Mr. Chairman, I ask the privilege of the half-hour. It goes without saying that this Vote is indeed a very important one, not only by virtue of the fact that it comprises the sum of R324 million, but also by virtue of the fact of the large number of people involved, people who, in many cases, have to look to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for their livelihood and for relief in times of economic stress. It also gives us an opportunity to look at the policy of the hon. the Minister and that of his new deputy concerning the overall welfare planning in South Africa. We know that there have been some vast changes over the past few decades in respect of welfare services, particularly as a result of the industrialization of a young country such as South Africa.

If we look at the challenges that this country has to face during the second half of this decade, we soon realize that as a young, industrialized country, there are many aspects of social welfare that requires the urgent attention of the Government. We know that it is the policy of the Government, as it is of the Official Opposition, that we have a free enterprise economy, and consequently our welfare services and social security services have to be balanced so as to maintain a situation where free enterprise and the initiative of the individual can be assured. We have to guard against the possibility of becoming a welfare State. We on this side of the House consider this to be an important aspect in considering the policy as far as social welfare is concerned. If one looks at the situation as it is today, it becomes increasingly obvious that to maintain a balanced situation, the Government will have to give urgent attention to welfare planning on a wide and comprehensive scale so as to ensure that the country is ready to meet the demands that are made upon it as welfare services have to be rendered to an increasing number of persons. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of Social Welfare and Pensions in his latest annual report indicated the necessity to give urgent attention to the whole aspect of welfare planning. We welcome the frank manner in which this annual report was drawn up. We realize the difficulties in which he is involved, being responsible, as the head of the department, for an adequate welfare service being rendered to the people for which his department is responsible.

It is, however, apparent that the Government is giving attention to the overall question of welfare planning and we on this side of the House would like to see the Government expedite its inquiries and investigations to ensure that the correct planning is undertaken at this stage. It also becomes obvious, as far as the welfare services are concerned, that there are various shortcomings. We know that there is a multiplicity of welfare organizations— something like 2 000 of them—and in certain regional areas there is a lack of co-ordination as far as welfare services are concerned and we know that greater efforts will have to be made to ensure that there is not wasted effort in this field. It also is apparent that with the demand that is made on the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for its professional services, such as probation officers and qualified social workers, great steps will have to be made to ensure that there is an adequate number of social workers to meet the needs. Reading the reports of various welfare organizations, it soon becomes apparent that a shortage of qualified staff is one of the inhibiting factors in providing an adequate service as far as these welfare organizations are concerned. Because of this situation, it is obvious that the Government and the department will have to intensify the use of voluntary social workers by the training of such workers by means of in-service training in the various agencies under the guidance and with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

I am aware, as far as the educational aspects are concerned, that it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of National Education. However, as far as the voluntary social workers are concerned, a great deal more can be achieved with in-service training and by the assistance that can be rendered to the agencies to bring about a situation where voluntary social workers can play an even more important part in the welfare services that have to be rendered. That is why the whole question of the shortage of professional staff is of such great importance. We know that legislation that has been passed in this House from time to time requiring reports of probation officers and reports of social workers as far as criminal cases are concerned, can have a very real effect on the effective and successful rehabilitation of some of those who have fallen foul of the law. Therefore welfare planning should aim at the creation of the balanced situation which must exist in a free enterprise economy where our welfare services can be adequate to meet these needs. The part that is played by our welfare organizations in this respect is one which requires constant attention and constant review.

There is a section in the department dealing with the care of the aged, and I have a few words to say in regard to this particular aspect. But before doing so, I would like to refer particularly to a certain category and type of person in respect of whom it appears that steps will have to be taken by the Government—if necessary by the introduction of legislation— to meet their requirements. I refer here to the position of the problem aged. There was a case in Durban some months ago of a widow who was evicted from her home which was subsequently sold by auction for a sum of just over R2 000 although the rateable municipal evaluation of that property was approximately R7 000. All this was due to the fact that the widow had not paid the rates. This amounted to some R92. Consequently it was necessary for an eviction order to be issued and carried out. Subsequently it was ascertained by welfare workers that this person had not been prepared to accept the assistance and guidance that had been offered her.

It is interesting to note that the term “problem aged” pertains to a certain group of people who are unable to care for themselves or look after their properties and who require some sort of protection. In terms of the situation that now exists the social worker is almost powerless to assist such a person who will not be taken under the wing of any other social services and who will not be admitted to a home for the aged. If one looks at the definition of “problem aged”, one sees that it means a mentally ill, aged person who endangers his own life and property or that of other people, a person in respect of whom an application for certification has failed; a person dependent on alcohol or drugs who could not be committed to a rehabilitation centre or who is not accepted into any other institution or home with a view to care or treatment; a person with serious personality problems who refuses help and makes it impossible to be helped; and a person who is infirm or is incapable of planning for and maintaining himself or herself and whose future welfare is at stake, but who refuses help. It would appear that the hon. the Minister will have to give serious consideration to this particular type of person, persons who are unable to be assisted in terms of our present situation. The hon. the Minister should give consideration to the possibility of introducing legislation in terms of which a social worker should be able to assist such a person. The plight of the particular widow to whom I referred is, of course, indicative of many cases where people live alone and are struggling to exist. These people are the pioneers of this country who now, as result of inflation and economic stress, are unable to cope and require assistance.

Each year when the hon. the Minister of Finance presents his budget, he invariably does make a concession to this group of people and we on this side of the House are indeed grateful for those concessions as are the recipients themselves of those concessions. However, it appears to be the present policy of the Government merely to grant certain relief to certain groups of people year by year without producing any overall plan to bring about the improved conditions which are so necessary in caring for the aged in particular. That is why it is rather disappointing that, in spite of the concessions granted, the increase in the pension of R8 a month as far as Whites are concerned, is only to be effective from 1 October. These people are having a tremendous struggle to exist. This was indicated to me fairly recently by an aged person who said it was quite likely that he might not even live until 1 October to receive that extra monthly income. I think we have to find some other basis upon which to grant these increases. These increases only apply for half of the financial year. Therefore I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, find ways and means of granting these increases at an earlier date.

Similarly, as far as the means test is concerned, the present ceilings have been in operation since 1 October 1972. We all know how the situation has changed as far as the value of money is concerned. Yet the means test has remained unaltered. The question of narrowing the gap between the pensions paid to the Whites and to the other race groups also requires further consideration and attention on the part of the Government. I fully realize that the hon. the Minister in this instance is responsible only for the White social pensioners. Nevertheless the increases granted serve as a guide-line in respect of the pensions of the other racial groups.

Then there are those persons who are specifically precluded from receiving any assistance but who we feel should receive some assistance. I refer particularly to the civil pensioners and the railway pensioners who are receiving minimum pensions. If these persons’ financial position is within the means test, they are specifically precluded from receiving a social pension. However, a person who receives a pension from a private source or a private pension fund is entitled to receive a social pension if the pension which he receives from that private source is on the same level or even if it is bigger than the pension of the civil or railway pensioner. By virtue of the fact that the means test remains unaltered, we have a situation developing that because the minimum basic pension will be R32 per month as from 1 October, a greater gap will be created between those who just qualify and those who just fail to qualify. It will also mean that those persons who receive a slight increase in their private pension will in most cases be worse off by virtue of the fact that while the minimum basic pension will be R32 per month they will receive nothing because they fall outside the means test.

This all leads to the matter which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. I refer to the investigation in connection with a contributory pension scheme because many of the problems which I have mentioned could be overcome if we could have a system whereby all persons of all races belong to a pension fund or pension schemes which will allow them to qualify for a pension when they reach their retirement age. They will not have a means test and all the other administrative difficulties that are presently involved applicable to them. We believe that a contributory pension scheme could have three advantages. The first advantage will be that more funds could become available to pay for better pensions.

The second advantage will be the abolition of the means test with the phasing in of a contributory pension scheme for all. The third advantage will be that the disparity could be eliminated which exists at present between the various race groups because the benefits could then be related to contributions which have been paid and the level of income to a certain minimum or maximum so that all could then receive a pension on a basis related to the level of income of the contributors. The difficulty experienced with the discriminatory basis of awarding pensions to the various race groups could then be eliminated. We should therefore like to hear from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in this regard. We did hear in the 1974 session that he was going to have such an investigation conducted and we should now like to hear what steps have been achieved and what further steps are contemplated.

Having dealt with some of the persons who have reached the twilight of their life, I should now like to refer to child welfare and the breaking down of family life. We know that four commissions are provided for in terms of the National Welfare Act. One of those commissions is the Family Life Commission which has considered various aspects of family life. The latest report of the National Welfare Board refers to certain tasks undertaken by the Family Life Commission. Mention is also made of the possibility of a draft policy for family life. I believe this requires urgent attention because if one considers the situation in South Africa one sees a deteriorating situation developing. We find various aspects of child welfare work being hindered as a result of the situation developing because of the breakdown in family life. The various welfare agencies which care for children are finding not only a breakdown in family life caused by economic stress, but they also have to cope with the after-effects of a high rate of divorce and other problems such as alcoholism by one or both parents or deviate behaviour on the part of certain members of a family. All these aspects require considerable attention.

There is also a new syndrome developing in South Africa, that of child abuse and the death of young infants. We find that this situation is one which has received the attention of some of the welfare agencies and I refer specifically to the Durban area because I understand that this is the only area where they are endeavouring to obtain a register so as to ascertain the severity of the problem and what steps can be taken against these people. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister must have received similar letters that I have received from indignant people who are most concerned at the fact that such light penalties are imposed in regard to cases of child abuse. We find that in some cases suspended sentences are imposed and it even happened that a mere fine of R50 was imposed notwithstanding the fact that a child was battered to death by a parent. This position is causing a great deal of concern, not only in South Africa but also overseas, as this is not something which is peculiar to South Africa. In some countries overseas, however, we do find that it is necessary for registers to be kept for cases of assault in certain instances. In America and Great Britain these registers are used to assist in field work in diagnosis, treatment, planning and prevention. It has also been found that such registers are useful in the identification of multiple abuse within the same family, or in the development of an intervention and treatment programme. They have also proved useful in providing a basis for the further definition of the problem and educating the public about the nature and the extent of the problem. One therefore sees that there are numerous factors involved.

We know that as a result of the economic stress in many families there are an increasing number of mothers who have to seek employment. There are also an increasing number of mothers who seek guidance and assistance at the various welfare agencies, and they have to be provided with professional, expert guidance. Other difficulties, as we are aware, are also involved. In some cases the mother is psychologically disturbed, or again the children themselves may be psychologically disturbed and could be developing symptoms that would need psychiatric treatment. These children require urgent assistance, as do the parents.

An increasing number of children are being admitted to children’s homes because they are in need of care. There are about 10 000 children in the approximately 100 children’s homes which this department is responsible for. These children’s homes are at full capacity and it is not possible for more children to be admitted. This results in many children having to remain for lengthy periods in various places of safety, this certainly being to the detriment of those children. Therefore it is obvious that the whole question of family life should be urgently looked into and a policy for improving family conditions drawn up. We know that there are children for whom accommodation has to be found whilst their working mothers take up employment. There have consequently been many calls for additional crèches or places of care where the children of working mothers can be taken care of. I believe the department does allocate funds and provide advice and guidance in this regard. I think greater attention should be given, however, to ascertaining whether it is not possible for industry, commerce and other sectors, which employ numbers of working mothers, to also play a part in the establishment of these care centres and crèches so that the children of these working mothers may be cared for while the mothers are at work.

I have endeavoured to indicate some of the spheres to which we on this side of the House believe the Government must give urgent attention. We have tried to indicate matters concerning policy, and in the course of this discussion the hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of putting before this Committee his and the Government’s policy to meet some of these challenges. The situation that is now developing certainly requires the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department. They must see that the challenges are met to ensure that the welfare of the people of South Africa is maintained at a high level.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member covered a fairly wide field and consequently one can hardly react to everything he said. However, I want to express my concern about one thing he said, and I hope it was not exactly what he meant. He referred to the use of voluntary female welfare workers as a result of the shortage of professional welfare workers. I hope he does not mean that the place of the professional social worker is to be undermined because in all other professions, professionalism is being stressed more and more strongly, and I believe that this is equally necessary in social work.

I should like to refer, too, to the report of the department which has been put at our disposal. We should have liked to have a more recent report, since the department does such a comprehensive and such a fine job and since we are aware of the dedication with which its officials carry out their task. That is why one would like to have the very latest data when the activities of this department come under discussion. In the annual report before us there is one specific paragraph in which, unfortunately, an incorrect impression has been created among outsiders. In my opinion it is necessary for attention to be drawn to this because the Press, too, has not failed to spot that specific paragraph. In referring to the importance of planning, the report refers to the welfare organizations which are being allowed to proliferate. Reference is also made to the fact that there are small groups of people who are motivated, supposedly, by welfare work and consequently are allowed to establish their own puppet kingdoms at will. Mention is also made of people who are so inspired by their social work that for the sake of their own egos, they refuse to join forces in the interests of social work.

I know that these are hard words and that they do perhaps apply to the exceptions. However one must be careful not to make a rule of the exceptions in this case. Since it is possible that the impression has been created among outsiders that these words may have been intended as a dig at the voluntary welfare organizations, I, as a member of the National Welfare Board and of its commissions for a number of years, should like to attest to the fact that the department has at all times given its utmost co-operation, and expressed its confidence in, those voluntary welfare organizations. On the other hand, I can also attest to the way in which those welfare organizations have co-operated with the National Welfare Board at various levels when the Board has requested their co-operation, particularly with regard to co-ordination.

The impression has been created—I think the hon. member for Umbilo also referred to this in passing—that there are thousands of welfare organizations. At the moment there are 2 054 registered welfare organizations. Four years ago there were 2 144 registered welfare organizations. Consequently there has been a substantial drop in the number of registered organizations, and not an unreasonable increase. The fact is that many efforts are being made, by the department’s regional offices and the regional welfare councils, and by the National Welfare Board, efforts aimed at bringing about co-ordination, particularly when there are people who want to establish an organization, people who really lack a field in which to operate because other bodies are already performing those specific activities.

If, therefore, the impression is created among the public that there is an unhealthy development in this sphere, I want to express my confidence that the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that what is stated here in the report is not meant in a derogatory way, but is only meant to emphasize the fact of planning. One of the channels through which the department may effect co-ordination is to be found in the department’s circular No. 29 of 1966. This circular provides that when a welfare organization is established, the board of directors of that organization will consist of members of the population group which that organization wishes to serve. It has occurred in the past that a White organization has been established but that it has operated exclusively among non-Whites. Furthermore, all the different welfare organizations have often caused a great deal of confusion among the various population groups, particularly with regard to the practical implementation of the activities of the organizations.

Since the policy of this department was laid down in 1966, we can attest to the greatest co-operation we have had from the various organizations. Organizations the boards of directors of which are composed chiefly of Whites, for example, are allowed to establish sub-committees for the other population groups, viz. Indians, Coloureds and Bantu, and in this way, provision is made for the contingency of its being impracticable to establish separate organizations for each of the various population groups. Mention has been made of the more than 2 000 existing welfare organizations, but we must take note of the fact that these organizations do in fact represent the four main population groups, the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu. This includes South West African statistics and in fact, therefore, we have five provinces. Sometimes we divide this task at the provincial level and this necessarily causes a degree of overlapping. However, I want to give the assurance—we have proof of this—that in spite of the exceptions and in spite of the occasions on which the co-operation has been somewhat defective, in general we have a fine spirit of co-operation. We would be sorry if the public, which puts millions of rands at the disposal of voluntary welfare services, were perhaps to gain the impression that they could not support these organizations without hesitation or with more goodwill. I want to break a lance for them and trust that the inference drawn from this report is incorrect. I want to express the hope, too, that the time is almost at hand when the various departments concerned with the various population groups will draw a definite dividing line between the various welfare registrations. The time has come for each department to accept responsibility for the welfare organizations under its jurisdiction and even for them to be able to undertake the registration thereof. The foundations have been laid in the present legislation and we trust that in the new legislation, attention will be given to this.

In conclusion, I want to break a lance for the quadriplegics. I do not know how many of them there are, where they are or what their circumstances are, but we are under the impression that not enough provision is being made for these people. These people are paralysed in their arms and legs and probably led a normal life until an accident deprived them of the use of their legs and arms in one fell swoop. I have reason to believe that notwithstanding the good work being done by our medical practitioners, notwithstanding the major and outstanding task being performed by some of our hospitals and the work done by various welfare organizations, there is nevertheless a large group of people in this category who should be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I am a little surprised to find myself speaking at this stage, but seeing that no one else wants to take part in this debate, I should like to bring a number of matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I should like to make a couple of brief references before I come to the main thrust of my speech. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we appreciated the opportunity to visit some of the various institutions which fall under his direction and control. I particularly want to refer to the outstanding work the department did, in conjunction with other departments, in the caring for refugees. To the officials of the department I should like to say that we appreciate the work they are doing and their readiness to respond to the hundreds and thousands of inquiries that are made.

