Mr. Chairman, as this is the first occasion on which this Vote is being discussed since I was appointed to this post, I feel the need to express a few thoughts to the Committee and to make a few announcements.

During the few months since my appointment it has been my privilege to be able to become acquainted with the various operations and policies which form the basis of the activities of this department. I have tried as far as possible not only to become fully acquainted with these policies but also, in the short time that has elapsed, to make my own evaluation. In the process I have been able to define for myself the purpose and aim of the department as follows, namely, the promotion of the social stability of the population group for which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is responsible. This one sentence embraces the whole lifespan of man from infant to greybeard. It is virtually a super-human task that can scarcely be completed in a lifetime to give effect to this purpose and direction of the department. Sir, this is a task that creates enormous challenges for everyone connected with it. In the course of the study I have made, I have fortunately been able to ascertain that we have already made great progress and I have every hope that we can meet the future with confidence.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to my predecessor. During his period of office he laid the firm foundation for the development that is still to take place in this department. To a large extent he prepared the ground of community development which I consider to be of the greatest importance. He rounded off other matters with which the department had been struggling for years and to a large extent demarcated the road ahead. I am grateful to him for the clear signposts he left behind and I look forward to improving upon them. In his absence we wish him a restful retirement and a long period during which he will be able to enjoy the fruits of his many years of devoted labour.

Hear, hear!

I should also like to express a word of gratitude to the hon. Deputy Minister, the Secretary of the Department, Mr. Van Vuuren, and all the staff of the department, in particular those with whom I am in direct contact. They have all made me feel welcome from the start and have helped me enormously to find my feet in the department with its wide variety of activities. A personal word of thanks to everyone who has assisted me in this process.

At this stage, Sir, I want to interrupt myself and inform hon. members that the hon. Deputy Minister has intimated that because of business in the other department with which he is associated, he will only be able to be with us this afternoon up to 6 o’clock this evening. He will also participate in the debate but if there are members who want to put questions to him they should take note of the fact in good time that he will not be able to be here with us for the whole afternoon and evening.

Where I find myself now at the start of a period of service in this department you may ask me to demarcate for you the road that I shall be following in the future. The briefest way in which I can do this is to say that it is not my intention to deviate from the road that is already been followed. The tradition of hearty co-operation among State, church and voluntary welfare organizations will continue as before. There will probably be changes of emphasis and I am sure that every person gives his own stamp to the activities of the department. But basically the present pattern will remain the general direction of my department. We shall do everything in our power to build upon it and, if possible, to extend these policies even further. I believe that the practical application of the National Welfare Bill, which I do not wish to discuss now because its Third Reading lies ahead of us, will give a new dimension to community development and community involvement. As far as this aspect is concerned I want to content myself with saying that the partnership among welfare organizations, church and State, about which so much is said, will, in the new era that we are now entering, be given every opportunity to function to the good of the community. However, I wish to make some observations in regard to a few specific spheres.

Firstly, in connection with the care of the aged, I want to say that our aim remains to assist the aged in a way that will retain them as part of the community and guarantee their independence. I think we owe it to our senior citizens not to deprive them of their independence unless it is absolutely necessary. It is, however, clear to me that not much of this policy will come into its own unless it is assisted by the necessary support services for the aged, support services to enable them to maintain themselves as part of a community. When one looks at these various spheres these services appear to be fairly comprehensive. In the first place, I believe that suitable housing that is specially equipped to comply with the particular requirements of the aged is an essential prerequisite for success in the application of this policy. It is my impression, Mr. Chairman, that there is still a great deal to be done in this sphere. In other parts of the world there is acceptance of the fact that from 4% to 6% of all aged persons need special housing while research here has indicated that in the case of only 1,4% of our aged has proper provision been made for housing schemes that have been equipped specially for them. It is also worthy of note that in urban centres where the need for such housing is high, the demand for institutional care is also particularly high. This question of support services is, I think, a matter that requires special attention, and it is my intention to ascertain as soon as possible what we can do to stimulate this aspect of the policy. I also want to express the hope that our participation in this debate will result in positive suggestions being made in regard to what can be done in this sphere. It would also appear to my mind as though the provision of service centres in our urban centres and the provision of support services such as meals, meals-on-wheels, health services, consultation services and auxiliary services at home still leaves something to be desired. I have not yet been able to put my finger on the problem but I also want to say in this connection that we shall also have to give attention to this matter in future and try to improve the situation. We know that the State renders health services and that these are continually being extended. Accordingly we took note recently of the fact that a new mobile dental service for the aged had been instituted by the Department of Health. However, it would still appear to me as though there is room for improvement in this sphere of support services and auxiliary services and we shall give our attention to these matters.

I think we must also exchange a few ideas in regard to the question of making provision for old age. The financial provision that one makes for one’s old age is so obvious that it does not require any motivation. Previous generations have known about this and it actually surprises us that it is still necessary today to point this out and to emphasize the fact and convince people that it is necessary to take steps to make provision for their families and to take note of the fact that they owe this to the community.

It is true that because of circumstances that are sometimes beyond their control many people are prevented from making a contribution towards their own provision for their old age but it also cannot be denied that there are many people who are uncaring about this matter and who only wake up once old age is upon them with its particular demands of the body, mind and means. The State remains willing to give financial assistance as far as it is able to do so. In this connection, and to prove this attitude on the part of the State, I should like to make an announcement in regard to the future application of a specific aspect of the means test, namely, property valuations.

It is well known that in the application of the means test in respect of social pensions the value of immovable property is taken into consideration when an applicant possessing such property applies for such a pension. For this purpose the municipal valuation of the particular property as it exists on the day of the application is usually taken into consideration. Valuations accepted in this way remain permanently of force and effect for pension purposes no matter how many times the original municipal valuation that held good during the application may be altered thereafter.

However, municipal valuations are not made for pension purposes. These valuations are made for other considerations entirely. These valuations are also subject to regular increases that are apparently influenced by various factors which we need not debate here. It therefore often happens that two neighbours whose properties are valued at precisely the same amount are affected differently by the application of the means test if they applied for a social pension at different times. This state of affairs causes considerable hardship and dissatisfaction and sometimes has unfair results. The municipal valuation of a property does not always reflect the fair value of that property either. It is also true that the first R9 800 of an applicant’s assets are exempt from the application of the means test. This was probably done originally precisely in order to compensate applicants for social pensions for the sometimes unrealistic values of property and because a fixed property did not per se enable the owner to make provision for his daily necessities of life.

Against this background it has now been decided in the application of the means test to assess the value of a house occupied by the applicant at a maximum of R9 800 with effect from 1 July 1978. This concession will eliminate those problems that have been referred to but it certainly does not mean that the doors will be thrown open completely. I want to issue the warning that in the case of farm properties the value of the whole farm will not be reduced to an amount of R9 800 for pension purposes. In such cases suitable adjustments will be made so that everyone will receive the benefit of the concession while allowing justice to be done to all.

This is a concession of considerable importance and you will also realize that it also contains considerable financial implications for the State. We do hope, however, that it will bring relief where the need and the pressure are greatest.

I also want to express the hope that, more than anything else, it will encourage our people to go full steam ahead during their productive years to obtain the necessary accommodation for themselves in the knowledge that they will not thereby be penalised if they have in their old age to approach the State for a social pension.

Hear, hear!

All of this however does not reduce the individual responsibility of every citizen to make all the provision he or she possibly can. It will also remain the policy of this department to help to ensure that as many of our breadwinners as possible make judicious provision early on and within the limits of their ability to do so for that day when their tired bodies can no longer continue to provide them with the necessities of life. As far as this intention is concerned, Sir, I should also like to make an announcement that emanates from a discussion between the State and the private sector in pursuance of the report on the possible introduction of a national contributory pension scheme.

After mature consideration reasonable unanimity was achieved with the private sector in regard to certain aspects, so much so that we considered the time ripe to arrive at a decision to give effect to that unanimity, a decision which I hope will lead to something positive coming into being. The decision reads as follows—

1. (a) die verpligte bewaring deur oordraagbaarheid van pensioenregte; en
2. (b) die verpligte omskepping van enkelbedragvoordele of sekere bepaalde gedeeltes van enkelbedragvoordele in jaargelde,

so spoedig moontlik in die praktyk te implementeer en om volledige en finale aanbevelings met inbegrip van ’n wetsontwerp om daaraan gevolg te gee, so spoedig moontlik voor te lê;

Sir, I should also like to say something about child care. In one or other manner my department has to deal with the care of more than 50 000 children. Some of them are in children’s homes, others with foster parents, but the vast majority are cared for with the assistance and support of my department and other persons and bodies at home, that is to say, within the family connection. Up to the present it has been official policy to retain and care for the child within the family connection as far as possible. There are of course cases where this is not possible or desirable but in general this policy is showing good results. I find it difficult to think of a better policy to follow in respect of the child and it is my firm intention to maintain this policy and to extend it further. After all, experience has taught us that the family is the child’s strongest bastion against the dangers of the outside world. The family is irreplaceable and sound families are the best guarantee for a healthy nation. But this does not imply that the last word in regard to child care has already been spoken and that there is no necessity for further development. In the short time that I have held this post I have come to the conclusion that although there is no reason for deviating from this basic policy there are nevertheless other directions of development that ought to be examined and which I hope to come back to later on in the debate.

In conclusion, a word about the care of the handicapped. Mr. Chairman, as far as the care of handicapped people is concerned, we have up till now, or so it appears to me, concentrated upon the disabilities of the handicapped and devoted our attention principally to institutional care and care at home. As generally known, my department’s responsibility in this connection is limited to the adult handicapped who are not certifiable in terms of the Mental Health Act. Juveniles who can be trained are the responsibility of the Department of National Education while certain other categories of handicapped persons are the responsibility of the Department of Health. An investigation which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions made some years ago in pursuance of those handicapped persons whom it had to deal with, brought to light important and disturbing information. It appeared that 20,73% of the males and 18,98 of the females involved in the investigation group fell into the age group 40 to 44 years. In the age group 16 to 19 years there was not one single person who had progressed further than Standard VII at school while 51,4% of the group investigated had achieved a lower educational level than Standard VI and 13,9% had had no schooling at all. It also appeared that 76,3% of this group were completely unemployed while 37,8% of them were able to be placed in gainful employment in their immediate vicinity and 17,5% could even be placed in employment elsewhere. This causes me to wonder whether a change of approach is also not possibly required in this respect. Are we not concentrating upon the disabilities as such of these handicapped persons to such an extent that we are losing sight of any ability they may have left? Why do we not try to develop and utilize to the full their remaining ability?

Cannot we make happier citizens of these people and do we not owe it to them to make them an integral part of the community and to let them experience that fact? I am searching for replies to these questions, Sir, and I hope that we shall be able to exchange positive ideas in this respect during this debate. A working man is a happy man and we know after all from experience that there is no happier or prouder person than specifically that handicapped person who has succeeded in taking his place in the ranks of economically active people. It seems to me that we must create more opportunities in this regard and I want to bind myself to doing just that.

Mr. Chairman, with these few words I want to express the hope that we will be able to discuss these matters in a positive way this afternoon for the good of those people who have been entrusted to the care of this department, our churches and our welfare organizations, and who are our collective responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour. Right at the outset I want to take this opportunity of welcoming the new Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to his new post on behalf of the official Opposition. We congratulate him on it and we wish him everything of the best in the performance of his duties and tasks in this office.

The hon. the Minister has already given an indication during the past 20 minutes of his line of thought in respect of the responsibilities of this post. He has made certain welcome announcements with regard to the means test and the valuation of property in connection with applications for old-age pensions. We welcome this wholeheartedly and we want to congratulate him and his department on it. The Minister has also made other welcome announcements and we are grateful for them.

I also want to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister’s predecessor for the work he did over the years in which has held that position and for what he did for South Africa. This is a position which affects the lives of thousands of indigent people, people who look to the Minister and file department for welfare services, people who are otherwise defenceless in life and who are completely dependent on the activities and actions of this hon. Minister and his department.

I should like to object in the strongest terms to the fact that we only received the 1976 report of the department a few minutes ago. After having congratulated the hon. the Minister on his announcements, and after having thanked him and his predecessor as well, it may sound a little strange to lodge an objection at this early stage. However, I think the hon. the Minister will realize that there is a great problem in this connection. The report is a very important document. It is the means of communication between the department and all the organizations which co-operate closely with the department. It is a means of communication between the department and those thousands of people who serve in that area. If that report is not available, that communication cannot take place and the understanding which is essential and indispensable for the performance of all these duties and services does not exist.

It is a duty of the Opposition as well to study this report attentively and to try to comment meaningfully on what is explained in it. From the nature of the case, Mr. Chairman, if the report is put on our desks a few minutes before the beginning of the debate, it is impossible to us to comply with those requirements. I therefore want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to have this report provided to the Opposition a few weeks before this debate in the future, so that we may study the report and make a meaningful contribution in respect of its contents.

Why not Parliament? Why just the Opposition?

It is obvious, of course, that this includes all the hon. members of Parliament.

You can speak for yourself.

I am now speaking for the Opposition.

One of the first points I want to touch on is the effect which inflation and the rising cost of living is having on the welfare services of South Africa. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and his department are well aware of the eroding effect which inflation and the rising cost of living have had on the provision of welfare services in South Africa over the past few months. I do believe that it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to make every possible attempt and to avail himself of every opportunity to make representations to other Ministers who are concerned with this in connection with the effect which the rising cost of living is having on the welfare services falling under his department. The organizations which provide these services have had to contend with escalating costs over the past few months, such as the cost of fuel, vehicles, equipment which has to be purchased, buildings which have to be constructed, electricity, which is an essential aid, and the cost of coal. Then there is the most important thing of all, namely the cost of food, the price of bread, milk, dairy products and so forth. All these organizations are finding that their revenue, which is dependent on the contributions of the public, of industry and of business, is constantly threatening to decline because of the economic circumstances of South Africa. As against this, the Government does not find it possible to make larger contributions to these organizations. The organizations are finding it almost impossible to keep up the services they provide to the population of South Africa or to maintain the standards they have set in the past in respect of the provision of those services.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, namely that where other Ministers are concerned with price increases, for example, the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is concerned with increases in the price of commodities such as coal and electricity, he should request them to exempt welfare organizations from such price increases, because these organizations cannot meet the increased costs. In this way, for example, the Minister of Agriculture is concerned with increases in the price of food, such as the price of bread, milk and other dairy products, and I therefore plead that the hon. the Minister should also request him to exempt welfare organizations from those price increases in some way. I believe that if the hon. the Minister were to do this, he would be doing those organizations a very great favour and he would be doing much to help them continue the services they are providing to the public. This would obviate the need for these organizations to curtail those services.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned child care and said that he would be making further announcements in this connection in the course of this debate. We all look forward to hearing the hon. the Minister in this connection. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister knows that a crisis has developed in regard to the provision of child care services in South Africa in the past year or two. As far back as 1976, a report to the Johannesburg Child Care Association pointed out that that organization had had an average deficit of R170 000 annually for the previous four years. That organization found itself in a crisis situation even then, and urgent steps were taken in an attempt to combat those problems. However, those steps have been only partially successful. The organization is still having tremendous problems in respect of the maintenance of existing services as well as the expansion of such services with a view to the larger number of children who need those services.

In the same year, 1976, a report was published by the Durban Child Care Association in which it announced that it had been forced to lay off a sixth of its staff because a lack of funds prevented them from paying these people’s wages. In Durban, the situation is that every worker has to provide services for between 80 and 100 children. Initially the number was 80, but because of the laying off of certain members of their staff, every worker had to take care of 100 children. The maximum number of children that can be handled successfully is put at between 40 and 50 by this association.

The hon. the Minister will therefore realize that a very serious problem is presently being experienced in respect of the provision of these services. One of the unfortunate results of this has been that all the preventive work which had been done by these workers has virtually had to be abandoned, such as the work which was aimed at prevention of assaults on children by parents, in the sense that services were provided to parents where the possibility existed of assaults by parents on children. In the Durban area, for example, there is a Coloured population of 100 000, while there are only seven workers to serve those Coloured people. These workers are partly subsidized by the State, and an application was made for more funds at that time, but this application was turned down and the department declared that in its opinion, there were enough workers for that population. But the people who have to provide the services there and who deal with the problems find that they do not have enough staff and therefore cannot provide the full spectrum of services required.

The hon. the Minister made an announcement in respect of pensioners. He spoke of the means test and the valuation of properties. He made a very welcome announcement in that respect. I believe that there will be great relief all over South Africa tomorrow among the people who are affected by this and that there will be gratitude towards the hon. the Minister for this concession the Government has now made.

However, Sir, tremendous problems still remain in South Africa. One could approach those who have to contend with these problems and one would find that there are thousands of names on the waiting lists for old-age homes in every city. There is no possibility in the foreseeable future of accommodation being provided to the thousands of people who are presently on the waiting lists for admission to homes for the aged. Nor are there any plans for the building of such homes to meet this enormous need. Because of rising costs and declining incomes, there is always the possibility that some of the existing homes for the aged will have to be closed or that the standard will go down. This is an aspect to which the hon. the Minister will have to give urgent attention so that the provision of services to these people may not collapse completely.

The situation with regard to Whites in South Africa is very serious. But it is much more serious as far as the other race groups are concerned. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister and his department are aware of Press reports pointing out the problem in respect of Coloured people, Indians and Black people. I believe the hon. the Minister will have to give attention to this as well in consultation with the other Ministers who are concerned in the matter.

†The hon. the Minister mentioned something which is very close to my heart, i.e. the provision of old age service centres. I have always believed that it is the primary responsibility of local government, because local government is the government of a community for a community, financed by a community and responsible to a community. It is the responsibility of local government to see to it that within each local government there is one effective service centre for aged persons within that community. However, for some strange reason—the hon. the Minister also mentioned it—very little progress has been made in regard to the provision of these centres. There is such a centre in Johannesburg. I also know of such a centre in Germiston that is doing excellent work for aged people. The philosophy behind the provision of service centres for aged people, derives from the fact that they suffer as a result of reduced mobility; they have great difficulty both from the point of view of these bodily ailments and the costs involved in moving around from one place to another in order to avail themselves of the available services. As people get older they require more health and social services than when they were healthy and productive.

The philosophy that applies here is the requirement of bringing all the services that aged people require, together under one roof. It simply requires a local authority to create suitable accommodation that is properly designed and intelligently sited where aged people can go in order to receive those medical, social and other services which they require. I mention siting because that is absolutely essential. Such a service should not be sited on the outskirts of a town but it should be sited in such a way that it is available for public passenger transport where people can, on their way to work, offload aged people that may be living with them. It should be a place which aged people could comfortably reach. Therefore the siting is very important. Equally, the design is very important. I have seen some services provided for old people where the designs have been obviously totally inadequate or incorrect for the persons whom they have to serve. Very often one finds that only staircases are provided, whereas ramps should also be provided for in the design of such buildings. Floors should also be of the friction type so that people cannot slip, but one often finds very smooth and slippery flooring in such buildings. One finds, for example, that in the halls, the passageways, the toilets and the bathrooms which should have support rails along the walls these rails are not available. If just a little thought is put into the design of these centres we can provide very effective centres and assist these people in availing themselves of these services. Other aspects of design such as the acoustics of the rooms and the halls must also be taken into consideration because aged people are generally hard of hearing. The provision of additional services such as banking and post office facilities should also receive attention. On a previous occasion in the town where I come from, I negotiated with the postal authorities and they were quite prepared to delegate a clerk to such a service centre for one day per week or one day every two weeks in order to attend to pension requirements, postal requirements, etc. I therefore appreciate the announcement of the hon. the Minister and I hope that his department will draw up a set of guidelines or standards in respect of old age service centres and that it will encourage local authorities throughout the country to take the lead in the provision of these services.

*It has been pointed out in previous debates in the House of Assembly that there is a source of revenue which can be utilized for providing welfare services. This is a source which has not been utilized in South Africa before. I am referring now to the introduction of a State lottery. [Interjections.] I know that there are objections to a State lottery, but I cannot accept them. It could be introduced on the same basis as the present defence bonds. A welfare bond system could be introduced, and if the administrative control is effective and falls under the department, I believe that the money which has to be spent on administrative costs could be restricted to a minimum. I believe that on the basis of a State lottery or a welfare bond, millions of rands could be made available annually for the provision of welfare services. I believe the Van Rooyen report mentions that a survey conducted by Mark en Mening indicated that 70% of all South Africans expressed their support for a State lottery which would collect money for welfare services. Of course, many justifications are advanced for failing to do this, for example, that it is a form of gambling. But betting on horse-racing is a form of gambling and it is something which is accepted by the population all over South Africa. If it is gambling to introduce a State lottery or a welfare bond system, it is also gambling to have a defence bond system. I believe that millions of rands, even up to R50 million, could be collected every year by means of a State lottery or the sale of welfare bonds. The public would contribute generously to such a system and it would mean that a very large amount of money would be available for welfare services. I cannot see any reason why this new Minister cannot devote all his strength and talents to achieving this for South Africa. I am sure he will do it. If he does, he will build himself an excellent reputation in South Africa.

†In the few minutes that remain I should like to refer to a very big problem which seems to be on the increase in South Africa, and that is the problem of assaults on children and babies, generally known as baby battering.

You have spoken on it before.

Yes, in 1976; it was a good speech. The Transvaal Memorial Children’s Hospital have published statistics which indicate that between 1971 and 1974 there were 67 cases of child battering admitted to that hospital, but in the year 1976 there were 80 cases of child battering admitted to that hospital 241 South African parents were convicted in 1976 of child battering or child neglect. Mrs. Dowling who is the director of the SA National Council for Child and Family Welfare has stated that the increase from 1974 to 1976 in this most deplorable and shocking crime was 75%. The indication is that there is a continuing increase in the incidence of child battering which is something I believe requires urgent and immediate attention on the part of the Minister and the Government.

This is a very complicated crime and a very complicated problem which arises from the socio-economic circumstances of the parents; it derives from the pressures of modern-day living and from an intricate psychological set of circumstances. It is not something that can be dealt with by the courts alone, although some people feel that the courts should play a major part in curbing this crime. It is something which requires an overall team approach, but in particular it is essential to identify potential batterers and to treat them before the crime takes place.

In this field in South Africa there is unfortunately a belief that one should not report suspected child abuse, and that neighbours, teachers, doctors, should not report suspected child abuse to the authorities.

They will not even give evidence.

Correct. I believe that in the case of child abuse it is essential that steps should be taken to ensure in the first place that doctors report any suspected case of child abuse or child battering immediately. They should have to ensure immediately that other disciplines such as social workers, church representatives and other people operating in this field are brought into the case immediately in order to prevent the crime if at all possible.

In the USA it is obligatory under law on doctors to report child abuse to the authorities. The doctors there are obliged by law to do so, and I think this should be the case in South Africa. In America as well the public can report suspected child abuse or child battering, and they can do so anonymously. This is in order to protect the public and to get them to take the step of reporting such a matter. I think we could do the same in South Africa. Of course, there is always the problem of a possible witch-hunt, that people may harass their neighbours, but it is far better to face that possibility than to face the possibility of children dying as a result of being assaulted by their parents.

I believe that the Minister should give attention to this and that he should take steps to see to it that the police, the courts, and all the departments and workers involved are motivated and fully informed about this problem. They should be motivated to give their attention to it and should co-operate with one another in an attempt to forestall the incidence of child battering and take steps to attend to it when it does take place.

The hon. Minister’s predecessor said in the 1976 session—I think in reply to what the hon. member for Boksburg had said on that occasion on this subject—that the department was studying this problem and that a report would be made. I think this House would like to know from the Minister what the results were of the investigation that was carried out, what decisions were taken by the department apropos the results of that investigation, what progress if any has been made and what plans have been made. Can the hon. the Minister give us some information in regard to this investigation and in regard to this problem? It is something we would like some information on from the Minister.

The Minister also made an announcement regarding a national contributory pension scheme, and he said that a committee would be established which would negotiate between his department and private enterprize to decide how this scheme would be applied in South Africa.

I am very, very pleased indeed to hear that that has now come about. I am sorry that it has taken such a tremendously long time for this decision to be made because in the meantime a large number of problems have arisen for many, many thousands of people; many thousands of people have found themselves without any form of pension cover; they have experienced hardship and the State has had to pay out a lot of money which it would not otherwise have had to pay out. In 1970 the figures were as follows: There were 8 000 000 earners of whom only 3 000 000 were covered by pension schemes; 5 000 000 were not covered by any sort of pension scheme at all. The hon. the Minister has made the announcement now, but the Cilliers committee which sat something like nine or ten years ago, recommended at that time already that pension benefits should be transferable from one employer to another or from one fund to another. They also recommended that it should not be possible to make lump sum cash disbursements so that the pension benefits would not be lost to the contributor in that way. Of the 8 000 000 earners in 1970, 3 000 000 were members of pension schemes, as I have said; 14% were members of private funds, 11% were members of underwritten funds, 10% were members of State funds and 4% were members of industrial agreement funds. But of the 8 000 000, 61% were not members of any pension fund whatsoever and they consequently had no pension fund to fall back on and obviously became dependent on the State in their old age when they could no longer earn anything. It is interesting to note that in 1973 pension funds made payments in an amount of R209 000 000, of which R76,5 million was paid out in cash lump sums to people, not as retirement funds, not on their death, but that money was paid out in the form of lump sums to those people and nobody knows what happened to that money. Some of it may have been invested but a large percentage of it was obviously squandered by the people concerned. When we compare that with the amount of money paid out in the same year in the form of old-age pensions we find that the amount was R88 million and certainly a considerable percentage of that R88 million had to be paid to people who had squandered the lump sum payments that had been paid to them by the pension funds when they resigned and not when they retired or because of death.

