Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned last night, I had just begun to reply to speeches made by hon. members in connection with the SABC and television. Let me say at once that I am grateful that there are so many hon. members who are interested in this subject. There were no fewer than seven speakers. I dealt with the views of one of the hon. members last night, and I shall therefore confine myself to the remaining six hon. members.

The hon. member for Umhlanga flippantly referred to the advent television as the arrival of a new baby. He also warned me jokingly that I should not make a pet of this new baby. After listening to the standpoints and criticism of hon. members in connection with television and the actions of the SABC, I want to appeal to them not to condemn television as the black sheep of the family at this stage. We are in fact still standing on the threshold of our television era and I think all these misgivings that have been voiced might possibly appear to be a little premature.

The hon. member for Parktown in particular had many misgivings. He in fact met the problems half-way. He saw so many ghosts that I eventually began to wonder whether I should not discontinue television. [Interjections.] Very well. I am pleased to learn from the hon. member that I should at least not discontinue it. I think it would be a much better approach if we were simply to make a start and then see how well we can arrange it to give the greatest possible measure of satisfaction.

And with more objectivity.

As I say, the hon. member for Parktown voiced a whole series of misgivings and the hon. member for Umhlanga wanted quite a number of assurances. These are matters which one could discuss and in regard to which a difference of opinion could exist. In other cases one could possibly agree with them. On the other hand, the hon. members for Florida, Bloemfontein North and Westdene elaborated on the task of television and radio. They pointed out the problems—in my opinion the hon. member for Florida in particular did so very judiciously —concerning the balance and the impartiality which one should and which one is able to maintain in the presentation of such programmes. Without going into details I could put it this way—I think all hon. members will agree with me—that whoever controls television and however it will be controlled, it will never be possible to satisfy the taste of all viewers and listeners at all times. I have said previously that as soon as the legislation has been passed next year, we hope to establish a television programme advisory council. I know even at this stage that this advisory council will not have been functioning very long before we receive the same complaints we have already had in this regard. For that reason I say that we should be level-headed about these matters. There are certain points about which we will always differ. My colleagues on this side of the House indicated very clearly that someone has to make the selection and that whoever makes the selection, he has certain points of departure on which other people might agree or differ. This is actually the problem we have been faced with.

But it should not be jobs for pals.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member likes referring to jobs for pals, but if he would present evidence of this, we should like to investigate it. I am afraid he cannot, because our guiding consideration is the efficiency and ability of officials.

The hon. member for Umhlanga was worried about programme material. What he was really worried about was that a lack of Afrikaans programme material would perhaps shorten the eventual broadcasting time. I want to tell him that he need not be concerned about this. It is of course true that most of the programme material for the Afrikaans transmitters has to be produced in South Africa or be dubbed from the overseas programmes which we have purchased and shall purchase. I can reassure him by saying that at present the SABC, from overseas alone, already possesses programme material for almost 600 hours. Therefore I do not think he need be concerned about this. He mentioned one point which is very important, and this is in connection with the monthly payment of licences. As he rightly said, this is related to the standpoint of the Post Office. The hon. member advocated that the licence fees should be paid together with telephone accounts. These are details of course which still have to be ironed out in consultation with the Post Office. We have been thinking along these lines for a considerable time and have already had preliminary discussions in this regard. It will subsequently become clear what arrangements could be made concerning this.

The hon. member for Yeovilile discussed television as an aid to education. I am very pleased that he deliberately referred to it as an aid. Television can of course never replace the teacher in the classroom. The hon. member also referred to the days when he was still a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council and said that he had been instrumental in sending certain missions overseas. I want to tell him that those missions did good work. The Transvaal Education Department as well as the Cape Province Education Department obtained permission to make a study of the feasibility of closed-circuit television in the educational system. I want to tell the hon. House that this is an expensive experiment. At this stage it is not very clear whether the high costs of closed-circuit television are preferable to the use of other audio-visual aids. It is however a matter which is receiving the attention of the education departments. I accept that the hon. member was actually thinking of what the SABC is going to do in this regard Sir, as far as open-circuit television is concerned, the chairman of the SABC control board has already on behalf of his board, declared themselves prepared to make educational programmes available for the schools provided that those programmes can be co-ordinated. This is of course a matter for the various education departments. At the moment the feasibility of this is being investigated, but I am grateful to the hon. member for raising the matter and I can assure him that it will receive the attention which it certainly deserves.

Are there any plans to make provision for school programmes for Bantu, Coloured and Indian children, or are the plans only for White children?

Sir, it goes without saying that one will make school programmes available to everyone. Unfortunately it will not be possible for everybody to hear the programmes under the present state of affairs as far as electricity supply is concerned. Obviously the education departments of the various population groups will also have to state their needs. We will then try to effect a degree of co-ordination. When the separate channel for Bantu television programmes becomes available, the picture will obviously improve tremendously, as far as this matter is concerned as well.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to deal with the standpoints of certain hon. members in regard to university matters. The hon. member for Yeoville asked where the universities stand in regard to the report of the Schlebusch Commission and the Van Wyk de Vries report. As far as the Van Wyk de Vries report is concerned, I think he actually meant to ask where they stand with the second interim report. As far as the Schlebusch Commission is concerned, it is obviously a matter for the Prime Minister, when he thinks fit, to adopt a standpoint on. A question appeared on the Order Paper the other day, a question which stood over, asking when this investigation into certain organizations would be finalized. Sir, the hon. member and I differ on the importance of the second interim report and the final report. To my mind the most important report is the final report which is presented. Let me make it clear that the universities could in the meantime, as I have already said in the debate on the motion we debated here previously, devote a great deal of study to those reports. I must say that it was a source of disappointment to me that the first formal document which I received, and which all hon. members probably received, came from the academic freedom committee of the Senate of the University of the Witwatersrand and that they occupied themselves in the first instance with the second interim report. I would feel much happier if they would preferably occupy themselves with many of the other aspects in the final report. But this is merely by the way. Sir, my standpoint—and when I adopt a standpoint, I have to do so on behalf of the Government—towards the universities, which also includes the English-language universities, has always been, as the hon. member would see if he were to refer to my speeches in Hansard, that we expect the universities to keep their own house in order. If they see to it that people who wish to study, people who wish to do research, people who wish to qualify themselves for the task which awaits them, are not disturbed in that process, then we are satisfied. I want to tell the hon. member, and the hon. member for Durban Central as well, who apologized for not being able to be here today, that our relations with the universities and also with the English-language universities are completely normal and that there is no cause for concern in that regard. Obviously we differ on certain aspects, but there is no question of tension, because we do not allow ourselves to be misled into drawing the wrong conclusions from certain reports which are submitted to us. Where do the universities stand as a result of this second interim report? I said that the second interim report was presented at a time when student activism had been carried to extremes. The report is available and it will be considered in conjunction with, the Schlebusch Report and other related reports, but as long as the universities continue with their task and the university councils see to it that their own house is in order, they have nothing to fear from any of these reports. The hon. member also referred to liaison amongst students themselves. It is of course a matter in which I have no say. It is a purely student matter.

The hon. member for Carletonville, in his characteristic way, gave us a beautiful background sketch of the world situation and of the challenges which are facing us, and he saw the solution to our unique problem in making our university training in this country free for everyone who qualifies for it, in other words for everyone who obtains a matriculation exemption certificate. The hon. member said by way of an interjection that we can afford it, but I do not think he made a calculation what it would in fact cost us not only to make it possible for everyone in this country, but also to create all the facilities and to find the lecturers. But apart from that I still have another doubt, namely that it is part of human nature to regard something one gets free as being unimportant and often inferior.

A status symbol.

Yes, as a status symbol, as the hon. member for Green Point puts it. Therefore I say that the standpoint of the Government is that we should do everything in our power to make it possible for any person who has the mental ability to benefit from university studies, but is not able to do so because of financial and other considerations, to study at a university. I do not want to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, but do want to mention to you as an example the case of blind people. There are of course not many of them who have thus far reached this stage, but for blind people who want to go to the university, we are rendering every possible assistance by way of equipment and by way of people who help them by doing their reading work for them. It costs us a vast deal more to send a blind person to university than for example to send someone to receive agricultural, medical or engineering training. We are therefore trying to make it possible for any student who has the intellectual ability and who has the motivation—and that is the important point; it should be somebody who wants to go to university to prepare himself for his task in life—to attend a university. I therefore think that we cannot at this stage give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Carletonville, although the standpoint which he stated was a very interesting one.

Then the hon. member for Johannesburg West referred to the effect of the latest subsidy formula on the smaller as well as the new universities, and he linked this to the expenditure incurred by libraries. He made a very interesting speech on a subject which is of real importance. I should like to remind the hon. House that finances for libraries are one of the components of the new subsidy formula, but because, as he rightly pointed out, numbers are a factor, it is true that the smaller and the new universities receive less money than the older universities with a larger number of students. In his eagerness to state the case the hon. member perhaps failed to take into consideration that a special establishment factor, up to a reasonable amount, is allocated to new universities, which they could also utilize to purchase books that have to be purchased. I also want to tell him that the matter of inter-library exchanges, the joint utilization of available supplies, etc., is an extremely important matter. It is in fact so important that an international symposium was held at the State Library in Pretoria a week ago on this very subject. I think that what was discussed there and what is going to be recommended, will throw considerably more light on the subject. In addition, I want to point out to the hon. member that the formula has only recently been put into operation, and as it happens with everything of this nature, application in practice will bring the shortcomings of the formula to the fore and in the light of the experience we gain from it we shall of course have to consider the necessity of adjusting the formula.

The hon. member for Westdene gave a fine testimonial to the work being done by the Huguenot College. He also expressed praise for the co-operation agreement which is now possible between that college and the University of South Africa. I want to thank him for this new development having found favourable acknowledgment in his eyes.

I shall now proceed to deal with those hon. members who discussed cultural matters. The hon. member for Springs referred to the financial provision which is made in the estimates for the regional performing arts councils, and also referred to the commission of inquiry which was appointed in that connection. Although considerable amounts appear in the estimates, the regional councils of course receive grants from the provinces as well—in other words indirectly from the Government—in aggregate therefore almost twice the amount which appears in the estimates. We are therefore making reasonably ample provision for the regional performing arts councils. Hon. members will agree with me that the progress which we have made in this field during the past ten years, has in fact been phenomenal, and that we should all be grateful for it. As far as the changing of the boundaries of the regional councils is concerned, something which he advocated, it will be observed that this is one of the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry. I hope the hon. member will find time to appear before the commission and state his case by way of evidence. One often assumes that a commission will obviously pay attention to something of this nature and consequently one never really gets round to giving evidence personally. I hope he will in fact give evidence. He also asked whether it would not be possible to extend the terms of reference of the commission so that the commission may investigate the possibility of making provision for artists in their old age. It is of course a complicated process to change the terms of reference of a commission because one has to refer the matter back to the State President to be able to accomplish this. Since this commission has “and related matters” as its last term of reference, this part of the hon. member’s speech will be brought to the attention of the commission, and I hope they will go into it.

The hon. member for Port Natal dealt with Afrikaans abroad. He referred to certain faculties for the teaching of Afrikaans which already exist abroad, and asked whether it would not be possible to do more about it in this sense that our cultural attachés could possibly lecture on a part-time basis at existing universities overseas. This is a meritorious idea, but at the same time we should bear in mind that the universities have the final say in this regard and that there are considerable problems with student minority groups overseas that might protest against such an arrangement. This is therefore not something which can be tackled unilaterally.

He also pleaded for an international linguistic congress in South Africa. An international congress is all very well, but it has tremendous implications of course— financial and otherwise. Since we have not even succeeded in holding our international education congress which we wanted to hold, I think this matter will have to be shifted lower down on the list of priorities.

Finally I come to the hon. member for Benoni, who raised very important points. I am pleased that he referred to those specific branches of my department’s activities. He has discussed this matter here before, and I want to tell the hon. member that I am not happy about the way in which he put certain aspects of it. He referred to the composition of the new National Monuments Council and he referred to one of the members of the House as a minor official of the town council of Kimberley. This member of the commission is, in other words, readily identifiable. I see the hon. member is shaking his head …

An official.

Very well, an official if you like. But my point is that he is readily identifiable. A point that I should like to bring home to the hon. members of the Opposition is that they should not continue with this type of conduct. In the recent past I have repeatedly had problems in this regard. Last year the hon. member for Pinelands rose here during a discussion of the motion on the SABC and mentioned across the floor of this House the names of two ministers of religion who had participated in religious broadcasts. I do not think that that is the proper thing to do, and the hon. member could have brought the matter home just as well to the religious programme advisory committees of the SABC. If not, the hon. members could have brought it to my attention. These people render this service without any remuneration and I do not approve of their names being mentioned across the floor here. The hon. member for Park-town did the same. He asked what the qualifications of certain council members I had appointed were. If the hon. member really wants these details, I shall communicate them to him by means of a letter or personally, but I am not going to do this merely to have it recorded in Hansard. I want to tell the hon. member that I know of a specific man who even became a millionaire and who served on a university council and on many boards of directors, but whose highest school qualification was only Std. 4. A person who is in such a position, does not like exposing himself to an inquiry of such a kind. Therefore I want to ask hon. members on my side of the House and hon. members on the opposite side of the House not to do this again in future. I am prepared to furnish the information, but preferably on a personal basis.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to the National Monuments Council and inquired about its composition. I want to tell him, although the hon. member probably knows this, that the Minister constitutes the council. One has to take into consideration what the distribution over the entire country is. A chairman has to be found who is held in high esteem and who can confer status on the council. Furthermore we have to ensure that we have a person on that council who has a knowledge of finance. Then one wants a reasonable distribution of the representation so that every region of the country may at least have a representative on the council. These people should also have an interest in the preservation of culture; it is no use appointing a person who has no interest in that direction. Then, too, they have to be people with high qualifications in whatever field might be necessary, and I am not referring only to academic qualifications. They should also have knowledge of the area, of the region, in which they are active. Now it is in fact true that there is no botanist serving on the council as it is constituted at present. If the hon. member would, however, take a university year book and look at the composition of the council, he will find that there are various other disciplines that are not represented on that council either. If a council consists of 20 people it is impossible to have all the disciplines represented on it. In addition the modus operandi of the council makes this unnecessary because there is a committee system on the council and it is also the task of every member of the council to mobilize people who are interested in a matter and are able to assist him with it. In this way the services of the experts in Kimberley, whom the hon. member for Benoni mentioned, may be employed. That goes without saying. I want to tell him that the person to whom he referred, the official of the Pretoria city council, was previously the cultural officer of my department in Kimberley. He knows the entire North-western Cape exceptionally well. He knows the history of that area and what cultural treasures are to be found there, for that was his work for many years. He is a man with a university degree and with a teacher’s qualifications; he is a respected man, a man who was so highly esteemed that the Pretoria city council took him from my department and appointed him in their service. Now I have appointed him on that council because he fits into the activities of the council. Yesterday reference was made to political appointments, but after my explanation I think hon. members will see the appointment of all the members of this council in a completely different light.

The second point which the hon. member mentioned, was the preservation of cultural treasures which are obtained from wrecked ships. The hon. member made an interesting contribution in this regard. I want to inform him that we have a committee which has already been working on this matter for a considerable time. Obviously this is a matter which entails many legal implications and we will not know exactly what our position in regard to this matter is until we have the necessary statutory powers. The committee is investigating this matter and in the meantime certain permits have been issued for the salvaging of historical shipwrecks by the National Monuments Council, under whose control we have now placed this matter. The recommendations of this committee of inquiry will obviously have to be followed up and it could possibly result in our having to come to this House to pass legislation in this regard. For the rest I am in complete agreement with the tenor of the hon. member’s argument.

The last point which the hon. member mentioned, dealt with cultural treasures which are lost as a result of developments which are taking place in this country, such as the construction of roads and railway lines, and the erection of buildings in cities. In this regard as well we have, for a considerable time, had a very comprehensive inter-departmental committee investigating all the facets of this matter. The hon. member may therefore accept that this matter, too, is receiving the attention it most certainly deserves.

I conclude by thanking all the hon. members who took part in an interesting debate, a debate which was conducted on a positive note throughout, for their cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, this Vote involves a large sum of money, nearly R300 million if the Revenue Vote and the South West Africa Vote are taken together. Naturally, it involves many thousands of people such as the various types of civil pensioners, social pensioners, people who belong to the Government Service Pension Fund and those receiving other social benefits like maintenance grants, etc. Therefore it is most surprising that this department is perhaps the only department of Government that has not seen fit to publish an annual report this year prior to the discussion on the Vote. If one looks into this matter, one finds that the last annual report of this department covers the period from 1 April 1971 to 31 March 1972. One would have thought that a Vote of this importance would certainly require an annual report tabled in this House showing the functions of the department. I do hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will give an indication that a report will be timeously tabled in this House so as to give members a further opportunity of examining the functions of this department before being called upon to pass a Vote of nearly R300 million.

In any event, there are several aspects of this Vote which we on this side of the House wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. We know that during the course of last year’s discussion the hon. the Minister announced that he had received Government approval to institute an investigation into a national contributory pension scheme. Naturally, we on this side of the House who have put forward such a scheme for a period of over 20 years, are most interested to know what progress has been made in this regard. On 11 February I asked the hon. the Minister a question to elicit further information from him concerning the progress that has been made with this investigation, but the hon. the Minister merely referred me to the statement he made last year during the course of the discussion of his Vote and then went on to say that the preliminary work of the investigation was being undertaken and that a decision on the final form which this investigation was to take would be made at a later stage. I hope that during the course of the discussion on this Vote today the hon. the Minister will give an indication as to what progress has been made and who is to be represented on any committee of investigation that is appointed, because this obviously affects other departments as well. The hon. the Minister indicated that all racial groups will be included in such an investigation. We know it is Government policy to separate the administration of social welfare and pensions of the various racial groups. We also know that the position of the private pension funds was investigated some years ago by the Cilliers Committee which made various recommendations, most of which have evidently not been accepted by the Government. Although that committee reported some six or seven years ago, nothing further seems to have transpired. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will give an indication as to what progress has been made in regard to this investigation.

Another aspect I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that concerning civil pensions. Hon. members will perhaps remember that we raised the position of civil pensioners, especially the position of the older civil pensioners, during the budget debate, but to date we have had no reply from either the hon. the Minister of Finance or any statements from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to indicate whether any investigation is to be carried out as regards the circumstances of those civil pensioners who retired before 1 July 1973. During the 1973 session of Parliament, legislation was passed consolidating the five major funds administered by this department into the Government Service Pension Fund. There were vast improvements made as far as civil pensioners were concerned, which we on this side of the House obviously welcome, whereby the basis of calculating a gratuity was improved. Where previously it was on the basis of 5% of his average annual salary over his last three years of pensionable service, multiplied by the years of pensionable service, this was increased to 6,72%. As far as annuities were concerned, instead of being on the basis of one-eightieth, it was reduced to 1/50 on the average income over the last three years of service. Of course, the practical implication of this is to improve considerably the gratuities and the annuities for those who go on pension after 1 July 1973. But I would like to refer to the group for whom, although they received an increase in 1973 in their pension and allowances of 10% and last year a further increase of 10%, with a minimum increase of R25 per month for those on the lower scale, this year, evidently, there is to be no increase whatsoever, i.e. the civil pensioners. Here we are dealing with a large number of people who have given a lifetime of service, in many instances, to the State but who find that they are being discriminated against as far as their pensions are concerned. This means that they are placed at a tremendous disadvantage. When the hon. the Minister of Finance presented his Budget no mention was made of bringing about any assistance to these pensioners. According to figures we had in 1973 there was something like 47 000 persons who were then receiving civil pensions. Therefore this affects 47 000 people.

They are looking for some alleviation of their plight and of their difficulties which are the result of inflation and the loss of the purchasing power of their money. These people have to look to the Government for some form of assistance. That is why, when one considers the position of the Government Service Pension Fund, one notices from the latest Auditor-General’s report which covers the balance sheet for the period up to 31 March 1974, that this fund is now standing at an amount of R1 458 million. When one looks at the other figures to assess the position of income and expenditure as far as this fund is concerned, one sees that the excess of income over expenditure for that year exceeded R155 million. The improved annuities to pensioners and their widows paid after 1 July 1973 totalled just over R57 million, gratuities amounted to R32 million whilst another R9 million was paid to dependants and R11 million in resignation benefits. This amounts to approximately R110 million whereas the interest earned by the fund amounted to R96 million. One can see therefore, without taking into account the contributions made by the State and by the employees themselves, that this fund appears to be in a healthy financial position. However, I realize that there may be difficulties as far as the payment of additional amounts from the fund is concerned once there has been a change in the regulations and the law. It remains the responsibility of this Government to see that those persons who have rendered service to the State are adequately cared for and provided for.

Too many are getting a pittance.

Whilst dealing with the position of the civil pensioner I would also like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister another development which has taken place in recent times. We know that there are approximately 800 000 people in Government service. Obviously these people are concerned about their pension entitlement. In years gone by some of these people realized that they would have to supplement their pensions and as a result they took out group insurance policies to assist them in their old age and at the time of their retirement. I would, therefore, like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a situation concerning retired teachers who belong to a group insurance scheme. These people joined this scheme voluntarily. In one particular case a person received cover of R8 600 and paid a premium of R6-12 per month. On reaching retirement, the contribution was halved to R3-06 whilst the amount of cover was reduced to R4 300. This person has continued to pay the premium. However, in terms of an arrangement made by the insurance company concerned, if this person and others are not prepared to pay an increased premium as from 1 June 1975 amounting to R44-04 per month so as to ensure the insurance cover of R4 300 … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Whip on the other side in giving me the opportunity to complete my speech. The position of these people is that if they do not continue with the insurance, if they are unable to pay the premium of R44-04 per month their policy will lapse. If, however, a person continues to pay the old premium of R3-06 his total insurance benefit will only amount to R299. In this particular case the amount this person has paid in to this group insurance scheme exceeds R600. One can, therefore, see how changes of circumstances come about. A person who thinks he has adequate cover now finds that a change in the whole basis of the group insurance scheme has altered this position. I do hope the hon. the Minister will take this matter up with the hon. the Minister of Finance so as to ensure that these people are given some form of cover. The matter should, however, at least be investigated by the hon. the Minister of Finance through the Registrar of Financial Institutions in as much as this cover has been altered to such a degree.

We on this side believe that the position of the older civil pensioners requires an urgent and thorough investigation by the hon. the Minister and his department so as to ensure a far more satisfactory situation as far as these people are concerned.

There are other aspects I would like to deal with in regard to the social pensioners. We know that an increase is to be granted to these people from 1 October 1975. It is indeed unfortunate that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions was evidently unable to persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to make this concession to these people from an earlier date. If one looks at the position last year one sees that they received two increases, one on 1 May 1974 of R5 and a further increase of R5 on 1 December 1974.

That was because there was an election on.

Yes. The hon. member for Durban Point has indicated this possibility. The point is that these people, in spite of the escalating cost of living, the drop in the purchasing power of their money and a further erosion of their savings, find that the increase is evidently to be R7 for the whole financial year and will only become payable with effect from 1 October of this year. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to be more generous as far as these people are concerned.

He must try very hard.

As far as social pensioners are concerned I want to say that we had anticipated and hoped that the hon. the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, would give some indication that there would be a relaxation of the means test. When one considers the existing position, even if a national contributory scheme is introduced at some stage in the future— and let us hope that it is—one realizes that the longer such a scheme is delayed the sooner we are going to have to find ways and means of eliminating the large number of anomalies that exist because of the means test. There are a considerable number of anomalies that have arisen because of the means test, in spite of the Government’s efforts from time to time to eliminate some of these. Basically, as long as one has a means test one will have anomalies. If we look at the situation we find that the means test is not to be relaxed and that many people who have not been able to qualify even for a reduced pension will continue not to qualify for such a pension. What is worse, there are people who are presently receiving old-age pensions or war veterans’ pensions who find that they lose those pensions as a result of the means test if there is any increase in a private pension or in any other pension that they are receiving.