The hon. member for Umbilo has already made reference to the increase given to social pensioners in the budget. I merely want to underline and stress all the points he made. One does not have to argue at great length even to convince the hon. the Minister that of all the people who are in a bad situation at the moment, the aged of our country come to mind first. They and others on fixed incomes are the ones suffering most from the ravages of inflation and the erosion of the value of money. Although one appreciates the increase granted to pensioners, one has also to point out that this is hardly enough to meet the situation. Once again we have to raise the question of the delay between the budget and the actual implementation of the increase. One is aware that there is a computer, that there are many arrangements which have to be made and that there are thousands of pensioners involved. But I am quite sure that it is not beyond the resources of the hon. the Minister and his department to find a way around this. It does seem unreasonable that the aged should have to wait until October before they get the increase which has been announced. The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds and thousands of people in South Africa who cannot afford to retire because of the pensions to which they will be eligible and because of the pensions that fall due to them under the social pension system.

I should also like to stress and underline a further point made by the hon. member for Umbilo, and that is that the means test, which inevitably throws up all kinds of anomalies, must surely be reviewed this year. I do not believe that any legitimate argument can be raised against the need for a review. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply and give encouragement to the thousands of people outside who are affected directly by this.

Reference has already been made to the widening of the pension gap as between old people of the various race groups. One notes that the amount now is R72 for White pensioners, R38,50 for Coloured and Indian pensioners and R18,50 for African pensioners. This cannot be defended, and one hopes that moving towards the closing of this gap will be accelerated and that it will be done away with altogether in the not too distant future.

I want to come back to the question of a national contributory pension scheme. We have heard the various comments the hon. the Minister has made outside the House, comments which I believe only emphasize the need for urgency in this matter. Last year during the debate of this Vote we referred to the need for this. In his reply the hon. the Minister said that once the preliminary investigation had been made, a Select Committee would be set up to look into the whole question. Many months have elapsed since that time, and I hope that there will therefore be an announcement by the hon. the Minister of the appointment of a Select Committee so as to bring this matter to finality. If my figures are right, 66%—and I think I am now quoting a figure mentioned by the hon. the Minister himself—of economically active people who have no pension cover. This is the present situation, and this only emphasizes the urgency of resolving this question of a national contributory scheme. I understand further that a minimum of 30 000 companies provide no pension benefits whatsoever. Reference has been made over the years, and again last year, to the lack of transferability, which creates real problems and direct wastage, to the inadequacy of pensions relative to pre-retirement salaries, and to the fact that pension schemes are in many instances not compulsory.

Various arguments have been advanced against such a national contributory scheme. It has been suggested that the State itself should not be involved in this matter. I believe that this is wrong, and that the State ought to be involved, not so much in terms of making a contribution, but rather in terms of being the midwife through which the coming into being of such a national contributory scheme can be achieved. It has also been suggested that a national scheme of this kind could lead to deferred taxation and that there are problems when it comes to collecting all the contributions, particularly from the lower paid group of workers. On the other hand, however, I believe that the coming into being of such a scheme would eliminate the means test which penalizes the thrifty and encourages the spendthrift, to put it in the words of Mr. Altman, that it would eliminate the race discrimination which exists at present in this field, that it would solve the problem of transferability when employees change their jobs, that it would ease the burden on the State, and that such a compulsory pension plan would ensure that the maximum number of people would have some provision for their post-retirement years. This would in fact assist the State enormously, but much more important, perhaps—or at least as important—is that it would assist and encourage and in fact make compulsory at least some measure of provision for those people who reach their retirement years. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I am really amazed, and that I am very grateful to the hon. Whip.

Why are you amazed?

I say I am amazed because I was only supposed to enter the debate much later, and therefore I am very grateful for the opportunity of speaking now. Sir, it is quite clear that the hon. members opposite realize that I am talking sense. I shall therefore do my best to continue along those lines.

One of the major questions which we have looked at over the years is the care of the aged—and I speak now not specifically of pensions. The Secretary of the department some time ago was reported in the Press as having a master plan to help the aged. Unless it has escaped my attention, there has not been a report of any follow-up to that. The Secretary did, however, go on to talk about “going to where the needy aged live and to draw up in-depth studies of what is needed, enabling regional welfare boards to play a much more dynamic role in the welfare services of the community”. This, I believe, is a very important statement, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us a little more about this master plan. It is certainly long overdue. Those who visit the various old-age institutions, and perhaps more especially have links with organizations which visit the aged people who are not in institutions, but are living in single rooms or living in small flats in the heart of our cities, will realize the desperate need for some direct overall plan to assist the aged in these very difficult times.

Sir, the other question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister relates to a report in The Cape Times of 10 May 1976. That is a very serious matter. It focuses attention on Cape Town but is not confined to Cape Town only. This concerns what has been called the oldest profession in the world. I refer to prostitution and the booming of venereal disease. Whilst I appreciate that the Department of Health would obviously have direct responsibility, it is also, I believe, the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare to look into this matter. What concerns me most is that from these investigations which are reported in the Press, investigations in which I was involved in another capacity some years ago, one finds that young girls of 14, 15 and 16 years of age frequent certain clubs in the city or hang around the docks in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, and probably East London as well. This is becoming a very serious social problem and I would like to know that the department is taking this seriously and is trying to do something about it. The police, when interviewed on this matter, made the point that their hands were tied and that very often the clubs which acted as the magnet for both the prostitutes and the customers had no licence as such and therefore the restrictions by way of control were not nearly as great as they ought to be. One hopes therefore that the department will give attention to this matter.

The other matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister concerns tax concessions on donations to welfare organizations. Here, of course, the hon. the Minister of Finance is directly involved and responsible. But I recall a debate which I think took place between the previous Deputy Minister and Mr. Justice J. H. Steyn on this question. I am convinced that the social welfare of our country, whether it be the department itself or whether it be one or more of the over 2 000 organizations which exist, stand to benefit directly if there could be some form of tax concession on donations to these various welfare organizations. One appreciates the difficulty in maintaining the free enterprise system on the one hand and to keep rigidly away from the Welfare State on the other hand, but I am convinced that a great number of private entrepreneurs would be more generous in their donations to deserving welfare organizations if there were some tax concessions. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his department have given any further thought to this and whether we can expect any change of policy in this respect.

The last point I want to raise is one that was brought to the attention of this House by way of a question to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Yeoville. The question concerned the moving away from race discrimination in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and was put to the hon. the Minister during May. In his reply the hon. the Minister pointed out that the only posts that were open to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in his department were for messengers and labourers. One appreciates that the department, by law, gives its time, concern and consideration to the White group only, but it does, nevertheless, seem quite remarkable that this discrimination does exist. I understand that even although non-White messengers and labourers are employed, they are not paid the rate for the jobs. One would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s comments in regard to this matter. I hope very much that he will reply.

In conclusion I would like to stress again that one of the biggest problems facing the aged citizens of our country today is the fact that so many of them have been caught out by the rapid increase in the rate of inflation with the result that their pensions, which in many cases come from a private source such as a private company, cannot keep pace with the rate of inflation. If we are going to build for the future and if we want to put a stop to this—victimization not in the sense that people are deliberately made victims, but that they become the victim of economic trends—then one of the best ways to do this is the national contributory scheme. We hope very much that we will hear from the hon. the Minister that either a Select Committee will be appointed in the immediate future or that some other means will be created whereby further action can be brought about in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands touched on a number of subjects and devoted much of his time to a plea for a national contributory pension scheme. The hon. member could just as well have spent his time reading Hansard. If he had done so, he would have seen that hon. members have discussed this subject at length and that a private motion has even been moved on this subject. In any event, the hon. the Minister has, after all, announced that an investigation is to be instituted in this regard and one therefore wonders what more the hon. member wants. Furthermore the hon. member for Umbilo has in the past championed this cause far better than the hon. member did today.

However, I want to confine myself to a different subject. It is a problem which is causing us a great deal of concern and is assuming vast proportions, viz. neglect and maltreatment of children. Looking at the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, one notes that on 31 December 1973 there were 6 105 children in the 100 registered children’s homes under the supervision of the department. Apart from this there are the 17 schools of industries with 2 105 pupils and two reform schools with 170 pupils. These data are to be found in the report of the Department of National Education. This gives a total of 8 380 children who do not enjoy the happiness of a parental home. However, one only becomes aware of the true extent of the problem when one faces the fact that in the year 1974-’75, 2 787 children were found to be in need of care, 791 of whom were committed to children’s homes and 1 029 of whom were placed with step-parents. One feels sorry for those children who are deprived of the privilege of a parental home and the love which this involves, although I believe that many of them are in fact better off than they were in the homes from which they were taken.

This brings me to the children who are still in the parental homes where we find maltreatment of children. One would have expected that children who were still in their parental homes would receive from their parents at least that love and care which one finds even in the animal world. A great deal of publicity has been given to this problem. We, as responsible and civilized people, are also filled with disgust at what we have read and seen. I think we owe the SABC a debt of gratitude for the way in which they have brought this corrosive cancer to the attention of the public by way of television. I think that all of us were probably also shocked to hear that over the past five years, 63 children have been beaten to death by their parents, while there are thousands of defenceless children who are maltreated and mentally crippled by irresponsible parents without this being brought to the attention of the authorities. It is probably not an easy matter to find a solution to this problem but I do think that where such cases are brought to the attention of the authorities, heavier punishments should be imposed as a deterrent. I do not want to criticize our courts, but I think that all of us were shocked recently to hear that a parent who had beaten his child to death and was charged with murder was fined R50 for the death of his own defenceless little child. On the other hand, we know that in a case of cattle theft the punishment is imprisonment without the option of a fine. A minimum fine is laid down for the shooting of a buck. Now I ask: Where is our perspective if imprisonment without the option of a fine is imposed for the theft of a fowl whereas the fine of a mere R50 is imposed in the case of a parent who beats his child to death?

However I think that our biggest problem is to bring those thousands of cases of maltreatment of children to the attention of the authorities. When a complaint is submitted to the Police, they investigate it and a charge can be laid. However the problem is to bring such cases to their attention. Neighbours, who can in most cases be the best informants, are usually hesitant to get involved in a matter of this nature. I think that our medical practitioners are probably in the best position to identify maltreatment of children. However they are prohibited by law from providing information about their patients to other parties. In my opinion there must be a change in this regard. I do not believe we want to compel the doctors to make known information about their patients, but in the case of a crime being committed, where a parent maltreats his child, as we have seen on television, I believe that the medical practitioners have a moral obligation to report it, as is the case with any other citizen. In the case of child maltreatment, the medical practitioner who is unwilling to make it known himself could possibly report it to his colleague, the district surgeon, or to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, to enable them to investigate the matter further. That is why I should like to make an appeal to our medical practitioners today to assist us in eliminating this evil.

I believe, too, that child maltreatment is a psycho-social problem and that it should be dealt with in just the same way as any other social problem like alcoholism, drugs and so on. Very sound—and successful—research has already been carried out in regard to alcoholism, drugs, diseases and even insect pests. I wonder whether more research could not be carried out at this stage with regard to this evil, viz. child maltreatment. If we have an association for the prevention of cruelty to animals in virtually every town, more could probably be done to combat the problem of maltreatment of children, too. In the department’s latest report, mention is made of the fact that an investigation is being instituted into the desirability of establishing family courts in South Africa similar to those in certain Western countries. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with this investigation, viz. the establishment with family courts. I think that as is mentioned in that report, of all the functions mentioned as being entrusted to these specific courts, priority should be given to maltreatment of children as one of the most important functions. I know it is not going to be easy to solve this major problem, but by bringing this evil to the attention of the public to a greater extent and affording the necessary protection to the public, the social workers and our medical practitioners, so that the guilty parties may be apprehended, I believe we will make a great deal of progress in combating and totally eliminating this evil.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Boksburg made a very constructive contribution, particularly when he referred to the neglect and ill-treatment of children. This is an evil which is very much on the increase in our big cities. If there is something to which attention has to be given, it is probably the neglect and ill-treatment of children, particularly because the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions plays a major part in the care of our children. The services rendered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions cover a very wide field. Only when one has made a study of all the activities of the department does one realize the great extent of the services of the department. If one looks at the Budget one observes, too, that after Defence and Bantu Administration and Development the largest amount of money has been allotted to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, viz. the amount of R323 918 000. This demonstrates to us the extent of the work of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

I, too, wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the staff for the extremely competent way in which they are mastering the work of the department. I am thinking not only of the head office in Pretoria, but also of the staff of the Port Elizabeth regional office where assistance and particularly good services are being rendered. Among the most important services which the department is rendering to us are undoubtedly social auxiliary services such as social pensions and grants, as well as subsidies. When I refer to subsidies I just want to refer to the grants which are being paid annually to elderly persons. It is interesting to note that at present old-age pensions are being paid to 123 839 persons. The amount involved is R85 million. In addition there are 16 000 war veterans, to whom more than R12 336 000 is being paid annually. Over and above the social services there are also the extremely important social welfare services, which, inter alia, include rehabilitation services, the care of the handicapped, the care of the aged, child-care and research in regard to auxiliary services, etc.

I want to pause for a moment to consider the care of the aged. Hon. members opposite have always been in the habit of accusing the Government, during the discussion of this Vote, of not doing enough for the aged, and saying that the aged are being neglected. We know of course that they do this for political gain, and do not themselves believe what they say. However, the facts prove the opposite, and I find it a pity that some hon. members drag the question of the care of the aged into politics, for it is a matter for which everyone has sympathy.

Do not become angry, Pottie!

It is in fact this Government which has always had an open hand and heart for our aged persons. When we took over in 1948 our elderly people were receiving a pension of only R10 per month, in comparison with the R72 which they will receive as from October. This is an indication of what is being done for our elderly people. We have repeatedly emphasized that one can never do enough for our elderly people. It is we on this side of the House who are trying to make the lives of our elderly people as comfortable as possible, but at the same time we are realistic when we make representations to the hon. the Minister for financial relief. After all, the State has to obtain the necessary funds from the citizens of this country, and we know that when taxes are increased, it is hon. members opposite who criticize such steps. We know that social pensions have, without exception, been constantly increased during the past 10 or 11 years. This fact is in itself sufficient reply to criticism coming from the hon. members on the opposite side. Conveniently, reference is always made only to old-age pensions, as though that were all we were doing for our elderly people. No mention is made of all the other services which we are providing for the aged, services which are equally essential and important.

I want to refer here to two of the many improvements which have been effected since 1972. The means test was raised from R4 000 to R9 800. The free income of a person was raised from R192 to R504. The means test was extended considerably so that persons who have assets in excess of R22 400 are today able to receive their full pension, while those who have assets exceeding R34 000 are still able to receive the minimum of R24 per month. These considerable improvements undoubtedly prove that ways and means are constantly being found to help our elderly people. The services which the State is providing to improve the living conditions of the aged, cover a very wide field.

I now want to refer to certain aspects of these services. I think the aspect of the care of the aged with which the most progress has been made in recent years, is accommodation. First of all, in this regard, I want to refer in particular to housing for certain elderly people who are no longer able to look after themselves. I am referring here to the question of institutional care. I also want to refer to the provision of housing in the form of special dwellings or flatlets for elderly persons, in which they are able to look after themselves and run their own home. In South Africa, in proportion to the total number of White elderly persons, there are more homes for the aged than in most other developed countries in the world. On 31 December 1974 there were 241 subsidized homes for the aged under the control of welfare organizations. Those homes for the aged were able to accommodate a total of 13 441 inhabitants from the sub-economic income group and 2 080 inhabitants from the economic income group. Apart from the existing homes for the aged the department has already approved the construction of a further 63 homes for the aged. These homes for the aged are all at present at some or other stage of planning or construction, and a few have already been completed. Those new homes for the aged will provide accommodation for a further 8 428 elderly persons. Approval has also been granted for extensions to 47 existing homes for the aged in order to provide accommodation for an additional 1 405 elderly persons; for the most part infirm aged persons.

The following subsidies will be paid to homes for the aged with effect from 1 October this year: An additional R7 per month for each ordinary aged person who is accommodated in an old-age home; R38 per month to each infirm aged person; from R62,50 per month to each infirm aged person to whom a regular nursing service is made available; and R80 per month to each extremely infirm and chronically indisposed aged person. Free medical services are also made available to aged persons, and aged persons who are nursed at home, also receive a grant. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to reconsider the present grant of R10 per month, which is being paid to aged persons who are bedridden or who are no longer able to care for themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I should like to express a few ideas in regard to social relief, a grant which is applicable to those who turn to the State for assistance in times of emergency. Before doing so, however, I first want to mention a local matter to the hon. the Minister. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, and I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my cordial thanks and appreciation to the regional representative of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and his staff in Port Elizabeth for the competent services they have rendered to my constituency in the interests of the voters whom I am privileged to represent here. I want to thank the staff of the department in Port Elizabeth, as well as in Uitenhage, for the brilliant work they have done; sometimes under difficult circumstances.

The branch office in Uitenhage has undoubtedly served a useful purpose and has definitely justified its existence. Uitenhage is on its way to becoming an industrial giant, and the White population is increasing by leaps and bounds. As a result the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is having to expand its activities daily over a wide field. At present 1 160 social pensions are being páid to Whites in Uitenhage. This is irrefutable proof that the branch office is serving its purpose. However, there is one deficiency which I wish, of necessity, to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This is in fact that Uitenhage does not have the services of a full-time professional officer for social services. This task is at present being performed by officers of the regional office in Port Elizabeth. I am aware that those officers are working under great pressure, as a result of a pressing staff shortage, and also because of their many duties and owing to the shortage of staff in general. I am saying this on the strength of the fact that during the period 1 February 1975 to 31 January 1976, a total of 1 250 interviews were conducted in Uitenhage by professional officers of the Port Elizabeth office.

