes to Weskoppies or one of the many other institutions that exist for mental hygiene. If he is committed as a result of drugs or liquor, the mere association with people who are already slightly deranged, perhaps because of the fact that they have been taking drugs for too long, makes the conditions to which he is subject different from those that would have prevailed had the addict gone to a rehabilitation institution which is exclusively intended either for alcoholics or drug addicts. I do not want to detract from the good work that Weskoppies and other institutions are doing. These institutions are essential. Provision must be made for the mentally deranged, but as far as the rehabilitation of drug addicts is concerned, I want to lodge a special plea with the hon. the Minister to ensure that there is more co-ordination between the various departments. The hon. the Minister said that at the moment 22 persons, who are addicted to drugs, are being treated at Cullinan, and that in all the institutions put together several hundred alcoholics are being treated.

There are beds for 340 alcoholics.

Sir, I ask myself what has happened to all the drug addicts. Where are all the people, who have been committed, accommodated? If one takes into account how many persons are committed, how is it that these institutions have not filled up long ago? Is it due to a lack of co-ordination between the various departments? Is it perhaps due to the fact that all the courts do not realize that Social Welfare is the section where those people belong? To what can we ascribe the fact that there are so few drug addicts in our rehabilitation centres, because those are surely the institutions, in my opinion, to which these people must be sent; those are the institutions, in particular, which are able to give them specialized psychiatric and medical treatment. The institution can then concentrate solely on this evil, and the mentally deranged, who need another kind of treatment, can then be treated in other institutions. I want to link up with the appeal the hon. member for Westdene made to the hon. the Minister to ensure that there is co-ordination between the courts and the various departments in connection with the institutions to which people must be committed. Particular emphasis must be placed on this kind of treatment and rehabilitation falling within the compass of the function of Social Welfare. I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to bring about this co-ordination. Sir, there is no-one in this House who is not concerned about this problem. There is the death penalty for murder in this country; we are one of the few countries where the death penalty is still imposed, but the incidence of murder in this country is no less than in other countries where the death penalty is not applicable. The fact is that we will always have people amongst us who are addicted to drugs, particularly amongst the young people. It is for these young people that I am lodging a plea. They must be guided in the right direction. We must ensure that they do not land up in institutions for the mentally deranged. These mentally deranged people can have a tremendous impact on young people who are addicted to drugs, if they see what can happen to one if one becomes mentally deranged. We run the risk of those young people themselves becoming mentally deranged if we treat them in the same institutions in which the mentally deranged aretreated. I hope the hon. the Minister will give special attention to this matter.

I agree to a large extent with the hon. member for East London City. I think he approached the matter very constructively. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity of dealing briefly with the accommodation and the care of our infirm aged. Of course one realizes that it is only possible to plan effectively for our aged if a special study is made of their circumstances and requirements. Then, too, we are aware that the department and the hon. the Minister have at their disposal a specialized division which is, in a scientific way, making a special study of the problems and requirements of our aged. We are also grateful to the Department of Social Welfare for concentrating in particular on services for the aged in the community, for special housing for the aged and for institutional care for our infirm aged. I think the most pressing needs which exist at the moment, particularly in a city like Port Elizabeth, are the care of our infirm aged. We are grateful for what the department is doing for the accommodation of our aged, although this still leaves much to be desired, and in particular I want to point out certain deficiencies to the department. One of these is that when accommodation has to be provided for these elderly people they are taken away from those areas to which they are accustomed. I should like to request that when provision is made for accommodation for our aged, where those people lived should be taken into consideration, and that they should not, in their old age, be transplanted.

We find another pressing need in regard to the care of our infirm aged, which is that special services should be provided for these people who cannot be taken up into society again. Now, we unfortunately have a difficulty in Port Elizabeth. Where the fault lies I do not know, but we have there the A.C.V.V. which has land at its disposal, and we have the Christelike Maatskaplike Raad, associated with the D.R. Church, which also has land at its disposal. We have been struggling for many years now to have a home for the aged established there in which we can accommodate not only certain of our elderly people but in which we can in particular give special attention to the infirm aged. We also have the Red Cross. I paid a visit to this organization and found that those people are rendering services which are beyond criticism, but unfortunately it is mostly well-off people who are being provided for. But there is a small group of people in Port Elizabeth, consisting of less well-to-do English as well as Afrikaans-speaking persons who do not have the means to pay and who are therefore unable to receive the care to which they are entitled. As I have said, the A.C.V.V. and the Christelike Maatskaplike Raad have land at their disposal and what the difficulty is, why we cannot get a home for the aged, I do not know. But what I do know is that there is a home for the aged at the moment, a place where our infirm aged may be cared for, but this is being done by a company whose object it is to make money. I am referring to Protea Holdings. I think they are also trying to acquire certain hospital facilities. Those people acquired one of the old military establishments and converted this into a building where infirm aged are being cared for. There are at the moment approximately 90 of these people. My information is that the State subsidizes that company. The Minister will know how much it is. but my information has it that the subsidy amounts to approximately R93 or R97 per person per month, which is being paid over to that company. The pensions of these infirm aged are being taken away from them, except for R5 per month. I have here a letter from one of those people. He fought in the wars. He states that he is also entitled to R 10 war veterans’ pension, but he has been deprived of that as well. He says he has no money; only R5 per month is being paid out to him, and his shirt is washed once in two weeks. He writes to tell me that he is a man who is 89 years old and he says he has no money and his shirt is only washed once every 14 days. I want to make a plea to the Minister for those infirm aged. They are cut off from the community; there are no regular bus services which the families of those elderly persons can make use if they want to visit them over the week-end. They are sitting two, three or four to a room. There are no facilities for sitting out in the sun. There is one matron, and at night I do not even know whether there is a White matron to supervise. Non-White nurses are being used, but not all of these have had training. Because there are no transport facilities to and from that institution, they do not utilize the services of married White nurses. Because that company is out to make a profit it makes certain that there are no transport facilities available. I think it is unfair. I do not think our old people deserve this, after having done so much for us, the pioneers of South Africa, men who helped to develop the country and went through many things in this country, the bitter and the sweet, who made sacrifices for the civilization of this country. They do not deserve to have to sit there and be cared for in this way. We are grateful to the department, particularly since the Minister is ensuring that where new homes are built provision is also being made for the infirm aged, but as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, not enough attention is being given to this matter. I want to say to the Minister this afternoon that I protest against this and I want to ask him to intervene and make a home for the aged available to us which has all the modern facilities for the care of those elderly people.

In addition I want to say to the Minister that I do not think it is fair that all the money those old people have, plus the R93 subsidy or whatever it is, should be paid over to those institutions, and that those elderly people should be given only R5 per month. I do not think R5 is enough to provide those elderly people with clothing. I think we must at least allow those elderly people a reasonable amount, so that they can also have a few rand with which to buy themselves something. Perhaps their family or children or grandchildren come to visit them, and then they cannot even give their grandchildren a rand or two with which to go and buy something as a present from their grandfather or grandmother. That R5 is not worthwhile having. We must take care of our aged, for they deserve it and we owe it to them. I do not really want to venture into the political arena, but I must nevertheless refer to the fact that the hon. member for Turffontein stood up here and spoke disparagingly of what the Government is doing for the elderly people in South Africa. He referred to the R3 increase, but he must not forget that the R41 is not all these people are receiving. He is forgetting about the means test. A person does not have only that R41 to live on; he may have possessions to the value of R21 000 and then still receive his R41 per month. [Time expired.]

Until about the last few seconds of the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, I found myself very much in harmony with him in his concern for the plight of the aged. I myself want to raise this afternoon the position of pensioners, and particularly the plight in which they find themselves as a result of the increased cost of living and the accelerating pace at which the cost of living is increasing. This is a problem which affects not only civil and social pensioners, but all pensioners, including the thousands of pensioners who draw their pensions from other sources, such as private pensions funds and insurance company pension funds. In my experience, where poverty exists among the White population it exists mainly amongst the older people, the aged, and one of the main reasons for that is the rate of inflation which we have experienced over the past years in this country. In the past 15 years—I take a period of 15 years because it is somewhat in excess of the average length of retirement on pension—there has not been one single year when the consumer price index has not increased. The average annual increase of the consumer index over this period of 15 years has been 2,8 per cent and during this period of 15 years there has been a definite accelerating tendency in the rate at which the cost of living has increased. If we take the first five years of the last 15 years, the average annual increase in the cost of living was 2.2 per cent. If we take the second five-year period, it was 2,5 per cent and if we take the final five-year period, it jumped to 3.8 per cent. If we take the latest figure of the annual increase in the cost of living which is available to us, it is 6,6 per cent. If I had taken a shorter period for my purpose than the 15-year period, if I had taken a ten-year period, then the average increase in the cost of living would have been 3,2 per cent and not the 2,8 per cent for the 15-year period.

I am not one who is sanguine that we are going to see any change in the direction of inflation in the foreseeable future. I believe that in the economic scene, as we have it at present, there are strong elements which have not yet worked their way through the economy and have not yet been reflected in higher prices. I believe that there are pent-up wage demands building up in the economy. I do not think that we have seen the full effect of devaluation on prices. We are starting to see it in the prices of motor-cars. I do not think we have yet seen the effect of import control on prices. I do not think we have yet seen the effect of the additional money that is being pumped into the economy this year as a result of deficit budgeting and as a result of other factors and the result that is likely to have on the price level. Even if there were to be some slowing down in the rate of increase in prices, I believe—I think the hon. the Minister would agree with me—that inflation is something that has become part of the pattern of life, not only in South Africa, but in other countries too.

