I move—

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this Bill being an amending Bill, amending the original South African Tourist Corporation Act, the debate is somewhat circumscribed and therefore it will not be possible for me to go very much into detail in regard to the general functions of the Department. But the nature of the amendments which are brought forward in this Bill I believe allows a certain amount of latitude because functions of Satour can be taken over. The original measure was introduced in 1947 and one can regard that Act as the first stage in which the State actively directed its attention to tourism. Last year a further step was taken by the formation of a new Ministry and Department. Certain amendments were made to the original Act, but they were of a minor nature. They substituted the Minister of Tourism for the Minister of Transport and there were a few minor amendments. But this Bill now before us contains amendments which form the basis for the future modus operandi between the Department of Tourism and the South African Tourist Corporation, and for that reason I think it is possible to go a little more into detail in this debate, than would be allowed in the case of a straightforward amending Bill. What it amounts to is that there is now a Department of Tourism which has certain functions, and the aim of this Bill is to sort out the spheres of activity of Satour and of the Department and other bodies to which the Department may wish to delegate certain functions. I want to say that in coming forward with these amendments, I myself have had full discussions with the Board of Satour and they have agreed in principle to these amendments. As a matter of fact there is complete unanimity with regard to these proposals. May I add as a final introductory remark that the hon. Minister of Transport who in the past handled Satour and was responsible for it carried out that task with great credit to himself. He gave attention to many administrative matters, and I found to my amazement that he had still been able to attend to matters involving Satour and Tourism, which was work attached to him as Minister of Transport. Having now become Minister of Tourism and there being a Department of Tourism, I realize that the House will expect much more detailed information and attention to aspects of tourism and the growing development of this industry.

There are a number of amendments I want to refer to. Clause 1 amends Section 9 of the South African Tourist Corporation Act in regard to its functions. Later on in my speech I will refer to it in general terms. The first part of the amendment, sub-section (1) (a), is in line with what was intended by the original Act. It contains a small amendment where it says that it shall be the function and duty of the Board to endeavour to achieve the object for which the corporation is established with all the means at its disposal, but it is the second part of that sub-section which brings us to the functions themselves. And there it says that certain functions can be carried out by the Minister himself.

All of them.

All of them, and they can be directed in another direction. The Minister can direct them to himself, or to the administrators of the provinces, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and after consultation with the Administrator of a province. Hon. members will see that the board will have to be consulted and that the Minister has to communicate to the Board by notice in writing the restrictions he wishes to impose in regard to the functions of the Board. It is clear that the South African Tourist Corporation’s Board will be anxious to see that their functions are not interfered with, and for that reason the Minister can only direct certain functions in another direction after consultation with the Board and after having communicated to the Board such intention by notice in writing. As I have already said, the Board of Satour agrees that certain functions should be given to the Minister and the Department. I may add that Satour itself feels that it cannot carry out all the functions under the Act. They themselves directed their attention to certain functions and they allowed other functions to be carried out by other bodies, quite rightly. I think Satour quite correctly concentrated its attention on bringing tourists from overseas to South Africa, but if hon. members look at the functions mentioned in the original Act, they will see that they are very wide. They include domestic tourism, development and improvement of attractions, co-operation with local authorities, public associations, private enterprise, etc. Now the amendment in Clause 1 gives the Minister the right to say: Look, do not use that particular function, leave that to the Department, do not worry about this particular function, but leave it to the Department of Tourism and you can concentrate on these other particular functions, which you are in the best position to handle.

Is the idea to draw a line between domestic tourism and tourists from outside?

I want to direct the hon. member’s attention to Section 8 of the original Act which deals with the objects of the Corporation and says this—

These functions are very wide and there are many functions which Satour never made use of. Satour could not cover the whole field and the object with the new Department of Tourism is to develop tourism to a greater extent, and the amendment in this Bill will allow the Minister to say to Satour: You concentrate on this function or that function and we will take care of this or that other function. That is the broad basis of this amending Bill. So I would say that the Board of Satour itself fully appreciates this point, and in this measure it states specifically that the Minister must consult the Board. That was the stipulation, that before any function is withheld from the Board of Satour the Minister will consult them and advise them in writing.

I mentioned to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that Satour itself has already concentrated on certain functions and has not been in a position to apply itself to other functions. The hon. member knows that local authorities have developed internal tourist attractions. In Natal you have the Provincial Administration developing the Hluhluwe Game Reserve, and here you have the Addo Game Reserve, and in the Free State the Willem Pretorius Reserve, all functions performed by other bodies than Satour, and quite rightly so. The only object now is to accelerate this and to increase the interest in the development of these attractions and to see whether it is not possible to assist the various bodies which are responsible for tourism in this country. Private enterprise does a considerable amount with regard to tourism, and Satour accepts that. They say there are many facets to tourism and they have only been in a position to concentrate on certain facets only. Our purpose therefore in the Department is to co-ordinate the efforts of all people to promote tourism to the maximum.