During the same period a total of 165 professional reports were compiled. For the sake of fairness it should be mentioned in this respect that generous use was made of the assistance of the local Christelike Maatskaplike Raad. The CMR in Uitenhage is also unable to keep up the pace, and consequently it is imperative that a full-time professional officer be assigned to the local branch office. I would therefore appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to give serious attention to my request. It is a foregone conclusion—I think the department will agree with me—that the establishment at the branch office in Uitenhage will have to be augmented in the near future. I am convinced that the appointment of a full-time professional officer will provide the immediate solution. I should kindly like to refer the hon. the Minister to the memorandum on social relief which was drawn up by his department in 1975. In that memorandum I find two instructions which determine how these grants are applicable and when they should be applied. I am going to quote the instructions to the hon. the Minister, and I should be pleased if he would give his attention to them. The first instruction on page 4 and 5 reads as follows—

The problem I experience here is that a rather protracted procedure has to be adopted before any actual financial assistance is in sight and before the applicant concerned is assisted, regardless of his church affiliation. This state of affairs has a frustrating effect on the applicant because the family already finds itself in difficult circumstances. The second requirement which occurs in the memorandum, reads as follows—

I have no fault to find with this. However, this standpoint of the department may be interpreted in two ways. As soon as more than the minimum subsistence requirements are provided, the applicant is encouraged to remain a receiver of charity, but as soon as the minimum subsistence requirements are complied with, a want of the bare necessities undoubtedly sets in if we take the present cost of living basis into consideration. This has been my experience in my constituency.

A matter which therefore causes me concern, is the scales which are applicable in respect of the payment of social relief. On 1 April 1973 it was R2,10 per week in respect of a person above the age of ten years, and R1,80 per week in respect of a person below the age of ten years. I do not know why the age of ten years plays a part here. On 1 April 1976 these scales were adjusted, and at present it amounts to R2,60 per week in respect of a person above the age of ten years, and R2,25 per week in respect of a person below that age. I find these amounts completely inadequate for the purpose for which they are being utilized and I want to advocate a drastic increase of these amounts. The grant in itself is of a temporary nature and is only allocated in very exceptional cases; hence the designation “relief”. Nor is it a right which may be demanded from the State. This grant is allocated primarily for the purpose of buying food and providing the applicant’s primary necessities of life. In such cases the beneficiary, without exception, is entirely dependent on the State. I think that in many cases there is a failure to realize that the person concerned is entirely dependent on the State in this temporary period during which it is the duty of the State to care for him. In many cases the persons concerned have already applied for a social pension, but are unable to fend for themselves before the pension is granted. I find it completely unrealistic to expect that an adult can be fed, in the physical sense, on R2,60 per week, and a child below the age of ten, on R2,25 per week. This is the position as far as the individuals are concerned. When we are dealing with a family which is, owing to unforeseen circumstances, compelled to make use of this emergency aid, the picture is even more sombre.

There are many of my voters who are compelled by necessity to avail themselves of this aid, and consequently I am speaking from experience. I have personally come across cases where warrants were issued by the department to a grocer to supply the applicant with the necessary foodstuffs to the amount of R2,60 per week. I was shocked to see what food the applicant received for R2,60, and for a week, too. Mindful of the fact that a person’s application for a social pension sometimes takes months before finality is reached—I am not saying that this is so in all cases, but in some cases it is—it is asking too much to expect of the person in question to keep body and soul together on R2,60 per week.

Personally I am opposed to a welfare State, and I know that this is also the policy of the present Government. However, when the White voter finds himself in financial distress, the Government of the day has to accept responsibility in such a way that it rebounds to the credit of the country. It is not my intention that emergency aid should become an everyday occurrence. I realize that it can also be abused. However, if the department finds that the applicant qualifies for a grant—and personally I have confidence in the discretion of the officials of the department—the grants should be of such a nature that the beneficiaries are able to subsist in so far as their food requirements are concerned. It should not be necessary for them to look to other people for assistance. It should not be necessary for them to turn to the church for assistance regardless of what his church affiliation is. As I have already said, assistance from the church is an impossible task, for as soon as an applicant is not a regular church-goer, the assistance on the part of the church is in many cases doubtful. If a person is an active or semi-active member of some church or other, the church council first has to decide on the proposed assistance in the financial sphere. By the time the Church council has taken a decision, the financial position of the applicant has deteriorated even further to the detriment of himself and his family.

I want to request that the amount for application in terms of social relief schemes in respect of the regional office at Port Elizabeth be increased so that the needs of the branch office in Uitenhage can be met. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, a little while ago whilst attending a hearing of the Rent Board one of the ladies giving evidence told me something which upset me very much. She said that if one were an old person and one had a home, then one should never complain because if one did complain one would be evicted and one would have nowhere to go. This is very true, and we know that these people have nowhere else to go. It is amazing what they have to put up with because of this. Many landlords impose all sorts of restrictions on these poor old people. They are, for instance, not allowed to use electrical equipment. In many cases they are not allowed to have visitors or keep pets. If the landlords want to get rid of these old people, they apply all sorts of pressures on them to make them go. For instance, they apply to the Rent Board for increased rents and impose all kinds of measures which make life quite impossible for these old people. This is not the position of one single old person, but it is the position of thousands of aged people and pensioners who are now being hit by the rising rents and the increasing shortage of accommodation at a reasonable rental. This is a major problem in cities such as Durban where, for example, 7% of the population is over 65 years of age. In the smaller towns along the coast the percentage is as high as 15%. We are told that in Durban, for instance, over 1 000 out of 40 000 odd aged people and pensioners, are having severe accommodation problems. If one thinks that in the year 2000 there will be twice as many of these aged people with these problems, one wonders what is being done to improve the position and to provide accommodation for these people. We must plan and act now if we intend providing accommodation for the next generation of old people of whom we may be members.

We feel that there is a desperate need for housing at rentals not exceeding R30 to R40 per month, because that is about all a person whose income is between R70 and R80 per month can afford. Housing is of far greater value to the aged than money itself. The most important thing for them is to have a roof over their heads and a room to sleep in. Food is secondary. These people will starve and suffer anything as long as they can pay their rent. We feel that, because of the rising costs, such as the cost of electricity, the cost of water, the cost of sewerage services, rates and taxes, etc., which are affecting all of us, something should be done to help these people. Even those who own their own properties, who are affected in the same way as we are, and who cannot keep up with the burden of rates and taxes to which they are being subjected, should be assisted. The local authorities, apart from providing this cheap accommodation, should also, in our opinion, provide some measure of rates relief to pensioners and retired persons. It is, of course, impossible for the local authorities to continue to do this without some help from the Government. The housing which is provided for aged persons should also not just be ordinary housing; it should be housing specially designed for old people. The old people themselves are not very fond of old-age homes. This is something which, I suppose, we have all encountered. They look upon an old-age home as something akin to a boarding school hostel and of course none of us want to spend the last days of our lives in a boarding school hostel atmosphere.

Apart from the adverse effect on aged persons, there is also the question of the cost involved. We are told that it costs between R60 and R80 per month per person to run an old-age home. In the case of homes for the frail aged, the costs are very much higher, and range between R145 and R165 per month per person. We have been told by TAFTA, an organization which helps the aged in Durban, that if these people are kept in their own homes, they can be cared for as little as R20 a month. This includes two hours of help per day by persons who come in to help them with their chores, as well as one hot meal per day, served by the meals-on-wheels organization. This is a large difference in price. A system is required whereby we can assist these people to keep their own homes for as long as possible. In this way we will allow them their independence and enable them to remain in their own neighbourhoods amongst their own friends, with all their belongings around them. This is most important to them from a psychological point of view. We picture a cluster type of housing, designed for old people, as the ideal answer to this problem.

I have in mind such things as hand-rails in the passages, ramps instead of staircases, etc., which are specially designed for their needs. These houses should be in the centre of the neighbourhood, in the centre of each community. These people should not be isolated from their friends, from transport, from shops, from hospitals, from churches and from places of entertainment, and canteen and medical facilities should also be readily available. Such houses should be included in the initial planning of every township development in South Africa. This will furnish personal security as well as a vital form of protection for these old people. We know that there is an increasing campaign of violence against old people living in isolated areas. Every day we read in the newspapers of old people being attacked and robbed in circumstances where they are some distance from their nearest neighbour. Something should be done to provide these people with housing in built-up areas.

I also feel that telephones should be afforded to these people. They should be given priority and they should be provided with telephone services at a nominal rental. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should subsidize such services, because the telephone is the only link these people have with a view to safety and protection. It is also very important that when the Rent Board sees fit to increase rentals, such rentals should not be increased retrospectively. At the hearing at which I was present, rentals were increased by R1,50 a month. This may not seem so terrible in the case of people who have incomes of between R80 and R100 a month, but when such increases are made retrospective for six to eight months, it is a different story, and this should not be allowed.

Order! The hon. member is straying far from the Vote which is under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with homes for the aged and, if I may say so, these are matters which the hon. the Minister could take up with his colleagues. After all, he gets the money from the Treasury. He should, for instance, persuade the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that these services should be subsidized. I call for rates relief, which is also something which this Minister can of course activate and see to it that it is provided, because it will help these people to keep their homes. Sir, the hon. the Minister may ask where all this money must come from. This is the very first thing he says. Where is he to find money for houses? It is not the duty of his department. Where is the money to come from for the subsidization of rates and for increased pensions and allowances and now you still want telephone subsidies? Sir, he should get this money from the Treasury. It should come from the Treasury, because every taxpayer in South Africa should pay towards the care of the aged. After all, his own parents may be involved. There is too much of this in South Africa, that we do not meet our responsibilities as far as our old people are concerned.

Children should also look after their parents.

If the Minister finds in times like this that he cannot find this money then I want to ask him what is wrong with a State lottery to bring the money for this. The hon. the Minister may say a lottery is immoral, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that morals have changed a great deal over the last few years. Sir, you only have to look at TV or some of the pictures in the newspapers, or some of the plays one sees today, to see what a large change there has been in moral standards. One need only look at Rapport on a Sunday. I wonder who encourages immorality more than the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions or the Receiver of Revenue. They encourage people to live in sin, because if they do not get married, they are allowed to keep their pensions or need not pay certain taxes. Sir, I see nothing wrong in this Minister encouraging people to buy lottery tickets as long as the proceeds go towards helping to provide for the aged.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for South Coast lived before 1948, because then he would have been able to draw a comparison between what the UP did for the aged and the indigent people during its regime and what this Government is doing at present for the indigent people.

The hon. member raised quite a number of complaints here. For instance, he suggested that group housing in particular should be provided for aged persons. I do not know whether he has visited all these excellent housing schemes and has spoken to some of the aged. If one does this, one will find the strange phenomenon that, while some of the aged persons who are being housed there cannot speak highly enough of how pleasant it is to stay there and of the excellent housing which has been made available to them, others living next door complain and say that they feel trapped there. One does come across cases of this nature. If one makes a few inquiries, one finds that those elderly people who, for some good reason or other were unable to save something for themselves and who are now being cared for by the State, are the grateful people. They will tell you that the aged persons have never had it so good as is the case at present under this Government. However, when one visits another aged person in that same group housing, an aged person who is dissatisfied, and puts a few questions to him, one subsequently discovers that he has shared out his property and his possessions among his children and that the children have discarded him. Those people who have been accustomed to a good living, those who have been well-to-do people, are the people who expect the same from the State. I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that we should be careful when considering care of the aged. Care of the aged is something everyone of us as well as the State should undertake. One cannot but pay tribute to the various welfare organizations and institutions for great sacrifices they make. One cannot but express gratitude to children who are still taking care of their parents in their own homes. But we should guard against going too far as far as welfare work is concerned.

There are two sides to the issue. There are those to whom assistance has to be rendered and there are those who should put their hands into their own pockets and say: Here you are; give it to those who need it. We should try to maintain that balance. We can only do as much as the available money allows us to do. I want to tell you, Sir, that I have studied this report and that I have come to the conclusion that I cannot but express my gratitude and my high appreciation for the suggestions contained in this report, for the comprehensive way in which it provides us with all the particulars. I want to emphasize again that welfare work is going ahead full pace if we take into consideration that allowances and pensions were paid to only 275 000 persons in 1965 while 440 000 persons received benefits during the year under review.

Since there are such a large number of these people and since the hon. member for South Coast pleaded for housing, I want to suggest that it is possible to provide cheaper housing to many of these people. We should not only look at the pensions and allowances which are being paid to these people; we should also look at what is being spent by other departments as well as voluntary organizations. Among this large number of beneficiaries there must be people whose circumstances are of such a nature that they can be placed in rural towns where many houses are standing empty and where space is available in hostels and, in some cases, also in nursing homes. I do not say this in order to isolate these people, neither do I say this in order to place these people in remote areas in the country areas, but I am saying this because I feel that these possibilities may be investigated. In his report the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions refers to an investigation into certain aspects of welfare work, and to my mind this suggestion is another aspect of welfare work which is worth investigating.

For example, when considering settlements, one feels grateful for the fact that these settlements do exist. One thinks particularly of Ganspan, Sonop, Karatara and Charlesville. If people could be placed under certain circumstances at these places, it would also be possible for some of these 440 000 people to be placed in depopulated rural towns where cheap housing is available and where such houses are situated on large plots with plenty of water. I have in mind the little town in the Western Transvaal where I was born and where a large hostel is standing empty at the moment. There are three doctors in that little town—two private practitioners and a district surgeon. There are such towns where some of these people could be settled and it would be a good thing if some of the local authorities could provide the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions with particulars of the housing which is available in their towns. This would promote the settlement of such people since the department would then be familiar with the circumstances under which various people could be settled in such towns.

One may possibly also consider the settlement at Sonop, which is situated in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Brits. At Sonop R2,3 million is being spent at the moment on the replacement of housing. I have no objection to that. I think the more of these people we can place on our settlements, the better. For that reason I want to express my appreciation towards the De Beers Company which donated the small, former mining town of Charlesville to the department for the settlement of people there. I do not doubt for one moment that the department, when investigating this matter, will find that certain of these people will fit in quite well in the depopulated rural towns. This would boost both the churches and the schools in these towns where there is a tendency for everything to collapse.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the question of the civil and the social pensioners because I think these deserve the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the House. However, before doing so, I want to direct a plea to the hon. the Minister once again on behalf of the war veterans of the First World War. We all know that in respect of the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War of whom there are still 674, no means test applies at all. In respect of the Rebellion of 1906 and later rebellions, inclusive of World War I, the total number of war veterans at the moment is approximately 4 500. The annual report of the department makes it clear that the number of war veterans is decreasing. Although reference is made to the fact that the number may increase as a result of recent events, I want to say that the additions will probably be well taken care of under other legislation which will probably come before the House. However, in regard to those war veterans who have to rely on social pensions, I want to direct a strong plea to the hon. the Minister that the means test be removed altogether and that they therefore be put into the same category with the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War. As I have said, the numbers are diminishing yearly. In fact, I believe that over the next decade, if not less, they will diminish at a very much faster rate than has been the case hitherto. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will give some attention to this. I hope he will see whether some plan cannot be devised to place them in the same category as the veterans of the Anglo-Boer War.

I do not wish to repeat what has already been put very strongly by other members on this side of the House regarding the social pensioner. In the report reference is made to the fact that the pension of the social pensioner has been increased by approximately 50% over a certain period, the period under review, I think it says—that is to say, over the last three, four or five years. Although that may be the case, I should like to say that the cost of living has probably more than doubled in the same period. Therefore, although reference is constantly made to the fact that the pensions have now been increased by a further 10,5%, the fact remains that this does not keep up with the cost of living. This is a very important defect in the whole policy regarding our social pensions. If we go about identifying the persons who need assistance from the State, if we feel it is necessary in principle that such people should receive help from the State, the help that is subsequently given must be reasonably adequate. A previous speaker on the Government side has already stressed the inadequacy of other types of assistance such as the assistance given to children, families, etc. I do not want to go into that. However, I would like to emphasize the fact that although it cannot be completely adequate, it has to have some reasonable modicum of adequacy if we are to give real assistance and relieve the plight of the social pensioner. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider the whole system, not the means test itself, but rather increasing, by means of a system of indexing with regard to the cost of living, the pension of the social pensioner instead of offering him an arbitrary figure which it is hoped will foot the bill and perhaps meet the situation. I think that arbitrary decisions of this nature do not help those who receive it, nor does it relieve those who give it of their responsibility.

I should like to deal more specifically with the civil pensioner who is also in a difficult position. The hon. the Minister may know that at a conference he recently attended and where a paper was read as a contribution to the discussions on the contributory pension scheme, an actuary, in delivering a paper, made the following statement and I quote—

In other words, it is an accepted principle of actuarial thinking and actuarial assessment today that unless you take all this into account, it does not meet the situation, a real situation in the economic field in any country.