This then is the picture which pensioners have had to face and which they are still facing, and they are one class of the population who have no bargaining power to protect themselves against this position. They relinquished their bargaining power when they retired. They are dependent for more money or higher incomes to meet the increased cost of living on having made suitable arrangements by saving during their working lifetimes. Let me say that very few have been in a position to do so. If they are fortunate, they can rely on a pension which increases annually, or they have to rely on periodic bonuses or increases as a result of actuarial revaluations of the pension funds to which they belong, or they have to rely on ex gratia payments from their previous employers, or they have to rely on periodic but unpredictable increases granted by the State. If they do not get any of these increments they can only look forward to a declining and a fairly steeply declining living standard, a decline which starts from a fairly low level in any case. I appreciate the fact that the Government has been conscious of this position and that over the years it has regularly granted increases either by way of increased pensions or bonuses to civil, railway and social pensioners. However, I must agree with my colleague from Turffontein that we would like to see a radical improvement in the general level of social pensions in particular. The point I wish to make is that these increments granted by the Government are not predictable and not certain whereas the increase in the cost of living pensioners have to face, is certain and is to a large extent predictable. The result is that the pensioners are kept in a constant state of suspension. I regard the position as being thoroughly unsatisfactory where a person contributes to a pension fund all his life but on retirement does not get, by way of right, any increment to his pension which will enable him to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. That is the position as far as civil and social pensioners are concerned, with the one notable exception as far as civil pensioners are concerned, and that is railway pensioners who do enjoy by way of right a 2 per cent annual compounded increase in their pensions. As far as civil pensions and social pensions are concerned, I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister once again to consider a scheme of automatic annual increases to those pensions. The Railways can do it and increasingly privately administered pension funds are doing it. The Association of Pension and Provident Funds of South Africa recently did a survey of private funds, and it was found that 20,2 per cent of private funds do provide automatic annual increases in pensions, ranging from 2 per cent to 5 per cent per annum. Surely there can be no insuperable obstacles in doing that as far as all civil pensions and social pensions are concerned. The history of increases of pensions is that they have been granted on an unpredictable, ad hoc basis. It would not cost the Government any more to incorporate into those pensions an automatic increase of, say, 3 per cent per annum. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia devoted the first part of his speech to the increasing costs of living, to economic matters and inflation. I will probably not follow his example. I adopt the standpoint that we have already had the debate on economic affairs. I take it that the object of his additional plea for an increase in the pension of civil pensioners is to make allowance for the erosion of money so that they may receive a higher pension than was originally calculated. Higher pensions are a matter which may to good effect be brought to the attention of our general public. From time to time the necessary adjustments should be made for civil pensioners.

Then I want to return to the hon. member for Turffontein. Unfortunately he tried to turn our aged and pensioners into a political issue. I am sorry that we are trying to do this in this debate. In any case, the figures which the hon. member used were quite incorrect. His first statement was that the pension in 1948 under the United Party rgime was R12. That was his premise. It is incorrect, however, for the pension was R10. There is the first mistake in his calculations. If one considers the present position one sees that the pensions have been increased fourfold since that time, namly from R10 to R41. What the hon. member also failed completely to take into account was that if the means test of the United Party time were to be applied today, more than half of the pensioners would not qualify for pensions. I want to mention to the hon. member that the greatest advantage for our pensioners is to be found in the additional benefits which are available to them. These are, inter alia, the improvements such as the sliding scale means test, which is a great advantage to pensioners. We can go further and settle this case conclusively but I do not want to cover that ground again. I just want to mention that pensioners will receive an increase of up to R23 per month. These will of course be exceptions. In particular I want to thanks the hon. the Minister and his department for having increased the maximum assets which a pensioner may possess to such an extent that a person with assets to the value of R34 000 may still qualify for a pension. This, in particular, is a very great concession. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to content myself by saying further that the pensioners appreciate this. In my constituency alone there are several persons who will, with these new concessions, be able to qualify for pensions. These people need it, but the means test has always been inadequate to enable them to qualify for a pension. I am convinced that, with this hon. Minister and with a Cabinet such as we have and when the Exchequer is in a position to do so, generous provision will be made in future.

I want to advance a plea in regard to one matter in particular. I am referring now to a group which today finds itself in pitiable circumstances and which is being much abused. I want to discuss in particular backward children and mongols. These children are with great care and sacrifice being helped to do work themselves. They can perform a very useful service in sheltered employment. When those children reach the age of 16 they are entitled to receive an allowance from the department. Those allowances are in many cases being misused in that the parents of those children take them out of those institutions for one object only, namely to get that allowance. Then the children are left to their own devices. If one investigates what becomes of those children one sometimes find that quite a number of them have degenerated completely and are living in extremely pitiful circumstances. They are taken out of that sheltered nest where they were being protected and trained, and are then left to their own fate. Sometimes they even creep into Bantu huts, live there, and ask for food. It is a tragic sight. In Bloemfontein we have the Lettie Fouch centre, where very great sacrifices are being made. I want to pay tribute to what is being done there. Those children are being assisted until they are even able to be used to do sheltered employment. In this regard I want to make a plea to the Minister to help us so that instead of giving those children an allowance, further accommodation should be erected for them so that they will at least be cared for afterwards and not kicked out of the nest like fledglings. It is imperative that instead of those children receiving an allowance they should rather be placed in a home where they can be properly cared for and where they can be transported daily to their sheltered employment. We could then utilize their services to good effect and all the sacrifices would not have been in vain. I should like to advocate that we make such an amendment in respect of those allowances, even if those allowances are then only available to an organization which is prepared to take those Children under their care.

The second matter I want to advocate in this regard is a thorny matter. There are cases where a married couple have already conceived 14 such feeble-minded children or mongols. One feels that something should be done in this connection. In these modern times in which we are living I think that with the necessary assistance and guidance aid can be rendered in applying compulsory birth control in regard to such cases where there already quite a number of children of such unfortunate parents. This is a matter which I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, for I feel that we are only burdening our institutions further with these unfortunate people who are brought into this world and who have to be cared for, while their being burdened with more of these children could be prevented. I want to advocate that in such cases, even if it has to be by means of legislation, precautionary measures be taken to apply compulsory birth control there.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District has dealt with numerous matters. The last matter he dealt with is one which requires a great deal of attention and sympathy from our welfare services, i.e. in regard to those who have any form of physical or mental disability, particularly children. However, the hon. member for Bloemfontein District referred to the relaxed means test as applicable to social pensioners. The hon. member indicated his pleasure at the relaxation that has been allowed and quoted various figures. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to certain aspects contained in this relaxation of the means test, which are really not as generous as one might first believe it to be. For example, as far as the devaluation of assets is concerned, in the past property has been assessed at a rateable value, less a bond, less 40 per cent. If one studies the memorandum which was tabled by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions one will immediately notice that this 40 per cent is no longer to be applied. Similarly, where a person is in employment, the first R240 per annum for a single person and R480 for a married person, was disregarded as income in terms of the means test where such an amount was received as emoluments from employment. Here too this particular concession is evidently no longer included in this relaxed form of means test. Rather, I should put it the other way: It is incorporated in the relaxation of the means test that the income limit and the assets limits have been extended. According to this memorandum these particular provisions no longer apply. In this regard I would like to make certain comments, particluarly as far as the employment of aged persons are concerned. I believe it is important that we should encourage these people to take some means of employment if they can possibly do so and if it is in their physical ability to do so. They should take a form of employment, which would help them to relieve their boredom. When many of them go on pension, they feel that they would like to supplemented their pension. This enables them to maintain a reasonable standard of living rather than being purely dependent upon a pension. As far as the means test is concerned, it would appear that for a male person over 70 years of age, the earning from employment are disregarded, and that as far as the female pensioner is concerned, the emoluments from employment are disregarded from 65 years of age. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to reducing this particular concession which is applicable to the womenfolk at 65 years of age also to be applied to men of 65 years of age and over. I think there is a decreasing number of people who are able to take gainful employment after 70 years of a e, whereas there is a considerable number of them between 65 and 70 years of age who could still perform a useful service to the economy and who could remain economically active and play their particular part in providing experienced and trained skills. They can still be used in the labour market and can be used economically and can be gainfully employed. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to this aspect, particularly in view of the fact that the previous concession, as I have mentioned earlier. of R420 per annum which was disregarded i.r.o. earnings, is to be incorporated in the relaxed means test that we have before us.