I mentioned to hon. members the fact that Clause 1 gives this power to withhold certain functions. I want to put it to hon. members that supposing the Minister, after consulting the Board of Satour, decides that statistics should not be a function of Satour but of the Department of Information, he then says to Satour: Do not spend any money on statistics; the Department will now carry out this function. I just give that as an example. It may not be statistics, but another function. But I think the hon. member will also appreciate that the statistics of Satour deal essentially with overseas visitors. We may say that they can carry on with their overseas statistics, but there are other statistics which will be the function of the Department. That is the type of division which is considered.

I would like to leave out, for the purposes of argument, sub-section (b) and go on to subsection (c), because this ties up directly with the functions on the general basis of the amendments I have mentioned. Sub-section (c) is a new sub-section and it states that the Minister may exercise the powers I have described, but if the Minister wishes to place a function with the Department of Tourism then he must get the consent of the Minister of Finance. It is obvious that this is part and parcel of the financial set-up of the country. If the Department or the Minister of Tourism wants to take over a function which involves the expenditure of money, then obviously the Minister of Finance must be consulted. Then finally, in the second portion, it says that the Minister can authorize an Administrator to perform a function which he has withheld from the Board of Satour. The purpose of that is that the Department may not be the best body to carry out a certain function, but the Provincial Authority may be the best body, and it then gives the Minister the power to say that we take this function away from Satour, by agreement, and give it to the Administrator.

Will you have continuity then?

Yes, because that is the way it operates at present. The provincial authorities have carried out many of the functions of Satour. So it is really only a matter of creating a machine which can operate even more effectively than in the past. It will also be noticed that the new sub-section (2) says the Minister can authorize such Administrator to exercise any such power or to perform any such function subject to such restrictions as the Minister may impose and with due regard to such directions as he may give. But now I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to sub-section (4) because it refers to the Administrator. Obviously the impression may be given that the intention is that the Minister of Tourism is going to force functions on a province through the Administrator which the province really does not want. But in this section the Administrator means the Administrator acting in consultation with and with the consent of the Executive Committee of the province concerned. So any of these functions which are now handed over to the Administrators are only functions which he himself accepts on behalf of the administration of that province. Therefore I think hon. members will appreciate that in this respect the whole basis is to work in close cooperation between Satour, the Administrators, and the Executive Committees to promote tourism as a whole. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) seemed to have some doubts in regard to the overlapping which may result by bringing in the province, but in actual fact the provinces are ideally suited to perform some very important functions with regard to tourism. If you refer to the main feature of the original Act, the functions, the hon. member will see that in fact Satour under Section 9 (b) can negotiate with any Government or any provincial, local or other public authority, and they could even form bodies through local authorities. Now we say that rather than Satour the provinces are really the bodies which should create the other avenues through which tourism can be promoted. Our discussions with the Administrators have been on the basis that they will be the keystone in the whole development of tourism in their provinces and that they themselves will form what amounts to a central provincial tourist committee, and then they themselves will divide up their provinces into geographic regions, and they will appoint regional committees on tourism for each region. They will even organize it into working committees in particular areas, or for particular groups like hotels or tourist attractions, so that right throughout the whole operation will develop through the Administrators. We are convinced that if we do this, and with the interest shown by the Administrations, we will create a great stimulus for and interest in tourism.

May I ask a question? In terms of the last section the Minister referred to, can he tell us whether he visualizes that with this new authority his Department will be empowered to utilize and develop new developments as tourist attractions? I refer to the new development with regard to game fishing, which will attract tourists from all over the world. Does the Minister feel that his Department will now have the authority to take advantage of developments such as that?

The point is that the provinces will really operate in regard to a particular aspect of tourism for such attractions. With regard to big-game fishing I would say that the details would be handled by the provinces, but that does not mean that there cannot be expenditure on the development of big-game fishing in the Cape waters, for instance. If you take the next clause, Clause 3, provision is made that if a province does incur certain expenditure, that expenditure will be an allowable charge in the ordinary financial accounts of that province. Apparently there was some doubt that if a province incurred expenditure on a certain aspect of tourism, it could not do so legally under the present financial regulations. But this allows them to operate legally in those circumstances.

May I just explore that a little further? Does the Minister visualize that, assuming a province did not function in that way, this new Department would have the authority to see that something was done?

Naturally the Department can carry out certain functions which it now has the right to withhold from Satour, but normally the development of a tourist attraction is a matter for the province and for the sub-committees falling under that province. But if there was a case made out for developing big-game fishing on a national scale, I would say the Department itself would be interested and it is a matter of great concern to it that it should be developed to the maximum. I described previously the financial liabilities of the Administration regarding expenditure on tourism and the fact that in terms of sub-section (3) that authority is given to meet this from their provincial revenue account. If one goes back to Clause 1 (b), hon. members will see that that refers to a particular aspect of the functions of Satour, i.e. the hotel industry. It states here in the original Act that in accordance with the provisions of the regulations Satour has a function to register and classify accommodation establishments in the Republic in respect of which application for such registration has been made, and to issue certificates of registration in respect of such establishments, and publish a list of such establishments appropriately graded and classified. The purpose of the amendment here is this. In the first place it refers to any class of establishment for accommodation. So it recognizes that there are various classes of establishment, licensed and unlicensed hotels, boarding-houses, etc., right down to a caravan park. But that is not the important aspect. The important aspect of the amendment is the deletion of the words “in respect of which application for such registration has been made to the Board”. Here I think I should explain the position fully. At present there is a hotel commission sitting to investigate the whole hotel industry. I am waiting for their report. I know, and I am sure everyone else knows, that the Commission will eventually report on some basis which involves registration and classification and grading. I presume they will suggest machinery or direct that function to some authority. The only point I want to make here is this. I have no intention whatever of telling Satour immediately that they should do the registration and classification of hotels. I am waiting for the report, and what the Commission recommends will be considered by me and by the Government. I read the report of the hon. member for Von Brandis some years ago and I realize that some machinery will be suggested, but I want to wait to see exactly what machinery is suggested.