With regard to the present civil pensioners many of whom are pegged entirely to the amount of pension they receive, they find themselves in an impossible position because they are getting older, they are unable to engage in normal activities in so far as employment is concerned and are therefore themselves unable to relieve their difficulty. Consequently they are compelled to survive solely on the pension which they are receiving. A particular body of pensioners who number some 4 000 persons and who, I understand, are the only independent association of Afrikaans-speaking civil pensioners in the country and thus not attached to any other organization, have been in correspondence with the hon. the Minister and have received certain replies from the department. This has not proved satisfactory to them and they then wrote a further lengthy letter to the hon. the Minister in order to explain their point of view. It is particularly on their behalf that I would like to put up the points they put to the hon. the Minister. I feel that this matter should be aired in the House so that the hon. the Minister can furnish us with a reply.

Their first criticism is the age-old criticism from pensioners from year to year. They ask: Why, if the pension is increased at all, is it being increased from 1 October and not 1 July, i.e. the date from which the salaries of the public servants are being increased? Furthermore, to support their case as to why they should be getting a greater allowance they maintain that if the rand had retained its value from the time that they had retired, they would probably have been able to meet their obligations and would probably have been satisfied with the pension they receive. With the deterioration of the rand they find that difficult. Furthermore, they say that while they appreciate these increases, these increases have over the last decade not equalled the rise in the cost of living, but probably only one third of the actual rise in the cost of living. In response into a reply from the hon. the Minister that over the last 20 years their pensions and allowances have been increased by 178%, they maintain that the cost of living has risen by 400%, far more than what the State has been able to compensate them for.

When reference is made to the present-day situation in which they are suffering hardships, they point out firstly that the formula in respect of pensions in the Public Service has improved since 1966, and secondly that the retirement salaries are attuned to personnel competition with the private sector. This gives present-day pensioners much greater pensions than those unfortunates who retired 10 or 20 years ago. Demands made by the cost of living on Public Servants also warrant the granting of very much higher present-day salaries by the State. When a civil servant therefore retires today, he does so at a salary that meets present-day demands, but as time goes on—though we hope this will not be the case—he too may also find himself suffering from the problem of not being able to keep up with the cost of living. Pensioners in their seventies, who have been retired for some 15 or 20 years, are, however, obliged to live on pensions of R311 per month. A husband and wife would find it absolutely impossible to do so if they are to maintain any decent standard of living commensurate with the status of the individual when he retired.

Many suggestions have been made about where the money should come from. If the State finds that the present funds of R1½ billion are inadequate, the State should make provision for certain annual investments. The return on such investments could more than adequately off-set what is required to bring the civil pensioner, as the years go by, to a standard of living at least commensurate with prevailing conditions.

Mr. Chairman, in passing and in all sincerity I just want to express my gratitude to members of the Opposition parties for the assistance rendered to me since I have assumed this office. They have considerably facilitated matters for me as far as the preparation and discussion of legislation are concerned.

I now want to reply to a few matters raised here by hon. members and I am not doing so with the purposes of levelling destructive criticism of adopting a superior attitude. I am doing so with a sincere desire to offer my assistance to everyone who is interested in the affairs of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. However, I also ask that the opposite side of the House should co-operate with us at all times. We have had a variety of interesting speeches this afternoon, but I am unable to reply to all of them. The hon. the Minister will most certainly reply to them fully. However, there are one or two minor matters I can single out.

†By way of examples, I should like to prove to hon. members opposite that I believe that this debate can be of immense value, not only to the hon. the Minister, myself and officials in the department, but also to everyone else concerned with this matter at the present time, if we endeavour to see the wood and not the trees. I am not referring in a derogatory sense to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands when I say that our solution to the problem, which he correctly described as existing in Cape Town, could easily have been explained to him if he had merely come to the department and discussed the matter with us. We would have explained to him what methods we are employing to solve the problem. If he comes to the department we can jointly look for answers to problems that may be of concern to various members in his constituency. That also applies to other constituencies. I may just mention that I attended a meeting of the regional organization this morning. In their annual report they already refer to this problem in Cape Town harbour. They have given attention to the matter and, what is more, they are still doing so. They are getting the full co-operation of voluntary organizations and of the department itself.

*The department has a variety of tasks. I have read through the list of delegations. I do not want to repeat all the aspects here, but bearing in mind what has already been said here this afternoon, I nevertheless want to mention some of them. There are, for example, civil pensions, a national contributory pension scheme, care of the aged, the care of handicapped people, child care, family care, rehabilitation services, the combating of alcoholism and drug addiction, welfare planning, welfare relations, war pensions and civil pensions. The matters dealt with by this department are legion. To my mind everyone of us should associate himself with the gratitude and appreciation expressed towards the officials of the department, at head office as well as the regional offices. They are the people who are dealing with these matters in such a manner that it is still possible to proceed with these services. Of course, this does not mean that it is not possible to improve the organization of these activities. I am very glad to be able to say that it is evident from the report that the Secretary has undertaken, in the preceding years, the replanning and revaluation of the services rendered by the department. In this he was assisted by the hon. the Minister and the previous Deputy Minister. Hence the excellent report which has been tabled here.

In broad terms we can summarize it in this way that, as far as the planning of our welfare services are concerned, there is no need for us to vie with one another or to wait for the highest bid from people who want to outdo others in what is being done for our aged and our handicapped. Surely, irrespective of our political differences there is not one hon. member in this House—and I say this in all seriousness—who does not have a feeling of decency and who does not want to do the utmost for the aged or the debilitated person. This I can say in all honesty of all the hon. members of the Opposition. Irrespective of all the other things on which we differ, I believe that they mean it sincerely when it concerns those who are less privileged than we are. However, it is no use making the highest bid when one knows that it is an impossible one. One thing the Government has already declared itself prepared to do—this is something I should like to see done—is to eliminate the gap with regard to the payments made to the various population groups. Therefore, I cannot see any sense in our scoring any political points off one another in this matter. The fact of the matter is that it cannot be done at the moment. Besides other problems which exist, there are also practical problems. Surely, it is no use pleading for something which is impracticable.

The hon. member for South Coast went into great detail about housing which has to be provided at R30 per month. The hon. member—and I do not mean this in a sarcastic way—and all other people with a great deal of money, are free to erect houses and to rent them out at R30 per month, surely, this cannot be done. After all, the economic laws have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, if the Government were to pay subsidies … Perhaps the hon. member at the back over there—the hon. young member for Pinetown—who is still ignorant of these matters, would give me some of his attention and not always try to adopt a superior and sarcastic attitude. This only detracts from a debate. I believe that he has received advice from many people. Perhaps the older hon. members, for example the hon. member for Rosettenville, should tell that young member that he should start behaving himself in this House. [Interjections.] If we were to display a little decency in debates of this nature, something constructive might flow from them, but then that hon. young member should please learn to contain himself. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the real issues of this debate. We are dealing with serious matters, unless that hon. member regards it as being ridiculous to discuss the aged and less privileged people. If that is the case, he may go and laugh outside. In any case, then he would not be disturbing us.

In the first place we must realize that the State does have a duty to care for people under certain circumstances. However, to my mind we should be sufficiently honest with one another to admit that the Whites can sometimes learn from the Bantu as far as care of the aged is concerned. This I experienced among the Bantu peoples. Those of you who are familiar with the Bantu know that, despite their poverty, they find it hard to neglect their aged relatives. The aged are being cared for as long as their children are in any way in a position to do so. This I do not mean in a derogatory sense towards the Whites, but I believe that there are many Whites who are too much inclined to regard it as the duty of the Government to take care of the members of their families whenever they lack anything.

I regret to say that I know of cases, shocking cases, where children have received every cent of their inheritance from their parents and the next favour they did their parents was to fill in the application forms for the State to care for their parents and for them to inherit even more.

It is not only aged persons who are in need of care, but also children who are maltreated and all the other cases mentioned here by hon. members. We shall also have to teach our people to save for their old age. Even in these times of affluence, we will have to make unpleasant speeches and tell people to save for their old age, and for the children to take care of their parents so that there is no need for them to turn to the State for help. All political parties will have to accept it as their responsibility to take care of those who need our assistance. I think we on this side of the House can take the liberty of saying these things because we are constantly watching the situation with a critical eye. I want to admit that there is room for improvement. According to one of the members of the Opposition a roof over one’s head is one of the first things one wants for old age. We agree with that. We also want this for our parents and our elderly people. In the second place, the elderly people have their own necessities of life, inter alia, food and clothing. For this purpose we are giving them, in addition to what they have saved for themselves and received for their families, an amount with which they can acquire what is needed.

Another important need among our elderly people is health services. I do not think a house is the most important item, but what is indeed important, is health services and the cost of medicine. Irrespective of what is being done by the Department of Health in this regard, I think that an improvement can be effected here. I want to ask the hon. the Opposition to come forward with positive suggestions during this discussion for the overall planning in order to rectify these matters. Our regional welfare boards are doing excellent work in this connection, and the hon. member for Westdene expressed his appreciation for that. This is no more than right, because the regional welfare boards are capable of overall planning and control. I also express my appreciation to them on this score. I am looking forward to getting their cooperation in the years to come. I am also looking forward to getting the co-operation of all sides of the House in this immense task. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in their speeches the hon. members for Umbilo and Pinelands referred to the possibility of a revision of the means test. During the course of my speech I shall return to one aspect of this. In the meantime I should like to tell the hon. member for South Coast that under Nationalist rule, the Government has always seen to the interests of our old people with the greatest sympathy and compassion. One can say without fear of contradiction that this Government has already made spectacular progress, in comparison with a previous government, in respect of housing and homes for the aged and children. Indeed, spectacular progress has been made across the whole spectrum of rehabilitation services; care of the handicapped, care of the aged, child care, welfare services and professional services. We could also include the improvement in pensions. Pensions are an extremely emotional matter and there are, of course, those who are always unhappy. Some of these are possibly justified to a certain extent in being unhappy, but others are not. The Government has always been prepared to make the necessary adjustments by means of the services provided by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. This is proved by the gigantic sum of R324 million which was allotted in the Budget for this department this year. However, we are too much inclined to link the activities of this department solely to the mere payment of pensions. For the sake of convenience, we forget the vast number of other tasks performed for the sake of the aged, the handicapped, neglected children and orphans. We do not deny that there are certain people who are unhappy, because we read about their complaints in the correspondence columns of the English-language newspapers in particular. On the other hand, however, there are literally thousands of grateful people who know precisely what their position would have been were it not for the care of this department. We do not read about these people in the newspapers, but we see them every day, peacefully strolling through the streets of our cities and towns, or on visits in our old-age homes—of which there are hundreds throughout the country—or peacefully sitting on the steps of their own homes. There is nothing spectacular or luxurious about this, but these people experience no real want of the basis things which keep old people healthy and happy. I am not now referring to old people who are too sick to enjoy anything, nor am I speaking about people who are incapable of enjoying anything in any event. It is not the duty of the State to allow the indigent aged to live luxuriously. Everyone must see to his own luxuries.

I have said that the Government is prepared and always has been prepared to make the necessary adjustments in respect of services which have to be provided by this department. Due to the nature of the circumstances the Government has to cut its coat according to the cloth. The hon. member for Hercules referred to this. It is a fact.

To return to the means test, I should like to bring one particular aspect to the attention of the hon. the Minister with a view to the necessary adjustment if possible. I am referring to indigent aged people occupying their own houses when it comes to the means test. In this connection I want to refer to two aspects. Firstly, local authorities have as a source of income, rates on properties within their area of jurisdiction, among other things. In view of this, and also due to certain aesthetic considerations, local authorities have certain building requirements, including requirements relating to the cost of erecting dwelling houses. The result of this is that luxury residential areas are created instead of just practical dwelling units. Owing to the building requirements people are forced to erect houses to the value of R20 000, R25 000 or R30 000, and even more than that. The retirement capital of many elderly people is invested in expensive houses like this, and the houses are taken into consideration for the purposes of the means test when they apply for an old-age pension. As a hypothetical case one may point out that the total assets of a person who owns an expensive house like this, including the balance of his capital, may be above the limit of R34 000 and therefore he may not qualify for an old-age pension, while the balance of his capital does not, in point of fact, yield sufficient interest to support two people or even one person properly. Cement and bricks have always been an asset and nobody denies this.

However, they do not provide food, clothing or medical services to old people. I know that local authorities provide economic and sub-economic housing, one of the purposes of which is to meet the demand for housing for the aged. However, I know that they cannot begin to meet the demand. If the house to which I referred in the hypothetical case could be valued at a nominal value with a view to the means test, for example, at a maximum of R15 000, this will have two advantages. The person in my example may, in the first place, be able to qualify for an old-age pension. In the second place, it will relieve the burden of housing for local authorities, seeing that many elderly people could perhaps build their own houses and still qualify for a minimum pension.

In the second instance I want to refer to the example of a person who applied for an old-age pension ten years ago. He possessed and occupied a house which was valued at R15 000 at the time. Together with the balance of his capital he fell within the qualifying limit and could receive an old-age pension. His neighbour owns and occupies a similar house in the same class which would also have been valued at R15 000 ten years ago. This person may also apply for an old-age pension, but his house is now valued at R23 000. The result is that he now falls above the limit of R34 000 as a result of the valuation of his house and the balance of his capital and therefore may not qualify for the minimum pension, while in fact he is financially less well-off than his neighbour. It therefore seems fair to me to ask for an adjustment of the means test or to ask for a new basis for the valuation of houses owned and occupied by elderly people when they apply for an old-age pension. For example, we could introduce a maximum of R15 000. This would prevent many contradictions and great unhappiness.

There is one last matter to which I should like to refer. The hon. the Deputy Minister did in fact deal with it in full, but I think it is so important that it will do no harm if I, too, refer to it from another point of view. I am referring to the fact that parents, as the saying goes, distribute their possessions amongst their heirs before they die. It happens that parents sell their properties such as farms and other properties, to their children for a song, or perhaps give them away for nothing. As the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out, those parents are then not properly and correctly looked after by their children. In fact they are then forced to apply for an old-age pension. Sir, I want to say that this is not fair. Indeed, I want to say that it is not honest, because it is not the duty of the State to look after the indigent parents of rich children.

In conclusion, I think it would be as well if some people developed a new approach in respect of old-age pensions, viz. that it is a method by which the State could care for the truly bona fide indigent aged; it is not a way of making a few quick rand out of the State.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo referred in passing to the problem of the breaking up of families and the hon. member for Pinelands referred to the permissiveness and prostitution and the dens of vice in the harbours, etc. I should like to refer to a matter very closely connected with this, and which runs through our community like a rusty piece of barbed wire, with the damage which that causes. It is a matter about which we can never say enough and before which we must never flinch. I am referring to the old problem of alcoholism. In 1974 an international congress was held on alcoholism, where more than 400 delegates spoke on this matter. The whole matter was analysed. The causes of alcoholism were analysed. The various ways of combating it were analysed. Analyses were also made of the economic and social consequences of alcoholism, and the breaking-up of families it caused. There is one important aspect which was accepted by all these delegates, and which must also be accepted by us and by the whole country, and this is that the only way in which this problem can be approached, is on the basis of a multi-disciplinary function. The most important aspect of this is the community in which the person concerned lives. We saw wonderful results and fine examples of the rehabilitation of the alcoholic, the real addict. Last year 473 men and 126 women were referred by the State of institutions where this rehabilitation work is done. They are compelled by an order to stay there for seven or eight months. They are rehabilitated to a certain level, both physically and mentally. However, I personally had the privilege of being involved with the bodies and persons that treat these people and try to rehabilitate them and in my opinion there is no way to rehabilitate a person like this other than placing him back in his own environment, where he comes from, and then doing follow-up work. In the case of alcoholism a person like this is not fully rehabilitated before a period of at least five years has passed. This is precisely our problem, because the Department of Social Welfare does not have sufficient staff to carry out that follow-up work. This is why I say that it is so important for it to be the function of the community to be interested in these people.

What is the attitude of the community towards alcoholism at the moment? People trip over the alcoholic in the street, and then say, “shame”. The alcoholic is seen in a bar, in disarray, after the breaking-up of the family and tragedy have already taken place. The State must not then be expected to rehabilitate a person like this. It is the duty of the community itself. As far as these addicts are concerned, we have the problem that as regards the one we see in the street and consider a bar-fly or alcoholic, the State does indeed do its share, but the greatest loss of manpower, the greatest fragmentation of families and the greatest damage done to the community, is not done by that type of person, but by those that are hidden, those from the well-off classes. The community accepts alcoholism and addiction as part of the community; the addict is an accepted part of the community. If he does not behave, he is locked up for a little while. The rich man who is an alcoholic, takes leave, and when he has slept it off, he returns to the community; this is what the important man does, too. I have had the privilege of seeing advocates and doctors, who constitute the highest and best manpower in our country, in that position, but we protect them and conceal them, because “what will people say if I have anything to do with that person?” Therefore I once again want to pay tribute to the task of the communities that do see this matter in that light. Here I have in mind in particular the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism. There is a ray of light in this difficult position, and it is that the medal of merit of the State President was allotted to Dr. Slater who, I am sure, received that medal of merit largely due to his fine work as president of the S.A. National Council for Alcoholism. We do not expect the State to subsidize these organizations, because this is the function of the community.