There are certain other aspects concerning the relaxation of the means test to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister. One aspect is the question of the income permitted as income in terms of this new means test. One of the greatest problems in applying the means test is where a person receives an increase from a private pension fund, or from wherever that increase may come, but if it is assessed as an income, this immediately results in a loss in the social pension. Here we have in mind widows who are receiving pensions from their late husbands’ pension funds, or in some cases where they are not receiving pensions, where they receive amounts paid by the employers of their husbands. Where those increases are granted to them, in view of the fact that there has been an increase in the cost of living they find that they are in some instances in fact worse off, certainly no better off, as a result of the reduction that takes place in their social pensions. I would therefore like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should give further consideration in that where a person is already in receipt of a pension and where at that stage the income has been assessed, that they should continue to be assessed at that particular income. As regards the position of property we know that in the past the person who applied for a pension was assessed on the rateable value of his property. Even if further revaluations take place, as is normally the case after every five years or even three years in some local authority areas, that person did not then have the social pension reassessed and rendered subject to a reduction merely by reason of the fact that there has been a revaluation of the rateable assessable value of that particular property. I believe it is important that these people who are receiving some compensation as an increase in their pension from a private source, should also receive the same due consideration. While dealing with these income limits, I would like to deal a little further with this question of limiting the income whereby a person may qualify for a pension in terms of this new relaxed means test. Here I would like to refer particularly to the fact that where the income permitted has been relaxed, there is to be a regulation, as mentioned in the White Paper, that where a person is receiving a pension from another source in excess of R696 per annum, that is in excess of R58 per month, that person shall not be entitled to a social pension or an allowance. If we compare that figure with the income permitted in terms of this new means test, that ceiling has now been raised to R984 per annum, or R82 per month. Here a difficulty seems to arise. These persons are to be precluded from receiving the benefit of the relaxed means test by virtue of the fact that there is to be a regulation stipulating that this amount of R696 per annum is to be a ceiling in a specific type of category of pensioner. If we look at the position we see that at R696 per annum, such a person would normally be entitled to receive, in terms of the relaxed means test, a basic old-age pension of R25 per month. Should that person receive an increase in the private pension of R58 per month, they would then lose and forfeit this amount of R25 per month that they have been receiving as a social pension. I believe this is a practical difficulty which must arise with the application of this particular provision, whereby a person will be specifically precluded from receiving a social pension, should his income exceed R696 per annum.

Another aspect of this new relaxed means test revolves around the fact that there is to be a considerable relaxation in so far as assets are concerned. Here, too, there is a difficulty which must surely arise, and which becomes evident when one compares the limitations of the income ceilings as contained in this proposed means test. We know that the Government’s policy is to encourage private pension schemes. Indeed, we have had motions and discussion in the House dealing with this particular subject. Although we have had a committee of inquiry that was appointed by the Minister of Finance and reported some six years ago, nothing further has transpired in regard to those recommandations, as far as a central bureau and the transferability of private pension funds between the various funds is concerned. These are practical difficulties which have arisen. Of course, nothing further at this stage has transpired, although the report has been submitted some six years ago. However, the position affecting the private pension funds here is that if a person who belongs to a private pension fund is fully aware of the provisions of the means test and the relaxation as far as assets are concerned, and were to resign from his position in his private employment just prior to the stage when he goes on pension, he receives a lump sum in lieu of his pension. With the invesment of this amount, up to a figure of R22 400, he would receive a return of that investment, which is not taken into account as an income, and then apply for an old-age or social pension. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member for Umbilo will forgive me if I do not follow up on the request he made, because the hon. the Minister will probably reply to him later.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Turffontein, who levelled his usual reproaches here, implying that the Government was not giving our elderly people enough in the form of old-age pensions. He advanced what he thought was a new argument, in which he quoted expenditure on the Revenue Account, as well as the national income. Now all I can say to him is this: There is nothing new in that. Precisely what he said here I read on 18th January, 1972 in the Star in an article which was writen by a certain Mr. Marais Steyn. This was precisely what was stated in that article. But now I do want to warn the hon. member: He must not accept the hon. member for Yeoville as his mentor; for one cannot always rely on that hon. member’s word. He is not always consistent in what he says (sy oggenden aandpraatjies kom nie altyd ooreen nie.) I just want to indicate to you, from this report what the hon. member for Yeoville said.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member say that he cannot take another hon. member at his word?

No, he said that he is not consistent in what he says (oggenden aandpraatjies).

I said that he is not consistent in what he says.

Order! No, I was listening very carefully to the hon. member; he may proceed.

He is just wasting time again. The hon. member for Yeoville also implied in this article that the old-age pension in 1948 was allegedly R12, as if that was what they received from the United Party. But surely this is not true. Under the United Party Government they received R10 per month. When the National Party came into power it was immediately increased by R2 per month, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1948. Do you see, now they simply want to take that R2 of ours again and claim it for themselves.

I want to quote something else to the hon. member from this same article. [Interjections.] The hon. member must just listen to me for a while; he did not read the entire article. Among other things, the hon. member for Yeoville says—

That is correct.

Here we in fact have an admission that the aged should have been receiving a pension of R17-10 in 1948. In other words, they were paying the aged R7-10 too little. If we were to consider this in proportion, as hon. members on that side want to do, then the R10 of 1948 would not have been R41; it would have been far less. Sir, in this way hon. members on that side are trying to juggle with figures, and then they tie themselves into knots. The hon. member for Yeoville is not always consistent in what he says. In this same article he said that if we compared the national income today with the national income in 1948, then the aged ought to have been receiving a pension of R80 per month, but during this Session he addressed a meeting at the Strand, and according to the Argus he said the following, inter alia, there—

He has now decreased it by R20 per month, for in his article in January he spoke of R80 per month. I just want to say to the hon. member for Turffontein that he should not rely on the hon. member for Yeoville; that he should rather go for guidance to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout perhaps he will learn something there.

Sir, I want to express my own concern, and that of many other people in regard to a certain matter, and that is the large number of juveniles who go wrong in our society. When I speak of juveniles, I want to refer specifically to the large number of children who fail at school, not as a result of faulty intelligence, but for other reasons. I am referring to children who go wrong at school and who ultimately find themselves in State institutions and even in prisons. It was perturbing for me to note in the annual report of the Department of Prisons that in the year ending 30th June, 1971, 1 225 juveniles under the age of 20 had been admitted to prisons. Then there are in addition the thousands who have been removed from the care of their parents. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain any statistics in this regard, but if we bear in mind that there are 160 children’s homes which make provision for about 9 600 children, then we have to accept that there are many children who have been deprived of the privilege and happiness of a good family life; and then I am not even mentioning our industrial and reform schools, to which a great number of juveniles have also been admitted. Sir, the presence of large numbers of children and juveniles in such institutions can probably be attributed to many causes, but I think you will agree with me that most of these children probably come from families where, through lack of love and lack of a sound understanding between parents and child, no foundations were laid for the acceptance of authority, order and discipline. Sir, the department is already doing a great deal, it even has a division for family life; a great deal is being done by our churches and by organizations which make this their special concern, but despite all these things, too much of our potential is still being lost. This is probably one of the things South Africa can afford least of all, particularly in view of our manpower shortage. South Africa has a model Children’s Act, and strict laws against the use of drugs and liquor, but none of these problems can be solved by legislation unless we get down to the basic causes of these problems.

Sir, I am being asked by the Whip to conclude, owing to lack of time. [Laughter.] Sir, it seems to me as if there are hon. members on that side who also had an unhappy family life, where there was no order and discipline in the house. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not consider the desirability of declaring a family year, a family year which will be a call to every family in the Republic of South Africa to make family life and the relations between parents and children such that happy and well-balanced young men and women can be sent out into the world.