To illustrate this point—I have had many letters from pensioners showing a similar situation—I would just like to quote some figures here to indicate how this is going to affect a person. This is the case of a person who is receiving a pension. He rendered service through one of the churches and received a pension from that church amounting to R125 per month. He is a war veteran and qualified for a war veteran’s pension of R56 per month, and his wife for an old-age pension of R46 per month. Sir, they were receiving an income of R227 per month. In January this year this person received an increase in the pension which he was receiving from the church. This pension was increased from R125 per month to R169 per month. When this happens such person receives a letter from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions cancelling the war veteran’s pension and the old age pension immediately. They therefore lose both of those pensions which amount to over R100 per month. Instead of their total income being R227 per month they now have to live on only R169 per month. This means that they are R58 per month worse off as far as their pensions are concerned. These people are faced with a situation where, although their private pension was increased by R44 per month so as to assist them as a result of the increase in the cost of living and as a result of inflation, they immediately lost their social pensions, the war veteran’s pension and the old age pension, leaving them R58 per month worse off. This is a most unsatisfactory situation, affecting an increasing number of people. We know, too, that in terms of the means test, civil pensioners and Railway pensioners, even if they are getting the minimum pension which is below the income ceiling of R82 per month, are also precluded from receiving any old-age, war veteran’s or social pensions. These people are also discriminated against.

This brings me to the whole position of our social pensioners, some of whom have, as a result of the inroads of inflation, found that their whole standard of living is having to be reduced almost on a monthly basis as the cost of food and other expenses are increased almost monthly. We find, too, that a number of people who applied for pensions before 1 October 1966, receive up to R11 per month less than the newer pensioner who qualifies for the additional allowance which became payable after that time. So we find that the savings of the older pensioner, who might also have delayed his application and continued in employment for a number of years, have been depleted. Many of these people, facing a bleak future, now find that the newer pensioners, in spite of the fact that the means test was relaxed three years ago, are receiving R11 more than they are receiving. This too, I believe, is unsatisfactory. As you know, Sir, the means test is also applied to those receiving maintenance grants. Here too I want to mention a particular case to illustrate my point. A working widow, who has three minor children to look after, was receiving a maintenance grant. She then received a small increase in her salary as a reward for her improved productivity and her increased usefulness to her employer. As a result of this increase in her income she lost her maintenance grant. As soon as her income exceeded R261 a month, she lost the maintenance grant for her three minor children. Sir, this sort of thing is not an incentive for people to be productive and to render the best possible service to the community and to the country. I believe that the position of our social pensioners has reached the stage where the hon. the Minister should institute a major investigation to ascertain this socioeconomic position and to find ways and means of overhauling our present system which has become completely outdated in a young industrialized country like South Africa. The present system is one which is most unsatisfactory. It is a system which has hindered our people for many years because it discriminates against those people who have made some provision for their old age. Sir, there are other aspects with which other hon. members on this side will deal. I refer, for example, to the position of war veterans who receive an extra R10 a month as compared with old-age pensioners, but that extra R10 a month has remained static over many years. Perhaps at some future stage the hon. the Minister should consider the question of increasing this allowance which is payable to war veterans. The same applies to the attendance allowance of R10 a month. I think this amount was fixed some six years ago. If a person has to engage the services of an attendant to look after him, then this R10 a month is completely unrealistic having regard to the increased cost of living. Sir, these are all aspects which require the attention of the hon. the Minister and of his department, and we believe that it is the responsibility of the Minister to see that these matters are dealt with on a satisfactory basis.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to what the hon. member stated here with great conviction. He is an experienced speaker on welfare and pension matters on his side of the House and, as usual, he stated his case well. Of course, he left one cardinal aspect out of consideration, as he is wont to do, and that is that the starting point of all social pensions is, of course, the availability of money, and he did not tell us where the money for the increases he advocated should come from. If he had the responsibility of sharing out the available money, I wonder whether he would have had a special lease of wisdom which the Government does not have today. I should like to hear this in the course of the debate.

Sir, I actually rise only to say that my colleague the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with this debate today. When this Vote was discussed last year, I faced the barrage and he sat and listened. This time, I shall listen and perhaps take part in the debate later, but he will actually be responsible for the handling of this debate.

The hon. member for Umbilo raised one matter to which I want to refer, viz. the proposed investigation. It is well known to hon. members that the transferability and the preservation of pensions have been giving rise to great concern among us for many years, and that I announced last year on 10 October, during the discussion of this Vote, that the Government had agreed to conduct an investigation into a scheme —not the scheme which the hon. member has been advocating through the years, but a scheme to which only the employers and the employees will contribute and for which the State will not be an additional source of finance. It is time that there is a great deal of interest in this matter, as the hon. member did say, and therefore I am pleased to be able to make a further announcement.

I want to tell him that this investigation, as he will be able to understand, is a very comprehensive one and requires an in-depth study, because the implications thereof are really far-reaching. In spite of that, this investigation, which will be conducted by officials of my department, is under way and very good progress has already been made. At this stage, the progress obviously relates mostly to the preparatory work being done, for the investigation, in other words, determining the facts and acquiring data essential to carrying out the investigation properly. Of course, a considerable amount of information has already been collected.

But the real investigation still lies ahead and that is the very thing in which the hon. member is interested. For that reason, I should like to tell him that although it is not possible at this stage to say precisely what form the investigation will take, I am thinking—but it must not be accepted as a final decision—of referring the whole matter to a Select Committee of the House of Assembly, but then only when we, in our opinion, have collected all the information which is available on this matter, so that we have something concrete to submit to a Select Committee. An investigation by a Select Committee, apart from other considerations, will obviously have the advantage that further evidence can be heard, and also that everybody who has an interest in this matter will have the opportunity of being heard. Unfortunately, I can say no more about this at this juncture, but what I have said will satisfy the hon. member, because there has been progress.

Then I should like to make a second announcement. Among the pensioners to whom the hon. member referred, there are also the pensioners whom we call “minimum pensioners”. Of course, they are not social pensioners, but civil pensioners who get exceptionally small pensions for reasons which are perhaps not known to all hon. members. Hon. members know that the formula which applies at present to the calculation of pensions in terms of the Government Service Pensions Act, is exceptionally favourable and that the salaries have improved considerably in recent times. In other words, if an official has sufficient number of years of service, he ought to earn a considerable pension, when his present salary is taken into account. But there were a whole number of officials in the past, and there are still some of them, who joined the service at an advanced state of their lives and consequently do not have a long term of service. They usually receive such small pensions after their retirement, that it has been the practice in the past to supplement their pensions up to, at the moment, R59 per month in the case of pensioners without dependants, and R118 per month in the case of pensioners with dependants. Now there are various reasons why these people do not make use of the privilege which they have of back-dating their term of service to their eighteenth year. We should actually blame them for this failure to do so. The pension funds make provision for them to buy service back to their eighteenth year, but there are many of them who do not make use of that. The announcement which I want to make, is that it has been decided, nevertheless, that the existing minimum pension be increased as from 1 July this year to R71 per month in the case of those without dependants and R142 per month for those with dependants. The present pensioners under this scheme will receive the amounts announced, but then it must be clearly understood that we can give no assurance, as far as the future is concerned, that we shall be able to continue supplementing these amounts regularly. People who have served for a short period in the Public Service, should make use of the privilege which they have of back-dating their service to their eighteenth year or as far back as is necessary, in order to ensure them of a proper pension.

But what of those who retired a long time ago?

I do not know whether the hon. member is speaking of civil pensioners who retired a long time ago. After all, he knows that the State has repeatedly made provision—the hon. member for Umbilo referred to this very matter. It was only last year that the pensions of everybody who received less than R250 per month were increased by R25 per month, while the pensions of those who received more than R250 per month were increased by 10%. Therefore, the Government realized its responsibility towards these people and supplemented the pensions from the tax-payer’s pocket. These pensioners received the pensions to which they were entitled in terms of the pension funds to which they belong. Therefore, I appeal to officials who have a short term of service in the Public Service to have it back-dated, because we shall probably not be able to continue supplementing their pensions from the tax-payer’s pocket indefinitely in the way which I have explained.

Has the hon. the Minister considered altering the formula being applied to the older pensioners in order to bring them in line with the present pensioners?

Is the hon. member referring to the formula which is used in the calculation of the means test, or what is he referring to?

I refer to the formula which is used to calculate the pension in terms of the years of service.

The formula, in terms of the Government Service Pensions Act, was changed, of course, when the five funds were consolidated and now we have a ratio between the employee’s contribution and that of the employer of 1 to 2,47, which is a very favourable ratio. That is why I have just said that if an official has the necessary term of service, and the improvements in salaries are taken into consideration, he ought to receive a decent pension on the basis of the favourable formula in terms of which it is calculated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are indebted to the hon. the Minister for the announcements which he has made. In the first place, he referred to the study which is being made and the Select Committee which is to be appointed in connection with a contributory pension scheme. In the second place, there was the announcement of concessions to certain pensioners. I am convinced that these will meet with great appreciation everywhere.

I also want to refer to another aspect which the hon. the Minister dealt with briefly, viz. that the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have his baptism of fire this afternoon. We trust that he will have much success and we promise him that we on this side of the House shall support him as well as we are able.

With reference to the speech, of the hon. member for Umbilo, I do not believe that anyone of us on this side of the House in any way takes it amiss of him for emphasizing the whole matter concerning the aged, as he does year after year in the different debates. In fact, it is also our wish that as much as possible be done for the aged within the framework of available funds and existing legislation, and we believe that what can be done, will be done. Since the hon. member is the chief speaker on that side of the House, one could expect, by this time, that he would also deal with other aspects of the broader field covered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I know that he is not ignorant of them, but one does feel that he creates the impression, through his actions during this particular Vote, that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions only consists of a pensions section, while the welfare section is actually a far wider branch of the department’s work. The Department of Social Welfare was established in 1937 and has developed very well on the broad welfare level since that time, to where it has come today. It was only in later years that the two departments, i.e. the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Pensions, were combined.

I should like to cover the other side of the field today, since I expect that other hon. members on our side of the House will speak about care of the aged and pensions. Therefore, I want to confine myself more specifically to the other branch which I shall call the welfare branch.

In particular, I want to refer to the functioning of the National Welfare Board. In 1947, a Welfare Act was passed for the first time. It was passed under the title “Welfare Organizations Act”. Apart from its advisory function, the main function of the board, which was appointed in terms of the Act, was the registration of welfare organizations. This branch of the activities of the board developed very well, but it has always been felt that justice was not done to the actual advisory function. In 1965, this Act was amended quite radically, and one could say that the board was then actually given three important functions. The name of the Act is the “National Welfare Act”. The Act provided for a National Welfare Organizations Board, but it did establish legislation in respect of national welfare. The Act implied that the field would be broader than merely the registration of welfare organizations. More emphasis was placed on the advisory function of this council as well. It had to advise the Minister and the department. A third function of the council was a co-ordinating function in respect of welfare services. Sometimes the emphasis is placed on the co-ordination of voluntary welfare organizations. Perhaps it is not wrong to state it in this way, but the fact is that it co-ordinated the services as such, so that a mass of welfare organizations rendering the same services could not be established. I can bear witness to the fact that the council has fulfilled a great task since 1965 in exercising this co-ordinating function. At the same time, I am prepared to say that still far more can and must be done on this level. The new National Welfare Board, with its various functions, has four commissions at its disposal. Each of these commissions has the task of dealing with the board’s activities in a more specialized field. In the first place, there is the Registration of Welfare Organizations Commission. That is a continuation of the task performed by the original board up to 1965. I can say that this particular commission has done a great deal in carrying out the co-ordinating function of the board. If we consider the number of registered welfare organizations, we find that for a few years already, the number of registered organizations has remained reasonably constant, on just over 2 000. Sometimes this is abused. The impression is created that there are too many organizations, and that their activities must necessarily overlap. I want to testify that that is not true. What really happens, is that the organizations rendered services supplementary to one another. One finds, for example, that certain organizations have the word “child care” in its name or constitution and if one looks at what that organization does, one finds that it is mainly occupied with family care. In the same way, one finds another organization which emphasizes the word “family care” in its constitution, but which not only occupied itself with family care, but, in fact, with, child care as well. If one then compares those two organizations—in fact, there are six or seven organizations which are occupied with this—one will find that these organizations do not overlap with each other in respect of the services which they render, because of the mediation of the department which established a basis for the division of work as far back as 1955.

I should like to say a few words in this connection. I just want to point out the fact that the Registration of Welfare Organizations Commission sees it as its task, when it has new applications before it, to go thoroughly into the question of whether there are no other organizations which already do this work or can do it. Thus registration is sometimes refused and the organization concerned is told that organization A or B is already moving in that direction. When there is a national body which, covers the field which the new organization wants to enter, its registration is approved on condition that such an organization links up with the national organization.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much, Sir. I appreciate my being given the opportunity to complete my argument.

Subsequently, I want to refer to the Welfare Planning Commission. This was a commission which has to co-operate very closely with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Then there is also the Family Life Commission which presented a voluminous report in connection with its activities to the hon. the Minister a short time ago. Finally, there is the Social Work Commission, whose main task is to register qualified social workers. It is a fact that the Auret Commission is instituting an inquiry into the question of whether legislation should be introduced to control the whole matter of the registration of social workers apart from the other branches.

Apart from these four commissions, there are also about ten regional welfare boards. These boards also act in an advisory capacity when it concerns the registration of welfare organizations, but in particular they have a co-ordinating function at a local and community level.

When one is involved in this field, one comes to the question of whether the time has not arrived that serious consideration be given to the National Welfare Act and, at the same time, at the National Welfare Board and its functions and also at the functions of the various commissions and regional welfare boards. When we consider this, we shall find that another problem also arises, viz. that the National Welfare Board still bears responsibility for the registration of the various organizations to which I have referred. That applies to all organizations of the different population groups. But when it comes to the development of the activities of those various population groups, for example among the Coloureds and the Bantu, that work is being given, to a greater extent, to the Department of Coloured Relations and the Department of Bantu Administration.

Since the term of office of the National Welfare Board expires in the course of next year, I think it is on 30 June, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister should not think seriously, at this stage, of studying this matter or having it studied very intensively, as when we come to that point, it will perhaps also be the appropriate time to introduce the necessary amendments to the functions of the board. We know that there are problems at the moment in the application of the Act in so far as it creates certain administrative problems for the National Welfare Board. We believe that we cannot fulfil these functions separately without amending the Act as a whole. I want to emphasize in all seriousness that I think the time has come for us not only to think of a temporary arrangement but rather of a more effective and permanent arrangement. One thing I have in mind is that the need might arise in future for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to have a very small advisory council which will be able to advise him about the welfare obligations in respect of the different population groups for whom this Parliament still bears certain responsibilities. If we were to do this, I do not see that that body would have such a tremendous task in respect of the welfare organizations as such. I think the regional welfare boards can fulfil the function of co-ordination or advice about registration to a large extent. As far as registration as such is concerned, the hon. the Minister can look into the question—perhaps the National Welfare Board will also have something to say in this connection—of whether registration is not a matter which can gradually be transferred to the Department’s officials as an administrative matter. A sound basis has been laid, on which the department can continue. If any objections, appeals or anything of that nature arise, they can be referred to the National Welfare Board or to the advisory council which has to advise the Minister in this connection.

In the last few moments at my disposal I should just like to refer in passing to the hon. member for Umbilo’s reference to the means test. He said quite rightly that as long as the means test exists, there will be anomalies The hon. member has also said so previously. Now I cannot imagine that the hon. member meant by that that the means test should be rejected completely. If the hon. member wants to do us a favour, it would be interesting to listen to him one day after he has made a study of the last 27 years, of all the concessions which the department has already made in respect of the means test and how a variety of concessions have been made over the years to accommodate people, an example of which we had again this afternoon.

Another matter—I referred to it a moment ago—concerns the existence of sound co-operation between the voluntary welfare organizations mutually and between those organizations and the department. In order to achieve that, there was a conference in 1955—an idea which originated from the late Dr. Stals—where an agreement was eventually reached with the department about how certain work allocation would take place. It was agreed that one important principle would apply very strongly when it came to the division of work, viz. the culture and the religion or the church associations of the indigent. Experience has taught us—this is a concept which the late Dr. Stals, as the Minister, introduced into our welfare work—that one must also attend to a person’s spirit when one cares for and treats his body. Then an agreement was reached about a certain formula for the division of work, and it is understood that this formula is being reconsidered. Just to satisfy the voluntary welfare organizations, especially as far as the church organizations are concerned, I shall be glad to receive the assurance from the hon. the Minister that when that formula is revised, the principle of church and cultural ties will not be overlooked. It is my belief that when one sees the different points in that agreement, one will have to consider the person as a whole. One will have to perceive his particular problems and one will have to realize which organization is suitable to do the work. One will also have to realize the statutory obligations towards the indigent, and one will have to consider his religious beliefs. However, we must not place the one before or above the other; but consider everything as a whole in the interests of the welfare of the indigent.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the hon. member for Westdene was getting at, but the hon. member for Umbilo has often pointed out how it is possible to adjust the formula without having anomalies. I cannot see any difficulty in this regard. It is just that the department will not accept what the hon. member for Umbilo has told them. I also want to say that a point that the hon. member for Griqualand East was trying to make and which the hon. the Minister did not answer completely, was that although we welcome the increases that have been given to the civil pensioner who is receiving the minimum pension, we would still like to know whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider altering the formula to cover all civil pensioners. I am referring here to the formula in terms of which they have been getting 1/80th of their mean salary over the last five years of their service. We want this to be the same as that of serving members of the civil service who are now under the new system receiving 1/55th of their salary calculated over the last three years of their service. This would only be fair. Why are these people being discriminated against? They have paid into the pension fund; it is their money that has built up the fund. Surely they are entitled to reap the benefits from that fund? Giving these people small handouts of this nature at infrequent intervals is certainly not going to help them. We ask the hon. the Minister please to reconsider their position; they are not asking for the same gratuities as those received by the new pensioners; they are only asking for an adjustment in the formula.

The other point that is making civil pensioners very unhappy and in regard to which they are being discriminated against is that the hon. the Minister has given them a 10% increase in their pension whereas employees of the civil service received a 15% increase in their salary. There is a vast difference. An increase of 15% in a salary is a great deal more than an increase of 10% in a pension. As a matter of fact, the position should just be reversed. That would be fairer because, after all, the cost of living has gone up to the same extent for both of them.

There is also a big difference between working people and retired people.

I suppose that the hon. the Minister would say that they consume more calories. However, knowing the public service, I would rather say nothing.

I should like to say something about community farms. In many countries these community farms are seen as a solution to social problems. In our area we perhaps see community farms as a solution to a social problem as far as the aged are concerned, the pensioner and the retired. It is true that the number of aged persons and pensioners are increasing all the time, and they will keep on increasing year after year as a result of the wonderful progress of medical science. Although many of these are still fit when they reach retiring age, they can no longer get employment—unless, of course, they are nominated as senators. In any case, they have to look for somewhere to live. Most of them go either to old-age homes or they retire into little flatlets or houses by the sea. These people are then condemned to a life of idleness. The Department of Social Welfare looks well after the material side of these people, but not much is being done for their spiritual needs, by which I mean recreational opportunities which have nothing to do with work, but have to do with pleasure and relaxation. The enemies of the retired person are boredom and loneliness. It is to overcome this that we feel that something like community farms might be acceptable and useful. There are, of course, the problems Social Welfare having with the increase in the cost of living and the increases in foodstuffs and services. This makes old-age homes very expensive to run and it also makes life for the individual pensioner difficult. We who have been actively associated with the Village of Happiness on the south coast of Natal, a place which the hon. the Minister knows about and which he was kind enough to help, have found that this is an increasing problem. These people are well looked after. For those who do not know what the Village of Happiness is, I would like to explain that it is a complex of residences and flatlets grouped around dining facilities, laundry and washing, medical and clinical and other facilities these people may need—for example such as postal services. To a certain extent these people are very happy. Many of them have little gardens around their residences and enough ground to keep a lawn growing. Many others, however, are not interested in gardens. Others can play cards—something which is catered for—or play other indoor games, but this also is boring to many people. There are libraries and reading-rooms for those who are interested. Others can play outdoor games, like bowls and croquet, but this is dependent on the weather. But not everybody plays games. A lot of these people are finding life very boring in a place like this and as a result they become increasingly unhappy. Old people tend to get on each other’s nerves and all kinds of arguments start building up so that quite a lot of friction exists. We feel that, if these or similar complexes were surrounded by a large area of farmlands which could be cultivated and where poultry could possibly be kept, or even a cow or two, these people could grow their own foodstuff and process it as well. They could, therefore, do things for themselves. Many of the older retired gentlemen are keen to have hobbies, but this is not longer possible. These gentlemen would perhaps like to do carpentry or machine work, whilst others would like to make rugs or pottery. Nothing of this sort is available, but on a community farm this could be catered for. We also feel that a community farm like this could employ the services of volunteer workers, as is done in the kibbutz system overseas. Residences could be set aside for people who come for short periods— for example two or three weeks. You could have students and scholars coming down for their holidays and spending their time working on the farm whilst earning their keep. You could have Boy Scouts and Voortrekkers going there under supervision and you could also have Girl Guides and Brownies going there, doing odd jobs and earning their keep whilst helping to keep the place going. It could be a place for sending selected people from places of sheltered employment, people in need of rehabilitation for example. Injured and handicapped people could also go there for readjustment or to help in doing sheltered work. Each one could be used to the fullest extent of his own capabilities and his own desires. It could give the city-dweller a chance to come out into the country and to have a change of work, a change of atmosphere and a change of diet, and it would help to make these old people who go to this place feel more independent and less dependent on charity. It would also give them an interest in life; it would keep them physically fit and give them a circle of new friends. I feel that a community farm or a system of this sort would be a social service. It would be a wonderful investment for social services, because these places would become semi-independent. They would be able to maintain themselves to a certain extent, and they would even be able to make a little bit of profit on the side. It would not be difficult to get such a thing going. In much the same way as the Village of Happiness in Margate, which I am certain is one of the finest complexes of its sort in this country, was started as a result of the dream of one lady, Mrs. Beryl Munnik, I am sure that a system like this could be got going as well and that there would be people and organizations that would be prepared to assist in organizing and running this place. I would like the Minister to give this his very serious consideration. Sir, if he would give it his blessing, I am certain that we would find people who would be prepared to do the spade-work for him.

The hon. member for South Coast raised the idea of community farms here. I do not believe there is any fault to find with that, for I think one of our biggest problems is to keep our old people interested in one thing or another, to keep them active until they reach, their last days and to enable them to be self-sufficient to a certain degree. Whether such a scheme would be practicable, is something the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell him.

