I move—

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the third reading of this Bill. There has been a great deal of discussion on it during its passage through this House. We have made ourselves quite clear on those items we have considered important. We are not so sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has piloted this Bill, has done the same. I do not intend to recap what has gone in the second reading and the Committee stage—we have discussed that quite thoroughly. But I do want to come to the point which we consider to be the main one in the Bill, and which is probably the purpose why it has been brought before this House, and that is the amendment contained in Clause 9. I do not want to recap the whole history of this clause. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is here as a result of some query, which he admitted yesterday, that two interpretations could be put on the Bill which was brought before the House last year.

We cannot see any need for the undue haste with which people are being deprived of the right to qualify for citizenship of South Africa. We expressed our disapproval of this by putting an amendment on the Order Paper. Our amendment sought to alter this clause to the extent that it would give these people a further period in which to apply for South African citizenship without loss of any of the qualifying period which they had accumulated to their credit. From expressions of the hon. the Minister of Immigration in this House he has shown his keenness and his willingness to back in principle what we were actually asking for in our amendment to this clause. We feel very strongly about this, Sir, and we feel that the number of people constitutes a large percentage of the existing White population of our country. The hon. the Deputy Minister was prepared to accept when I put forward that that number was probably between 65,000 and 100,000 people. He was apparently willing to accept that that was in fact so. I think that figure is probably as good a guess as anybody has been able to make. We are very much against taking away the right of that great number of people who have a stake in our country, who have shown their ability to live with us, to help us, who have become an integral part of our economy, who have tried to help us to solve our problems. I believe those are the finest immigrants you can get; they are the finest new citizens you can get. And the hon. the Minister of Immigration, I believe, agrees with us, because he has said, even in the case of those people who not only failed to take on South African citizenship whilst they were living here, but left the Republic to go to other places and now want to come back again, he would assist them just as he was assisting ordinary immigrants, to the tune of R155 per person. I quoted from Hansard when I made that point. It is recorded in Hansard. I agree with the hon. the Minister of Immigration.

Sir, our point is quite clear. We have stated our case on this particular clause. We believe that there is not all the haste which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made out that there is. He has shown no cause why this Bill must go through as it stands in regard to the time factor and without giving these people a further opportunity. He has not denied that he is in fact taking away, almost retrospectively, the qualifying period which these people have accumulated. It is a right which they possess at the present moment and with a stroke of the pen, and without any prior warning, it is the intention, with the promulgation of this clause, to take away that right from these people. Sir, we are not prepared to agree to that. Going on the statements of the hon. the Minister of the Interior in this House last year—which are also recorded in Hansard and which have also been quoted in the course of this debate—it was the intention, we understood, that when this amending Bill came before this House, those people would be assisted. He said so. He has now left it to the Deputy Minister to conduct this Bill through the House. Because, I believe, had he come here he would have been faced with the accusation that he had gone back on his promise to those people. I believe that it is quite clear that that is the position.

In those circumstances, and because the Deputy Minister has not been prepared to meet us in any way in our reasonable request to try to make these useful people citizens of our country when we are looking for new citizens, we are going to vote against the third reading of this Bill.

I have no intention to argue the merits of this case. I think this is a time when the hon. the Minister of the Interior could make a gesture, a generous gesture. I do not wish to argue whether he was justified in extending the time only from 1 January last year to 1 April last year. I know hon. members opposite can argue that he was justified. I am not discussing now the question of whether or not he was justified. I am discussing a gesture, the question of mercy. As the hon. the Minister knows—

Sir, I will not keep the House long. I am certainly not going to attempt to follow the gyrations of the official Opposition on this Bill. As far as I can see they voted for the second reading, put up a fierce fight against Clause 8 in the Committee Stage, then voted for that particular clause, and now we find that they are going to vote against the third reading because the time extension in Clause 9 affecting a certain group of citizens does not satisfy them. In my opinion those people are unlikely to register even if the time were extended since they have made up their minds on this score. However, to me that is not the important principle in this Bill. The important principle is contained in Clause 8.…

Dual-purpose party.

I am not interested in the calling of names, Sir. I simply have a straight direct line which is the easiest to follow, as far as I am concerned, and that is to follow the principle of a Bill all the way through, wherever possible. And here it is quite clearly possible. The principle here is to take further arbitrary powers; it is another piece of retrospective legislation against which I always vote in principle, Sir, and I base my opposition to this Bill on the major clause in this Bill, which is Clause 8 as far as I am concerned. I voted against it in the Committee Stage and, of course, I shall register my opposition to this Bill, for that reason, in the third reading.

There are three statements that I want to correct in regard to the last three speeches that have been made. The first was that made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) when he mentioned a figure of between 65,000 and 100,000 British subjects who might still be in this country. He suggested that I agreed with his figure. I do not agree with that figure. There is no figure available to indicate the number of British subjects in this country and to suggest any estimated figure will merely give people the wrong idea; it achieves absolutely nothing.

The second matter that I want to rectify is in connection with the allegation that the Minister promised a greater concession than that embodied in this Bill. That is also untrue. What Minister de Klerk indicated he would investigate was the question of the 2,000 tardy people, the 2,000 who neglected to register before 31 December. He undertook to assist them and that is what is embodied in this legislation. That is why I deprecate the fact that the concession that is contained in this measure has been dealt with in this way by the Opposition. One would have expected appreciation in the right spirit to be shown of a great concession of this nature and that it would not have been used as a target for all kinds of attacks upon the Government and its attitude towards the British subject in the country.

As far as this matter is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have given an indication of the greatest measure of goodwill and helpfulness on our part as far as the British subjects are concerned. It was we who gave them seven months in which to register. After we became a Republic they had seven months in which to register for citizenship. That is a long time. That was the period in which every person who wanted to register in the country could do so. That was made known by means of ministerial statements and also through the medium of other publications. Nobody can contend to-day that he was not aware of the fact that he had seven months’ time—to 31 December 1962—in which to apply for registration. When it appeared that in spite of this very clear statement there were still 2,000 people who applied after 31 December but before 31 March, Minister de Klerk said that as the legislation stood he could not include them. When mention is made now of a difference of opinion and another interpretation then I want to say that that other interpretation is the United Party’s interpretation of this matter and not the Government’s.

Did the hon. the Minister of the Interior not give the assurance that he would make concessions to these people in legislation, if he could, after 1 April?

No, he said he would investigate the position and that, if necessary, bring forward the necessary legislation. And that is contained in this Bill. This Bill contains that legislation which the hon. the Minister had in mind.

That was only one of many matters he was going to investigate.

I shall touch on that when I cover the next point.

*Apart from these two concessions we made, during the discussion of this measure and in pursuance too of what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) said, I stated most emphatically that further concessions would be made to British subjects who had not registered before 31 March. I said that in terms of Section 10 (8) of the Citizenship Act, the Minister could, if he deemed fit, shorten the period of naturalization from five to one year in cases where people had been resident in the country for an unbroken period of eight years prior to that stage. Is this not a concession? Is it not a concession when we say that in terms of Section 10 (8) of the Citizenship Act we will consider the cases of people who do not even fall into these two categories that are being given the concessions? Is this not regarded as a concession? Is it not even appreciated? Must this also be used now to try and harm South Africa and our goodwill towards British subjects in this country? I do not think that this is the way to promote goodwill on the part of people whose protector one pretends to be.

We are establishing order by means of this Bill. Not only are we bringing order, but we are also bringing clarity. Immigrants are being informed of the requirements and provisions for citizenship. After all these concessions we now have a clear pattern. I think that the immigrants coming to this country will no longer be in doubt in regard to their position. The British subjects who are in this country, no matter for how long they may have been here, will now also have clarity in this regard. They know the opportunities that they have had; they know that they have not used those opportunities and if they want to blame somebody they can continue to blame the Opposition in this country for the way in which they stirred up the people in connection with the question of our becoming a Republic. They predicted what would happen if we became a Republic and that was what deterred those British subjects from registering. If the Opposition want to point an accusing finger they can point at themselves in this connection. They are the people who are responsible for the fact that these people did not take the necessary steps to become registered. It is not our intention to allow those people to suffer to-day as a result of their being incited by the United Party. That is why we are prepared to consider the cases of these British subjects who did not make use of those two particular concessions, if they submit their cases to us, so that they need not be bound by the five-year period but can be naturalized after a year. We are making this concession and we hope that people will make use of it.

If it is due to the Opposition that these people have not applied for naturalization then they are innocent, so why does the Minister not assist them?

But we have assisted them. Has the hon. member not been able to follow the discussion we have had and the measure that is before us? I have just referred to the concession of seven months; I then referred to the concession of postponing it for a further three months. The third concession was to consider those special cases. Is this then not sufficient? Is this then not an indication that we do not want those people to suffer as a result of the stupidity of the Opposition? Mr. Speaker, we are bringing order and clarity by means of this measure, the clarity that any country must have in its citizenship legislation. At the same time we are also ensuring that South African citizenship will not become a cheap article.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—69: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall. J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Ser-fontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk. H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—40: Barnett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood. L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

In recent years people throughout the country have been insisting upon the establishment of a national pension scheme. There are various trade unions in the country which are doing their best in this regard and we know that over the past few years the Opposition have moved a motion almost every year to the effect that a scheme of this nature should be instituted. As far as the present Government is concerned it has continued for good reasons to oppose the introduction of a national pension scheme. It has continued to reject the idea that we should introduce a national pension scheme. As I have said, there have been good reasons for this. Over the past few years the Government has on various occasions sent officials abroad to investigate the various schemes in operation in various countries and those officials have reported that most of the Governments which have national pension schemes are very sorry that they ever started such schemes. I do not have much information at my disposal in connection with these schemes, but I want to analyse the scheme that is in operation in Britain to-day to show the House why people say that these schemes do not come up to expectations. If we look at the British scheme we see that up to 1961 the British scheme paid a weekly pension of R5 per week to a single person and an additional R3 to a married person; in other words, a married couple received R8 per week in 1961. This meant that in 1961 a married couple in Britain only received R36 per month. If we compare this amount with the R49 which a married couple receives in South Africa without having contributed a cent, it throws some light on the results of the British scheme in 1961. I want to make it clear that both the State and the employer and employee contribute to the British scheme. In South Africa, where our pension amounts to R49 as against R36 under the British scheme, everything is paid out of taxation. There is no contribution by the pensioner.

The scheme was so inadequate for the British people that in 1961 they started what they called the “graduated scheme”. This was started in 1961. Under this scheme employers and employees contribute on a rising scale according to their wages. That new scheme has now been in operation for three years but even that does not appear to be the solution to the problems of the British people because writers like Pilch and Wood in their “Pension Schemes” point out that under this new contributory scheme it will take 20 years before a pensioner will receive even an additional R2 per week added to his basic pension under this “graduated scheme” of rising contributions. In other words, a single person who received R5 a week in 1961 will receive R7 a week in 1981 under the contributory scheme and a married contributor who received R8 a week in 1961 will receive only R12 a week in 1981. This means that under the British scheme a married couple will only receive in 1980 what we are already paying our pensioners under our present system to-day. The British system has also resulted in such a serious position that almost a quarter of the pensioners in Britain still have to be given further State assistance to enable them to live. I think hon. members will agree with me that if these are the results then there is not much to be said for it. But there is another reason why the British contributory scheme is not a solution to our problem and that is that, under that scheme, the contributions of the State as well as those of employers and employees are not paid into a fund but are used to pay current pension benefits. In other words, no fund at all is being built up from which pensions will be paid in the future and the money to pay for future pensions will have to come from future generations. In other words, this is merely another form of taxation which is imposed upon the British people. Future generations will themselves have to find the money to pay those pensions, even under this new scheme, because no fund is being built up and the contributions are all being used to pay current pensions.

There is another very important objection to a State pension scheme and that is that a scheme of this nature always becomes a political football in democratic countries. Thus, for example, the British scheme has become a political football between the parties. You will remember that in 1957, before the general election in 1958, the British Labour Party came forward with a Utopian scheme in which they promised the British people that if they were put into power they would establish a pension scheme which would ensure that upon retirement every man would receive half of his salary by way of pension. The Conservative Party had to make a counter-offer and that counter-offer was this “graduated scheme” which they started in 1961 and which has produced the results that I have indicated.

There is another objection which is of particular importance to our country, although it also holds good for other countries, and that is that the administration expenses connected with these schemes are extremely high. It is only natural that administration expenses will be far higher in our country which is a multiracial country, and that there will be far more difficulties in connection with this scheme than is the case even in England and in other countries. But it is only natural, too, that the Whites will have to bear a fairly heavy burden if the whole population is to be covered by a national pension scheme of this nature, particularly as the lower-paid non-White worker will have to be provided with an adequate pension.

I want to mention a last objection and that is that a State pension scheme undermines the morale of the people. It makes the people more and more dependent upon the State. It undermines not only the sense of independence of the people but it also takes away the individual’s sense of responsibility to make provision for his old age. These are some of the good reasons why the present Government has refused to accept the idea of a national pension scheme.

But even though we are opposed to a national pension scheme or a national contributory pension scheme, we do have a problem in South Africa that we must overcome. Over the course of years people throughout the country have been warning against the increasing expenditure on social pensions. Successive Ministers of Finance have also drawn attention to this fact. I want to point out to the House how expenditure in connection with our old-age pensions and our war veterans’ pensions has risen over the past five or ten years—I want to deal only with pensions for Whites. In the financial year 1946-7 the expenditure on these two pensions amounted to R9,900,000. In last year’s Estimates, in the 1963-4 financial year, the amount in respect of these two pensions rose to R35,500,000. In other words, the amount rose by 58 per cent over this period of 16 or 17 years. And people continue to insist that higher pensions be paid. The House still has to discuss a motion in this connection this afternoon. I might point out that under the present provisions of the means test only 43 per cent of White men of 65 years and older and of White women of 60 years and older are entitled to pensions under our scheme. In other words, under our present means test, only 43 per cent of White men over 65 years and White women over 60 years receive a pension, and even this entails an expenditure of R35,500,000 per annum.

We are in the fortunate position that our people are living longer to-day; life expectancy is far higher to-day than it was 30 or 40 years ago. If we take the number of Whites of 65 years and older as a percentage of the White population, we find that from 1911 to 1960 the percentage increased from 2.4 per cent to 6.7 per cent. In other words, people of 65 years and older to-day already form 6.7 per cent of our White population. Besides this, we find that our families are becoming smaller. Fortunately, over the past few years an improvement has been noticeable in this regard but the number of White children of 15 years and younger has fallen over the past 40 years from 38.5 per cent of the White population to 34.4 per cent. The result of these two facts—the larger percentage of our population living longer and the decreasing percentage of our children—is that our total working population continues to show a falling tendency. It also means that the percentage of the population which has to contribute the money to pay pensions to our older people is steadily becoming smaller in proportion to our population. The burden continues to be placed upon a section of our population that is steadily decreasing in numbers. That is why I say that the time has come for us to give our attention to these problems. Procrastination or anything of that nature can only lead to an aggravation of the problem and a delay in finding a solution to this problem. If we do not want to establish a State pension scheme we must find another solution. As far as I can see there is only one other solution and that is to encourage the establishment of private pension funds so that we can reach the stage as soon as possible where every working member of the population will be covered by such a scheme.

The Government has taken important steps in this connection to encourage the establishment of private pension funds and I want to pay tribute to the Government in this regard. Over the past 16 years important steps have been taken. For example, in 1956 an Act was passed to exercise control over pension funds. This was a very important step to encourage the establishment of private pension funds. In the first place it led to the registration of the funds and placed the funds under sound control so that care could be taken to see that they remained financially sound, that there was no wastage and that their members received the benefit of the funds. Furthermore, on various occasions tax concessions have been made to taxpayers in respect of their contributions to pension funds. We have received further concessions over the past two years in the case of persons who are self-employed to encourage them also to belong to a pension fund, and generous concessions have been made to them as far as tax liability is concerned. That is why I say that the steps which the Government has taken have already had a very salutary effect. In just these two years, 1961 and 1962, the number of private pension funds increased by 322 while the number of members covered by those funds increased by 129,000 in those two years. At the end of 1962 we already had 3,832 registered pension funds to which 846,500 members belonged. If to this number of funds we add the Government funds and the provincial employees’ funds covering a further 250,000 employees, then we already have more than 1,000,000 people covered by existing funds. Therefore a very large section of our working population is already covered by private funds and we are grateful for the fact that we have progressed so far. That is why I am convinced that we have now reached the stage when we must consider further steps. That is why my motion contains a recommendation that the Government should appoint a commission of inquiry to consider ways and means of taking this matter further. I have a few ideas to put forward in this connection.