But, Sir, if I still have a minute or two, I should also like to refer to another aspect which is closely connected with this. The crisis clinic in Johannesburg has now been in operation for three years. This clinic has dealt with 4 519 cases over the past year. As a result of the immense demand by people in a crisis situation, they have already had to double their staff, and they have a voluntary corps of 30 people who assist them in the form of psychiatrists, doctors and sociologists. I should like to ask the Minister if it would not be possible also to extend this idea of a crisis clinic, which is operating so successfully in Johannesburg now, to other densely populated parts of our country. If one sees the analysis of the type of person they deal with there, one finds it a tragedy that emotional problems resulting from frustration, from the fact that people are unable to keep pace in this materialistic world, constitute approximately 60% of the cases. The next step from there that he take to alcoholism as an escape from his responsibilities and the things in the community he cannot accept. I should greatly appreciate it if everyone of us could do his share to propagate this type of clinic and the work of these bodies as far as possible and also take an active part in it, because in this way we can only do this country a favour.

Mr. Chairman, I could not have wished to have followed any other speaker as much as I will enjoy following the hon. member who has just sat down, because everything that he has said in regard to the responsibility and the problems he has referred to, I endorse wholeheartedly. While he referred particularly to the question of the crisis clinic in Johannesburg, I was going to appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon as a matter of priority to establish a crisis clinic in Durban. I understand that there is the clinic of this nature operating in Cape Town, but I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the need in Durban is just as great, if not greater. My reasons for saying so are, firstly, that Durban is one of the busiest ports in the Republic. It is a premier holiday resort and it has a climate which attracts many visitors, many layabouts and many vagrants. I believe that the layabouts and vagrants particularly are in need of some service which operates continually. The crisis clinic in Johannesburg, as I understand the position, operates 24 hours a day and seven days a week because it has an emergency telephone number which people can contact in case of need.

What is the position in Durban at the present moment? In regard to this question I can speak from personal experience. When the office of the Department of Social Welfare closes at 5 o’clock on Friday afternoons there is no emergency contact with the Department of Social Welfare until Monday. Also on public holidays, when the city is usually crowded with visitors, there are no means of contact in the case of urgent matters with the Department of Social Welfare. Take, for example, the question of a man with an alcohol problem and who has been released on parole. He goes to stay with relations or old friends and if he misbehaves or breaks parole, the only course of action open to the persons concerned is to call the Police. The Police are usually sympathetic, but are understaffed and are not there to deal with problems of that nature in any case. As my colleague here will bear me out, unless the man on parole is found to be drunk or disorderly in a home, it is also not possible for the Police to remove him from there without incurring possible legal complications themselves. It is therefore absolutely essential that consideration be given to the extension, as the hon. member for Brentwood has asked, of these crisis clinics.

I want to refer to some of the good that has been done and some of the facts that have emerged from the experience gained at the crisis clinic in Johannesburg. These matters are referred to in the latest report of the department. It is interesting to note that the largest single problem is caused by a combination of alcohol, dagga and drugs. The interesting result of the approximately 2 000 cases which were analysed, is that 12% fall within the age group 12 to 17 years—in other words, from Std. 5 upwards. This brings me to Cape Town, where I believe a clinic operates, but where almost a crisis situation appears to exist as far as young people are concerned. This position has come to light as a result of Press disclosures and here I believe The Cape Times has played a prominent part judging from a front page headline which reads: “Police asked to help stop teenage drinkers”. Apparently the motivation for this Press appeal came from the joint council of the S.A. Onderwysersunie and the S.A. Teachers’ Association because they were disturbed by the fact that young people, teenagers below the age of 18, were being found in these places in an intoxicated condition. The regrettable part about it is that although the police have been approached they have their problems.

I know that the licensees have problems, but the problems that the police have are, firstly, that they are 15% under their established strength in White personnel alone and that they have difficulty in determining the age of sophisticated-looking teenagers. Tragically enough, they seem to get little co-operation from the parents themselves when these are informed of the unfortunate circumstances in which their own children find themselves. The attempts to curb this have stemmed from a teachers’ association which referred this matter to the police. As a result of this school principals are now being asked to notify parents concerned when the police pass certain information on to them. However, there is not only this aspect to it—the overall incidence of drunkenness gives cause for grave concern, because I believe it is a serious problem of great magnitude. The latest police report, i.e. the report for 1974, indicates that there has been a 20% increase in drunkenness and a 16% increase in the incidence of drunken driving. My hon. colleague for Brentwood referred to the question of the first international conference on alcoholism and drugs, and I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department showed enterprise and initiative in organizing this conference which took place in 1974. The report that has flowed from that revealed certain disturbing aspects. I shall quote one example. On page 156 of the report Dr. N. Marks, senior consultant in the Department of Psychiatry at Groote Schuur Hospital, is quoted as saying—

In 1969 I drew the attention of the then Minister, the hon. Dr. C. Mulder, to alcohol advertisements and promotional techniques apparently directed at young people. His comment was—I quote from Hansard—

My question to this hon. Minister is: Who is this “other man” to whom his predecessor referred? It cannot be the liquor interests themselves because they are naturally interested in the promotion of their products. It is certainly not the South African National Council of Alcoholism—we know they perform wonderful redemptive work in respect of alcoholics and problem drinkers, but in terms of their own constitution, the association cannot engage itself in any activity designed to prevent, to promote or to combat the legal manufacture, sale, consumption or use of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, surely it is time that the State itself took a hard look at this situation.

During the coming year the Minister of Finance expects to collect R309 million from excise duties on alcoholic beverages. However, as is shown by the Vote before us, the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions receives only a paltry fraction of that amount for channelling to welfare organizations involved in the problems of increasing alcohol consumption and in the provision of rehabilitation services.

As far as rehabilitation services are concerned, one reads in chapter V, page 33, of the latest report that—

That is the department of this Minister—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he realizes the magnitude of this responsibility? Can he tell the Committee what resources in the way of manpower he is able to deploy for each respective population group? He must be aware of the findings of the CSIR which in its report discloses that in the Cape Peninsula the average per capita expenditure by Bantu is R5 per month on strong drink compared with a mere 50 cent on Bantu beer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as always, the hon. member for Berea made a positive contribution. He asked very important questions to which the hon. the Minister will reply. I know that the hon. member will not take it amiss if I do not react further to the points he raised. The hon. member for Hercules correctly referred to the settlements for handicapped people and also for the aged. Therefore I should like to draw attention to the Sonop settlement for handicapped people, situated in the constituency which I represent. I should like very briefly to bring to the attention of this House the praiseworthy things which are being done there by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

During the past number of years great changes and improvements have been brought about which have practically changed completely the whole appearance of the former labour camp, which consisted of rows and rows of asbestos houses in the old days, so that today it looks completely like a thriving and attractive settlement town where handicapped people are being accommodated. During the year 1971–’72 the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions added a fine, modern, well-equipped hall to the settlement. That hall replaced the antiquated and unsightly timber hall. A graceful church is situated in close proximity. To a certain degree it has improved the appearance of the settlement, so that the settlers are very proud of it today. A little while ago a new post office was built, and these three buildings together really increased the aesthetic appearance of the Sonop Settlement considerably. This is no more than right, because as far as both social and upliftment work are concerned, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions lays great stress on the aesthetic. For this reason the department takes into consideration the attractive surroundings as well as the fine buildings in order to realize the great ideal of welfare work.

I want to add that there is also an old-age home at the settlement, where aged and handicapped people are being accommodated. I am pleased, and I want to congratulate the department on this, that they used their own labour, namely the labour of rehabilitated people to erect the attractive hall there. By way of a modernization project they are at present converting the old age home in to a useful building. I think that the division for women is complete, and when the men’s division has been completed, we shall be able to accommodate no less than 87 handicapped and aged people there. It will then really be a place where the aged and handicapped will be dealt with in a pleasant way and with devotion. Not only is the old-age home being renovated; what is interesting, is that they are also modernizing the kitchen in the old-age home completely. I hear that, in close collaboration with the dieticians of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, they are drawing up a diet scale there. Once all the modern domestic equipment has been purchased, the old people there will be able to enjoy meals prepared from a modern, scientific menu, and they will be able to enjoy a balanced diet. If the hon. member on the other side would also prepare his political diet in this way and serve it in such a balanced way, it would not be necessary for me to suffer from political indigestion when I listen to what he sometimes says here. But I shall leave it at that. As I said, they are modernizing the kitchen. The old age home will then be a place where our aged will be cared for in a very pleasant manner.

However, where I referred to this fine hall, the church, the post office and the new old age home, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the settlers are longingly looking forward to the day when a project to erect new houses there will be commenced. I know that the old asbestos houses have disappeared and that the old timber houses were subsequently erected, but at the moment those houses are in such a condition that, although they are not actually dilapidated, it will serve practically no purpose to repair them. However, after a while an embarrassing situation will develop on that settlement, and I am pleased to see in this report that the hon. the Minister in collaboration with the Department of Public Works announced that, they intend to plan for the erection of 100 new homes to replace the existing homes in the settlement. This is in the most recent report. Unfortunately, the tender date has, however, been extended. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the new tender date is. I hear that it has been postponed until 1977, and I just want to ask that it should not be postponed any further. When the day arrives when we shall have this fine housing scheme there, together with the new buildings which are already there, Sonop will really be a fine place. I do not want to speak politically, but in the old days, when I came to the House of Assembly, in those dark years when not much attention was given to those handicapped people, Sonop was an inviting name, but to me it was rather a place of concentrated misery and of sunset. Matters are different today. Those days it was a question of social “ill fare” and not Social welfare. Today a completely different situation is prevailing there. I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the fact that today we have no fewer than 600 settlers, i.e. handicapped, aged people and children there. I think it was the hon. member for Umbilo who spoke about professionals. However, I think that social work as a whole is already on professional level. Today we have a great many social workers. At that settlement there is a professional approach. We know that not only must the physical needs be attended to. One also has to deal with spiritual rehabilitation and reconstruction. I find it gratifying to see that there is a social worker and that 24 families receive intensive social services. The problems are ascertained and it is not long before they are professionally solved. At that settlement many case studies and group studies take place.

A club for women has already been founded. The women can do needlework and tapestry work there. A club for men and boys is also being founded now. I believe that there will soon be a jukskei pitch and a bowling green. Of course, bowling is a marvellous sport. It is a sport which can be played by both young and old. At the moment I also play bowls. Would it not be wonderful if, in my old age, I could play bowls with the handicapped and aged there? All the hon. members who live in the vicinity of Brits and Pretoria and who are fond of playing bowls, must go and see what fine work has been done by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. They should just go and see what a wonderful balance is maintained between spiritual and physical reconstruction there. They should see what wonderful facilities have been established there and how spirit and body are co-ordinated. A clean pure body naturally accommodates clean, pure, noble thoughts. I want to tell the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions that it has done excellent work there. As far as I can recall the hon. Ministers of Social Welfare and Pensions also paid a visit there. This also applies to all the Deputy Ministers. No wonder that it is such a fine and excellent settlement.

However, I want to make a heartfelt plea and ask the hon. the Minister to pay attention to the erection of the fine buildings which are required there. Then we shall see what a fine settlement we shall have there, a settlement where the elderly people and the handicapped will find a happy home.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to discuss handicapped persons, I should like to identify myself with the hon. member for Brits and to express my thanks to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I want to thank the Secretary and his officials for the way in which they deal with the matters that are referred to them. It is really a pleasure to work with them and I should like them to know this.

The handicapped person is a person who is unable, as a result of physical and mental deficiencies, to derive sufficient income from a job or a profession to enable him to provide adequately for his own requirements. Such persons over the age of 16 years—if they comply with further requirements as well— qualify for disability pension benefits. It is essential, in the first place, to take cognizance of the socio-economic circumstances of these handicapped persons. Because possibilities of employment, and the opportunities for employment these involve, play a dominant and a very important role in the life of handicapped persons, cognizance must be taken of the geographical distribution and the mobility of handicapped persons. We find that 44% of the handicapped persons live in urban areas, while 34,9% live in towns and 21,1% on holdings and farms. Many of those handicapped persons are still able, to a greater or lesser degree, to perform certain kinds of labour, especially in sheltered employment. Consequently we must take note of the fact that almost 45% of the handicapped persons live in cities, where such employment opportunities are available. It is true that only a small percentage of those who receive a disability pension do in fact perform any labour for a wage—only 6,9%. Work is certainly the best stimulus for developing a feeling of self-respect and interest in life on the part of those handicapped persons.

From an investigation undertaken by the department it appeared that those who made use of sheltered employment were mostly those suffering from cerebral palsy and mental retardation, i.e. 50%. Others were employed in the farming industry and in unskilled labour. However, it is important to note that 87% of the handicapped persons who were wage-earners indicated that they were happy in their work. One concludes from this that these people are handicapped in the first place through not being able to be fully absorbed into the normal labour market, and that consequently they would like to be placed in some kind of employment. I believe that this is not only in order to have an additional income, but also because they would like to occupy themselves in a productive and constructive way.

I want to advocate that more and more opportunities should be created for those people. However, the creation of job opportunities is not only the task of the department and of the State, but also that of the private sector, which will have to contribute its share in this respect. A large percentage of the handicapped persons who were involved in the investigation proved to be able to perform wage labour again in sheltered circumstances and provided that the nature of their handicap permitted this. Less than half the people in that group of handicapped persons—those of them who are still able to perform wage labour—are voluntarily prepared to undertake such work. A total of 51,34% is not prepared to perform wage labour. It also appears from the investigation that the younger group—those between 16 and 29 years—chiefly fall in the latter category. I suppose there are many explanations for this tendency. However, it is not easy to find a scientific explanation for this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that if an early start is made with the provision of proper training and with the placing of people in sheltered employment, those people will increasingly and confidently enter the field of wage labour.

For this reason I am grateful for the fact that the department, in co-operation with its various welfare organizations, has appointed a work group to investigate matters such as the following—and I quote from the annual report—

1. (1) The establishment of places of protective employment for the seriously handicapped in the community.
2. (2) The establishment of facilities where the working capacity of potential recipients of disability grants can be scientifically determined, which can serve to promote their rehabilitation and prepare them for employment.

Once again I want to make a request which has often been made in the past, i.e. that when a building is planned, regard will be had to those people who have to make use of wheelchairs to get to their places of employment or to enter buildings. Surely it is not so difficult to include a sloping ramp next to the stairs of a building in the architect’s design for such a building. Many handicapped persons would like to enter buildings in their wheelchairs and they are embarrassed if they have to seek help in order to move up and down the stairs. These people also like to visit public places such as museums, theatres, etc. Buildings with facilities of this nature have already been erected. I think, for example, of the Art Gallery in Pretoria, which has been converted in order to provide these facilities to such handicapped persons. Therefore I am grateful for the fact that the work group to which I have referred will give attention to this matter as well and that steps will be taken to avoid the architectural obstructions for handicapped persons in public buildings.

I want to conclude by conveying my thanks to the institutions which care for handicapped persons in such an unselfish way. These people render a service of love to their fellow-man which cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. However, the need for such homes is still great, because there are only 16 such homes at the moment, accommodating approximately 700 people. For this reason one is grateful for the fact that the per capita subsidies paid by the State in respect of approved subeconomic inmates of institutions for the handicapped have again been increased and that as from 1 October 1976, it will be R58,50 per inmate for institutions which employ specialized staff. These subsidies have been increased by almost 58% since 1971. As regards institutions in which approved sub-economic inmates are accommodated, the increase since 1971 is 63%, and it will be R35,50 per inmate as from 1 October 1976. We are very grateful for and appreciative of the unselfish work done by the management and especially by the staff of these institutions. I want to pay tribute to those who devote their lives to this service of love to their fellow-man.

Mr. Chairman, the sphere of activity of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions covers the whole span of life, because it affects people of all ages. In fact, we may say that it extends from the cradle to the grave, from A to Z or from the beginning to the end. To mention an example, it extends from the baby who was abandoned just after birth, to the juvenile delinquent in his puberty, to the adulthood of a person who is unable to work as a result of epilepsy or something of that nature, to the elderly people who are too old to work, those who are already on pension. Even though this work covers the whole spectrum, it is clear to me that the bottlenecks or the areas of greatest activity occur at the poles of this spectrum. The debate which has taken place here this afternoon has clearly proved again that the question at issue very often concerns children or elderly people. So the bottlenecks are at the extremes of this spectrum, and I want to express a few thoughts on these two areas today.

A great deal has been said this afternoon about child abuse. As a doctor, this is something which concerns me very closely, because if you come into actual contact with such cases, it is not only an interesting phenomenon, but one in which you are directly involved. The Bible tells us: “Honour thy father and thy mother: That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” The Bible very definitely does not say that parents should not honour their children so that their days, often in the literal sense, may be long upon the land on which we live at the moment. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, because I think the matter has been debated in quite some detail. Yet I do want to highlight two aspects of child abuse and to voice a few thoughts in this connection.

I am referring to the question of heavier penalties in cases where people are convicted and to the question of whether a doctor should report these cases or not. As far as the first aspect is concerned, there are several opinions. It is well known that Dr. Yutar, the Transvaal Attorney-General, sent out a circular in which he held out the prospect of stricter action by the courts. Hon. members know that such cases are immediately referred to regional courts. A person can even be accused of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. This is the kind of action envisaged by Dr. Yutar. Strangely enough, this caused several opinions to be expressed. In Die Transvaler of 2 March 1976, the following report appeared—

The report then goes on to say that Mrs. Dowling does not agree with Dr. Yutar at all that such people are criminals, and that people who ill-treat children are sick, etc. I want to come out very strongly in favour of heavier penalties. However, I want to make it quite clear that one advocates heavier penalties as part of a team effort which must be made to combat child abuse. Heavier penalties alone will get us nowhere. It is a question of heavier penalties together with other measures to which I shall refer.