What I should actually like to deal with is crèches. Sir, we are living in a time in which more and more mothers are obliged to take up employment, and because of circumstances such as the manpower shortage, the high cost of living as well as the high standard of living our people should like to maintain, it has virtually become essential to have places of care for the preschool children of these working mothers. The need for such places of care is becoming progressively greater. Sir, much is already being done by the department in this regard. If we look at the Budget, we see that provision is already being made for R450 000 in subsidies for such establishments. Nobody will find any fault with that. I think that all of us will agree that it is a very sound investment. I think it is perhaps fitting that we express our gratitude to our welfare organizations for the very good and great work which is being done by them for the care of pre-school children whose mothers are obliged to take up employment because of unavoidable circumstances. But, Sir, one of the biggest problems in this regard arises when the children of working mothers start going to school and are left unattended and, in many cases, to their own devices, after school in the afternoons while the mothers are at work. It is unfortunately so that they have to go without the care of their mothers at the very stage of their lives when they are perhaps most vulnerable to wrong influences. The most recent statistics show that, of the pupils who were in Std. 6 in 1965, only 38% reached Std. 10. Now, I do not believe that the low percentage who reached Std. 10, can be attributed to any lack of intelligence. That cannot be the only factor causing so many of those boys and girls to drop out along the way. A great deal is already being done by the Government to provide the best teaching facilities so as to enable every boy and every girl in South Africa to reach the maximum potential. But having regard to all these things, one is shocked to see how many of our children—and when I speak of our children, I want to add that they probably are a nation’s most valuable asset—get lost along the way. Here I want to refer specifically to children who eventually land in Government institutions and even in prisons. It is alarming to see from the most recent annual report of the Department of Prisons, that approximately 1 000 young people under the age of 20 were imprisoned in 1974. In addition to that number, there are the thousands who are removed from their parents’ care by the Government. Unfortunately no statistics are available in this regard, but when we bear in mind that there are 160 children’s homes who make provision for approximately 10 000 children, only then do we realize how big the problem is. And then I am not even speaking of the industrial schools and reformatories to which large numbers of young people are also committed. The presence of this large number of young people in institutions of this kind can probably be attributed to many causes, but I think you will agree with me, Sir, that most of the children probably come from homes in which, because of a lack of love and care and a lack of a sound relationship between parent and child, no foundation has been laid for the acceptance of authority, order and discipline. A great deal is already being done by the department, which even has a section for family life, and a great deal is also being done by our churches and organizations which apply themselves to this. But in spite of this, there are still far too many of our young people who eventually find themselves in wrong places. I think this is one of the things which, South Africa can probably afford least of all, especially in view of our manpower shortage. We have a model Children’s Act and strict laws against the use of drugs and liquor abuse, but I do not believe that any of these problems can be solved by legislation, unless we can penetrate to the basic causes of these problems. I think one of the greatest causes of these problems has its roots in the changing world in which we are living, where both parents are compelled to work and where the children are consequently left to their own devices to a large extent.

It is sad and tragic that many parents have come to think that their responsibility extends only as far as begetting children, that the children may then be left to their own devices and that the Government has to accept the responsibility for their care. I wonder whether time has not arrived for us to give more attention to the care of our children attending school. In this regard I am referring specifically to children whose parents are both working, with the result that the children are without any care or discipline after school and are consequently exposed to all kinds of bad influences. Should we not give consideration to places similar to crèches for our pre-school children? In places such as these the children will be able to do their homework under supervision instead of wandering around in the streets aimlessly. May I mention a fine example in this regard? In Boksburg the South African Women’s Federation established a crèche which they are running. In that crèche there are, except the preschool children, also 40 children who attend school and who do their homework there after school under supervision. Those children are even provided with meals at very little cost to the parents. Reports indicate that those children create no problems whatsoever, and that they are making very good progress at school. Unfortunately, the position is, however, that the parents of some of those children cannot afford to keep them in the crèche. There is also a problem as far as space is concerned nor do the premises have the necessary facilities to make proper provision for more children. Consequently I want to address an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give attention in some way or another to the ever growing problem with which our young people have to contend. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the plea of the hon. member for Boksburg will certainly not fall on deaf ears. I, however, should like to deal with the shortage of adequate accommodation for the aged. I know that this is a subject which is very near the thinking of the department and I am sure that it is also near that of the hon. the Minister, because this particular aspect is a very important feature of the policy and the thinking of social welfare organizations in practically all countries of the world. I am critical of the fact that we have a report which is virtually outdated. My attention was particularly drawn to one sentence in the report which states that certain important projects were completed. The relevant portion of the report dealt with the question of surveys in connection with the aged and the first item dealt with was housing. It talked about a country-wide survey made of existing housing schemes for the aged. According to the 1970 census there are approximately 250 000 people over the age of 65 years. The figure has grown to about 7,75% of our total White population. In this debate we are dealing with that particular category of people. Of the total number of 250 000, almost 130 000 are social pensioners. In respect of those people the department had at the end of 1974 311 registered homes housing approximately 18 300 people and eight State homes housing 635. This is completely inadequate, and my plea is that something should be done by the department in this respect. In its report the department draws attention to a particular survey, but I cannot find a record of such survey unless reference is made to the survey known as “Community services for the Aged”, on which a report was issued in 1971. I quote:

We know that a further important principle of this whole question of the care of the aged is to enable them to remain fully integrated in society and to prevent them from going into homes and institutions for the aged. This is something which the hon. the Deputy Minister knows very well. In order to do this, and against the background which has been so ably described by the hon. member for Umbilo, it is essential that some form of housing must be provided at a modest cost to the aged people so that they can live there under reasonable conditions and at the same time find themselves integrated into the community. This report went on to say that approval had already been granted for the building of adequate accommodation for such aged people and that the shortage should be wiped out within a few years. This is stated in the report for the period 1971-’72 and I should very much like the hon. the Minister to tell us something about these projects. He must tell us something about this approval and about how he will remedy this shortage within a period which could very well be within the next 18 months, since the report, dated 1972, stated that the position would be remedied within a few years. The report stated:

I think we are entitled to know this afternoon what steps have been taken to meet this need. Aged people are in the very difficult position today that they are unable to find adequate and reasonably priced accommodation for themselves in any of the big towns or even the rural areas of our country because of the inhibited pensions they receive. The reason for these inhibited pensions has been already well described and therefore I will not deal with it. They cannot find housing, particularly in the cities and towns where tremendous urban renewal, face-lifting and rebuilding is taking place. The person who finds himself in the worst position is the pensioner who has a limited income and who needs very modestly priced accommodation. I think that this is an important responsibility which rests on the State and which should be exercised from a motivation point of view by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. All Western countries have placed great stress on this particular aspect and I believe that they have all embarked on many programmes of this kind. Just the other day I heard a story which reflects what the Cape Peninsula Welfare Organization for the Aged is doing in this regard. I find that they are going to make provision for the housing of a large number of aged people. I think they are going to rehouse approximately 900 people at a cost of some R4,5 million. The National Housing Commission is to contribute 73% of that amount. For that reason I say that there is no shortage of money in respect of State loans and I am sure that there is no shortage of the necessary planners and the necessary land. I believe that the Department of Community Development has land to the value of over R100 million which is situated all over the country. It is in fact one of the biggest land-owners in the country. So, since there is no shortage of funds and no shortage of land, one should see very much more rapid results than one is seeing at the moment. At present one still finds many of the aged people living in slums which still exist in some of the older suburban areas in our big cities, slums which we hoped would be eradicated by the department to ensure that these old people are adequately housed, instead of living under those difficult conditions. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should try to explain to us in some detail today—I do not merely want him to give us an assurance that it is being done—what projects have been approved, what projects have been commenced with and how he intends carrying out the undertaking given in his own department’s report. According to that report, the problem is to get the job going and to get the houses erected. This is a very important factor and I think the hon. the Minister must explain it.

I want to say further that the number of 250 000 will gradually increase year by year. As has been said, people are being looked after better today and medication is very much better than it was. Consequently, the numbers will continue to increase. Over the last 10 years the number has increased by nearly 1%. South Africa is a country which compared with other countries of the world, probably has the lowest number of people in the 65 years and over category. In South Africa 7,75% of the people are 65 years and over. That is probably the lowest figure in the Western world because we are such a young country. I think that in Canada the figure is 8%, but one finds that in older cities such as West Berlin, for instance, 20% of the population are in the 65 years and over category. In that city very sound and accelerated steps have been taken in order to provide the necessary housing.

The hon. the Minister also has a report known as “Care of the Aged in Overseas Countries”. I think this report was prepared by some member of his department who undertook a trip overseas and who brought back comparative figures for other countries, illustrating to us what stress is placed on this subject and what steps are taken in this regard in other countries. I hope the hon. the Minister will not be content just to encourage old-age homes to be built and to be satisfied that welfare organizations are trying to tackle this problem, because that is not sufficient. As I have said, that is not the purpose we have in mind; our objective being, rather, to keep the aged as integrated members of our society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo complained because an annual report had not appeared. I do not think that we can hold that against him, but one would at least expect him to take note, with thanks and appreciation, of the fine work which is done by this dedicated department and its Secretary, who see their task as a calling. I am sure that the hon. member will agree with me that when one takes a matter to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, there is no cause for complaint.

It would take hours just to tell of the magnitude of the department’s work. I just want to mention something interesting, viz. that the department receives an average of 4 059 postal items daily. That more or less gives one an idea of the magnitude of the department’s work. After all these years, the Opposition are still talking about care of the aged, and it is fitting and proper that that is done. This afternoon I want to say a few words about the question: What about our citizens of the future who have to be full citizens and take up their place in a very complex society? In this regard I am referring specifically to the children with whom the department deals, and particularly, the child from a broken home. The department has to do with approximately 54 000 of these children. The normal family is the family where children grow up in their natural milieu and develop to full maturity. The value and significance of a sound family life cannot be over-emphasized. It is very difficult to substitute anything for a sound family life. For this reason, I want to restrict myself especially to the approximately 35 000 children who are involved in the maintenance allowances which the department pays. The aim of the allowance scheme, which was established in terms of the Children’s Act, is to make provision for an allowance to be paid to the mother, in the event of the death of the breadwinner or his no longer being able to support his family to care for the dependent children within the family circle. In other words, it is an attempt on the part of the State to preserve the important family ties for the good of these children, who have to be the citizens of tomorrow. Sometimes it is also necessary to place such children in the care of foster parents, and the task of these substitute parents is to bring these children up in a family, in the normal milieu of a parental home. This arrangement has borne much good fruit in the past, and consequently such foster parents receive financial aid. The foster parent allowance which is paid comes to R39-50 per child per month at the moment. As against this, the widow or the mother of dependent children receives a children’s allowance which comes to only R14-50 at the moment. After October, these amounts will be R43-50 and R16-00 per month, respectively. It is a very large difference, and I want to plead this afternoon for consideration to be given to the question as to whether this difference cannot be made reduced. By that I do not want to suggest that something be taken away from the foster parents, but that we accommodate the mother of dependent children by increasing her allowance. These parents’ task of supporting their children will be alleviated in this way. I have a number of cases in my constituency where problems are being experienced as a result of these inadequate allowances which the mother receives. I want to refer to another aspect as well. I am aware of the fact that the maintenance allowances consist of two parts, viz. an amount paid to the mother to provide for her own needs and a part which goes to the dependent child. The latest memorandum of the department appeared in December 1974. I am very grateful for the appearance of this memorandum every year, for it enables hon. members to keep themselves informed of the pensions and allowances which are being paid, so that we can inform our constituents when they make inquiries. The allowances for children are R14-50 per month up to and including the third child. The fourth child and any subsequent children receive only R12-50 per month. I should very much like this matter to be looked into as well. To my mind, it is actually somewhat contradictory that R14-50 be paid up to and including the third child, while subsequent children receive only R12-50. I want to ask whether there is not a possibility of solving the problem by paying a uniform amount for all children. It will mean a great deal to the larger family. I also want to ask that consideration be given to paying the amount in respect of each child regardless of the parents’ assets or income, i.e., if the parent is still entitled to an allowance in terms of the means test. In such cases the children’s allowances must not be reduced. In this way a great deal of administrative work will be eliminated and this will be to the particular advantage of the less privileged child, because better financial care can be taken of him. The parents will be better able to see to the needs of these dependent children in a material sense. A few years ago, a special bursary loan scheme was introduced to help such children to qualify themselves academically after matric. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he will not inform us of the results which have already been achieved with this bursary loan scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to devote the time at my disposal to certain aspects of the handicapped person. No country in the world, no community escapes the problem of the handicapped person. Every country has its quota of the deaf, blind, cripple and other handicapped people. However, what I consider disturbing, is the fact that the number of handicapped people is still increasing in spite of our high standard of living and our modern medical services. In 1973, for example, 178 people were maimed or seriously injured on our roads every day. In the same year, 356 200 industrial injuries were reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. It is alleged that one-tenth of the population of the world suffers from some serious impediment or other. It is also alleged that in South Africa, one out of every 100 Whites is blind. Consequently, care for and rehabilitation of the handicapped is a very important responsibility of our present day society. Handicapped people who, for example, are employed in the postal services, serve as a very good indication to us of what can be done. It is true that the Government cares for these people by making provision for pensions for blind people and for disability pensions for others. But this is really a source of concern for us, because there are many of the handicapped who do have the necessary skill and the necessary mental abilities to care for themselves and, therefore, to be self-sufficient and independent. It is also true that handicapped people are being employed in the Post Office in various categories. There are clerks, typists, guards, cleaners, lift attendants, postmen, and especially in the category of switchboard operator the blind, weak-sighted and physically disabled are doing valuable work. I have been informed that in the Post Office and other Government departments, 162 posts for telephonists have already been created in which handicapped people have been or can be placed. What I find gratifying in this respect, is that as far as these people are concerned, not distinction is made in their conditions of service or remuneration. Therefore, the Post Office really enjoys the appreciation of all of us in this respect.

The second aspect which I want to emphasize, is that we also have great appreciation for the contributions which are being made by welfare organizations in respect of this problem. In particular, I want to mention the work which is done by the National Council for the Blind. These people render a service of love and they succeed in making people self-reliant and enabling them to return to the labour market. That is really something to gladden every heart. They are succeeding in this aim and it has been statistically proved that the number of blind people who receive pensions shows a declining tendency, while the disability pensions which are paid are increasing. In 1965, the number of people who received disability pensions was in the region of 16 000 and in 1974 it rose to 24 000, while the number of people who received pensions for the blind, is declining. The question arises as to whether we cannot do more to use the handicapped in some service or other, and thereby prevent their being lost to the labour market and, at the same time, make it possible for them to also experience the pleasure of being self-reliant, self-sufficient and independent. That brings me to the request which I should like to make today to the hon. the Minister, viz. to ask him to request his department to establish how many handicapped people there are in our country who ought to be able to accept work under sheltered circumstances. Once we have these facts at our disposal, I want to request the hon. the Minister to consider ways and means of giving those people the necessary assistance, so that they can help themselves. The value of useful labour, a creative and healthy spirit, and the development of the physical and intellectual abilities must not be left out of account, since it is important for every person. I am aware that there are probably many problems. It is true that there are many handicapped people in the rural areas and that work opportunities there are far fewer. Perhaps we can think of expanding sheltered places of work in such a way that they can also be brought within the reach of these people.

Of course, there are also the people who will never be able to do any work because of the degree of their disability. We accept those people as our responsibility. We are grateful that the department has a subsidy scheme in terms of which welfare organizations can be financed, particularly to give these people the necessary attention. It is also with gratitude that we think that there was a considerable increase in the subsidies in this year’s budget. For the institutions who employ qualified people, the amount was increased to R53-50 per person, while the amount for institutions which employ unqualified people, has been increased to R32-50. I want to emphasize that rehabilitation was one of the most important purposes of the disability legislation, when it was passed in 1946. That Act provides that people who received disability pensions can be forced to undergo medical treatment. I hope that aspect will not be overlooked and that the Act is applied in that spirit. The receipt of a pension must not be the alpha and omega for the receiver, but it must be the beginning of an opportunity for that person to receive proper treatment with a view to rehabilitation.

In conclusion, I want to advocate that there be still closer liaison, closer co-operation, between our department and the various specialist organizations which have to treat physically and mentally handicapped people. Here I am thinking for example of the services of occupational therapists and physiotherapists, who have to act in close contact with the medical and the para-medical services, and I want to advocate that the social workers whom we employ ought to be pre-eminently equipped to lead the handicapped person to self-reliance and independence. Just as the community must care for itself, so the handicapped person must also be given the chance to be able to take care of himself. Sir, we owe this to the handicapped people in South Africa. I believe that we owe it to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kempton Park has focused attention on the need for caring for the handicapped and has obviously dealt with a very important subject. I think what he has said reveals again the wide diversity of responsibility of this particular department, and therefore the importance of this Vote. Obviously the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply specifically to his argument and his plea.

Sir, the hon. the Minister spoke earlier in the debate and made two important announcements, the one regarding the national contributory scheme to which I will refer in a moment. He also mentioned towards the end of his reply to the debate on the Education Vote that it was very bad of me to mention names across the floor I hope he will forgive me if I do it again, because I want to say a special word of thanks to his officials, and I want in particular to mention the name of Mr. Coetzee, who has given me personally a great deal of help in dealing with a number of inquiries which have come to me in the course of my normal work, as they must come to every member in this House. Sir, I think the most important announcement regarding pensioners was made during the budget debate, when it was announced that a special increase of R7 a month was going to be granted to pensioners as from 1 October. I want to say again, as has been said earlier, that it is a matter of real regret, firstly, that it was not possible to grant a larger increase—and I will return to the question of finance in a moment—and, secondly, that it was not possibly to grant that increase immediately. Sir, once again we have seen what can only be described as “too little and too late”. Most of us, or all of us, in this House are aware of the particular and peculiar problems which face our senior citizens today as a result of the special times in which we live and the erosion in the value of money. I want to say that whilst it is encouraging and right and good that the Government and the department itself have been able to find money to grant this increase, we simply have to give even further attention to the plight of our pensioners. One is aware that they receive certain special benefits. For example, there is the reduction in the amount that they pay for a radio licence. This is to be welcomed. In a previous debate emphasis was laid upon the need to give special attention to the question of making it possible for our older people, our retired community, to gain access to television. Sir, these are the people who will perhaps benefit most from television, particularly in the initial stages, and one hopes very much that some special provision will be made for them. One knows also that they can receive hospitalization at provincial hospitals and that they receive certain benefits there. One is aware that certain local authorities are very sympathetic towards the plight of pensioners. For example, in Johannesburg at off-peak hours they are allowed a reduction in bus fare. Sir, all these authorities have a responsibility and all of us have that responsibility, but, of course, the body which has the major responsibility is the Government of the day. The hon. the Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Umbilo said that once again certain requests and statements had been made, but that no reference had been made as to where the money had to come from. Of course this is a very sensible response; the Minister made a similar response in the debate last year. Sir, the fact of the matter is that in the budget debate itself, and certainly in my own speech at that time, I stressed the fact that in my judgment the priorities which the Government had given its attention to were simply not the kind of priorities which we believe are required in our country today. By that I mean that the focus of the budget was not towards the under-privileged, if you like, or those who are suffering from the ravages of inflation, but rather in other directions. When we come to the budget we believe that there are certain priorities, and one of the top priorities are the older people amongst us. Sir, what I am saying, in a word, is that we must have a new deal for the pensioners of our time and for our older citizens, and here I can couple this not only to the amounts which are paid to them, but also to caring for them in terms of housing and other benefits which I have referred to. If it is true that the White pensioners are suffering under the stress and the strain of today, how much more true is it that the other South Africans, Coloureds, Indians and Africans, who get so very much less than White pensioners, must be suffering too? One hopes very much that from the Government spokesmen concerned there will come an announcement very quickly that in the same way as White pensioners are now being given an extra amount, so too will other pensioners. There remains this enormous gap. Whilst the Government has made its intention very clear that it will do everything it can to reduce that gap, one would like to see a little more evidence of that.

I, want to return now to the announcement that was made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the national contributory scheme and his decision to appoint a Select Committee. This, of course, is to be welcomed. One is very glad that this is going to happen, because there are so many important things at stake. Last year in this debate I referred to the so-called Cilliers report and the hon. the Minister in his reply said that of course he would take that report into account as well when his department looked into the whole question. I want to stress the urgency of the matter, because the very nature of a Select Committee and the complexity of this whole question are such that it could take many years, unless we are careful to work as fast as we possibly can to make sure that a national contributory scheme is introduced. I recognize that there are differences of opinion on this side and that side of the House, but such a scheme is important because it is right that everybody should provide as adequately as possible for his old age. In addition, there is the concept of transferability. In the Cilliers report it was made quite clear that although it was obviously desirable to make the transfer of pensions absolutely compulsory, it was not practicable, for obvious reasons which I do not have to go into now but which are very fully covered in that report. Secondly, the commission stressed the urgent necessity —and this report came out in 1966—for the preservation of moneys paid into a pension fund. I am quite sure that the Government, the Minister and the Deputy Minister are much more aware of this need than I am. What I want to try to do is to underline the absolute importance not only of appointing a Select Committee as speedily as possible, but of asking them to get their work done with the minimum amount of delay, bearing in mind the complexity of the subject. In the report of the Registrar of Pension Funds, we read that as at 31 March 1973 a total of R330 million was paid out in benefits by private funds and Government and semi-Government funds. Of this amount, according to my calculations, R93 million was paid out because of resignations or similar withdrawals from these funds. More than a quarter of the benefits paid out will therefore probably never be used by those people for their old age, but will probably go to the settlement of debts, etc. Now this is a very large sum of money when one bears in mind that the State’s total old-age and war veterans’ pensions in 1972 totalled just over R61 million. One realizes what the lack of transferable pensions costs the State and the taxpayer. Thus, in welcoming the decision by the hon. the Minister to appoint a Select Committee to go into this whole question, it is quite clear that while transferability and preservation are absolutely desirable, neither of them is practicable unless we have a national contributory scheme. For that reason we welcome it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. There can be no doubt about one question, and that is that both sides of this House very definitely have the utmost sympathy for the lesser fortunate people which we, of course, also have in South Africa. It is in my opinion unfortunate that the hon. member saw fit, in a very critical way—I almost want to say, in an unnecessarily critical way, and on this score I want to differ with him—to create the impression that the department does not go out of its way, with the means at its disposal, to place sufficient emphasis on the less well-to-do. I do not think that that is entirely correct. If one looks at the estimates, one sees that the amounts appropriated for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions are more than R26 million more than the amount for the previous year. I honestly believe that—this is what we have found to be typical of the department over the years—if it had in any way been possible, they would most certainly have budgeted for a larger amount in order to lessen the problems of many people. This is one matter in respect of which I differ with the hon. member.

The second point which the hon. member made was that an investigation into the introduction of a national pension scheme should be commenced as soon as possible. In that respect as well, all of us agree With him 100%, but I want to say at once that I have sufficient confidence in the department to know that there will not be any unnecessary delay in disposing of the activities attendant upon such an investigation as soon as possible, for we are all interested in this and we all have an interest in the establishment of such a scheme.

At the very outset of his speech the hon. member referred to the good work which is being done by the department. He mentioned the name of one person in particular, and although I agree with him completely in that respect, I want to go a step further. This afternoon I want to pay tribute to the officials of the department. In most cases this department has to deal with the deepest human suffering and misery imaginable, and because this is so, and because we have come to know the officials as being dedicated, sympathetic servants, it is probably a privilege for all of us today to pay tribute to them for the good work they are doing. It is my honest conviction that their obligingness and humanity is often certainly the only healing salve on raw wounds.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to two groups of people that I think deserve the sympathy of us all. In the first place I want to refer to pneumoconiosis sufferers and, in the second place, to persons who are being compensated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and who, in the case of married persons, are receiving a remuneration of just over than R168 per month. In terms of the present application of the means test they are then eliminated from any additional social pension. It is a fact that people who are still in the prime of their lives can find themselves in such a situation. I do not have the time this afternoon to go into this matter any further, but in the case of pneumoconiosis it may happen that even a very young man may fall victim to it, and even under today’s circumstances this may cause him to qualify for a considerable mine pension. In the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as well, the person may be a young man who becomes incapacitated for further work, perhaps at a stage in his life when there are still young children at home and when his house might not have been paid off yet. They then have to live on a relatively small income, and because the father of the household does not qualify for a social pension, the family, if there are still children at home, do not qualify for a children’s allowance. In the case of a social pensioner it is true that if he and his wife —this is a hypothetical case—were to have three children at home who were still under the care of the father, then such a married couple would, under the new dispensation which will apply as from 1 October, qualify for an amount of R128 per month, plus an amount of R14-50 for every child. This would afford such a family a total income of R171-50. Such a family would then be placed in a better position than the other cases in which the persons did not qualify and received a pension of R168 per month. Therefore, I want to advocate this afternoon that the means test be lifted in the case of pneumoconiosis sufferers, and the cases to which the Workmens’ Compensation Act is applicable. If this cannot be done, I want to request that a very large percentage of their income should not be taken into account. My standpoint is that pneumoconiosis sufferers and the cases falling under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, are different to ordinary cases which qualify for social pensions. For some reason or other these people are no longer in good health, and they ought to receive this special concession of receiving a little more money and at the same time still qualifying for a social pension.