The first suggestion that I want to make today is one that I have borrowed from the system of industrial pensions which is in operation in Holland. This system was started in Holland in 1951. In terms of this system a pension fund is brought into being in one industry after another in consultation with employers and employees. One industry after another is approached and to-day a large proportion of the working population in Holland is already covered by these funds. The funds are registered at their insurance chambers and they then become compulsory in terms of the law. That is why my first suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that a statutory board should be brought into being to make annual surveys of those groups of the working population not yet covered by a pension scheme. Then the method of negotiation used in Holland should be followed in order to establish further pension funds for groups or categories of employees. It is only natural that a board of this nature will constantly have to be on the alert because in any developing industrial country there will always be new groups and new industries coming into being that will not be covered by the old pension schemes and for which provision will have to be made. But in in my opinion two other things must also be done. The one is that we must ensure that during their working years people are not able to lay their hands on the accumulated benefits which they have built up in pension funds. In other words, if they resign from their work, their benefits must be frozen. The latest report of the Registrar of Pension Funds indicates the extent to which the aims of pension funds are being frustrated by people who lay their hands on their pension benefits before their retirement age. In 1961, for example, the lump sum payments paid by our domestic pension funds were made up as follows: On retirement or death, R11,177,000; as a result of other circumstances—prior to retirement or death—an amount of R12,940,000. In other words, before they retired or before they died, people drew more than 50 per cent of their pension benefits in cash. In this way the aims of the pension fund are frustrated. In 1962 the position improved slightly. An amount of R13,770,000 was paid out on retirement or death and an amount of R12,636,000 under other circumstances. Sir, this process almost completely frustrates the purpose for which pension funds are brought into being and if we allow this process to continue we will never reach the stage where the whole of our working population will be drawing pension benefits for the rest of their lives. That is why my motion also provides that the commission should consider a few other matters. One is that provision must be made for the transfer-ability of accumulated benefits from one pension fund to another. Where a man resigns from one employer where there is a pension fund in existence and goes to another employer where no fund exists, some way must be found to protect that man’s benefits and to freeze them until such time as he retires or dies. I realize that this is a fairly drastic proposal but over the past 10 or 15 years many people in South Africa had advocated this course of action, people who have written in commercial and industrial periodicals and so forth. Speeches have also been made at annual general meetings of the Association of Pension Funds emphasizing this question of transferability and the necessity for this to be done. This is not merely my own idea therefore; it is an idea which is being propagated more and more to-day. I might point out that in their book, Pilch and Wood state that there are various countries where this process of transferability has already been put into operation by means of legislation but I have not been able to obtain much information in this regard. I can only refer again to the “graduated scheme” in Britain to which I referred just now. There we find that benefits are frozen to a certain extent and that the principle of transferability is recognized. Under that scheme there is a process which they call “contracting out”. One can contract out of a private pension fund. Instead of contributing to a State pension fund one can buy one’s benefits from a private pension fund. When an employee ceases to belong to that private pension fund there are three things that can happen as far as his pension contributions are concerned. Firstly, they can be frozen; secondly, he can purchase benefits in another private pension fund; or thirdly, he has to purchase benefits in the State pension fund. In other words, his pension contributions are either frozen or else they are transferred from one pension fund to another or to the State pension fund. I want to quote to the House what is stated in the annual report of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for 1962 in this connection—

In other words, he cannot lay his hands on it. The report goes on to say—

In other words, under this system of the British Government 92,283 people were prevented from laying their hands on their money on resigning from their work and in the case of the so-called “payments in lieu” more than £3,750,000 was collected.

Here we have an example of two things. We have reached the stage where we must try to put a stop to this wastage of pension contributions in the country. I do not have very much information in regard to other countries, although Wood says that there are countries in which pension rights are transferable and where funds are also frozen. I was not able to obtain much information in this regard. The limited information that I have is that these benefits are frozen in certain European countries and in at least one country, Belgium, the system of transferability of pension funds is in operation. That is why I feel that a commission of inquiry should also investigate these two points to see what can be done to make provision for our population in this way and to avoid the wastage of pension contributions.

I want to point out that these pension funds will also be a great national asset. The building up of these funds not only helps to provide a feeling of independence and self-respect on the part of our people but it is an important form of saving. I just want to point out that private pension funds to-day already have R670,000,000 to their credit—money that has been saved—and that the amount which is added to these funds annually is about R58,000,000 per annum. This is a tremendous national saving and results in the formation of a great deal of capital. It is even a means that we can use to combat inflationary tendencies. That is why I say that we have reached the stage where we must take the logical steps to follow up the legislation of 1956. But because this is such a new field, I feel that we must discover the easiest way in which to do it at this stage. We should not force it upon the people immediately but put it into operation gradually so that we can build up our funds to provide cover for our people. My own conviction is that we cannot procrastinate any longer in this connection. It takes a number of years to build up a pension fund to the stage when all its members are effectively provided for. That is why I ask the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry to see what can be done in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has given us a speech full of information from his point of view in regard to an investigation into the pensions position. I think we are in agreement that there should be a commission to inquire into this matter. But from there onwards he has rightly anticipated that our viewpoints differ. He was at pains to try to destroy in advance the arguments that may be put up for a national contributory pension scheme, well knowing that it is the policy of this side of the House. Sir, it still remains our policy. We believe that it is the right thing to do, and even under a commission appointed to inquire into the advisability of a national contributory scheme most of the problems he has mentioned would come up for consideration. They are problems which are germane to such a commission of inquiry which considers the whole matter. I hope he will not look completely with a jaundiced eye on the fact that I am going to move an amendment—

I never said that.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member. The question of non-Whites is an important matter. We said on the last occasion that we would start with the White population and gradually, as it got going, bring in the other sections of the community. As I have said, it is a real problem. We see from the figures given in the report of the Registrar of Pension Funds that it gives a most encouraging picture in regard to those pension funds established in terms of industrial agreements. Where the number of funds was 18 in 1961, it had risen to 26 in 1962. The number of members at the end of the year was 120,667 and the next year it was 171,502, a marked increase in the number of funds established in one year. That is most encouraging, but what is disappointing, and what is the problem, is that if you take this figure and compare it with the number of people economically employed in these trades, and you see how many they are as compared with the number of persons covered by the present pension funds, there is a terrific gap which shows that only a small percentage is covered. I admit that the figures are not entirely accurate. You cannot get the exact information as to which trades are covered; you can only take them from the Monthly Bulletin of Statistics. If out of that you take the figure of those economically employed in these trades covered by agreements and who have pension funds, you get in 1960 a total number employed of 5,696,000. So taking this latter figure you find that only 3 per cent are covered. That is the only figure one can get and I am prepared to say it is not entirely accurate, but it gives an indication of how few people are covered by pension funds. If you take the Whites only, you get a figure of something like 16 to 17 per cent, which is a woefully low figure. I believe that even if the figure rose to 25 or 30 per cent it is still woefully low when you consider what the problem is of people who have to provide for their old age. I have said that I believe that thousands are excluded from the existing pension funds to-day. Good work is being done by increasing these funds and extending them, but our object should be to resolve the lack of adequate pensions to provide for old age. That is a major problem. The citizen to-day exhausts himself in his earlier years with the obligations he has to meet in educating his family against the rising cost of living, and he finds it very difficult, and I believe he will always find it difficult unless there is a measure of compulsion, to put aside something for a rainy day. I believe that is inherent in human nature, but we should do something about it. It should be gone into, particularly as we find to-day that people of 45 have difficulty in obtaining employment. I understand steps are being taken to find employment for these people, but it is a problem. How much more difficult it is for the person who reaches 60 to find employment. I believe that our attitude in this country is wrong to the extent that we are inclined to discard the capacity of a person long before we should do so. I believe it is doubly necessary in this country not to do so, because of the shortage of experienced people here. We are crying out that there is a shortage of manpower, but we cast aside a lot of these people simply because they have reached a certain age. I believe this inquiry should be held so that it covers all these problems of cost, of coverage, of age, and to what extent the various races can be included, contracting out, in other words the exemption of existing schemes, and what standards should be attained. Various schemes should be examined. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) referred to the weakness of certain schemes in Britain. That may be so, but let us examine schemes from elsewhere. We have had the ex parte statement that officials who examined the various schemes are against a scheme of contributory pensions on a national basis, but let us have their evidence before a full commission and see what the position really is. I believe that is what we should do. I believe the problem is with us whether we have good or bad times. Very often you get this problem stressed in bad times, but the question of a pension is a matter for a long view. It comes at the latter part of an individual’s life. They do not want a pension to be stressed in bad or in good times, they want it settled for all time, so that they know where they are.

Another aspect of the present position which has always concerned me is the fact that many persons who are eligible for the old age pension do not apply for it. I personally know dozens. I expect there are hundreds, or even more. The Department may have some sort of estimate, but what perturbs me is this. These people do not apply because, rightly or wrongly, they look upon it as charity. They do not realize that when they were taxpayers during the earlier periods of their lives they were contributing towards these pensions, and they look upon it as charity. I think that is one of the matters which the Minister should try to impress on people who are eligible for pensions to-day, that that is not the case at all. The individual, particularly in this country, tends to be independent and proud, and there are many who become resentful because of their position, yet do not want to apply for a pension. I make this point because if there were a national contributory scheme we would get away from this problem altogether. Everybody would be placed on the same basis, and because they contributed they could get a pension as a right. The establishment of a national contributory scheme—and I do not want to trespass too far on this because there is a subsequent motion on the Order Paper which deals with the position as it exists to-day and asks for certain alleviation, but certainly if you establish such a scheme it would largely do away with the means test. It would not penalize the thrifty, as they are penalized under present conditions. There is something which I have not yet been able to answer when the person involved asks me: Why because I have saved enough to have a house and a roof over my head, and my husband dies, and I am left with this asset, cannot I get the old age pension, when taxes almost reduce the income from it to nil? Sir, what is the answer? When these people have made a great contribution during their lifetime and they have brought up their families and have been good citizens and have lived decent lives, why should they find themselves in that position? I mention it because I believe the system I am advocating will do away with those difficulties.

I have said that this question should not be considered out of hand. It should not be just dismissed lightly because the Government feels that another course should be adopted and we have a contrary opinion. At least they should face up to it and send the matter to a commission to be fully investigated. We believe that if this proposition of a national contributory scheme were accepted, every citizen in the country would be able to hold his head high because when he becomes due for pension he would be able to say: I contributed to it; I played a part in building up this fund. That would be a much happier position than the one we have to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by conveying my congratulations to the two previous speakers on the very thorough way in which they have dealt with this matter and the views which they have expressed here. The motion itself is more specifically within my jurisdiction; the amendment, however, is not specifically within my jurisdiction, but all I want to say about it at this stage is that this is a matter of Government policy. We have been discussing these matters for many years, and it does not seem to me to be the correct procedure to refer a matter of policy to a commission of inquiry.

This whole question of the aged is, of course, a matter which is very near and dear to every right-thinking Government, and under the general policy that we have followed we have contributed as much as we can, as far as the means at our disposal have permitted us to do so, to alleviate the lot of our aged, without undermining their spirit of independence. I just want to tell hon. members that out of last year’s Budget of R852,000,000 no less than 41.7 per cent was devoted to social services of various kinds and that a very considerable portion of this money was devoted to the aged. We feel that the right policy for the State to follow is to supplement the private schemes where the private schemes cannot effectively cover the population. That is our policy and I do not think it is necessary for us to have our policy investigated by a commission.

I just want to add that I fully agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) that we should make more use of the labour of people who have reached the retirement age. I think we should give much more serious attention than we have done hitherto to this aspect of making provision for a degree of self-care; we should rather create decent opportunities of employment so that people will be in a better position to take care of themselves. But the point is that we should not entirely ignore the principle of self-care by saying that we are going to introduce a State contributory scheme.

I come now to the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. v. d. Walt). Unfortunately I could not be here from the beginning because I had to be in the Other Place. But I listened with interest to all the points which he made towards the end of his speech and to the recommendations made by him. As I have said, that is our whole policy, and we shall do everything in our power therefore to encourage private pension funds. That is our policy and it is a policy which we have already implemented with a large degree of success. We know that there are certain bottlenecks in the implementation of that policy. One bottleneck is the question of transferability of pension rights when an employee goes from one employer to another. That is certainly a very important bottleneck. The other bottleneck which we also mentioned is that frequently when a person retires he receives a large cash sum which he perhaps spends unwisely, and then in the end he finds himself without a pension. These are the two bottlenecks which we should try to remove. The hon. member wants to know whether we are prepared to consider the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I think the hon. member has made out a case for an inquiry by the State, particularly with reference to these two bottlenecks, but that inquiry need not necessarily be undertaken by a commission. These private pension funds themselves have a very great interest in the expansion and growth of their own funds, and we can assume therefore that this movement itself will do everything in its power to extend its activities and to remove any bottlenecks which may arise. I think that to a certain extent therefore we should leave it to them to do something in this connection. But on the other hand I do feel that it will be very useful if the State itself can also investigate these two bottlenecks in particular, to see what practical difficulties there are. I am prepared to accept the motion in this sense that the Government will cause an inquiry to be instituted, not necessarily by way of a commission but perhaps by way of a committee. Commissions are very often appointed where the work can be done just as well by a committee particularly when one is faced with a specific problem and one wants to ascertain how the problem is tackled in other countries. A committee can ascertain that just as well as any commission could.

The hon. member has already mentioned certain figures here, but I just want to refer again to the amazing expansion and growth of private pension funds in this country. From 1958 to 1962 the membership of private pension funds increased by an average of 110 per cent per annum, and the total assets increased from R384,000,000 to R670,000,000, in other words, the assets increased by an average of almost 20 per cent per annum.

What is the total membership to-day?

The figure which I have here is 831,995, but that does not include the foreign pension funds which operate in the Republic and the membership of which is about 140,000; it does not include persons who received lump-sum payments upon retirement, nor does it include members of Government pension funds, of whom there are about 300,000—public servants, railway officials, teachers, etc. As I have said, the assets have increased by almost 20 per cent per annum. When we compare this figure with the increase in the assets of building societies and insurance funds, which are both growing rapidly, we find that pension funds have grown twice as rapidly as the funds of building societies and insurance companies which have increased by an average of approximately 10 per cent per annum only. If one accepts that in 1960 there were 1,146,000 economically active Whites and that of the total membership of existing pension funds, namely 1,146,000, there are still 600,000 or 700,000 Whites after eliminating duplications of membership in the case of private funds, then we find that the position to-day is that seven out of every 11 economically active Whites already belong to some pension fund or other. There is still room for further expansion. Then there is still the large group of professional and self-employed persons and those who prefer to receive a lump-sum payment upon retirement. I just want to say that there is also this very gratifying sign that more and more pension funds are being established amongst the non-Whites. In 1961-2 no fewer than 52 exclusively non-White pension funds were registered. Here we have another sphere in which there is considerable room for expansion. As I have already said, we would like to reach the stage where the whole field of economically active persons is covered so that they can lead a decent life when they retire, and then we should like, by way of a State fund, to cover those who are not covered by one of the existing schemes. That, briefly, is our policy. The State has already done a great deal to encourage the establishment of private pension funds. The hon. member has already pointed out that we passed the Pensions Act of 1956 so that we could exercise a certain amount of supervision over these funds, give them a lead and make sure that their funds were not invested in obviously unsafe ventures. We have also made very important tax concessions. The entire income of the fund, by the way of contributions from members and employers and from investments, after the deduction of administration costs, is entirely at the disposal of the members for pension purposes and for other additional benefits. Furthermore, we give an employer who is a member of a pension fund the right to deduct from his taxable income contributions made by him up to R600 per annum. Normally when a member ceases to work after having reached the pensionable age, he can commute as much as one-third of his pension without any liability for tax. That is another fiscal concession that we are making. Although a lump sum from a pension fund is taxable it is taxed at the average scale applicable to the taxable income of the person concerned as calculated before the inclusion of the lump sum. This again is a very important fiscal concession. Then again an employer can also deduct from his taxable income the normal contributions which he makes to a pension fund on behalf of his employees, and this is a very large sum. Self-employed persons, that is to say, persons who do not draw salaries, may deduct up to R1,200 per annum from their taxable income in respect of contributions made to an annuity fund. This is all being done to encourage the establishment of private funds. This second concession which I have mentioned, i.e. to the employee and to the self-employed person, is costing the State approximately R1½ million per annum. Last year’s increases alone cost about R300,000 per annum. As I have already said, amazing progress is being made in this sphere; the vast field which is lying open is rapidly being covered. The establishment of pension funds is being encouraged by way of income-tax relief which is given from time to time. We brought about two very important increases in tax relief only last year. We feel that that is the correct way. But now we come to the second big problem and that is the question of transferability of pension rights. The Pension Funds Association is continually studying the position with a view to removing difficulties where they can be removed. As I have said, a case can be made out for an inquiry to determine whether we cannot give these funds some measure of assistance and a certain amount of guidance. That is the one big problem. The other is the question of casual workers and others with no fixed income. This is a very difficult problem which cannot be overcome very easily. These people cannot join private pension funds and we simply have to accept the fact that eventually they will have to be covered under a general State scheme.