It is indicated that 40% of all old-age pensioners have at one time or another been members of pension funds, but because they were in a position to cash their pension contributions when they resigned from their jobs, they eventually found that they had to depend on the old-age pension. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to start with I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister with regard to what he said about his predecessor, the hon. Minister Johan van der Spuy. Whenever mention is made of a true gentleman, I always think of him as being an excellent example, and we want to wish him and his spouse a very pleasant retirement. We on this side of the Committee wish to extend to the new Minister, the hon. F. J. de Klerk, our cordial congratulations on his appointment. We have come to know him for his ability because of the way in which he has already handled some of his Bills in this House. As a person we came to know him as a friendly, approachable and sympathetic person. Where he will be dealing with the underprivileged, with the lower-income groups, we know that they will be in good hands. We on this side of the Committee want to wish him strength and assure him of our absolute loyalty and support in his task.

The hon. member for Bryanston touched on a wide variety of subjects. He came with the old hackneyed idea, i.e. that of State lotteries. I think we should leave it to the hon. member for Pinelands to reply to him in that regard. Whether he will succeed in satisfying the hon. member, I have my doubts—that I can tell him now.

What is your answer?

My answer is no. But the hon. member also brought up his horse-racing story here. Does he now want to tell us that he is in favour of our reviving dog racing?

I am in favour of a State lottery.

No, I am asking you. Are you in favour of dog-racing as well, since you spoke of horse races?

[Inaudible.]

You should not run away from your own argument now. I am asking whether you are in favour of dogracing? Now the hon. member does not want to reply to that, Mr. Chairman. He mentions one evil and then he wants to further a cause by creating two evils. However, I am glad that the hon. member read a good speech, i.e. the one on the ill-treatment of children, on which I spoke year before last. It seems to me that every now and again he does think of a good thing, too.

May I now give him a further piece of advice? He spoke about the transferability of pensions. Now I can tell him to go and look up Hansard and he will find a speech I made a few years ago on the transferability of pensions, and then he would be able to gain some wisdom from that as well.

The hon. member spoke here of the rate of inflation. We are all aware of that. We are concerned about it because we know that it does perhaps affect our lower-income groups more than any other sector of our population. What the solution is here, I do not know. I do have the consolation, though, that there is definitely no government that has done more for its social pensioners than has this very National Party Government. Speaking about social pensioners, one might very easily become emotional, because I do not suppose anybody will deny that social pensioners are having a hard time. Nor do I think anybody can deny that it is a problem assuming even greater proportions. If one were to ask oneself, or the hon. member for Bryanston, what could be regarded as an adequate pension, I should like to say on behalf of our side that one would never be able to say what is sufficient. One will never be able to do enough for the aged. One simply has to cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth.

I am grateful for the announcement by the hon. the Minister with regard to care of the aged, because it is a matter that is dear to all of us. I should also like to say immediately that in the past, and possibly now as well, we have tended too much to take it for granted in many cases that these people should simply be put into old-age homes. On the other hand, it is desirable for us to bear in mind that if we put people in an old-age home while they are still physically able to look after themselves in some way or other, we are denying them that self-reliance. We should not accept that the only place where an elderly person can be cared for should in fact be in a home for the aged. It is a fact that, with the exception of the Netherlands, South Africa has, percentage-wise, the greatest number of people in old-age homes in the whole of the Western world. I want to speak highly of and express my appreciation to our welfare organizations for the good work are they doing in this regard. However, I think old-age homes come to mind too easily as the only solution for our elderly people. In our cities, especially, many of us soothe our consciences with the idea that we have done our duty with regard to our elderly people if old-age homes have been established for them to go to. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the majority of our elderly people are not in old-age homes; more than 90% of our elderly people who are over 65 years are not in old-age homes. And, as the hon. member for Bryanston also said, there are very long waiting lists at old-age homes. However, this does not mean that those people like living in old-age homes, but that they want to find a place to live where they are certain of a roof over their heads and where they will be looked after every day. Those people constituting the more than 90% which I have just mentioned, however, are not people who want to be looked after. They are not people who want others to care for them. They are not people who want to be regarded as dependent upon the State and welfare organizations merely because of their age. They are people who still value independence, who would still like to be part of the ordinary community; they are people who would still like to be part of the social intercourse and activities of the community; they are people who still want to play a role in the community. But, what is more, they are people whose self-respect is involved. And this is in fact where our elderly people face grave problems.

In the first place, housing gives rise to problems in most cases; in fact, I think it gives rise to the greatest problem. For, although some of them who own their own homes, many of those home-owners find it extremely difficult to cope with the ever increasing rates and taxes and costs of maintaining their properties. In fact, more than 50% of our old-age pensioners are single people, and consequently the problem is an even greater one for them.

The recent phasing out of rent control is going to aggravate the housing problem for elderly people who have to rent houses. We are aware of what the State is already doing with regard to group housing for our elderly people, but I think that it will have to be tackled on a much broader level and that far too little is being done as far as that is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to proceed.

It is true that, according to calculations, there is no shortage of housing for Whites at the moment, except for our elderly people. Since we have in fact reached the stage where there is sufficient housing for Whites, I believe that we should make it a matter of top priority to provide group housing for our elderly people. May I mention an example to the hon. the Minister? In Boksburg we have a flat complex of 220 living units for elderly people, and if ever there was a happy community of roughly 250 people, then it is the one living in this very complex. And this is the case simply because those people have housing which they can afford. But the most important reason is that they feel that they are still full-fledged members of the community and are able to lead an independent life. Therefore I want to request the hon. the Minister that, in conjunction with the Department of Community Development, he make the housing of our elderly people a matter of top priority.

A second problem of our elderly people, Mr. Chairman, is geriatric services. It is a fact that all welfare pensioners are dependent upon the State for medical care. In practice this amounts to there being district surgeons at present who only go out in emergencies to visit sick elderly people. For the rest the aged are dependent on a provincial hospital whenever ordinary medical examinations have to take place or when they have to get prescriptions for medicine. I want to say at once that I have the highest appreciation for our district surgeons and provincial hospitals for the services they render. From experience, however, I can say that the way in which the elderly people receive medical services at present causes them a great deal of discomfort and sometimes humiliation as well. In practice this amounts to some of the elderly people having to wait at hospitals for hours, from early in the morning. In many of these cases they sit there and wait for one single prescription for medicine which they must have, without any medical examination having to take place. In addition to this there is the problem of transport to and from the hospital. In this regard I should also like to request the hon. the Minister to establish clinics, in co-operation with the Department of Health, at the group-housing centres for elderly people. The district surgeon could visit these places once or twice a week. If possible, a full-time nurse could be appointed to take care of the home-nursing services. Often it is only a case of bandages having to be changed or an injection having to be given. I think that many of the elderly people would suffer far less discomfort in this way. Moreover, in this way some of the work done at hospitals for these people could be greatly reduced.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. With the R9 per month increase in social pensions, a married couple now has an income of R2 112 per annum. After the deduction of the basic rebates, this means that R212 is left, and this amount is subject to income tax. This will come to approximately R19 per year. Mr. Chairman, is there a possibility of an agreement being reached with the hon. the Minister of Finance so that people whose income consists solely of a social pension may be exempted from that income tax?

Mr. Chairman, allow me to take the opportunity, in the first place, to congratulate the hon. the Minister on handling the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote for the first time. Because of his ability and the virtues he has, he has proved that we need have no doubt that he will not be successful in this important task resting upon him. We want to wish him everything of the best for the future.

I should also like to take the opportunity of conveying our sincere thanks and appreciation for the very important concession announced here this afternoon, i.e. that when the income of a person applying for a pension is calculated and his assets are taken into account and he owns a house the value of which is higher than R9 800, that property will be assessed at a maximum of R9 800. This is a very important concession. There are hundreds—I can literally say thousands—of social pensioners who will now receive a bigger pension as a result of this. There are also many pensioners who are not entitled to an old-age pension or a social pension because of the value of their assets where the full value of the house is taken into account. They will now qualify for a pension as well. In 1967 there were 49 000 White old age pensioners who received a total of R33 million. In 1977 there were more than 134 000, i.e. almost 40 000 more, who received a total of R115 million. One is grateful for what this Government has done for old-age pensioners. As far as I am concerned, there are still a few problems and I should like to bring them to the attention of the hon. the Minister and the department.

I should like to deal with the case of an artisan, a foundry worker. This is the factual situation of a man who earned good wages over the years. He worked for between 22 and 25 years for a certain company and because of the fairly good wages he received, he qualified as a matter of course for a fairly good gratuity and pension. This man also acquired a company house at a fair price and the present valuation of that house is R11 600. I am now speaking about a man who did his work diligently, who had a good income, who did not waste his money and who acquired a house during his period of service. With his gratuity he paid off the balance of his housing loan and still had an amount of almost R4 000 in savings. At the age of 62 years that man decided not to ask the State for assistance but to work for a private company. He then worked for a further six or seven years. This is in accordance with the Government’s policy that people should make provision for their old age and that they should stay in their own homes. At 69 years of age this man’s health was no longer what it should have been and he applied for an old-age pension. He and his wife qualified for it and jointly received R106 per month, i.e. R1 272 per year. Iscor, which treats its workers very well, then improved their pension payments by way of bonuses and allowances, and where this pensioner had received R1 420 annually in the past, his pension was increased by R261 and he received R1 681. But as a result of the extra R261 he received this man lost his old-age pension; in other words, he lost R1 272. This man therefore had a net annual income loss of R1 005. The concession the hon. the Minister announced in this regard will be of tremendous help but I think that we will have to look at the position once again to see if, when assets of people like these are taken into account, that property valuation of R9 800 is fair. I have already said that the valuation of this man’s house was R11 600. This is the normal price of the house and one cannot buy a cheaper house in the Vaal Triangle. Out of his annual pension of R1 681 this person has to pay rates and taxes, something he cannot do anything about. From time to time municipalities re-assess the value of properties. The site rate is approximately 4½ cents in the rand and consequently that man has to pay approximately R180 land tax annually. Other expenses such as sewerage and garbage removal are prescribed amounts and these are not items on which he can save. This costs him a further R180 per year. His electricity and water expenses I have calculated conservatively at R200 annually because I do not think one can get electricity and water for less than R200 per year. The man has to have a car because there is not really any public transport in the Vaal Triangle. Therefore he keeps his car which he has had for all these years. His third party insurance and licence fees for that car are a further R60 per year.

We encourage people to have their own homes but they do have to go to the expense of maintaining that property which will cost him at least R200 per year. His medical expenses are approximately R120 per year. Therefore the total amount of his expenses is approximately R1 100 per year. This means that this man who has been a good worker, has earned good wages and received a fair gratuity, has to live on less than R600 a year. I think that the free income of R504 annually which is taken into account, is too low. Something else that worries me is that the minimum pension for which a person qualifies is R39 per month. To my mind that is not fair and I do not know where the problem originates. Why cannot the pension of a man and his wife earning together be scaled down in order to enable them to qualify for, for example, R25 per month? At present a person qualifies for the minimum pension of R39 per month or nothing. One has the greatest appreciation for the considerably higher amounts budgeted for social pensions each year by the Treasury but I wonder whether we cannot cut the cake into smaller pieces and help more people than we are doing at the moment. I am not asking so much for an increase in the scale but for concessions in this regard. In terms of the new concession one can have the case where if a married couple owns a house of R11 600 and has a joint income of R1 968 annually and their joint income or pension increases by R48 annually, they can lose the old age pension of R39 per month. In the case of a married couple this means a loss of income of R936 per year. I want to appeal earnestly that we should see whether we cannot change this scale to the extent where provision can be made for an amount of extra income that is lower than the prescribed minimum.

I should also like to mention another matter which, in my opinion, leads to a considerable amount of confusion. A person who has been living in South Africa for five years and who qualifies for citizenship can apply for an old-age pension. In the case of an immigrant who, for example, receives a pension from the Netherlands or Germany, I should like to know whether this is taken into account when such a person applies for a social pension. There is considerable confusion in this regard and I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister can clear this matter up for us.

All of us are particularly grateful for the concession the hon. the Minister announced with regard to the property valuation of R9 800, but I do wonder whether this is adequate. In this regard a further anomaly exists, i.e. the cost of houses in the rural areas and in the urban areas. In the rural areas one can still acquire a house costing between R7 000 and R9 000 while one can no longer do so in the cities! I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give me further information about the matters I have mentioned here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Boksburg dealt with matters which I hope to deal with in my address this afternoon, but I shall do so later on. However, at the outset I wish to associate hon. members on these benches with the expression of gratitude to the former Senator Van der Spuy, the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. We wish to associate ourselves with the compliments that have been paid to the former Senator Van der Spuy, the former Minister, because I think he distinguished himself as being a Minister of great compassion. In the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions it is a prerequisite to have a Minister who shows the maximum degree of compassion in dealing with the problems of the people. We also wish to welcome the new hon. Minister in his post. We know that he is a competent man and we are confident that he will be highly successful as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. At the same time I wish to say to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions how much we appreciate all the work they do in trying to bring relief to those people who have to appeal to that department for aid.

They are members of a hard-working department that has to interpret the law from time to time. What has always impressed me is that they go out of their way to try to assist any person who is in trouble to ensure that such a person is given the maximum assistance to which he or she might be entitled. I also wish to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister is deserving of praise as well because he has also undertaken his task with enthusiasm and with that degree of compassion that is so necessary in this portfolio.

There are various matters that one can raise under this Vote and, in fact, some of the matters that I intended raising have already been raised by members who have spoken. However, I feel that some of them are of great importance.

When the hon. the Minister addressed the Committee this afternoon, he made an announcement in connection with the proposed contributory pension scheme, the S.A. Pension Scheme as recommended in terms of the report of the departmental committee which examined this aspect. We on these benches certainly welcome the fact that the Government has not rejected those recommendations outright. There was an outcry from certain sections when those recommendations were published, and I think it is right and proper that the private sector and all those with an interest, whether vested or otherwise, should be given every opportunity to participate in drawing up a scheme which will meet the needs of the country as a whole. That is why we on these benches welcome the fact that this matter is to receive consideration and that the private sector will play an important part in these deliberations.

We know this matter has been discussed for many, many years. It is one, indeed, which has become a hardy annual in many respects, but now that the Government has taken a decision to go ahead with the scheme and try to overcome its various shortcomings, I think we all look forward to legislation being introduced in the future to cover this situation.

The overall position in regard to our older people and the senior citizens of this country is one which has received a good deal of attention in the past, but there is still a very bleak future facing many of them. A contributory pension scheme, of course, is a long-term solution to provide greater security for people when the time comes for them to leave their employment. However, there are numerous short-term steps which must be taken to try to assist these people. I refer in particular to the question of the means test. The hon. the Minister made an announcement today which concerns people who own property. A concession will be made to those people and of course we welcome that concession. But there still appear to be a number of matters pertaining to the means test which require urgent attention. Indeed, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and the hon. member for Boksburg also referred to certain matters concerning the means test. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to having a full review and investigation made of the situation as far as the means test is concerned.

I think it is important that all matters concerning the means test should receive consideration. The question of the ownership of property and how its value is to be assessed in terms of the means test is an important concession, but there are many other aspects concerning the means test which require attention. These aspects relate, inter alia, to the income ceiling. In the past we had a scale in terms of which a person who qualified for a minimum pension received a small pension, and such a person will now receive an increase of R9 on the minimum pension when this comes into effect on 1 October this year. The basic minimum pension will now be R48 a month, and this will have the effect of widening the gap between those who just qualify and those who just fail to qualify. It also creates a problem for those people who receive a small increase in their private pension because they find that the increase actually places them in a far worse position than they were previously.

Various statements have been made in this connection. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated last year in regard to military pensions that should an increase in such pension result in the loss of a war veteran’s pension or an old age pension for the wife, the person concerned could refuse to accept that increase so as to enable them to continue to receive their social pensions. But there are some private pension funds which seem to be under the impression that they are not able to reduce the pension or allow a pensioner to refuse to accept an increase in pension. This, Sir, is an important aspect, because there are a lot of people concerned who receive pensions, particularly widows, who find that when their pension from the private sector exceeds the limit of R82 per month, they lose their social or old-age pension.

I had an example just recently of a person who informed me that he had received an increase in pension from the Mine Officials’ Fund from R157 a month to R166 a month. The man was also receiving a war veteran’s pension of R51 a month and the wife was receiving an old age pension of R41, making a total of R92 per month. These people, in endeavouring to ensure that the mining pension did not exceed the means test ceiling of R164 a month, took the matter up with the pension fund concerned but they were told: “This fund is however unable to freeze pensions or in any other way assist in avoiding loss of social pensions.” This is a most unfortunate situation in that these people have been given that instruction. In spite of the fact that the fund is aware that these people will be worse off it claims that it is not in a position to allow this pensioner to refuse an increase in terms of the rules of the fund or a decision taken by that fund. This is a problem which is causing a great deal of concern among these older people. They find that they not only have to contend with the increase in the cost of living but they cannot meet that increase either because they have to reduce their income and drastically reduce their standard of living as a result of the application of the means test in this regard. These people who are receiving private pensions from a private source are the ones who have the greatest difficulty in meeting the requirements of the means test in many ways. We know that those with assets are allowed a considerable sum in respect of those assets before the pension they are entitled to is affected. A single person is allowed R22 400 and can still qualify for the maximum old age pension. The means test is applied on a sliding scale and they are only precluded from receiving any pension at all when their assets exceed R34 400. Those persons are in a far more advantageous position than the person who has contributed to a fund whether it be the person who has made the contributions or the widow of such a person.

I think the hon. the Minister must give serious consideration to finding ways and means of overcoming this difficulty. As far as property valuations are concerned we know that the department prescribes that the value of the property taken at the time of application for a pension shall persist, and if there is any other change in circumstances that valuation will remain the same. If an investigation into the means test is carried out, I think the hon. the Minister could look at the situation to see whether it is not possible to provide in the case of persons receiving private pensions that the amount of the pension as at the time of application should be the amount to be taken into account at all future times. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member a chance to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for Boksburg for his consideration. People receiving a private pension are placed in a very difficult position, as I have just said, and they certainly require some assistance from the department when they find themselves in that unfortunate situation.

There are many other aspects regarding the means test which need attention, but the one in particular to which I think the hon. the Minister should give consideration is the position of military pensioners. I am referring here to war disabled pensioners who receive benefits because of a sacrifice they have made relating to their physical fitness. They have sacrificed their health for the benefit of this country and the State is under an obligation to assist in compensating these people. In 1976 we passed the Military Pensions Act and this was a most welcome piece of legislation in that it improved the amount of compensation to be paid to these people and particularly to their widows.

But there are older people who receive benefits from the First World War and the Second World War who are still at a disadvantage in terms of that legislation. The announcement in the budget speech was that they would receive an increase of 12,5% for Whites, 25% for Coloureds and Indians, and 37,5% for the Blacks. An effort is being made here to narrow the gap among all race groups. However, as far as the older militarily disabled pensioner is concerned, he is still at a disadvantage compared to those persons who suffered injuries and were awarded compensation after 1 July 1975.

The other aspect that gives rise to concern is that although these increases have been announced, there are still persons who do not seem to qualify for any increase at all. I am referring in particular to widows. The widow of a person who received a consolidated pension does not herself qualify for a consolidated pension in terms of the section of the Act dealing with consolidated pensions when she becomes a widow, and accordingly does not qualify for the 10% increase which was granted last October. I have a case where a widow was under the impression that she would receive an increase in her widow’s military pension—her deceased husband was a war disability pensioner—from 1 October 1977, but from that date the pension awarded in terms of section 8(4) of the Act was not a consolidated pension as specified in terms of section 8(2), and for this reason the beneficiary did not qualify for an increase of 10% as from 1 October 1977. Here we have a group of widows who were unfortunately under the impression that they were to receive an increase in terms of the announcement that was made but they are actually not receiving that increase.

There are other aspects in regard to the means test that I want to touch upon. There is the position of those people who are self-employed. It is important, Sir, that we encourage people to remain in active employment. In the past the Government has allowed a man over 70 and a woman over 65 to continue in employment and their earnings from such employment are not taken into account as income. However, the self-employed person, even if it is only on a small scale, does not receive any concession whatsoever. Here again, I believe that when the Government reviews the means test, the position of the self-employed person should also be taken into account.

There is another aspect which gives me cause for concern as far as the means test is concerned and that is that the combined income of married people—even if they are not living together—is taken into account for assessment purposes. It would appear that this requires further investigation. I know of a case where a particular pensioner has been admitted to a home for the aged as a result of his infirmities. The wife has continued in employment but because the wife has continued in employment, the person in that institution has lost his pension although he is not receiving any assistance whatsoever from his working wife. It would appear that the only way in which such a person could re-qualify for a social pension—in this case, a war veteran’s pension—would be to obtain a divorce. We know how high the divorce rate in South Africa is at the present time and we certainly do not want to aggravate the situation.

The question of accommodation was also raised by the hon. member for Boksburg and here, of course, he is quite right. With the lifting of rent control a considerable number of people will in all probability try to seek accommodation in various homes for the aged. This will be unfortunate, Sir. In Durban, welfare organizations have successfully obtained older buildings which could be converted into old-age homes or flats for social pensioners. This was found most convenient by virtue of the fact that many of these buildings are situated in the central area of the city; they are close to hospitals, the shopping centres and the Post Office. These buildings meet the requirements admirably. These buildings obviously have to be converted and they have to meet certain required standards. I think that this is a practice which should be encouraged by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Welfare organizations should be encouraged in their efforts to obtain existing buildings and to convert them into suitable flats or old-age homes for social pensioners.

The question of the subsidies that are paid to old-age homes is another matter that was referred to in the Budget speech. It was announced that the subsidies to various homes and institutions offering accommodation to the handicapped, were to be improved. I notice, however, Sir, that many of these organizations are still completely unaware as to how the new formula will affect them as far as their subsidies are concerned. Many of these organizations have to draw up their budgets for the coming year and they seem to be completely unaware as to what the provisions are in terms of the new formula for the payment of subsidies. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to take steps to ensure that these organizations are fully informed as to what the new basis of subsidy actually involves. These people have to plan for the future and it is important that they know to what extent they are affected by the new proposals. When the matter was discussed during the Budget debate we were unable to obtain any further information. It was the Minister of Finance who replied to the debate and he did not indicate in any way how further information in regard to these subsidies could be obtained. Admittedly, a White Paper was issued to hon. members but, as I say, as far as welfare organizations are concerned, many of these people are completely unaware as to what they are entitled to receive and how they should proceed along the lines of the new proposed subsidies to be paid.

The whole question of paying subsidies and keeping old people within the community is indeed one of paramount importance. We have heard many theories in regard to assisting and helping old folk. I believe that senior citizens want to remain in the community for as long as possible. To do so there has to be a supportive programme, supportive services rendered by welfare organizations such as home-help services, meals on wheels services and so forth. Some of these services, of course, have not received any subsidies until recently. These are important supportive measures that must be taken to ensure that these people remain in the community for as long as possible. Social workers who call on people with home-help services and meals on wheels services, find that contact with these people is of great assistance to them in remaining in the community. Here is a situation where the Government can also assist. The monthly attendant’s allowance of R10 to assist a person who has become frail and infirm and perhaps room-bound has remained unaltered since its inception on 1 October 1965. We know what the cost of medicines is; we know the tremendous expense that is involved in the case of old people with failing health who have to take medicines. Many of them do not belong to any medical aid scheme and many of them have to go to provincial hospitals. At Addington Hospital in Durban, for instance, over 70% of the people being attended to in the out-patients’ department are people over 65 years of age. Some of them go there merely in an effort to overcome their boredom and loneliness; others are there because of necessity. They cannot afford to get a doctor to call on them and there are problems to get a district surgeon to call upon them at their own home or wherever they may be. These people are really having a tremendous struggle to make ends meet. An attendant’s allowance of only R10 per month is hopelessly inadequate. This also applies to civil pensioners, Sir. Civil pensioners receive an extra allowance because of ill-health. I received a letter only today from a person who is a civil pensioner and who is bedridden. She says that her expenses for a nurse-aide alone are R100 per month. She has doctors’ and medical expenses of R50 per month and her civil pension only amounts to R160 per month. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will now enable me to reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Umbilo. I have to apologize for not being able to remain here much longer, but I have the permission of the hon. the Minister to leave a little earlier because of a prior engagement.