I only rise to reply to something very important raised here by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District. He expressed concern about what is being done for our mentally or physically handicapped children who, when their childhood days are over, are simply left in a factory, or with parents who sometimes do not take the necessary care of them and who actually exploit them by misusing the allowances these children receive. One is sorry that this is the case, but we know that this does happen. This is again a case where the public and the welfare organizations must keep their eyes and ears open in order to bring such cases to the attention of the department. When we speak about adults who are mentally or physically handicapped, we mean those people who are above the age of 18 years, but who are not certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act. We know that there are many such people. They are not certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act, but they are nevertheless mentally incapable of maintaining themselves in these particularly difficult times in which we are living, where everything happens so quickly, and where so many demands, physical and mental, are being made on people. But in this respect as well the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has not been idle, and two years ago already it started giving special attention to what we suspected would be a large number of handicapped persons in our country. However, we found out afterwards that in actual fact there were not so many of them. But every physically or mentally handicapped person who is lost to the community is important and therefore four departments, i.e. National Education, Labour, Health and Social Welfare and Pensions met to work out a scheme in terms of which each department would bear its particular responsibility for these people. It is the task of the Department of National Education to see to the education of these youths. Then we have those persons who are certifiable, who are in fact insane, in terms of the Mental Disorders Act, and who fall under the Department of Health. Mongols and imbeciles should actually be classified under that category. On the other hand, Social Welfare is responsible for older persons who are not certified, and then we have other persons who are able to perform sheltered employment and who are lost to society today because they cannot adjust to ordinary life and because no one sees to it that they are placed in the right work in sheltered employment. This is going to require a great deal of research, but I want to put it to you today that by means of research, the decisions taken and teamwork this department has already worked out a plan for the care of handicapped persons, and the only thing we still lack—and this is also something that will require research and time, but perhaps we can come forward with it after a year or so—is comprehensive legislation relating to these people. In the meantime, because we do not yet have comprehensive legislation relating to the handicapped person in South Africa, the department introduced a subsidy scheme last year in October, and I am saying this now so that hon. members may take note of it, because there is very much ignorance about this. A subsidy scheme was introduced, a scheme of which welfare organizations may avail themselves and by means of which they will be assisted financially in respect of the institutionalized care of physically or mentally handicapped White adults who, owing to the degree of their handicap, cannot be placed on the open labour market or in sheltered employment because they are incapable of producing the required output, and who. on account of their personal and social circumstances, are not able either to maintain themselves in the normal social environment but who require constant supervision and care. In order to help these people on a countrywide basis, one must in actual fact, if one wants to set about it in a comprehensive way, depend on a national body; and, like the National Council for Mental Health, the National Council for the Care of Cripples is prepared to Act as an umbrella body in respect of welfare organizations who feel themselves called upon to introduce a scheme of this kind. I just want to mention briefly to you what is covered by this scheme. There are three categories of physically handicapped persons. One category is able to perform certain kinds of work. When these persons were young, or before they left school, they were already classified by the Department of National Education as persons who are capable of being trained. Then one has another category that is not considered capable of being trained. Those people may, in the course of time, also learn to do certain routine work, the repetitive type of work, and these two main categories fall under the physically handicapped. The mentally handicapped are those persons who are severely mentally retarded. A commission of inquiry investigated this matter. These people are able to do certain kinds of sheltered employment and, accordingly, they are covered by this scheme. Some time ago the hon. member for Fauresmith inquired about the Lettie Fouche institution, but first I just want to tell the hon. member that we already have quite a number of these institutions. There are not many, but I want to mention a few which received assistance from the department during the past year. There is the Phyllis Robertson Home in Pretoria, at which there is also a place of sheltered employment. I should like to ask hon. members, if they ever have the opportunity to do so, to go to these institutions and places of sheltered employment, and to see to what extent ingenuity has succeeded in making these people feel useful again in that they are also capable of doing something in society. You can also go to Chesire Homes in Durban. I visited quite a number of these places and there are still a few I should like to visit, and there are also some others that we shall probably, in due course, assist in establishing. Then we have the Avalon in Johannesburg, which is probably known to some of you, and Forest Farm as well as the Rand Epileptic Employment Association in Johannesburg. Last year the four of these institutions together helped 150 persons in some way or other. The average number of people subsidized at present are 155. In the meantime, last year after the department had put out feelers with this circular and after a need was determined by a special research project in respect of how many of these people there were who were growing older and who were unable to make any headway, people who could not be utilized usefully in society, the applications slowly started coming in. We had an application from Camphill Village, Kalabaskraal, Cape, where 57 mentally handicapped persons could eventually be accommodated. This application has not yet been finalized. A decision will be taken in due course. Then we have the Cluny Farm Centre Trust in Pretoria and Johannesburg, and Selwyn Segal. At Cluny Farm we shall have 16 inmates. Then we have Wenakker in Lydenburg. But this project, in respect of which a certain body in Lydenburg has acted in a very praiseworthy manner, is at the moment still under the Department of Health. In due course a decision will be taken as to what is to be done with these people and under which department they are to fall. But now, unfortunately. I have to tell the hon. members for Bloemfontein District and Fauresmith that as far as the Lettie Fouche insituation is concerned, my information is that the children who are there, have been certified in terms of the Mental Disorders Act and the present statutory position is that these children may not be helped by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. [Time expired.]

I am very sorry indeed that the hon. the Minister has joined the ranks of the unpleasant gentlemen in this House, those who find it better to ignore the facts that I have put forward and prefer to reply to me in language which is unparliamentary which they then have to withdraw.

You looked for that.

No, I did not. I stated facts and the hon. the Minister cannot say I am wrong. He is entitled to his opinion and so am I. But I want him to know that as far as dagga is concerned, and the distinction which I believe ought to be drawn between the penalties that we have imposed for dagga and for other drugs, the opinion I hold is backed up by expert opinion all over the world. The hon. the Minister quoted from an article this afternoon. Sir, “I have dozens of articles, from the most authoritative medical journals in England and America which uphold the view I put forward, namely that dagga, although it has certain hallucinatory effects, is not addictive and is not as dangerous as alcohol, and that certainly a distinction ought to be drawn between dagga and the hard-line drugs.” I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am backed in this point of view by two members of the official Opposition who last year were only too eager to back the hon. the Minister’s Bill. One is the hon. member for Durban North, who, referring to the Africans, said—“Africans, especially in the rural areas, constitute a separate problem as far as the fight against dagga is concerned.” He said this in January this year, after seeing the number of cases of Africans who have been sentenced for being in possession of a small amount of dagga. He said—

Well, I am glad that he has agreed now that dagga is not only part and parcel of the modem African scene, but has been part and parcel of their lives for centuries. It is a pity that this sentiment did not occur to him when he so blythely supported the measure last year. The other member is the hon. member for Berea, who said that “a lot of youngsters who smoke dagga were neither criminals nor addicts, and that as things now stand they are liable for long gaol terms where they rub shoulders with hardened criminals”. That is exactly the sentiment I uttered last year when I pleaded for some distinction to be drawn and when I asked that youngsters who tried pot for kicks, etc., ought not to find themselves rubbing shoulders with hardened criminals. The point I want to make is that I believe this hon. the Minister in fact should not be handling this at all. He has really become rather obsessive about it. I am not going to enter into a slanging match with him. It would be easy enough to do so and to be as abusive towards him as he was towards me. but I am not going to do that because I think it would denigrate the diginity of this House. But I genuinely do not think he ought to be handling this because I think he has become obsessed about it. It has become part of his ambition to handle this thing. I believe that the penalty side of drug abuse should be handled by the Department of Justice and I believe that the rehabilitative side of drug addiction should be handled by the Department of Health. I think the hon. the Minister is creating a sort of crisis atmosphere around us. When one looks at the figures which I was given on the 4th February and which I have analysed, you will see, Sir, that out of 5 128 prosecutions, 665 were for dealing in drugs. As I have said earlier, the vast majority of the prosecutions are for the use or possession of drugs, not for dealing. All but 13 of the prosecutions for dealing in drugs related to dagga and not to hard-line drugs like heroin, opium or any of those drugs. Of the 846 prosecutions for using drugs, all but four were in respect of dagga. No other country in the world would consider this a sort of crisis situation as the hon. the Minister is trying to paint it. Of 3 599 prosecutions for being in possession of drugs, all but 18 were also in respect of dagga. I say that dagga should be considered on a completely different basis from the hardline drugs. I want to say that the hon. the Minister, in delivering a long prepared statement this afternoon, which he assured us was not a threat to the courts delivered what I consider to be a very threatening report indeed for something which was not meant to intimidate our courts. He took them to task for changing the sentences on review, for viewing dagga in a different light from the way in which they view the hard-line drugs, for apparently allowing the suspension of sentences where pedlars were concerned, and for all sorts of things which the courts in their discretion on review decided should be done. What, may I ask, was the objective of reading out that long report, if he did not intend to inform the courts that he disapproved strongly of the way in which they were handling the Drugs Act and that if they did not become good boys and handle the Drugs Act in the way that he believes it ought to be handled, he was going to change the law? I see no other way of interpreting that statement. I think the hon. the Minister must realize that nobody is in any way fooled by what he did this afternoon. The other thing he said was that there should be no difference in the way in which drug users are handled irrespective of race. I happen to agree with what the hon. the member for Durban North has said in his interview with the Sunday Tribune. I believe that in fact some special weight should be attached to the fact that Africans in fact are dagga users from way back. Again I repeat, whether we like it or not, this happens to be a fact. I am quite sure that if the Grobler Commission had included in its terms of reference an examination of the dagga situation, it could only have come to this conclusion. Finally, I want to say I was very surprised to hear the hon. the Minister state that he was misquoted in the article that I mentioned and that he had not meant to imply that 75 per cent of the cases were sent to rehabilitation centres, but only that 75 per cent of the Act dealt with rehabilitation. Well, I must accept what the hon. the Minister has said, if he said that he was misquoted, he was misquoted. There are three very clear points that he made. The first point was that the aim of the new legislation was to act as a deterrent to drug taking and pedling and that for this reason punishment should be severe, and secondly that what people seemed to ignore was the 75 per cent of the people who were brought to court under the new law were sent to special centres for rehabilitation. Did he not say that at all?

No.

Well, I must accept that and I am very glad to hear that. But I still want to know what validity he thinks I can attach to the fact that 75 per cent of the law has to do with rehabilitation when, as I have pointed out, we have hardly any rehabilitation centres in this country. It is nonsense. We have two for White adults.

There are many vacancies in them.

In that case there is no crisis, and we do not need this severe law at all. He only has got places for 36 White males and 36 White females at Cullinan. Then there is a place at Bloemfontein for 36 juveniles and that is empty. We have either got a crisis drug situation which needed a law rushed through Parliament in three days—the strongest anti-drug abuses law in the Western World, as he told us—or we do not need it.

Do you approve of peddling?

Do not be ridiculous; of course, I do not approve of it.

Don’t talk nonsense then.