I think my hon. colleague will deal with the amendment which has been moved here. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government will cause this matter to be investigated but I am not prepared to bind the Government as to the form of the inquiry.

I am sure that all members of this House are pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister of Finance intends taking some action in regard to the various shortcoming in private pension schemes. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has pointed out what some of these shortcomings are and suggested that a commission of inquiry be instituted. The Minister has promised that he will investigate these various matters. Sir, it is interesting to note that all four reports of the Registrar of Pension Funds which have been submitted to the House, all urge the Government to take some action, to introduce legislation, to rectify a number of these shortcomings. One very serious defect in the present set-up is that persons resign so as to be able to enjoy the immediate benefits of funds which they have contributed to pension funds. We have seen in recent times that younger employees in particular resign in order to be able to lay their hands on their pension contributions and then they proceed to squander the money. Another problem is that a person who moves from one post to another, from one firm to another, finds that he cannot transfer the amount standing to his credit in one pension fund to another pension fund. I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are not opposed to an extension of private pension funds. Indeed I believe it is in line with our policy that people should be able to make contributions to a pension fund during their working years so that they will have an adequate pension in the twilight of their lives. I think that principle, that one should be able to make contributions to a pension fund and then have the right to claim a pension which is adequate to meet one’s needs in old age, is one which is endorsed by members on both sides of this House. I believe, however, that the mere extension of private pension schemes does not go far enough. I believe that we must devise a scheme which is more comprehensive and which can cover all sections of the community. There are certain persons such as the casual worker and the self-employed worker who in many instances do not make provision for their old age. It is human nature perhaps but the fact remains that many people fail to make provision for their old age. Whether they should be compelled to do so is a matter of policy.

Sir, there are other matters which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) mentioned this morning in moving his motion and which items call for some comment. First of all, the hon. member started his speech by pointing out the failings of the present system in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the hon. member was correct in pointing out those various failings, but I think we must look far beyond just this one system in Great Britain; we must also look at some of the more successful systems such as the system in New Zealand. In New Zealand they have a form of social security which is far more comprehensive than a system of contributory pension schemes which we advocate from this side of the House. It is interesting to see that in 1959, after the scheme in New Zealand had been in operation for 20 years, the Prime Minister, Mr. Walter Nash, said this—

Sir, I do not intend to take up the time of the House in giving details of the scheme as it exists in New Zealand, but I would like to point out to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that there are many schemes in many lands which we can study and then adopt the best features of those schemes in this country. After all, I remember that when the P.A.Y.E. system of tax collection was discussed, a study was also made by our select committee of the scheme in existence in Great Britain. It was found that that scheme also had many drawbacks but that it had certain advantages too. Some of those advantages were recommended for adoption by the select committee and were incorporated in our Act. This shows that we can learn from other countries and devise a scheme which will be beneficial to all persons living in this country. I think we should definitely consider the question of adopting the good features of those schemes.

Last year during the recess the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions toured overseas and I understand that he studied various schemes in various parts of Europe, and I do hope that the time is not to distant when this House will have the benefit of hearing from the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions what he learned in the course of his tour and whether there is any possibility of adapting any of the overseas schemes to meet the requirements of our population.

Another point that was made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) in regard to the introduction of a contributory pension scheme was the question of the cost of administration, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the cost of administering our present system, of which the means test forms part, is very high indeed. It is a very costly system. We have heard from the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions that his Department handles an average of 3,000 letters a day. We know that there are something like 200,000 files in that Department and that those files are constantly studied and that the various cases are constantly subject to review. When there is a change in the financial circumstances of a pensioner, his file has to be taken out and his case reviewed by the Department. This often necessitates the recovery of certain over-payments which might have been made and the re-adjustment of pensions. I think nobody can deny that our present system is a very costly system.

As far as a scheme for South Africa is concerned, we have on numerous occasions in this House put forward what we regard as the best scheme. I do not intend to go into the details of that scheme again this morning, but I think the time is opportune to put forward what we believe to be the main principles to be observed if such a scheme is introduced. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) that what we have in mind is a scheme which will provide comprehensive cover for everybody. I think that is a very important principle. It will mean that when people reach a prescribed age they will have the right to claim a pension, which should be an adequate pension, from a private pension fund or from the State. To-day, under the present system many people are precluded from receiving a pension because of the stringent application of the means test. Another factor which we must bear in mind is that private pension funds are invariably limited to persons under the age of 45 years. This is, of course, a serious drawback for older persons seeking employment. An employer who has his own pension fund, of which membership is compulsory, is unable to give employment to persons over 45 years of age. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) has mentioned the question of the initiative of the worker. Here we find that a person is willing to work and capable of performing the work but he is precluded from employment because he is over the age of 45 years and cannot therefore become a member of a pension fund, where membership is compulsory. Then again, while we are discussing the question of iniative, I have found a number of instances where persons capable of improving their position by selling their talents at a higher rate of pay to another employer, have been loath to accept lucrative offers because of fear of losing their pension benefits. They forego the opportunity to improve their position because the new employer is unable to offer them the security of a pension. The fact that an employer has a pension scheme to offer his employees, can therefore even have a stifling effect on the initiative of individuals.

Sir, the introduction of a comprehensive scheme in South Africa in terms of which all persons will enjoy the benefit of an adequate pension upon retirement, has sometimes been described by hon. members opposite as a socialistic proposal. I think we must realize that in this year of 1964 numerous steps are taken and numerous schemes are instituted which 20 or 25 years ago would have been described as socialistic. However, I think under present-day circumstances many of these steps are not socialistic but realistic, because we must realize that people look for security, and one of the cornerstones of social security is security in old age. That is why we want a scheme to be introduced in South Africa which will provide adequate security in old age. Under our present system many of the older people can only look forward to a lowering of their standard of living and a period of anxiety in their old age if they have not made sufficient provision during their working years. I do not have the time this morning to go into the details of a contributory pension scheme under which everybody will be able to claim an adequate pension as of right when he retires, but I would like to give a brief outline of what we regard as a practical scheme and one which is well worthy of consideration. I do not intend to dwell on the importance of a scheme which will guarantee everybody an adequate pension because I know that there is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with that subject, but I believe that under a contributory pension scheme it would be possible to pay all pensioners a pension of R40 per month. How would that R40 per month be made up? Twenty-five rand would be payable from Revenue Fund and that amount would be supplemented by R15 per month from a contributory pension fund. In other words, 37½ per cent would come from the contributory pension fund and 62½ per cent from State Revenue. I believe that such a fund has existed in Sweden where the cost of pensions is borne partly by the State and is met partly out of a contributory scheme. I believe that a pension of R40 per month would at least mean that people can look forward to a degree of security in their old-age. I think one of our main criticisms of the present system is the operation of the means test. Members are entitled to ask whether the means test would be abolished with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. Sir, our main criticism of the means test is that persons who have been thrifty during their working years are discriminated against when they come to apply for a pension. The Government encourages people to save money and to be thrifty, and that is why people feel that an injustice is being done to them when, having saved during their working years, they find that when they apply for a pension that they are discriminated against and precluded from receiving a social pension. The means test can only be abolished if we introduce a contributory pension scheme. It would not be practical or realistic to advocate the complete abolition of the means test without the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. There are many people who are still able to remain in employment after reaching 60 years of age and it is only right therefore that a modified means test should be applied to them. We believe, however, that in the case of all persons over 70 years of age the means test could be abolished with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. This scheme would therefore mean the abolition of the means test in the case of all persons over 70 years of age. As far as men are concerned, they would qualify for the pension after 65 years of age and between 65 and 70 they would be subject to a modified means test. As far as women are concerned they would qualify at the present age of 60 and they would be subject to a means test between 60 and 70. Hon. members may ask what numbers would be involved if a contributory pension scheme was introduced. It would mean that all those over 70 would qualify, and according to the 1960 census the number of White persons over 70 years is 127,300. The number of people who would be subject to a modified means test would be 129,268. These figures will give hon. members some indication of the expense which such a scheme would involve. The question of the financing of such a system is, of course, of the utmost importance. The hon. member for Von Brandis has already referred to the fact that a select committee on Social Security sat in 1944. A period of some 20 years has elapsed since then and there have been vast changes in our economic situation and in the ratio of the different population groups, and I think the time has come when we should give further consideration to the introduction of some system of social security which will provide adequately for those persons requiring assistance in their old-age. A previous time when this matter was discussed here the former member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) worked out what such a scheme would cost the individual in the way of contributions. Mr. Pocock found that in the case of persons under 20 years of age it would be necessary for them to contribute 30 cents per week. The contributions were to be on a sliding scale, with a maximum contribution of R1 per week at the age of 30 years. Sir, as I have said, our population ratio has changed and various other matters also have to be taken into consideration. I believe that the financial implications of such a scheme should be determined by an actuary, but I believe that what I have outlined here this morning forms the basis of a scheme which should be fully inquired into to see whether it can be applied in practice in South Africa. At the same time we have the distinct advantage of being able to take into consideration the experience gained in other countries which have similar schemes or schemes on a contributory basis. I believe that it is not beyond the ingenuity of us here in South Africa to devise a practical scheme which will bring about the desired effect of providing security in old-age which is the corner-stone of any social security scheme. I believe that our present form and system in South Africa is a modified form of social security. I think it is inadequate at the present time. On both sides of the House members are concerned about the increasing problem of caring for the aged. We know that because of the advances in medical science the ratio of those people in the older age groups continues to increase and will continue to do so. We have to find some formula, some system, whereby those people can be provided with security in their old age. I believe that as a part of such a social security scheme one of our main considerations should be to see that those people are adequately provided for in their old age in such a scheme.

If there is one matter which should certainly not become a political football it is this question of the care of our aged. That is why I would welcome a calm discussion on this matter this morning. In this motion the Minister is really being asked for an inquiry with a view to positively encouraging and promoting the establishment of private pension funds for all workers. We appreciate that there are difficulties at present and that they must be eliminated, but I shall come back to this later on. In my humble opinion, however, the real request contained in this motion to encourage the establishment of these funds has not been replied to fully by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the wish of every person to have a feeling of security and freedom from financial worries when he retires and is no longer able to work. To my mind the crux of this matter is that every person should be enabled, while he is in the prime of his life and while he is in employment to put away money into a fund or a scheme which will be strong enough to give him and his dependants a reasonable income on which they can live during the period of his retirement. That knowledge gives that person a feeling of security, a feeling of independence and a feeling of pride and self-respect. In actuarial terms this same proposition can be put in this way that during his working years the worker should accumulate or save or rather invest a certain amount of capital, the interest on which will be so high that when he retires it will be sufficient to see him through until the day he dies. I feel that there are various ways in which this can be done. The first method is that of self-provision, that is to say, where the person of his own free will, through insurance policies or pension fund schemes which insurance companies offer, invests a monthly sum which will be sufficient to meet his needs when he is no longer able to work. Unfortunately this can only be done by certain individuals; the vast masses are not able to do so.

The second way to do this is by making available pensions as the State is doing at present, by way of pension schemes which are in operation at the moment. I want to say at once that this motion is in no way a reflection upon the State that it has neglected its people, etc. I have a few interesting figures here which I want to mention. From 1948 up to the present time the amount paid to individuals by the State in the form of pensions has increased by 120 per cent while, according to statistics, the cost of living has risen by approximately 48 per cent to 50 per cent. In other words, our pensioners, as far as real income is concerned, are much better off than they were in 1948. The figures for White pensioners are very interesting: In 1947-8 there were 97,323 pensioners and in that year they received R11,061,000 from the State; in 1962-3 there were 135,882 pensioners and they received approximately R42,000,000 from the State. In other words, these figures show that humanly speaking the State, to the best of its ability, has done its duty within the framework of existing policy.

The third possible method of making provision for old age is a contributory national pension scheme such as that proposed by the United Party. I want to say at once that on purely moral grounds I do not feel happy and this side of the House does not feel happy about this proposal. Even though it is a contributory pension scheme—the contributions have been tentatively mentioned here by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) and I want to congratulate him on his well-reasoned speech—the fact nevertheless remains that the recipient will feel in his old age that he is dependent upon the State and the State alone for his living. It really means that when he reaches the age of retirement he finds himself in this situation that he cannot say to himself with a feeling of pride and self-respect, “I have fully taken care of myself”, because he will constantly have the feeling that the State is taking care of him, that he has to go cap in hand and collect a small amount from the State; that like so many others his status has now been reduced from that of an individual to that of a member of the broad masses and that like all other people he now has to go and accept “alms”. On those grounds I do not agree with that scheme.

There are other objections too which have already been set out very clearly by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) who, as we know, has been championing this cause for many years—objections such as the costs of administration, etc. I have a few figures here which I have extracted from a White Paper which was laid on the Table in the British House of Commons a year or two ago. To my mind these figures speak volumes. In 1957, according to that White Paper, the British Government had to increase the contribution from the Treasury to the national contributory pension scheme from R60,000,000 to R248,000,000. This was over and above the amounts contributed by the contributors. In spite of this it was worked out actuarially that the anticipated deficits would be as follows: It was estimated that in the year 1961-2, in spite of this contribution of R248,000,000 by the Treasury, there would be a deficit of R288,000,000; that in the year 1971-2 there would be a deficit of R632,000,000 and in the year 1981-2 a deficit of R856,000,000. Mr. Speaker, this places a tremendous burden on the State. I say that when the State makes such a large contribution it automatically has this effect that the recipient of that pension feels that he is receiving alms, that he is receiving charity; that this is not something to which he himself contributed. As I have said, it undermines his personal morale.

A report was also tabled in the British House of Commons in which it was very strongly recommended that private pension funds should be encouraged. That is the fourth method that I want to mention by which this whole problem can be solved, namely, the establishment of private pension funds. Private pension funds are very strongly recommended also in Britain. This report which was tabled in the British House of Commons under the heading “Provision for Old Age: Potential Development of National Insurance Schemes” says, inter alia—

In other words, even in Britain where there is a national pension scheme private schemes are still being encouraged and it is continually pointed out that these schemes should not be undermined by this national scheme or adversely affected by competition.

These private pension funds which are not State-aided—I am referring now to funds which can be regarded as a possible source of investment and which can be used productively—have an annual growth in America of between $2,000,000,000 and $3,000,000,000. It goes without saying that we are dealing here with a matter which, apart from the moral aspect, also involves purely financial implications. Existing funds, however, present a number of problems. Without repeating unnecessarily I just want to mention again some of the aspects which I have already mentioned. I think one of the biggest problems facing private pension funds at the moment is the question of transferability from one fund to another. Where a person is employed by one employer and then goes to another employer he is faced with the problem that he either has to draw his pension contributions in a lump sum and then put that money to some use—if he can resist the temptation to spend it—or he has to switch over to a new fund and start afresh again, with the result that his ultimate pension benefits are considerably lower.

Of course, a fair degree of transferability has already been brought about by the State and also by private initiative. When officials are transferred or when they switch over from one Government Department to another, their pension is transferable. In the Pensions Select Committee we often have to deal with the problem of people who are transferred from one Department to another. Let me first say this: Pension rights can only be transferred where the transfer from one Department to another meets with the approval of both Departments. Where, however, a person decides of his own free choice to go from one Department to another and the authorities or the departmental heads are not prepared to approve of it, this question of pension rights, unfortunately, is used as a sort of penal measure to penalize that person, because in that event his pension cannot be transferred. The break in service is regarded as a termination of employment, and that is when we get all these petitions before the select committee for a condonation of the break in service. It is used as a means therefore to prevent people from going from one Department to another. I understand the problem of the Public Service Commission and I understand the problem of the State as such, and that is that they cannot continually have workers switching from one Department to another. But is it right, Mr. Speaker, to use the pension fund as such, and the benefits which flow from it, as a brake to prevent these people from switching from one Department to another? After all, in the long run that Department still loses the man’s services. If he cannot be transferred with the approval of the Department then he resigns from one Department and joins the other, and then we in the select committee have to decide whether or not to condone the break in service.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was outlining the problems of existing funds. The first problem is that of transferability. The second point that I want to emphasize very strongly is the fact that we are really creating a problem for people who fall in the age group of 45 years and over. In the city councils we often find that a person wants to switch over from the private sector to the municipal services. When he applies for the post, whether it be that of traffic inspector or any other post, the stumbling block is usually the fact that he is obliged to join the municipal pension fund, and he cannot join the fund if he is over 45 years of age. That means that that man is automatically disqualified for the post for the simple technical reason that membership of the pension fund is the stumbling block. This problem would be solved if there was transferability of pension rights from the private sector to those schemes.