I just want to say that what the hon. member for Umbilo said in connection with what I said in the debate last year is quite correct and I accept responsibility for what I said at that time. I just want to confirm that what has been reported to him about the way in which certain people are affected by having received a small increase in their civil or private pension is quite correct. I have tried to the best of my ability to give attention to the matter and I want to thank the many bodies which have co-operated with me. Some were apparently prevented by their statutes from doing so and I have brought this to the attention of the hon. the Minister. We hope to reply to this more fully in due course and I also think the hon. the Minister will give the hon. member a more detailed reply at a later stage. I just want to say that what the hon. member for Umbilo said is quite correct and I agree that something has to be done about the matter.

The hon. member raised a further matter and this is in connection with certain deficiencies in the pensions of war veterans. I want to undertake once again that in so far as it is my responsibility, I shall give attention to it once again. However, I deeply regret having to mention something which I had hoped would not be necessary. For the sake of the record, however, it is essential that it be mentioned because I have tried to the best of my ability to perform my duty towards the people who endangered their lives in the service of their country during the war, whether or not I agreed with their views, and because I appreciate what they did.

†We have always recognized the South African Legion and the MOTHS, as the spokesman for these people and I have tried at all times to consider their opinions and to give immediate attention to their requests. I merely mention this because of a report that appeared in an Eastern Province newspaper recently in regard to which the editor was kind enough to publish an apology immediately afterwards and also in the weekend edition because of certain remarks that had been made in that report. The South African Legion has yet to react to what was said at the time. I shall read only a portion of the report. I am willing at any time to meet the South African Legion—I want to say this in this House today—to discuss the matter with them because I want to extend the hand of friendship to them as far as I am able to just as I have done in the past. I regret that through the actions of one or two people and through a newspaper report something occurred which to me is a matter for great regret.

I received a letter dated 9 December 1977, from the South African Legion, the first paragraph of which reads as follows—

Hon. members will note the dates, Sir. On 9 December this letter was written to my Department and on 29 December, during the holidays, I replied to that letter from the South African Legion. I told them that the matter was receiving attention and hon. members will realize that although I did not know what the hon. the Minister of Finance had in mind no Deputy Minister or Minister would ever divulge what was to be announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I subsequently received a letter, and this was dated 2 February, from the same South African Legion signed by the same gentleman, who signed the first one concerning the means test applicable to war veterans’ pensions. This was not a complicated matter.

I had the matter investigated and on 28 March, 1978, I replied to the South African Legion telling them what the position was. I found that a certain Mr. Mills then informed the meeting of the Legion, according to this report, which says that—

I want to say immediately that the “dishonest” part of the statement as reported in the newspaper was subsequently withdrawn. Apparently the word was not used by Mr. Mills and I accept that unreservedly. But this gentleman said that I had treated this organization callously and he went on to say, and I quote—

I deny this charge categorically. But I take even greater exception when a gentleman who is not in a position to protect himself in this House, namely the Secretary of the Department, is attacked. Mr. Mills said— according to this report—that the disregard shown to the representation led by him when they met with the Secretary of the Department had been a “breach of faith”. I leave it to hon. members to decide. All hon. members are welcome to go through this file to see whether at any time disdainful treatment was handed out to an organization for which I have the greatest respect. After the budget I replied in full to the gentleman as I will do in future because I can assure hon. members that we will not treat this organization in the way that we have been treated by one of the members of the organization. I will gladly give any further information. There are no secrets in this respect.

*Sir, I have been replying so far to the matters raised here by the hon. member for Umbilo. In the short time I have left, I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to a number of matters.

In the first place, the hon. member for Bryanston referred today to the fact that this report had only become available at this late stage. Let me say at once that this report, which covers the activities of a year, only reached us a week ago. As you know, the translation is always a difficult question, because all the reports have to be translated as well. It only became available a week ago, so it has only now been possible to make it available in Cape Town. We want to make it available to hon. members at the earliest possible date.

I want to add that the attempt to complete it while also working on other important work is something I can reasonably ask the Official Opposition to take into consideration. I was struck by the fact that the hon. member for Umbilo, who co-operates closely with this department, once again began his speech this afternoon by expressing his appreciation for this department. I hope this is shared by the Official Opposition. I feel I have to say this. Although it has not yet been said by them, I should like to believe that it will surely be said by the Official Opposition at some stage.

In this annual report you will see once again that the offices of the Department—and I do not mean to reproach any other Government departments—are probably situated in older buildings than those of any other department. I do not know whether any of the hon. members have ever noticed this. In spite of the fact that the old Victory building near the hospital, with all its passages up and down, has been placed on the budget, the officials of this department have said that there is other more important work, and they have always been willing to be accommodated in those buildings. In this old building, 513 officials are employed at head office alone to deal with this enormous task.

I now appeal to the hon. member for Parktown, who used to be a member of a large organization. The budget of this department this year is round about R420 million. The budget for the salaries and travelling expenses of the officials of this department, including its regional offices, is only about R8 million. This is not even 5% of the budget they work with. But apart from what they work with in their own budget, this department is responsible for the payment of pensions of various other departments which can also share in this. Do we realize, when we sometimes express criticism because we do not receive a reply as soon as we would like to—may I refer to this other letter to which I also had to get a reply from my department… [Time expired.]

I rise to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to continue with his speech.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may continue.

I thank the hon. member. Do we realize that every month, on behalf of other departments as well, such as the Department of Coloured Relations, an amount in excess of R44 million is paid out in pensions alone by this department? All this is done with a staff consisting, as I have already said, of 513 officials at head office. Do you know that the extensive welfare work done in our country, with all its facets which have been mentioned here this afternoon, was performed by a total work team of 1 716 in the year covered by the report for 1976? If we want to be fair, we may just add that many of the social workers who have recently qualified are young people who have just come from university and who are then sent out without any experience and asked to do this work. This number I have mentioned includes office staff. If we also take into consideration that there is a large turnover of staff, which is graphically illustrated to you in the report, because most of the women workers resign when they get married, then you have an idea of the enormous work load which especially the senior officials of our department have to bear. May I add that if all the new laws which were passed last year are taken into consideration, as well as the effect of a contributory pension scheme and all the other instructions which have been given, I believe that I am surely speaking on behalf of you all this afternoon in expressing our sincere thanks to the Secretary and his staff and all officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

In the second place, I want to express a few thoughts to you in connection with the assistance we have received from voluntary organizations. For welfare work in South Africa, in the widest and finest sense of the word, cannot be done by the officials alone. As the hon. member for Umbilo repeatedly said, this work not only requires professional training which we try to improve from day to day, but in welfare work, just as in the work of a minister of religion and the work of other people, experience also counts. The years and the insight of the years bring the wisdom which is necessary to keep on doing this work. And I believe that voluntary organizations in South Africa—and I include churches and all the registered organizations, but also the people who are not registered as workers—deserve the greatest thanks from us.

Now that there are three Bills under consideration in the various Houses of Parliament, I want to express the hope that a campaign which has been launched in the newspapers in connection with voluntary cooperation—with good intentions in some quarters—will be further expanded if these laws are passed. I also want to plead that all of us in this House should unanimously ask for the co-operation of voluntary organizations.

I think the hon. member for Bryanston asked that local authorities should be consulted about this.

†Sir, may I mention that we have not only endeavoured to do this, but we already have the co-operation of local authorities in securing the loans which are now granted for the erection of old-age homes. We are negotiating with local authorities and will continue doing so increasingly now that we hope to have regional boards in future. We did that with the experiment in the Vaal Triangle, and we hope to achieve even more not only by negotiating, but by consulting at all times with local authorities and even asking them to initiate schemes which can be done under their direction. In this regard, Sir, we are trying to consolidate all the circulars which were sent out in the past, so as to inform the local people not only what they are entitled to, but how they can assist in achieving the best for people who need assistance in the field of welfare work.

*Mr. Chairman, in the third place I want to say a few words about the phenomenon which has been giving rise to serious concern lately, i.e. the phenomenon of drug addiction as well as alcoholism. I think we should just reaffirm this afternoon what the hon. the Minister recently said, i.e. that we are moving on very dangerous ground if we begin to equate dagga and all the other drugs with things such as smoking, drinking and other habits which people may censure. I think we are beginning to move on dangerous ground, for we have already seen an example of this in America, i.e. if we begin to generalize and say that dagga is not so dangerous and that alcohol represents a greater danger. I have heard these sounds in some quarters, and I am afraid that this attitude may spread. Our young people who are addicted to drugs and who are encouraged to use drugs by people who make a fortune out of it will have to be approached with the greatest sympathy but also with the greatest seriousness.

†And, Sir, after saying this I immediately realize that we have a duty not only towards the Whites in this country, but I think we should seriously think about and rethink this whole phenomenon of dagga abuse especially amongst our Black communities.

*Sir, it was disquieting to learn, according to evidence which has been given, how many people who took part in processions and demonstrations during the Soweto riots were under the influence of drugs. I am not saying by any means that this was the prime cause, but let me make it clear today that I believe that a healthy family, no matter what its colour, can contribute largely to the elimination of these evils. I believe that every human being is entitled to proper accommodation. I believe that every child is entitled to be brought up under the best circumstances, and this includes accommodation, quality of life and his places of recreation, the places where he goes to play. Many of these evils which are making their appearance among young people can be countered right at the start by creating recreational facilities and other directions in which people can use their energy. However, it would be extremely foolish of us to generalize to such an extent as to equate dagga and other drugs with alcoholism.

But this phenomenon of alcoholism which is gaining ground among women in particular is something which is giving cause for grave concern.

†And therefore, Sir, I will conclude with this thought. I believe that in a happy home situations can be such that people will not want to go to bars or to places where they are led astray by friends. I believe that if we can create happy homes, we will have less of these things which we see nowadays. But to achieve this we will need the co-operation of every member of the society.

*We shall have to persuade people again to say openly that the effects of divorce and broken homes are not limited to that broken home where, unfortunately, it is sometimes unavoidable. But our orphanages are full of children who are not orphans, but who come from broken homes. We shall have to reaffirm our norms, not in a spirit of hypocrisy or sanctimoniousness, so that we can openly say that divorce is something which should not be encouraged, but which should be prevented as far as possible. We shall have to admit that we cannot create happy families among Whites or non-Whites if the basic necessities of life, i.e. work, food and clothing, are lacking.

†And therefore, Sir, I am so glad that an Advisory Committee is co-operating in regard to this work and also assisting the other population groups in getting welfare work going amongst these groups, and that they are functioning so wonderfully well at the present moment.

*And this, Sir, can be done on a regional level as well. We have to bear in mind that the fortune or misfortune of one population group has an effect on the others as well. We cannot get away from that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very grateful that the hon. the Minister in his announcement in respect of pensions this afternoon—his first announcement under this Vote—touched upon the most important things I wanted to make a plea for, and dealt with them. I am also particularly grateful that he succeeded in avoiding the socialist pothole into which one can so easily put one’s foot in the field of pensions or medical aid. This year’s budget is after all a manifestation of our free economy with the emphasis on private enterprise, the promotion of thrift, the countering of extravagance and so forth. We heard in the budget speech that there were going to be further concessions in regard to pensions in the sense that firms’ partners who were members of pension schemes and who were prevented earlier from remaining members of such schemes on becoming partners, would henceforth also be able to remain members. In other words, there is encouragement to the individual to make provision for himself for contingencies, for things that might happen to him, and for his old age. We have already had other concessions as well on the part of the Government in the field of pensions— concessions that need not be enlarged upon here—inter alia, concessions in respect of pension and annuity contributions.

In view of the fact that the long-term insurance industry is the greatest single underwriter of pension schemes—it underwrites more than 7 000 of the 8 000 pension schemes in our country—I was also particularly grateful to learn from the report on its activities that that industry was given a glowing testimonial on the manner in which it helps the individual to provide for himself and assists in keeping private enterprise in our country going. The entire report of this commission is a testimonial to the sound management, adaptability and sound control of this industry.

The first three aspects of the announcement of the hon. the Minister in regard to pensions have already come to grips with the most important remaining shortcoming in this field, namely the negotiation that will take place in respect of the transferability or preservation of pension-fund contributions.

Mr. Chairman, the mentioning of these two concepts, namely transferability or preservation, actually already indicates the only two possible courses of action to be followed. The aspect of transferability has often been mentioned in Parliament. I believe that the transferability of pension contributions may perhaps pose practical problems. It is on record in Hansard—this has already been pointed out in previous debates—that the great differences among the various pension funds is one of the largest stumbling-blocks affecting the question of transferability. It is true that pension funds differ vastly among themselves. However, it is a good thing that this is so. Those differences are mainly the result of healthy competition among the various underwriters of pension funds. Pension schemes are constantly being restructured. Improved products are continually being placed on the market. This in itself is one of the strongest arguments against an umbrella national pension scheme. However, that is still no reason why pension funds credits that an individual has accumulated in one fund and under one employer need be wasted when he leaves that pension fund.

In the field of our retirement annuity legislation, we already have the example that when a person stops being a member of an annuity fund, his contributions are frozen or preserved. His contributions remain to his credit with profits. In reality, this means that those contributions that have already been paid in can be regarded as a single premium. When that person reaches retirement age or in the event of his early death, those contributions give him or his dependants a pro rata return for the number of years he was a member of the fund or in the service of that employer. I believe that this is also an example to us or to the committee that will inquire into and consult with the industry, of what can be done in the field of group pension funds.

However, that is not all. I am afraid that, until now, there has been too little encouragement of the incentives that ought to exist in respect of pensions as far as the lower and middle income groups are concerned. The fact remains that today we have very strong incentives for people in high marginal tax brackets to keep their pension contributions as high as possible and also to utilize them for tax purposes. If a person retires from a group pension fund today and still remains in a very high income tax bracket, it is not worth his while financially to take his lump sum benefit from that fund. If he does so he has to pay income tax on his lump sum benefit, excluding an amount of R600 which is the amount he normally pays in tax out of his income. In other words, there is a very strong incentive for people in the high income group to transfer those lump sum benefits into single-premium pension benefits. In the lower and middle income groups, however, the same incentive does not exist to the same extent. That is where, in my view, the temptation is strongest to use lump-sum credits that may accrue to a person when he leaves the service or is no longer a member of a particular pension fund, to supplement his income in order to buy a motor-car or for any other purpose. In other words, the years utilized for the provision of pension benefits are actually wasted. This is one of the fields to which, in my view, the most urgent attention should be given. One asks oneself whether, if it has been so successful and so effective to encourage pension provision by way of income tax reductions among the higher income groups, one cannot, by means of an extension of the rebate system which is of more direct interest to the middle and lower income groups, also foster a greater appreciation for pension provision on the part of those taxpayers. If this can be linked to the freezing, preservation or transferability of funds when there is a change from one fund or employer to another, then without becoming an absolute State scheme and without running the risk of assuming socialistic tendencies, we will ultimately reach a situation where every individual in society will be strongly encouraged by the State to see to it that he fulfils his duty towards himself, his family and his community.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister is still here; I know he has other responsibilities. However, I did want to raise one or two matters and would like to respond to a couple of things he himself said a little earlier in the debate.

First of all, let there be no mistake about this. Through our main speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston, we not only returned thanks to the predecessor of the present hon. Minister but also warmly welcomed and congratulated the present Minister and, by implication, the Department as well. I would like to make this very clear. I come from a constituency where there are many older people. Those people have many troubles in regard to pensions. I am therefore in constant contact with the Department. Other hon. members have indicated, this and it has also been my experience. I have had outstanding service from the Department and would like to place that on record.

With regard to the report, I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister has adequately answered that criticism. The fact of the matter is that we only received the 1976 report today. Despite all the demands that are made upon the Department, it seems to me that it makes for a better debate in Parliament—this is the point—if we have sight of the report— even if it is the 1976 report—at least a couple of weeks beforehand. All we are asking from this side is whether we could have the 1977 report a little earlier next year to enable us to debate more effectively and more intelligently.

Mr. Chairman, before I come on to the main item that I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to refer to a question I asked earlier in the session, i.e. with regard to the means test. I put this question on the Order Paper, i.e.—

The reply by the hon. the Deputy Minister at that time was that—

This is a very long time ago, and that—

Whilst it is true—we receive this with acclamation—that a change has been made in terms of the amount that can be claimed in respect of housing, nevertheless the free income level is also a problem. In view of the fact that the means test was established in 1972 and it is now 1978—I need not document that—in view of the erosion of our money, I would ask the Department to give very serious attention to the raising of the free income level in respect of social pensions. Sir, one must also point out that, despite the fact that questions were asked in the debate last year, and despite the fact that I raised the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Budget debate this year, although social pensions have been increased—one is glad and grateful for it—once again this only comes into effect in October.

We noticed that when civil pensions were increased, and even when military pensions were increased, the increases became effective on 1st April. Despite this, the social pensioner has to wait until October. I would like a specific reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister or, if he is not able to give me that information in the time he is here, perhaps from the hon. the Minister himself, on this question. I asked the then hon. Minister about this last year and he told me that it was a question of computers. I do not find that answer satisfactory, particularly when one thinks about the general sales tax which is going to be levied from the beginning of July. There is no question about it that this tax is going to eat into the small increase that has been given to old-age pensioners. I would like to ask specifically whether it will not be possible in the event of future increases for them to be paid sooner or not long after the announcement. If that is not possible, I want to ask that consideration be given to making the increase, even if it has to be from the beginning of October because of administrative problems, retrospective. People who are on a fixed income are very hard hit in these times of spiralling costs.

I now wish to come to the question of military pensioners, viz. those receiving military pensions and particularly those who have been severely injured, those who are 70% to 100% disabled. I raised this matter last year and the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that I arranged for a delegation of 100% disabled pensioners to see him. Just as he has indicated himself, I was also very disturbed to see the report in the newspaper which suggested that the hon. the Deputy Minister had simply not yet been able to give a reply in regard to a certain document. The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained that and I am not going to take the matter further except to say that, according to the same report, a special meeting was going to be arranged between the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to discuss with the S.A. Legion and other interested persons the whole question of military pensions. All I am asking is whether that is definite and whether that news is correct, viz. that on 30 June, according to the newspaper report, such a meeting is going to take place. Obviously, I hope very much that that meeting is going to take place because I think there should be consultation in this regard.

I want to say that there is still considerable unhappiness among those ex-soldiers who were wounded in World Wars I and II and in the Korean War. I happen to meet fairly often with some of them in the Cape Town area who are 100% disabled. We know that consolidated pensions have been increased by 12% for Whites. In 1978, R419 million is to be spent on pensions of which only R11 million is to be spent on war disability pensions which is 2,6% of the total. There are nearly 20 000 disabled soldiers. A 70% disabled military pensioner receives a pension of R79,51 per month in 1978. Under the new dispensation, which we welcomed when it came into being in 1976, that same person would receive R210 per month. There is an enormous disparity. A 100% disabled military pensioner receives a pension of R113,60 per month in 1978. Under the new dispensation the same kind of pensioner, perhaps a youngster disabled in the Angolan War, receives R300 per month. We all understand the actuarial problem in terms of pension funds, but I do believe that the disabled military pensioner from the two World Wars and the Korean War should be better provided for. A person may have no legs and no arms. He is 100% disabled. As he grows older his dependence becomes greater. His wife can no longer assist him, he can hardly get into a bath and he can no longer help himself. In spite of this, he gets an absolute pittance. There is a great deal of discontent among military pensioners about this. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows this because he has seen them and he has talked to them. One understands the shortage of funds in South Africa but I believe that these people have a special case. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department to give very special consideration to a relatively small group of people and, obviously, in terms of time, a decreasing number of people, who feel very strongly that they have served their country and served it well. They received terrible injuries during their period of service and they feel that whilst they welcome the new dispensation, they are being unjustly treated.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to a few of the questions put to me by the hon. member for Pinelands. There are some of the aspects which the new Minister would like to go into more thoroughly and I therefore do not wish to compromise him in this regard.

As far as the means test is concerned, however, I said in reply to a question that it was being adjusted regularly even though it had not yet been reviewed in its entirety. The announcement made here this afternoon is proof of that. Minor adjustments are continually being made. Although we have often spoken about this and have considered the matter from all angles, we must take one thing into account—and we cannot get away from it—namely that in order to be able to give something to people, we must have the funds. The hon. member for Pinelands mentioned, for example, that we are only making the increased pensions payable from October. It is true that the computer plays a role here but there is also an additional and more important reason for this. The Treasury decides in its wisdom, after consultation with the department, when an increase will come into force. From the nature of things, we normally ask for as much as we can get, of course, because we feel exactly like the hon. members do about the care of people. However, the Treasury must consider our requests while keeping in mind other obligations that also have to be met. Ultimately, Treasury might have, say, X rand available during a financial year to supplement old-age pensions. This can be done in two ways. The amount of X rand can be divided among the thousands of pensioners and in the course of the year we can pay them each R12 more a month. The alternative is to pay them R24 over a period of six months. Because only a certain amount is available during a given financial year, this is the way in which the manner of payment is determined. I have explained this matter repeatedly.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Minister of Finance, who gave us an additional allocation of funds to meet the general sales tax position which is coming into operation at the beginning of July, could not have allocated a proportion of those funds to make the increase applicable from 1 July instead of the beginning of October. In other words, this would then have coincided with the introduction of the general sales tax.

Quite frankly, Sir, I am not in a position to reply to that. I did not discuss it with the Minister of Finance, but there must certainly be reasons why this mutter was not raised by the previous Minister of this department. I am merely saying that at the date of the introduction of the budget a certain amount was available for pension increases and that we had to spread it Over a certain period of time.

*A further question has been put to me in regard to the report, and I just want to tell the hon. member that we hope to have the report available earlier next year. I can appreciate his objection but if he reads through the report he will also see that he could have conducted this debate just as effectively if he had read the 1975 report because we deal here mainly with adjustments to the previous report. I shall try to make it available earlier, and I think enough has been said about this already.

I have been asked about a meeting with the S.A. Legion that was arranged for 28 June about which I read in the newspaper. Arrangements are being made for courtesy visits and I want to state very clearly that if the S.A. Legion wants to pay such a visit or wants to discuss matters, my door will always be open to them. They are most welcome. I have no knowledge of a meeting arranged with the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. In any event, I should like to discuss the matter with them.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Do I understand from the hon. the Deputy Minister that no application has been made for a meeting with the S.A. Legion and the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence? Where do they get that from in the first place?

It is possible that the Minister of Defence was approached in this regard. It would be quite natural, and I can only read from this report. This is what it says—

It is therefore not 30 June, but after that date—

*I have no knowledge of that but it is possible that the matter may still come through to us and that the hon. the Minister knows about it. But they certainly did not tell me anything like that.

Sir, I just want to come back for a moment to something the hon. the Minister mentioned here—an extremely important matter that will receive the attention of the department later on. The hon. the Minister said that in future we would have to give more attention to our young people, people who are still educable and who can still be assisted to take their place in society. I now want to ask hon. members to look at the budget where they will see the allocation of funds. I am just going to mention a few amounts: Contribution to pension and provident funds, R142 million; social pensions, R178 million; war pensions, R11 million. These millions continue until further on we come to child care, where the total amount is R36 million. Compare these with each other and compare them with what is being done for the handicapped to enable them to take their place in life. I think in the field of welfare in South Africa we should think more and more of our young people who still have a chance of taking their place in life, people who have to be rehabilitated and who, for some reason or another, have gone astray.

Now it strikes one that this department will have to co-operate very closely with other departments, and I want to address a few words to the Committee on that. Hon. members will be aware from what was mentioned in speeches here this afternoon, inter alia, by the hon. member for Boksburg, that health services play an essential role not only in the lives of elderly people but also in the lives of handicapped people.

The hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Bryanston also referred to this. There are other departments like the Department of Prisons with which we cooperate very closely with a view to the rehabilitation of short-term prisoners, in particular, who are not hardened criminals and who can still be placed on the right path and assisted.

There is the Department of Community Development with which we have to cooperate very closely because, as I said earlier, I believe—and everybody will agree with me—that housing for people, a roof over people’s heads, the right to be able to play and the right to be able to study so that a person can equip himself for the future, is most decidedly something that can prevent social evils and obviate the necessity for remedial action.

There are other departments we have to cooperate with, like the provinces in connection with the provision of services. The hon. member for Bryanston mentioned organizations like local authorities, and we shall have to liaise very closely with them too. But in future we shall also have to liaise with our Departments of Coloured Relations, Indian Affairs and Plural Relations as effectively as possible. I want to make the statement here this afternoon, Sir, that I think there is both a privilege and a duty that has been imposed upon us in that in at least one matter we can co-operate as political parties, namely, to assist the various nations in remedying the social evils that are peculiar to themselves, the social problems that are peculiar to every nation, in the best possible way, and to confer with them regularly on these matters.