In view of the fact that this Commission still has to report and will do so within the next few months, what is the necessity for introducing this Bill now? Why not wait until the Commission has reported?

I appreciate that question, but may I put this to the hon. member for Green Point. The only important point here is this, that previously the position was that the classification and grading of hotels should be on a voluntary basis. You could not classify or grade or register an establishment unless an application was made. Now I am changing that, not necessarily because I want Satour to perform that function, but because in my opinion it should not be on a voluntary basis, but on a compulsory basis. That is the only principle I am establishing here. If the hon. member wants to attack me on that principle he may do so, but that is the only principle I am establishing here.

I am not attacking you on that point. I am just asking why you do not wait for the report.

I am convinced that, without having had the Commission’s report, in South Africa we have to tackle registration and classification on a compulsory basis and not on a voluntary basis.

You are forestalling your Commission.

No, I am not. I am awaiting their report, but if I need the authority I have it here. If I have to operate on a compulsory basis I do not want to find myself in the position that I am not allowed to do so.

So it virtually amounts to this, that irrespective of what the Commission may recommend, you will have the registration made compulsory?

Order! I cannot allow such conversations to take place.

If the hon. member thinks I am wrong in taking this power, he can say he is not prepared to support it, but I am taking this enabling power because I think the voluntary basis is not a sound one.

Now we come to the last clause, Clause 2, which deals with the regulations. Before, the position was that certain regulations could be passed by the Minister on the recommendation of Satour. The alteration is that he can now do so after consultation with Satour. That means that the Minister does not lose the initiative. Previously it was illegal for him to do anything in regard to the regulations published unless it was on the recommendation of the Board. Now he can consult the Board, but he can still make certain regulations. I think that is absolutely necessary in view of the new approach that must be made.

Finally, I want to say that obviously this is only one of the steps towards the development of tourism. This is a step to co-ordinate the activities of Satour, the Department and the provinces. It gives certain enabling powers to the Minister, but basically the whole object is to develop our tourist industry to the utmost as far as possible. In actual fact the amendments here will only move in that direction. There is nothing in these amendments which can damage tourism because that would be against the policy of this Department. I am sure that eventually, with the natural attractions we have here and the developments we have, tourism can grow into a very big industry. But we have to see that accommodation is attractive and available. I am sure that with the efforts of the Department and the report of the Commission and the interest shown by so many people, tourism can be developed satisfactorily to all the parties concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the one really encouraging feature of the Minister’s speech, which I was very pleased to hear because I wondered at the time what the purpose was, was that he assured the House firmly that this was not a Bill designed to damage tourism. I should have thought not. I am sure he introduced it to further the interests of tourism. It seems to me that it was unnecessary to mention the damaging of tourism, but I believe in one respect it may, and I will mention it later. I think this occasion affords us the opportunity, in view of the fact that the Minister is transferring the direction from the board to himself, to make Satour a creature of his Department. I believe it is right to say that it will become an integral part of the Department of Tourism, whereas previously it was an autonomous body which could act on its own. True, it was supplied with funds entirely from Government sources, but it was an independent body. It had certain objects which broadly fall into three compartments, firstly to encourage people from overseas to travel in this country, secondly, to promote the travel services, and thirdly to improve our hotel accommodation. The Minister has rightly said that this board has contented itself largely with promotional work, and perhaps of necessity it had to do so, but it has done an excellent job of work in many directions. It has acted on the principle that as long as you are silent and do not want to take the kudos you can get a great deal done. It has been very silent on the question of improved travel services and hotel accommodation. Repeatedly over the years, if we look through the annual reports of this Corporation, we find references that that has to be done, but the necessary action has lagged behind. Probably this body can only be the catalyst to try to cause something to be done, but in regard to these two functions I do not think it has had great success. I do not know whether it has made representations to the Railways in regard to improvements, and to International Air Lines. It may be that they did so, but it is not apparent from the reports. It was entirely confined to promotional work.