I want to say that I am the last person who would want us to introduce any form of socialism in the country, but I do want to advocate that in these cases justification exists for a little adjustment. In the same breath I want to say that an allowance of R14-50 per child under today’s circumstances is perhaps a little inadequate. When I say this, I am speaking as a person who still has young children at school himself. I must honestly say that one finds today that even in the primary grades one has to pay more than R14-50 for a blazer. I think that we could be making a very good investment if we were in such cases, which are in fact very few in proportion to our entire population, to close our eyes a little and to give them a greater concession. I repeat that an investment in our children is an investment on which we shall receive a very good dividend in future.

Then there are two little questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. I see that in the Estimates the aid to indigent persons and related subsidized services has been reduced from R3 161 000 to only R161 000. I wonder whether an explanation could perhaps be given for the drastic reduction here.

The R3 million extra was because of the flood disaster.

Oh, then it is clear. Lastly I notice that the bursary loans to children in respect of whom social benefits were paid, remained constant at R60 800. I want to say that I honestly believe that a greater investment in our children could to good effect be made in this respect. The fact that this amount remained constant, makes me think that insufficient use is being made of this concession. If this is the case, I want to ask whether the department would not perhaps consider going out of its way a little to bring this matter to the attention of those concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs has dealt with people who he has asked should be treated in a special way. Obviously he has first-hand knowledge of this from his own constituency and I am quite sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will respond to him.

In the brief time I have at my disposal I want to raise a number of anomalies, or what appear to me to be anomalies, and bring them to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. In the first place—this is of overall importance—it seems to me that if we follow the particular policy of the department in regard to pensions, it really does not pay the private business or management firm to offer pension rights to lower-paid people, whether they be White, Coloured or Black, because in the vast majority of these cases. State pensions will provide greater benefits. Let me try to give one or two examples of what I am trying to say. Firstly, it is certainly true of a White woman who starts work late in life. Another illustration is that, if a White man has worked for 20 years for an average salary of R171 per month and has paid into the pension fund for that whole period, he will, according to my calculations, draw a pension of R57 per month, which is exactly what he would have got from the State before the recent announcement of an increase from 1 October. The important thing here is that it is the Government’s stated policy, a very understandable one that it believes it is the responsibility of the individual to make the maximum provision for his old age. This has been stated again and again. However, in the case of a person who earns a relatively small amount, as I have indicated, it reduces his motivation to provide for his old age. This results in a great loss and an added burden to the State. It also excuses the small private entrepreneur from providing that kind of pension right, because, in view of the amount he is receiving and the contributions he is making, such a worker will in any case get as much if not more from the State. Consequently, he does not bother too much about a pension fund. Further illustrations of this could be given, but I think I have made my point.

A second anomaly I want to refer to is that in terms of the present means test it is more profitable for the pensioner if upon his retirement the company pays out his benefits in a lump sum than if he receives the corresponding monthly payments, because in that case a lower return rate of 4% is presumed for the purposes of the means test. Once again you have the danger that because this is the case people who are paid out these large sums of money will succumb to the temptation and spend this not as wisely as possible and thus also be a further burden on the State in later years.

And resign prematurely!

Yes. Another minor anomaly is that when a house is considered an asset for the means test, the value of the bond is subtracted from the value of the house. The result is taken into account for the test. But when shares are pledged to back up a loan, the loan is not subtracted from the value of the shares and the person is assessed on the total value of the shares. This seems to be another small anomaly. A point in principle might be made that the equalization of pensions for all races is obviously impracticable at this stage although highly necessary and desirable. I made this point earlier. But at least we could perhaps take a further look at the various means tests which operate for the various communities in our country.

One could refer to further anomalies. Pensions are payable on the tenth of each month. Should a pensioner die in the interim between the tenth of one month and the tenth of the next, no pension will be paid on the following tenth of the month following his or her death. Obviously no one chooses, with rare exceptions, the date of his or her death, but there are very large expenses involved for the widow or widower who remains both in terms of medical expenses and the cost of the funeral itself and additional expenses. I wonder if the department would not look at this also so as to provide special care for the widow or widower who is left behind. Instead of the pension ceasing so abruptly, a short time of perhaps two months could elapse before this actually takes place. Also in the same area of anomaly, according to another regulation as I read it, if a pensioner leaves a registered estate to be administered after his decease no pension of any sort or medical or funeral expenses will be paid. But if a pensioner leaves no registered estate his next of kin can apply for medical expenses, funeral expenses which, I understand, will be forwarded to Pretoria and after a necessary delay this is usually admitted up to an amount of the actual pension to be paid.

There are two other anomalies I would like to refer to very briefly in the remaining minutes. The first is that pension funds are compelled to invest 50% of their funds in prescribed fields, amongst others, Government stock. As a result of this they receive an interest rate less than they would receive in the free market. I would say they receive about a half per cent less. The principle is absolutely sound and I have no quarrel with it all. It enforces a measure of security to pension fund investment.

We could not give it to Gordon to invest.

No, but it is a great pity, because they would get a great deal more for their money if they would. At the same time many funds, especially the better managed ones whose names, of course, I would not like to mention here, find this impossibly restrictive. They could do so much better with the funds if they had a free hand to maximize the return. It would obviously be foolish and irresponsible to abolish all restrictions, for bad or poor investment can ruin the funds and indeed, if investment in Government stock drops, that would also be an additional burden on the taxpayer. I think that there is a compromise and that is that only the funds equal to the particular company’s liability should be covered by the restriction: The fund should then have carte blanche with all its excess funds. This will also ensure a smaller drop in Government stock investment and thereby try to bring about the maximum amount of benefit for the people concerned. There are obvious advantages in this, e.g. that funds would be able to get a higher return on their investments which would enable them to offer far greater benefits to its members and certainly, if its members knew that their fund was investing their money to the maximum, it will also probably encourage voluntary contributions over and above the compulsory minimum. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first speech the hon. member for Pinelands made this afternoon he really tempted me to react by saying that pensioners were having a difficult time to make ends meet on the little money they were receiving.

That is true.

Yes, that is true. The hon. member also said that this would be all the more applicable to the other sectors of the population, and he mentioned the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. member is a good debater and it seems to me as though he made a good study of this subject. He has a pleasant method of presentation, and it seems to me as though, in addition to this, he also has a good mind.

I am waiting for the “buts”.

The “but” is that the hon. member should go into the matter a little further. I just want to mention three things to the hon. member. The first is that the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget Speech that the financial burden of the social pensioner was being alleviated every year, as has again been the case this year. The second point is that the hon. the Minister of Finance also announced that the gap between the social pensions of Whites and those of other population groups was being narrowed by an amount of R21 million per annum. The third matter I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member is that out of the total White population only 4,7% is receiving social pensions while this percentage among the Indians is 5,5% and among the Coloureds 6,3%.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member should rather give these matters a little consideration.

This evening I should really like to discuss the question of our aged persons. It is known that there are approximately 118 million people over the age of 65 in the world today. With a life expectancy which has at present been extended far beyond 65 years as a result of developments in the medical and other fields and with the expected population increase it will not be long before this figure stands at 300 million, equal therefore to the entire population of Western Europe. According to the 1970 census we had 393 010 White aged persons in this country. This represents approximately 10,5% of the total White population. An aged or elderly person is defined as a male person of 65 years and above and a female person of 60 years and above. If the above facts are taken into consideration we should be pleased and grateful that year after year the Government never allows an opportunity of alleviating the financial burden of these social pensioners to pass as I have already pointed out. In addition social pensions for Whites were increased by R7 per month. If we consider the social pensions of the Whites more carefully we find as I have already said that only 4,7% of the total White population is receiving these pensions. In addition I said that 10,5% of the White population may be classified as “aged”. In other words only 4,7% of the 10,5% that qualifies for pensions is receiving social pensions with the result that the remainder does not necessarily receive such pensions. Some of these elderly persons who are not self-sufficient are being cared for by their families or children but there is also a percentage that subsequently finds itself in the homes for the aged which we have in our country. I should like to dwell on this matter for a while. I just want to indicate briefly what progress has been made with the care of our aged. In 1920 there were 17 old-age homes with approximately 400 residents. During and after the war years there was development in regard to the care of our aged and in 1950 there were 27 State subsidized old-age homes with approximately 1 500 residents. Those numbers have grown to 57 homes with 2 840 residents in 1959, to 102 homes with 5 277 residents in 1964 and to 177 homes with more than 11 000 residents in 1970. Therefore it is necessary to speak with gratitude of the good work being done by the Department of Social Welfare for the care of our aged. The care of the physically and mentally infirm aged is one of the major problems we have to contend with in this country and it is alas the case that the people who become elderly, infirm and sickly cannot necessarily be admitted to hospitals because an elderly person with infirmities does not always qualify to be a long-term hospital patient. Patients are not nursed permanently in hospitals. It is not possible for a person to remain in hospital permanently therefore there has to be a place where these elderly persons who are physically or mentally infirm may be cared for and for that reason we have these institutions. As long as we have our elderly persons we shall have these institutions and as our population grows these institutions will also of necessity have to increase in number. We are grateful that this department has taken upon itself the task of caring for these people and we have admiration for the work they are doing in this regard.

There is another aspect to which I want to refer. It is most certainly necessary that the community—and not only their families but others as well—should have a sympathetic attitude to these elderly persons so that we can keep them active in our community and so that they can to a certain extent be productive and can also feel that they are still important in the community in which they find themselves. We must preferably keep them out of the old-age homes for as long as we can so that they can be self-sufficient and self-reliant. If we can succeed in doing that we would not only be doing our elderly persons a great service, we would also be doing society a great service, society which ultimately has to pay through taxation for those elderly persons who eventually find themselves in these homes. But it follows of necessity as I have already said that more and more of them will still in due course end up in old-age homes and we have to care for them. In this regard I should like to refer to the training of staff responsible for the care of these old or elderly people. Sir with the little knowledge which I have acquired of this matter it seems to me as if it is a matter which the hon. the Minister and the department should consider more closely. The training of those people is not what it should be. The age of the staff working there is altogether too high. We need better trained and younger people to care for those elderly persons.

Mr. Chairman the hon. member for Maraisburg will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said.

I think he put his case very well, very clearly and very positively. There are two other matters I should like to raise on this occasion but before I come to the second matter viz. the very real problem of drug addiction and alcoholism I want to raise the other matter and that is the important role played by the medical practitioner in this structure of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Sir I want to concede at once that I have only been in this House a very short time as yet and although I have gone out of my way to read in Hansard what has been said in the Social Welfare, Health and other debates involving the medical practitioner I have not of course read everything nor heard everything that has been said. I did find it very striking though that apart from certain remarks by a few Ministers and a few remarks by the former member for Geduld, Dr. Jurgens and a few other members the role played by the medical practitioner mentioned let alone his being thanked and paid a tribute was a very rare occurrence. On the other hand we have found in recent years that there have been many reports concerning medical practitioners in the Press and other news media and magazines which have only stressed what is dramatic and newsworthy. I have literally piles of cuttings here full of one-sided and unfounded reports over-emphasizing the negative aspect and the small number of abuses and malpractices that occur in the profession. Sir I just want to quote from one letter that appeared in a newspaper a month or two ago; it reads as follows—

And then comes the usual thing—

With that Sir I conclude this part of my argument. If you add to that the wide but somewhat one-sided publicity afforded the medical practitioner when fee tariffs are being determined and when the so-called laws relating to medical schemes are being discussed then you will see that a distorted image is created and that the truly positive task and calling of the medical practitioner is almost entirely ignored. Sir I want to make the frank statement here today that an artificial and wrong image of the role of the medical practitioner has been created, one which is entirely distorted and which bears little relation to reality.

I want to prove this statement by referring to the role played by the medical practitioner in the sphere of social welfare. It is an indisputable fact that much of the work done by the medical practitioner is welfare work. It is work which forms an integral part of his task and his calling and his approach. And this welfare work carried out by the medical practitioner indisputably plays a major role in facilitating and supplementing the task of the Department of Social Welfare. And when I say this I am not merely referring to the work done by the district surgeon in close cooperation with the department. I include private practitioners and all other part-time and full-time medical practitioners. I want to tell you Sir that on every day of the year whether on a week-day or a Sunday a birthday or a holiday, day or night a large percentage of the small South African medical corps of fewer than 9 000 doctors are engaged in welfare work among a population of more than 22 million throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. In the course of a 24-hour day these doctors deal with marriage guidance, with the saving of marriages that are threatening to go on the rocks but despite this there is no neon sign on the doctor’s front door stating that he is a marriage guidance officer. They are also concerned with the combating prevention and treatment of the drug problem and also of alcoholism and all its ugly consequences about which I shall have something more to say shortly. I say that they are concerned with the maintenance and the strengthening of family ties in that intimate circle in which they work. The hon. member for Boksburg mentioned this too a moment ago. Sir they concern themselves with the treatment of elderly people, of pensioners and the physically and mentally handicapped not merely to relieve pain but also to comfort and do welfare work in many other respects. We have only to consider Sir the role played by the medical practitioner in welfare organizations that work in close co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare. Just consider all the research carried out by the medical practitioner in regard to these very children that have just been referred to. Consider the battered baby syndrome and that kind of thing—that is welfare work done by the medical practitioner.

But I say that their numbers are small. According to the latest statistics at my disposal, he number of medical practitioners in active practice in South Africa, viz. the general practitioner, together with the part-time and full-time appointments, etc., does not come to 9 000, and they have to treat 22 million people, and on top of that they have to do social welfare work as well. On 24 April last year, Sir, the number of people who voted in the Krugersdorp constituency was far greater than the total number of doctors practising in South Africa. I know that their voting power is small. Consequently it does not surprise me that political parties do not court doctors’ votes, because taken together, they comprise about 65% of one constituency. I say that their voting power is small, but their task is a major one and decisive as regards the continued existence of the peoples of this country. We talk a lot about change in this House. I say that owing to altered circumstances, owing to industrialization and urbanization, and owing to the phrenetic pace of life in these modern times, the task of the medical practitioner—and therefore, too, the task of the Department of Social Welfare—is made immensely more difficult, but in these difficult circumstances they nevertheless continue to carry out this task and calling of theirs to good effect.

Sir, I do not object when the praises of the bottle of noble wine, the golden sheaf of tobacco, the glittering bar of gold or the warm bale of wool are sung here. The farmers of our country, the mine-workers, the policemen, the railway workers and the teachers are very often praised and paid tribute to in this House, and I, too, do so with pleasure. But in my opinion it is high time now for us in this House to say to the doctors of South Africa, too: Press on with the task you are performing; take careful note of the small amount of positive and justified criticism levelled at your profession, but press on with your task, that great task and calling, as you have done in the past and are still doing. Sir, we say to them that we appreciate what they are doing and thank them for it, we pay tribute to them for what they are doing. I just want to add that much of what I have just said about the welfare work done by the doctor in South Africa applies equally to the nurses, to the nursing profession, as well as to the welfare worker as such.

This brings me to the second point I should like to raise, which is in regard to the very real problems of drug addiction and alcoholism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to refer to the speeches of the hon. members for Maraisburg and Krugersdorp because they have spoken on specific subjects to which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply. However, before I come to my own specific plea, I want to deal with some of the anomalies in the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. He spoke of the lack of necessity for the private sector to provide pensions for the lower income groups and worked out a sum in regard to Whites and arrived at a figure of R57. He said that that would be too small and would’ in any case, be provided by the State. I should like to correct this because pensions are determined by means of a sliding scale in relation to income and assets. If that pension were R82, that person would, in terms of the present sliding scale, still be entitled to R24 from the State, which would give him quite a substantial pension during his old age. I therefore think it is wrong to create the impression in the minds of the public that the private sector should not provide pensions for the lower income groups.

No, that is not right.

Well, that is what I understood the hon. member to say. Then there is the reference of the hon. member to the question of pension funds being required to invest in Government stock only to the extent to cover their liabilities and to invest the rest where they like. I think the hon. member will have difficulty in finding a pension fund which under those circumstances will not have to invest everything in Government stock instead of the present limit of 50%, because if the hon. member looks at the various pension funds, he will find that they have the greatest of difficulty in meeting their liabilities, even under the present system. Some of them are in actuarial difficulties. Therefore, if one were to introduce this up to the extent of a fund’s liabilities, it would mean that the fund would have to invest everything in Government stock.

I wish to come now to a specific plea. The hon. the Deputy Minister, myself and the hon. member for Berea have had long correspondence over the past year in connection with the possible provision of pensions for members of religious orders. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister has gone into this matter very deeply and that his department has investigated it. He has also written a detailed reply to me. However, there are certain factors that have come to light since I have received the letter and I therefore feel that I should make a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to re-investigate this case. Because I am talking about an ecclesiastical matter, perhaps I should have a text for my speech. I take from the Book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 12, verse 1—

I believe that this text fits this case perfectly because the nuns of these religious orders remembered their Creator in the days of their youth and the evil days came not. However, now the days have arrived where they have no pleasure in them any more, because they are in difficulty. I have a letter here, which is typical of other letters, indicating one of the problems that has arisen. There are very few new members coming into the orders. Many of the old convents have closed down and there are only old people left. When the sun was shining in their youth, they unfortunately made no provision. Take, for instance, the local convent at Stutterheim. I have a letter here which a lady addressed to the hon. member for Griqualand East. She said that the convent at Stutterheim had been closed for some years and had been converted into an old-age home for the sisters who had no income although they had worked in this country for years and although they had been nationalized. The position is that while the convent was operating, they worked free of charge but had an income. These people have to pay full medical and chemist expenses because in the days of their youth they made no provision for their old age as the hon. the Minister rightly said in his letter to myself and the hon. member for Berea. I also have a letter from the Archbishop of Cape Town whom we consulted about this matter. He said—

The position in the Community of the Resurrection in Grahamstown, which used to run the very well-known training college in Grahamstown and which is now being taken over by the department of education of Rhodes University, is that they will have no further income to sustain them once this happens. The majority of these sisters are aged and are part of a community where no new sisters are taken in to keep the Order alive. They have rendered great service to the country in many spheres, and I make a plea for all communities who are in this position.

Generally speaking, I find that this is the case with them all. Some provision should be made for them. In the second paragraph of the hon. the Minister’s letter to me he states—

This is not the case; it is not paid over to the church as such. I have received the information from the Archbishop that as in the case of Stutterheim where they live together and have converted their convent into an old-age home for themselves, the amounts were paid into their community in order to sustain themselves. It would be the same as when any other group of old people get together and pooled their pensions in order to sustain themselves. I make a plea to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this case in the light of the facts I have mentioned here.

Then I wish to return to a plea which I made here last year, and that is in connection with the inmates of mental institutions and hospitals for the chronic sick. I cannot remember the exact date, but I think it was roundabout 1967 or 1968—when I was still in the provincial council—that people who had qualified for social pensions and old-age pensions had, when they become inmates of these institutions, their pensions taken away completely. I am not pleading that a full pension should be granted to inmates of mental hospitals or hospitals for the chronic sick. Yet in many cases it is certainly a therapeutic necessity to give a small allowance to them. In Grahamstown we have the mental hospital, Fort England, where people spend their whole lives after they have been committed there. They are people who are not able to go into society, but who are, nevertheless, reasonably capable of looking after themselves. If they had a few rand per month to spend on cigarettes, sweets, tobacco or small clothing items, it would assist them therapeutically and may even shorten their stay in that mental institution. In regard to the hospital for the chronic sick at Grahamstown, all the old-age inmates of the hospital received either a disability social pension or an old-age pension prior to that date. It was well administered by the staff of the hospital. A savings account was opened for each inmate, the necessities of life were purchased for them and a record was kept of all the expenses. I do not believe it is necessary to do that, as there is a great degree of callousness in the human race. I know that in many cases where people were put into the hospital or mental hospital, their families forgot all about them until the day they died, when they came to collect the Post Office savings of those people. That is quite wrong. I want to plead that a small allowance be granted which can either be administered by the staff of the hospital concerned or an organization such as the society known as The Friends of Fort England who, in the case of the mental hospital in Grahamstown, would be quite happy to administer such a fund and see to it that the patients receive their full comforts. It would do so much good for these people. I made this plea last year, but I do not think it was fully understood at the time. However, judging from the conversation the hon. the Deputy Minister is having with his staff, I think he knows what I am talking about.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Albany will excuse me for not reacting to his speech, then I shall excuse him for having interrupted me. In any case, I find it interesting that the simple farmer has now become the petitioning priest.

I should like to raise the issue of alcoholism and drug addiction, and I do so for various reasons. One often finds in this world that when a specific matter has been neglected and then at some stage suddenly comes to people’s attention again, people and news media seize on it and present it to the world and even exaggerate it a little sometimes. Then it is on everyone’s lips; everyone talks about it and takes the necessary precautionary measures. Examples of this are the drug problem, the population explosion and environmental pollution. In all these cases we have found that everyone seized on the problem and spoke about it. However, there comes a time— and I fear that we have reached that stage now—when the matter becomes a little hackneyed and stale. When that happens it is no longer news. When the first man landed on the moon it was news, but now that the 20th man is landing there, no one even takes any notice. I fear that with the drug problem, too, we have reached that stage at which people no longer find it exciting. To them the matter is now stale. That is why I think that it is perhaps a good thing for us to raise this matter again now, to evaluate it a little and find out where we stand. Have we made progress in recent years or have we lost ground? In my opinion it is very important that we should look at this matter, not only in a Governmental context, but also in the context of the family and the individual. I want to adopt the standpoint that we should intensify our struggle at all levels, and I do so on the basis of a few statistics which. I should like to quote. On page 7 of the latest Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police, a comparison is drawn between the number of cases referred to court—these are not all the cases that arise —for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. In the case of dagga offences we find that the number of court cases has dropped by 6 312 to 21 924. I think the fact that the number of dagga offences referred to court has dropped is a feather in the State’s cap. However, let us not become complacent. A little lower down in the column we see that in the case of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, the number of cases referred to court has increased by 2 354 to 16 802. Under infringements, drunkenness is mentioned, viz. cases of drunkenness referred to court. We all go to parties and we see what happens there. What percentage of cases of drunkenness comes before a court? I believe that the figure is less than 0,01%. Nevertheless, the number of cases that came before the court increased by 37 394 to 181 313 in the course of one year. These are disturbing statistics which indicate that in spite of our efforts, this problem is mounting.