The Department of Coloured Relations has established relations committees. There is nothing to prevent any one of us or any member of the public from doing his very best in those relations committees by imparting his knowledge to people who have to operate in that field. After all, to a Black man it is far better to be served by his own people in regard to his social problems than to be served by a White man. I need not tell that to the Natalians; they will know that.

I can state with the utmost certainty that I believe that in regard to this matter we must co-operate with one another in the interests of South Africa as a whole. Dr. Verwoerd said in 1960—and it has also been said repeatedly by members of other political parties—that happiness, work and food are conducive to peace and contentment, and we in South Africa have a task to create that type of happiness for people so that happy families and happy communities can grow from their working and recreational surroundings. I believe that when this department has to perform its task in that direction we can rely on the co-operation of all parties.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one problem with which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the social worker has to deal with in ample measure in South Africa, then it is the one great social problem of our time, Sir, here in South Africa as well, viz. alcoholism. It has assumed such alarming proportions that people in many circles despair of our ever being able to solve this problem. This social problem, more than any other, affects one of the most important cornerstones of our nation, viz. our family, our family context, which is being tom apart and devastated under the onslaught of the principal dependence-producing substance of our time, viz. alcohol.

If we examine the annual report of the department, and in particular the chapter on rehabilitation services and centres such as those at Magaliesoord, Cullinan and White River and the other registered rehabilitation centres, we see that in 1975 alone 81,9% of all admissions to State rehabilitation centres were in respect of alcoholism, while 93,48% of all admissions to other centres were in respect of alcoholism. If we look at the latest report, hot from the Press, we see that there was an increase of 48,4% in the number of South African women in particular admitted in one year to the registered rehabilitation centres. Mr. Chairman, if we also take into consideration that in 1975 alone the total number of admissions to centres for alcoholism alone was 5 500, we realize something of the extent of this problem in South Africa, because, Mr. Chairman, these 5 500 people who are being treated represent only a portion of the total number of alcoholics in South Africa.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I nevertheless want to advocate, without negating the basic moral responsibility of each individual, the burden of sin which rests upon him, the sin of contravening the sixth commandment, that the public and particularly the employers should regard this unfortunate category of people in our society with more understanding and compassion because alcoholism in fact has all the characteristics of any other metabolic disease, but with a strong added psychological element. In fact, Sir, some experts go so far as to contend that an alcoholic is born that way inclined, in other words that certain genetic characteristics are present which are responsible for making such an individual a potential alcoholic, and that the pathological process begins as soon as he comes into contact with alcohol.

The Medical Association of South Africa accepted this fact a long time ago, and after many years of representations from Sanca recognized alcoholism as a pathological entity. With the approval of the Cabinet and the Public Service Commission the South African Police have accepted alcoholism as a pathological condition and consequently as a condition that can be treated. In the same way, for example, approximately 70 municipalities, the Transvaal and Free State Chamber of Mines, the Rand Water Board and a large motor factory in Port Elizabeth similarly accept alcoholics in their employ as sick people who need treatment and facilities for treatment. Persons in the employ of these organizations need no longer conceal their condition today. This is not only to the great advantage of the employee himself, but also to the great advantage of the organization concerned, for these people are very often well-trained, skilled staff, excellent workers who cannot easily be replaced without heavy training costs, while the rehabilitated alcoholic can, on the other hand, be of inestimable value to his employer, his community, his family and his country. For that reason I want to make an appeal to all employers in South Africa to treat alcoholism in exactly the same way as other diseases. They ought to make certain that their official medical aid fund includes alcoholism in its list of acceptable diseases, so that when a medical practitioner refers a patient to a registered treatment centre his normal sick leave can apply and so that the costs of this patient’s treatment can at least be partially covered. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, this is also in the interests of the employer himself because it will enable him to reduce the number of manhours lost as a result of alcoholism. In addition it will boost the general morale of the entire labour corps of such an undertaking, which must eventually lead to an increased productivity for an employee who has undergone successful treatment is in all respects a healthier person and indeed capable of rendering his very best services for his country and for the organization concerned.

The risk of industrial accidents will be further reduced, while medical expenses in general ought to diminish. Such an employer will find that he will be considered by the workers’ corps to be a well-informed and fair employer and should therefore be able to recruit only the best workers for his undertaking.

If we consider the rehabilitation centres established by the department or registered in terms of Act No. 41 of 1971, we see that these centres are in essence multidisciplinary, with professional co-workers such as social workers, medical practitioners, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists and clergymen who work together as a team to cope with this complex problem. I should like to make specific mention of the role of the clergyman because I believe that any person who is without church affiliation is like a house without a foundation. Every alcoholic ought to be motivated to join in the activities of his church and become a regular churchgoer. This gives him stability, a goal and a sense of purpose in pife, so that he can again occupy his rightful position in society without any trace of stigma attached.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I want to pay tribute today to the part which the department has played and is still playing in dealing with these unfortunate people in our society. Today there are hundreds of grateful patients who have been helped, in co-operation with Sanca and voluntary organizations such as the Christian Alcoholic Service Associations and Alcoholics Anonymous, to lead a normal life again. Then I want to say to these who have gone through all that alcoholism entails, who know what it is and have discovered through bitter experience that it is not a disgrace to be a so-called dry alcoholic. On the contrary, it is an enormous achievement to be able to take your rightful place in society again. It also gives these people great satisfaction to inspire and to motivate their fellow alcoholics to find their way as well out of the maze of alcoholism. Mr. Chairman, these people deserve our admiration and respect for a wonderful achievement which is almost superhuman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg will forgive me if I do not also discuss a matter which we too consider to be of the utmost importance but because of my limited time, I cannot deal with everything he has said.

†The item to which I should like to confine my remarks relates essentially to the problem of the old-age pensioner. In the 1976 report which we received just before the Committee started this afternoon, we have a graph produced by the department indicating the amounts of old-aged pensions paid to the old-age pensioners of South Africa. It is quite an impressive graph, Sir, when one looks at it although note should be taken of the fact that the figures given here relate to the maximum pensions payable only. There is quite a considerable difference between the maximum pension payable and the effective pension paid to aged people in South Africa. I should also like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the fact that this graph is more a reflection of the inflation factor in South Africa than of a considerable real increase in old-age pensions. Previous speakers have touched on this problem, Sir, but I should just like to refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory by pointing out that the White Paper supplied to us shows that the pensions increased from 1974 to 1977 virtually only by the amount of the inflation rate so that the purchasing power of the old-age pensioner’s pension is virtually the same today as it was in 1974. Dividing the total value of pensions paid for each year by the number of pensioners in the old-age pension category indicates that the real average pension in 1977 amounted to R71 rather than R79 which is the maximum pension payable. In 1974 that figure was R47 and we find by simple arithmetic that the increase in pensions from 1974 to 1977 was 51%. An examination of the cost-of-living index both in respect of food which is a very important component and in respect of the general consumer price index in South Africa, indicates that for the same period the consumer price index rose by 46,37%. So the pensioners have gained very slightly as far as the CPI is concerned and they are very slightly better off as far as food purchases are concerned. The food index from 1974 to 1977 increased by 42,66% as compared with the old-age pension increase of 51% for the same period.

A question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister because I think it is relevant in terms of the policy which the department determines from year to year, is why it is that from 1973 there has been a continuous drop in the additional number of old-age pensioners who obtain old-age pensions from the State. To give an example, Sir, the difference between 1973 and 1974 was 9 276 additional pensioners. This is no doubt related to a change in the means test formula. I believe that the means test formula has remained relatively static until today, but we notice that between 1976 and 1977 only an additional 2 129 old-age pensioners qualified for pension. I would be interested to learn why this is so.

Going back in history and looking at the group of people who now become eligible for old-age pensions, we find that they were born round about 1912 so the decrease in their numbers can certainly not be attributed to casualties in the Great War. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us why there has been this drop in their numbers.

I want to touch briefly on two other factors because of the time factor. We welcome the limitation of R9 800 on the valuation of property. I should, however, like to know from the hon. the Minister what his policy is going to be in regard to the bonds which old-age pensioners have on their property. In terms of the means test the amount of the bond is deducted from the value of the asset. Does the Minister anticipate a proportionate reduction in the bond deduction as well or will the full amount of the bond owing be deductible from the R9 800?

That remains unchanged.

It remains unchanged, so the full amount can be deducted? Thank you, Sir.

The third point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is going to give him some difficulty. The hon. Minister is also the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, so he will have some difficulty in addressing himself. I want to raise with him the question of television licences. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to prevail upon himself in his other capacity, to give attention to this. Old-age pensioners normally do not buy television sets. These television sets are donated by relatives or friends or service organizations but these old people find the R36 licence fee payable per annum beyond their means and consequently they are unable to accept this very generous offer by friends. We know that the previous Minister was very generous towards the old-age pensioners as far as radio listeners’ licences were concerned and I think that if we cannot give people additional money because of fiscal reasons, we could perhaps see to it that they enjoy other benefits out of the kindness of our hearts. After all, South Africa was built on the blood, sweat and tears of these pioneers who are now our old-age pensioners. In fact, Sir, on doing a little arithmetic in this respect, one finds that 3% of the White population actually qualify to receive the old-age pension. This accounts for slightly more than l% of Government expenditure which goes towards old-age pensions. These people have put in a tremendous amount to establish and build up South Africa to the position which we fortunately find ourselves in today. Of our total gross domestic product only 0,6% is given back to the old-age pensioners. I really hope that we can give them more money because, Sir, the R71 effective pension which was paid in 1977 to these old-age pensioners does not buy very much. The average individual has to pay R20 for a single room, which is sometimes very sparsely furnished, and when one considers what is left over, it means that they have slightly more than R1 per day to live on, after paying their rental.

The paucity of spiritual upliftment for these people is also a tremendous problem. I know how hard the service organizations work to try to help these people. However, let us at least allow them the benefit of watching television, the new live communication. A lot of these people cannot get to church services and I think they would value the service of the television in their rooms where they sometimes sit in absolute, total isolation. We have a very excellent old-age home in Durban North, in my constituency, viz. the Bill Buchanan Home, which has been built basically through the generosity of the South African Railways and Harbours Pension Fund which put up most of the money. One can visit some of these people who have not moved out of their rooms in the past eight years. Their meals are served to them. Their ablution facilities are made available across the passage, and these poor people sit there not able to benefit from this marvellous technological development in South Africa, SABCTV. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this aspect of television.

I think my time is probably up, and therefore I will not raise any further issues with the hon. the Minister except to say that I have been very impressed with the debates here this afternoon and also on behalf of our party, our individual members here, we would like to wish the new hon. Minister extremely well in his new portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister said earlier this afternoon when they referred to the voluntary welfare services which are being rendered in the Republic. I want to deal more specifically here with what the church organizations are doing in respect of their task and the idealism which they display in respect of welfare work on behalf of their members. I make so bold as to say that the church organizations have in more than one respect done pioneering work in respect of welfare work. If one examines the history of welfare services in South Africa one finds that the churches have always taken the lead in rendering those services. In this connection in particular it is notable that the churches not only look after of the spiritual welfare of their members but also take care of the temporal aspects of the lives of those people. I find it remarkable how the churches adapt themselves to the circumstances of the needs of their members. In this connection I think back to the early years of our history when the church trekked out of the towns into the interior on the heels of the pioneers, where they also rendered social services to those people in what were sometimes very precarious circumstances.

In this connection I want to mention a number of churches. According to history I must begin with the Nederduits Gereformeerde Church, and with what that church accomplished from the earliest years in the society of our inhabitants. I find it striking that the Nederduits Gereformeerde Church has always tried to keep abreast of the needs and requirements of its members. I can state quite frankly here that when I mention a few of the highlights of the welfare work of the Nederduits Gereformeerde Church, I find that the first orphanage was established in Cape Town in 1814 by the N.G. Church. In 1895 the first work bureau for young unemployed men was established. In 1893 the N.G. Church convened the first conference to deal with the Poor White question in South Africa. In 1876 the N.G. Church established a teachers’ training college here in Cape Town. This was followed in 1895 by certain industrial schools which the church established. During the period 1898 to 1915 the N.G. Church established certain agricultural schemes for people who had become impoverished as a result of the war. I mention here the settlements at Kakamas, Laagersgoedemoed and Olifantshoek. A time of crisis in our existence, in the existence of our nation, were the years 1899 to 1902, as well as 1918, when children’s institutes were established during that Second Anglo-Boer War, and also after the influenza epidemic of 1918. In 1900 and afterwards we find that the N.G. Church established school hostels for children from the country areas, and also did pioneering work in this connection. In 1881 the school for the deaf and in 1891 the school for the blind were established in Worcester.

In 1892 the Diakonesse Hospital was established here in Cape Town, and in 1893 the first home for the aged in South Africa was established. Some of these institutions have served their purpose, and other undertakings have been taken over by the State, such as the agricultural schemes at Kakamas, etc., which I mentioned a moment ago. What is important, however, is that the Church has constantly altered its objectives according to the needs of its people. Whereas welfare work was initially done by a church council, this work became so comprehensive that a top structure for the welfare work of the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Church was established, for example, the Ringskommissie vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid, the Sinodale Kommissie vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid and the Federale Raad vir die Diens van Barmhartigheid. At present the welfare activities of these church bodies extend over many areas, particularly—I am saying this from personal experience which I acquired in this connection—the family care work such as that done by the Christelike Maatskaplike Rade that attend to social problems, and attempt to cope with maladjustments among members of that community.

Then, too, there is institutional care, and what I find striking in the statistics which are already quite a few years old is that there are 41 institutions under the control of the Nederduits Gereformeerde Church. Among these I find children’s institutions, institutions for the aged, special hostels for unmarried mothers, youth centres and so on. Then, too, there is care for the physically handicapped, such as the School for the Deaf and the School for the Blind. When a disaster occurs, the N.G. Church is there to help its people. I am thinking in this connection of the training for social workers, the social policy and research which is being applied, as well as the Sustersvereniging of the N.G. Church, which all play their part, as well as welfare services and various rehabilitation centres for assistance to alcoholics. It is not only the N.G. Church that has made its contribution, but I could also mention here the Nederduits Hervormde Church which was at first congregationally orientated but which also expanded and co-ordinated its work. Various institutions for children and the aged in need of care are being run by the Nederduits Hervormde Church. Of particular importance in this connection, however, is the Home for Senile Aged which is doing pioneering work in that sphere. I must also mention the Gereformeerde Church here, which has made its contribution in respect of welfare services and which, through its Charity Board, is for the most part congregationally orientated but which also has its women’s organization and children’s homes which are known to us as the Kruger Children’s Homes and Homes for the Aged. This is another church body that is doing commendable work.

I could also mention the Methodist Church which also has many welfare services in its programme of activities, particularly welfare work among children. The Roman Catholic Church also has a variety of institutions where children, the aged and the handicapped are cared for, as well as domestic science and industrial schools. Then there are the Anglican churches, the Salvation Army, the Apostolic Faith Mission, Seventh Day Adventists and the Jewish community. The Jewish community performs a herculean task under the auspices of the S.A. Jewish Board of Deputies in respect of Jewish children and aged persons, particularly in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

Mr. Chairman, although I might be boring the Committee with details of the activities of church bodies in respect of social problems, it is a very great pleasure for me to pay tribute to these people who have over the years made their contribution in some church body or other in respect of the social problems of a specific community. And, as the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated here this afternoon, welfare services in South Africa cannot be mentioned without also mentioning the part played by the churches in this connection. That is why it is probably a good thing that we place it on record here that the welfare work of the State, which is such a commendable undertaking, and which is such a commendable undertaking, and which means so much to so many people, is also being taken further and that the department renders assistance to church bodies performing that wonderful work under the leadership of such inspired men and women.

Mr. Chairman, I still think that the Official Opposition is not really very interested in the welfare services of South Africa, and the reason for my saying this is that the chief speaker of the Official Opposition pleaded in the first place this afternoon for a State lottery. Just imagine, Sir, our poorer people, our elderly people, the widows and the orphans must now be made dependent on gambling! In my opinion one does not treat one’s people in this way. I am convinced that the Official Opposition is more interested in the Marxist rebel invasion of Zaire; that is where their feelings lie. The greater our achievements in the sphere of welfare, the more depressed they become. But when it comes to the progress made by Marxist rebels, they rejoice, particularly if those people are successful. To my regret it is unfortunately the case, Mr. Chairman, that we have to talk here today with the Official Opposition, and I have now, in a few words, revealed the feelings of the Official Opposition. They are not interested in welfare services. Indeed, we have seen how superficially they debated here this afternoon. Unfortunately it is a fact that if I wish to draw a comparison between this Government and the previous UP Government in connection with the provision of welfare services, I shall have to go back 30 years. But Langenhoven said: “Met die waters wat verby is, sal die meule nooit weer maal nie.” For 30 years that stream has flowed past, and all that is left of it is the debris. That is the position today, Sir. [Interjections.] Only the debris is left.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to associate myself with the previous speakers who paid tribute to Mr. Van der Spuy, the former Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. But I also want to express my confidence in his successor, and on behalf of this side of the House express the hope that he will serve very happily for many years in the Cabinet and render good services.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not mention the staff of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions this afternoon. We are very inclined to forget the great diversity of activities for which the department is at present responsible. It is a tremendous field which has to be covered, and one marvels at the way in which the staff deal with all these matters, and I am not referring now only to the staff in Pretoria. In my constituency I deal almost every day with people who are assisted by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and therefore I also want to mention the local social welfare workers, the social workers of the CNR and the ACVV here. If we take into consideration the various activities which fall under this department, we realize what a vast field they have to cover. In the report which I have here before me no fewer than 33 activities are mentioned which fall under this department. These 33 activities are divided up into tables. This is the work which has to be dealt with by the officials of the department, and we are therefore very grateful for all the work they are doing for us.

This afternoon I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation for the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with the means test. This is something which I have repeatedly advocated in Parliament, and consequently I received a note from the hon. the Deputy Minister in which he stated that I probably felt very happy now that this announcement had been made. As I have said, I always advocated this, and said that it was the principal duty of an individual to see to it that his wife and children had a roof over their heads. But what has now happened in the cities? Because the municipalities have wasted money in reckless fashion they have pushed up the municipal valuation of properties to such an extent that the pensioner is hardly able to afford the rates. Apart from that he is disqualified from receiving a pension because he owns property. In this respect I am therefore very grateful to the hon. the Minister for making this wonderful concession to our people. I think there are many who will be very grateful this evening because of this concession.

If one thinks of what is being appropriated for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions today, viz. R419 488 000, and that this is the largest amount next to that for Defence in the Budget, one realizes how much is being done in South Africa for welfare services. It comprises not only old-age pensions for elderly people, but also includes maintenance grants, grants for the medically disabled, and so on. This is a further demonstration of how the activities of the department are increasing and the tremendous amount of money which is being spent. In my opinion what is being done for our aged in respect of care in institutions is very significant. It is a very important aspect of welfare work. Three years ago I pleaded in this House for more homes for the aged, as well as better institutional care for our aged, particularly our infirm aged. According to the latest statistics which I have received from the department, there are at present 287 subsidized homes for the aged. This is truly a wonderful achievement. Provision is being made for 18 216 elderly people. Then, too, there are 85 private homes for the aged which make provision for 3 447 elderly people. There are eight State-aided homes for the aged, which make provision for 716 elderly people. At present there are 22 379 elderly people who are being cared for in institutions. This is truly an achievement.

Let us now consider the expenditure involved in this. For December alone an amount of R11 122 649 was paid out to 136 042 elderly people in old-age pensions. War veteran’s pensions were paid out to 14 220 ex-servicemen, and this amounted to R1 272 000. Disability grants were paid out to 23 985 people. This is a large number of people and in December alone it cost the State R1 930 000. Family allowances were paid to 526 persons, and this cost the State more than R58 000. As far as blind pensioners are concerned, blind pensions were paid out to 797 people, and this cost the State R61 000. The total amount paid out by the State in December in old-age pensions, war veteran’s pensions, disability grants, maintenance grants, family allowances and pensions for the blind totalled R16 321 777. This indicates the tremendous expenditure incurred by the State in this connection, and the great services which it is rendering to our less well-to-do people. I think we can truly say hurrah for such a Government which is looking after the aged, the medically disabled persons and the persons in need of assistance in this way. I have mentioned only a few examples.

Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I should like to touch upon, viz. a State Contributory Pension Scheme. I want to state candidly this afternoon that I am an advocate of such a pension scheme. I believe that every person will want to ensure, when he reaches the twilight years of his life, that he has security and need not look to the State for an allowance or pension. He should have the privilege from his young days, while he is working, to contribute to such a pension scheme. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that our greatest enemy in this case is the private sector. I feel that when a person wishes to make provision for his old age, the middleman should be eliminated. Why does the middleman again wish to intervene now when we wish to make provision for our old age? Private initiative is again claiming now that we should not do this, because we would be heading for socialism. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to assure the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that we do not in any way support the Marxist raids in Zaire or anywhere else in the world. We have made our standpoint abundantly clear. To bring in an argument which is totally irrelevant to this debate, is quite frankly beyond my understanding.

The hon. member started by reacting to the statement made by the hon. member for Bryanston, that he is in favour of a State lottery, a premise which I strongly support. I want to ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North—just to go back to the subject matter that we have been discussing here, namely the question of pensions—how many people whose sole source of income is that pension of R79 plus the R8 to come in a few months time, can come out on that pension of R87 in today’s circumstances with the cost of living and of clothes as it is today? How can they possibly make ends meet? In my constituency in Hillbrow we have service organizations which are actually supplementing the income of pensioners in order to assist them to pay their rent and to get enough money to buy food in order to exist.

In spite of all the arguments, the pension we are paying now is completely unrealistic in the world in which we are living today. We have to further factors that are going to affect the pensioners. Firstly, there is the 4% sales tax. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has given them an extra R8 but immediately the hon. the Minister of Finance is taking it away because he is adding another 4% that they will have to pay for every single thing they have to buy. Therefore their increase will be wiped out.

When we come to subeconomic rentals and those who are getting proportional pensions because of the small private incomes they have, we have the situation where the subeconomic limit has now been lowered from R200 to R150 per month which puts them out of the subeconomic category in which they are able to get subeconomic housing. I submit that the pensions we are paying are completely unrealistic. What we need is a realistic increase in pensions that will enable a person to live decently and reasonably.

One of the aspects that have been referred to today, is the concession in respect of the value of fixed property that is being made. We welcome the increase announced by the hon. the Minister.

An aspect that has been canvassed over many fields and particularly in regard to local authorities, has been to assist the pensioner by giving him a rebate in respect of the rates he pays on the property that he owns. It is conceded that a pensioner will live in a house which he or she may have inherited from a late spouse or a parent and which has a certain asset value, on which rates are levied. I think it is common cause and every hon. member here knows and understands that local authorities are having a difficult time balancing their budgets. Having budgeted for this year, they now have to contend with the 4% sales tax. They now have to find a tremendous amount of income in order to cover the extra costs involved as well as the normal expansion required by growing cities as we have in South Africa. When they discussed it through their municipal associations, although there was obviously a lot of feeling for it, they could not go through with it because they felt they did not have the funds. I think hon. members will agree that if we can find a formula to relieve the pensioner of the payment of rates, it will be a tremendous help. That is the reason why we need more funds. One way of doing this would be for the state to reconsider its position. They do not pay rates in all the cities; they only pay a very small proportion in terms of the formula; they get off scot-free in cities like Cape Town, Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban, etc., where they have State-owned property. As they do not have to pay rates they could compensate the local authority or subsidize it in respect of the remission on the rates that it gives to pensioners. That is one matter that the hon. the Minister could consider.

Secondly, if the hon. the Minister cannot see his way clear to do so, he should make provision for additional funds for this very purpose of helping the aged and for welfare work. With great respect, the only way to do this is by means of a lottery. It is a very simple process and is being done all over the world. If I may be so bold as to do so, I challenge the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North to go back to Port Elizabeth after the session and hold a referendum to see whether or not the vast majority of his constituents will not vote in favour of this. He can divide the people in his constituency into any race or other group he pleases. Let him take them from his voters’ roll. The State of New York has also found itself …

How can you make such a statement? You do not have all that information.

We have. My former MPC, who died a little while ago, was a great protagonist of a State lottery. He showed me hundreds of letters that he had received from all over the country. He conducted some sort of—I cannot say full-scale—referendum and wrote to many people. In Johannesburg a little while ago I handed in a petition that had been signed by hundreds of people whose names had been gathered within five days. They were all in favour of having a State lottery.

One was presented to Parliament containing 22 000 signatures.

I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo. There we have further support for a State lottery. There is nothing immoral about a State lottery.