I think in discussing these amendments and the powers the Minister is taking unto himself, one should examine what has happened since this Board was first established. It was established with the purpose of encouraging travel to this country to promote the tourist industry. At that stage, in 1948-9, which was the first year of its existence, we find that travellers from the neighbouring territories in Africa amounted to 60,000, and those from other overseas countries to just over 25,000, making a total of 85,000. In 1962-3, which is the last report we have, travellers from the African territories were 166,000, and from overseas 36,000-odd. So the figures increased very much over those years. But I think it is right to say that in the travel business it is an axiom that you get most of your visitors from the neighbouring territories. It is limited to a large extent only to a certain section of the population of the territories to the north of us, and therefore it probably has a retarding effect on future travel. I notice in the report it says that it is likely that the intake of tourists from Rhodesia has reached a maximum and it will not be unexpected if during the course of the next few years there is a drop in the number of visitors from Rhodesia, which is one of the main sources of tourists. That contrasts a little strangely with the statement made about the future. The report says that it is generally accepted that the number of international tourists will increase progressively in the years that lie ahead. The volume of world tourists in 1975 is estimated to be four times as large as in 1960. Now in this country, in the past 15 years, we certainly have not increased our tourism fourfold in regard to the figure which I believe really matters. Whether there was promotional work or not, I think there would have been a considerable increase in the number of tourists coming here from the neighbouring territories, and Satour is entitled to claim that they increased that tourism, but to what extent they did so is a matter of opinion. They certainly did good work in that direction. They have offices there to extol the attractions of South Africa. But the figure which is the test of whether tourism can grow in this country is the figure appertaining to overseas visitors from the rest of the world, and if you look at the figures, except for this last year, they have not been particularly encouraging. There is a graph in the back of the book which shows that the number of people who came in mainly from Great Britain and from the Continent of Europe and America, and a few from Asia and so on, was well over 30,000. In 1950 it just topped that figure; it goes down again in 1954 to about 25,000; then it rises again in 1957 to over 30,000 and then drops again to just under 30,000 and then tops that figure in the year 1962-3; so in the whole of the existence of Satour it has not been able to break away, except once or twice, from a figure of about 25,000 on an average. It is difficult to arrive at the exact figure because the figures are given in tens of thousands on the graph. In all these years we do not seem to have been able to break away from that figure, and in that respect we have not achieved as much as one would have hoped for when Satour was launched. I think it can be said that when Satour started there was one office. I think there are now eight, if you have to close the office in Nairobi in Kenya, which I understand is the position. The staff when Satour was launched numbered 13 and it now numbers approximately 54. The latest figure is not given in the last report. The funds expended have risen from R220,000 to R720,000. Sir. I think it is time for stocktaking. Are the methods being applied bringing the desired results? Is the expenditure of this money bringing the desired results? Is it sufficient? Is that what is wrong? Because the productions of Satour are excellent; they compare favourably with world standards. I think that is accepted on all sides. There is some excellent work being done. Where, then, are they missing out? They are putting out thousands of pamphlets, of literature, which is excellent, but they are not producing the tourists. In this last report it is estimated that there are half a million people who have the inclination and the means in Western Europe to come to this country. That is stated to be the number in their opinion, and we are apparently getting just that mere trickle and being pegged to a figure somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 persons. I think it is for the Minister to ask Satour to tell him what they think the reason for this is. There has been a little more activity in this body since the Minister was appointed. I do not know whether the mere fact of his appointment influenced them a little, but there is certainly much more detail in last year’s report than in previous years’ reports. They had a conference of all the branch managers or heads of branches in the various parts of the world and they came to the conclusion that there should be far greater expenditure on propaganda that is put out for travel purposes, and they also came to a second conclusion, which is the all-important one, and that is that there should be far greater improvements in the facilities which are available in this country for travel. The whole purpose of what I am saying is to show that we are putting the emphasis on trying to get travellers; we are succeeding to a certain extent—not as much as we would like—but at the same time we are not improving conditions sufficiently within the country to meet the situation should we get the people to come to this country. South Africa should be the playground of the world. It has every possible facility. It has every unique attraction, and I sometimes wonder whether we do not place too much emphasis on some of these attractions instead of telling the traveller that we have civilized conditions in this country, because I notice that a good deal of the literature put out emphasizes the natural attractions of game and Native life and that sort of thing but says very little about the standards of the hotels and about the facilities available here. Sir, when an American wants to come to this country he is interested in knowing what the attractions are, but the question that he puts to his travel agent is this, “Can I stay in a Hilton hotel?” I use the Hilton hotel just as an example. What he means is, “Can I get the type of accommodation to which I am accustomed; can I get a bed-bathroom; can I get my iced water at any time of the day and night when I want it?” And an Englishman who comes out here does the same; he says, “Can I get my bacon and eggs every morning for breakfast?” because that is not apparent from the information that we put out. I think we sometimes overstress the other side of the picture instead of telling tourists what sort of facilities they can expect here.