Apart from that, there is yet another disturbing problem. I think the hon. member for Houghton would perhaps be interested in this. We are living in the Year of the Woman, of the emancipation of women. But we now find that this emancipation is not confined to the franchise and salaries. We find today that there is a disturbing tendency throughout the world, and therefore in South Africa, too, for the incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among women, formerly the fair sex, to increase tremendously, more than among men. I have the figures here, but I do not want to quote them in full. There are places in the world where the ratio is already 50:50. Not only are they already earning as much as men; they are drinking and using drugs to the same extent as well. This is a disturbing fact because it is the woman, the mother of the future, who finds herself in that position. In my opinion they should rather not join us in being emancipated in that sphere. I now come to the third aspect I want to mention, and this is an important reason for the fact that the combating of this problem is so difficult. There are other reasons such as the decline of the family, the superficialization and breaking of religious ties, and so on. In South Africa, dagga is available in large quantities, and this is another reason why it is so difficult to combat this problem. However, the factor I want to mention is the financial factor. We have on record here that a sack of dagga can be bought in Lesotho for between R30 and R50. A few sacks of dagga are then transported to the Cape by car and the driver gets R500 to R800 for them. One sack of dagga is sold to the wholesaler here at the Cape for R800. When the wholesaler has disposed of that sack of dagga, he has R2 000 in his pocket. Big money is therefore at stake, which makes the combating of this evil extremely difficult. It has been said that if a smuggler is able to pursue his activities and remain a jump ahead of the Police, he can earn big money. I should like to read the following quotation (translation)—

This article appeared in December 1974. In other words, these people make an enormous amount of money out of this item. Consequently it is not merely the god of drink and the god of drugs that we have to fight against, but Mammon as well. This makes our task so much more difficult. I have many other statistics here which I cannot go into now, but it is very clear that this problem is a growing one. It is also clear to us that the woman, the mother, is becoming more and more involved in this. Thirdly, it is clear to us that phenomenal sums of money and financially powerful people are involved in this matter, and this makes the combating of it difficult. Nor am I at all surprised that 31% of the American soldiers in Vietnam used drugs. Of those who were killed, four out of every five had drugs, mostly heroin, in their possession. It is not strange, therefore, that they did not fare so well there. In the light of what I have just said, it is with pleasure that I take cognizance of the existence of the Narcotics Bureau, with which the Department of Social Welfare is linked. It is with pleasure that one takes cognizance of the work being done by the S.A. Police and also by the Departments of Health, Prisons and, in particular, the Defence Force, which I cannot go into in detail in this debate. It was encouraging, too, that the first international conference on alcohol and drugs was held in Cape Town in November last year. I think that the department, the Secretary and his staff deserve more than one feather in their cap for the fine way in which that congress was handled. At that congress it was very clear to me that we were not lagging behind the world in regard to what we were doing in this field— in fact, that we were leading the world in much of what we were doing. We note that the senior professional welfare officer of Port Elizabeth is visiting America again for a month’s study, etc. In other words, it is very clear that the State is doing its duty. We are very grateful for this and all we ask is that we do not become complacent, but that we should redouble our efforts. The only question is whether we as individuals grasp the magnitude of the problem. Are we not perhaps being lulled by the old stale drug stories? We should realize that this problem is becoming steadily more serious and that just like the State, we, as persons, in our capacity as individuals and in the context of the family, must also do our duty.

Mr. Chairman, I share the concern of the hon. member for Krugersdorp in regard to the abuse of drugs and liquor. He has stated the case in this regard very clearly and well. It is a very serious case. It is one in regard to which neither the Police nor the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions nor the Department of Health nor anybody else can let up at all. It is a cancer which is eating into our nation and we must do everything in our power to eradicate that cancer and to normalize the position. Had there been an annual report, I am sure that the department would have dealt with this question of drug and liquor abuse in that report. In this regard I share the concern of my colleague the hon. member for Umbilo that no annual report has been made available. This places hon. members at a disadvantage because we do not know what the department is doing. It is a closed book. I consider this situation to be most unsatisfactory bordering, in fact, on contempt of this House, and even on the criminal. [Interjections.] However, we do know that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing its work and that there are gradual improvements. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see to it that a report is published. We have received these reports in the past but all of a sudden they have stopped coming.

I want to refer to the question of contributions to ex-soldiers’ organizations such as the S.A. Legion. This body consists of volunteers who do a fantastic amount of work for ex-servicemen and their dependants as far as pensions are concerned. I venture to say that if we did not have a body such as this the Government would have to open further offices and employ more officials right throughput the country resulting in added expense to the State and to the taxpayer. I want to say that I think that the grant to this organization of R4 500 is somewhat niggardly bearing in mind the fact that the work which the S.A. Legion does for the welfare not only of the Whites but also for the non-Whites in South Africa is very good work indeed. The Legion looks after all these people irrespective of their race or creed. I hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure that the contribution to this organization is increased next year.

In this respect I also want to refer to the Memorable Order of Tin Hats which also does magnificent work as far as a public fund raising and work of a charitable nature are concerned. They assist this department both in a direct and an indirect way.

I should like now to discuss the question of war pensions, gratuities and other benefits. Because of the lack of an annual report I had also in this regard to peruse the speech of the predecessor of the hon. the Minister in this House. The last speech of any consequence in this regard I found in Vol. 39 of Hansard. At col. 7801 the hon. the Minister stated that the war veterans of the 1914-T8 War who were still alive at that time—this was 22 May 1973— numbered 19 299 of whom 10 198 were in receipt of pensions. The number of Protesting Burghers alive at that stage was 1 652 of whom 511 were in receipt of pensions. Veterans of the Bambata Rebellion of 1906 numbered 377 of whom 27 were in receipt of pensions. In col. 7756 of the same volume of Hansard the hon. the Minister stated that persons who were in receipt of pensions as a result of service in World War II—the 1939-’45 War—numbered 16 393 and that veterans of the Korean War, members of Citizen Force units and national servicemen receiving pensions, numbered 312.

I would like to know whether the hon. the Minister can give us the latest figures in this regard, because according to my own research the number of pensioners from the South African War and the Bambata Rebellion is diminishing, whereas the citizen force units and the number of national servicemen are increasing as a result of more men being trained, injured and sent to the border to do duty in defence of our borders. Except for the Anglo-Boer War veterans all the veterans of the Bambata Rebellion, the 1914-’18 War and the Protesting Burghers are still subjected to a means test. I think it is time that we did away with this. After all the war has been over for 70 years, and I venture to say that there is not one man who was in one of those two campaigns who is younger than 75 years of age today. I do feel that we should do away with this means test and at least give them a decent pension without having to saddle the means test around their necks. Those who did service during the 1914-T8 War, served in the arid deserts of South West Africa and the thickly-bushed tropical areas of East Africa as well as overseas in France and elsewhere. There were many heroes from South Africa in the Royal Flying Corps and they brought honour to this country as well as to the RFC. The Protesting Burghers were men who rose in a cause and got no compensation for it. They were duly punished, but I still think that, whatever one might think about it, they did what they considered right and I feel that they should not be subjected to this iniquitous means test.

The War Veterans’ Pensions Act defines a veteran as a White, Coloured, Chinese or Indian person. I think the time has arrived for the word “Bantu” to be included in the Act. At the moment Bantu veterans come under the purview of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. What happens to them the Lord alone knows. I think that where we are now calling upon Black men to serve in the armed forces of South Africa and where we are training them in the navy, the army and, what is more, are now having commissioned officers amongst them who are not second-class officers, but first-class officers entitled to the same privileges and the salute as White officers, and it is time that the Bantu be included here as well. The non-White Police in the South African Police force fall under the Police Act, the wardens fall under the Prisons Act and the members of the Defence Force fall under the Defence Act. They are not shifted on to Bantu Affairs. The less I hear about Bantu Affairs, the better my temper is. We have had enough empire-makers. Everything should be done under one department and, in the case of war pensions, it should come under the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Let us do away with discrimination in any case. Whilst we are about it, we must also get on with the narrowing of the gap between White and non-White pensions. The non-Whites face the same dangers and everything else. Although the Bantu were classified as non-combatant, I can assure hon. members that I would rather have held a tommy gun or a rifle than to have gone into the battlefield as the Bantu did without any weapons, to pick up our wounded and driving the lorries.

And they could be killed too.

Sir, I say that we must improve the position. We cannot leave it unchanged. If we are going to recruit non-Whites, then we must give them the service and the privileges to which they are entitled. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for Umlazi complained quite a lot about the fact that we had not received the department’s annual report. However, he could have had all the information he required had he done a little more homework. Evidently he has, in fact, done a little homework.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with that part of the speech by the hon. member for Maraisburg in which he congratulated the department and thanked them for the way in which they cared for the elderly, both within and outside the old-age homes. I agree with him that it is of the utmost importance that we try to ensure that these elderly people remain self-supporting and independent of the old-age homes for as long as possible. I shall say something more about this later.

This department is responsible for all those who are unable to get by financially themselves, whatever the reason for their being unable to get by. That is why adjustments were announced recently in the Budget speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and that, too, is the reason for the announcement here this afternoon. The social pensioners are not complaining. I have many of them in my constituency and I have not received complaints from them because they know that the State looks after their interests and does so regularly. That is why they are not afraid of falling too far behind financially.

But, Sir, there is in fact a category of people who not only find it difficult to make ends meet but also complain, viz. the civil pensioners who retired a long time ago. In this regard I also associate myself to a certain extent with what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. In reply to that speech the hon. the Minister said that people who, had retired a long time ago were in fact receiving benefits in terms of the provisions of the pension scheme they had joined. That is quite true, of course; I am not arguing with the hon. the Minister on that score. But the hon. the Minister knows that those provisions have since become out of date and that people who receive benefits strictly according to those provisions are unable to get by. The most striking proof of this statement is the fact that in many cases, the State is already heavily subsidizing those contributions. Although it is basically true that these people are getting what they earned, I want to make the point that the pensioners are also entitled, in all reasonableness, to lay claim to a pension the purchasing power of which is reasonably stable. In my opinion this department’s major task is to try and reconcile the two truths, as it is already doing, although I think that something more could perhaps be done in this regard. I should like to dwell on this in more detail later.

Sir, these people who retired long ago come from all walks of life. Among them are ex-teachers, ex-Railwaymen, ex-Post Office staff and ex-public servants. Perhaps these people live too long, but it is a hard fact that some of them receive a pension on which it is very difficult to carry on an existence. They are complaining, not only that their pensions are inadequate, but also, and particularly, about the striking difference between the pension paid to a person who retired ten or more years ago and the pension paid to a person retiring now.

Take the example of a Railwayman, since the hon. the Minister of Transport said here in the House that if the pension which the people in his department earned was so small that they are unable to carry on a decent existence, they would become eligible for benefits from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and that subsequently that was no longer the responsibility of the Railways. Sir, let me give you the example of a station master (special grade) who retired in 1957. He received a gratuity of about R2 000, and with all the adjustments that have been effected in the meantime, he gets about R195 per month today. On the other hand, the man in the same post who retired last year receives a gratuity of R17 000 and a pension of about R400 per month. I shall shortly be indicating differences of this kind in the Public Service as well.

Sir, let us consider the teachers. I have in my constituency a man who is well-known to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and if I mention his case it may perhaps soften the Deputy Minister’s heart a little as far as these people are concerned. This man retired in 1945, 30 years ago, as the head of a secondary school. He is a person who enjoyed a high status in those days. His pension today, as adjusted through the years, is R167 per month. This does not sound so little, but when R70 or R80 is deducted for flat rent alone, I have to believe this man when he tells me that if his second wife had not had a few rand, he would not have been able to continue running a car, nor could they have maintained their standard of living. There is another teacher I could mention. He is an extremely precise and careful person. He accounts for every cent he pays out. He told me that in 1973 his expenditure exceeded his income by R462-72. Last year it exceeded his income by R874-43. These are not people who live extravagantly. They really lead a very modest life.

In this regard I should like to know what has become of the proposal by the Public Servants’ Association which was to have been considered by the Public Service Advisory Council, according to which the Public Servant was to have made an additional contribution to the pension fund during his term of service, with a supplementary amount paid by the State in the usual ratio, from which adjustments could be effected later in order to stabilize the purchasing power of his pension. Because I believe that it is in these greater than normal contributions that will be imposed that a solution will be found to the problem of how to stabilize the erosion of the purchasing power of pensions. This will also be the solution for these people who retired long ago, because it is the position of these same people that is becoming more and more difficult.

I could mention to you the example of a departmental head, a very interesting case. This is a departmental head who retired in 1955 with a gratuity of R7 300 and an annuity of something over R6 000. His counterpart who retires this year receives a gratuity of over R45 000 and an annuity of over R12 000. Now, if both of them had invested their gratuities for interest, the man who retired in 1955 would now receive an annual income of R6 800, and the one who retires this year, an income of R16 800. Now the question is whether this enormous difference of R10 000 between the man who retired 20 years ago, and the one who retires now is justified, because surely everyone has to pay the same for everything they buy.

To sum up, I want to say with regard to these retired people that they are powerless to do anything about their own incomes. They have no bargaining power, except that they are voters and in many cases, perhaps, our own fathers and mothers, to whom we have to send a monthly contribution to enable them to maintain their standard of living. They are subject to decisions taken by other people, without having a co-say in those decisions. If there is one group of people that is more talked about than they are, then it is our pensioners. These people want to remain self-supporting for as long as possible and they look to the Government to alleviate the erosion of the purchasing power of their pensions.

That is why, in view of what I have just said, I should like to ask whether it would not be possible for the department to institute an investigation into the possibility of linking pensions to the post occupied by the person concerned on the day he retired. Now, I am not going to try to be clever and say that it should be 60% or 80% of that, taking into account his years of service. It is for the technical people to find a formula. But I believe that the maintenance of a standard of living must be a very important component of the formula in accordance with which pensions are determined. In fact, in my opinion this should be the cardinal factor, viz. the maintenance of the standard of living to which the person concerned has been accustomed, and the only way to ensure this is to link the pension, in terms of some formula, to the post occupied by the person concerned when he retired. In other words, as the occupier of that post receives salary increases from time to time, the pension attached to that post should be increased accordingly so that the necessary standard of living can be maintained. Only when we have investigated what it will cost the State to put pensions on such a basis, can we start thinking about where to find the money to finance it; when we have done that we can see how far we can to get with the means at our disposal. We must first work out what our ideal system would be, and determine what it would cost. After we have done that we can consider methods by which to give effect to it.

Perhaps consideration should be given to the possibility of reducing slightly the gratuity payable on retirement and increasing the annuity. Perhaps that is part of the problem. As I have indicated, in most instances the gratuity has become six times greater whereas the annuity has only doubled over the past ten to 20 years. Perhaps we could consider another possible solution, and that is that the retirement age could perhaps be adjusted a little in accordance with the increased expectation of life. I really think that a good case could be made for the department to give very careful attention to the situation of civil pensioners.

Then, too, there is another category of people who are perhaps not direct clients of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions at this stage, but who could well become so as a result of a very small fluctuation in our economy. I am referring to those people who are self-supporting today and who even pass for well-off or rich people and do not receive assistance from the State. There are some of them who are very close to qualifying for pensions from this department and if the interest rates on their investments were to drop, or the rate of inflation were to continue to rise as it is doing at present, then they would fall within the scope of this department as possible candidates. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I want to come back to the subject raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp and to say that I think he is being a bit optimistic when he congratulates the State on the reduced number of persons charged and convicted under the drugs laws. I want to come back to this particular problem which as hon. members of the House know has worried me ever since the drugs legislation of 1971 was rushed through this House with unseemly haste with my voice being the only one which was raised in protest against it. I think the hon. member did go on to say that he was perturbed that the number of cases of alcoholism had increased in South Africa. He referred more particularly to the increase as far as women are concerned. I want to tell him that it is the men in South Africa who are driving women to drink. That is one reason why there has been an increase in alcoholism. However, there is another and much more serious reason and that is that the Draconian drugs laws provide heavy penalties for the use and possession of dagga about which medical science is still arguing as to whether or not its long-term effects are disastrous. [Interjections.] I have read Dr. Levine’s research but I have also read the research done by other experts in and outside South Africa who happen to differ from him. However I am not going into that because as far as I am concerned whether this drug is dangerous in its long-term effects or not the addicts or people using it should be treated and not sent to gaol. That is my first point. I want to point out to the hon. member for Krugers-drop that there is a correlation between the increase in alcoholism and the decrease in the number of persons charged and convicted under the drugs laws. This position is stated quite unequivocally by Dr. De Miranda who runs the crisis clinic for drug users in Johannesburg. He said that one should not be complacent about this; the problem has been driven underground in the first instance and in the second instance there has been a phenomenal increase in the amount of alcohol that is used in South Africa. That is the first point I want to make. What worries me is that irrespective of whether there has been a reduction in the number of people charged and convicted for the personal use or possession of dagga in actual fact the number of people convicted is enormous in South Africa. I have the official figures given to me by the hon. the Minister of Prisons and of Justice for 1974. It may interest hon. members to know that during 1974 a total of 15 171 persons were convicted of using and possessing dagga. I am not talking of other drugs and I am not talking of peddling although I must point out that being in possession of I think more than a quarter of a pound of dagga automatically causes a person to be assumed to be a pedlar and the onus is on him to prove that he is not a pedlar. So these are people using and possessing dagga below that quantity when arrested. Of the 15 171 people convicted of use or possession of dagga 13 990 were Blacks of whom 9 675 were adults and 4 315 were under the age of 21. I want to point out that the minimum sentence for a first offence of using or possessing dagga is two years.

Hear hear!

“Hear hear” says that hon. foolish member and I want to point out to that hon. foolish member that among these people are young people and that amongst Africans the use of dagga is a cultural habit. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned hon. members need not listen to me but perhaps they will listen to what was said in the S.A. Medical Journal on 28 December 1974 by Prof. E. H. Cluver, a former Secretary for Health in South Africa.

What did he say?

Well if you will only listen I shall tell you. He said:

[Interjections.] Just keep quiet and listen.

I quote further:

[Interjections.] That is what Prof. Cluver had to say.

Do you agree with him?

Of course I agree with him. Prof. Engelbrecht of the University of Durban Westville has already pointed out that harsh drug laws in other countries have proved to be a dismal failure and my third expert witness is Judge J. H. Steyn who said:

You are quoting him out of context now.

I am not quoting anybody out of context. I have quoted almost the entire letter of Dr. Cluver. I want to carry on by quoting the Daily Despatch of 31 December 1974 which referred to what Dr. De Miranda—the person who runs the Crisis Clinic—said:

Then he said that if this is found to be the case:

I want to know if Dr. De Miranda imagines that the 13 990 Blacks who are charged under the drugs law have any knowledge of the law itself and further I should like to know how many of those he imagines are defended. The vast majority are ignorant of the law and go undefended. They are not sent to rehabilitation centres as is proved indeed by the answer to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I asked him how many adults and juveniles had been committed to or voluntarily entered the Madadeni rehabilitation centre in 1974. What was the answer? Hon. members must remember that 13 990 people were convicted and a lot more, say about an extra 2 000 have been charged. Of those people seven were committed to the rehabilitation centres and none went voluntarily; seven out of all these thousands of people who were charged and who were subsequently sent to gaol. What good on earth do hon. members think is being done to society by sending people to prison for this sort of offence? The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is also the Minister of National Education and I want him to get into a huddle with himself in his two capacities so that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions can persuade the Minister of National Education that the way in which to do something about the abuse of drugs is to undertake a vast programme of education in schools and universities and over his magnificent new medium of television.

Oh come off it.

He must use television as well. That would be far better for society than committing 13 990 people to jail for the use and possession of dagga, thereby swelling our enormous prison population in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman in recent years we have had a very strange phenomenon in this debate. This is the second year running the hon. member has asked to be the last to participate in this debate and on each occasion she has come forward with this story of dagga and the discrimination against the Black man in this country. Surely the Act which was placed on the Statute Book is there for the protection of Whites as well as non-Whites. We as Whites are the guardians of the Black people in this country and I think it is only fair that we placed that Act on the Statute Book in order to protect those people against this illegal trafficking and drug abuse.

By sending them to jail?

The hon. member states here that it is the men who drive the women to drink. I do not wish to say that it is the women who drive the men to drink but if she were my wife I too should have to resort to something.

No way old boy.

I want to leave the hon. member at that because I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my thanks and gratitude to the department for the assistance we were given in the building of an old age home in Vanderbijlpark. We are very grateful for that and we wish to say frankly that had we not received the assistance of the Government we would have been unable to build that home. More than 21 people in need of care are accommodated there today and there are a further 95 others who have been placed in flats there. I think it is only right that we should express our gratitude towards the Government in public too for the financial aid we received from the Government. I wish to place on record here today that if financial aid in the form of capital loans at a very low rate of interest had not been available we would not have had, all these old-age homes in our country. The local bodies are simply unable to finance those homes. In particular I want to place on record my gratitude that the subsidies which are awarded to these institutions and which were increased last year have been increased again this year. We are particularly grateful for that. In order to protect our people in those institutions the Act also provides that the patients or residents of institutions who are in need of care must be classified into categories A, B and C. Subsidies are granted to these establishments in accordance with their classification which takes place in co-operation with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and district surgeons. We have however one practical problem which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department today. The highest subsidy is paid in respect of those persons in an establishment who fall under the A category but there is also a provision in the Act to the effect that institutions have to have a trained and qualified sister. Depending on the number of patients—I am not sure whether it is 10 or 12—the increased subsidy is then paid. If an institution has 22 inhabitants it means that that institution has to have at least two trained sisters in order to receive the increased subsidy. It is here that the practical problem arises. It is simply a fact that our younger qualified sisters are just not interested in working in those institutions. They are still prepared to do day duty but it is a fact that if there are people in need of care in such institutions they have to be cared for at night as well. It is not always easy for these institutions to make use of trained staff only with the financial assistance they receive from the Government. I want to make a very earnest plea here today—I do not wish the standard of care to be lowered—that the Minister see to it that if such an institution has a full time or trained sister and there are other persons under her supervision the institution will not lose the increased subsidy because of numbers.

Mr. Chairman, since we have now come to the end of the discussion of this Vote, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House, who participated so sympathetically in this discussion, for their interest. If that healthy interest could only be implemented in practice at all times and would lead to practical participation on the part of hon. members, we would have made considerable progress. To my regret I cannot say this of the contribution made by the hon. member for Houghton. Her speech was a discordant note in this debate, as was also the case last year. I wondered to myself whether the problem, in this very Year of the Woman, to which the hon. member for Krugersdorp referred, did not perhaps have a great deal to do with the attitude which the hon. member for Houghton adopts here in the highest Council Chamber of this country.

At the outset I should like to say that the discussion under this Vote, more than anything else, was a demonstration to me that we should consider the enormously wide field dealt with by the department in its correct perspective. I have said that if the splendid and idealistic ideas of hon. members could only be reduced to the practical, it would be a great step forward, for this department deals with the task which calls to the conscience of every member of the population. It calls to the social conscience of the State in the case of suffering and distress, and it calls to each individual to keep his conscience alert to the needs of the community in which he is living, to those of his own parents and his children. If we do not succeed in seeing this comprehensive field, in regard to which the social conscience of each individual should always be alert, in its true perspective, we shall stumble at times. To be more specific, I want to refer to the contribution made by the hon. member for Umbilo. He is an hon. member who evinces a great interest in this subject, and who always makes a valued contribution. He began at once with a sharp note of criticism and was followed up in this regard by the weighty member seated diagonally behind him, the hon. member for Umlazi. The latter almost branded me as a criminal because the annual report of the department had not yet been available. The previous annual report of the department was for the financial year ending March 1972. I have good news for hon. members. The subsequent period up to the end of last year has already been covered in report form. At present the report is being translated, and if the process of printing allows, it will still be tabled during the course of the present session. In other words, this annual report will be a very fresh one. I concede to the hon. member for Umbilo, and particularly to the hon. member for Umlazi, who likes presenting an elegant display when he makes a speech, that the annual report is not yet available. But they have now had something to talk about. [Interjections.] The hon. member is saying that this is last year’s annual report. But of course! The financial year which we are in at present only ends in 1976 and we cannot draw up a report on that now. The hon. member for Umbilo stated that there had been no increase for civil pensioners this year, and he regarded that as being discrimination. I think that is very unfair. The hon. member knows that something is done for the civil pensioners from time to time, perhaps not all that regularly, though, because we cannot do it as regularly as in the case of social pensioners. We must move according to the means at the disposal of the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, the hon. member knows that civil pensioners are never left in the lurch. Last year there was an increase in the pensions of these people. The hon. member also argued that on the basis of the state of the Government service pension fund, greater concessions ought to be made. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Griqualand East put a question earlier this year in regard to the state of those funds. From the reply he received to that question, the hon. member deduced that the fund was tremendously strong—that it stood at almost R1 500 million—and that it was growing with such an enormous amount every year that greater benefits could also be paid to civil pensioners. However, it is not as easy as all that. Surely the hon. member ought to know that at the moment that pension fund is a guarantee for its 230 085 members. It is a guarantee for those people, to whom the fund has a great responsibility. Therefore we cannot simply grant increases on a random basis from that pension fund. If we were today to divide that amount in the Government service pension fund among those 230 000 members of the Fund, it would mean that at present each member of the Fund would be paid out an amount of R6 338. For that reason this Fund cannot be played about with at random. Concessions which are made from time to time, as has frequently been done in recent years in particular, have to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The hon. member also referred to social pensioners. This is a group which one can readily discuss, particularly if one has a feeling for the elderly and indigent people. However, when we keep our feet planted squarely on the ground, despite these fine sentiments, we realize in the first place that the responsibility of each individual is to make provision for his own future. Perhaps that fact is not sufficiently emphasized. I want to admonish hon. members on both sides of the House in this regard. I think it is the function of a member of Parliament to tell the voters outside at all times that it is the responsibility of each person, while he is still economically active, to make provision for his old age. As a result of this view, the allocation of social pensions is only calculated to be of a supplementary nature in cases where a real need exists. This has to be the approach. If we bear this fact in mind, I say there is no reason for criticism of the extent of the increase of R7 which the hon. the Minister of Finance announced.