I have just a few minutes left and I should like to conclude by putting it this way: If in the long run we want to take good care of our people in their old age and we had to choose between a national pension scheme, as proposed by the United Party, and the establishment of private schemes to which everybody would make his contribution, it is perfectly clear to me that we must choose the latter. In recent years, since 1956, since the Pension Funds Act came into operation, there has been a very fine growth in the number of private pension funds. Let me just compare the 1958 figures with those of 1962: In 1958 there were 2,771 such funds which covered 542,214 workers and which had more or less R384,000,000 at their disposal. In 1962 we had 3,834 such funds which covered 846,584 workers and which had R670,000,000 at their disposal. This does not include the Railway Pension Fund, the Public Service Pension Fund, the pension funds of the Provincial Administrations, etc., etc., which are worth a further R700,000,000 to R750,000,000 and in which a total of about R14,000,000 is invested.

Mr. Speaker, a national pension scheme, as I have already said, will mean that people will lose their self-respect. It will also mean that we will be taking the first step towards a welfare state, and that is certainly one of the forms of granting assistance that we do not want in South Africa. The South African nation has always been too proud to rely entirely on the Government and on the State alone. Some countries of the world—I do not want to mention names—have already developed into a welfare state to such an extent that people are born at the expense of the State by way of some subsidy or other; people go to school at the expense of the State; the children are fed in school at the expense of the State; if their appendix has to be taken out it is done at the expense of the State; if they have to get a set of dentures it is done at the expense of the State; when they eventually die they are buried at the expense of the State; they have really become nothing but creatures of the State, dependent upon charity and welfare services from the cradle to the grave. The South African nation, Mr. Speaker, wants to take care of itself and that is why we will never accept that system. We shall strive, by extending these funds—and that is the idea underlying this motion—to give cover and protection to everybody by means of private funds so that in 20 to 25 years’ time we shall no longer need pensions because the whole of our population will then be covered by funds to which they themselves have made their full contribution, a contribution which will ensure security for them in their old age.

I want to break a lance this afternoon on behalf of the Coloured employee who has found employment with a local authority, in the first instance; in commerce and industry, and in the second place; those who fall outside those categories. Over a period of years I have had some experience of dealing with the consolidation of pension funds. I have found that the Coloured man and also the Bantu man—I intend to deal with the Coloured people to-day—finds it difficult to gain admission to a private pension fund. One of the reasons, Sir, is that because of the low rates of pay that they get they cannot afford it, and because they are not members of trade unions, which really decide whether or not pension funds should be established, they cannot join. They find themselves in the position after giving many years of their lives in service to their employer or to a local authority, that at the end of their time they are put off, on account of illness or on account of their inability to work. They must then either seek other employment or depend on the kindness of the Government to provide them with an old-age or disability pension.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that one must be careful that the individual does not lose his self-respect. That is one of the reasons why we, on these benches, advocate and propagate the theory that a contributory pension fund is the correct method of ensuring security for one’s old age.

The contributions are insufficient.

That I accept, because as far as the Coloured people are concerned they will be unable to make any contributions of consequence for a considerable number of years and before they will be able to enjoy a pension commensurate with their requirements and their needs, the same as their White fellow-workers. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, that he gives consideration to the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) that in establishing pension funds, where Coloureds are involved, it would be an act of grace and of kindness on the part of the Government to see to it, that the pension fund was financially stable at the beginning. We have had the experience of pension funds starting with small contributions and being unable to pay benefits for many years. In view of the fact that Government spokesmen have made statements to the effect that they wish to uplift the Coloured people, I think the time is long overdue that some practical application might be made of that policy. I believe, when one considers the enormous amount of money spent on Defence—with which I agree—that money could be found to see that pension funds, which are unable to take care of the Coloured people because of low actuarial valuations, could be put on a financial footing which would be sound and acceptable to everybody.

Defence must enjoy priority.

I would like to say to the professional interjector on my left that nobody disputes the need and necessity for adequate defence. Speaking on behalf of the Coloured community, my contention is that a happy and contented Coloured community is the best defence we can have. We accept that the money spent of defence and other measures is necessary and essential, but in dealing with this question of pensions, I put it to the Minister that he can make a name for himself if he will give serious attention and consideration to insisting that employers’ organizations and trade unions take cognizance of the fact that there are many thousands of Coloured people employed in industry and commerce as well as by local authorities who should form part and parcel of all pension funds. That cannot be questioned. I can speak from personal experience and say, that Coloured people seeking admission to pension funds, whether in industry or in respect of local authorities, have great difficulty in getting admitted. Finally, I want to say that I do not believe that any person employed in industry should be excluded on the grounds that his term of work or his contract or his employment might be regarded as of a temporary nature. I can speak with experience and say this. There are many Coloured men and women who have given years of faithful service to their employers in all fields of activity, and yet find that when they come to the age that they can do no more, they are cast aside. Men like myself, representing as we do, Coloured people must go and do our little best, which we do willingly, if not always satisfactorily. These people receive a pension totally inadequate for their needs and requirements. I make a sincere appeal to the hon. Minister to give serious consideration to the proposition as propounded by the hon. member for Umbilo that a contributory pension fund, a fund to which, I think the Government should contribute in respect of the lower income groups, could be established with advantage to the country and for the good of all.

Like the hon. the Minister of Finance, I have listened with great interest to this debate and also with particular appreciation. The general trend of the debate was, as I already said years ago, that, the problem of the granting of allowances and increasing them and adapting them was a matter which would always face us. Since 1954 I have been saying that this is not a matter which will remain static; it is a matter which has to be adapted to the circumstances from time to time, as well as to the position of the country. Therefore I am glad when we have a discussion of this nature and standpoints are adopted on both sides of the House which we can consider and then see how in the course of time adaptations can be made in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the country. I may just say that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) raised a matter here with which I am in full agreement. It is impossible for me to give a complete review of the investigations I made in various European countries. I told the people there at several places that we could learn from various countries and that they could learn from us, because it is a fact that the systems in the various countries differ in essence. The hon. member for Von Brandis said he thought that a matter which should receive our attention was whether older people should not work longer. I want to tell him, and I found this in several countries, that the proposition is accepted (and I agree with it) that all old people are not equally old. The hon. member for Von Brandis and I, for example, are more or less the same age, but he looks much older than I do, or I look much older than he does, and his potential is much less than mine, or mine is much less than his. That is a fact. There are people who attain a reasonably good age and who are still able to carry on further. That is one of the matters we must continually bear in mind, and we shall have to ascertain what we can do in that regard.

I just want to mention one other matter. I cannot go into details, but I will take the opportunity at a more convenient time to give the House a full exposition of all aspects of that investigation, so that the matter may then be discussed thoroughly. But I just want to mention one other matter, and that is the possibility of a delayed pension. The position of these people can be improved. Now the hon. member for Von Brandis and also the hon. member for Umbilo said right throughout their speeches, “We want to institute a national contributory scheme which should be adequate”, and the whole matter just revolves around the word “adequate” When is it adequate, and when is it not? Let me say that I did not find a single country in the whole of Europe where people, whatever their system, said that their national contributory scheme was adequate. I found no country in Europe where it was said that it covered everything and that it gave people a pension sufficient to live on. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) said that he envisaged a scheme which, as he said, should be as follows: “We must not be socialistic, but we must be realistic”, and what he advocated was “to devise a practical scheme in this sense, that it is a modified form of social security”, But that is not a matter we can dispose of here in one afternoon.

We ask for a commission.

When is it “modified” and when is it not? And how long will it remain modified? How long will it take before pressure is again exerted to have it changed? Because there are continual changes in all the schemes in all the European countries. In spite of the national contributory pension funds, they are continually making one change after another. I found that in England. They are now considering amendments. I found in every country that they were considering new legislation. I found in every country that no scheme was considered adequate. They are supplemented by numerous supplementary schemes. Time does not allow me to go into details. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. van der Walt) gave quite a few details this morning in regard to the position in Britain, but everywhere one goes one finds a multiplicity of supplementary schemes, State-supported supplementary schemes, some with a means test. There are numerous other organizations, private welfare organizations, which act in a supplementary capacity. As hon. members know, in Britain there is the National Assistance Board, which is a supplementary scheme financed by the State, and then one also has the County Council, which is a municipal scheme and which is also supplementary. Moreover, one has there the system of the extension of certain facilities for the aged, included in the New Town System which they are laying out on the outskirts of London, consisting of about ten new townships which are being established there, and these new towns are under the control of ten different development corporations, and these development corporations are practically welfare organizations in the sense in which we have then, but they receive State support; they cannot develop without State support. I mention these matters simply to indicate that however much we choose to argue about the matter, every country has its problems in regard to the systems it has at present, whether they are contributory or non-contributory.

From time to time investigations have been made in regard to this matter. As the hon. member for Umbilo also said, in 1944 the previous Government instituted an investigation and the finding was that in view of the nature and the circumstances of our population, and the position we have here, a system such as they have in Britain will not work here. From time to time thereafter people were sent abroad to investigate the position in European countries and to see whether they could find something there which would be practicable here. I remember an hon. member once saying in this House: “The acid test for any scheme or legislation is two-fold. The first test is, is it just, and the second is will it work?” That is a test. One cannot just experiment without knowing whether it will work or not. I am saying here to-day what I have been saying in this House all these years: When we are dealing with a matter of this sort, with pension schemes, we are dealing with very delicate matters affecting our population. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) strenuously pleaded for the group he represents. Each hon. member who gets up here will plead for certain things, but we are dealing with the human element and these are delicate matters. When one deals with the human element one cannot just take a decision without ensuring the practicability of such a scheme.

Investigations were not made only in 1944. Thereafter missions were sent abroad two or three times. The hon. member for Umbilo said that we have the brains in South Africa to work out a scheme. Well, we sent some of our best brains abroad to discover what they could find in other countries in this regard and to report to us as to whether we could make a change in the system we have at present. Those officials went there from time to time and each time, on returning recommended that we adhere to the system we have. I do not want to say much about that system. The hon. the Minister of Finance has given the reply that we want to stick to this system. It is Government policy to adhere to the system we have. The Opposition says that their policy is just the opposite. They want to link up with the social security system, that system of having a contributory pension scheme. They are very careful to avoid saying whether it should be compulsory or not. Is one to have a compulsory contributory pension scheme, so that the contributions are made compulsory by an Act of Parliament, or should it not be compulsory? Should it be voluntary? They just pass the baby over to us and say we must christen it. But it is necessary to have clarity in regard to this matter when we discuss it.

In all my investigations I did not come across a single model scheme. That is very obvious, because the schemes differed from one another, and changes are continually being made, just as in our case. Therefore one cannot say that any one of those countries has a model scheme. These schemes differ from country to country. They differ in regard to their popularity. How popular is such a scheme in a certain country with its particular population? They differ in regard to the contributions, in regard to the benefits and in regard to the economic implications. The nature and the structure of the scheme depend on the customs and circumstances of each country, on the general philosophy of life and the economy of that country, and the various schemes differ radically from one another. Not one of these countries could tell me that they had a contributory scheme which covered everything. I was looking for a model scheme. I had 74 appointments in six weeks. I had interviews at ministerial level and at departmental level and not one of these countries could show me a contributory pension scheme which was really successful in the sense that it covered everything. In other words, these schemes have to be altered from time to time, and these supplementary services have to be provided. The complaints one hears there are that the benefits are insufficient. On the other hand, it is admitted that increasing the benefits must lead to serious economic repercussions. There is a continual spiral which starts with a demand for increased benefits by the beneficiary, but on the other hand there is also a constant dispute as to who should give those increased benefits? Usually there are three contributions, which differ in the various countries. There is the contribution of the employee, that of the employer, and the contribution by the State. But that differs in the various countries. As soon as a demand is made for increased benefits, the question immediately arises as to who is to pay for it. If the people say they cannot manage because they get too little, from whom must the increased benefits come? Will the employee as a contributor be prepared to contribute more, or will he expect it to come from the employer (who in his turn will say that it will lead to an increase in the cost of living)? That is the perpetual vicious circle, and it is a spiral which always goes up and up. Most contributions come, as I have said, from three sources, and almost everywhere I have found that people are faced with this problem and that measures are being considered to try to solve these problems.

I just want to give the House a few comparative figures. We would all like the benefits to be sufficient, or as nearly sufficient as possible. But the basic principle to which we have adhered all these years is that the State cannot be expected to pay everything. I have repeatedly stated in this House that it would be a sorry day for South Africa were the State to assume full responsibility for all the aged. I said it was necessary for South Africa that society should also bear some responsibility, as well as church bodies which are interested in their people. If one expects the State to bear full responsibility as far as the child and the parent are concerned, that will be a sorry day for South Africa.

My time is limited, but I just want to give a few figures. I have here a comparative table of a few of the benefits paid to the aged by way of contributory and non-contributory schemes in various countries. I want to state first as the basis the position in South Africa. In the Republic of South Africa (I am referring to Whites now) the amount for an unmarried person per month is from R13.50 up to R27; the joint amount where the wife is also dependent on the man’s pension, is from R27 to R54 a month. Now I want to compare a number of countries and I shall mention whether they have contributory schemes or non-contributory schemes. In Britain, with a contributory scheme, the flat rate system, the amount for an unmarried person is from R15 to R33. It is therefore a little higher than in our case. For a married person in England it is from R24 to R53. There we are again better off. In Ireland there is a contributory scheme, and there it is from R13.70 to R17 for an unmarried person, and from R25.15 to R29.70 for a married person. There our people are quite a lot better off. But now we have this peculiar phenomenon that there are countries in Europe which have been faced with this problem for many years and they still have a contributory scheme as well as a non-contributory scheme. If these people have both schemes, are they not able to ascertain which one is the best? So in Ireland there is also a non-contributory scheme of R10.60 for an unmarried person and R12.70 for a married person. The contributory scheme’s figure is a little higher, but the man has contributed. If he has contributed nothing, his pension is just a little less. Now it is for him to decide whether it will pay him to contribute or not. I refer to the double-barrelled scheme in France. The contributory pension scheme there depends on the wage and the contribution; it varies. For unmarried persons the non-contributory scheme pays out R9 a month. In Belgium, with a non-contributory scheme, it is about R18 per month for unmarried people, and R29 for married people, as compared with our R13 and R27. Holland, with a contributory scheme, has a maximum amount, if contributions have been paid from 15 to 65 years, of R19 for unmarried and R32 for married people. Now I again compare the first one I mentioned with the last one. When he has contributed from his 15th to his 65th year, and he gets lost somewhere along the road, then his pension is lost, but if he has contributed from his 15th to his 65th year it is R19 per month for unmarried people and R32 per month for married people, compared with our R13 and R27. But in that case it includes his contributions from his 15th to his 65th year.

I mention these things to show how complicated the position is. I want to mention one more case. In Britain, where the ordinary person pays R1.06 a week by way of national insurance, one finds that in spite of the fact that this scheme has been in operation for 16 years, there are still 20 per cent of those receiving the old-age pension who receive a supplementary pension. Twenty per cent is a high percentage. Supposing we just introduce a scheme like that, and after having done so we discover that 20 per cent of the people still have to receive additional assistance! Then it will be said that the scheme is a failure, that it does not cover everything.