Sir, this side of the House does not object, except perhaps in one respect, to the terms of the Bill. I think it is a good thing that the Minister does make Satour a creature of his Department and that he assumes responsibility and that he will not be able, as some other Ministers do, to pass the buck when questions are asked about certain problems by saying, “This Board has nothing to do with me.” I think he is wise in assuming complete responsibility in the amendment which he is putting through. But I think he is unwise to move the amendment with regard to classification. There is a long history attached to this matter. When this Act was put on the Statute Book it was deliberately drawn in that way, that classification would only take place if the hotel industry as such applied for it, because this question of classification is the hot potato of the hotel industry. It cooled off a little recently when classification was accepted under the Liquor Act. You will remember, Sir, that there is a provision there that classification can be undertaken. There are extensive discussions taking place in regard to the standards and as to what sort of means and what sort of formula will be used to establish the classification. Then, as the Minister has rightly said, there was a hotel commission appointed. Why then give himself this enabling power in anticipation—a power which he may not want, on his own admission? He does not know whether he is going to need it. I can say this to him that he has caused a great deal of perturbation in the hotel industry as such through this simple move of his in trying to amend this section of the Act. These people say, “How many bodies are we going to be under?” It is inexplicable to them that this should be done, and you cannot blame them in view of past history. There is a long story attached to the history of trying to get something done for the hotels. Dr. Norval went into this matter in 1936 in his book, “The Significance, the Potentialities and the Finances of the Hotel Industry”. We had a hotel investigation committee in 1944; we had a Hotel Bill later and now we have this hotel investigation. In the meantime they are being pushed about from Department to Department. They are partly under the Department of Justice and partly under Tourism. They were under Railways and have now been transferred to Tourism. They are under Economic Affairs because that is the Department that appoints the commission, and the hotel people say, “For goodness sake, give us one charter under which we will deal with one Department and know where we are”. That has been the battle for years. I would in all seriousness therefore ask the Minister to drop this particular clause dealing with the classification of hotels and to wait until he gets the report from the hotel commission; to wait until he has had talks with the Department of Justice. I wonder whether he has had talks with the Department of Justice about this amendment because they are presently conducting long conferences with the hotel industry on this question of classification and its problems. They have been doing so during the whole of the past recess. There has been great activity, and one wants to avoid any form of overlapping; one wants to avoid creating an uneasy feeling in the minds of people whom he should carry with him by consulting them. It is true that in this case he consulted the Tourist Board but that is all. Did he consult the hotel people? They have had a difficult time. They labour under great difficulties. Certain recommendations have been followed from time to time, starting way back in 1936 with Dr. Norval’s book: since then there have been commissions and committees of investigation and practically nothing has been done for them to improve the position; to get tourist hotels established and to try to attract tourists from overseas because you have the standard of hotels ready to accommodate them in this country. This sort of action by the Minister has a simple explanation, but I can say to him that this action of his may cause lack of co-operation and misunderstanding which I do not believe he wants himself. I believe he wants to start on this job and try to get all the co-operation he possibly can.

Then there is another aspect that I want to touch upon in connection with the taking over of this Board. If I remember rightly special provision was made for excluding the Civil Service regulations as far as staff was concerned. It was felt that the staff to be recruited for this purpose should not have to conform to the ordinary Civil Service regulations. You had to go out into the open market to buy your artists and your promotional people, and those people who had to be competitive could not be hog-tied by these regulations. I hope there is no intention of doing away with that aspect of the operations of the Satour Board as such. I hope it is going to be left free to operate and to get the best services it possibly can in the open market, because when this Board was first brought into being it took a long wrangle to get this principle established, but it was done and it has proved of great advantage to the Board as such, and I do not think it should be disturbed in any way.

As I have said, this Bill meets with the approval of this side of the House. We would prefer to see that one clause in particular deleted. I do not think it means anything to the Minister at this stage and I hope he is not going to insist on retaining that clause. I believe that he may do more harm to his cause by retaining it than by letting it go at this stage. I would ask him therefore to consider this matter and to tell us in his reply what his views are. It is the desire of all of us that the tourist industry should flourish in this country to the benefit of the country. The Minister has now taken complete charge of this matter; he has just started, and we look to him for action. As I said earlier, what is wanted in dealing with this problem is not talk and recommendations from committees and commissions; what is wanted is action; what is wanted is somebody to cut the red tape, to get on with the job. Do it by consultation by all means, but everybody is crying out: “For goodness’ sake, get on with the job.” Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to get on with the job.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) in what he said. We all know that a Department has been established and that a Secretary for the Department has been appointed. The Department is giving particular attention to this question of tourism and it is of course obvious and quite apparent that the Department will have more powers than it had in the past. It is for this reason too that amendments are being effected in this Bill. I think that the amendments provided for in this measure will contribute towards the swifter development of tourist possibilities, the stimulation of tourism as such and also the development of tourist attractions. We know what the position is at the moment and what it was in the past—that the whole country was virtually undeveloped as far as tourism was concerned. Every town and city and even the small towns tried in their own way to obtain the funds—from the small amounts which municipalities were able to make available—to do something in connection with the development of tourist attractions. There was not only a lack of funds but also a lack of scientific information. There was a lack of expert planning and also a lack of guidance and knowledge.