We have now accepted the principle of having defence bonds. We accept the principle of horseracing. Can one wish for a bigger form of gambling anywhere in the world than horseracing? Horseracing is something like a R400 million enterprise in South Africa. The Transvaal Province rakes in something like R25 million per year in different taxes on horseracing, which helps to run that province. If we can justify horseracing and if we can justify, as we do, defence bonds, the argument against a State lottery is indefensible. If hon. members would like to hold a referendum, they can do so. If they were to agree to a free and perhaps a secret vote in Parliament on this question I am prepared to make a small bet that the odds will be in favour of having a State lottery in South Africa today. We do not have enough funds.

When I raised a certain matter in the House of Assembly a short while ago under a Bill, the hon. the Minister said that this was a matter I should raise under his Vote. I shall therefore take up his kind offer and do so.

When we look at the items of expenditure of this department in the Estimate of Expenditure we see that in respect of item N, “Subsidies for general welfare and coordinating services” an amount of R4 386 000 has been voted, as opposed to the R3 868 000 voted last year. I take it that this is a normal increase and that these subsidies for general welfare will cover the sort of services that we are discussing today, viz. services for Whites. In respect of item O, “Rehabilitation Services” an amount of R2 403 000 is to be voted, which is an increase of about R400 000 over last year. In respect of item P, “Aid to indigent persons and related subsidized services” the amount to be voted is R184 000. The sizeable amount of R13 848 000 is to be voted in respect of item Q, “Care of the Aged and Infirm”, which is about R3 million more than last year. At the moment a new social welfare system for the whole of South Africa is contemplated. At the moment the Department of Indian Affairs is responsible for Indian welfare, the Department of Coloured Relations for Coloured welfare and the Department of Plural Relations and Development for Black welfare. The overall co-ordinating body, however, is the hon. the Minister’s department and falls under the Minister’s jurisdiction. Under the Vote “Plural Relations and Development” an amount of R1 144 820 is to be voted in respect of the Department’s social welfare and pensions programme. I take it therefore that none of the money we have spoken about will be spent on the provision of welfare services to Blacks.

In respect of Indian Affairs an amount of R267 000 is to be voted under item M “General Welfare and Co-ordinating Services”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow up the suggestions made by the hon. member for Hillbrow in his speech about the introduction of a State lottery except to say that if he does feel very strongly about participating in ventures of that nature as a means of providing welfare services for the public, he should also embark on the activity of filling in a weekly racing jackpot form and so contribute towards provincial revenue racing jackpot funds which, in turn, are used to provide health services.

But you also used to support a State lottery.

I do not deny that I used to think that way, but I have grown older and wiser in the meantime.

I wish to come back to the question that has been raised by other hon. members in the course of this debate, viz. the position of our elderly citizens, particularly those in the metropolitan areas of our country. At the outset I wish to emphasize that I personally resent—and I hope other hon. members also do—the adoption of a patronizing attitude towards the aged. I feel very strongly, and I wish to emphasize it, that our elderly citizens, the aged as some hon. members call them, can never be considered as separate group in our South African community. They are part of our community, and being part of our community as elderly citizens, I believe the majority wish to play a full part in the affairs of that community.

I believe that this is the policy of our Department of Social Welfare and Pensions today. I think this outlook is the generally accepted one in most civilized countries today. I think that in the past, in considering the question of elderly citizens and their needs as they grow older, we have placed too much emphasis on the necessity for homes for the aged. In adopting that attitude we have created the impression that we want to isolate our elderly citizen from active community life. In referring to the care of the aged and the handicapped the annual report of the department which has just been tabled reads as follows—

I believe that the department and the Government have done a wonderful job in that regard. The survey that was conducted and to which reference is made in the Report indicates this quite clearly. I shall refer to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North shortly. As the hon. member for Umbilo mentioned, our old people do not look for shelter in an old-age home. Many of them want to live their lives as active citizens and would rather reside in a residential area, even in high-rise blocks of flats in busy metropolitan areas. The percentage of elderly citizens of 65 years and older in our White population has gradually increased over the past 50 years and today they represent about 8% to 9% of our total population.

7%.

No, the latest figures indicate that the percentage is approximately 8% to 9%. It can be expected that the percentage will increase to between 10% and 12% as has happened in other Western countries. One only has to look at the increase in the amount of old-age pensions paid by the State over the past six years. This amount has increased by over R35 million each year. By way of illustration I wish to mention that by the year 2000, if one calculates it on the present increase in pensions and potential pensioners it is estimated that the State will have to pay a pension to about one quarter of a million citizens. When one refers to the reports for 1975 and 1976 of the department they show an annual growth in pensioners over a five-year period in the age group 70 to 75 of over 30 000. When one refers to the age groups receiving pensions according to these reports it is very evident that because of longer life expectancy the onus on the State and on society to care for our elderly citizens is going to increase.

When we refer to the latest report it shows that in the age group 70 to 74, in the year 1974, 29 812 people were receiving pensions, but the same age group, i.e. 70 to 74 in 1976 had grown to 35 158 pensioners. It can be expected that these numbers will increase. When a man or a woman has been active all of his or her life, and nature takes its course and old age arrives, as will happen to all of us, and capabilities diminish, they do not wish to be shuttled off into an old-age ghetto or to live out their days in circumstances of that nature.

That is a most irresponsible thing to say—to refer to them as ghettos.

I use the word “ghetto” in the sense that they are shuttled off to join a group of people living together. I do not mean it in any disparaging way. This was very forcibly brought home to me in my own constituency during the last election. My constituency is basically in the flatland of Johannesburg and there are very large numbers of elderly citizens there. They like living in a city. I asked them this. They like to see the life around them; they like the convenience of living there and many like the part-time work that they do. They like to be able to walk out and feel they are part of the city and the pulsating life around them. Let me say at once that the Government has done a great deal to provide services for our elderly citizens and to assist those welfare organizations that play a very important role in this work. They also subsidize service centres to good effect.

With great respect, I want to put another suggestion to the hon. the Minister. This is something I have come across, and I hope other hon. members will support me in this. In my experience of dealing with people, particularly elderly citizens who live in these metropolitan areas, I have found that many of them seek advice. They come to one about many aspects of their lives because time has passed them by. They are living in a new society, in a new era, in a new decade; they find difficulty in meeting the problems of modern-day government administration and they come up against many, many problems in their daily lives on which they need advice. With respect, I should like to suggest that we could perhaps provide another service through our Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and that is to establish advice bureau in our main metropolitan centres. I should like to see the department set up adequate accommodation—not a government counter with Public Works Department brown paint and a few hard chairs—in the atmosphere of an advice bureau, with a counsellor, not an official, in attendance.

Like the citizens advice bureau?

Yes, but I am referring to a bureau specifically for these people, to give them advice and assistance as to where to go and how to solve their problems, and so forth. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his idea that one should rather emphasize the positive instead of the measure of disability among people. I also want to congratulate the department on the large saving which we see in the estimates this year, in regard to money requested for administrative costs, and so on. There has been a tremendously large saving in this respect, while there is a considerable increase on spending on social services, auxiliary services and pensions of more than R39,4 million.

Sir, I want to confine myself to a heartbreak case, something which is highly emotional and I shall indicate in a moment why I feel that this is so. I want to discuss the question of begging. Begging is a matter which was not much investigated in the past, yet I feel that this matter justifies investigation and that it may even be done by a university as a project for future social workers so that their interest in this matter could be aroused. We do not know what the extent of this problem is, yet there are many phenomena which one can take cognizance of. It is a highly emotional matter in which the cause cannot in many cases be distinguished from the effect. It is a complicated question, a question dealing with certain socio-pathological phenomena. Many questions will have to be answered in this connection, for example what the extent of begging is, why do people beg, what are their habits, what methods are applied, what role does the public play in begging, why does the public play this particular role, and whether enough provision is made for the control and treatment of this problem.

The problem is complicated because there are two parties involved. In the first place there is the beggar with his extremely highly developed techniques. In the second place there is the public, with its highly emotional attitude of sympathy for its fellow man. That is where the problem lies.

Let us consider the beggar himself. He has made of this habit a finely developed occupation in which clever methods are used to soften up his victim. All his methods are aimed at this softening up process. Under the cloak of a business he carries on a street trade in a minor commodity such as shoelaces, and he knows he will receive more than the shoelaces are worth; he also knows that sometimes the shoelaces will not even be taken. Another form of begging is to sell doilies which are so dirty that one cannot even touch them. He knows he is going to get something for them, also he gets the doily back with which to carry on begging.

Then there is the form of entertainment where music and song is offered, which create the impression that these people are working and that they are trying to make a living in a deserving way. This causes the public to keep on giving these people alms. Other methods and techniques which are utilized are for example the telling of a tragic life story or circumstances of life to the victim, the loan begging method, where money or even other valuables are borrowed under the pretence that they will be returned. There is the question of begging by fraudulent means. These people get hold of collection lists and collect for deserving causes and then use the money for their own purposes.

Then there is the other method, the realistic development and presentation of a need or ailment, for example by dressing in rags, specific facial expressions and so on. All these methods are aimed solely at making the public more amenable by means of a softening-up process.

I want to come now to the other party, i.e. the public. The public make these donations or give alms out of ignorance. This can be attributed to two factors. The one is that the feeling of sympathy is an erroneous feeling. That is why I ask that these people be treated as they ought to be treated because I am truly sorry for them, not like many members of our public who simply give these people alms and in that way encourage them in their habits and to continue their beggar’s life in alleyways, parks, avenues, bus shelters, and so on, where they may suffer from exposure.

The public plays a far greater role in this phenomenon and the continued existence of this phenomenon than is generally realized. The question cannot be solved if the cooperation of the public is not obtained, if the public will not contribute to helping these people and to getting them admitted to rehabilitation centres. It is not necessary for any individual, whatever the nature of his disability, whether a physical disability or a mental disability, to beg in the Republic of South Africa. The welfare organizations and other bodies are so equipped that these people can receive the necessary assistance. The necessary rehabilitation centres do exist. Now we have the position that the public mitigate against the rehabilitation of these people. But refer such a person to the police or whoever so that they can be sent to a rehabilitation centre where they can be cared for, and you will see how the public reacts. This is a phenomenon which has to be counteracted. It is misplaced pity and misplaced love which the public display towards these people. Perhaps they think they are helping such a person when they give them alms, but they are in truth encouraging these people to fall even deeper into the rut of a beggar’s life.

There is further ignorance among the public. The public are unaware of the fact that there is no reason for people in South Africa to beg. The public are unaware of the fact that there are medical, hospital and rehabilitation services for all, all who suffer from physical ailments or from some aberration or other, regardless of their financial position. The State also makes provision by means of its social security schemes for allowances and pensions for physically and mentally ill, the blind, the aged and their families. Services are also aimed at preventing and treating social maladjustments and aberrations, of which begging is a symptom. Whatever group or groups the public have in mind, the necessary institutions are available in South Africa in order to care for these people. That is why there should also be an attempt to educate the public to know what is involved here, to cause the public to adopt the right attitude and to enable the public to know that when they distribute alms at random, they are not doing these people a favour but are in reality doing them a disservice.

I would therefore ask for an exhaustive examination of this matter. I do not believe it has reached considerable or serious proportions. I am not saying that it is of such a nature that one need not concern oneself unduly about it, but I believe that for the sake of those people who are derelict and without a fixed place of abode, people who really need assistance, we should co-operate to solve their problem.

Mr. Chairman, we have now heard a number of speakers and I want to reply to them at this stage. We have had some very interesting contributions this afternoon and right at the outset I want to thank hon. members who have participated in this debate up to this stage for their positive contributions and for the good spirit in which the debate has been carried on up to the present. I should also like to express a very cordial word of thanks to all on this side and in the various Opposition parties for the good wishes that they have extended to me. I accept the fact that they meant what they said although sometimes during the debate on other legislation things appeared different. However, I accept what they have said in the good spirit of the debate for which we are gathered here.

I want first of all to discuss three subjects raised by various speakers and then I want to come back to specific matters that have been mentioned by various speakers. The first matter that was fairly widely discussed was that of old-age homes. The hon. member for Boksburg made a well motivated appeal for more and better housing for the aged. The hon. member for Bryanston also spoke in this vein and, in addition, mentioned the geriatric services and the centres where all services can be rendered together at central places. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred in this connection to shortages and the problems surrounding old-age homes. From the nature of the case I do not think that there is anyone in this Committee who is not sympathetic towards our old people who actually need this housing and who cannot obtain it. But I do not think that we should generalize; we must appreciate the fact that the scope of the problem is not as extensive as it may appear to be. I should like to refer hon. members in the first instance to page 23 of the annual report for 1976 in which many interesting figures in respect of Government subsidized old-age homes are given. In this annual report the conclusion was reached that about 300 to 350 additional places were needed for infirm aged persons at the stage when this report was drawn up. This figure may have increased in the interim but the numbers were not as high as was estimated. You see, Sir, one has to draw a distinction—and this was revealed by this investigation—between people whose names are on a waiting list and people who really need such accommodation. I should like to mention certain statistics to you. This investigation revealed that 43,1% of those who could be classified as normal and infirm aged persons were nevertheless able to maintain their own households. It was further revealed that of those who had been classified as “infirm”, 37,8% were still maintaining their own households. Furthermore, 21,1% of the less infirm and 24,5% of the more infirm persons were living with their children, while 19,3% of the entire group investigated were living in hotels or hostels. The final conclusion was that in respect of the majority of the total group investigated, namely, 56,8%, and in respect of 39,7% of the infirm, the fact that they had not been admitted to old age homes had caused no really serious problems for these people.

Sir, we would do well to consider these statistics in more detail. In the second instance, when one adds to this the information contained in a special report published by the research division of the department, namely, publication No. 2 of 1976 “Living conditions of Infirm Aged Persons on Waiting Lists of Homes for the Aged”, one gains a better perspective in regard to the true position which, while certainly being serious, is not as serious as some hon. members think it is.

In this investigation a start was made with a large investigation group of 3 129 persons who had been classified as “infirm aged persons” whose names had appeared on waiting lists. After the investigation had been completed this figure had been reduced to a net figure of 572. I should like to indicate briefly to you how this figure was arrived at. In the first instance, the names of 3,5% of the 3 129 appeared on more than one waiting list, which reduced the figure to 3 019. Then it was found that 20,7% of the cases on the waiting lists had already been admitted. They were still on a waiting list but they had already been admitted to some or other old-age home. 7,7% had died and 13% had changed their address and had never taken the trouble to inform anybody of their new address. When one adjusts the calculations accordingly, one finds that it means that 31,4% of the cases on waiting lists could actually be traced and negotiations conducted with them.

Furthermore, there are precise details of the action taken. In this way one can reduce the original total of 3 129 to 1 177. In a separate table again it is pointed out that 48,6% of the test group were actually infirm which means that only 572 of the original 3 129 could be regarded as people who were really infirm and required housing. Therefore, the picture is not as black as it seems and these statistics show that we have made progress. Nevertheless, I want to express the hope that we shall make further progress.

When hon. members ask me for a solution to the shortages that do exist I want to say that in the first place the solution is most probably that the State but particularly the private sector will have to find more money and plan in a better motivated and more organized manner. That then is also one of the aims of the Bill the Third Reading of which we shall take soon. I believe that once the regional boards that are to be instituted in terms of the Bill start with their surveys one will be able to have a better analysis of the actual requirements in specific areas. Once one has been able to define those requirements clearly, the necessary initiative and will to work will be shown because then one will be able to set oneself a goal that can be reached. I hope that the new legislation as well as this debate and the efforts of all of us which I am sure we will all be inspired to make during this debate, will contribute towards alleviating the shortages that do exist relatively soon.

A second subject that was mentioned by various hon. members was the question of the means test. I thank the hon. gentlemen for their expressions of gratitude for the change although I do not wish to be thanked for it because in my opinion it is a necessary change and we are only too grateful that we were able to find the necessary money. By the way, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban North that as a result of this amendment the numbers will increase dramatically again next year and he will then again be able to ask why there are so suddenly more of these people. Statistics are always a difficult thing.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made a plea for a flexible application of the means test and pointed out certain anomalies which in his opinion exist. He said, as did the hon. member for Pinelands, that the free income may perhaps be too low and that we should look at the matter again. He also suggested that the minimum pension of R39 could perhaps be reduced even further. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke in the same vein and the hon. member for Durban North also made certain remarks in this regard.

It is a fact that representations are continually being received for the extension or relaxation of the means test, and these deal usually with two basic points. The first point is that it is said that a pensioner loses R39 per month if his income and his assets exceed the means limit of R984 and R34 400 respectively by only R1. The fact that the pension that a person receives is taken away from him is viewed in an unhappy light. Secondly, there is the argument that the increases in private pensions or a fixed percentage of such increases should be ignored for social pension purposes to prevent the loss of a pension which a person already receives.

In the first instance I am not aware of anything that prevents anybody from refusing to accept an increase in that person’s other pension which would disqualify him. If there are such restrictions I shall be pleased if hon. members will bring these specific cases to my attention so that I can investigate them. I cannot say that something can be done about it but this is an aspect that I can investigate and perhaps I can use my influence with other Ministries to ascertain whether there is anything that can be done in this connection. If, however, there is the problem that such increases cannot be refused, it is a problem that is actually linked with the problem that we have in connection with the transferability of pensions. Hon. members must remember that it is not just a question of public servants; this also affects the members of numbers of private funds, and every fund has its own rules and regulations. As far as it affects the various funds, this is also a matter to which this committee to which I referred earlier when I made the announcement, can give attention.

On the other hand, the most realistic and easiest solution to these two problems that I and other hon. members have mentioned is to extend the means test. If we extend the scales that hold good at present in a logical way in order to overcome these disadvantages it will mean immediately that persons with assets of R48 200 will still qualify for a minimum pension of R2 per month from 1 October 1978, while the income level will then be fixed at R1 536 below which persons can still qualify for a minimum pension. This will mean a very large increase indeed in expenditure in respect of pensions. There will be a large increase in the number of persons qualifying. It will also have the disadvantage of requiring an enormous amount of administrative work for a large number of people who will only be receiving R2 per month. But, most important of all, if we wanted to do this, the problem that we would have to overcome would be that of obtaining the necessary funds. No matter how much one wishes to help, in this department one is often faced with the choice of whom to help. Must it be those who at the moment have assets and income that set them above the present means test or must it be those who are at the lower end of the present means test and have no other income? Those are the difficult choices that one is compelled to make within the framework of a limited budget.

Furthermore, I really think that we must face up to the implications of the extension of the means test. It will mean that people who have not inconsiderable assets will receive State pensions for which they had not contributed. If then we start paying pensions to people who have these not inconsiderable assets, the question arises to my mind whether we are not coming very close to a welfare state. The question arises as to whether the extension of the means test will not bring us so close to that welfare state that we can be accused of no longer giving effect to our basic terms of reference, namely, to provide for the needy, but that we are simply giving social pensions to people whether they need them or not. And, Sir, one can easily imagine that if one puts this process in motion, one can very soon find oneself in a situation where a person with assets of R100 000 will also say that he qualifies for a pension. That is why I think that the extension of the means test would be wrong at this stage. It would be a departure in principle from what we regard as the basis on which social pensions have to be paid. We also have other problems. If we were to do the opposite and, for the sake of the arguments that I have mentioned, keep to the present maximum income limit but then do the scaling down so that it does not stop at R39, we shall be interfering with established rights. In the cases of people who may perhaps be receiving R60 at the moment, we shall have to come to light with a new scaling down process in order to come out on our present budget. We shall then have to say that that person can no longer be paid R60 but only R40. This is a principle that we do not want to accept because we believe that one should not interfere with established rights. That is why we cannot at this stage consider amending the means test over and above the considerable concession that I have already announced. It must be realized that we had to make the change in respect of property valuations because cases do exist where people who are in precisely the same financial position are treated differently. The one person who applied three years ago before his property was given a higher valuation receives a pension while the person who applied later does not receive a pension. There was therefore an obvious injustice in this respect.

If I were to agree to the requests of hon. members it would mean that a person who is already receiving a pension and who will now receive an increase of R2 per month which will place him just beyond the notch, will retain his pension. By doing this I would immediately be building up a new form of discrimination. The comparable person who applied one month after he also received the increase will still be disqualified in terms of the means test. Therefore I have only one choice. I shall have to discriminate. I shall have to tell the one person that because he became old sooner he can continue to receive a pension notwithstanding the fact that he has exceeded the means test, and I shall have to tell another person that even though his position is precisely the same he cannot receive a pension because he became old later. I am not prepared to do that. Otherwise I shall have to extend the means test which I am not able to do and for which the time is also not opportune. No matter how much I want to help at this stage I cannot announce a solution to the problem within the framework of the immediate solutions at my disposal. I would however not strongly deny that certain situations may well exist where there are built-in anomalies.

I also consider it to be an unfortunate state of affairs that a person who has been used to a fixed income has to forfeit an income of R300 per annum for the sake of an increase of R24 per annum. This is a problem and without promising anything and within the framework of the policy and philosophy that I have announced, I can give the undertaking that this is a problem that will occupy my attention before we discuss the next budget.

The third matter that was raised by the hon. members for Umbilo and Hillbrow was the question of new subsidies. New subsidies will mean that general subsidies that are administered by this department will increase by about R11 million. The new formula will be explained in detail in a circular letter. If uncertainty still exists hon. members or organizations are very welcome to approach the department where the new formulae will be explained to them. Already at this stage I am able to give a better indication of how this is going to operate and I should like to do this briefly and comprehensively. As far as social services are concerned the present formula is that we only subsidize the salaries of registered social workers at a rate of one notch lower than the starting scale of a professional officer in the public service. Furthermore, there is a subsidy system for national and provincial bodies in regard to their administrative costs which will also be applied on a specific basis. We know that welfare organizations are also responsible for a variety of other expenses for which they receive no subsidy. This includes expenditure in regard to office rentals, transport, the salaries of administrative staff and so forth. That is why it has been decided to depart from the old scheme and from 1 July 1978 to institute a new scheme that will be based on the basis of a budget of approved expenditure. It will be on the basis of a budget of not more than 75% of the approved budgeted expenditure of an organization. It is obvious that we cannot give an organization a blank cheque and tell them that we will pay 75% of their expenditure, no matter what that expenditure may be. As in the past, we rely on the co-operation of organizations to keep their expenditure within bounds by budgeting, by saving and by keeping their expenses as low as possible through the medium of efficiency.

An improved scheme in terms of which national and provincial bodies will also be subsidized is included in this new scheme. These bodies will shortly be informed as to how this will affect them.

We find that old age homes are very differentiated. Some old-age homes make a profit while others show a loss. Many factors can be mentioned to cause these differences. For example, old-age homes are situated in various places. One may have a good management while the other may have a poor management. After all, one can use the specific unit costs at every old-age home as a guideline. However, if we have to make provision for these fluctuating factors it is desirable that attention be given to the average unit cost of a specific kind of old-age home in a specific area. That is why it has been decided in future to calculate the subsidy for which a specific old-age home qualifies, in such a way that the subsidy plus the portion of the social pension that has to be included for accommodation purposes will be equal to the average unit cost of the particular old-age home or to the average unit cost of all the old-age homes in the specific group, whichever is the lower. I may perhaps explain here that the portion of the social pension that is included for accommodation purposes is linked to the fact that social pensions that are paid to aged persons resident in old-age homes, just as in the case of any other aged persons who are not in old-age homes, are, after all, also intended for the maintenance of these particular people. That is why a portion of such pension must also be taken into consideration in a formula for subsidy purposes. I think we will agree that no institution can rely on financial assistance from the State which is higher than its unit costs. If its unit costs are higher than the average unit costs of its group I also think that it is reasonable and fair that its subsidy should be adjusted to the average and not to that which is higher than the average. After all, we are dealing here with the spending of public funds and we must of necessity follow a course which will ensure that the vast majority of these bodies do at least play the game according to the rules. But we do believe that this new approach will be to the great advantage of old-age homes in general. Besides this they will also be receiving a better subsidy in the future in regard to furnishings. This is being fixed at R300 instead of R200 per sub-economic inmate.

This scheme in respect of old-age homes is being applied mutatis mutandis from 1 July 1978 to institutions for the care of handicapped persons. These institutions will also therefore be subsidized on the same basis of unit costs. They will also receive a once only subsidy in respect of furnishings that has been increased from R200 to R300. In respect of special equipment the subsidy is also been increased from R100 to R150. In respect of children’s homes as well we believe that the most reliable yardstick is the average unit costs and from 1 July 1978 precisely the same system will also hold good for children’s homes. The position in the past was that the subsidies in respect of some children’s homes did not keep pace with the increase in their operating costs. It can mean that these children’s homes will be considerably better off under the new dispensation than they are at the moment. I want, however, to issue the warning that it is necessary to effect savings and that the requirement to keep costs low remains a necessary one. We must not see these substantive concessions as giving us the green light to close completely our watchful eye on operating costs.