Prof. Van Rooyen, professor of criminal law and procedure at the University of South Africa, puts the matter as follows, and I want to agree wholeheartedly with what he said in Hoofstad of 5 March 1976—

I could not improve on that statement. I repeat that I wholeheartedly support heavier penalties, but as part of a whole, as part of a team effort.

This brings me to the doctors. I think the hon. member for Boksburg also referred to this. He said that people were afraid to report child abusers and that witnesses did not want to talk. He said he wanted to lay more emphasis on the fact that the doctor should report such cases. If the intention is that the doctor should report such cases to the Police, I very emphatically say “no”. This cannot work, and I shall tell hon. members why not. As soon as a doctor who is worth his salt—and I assure hon. members that 99,99% of doctors are worth their salt—notices that his patient has been ill-treated, he does not treat only a minor injury or bum; he treates a whole family. Fortunately I have not encountered many such cases, but I do know what I am talking about. When one is faced with such a case, one has a major task. It is not just a question of applying a little ointment to a minor injury; it involves the treatment of the whole family. It involves the treatment of a father and a mother; it involves the treatment of the whole family set-up. For this reason I say that as soon as a doctor reports such a case to the police, the people will dissociate themselves from the doctor, who is usually the one who can play the most important part in solving the problem by treating the family. For this reason I believe that a doctor cannot normally report a case of child abuse to the police.

However, there is something which the doctor can do, and this brings me to the team effort I have referred to. The treatment of child abuse is the task of the doctor, the social worker and the minister of religion. This team must work together, joined by other people I could mention. In this respect the doctor may involve other persons in the matter, but he definitely cannot report such a case to the police. There are other aspects as well, such as ethical considerations by which a doctor is bound not to disclose to others what he knows about people. That is another aspect which is relevant here, but I shall leave it at that for the moment.

The other extreme of the spectrum which I mentioned is our senior citizens. What is needed? Is money all that is needed? We have spoken a good deal about money today. It has been said that our old people should get more money. I concede that money is very important. One uses it for buying food and clothes and one needs it for accommodation, but I want to make it quite clear that in my opinion, the social pension is only supplementary. It is not all that matters. It must not absolve a person of the responsibility of providing for his old age himself. Nor does it absolve the family of the responsibility of caring for the aged. It does not absolve the community of the responsibility of caring for the aged in that community. As I have said, the social pension is merely supplementary. When people talk about abolishing the means test, I want to say that it simply cannot be abolished. It is estimated that if we were to abolish it today, it would cost us R170 million immediately. However, when people talk about reconsidering the means test, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. members for Umbilo and Parys that we must review certain aspects of that means test. But, Sir, we are not a welfare state. We cannot just abolish something like this. The country cannot afford it, and we do not want to be a welfare state.

Sir, I ask again: What do the aged need? They do need money, but there are other tremendously important needs. One need which these old people have is a need for love. They must be visited by our people, because they are lonely. We can give those old people as much money as we like, but if we cannot overcome the problem of loneliness, it will be of no avail. I want to add that our old people must receive priority when it comes to the allocation of telephones. The telephone is a tremendous help in such circumstances. There are welfare organizations which present gifts to our old people. Here I am thinking especially of something like a radio, or even a television set. Something of this kind can be a tremendous help in fighting that loneliness.

There are two other matters I should like to mention very briefly. In the first place, the hon. member for Umbilo spoke of parents who go out to work and of children who are then neglected. I believe that our old people could play a much more important role in this connection. Our old people could help us to look after our children while we are working. This would help the aged person in his loneliness and would also provide a decent education for the children. Even the financial aspect could then be considered. So my plea is that we should help elderly people in this way by involving them in families where the parents go out to work. They must not be kept apart so that the old people and the children do not get together.

Finally, I want to ask whether there might not be certain kinds of work which we could give to our old people in the old-age homes. I might mention a rather foolish example, which is not really so foolish when one considers it seriously. One thinks, for example, of machinery that has to be assembled. It might just be a case of parts that have to be screwed down. Perhaps our old people could be given such work. If they were to assemble machines, for example, they could be paid by the unit. It would keep them busy and take away their loneliness. They could then be employed in a productive way and earn something at the same time. However, the incomes they earn must not be deducted from their social pensions. One is glad that the State and private bodies co-operate in regard to welfare services. This is the policy and this is the way it is implemented in practice, and I think that this is a very good thing. The State contributes its share, but we all have to co-operate. Social Welfare is a matter which affects the whole nation and a task in which the whole nation must participate.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the remarks of the hon. member for Krugersdorp about the means test, I want to say to him that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umbilo over the years has not been that the means test should be abolished as such, but that the means test would in effect become abolished with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. You cannot do the one without the other.

Sir, I wish to deal specifically with the question of old-age homes. I am sure everybody in the House will agree that it is desirable for families to look after their elderly, even those elderly who are ill, although in such cases not to such an extent. That is an ideal situation. Unfortunately, however, not all families are in a position to look after their elderly, particularly elderly sick people. Therefore I say that the responsibility for providing homes to accommodate elderly and elderly sick people rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. The problem at the moment is that there are simply not enough of such institutions. What is happening is that the Government is relying on private individuals to convert existing buildings into old-age homes to accommodate the sick and the elderly people. I believe that this is not the answer at all. I believe this is a completely wrong development, and in the few minutes available to me, Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to tell the Minister the reasons why I think it is wrong.

First of all, with the conversion of old buildings into old-age homes, very often completely inadequate facilities for old-age homes are provided. Houses that are converted are just not suitable, more particularly in respect of the accommodation necessary for nurses, most of whom are Black nurse aids. It creates all sorts of additional social problems in the area where the conversion takes place. In addition there is often insufficient parking. It also leads to traffic congestion and what is very important, I think, is that it brings about a change in the character of an area in which old houses, very often Victorian houses, are converted into old-age homes. It is against the wishes, very often, of neighbours, people who have come to live in that area, that the character of the area becomes changed. It is harmful to small businesses in such an area. The small businessmen very often are dependent on people resident in the area to make of their businesses a success. But old-age homes buy in the cheapest bulk markets. They buy mainly from their own suppliers and the small businessmen are simply put out of business, as a result of the change in the character of the whole area. Lastly, Sir, I want to say that it is detrimental to planning by local authorities, because if I for example were to own a building, a large Victorian building, and I wished to change it into an old-age home, I would apply to the department, without the knowledge of the local authority concerned, for its registration as an old-age home. If I were to obtain that registration after an inspection by the departmental officials, I would be entitled to go into business and to receive a subsidy from the department concerned for each patient that I house in that old-age home. The local authority therefore has no control over the development of buildings or the change in character of buildings into old-age homes.

Sir, I want to say that there is a company in South Africa, called Smith, Mitchell & Co., which has gone into this business in a very big way. It has something like a hundred institutions under its control. It is in fact aggravating the situation, because after acquiring old buildings and changing their character by turning them into old-age homes it thereafter goes to the department for registration as old-age homes and receives a subsidy from the department. The department is therefore being spared to an extent the capital cost of putting up buildings. But at the same time the department is being short-sighted. It has in fact its head in the sand, because it is creating all sorts of other social problems, other problems which are the concern of this particular department. In this particular case they house all sorts of patients in the same institutions. In one institution to which I am going to refer in a minute, they not only have elderly people who are healthy, but also elderly people who are sick and elderly people who are, to say the least of it, mental. At the same time they have people of younger age groups, people who are also in that category that I would describe as retarded people. They are all together in the same institution. The reason why this company is in this business is not because of their philanthropic outlook at all. It looks at the investment possibilities. It sees an area which is run-down, an area which has had its day. It buys up buildings and changes them into old-age homes. It then gets subsidies from the Government and this gives them a decent income. They also make arrangements with pensioners whereby they acquire the rights to their pensions. They take over the pensions payable to the individual, in addition to getting a subsidy from the department and they then write for capital appreciation to take place, because the area ultimately will change as it becomes more and more run-down. So they are getting it all ways. In some ways they are indeed helping the department. That I concede. But in many other ways they are contributing to all sorts of social evils which result from the establishment of these homes in old areas which then become more and more run-down.

I want to give an example. There is the coastal area of Kalk Bay and Muizenberg. In the case of Muizenberg, an attempt by the local authority is being made after years and years, to replan the Muizenberg complex. Many old buildings are there. They have been turned into old-age homes. All of this is retarding the attempt by the local authority to redevelop the area, and no one can convince me that an area like Muizenberg is suitable as an area for old-age homes. It is surely one of the areas which could go ahead as a tourist resort. I think it is one of the best we have in South Africa.

That is the same argument as the Sea Point swimming-bath argument.

Sure, but you surely do not locate your old-age homes in areas which are more suitable for other purposes. And the same applies to Kalk Bay. There one Government department has advanced R1 million for the development of a small boat harbour, but instead of going ahead with the small boat harbour it is being delayed by the fact that the municipality is unable to provide access to the harbour, and another one of the reasons being that it may involve the demolition of one of the buildings that have been converted into old-age homes. There again, through the action of this particular company turning their buildings into old-age homes and receiving a subsidy from the department, the development of the area for a tourist attraction and for recreational purposes is being retarded.

There is therefore a contradiction in objectives between various Government departments. The Department of Planning and the Environment tries to maintain certain standards whilst the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is contributing, by means of a subsidy, to the maintenance of buildings which have been converted to a use other than that originally planned and which have accordingly changed the character of the area in which they are situated. It is not in the interest of the patients, because it is impossible to convert many of these old buildings into suitable old-age homes. The Government is not doing its duty by providing new buildings, the local authority planning for the area is being disrupted and the work of other Government departments, such as the overall planning of the Department of Planning and the Environment, is being affected. Lastly, particularly in the areas to which I have referred, namely Muizenberg and Kalk Bay, the Department of Tourism should be very much in the picture when it comes to the development of those two resorts. At one time these were very popular resorts, but they have since become run-down. The efforts of this department to promote regional tourism is also being hampered by the creation of old-age homes in the area with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

That in effect is my argument, and I would ask the hon. the Minister to try to deal with my argument in the spirit in which I have put it forward. I have not tried to throw stones or to criticize the companies concerned. I have tried to refer to the fact that this is an unhealthy development more than anything else. I am asking the Government to give serious consideration to a crash building programme to provide old-age homes rather than to subsidize homes that have been converted for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the discussion of this Vote hon. members will agree with me when I say that an exceptionally wide field has been covered, that almost all the ramifications of the activities of the department have been touched upon, and that this was done in a truly positive spirit. To tell the truth, I cannot say that I gained the impression that any time during the discussions that the arguments were becoming political. I am very grateful that this was the case. I should have liked to have replied in detail to all the arguments, but I do not know whether the time allocated to me will be sufficient. If certain questions which have been put to me remain unanswered, I shall undertake, on my part, to furnish written replies to those questions.

I should like to begin, because I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, by conveying my congratulations to the new Deputy Minister, Mr. Janson, and thanking him for the cooperation we have already had so far; I want to express my appreciation in anticipation, too, for the co-operation which will follow in future. He is of course, by virtue of his many years of experience as a clergyman and also by virtue of the fact that his good wife is a social worker, eminently suited to this task, and I know that we have in him a source of strength of whom we will in future be able to make good use.

The hon. member for Pinelands said something at the outset for which I have great appreciation.

†He referred to a visit by Parliamentarians to various institutions of the department and he specially mentioned a visit to one of the refugee camps. I should like to say that I am indebted to him for having placed his appreciation on record.

*Mr. Chairman, people have very short memories, and I think I owe it to the department to say that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, in co-operation of course with various other departments, really performed a Herculean task during the past year in regard to the care of refugees from Mozambique and Angola. I do not want to tire hon. members with figures, but I do want to mention that the department took care of 33 005 refugees at a total cost to the department of R640 248. I want to emphasize that the lion’s share of this work was done by a small band of dedicated officials of the department, people who really deserve the appreciation of all of us. I have already referred to this on other occasions, and I think they are aware of it, but we owe it to them to place it on record in this hon. House as well.

In the course of the debate we listened to quite a number of hon. members who asked for improved and additional benefits and facilities. In this way the hon. members for Umbilo, Pinelands, Parys and Jeppe asked for the relaxation and adjustment of the means test. The hon. member for Uitenhage asked for more generous provision of social relief grants. Other hon. members, including the hon. member for South Coast, asked for better housing for the aged. The hon. member for Simonstown has just been discussing that subject. He referred to a crash programme for the housing of aged persons. In this way emphasis was to a great extent placed on the provision and furnishing of better facilities and benefits, better pensions, increased grants, etc. I understand all these things. They are permitted in the course of the activities of a member of Parliament, and it is essential that these things be advocated. It is also in the interests of the cause we are trying to serve. However, I am particularly pleased that several other members also pointed out the duties of the community and, more specifically, the duties of the relatives and children of persons requiring assistance. I am thinking here, inter alia, of the hon. members for Hercules, Parys and Krugersdorp, who pointed out very clearly the duty resting on the community and emphasized that one cannot shift everything onto the State as though the State were exclusively responsible for the care of indigent people, to ensure that they receive a decent pension, etc. I shall return to certain of these aspects later, and try to reply to questions which were put to me in this regard.

Actually I want to begin with the references which were made to the annual report of the department, and more specifically to the introduction to the report. The hon. member for Umbilo, as well as the hon. member for Westdene, referred to it. With reference to it I want to remind hon. members that when I replied for the first time as the responsible Minister to the discussion of this Vote in 1974, I made it very clear that it is the established tradition in South Africa that the State and private welfare organizations are partners in the performance of this task. With reference to the question put to me by the hon. member for Westdene, I just want to say that we are not, with what we wrote in the introduction to the annual report, contemplating any departure from that policy. The idea of partnership must continue to exist. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I also said at the time that our welfare policy in South Africa, however good or however defective it might be, was not a rigid policy. It is a policy which will have to be adapted and in which innovations will have to be made as we gain experience and as research proves that we were wrong in certain directions and that we have to adopt new courses. That is why I say that we should see the annual report as an attempt to stimulate our people to co-operation in order to bring about innovation and essential adjustments. What is required is to determine the needs scientifically and to plan accordingly in an effort to meet those needs. In this regard I could point out that a very interesting experiment was conducted in the Vaal Triangle last year, about which more will be published later, in which the regional welfare board, and a committee which was established and in which all interested parties were involved, went into the matter to determine what the actual needs of that region were.

The results achieved with that inquiry were very encouraging. In fact it also gave direction to our idea to tackle our planning with new zeal. It proved to us that if we did it in this way, there was a far greater involvement of the local community in the welfare task, that certain needs had emerged of which one had not been aware, although one lived in that vicinity, and that other needs which people had thought did exist were already being provided locally. In that way we gained new insights, and we intend proceeding along these lines in the new year. It is in view of this, too, as has already been laid down in legislation, that the period of office of the National Welfare Board and the regional welfare boards, as well as the four statutory commissions, was extended. Therefore I want to emphasize that participation by the community in welfare planning is essential and is also our objective, and that there is no departure from the policy we have been adopting up to now. As far as care of the aged is concerned, I want to reiterate in respect of the policy aspect—I also mentioned it here in 1974—that our policy in South Africa is that the aged are an integral part of our community and that they should be kept happy and satisfied within the community for as long as possible. We must provide services to make it possible for these people to remain in the community for as long as possible. I want to point out that at present there are already 11 service centres which are caring for no fewer than 4 644 aged persons. Three additional centres which will each be able to care for 500 aged persons, are still being envisaged. Having said this, I must also emphasize—and more specifically with reference to what the hon. member for South Coast requested—that institutional care for certain aged persons is indispensable. We cannot place the entire burden on the community, on the families and relatives of aged persons. There are some of them who are simply in need for institutional care. In addition, because we cannot meet all the needs, because we cannot, in a period in which Government expenditure is being pruned in an effort to fight inflation, commence a “crash programme”, as the hon. member for Simonstown wants, to build homes for the aged, we cannot care for all the aged persons who require institutional care in institutions. We must therefore give preference to the infirm aged. This is consequently what led to the circumstances to which the hon. member for Simonstown referred, i.e. that we are, by means of contracts which we entered into with private undertakings, enabling them to provide certain services. I think he is making a mistake when he says that the pensions received by the handicapped aged are simply being paid over to those firms.

I shall furnish you with proof of this.

That is not correct. However, I shall return to this point later. I do not want to elaborate on it any further at present. I just want to make the policy aspect clear.

On the one hand we are asking for more services and facilities and better pensions, and at the same time we are being urged to maintain an equilibrium. In view of this I want to quote from a report on the situation in the USA. Mr. Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Health, Education and Social Welfare, had the following to say when he retired—

Then he went on to say, and I quote again—

I need not indicate what the consequences of this would be. We all say that we do not want a welfare state, but at the same time we keep on asking for more. We must ask ourselves this question: When does one reach the point at which one has to say that nothing more is possible?