Sir, the potential as far as tourist attractions were concerned, was scarcely noticed; these attractions were not used and still less exploited. When tourist attractions were discovered here and there in the vicinity of certain towns and when those attractions were made use of to some extent, the funds obtained therefrom were in many cases used to supplement municipal funds and were not ploughed back into development of those tourist attractions. These amendments will result in a very great improvement as far as these aspects are concerned. This development can now take place on a regional basis. The provinces will now be divided into a number of regions with a regional committee in various areas. This committee will be responsible for the investigation of every tourist attraction. Investigations can also be made to ascertain how those resources can be developed. This regional planning will also take place on a scientific basis. Scientific assistance and information can be better used. The full potential of tourist attractions can be discovered and can also be developed to the full. These undeveloped resources offer a challenge to scientific knowledge and talents to bring something positive and something constructive into being in a particular vicinity. This will accelerate the process of development of potential tourist attractions at various centres. Indeed, it is pleasing to note that the importance of tourism is realized by many local authorities and that there are signs everywhere that positive efforts are being made to expand the industry and to promote it. For example, the local authorities in the northern Transvaal convened a meeting at Nylstroom in October last year for the purpose of making a survey of the tourist attraction in the Northern Transvaal.

There are many, many undeveloped tourist attractions. The development of all available tourist attractions on a planned regional basis has to my mind the following definite advantages: In the first place, I see in this fact that tourists will be spread more evenly throughout the country because in virtually every region—even in the constituency of the hon. member sitting next to me, in Gordonia—there are wonderful tourist attractions. Furthermore, the flow of tourists can be diverted more swiftly. We know that once people have arrived at certain of our vacation resorts, they stay there; they do not move anywhere else because they are afraid that they will not be able to find accommodation elsewhere. Local and even foreign tourists will then be given a better overall picture of the country as a whole. The economic advantages in this regard are of course obvious. In this connection I want to say that the economic advantages to be derived from tourism will also be spread more evenly throughout the country. It is also obvious that many of the towns will derive financial benefit from this fact.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred here to hotels and the question of grading. As far as I know, individual hotels did in the past have the opportunity of asking to be graded, but as far as I know, no use was ever made of that opportunity to request a grading. As I understand the Bill, the hon. the Minister can now take the initiative and perhaps at a later stage instruct some or other body to make the grading of hotels possible in co-operation with the hotel trade. It is very often said that accommodation facilities for overseas’ tourists in South African hotels are found wanting, but one can say without fear of contradiction that the middle-class hotels in South Africa compare particularly favourably, also as far as their reasonable tariffs are concerned, with overseas hotels. But it is certainly also necessary that we should have in South Africa what we shall call hotels that maintain a high standard. In this connection I also read in the newspaper last year, amongst other things, that building projects would be started in Johannesburg to rectify this shortcoming. There are of course many advantages to be derived from having hotels maintaining a high standard in South Africa in various parts of the country. There is the advantage that high grade hotels overseas can contact South African hotels of a high standard here and encourage tourism in this way. It is quite true that efforts to attract more tourists to the country are frustrated because there is not always adequate accommodation for the tourists. In this connection I just want to give the following statistics. These statistics show that the number of hotels only increased by 25 per cent and as far as beds in hotels were concerned, by 65 per cent although the number of tourists to this country during the period 1947 to 1962 trebled. Many complaints are also often made about country hotels along our national roads and the fact that they do not have adequate facilities available. But we can also say in this connection that there are platteland hotels which give very good service indeed. We all know that those hotels do not compare unfavourably with other middle-class hotels elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, it may also be a good thing for us to think in the direction of more motels. I am sure that there is ample scope for the building of more motels along our national roads. We know that during peak times, during holiday times, it is virtually impossible to obtain accommodation at hotels along our national roads.

In my opinion tourism as an industry will be given a tremendous impetus by means of this amending Bill. That is obvious. We also know that tourism is a very important industry. In many countries of Europe it is their most important industry. But we only think on many occasions in terms of the foreign visitor and the foreign tourist. I think that it is necessary for us to encourage our local tourism too to a large extent. Amongst other things I read a report in connection with tourism in the Americas and in the United States of America itself. We all know that the people of the United States do a great deal of overseas travelling. In 1961 a campaign was launched in the United States called “travel at home” and the result of that campaign was that far fewer Americans travelled overseas during the next year. I think that this is something which we here in South Africa should continually encourage. We know that people like to say that they have travelled overseas but in many cases these people do not know of the many wonderful things to be seen in our own beautiful country. It is very necessary that our aim should be to encourage tourism locally. It is also often said that this does not bring foreign currency into the country but on the other hand our own currency is kept in this country when people are encouraged to travel locally and to get to know their own country before they travel overseas.

Mr. Speaker, in order to supplement the present stream of tourists from overseas, the encouragement of a dynamic local tourist industry must be positively encouraged. As far as the promotion of local tourism is concerned, it is an unfortunate fact that a large number of people in the Republic are to some extent ignorant in regard to the beauty of our own country and they do not always know of the facilities that are available. This state of affairs certainly has a hampering effect upon our tourism locally.