Just go away, you silly little man. Anyway, I am not talking to you; I am talking to the man in charge, not to a back-bencher. Why do we need this drug legislation rushed through Parliament if there are places standing empty when we have places for exactly 72 adult people in the whole of South Africa? Where are these rehabilitation centres? The homes for alcoholics? What is the point of having a law dealing with rehabilitation if there is nowhere where people can be rehabilitated? I agree with the hon. the Minister that unless people volunteer and come forward to be rehabilitated, there is very little hope of saving them from addiction. I think this has been found all over the world, but his law is not encouraging anybody to come forward and say: “Here I am; I am a drug addict; please cure me.” People are dead scared to do that, because the penal provisions of this law are so severe and because people are supposed to give information to the Police about anyone whom they know to be a drug addict. I believe this whole question is being handled wrongly from the word go. From the moment the hon. the Minister decided that he would be the father of this Bill, that this was an important measure, and that he would ride this thing into this House, the whole emphasis on the handling of the drug problem in South Africa took the wrong turn. It became punitive and not rehabilitative, in spite of the fact that so many of the clauses of the Bill deal with rehabilitation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I thought we had disposed of the question of drugs, but since the hon. member has just raised it again, I have to give another reply to the last few ideas she expressed. First, I should just like to say that when I came to this House in 1958, the hon. member was quite a pleasant, competent and dedicated type of person from whom Idiffered in the political sense, but whom I nevertheless respected for the way in which she stated her case. I just want to tell her that now she has become an embittered person, embittered in all respects, no longer logical and no longer reasonable. In all respects she has become someone on whom I am going to waste less and less of my time by replying to her allegations. [Interjections.] No, I shall deal with the facts now. That hon. member has become more and more emotional and less logical in her whole approach as a result of the years she has been sitting here in embitterment and frustration because her party is making no progress in this country. That is the reason for the whole tirade she unleashes here every time.

She is getting old.

What are the facts in regard to this matter? The hon. member may have piles and piles of reports on dagga and on the fact that dagga is not harmful, or whatever. But I am faced with two accomplished facts which I must take into account. Firstly, there are as many people, or even more, who condemn dagga and warn against it as there are people who approve of it. In other words, there is a difference of opinion on this matter. That is the first argument I want to concede to the hon. member at once. Therefore it means that dagga is a risk. In the second place, from numerous cases I have studied and which numerous scientists have studied, it appeared that from 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the people who eventually started using hard drugs such as heroine and LSD—the hon. member is shaking her head—started off with dagga. They said that after a time dagga was no longer satisfactory and that they then proceeded to taking the stronger drugs, because that was logical. It is the case every time. It has been proved on numerous occasions.

But the other factor the hon. member conveniently disregards altogether, is that the experiments and reports on which she bases her arguments, are mainly reports which have been written in America, in England and in these places, and that the dagga found there is twenty times weaker than South African dagga. Because of our climate, our sunshine, our warmer weather and other conditions in this country, all the indications are that our dagga is twenty times stronger than the dagga of those places. That is why there is a tremendous demand for our dagga to be exported to those countries. They are able to produce a surplus in those countries, if necessary, but theirs is literally “grass” in comparison with South African dagga. Because of the tremendous influence of dagga, I cannot let things go as far as this matter is concerned in South Africa. I shall simply have to persist in the attitude I have adopted.

The hon. member made another point here and said there was no crises. Of course not! I am not saying there is a crisis either. On the contrary. Let me put matters right for the hon. member straight away. If this Act had not been passed last year, we would have been heading for a crisis. That is the difference.

Rubbish!

The hon. member knows only one word, and that is “Rubbish” and she spells it with a capital “R”. She has never said anything which is worth more than “Rubbish”. The fact of the matter simply is that our Act as such, acted and is still acting as the deterrent. I quoted the position in America to the hon. member; that their own people who visited this country recently told me: “We wish we could have had your Act in our country, but our society would never accept that Act.” Let me mention one single example to the hon. member of what emerged from one of these discussions. Under the rule of law, an expression the hon. member is so fond of using, a person is innocent until the State has proved him guilty. That is the usual, general legal rule.

In our Drugs Act we have reversed that rule in certain cases. When a person is caught in possession of a quantity of drugs by the Police, and he says he obtained those drugs legally, our Act provides that that person is guilty until he has proved his innocence. That is in conflict with the rule of law. I want to concede that. However, what is the practical approach? If the State has to prove this person’s guilt and he is innocent until the State has proved him guilty, there is only one way in which the State can prove his guilt. The State must obtain a sworn statement from every medical practitioner in the whole of South Africa to the effect that they have not given him a prescription. The State must obtain a sworn statement from every pharmacist in the country to the effect that they have not supplied him with the drugs on the basis of a legal prescription, and only then would the State have proved the person’s guilt beyond all doubt through the elimination of all other possible evidence. That is how the law operates in America, and for that reason it is completely unmanageable.

Our Act is directly the opposite. That person is guilty until he has proved his innocence. If he is legally in possession of the drugs, how easy is it for him to prove that? He may simply say: “Dr. A. gave me the tablets. The following is his name and address; go and confirm it with him. Chemist B dispensed the tablets. The following is his name and address; go and confirm it with him.” If he does so, that person is free. If he cannot do so, he is guilty until he has proved his innocence. We have reversed the rule of law for practical purposes. The Americans welcome this whole-heartedly but say: “But our permissive society will never accept a law like this.” However, they realize that ours is effective and theirs not. It is useless and that is why they are faced with this mess and crisis in their country which we do not have here.

We shall not be forced from this road; not by the hon. member and her hints about ambition or whatever. I have a duty to fulfil towards the youth of South Africa and I shall do so even if the hon. member were to stand on her head and kick her little feet in the air. I would not care if she did, and I shall do what my task calls me to do.

The hon. member went on to say that the fact that there were many vacancies in the institutions, meant that there was no crisis. I never said there was, but I do say we should take measures in good time, because prevention is better than cure. We must ensure in this way that the people are deterred from using drugs. That would make it impossible for a crisis to develop. This is the whole idea behind this legislation.

I want to say at once that I take one thing very amiss of the hon. member. She creates the impression that when we encourage people to come forward voluntarily and to present themselves for rehabilitation, we shall take action against them. She frightens them here—she does so very clearly—by saying that if they were to come, action would be taken against them; they would have to give evidence, etc. That is the biggest rubbish; every word of it.

They are frightened.

Yes, exactly; the hon. member tells them they should be frightened. We have gone so far—I gave this to her in a written reply to a question—as envisaging making available a 24-hour service in certain centres which have large concentrations of young people, a service which will be staffed by people who are ready, available and trained to enlighten the youth immediately. We want to keep an office open in Hillbrow for 24 hours a day so that if people feel they are in need of help or advice at any time of the night or whenever, they may find a sympathetic ear. It should be remembered that these people do not drink these drugs in office hours; it is taken at any time of the night. That is when there should be someone to whom such a person can talk and who can advise him. This is how we react to this matter and how we set about things. I provided the hon. member with a written reply in this regard, and she knows this. Nevertheless, she advances the point of view—she expressed it here—that the young people are frightened and should be frightened, because we would immediately bring charges against them in such cases and I do not know what else.

There is no prosecution of any nature if they present themselves voluntarily for this purpose. On the contrary. Then investigation follows. There is not even any question of that having to happen in public. In the case of these drug addicts there need not even be a hearing in a public court. A court hearing may be held in an office at which they may be committed to a rehabilitation centre without there being any publicity of any nature. They may simply go without their names ever appearing in a newspaper. These are the type of measures we have in order to make this step as easy as possible for them. However, the hon. member will try to thwart this whole attempt because it does not suit her and because she wants to handle the matter in a different way. Before leaving the hon. member, I want to say to her in conclusion that a few years ago she was a competent Member of Parliament, but now she is a frustrated person who no longer has any value in this House.

Now I should like to deal with the matter which the hon. member for North Rand raised in regard to war veterans’ pensions, i.e. the abolition of the means test. I have received the statistics in this regard in the meantime. The position is that according to our indications, which are based on details and estimates, 19 299 war veterans of the 1914-T8 War are still alive today. Of the protesting burghers 1 652 are still alive, and of the Bambata rebellion 377 are still alive, therefore a total of 21 328. At present the following are in receipt of pensions: 10 198 war veterans of the 1914-T8 War, 511 of the protesting burghers and 27 of the Bambata rebellion, a total of 10 736. Therefore, if we were to abolish the means test, the following persons who are not in receipt of a pension at present, would qualify for one as well: 9 101 from the First World War, 1 141 of the protesting burghers and 350 of the Bambata rebellion, a total of 10 597 This would cost us an amount of R7 595 000 annually. This is also the reason why I cannot abolish this test at present. This is the problem and these are the statistics as we have them before us. However, we are sympathetic towards the matter, but this is the practical problem we have.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether we may obtain a copy of that statement?

Yes. The hon. member will be able to consult the figures in Hansard in any case. However, the hon. member may have a copy of this; I have no objection.

In view of the report-back meetings of members, it may be well to have a short summary in Hansard which one could put to good use at a report-back meeting when one reports on activities in Parliament. That is why I want to give a short synopsis of the work done by the department in the past four years in respect of a whole number of things, one Which in my opinion is a neat rsum of the facts and on the basis of which a member could easily hold report-back meetings. I want to mention the following facts: Every now and then the Government is accused of not coming up to scratch as far as rendering social assistance to indigent persons and people in distress is concerned. There is not the least doubt that this allegation is without substance. In fact, since 1948 the Government’s contribution towards relieving distress and need, has shown phenomenal, if not spectacular, growth. However, comparisons with the position as it was in 1948, have already been made repeatedly in the past, and it is not necessary to go back so far once again in order to refute this charge. For the purposes of this debate, it will suffice to look back only the past four financial years.