Their savings have been eaten away by inflation.

I could argue that point with the hon. member. One of his colleagues, the hon. member for Walmer, made this terrible statement in the Budget debate that the increase was not only disgraceful, but that it was also barbaric. I think that this young hon. member ought to feel ashamed of himself.

What does my age have to do with the matter?

It has everything to do with it. This matter deals with social pensions, a gift of the State to people in distress, but the hon. member adopts the standpoint that it is the right of everyone to receive a social pension, and then he reproaches the Government by saying that the R7 increase is barbaric. I would have felt ashamed of myself if I had spoken such words in this House about the taxpayers’ money, which has to be administered with great responsibility.

The hon. member for Umbilo says that by 1 October, when the R7 increase has to be paid out, inflation would already have eroded this amount. Surely the hon. member is not arguing correctly. I told the hon. member a moment ago that the social pension is a concession when there is a need. In addition a social pension is determined from year to year with the point of departure—as the hon. the Minister said this afternoon—being the funds which are available to the hon. the Minister of Finance. If there is an additional R29 million available for one year, then we have to take into consideration how one has to pay this. If one had to distribute this over an entire year, it would amount to an increase of approximately R3-50 per month, i.e. if one were able to put it into operation immediately. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that administratively it is altogether impossible to put such an increase into operation immediately. Regulations have to be prepared for the wide categories of social pensions and allowances.

It was done in 1966.

I shall consider that later, but I doubt whether the hon. member is correct. His colleague next to him there is alleging that it was done last year, and I want to tell him that he is quite wrong. This could not have been done last year.

Who said so.

No, I said one of the hon. members next to you said it. What is more, surely the hon. member knows that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions—I think the hon. member has been there on a visit—has a computer which has to despatch approximately a half million cheques to people every month. Surely the computer does not react of its own accord to prepare the cheques for half a million people, but has to be programmed. I think the hon. member should apprehend those matters, which takes time, and therefore I cannot see the hon. member’s point when he says that the increases should be paid immediately. The hon. the Minister had a certain additional amount at his disposal. Therefore all the social pensioners are now receiving the benefit of R7 per month for one half of the year. The hon. member advocates the relaxation of the means test and the desire may even exist among some for the means test to be abolished altogether. I do not think that hon. member advocated this, but he did ask for a relaxation of the means test. I want to tell the hon. member today that I feel convinced that the means test has been thoroughly devised, taking into consideration minor problems and borderline cases, for in life there will always be borderline cases. However, it has been calculated so thoroughly that less than 10% of the social pensioners receive less than the maximum pension. In other words, 90% of the social pensioners are receiving the maximum pension which will now, in October, be R64. If there is only a difference of 8%, surely this demonstrates to the hon. member that it has been thoroughly and well calculated. However, what is one going to achieve by either abolishing the means test or relaxing it to a greater extent than we have already done? One would in that way be benefiting people who do not need such benefits and we would in that way be de racting from the motivation in every individual of making provision for his own old age. Surely it is only logical that if people know that the means test is going to be abolished and that everyone will be entitled to receive a pension at a certain age, everyone will ask himself why he should still have to struggle to make provision for himself. What is more, what sense would there be in millionaires —and I believe there are quite a number of them in our country—automatically being entitled to a pension after the abolition of the means test? The hon. member did not relate this to any possible contributory scheme of the future when he advocated the relaxation of the means test. The means test at present means that a person may have cash or other assets to an amount of R34 400, and still qualify for an old-age pension. I think that this is a very moderate level which has been established for old-age pensions. I want to inform the hon. member, whom I admonished a moment ago, that since 1970 social pensions have been increased by 82% in this country, while the cost of living has only increased by half that percentage over the same period. This means that the Government has a proud record, and has a social conscience in regard to indigent persons. But hon. members should not advocate now that the Government should also have a conscience for well-to-do people and for people who are capable of looking after themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has considered consolidating a part of the minimum pension with the income ceiling permitted so that the gap between a person who just qualifies and a person who just fails to qualify is not so great. In terms of the present system where a person can have R24 minimum pension a month, the gap between those on the borderline would be eliminated to a certain extent by consolidation. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister give consideration to that?

The hon. member, or one of the other hon. members, also advocated this last year. This would improve matters a little from nil to R24 by October, but would still not eliminate the problem of a ceiling or a difference.

It used to be R1.

I think one should simply accept that there will always be a ceiling somewhere.

The hon. member pointed out certain anomalies in the means test. In my opinion he erroneously accepts as his premise that every person is entitled to a social pension. The case mentioned here of a person who forfeited a pension as a result of his private pension having been increased, was argued from the wrong side by the hon. member. If good private provision has been made for a person, he would not initially have been able to qualify for a social pension in any case. One must draw the line somewhere. Even though the means tést might result in difficult borderline cases, the line would still have to be drawn somewhere if one adopts a test such as this.

The hon. member also raised the point that war veterans received an additional pension of R10, and that this has remained constant. This is a special allowance which they receive over and above their old-age pension. I just wat to point out to the hon. member that this amount was still R8 until 1971, and that it was increased a few years ago. This is a special allowance which these people receive, over and above the old-age pension which other people receive. Obviously one cannot increase this every year. The means at one’s disposal have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, at the resumption of this discussion I should like to refer to certain objections which are regularly voiced, and have recently been voiced, too, that the State too often becomes involved, in our country with its system of free enterprise, in undertakings which are really the province of private initiative. I do not want to dispute that argument this evening, but I should like to draw attention very specifically to the fact that if such an objection were to be made on the part of commerce and industry, the social consciences of these bodies should also be alert when we are dealing with the care of our retired persons, and that they should not then reverse what they advocate on another level, and advocate that the State should take over the entire responsibility in respect of the care of our aged. In this regard, Sir, it is a pleasure for me, after all the representations I have heard here this afternoon, to be able to quote to you two short letters which occasionally encourages one when everyone is simply pleading for more alms from the State. The one I received from a pensioner of a very big company in this country who receives a pension of a few thousand rands per annum, but who has nevertheless applied for an old-age pension and a social pension. He made representations, to the Prime Minister, to the department and ultimately to me, and after a detailed exposition of the reasons why he could not receive a pension, viz. that a social pension was only intended for those truly in need of assistance, I received this short letter from him—

Sir, one appreciates it if one receives a letter of acknowledgment. I want to present to you another example of understanding which one does not always find, not even in this House, and this is a letter addressed to the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions by a very highly respected ex-official, a former Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions, who retired from the service in the early fifties. He wrote as follows in January of this year [translation]—

Sir, here is a person who made the Public. Service his career, who went through many difficult years.

On what date did he retire?

He retired in the early fifties; this is apparent from his small pension, but he appreciates what was done for him. Sir, I should like to return to the points raised here by hon. members.

Do you think it is right that he should receive so little?

At least he is grateful for it, and he knows what it is all about.

Is it fair?

Sir, unlike that hon. member, he at least knows what it is all about.

Is it fair?

He is not a victim of your propaganda.

Sir, the hon. member for Umbilo referred to a report which appeared in a local paper this morning.

No, it was a letter that I had, not a Press report.

There was a Press report also this morning concerning a group insurance scheme for teachers. I might inform the hon. member that this issue, of course, concerns my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, and that the matter will be discussed with him.

I suggested that you discuss it with him.

Then the hon. member also referred to supplementary pensions for old-age pensioners, standing at R11 since 1966 for postponed applications. Unfortunately we cannot go back beyond 1966. It was instituted in that particular year in order to help those people who have postponed their applications for old-age pensions for more than a year.

*The hon. member also referred to maintenance allowances for widows. Maintenance allowances are also a social pension, as the hon. member will appreciate, and for that reason the means test has to apply in that case as well. However, I am prepared to consider attendant’s allowances for the children of such widows.

I want to thank the hon. member for Westdene very sincerely for an extremely illuminating speech. It was to the benefit of all members of the House, in that he informed us about the workings of the National Welfare Board. The ideas which the hon. member expressed on reorganization in this regard, are matters on which the department is already working. In view of his personal knowledge of these matters, I should like to thank him sincerely for the contributions he made, particularly because he drew attention to the fact that the activities of this department do not relate only to pension matters.

The hon. member for South Coast asked for the formula for civil pensions to be recalculated, including those persons who retired a long time ago. I want to tell the hon. member that this will mean the individual recalculation of 26 000 cases. But that is not the worst of it. The costs involved, if this were feasible, would amount to a 38% increase, and I am waiting for him to tell us where we should find this.

From the Minister of Finance.

The hon. member for South Coast also complained that whilst officials still working for the State had their salaries increased by 15%, the increase in the case of civil pensioners was only 10%. He wanted to know why there was this discrimination. But it is only fair that a man, while he is still working should get more than a pensioner does. A man in the economically active time of his life has to look after his family and has to send his children to school or to university. It is therefore only fair that there should be a difference between a salaried man who is still working and a pensioner. The hon. member also suggested that the department should start community farms, a sort of kibbutz scheme, for aged here in South Africa. Sir, I am afraid that my department cannot go in for farming. I believe that even the Maize Board tried farming on its own several years ago, and it did not work out economically. But I would suggest to the hon. member that he go to several places in our country, especially to Krugersdorp, and have a look at their wonderful service centre attached with a housing scheme for aged people. He will learn quite a lot from that particular welfare undertaking.

*The hon. member for Boksburg referred to places of care for children after school hours. I think the hon. member made a very meaningful contribution. This is a subject which, in the circumstances in which we are living today, with mothers having to work, definitely deserves attention. My department will also devote attention to this matter; I want to assure the hon. member of that. But to this I want to add a plea that employers should also think of enabling mothers to work, for this is beneficial to them as well. Therefore they should also play a part in this particular task.

The hon. member for Jeppe read the previous annual report, but did not read it thoroughly enough. He read about housing for the aged, and of a country-wide survey which had indicated that there was a great need. If the hon. member had only read the next page as well, he would have read there (translation)—

I want to point to the hon. member that since then 60 old-age homes have already been approved for 3 000 residents, as well as 45 housing schemes for 2 836 persons. If the hon. member is ignorant as to how this is being done, he need only have made inquiries. My department motivates welfare organizations and local authorities, which serve as sponsors for the loans, to establish the necessary machinery and to make applications with the blessing and approval of my department, for a loan from the Department of Community Development The hon. member for Hercules touched upon the aspect of children. I want to tell him that the matter of the child is receiving serious attention from the department. Child allowances are in fact being increased in October, and constant attention is therefore being devoted to this matter. The same applies to the bursary scheme to which the hon. member referred. At present there are only 25 bursaries available to young children who receive assistance from my department in one connection or another. Some of them are enrolled for some of the highest academic degrees in the country. The fact that full use is perhaps not being made of these bursaries yet, is attributable to not everyone perhaps being aware of them, and I therefore want to ask for the assistance of hon. members in doing this.

The hon. member for Kempton Park made a very illuminating speech on the care of handicapped persons, and I should like to tell him that his views have the blessing of my department, viz. that we should not merely regard handicapped persons as people who have to qualify for a disability pension, but we should see them as people who still have certain physical and mental assets and have certain resources. These we should try to develop and utilize to the benefit of themselves and our country.

The hon. member for Pinelands discussed quite a number of matters.

†Actually he spoke on two occasions and I am not going to refer to all the points which he has raised. He asked for a new deal for our senior citizens. I am very proud to say that my department has shown that the Government has a conscience towards our aged people and that it is doing everything that it possibly can with the available funds to assist our elderly people.

*The hon. member also referred to the investigation announced by the hon. the Minister in regard to a contributory pension scheme, and he insisted that this be done urgently. I can inform him that it is in fact enjoying top priority. I just want to draw attention to the fact that what we envisage is a scheme to which employees and employers will have to contribute.

The hon. member for Springs referred to the problem of pneumoconiosis cases, and said that they are being eliminated because of the means test. I want to point out to the hon. member that legislation which is administered by the Department of Mines makes provision for their cases. The only aspects we could consider, is perhaps the maintenance allowance for their children.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp discussed the role of the medical practitioner in welfare. I want to tell him that we have great appreciation for this.

The hon. member for Albany referred to the problem of the Catholic Sisters and some other Catholic staff members, who do not qualify for pensions. To my regret we cannot reach a decision other than the one reached by the Cabinet in 1972. I cannot go into greater detail here than I did in my letters to the hon. member.

As far as the problems in regard to hospitals for chronic diseases and other related places are concerned, he can simply bring the cases in question to the attention of the department. They will assist him.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp also referred to the drug problem, and indicated how the number of dagga cases had decreased, but then there a discordant note was sounded by the hon. member for Houghton.

†She spoke about “Draconian Acts” passed by the Government in this respect. She also referred to a report by the hon. the Minister of Police from which a figure of 15 800 cases last year was quoted. I must point out to the hon. member that that figure proves that the legislation of the Government was justified because although in 1970-’71 there were 40 935 cases, this number dropped to 28 236 in the year 1972-’73. In the year after that, in 1974, the number decreased from 28 236 to 20 557. What does her figure of 15 000 prove?

It is very high indeed.

I admit that it is still very high …

What about the alcohol offences?

But I think the hon. member will admit that when in the course of four years the figure has decreased from well over 40 000 to 15 000, the legislation was all to the benefit of the country.

*I do not want to elaborate on this matter any further, except to say that the hon. member may make this little dagga speech of hers every year if she wishes. However, I do not think that it is of any benefit to her and her party—I know that she is at odds with her party over this. The hon. member also referred to the crisis clinic near her area, but I should like to set her straight. When she talks about that clinic, she is not talking about someone else’s clinic, she is talking about a clinic which belongs to this department and is administered by it. The person to whom she referred is rendering sound, voluntary services to that clinic, but he is not in control of it.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred to the problem in regard to nursing staff at old-age homes. I want to tell him that the department is already helping to eliminate the problem. The department is also helping to encourage people to qualify for the posts at the institutions concerned by introducing special courses.

In his plea the hon. member for Albany quoted a Bible text which may have been relevant, but when I return to the pleas made from all sides, I also want to quote a text. I am certain that the hon. member for Pinelands will also enjoy it.

Yes, I shall. Only make sure that it is right.

I want to quote from Matthew 20. In Matthew 20, verses 1 to 16, we find the parable of the householder who at various times hired labourers to work in his vineyard. I now want to quote from verse 8:

1. 8. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard sayeth unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
2. 9. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
3. 10. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
4. 11. And when they had received it, they murmured against the good-man of the house.
5. 12. Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou has made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
6. 13. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: Didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
7. 14. Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

Yes, with reference to the new members who gained seats here.

I omitted to refer to the hon. member for Umlazi. That hon. member complained because the subsidy which is being paid to the S.A. Legion is only R4 500 per annum. I want to tell the hon. member that I am speaking as a member of the S.A. Legion, and I am proud of it. Apparently I have more knowledge of them than the hon. member has. This allowance was increased a year or two ago, after representations by the organization concerned. The S.A. Legion is rendering excellent services in caring for the welfare of our ex-servicemen, but according to their own evidence the activities of the legion are diminishing as these people become fewer in number. However, there is another matter as well, which ought to be taken into consideration. Apparently the hon. member for Umlazi does not know the difference between the War Pension Act and the provision of pensions for war veterans. Recently, when I opened the congress of the S.A. Legion, I did in fact refer to the War Pensions Act which we were revising completely. The hon. member was obviously confused about what a war veteran’s pension and what a war pension is. I want to tell him that he should make a study of this matter. But what is more, what I found to be the greatest shock in regard to the plea of the hon. member to the effect that Bantu ex-servicemen should also be paid a pension, was that although the hon. member also voted last year during the spring session, if I remember correctly, for Act 77 of 1974, and more specifically for section 15 of that Act, which made provision for the payment of pensions to Bantu ex-servicemen, he was today pleading for something which is already standing on the Statute Book and which is already being implemented.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is aware of the desperate disappointment which will be engendered by the lack of understanding of the desperate plight of thousands of pensioners he has revealed by his reply to this debate? Does he understand that he has completely missed the desperate need of tens of thousands of pensioners?

I think that I have replied in detail to the debate. If the hon. member had been here …

I was.

… he would have known that I had said that my approach would not be to make a sentimental speech, but to make a responsible survey of the entire field, and to indicate what funds were involved. I also said that an individual should himself contribute to his pension earnings. If the hon. member is aware of that, he will understand what this is all about.

Do you know what is happening?

Mr. Chairman, I have finished with the hon. member. Because it is clear to me that there are still many hon. members who do not yet understand how wide-ranging the activities of this department are, and where its responsibilities lie, I should like, in conclusion, to invite members of Parliament to pay a visit on 16 and 17 October to institutions of the department in Pretoria and environs, and also to attend a conference on child care which will be held from 21 to 23 October.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Book of Ecclesiastes tell us that of making many books there is no end. Likewise, there seems to be no end to pension matters. Time and again we are forced, towards the end of a session, to introduce a Bill such as this, which is really a summary of various amendments to laws which are necessary in order to regulate and to lay down the pension rights and privileges of a variety of persons. From the nature of the case, it is usually a measure which can be fruitfully debated during the Committee Stage. Accordingly, I do not intend to give a long exposition of all the provisions of this Bill. Nevertheless I want to explain a few of its provisions briefly for the convenience of hon. members.

Clause 1 merely provides statutory authority for the 10% increase in war pensions which the hon. the Minister of Finance announced earlier this session. The amendments proposed in clause 2 were really necessitated by those contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5. As will shortly appear, those commissioners-general who have been members of the pension scheme for members of statutory bodies up to now will in future be members of the parliamentary pension scheme, and consequently it is essential that they be excluded from membership of the former pension scheme from now on. Commissioners-general are mostly appointed from the ranks of parliamentarians, and as matters stand at the moment, they retain their membership of the parliamentary pension scheme if there is no interruption in their service. Hon. members will remember that the position used to be the same in the case of ambassadors appointed from the ranks of parliamentarians, but that we amended the Act last year to the effect that they now remain members of the parliamentary pension scheme, irrespective of whether there has been an interruption in their service. This was done to prevent someone from receiving a pension while serving in another comparable official post and receiving a salary for that service.

However, there are some commissioners-general who were not appointed from the ranks of parliamentarians and who are members of the pension scheme established in terms of the Members of Statutory Bodies Pension Act, 1969. The latter scheme differs substantially from the pension scheme for members of Parliament.

Apart from the fact that the services of commissioners-general can to some extent be compared to that of ambassadors and that they are mostly appointed from the same ranks, there is a basic difference, however, between the conditions of service of some commissioners-general on the one hand, and those of other commissioners-general on the other. I refer in this connection to those commissioners-general who were not appointed from the ranks of parliamentarians, but who still have the same responsibilities and obligations as their other colleagues.

Although the nature and importance of the services of all commissioners-general are comparable and although their conditions of service are largely the same, their pension rights and privileges differ in quite important respects according to whether they used to be members of Parliament or not. Such a position is most undesirable, of course, and it is essential that the matter be rectified.

Accordingly, clauses 3, 4 and 5 propose to eliminate this anomaly by granting membership of the parliamentary pension scheme to those commissioners-general who are not members of that scheme at present, and at the same time they provide that a member of Parliament who is appointed as a commissioner-general after an interruption in his service will become a member of the parliamentary pension scheme again, while he is also enabled to improve his pension further while occupying this position.

This means, of course, that those who become members of the parliamentary pension scheme in this way will have to contribute to that scheme just as any other member of the scheme contributes to it, but fortunately I am able to assure hon. members that the financial implications in this regard are recognized and accepted.

By means of these amendments, I believe, we are bringing together what belongs together, and we are eliminating the anomalies which exist and removing the possibility of dissatisfaction. The fact that someone who is not and has not been a member of Parliament will now be allowed to become a member of the pension scheme for parliamentarians should not present us with any difficulties, because this has already been done, in the case of administrators, for example. In fact, I believe that we are only doing the obvious by means of this measure.

Hon. members will remember that we provided last year for the preservation of pension rights of certain persons who are forced to become members of some State-controlled pension fund because certain services which used to be provided by a local authority have been taken over by the State. It has now appeared that some of the persons involved in the take-over are married women who are members of a provident fund.

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

Those ladies will be unable for some reason to remain in service until they have reached retirement age, and accordingly it is more profitable for them to obtain the full benefit from the provident fund concerned and to have their pensionable service count for the State-controlled pension fund concerned with effect from a specific date only, rather than to have it transferred to such a pension fund now.

There is no doubt about the fact that for those who want to follow a career in the Public Service it is more profitable to have their benefits transferred to the State-controlled pension fund concerned. Although I want to emphasize once again that this Government feels very strongly about the preservation of pension rights and that we should do everything in our power to encourage people to provide for their old age themselves, I am satisfied that we are dealing here with an exceptional situation and that the steps envisaged by clause 7 are justified. In terms of the provisions of this clause, those persons who do not intend to follow a career in the Public Service will be able to choose to retain their present privileges.

In accordance with legislation which we placed on the Statute Book last year, the parliamentary pension of the recently retired State President has been discontinued and his pension in respect of his service as State President has been suitably adjusted. It is proper that the other former State President should be treated on a similar basis. In clause 8, therefore, we propose that his parliamentary pension be discontinued, while his pension in respect of his service as State President be suitably adjusted.

There are nine widows of former judges of the Supreme Court at the moment who receive no pension in terms of a pension Act, because no pension scheme existed for them at the time. In view of the provision made for the widows of judges last year, I believe it is fair that we should provide for a pension for these widows as well, as envisaged in terms of clause 9. Judging by the representations which have already been made to this hon. House on behalf of the widows concerned, I believe that this concession will meet with general approval.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have had the opportunity of serving on the Select Committee on Pensions will know that it happens now and again that a person has to forfeit his membership of a State-controlled pension fund because the Government requires his services in another capacity. With this in view, we are now providing in clause 10 for the pension rights of such a person to be retained. This illustrates once again our desire to help people to be financially independent when they reach retirement age, and trust that hon. members will welcome this provision as well.

I want to emphasize that the provision we are proposing here is only meant for those persons who are appointed or nominated to a post by the State President or a Minister in the national interests, and who would have to forfeit their pension rights as a result of such appointment or nomination if provision is not made for their retention.

Mr. Speaker, this, in brief, is what the Bill deals with.

Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister introducing the Second Reading debate on this Bill. We have done so with great interest. As the Bill contains a number of improvements on the position as it exists at the moment we on this side of the House intend supporting its Second Reading. There are, however, certain aspects of this legislation to which we would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I want in the first instance to deal with the position of war pensioners in terms of the War Pensions Act. In terms of clause 1 of this Bill the bonus in respect of these pensioners is to be increased from 60% to 70% of the basic pension payable to such person who is receiving a war disablement pension. When the Vote of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions was under discussion earlier, the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that consideration was being given to a review of the two pensions Acts granting pensions to persons who have suffered war disablement. I hope that when the hon. the Deputy Minister replies to this debate he will give us some indication as to what the intentions of the Government are in this regard. The position at the moment is that on each occasion when the hon. the Minister of Finance presents his budget speech in this House we are pleased to hear of a 10% increase to war pensioners. Although this is generally referred to as a 10% increase, it is only a 10% increase in the bonus as is indicated in clause 1 of the Bill. We have now reached the position where this bonus is to be increased to 70%. We feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider consolidating this bonus with the basic amount of war disablement pension paid. This would then mean that a person would receive a genuine 10% increase of his overall war disablement pension, not merely an increase of 10% in the bonus on that basic pension.