One of the greatest difficulties in regard to contributory schemes is that they are all accompanied by economic and financial problems. Take this practical case: Sixteen years ago a man paid in R1 a month, and as the value of money fluctuates, he continues to contribute. Now he expects benefits in proportion to that R1. To-day his R1 is worth only 50 cents. Are you now going to pay him double the amount under such a scheme? I obtained a mass of literature, literally bags full. In every country I visited I asked the people concerned to send me details, to send me brochures and the legislation they have there. It constitutes a mass of literature. I had to call on the services of a special section of my Department to study that literature together with me in order to determine the full implications of all those things. One can probably learn much from it, but one has to study the full implications. In 1958 the following percentage of persons who received benefits under the National Insurance Scheme in Britain also received additional assistance. It is given as retirement pensions and sick benefits and widows’ benefits and unemployment benefits. But what was the position in 1958? Of the people who retired, 20 per cent had to receive additional assistance—20.4 per cent; of those who received sick benefits 11.6 per cent had to receive additional assistance, and 11 per cent of the widows had to receive assistance, and of those who drew unemployment benefits 19.1 per cent had to be given additional assistance. I just want to mention that I received this publication in which one of the British Members of Parliament dealing with this matter, Mr. Hall, made a very thorough study. He wrote a book, “The Social Services of Modern England”, in which he said this—

That is the finding of people who have investigated the matter. I do not want to take up more time. I will come back to these matters on other occasions. I think it is essential for us to discuss these matters frankly. That is why I appreciate the spirit in which this discussion has taken place. As hon. members know, the doors of my Department and of my office have always been open to anyone wishing to suggest improvements. I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that over the years I have not been obstinate in regard to these matters. I try to the best of my ability, and in as far as the capacity of the country allows, to do as much as I possibly can to improve the existing position.

In the short time at my disposal I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do not deal with his speech in detail. I appreciate that he has gone overseas and has come back rather more puzzled than he was when he left. He has realized, I hope, that the problem is not easy to solve, or one which will probably never be solved finally. But I hope he has also opened his mind. It is true that he opens his doors and that the doors of his Department are always open to us, and we are grateful for that, but I hope his mind is also open and that he has realized that this is not a problem of social welfare and pensions but a dynamic problem of life, a problem of providing for what will happen to the man when he can no longer work. Even more, it is a problem of deciding at what stage of his life shall it be decided that he is no longer able to work? And can it be decided that when he is unable to do a full day’s work will he not be allowed to do half a day’s work? The way the Department has faced this problem is that you count up the birthdays and you come to the point where the man may receive a pension. I feel that if we are to have a departmental inquiry, as was suggested by the hon. the Minister of Finance, it will be a waste of time because we have to get a new outlook. The picture to be seen is: How are the people living; what has happened that within some 20 years an increasing number of old people are living among us, and what has happened to change the Afrikaner outlook of looking after their old people? Why has it happened? These are not problems for the Department of Social Welfare, but problems which should be solved by the best brains we can find in the country. We should not just look for pensions for old people, but we should provide for their old age, and we should decide at what point old age arises. Those are the things we want to see. Of course the Minister could not find a solution in England or in any other country. No country has found the solution, because it is an ever-recurring problem and it is ever-increasing. Life is changing, taxes are changing and also the cost of living, and there is inflation. All these things must be met by his Department, which must make provision for the care of a person who can no longer work. So what is the Department of Labour doing to help him? Is it providing sufficient work for the older people? In the State of New York it is a punishable offence for an employer to retire a man purely on the ground that his birthdays count up to a certain number, but here we go on retiring people by counting their birthdays and it is suggested that when they have a few more birthdays the means test should be relaxed. There should be no means test at all. It is not necessary to have it. You must put something in its place. When a man is no longer able to work and cannot provide for himself, he should have a right to a pension. In any civilized community it would be a right. We, as a civilized community, cannot allow our old people to live in abject poverty. They should not have to come with their hands open and beg for a pension. It should be a right. As a civilized community we should say to them: We will see that you are provided for; just show us what you have. It is a right, and not a privilege.

If you ask them to show you what they have, you are applying the means test.

No, it will not be a means test. All that is necessary is that the person should make a return of some sort which can be used by the Department of Internal Revenue, and any who require assistance should be passed on to this Minister’s Department. There is nothing disgraceful in sending in a return to the Department of Inland Revenue. If you make a return which shows your income, that Department should be able to assess whether you are entitled to assistance. Perhaps that needs a little elaboration, but I have not the time. I only hope that the Minister will talk to the Minister of Finance and appoint a commission consisting of members of his Department and of Labour and Inland Revenue and also the best social workers in the country and the best professors of sociology at our universities and see what can be done for this group who are past working, and at the same time see what can be done to persuade the younger workers to defer some of their wages and draw them at a later date as a pension, or not as a pension but as something to which they have contributed.

[Debate having continued for 2½ hours the motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 30 (4).]

We have heard various suggestions to-day as to how our problem of caring for the aged may be solved. Those suggestions have all been long-term suggestions, solutions which will only grant benefits some time in the distant future. I believe that the plight of social pensioners to-day is one which requires the urgent attention of the Government to bring about an alleviation of their circumstances. I believe their present plight is due to three main factors: Firstly, the inadequacy of the pensions, the restrictions of the means test which debar a number of people from obtaining pensions and in many instances reduces the amount of pensions to which they are entitled, and thirdly, the inadequacy of accommodation which is within the means of those persons who are unable to afford the increased cost of accommodation to-day. For that reason I move—

1. (a) reviewing the rate of pensions;
2. (b) relaxing the means test; and
3. (c) providing adequate accommodation.

In dealing with the present plight of the pensioner and taking into account the fact that these pensioners have to live on very small pensions indeed, I am sure that the majority of hon. members will agree that the present pension of R24.50 a month paid to the White pensioners can hardly be considered sufficient on which to maintain a decent standard of life. There are small numbers who receive a special allowance of R2.50, and who therefore receive R27 a month, and I will deal with that later. The present pension, it is true, has been increased over the years by this Government, I am sure that all pensioners are grateful every time an increase is made in pensions, but the fact remains that the present pensions are hopelessly inadequate. When we consider that South Africa at present is going through a period of economic prosperity which in its trail is bringing a degree of inflation we must then realize that those persons living on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, do not derive any benefit whatever from such a boom. Indeed, it has an adverse effect on their everyday living. In view of the increased costs, it means that these persons have no alternative but to reduce their standard of living. The increases which have been given have in my opinion lagged behind when compared with the purchasing power of the money placed in their pockets. The continual reduction in that purchasing power has tended to make the position of our social pensioners even more difficult. I mention the question of people with a fixed income, and although it is not mentioned in this motion I think we should also take cognizance of the fact that there are other pensioners like Railway pensioners, police pensioners and others who retired many years ago and who did not derive any benefit from the consolidation of cost of living with basic wages, or from any of the amendments of the Act concerning their pensions. They, too, are having a hard struggle to maintain their standard of living. Here, too, the means test is of no benefit to them. If they receive an increased temporary allowance or bonus it means that their pension is then adjusted, and it is accordingly reduced, so they do not derive any benefit from the increased temporary allowances but merely continue to draw the same pension as in the past.

The question of the adequacy of our pensions is one which is of vital concern to the 126,000 who receive such pensions from the Government. I hope that these persons will be assisted in the forthcoming Budget by receiving some relief from their present position. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to bring about relief in the form of increased pensions. I believe that in times of prosperity our thoughts should also turn to those less fortunate citizens who are suffering financial hardship, namely the poor, the aged and the disabled, particularly when we consider that the aged have toiled hard and long in building up this young country. These persons have perhaps given their labour for 40 years and they have paid direct and indirect taxation as well as contributing towards the general building up of the country, and they should deserve better compensation than the present rate of pension.

I mentioned earlier that the Government had granted increases over the years, and I am quite sure that hon. members opposite will quote those increases during the debate. As I said earlier, those increases are appreciated, but when we take into account the decrease in the purchasing power of our money it is only essential that such increases should be made. The present increased cost of the necessities of life, particularly food and shelter and clothing, make it necessary that these people should receive further assistance from the Government. While dealing with the inadequacy of the pensions, I have only mentioned the pensions for the Whites, a maximum amount of R24.50 or R27 with the allowance, but we must also realize that that amount has a direct bearing on the welfare of the pensioners in the other racial groups. A ratio is applied whereby the Coloured receives half of the White man’s pension, the Asiatic five-twelfths and the Bantu two-twelfths. That makes us realize that any increase in White pensions will also help the others. The Bantu only receive a maximum pension of R3.52½ a month, so you can see, Sir, that although I am pleading the case of the White pensioner, it will also assist the non-Whites. I do not wish to dwell on the principle involved in regard to the ratio of the pensions paid to the various groups, but I think the time has perhaps arrived for the Government to reconsider the position. After all, the cost of food and clothing is just as high for the non-Whites as for the Whites, although naturally they do not maintain the same standard of living.

The plight of certain pensioners who are struggling to exist on the present amount paid to them has brought to light assistance from the private sector, and from philanthropic bodies. Particularly in the Durban area one of the local newspapers carries out a campaign to highlight the difficulties experienced by pensioners, and it is pleasing to note that the people have responded to such an extent that considerable sums of money have been raised and that they have proceeded to establish further homes for the aged in that area. I know that is in line with the thoughts of the hon. the Minister. His view, which I share, is that our welfare matters can be based on the coordination of the State, welfare organizations and the churches. However, I feel that if greater assistance is given to our welfare organizations by way of subsidies, there might be even a greater response from the private sector. At the same time it is often impossible for the welfare organizations to achieve their main object due to financial restrictions, and they are often ignorant of the fact that there are people living in such dire straits.

The other aspect I wish to discuss is in regard to the special allowance. Last session the Pension Laws Amendment Act was passed. Amongst other things, this Act makes provision for a special allowance of R2.50 per month in respect of certain social pensioners who qualify for it in terms of the definition defining the special allowance and imposing certain restrictions. In reply to a question earlier this month, the Minister informed the House that of the 126,469 pensioners, i.e. old age, war veterans and disability pensions and those for blind persons, 42,457 were receiving the special allowances of R2.50. The object of this allowance, we were informed, was to cater for the needy amongst the needy. This has entailed a tremendous amount of administrative work by the Department, and I must say that a large number of pensioners are very disappointed because they did not qualify for that allowance. Many of them consider themselves to be in needy circumstances, and many of them, perhaps under a misapprehension, considered that they should have received this R2.50 a month. However, the provisions laid down in the Act last year stated that no social pensioner shall receive the extra R2.50 a month if he receives more than R5 a month from any other source and in the opinion of the commissioner his financial circumstances do not justify the payment of the extra R2.50. The Minister was good enough, in reply to a question earlier this month, to give the reasons why certain persons did not qualify for that amount. One is that they exceeded the R5 a month, which is understandable. The other is that they are inmates of old-age homes, and this has caused a good deal of confusion amongst the aged. Naturally, going through the 120,000 odd files the Department had to base its application of the means test for the special allowance, which really is a means test within a means test, on often obsolete information. So we had the position where persons living in old-age homes received this allowance, but others received nothing at all. I understand that those living in old-age homes have now had the special allowance withdrawn and it has been held that no person shall qualify for such an allowance if he is resident in an old-age home. The other point that disqualified them from receiving this allowance was that they were receiving grants towards their maintenance from charitable sources, and the last point is that they possessed certain assets. From the information I was supplied with, I understand that those assets were classified as being the amount of R10. Now, Sir, you can realize that there is a large number of social pensioners who have put aside a small sum of money towards some urgent necessity which might arise in future, such as travelling to see a sick relative in another part of the Republic. Others have put aside money to pay for their funeral expenses. I hope that the Minister has come to a decision in regard to a suggestion I made to him last year that he should consider this matter in regard to the assets and allow those persons who have up to R200 also to qualify for the special allowance. I understand the Minister has considered the matter and I hope he will be able to give us some further information in that regard to-day.

Now I believe that this extra allowance of R2.50 should have been treated as a general increase in social pensions. It has involved a tremendous amount of administrative work, and I believe there are many cases of people who can be classified as being needy amongst the needy, and who should receive due consideration. The cost of living has increased over the past two years, but 75 per cent of these pensioners did not receive any increase because they did not qualify for this special allowance.

The other leg of this motion deals with the question of the means test. If we look at the history of the means test we find that as far back as 1944 it was advocated that the means test should gradually be abolished. The select committee on Social Security stated that—

We also know that in the same year, 1944, some 20 years ago, the S.A. National Conference for the Post-War Planning of Social Welfare Work also recommended a gradual abolition of the means test for all old age pensions. So it has been a source of concern for many years. When we look at the present means test, I believe the time has arrived for the Government to consider raising the amount of free income allowed, and also to reconsider the amount of free assets permitted in the case of married persons of R2,400 and of R1,200 in the case of unmarried person. The greatest drawback in regard to the application of the means test is the discrimination against those persons who have managed to acquire a certain amount of capital and those who have invested their money in a property and have taken up to thirty years to pay it off and then find that when the time comes for them to apply for the old age pension the unencumbered value of the property is taken into account and can disqualify them for the old age pension. Most municipalities have revalued properties in recent years, which means that those now applying for pensions are at a disadvantage as compared with those who applied a few years ago before revaluation took place. I know of cases of persons living in almost indentical houses where the one has qualified for a pension and the other has not, due to the fact that a revaluation took place between the time the first person applied and the time the second one applied. I think that serious consideration must be given to increasing the amount allowed as free assets. Similarly, persons now have to invest more money in endowment policies and other insurance so as to cater for their old age, and they find that the limit on the amount of free assets is disadvantageous to them, and it discourages them from increasing their insurance. A modification of the means test naturally requires thorough investigation. I know that the hon. the Minister made a statement on this subject in the House last year and subsequently all members received a memorandum setting out the present method of applying the means test. Certain concessions were made. Some of them were very valuable concessions. I refer, e.g., to the dispossession of assets, which is beneficial to the applicant for a pension, and also the question of the recovery of overpayments, which is now dealt with more leniently and more sympathetically than in the past. But I believe that the present limits imposed by the means test require urgent overhaul and attention. The amount of free income which is permitted is R180 per annum. Thereafter R12 per annum is deducted from the basic pension for every R12 in excess of R180. That means that once a single person reaches an income of R312 per annum, he is not entitled to receive any pension whatsoever. I know that wherever the level is set there will always be borderline cases. I believe, however, that this level is too low and that it should be raised. I would like to illustrate the point I am making by quoting a recent case where a 63-year-old widow in part-time employment as a housekeeper in a hotel was receiving a wage of R283,32 per annum, which is R23.61 per month. As she was 63 years of age she applied for a pension and received a basic old-age pension of R2 per month plus the additional R7 per month plus the bonus of R5.50 per month, making a total of R14.50 per month. Together with her income of R23.61 she was getting R38.11 per month. This person is a self-supporting widow living in a small room on her own. She lives a simple life, without any luxuries, and she managed to make ends meet on R38 per month. Then in terms of an Industrial Council determination her salary was increased by 51c per week. She was then paid R6.06 per week in terms of this determination, in other words, R26.26 per month. The moment this happened she lost her old-age pension of R14.50 per month. This meant that she now received only R26.26 per month. She has therefore suffered an overall loss of R11.85 per month in her income due to the fact that her salary as a part-time worker was increased by 51c per week. If she had not received this increase in wages she would still be receiving R38.11 per month. I think this illustrates the difficulty that is experienced by the person who receives a small increase in wages and then loses R11.85. This matter was taken up with the Department and unfortunately the reply was one which I expected because the departmental people have no alternative but to end their letter by saying, as they so often have to do as a result of the application of the means test, “Your representations have been carefully and sympathetically considered, but as it is not possible to waive or modify the provision of the old-age Pensions Act, the Department is, to its regret, not in a position to be of assistance in this matter.” I do not blame the Department in any way. The officials of the Department are sympathetic, dedicated men who do a great service for the social pensioner, but they are completely hamstrung by certain provisions of the Pensions Act. I believe that it is of vital importance that the means test should be modified. Those people who just fail to qualify for a pension are experiencing great difficulties. Here we have a case where a woman is prepared to do part-time work, and then she suddenly finds that because she has been given a slight increase in her wages she loses her social pension. That sort of thing certainly does not encourage people over the age of 60 years to work. If anything it encourages them to sit back and to say, “Well if I do not work I can collect my full pension from the State.”