I want to conclude. We know that tourists and the tourist industry can be of very great economic advantage to us. We know that in a country like the United States of America far more money is spent on tourism or visits by their own inhabitants who travel overseas and do business there than is spent in the country by people travelling in America. I have statistics here to show that more than 8,000,000 Americans spent an amount of $2,868,000,000 in 1962 on travelling abroad—privately and on business—while an amount of only $1,003,000,000 was spent by tourists in the United States itself. The other advantage that I see in the expansion of the tourist industry, besides the economic advantage, is that tourists who visit our country are able to see for themselves what conditions are like here and they take their impressions back with them overseas. It is to our advantage that these people should have personal experience of conditions in our country and that they should not simply read about what is happening in this country and about all there is to see in our country. The tourist industry is of course an industry which can still be greatly improved. In 1962-3 we had only 200,000 tourists to this country who spent R64,000,000. But we see, therefore, that there are great opportunities for development in this regard. As I have said, another advantage that I see in the development of tourism is that tourists themselves will be able to see for themselves the conditions in South Africa. That is why I also want to say that each one of us who comes into contact with those tourists—and every hon. member in this House has already had the opportunity of making contact with tourists—can act as an ambassador for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on these amendments and the fact that the hon. the Minister has proved to us that his Department will undertake this task with enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not avail himself of the opportunity of this debate to give us a broader picture of what he envisaged the functions of this new Department of Tourism would be. You will recall, Sir, that towards the end of last session the Minister was asked whether he could give us some indication as to what the functions of this new Department would be. If I remember correctly he said at that time that he could not; that the Ministry has just been appointed and that there was not yet a line of direction. It is now clear from this Bill that the Minister can, in his discretion, assume the functions of the Tourist Corporation as laid down in Section 9 of the original Act. In other words, the Minister’s Department is going to fulfil all these functions, at the Minister’s discretion, laid down in this section, such as the establishment of committees, maintaining offices in the Republic and elsewhere, engaging in the systematic compilation of data, advertising, producing and distributing propaganda material and so on and so forth. As the Minister may take over these functions at his discretion, I should like to know, and I am sure the House would like to know, what exactly will be the functions of the Tourist Corporation in the promotion of tourism. What is the Minister going to take for himself and his Department and what is he going to leave to the Tourist Corporation?

You see, Sir, the point is important from this aspect: In terms of the Act which is being amended there is an obligation on the Board of the Tourist Corporation to submit a report to the Minister and to this House. Where we do get a report to-day on the promotion of tourism as an industry from this independent autonomous board we shall in future have the situation that the report which the board is compelled to submit will be a report only in-so far as the functions assigned to it by the Minister are concerned. In other words, the board will become nothing more than an advisory board to advise the Minister unless the Minister allows it to carry out certain functions which the Minister may delegate to it. I do not think that, in terms of sub-clause (a) and the new Clause 2, there can be any doubt as to what I have just stated. The wording is perfectly clear that the board will only be able to carry out its functions to achieve the objects for which it is established subject to such exceptions and restrictions as may be imposed by the Minister. In other words, the board has no discretionary rights whatsoever to carry out any of the functions of the promotion of tourism as an industry unless those functions are assigned to the board by the Minister.

We now have the first indication as to how this Department of Tourism will function. I say it is to be regretted that in his introductory speech the hon. the Minister did not take the opportunity of being more specific in regard to the functions he was going to take for himself and what functions he was going to leave to the board to carry out. I wonder whether the Minister is to-day in a position to give us that information. He did tell us that before he introduced this Bill he did have full consultations with the Board of the Tourist Corporation. Would I be correct if I assumed that that consultation covered the field of what the responsibilities of the Minister’s Department would be and what responsibility would be left to the Tourist Corporation itself, as an independent body? I hope when the Minister replies he will give us a clear indication of the lines along which he is thinking in this regard.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) has pointed out the difference in the figures of the number of tourists who come to our country, the difference between the number of visitors who come from overseas and the number of visitors from territories within the African Continent. If you make a careful analysis of the figures given in the latest report of the Tourist Corporation you will find that 50 per cent of the entire population of Rhodesia entered the Republic on holiday. I query that, Sir; I do not think it is so. If you relate the percentage of the total of 202,000-odd visitors reflected in this report with the 36,000-odd visitors from overseas—and I emphasize the word “visitors”—then you will find that only 18 per cent of the entire number of visitors to this country last year came from overseas countries, from the Americas, Canada and the European countries. As my hon. friend from Von Brandis has pointed out that figure has remained static over the last ten years; there has been no improvement. I think, therefore, that one must ask yourself the very pertinent question: What is the reason? We know there has been a decline in the number of visitors from the African territories. I do not think there is any question about that whatsoever. In fact, the report makes that clear. But I think the figures as given in this report are misleading because they also give a graph here indicating the number of visitors who came purely on holiday. When you look at that you will find that those visitors constitute a very small percentage. The others came for business reasons. I think the percentage of people who came here purely for holiday purposes as reflected in this report is even much smaller than the 18 per cent I have quoted. I do not think the bona fide tourists, as indicated by this graph, can represent even 10 per cent of the total number of people who landed at our airports or ports.