An improvement has also been effected in respect of those people who have foster children under their care. Although they do not have the expenditure factor of rising salaries and so forth they will nevertheless derive benefit from the fact that from 1 July 1978 the subsidy that is paid in respect of foster children will amount to 60% of the average unit costs of the children’s homes in the area where the foster children are being cared for. I want to express the hope that the R11 million that is going to be spent in this way will contribute towards alleviating the problems that are being experienced by welfare organizations and persons and bodies managing homes of the nature that I have mentioned, and that they will be able to make use of this money to good effect.

I want now to come back to other aspects raised by hon. members. Before we break for supper there may perhaps be time to deal with one of these matters, namely, that in connection with the late tabling of the annual report. The incorrect argument in this connection was in my opinion best illustrated by a statement made by the hon. member for Pinelands when he said that he regarded the main purpose of the report as being something useful that could be used as a basis for debate. I would rather ask whether we should not consider more closely whether the submission of a detailed annual report every year is really worthwhile in the case of a department such as this. The department conducts large projects that sometimes take years to complete. There may be years in which it may perhaps not be worthwhile to submit an annual report while on another occasion it may well be worthwhile to produce a report containing the latest information in connection with the activities of the department and perhaps covering the preceding two years. I want to ask hon. members to take note of the problems pointed out by the hon. Deputy Minister. These are problems that we really do experience in practice. The department has had a particularly difficult year. It has had to cope with a great deal of legislation in regard to which many representations have been received. All these representations have had to be processed and have led to the fact that many of these Bills have been revised to a very large extent. It was therefore not as a result of a lack of hard work but as a result of an overworked officialdom that the annual report did not appear as early as hon. members would have liked.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when we suspended business I was replying to specific aspects. The hon. member for Bryanston raised a number of matters to which I should like to reply briefly. Firstly, he asked that price increases should not be applied to welfare organizations; in other words, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers should develop a system according to which welfare organizations would not pay as much for products. This is an impossible administrative burden that we would be taking upon ourselves. I think the answer in respect of inflation and price increases in regard to welfare organizations, as in the case of industry, lies on the one hand in increased efficiency in respect of collections and increased efficiency in respect of spending. On the other hand, when it comes to subsidies, it lies in the fact that from year to year we have to see where we can be of assistance and where we can improve on things. The public will also have to take note of the problem of welfare organizations and assist by putting their hands in their pockets. But this differentiated administration—and this also holds good for television licences which was raised by one hon. member—eventually costs the country more than the good that one achieves thereby. I believe that the principle of marketing a commodity at a general price is one that we should not depart from if we can help it.

The hon. member went on to discuss certain crisis conditions that had arisen on the part of children’s organizations. There are problems at some of these children’s homes. I have already dealt with this matter and said that we know about them and we hope that the increased subsidy will contribute towards overcoming the problems of these children’s homes. However, I want to tell him that here too there is room for improvement on the part of the welfare organizations that manage these homes themselves. There is one example—I would rather not mention names here—of a work-study inquiry in which it appeared that one of the well-known organizations in one of our large cities appointed a professional lady purely in a liaison capacity. This was done simply because they felt sorry for her while they could have got somebody else to do the work at a far lower salary. This same organization makes the mistake of concentrating on small children’s homes where the unit costs are far higher, and avoiding the larger units where one can bring down one’s unit costs through the medium of rationalization. There is therefore also room for improvement in respect of the efficiency of the organization itself.

The hon. member also made a plea for special service centres and set out the role to be played by local authorities. I do not want to prescribe to local authorities what they should do. My department is doing its share in respect of what the hon. member asked for. He asked for better planning, properly designed buildings and so forth. We have certain minimum standards and I want to support him in saying that one should certainly act with a little more circumspection when such places are being planned. He mentioned the example of steps that ought to be replaced by sloping paths so that things could be made easier for the old people. In this respect and in respect of other matters that he raised and which were raised by many other hon. members I want to make this statement: The role of this department in welfare work must not be extended. People ask more and more of this department. We want to proceed with this partnership idea and we want to ensure and promote the role of the private sector in welfare work. Besides what we are already doing I see the role of my department far more as a stimulating and coordinating factor and not as a factor for the taking over of services or the entering of spheres which we have not entered up to the present. We want welfare organizations and the community itself to come completely into their own in the rendering of welfare services.

There was also the argument about a State lottery. I do not wish to debate this matter at any length. In the first place I want to say that I am opposed to it. The attitude of my Government is that we are not in favour of a State lottery. I want to make it clear that defence bonds are not a lottery and are not gambling and that they have been instituted in very special circumstances with very special control. But there is another reason besides the attitude that for various reasons we do not like a State lottery. I do not think that this is the right place or time on which to raise this matter here.

We are not a welfare state and we do not want to be a welfare state and once again I want to tell you that the State does not seek to compete with the private sector. Whether it is a lottery, which we are opposed to for many reasons, or whether it is a question of special bonds which the hon. member for Umbilo has already advocated, it means that the State will have to play a larger role in the provision of funds for welfare work than it has done up to the present. This means that the State will have to assume the responsibility of collecting funds and then spending them on welfare work. This is essentially a role that private welfare organizations have to play. We wish to assist in stimulating them in this work and we hope that the new Bill on fund-raising will provide an additional stimulus in this regard.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? If welfare organizations applied to issue a welfare bond, would the Government agree to it?

Sir, I think that it is quite possible in terms of the Companies Act for a welfare organization to consider matters of this nature. I do not think that it is necessary for the Government to approve it. I think that they can market something within the framework of existing legislation just as any company can market a share or bond or special type of loan or whatever it might be.

On the same basis as defence bonds?

No, Sir. The defence bonds are a special arrangement that was made to cover a special situation. However, the private sector can do its own thing within the framework of existing legislation. I am not such an expert as to be able to tell you that it will be possible for them to market this type of bond. I know that there are bonds that can be sold within the framework of our company legislation, and they can also consider plans of this nature. However, I am not in favour of the State playing an increased role in regard to the provision or raising of funds. I think we must retain the role of the welfare organization in this respect. The fact is that 50% more of all funds that are spent on welfare work are forthcoming from the private sector. In round figures the contribution of the State is only 34%.

The hon. meer also discussed child abuse. I can tell him that we are as concerned as he is about this matter. The research division has undertaken an investigation into crimes against children and they have made considerable progress. They have completed their literature studies and they ought to complete their field investigation towards the end of June. It will take them about two months to draw up their report. From 1 January 1978 we have also made provision for information in regard to child abuse in our statistical survey forms. Over the past four months 104 cases have already been reported to our offices and 27 cases were still under investigation on 30 April while the rest had been dealt with or referred to welfare organizations. An experiment in this connection was also made in Johannesburg and the final report in this regard is expected within a few days. With all this relevant information at its disposal the department ought shortly to be in a position to consider measures for the more effective combating of this evil.

The hon. member for Boksburg also asked that pensioners should be exempt from the payment of income tax. Sir, I think that is impossible. In any case, I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance and the hon. member should raise this matter with the Minister concerned at an appropriate time. I feel that this would not be desirable because it is in conflict with the essence of our whole system. The essence of our whole system is that factors such as age and so forth do not play a role and that the only criterion is one’s income. Whether one is old or young makes no difference. The only factor that counts is one’s income.

They will now be paying tax whereas they did not pay tax in the past.

That is so, but we shall have to discuss this with the hon. the Minister of Finance. We cannot differentiate once again. That has many disadvantages.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spoke about immigrants. I want to give him the assurance that no immigrant who receives a pension from abroad receives preferential treatment in any way. This is taken into consideration in the application of the means test as though it were income accruing to that person locally. It is not true that immigrants receiving pensions from abroad enjoy a preferential position.

The hon. member for Umbilo mentioned a few specific cases of widows. I should like to invite him to bring those cases to my attention and we shall investigate each case individually. This will also assist me in the implementation of the undertaking that I gave him earlier this evening.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about war pensions.

†I do have an appointment with Gen. Webster. When the appointment was made no special mention was made of specific problems that would be discussed, but I have an appointment with him and I will be seeing him. Obviously, if he mentions these problems they will be discussed with him.

I want you to mention them.

Well, I shall keep that in mind. He is seeing me towards the end of June—I am not sure of the exact date.

The hon. member also asked why the increase in pensions should only be paid from October. I think the hon. member for Umbilo also raised this matter. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have a limited amount of money available. We have a choice as to whether we want to spread it out over a year in which event it would be R4,50 instead of R9,00. We can only spend RX million in this financial year and that amount, allocated from 1 October, amounts to R9,00 per person. The 1st October was the last date when an increase was given; it has become more or less the traditional date. It is difficult for us to start giving it from any other date. There are administrative factors involved; we had to allocate and distribute and organize the disbursement of the increases for civil pensioners. We now need some time to get everything organized for the social pensioners. If we make it sooner, the amount will be less per month, so it is really six of the one and half a dozen of the other.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg will only be back later and I shall reply to him then.

†The hon. member for Durban North emphasized the fact that not all pensioners received the maximum pension. I can give ' him the assurance that 90% of social pensioners do receive the maximum. There is only a small minority who are affected by the sliding scale. He made a plea in regard to television licences. Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, I can tell him that I only collect the licence fees for the Department of National Education, so that it is not within my power to consider his appeal. But, once again, differentiated charges for whatever purpose, I do not regard as good management. I think that this hampers smooth administration. If we want to help the people with regard to television licences, we must do so through private enterprise, if possible, and we must take it into account as part and parcel of the cost of living structure. But the way to help them is definitely not to give them a special reduced rate. This causes a lot of problems which we think would be wise to avoid.

He also mentioned the reduced number of new pensioners receiving social pensions during recent years in comparison with earlier years. The statistics are influenced by all sorts of factors such as a reduction in the number of pensioners as a result of death and pensioners losing their pensions as a result of a change in their incomes. Without a detailed and in-depth study of the matter I cannot really comment intelligently on the reasons why there is such a fluctuation in the annual additional number of new pensioners.

*The hon. member for Somerset East made a very fine speech on the contributions made by our religious bodies. This once again underlines the key role that the church does play and the fact that co-operation between the State, the church and private welfare organizations is of key importance.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North for his positive contribution. He mentioned interesting statistics which gave us a good impression of the comprehensive task that rests on the shoulders of this department. I also want to thank him for that on behalf of the officials and the department.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow complained about the sales tax. In the process he stated that the increase in social pensions would be R8. I would recommend to him that he make a more careful study of the matter because the figure is R9. Although the difference is only R1 per month, from a sales tax point of view, Sir, R1 per month represents purchases of R25. So from a sales tax point of view, it is a significant difference. The hon. member asked that pensioners should not pay rates. I suppose he had a lot of experience in that regard as an ex-member of long-standing of the Johannesburg City Council. I do not know whether he propounded this same policy while he was a member of the Johannesburg City Council and if so, why he did not succeed, as a member of the majority party, in getting it through.

You have to help us.

Mr. Chairman, I am not involved in provincial affairs. The hon. member knows that that is governed by ordinances and not by Parliament. Once again, I think that differentiation is a dangerous principle to introduce into government administration. The hon. member also asked certain questions about the other groups apart from the Whites. He should know that this department is only involved in social welfare work among Whites. If he wants to raise the question of other races he should raise it under the Votes of my colleagues dealing with Coloured Relations, Indian Affairs and Plural Relations and Development.

You told me to raise it here.

No, I did not tell him to raise it here. I said he could raise the question here of whether we were helping our people sufficiently because this was what he mentioned. The particular aspect of how exactly the money is distributed falls under the other Ministers. How much they get forms part and parcel of the annual budget and the hon. member should therefore approach the hon. the Minister of Finance.

*Sir, the hon. member for Von Brandis made a very positive contribution and made an interesting suggestion in regard to advice bureaux. His speech was cut short. I had to guess at what he still wanted to say. He asked that these bureaux should be neatly equipped and be comfortable so that our old people would feel at home and relaxed there. I think this is a very good idea and it may perhaps be something that can be considered at a specific place on an experimental basis. We shall look into the matter and if we can find the money and the manpower for it we shall certainly make such an experiment.

You must do it at Mooi River.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Hercules made an interesting contribution in regard to begging. This is an age-old problem. It is a great problem and I am pleased that he allowed the spotlight to fall on the role of the public as well as on their commitments in this connection. We must be realistic, Sir. There is a certain percentage of people who cannot be rehabilitated and who, notwithstanding the treatment and information they receive, continue to fall back into their old habits because of certain malfunctions that exist on their part. However, I believe that a large percentage of beggars can be rehabilitated, and I think that the hon. member has directed attention to a very important sphere that is also worthy of urgent attention. We shall certainly give attention to this matter during the recess and I hope next time to be in a position to give him some interesting facts in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to try to respond first of all to the hon. the Minister’s comments about caring for the aged because there is obviously a tension here which must be maintained. If we relax the tension between two concepts we will be in trouble. I can best illustrate it by referring to the … [Interjections.] Yes, I shall try to illustrate it.

The one tension I want to mention was that mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg who talked about the need for more accommodation in old-age homes. The other tension was mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis who talked about the need not to depend so much upon buildings and the old-age home but rather to be aware of the fact that the elderly wanted to have a place in the community. I think that is the best way I can describe it. Both of these arguments must be held together. If we relax either of those two then we are in trouble because there are certain aged people who need care. I raised this issue last year under the same Vote and the then hon. Minister suggested that there was really no need. Now the survey has shown that there is a need, although perhaps not as great as we had imagined. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there are a lot of older people who have not got their names on any waiting list. I think for example of some of them who have approached me here in the Cape who need help desperately. They are infirm; they cannot cope on their own; they are living in small rooms in the city. We all know the story. We have all visited them. They live in cold, dark rooms and are existing on a pittance, and they need someone to care for them because either their children have died or they have moved away or they have no children at all and they have lost a husband or a wife. I believe there are a lot of these people. I can think of one example in recent months where a person came to me and asked me to find her a place. She was 80 years old and her son had been transferred out of the country. She had no one to care for her and she desperately needed a place. She was afraid of the inner city, and here we have another very real problem, i.e. the insecurity of these people because of theft, assaults and house-breaking. She has never had her name down on any waiting list. At every single place I went to the first reaction was immediately: “There is a long waiting list.” She is now living in one room because we could not get her in anywhere. The point I want to make is: Yes, it is true. There are duplications. There are people who have their names on two waiting lists but we must not forget that there are also old people who do not have their names on any waiting list at all. And this is a growing problem.

I support what the hon. member for Von Brandis said earlier on, and that is that there is a considerable amount of rethinking taking place in many parts of the world, not only in terms of caring for the aged but also for children. It is relatively easy to find the capital to build. It is very different to find people who care. It is easy to have a nice big building, to put up a plaque and to have an opening and cut the ribbon and all the rest, but the maintenance, staff and the care is something else. There are a lot of people, sociologists and others who are involved, who are beginning to discover that sometimes more harm is done to a child, for example, who is taken away from a deprived family situation with lack of hygiene because they lose something else—dare I mention it—they lose a sense of identity, a sense of belonging to a unit. No matter how good the home is, some violence is done to that particular child. We are born into families and we are meant to be in a family situation. All I say is that any policy that the Department follows should hold these two things in tension. Wherever possible it will be far better to find another caring family or relation or community where that child can be looked after and cared for. It is better to spend money on people rather than on buildings.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is true, but unfortunately there are certain people, children and older people, who must have places to go to as a last resort. However, this should always be regarded as a last resort. It is summed up in the words of a certain person who said the following—

I think this is absolutely right. Secondly, he makes the following point—

I want to make one final point in this regard. It is not easy to find people who will care continuously. It is all right to find someone in an emergency situation. Most of us respond to an emergency. Parents may be in trouble; there may be a divorce and the breakdown of a family. We might decide to take a child into our own homes or perhaps somebody else will. But the long-term caring is not easy. It is tough and difficult and I do not want to suggest for one moment that we should underestimate that problem.

I also want to come back to something that was raised earlier by, I think, the hon. member for Pietersburg in regard to the problem of alcoholism. Under the Health Vote I raised this as a specific problem because it obviously is a health problem. Whatever other circumstances may surround this or may contribute towards it, there is an almost established belief that alcoholism is a disease. Secondly, of course, it affects the health of a person as well, and therefore I raised it quite deliberately and specifically under the Health Vote. I realize, however, that this also features under the Vote of Social Welfare and Pensions. When one looks at the latest report for 1976—and for reasons already mentioned I have only had a chance to look at it this afternoon—there is really and truly very little there. It just gives a breakdown of certain facts and figures. In answer to the hon. the Deputy Minister the fact of the matter is that on page 19 under table 19, where statistics are given, one sees that in respect of the “Nature of dependence on alcohol” there is an increase right down the line. Whether it be men or women, it makes no difference. In particular there is a remarkable increase among women in terms of dependence on alcohol. I suggested to the hon. the Minister of Health that he should approach the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions with a view of having a joint campaign by these two strong departments, because both have a stake in this, and that the emphasis should be on preventive action rather than cure as is inevitably the case in respect of social welfare and pensions where the idea is to care for the victim. That is true and necessary. But the stress on education is perhaps even more important than caring for the victims of alcoholism, whether it be in terms of crime, broken homes, broken-down lives, road accidents or whatever it may be. This is unfortunately a part of our job, i.e. to care for those people who are victims. But it is so much better through education in our schools, in our universities, everywhere, to remind people of what this can do. I know there is also other drug dependence; I am not underestimating that; but according to the statistics of the Department itself—in fact, they go so far as to actually say so—alcohol is the most serious problem in relation to drug dependence in South Africa at the moment. Therefore I would ask the hon. the Minister if he, through his department, could liaise with the Department of Health. I put the same suggestion to the hon. the Minister of Health and he said that he would consider this. However, I do not know who should take the initiative. But if both these departments, in relation to the health and social welfare aspects, could really attack this problem of alcoholism, they would be doing not only the community but the whole of South Africa a tremendous service. Obviously, this affects all of us whether we are White, Black, young or old, or whether we sit on that or this side of the House. That makes no difference.

Sir, those are the two matters I want to place before the hon. the Minister, and ask him to give some thought to them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands concentrated in particular on the care of specific groups of people in society. I want to do the same, but I want to refer more specifically to the position of orphans. Of the 5 775 children who, on 31 December 1977, were being cared for in 93 children’s homes, and for which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions appropriated R324 791 in subsidies for the 1976-’77 financial year, only 2,74% were actual orphans, in other words children of whom both parents were deceased. It is not the fault of these children that they are in children’s homes. They are the least to blame, but have to endure the most suffering. For some reason or other their parents, whether voluntarily or as a result of a court order, have entrusted them to the care of the State. I do not wish to level any reproaches or pass judgment on these parents. Instead I want to thank the good Lord for the children’s sakes, that there are children’s homes where they are being cared for and where opportunities can be given to them to rise above the circumstances which caused them to be placed in children’s homes.

Our country may not allow the care of these children to deteriorate. I think that we as Whites owe it to ourselves. And with that I do not wish to imply that we have no responsibility towards the orphans of other population groups within our country’s borders. We certainly have a responsibility towards them as well, but this does not form part of my speech at this moment, and in any case they also fall under other departments.

As I have already said, there are 5 775 children, of whom 97,26% are not really orphans. Their parents do not care for them-, they do not see to their upbringing, they have no financial obligation towards them, and in thousands of cases there are no longer any family ties either. They do not exist, because the parents have disappeared from the lives of those children. In most cases, however, such parents do not wish to give up their children so that they can be legally adopted by other persons. They deny these children a happy home, as it were, and in thousands of cases they also deprive them of unprecedented opportunities which prospective parents are prepared to offer adopted children. In many cases it happens that as soon as children leave the parental home, or, if they are with foster parents, attain the age at which or the qualifications with which they are able to start working, the parents appear out of the blue, as it were, and demand the children, for no other purpose than to derive financial benefit from them. In my opinion a change ought to be effected in this respect now. Parents whose children have been referred to a children’s home by a children’s court, or parents who have voluntarily entrusted their children to the care of the State, should automatically give up the children as soon as approved persons apply to adopt the children in question. Please note, Mr. Chairman, that I am saying that the qualifying requirement is that these children should automatically be given up as soon as approved parents apply to adopt these children. While there is no application for adoption these children are not automatically given up. Such a measure, I think, will prevent a great deal of heartache, sorrow and serious disruption, for frequently a child is fonder of his foster parents, the only people whom he has known in his life, than of his own parents whom he has never seen and never known.

When parents come to claim the children brought up by the foster parents, the children are literally tom away from their foster parents with great sorrow, suffering and unprecedented harm. And in these days, Sir, when we have to build a motivated nation, I think such a measure will make a great contribution towards eliminating the disappointments and frustrations of these three-cornered situations, viz. between the natural parents, the foster parents and the children. I also believe that such a measure will result in the number of children in children’s homes being drastically reduced, not so much owing to the fact that the children will no longer find their way to children’s homes so easily and readily, but because adoption will become the general practice. The fact that children in foster care may be claimed by their legal parents at any time means that the department frequently experiences problems in finding adequate and suitable foster parents. Placing a child in need of care in foster care ensures that he receives individual attention and also receives privileges, love and opportunities of which he is deprived in his own parental home.

I want to concede at once that there are children who, as a result of their personalities, adapt more easily in children’s homes and can be cared for there, yet probation officers and social workers nevertheless try to find suitable, understanding foster parents for such children as well. Legal adoption will I think solve the problem of adequate foster care. From the annual report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for 1975, the one which I have seen because the 1976 report was not available before the commencement of this debate, it appears that for the year ending 31 March 1975 it was only possible to place 36,92% of the total number of children, declared by children’s courts to be in need of care during that period, in foster care. I know that this is an extremely emotional matter, viz. the fact that parents should automatically give up children in the care of children’s homes and also those in foster care, but I believe that it is in the best interests of all parties.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will have noticed that I made no mention whatsoever of the possible financial saving which could accrue to the State from such a measure, i.e. by having fewer children in children’s homes and a larger number of adoptions. But primarily, to my way of thinking, this is not the issue. The issue to my mind is primarily the happiness and welfare of these unfortunate children who are abandoned by their parents. In my opinion another issue is the future of our nation, and that is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to this matter, viz. the automatic adoption of children as soon as suitable parents apply to adopt them.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to dwell briefly on what is perhaps a very sensitive and delicate matter, viz. the Government Employees’ Provident Fund. At present there are 23 831 contributors to this fund. These persons are temporary employees of the State, and contribute to this Government Employees’ Provident Fund. I want to attempt to draw a comparison between this fund and the Government Service Pension Fund, and then I want to argue, in the first place, that in most cases, the temporary employees in the service of the State have over the years, just as did those who are permanent employees, made an exceptional contribution to the State administration, and can therefore make claim to a sounder formula for the calculation of the gratuity and annuity.

Let us consider these formulae briefly. In respect of the Government Employees’ Provident Fund the annuity is calculated on the annual average of the contributor’s pensionable earnings during his last three years of contributory service, by multiplying l/96ths of this average by the number of years and fraction of a year, while the gratuity is calculated at 4% of the above formula. The annuity of the Government Service Pension Fund is determined by the same formula but the fractional factor in this case is l/55th instead of l/96th. This means that the permanent officer has an almost 100% advantage over the temporary employee. For gratuity purposes the calculation of the latter fund is 6,72%.

Let us consider the contributions of the employees themselves. In the case of the GEPF (Government Employees’ Provident Fund) the male employee contributes 5½% of his pensionable earnings, while the female employee contributes 4%. The State’s contribution in this case amounts to R1,41 for every rand contributed by the member. In the case of the Government Service Pension Fund the male employee contributes 7%, the female employee 5%, while the State contributes 18,9% and 13,5% respectively. The State’s contributions therefore amounts to 2,7 times the amount contributed by members. If a member of the GEPF should die, his widow receives 40% of the amount which he would otherwise have received while the widows of members of the Government Service Pension Fund receive 50%.

A further anomaly in respect of this position is that the widow of the member of the GEPF loses her annuity as soon as she remarries. This is not the case with the other fund.

Mr. Chairman, I have now pointed out the differences in respect of the annuities, gratuities, widow’s benefits, the State’s contribution as well as the member’s contribution. One can arrive at only one conclusion, viz. that there are so many anomalies that a thorough investigation of this matter is essential. In fact, the Government has been investigating this matter for a long time.

In 1966 the former Minister of the Interior, ex-Senator Jan de Klerk—the eminent father of the present hon. Minister here present— said the following in a speech. I just want to quote this briefly. It reads—

He concluded by saying the following—

The Public Servants’ Association has also made representation in this connection over the years. I should just like to quote a single paragraph which appeared in the Staatsamptenaar of November 1977. It reads—

It goes on to deal with these representations, and reads—

Mr. Chairman, it is therefore clear that the department has been working on this matter for a long time. However, I want to request the hon. the Minister to devote his constant attention to this matter as new Minister in this department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gezina has raised a very important matter and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will react to the views he has expressed. The hon. member for Parys also dealt with the important question of foster care and adoptions and the care of our children. I intend to raise some matters in this regard as well.