The other aspect of the motion before the House is the question of providing adequate accommodation for the aged. I know that the Minister in reply to a question earlier this Session stated that the erection of a further 30 subsidized homes had been approved. I realize that a great deal has been done in this regard and I appreciate that, but I feel that with the present accommodation position as it is the Minister should consult with his colleague, the Minister of Housing and with our local authorities to try to ascertain what the shortage of accommodation is, particularly in the case of aged persons. With the upsurge in the building industry, it has become common practice to demolish old buildings and put up large new buildings. As the result of the demolition of that old building, numbers of old-age pensioners are invariably thrown onto the street, people who have been managing to survive on their pensions in an old room in an old building at a small rental. They are then faced with the problem of finding alternative accommodation which is within their means. As far as homes for the aged are concerned, a tremendous burden has been placed on the shoulders of these old people. I know that homes in my constituency have long waiting lists of persons who wish to be accommodated in those homes. Sir, this matter has been aggravated by the boom conditions which exist in South Africa to-day, particularly in the building industry, because the building that goes up in the place of an old building is a new modern building in which the rentals are far beyond the means of these social pensioners. I do believe that a survey should be carried out by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions together with his colleague, the Minister of Housing, together with local authorities, because this is an aspect which particularly affects social pensioners living in the urban areas. I have mentioned earlier that in some local authority areas the matter has been highlighted by members of the Press, and this has awakened the sense of responsibility of the public to provide more adequate accommodation for these people. I do hope that the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will realize that this is a very real problem facing these people. Many of them have nowhere to go; the homes for the aged are full, and their accommodation problem is becoming more and more acute. It has become more and more acute particularly in the last six months. Sir, I do not want to weary the House by quoting the many cases where social pensioners have experienced great hardship. I am sure that almost every member of this House has been inundated, particularly during the past year, with requests for assistance from social pensioners. I believe that one of the main causes of their present plight is that they are not receiving attention which enables them to maintain a higher standard of living. In some instances they are not receiving the full pension because of the limit imposed by the means test, and thirdly they are faced with the difficulty of finding accommodation because the older buildings are fast disappearing in a number of our cities. Sir, I hope to get support for this motion from hon. members opposite and from the Minister himself who, I know, is deeply conscious of the fact that he is responsible for the welfare of this ever-growing number of aged persons who have to look to the State for assistance and who in many instances have nowhere to look for assistance except to the State. I hope that that support and assistance will be forthcoming.

I listened with interest, and even with a certain amount of pleasure to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I say “with a certain amount of pleasure” because he gave the impression—and I think rightly so—that he was not only interested in but even concerned about the welfare of the less privileged, the less fortunate members of our society. We know him as a person who is always advocating the cause of the poor man, and to-day he has again asked for concessions, for relief, for those persons who are in difficulty. Can anyone quarrel with him when he asks for concessions for pensioners? I think that we all agree with him. We cannot oppose the principle of this matter because we would all like to see the burden of our less-privileged people alleviated. We would all very much like to see that those people who in their time made their contribution towards the prosperity of this wonderful land of ours are able in their old age to live as happily and as free of care as possible. All of us would like to grant increased pensions and concessions to those people. But the hon. member is in a fortunate position in that he can continue to ask for more—I think he can ask for the moon—because he realizes that the responsibility does not rest upon him to find the means to meet these increasing expenses. We can all ask for more but we must remember that whatever we ask for must be practicable. We must ensure that the ideals that we set for ourselves are practicable. Our world is such that ideals usually have to remain subordinate to what is practicable. That is why we must be practical and ask ourselves what we consider to be a suitable pension that will satisfy people. Somebody says: “Enough to live on.” In this regard too we would also differ, because what amount is really adequate? One cannot define it. I had an old friend who used to say, “enough is just a little more than you have”, and there is a great deal of truth in that because as one’s income increases, one’s desires and one’s needs also increase. The more we have the more we find we need. We therefore have to adopt a certain attitude in regard to this matter, and as I see the position the pensions which are being paid to-day to needy persons are not at all intended to meet all their requirements. These pensions are merely supplementary; they are simply intended as a contribution to alleviate the problems of pensioners. We are not a welfare state, nor would we like to be one. It is because we hold this view, because we believe that the State, the Church and society have to work together in this matter that we also believe that it is not only money that people need. We have all often noticed that what they pray for is a little interest, a little friendship, a little love from their fellow-man. It is not sufficient for us as their fellow-men simply to put our hands into our pocket or to sign an inanimate cheque and then to imagine that the matter ends there. It is a fact that we ourselves are enriched by showing friendship and love towards our fellowman and I believe that I am correct in saying that this privilege must never be withheld from other members of our society because here too it is “more blessed to give than to receive”. When we start asking for more concessions, we must remember that the money does not come from an interest-bearing fund but that it comes from ordinary revenue. It is therefore absolutely essential that very strict and careful control be exercised because we usually find that the number of pensioners and the pensions themselves have a tendency to snowball. I want to add that we must also be particularly careful to ensure that the question of pensions never become a political football here in this country. It is very easy for one party to try to bid higher than the other, but the final result must be to plunge the Government of the day into heavy financial commitments, no matter which Government may be in power. We must remember that once a pension has been granted, it is not easy to reduce it again; indeed, it is almost impossible. I want to emphasize the fact here that in discussing our present pensions, we must remember that these pensions are not the only financial assistance given to pensioners. They do not form the only benefit; pensioners also receive other benefits. I want to mention specifically medical services and the privileges that pensioners receive within as well as outside old-age homes and institutions and by way of services which are amply subsidized by the Government.

In making these few general remarks I want to point out that we are being asked here to reconsider the scale of pensions. That is precisely what the Government is doing. I must emphasize this fact. That is precisely what the Government is doing. Commission after commission and committee after committee have been appointed and almost without exception these scales have been increased practically every year and the pensioner has benefited accordingly. In 1947, for example, the maximum pension payable was R120 per annum and this amount has been regularly reviewed until to-day the maximum pension amounts to R324, an increase of 170 per cent. I think it is of importance to mention this fact because the hon. member for Umbilo says that the increase in pensions has not kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. Of course, his allegation in this regard is wrong. The increase in pensions has far exceeded the increase in the cost of living. Since 1948 the cost of living has risen by 68.2 per cent while there has been an increase of 170 per cent in pensions. The total amount paid out in pensions in 1947 was R6,570,000 while more than R40,000,000 was paid out last year—six times as much. We must also remember when we consider this increase in the total sum that it does not represent only the proportionate increase in the number of pensioners. On the contrary, as we heard just now, there are about 126,000 pensioners in the country today. In 1947 this number stood at 60,000. There are to-day twice as many pensioners as there were in 1947 but six times as much is being paid out in pensions. Pensions have been increased by R3,500,000 to R5,000,000 per annum almost every year. I would like to mention a few figures in this connection. In 1952-3 pensions were increased by R4,500,000; in 1953-4, by R4,450,000; in 1955-6 by R3,800,000; in 1956-7 there was an increase of R5,400,000 and in 1962-3 an increase of R3,550,000. But these are not the only benefits which the pensioners have received; other concessions have also been made to them over the course of years. We find that as far back as 1953 the following concession was made, that when a person reaches the age of 70 years and is still employed, the amount that he receives from his employer is not taken into consideration in determining his pension. The age limit for minor children was raised from 16 years to 18 years if the children are full-time students. Then again we used to have various scales on which pensions were paid. There was one scale for the city-dweller, one for the town-dweller and one for the people who lived in the rural areas. That has gradually been abolished until to-day we have only one scale. This has greatly benefited the platteland pensioner. Moreover, pensions are now paid from the first day of the month in which application is made to the first day of the month following the date on which the pensioner is no longer entitled to a pension.

A problem that has always given us a great deal of trouble is the question of overpayments and in this respect a very great concession has been made. It is only in those cases where the office has made a mistake or where there has been a case of deliberate dishonesty that repayment is demanded, but this is not made retrospective for a period longer than three years. The attendance allowance has also been increased from R36 to R48 per annum. And so I could go on. Think of the improvement that has been brought about in connection with married couples where the one spouse dies and the surviving spouse continues to live in the same house. The pension of the surviving spouse now remains unaltered. Even though the valuation of that house is increased by the city council, it does not affect the pension of the surviving spouse. Then there is also the special bonus to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred. I do not deny that this may perhaps cause practical problems, but it nevertheless remains a fact that it was introduced with very good intentions. The whole idea was to assist the poorest people—those people, particularly in the cities, who have to spend their lives in small rooms. The intention therefore was very good. The hon. member asked for larger subsidies. Here too we notice that the subsidies have been increased from time to time. The subsidy for sickly people in old-age homes has been increased from R8 to R10 per month; the subsidy on furniture has been increased from R30 to R60. All these things indicate very clearly that the Government does review the scales regularly from time to time.

I do not have much to say in regard to the other leg of the hon. member’s motion—the question of the means test—but I just want to point out that any concession, no matter how small it may be, always result in an increased number of pensioners. It is impossible to determine to what extent these numbers will increase and that is why it is also virtually impossible to determine in advance what additional expenditure will be involved. In this way the expenditure increases from year to year. If the means test is abolished altogether it is estimated that it will cost the State about R80,000,000. Last year the hon. member for Umbilo adopted a sensible approach to this matter. He said very clearly in his speech then that he realized that it was impossible to do away with the means test. I refer to Col. 4749 (Afrikaans text).

Another aspect of the abolition of the means test is that we will be giving more and more relief to the more well-do-do person instead of the very poor person and that is why I say that it cannot be done lightly. As far as the provision of housing is concerned, I want to repeat what I said just now. All of us would very much like to see every old person living in an ideal and pleasant home in a nice locality. Everyone would like to see that, but Rome was not built in a day. I contend that the Government has also done its duty in this respect. In 1947 we only had 25 subsidized old-age homes but this Government increased that number. In 1961 there were 84 and at the moment there are 99 subsidized homes with a further 30 under construction. In mentioning these matters here it is not my intention to pat the National Government on the back but here we have a clear indication that we do appreciate the seriousness of the position; that the Government is very much aware of the problem and that the Government is not neglecting its duty. It is very clear that the Government is most sympathetically disposed towards the less-privileged people in this country and that this Government is still the best friend of our old people. I am convinced that the National Government will continue along these lines and do everything in its power, as it has done in the past, to ensure that the burden of the less-privileged people is lightened. What is more, we know too that pensioners are aware of the concessions that this Government is continually making and we know that they appreciate those concessions and that they are grateful for them.

We are dealing with a group of people who one would imagine from what we have heard, are helpless and unable to help themselves. There are approximately 250,000 people over 60 years of age in our population. In the case of our White people we have 126,000 who are getting pensions. Actually 250,000 are eligible to apply. Of the 126,000 who are getting a pension I do not think more than 2 or 3 per cent can come out on the money which they are receiving from the Government by way of pension. Pious platitudes and promises and sympathy towards them is not going to fill their tummies. They want something more from us than just an investigation. [Quorum.] As I was saying, Sir, we have 126,000 pensioners of whom only a very small proportion can come out on the money that they receive from the Government. This proportion only manage to come out because of the subsidies they receive from their families. What are we going to do about this? The first thing is that the Government must obviously help. I would immediately suggest that the hon. the Minister increases the pension by R2, at least. It will cost the Government approximately R3,000,000, if my calculation is correct. I think it will be money well spent. The extra R2 per month is going to help them tremendously.

There are other difficulties that these people have had to meet during the last year; not in the last five years, but in the last year. Firstly, we have heard about the housing problem and I want to elaborate on that. From the latest figures I have received I find that approximately 40,000 immigrants will come into the country. Those 40,000 immigrants will have to be housed in 9,000 houses or flats and those will have to be found for them. It means that a great deal of demolishing will have to take place. From what I have seen vacant land is very rarely used to erect flats or to erect houses except under very large housing schemes. Demolishing takes place, and it takes place in those areas where rents are lowest and where income is low. It means that there is going to be an evacuation of a large number of pensioners from these low-rental sites. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has already referred to that. There is going to be a period between eviction and housing for these people, a period during which they will find it almost impossible to find alternative accommodation. Where are they going to stay? I think it is quite disgraceful for a country such as ours, where we boast day after day about our economy, that some of our pensioners should seek accommodation in back-rooms; back-rooms which were previously used by non-European servants who have been evacuated because of the Group Areas Act. In many houses, to-day, back-rooms which were previously occupied by non-Whites are being used to-day by White people?

Where does that happen?

I would not make a statement such as that if it was not a fact. Not only are they going into those rooms but they are using garages as well. If people want to close their eyes to the sort of thing that is happening it behaves them to open their eyes and make sure that they help those unfortunate old people. I would like to ask the Minister to take steps immediately to see that as many as possible of these old people are housed properly. This housing must not be slap-dash. I would say that prefabricated houses must be erected as soon as possible to house these people temporarily and planning must be done as I asked for last year in the Budget debate. I think the ideal place for pensioners to live would be in a village for elderly people. It must be realized that because a person is 65 he is not helpless and that he would still like to do a certain amount of work. I think that work could be undertaken in a model village for elderly persons. I am not referring to them as the old-aged, because it makes them appear to be helpless. They are elderly people who cannot find employment in the open market. Many of them are still very skilled at their work. I would like these people to be given an opportunity to go on working because it is a great punishment for them to remain idle. They want to work. In a model village they will be able to work. It is not necessary for them always to go to the same type of work that they did previously, especially, if they previously did heavy manual work. But in a village, as I see it, they could work in groups to produce their own wants to a great extent.

The cost of living has been attacked here time and again. We have said that with the rising costs it is impossible for the pensioner to meet the costs that he has to incur for his immediate needs. I would suggest that in this village the shops are run by the local authority where these people can buy their groceries, meat, milk, etc. at cost. That would help them a great deal if this could take place and it could so easily take place. Because social welfare was taken away from some of the local authorities, local authorities such as Johannesburg for instance, the mobile vans where the poor people could buy groceries, milk, fish and meat at very, very low prices have disappeared. We must now offer these people something in its place. To a great extent the benefit of those mobile vans has been lost to the pensioner. I say that system must be re-introduced. It is impossible for the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare to undertake this work himself for all areas. He must delegate the work to the local authority, especially if the local authority is one which is willing to undertake this type of work. We are dealing today with people who want to continue to live; they want to live and they want to be useful citizens. It is up to the Minister and his department to see that opportunities are given to these people to see the rest of their days out in comfort and in a useful manner.

Let us go to some of the other difficulties that have arisen here. Because of the gradual increase in the cost of living we find that less and less of the almost essentials are not being purchased by the old-age pensioner or by the social pensioner. What does that person do with his time if he is unable to work? It is almost impossible for him to buy a newspaper every day. We have asked again and again for free radio licences for these people, so that they could have the use of the radio. We find that they are unable to get help from libraries because we do not have sufficient mobile libraries to visit the various areas to help those people to get books. We find that they are unable to attend any form of entertainment except if it is one of special occurrence; some local authority will devote an afternoon or a night to the entertainment of a group of people—that group may be 60 or 70. And it only happens in odd areas that such entertainment is given to these people. So a sense of deterioration is besetting that group who are getting pensions. They are deteriorating because they are not kept busy. We must find ways and means for them to become active as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) told us earlier on to-day about the shortage of manpower in our country. I have asked that a register should be kept of old-age pensioners who could be called upon for part-time work. I enumerated last year the type of work that old-age pensioners, male and female, could undertake to do. What has been done about it? It was a reasonable suggestion. For instance the Government paid out, I do not know how many thousands of pounds, during the last enrolment for the voters roll. How many old-age pensioners were called upon to undertake that work? Did the Minister have a register of these people? Did he ask them to come along and help in that work? I do not think so. There was an opportunity for these people to earn something. I expressly stated then that any earnings that those people made should not be deducted from their pensions. A number of them said: “Yes, we do not mind going to work; we shall only be too happy to do so but what is going to happen to our pensions if we take this temporary work; will it not be deducted from our pensions; will we not find ourselves in greater difficulty at the end of two months than we were previously?” These things were not explained to the people. I think the time has come, Sir, that we have got to do these things for those people and show them that there are ways and means of earning a little bit extra that will not affect their pensions I could go on; I could tell this House of dozens and dozens of difficulties that arise as far as these pensioners are concerned but it will not help us to solve the problem. I must appeal to the Minister now to consider forthwith the raising immediately of the present pensions that he is giving to the social pensioners. I ask for a rise of R2 per month. It is going to help these people tremendously. It is only going to cost the State about R3,000,000 per annum. Surely it is a very small amount to ask for for these people and it would be a boon to them. Let us hear from the Minister whether he is prepared to do it. I am sure that the Treasury would not object. They have been boasting, as I said earlier on, about the large amount of money in their coffers. Give some of that money to the poor people.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has rather exaggerated and I feel that it is my duty to correct him. I represent a constituency in which there are many less-privileged people but I have not found one single family in my whole constituency living in servants’ quarters. This story is told in this House and then sent overseas for foreign consumption. The story is exaggerated and people are told that this Government treats its old people very badly. I do not want to say that there is an unlimited number of houses available. There is a tremendous shortage of housing. But there is not such a shortage that it is necessary for people to live in backyards.