He must not just consider it, he must do it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing the Second Reading, merely said that this clause was putting into effect the increase announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. One should, however, look a little more closely at the amendment which has now been proposed, because when one looks at the question of the basic war disablement pension— and this bonus is based on that figure— one sees that there are some 12 272 White, 2 151 Coloured and Indian, and 1 220 Bantu ex-servicemen or widows of ex-servicemen who qualify for this pension in terms of the Act and who will therefore benefit by the bonus proposed. I was given these figures earlier this session in reply to a question. It is, however, interesting to see how this increased bonus will in fact affect these people. Firstly, there will be a group that will not really receive any increase at all, in spite of the fact that the bonus is being increased. That is because those who are receiving war veterans’ pensions or widows receiving old-age pensions will have their pensions reduced by the amount they will receive by way of an increase in this bonus. This means that those people receiving the increase proposed in this Bill will, in terms of the means test applicable to them, not receive the extra R7 per month which it was previously indicated would apply to social pensions as well, but will have this amount deducted from their pensions if they fall within that category in terms of the means test. Those that will receive something in this regard will in fact receive very little indeed. If one looks at what the basic pensions are in terms of the reply of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and pensions in this House a few weeks ago, one finds that the minimum pension in respect of the Whites is R10-80 per month. In the case of Coloureds and Indians it is R5-40 per month, and in respect of the Bantu it is R2-70 per month. In other words, this is the old ratio of 4:2:1. The maximum basic pensions are R54 per month for the Whites, R27 for Coloureds and Indians, and only R13-50 for the Bantu. The bonuses, which are now to be increased from 60% to 70% will, even if we base our calculations on the maximum basic pension, be increased from R37-80 to R42-40, an increase of R5-40 per month, for the Whites in terms of the amendment. For the Coloureds and Indians the increase will be R2-70 per month, and for the Bantu R1-35 per month. That is the position if we take into account the maximum basic war disablement pension. If we look at those receiving the minimum basic war disablement pension, we find that, as far as the Whites are concerned, this increase will only amount to R1-08 per month. For the Coloureds and Indians the increase will be 54 cents per month, and for the Bantu 27 cents. In dealing with this particular amendment proposed, it becomes clear that in actual fact there will be a group of persons who will not really receive an effective overall increase and that another group will receive a very small increase indeed. That is why I believe it is essential for the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the consolidation of this amount so that the person, when receiving an increase in a war disablement pension, will, in the case of a 10% increase, receive a true 10% increase. This would be better than amending this clause each year in the Pension Laws Amendment Bill through which a small increase in the bonus is given effect to. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take steps to ensure that, when a review of the two Acts, namely the War Special Pensions Act, 1962, and the War Pensions Act, 1967, is undertaken, this will be taken into account. The vast majority of people who are receiving pensions in terms of those two Acts are from the 1939-’45 war, but there is also an increasing number from the Citizen Force, young men who have become disabled as the result of their service to their country and who receive compensation in terms of this legislation. They too, as the years go by, receive a bonus and an increase in the percentage of the bonus rather than an overall increase in the basic war disablement pension. Then, what should of course be taken into account as well is the ratio that has been determined in the existing legislation as far as the other groups are concerned.

The second portion of this Bill deals with the position of the person who has not been a member of the House of Assembly or the Senate and who is occupying a post as a commissioner-general. We have seen over the years that these posts of commissioners-general have been regarded purely as political posts, appointments made from among active members of the National Party.

It is a reject retirement scheme.

If the appointments are not made from active members of Parliament, I can only ask the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration how many of the present commissioners-general are in fact former members of the House of Assembly or Senators. How many of them presently occupying the position of a commissioner-general did not have parliamentary service? Because that is what this amendment is all about.

Let them tell you.

What about Prof. Potgieter?

Well, he is one.

And who else?

What about Jannie de Wet of South West Africa?

Mr. De Wet of South West Africa was a member of the House of Assembly as the M.P. for one of the South West Africa seats. In truth, this legislation is being passed to meet the requirements of one out of the eight commissioners-general, as there is only such case. It would appear from the legislation that it would be convenient for the Government to continue on the basis of appointing commissioners-general from the ranks of the members of the House of Assembly or the Senate who are members of the National Party. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with this. I am merely indicating that this appears to be the reason for making provision whereby a person who has not had any parliamentary service, is given the right to receive the benefits in terms of the pension scheme for members of Parliament and for Administrators. I am merely illustrating this as this appears to be the thinking behind this legislation, to provide a pension which would, of course, be far in excess of the annuity that a commissioner-general would qualify for in terms of the Statutory Bodies Pension Act of 1969. I follow the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reasoning that he wishes to see that the commissioners-general are dealt with on a similar basis and that they receive similar recognition as far as pensions are concerned when they complete their service.

The other aspects regarding this Bill is that the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that certain people who wish to retain the right to be able to receive certain benefits, e.g. married women employees who have become employees of the State, should be given that right, and we certainly have no objection to that. Then there is the provision in regard to a former State President whereby an increase is to be granted to him in terms of this legislation. It would, of course, mean that the other pensions which he might be receiving, such as a pension in terms of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, would fall away and that he would merely qualify for the pension that is to be provided for in clause 8 of this Bill.

The next clause that the hon. Deputy Minister commented on, relates the position of widows of retired judges, and we on this side of the House have advocated on a number of occasions that pensions which are commensurate with the senior position in the community which their late husbands had occupied, should be awarded to such widows. We know that the Select Committee on Pensions has had over many years to consider petitions referred to the Select Committee for consideration by Parliament. Many of them were from widows of past judges who have found themselves in financial difficulty. It does seem a great pity that these people have had to submit themselves: to petitioning Parliament in the past for their financial position to be taken into consideration. Sometimes a pension was awarded on compassionate grounds, but a far more satisfactory situation is now to arise whereby all the widows will be treated on a similar basis as they all qualify for a minimum pension of R3 600 per annum. It does bring them into line.

It is a pity that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not also taken into consideration the whole position of civil pensioners. I do not want to re-open the debate that we have just had under his Vote, but what he has said certainly seems to be at variance with the reasons put forward by him as to why he could not improve the pensions of certain civil pensioners.

Sir, the last portion of this Bill makes provision for the preservation of certain pension rights. In terms of these provisions, persons belonging to a pension fund such as the Government Service pension fund can be termed dormant members if they are appointed by a Minister or by the State President to any board, institution, establishment or body.

Then they will be like Nat M.P.s—dormant.

Sir, the provisions of this clause could perhaps be more effectively discussed in the Committee Stage. There are obviously certain details that we would like to see incorporated in legislation of this kind. I think that any clause which provides for the preservation of pension rights deserves support, but at the same time it also requires study and investigation so as to obtain clarity on issues such as the exact pension rights of such a dormant member, for instance. With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill. We have a couple of questions which we will raise in the Committee Stage. We welcome very much indeed clause 1 as well as clause 9, which introduces a pension to be paid to the widows of judges. There is no need, Sir, for me to elaborate. The hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the provisions of the various clauses, all of which seem to us to be reasonable, so we will support the Bill.

Sir, I would like to endorse the remarks …

Are you the bride, Harry?

It is better to be a bride than a rejected divorcee. Sir, I would like, if I may, to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo in what I think was a very well prepared and thorough speech, particularly in so far as it concerned war pensions and the widows of judges. But, Sir, there is one matter to which I would like to draw your attention, and that is the concern which one has at the erosion of money in respect of people who receive fixed pensions. War pensions, too, are in the same category, of course. The question one has to ask is whether the increases which are being given to pensioners will allow them a better standard of living, or whether the increases will merely enable them to maintain their present standard of living. Sir, the dilemma of every pensioner in receipt of a fixed pension is that he finds it increasingly difficult to maintain his particular standard of living. Contributory pensioners, to whom the provisions of this Bill relate, are in exactly the same difficulty. They have an increasingly difficult struggle to maintain their standard of living. Perhaps the best example was mentioned in the earlier debate when the hon. the Deputy Minister read a letter from a grateful pensioner who had been the Secretary of a department. He read it with some degree of pride. That man is in receipt of a pension of approximately R250 a month, and he had been the Secretary of a department! When he retired, that pension obviously had substantial purchasing power, but today R250 a month, taking into account the period that has elapsed and what has happened since, is not a pension which is commensurate with the status of the position that man occupied when he held that job. This problem of the decreasing purchasing power of money is a very real one in respect of everyone with a fixed income.

Now, it can be argued with some degree of merit that one must take into account periods of depression in which there is an increase in purchasing power as well as periods of inflation in which there is a decrease in purchasing power. The difficulty is that if one looks at the graph of the purchasing power of money over a long period of time, whether it be 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 years, one will find that money depreciates in value in the long term; it does not appreciate in the long term. It is a Characteristic of our modern system that it is in fact very unlikely that there will be an appreciation in the value of currency at any time except perhaps in the short term. This position is one which I think must receive the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government as such.

I should like to put a couple of points to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I appreciate that there are actuarial problems in respect of people who are members of contributory pension schemes. Actuarial problems do not arise in respect of social pensions and war pensions but in regard to contributory schemes actuarial problems do arise. There are two solutions to this which I think should be considered. The first is that there should be a form of indexed investment or pension fund to enable this problem to be met. There is no reason why that form of indexed investment should not be provided by the State for pension funds, and in particular for its own pension funds, to deal with this situation. The second thing is that people who are in the service of the State should have the right to contribute larger amounts to pension schemes. In respect of the lower levels of income they should be able to deduct not 100% of that amount for tax purposes but a larger amount, say 125%, in order to encourage savings and in order to enable them to make this provision for the future. If we were to do this we would in fact be encouraging saving and be providing an opportunity for people to offset the erosion of the value of money by means of their own savings. We would then be well on the way to trying to find some solution to these problems. I would commend these matters to the hon. the Minister and to the Deputy Minister and to the Government for their consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I listened to his remarks in connection with the proposed review of the war pension laws, but this is quite clearly not the time to go into them in detail. I announced on a previous occasion that the department is engaged in a total review of these laws, but we shall take note of the suggestions he made. At the moment we are only dealing with the implementation of the proposals made by the hon. the Minister of Finance earlier this year. As regards the incorporation of commissioners-general—it does in fact concern only one person, as the hon. member rightly said—into the parliamentary pension scheme, I should like to point out to him that administrators too have been allowed into the scheme in this way. But I am glad the hon. member agrees that we are dealing here with one category of people. The hon. member will notice that in other clauses of this legislation as well the whole intention is to get away from having two different pensions for one person. I thank the hon. member for his support.

The hon. member for Yeoville covered a wide field in his speech, and I do not think the Bill covers all the matters he wanted to debate. I think he actually returned to a discussion of the Vote. War pensions, like social pensions, are on quite a different level from civil pensions which are provided for by the person himself. We debated this earlier today. I want to repeat that in the annual review of war pensions and social pensions the basis is the amount available to the Minister of Finance. One cannot approach the matter from any other point of view.

But that is disgracefully inadequate.

The question of larger contributions by members of a fund is not relevant here at all, because it does not differ in this respect from a social pension.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned, I was referring to the discrimination in the Bill against the farming community of South Africa. I made the point that the Government makes money available to businessmen via the IDC as they do via the Land Bank to the farming community. If one looks at the IDC, one sees that the legislation in connection with the IDC does not have any of the Draconian provisions included in this Bill in order to protect their interests. The point was made, I think by way of interjection, that the cases were not the same and that there was a difference between the Government lending money to businessmen via the IDC and lending money to farmers via the Land Bank. However, if one looks at the provisions of the proposed section 34(2), one sees that all the contingencies against which the Land Bank wants to protect itself as far as lending money to farmers is concerned are equally possible when the IDC lends money to businessmen. For instance, subsection (2)(a) refers to a farmer being in arrears. I maintain that it is equally possible for a businessman to be in arrears to the IDC as it can be possible for a farmer to be in arrears to the Land Bank. Although the IDC manages quite well without this kind of provision, the Land Bank wants it Subsection (2Xb) provides inter alia—

I am quite sure that the IDC makes many advances and then finds that in its opinion the advances have not been applied in the way in which they intended them to be applied, yet it does not resort to the kind of condition which is laid down in terms of the Bill in order to get its money back. Subsection (2)(c) refers to a breach of any condition and that is quite clearly common to the IDC and the Land Bank. One can go through all these conditions and perhaps only exclude subsection (2)(f). So one has the situation here that if you are a businessman and you want to borrow money from the Government through the IDC, the normal process of law applies, but if you are a farmer and you want to borrow money from the Government and you go to the Land Bank, then all sorts of conditions apply which are highly prejudicial to you. The first question, therefore, is why does the Government feel that the fanning community of South Africa is a worse moral and financial risk than the business community? I think that is the first question which has to be asked in respect of this Bill. If one looks at the 1974 report of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa, one in fact gets quite the opposite impression. If they were having problems in regard to the recovery of debt or any other problem, one would expect to find the problems mentioned in the annual report of the Land Bank. When one reads through the report, one finds that the only problem seems to be that some of the farmers are not paying their capital and interest back as quickly as they could. I quote from page 11—

Further on it says—

It is quite clear that there is no great problem of people not paying up but that there is the problem of arrears. If one actually looks to see what the situation on arrears is, here again the position is not bad at all. Bad debts were in fact nil and the amount of cases which had to be called up is absolutely negligible as I said when we last discussed this Bill. If one looks at the situation of the arrears, one finds that in 1974 out of an amount of nearly R408 million on long-term loan, only 2,8% was in arrears. In fact, this is not a great percentage at all. The report actually remarks on the fact that the arrears have dropped to their lowest level in five years. If anything, this means that the situation is getting better all the time. If one refers to the intermediate-term loans, one sees that the amount in arrears was 4,54%. In respect of short term loans which we discussed during the discussion of the new section 34 as amended by clause 3, the arrears are so minimal that they are not even mentioned. Therefore we have a situation here where it would appear from the report as if the fanning community is living up to its obligations and playing its part. It seems totally unreasonable to expect farmers to be prejudiced by the conditions which are set out in clause 3 of this Bill.

When one comes to clause 3 of this Bill there are two aspects which have to be considered. The first aspect is that there is no recourse to a court of law. This clause absolutely circumvents the whole process of the law. The second is that in the matter of the recovery of money there are two phases. The one is quick attachment and the other is a quick sale. One can imagine that where one is dealing with crops or something which is perishable it is perhaps essential to have some form of quick attachment and quick sale but this need not be outside the course of normal legal proceedings. Where there are no perishable goods and where tractors, fixed property, durables and items contemplated in clause 3 are involved, surely all that is necessary is to get a quick attachment and, once one has that quick attachment, then to go through the usual processes of the law. The bank cannot possibly be prejudiced by going through that process. The questions which I think arise are first of all that there seems to be blatant discrimination against the farming community. They are being asked to borrow State funds on conditions which are totally unrealistic. Secondly, I feel that there seems to be no point in quick attachments, except where one is dealing with perishables. The other point is that if one does attach …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

No, I am afraid that I do not have enough time. As far as the quick sale is concerned, there seems to be absolutely no prejudice to the farmer and no prejudice to the Land Bank if the normal procedure is followed in that respect.

The hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Johannesburg North dealt in detail with the problems that we have about the abrogation of normal law and the way in which this Bill affects innocent third parties. To set out our attitude clearly in this respect, I should like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the amendment, I want to make it quite clear that when a fundamental principle of law such as we are dealing with in this particular case is ignored, when part of what has been practice for years is ignored and when recourse to the courts is ignored, it cannot be suggested that it is a minor matter which should be dealt with in the Committee Stage. The suggestion that this is only a minor matter, is an attempt to escape from the reality of the situation and from the importance of the Act. We have no quarrel with the provisions of the proposed new section 34(1) contained in clause 3 of the Bill. We have no quarrel with the suggestion that there should be a greater ability on the part of the Land Bank to provide short and medium term loans to the farming community. There is also no need for brands to be imposed because there are many other provisions relating to the furnishing of security. What is interesting is that the objections that we have had in respect of the question of recourse to the courts, have nothing to do with the question of security. In fact, one can have expeditions proceedings without interfering with the right of recourse to the courts and without ignoring what are fundamental principles which are enshrined in the law of our land.

Let me set out what I believe are some of the arguments here. In the first place it has been suggested that, if one does not like the terms that are going to be imposed by the Land Bank in respect of a promissory note, one need not borrow the money. With great respect, Sir, we have spent some considerable time during this session of Parliament on consumer protection and one can equally say that, if the consumer does not want to buy a product or enter into a contract, it is his own fault if he does so and ends up with problems. Just as there must be consumer protection, so the farmer must also be protected. It is all very well to speak of giving further facilities to the farmer, but there is an equal obligation to protect him from what may happen to him if there has to be enforcement.

Sir, let me give you some examples. I believe that when one borrows money in the ordinary course, there should be certainty as to when one has to repay that money, but there can be no certainty in terms of the provisions of the new section 34(2)(b) or in terms of (i) because in both of those cases it is in the discretion of the board alone to decide whether the money becomes repayable or not. That is an absolute discretion. It means that they decide and that there is no certainty as far as the borrower is concerned.

The second point which I think should be patent and obvious to everyone, is this: How can one possibly make a loan repayable because of some action on the part of a shareholder? If one shareholder, who may not be active at all in farming, who may not be concerned with the farm but who is a sleeping partner with a shareholding, is convicted of an offence it means that the company as a whole has to repay the loan. This is illogical and quite wrong and there can be no justification for the existence of that kind of remedy. We also talk about the remedy which exists of attaching goods without seeking a judgment or giving an opportunity to defend. Let me assume for the moment that the board makes a mistake—anybody can make a mistake—and claims money. Then there is no remedy. All that has to happen is that the board must send a letter by registered post, which may in fact never reach the farmer because it is not necessary that he should receive it. It is only necessary that it should be posted. The farmer then has no remedy at all. He cannot go to court and say: “I do not owe the money. I am not in arrears I did use it for the purpose for which it was given to me.” He has no remedy and there is no opportunity to raise a bona fide dispute.

That is not abandoning the rule of law.

You abandoned the rule of law on the Schlebusch Commission and it does not surprise me at all! [Interjections.] I do not expect anything else from the hon. member for Green Point because he sold the rule of law long ago. [Interjections.] You sold the rule of law short for all of us. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville is irrelevant now.

Let me go further with the right to sell. A messenger may sell here without a judgment of a court. Not only may a messenger of court sell movable property but also any other person authorized by the board. Not only may it be sold by public auction but also by tender. There are no provisions here as there are in regard to immovable property a little later on in respect of the form of advertisements and in respect of the notice that must be given. There are none of the safeguards which apply to a judicial sale. There is not even a provision that the debtor needs to have notice of the sale or as to the fixing of reserve prices. All the conditions are in the discretion of the board. It may determine what the conditions are. If there is a sale the proceeds of the sale of movables go to the board and then to the debtor and no other creditor has the right to participate. These are not the provisions which would apply if these were sales which occurred through the courts and these are therefore not provisions which one can support.

When we come to immovables, there again they may be sold if insufficient money is raised from the sale of the movables. Notice is given to the mortgagee but here again the board can sell on conditions which it determines. It may then give transfer notwithstanding that there may be bonds or liens; there may in fact be a builder’s lien in respect of improvements, but there is no protection against transfer still being given. There can be a forced sale at a time of depression when the required prices may not be realized. As far as the mortgagee is concerned very real prejudice could arise in the circumstances. These procedures are, with respect, prejudicial to the debtor and they are prejudicial to other creditors. Whereas we approve of the principle of giving further facilities of this nature to farmers we certainly cannot support this inroad into the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Randburg posed here as champions of the farmer. I find it very strange to see the hon. member for Yeoville in that role when we consider the fact that this hon. member is associated— and very strongly associated too—with financial institutions which have gained for themselves the reputation that they seek to root out the farmers. Now he is trying to pose as the champion of the farmer in this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it parliamentary to suggest that a member is associated with financial institutions which make it part of their practice to root out the farmers?

Has the hon. member for Lichtenburg insinuated that some of the members sitting here associate themselves with institutions which seek to root out the farmers?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it. I want to say that that hon. member is very strongly associated with a financial institution which has lent money to a farmer in my constituency—R60 000—to purchase land. Within one year they had a summons issued against that person for an amount of R129 000 and had all his possessions sold. I think this is an absolutely disgraceful situation. [Interjections.]

If that hon. member kept away from agriculture with that institution of his, he would be doing agriculture a favour. I want to advise the farmers to stay away from that hon. member and his financial institutions. [Interjections.] I want to go further and say that not all financial institutions … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member a chance to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that it is not all financial institutions that are doing this kind of thing; it is only those with which the hon. member is associated. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville …

May I ask a question? Would the hon. member like to tell the House which financial institutions I am associated with?

Yes. Sir. If the hon. member wants to know this, I shall tell him. It is the …

Order! I think the hon. member should adopt a different tone now.

Very well, Sir.

Saved by the gong, Harry!

The hon. member for Randburg said the Land Bank was discriminating against the farmers because the procedures it follows differ from those followed by the Industrial Development Corporation. I want to tell that hon. member that it is quite a different situation. The Industrial Development Corporation is in a position to have a share in such business undertaking; it could become a shareholder in the undertaking and it could even appoint the manager of such business undertaking, while this is not so in the case of the Land Bank. The Land Bank merely grants a loan to the farmer; it does not take up a share in that business undertaking and he is not in a position to appoint a manager for such farming activities. For that reason the situation is quite different. The hon. member for Yeoville is a lawyer. The hon. member said that this amending Bill deprives the farmer of the right to dispute his liability in respect of a certain loan. Surely, the hon. member knows that this is not the truth. If the Land Bank demands payment in an irregular manner from a farmer who has a loan while that farmer is not in arrears, and if the Land Bank were to tell such farmer that he is in arrears and that he has to pay, and if they were to follow the procedure as it is being set out in this amending Bill, the position would be as follows: It is stipulated here that he should be given seven days’ notice if the matter concerns his movable property; if the matter concerns his fixed assets, the period would be longer. During that period the farmer would then be allowed to go to court and obtain an order which would prevent the Land Bank from talking any further steps against him if the Land Bank has, in fact, acted in an irregular manner. Surely, the hon. member knows this. I want to go further, I want to tell the hon. member that the procedures which he is objecting to, are contained in the existing Act. The procedures are existing procedures.

I know it and I am opposed to it.

You are opposed to it? I shall tell you why you are opposed to it. You are opposed to it because you do not realize that the Land Bank operates in the interests of the farmer and because you do not understand what it means to operate in the interests of the farmer.

Order! The hon. member should refer to the other hon. members as “hon. members”.

Yes, Sir. The hon. member for Yeoville knows absolutely nothing about agriculture. He does not know what the needs of agriculture are, and he does not know what the Land Bank is doing for agriculture either. The Land Bank is not doing the things the organization of the hon. member is doing. The fact of the matter is simply that the procedures which that hon. member is objecting to, are existing procedures. They do not deal with the procedure contained in this amending Bill; it only deals with the security in respect of two kinds of loans. I just want to say that, in the first place, we are in this amending Bill dealing with short term financing in terms of section 34 of the principal Act. The Land Bank may grant a farmer an advance as operating capital to sow his crop, and for the cultivation, harvesting and processing or marketing of a crop. The Land Bank advances a certain amount to the farmer which he can use. He can draw this money from the Land Bank because it is given to him in the form of a cash credit account. The farmer can use this money from time to time and pay it back again, but he is not allowed to exceed certain limits. For that reason this loan is not in the form of a bank overdraft. I want to tell the hon. member that the security the Land Bank requires in this case is that this loan is granted to the farmer should be recorded in the Deeds Office. The Act provides for the Land Bank to hold a lien on the production implements purchased by the farmer. The Land Bank is allowed to re-possess such production implements before the farmer has used them. The law also affords the Land Bank a lien on all crops for as long as the farmer owes the Land Bank this loan. The Land Bank even has the right of access to the land, to cultivate them and to sow a crop thereon if the farmer fails to cultivate the land. Furthermore, the farmer is not allowed to alienate, subdivide or let the land. In terms of the new system proposed in the amending Bill, i.e. that the farmer is allowed to obtain the loan by means of a promissory note, all these restrictive measures lapse. Because there were so many restrictive measures in existence, the experience in the cast was that the other mortgagees refused to allow the farmer to raise a loan when the farmer wanted to borrow money from the Land Bank in this way and because such a loan is recorded in the Deeds Office. Because all these requirements have now been done away with and the farmer is only required to sign a promissory note, he is placed in a position where he is able to raise such a loan. For that reason it is in the interests of the farmer, and for that reason I want to tell the hon. member that the attempt he made here to break a lance for the farmer, was completely misplaced because this measure is solely in the interests of the farmer.