First of all, I would like to react to one or two points raised by the hon. the Minister, particularly in regard to the question of old-age homes and the means test and the income limits as far as the latter is concerned. In so far as the old-age homes are concerned, the great problem that arises is that in many instances these homes are admitting people who can look after themselves reasonably well. After a short period of time, however, one finds that these people become frail and infirm and require careful and special attention. An organization that I have the privilege of serving as a member of its management committee, built a seven storey building to cater for the frail and the infirm. We set aside one whole floor for those persons who fall into what we call category three. After a very short while it was found that the sixth floor also had to be converted to care for the very frail and the infirm. Indeed the situation at the moment is that those persons who become frail and infirm and require special nursing, are being accommodated in their rooms as they are at present and cannot be allocated special accommodation. One of the methods used to meet this situation would be to ensure that our existing homes for the aged all make some provision for the frail and the infirm so that they in turn can look after these people who require special attention. To my mind the greatest need we have at the moment is homes to cater for the frail and infirm. I know many homes have closed their waiting lists at present by virtue of the fact that it is impossible for them to provide any accommodation.

The other matter I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister is the means test income situation. I can only illustrate this by saying that there certainly is an anomaly when one takes the situation of a person who has certain assets. To try to illustrate the point one can take a person who is receiving R83 per month from a private pension scheme.

It may perhaps be a widow who has no other assets at all but she does not qualify for even the minimum social pension. Now, one can compare that person’s situation with that of a person who is permitted to have assets of up to R22 400. The money can be invested in order to provide a further income. But if this latter person is not receiving a private pension from any source, he or she can qualify for the maximum pension that will amount to R88 per month from 1 October. If this is a woman and she is 64 years of age, she can also receive another R11 per month which will amount to a total of R99 per month. Therefore the woman with assets of R22 400 that are bringing in a further income if the money is invested, which is not taken into account, can qualify for a social pension of up to R99 per month, whereas the other individual finds herself in the unfortunate predicament that she cannot qualify for any social pension whatsoever because she is receiving a pension in excess of R82 per month. This is the anomaly that seems to exist and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter because it does not only affect old-age pensioners. Other social pensioners are also affected.

I would also like to refer particularly to the position of people who are receiving maintenance grants because those people are also subject to a means test along the same lines as applicable to a social pension such as an old-age pension. Because the means test has not been altered since 1972 as far as income is concerned, there are people who are now losing those maintenance grants. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfair on these people who, through their own endeavour, have received increases in salary, some of them very small. Because the means test has not been altered since 1972 they now find that they are losing their maintenance grants. I have an example with me in a letter which I received only a few days ago illustrating this point. This is the case of a widow who did not receive any insurance as her late husband committed suicide and therefore no insurance was paid. She applied for a maintenance grant for herself and her two children. She received a maintenance grant of R145 per month in respect of those children, one aged 16 and one aged 14. She is a Post Office employee and has received an increase in her Post Office salary. I am sure that the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will realize that they have received increases in salaries. But as a result of a small increase in her salary of R12 per month this unfortunate person now loses the maintenance grant of R145 per month. She has submitted a budget showing how she has managed to survive on the maintenance grant and her salary as a Post Office employee. Together with the R145 per month maintenance grant she was able to survive because her living expenses for herself and her two children amount to R331. Here we have the situation where the means test ceiling has not been altered and where this has affected a person who is trying to keep a family together. After all, the whole basis of our welfare services is aimed at fostering family life. This is the essence of our welfare services and is of paramount importance as far as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is concerned. The idea of the maintenance grant is to try to assist these people to keep their families together and I do hope the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to this aspect.

There are other matters affecting the maintenance grant that also require attention. We know that when a child is no longer attending school, the maintenance grant is stopped. I know of a case where a person had a daughter at school, aged 17, who matriculated in January but who could not find a job for four months. Although she was under 18 years of age the maintenance grant was stopped in January because she no longer attended school.

In cases such as this, people have to appeal for charity and people have to come forward to assist them. These are matters affecting maintenance grants. The unemployment situation where sometimes a child has left school and is unable to obtain employment, also requires revision as far as I am concerned. A committee of inquiry into the payment of maintenance grants was appointed some years ago and in reply to a question last year the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions indicated that the report has been submitted on 13 March 1973. We are now in 1978 and I think the hon. the Minister should give us some indication as to whether any steps are to be taken in regard to the payment of maintenance grants and whether they are to be reviewed. The payment of maintenance grants is a very important aspect of the department’s services. In the report we see that 20 140 families are receiving children’s allowances, whether in the form of maintenance grants in terms of the Children’s Act or foster parent grants or family allowances. According to the latest report the number of children affected by the payment of maintenance grants, foster parent grants or family allowances was 45 577 in 1976. Of that figure, 36 055 children were allocated maintenance grants. These payments affect a large number of people and it is important to ascertain what the position is in the light of changing circumstances. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give careful consideration to reviewing the income limits as far as the means test is concerned.

Dealing with the position of children, it is interesting to note that the United Nations have decided that 1979 will be the Year of the Child. Although we are probably not going to take part in any overall project by the United Nations when it comes to the care of the child, I do feel that the hon. the Minister could give some indication whether during the course of 1979 he is not going to convene a conference dealing with all aspects of child welfare. I think we did have a conference in 1975 in regard to children in institutions, but I feel we should have a conference dealing with the whole question of child care in the Republic of South Africa. It can discuss the underprivileged child, the neglected and ill-treated child—in this regard we heard about the baby battering syndrome from the hon. member for Bryanston—the increasing number of children of unmarried mothers, and children who are exposed to drugs and crime. We have seen an increase in the crime rate among young people. In addition, there are the physically handicapped and mentally retarded children. The whole ambit of the care of children is a matter which should receive full consideration. We know that various welfare organizations, such as the Durban Child Welfare Society, are having difficulty in raising funds and keeping their social workers in employment. These social workers form the whole basis of finding ways and means of prevention. The preventive and field work of our trained social workers is a vital cog in the organization to bring about a situation where we can keep our children out of institutions. I agree entirely with what the hon. members for Pinelands and Parys said about the question of foster care and adoption. Children in institutions are sometimes referred to as forgotten children. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at this late hour I have a special reason for conveying my congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of this department. The special reason is that the hon. the Minister and I are neighbours as far as our constituencies are concerned. We are more than neighbours, because our constituencies partly overlap as far as residential areas are concerned. What is more, we are neighbours in the full sense of the word because we have adjoining farms. We are good neighbours, because we have never impounded one another’s cattle. I wonder whether the hon. member can still remember that when he took his seat for the first time in Parliament five years ago, I invited him over for a cup of coffee. I then told him that I thought that a particularly fine future awaited him in politics and in Parliament. I want to congratulate the young hon. Minister and wish him everything of the best for the future. We are proud of such a capable young man.

A very great philosopher said more than two thousand years ago: “Do not reject me in my old age, and do not abandon me when my strength has gone.” I want to talk about these people this evening, they who experienced many years of privation in our country. The marks of time are etched on their faces and the rime of many winters has settled on their heads. Their hands have become calloused and hardened, but their eyes have grown dim and their hearts gentle as their lives draw to a close. We pay tribute to these noble people, they who are elderly today. They lived through the crisis years of the past and worked to establish what is good and splendid to make of the Republic of South Africa the prosperous country it is today. We are grateful to be able to say that we can look these noble people straight in the eye, for our Government, this department, our churches and many organizations in our country are taking care of our aged.

In 1975 this department paid out old-age pensions to 133 767 elderly people. In 1975 war veterans’ pensions were paid out to 15 363 war veterans. The annual report of this department contains very interesting statistics, but owing to a lack of time I shall content myself with furnishing only a few. In 1976 65 of these social pensioners were 100 years and older, and there were 11 war veterans who were 100 years and older. In other words, in 1976 we had 76 pensioners in our country who were older than 100 years. In 1976 we also had 101 pensioners in the age group 95 to 99 years.

What we in South Africa can be particularly proud of is the care of our aged in old-age homes. As far as this aspect is concerned we are, as in many other spheres, way ahead of other countries. A country such as England accommodates approximately 1,4% of its elderly persons in old-age homes, while South Africa accommodates approximately 8% of its elderly persons in old-age homes. As far as our infirm aged are concerned, we can say that during the past 11 years we have made phenomenal progress. In 1964 there were 601 infirm aged in our old-age homes, while the number grew to 7 409 in 1975. In 1966 the per capita subsidy for the infirm aged in old-age homes was R10 per month, and from 1976 onwards, i.e. 10 years later, it varied between R62 per month to R88 per month per elderly person in these institutions, The ordinary subsidy for normal elderly persons in old-age homes is R10 per month. This was referred to by implication today by a speaker here, and I just want to emphasize it. I want to ask the Minister whether he and his department would not like to give consideration to the following, it entails no allocation of new funds, but merely a transfer of certain funds. I am asking whether this R10 per person per month, i.e. R20 per month for a married couple, cannot be transferred to the elderly pensioners living in urban or municipal areas to be applied to assist them to meet the rates or their municipal obligations. It would cost the department nothing extra, but would entail that those old people are kept within the community; this might make them happier. I know that it is not the policy at present, and that possibly the Minister and his department are not in favour of it. This has also been said, but consideration could perhaps be given to this in future, and the State might also be able to benefit from it, because fewer old-age homes will be required.

It was correctly stated by the Minister this afternoon—and I have also seen this in annual reports—that there is no urgent shortage of old-age homes in the Republic of South Africa. That is true; our people are well provided with old-age homes. But I am in the unfortunate position to be able to recount that as far as my own neighbourhood, the Klip River valley area in Meyerton is concerned, there is an urgent need for an old-age home, partly owing to the high municipal obligations which the pensioners are no longer able to meet. These old people are waiting for the establishment of an old-age home, to escape from those onerous obligations which they are no longer able to meet. I want to thank the Minister and his department for the fact that such a complex has already been approved for Meyerton. I want to ask the Minister and his department to use their influence with the Department of Community Development to expedite the appropriation of funds for the construction of that project so that this will become a reality for our old people and a way out of their predicament.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with every word the hon. member for Meyerton said here this evening. It is true that the future of a nation lies in the hands of its youth, but it is just as true to say that a nation that forgets its elderly people, its aged, its fathers and its mothers, looks forward to a dishonourable future. In this connection our Government has a proud record, as we have heard here this afternoon. Consequently we pay tribute to the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions and his staff, to the Deputy Minister as well as the Minister, and the Ministers we have had in this post over the years. We are pleased that we can also say of the present Minister that we observe that he is a sympathetic person and we know that he will deal with our old people and their problems with a gentle hand and sympathetic heart.

I should like to express a few ideas on the question of the rendering of probation services to our courts and condemned persons. Probation services may be seen as an arrangement whereby a condemned person is allowed to continue to exercise his freedom in the community subject to conditions imposed by the court and to supervision by a trained probation officer appointed for the purpose who assists him in continuing to perform his social function. From the foregoing it is obvious that probation services can have great benefits for the offender, the court as well as the community. I shall mention only a few of these. One of the most important benefits of probation services is that we are able in that way to keep people out of prison. In South Africa, where the prisons are rather full, this matter and this benefit cannot be overemphasized. In addition, the offender remains in employment and is still able to care for himself and his family. The offender also maintains his normal relations with his family and the community. He does not bear the stigma of a prisoner. The offender is helped to accept the norms of behaviour of the community, while the community continues to be protected, for if he were to contravene the conditions of his probation and fails to comply with them, he will end up in gaol.

This is a far cheaper process, and a single figure will illustrate my point. The daily cost of detaining a prisoner in our gaols is already in excess of R2. Compared to this the cost of a probation officer is only approximately 40c per day. The report which a probation officer compiles of a person who has to appear before the court and makes available to the court also serves as an extremely important aid to the court in meting out sentence. In figures which we have in this connection from overseas it is clear that probationary placements produce excellent results. During 1960, for example, in the London and Middlesex areas, 69% of the juvenile offenders, and 66% of the adult offenders successfully completed a probationary period. There is a great deal of further evidence in this connection, but this is briefly the case in favour of probationary services.

Now I ask: What is the position in regard to this matter in South Africa today? Although attempts were made in the past to establish a proper probationary service in our country, it is a pity to have to say that the voice of the probation officer is to a large extent no longer heard in the criminal courts of our country today. Apart from probation services in respect of juvenile offenders there are at present no appreciable probation services in respect of any other offenders, Whites or non-Whites, in South Africa. I am convinced that this is a situation which is not in the best interests of our administration of justice, of our community and of our offenders in specific cases either. In this connection the following quotation from the State President’s address during the opening of this Parliament on 1 February 1974 is applicable, and I quote—

All things considered, Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that it has become imperative that the probation officer should return to our courts to take his rightful place there. The administration of justice and we have nothing to lose; in fact we can only gain if this were to happen. Mr. Chairman, I am therefore advocating to the hon. the Minister to have an investigation instituted into the possibility of allowing probation services to come into their own again at our criminal courts, under the guidance of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with what the hon. member for Verwoerdburg says; in fact I want to make a special plea to the hon. the Minister as far as social work is concerned to help the discharged prisoner on his release from gaol to rehabilitate himself quickly by, inter alia, helping him to get a job. I think he has paid his debt to society and I think we must get him rehabilitated as quickly as possible.

I did not quite finish my other speech. I was dealing with the financial aspects of this matter and I was about to make the point to the hon. the Minister that as far as finances are concerned we would like to know if he has taken the additional costs into account in regard to the triplicating of the administrative work connected with social welfare and pensions. I say this not only in regard to his department but also with particular reference to those welfare organizations which have to triplicate their services in dealing with the other races. That is the point I wanted to make and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if South Africa can afford to do this at this moment in time.

The next aspect I want to turn to is the one referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister with regard to the role of local authorities. I very much welcome his statement that local authorities should play a greater part in social welfare work. I think it is right and proper that they should. It is very easy for them, particularly when they have to provide accommodation for the aged, not only to see that they are properly housed and so on, but to see that they are properly identified with the entire social system and that they are integrated with the community. There may be a need for assistance in respect of Meals on Wheels; they may be able to render welfare services and I believe they could assist with nursery schools as well. There are many aspects of welfare work which I know they would like to do.

But I have one problem, Mr. Chairman, and that is that because of the Hoek Commission which sat, I think round about 1958 or 1959, and their recommendations in regard to social work, in the Transvaal in particular, local authorities are not allowed to do social work. I think it is high time that we took a new look at the situation and, encouraged by what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, see whether perhaps local authorities can play a more positive role in social work.

I also want to refer to another aspect mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to drug addiction and alcoholism. The social worker can play a positive role, firstly, in regard to drug dependence. Sections 29 and 30 of the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act provide that when a person comes before the court and the court has reason to believe that he will benefit by going to a rehabilitation centre rather than to gaol, the trial can be stopped and, on the recommendation of the prosecutor and a social worker, that person can then be sent to a rehabilitation centre. I think it is very important that a more positive role should be played by social workers to see that these trials are conducted along these lines more often so that these people are not sent to prison but rather to a rehabilitation centre. It is very necessary that this be done, Sir.

Talking about rehabilitation centres, I want to refer very briefly, if I may, sir, to the centres referred to in the report which was tabled today. It is interesting to note that the three rehabilitation centres which are State-funded, State centres, provide 412 beds. There are 16 privately run institutions and they provide 728 beds. In other words, 41,9% of the beds are provided by the State, yet when one looks at the figures and one sees the number of people involved one notices that in the past year 5 860 people were admitted to private institutions as compared with 820 admitted to State institutions. The private institution figure is far beyond the 41,9% of beds provided by the public sector so the admittance has been completely disproportionate. There is therefore a clear preference on the part of the public to go to private institutions and I believe it is the bounden duty of the hon. the Minister and the Government to see to it that those private institutions are enabled to give proper and adequate service to the public.

When it comes to the question of Coloureds—and here I want to refer very briefly to the question of alcohol—I think we have a problem, a particular problem as far as the Cape Province is concerned. Figures show that a very large percentage of young Coloured people become alcoholics at a very early age. The percentage is high and statistics prove it over and over again. I think we have to take a very careful look at the tot system here in the Cape. I think we would do well to abolish the tot system, Sir, because that generates the inclination towards alcoholism which in turn gives rise to all the evils which surround the family of the alcoholic. I think we shall achieve a great deal if hon. members opposite would support us in our plea to control the advertising of alcohol over the radio, television and in public places of entertainment.

I now want to turn to the subject of marriage and divorce. I refer in particular to Dr. Raubenheimer’s interesting article about the Vaal Triangle in the December issue of Rapport. I notice that of the 14 aspects of welfare work, marriage guidance and family and child care amount to 47,8% of the work done. This percentage is much higher than that in respect of any other category and shows the importance of family planning and family happiness. Because of alcoholism and drug dependence this happiness is broken up and the children have subsequently to be placed in orphanages and like centres. It is very important that the family should be kept together and to that end there should be a positive policy of marriage guidance. Proper marriage guidance should be given before a marriage is entered into so that the couple can fully understand the implications of marriage. Secondly, if the marriage goes sour, marriage guidance bureaux should be set up in order to assist wherever possible and the people involved should be referred to those bureaux. It is much too easy to get divorced in South Africa today, Sir. A divorce can be obtained by connivance or by mutual agreement between the parties and too often the children are used as footballs and bargaining factors between the parties as regards custody and maintenance. This is something that should be stopped.

Pursuant to this I want to raise another question and that is the question of wife-beating. From professional experience, Sir, and from an examination of court cases it is clear that too many divorces take place because of wife-beating. Not every wife is a karate expert so that she can defend herself. When complaints are made to the police about wife-beating they say it is a domestic matter and they cannot interfere, so I think the law should be looked into as far as this aspect is concerned. The wife has no protection whatsoever and too often one has clients coming to one’s office with black eyes, bruises on their arms and so forth. They just cannot defend themselves and I think we should give them a measure of protection in this regard.

In respect of the custody of children I think the social worker has an important role to play. When there is no agreement between the parties, before the court awards custody of the children to either parent, it should seek the advice of a social worker in order to get a reply to the question: What is in the best interests of the child? I think the social worker has a positive role to play here.

I want to touch on the question of senior citizens. There are 22 000 of them in need of care and they constitute 8% of the 250 000 senior citizens there are. I also believe they must be integrated into society. A lot has already been said on this subject.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the publication Care of the Department of Information. It is circulated in the United States of America and deals with all the social welfare services in South Africa. I want to ask the Minister whether he has seen this and whether he has approved of its contents. I also want to ask him whether he approves of a political connotation in a social welfare report which is circulated throughout the world, as is evident from the following—

This refers to what was then the Black squatter problem around our towns and cities. I do not blame the hon. the Minister; all this happened prior to his taking office but I want to know whether he or his predecessor or his department …

I was only 12 years old when that happened, when the slums were done away with. But it is true what they say.

Does the hon. the Minister approve of a political connotation such as this being given to a matter by an official in the Government service? He talks about a political party that stepped in. With great respect, Sir, if you want to introduce politics into social welfare … [Interjections.] On the contrary, I do not think we want to get into a political debate but I can tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that I am quite prepared to enter into a political debate in that regard. [Time expired.]

What happened at Sophiatown?

Order! I think that is a subject that can be discussed under another Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I regard it as a privilege to be able to say a few words here tonight in connection with a social problem that, in my view, justifies particular attention and which, during the past few years, has shown a very great increase in intensity. I am referring to the problem of homosexualism and lesbianism (or homophilia), or however you may prefer to define it. In discussing this problem tonight, it is desirable to take into account the fact that in the first place we are confronted with a social problem, a social problem with a psychosomatic substructure. I am pleased to note in the annual report for 1976 that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Department of Health have started a new service to make clinical psychologists available to assist social workers when they encounter such problems.

I want to make the statement tonight that a sort of myth has been built up around this phenomenon. There is a great deal of discussion about this problem. At one stage, three films dealing with this problem were being shown simultaneously in the cinemas of Pretoria. People talk about the so-called “third sex” but there are pitifully few people who really know the nature and essence, the magnitude and the intensity of this problem. I know my time is limited. However, I just want to say, before I proceed, that I approach this problem with great understanding and with a feeling of, I would almost say, compassion, when I think of these people who are the victims of society in that there are many people who have no understanding of their problem.

I can quote many, many examples. Many hundreds of them have been in my consulting room and I have received hundreds of letters. I am not justifying the problem. I merely put it to you that I have an understanding for these people and their problem. It is a social problem with very distinct religious implications. Furthermore, it is also necessary that we should have a scientific and objective approach to this matter. We must realize that it is a phenomenon that has to be approached and handled at a multi-disciplinary level. We cannot merely leave it to the doctor, the social worker, the minister of religion, the psychotherapist or whomsoever. These professional people need one another in the treatment of this multi-disciplinary problem.

If we want to understand this problem properly, it is necessary for us to regard the problem of homophilia the way Prof. J. A. Van den Berg prefers to describe it. In his view, the problem has an erotic rather than a sexual basis. There are two aspects involved here, namely the so-called amente on the one hand and, on the other hand, the so-called typical immature personality. By amente I mean, in the first place, those people who come into the world with a congenital problem, people with an I.Q. of lower than 70, and who therefore cannot help having been born that way. It is purely a matter of constitution. But when I refer to the fact that we are concerned here with immature personalities, I want to emphasize two aspects. In the first place, there is the person whom I would define as a psychopath, a person with emotional problems, a person who has not reached maturity and who will never attain maturity.

In the second place, as an example of this typical personality, there is also the typically hysterical personality indicating the adolescent who has never developed to maturity from his adolescent period from the age of 17 to 18 years with the result that this problem has persisted into the period of maturity. In other words, this has given rise to a certain condition. Against this background I want to state the problem of the instinctive anomalies under which the concept of the phenomenon “homophilia” is classified. I also want to say immediately that I include in this the aberrations that have been referred to earlier tonight, for example child abuse. Even in regard to that problem there is justification for searching very expressly for sexual suppression and frustration in seeking to fathom the problem. I refer to masochism, sadism and fetishism and other related instinctive anomalies. These people repel their fellowmen instead of attracting them. In this way contact problems arise.

We ask what the causes are. It is impossible, within the few minutes at my disposal, to set out properly the nature of all the causes. I can only mention briefly that in the first place the cause is of a physical and psychosomatic nature and that environmental factors also play a very important role. To put an extensive problem briefly in a nutshell, Sir, I want to put it to you—and I base my verdict on definite facts established by experts in research abroad—that a mere 4% of homosexuals are born homosexuals. The others have become homosexual as a result of external factors. In other words, I am talking of acquired homosexuality. I state that briefly in order to come to the question of the cause. It is usually the teenager of between 17 and 18 years, during the period of adolescence, who suddenly discovers that he is different and who is confronted with the problem that he is in fact different; in other words, a homosexual or a lesbian. As far as therapy for these people is concerned, it is a fact that they normally keep the problem secret at that stage. They sublimate it. I say that if these people would come forward there would indeed be remedial possibilities for many of them provided that, firstly, they are motivated; secondly, provided they react positively to psychotherapy; and thirdly—and this is an extremely important aspect—that the religious beliefs they hold penetrate to the innermost being of those people. Religion is, in my view, the deciding factor in any extensive therapy.

I want to conclude by putting it to you that an indifferent view of this matter, a liberal view of this matter, aggravates the problem in the same way as a too rigid view, a too, let us say, conservative view of this problem, will also aggravate it. I want therefore to make a few brief requests of the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I ask that attention should definitely be given to this problem by social workers and that a campaign should be launched in the first place, for the identification of homophilia as an extremely serious social problem. I ask further that all the various academic disciplines undertake an in-depth study of this problem; that we should recognize the fact that we are confronted here with an abnormal problem. Furthermore, we must realize that by all Christian standards this is sinful; in other words, the unnatural sexual act is sinful, not the dilemma in which the person finds himself; and that the problem is preventable to a great extent, that it can be treated and that it can be cured. We must keep in mind that we are dealing here with a fellow human being, a fellow human being in distress, who must be treated with understanding, who must not be regarded with prejudice, and we must guard against condemnation because we simply do not always understand what is involved.

I trust that what I have said will not in any way—and in this I request the co-operation of the Press—result in this matter being taken out of context. We must regard it as an extremely complex yet prevalent social problem that justifies serious attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member spoke about the sexual cravings of young people. I hope he will pardon me if I do not react to that now. I should prefer to speak about people who no longer have sexual urges, namely the old people like Fanie and I.