Whereas we paid out a total amount of R55 332 700 in war veterans’ pensions, old age pensions, pensions for the blind and disability allowances in the 1968–’69 financial year, the total estimated expenditure in respect of these pensions and allowances amounts to R78 548 000 this year. Therefore an increase of 41,9 per cent over a short period of four years, and this does not even include the amount spent on pensions and allowances in South-West Africa. In the same period, basic pensions and allowances increased from R32 to R41 per month per person. However, I want to point out a few more important concessions in respect of the means test. The following may be mentioned (translation)—

1. (a) The earnings of women over 65 years of age are not taken into account;

While I am on this point, I want to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo, who requested that I should lower the age for men to 65 years as well. The reason why we have chosen that age, is that we are prepared not to take the earnings of the per son into account only five years after the date on which he has retired. Since it is customary at present for men to retire at the age of 65 years and women at 60 years, we have added five years in both cases. That is why the income of men who are 70 years and older and of women of 65 years and older, is not taken into account for pension purposes.

For war veterans it is 60 years.

War veterans are a completely different matter. The reason is that it is done five years after the normal date of retirement, and that is why we are handling it in this way. I proceed—

1. (b) Attendants’ allowances are automatically paid when a person attains the age of 85 years instead of 90 years as the position was before;
2. (c) Supplementary allowances are increased by R1 per month;
3. (d) When a pensioner remarries the assets of the person he or she marries, are not taken into account.

I think this is a very fine concession.

1. (e) The additional allowance payable to war veterans is increased by R2 per month per war veteran.
2. (f) Most important of all, a uniform scale is being introduced for all pensioners and beneficiaries, in terms of which (a) the means plus pension restriction of R648, which was R936 in the case of war veterans over the age of 70 years, is being increased to R996 per year in all cases; (b) the maximum pension is paid to a person with an annual income of R504 instead of R192, as the position was before, for example in the case of old age pensioners; (c) the maximum pension is paid to a person with assets of R22 400 instead of R8 000, as the position was before, for example, in the case of old age pensioners; (d) the minimum pension may still be paid to someone with assets amounting to R34 400 and no income, or with an income of R984 and no assets.

Complaints have often been made in the past that those who possess immovable property are sorely affected by the means test because the value of the property often excludes them from a pension while, except for the immovable property, they have no other assets or income from which to make an existence. This objection will disappear to a large extent, because the new scale has been adjusted so realistically that it in fact amounts to the value of the average man’s house no longer being an obstacle to a pension.

However, what is more, the extraordinary situation which often arose in the past, i.e. that when a pensioner sold his house, he also lost his pension in the process because the concessions in terms of which 40 per cent of the value of his house was not taken into account, lapsed when he sold his house, cannot arise any longer either, because for the purposes of the application of the means test all assets are now being taken into account on the same basis. The cash and the house now represent the same value and in that way he benefits. An elderly person whose physical or mental state weakens to such an extent that he has to sell this house and go to an old-age home, need no longer be concerned that the sale of his house will lead to the withdrawal of his pension.

Of course, the care of the aged of our country entails much more than paying pensions to them. Other assistance, for example the subsidization of old age homes and the provision of capital for the erection of old age homes, play an equally important role. Whereas we spent R998 500 in subsidies, etc., on old age homes in 1968–’69, the estimated expenditure for 1972–’73 increased by 207,6 per cent to R3 871 000, while an amount of close on R13 500 000 was made available in the same period in loans for the erection of old-age homes.

Per capita subsidies payable to old-age homes increased as follows during the period in question: For ordinary old-age pensioners it was R3-50 in 1968, while it is R4 now; for the infirm it was R10 in 1968, while it is R23-50 now; for the very infirm it was R17-50 in 1968, while it is R33-50 now. No provision existed for the chronically ill in 1968. Provision has been made for them now, and the amount of the subsidy is R53-50 for such a person per month.

I can continue dealing with this matter. For example, where the maximum furniture subsidy to old-age homes amounted to only R90 per aged person in 1968–’69, the subsidy is R200 per person today and considerable donations are made in respect of special equipment, such as stoves, deep freezes, heating systems, intercom systems, etc. I still have a whole number of statistics here which I am not going to quote now. While only R9 542 000 was spent on child care in 1968, the estimated expenditure for this item amounts to R17 139 000 for 1972–’73—an increase of 79,6 per cent in four years. I can continue mentioning one figure after the other in this way in order to illustrate the progress. The subsidization of general welfare services, such as the salaries of social workers, increased from R1 025 000 in 1968 to R2 037 000 in 1972. The phenomenal increase in expenditure for the benefit of indigent persons and people in distress, is reflected strikingly by the increase in the total of the department’s budget, i.e. by 56,4 per cent from R117 662000 in 1968 to R183 644000 in 1972. This is irrefutable proof that the Government has not neglected or forsaken its duty in this regard.

Sir, a fair amount was said here about rehabilitation. The hon. member for East London City and various other hon. members spoke about it. We are achieving considerable success with rehabilitation. Where people are compelled to undergo rehabilitation, there is initial resistance, as one may expect, but after a time that person realizes that it is in his own interests to co-operate; so he starts co-operating and eventually one achieves the necessary results. I just want to mention a few cases here, without mentioning names—

This is the type of success which is being achieved, for which one is grateful. We handle different types of people. Mr. B. was a dentist who was addicted to alcohol and drugs. He was in private institutions twice and had to be treated in psychiatrist hospitals several times, but he continued to obtain drugs because of his position and he did not benefit from treatment. A psychiatrist found that he had an inadequate personality and that he did not have the courage to meet his own problems himself. He had or revealed no desire to be rehabilitated. When he was admitted he was in a serious state of physical and mental decline. In his case compulsory detention offered a wonderful opportunity, free from the availability of drugs and liquor. Intensive treatment by a team consisting of a medical practitioner, a psychiatrist and a social worker, eventually got through to him and enabled him to understand and meet his problems. Thirteen months after he had been admitted he was discharged, and after-care reports show that he is still operating satisfactorily in society, that he has entered into a successful marriage, that he no longer abuses either drugs or liquor at all and that he is practising his profession successfully. Three years after his discharge, he personally informed the rehabilitation centre that since his discharge he had been improving all the time, that his personality was developing and that he was a happy person now. Sir, I can quote numerous other examples; I have a whole list here. In regard to this matter I just want to say that we have a group of dedicated officials who have qualified themselves in this direction and who are doing excellent work in this regard. These are people whose lives are completely devoted to this matter, and for that reason I want to express the idea here that we should not be discouraged as far as rehabilitation is concerned, but that we shall and must be successful in that regard in the end.

The hon. member for Westdene referred to the Children’s Act and its objects. The ideas he expressed here are completely acceptable to me. I think we should move in that direction; we should arrange with the Department of Justice for a few magistrates to be allocated to us specifically for dealing with cases under the Children’s Act. In that case these magistrates could make a specific study of the problems with which our people have to contend and become experts in this field. It seems to me we would be able to keep four or five of these magistrates fully occupied in the various centres of our country. In that case we would receive expert services from people who engross themselves in a study of these specific problems. In that way we would then have the advantage of the expert knowledge of these magistrates. I am not asking for one moment for these magistrates to be transferred to my department. They should remain in the Department of Justice. They should eventually gain promotion there and be taken back into the stream, if necessary. But I think they would enrich themselves spiritually if they made a study of these problems. I think it would be to the advantage of all of us. Perhaps it would also have the effect—in this regard I want to support the hon. member as well—that justice would be done to the use of assessors in terms of section 7 of the Children’s Act.

Various hon. members pointed out that one comes across these problems less often in happy families. I want to waste no time in endorsing that wholeheartedly. A sound family life is no guarantee that these problems will not occur, but experience has shown that where family life is sound, and where there is a relationship of love as well as a relationship of authority between parents and children and where discipline is maintained, fewer members of that family eventually fall prey to this type of problem. For-that reason I want to recommend most strongly that we should pay more attention than ever before to family care. The idea of a Family Year is something one may perhaps consider. I do not want to react to it straightaway; as yet I have not considered all its implications, but I thank the hon. member for Boksburg for having expressed this idea. Sir, I want to put one fact very clearly: Give me a nation with sound families and I guarantee you a sound nation which can offer the necessary resistance to the dangers threatening us at present.

The hon. member for Salt River also spoke about the question of rehabilitation. I have already expressed a few ideas here in brief on rehabilitation and I do not want to come back to it, except to say that I want to agree with him that we should penetrate to the social circumstances causing these problems.

†That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to get down to the root of the problem, and we usually find that it is a social problem, as the hon. member has correctly said. Where the problem is a social one, we get psychiatrists and medical practitioners to treat these people, and we then get results in more or less all these cases. But the main problem is that if you have these people for only three weeks, you can only detoxicate them during that period; that is more or less all you can do. If they return to normal life again after this short period, they immediately fall back again into their old habits. A period of three weeks is not sufficient, and that is why we keep these people for nine to 11 months, in some cases, so as to rehabilitate them completely so that when they return to normal life they will be able to cope with the problems of life.

Does the hon. the Minister agree that it is unwise, even where these people have been treated for a year, to allow them to resume normal life, without giving them some sort of sheltered employment for a while? The experience has been that a year is not sufficient; that you have to give them some sort of sheltered employment for a while before they can go back into the community.