As far as the policy aspect is concerned, I shall leave the matter at those few general observations. The hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Pinelands both asked why we were only increasing the social pensions as from 1 October. He asked why we could not have done this sooner, for there might be some aged persons who will never even receive it. That is probably true, but they are of course assuming that the amount which is being appropriated for this purpose would then have been available for an entire year. Here it is not a case of neglect. We did not neglect to do which we would have liked to have done. Here we have had to do what we were able to do within the framework of the present possibilities. There is of course the question of administrative problems. The hon. member for Pinelands pointed out that we are living in the age of the computer, and that it would not have been impossible to reprogramme the computers. That may be the case, but the question still remains whether South Africa can afford that expense.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I just want to finish stating my point. Then the hon. member may ask his question. The amount involved in this R8 increase with effect from 1 October will cost the tax-payer approximately R16 million. If it had been for the entire year, the figure would have been approximately R32 million. I am now prepared to reply to the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. the Minister why it was possible to grant an increase from 1 May during 1974 and only from 1 October this year?

That was an election year.

Mr. Chairman, of course I was not the person responsible at the time, and I am therefore not able to furnish a prepared reply. The obvious reply is apparently that money was available at the time, something which is not the case at present.

The hon. member for Umbilo sees the solution to many of these problems in the introduction of a national contributory scheme.

† I have mentioned before that, as long as I have known the hon. member, he has been advocating a national contributory pension scheme. However, in all these years he has never been able to substantiate his claim that a scheme of this nature would make better provision for social pensioners than the existing one.

If more funds were available?

Yes. If the hon. member adds his ifs, of course it could become possible. The point is that, in all these years, he has never been able to substantiate his claim that a scheme of the nature that he has been advocating, can ensure a better service and greater benefits to pensioners.

*Let that be the case, however. I have appreciation for the standpoint which the hon. member for Umbilo has held all these years. I do not want to take issue with him over it. However, he asked what progress had been with the matter. The hon. member for Pinelands asked the same question. What progress has been made with this matter? I want to repeat here briefly what I said earlier this year—on 25 March—on the occasion of the opening of the annual conference of the Association of Pension and Provident Funds here in Cape Town. On that occasion I said that we intended compiling a document as soon as possible setting out the standpoint and the findings of my department were with regard to the report which we were then expecting. In the meantime we have received that report. The idea is to distribute that document among all bodies in the Republic which, as far as we know, are interested in the matter, and to afford them an opportunity of making representations and commenting on the document, after having been granted sufficient time to study it. I went on to say that after the representations and comments had been received, the matter would again be considered and that a further document would be prepared in the light of the representations and comments presented; a document which would in due course be submitted to the Government, and possibly even to Parliament for consideration. No final decision has yet been reached on the form which such a submission will take or what procedure will be adopted in regard to it. One possible manner in which this matter could be dealt with would be to refer it to a Select Committee of the House of Assembly for consideration. However, I emphasized that everyone who was interested in this matter—whether they were in favour of or opposed to the matter made no difference—would be afforded an opportunity of stating their standpoint.

I am therefore grateful to be able to state publicly now that the first document which will be sent out will probably be available for distribution and comment in a month’s time. After that I hope that the procedure which I have just set out will be able to take its course.

Quite a number of pleas were presented here in regard to amendments and adjustments to the means test.

Before the hon. the Minister moves away from the discussion and the reply to the question of a national contributory scheme, I want to ask him whether he has turned away now from the idea of referring this whole matter to a Select Committee of this House.

Mr. Chairman, not at all. I have indicated the two preliminary stages we would have to go through before referring the matter to the Government or to a Select Committee. However, I still have an open mind on that. I have not shelved it at all.

When are you going to make up your mind?

I shall make up my mind as soon as I have studied the comment on it. Then I can decide whether there is any sense in referring it to a Select Committee or not.

*Several representations were made to me to adjust the means test. A relaxation of the means test may then be able to overcome problems which exist. There is one hon. member who requested that it be adjusted this very year. I think, however, that the present year would be the most inopportune time to adjust it, if it does in fact have to be done. Whom do we still wish to bring within reach of the means test? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North said that a person may have assets to the value of R34 400 and still qualify for the means test. Where should we then set the limit if we are to start tampering with this? I think that at present the means test has very fair conditions, which are all to the benefit of the person applying for a pension.

The hon. member for Parys asked us to reinvestigate the calculation of the municipal valuation of a house. I want to inform the hon. member that we are thinking along the lines he had in mind, i.e. to determine a fixed amount—the hon. member mentioned R15 000, but I do not want to commit myself to an amount now—only in the case of a house which is occupied by a pensioner. Of course the matter is fraught with pitfalls and I cannot give an effective reply to it now. But I want to assure the hon. member that the department is thinking along these lines.

As far as the adjustment of the means test is concerned, I want to say that we could in fact adjust it, that it is technically possible, but that it all depends on how much money South Africa is able to and wishes to appropriate for this purpose. If sufficient money were appropriated, we could effect an adjustment to or abolish the means test, and then give everyone a pension, regardless of their assets and income. However, I do not think we want that to happen. The hon. member for Jeppe asked us to abolish the means test for the ex-servicemen of 1914. That was a very fine idea. The hon. member said that there were only 4 500 of them left. However, I want to ask the hon. member what moral justification one would have for abolishing the means test for the ex-servicemen of 1914 and not for the ex-servicemen of 1939 to 1946?

The war veterans do not have a means test.

But here we are dealing with an entirely different case. There is not a second case, but in the case of the ex-servicemen of world wars there was a First World War, a Second World War, and perhaps we might even experience a Third World War. I am therefore asking what moral justification exists for abolishing the means test for one group, but not for another?

At this stage I should like to make an announcement in regard to minimum pensions. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to this. Hon. members will be aware of the fact that civil pensions are calculated according to certain formulae. However, in cases where a pension calculated in terms of the applicable formula is less than R59 per month in the case of a person without dependants, or R118 in the case of a person with dependants, the respective amounts are supplemented from the Exchequer. In essence it means, therefore, that a person who receives such a supplemented pension is in part receiving a social pension. In the case of a married person it also means that the social pension to which his wife would have been entitled, is added to his minimum pension of R118. For that reason pensioners receiving minimum pensions consequently do not qualify for social pensions. The means test was extended to such an extent in 1972 that a person without dependants with an income of R984, and a married person with an income of R1 968, would still qualify for a social pension. Strictly speaking, any person who receives a minimum pension of R59 per month, i.e. R708 per annum, or R118 per month, i.e. R1 416 per annum, still falls within limits of the means test, and ought really to qualify for a social pension. However, minimum pensioners are expressly excluded from the social pension scheme, because the State is already supplementing their pensions, as was mentioned. However, they suffer in the process. Consequently it has been decided to do away with the payment of minimum pensions as from 1 October 1976. This means that a pensioner retiring on or after 1 October 1976 will receive the civil pension to which he is entitled according to the formula applicable to him. If the pension which he receives in this way, together with his other means, are then still such that he qualifies under the means test for a social pension, he will in fact be paid a social pension.

As an example one may take the case of a person who is entitled to a civil pension of R42 per month, according to the formula applicable to him. In addition such a person will, if he has no other means, still be able to qualify for the social pension, which will give him an income of R42 plus R64, i.e. R106 per month, as against the minimum pension of R59 per month to which he would otherwise have been entitled. This will also mean that a married person who was entitled to a civil pension of R84 per month will also be able to qualify for a social pension after 1 October 1976. If his wife has already attained the prescribed age, she will in addition be able to qualify for a social pension. In such a case their income will be R212 per month instead of the present minimum pension of R118 per month. The new concessions apply only in respect of persons who retire on or after 1 October 1976, because the civil pensions of all those who retire or have retired prior to that date, will by that time have been augmented to such an extent that they will not qualify under the means test for a social pension, solely because of the amount of their income.

Next I hasten to deal with a few other matters which were raised by hon. members. The ill-treatment of children was very strongly emphasized here and we had the advantage that hon. members who are themselves medical practitioners participated in the debate. In this regard I want to say in the first place that the light penalties which are imposed by the courts in cases of proven ill-treatment of children, and the complaints in that regard, are of course a matter which rests with the discretion of the courts. I cannot give a decisive answer on it this afternoon. It is a matter which hon. members may, if need be, raise again under the Justice Vote. We all know that ill-treatment of children does exist, and will probably increase, too, but the problem is the reporting of such cases. In this regard the hon. member for Krugersdorp sounded a very important note. He pointed out that the reporting of these cases and the care of those cases was not the task of a single organization, but was in fact the task of the entire community. If we want effective legislation we shall have to in some way or another make reporting such cases compulsory, without the person reporting such cases being called upon to give an accounting in court. This is, however, an extremely difficult matter to which the department is still giving its attention. We hope that we will in due course be able to shed some light on these problems we are dealing with, and that we will then be able to discuss them further. I just want to mention that the regional welfare board of Johannesburg is holding a symposium on this important matter this year. We hope that ideas will be expressed there which could be of value to us.

The hon. member for Pinelands, referred to juvenile prostitutes at certain harbours. He referred in particular to Cape Town. I want to tell him that, as far as this matter is concerned, it goes without saying that the department is obviously co-operating very closely with the Police. As far as Cape Town is concerned, an average of one juvenile girl per month was brought to the attention of the local regional office of the department between November 1975 and 27 April 1976. Two of the six juveniles who were thus brought to the attention of the department, were left in the care of their parents as a place of safety, while the others were admitted to the local Place of Safety with a view to children’s court proceedings. Prostitution among juveniles in Cape Town is not considered by the local regional office and the police to be a growing problem. As far as adult prostitutes are concerned, however, the situation gives rise to far greater concern. In Durban no cases of prostitution have been brought to the attention of the local regional office of the department for some considerable time. Regular visits are paid to the night clubs by the Police, and strict control is exercised over the entrance to the Durban harbour. The police deny that prostitution among juveniles at the Durban harbour gives rise to any concern. In Port Elizabeth two juvenile prostitutes were brought to the attention of the local regional office of the department during this year. During the past two years six juvenile prostitutes have been referred to the regional office. Sir, this is the problem to which one may not, of course, close one’s eyes, and I want to give the assurance that the welfare officers and the welfare offices are, in close co-operation with the police, constantly keeping a watchful eye over this matter.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to family courts. I want to tell him that we have received a report from the Department of Justice, and that this matter is at present being studied. There are certain problems in regard to this matter, and we shall obviously not be able to proceed with it until we have obtained a general consensus in regard to the matter, i.e. from Social Welfare and the Department of Justice.

A great deal was said about alcoholism and it is in fact one of the problems which gives rise to concern. It was correctly said that the cause of the problem is always being sought among other people. I think it was the hon. member for Berea who said: “Who is the other person?” Everyone is seeking the problem elsewhere. But there is no doubt that the problem is there, is growing all the time, and is causing concern. During the international congress which was held here in Cape Town two years ago, conditions in South Africa were clearly brought to light. In the same year the 20th meeting of the International Institute for the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism was held in Manchester. There were 300 delegates at that conference and they came from a great many countries. Not a single country that was represented at the conference was able to report a decrease in alcoholism. From England it was reported for example that persons charged with drunken driving had increased from. 19 per 10 000 to 24 per 10 000. The percentage of teetotallers had decreased in the last ten years from 30% to 11%. From the USA it was reported that there were at that time between 9 million and 12 million alcoholics, as against the between 3 million and 5 million alcoholics in 1954. But the perturbing aspect was that more adolescents and women had become involved in this problem of alcoholism. In France, for example there had previously been one female alcoholic for every ten males; at that juncture the ratio was one woman for every four men. We can therefore see what the extent of this problem is, and if I am asked: “Who is the other man?” then I have to say that the solution obviously lies in joint action. Personally I believe, and I have also stated this in public, that the liquor trade itself has a major part to play in regard to this matter, and I have also received the assurance from certain spokesmen on behalf of the liquor trade that they are interested in assisting us.

Will you react to my appeal in regard to a crisis clinic?

I am coming to that. In addition the hon. member for Pinelands also asked whether it was not possible to give tax concessions to welfare organizations. This is also a fine idea, but I am afraid it is something he will have to put to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. He will have to persuade him. I do not have any say on that matter.

Will you support it?

I shall support it, if I am not able to get the assurance from the hon. the Minister of Finance that he will give me the money which is necessary to manage the Department of Social Welfare properly.

He has rejected it several times already.

The hon. member went on to refer to the wages of messengers and labourers in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. As far as that matter is concerned, I am of course under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. That commission establishes certain wage scales to which my department also has to adapt itself. In the other branches of the department’s activities—this he was quite right in conceding—the division of work is such that my department relies primarily on Whites, and that the problem therefore does not crop up. As far as the wages of messengers and labourers are concerned, that is of course a matter which, as I have said, is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission.

The hon. member for Westdene asked for some or other accommodation in respect of quadriplegics. Some time ago I happened to see the presentation of a television programme on which Miss Chantal Fouché, who is at present the voluntary secretary of this struggling association, participated. The programme made a great impression on me, also because I know her and the circumstances in which she finds herself. I think the time has arrived for my department and I to ascertain the needs of these people and see what we can do in that regard.

The two Potgieter brothers, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and the hon. member for Brits, gave very fine testimonials to the activities of the department, and I am very grateful for that.

The hon. member for Brits, however, has another wound he wants me to salve. I want to assure him that 130 houses are being planned to replace the present houses at the Sonop settlement. According to the conditions of the tender construction work was to have been commenced in September 1977 and the estimated cost for the project is R1,5 million. According to the contract the project has to be completed within 24 months. The pitched-roof houses will be built according to conventional building methods, and seven different plans will be used. In this way, and also by causing the houses to front in different directions, it will be possible to accomplish a considerable variation in appearance. All except 20 of the houses will have three bedrooms; a living room, a kitchen, a bathroom and a store-room. Each house will also have a car port. I hope that is the salve for which the hon. member asked.

The hon. member for Uitenhage asked for a separate office of the department as well as a full-time professional officer for Uitenhage. I understand very well his endeavour to achieve a better service there. As he said, the professional officer at present comes down from Port Elizabeth, and is an official in a sub-office of the regional office which is established in Port Elizabeth. I agree with the hon. member that it would give greater satisfaction if we were able to accomplish this, but the department calculates the requirements according to the data which it receives from the Department of Statistics. According to the findings of the department, after an investigation had been instituted at Uitenhage, Uitenhage has still not reached the stage at which it has a prior claim before other places to an independent office. My department is keeping his representations in mind, however, and we shall see what is possible in future. He also referred to the scales of social relief. I referred to them and said that if it were possible the department would like to make better facilities as well as larger amounts available, but the fact that the present scales are a considerable improvement on the previous scales should at least be an indication to the hon. member of the goodwill of the department in trying to meet these needs. As circumstances change I shall reconsider the scales, but at the moment I am afraid I can do nothing about them owing to the prevailing shortage of funds.

I come next to the hon. members for Brentwood and Berea. They both discussed rehabilitation. The hon. member for Berea referred to a crisis clinic in Durban and pointed to the need which exists for such a clinic. The results which are being achieved in Johannesburg exceeded my wildest expectations and provided absolute proof that such clinics ought to be established at the right place and at the right time. A problem which is being experienced with this kind of clinic is that a suitable place has to be found for it. In the Cape, for example, it is no use establishing such a crisis clinic on the outskirts of Constantia. If one established such a clinic in the Cape, one has to establish it here in the very centre of the city where it is accessible to the people in the city. As far as Cape Town is concerned we are very close to the stage at which it will be possible to open such a clinic. As far as Durban is concerned, we are nowhere near realizing such an ideal. This is a new service with which it is difficult to make a start at a juncture at which one has so many financial problems as we have at present.

The hon. member for Gezina made a very positive contribution on the care of the handicapped. He pointed out the need for us to employ handicapped persons in so far as they are able to render a service. What the hon. member said was completely in line with the view of the department after two investigations had been made in this regard. The department found that less emphasis should be placed on the handicapped, on the disability of the person, and greater emphasis on his remaining potential for rendering a service. The department is moving in that direction. This is a complete change in many respects, and is also related to many other factors. Even other departments are involved in the matter. However, we shall continue to move in the direction which the hon. member advocated.

I come next to the hon. member for Simonstown and I want to remind him that only last year the then hon. Deputy Minister, together with certain members of this House, visited the institutions in Kalk Bay to which he referred, without mentioning the names. The finding was that these people were being properly cared for, although difficult circumstances prevailed there. The circumstances of many of these people are such that their relatives are unable to look after them. There are some of them who are physically handicapped and who are actually the responsibility of the Department of Health. The institutions are not all institutions of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I do not think the specific problems which are experienced when such a scheme comes into conflict with the development possibilities of an area is something which can be solved in this debate. I would prefer to discuss that aspect of the matter with the hon. member. However, I am satisfied that the care of those people, in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves, leaves nothing to be desired and that there is no question of exploitation. The company to which the hon. member referred, as well as other companies, are in my opinion performing an essential service. Obviously it is being done for a remunation, but this is however a service for which there is need. The aspects which the hon. member mentioned concerning the restrictive effect the institutions have on the development of certain areas I would prefer to discuss in private with the hon. member in order to establish whether something may be done and, if so, what may be done.