The agricultural unions have asked for it.

Yes, the agricultural unions have asked for it. Also the other bodies which lend money to the farmer benefit through this step, for in the past the farmer was not allowed to sell his crop without permission from the Land Bank on account of the restrictions that were placed on him. He was not allowed to sell or let a portion of his land to pay his other debtors. However, the farmer will now be in a position to do so and for that reason is also to the benefit of the other debtors.

Sir, there is also a second type of loan, i.e. the medium term credit which is known as hypothec loans and which are granted for the purchasing of livestock and farm implements. In this case the Land Bank requires security as well. The Bank acquires this security on the movable assets of the farmer. However, the Land Bank has the right not only to hypothecate the assets the farmer is going to purchase: it can require even further security. When a farmer approaches the Land Bank and informs the Land Bank that he wants to buy 50 head of cattle, the Land Bank could tell the farmer that it wants all the cattle as security. What is more, if the Land Bank has hypothecated a certain number of livestock and some of those cattle die while the farmer has not yet paid back his loan, the Land Bank may inform the farmer that it requires additional livestock as security. The Land Bank also has a lien on all the livestock bred from such livestock. What is more, if the farmer has bought a tractor, the land bank also has a lien on the crop produced by such a tractor. These restrictive measures have been done away with on account of this new system which has been introduced. The most important point is that in order to be able to identify the animals and implements serving as security by means of a hypothec, such articles had to be branded or marked and this caused a stigma. The farmers themselves asked that this should be done away with. This is now being done away with and the entire means and assets of the farmer are now being taken as security. For this reason the provision is in the first place, in the interests of the farmer. Because these restrictive measures are being done away with, he will be able to dispose of them immediately as soon as he discovers that his livestock includes animals of an inferior breading quality. There is no need for him first to approach the Land Bank and obtain permission to do so. There is no need for the farmer to have the animals branded and there is no need for him to have his tractors and movable property marked either. This is a forward step, because these things are no longer necessary in modern financing. For that reason I want to say that the third parties, too, the other financing resources available to the farmer, will benefit from this because the farmer is allowed to sell his animals and pay his debtors without obtaining permission from the Land Bank. The fact that the farmer is in a position to go to court when he feels that he is not receiving fair treatment, gives him full right to appeal to the judicature of South Africa. This entails very important advantages, i.e. that it is not an expensive process when the farmer really fails to pay his debts and the Land Bank takes the steps it is taking now, while it would have been a very expensive process if the Land Bank were to go to court, something for which the farmer would have had to pay in the end. Sir, the result of this system is that it is not an expensive one; that it will ultimately not be an expensive process as far as the farmer is concerned and that it is an efficient and expeditious system. It can only be in the interests of efficient and progressive farming methods in South Africa because it provides agriculture with cheap financing, it places fewer restrictions on the farmer and it enables the farmer to conduct his farming activities more efficiently; and it is, in the end, also in the interests of the consumers in South Africa. For that reason, Sir, we on this side of the House welcome these new measures.

We on this side who represent the farmers.

Yes, we on this side who represent the farmers, welcome these new measures. The principles which are being introduced here, are no new principles. It is an old principle. I want to conclude by saying that hon. members on that side who know nothing about the farmers should keep their noses out of matters concerning the farmers.

Sir, I must say that I am very much surprised at the extravagant language used by the hon. members for Randburg and Yeoville. I am particularly surprised at the hon. member for Yeoville, who after all is a lawyer. Some of the sentiments expressed by him tonight surprise me as a lawyer. I can accept that as a lawyer he would like to see that the normal procedure in the courts of law is followed. Where it is proposed to alter the existing procedure, surely some good reason must be given for it. What was the reason given for the measure that we are discussing here tonight? The reason given was that it is intended to facilitate the granting of loans to farmers. The hon. member for Randburg says that the farmer is asked to borrow State funds on certain conditions. Sir, the farmer is not asked to borrow State funds on the conditions set out here. Nobody is asking him to borrow on these conditions.

Are you still supporting the Bill?

Yes, I am supporting the Bill. I say that nobody is asking the farmer to borrow money on these conditions. The point is that the farmer can go to any institution he likes to borrow money. He can go to a private person or to a bank to borrow money on the normal conditions. Nobody forces him to go to the Land Bank. Sir, why does he go to the Land Bank? He goes to the Land Bank because he gets the money on easy terms and because he gets a loan that nobody else will give him because he has not got the security. That is why he goes to the Land Bank.

If you believe in consumer protection, why do you not believe in farmer protection?

Sir, that is another ridiculous question.

Answer it.

That hon. member is losing his grip completely. I think this idea of the forthcoming marriage is affecting him.

What is the answer?

Sir, anybody would think that the Government is asking this House to do a terrible injustice to the farming community. Why is this Bill before us tonight? What is the position at present? The hon. member for Lichtenburg has just set out what the position is at the moment and how a farmer can borrow money. At the moment the farmer can borrow money, but he is embarrassed by the way in which he has to borrow. He can borrow without security, but he cannot pledge all his stock and his implements. What does the bank do? The bank takes a form of pledge, a hypothec, by marking all his assets. This is an embarrassment to the farmer. It is an indignity to have all his stock, his tractors and all his loose assets marked. Nobody else gives him a loan on that basis. He is required to pledge his movable assets to the lender. The farmer is allowed to keep the articles which are pledged, but they are marked.

The farmers’ associations have protested over the years against this method. They do not like it. They have asked the bank to desist from that form of security, and the bank has said: “All right, we will do it, we will give you a loan, but on these conditions that we set out now. We will not mark your stuff any more. We are giving you a loan without taking any security, but when we give you the loan we want you to enter into a contract with us; the contract says that you will sign a promissory note and there will be certain conditions attached to it.” It is an ordinary contract. [Interjections.] That is what amazes me about the hon. member for Yeoville. He does not respect this as being an ordinary contract.

It is a breach of the rule of law.

No, this is no breach of the rule of law. This is a contract.

You know that is rubbish.

It is not rubbish.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must stop interjecting.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member agree that the words at the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7 that a decision of the Land Bank shall be deemed to be a judgment of a court of law, is against the rule of law?

Sir, I should like to point out to this hon. member—I do not know how much of the law he knows— that in the income tax law there is a similar provision. He knows that. This is nothing unique. All we say is that the United Party is facing up to the problem. [Interjections.] We know that the farmer wants this type of loan. If this loan is going to harm the farmer, if other bodies are not going to give him loans because of this, let it be on his own head, but the farmer is asking for this. Anybody would think that we are forcing the farmers to agree to this. The farmers want this. Reference has been made to the IDC, but the IDC is completely flexible; it can do what it likes. It can take shares, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg has said, and appoint directors to companies. It is completely flexible.

It should not do it.

We are not discussing now what the IDC should or should not do. We are not discussing the IDC at all. I am discussing what the Land Bank is going to do. As far as this is concerned, the attitude of the United Party is that this Bill assists the farmer. The hon. member for Randburg admits that because in his amendment he says that “while approving of the improved facilities for making credit advances to farmers ….” So they admit that improved facilities are being provided, and they approve of it, but if improved facilities are being given surely there must be some further restrictions or some further action that the lender can take against the borrower.

Sir, what concerns the United Party is this. We are concerned about the interests of third parties. As far as the farmer is concerned, we say he is asking for this; be it on his own head. All the farmers are asking for it. What we are interested in is protecting third parties. That is why the hon. member for Green Point has indicated that in the Committee Stage we will move an amendment which will have the effect that once the Land Bank has acted and has given notice to the debtor and the equivalent of a judgment has been taken, actual judgment must be given and then the process of law must be followed. A writ must be issued and all the processes of the law must then be followed. The messenger must act as he would do in an ordinary case where judgment has been given against a debtor. Third parties would then be protected. Our concern is to ensure the protection of third parties.

If that is not accepted will you vote for the Third Reading?

The hon. member asks whether, if that is not accepted, we shall vote for the Third Reading. I want to ask her whether she will support us in our attitude now. [Interjections.]

Instead of answering a question, you put another one.

I cannot establish the attitude of the Progressive Party and the Reformists or whatever they call themselves now. What is their attitude? Do they want the farmer to be assisted or do they not? If their amendment is carried tonight, then the farmers will not be assisted and the improved facilities will not be given to the farmers. The improved facilities which they want will not be given to the farmers.

Not at the price asked.

The hon. member who is interjecting so much said that bondholders are not protected. Where does he get that from that bondholders are not protected?

Have you read the Bill?

Yes, I have read the Bill and I have read the proposed section 34(6). [Interjections.] Of course the bondholder is protected. The bondholder has to be paid out before anybody else is paid out. Proper notice has to be given in the Gazette … [Interjection.]

Order!

Proper notice of the sale must be given. I say that as far as the two minor parties are concerned— they have been inconsistent. I do not know whom they intend impressing by the attitude they are adopting tonight. We are consistent and we say that the farmer wants this and he should be assisted. We will support the Second Reading and during the Committee State we intend moving an amendment to protect the rights of third parties.

Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a lively debate on what I think is a very innocent measure, a very valuable measure and a very important one. We have also had some strange interpretations of some of the provisions of the Bill. As regards the joint efforts of the parties to the latest betrothal I would merely like to say that if this is their performance while they are betrothed, heaven help us when they are married. [Interjections.]

*I really think we had the privilege of listening to a great many very valuable contributions in this debate, and I want to express my sincere gratitude to my hon. colleagues on this side of the House for the clear manner in which they presented this matter. I want to thank some of the hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made a very constructive and clear speech. I am not going to say a great deal about the amendment they intend moving at a later stage, because I have not seen it. We will be able to discuss it further in the Committee Stage. As far as the official Opposition as a whole is concerned, it is quite clear that they accept the principle of this measure as such.

† As far as the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned, it is really remarkable, because if one looks at the speech he made the other day, one finds that he condemned this Bill in its entirety. However, most of his condemnation applies to provisions which have existed for years in the principal Act. In fact, I took the trouble to make a list of the provisions in this Bill which have been taken word for word out of the principal Act. Let me refer for instance to the proposed section 34(2) which sets out the conditions under which the Land Bank may do certain things. Paragraph (a) contains nothing but the existing provision in the principal Act. The same applies to paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). The hon. member condemned practically all of them and he wanted them all to be deleted or amended. He did not suggest how they should be amended, but he condemned them. However, they are all in the principal Act.

But I was not here when the principal Act was enacted.

Thank heavens!

Subsection (2) provides that should any of the circumstances set out in the various paragraphs of the subsection arise, the board may proceed to act in terms of subsection (3). The subsection does not provide that the board “shall” act; it provides that the board “may” act. Subsection (3Xa) is contained in the principal Act and the same applies to subsection (3)(b). As far as subsection (3)(c) is concerned, it contains the provisions of the principal Act except for an amendment which is clearly stated. Subsections (3Xd) and (e) are also taken from the principal Act and the same applies to subsections (4), (5), (6), (8) and (9). Practically three-quarters of the proposed section 34 is taken from the principal Act and yet the hon. member simply condemns everything out of hand.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. the Minister agree or disagree that if a shareholder of a company is found guilty of an offence and imprisoned without the option of a fine, the other members of the company or the other shareholders should have to repay the loan to the Land Bank?

Mr. Speaker, I am not dealing with the shareholders of a company at all; I am dealing with the Land Bank in its relationship towards farmers to whom it has made advances on terms which are highly sought after by farmers. However, as the hon. member for Griqualand East said, no farmer is obliged to enter into these contracts with the Land Bank, but the farmers do enter into such contracts because it means a great deal to them. This has been the position all along.

The hon. member for Randburg moved an amendment and in his speech he compared the Land Bank with the IDC and he said that there was discrimination being practised in terms of the Bill. What does the IDC have to do with the Land Bank? They are two entirely separate institutions. They operate in a completely different way. What the hon. members for Rand-burg and Yeoville as well as the hon. member sitting in front of them, their strange bedfellow, conveniently overlook is that the Land Bank is an institution of very high standing in this country and it has operated successfully for 63 years. It has the complete confidence of the farming community and its provides for the needs of the farmers. This is surely a very important factor in the whole argument. Obviously we want to keep the costs involved in the transactions of the Land Bank as low as possible so that the Land Bank can make its advances at as low a viable rate of interest as possible. That is what is being done and has been done throughout the years. At the same time—this is the main object of the Bill—we want to give the farmer the full benefit of greater manoeuvrability. We want to make it easier for him in a sense to obtain loans and at the same time, should the farmer be in the unfortunate position of having to default, we want to keep process costs down and give the Land Bank the opportunity of acting as fast as possible and at as low a cost as possible. That is the aim for which we are striving in this Bill. I believe that when one looks at these provisions, particularly in the light of how this institution has developed over 63 years—more than two generations—one must surely agree that they are consistent. Where the Land Bank has made advances on a lien or a hypothec over movable property, for instance, it is able to proceed as we are proposing in this Bill under a promissory note when a farmer has defaulted. It is only where the Land Bank had to go beyond the goods specified in the hypothec that it had to have recourse to the courts to make an attachment and a sale in execution. Otherwise, the principle is absolutely clear throughout the Bill and it has been clear right from the start of the Land Bank’s operations.

*For that reason it is not possible for me to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg. I have the English text of the amendment in front of me, and I want to deal with it in order to indicate what it is all about.

†It reads:

In other words, they approve of the improved credit facilities to farmers:

If one looks at this very carefully and analyses it in terms of the provisions of the legislation and in terms of the manner in which this Bank has operated from the very start, I think one will find that this amendment is very close to a contradiction in terms. I am afraid that I must say that it really is not acceptable to me at all.

It is double talk.

Yes, I think the hon. member is quite right, it is double talk.

*I do not want to keep the House for too long. I am still going to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Opposition. However, I want to thank the hon. member for Lichtenburg for his clear exposition of the essence of this measure this evening. I do not say that I can in any way present this matter with greater clarity, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat what he said either.

Before resuming my seat, I should like to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville, like the hon. member for Johannesburg North, gave strong support to the hon. member for Randburg. His approach was exactly the same as that of the hon. member for Randburg. He criticized practically the entire Bill serving before us and rejected it almost completely. I think his speech was a very negative one.

†The hon. member for Yeoville spoke of the rule of law, but in terms of the long history of this famous institution, the way it has conducted its business and the way its policy has evolved, I think it is a very misplaced criticism to say that it does not comply with the rule of law. While we are discussing the Land Bank, I should like to pay a tribute to it for the way it has conducted i s operations in this country for 63 years now. I can assure hon. members that having studied and discussed this Bill in great thoroughness at an earlier stage, I am happy to support the measure it its entirety. I believe it does achieve i s basic aim, which is to assist the farming community of this country. When one compares the manufacturing industry with the farming industry, what manufacturing industry has to compete with the sort of risks that the farming industry has to con end with? What about the climatic changes, which can absolutely destroy a first-class farming undertaking in a year or two without any fault on the part of the farmer? That is not mentioned. The reason why the Land Bank shows these fine results—the hon. member has referred to them—in its report is due to the first-class manner in which this bank has been managed. That is the reason why. However, the risks are enormous. We have followed this policy in this country over the years and we realize that the farmer is in a very special position. Of course he must receive a degree of sympathy—I do not want to call it preference because I do not think it is preference if one weighs up all the hazards that face him. I believe the policy we have evolved in this country, as expressed by the operations of the Land Bank, goes a very long way to meet the special requirements and demands of the very risky undertaking which farming is.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Public Accountants and Auditors Board which was established in terms of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951, requested that the Act be amended to formulate further measures of control in order further to ensure the high standard of professional integrity the profession seeks to achieve, to provide for new conditions of enrolment under articles, which are necessitated by present-day circumstances, to streamline the Act administratively and to eliminate certain discrepancies. Hon. members have already had an opportunity to study the Bill and I shall therefore confine myself solely to the more important amendments.

Clause 2(a) provides that owing to specialized knowledge, the Master of the Supreme Court, too, may be placed on the panel of Government officials from which the Minister selects four members. The Registrar of Financial Institutions is also placed on the panel and the Registrars of Insurance, Building Societies and Banks, who are in any event embodied in the post of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, are removed from the panel.

Clause 2(e) provides for the appointment of a member who may be nominated by a representative body of accountants and auditors in any of the Republic’s neighbouring states in addition to Rhodesia. Such a member will not have the right to vote.

When the board was established originally, an amount of R2 000 was put at its disposal by law to enable it to commenced its activities. In clause 7(b) the specific provision is now being deleted and instead the Minister may, if and when financial assistance may be considered necessary, advance unlimited sums to the board. However, such a contingency is regarded as highly unlikely.

As a measure to protect the public, provision is made in clause 8(e) for the establishment of a fund by way of compulsory contributions by registered accountants and auditors in public practice from which compensation for claims that could be brought against them as a result of negligence or malpractice, may be paid. The aim of the proposed fund is similar to that of the fidelity fund for attorneys, notaries and conveyancers.

The proposed amendments in clause 11 are aimed, inter alia, at limiting accountants and auditors who will be permitted to act as auditors of South African undertakings in the future, to those who are registered and established in the Republic.

The board strives to maintain the qualifications of candidates for articles at as high a level as possible and sets a minimum requirement for the standard achieved by candidates in mathematics. In addition, candidates will in future be permitted to enter service under articles in cases where a conditional exemption of the matriculation examination of the Joint Matriculation Board has been obtained, provided such a candidate can prove to the satisfaction of the Accountants and Auditors Board that he has achieved a standard in mathematics or a related subject which the board considers to be adequate. Most universities in the Republic already allow students to enrol for degree and other courses once they have acquired such a conditional exemption from the matriculation examination, Clauses 12(a) and (b) give effect to this.

In certain parts of the Republic the number of candidates for articles regularly exceeds the number who may be engaged under the existing quota as prescribed by the Act. Furthermore, it is foreseen that the number of non-White clerks under articles will continue to rise, and consequently the limit of four people who may be trained under articles by any practising accountant and auditor is being removed in clause 12(c). The board gives the assurance that the present high standard of training will be maintained.

At present the position is that in the case of irregularities in an undertaking, an auditor’s function is terminated when the enterprise is sequestrated or liquidated and the trustee or liquidator then investigates the matter further. However the auditor himself is in an outstanding position to furnish assistance in such an investigation and the proposed amendment in clause 13(d) will have the desired effect.

The aim of clause 17(c) is to oblige all registered accountants and auditors in public practice to take out professional indemnity insurance to cover responsibility in regard to alleged negligence or neglect arising from their practices.

The other amendments proposed are either of an administrative nature or are aimed at facilitating the activities of the board. If hon. members require more information in respect of any aspect of the Bill, I shall be happy to provide further details.

Mr. Speaker, after all the heat that was engendered during the last financial debate in this House one wonders whether a mundane measure such as the one we have before us now is going to have an easy passage. Mundane as it is, it is nevertheless an important measure and on behalf of this side of the House I can say that it is a measure that we will support at its Second Reading.

As the hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech, this is a measure which is designed to update the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act. I think that there are a number of features in this Bill that are worthy of note. In the first instance the Bill widens the powers of responsibility of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board particularly in respect of enabling the board to charge fees for examinations and exemptions in lieu of examinations, and in respect of raising the standards of the qualifications that are required by auditors and accountants particularly in respect of qualifications in mathematics; it enables the board to establish a fidelity fund to protect persons against dishonesty and negligence on the part of registered accountants and auditors; and it places an obligation upon registered accountants and auditors to report material irregularities that have not been rectified in the event of sequestration and liquidation. I should like in a moment or two to say a few more words in regard to these two last features of this Bill. The Bill also updates the constitution of the board and makes it more flexible without, I think, in any way derogating from its authority. It makes the constitution more flexible inasmuch as appointments may be made to the board of persons such as residents of neighbouring territories who can obviously make a valuable contribution to its work. It also clarifies the rules under which the board may work.

I think an important aspect of this Bill is that it imposes restrictions on non-resident accountants and auditors, in that it ensures that the majority of partners in a South African partnership are resident auditors or accountants. It prohibits non-resident auditors or accountants from certifying or reporting or expressing an opinion on financial statements or other documents. I believe that this wording must be looked at by the Minister, because I can see no reason why a non-resident auditor or accountant should be precluded from reporting on a South African company. I think it is quite in order to preclude a non-resident auditor from certifying or expressing an opinion, particularly when one notes the special connotation of the wording “expressing an opinion” which is contained in the Companies Act, in that the peculiarities and the intricacies of South African company law and South African income tax law obviously need auditors and accountants who are well qualified in these subjects to enable them to undertake certification and to express opinions.

I think there is also, in respect of this restriction upon the activities of non-resident auditors, an unnecessary restriction in regard to the auditing of books of South African concerns where the accounting records of such a concern are permitted, under any law, to be maintained outside the Republic and are so maintained outside the Republic. You quite often find a branch of a South African company, a South African registered business, operating in a foreign country, such as Britain. It has to keep its books in Britain. It has to have its books audited in Britain. I think it would be reasonable to provide in those circumstances that that auditing can be done by a non-resident auditor. I hope the Minister will consider this and respond to this suggestion when he replies to this debate. I think this is a necessary amendment to this Bill.

Other features of this Bill that we can support are that it requires a court, in the event of there being prima facie evidence of improper conduct on the part of a registered auditor or accountant, to report the relevant court proceedings to the Accountants’ Board to enable disciplinary action to be considered by the board. I think that is an improvement which we can support.

I should now like to turn to the two aspects of this Bill that I mentioned earlier on. The first is that which enables the board to establish a fidelity fund to compensate any person who suffers loss as a result of the dishonesty or negligence of a registered auditor or accountant.

This is obviously a desirable feature of this Bill, but there is a further provision in the Bill which requires all registered auditors and accountants to carry professional indemnity insurance which would in any case cover negligence. It appears to me that to provide for a fidelity fund to cover negligence and also to require all registered auditors to carry professional indemnity, is duplicating the protection that this provision is designed to give. I appreciate that the establishment of the fidelity fund is in the hands of the board itself, but I think that the hon. the Minister should watch the position, when this fidelity fund is established, to ensure that no unnecessary costs are incurred by duplicating this type of insurance.

Finally, I would like to mention the question of the obligation which this measure places on registered accountants and auditors to report material irregularities which have not been corrected when an undertaking goes into liquidation or is sequestrated. There is an obligation to report those irregularities to the liquidator or trustee, as the case may be, and also to the person who is managing the undertaking and to the board. Previously, as the hon. the Minister stated, an auditor’s responsibility ended on sequestration or liquidation. I hope that this added obligation on auditors is going to help detect, deter and punish irregularities and if it is successful in that regard, it will clearly be in the public interest. I think that it is to be regretted that in practice when irregularities have been reported by auditors to the board, on so few occasions have they been followed up. I have letters from practising auditors who have drawn this matter to my attention and I think that it would be pertinent if I quoted from one of them on the subject of material irregularities—

The Bill before us places an obligation on the board to report regularly to the hon. the Minister and I hope that one of the aspects that the hon. the Minister will watch in the reports by the board, is that the report that have been made to the board by auditors of irregularities, are being and will be properly followed through. I understand that this is a measure that is fully agreed to by the professional bodies concerned, and I have pleasure on behalf of the official Opposition in supporting i s Second Reading.