It differs from case to case. We give these people training in certain trades in our various rehabilitation centres such as Magaliesoord. They are trained in certain directions so that when they return to normal life they will have an occupation to follow. We train them as bricklayers, for example, while they are being treated at the rehabilitation centre. We train them as carpenters and in a whole number of fields in which they show an interest, so that when they return to normal life they have a definite field of employment. But I agree with the hon. member that in certain cases they should be given protective employment, and in those cases we make use of the facilities offered by the Department of Labour to place these people in protective employment until they are fit to take up their position in the community again.

The hon. member also suggested that we should have a social security system. Sir, that is not the policy of this side of the House. We prefer to have private pension schemes and we encourage the establishment of private pension schemes as far as possible. We have this very encouraging fact that more and more people are joining private pension funds. If we switch to social security immediately, there would be no incentive for private firms to start private pension funds. It has been proved in many countries overseas that a social security scheme is never self supporting. Even if you have a contributory pension scheme, in the end the Government is called upon to make big contributions annually to make ends meet. As far as that is concerned, it is not a question of lack of planning. The fact is that we encourage private pension funds as far as possible. We assist them as far as possible. We administer some of these funds, when we are asked to do so. We want every person to join a pension fund and to provide for his old age while he is still working.

*The hon. member for Uitenhage asked me three or four questions in regard to his specific constituency and requested a permanent office in Uitenhage. I have the figures here which my department gave me. I must say he made out a good case. However, I have the problem that in proportion to other towns, and because of the manpower position, his numbers still do not justify a full office. I shall pay attention to the matter, however, and I can assure him that if possible, we shall try to keep the office in Uitenhage open two days per week with additional staff. Unfortunately we have a staff problem, but I shall pay attention to the matter and we shall try to eliminate the bottlenecks. As far as the earnings certificate is concerned, I want to say to the hon. member we have the problem that we must have the information. I asked my department and they made the necessary certificate used for this purpose available to me here, and a whole series of details is requested on the certificate. I shall give it to the hon. member so that he may look at iit. But apparently we are experiencing problems with the employers Who have to complete the certificate, because they are not eager to do so. Consequently there are delays; sometimes they do not complete it properly with the result that it has to be returned so that we may obtain the full details we need. However, I shall instruct the department to try to eliminate delays, because I can understand that family allowances and long delays in its payment, definitely create problems for a family. We are dependent on the Post Office for paying out pensions over a number of days. The date indicated is not necessarily the only day on which a pension may be drawn. It may be paid out later as well, but the elderly people usually go on the first day. Even if we were to make this period six days, it is my experience that the queues would still be as long on the first day. If someone cannot or will not endure the throng, he may delegate his rights to someone else who may go and draw his pension; the other alternative for him is to go the second or third day. But as I say, I fear that even if we were to make this period six days, the people would still congregate on the first day.

Then we have the position of the district surgeon. I want to tell the hon. member at once that in this regard we are in the hands of the district surgeons and of the Department of Health. From time to time we appeal to them to give priority to these people, but I have the problem that we are dependent of another department and those people must act according to their evaluation of priorities. However, I do know that they are interested in the matter, therefore I shall appeal to them once again to pay attention to the pensioners.

The hon. member for East London City asked me to say something about welfare work in general and made the request that as far as rehabilitation was concerned, better co-ordination should be effective among the various departments; and that we should not refer people to mental institutions, but directly to the rehabilitation centres. The fact of the matter is this. I want to thank the hon. member for the positive way in which he put his case; I appreciated it very much, but the position is that we have coordination with all the departments as far as possible, but it is impossible to prescribe to a court that it should commit this man to this place and that man to that place. It is for the court to decide whether the person may be committed or not. As I repeated today, many of these drug addicts can be committed to rehabilitation centres, and as I announced, there are vacancies at all the rehabilitation centres. But I cannot force the court to commit a person to a specific centre. I also want to agree with the hon. member that it is not the correct procedure to send people to mental institutions, although it may be essential in a case where a person really needs psychiatrict treatment. But under normal circumstances the rehabilitation centres are the proper place, and we welcome it to get them there. We have the facilities there; many modern facilities. I want to thank the member for his positive contribution.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North spoke of the accommodation of the aged infirm in the private institution in his constituency. I may do well to say for the record that because of the fact that we do not have adequate facilities for the aged infirm, we have made a temporary arrangement with this specific company which will make provision for us for dealing with the aged infirm during a sort of transition period. We pay them R3-50 per day. The position is that if the same aged infirm were to have been a hospital, where many of them would normally in fact have been, it would cost the State considerably more than R3-50 per day and, furthermore, they would be occupying beds where other people could have been recuperating. I want to assure the hon. member that this institution is a temporary one. As soon as we have enough facilities at State institutions or at subsidized official welfare institutions, this arrangement with the company will lapse and we shall make no furtheruse of them. The contract may be terminated by three months’ notice from either party. But in the meantime the position is that they are meeting an essential need. If I am informed this evening of someone who needs immediate attention, I have a place where I can accommodate him this very evening. This is the essential practical problem with which I have to contend, for example when the department reports to me from the hospital that a certain person being treated there for a chronic illness cannot remain there any longer and that we should transfer him because they need the bed for an emergency case following a motor-car accident. In such a case I would have no place to send him to unless I made use of the services of these people. That is the reason why we work with them. I want to tell the hon. member at once that we have made inquiries in the meantime into the position in Port Elizabeth. The department has informed me that a few of the problems he mentioned, will be rectified immediately. The place will be repainted neatly and additional space will be provided for the people without any reduction in the number of residents, which will mean that there will be more space for the existing number of residents. Place will be made for additional people and they will not be as crowded as they are at present. Another fact for the people there is that additional White staff will be appointed to render assistance, but we cannot get enough White staff to have an all-White staff. For that reason the hon. member must be satisfied that some of the nurses will remain non-White and that they will do their work under the supervision of a White person. More Whites will be appointed who will be able to deal with the matter. I want to thank the hon. member for his standpoint, but I want to give him the assurance that uder the circumstances we regard this as the best solution, until we are able to establish alternative accommodation. I want to thank him for his concern about his voters and assure him that his voters will appreciate his interest in pleading their case in this House.

†The hon. member for Constantia raised the argument of inflation and said that inflation has come to stay. Then he made the statement that the cost-of-living increase is predictable and stable but that the pensions are not, except in the case of Railway pensions, where an increase of 2 per cent per annum is guaranteed by the Minister of Transport. The fact is that I am not as pessimistic as the hon. member in this respect. I believe that you cannot accept that inflation will carry on at a rate of 2 per cent per annum for all time to come. We may differ …

The Railways do.

Yes, the Railway do this, but I do not.

In some years it may be 4 per cent.

It may be more, it may be less, but I am not prepared to decide on 2 per cent per annum for all time. I think that that is the wrong policy to adopt. As far as I am concerned, the fact remains that we shall from time to time go into this matter and decide on the question of increasing pensions. We have never let our old-timers or civil pensioners down as far as that is concerned. In some cases we have increased pensions by more than 2 per cent per annum when it was necessary. In some cases we skipped a year and we had no increases whatsoever. The fact is that as far as my departments is concerned a good and hard look is taken at the whole situation every two years. The cost of living and everything included is taken into account. Then we go to the Cabinet with a request for an increase of whatever percentage may be necessary under the circumstances. We would rather do it that way so that if the day comes when inflation does not actually cause the cost of living to rise by 2 per cent per annum, we can stop. Actually there is another problem. The minute we agree that pensioners must get an increase of 2 per cent per year, what grounds will we have for refusing the normal civil servant an increase of 2 per cent every year in his salary scale? This will be so because exactly the same applies to him. I think that is a dangerous principle to agree to and that is why we rather do it in this way. We give the assurance that we will not let the people down and that we shall from time to time reconsider the position.

*The question put by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District was answered by the Deputy Minister who is exclusively responsible for matters concerning the handicapped. I do not want to add anything to that, except to say that I am very fortunate that the hon. the Deputy Minister handles that section of the department in such a competent way and that he acts so efficiently in that regard. I am not going to add anything more to that.

Then I want to mention one little matter which I may not forget. It relates to the question raised earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Tygervallei. It concerns the question of maintenance allowances for children in the case of illegitimate children and possible abuse in this regard. As hon. members will remember and as the hon. members pointed out to us, the Minister of Finance held out the prospect in his Budget speech of a penetrating investigation into the matter and of the necessary adjustments being made. After negotiating with all the different departments and coming to an agreement with them, I am in the position to say that I can announce the appointment of such a commission this afternoon. I should like to do so officially.

Whereas it is deemed fit by the Government to have the payment of maintenance allowances in terms of the Children’s Act, Act No. 33 of 1960, to or in respect of members of all the respective population groups thoroughly investigated, and whereas its intention in this regard was intimated by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech delivered in the House of Assembly on 29th March, 1972, and in order to carry into effect this intention, I hereby wish to appoint a committee consiting of the following members:

Mr. P. P. Theron, Deputy Secretary for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, as chairman;

Mr. G. J. Brummer, Deputy Secretary for Indian Affairs, as a member;

Dr. W. G. le Roux, Deputy Commissioner of Coloured Affairs, as a member;

Mr. J. W. J. Fouch, Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, as a member; and

Mr. D. H. R. Macleod, Senior Accountant in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, as a member.