I gave only a few examples of something which is happening everywhere.

I think that I have now replied to the general trend of the debate. I would have been able to have gone further into what is being done for the care of the aged, and it was in fact my intention because I said that I would return to it subsequently, but time caught up with me. The State, although it cannot possibly be held responsible for caring for all aged persons in the State homes, is performing a herculean task and making a major contribution. We could, at an appropriate time, go into the details which I have here. I do not want to take up any more of the time of this House in discussing these matters.

In conclusion I want to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate for the positive way in which they did so.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

After the recent events in Angola and on our borders there can be little doubt that the fires of destruction are burning closer to our borders and that all of us here at the southern point of Africa are inevitably affected by the turmoil in Africa.

Overnight borders, which for most of us have been of no more than academic or geographic importance, dramatically entered our thoughts and the routine of our daily lives, and our sons and our dependants became actively involved on these borders. This is where our men are being killed or injured and sustain injuries which they will have to carry with them for a lifetime. By way of this Bill we are being called upon today to make arrangements for compensation for these young men of our country who in our time will have to make the sacrifices to keep us safe and to preserve our heritage intact for posterity.

Consequently the main objects of this Bill are to ensure the continuation and improvement of the pensions of the veterans of previous wars and to create a new dispensation for members of the Defence Force who are injured, and to make provision for the dependants of those who are killed, on military duty. It affects only members of the Citizen Force, the Commandos and the Reserve who are not members of the Permanent Force, or the S.A. Police Force or who are not public servants. Members of the Permanent Force or the Police, and public servants, will receive the compensation to which they would normally have been entitled if they had been killed or injured in the performance of their normal duties.

As hon. members will observe, existing pensions, grants and bonuses are being consolidated in clause 8. These consolidated pensions will be increased by 10% with effect from 1 October 1976, as previously announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately economic conditions do not allow a further increase of these pensions at this juncture. Further attention will, however, be given in the new financial year to the narrowing of the gap between consolidated pensions.

Pensions in terms of the new dispensation will be calculated in accordance with formulae I and II, as defined in clause 1. Important factors will from time to time be determined by the Minister by way of notice in the Gazette. Factor A of formula I will be fixed at R4 200 in the case of Whites with a high earning capacity, and at R3 600 in the case of Whites with a lower earning capacity. The amounts for Coloureds and Asiatics will be R2 800 and R2 400, and those for Bantu R2 100 and R1 800, respectively.

Factor C of formula II, in accordance with which the pensions of dependants will be calculated, will be fixed at R600 in the case of Whites, R400 in the case of Coloureds and Asiatics and R300 in the case of Bantu.

The pension of a person with a lower earning capacity, with a wife and three children and a pensionable disability of 70% will therefore be calculated as follows:

i.e. a minimum of R350 per month.

A wife whose husband dies, will retain the pension which was being paid in respect of herself and her children. In addition she will receive half of her deceased husband’s pension. In the example I have already mentioned, she therefore receives the pension of R140 per month in respect of herself and the children, as well as half of the R210 per month of her deceased husband’s pension, i.e. a total of R245 per month.

The distinction between persons with a high and those with a low earning capacity is being drawn because the loss which the disability of the former causes in real terms is greater than that of the person with a lower earning capacity. The earning capacity referred to here will be defined by notice in the Gazette and the dividing line between a high and a lower earning capacity will be fixed at R6 000 per annum in the case of Whites, R4 000 per annum in the case of Coloureds and Asiatics and R3 000 per annum in the case of Bantu.

In accordance with existing practice pensions will only be paid in cases where the pensionable disability is fixed at at least 20%. In other cases gratuities will be paid, in the case of Whites at R600 instead of R480 and R300 instead of R240, in the case of Coloureds and Asiatics at R400 instead of R240 and R200 instead of R120, and in the case of Bantu at R300 instead of R120 and R150 instead of R60.

The payment of gratuities which are paid in terms of the existing dispensation to widows upon the death of their husbands or upon their remarriage are being stopped because the pensions which will be paid to them in future, considered over the long-term, will provide them with better benefits.

The practice of recalculating pensions as though the pensionable disability of the person concerned were fixed at 100% when he was receiving treatment in a hospital or institution or undergoing training, is also being done away with. In its place a daily remuneration of R3 in the case of Whites, R2 in the case of Coloureds and Asiatics and R1,50 in the case of Bantu is being paid. The new procedure will facilitate administration and may in many respects be even more beneficial than the present procedure.

The remainder of the Bill deals primarily with procedures which, in so far as that is necessary, may be discussed during the Committee Stage. Nevertheless I want to add that the Bill was submitted to the Services organizations, viz. the S.A. Legion and the MOTHS, and discussed with representatives of those organizations. I also had the privilege of discussing the Bill in broad outline with representatives of the Opposition parties, and I want to thank them for their co-operation. I think that I may freely state that we have the support of the Services organizations for the Bill, although I do not want to suggest in this way that they would not perhaps like to see further improvements to it. However, that is something for the future, and both organizations are aware that my door is open to further negotiations, if necessary.

The new dispensation will be applied to all new cases which have arisen since 1 July 1975 and therefore all those who have been affected by incidents on the border since that time need have no fear that they will not benefit from the new dispensation.

However, this Bill should not simply be seen as the measure which, in cold, real terms determines what compensation will be paid for any loss that has been suffered. It is of course an appreciable improvement on existing measures in the present connection. However, it is also far more than that. It is also a demonstration of our thanks and appreciation for the willingness of our young people to make sacrifices, of our young people who demonstrated so effectively of what calibre they were, and that South Africa could safely be entrusted to their hands. We are proud of them and want them to know that although we can never really compensate them in financial terms for the sacrifices they are making, this Bill is nevertheless also intended to convey to them the gratitude and appreciation of a thankful nation that knows its future is in good hands. We also want to tell them that this Bill does not conclude the book in which we record our gratitude and appreciation and our esteem for their willingness to make sacrifices, but that it has, on the contrary, been deliberately designed in such a way as to open, and to keep open, the door to accelerated adjustments, wherever and whenever necessary.

†I think it is necessary, however, to repeat that it is not possible to compensate any of our men or their dependants fully for the sacrifices made by them in the defence of our country and its peoples. This Bill is not trying to do that. It is but a demonstration of our gratitude and appreciation for invaluable services rendered in the course of duty and in the course of getting and keeping ourselves prepared for the demands of a future which no one can fully predict.

Let us also get one thing clear. This Bill does not purport to be a preparation for armed conflict. On the contrary, it is not our desire to be involved in any violent confrontation, and we shall certainly do everything in our power to avoid any such confrontation. But alas, the price for peace and security remains now, as in the past, for us as for any other nation on earth, one of eternal vigilance, and we have no option but to prepare ourselves for whatever sacrifices the future might demand.

It is only sensible to expect that young men may, in the process of training or in the execution of their duties, be injured or killed. I would venture to suggest that no one in his sound and sober senses would deny them and their dependants such compensation as the circumstances may demand.

If that is the price we have to pay for peace and security, let us gladly pay the price, for it is certainly an investment we cannot afford to delay. And let all of us, of all parties in this House, and all the people in South Africa work together for the maintenance of peace, thereby limiting appeals and applications in terms of this Bill, to an absolute minimum. No one can compensate in money for the loss of life of a loved one. Let us rather work for the maintenance of peace and make it possible for us to live in peace with all people. I see this Bill as an investment in the future peace and security of this country and all its peoples. That, I submit, is what, in truth, this Bill deals with. Let there be no misunderstanding on this point.

*I move the Second Reading of this Bill with the prayer that we may be spared the sacrifices for which provision is being made here and in the confidence that this hon. House will accept it in a spirit which will serve as a support to our young men.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves immediately with the tribute paid by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to the magnificent service rendered by our young men in defence of their country. I believe that all of us are indeed proud of these young men who are carrying out their duties with distinction, and it is only right and just that this House should—as it is doing today—take into account the various contingencies that might arise, especially in cases where lives are lost, in order to ensure that there is adequate provision for the widows and dependants of those men. Similarly, those who suffer physical disablement and who have for the rest of their lives to bear such disablement, should also receive appropriate compensation and benefits for the sacrifices made by them in the interests of their country. We on this side of the House are indeed proud of the fact that those men are able to receive compensation as provided for in terms of this Bill.

At this stage, I believe it is appropriate to look at the history of compensation and benefits to people in military service, because, as one can see in clause 24 of this Bill, the Special War Pensions Act, 1962 (Act No. 35 of 1962), as well as the War Pensions Act, 1967 (Act. No. 82 of 1967), are to be repealed. This is important because it is going to create a new situation, a new basis of compensation, a new entitlement as far as widows and dependants and disabled persons are concerned. One will see that, with the repeal of the two Acts mentioned, a change is coming about by virtue of the fact that the 1962 legislation, the Special War Pensions Act, made provision for compensation to those who had received injuries and to the dependants of those who had lost their lives during and prior to the First World War. If one looks at the history one finds that it was necessary in 1942, at the height of the Second World War, to bring about improved benefits and compensation for those who had suffered injuries. Consequently, the War Pensions Act of 1942, which was repealed by the 1967 Act, provided for the widows and dependants, as well as for those who had been disabled during that war. We now reach another stage. This legislation is to come into effect as from 1 July 1975. By reason of its retrospective effect it will mean that many of the young men who have suffered physical disability and the widows and dependants of those who have made the supreme sacrifice, will be able to benefit by the improved situation provided for in terms of this Bill. For these reasons we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. We support it in principle, by virtue of the fact that it improves the situation and repeals two Acts which have become, in present day terms, not sufficiently adequate to meet the needs as they now arise.

Consequently, we believe that the Second Reading of this Bill deserves the full support of all sides of this House. We do have certain reservations with regard to certain overall aspects of this Bill. We also have certain queries which we would like to raise in connection with various clauses of this Bill. At this stage, however, I would like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his courtesy in discussing with us some of these provisions prior to the introduction of the Bill in this House, and also for placing at our disposal the senior members of his staff who were able to give us advice and guidance on some of its provisions. This is indeed necessary, because if one reads the Bill, at first glance one is immediately confronted with a formula in clause 1 of the Bill whereby a person who is more than 20% and up to 100% disabled, is to receive certain compensation. On page 5 of the Bill one finds formula II, formula III and formula IV. If one looks at it, it looks like an algebra sum. Fortunately, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated to the House this afternoon what the amounts involved are, so that one can ascertain the factors in the calculation of the various formulae. We are indeed pleased to hear of the improved basis of the compensation that is to be paid. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that the figures which he quoted would be published in the Government Gazette and that we would then be able to ascertain all these figures applicable to the various formulae in clause 1 of the Bill. I hope that at a later stage, when the Bill has found its way on to the Statute Book, the department will see its way clear to issuing an information brochure or something similar, as has been done in the past, concerning the war disablement pensions which are provided for in terms of the Bill, because it is important for the people concerned to be aware of their entitlement.

We know that organizations such as the S.A. Legion and the Moths play a very important role in looking after the interests of widows, dependants and servicemen as far as their entitlement is concerned in terms of legislation of this nature. At this stage we should like to pay tribute to those organizations for the magnificent work they have done and are continuing to do in giving advice to these people and assisting them in making appeals, for which provision is made in terms of the Bill, to the appeal tribunal as well as to a medical appeal board. Invaluable work is being done in this regard by these organizations. If young widows or servicemen have to claim benefits in terms of legislation such as this, it is important that they should have the advantage of such advice. At the same time, I think it would be advantageous and would help the morale of our people to see what is being done. When this Bill is finalized, therefore, I believe that a brochure should be produced so that the people can be fully aware of their entitlement.

If one looks at the provisions for the compensation that is to be paid, on the basis of the formulae and the figures that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, one is pleased to see a narrowing of the gap as far as compensation paid to the various race groups is concerned. However, it is unfortunate that this principle is being perpetuated, in view of the fact that we are moving away from discrimination. One should try to find ways and means of not enshrining in our legislation such provisions as are contained in clauses I and 3, in terms of which there is a differentiation between population groups and the amount that is to be awarded to these people. If one looks at figures relating to the compensation that has been paid in terms of the Acts that are now to be repealed, which are provided in the House from time to time, one will see that there are 19 261 people who are presently receiving war pensions or war disablement pensions. Of these 19 261 people, 14 519 are Whites, 2 855 are Coloured and Indian and 1 887 are Bantu. These figures include those people who receive war disablement pensions, widows’ benefits and dependants’ benefits. The basis upon which their benefits were calculated, in terms of the Acts that are to be repealed, was according to a ratio of 4:2:1 as far as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians and Bantu are concerned. In terms of the figures that the hon. the Minister has given here this afternoon, this ratio is to be narrowed. The figures he quoted are to be based on pre-disablement potential earning capacities of R6 000 in the case of Whites, R4 000 in the case of Coloureds and Indians and R3 000 in the case of Bantu.

These figures which the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned this afternoon show that the gap is to be narrowed. The actual effect will be that the Coloureds and Indians will receive approximately two-thirds of what the Whites will receive and that the Bantu will receive half of what the Whites will receive. Although this narrowing of the gap is welcomed, it is felt that there should be a better basis upon which to calculate these figures, without necessarily bringing in the question of the various races concerned. One must bear in mind that there are an increasing number of people other than Whites, who are now playing a part in the Defence Force. Consequently, it must be ensured that these people realize what their entitlement is, and we feel that it should be possible to base this to a greater extent on the potential earning capacity of members concerned, rather than linking it to the question of race. Here we have a scale of benefits in mind which would be more or less in line with the principle that is adopted in some of our labour legislation in respect of, for example, unemployment insurance benefits. The benefits which are paid in terms of that legislation are related to the level of income and there is no question of race as far as those benefits are concerned. That principle could be extended to this type of legislation without necessarily incurring any additional expenditure, but merely on the predisablement potential earning capacity of the members concerned so as to ascertain what benefits they would receive in relation to the potential earning capacity of the members. That is why we intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage to try to achieve this object, to ensure that this legislation to be passed in this House in the year 1976 should not necessarily contain provisions whereby the population group is taken into account specifically in terms of the Bill and put into legislation. This would move away from this basis of calculation, and we hope that the hon. the Minister and the Government concerned will find ways and means in the future of also assisting those who are presently receiving pensions on the old basis and who will have the consolidation taking place in terms of clause 8 of the Bill, as well as those who have had to survive on a very small military or disablement pension, by narrowing the gap between the various amounts of compensation paid.

The provisions as far as benefits are concerned, are indeed welcome. We know it is important that these people should receive the improved benefits as soon as possible. We do not wish to delay the Bill unduly, but there are certain other matters we should like to raise in the Committee Stage. The other thing which to my mind should be mentioned during the Second Reading is the position of the older pensioners who are receiving compensation in terms of the previous basis of calculation and whose pensions are to be consolidated to ensure that they also feel that they will receive some benefits. I know that the hon. the Minister referred in his budget speech to the position of military pensioners. He said that the matter would be reviewed and that there would be an increase of 10% granted to these people as from 1 October 1976.

With these words we should like to see the hon. the Deputy Minister give further consideration to the aspect of the benefits paid. We should like to see certain other details of the Bill further clarified during the Committee Stage to ensure that the House has a full comprehension and understanding of this important Bill. This Bill is indeed a milestone in the payment of compensation so as to see that these people are provided for, especially on a monetary basis. I also think that the public at large are anxious to see legislation of this nature find its way expeditiously into the Statute Book. We have, indeed, found that there are many organizations endeavouring today to raise funds from the public. They are experiencing a tremendous response to their efforts to assist servicemen. This is especially the case in regard to the rehabilitation of servicemen and other matters of this nature. The Border Fund and various other funds have been established to assist our young people today.

With these words we on this side of the House fully support the Second Reading of the Bill as far as the principle of granting better recognition on a more equitable basis is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it is with gratitude that one takes cognizance of the fact that the Official Opposition supports the proposed Bill. I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department on the Bill. The Bill is certainly not perfect, but if one looks at it objectively, one comes to the conclusion that it represents a substantial improvement on the existing position. At present the position is such that it is often very difficult, for example, to determine exactly what is to be paid to a widow or dependant of an injured person, and to the injured person himself. The variety of allowances paid under the present War Pensions Act which vary from a clothing allowance and an attendant’s allowance to an educational allowance with an added bonus, has often made it very difficult, administratively speaking, to control the allocation of pensions properly. The single lump sum which is payable from now on will facilitate and certainly expedite matters from the point of view of the department which has to administer the legislation. I should like to emphasize the word “expedite”, because often it is of vital importance to a widow and children in trouble that the matter be dealt with without delay. In my opinion, the fact that the amounts payable in future, whether by way of gratuity or pension, are announced in the Gazette from time to time, represents another major improvement. The advantages this involves are obvious. In the first place, this will prevent the Acts concerned having to be amended from year to year. In the second place, I believe that this will give the system greater flexibility, so that should it appear during the parliamentary recess that funds are available, the hon. the Minister will be in a position to effect improvements by way of an announcement in the Gazette.

As far as the envisaged amounts mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister are concerned, I should like to draw a few comparisons between the existing position and what is now being proposed. According to the old dispensation, a member of the Defence Force without dependants who has been 100% disabled will receive R91,80 per month.