Order! The hon. member must not start making confessions.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to avail myself of the opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks, in the first place, to the department for all the services that are being rendered, particularly in our large cities. I want to tell you that I always thought that from the nature of my association with a large municipality I was aware of the magnitude of the work of this department; but if one reads the annual report, one realizes that what one observes in one’s own community is merely a drop in the ocean. I want therefore to express my heartfelt thanks for the work that is being done, and I want to express the view that one can only imagine what the problems of the local authorities would have been if the department had not rendered these services in our cities. I leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I was not able to be present when the hon. the Minister made the announcement about the concessions in regard to the valuation of homes for pension purposes. However, I am pleased that he made the announcement because it is in accordance with what I wanted to say.

In support of the means test?

Yes, for the means test.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North referred here to his support for the contributory pension scheme. This made me feel happy and reminded me of the days when I was still a good old UP supporter when we asked for that so consistently and so persistently. [Interjections.] Now, at last, we are going to make progress in this regard. One asks oneself whether, if we had in fact had this scheme over the past 10 to 15 years, the obligations of the department would not have been very greatly reduced? At long last, because of the pension schemes in operation today—private schemes and so forth—the obligations of the department will start diminishing because more and more people will be making provision for their old age. There are pensioners at present whose income is very much higher and whose initial pension is therefore also much higher. On the other hand, however, there are also those who had a small income over the years and who did not belong to a pension scheme or perhaps only contributed to a pension scheme for a short while, and whose pension is therefore very small. These are the people one ought to appreciate, the persons who provided for their old age by acquiring a house. There are, of course, also pensioners who never took the trouble to buy a home of their own and these people remain a burden upon the State because they have to be provided with housing. However, I have in mind those who did in fact make provision by buying a home of their own. These houses are an asset to them in that they can live in them and therefore need not pay rent, although this does not yet provide them with an income. Although the concession granted by the hon. the Minister is going to help a great deal, there are still those who, over the years, have bought houses and renovated them and enhanced their value. As a result, the valuation is now so high that their monthly municipal rates amount to almost half of their monthly pension. For example, property that was bought at approximately R12 000 fifteen years ago, is now valued at between R25 000 and R26 000. In my constituency, property with a valuation of R26 000 will cost the owner approximately R38 a month.

That is an expensive city council.

No, it is not an expensive city council; the public demand services and the municipality readily provides them. The request I want to make is that we must make further investigations and grant further concessions to those people who have taken the trouble to become self-supporting in respect of housing so that it will not be necessary for them to dispose of their homes in their old age merely because they can no longer afford to live in them.

Unfortunately, my time has almost expired, but I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will be able to devote further attention to this matter at some stage or another.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I should like to say a few words about the former Minister as well as the present Minister, because one of them was a Free Stater and the other is my neighbour. For lack of time—because we are being sternly disciplined tonight—I just want to tell my neighbour: Congratulations on a fine performance up till now!

I want tonight, to devote my speech exclusively to the question of the after-care of the soldier wounded on the border and the care of his next-of-kin, and I want to begin by quoting two examples from actual life. I know of two soldiers who were injured in the same land-mine incident on the border and who sustained fairly extensive leg injuries. I shall refer to them as cases A and B, and both were injured on 4 March 1977. On 7 March they were admitted to the hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte and on 1 April the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions took charge of these two cases. Since that time both these soldiers have been receiving a pension. Case A received a nominal pension. In November 1977, almost nine months later, I paid him a visit and he had again been placed in a plaster cast for the umpteenth time after an operation. In the meantime, but only after several months, he had started working periodically. Fortunately, he had a sympathetic employer who had paid him his full salary in the meantime and he therefore had no financial problems.

However, I want to talk about case B. Case B was taken over by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions on 1 April 1977. A panel found that his leg had been 20% disabled. This man and his wife were awarded a pension of R70 a month—they are a newly-married couple and have no children. This person could only start working in September—for the first time since April—and only for a period of two weeks; in October, he again worked for two weeks, and in November he started working fairly regularly. In the meantime he had to undergo many operations and he suffered a great deal of pain and inconvenience. But while he was not working—and I want to mention this particularly—this man was not paid because the small undertaking for which he was working could not afford to pay him. There was therefore a long period in which this man had to subsist on R70 a month. Apart from that, I want to place on record that because this man was not able to perform his work as a mechanic, he was placed on light duty at a considerably lower salary. In the meantime, this man’s obligations amounted to R298 a month, excluding water, electricity and food for himself and his wife. You will therefore realize, Sir, that this man’s unavoidable obligations must have amounted to approximately R350 or more a month, whereas he received only R70 a month. In the meantime, through my intercession, he has been receiving an amount of R200 a month from the South African Defence Force Aid Fund. He is very grateful for this because it has helped him a great deal but it is still not sufficient.

I know that in terms of the Act the department is bound by certain standards, but tonight I want to plead particularly for the possible review of these standards. At present, the position is—and I know the hon. the Minister is aware of this—that a man whose potential earnings are estimated at R6 000, receives compensation of R3 600 or a percentage thereof, depending upon his degree of disability. The compensation of a man whose potential earnings are above R6 000, is calculated at R4 800.

I know that this Government recently effected very dramatic improvements in the pensions of soldiers, and I—as also are the soldiers—am very grateful for that, but I think we should give serious attention to the lifting of those ceilings. I shall try to motivate my appeal just now. I realize that such a decision can have very extensive financial implications but if one takes into account that at present only 2,8% of our pension funds are paid to injured ex-servicemen, it is in fact a minimal figure and one realizes that it is not as extensive as one thinks.

Mr. Chairman, these people are young and they have no reserve funds. The real problem is the interim period between the time when the young man is injured and the time he starts receiving a pension until such time as he is again able to work. For that period there should, if at all possible, be a special fund from which such a person and his family can be cared for.

I also want to refer to the question of the certifying of disability. The standard there should be the man’s ability to resume the work he was performing and was trained for, and nothing less. If he has to do a different type of work for which he has not been trained then, under present conditions in particular, he will be totally at a loss.

In conclusion I just want to say that we have a moral obligation to these people—I am convinced of that—because the case of the injured soldier is not analogous to that of the ordinary worker. To the ordinary worker maiming, injury and death are vague improbabilities that are only likely to be caused by a freak accident, whereas to the soldier, these are integral parts of his daily life. Any day he can set off a land mine or be the target of a terrorist. We should therefore give these people peace of mind in respect of the care of their next-of-kin because in that way we can guarantee their morale. This is a matter I want to bring most earnestly to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I want to apologize for only being able to join the Committee now; unfortunately I was dealing with legislation. I understand the hon. member for Hercules has already spoken on the question of beggars, but I actually want to speak about another social problem in regard to which I believe we can do something constructive. I want to refer to the problem we encounter in our major cities not only with beggars but also with hoboes, and every town and city has its quota of these people. Just like Pinelands, Durban also has its quota of hoboes. And let me say immediately that I am not speaking here today because I believe Durban has more hoboes than Pinelands, for example, but I accept it as a fact that in Durban we do have a hobo population.

Durban Central.

That is quite correct. In Durban Central, as in any normal city, one will find a permanent hobo population. This is a nation-wide problem, in fact, a worldwide problem, and one can even say that to a certain extent it is one of the oldest professions in the world.

†Mr. Chairman, I am raising this matter, not because I believe that there is an instant solution to it, but I raise it because I firmly believe that society has a social responsibility towards these people. The fact that a person opts out of society to live the life of a hobo is of course perhaps a reflection on that person, but in a way it also is a reflection on society itself and the conditions which force a person to become a drop-out. I am not raising this matter here tonight because I believe that we should round up all the hoboes and send them to a work colony. That is not the reason why I raise it. Nor do I believe that one should take the rather naïve or simplistic view that some people have, i.e. to be a hobo is one of the inherent rights, one of the liberties that man has in a free society.

[Inaudible.]

I raise these points because I know that there are protagonists of these two extremes. However, that is not an issue in this particular debate at all.

*Mr. Chairman, when we consider the problem we find that it is in fact possible for the community to assist a certain percentage of hoboes to become rehabilitated. It is only a percentage because I do not think one will find that everyone in that specific category of people will be prepared or motivated to become rehabilitated. As the law stands now, a person can be admitted to a rehabilitation centre voluntarily. However, that person must appear before a magistrate so that an order can be issued for his admission. We are talking specifically about rehabilitation centres because the vast majority of hoboes have a specific problem either through the abuse of liquor or of drugs. Those problems cause a person to become a hobo. Many of them can be rehabilitated. The problem is, however, that when a person leads the life of a hobo, he is quite alone in the world. He finds himself without friends or family. It is easier to persuade an alcoholic or a drug addict who still maintains family ties to be admitted to a rehabilitation centre. But the person who falls asleep under a newspaper on a bench in a public park is dependent upon the support of the community. One can epitomize the problem as follows: The hobo is an extremely unwilling client and there is no motivation towards improvement on his part. It is extremely difficult to persuade him to be admitted to some or other institution in terms of the provisions of the existing Act. In this particular regard I want to bring to your notice that a Durban city councillor has already done a great deal of work in this field. A further problem is that when a welfare worker does persuade the person involved to appear in court, he simply disappears. One cannot of course, expect a magistrate to be available at all times. The person cannot be taken to a welfare office immediately and brought before court from there, after which provision can be made to have him admitted to a rehabilitation centre. That is not my object. My plea is that consideration should be given to making an in-depth investigation of this matter with a view to streamlining these procedures.

†Earlier in this session the hon. member for Umbilo asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor a question in this respect. In his reply on 17 February the hon. the Minister’s predecessor replied that a survey was being conducted in Durban and that they were awaiting the outcome of that survey. The reason why I am mentioning this matter tonight, is to find out from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in this respect and also to urge an in-depth investigation of this problem, especially in regard to the legal position. Apart from the humanitarian reasons why one wishes to rehabilitate these people, there are also many other related problems that are connected with the existence of thriving hobo communities in central urban areas. The hon. member for Von Brandis is looking at me and I think to some degree we may share the same problem. I do not know what the exact boundaries of his constituency are.

[Inaudible.]

One sometimes finds that it is not the bona fide—if one can use that term—hobo who causes all the trouble; it is in fact undesirable elements that operate under cover of the hobo community. In the central urban areas one finds an increase in the incidence of the mugging and molesting of elderly people. I want to repeat that this is not being done by the bona fide hoboes but mainly by younger people. They have no problems in regard to alcoholism or drug addiction but simply because a thriving hobo community exists there those young people infiltrate it and operate under cover of that community.

Our hobo community migrated to Durban because of the muggings.

I do not intend to debate that point because I do not know what is taking place in Johannesburg. I only want to deal with the problem in Durban. We have real problems. In certain of the very densely populated areas such as Albert Park we are experiencing serious problems in regard to the mugging of elderly people. If we could do something about the hobo problem and reduce their numbers in some way, we would in fact not only be helping them but we will also be assisting the Police. The Police admit quite freely that they are experiencing a great deal of difficulty because of undesirable elements, hangers-on who operate on the fringes of what I call the permanent hobo community one gets in every city.

Camp followers.

Camp followers, that is the expression. They appear to be more informed about these matters in Pinelands. Obviously there is a limit to what the hon. the Minister or his Department can do. For instance, I think we should try to get more male social workers involved in this problem. I should also like to see an in-depth investigation made of the legal position. That basically is my point of view.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members must forgive me for replying very briefly to all the speeches that have been made because I have learnt that we are shortly to have a division in the House.

The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Umbilo referred again to homes for the aged.

†I do not want to deny that there is a backlog. If I gave that impression, I should like to rectify it. I merely tried to prove that the backlog is not as bad as some people believe. Mr. Chairman, I should like to issue this invitation to all hon. members and, through them, to the public. Any person who finds it difficult to find accommodation can write to my Department. We will do our utmost to place them. It may be possible for us to do so at other places of which they do not know. There is a small backlog. In the Department we have adopted the policy, in regard to planning, to press for preference wherever the need is felt for the erection of this type of old-age home. I think that with the aid of the new regional boards this matter might well also receive preference and therefore planning may well be expedited.

The hon. member for Pinelands again referred to the problem in regard to alcoholism. I want to reply to him as well as to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I want to thank the hon. member for Pietersburg for his scientific approach and for the facts he has given us. Mr. Chairman, I can fully agree with both hon. members that the same amount of emphasis should be put on prevention as is put on cure. I do not think one should choose between the two. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that my Department is actively participating in a campaign. He is welcome to certain pamphlets we have which in the first instance give some background information and secondly, provide a list of institutions and centres where treatment can be given. Originally we distributed only 5 000, but we found that the need for it was such that we subsequently had a reprint of 50 000 and are currently considering a reprint of 38 000. This proves that there is a need for information in this field and my department will not hesitate to play the role which is required of it in this field. We are anxious to participate in this regard.

I will also discuss his suggestions with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health, because I believe they must get attention. I do want to emphasize that co-operation just between two departments will not solve the issue; we need co-operation with the churches and welfare organizations. This is such a vast problem that only a common approach can really bear fruit.

*The hon. member for Parys expressed his concern about children whose parents neglect them and nevertheless retain a claim to them. He pleaded that they should be given out for final adoption so that they may be placed in a family context. When we are dealing with the adoption of children whose parents are not dead and have not voluntarily signed an undertaking that their children may be adopted, we find ourselves on very delicate ground. Many cases come to our attention where things go wrong in a household and children are taken away and placed in foster care, but where full rehabilitation of the natural parents takes place within a reasonably short period. Therefore, if we acted with undue haste in a matter such as adoption, we could be creating a situation which would really be difficult to resolve. On the other hand, it is true that one sometimes has parents who one feels simply cannot be rehabilitated and who, as the hon. member rightly says, come back later and only retain their claim to the child and allow the child to be brought up by others. This must have a disruptive influence on the child. Further to what the hon. member said, I want to tell him that as regards the whole question of the Children’s Act and its application, I am not advocating a drastic change, but I do want to go into it very thoroughly. To tell the truth, I have prepared myself to inform the Committee fully on the subject, but unfortunately, time will not allow me to do so. If I have to put it in a nutshell, I want to tell you that our present legislation is aimed at identifying the child who is in need of care. By doing this, we immediately label him as being a child in need of care.

He is the one who appears in court and whose fate is decided by the court. The question is whether our approach and our emphasis should not be that the parent is the one to be examined. Is the parent fit for his task and should not the parent be labelled as a neglectful parent who handles his children incorrectly? I do feel that with a small shift in emphasis, we can move in the direction, not specifically of what the hon. member wants, but of a somewhat new approach to children with these problems. I want to go further and ask whether the time has not come for us to see, in consultation with other departments involved, whether we should initiate a kind of family court. This court should not only deal with children’s cases, but also with those such as maintenance, etc. It need not immediately deal with all matters concerning the family, such as divorce and so forth. Let the beginnings be small, but let it be a family court which is specially equipped and which has the knowledge to deal with and pronounce upon the delicate matters concerning family life. It would be a good idea for us to devote some time to a very thorough discussion of this matter on a future occasion.

The hon. member for Gezina made a plea for the Government Employees Provident Fund. I could reply in great detail to him as well, but because of the limited time available to me I just want to mention that we are not happy either about the condition of this fund. It may be scientifically justifiable in the sense that the contributions of the members to this fund constitute 13,25% of their salaries, as against contributions of 25,9% to the Government Service Fund. This is a great difference, and to integrate the former group of people into the ordinary Government Service Fund will cost a substantial amount, which we cannot simply cover out of the taxpayers’ money. At the moment we are looking at the possibility of introducing an on-going system which will increase their benefits. However, it seems that there are problems in this connection as well, but we are giving attention to the problem. I want to assure the hon. member that we are not happy either, that we are not going to put up with the situation and that we are trying very hard to find a solution. We shall welcome any positive ideas in this direction. Because of the age of the people involved and several other factors it is a complicated problem.

†The hon. member for Umbilo once again referred to certain anomalies. As I have stated before, I will look into the matter and see what I can do within the confines of not moving substantially beyond the boundaries of the existing means test. For reasons that I have stated earlier, I am not prepared to do that. Therefore, I can promise the hon. member only one thing, viz. that I will investigate this question properly during the recess. The hon. member also referred to maintenance grants. There was a report in this regard and to the best of my knowledge it was discussed in some debate or other. The object of the report and the investigation was basically to investigate malpractices and the misuse of monies. Special significance was attached to the parents’ duty to maintain the child. This was the tendency of the report and of the debate which took place. I cannot give the hon. member the date of the debate, but we can go into that. He asked for a specific reply, but I can only say that a report has been filed and that to the best of my knowledge it has been discussed. The hon. member also suggested a conference in regard to problems relating to children. I think I have now given an indication that I have a very open mind and that I am also personally interested in steering our whole approach to the child with problems in new directions. It is not a totally new direction, but I am hoping to place more emphasis on further development in this area. I think we must also wait for the new bodies which are going to be instituted in terms of the new legislation to start operating. As the hon. member knows, those on the central level, viz. the South African Board, as well as the regional boards, have power to call conferences and I will certainly bear the hon. members suggestion in mind when I decide what the first areas of operation of the South African Board should be.

*I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Meyerton for his neighbourly congratulations. He made me sound like a land-owner, but I want to say that just as the hon. member for Meyerton hus more hair on his face than I, his farm certainly has more assets on it than mine. I want to thank the hon. member for his positive contribution and I can assure him that we shall do our best to expedite the development of the old-age home at Meyerton. As regards his request in respect of a special rates allowance, if I may sum it up that way, I do not think I can help the hon. member. If I were to do that, other groups of old people would rightly say: “I do not have a house and rates problems, but I have a high account at the chemist’s and I want a medicine allowance.” Therefore we have to treat everyone on the same basis and I cannot accede to the hon. member’s request. However, he may rest assured that we are very sympathetic towards these problems, which accounts for the new concession with regard to the valuation of properties which ought to help many of these people.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg made a convincing plea for the return of the probation officer to our courts. I want to assure the hon. member that our inquiry in this connection has almost been completed and that we hope to have our report ready soon, and that it will then be possible for him to consider it. If it is positive, it will be considered by the Cabinet as well. It therefore seems that things are progressing in this connection and that his wish may be granted.

I must say that I made the largest number of notes in connection with the hon. member for Hillbrow, because he managed to say most in the space of 10 minutes. Firstly, he said that our system caused us to triple our expenses. I suspect that he was referring to special departments which exist for other population groups and which deal with their welfare matters. I do not agree with him at all that decentralization must necessarily be more expensive. An example of this is that there are three city councils within greater Johannesburg. Often decentralization is justified merely from the viewpoint of administration, if we consider the total number of the population, and also the fact that they live in different areas and that we are dealing here with a community service which should preferably be provided to the community by the community itself, from its own ranks.

The hon. member pleaded for a more important part to be played by city councils. This is a matter one could investigate. In my experience, city councils are not always so anxious to play a more important part. They are prepared to play a definite part in the sphere which is natural to them, such as the provision of housing, the construction of buildings with the assistance of Community Development, etc. But in my opinion, based on the contact I have already had with them, they do not regard themselves as welfare organizations and they do not want to enter the sphere of welfare organizations.

The hon. member will remember that in the welfare Bill we are still discussing, there is provision for the appointment to regional councils of persons, not exceeding a quarter of the members, from outside the nominated list of welfare organizations. It is precisely with a view to organizations such as city councils that one might want to use that opening to involve them in the planning after all, because they are very closely concerned with it.

The hon. member mentioned a list of social problems, every one of which could probably be the subject of a very long debate.

†He mentioned marital problems, the necessity for marriage guidance, prevention of divorce, alcoholism, wife beating and a list of other matters. He did not say what I should do with regard to this awesome list of social problems. I agree with him that something should be done. I want to tell him that his speech is a wonderful illustration of the need for regional boards, because he mentioned let us say, ten matters, and I cannot decide immediately that of those ten we must give priority to this, that or the other one; that this must be A, that B, another C, and so on and that we must allocate our funds in such and such a way. That is why we are establishing these boards. They will draw up a priority list and they will advise us as to what should get preference and where we should spend our money. They must advise us whether they need a marriage guidance bureau in a particular area or whether they already have one. This is what the new legislation is all about.

In the last instance the hon. member referred to a publication of the Department of Information. I abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and will only say in that regard, that I do not think there is anything wrong with the truth, and as far as I know he did not quote anything which is untrue and which did not actually take place. I think therefore that it was quite in order for the department to state the true facts.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brits made a very interesting and scientific speech about the question of homosexuality and lesbianism. I am not an authority in this field and I have not made a study of the subject. As a layman I shall read the hon. member’s speech very attentively and discuss it with professional people in the department. I want to thank him for his interesting contribution. We shall see whether something has not been initiated this evening which could grow into something bigger. Investigation merely for the sake of investigation is not always the solution and to me as a layman it seems as if this problem is actually one for the Department of Health and related departments rather than for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. However, if we have a part to play and if the problem can be solved or effectively combated, the department will not hesitate to contribute its share.

Then I also want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his contribution. I do not think he put any requests to me. He joined all the other hon. members in making a plea in respect of our old people. I do not think I have left anyone out, so I want to come to my conclusion. [Interjections.]

Sasolburg.

Yes, the hon. member for Sasolburg made an important plea, and so did the hon. member for Durban Central. As far as the hon. member for Sasolburg is concerned, I want to tell him that I think he has mentioned a very important matter, but that my department has limited scope in this connection. In the first place, we are bound by the percentage of disability which is found, as in any other case of disability where it is a question of the percentage of disability. This is the case with regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and it is also the case with other disability cases handled by my department. We have to be led by the experts in some respects. When it comes to disability, it falls under the medical experts. There is also provision for such people to appeal to the Appeal Board. Therefore, if they are not satisfied with the percentage of disability, they can appeal to a higher authority. I can only approach the matter from a point of view that if a person is found to be 100% disabled, he personally gets an allowance of R360 per month—I am speaking in round figures; I may be out by a few rands here and there—and his wife, too, gets a very considerable allowance. If he has children, he is paid an allowance for every child as well. In all, these are allowances which compare very favourably with any other family allowances or social pensions paid by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. One of the cases which the hon. member raised concerns the question of when a person is able or not able and, if he is found to be disabled, what the percentage of his disablement is, how temporary or how permanent it is. From experience in other spheres I can tell the hon. member that it is a difficult matter to define precisely in practice. I shall inquire into the operation of this system again and in co-operation with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, I shall try to obtain the best possible benefits for these people.

In this connection I want to tell the hon. member, finally, that we do have to maintain a balance between what the State does for these young men and what the State does for men who suffered similar privations in another era, who were wounded and who became temporarily or permanently disabled because of their participation in a war. We must not upset this balance, Sir, because if we upset it, we shall give rise to a series of demands which will only mean again that we will not be able to make ends meet. The hon. member must realize the limitations and the amounts of money we have to spend. Nevertheless, the hon. member argued the case so convincingly and motivated it so well that I can promise him to take a very good look at it.

The hon. member for Durban Central talked about tramps, the tramps of Durban and Pinelands! I agree with him; this is a problem and I think he has mentioned it on a previous occasion. In any event, my department has specifically gone into the matter in Durban. I do not want to question the hon. member’s facts, because I think it proves how difficult it is to define this problem, but in that investigation, only 32 tramps could really be identified. I am not saying that there are not more than 32 tramps in Durban, but this proves how difficult it is even to enter into a conversation with them. [Interjections.] No, I would not say that. The fact remains that a large percentage of these people, as the hon. member himself conceded, cannot be rehabilitated. I want to appeal to communities and private welfare organizations to come forward to identify these people. It is clear that these people have no great liking for anyone in uniform or anyone in anything resembling a police van, and that they do not want to communicate with him. Perhaps they will communicate with the hon. member for Durban Central if he goes about in an open-necked shirt and shorts. They may be more forthcoming with representatives of the welfare organizations, by whom they do not feel threatened, and they may co-operate with them. I think this is a problem in which we can really only be successful if we also allow private initiative to play a very strong role, especially in the initial approach to these people. However, if such a case is identified where it appears that the person can be rehabilitated, we shall always do our best, of course.

This brings me to the end of the debate. I want to express my sincere thanks to all members for their contributions, and for their positive standpoint. I think the debate has really been conducted on a high level.

Finally, I want to say that the dominant theme of this debate has been the concern all of us feel for all members of our community who are having difficulties, the children, the aged and the people with social problems. Just as the members of this Committee sympathize with them, we know that the community outside also sympathizes with them. I now want to express the hope that the positive spirit in which this debate has been conducted will be transmitted by us to the outside world and that when we have finished quarrelling about the new legislation, we shall go to our people over whom we have some influence and say: Come on, let us accept this new legislation for what the NP Government has promised to make of it. It is the beginning of a new era of co-operation between all organizations, church, State and welfare organizations, a new era of community involvement in planning and in the implementation of planning. Let us use this new era to instil a new spirit of involvement into our whole community. Let us inspire them. Let us see whether we cannot repeat all over the Republic of South Africa what has happened in the Vaal Triangle by bringing about a resurgence in the contributions to funds of welfare organizations and increased participation in welfare work in general.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee rose at 22h12.