This committee will be appointed with due regard to:

1. (a) the ever-increasing State expenditure on such maintenance allowances;
2. (b) the fact that parents of young children, including the natural fathers of illegitimate children, are in the first place legally liable and responsible for the maintenance of their children; and
3. (c) the machinery set up by the Maintenance Act, 1963, for enforcing parents’ obligations in respect of the maintanance of their children.

This committee will investigate, make recommendations and report on:

1. (i) the abuse, if any, of such children’s allowances and means of preventing such abuse;
2. (ii) the extent to which, if any, the payment of such allowances promotes irresponsible parenthood and contributes towards parents of illegitimate children not fulfilling their responsibility in respect of the maintenance of their children:
3. (iii) the extent to which use is being made or should be made of existing legal provisions so as to enforce the responsibility of parents, including the fathers of illegitimate children, for the maintenance of their children;
4. (iv) the advisability or otherwise of terminating or restricting the payment of parents’ allowances to unmarried mothers and ways in which such a restriction should be effected; and
5. (v) any other matters relating to or concerning the payment of such maintenance allowances in respect of illegitimate children, including any steps which may be taken to prevent the impression being created that the State is in unlimited measure prepared to accept the responsibility of caring for illegitimate children.

In order to carry out these terms of reference more effectively, said committee is hereby authorized to receive and hear evidence at its discretion on any matter relating to these terms of reference, and it may request and obtain information on any such matter from any Government department and institute inquiries on any such matter in any other authorized manner.

I announce the appointment of this committee because from time to time problems and questions arise in respect of the tremendous increase in these maintenance allowances, which gives us the impression that in certain cases there is possible abuse in this regard and that it promotes irresponsibility and abuse.

Will that report be made public?

I cannot give an undertaking now, but it will probably be made public. I shall consider the matter when I receive the report.

I hope I have replied to all questions and that I have not overlooked anybody. I want to thank all hon. members who participated in the debate sincerely for their participation and for the positive contributions which were made. I think some very positive and convincing speeches were made. Those speeches were really positive contributions. I want to give hon. members the assurance that we regard this department as a service department in which we render service to our fellowmen and the citizens of our country. We want to proceed in that spirit in order to ensure that a bureaucracy will not be built up here, but that we shall have a group of people here who are inspired to work and to serve and to do their duty towards their fellowmen as far as possible. I thank this hon. House for the co-operation in this regard and want to give the assurance that I greatly appreciate the spirit in which the debate was conducted.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 40.—“Immigration”, R6 792 000:

Mr. Chairman, when one has only a very short time to discuss a Vote of this kind, it is a pity that one does not have the benefit of a departmental report from which to glean some of the facts one would like to use. Of course, where there is a report of that kind, it means that one does not have to do so much talking. The last report we had from the Department of Immigration was for the period of two years up to June, 1970. That report and the previous one were particularly good reports. For that reason also, it is regrettable that we do not have one to discuss this evening. This is particularly so when such information as one has—I refer to a report in the Argus of the 2nd February of this year—suggests that all is not well with the flow of immigrants to South Africa. I refer to a report of that date which said the following—

Then the report ends—

Now, Sir, the figure previously adopted in the two years dealt with by the report of 1970 was not 30 000 per year but 40 000 per year. That is the figure according to the report which I have mentioned, as well as a speech made by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in Another Place, in February, 1967. That was the figure that was being aimed at, namely 40 000 immigrants per year to give a working population of something like 14000 to maintain a growth rate of 5½ per cent over the period in question. One wonders whether that is still the aim of the hon. the Minister’s department and whether or not that aim is being met. It appears from the Argus report to which I have just referred —if that report is correct—that at the present time we are getting something like half only of the figure which had been aimed at in the period up to June, 1970. One wonders why that should be. Is it because of a lack of drive and effort on the part of the department? Is it a matter of policy or is it for reasons which are beyond our control? One asks that, Sir, because of certain reports that have appeared from influential Nationalist sources of late, one of which I have in my hand right now. I quote from the Sunday Tribune of 14th May, 1972, regarding a talk given by a certain professor Marius Swart, who is the national chairman of the Rapportryers, and who one presumes, is not a supporter of the United Party. The report says this—

Another Afrikaner-hater.

The report continues—

Now, Sir, what is required when one hears sentiments of this kind from what one assumes is a good Nationalist source? It is important that we hear the hon. the Minister’s view in regard to statements of this kind. It is important, particularly bearing in mind as I have said, that other reports—and that is all we can go on—indicate that there has been a sharp decline if 40 000 immigrants per year was accepted as the aim. Let me make it perfectly clear, if it needs clarity from me, that one disapproves whole-heartedly of the sentiments of Prof. Swart. I believe that can only do the utmost harm to our ability to get immigrants and to our ability to persuade immigrants to take out citizenship in this country, once they get here. This is one of the things upon which one feels stongly, viz. our ability to persuade the immigrants to take our citizenship and become a citizen of this country. Let us look at the broad picture. I believe that 300 years ago South Africa and the present United States of America had much in common. They were newly discovered countries with a small indigenous population, but with boundless possibilities. There was buried beneath our own grasslands here in South Africa and beneath the grasslands of the United States a variety of minerals and an abundance of those two upon which an industrial society largely depends, viz. iron and coal, together with a wide variety of the minerals which are necessary for modern industry. This we had in common 300 years ago with the United States of America. Whilst America had the advantage over us in potential so far as the sphere of agriculture was concerned, we had the advantage over America in potential so far as gold and diamonds were concerned. What then is it that has put the United States of America so far ahead of South Africa economically and as a force in the world in the 300 years that have passed since then?

They did not have a Nationalist Government.

Yes, that is true; they did not have a Nationalist Government. Apart from that it is a question of people, and people with the ideas, background and ability to create the wealth and the power which lies potentially in both countries. The Americans did it largely by means of immigration. They developed their population not merely from the home-bred product, but largely through immigration from Western Europe, that repository of skills and culture which has built up the United States today. It has been said by others in South Africa that we could do the same if only we could bring in the immigrants. In the Cape Times of the 21st April this year Mr. Jan Marais is reported as having said that South Africa has the potential to become the richest country in the world if sufficient skilled artisans can be acquired before the turn of the century. He warned that unless serious attention was given to immigration and an annual economic growth rate of between 6 per cent and 7 per cent was achieved, South Africa would face mass unemployment. He goes on to point out how essential it is to accelerate both the immigration rate and the economic growth rate in South Africa. I cannot read the whole of his speech, but he ends up by saying that South Africa has to aim for a White population of 12 million by the year 2000—which is in the lifetime of some of us—most of whom will be immigrants. If this is what one must aim for and if these are the benefits which are going to flow from immigration to South Africa, and we have already fallen to something like half of what even the Government’s aim is at the present time …

Where do you get that figure?

From the reported statements both by this hon. Minister earlier this year and by his colleague the Minister of Planning.

Almost half?

Yes, 23 000 to 25 000 instead of 40 000.

The exact figure is 35 845.

It is very nice to hear that that is in fact so. When one has no report from the hon. the Minister’s Department one has to rely on Press reports such as this report I quoted … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what we have just heard from the hon. member for Zululand is typical of the United Party. They try to draw poison from everything. He compares South Africa with America. He asks why we have not acquired as many immigrants as America. Of course, it is also the National Party’s fault that not as many immigrants have come to South Africa over the past 300 years as have gone to America! I just want to tell him that America has a very bad headache over the immigrants they did get. They have 20 million Negroes there who give them a headache from day to day. I am also thankful that we did not get the other unskilled immigrants from Europe that America got. As the hon. member may know, America has very great problems with its population today. Therefore I am glad that this Government and this Minister select the immigrants who come to this country and require them to be highly qualified.

What the hon. member said, namely that we are trying to reduce the number of immigrants, is not true. In the first place we must get the necessary skilled immigrants in South Africa. That is the criterion by which we must judge whether or not the Minister has succeeded in his policy. In 1964. when we got the largest number of immigrants, we got 40 865 immigrants, while in 1971 we got 35 845, representing a drop of approximately 5 000 in the number of immigrants. The hon. member for Zululand will make a great fuss about this, of course, but what are the facts? The fact is that of those 40 865 immigrants in 1964 only 15 564 were economically active. Of these 35 845, who entered the country last year, 16 532 were economically active persons. This means that the industry gained 1 000 more economically active immigrants, in spite of the drop of 5 000 in the number of immigrants we got. Therefore the hon. member is talking nonsense here when he says that we have curbed immigration and that we have frustrated the industries by doing so. The fact is that there is a labour shortage in overseas countries as well. We know that in most countries of Europe there are millions of migrant labourers who have moved up from the southern countries of the Mediterranean and are working today in the industries of Germany, France, Holland, etc. Even in England millions of foreigners are employed. Here in South Africa we cannot attract the same type of immigrant. South Africa will derive no benefit from attracting unskilled immigrants to South Africa, because we have a great number of Coloured, Indian and Bantu people here who can do the unskilled work. If we were to get unskilled Whites from overseas, it would mean that they would have to compete here with unskilled Coloured and Bantu labourers. I think the Opposition will concede to me that it is our moral duty here in South Africa to look after the Coloured, Indian and Bantu populations as well. We must see to it that they are employed and find a means of gaining a livelihood in this country. Therefore it is impossible for us just to throw open the gates and allow anyone from overseas to come here as an immigrant. Consequently I think the policy being followed here by the Government is the right one.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.