The point that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that accommodation must be provided for our old people on a large scale. There are very few State institutions to which these people can go. There are certain institutions which have been set up by private enterprise but I think it is time the State took the initiative and ensured that accommodation was made available for the aged. Some hon. members have been advocating the abolition of the means test for years. It is obvious that we cannot do that. The fact remains that if that were done, we would find ourselves in the same position in which the Provincial Administration of Transvaal found itself when it made provision for free hospital services. Wealthy people made us of those hospital services while the people who needed them could not be given a bed. But we must have some relaxation of the means test. Let us take the example of a man or a woman, jointly or separately owning property. The property may perhaps not be worth more than R3,000 and yet, that person is discriminated against. I have written proof that such a person has been told that in view of the fact that he owns such a property he cannot be considered for the special allowance of R3 which is payable today. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker. Although these people have a roof over their heads they have to pay rates they have to make their monthly repayments to the building society; they have to pay for water and electricity. The result is that they are worse off than those persons who do not own property. This does not encourage old people to acquire their own property. I do not think that houses ought to be considered when applying the means test, but if this is necessary then the means test ought to be fixed at a very high figure—higher than it is at the moment. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that in the future we do not grant an increase to the aged on the basis on which it was done last year. It only causes a great deal of trouble. These people simply cannot understand why one section receives it and the other section does not. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to find ways and means either by way of legislation or by making provision in the Estimates to enable those people who are not paid the special allowance at the moment to receive it. This is most necessary. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance because it is of the utmost importance. I want to emphasize what I said at the outset that the State is not doing all it can as far as housing is concerned. The State should build more old-age homes; it should provide more places where these people can live together as a family. I differ here from the hon. member for Rosettenville. He asks that old people should be employed to do work in connection with the voters’ rolls. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is fair. These people did their duty during their working years under far more difficult circumstances than we young people sitting here to-day.

But they want to work.

I am not in favour of it. I should prefer the State to increase their pensions. That is absolutely necessary. Why should a person of 65 or 70 years of age or older still have to walk the streets in order to earn a living? The State can do its share as far as housing and the special allowance are concerned.

What about hon. members who are older than 65? Should we also dispense with their services?

[They do not walk the streets working for the electoral office. I do not know of one hon. member who is older than 65.

Sir, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) largely supporting our motion. I am in this position now, Sir, coming in at the end of the debate, that I have to try to avoid repetition. So I want to deal with some of the wider aspects and implications of our resolution. I suppose every hon. member in this House knows of a case of hardship under the various pension schemes, and although the case I have in mind only falls indirectly under our resolution, I feel that it can nonetheless be dealt with under our resolution. I am thinking of the case of civil pensioners, particularly magistrates and magistrates’ widows. I know of several instances of magistrates’ widows who to-day are having to try to live on incomes which are little, if anything, above old-age pensions. The husbands of those widows, during their lifetime, contributed largely towards their pension schemes.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

As far as this aspect concerns social pensions it also concerns old-age pensions. During their lifetime those people worked for salaries when the currency was on a very much lower basis and to-day they have to try to come out on their pensions when the currency value has gone down. All these people, social pensioners and civil pensioners, contributed their share towards the building up of the country in their days. To-day we are enjoying the benefits of large-scale public works which were carried out during their time. Those schemes were carried out when wages were low, when costs were low. The Government is therefore enjoying the benefit, and the country is enjoying the benefit, of all those public works to-day. That is why I feel that there is an obligation on the Government to see that these people are not as heavily penalized as they are to-day through the currency having depreciated about which no one but the Government can do anything. One can to some extent hold the Government responsible but obviously not entirely. I think that on account of that fact that I have enumerated there is a reasonable responsibility on the Government to see to it that these people are in some way provided for better than they are to-day.

Another typical instance I know of is that of a woman whose husband died recently. She applied for the increased pension under last year’s amendment and was told to put in her application. After the form had gone in the local official told her that she could not get that benefit while she had assets of over R30. The form came back stating that her assets were too high. She had actually R80 in the Post Office so she could not get the benefit. She paid her husband’s funeral expenses which brought the amount down to R15 and she tried again. The reply came back that she still could not get any benefits unless she had less than R10 in the Post Office. Now I ask you, Sir, what incentive does the Government leave to anyone to save anything at all? That is the basis that I want to dwell on this afternoon, the basis of the necessity for incentives to people to save and the obvious fact that the means test is doing away with the incentive to save. One Department tries to encourage people to save but the Social Welfare Department is, by the means test, simply discouraging people from saving.

On a recent visit I paid overseas in England I discussed the question of saving with quite a number of working people. The reply I got was: What is the use of our saving; it will only come off our pensions when we are old; let us rather enjoy our money while we have it and spend it. I find to-day that that same spirit is getting abroad amongst our own people, particularly the young people. And who is to blame? Surely we cannot blame them for adopting that attitude when the Government tells them: If you save money you will not get the old-age pension. Can one blame the old people for encouraging the young people to run around on scooters and motor bikes and not save anything when they themselves have been penalized because of the money they saved in their young days? I want to make a special plea that this question of the encouragement of thrift should be looked into more closely as far as the question of housing is concerned. I was pleased to hear that the hon. member for Langlaagte supported me in this.

I feel that so far as housing is concerned, housing for the old people to live in should be placed in an entirely different category. We need houses for many reasons in South Africa and the houses which those older people built in their young days so that they would have a place to live in when they got old, save the Government from building houses for them to-day.

I want to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) last year in the discussion on the Social Welfare Vote. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 7., Col. 5994. What the hon. member said on that occasion entirely bears out, I think, what I am saying this afternoon. This was what he said—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a speech by an hon. member on that side of the House. He went on—

I want to say that every family, every man and woman who own their own home, are a bulwark against Communism. Those who have their own homes have a stake in the country and I feel that we should do everything possible to achieve that as many people as possible own their own homes. The hon. Minister earlier to-day asked for suggestions and I want to make what I consider to be a practical suggestion in this respect: That so far as housing is concerned, when taking into account the value of a house, of a size that would be sufficient (I do not want to mention figures, they can be worked out) to house an elderly couple in comfortable circumstances—when taking the value of that house into account for means test purposes, that house should either be not taken into account or say at 25 per cent of the official valuation. I feel that is a simple and practical way to encourage thrift, encouraging people to own their own homes, and relieving the Department of Social Welfare of the necessity to build more homes for the aged. Encourage the people to build homes for themselves when they are young. I feel that this is also the best way to encourage thrift. Because young people are in the mood when they first get married to think about owning their own home. They are home-proud. At that stage they very often will go in for a scheme, with the assistance of building societies, to become the owners of their own home. But many are discouraged from doing so simply on account of the means test which we have in the country today. When those young people start to own their own home and have to pay off on it, they are obliged to maintain their payments, and in doing so they start at an early age, a young age, the habit of thrift, and that habit of thrift will carry them right through their lives once they have made a start. The habit of thrift is of the utmost importance to the country, important from the social point of view, important from the economic point of view, because the basis of the economy of the country is the savings of the people, and I feel that by this practical suggestion which I put forward to-day, we can do a great deal in that direction. I feel it is of far-reaching importance, not only to the individual but to social welfare as well that this means test should be modified as we are suggesting in our resolution, but particularly I want to emphasize that it should be modified in so far as the valuation of house properties is concerned when arriving at the amount under the means test.

The motion that has been moved here to-day by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) is a motion to which we are all very sympathetically disposed. We all feel sorry for our old people. It is easy for the Opposition to ask for more and more and to expect the Government to do more and more but it seems to me that this could be some sort of political trick …

No.

Just look at the Opposition benches! There are 7 or 8 members of the Opposition taking an interest in the motion that has been moved by one of their own members. It shows that the United Party have no true interest in the motion. We had no quorum this afternoon to continue the debate. That is the amount of support that they give to the motion.

But irrespective of whether United Party members are interested in this motion or not, I am particularly interested in it and I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that where we can we must do more for our old people. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) has already replied to his speech and has pointed out that each year the Government has made more and more concessions to old-age pensioners and that where it has been possible the Government has assisted them. But every individual is expected, if possible, to make provision for himself in his old age, either by means of investment, by means of insurance policies or by joining a pension scheme. The Government encourages this sort of thing. For many years now the Government has been allowing rebate for tax purposes upon insurance premiums and in the past few years the Government has also allowed a rebate for contributions to pension funds. By this means the Government is trying to encourage the people to be independent in their old age. But unfortunately, the majority of our pensioners to-day have not been able to take out insurance policies or become members of a pension scheme and these are the people for whom we have to care to-day. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) referred to the housing shortage in the country. They said that people have to live in garages and hovels and so forth, but it is not only the pensioners who are poorly accommodated in many cases. We often find this in the cities where industrialization is taking place to-day and both the young and the old are affected by the shortage of housing. But I want to point out that every year the Government makes millions of rand available to the local authorities to build houses in order to alleviate the housing shortage. And it is up to every local authority in the country to ensure that it applies to the National Housing Commission for funds to build houses in order to alleviate this shortage. But this motion does not deal with a general housing shortage. The motion of the hon. member for Umbilo refers specifically to the shortage of housing for the aged but I do not want the outside world to gain the impression that the Government is giving insufficient attention to the question of the housing of our aged. I want this afternoon to confine myself chiefly to showing what the Government has done over the past 50 years to accommodate our old people and to take care of them, particularly those who are mentally or physically infirm. We must realize that where old people are mentally or physically infirm, special care must be provided for them. If such a person needs a permanent attendant at his home, the Government give him an additional allowance of R48 per annum in respect of the attendant who stays with him; but if we take the old-age homes we find that they have been established chiefly by welfare organizations or religious societies in the various towns and cities. The welfare organizations can obtain capital for the erection of these homes from the National Housing Commission in the form of what is virtually an interest-free loan. In order to encourage people further to erect old-age homes the Government has increased the subsidies from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to such an extent that it is easier for them to erect those old age homes and to furnish them and to take care of those old people. The subsidy that was paid previously for the purchase of furniture was increased from R30 per inmate to R90 per inmate and the means test that was fixed for subsidy purposes was increased from R28.50 to R40 per month. The per capita subsidy in respect of infirm persons was also increased from R8 to R10 per month. This was done in an effort to get the various welfare organizations to erect more old-age homes, particularly for the infirm. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient old-age homes throughout the Republic. In Natal and the Cape Province particularly we do not as yet have adequate accommodation available for old people and at the moment they are still being cared for mainly in hospitals. In such cases the Government pays R2.50 per day in respect of an old and infirm person who is treated in hospital. An amount of R94,871 was paid out to provincial hospitals by way of subsidies in 1962-3. The welfare organizations of the Cape Peninsula are at the moment building a home which on completion will accommodate 205 old people. Because there is a great shortage of homes for the infirm in Durban, the Department of Social Welfare is at the moment considering building a home there itself because the local welfare organizations are apparently hesitant to establish the necessary facilities for old people there. I should like to give the House the following figures for the period 1947-8 to 1962-3 so that hon. members may judge for themselves whether so little has been done or whether a great deal has been done for the accommodation of our old people. In 1947-8 there were 25 old-age homes for all races accommodating 1,950 old people in respect of whom the State paid an amount of R40,212 by way of subsidy. As at 31 December 1963 there was 94 subsidized old-age homes accommodating 4,390 White inmates whose income did not exceed R40 per month and 390 whose income exceeded R40 per month, a total therefore of 4,780 old people who were then accommodated in old-age homes. Furthermore, at the end of 1963 there were a further eight subsidized old-age homes exclusively for the accommodation of the infirm and 558 of these infirm persons were accommodated in those homes. A further 30 subsidized homes have been approved of and on completion will accommodate 1,416 old people. For the financial year 1963-4 provision was made under the Vote of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for an amount of R714,000 for the subsidization of old-age homes. When one compares this with the amount of R40,312 for 1947-8, I think that we must all admit that the present Government is performing a tremendous service for our old people. But apart from these services that are rendered in the old-age homes, the old people also receive other assistance from the State. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus referred to the free medical services that they receive. It is not only at the old-age homes that they receive those services but any old person can be given free treatment at a hospital clinic in a town or city. If they are ill at home, they can call a district medical officer or a district nurse and can be treated by them. They are also supplied with free medicines by the district medical officer. But here I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot approach the hon. the Minister of Health and discuss with him the manner in which the services of the district medical officers are placed at the disposal of these old people. I wonder whether it is not possible for the old people to be given a card as is the case at a hospital clinic, a card which they can use to receive free treatment on their return to the hospital. The position is now than an old pensioner may fall ill during the night and have nobody to send for a doctor. In any event, he has first to obtain a card in order to enable him to call the district medical officer. If these people can be given an annual card of this nature to show that they are indigent and they also have the right to telephone the district medical officer direct in time of need and receive treatment from him in such cases, I think that it will be of great benefit to them. I think that the problem can be resolved in this way in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Health. But I do feel that the Government can be very proud of what it has done for our old people during the time that it has been in office.

I do not pretend to know very much as yet about the complicated legislation that at present exists in connection with pensions and the means test and related matters, but I do not intend to deal with that aspect of the matter under this motion. Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that quoting yards and yards of figures as has been done this afternoon really gets us very far with regard to this particular matter. For all the intermittent concessions which have rather reluctantly been extracted from the Minister of Finance in the past few years, I think it is correct to say that the vast body of pensioners in South Africa, with certain exceptions, can justifiably be described as forgotten people.

That is not true.

I have met many of them, and perhaps the hon. member has too, and I must confess that I have often been bitterly ashamed of the conditions under which they have to live. Sir, their lives have mostly been unspectacular, their record of service in most cases is very good, they have contributed their skills and their integrity over the years to build up the proud position of stability and strength that we have here in South Africa, and they have done it as a result of hard work. I submit that we have no right, whatever Government is in power to neglect them in their old age and in their days of decline. I think we should remember also that the people for whom we are pleading here this afternoon are for the most part people who are accustomed to maintain decent standards. Many of them are retired people with professional qualifications. Many of them have devoted years of dedicated service in these professions. Thousands of others are good solid, working people whose inconspicuous devotion to duty should have earned them some degree of peace and serenity in their old age. Most of them, as hon. members know, live on a small fixed income, many of them retired in the 1950s and their income has not increased since then, or at any rate very little. The result is of course that they are reduced to conditions of extreme poverty. I have no hesitation in saying that after seeing the conditions in which many of them live. There are two reasons for that. One of them is of course that the cost of living has gone up whilst their income has remained static, and the other is that the value of money in turn has dropped. I wonder whether the hon. Minister realizes how many of these people, and there are quite a lot of them, find it difficult to get sufficient to eat; they can scarcely afford it. Many of them are too proud to say so, many of them are too proud to debase themselves by begging ignominiously from others. Let us get down to bedrock: What does it cost the average person to deal with his ordinary living expenses as things are in South Africa at the present time? You take an old retired couple; they have to pay rent, they have to buy their food and their clothing, electricity on which to cook and to light their little flat, or whatever it is they are living in, transport, even if it is only a bus twice a week to the lending library to change their books, water, drugs, if they are not well, a radio licence, which as the hon. member for Rosettenville said costs about twice as much now than a year ago. How does the hon. Minister think many of those good upstanding South African citizens can come out decently on anything between R50 and R60 a month?

There have been suggestions from various quarters of the House to-day that our proposals with regard to these matters are socialistic. If that is the case, I can only say that the Government’s policy in regard to these matters is paralytic. Many of these people are unable even to pay their rent and live in permanent fear of being ejected. Many hon. members on that side seem to think that it is a good thing that they work if they want to work, but many of them are not fit enough to work. I know of many cases of people in their late sixties and even in their seventies who are obliged to go and find part-time employment simply because they cannot afford to feed themselves otherwise. I do not want to introduce a discordant note, but I would say that all the Orange River schemes and the border industries and the Phalaborwas and the Bantustans cannot atone for the neglect of these people who have done their work, who have served South Africa and have given up their health and their strength in the process.

Might I just say as a newcomer to this House that it is a matter of great interest to me listening to this debate here to-day that there is plenty of money in the country for ideological issues, for duplicating post offices and stations, for a Press commission that can sit for 12 years and never report, for setting up population registration offices, but what are we doing for these people except allowing them to rot?

What have you done when you were in power?

I know that the hon. Minister is doing what he can within certain limits, but I say most emphatically that these thousands of South African citizen deserve a far better deal than they are getting at the present time. They do not make political speeches, they do not write letters to the newspapers. The South African pensioners have no opportunity of shouting at each other across the floor of this House to air their grievances. We are expected to do it for them. It is remarkable to me, if I may say so as a newcomer to this House that whenever there is a third-rate political argument on the go, hon. members on the Government benches are all in their seats, sharpening their knives and shouting their heads off like a lot of fourth-form schoolboys. But when it comes to our social pensioners where are these gentlemen?

Look at your own benches! They are empty.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) got up quite correctly in terms of the rules and pointed out that there was no quorum here this afternoon. May I remind the hon. member that it is his Government which has stated, with all the hon. members over there, that they are so concerned about the pensioners, but the entire afternoon there have been only seven or eight members present on the other side.

That is not true, and it is your motion.

We raise the matter, but it is the duty of the Government in power to do something about it.

What do you know about parliamentary practices?

I would just like to remind the hon. member for Prinshof that I made a very careful note this morning of what the position was. One of the Government members introduced a similar motion this morning, and let me tell the hon. member for Prinshof that there were 13 Government members on that side, two of them fast asleep, and there were 23 members on the Opposition benches, and we have only got 52 members in the House and you have got over 100. So I think the hon. member for Prinshof …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

It is quite clear to me from the debate here in this House to-day that the official Opposition in South Africa has the cause of the pensioners in South Africa very much more at heart than any member on the Government benches.

Now I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. Minister. I want to say to him that he is quite correct when he says that his door is always open. On every occasion that I have addressed an appeal to him or his Department, the cases have been dealt with, with great sympathy and thoroughness and everything has been done within the limits of the law to assist in the cases that I have brought to them.

Tell us about “Blikkiesdorp”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister this afternoon, when replying to another debate, talked about the difficulties that were involved in administering social services in the United Kingdom. I would like to support what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said about that.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to that debate now.

May I leave that alone and say to the hon. Minister that we would like to know what he intends to do in regard to these poor pensioners. Why does the Government not get on with the job? Why does the Government not introduce a practicable pension scheme? I have read these debates in Hansard over the years, and there never seems to be any change. The country wants an answer, the pensioners want an answer, and I suggest that there is no possible justification for the hon. Minister of Finance withholding extra funds in his Budget this year in order to ameliorate the position of these people who are in real and desperate need. I would say finally that it is quite clear that if no further provision is made in the coming Budget to assist these people, then we shall be entirely justified on this side of the House in indicting this Government for neglecting South Africa’s pensioners in a most scandalous fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes find myself in a difficult situation in a debate such as this. I find myself in a difficult position in that in one breath the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) praised me and then attacked me in the next. She blew hot and cold in regard to a matter in which we are all interested. I want to thank her sincerely for the compliment she paid me but I like to listen to arguments from both sides of the House in these matters. I have been doing this work now for many years and I know how difficult the circumstances are. I want of course, to do everything I can to improve the position but I have already stated and I want to say again that our system is such that the State cannot be expected to make provision for the individual needs of everyone, and hon. members know this. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has admitted as much to-day; he realizes that that is the position. We are all working together on these matters and the hon. member has acknowledged this basis of co-operation between the State, the welfare organizations, the community and the church. I think that we have built up a wonderful organization in South Africa. We can achieve so much more if we can hold the interest of the church, the community and the State. [Interjection.] I did not interrupt the hon. member. I am merely mentioning a fundamental principle. This has been our system over the years. The hon. member was member of the Provincial Council and she dealt with welfare organizations. She is a capable member who is interested in social problems. The hon. member for Umbilo has said that he agrees with that basic principle and I think that hon. members opposite will also agree with it. It would be an evil day for South Africa if we were to destroy this structure that we have built up over the years and leave nothing of it standing. We do have such a thing as tradition and the things that we have inherited from the people who have gone before us. The Government has accepted this system. I came to this Parliament for the first time in 1934 and I was a member of the Government and also of the Opposition under General Hertzog. I am now a member of the Government once again and after all these years this is still the basic principle in regard to this system. I want to say that it was unfortunate that the hon. member spoilt her good speech. She allowed hon. members to distract her. I thought that the subject matter of the motion had been exhausted because she started discussing the question of a quorum. The hon. member says that it is our responsibility; she wants to bear no responsibility at all. I thought that the debate was finished and I did not know whether I should discuss these matters again. But the hon. member ended on a very dangerous note. In spite of her acknowledgement that so much was being done under the system that we have had for so many years she said that it was scandalous—and she meant that it was scandalous on the part of the Government—that we still had people today who had to live under difficult circumstances. That was very irresponsible of her and I was very sorry that the hon. member became so excited after she had praised me in such a fine way.

The hon. member also spoke about “forgotten people; people who are accumstomed to maintaining decent standards should be accustomed to doing something for themselves to maintain themselves in their old age”. I do not want to go into details but the hon. member spoke about a pension of R60 per month.

On a point of order, I was speaking about a married couple.

If this were to be done, it would cost the State an additional R45,000,000 per annum. At the rate of R60 per month per person it would cost the State R91,000,000, taking only the number of pensioners we have at present. We must make our calculations in discussing these matters. I thought that the hon. member agreed with me when I said that the actual test of the legislation was not merely whether it was just, but also whether it was practicable. A motion was moved in the Other Place last year that the means test should be completely abolished. If it is abolished and the increases that were asked for last year are given, it will mean that 20 per cent of our entire State revenue will be used for the payment of pensions. How are we then going to run the State? These are all matters that we must consider. But I do want to give the hon. member the assurance that if her attention is drawn to cases similar to these to which she has referred, she can write to the Department or to me and we will always be prepared to give our full attention to them. That is what we have done over the years, and the hon. member knows it.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) explained the position very well. Mr. Speaker, you know, I am almost quite ashamed. I am a shy person. Every year the Opposition asks for more. They are at liberty to move these motions, but then we have repeatedly to explain what has been done until we eventually ask ourselves whether there is no acknowledgment for what is being done. The hon. member for Umbilo admitted that a great deal was being done and had been done over the past years to effect improvements, and I appreciated his remarks. The hon. member for Geduld has made a special study of this matter. I do not want to praise only the hon. member for Umbilo. It was also my intention to praise the hon. member for Wynberg but she has now left. The hon. member for Geduld has made a particular study of all that has been done in connection with accommodation. Some hon. members say that conditions in a particular place are extremely critical and then other members say in their turn that they live in the same vicinity and that this is not the position. There are the conditions that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has mentioned—and he brought them to the notice of the Department during the course of the year—but we cannot keep an eye on everything at the same time. I have asked on many occasions to be informed of those cases so that we can see what can be done. I have said: Do not wait until Parliament is in session. The hon. member for Geduld also said that I should approach the hon. the Minister of Health in regard to the question of indigent people who need the services of district medical officers. I just want to tell hon. members that notes are made of all the requests that are made here. We go through the Hansard and when we find that there are matters that should be brought to the attention of other Ministers, we do so. I shall also devote my attention to these matters.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) spoke about the encouragement of thirft, and I agree with everything that he said. He said that that encouragement must start early. That is correct, but in order to make that encouragement continue into old age, one must not allow those people to lose their sense of independence. Our people are fortunate in that they still have that spirit of independence, and the day they lose it will be an evil day for South Africa. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) said that accommodation should be provided on a larger scale and other hon. members said the same thing. I just want to tell hon. members that we have been given information in regard to what has been done recently to provide accommodation and build homes for old people. We consult with the Department of Housing in regard to every new development. In 1963 I had consultations with them in regard to flats. I am not speaking now about the increased number of old age homes because hon. members will admit that this increase has been colossal over the past years. I just want to direct the attention of the House to this one matter and that is in connection with accommodation. It is my honest opinion—and that opinion is strengthened by the inquiries that I have made overseas—that there are certain fundamental matters that one has to consider in connection with accommodation. A very important matter is that those old people must not be isolated in separate communities. I think it is wrong to build a separate town for them or to build a whole block of old age homes away from the community. I think that we must keep those people in the communal circle as long as we can. They must feel that they are still part of society. That is also the tendency that I have noticed overseas—that these people are kept in the community in order to keep them in contact with that community as much as possible. We are considering the matter at the moment. I have already discussed the question with the hon. the Minister of Housing and we have had an investigation made overseas. This is the system that I have seen in London—that one has a common home for the old people but that around this common home there are small flatlets that are situated close to the common home so that the old people living in the flatlets can be moved to the common home when they are ill and admitted to the sick bay and nursed there. If they are not able to prepare their meals in their flatlets, they can also eat at the common home.

There is another system that they call “meals on wheels”. I did not see it in operation but I saw certain aspects of it which I did not like very much. In Holland and other places the old people go to a certain place to receive their meals and they take these meals to their rooms. The food is kept warm but it is certainly not as good a system as when they eat in the common home.

I want to give hon. members the assurance that we are doing everything in our power to improve the position of accommodation. As I have said, I have already had negotiations with the hon. the Minister of Housing as far as this particular system is concerned so that where new communities are established, provision must be made for accommodation for old people in that community. We will also be achieving another good purpose and that is that we will be removing the old people from the pressure of the heavily populated urban areas and giving them more room.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) gave us a resumé of the measures that have been taken from time to time. One could go on for days mentioning measures of this nature. I would like to refer to a few of them. I do not want to go into details but I would like to refer to a few figures for the purpose of comparison. The first part of the motion of the hon. member for Umbilo deals with the revision of the scale on which pensions are paid. We have been told for years now that pensions should be increased and they have been increased. Benefits have been improved from time to time. The second point is that the means test should be relaxed in its application. The hon. member for Odendaalsrust quoted statistics and pointed out what had been done in that connection. Let me just tell the House what the effect has been of what has been done over the past years in regard to these two matters. The joint effect in this regard is that the maximum amount that is payable at present is 170 per cent higher than it was in 1947. This does at least mean something, particularly in view of the fact that during the same period the increase in the cost of living was only 68½ per cent. These are statistics that speak for themselves. In other words, the increase in pensions has far exceeded the increase in the cost of living. Let me mention this case. The total expenditure on old-age pensions in 1947 amounted to R6,575,000 in respect of 60,000 pensioners. In 1963 the amount was R24,828,900, almost four times as much, in respect of 86,000 pensioners. The number of pensioners had not even doubled but the amount paid to them had quadrupled. This merely does mean something. In 1963 the average pension per person amounted to R288 per annum. In 1947 it amounted to R109.6. I mention this merely to show that we have done something. I always say that we must do as much as we can but we must not destroy the things that are binding in our national life. I also want to draw this comparison. It indicates the approximate amounts that have been made available during the past ten years by way of increases and grants in regard to social pensions. In 1954-5, the amount was R4,700,000; in 1955-6, it was R5,828,000; in 1956-7, it was R4,600,000; in 1959-60, it was R3,000,000; in 1960-1, it was R3,100,000; in 1961-2, it was R2,200,000; in 1962-3, R3,000,000 and in 1963-4, it amounted to R1,540,000, making a grand total of about R26,000,000. This does mean something.

I want to hasten to discuss a few other matters that were raised by hon. members. I just want to say that if we abolish the means test, it will mean that old-age pensions alone will cost us about R90,000,000 as compared with R26,000,000 at the moment.

We did not advocate that.

I know, but it was advocated in the Other Place and I just wanted to point out what the result of a step of this nature would be. The hon. member for Umbilo has said that we still have too few old-age homes but the hon. member will admit that they are being built quite quickly although more provision must be made in his area. We are interested in Durban and we are always discussing matters with the hon. member for Umbilo. We had asked previously whether there were no private welfare organizations or religious bodies which would undertake to build these institutions. We said that they would receive assistance from the National Housing Board as well as the assistance that we gave them. We discussed this matter two years ago. We asked the hon. member to encourage it and that is what he apparently did but nothing has as yet happened. It seems as though the position there is difficult in spite of his encouragement. I just want to tell him that notwithstanding that fact it is our intention to build an old-age home as soon as possible because there does not appear to be any hope of an old-age home being built by the welfare organizations in Durban. That is why the Department is considering starting a home of this nature there itself. The only difficulty that we have had up to the present is to find suitable premises.

I want to discuss one further matter. My time is very limited but, as I have said, the matters that I do not deal with directly here will receive my attention. Mention was also made of the special allowance that was introduced last year. I can only tell the hon. member that this special grant was made last year in all good faith. The matter was discussed in this House and, as I said here last year, the intention was to give relief where the shoe pinched most. But I want to tell hon. members that this matter is receiving the very serious consideration of the Government.

I think that these are more or less all the general points that I am able to cover this afternoon. I want once again to express my appreciation for the manner in which hon. members on both sides of the House have approached this question of pensions. Whether I or anybody else is Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions or whether this or any other Government is in power, we will always have these problems to contend with and we will always have to approach these problems in the spirit that I have described—always bearing in mind the fact that one is dealing with human beings; that one is dealing with individuals and that one is dealing with a delicate situation. Our approach must always be of such a nature that we can always make progress and not retrogress in this important work in the interest of the people, the State, the Church and society.

While the hon. the Minister has suggested that the case has been fully canvassed, there are one or two points I would like to make from an angle which has not been covered up to now. The angle from which I wish to approach it is, firstly, on the basis of the amount of money paid to pensioners in relation to the Coloured community, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to the question of increasing the pension of these people for the sole and simple reason that they get approximately half of what the White pensioner receives. The amount is totally inadequate. They have great difficulty in making ends meet, and although the Minister says that in a man’s youth and in the full flush of his years he ought to make provision for his old-age, the Coloured people are in the position that they are unable to make the necessary provision. I therefore make the point in the earnest hope that the present pension, which is approximately R140 a year, should be increased considerably in respect of the Coloured community.

The second point I wish to deal with, is the question of the means test. I want to suggest to the Minister that the attitude of the department is—and I do not say this in any critical way at all; I offer this suggestion in a constructive manner—that the value of the property of the wife, and the income which the children should provide, should cover their maintenance. I think it is a new concept to suggest—that a Coloured person is unable to receive a pension until such time as the children have made adequate provision. In the same case—and this is one of many—the pension was cancelled. There was no difficulty about that; the case has been investigated and everybody is quite happy, but we find that this extraordinary statement is made “that re-instatement can only be considered when advice is received that the three unemployed children have accepted employment.” In other words, until such time as these three children accept employment—one happens to be an epileptic—the case cannot be considered. Sir, these are minor matters in an Assembly such as this but it is a very important thing for the persons concerned. I do ask the Minister most seriously to consider the question of overhauling the whole pension machinery and the way in which pensions are decided upon.

The last point I wish to make is in connection with the question of accommodation. It has been my lot to deal with three schemes for the provision of accommodation for aged persons in relation to Bantu, Coloureds and Whites. I should like to ask the Minister to give his attention to the delays with which local authorities have to contend in getting plans approved and in getting work started. The case I have in mind is a scheme which was actually started by the National Housing Commission itself. When the scheme was started it was regarded as a matter of urgency but 2½ years have now elapsed and they have still done nothing. There are people, Sir, who are willing to go out of their way to assist the Government in providing accommodation for all groups. I will say that the Government does provide money for the provision of these facilities, but the fact remains that due to complications in other departments, those persons willing to assist are unable to do so, in the way in which these people should be assisted. The final point I wish to make is that there are many institutions in this country who cater for and accommodate old people and who do their best to take care of them. These institutions can be described as denominational. I am aware of the fact that the law prohibits assistance to that type of institution. The fact remains, however, that these institutions do assist, and that they do good work, and that they are willing to assist in accommodating persons who reach old-age and who have nowhere to live. Might I suggest to the hon. the Minister that where people are admitted who are not necessarily of the denomination which runs the institution, some consideration should be given to assisting those institutions to make better provision to house these people adequately. This is a matter on which I can speak with some experience and knowledge because I have dealt with large groups of Bantu and Coloured people and Whites over a number of years. I acknowledge that the legislation, the system obtaining in this country in regard to pensions, is as good as one can find, but that does not mean to say that, because legislation was put on the Statute Book, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago, times have not changed and that improvements are not warranted. I am aware of the fact that the Minister, to use the vernacular, is right on the ball. I ask him to keep on in this direction as far as the Coloured people are concerned: (a) To see that they get more money; it is as simple as that—no “ifs”, “buts” nor “maybe’s”—because R12 is totally inadequate; secondly to have some inquiry made into the tardiness of the National Housing Commission and other departments in dealing with local authorities who make application for the construction of accommodation for the aged. These are the points I want to make, and I am sorry to follow the Minister after his very interesting reply to the debate, but I would like to say this to him in conclusion that those of us who work with these people know full well what the position is.