The question one has to ask yourself is why? The position has remained static over a period and even then that percentage is a small one. We want tourists from beyond our borders; but the most profitable tourist is the one who comes from overseas. Those are the tourists who spend large sums of money. We ask ourselves the other question; What percentage of the world’s tourist industry does South Africa get? I have figures here which I do not want to quote, but I would say it is but a minute percentage. It will be less than ½ per cent of the world’s total tourist traffic. We must ask ourselves why because we are all eager in this House to get a greater volume of the world’s tourist traffic. We want tourists to come here.

There is very interesting information in this report. They give here the number of inquiries that were handled by the overseas offices of the South African Tourist Corporation. To my mind the figures are very unsatisfactory. They apparently get a large number of inquiries. Let me indicate to the House what the position is at the moment. Of the number of inquiries received by the American offices which totalled some 24,250 in 1963 less than 15 per cent resulted in business, because if you relate the number of visitors who came from the Americas to the number of inquiries made in America you will find that it represents 15 per cent. Is there anything wrong in the promotional material that is used? I think the approach is wrong, Sir. I have looked at some of the material produced by the Tourist Corporation. We are creating an image of a dusky maiden with a lovely hair-do sitting next to a hut in a kraal, but we never create the image of bikini-clad maidens at Clifton, the Riviera of South Africa, a Riviera which is better than the French Riviera. That is what the tourists want, Sir. They do not want to look at dusky maidens on their holiday all the time. They do not want to come here and “braaivleis” all the time. They would like that to be part of their holiday but they would also like to sit in a first-class restaurant and dine and dance or sit on Clifton beach admiring the sunset. The extraordinary fact is that there is something else that the Tourist Corporation never propagates. I took the trouble to find out, so I know. It will surprise the hon. the Minister to know that, including air fare and including residence at some flat or some hotel along the Clifton beach, it will be cheaper to spend a six weeks’ holiday than to spend a six weeks’ holiday on the Riviera of Europe, either the Italian or the French Riviera. That includes air fare, which is the remarkable fact but has the Tourist Corporation ever propagated that fact? You can fly out from wintry Europe to sunny South Africa in a matter of 12 hours. Go and look at the offices of the Tourist Corporation and you will not see that advertised. Instead you see a Protea or a zebra head and you will see a little hut with a dusky maiden sitting outside. We do not show the tourist, or the intending tourist, what we can offer him in the way of amenities at cheaper rates than in other countries.

If you tell them you are a South African they won’t come to South Africa.

You know, Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) made a tour overseas and I do not think he was a great attraction to induce people to visit South Africa.

I have given the figures in regard to the number of inquiries received in the American offices. When a potential visitor goes to an office of the Tourist Corporation, say in Los Angeles or in New York, then it is the job of that office to convince that potential tourist, by means of pamphlets, posters, booklets or what have you, that South Africa can offer him greater enjoyment than other countries. If only 15 per cent of the inquiries resulted in business, I can only say that it is a very low percentage indeed. There must be something wrong, probably in the promotional tactics adopted by the Tourist Corporation. My pertinent question to the hon. the Minister is this: Is he going to leave this function of producing promotional material to the Tourist Corporation or is he or any other official of his Department going to have any say in that? As I have pointed out he has given us no indication of where he sees his functions to end and where he sees those of the Tourist Corporation to begin. I hope, when the hon. the Minister replies, he will give us some clarification in that regard.

I want to turn to the aspect of hotel classification and I want to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Von Brandis to the Minister that he should not proceed with this. What surprises me, Sir, is that the Minister has apparently made up his mind irrespective of the fact that there is a hotel commission sitting which is going into the hotel situation. I want to know from the Minister whether he has consulted any of the organized hotel bodies? I should like the Minister to tell the House. Why did the Minister not tell this House that he has in fact had representations from organized bodies representing the hotel industry not to proceed with this measure and not to proceed with the inclusion of this clause? I want to read a copy of a letter written to the hon. the Minister on 21 February. I want to do so for the reason that the Minister has not done so. I think it is necessary, in respect of such an important industry as the hotel industry where vital interests are concerned, that the Minister should take into consideration the feelings of the representative bodies of that industry. If the Minister wants to succeed in boosting the tourist industry, of which the hotel industry is an important part, he must have the cooperation of that industry and not appear to be merely a dictator as it would appear from his decision to include this amendment in the Bill. The National Federation of Hotel Associations of South Africa make it quite clear that they are opposed to it. They do not represent the licensed hotel establishments. They represent the unlicensed hotel establishments. I understand that the licensed bodies also have very strong objection to the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he has consulted them in any way. It would appear not because this body makes it clear to the Minister in the following terms—

I do not want to read the whole letter, Sir. But I just want to read this paragraph—

They go on to say this—

I appeal to the hon. the Minister for two reasons to heed the appeal made by the hon. member for Von Brandis not to proceed with this amendment. Obviously, in view of the fact that organized hotel bodies are giving evidence before the hotel commission, the Minister should wait patiently, on the basis of getting the co-operation of the organized hotel industry, before he proceeds with this measure. Then there is the other aspect. If the Minister expects the Tourist Corporation and his Department adequately to fulfil their functions it seems to me inevitable, in order to attract the more sophisticated tourist from overseas, that the Minister’s Department in one way or another—as is done by tourist departments in other countries—will have to make recommendations in regard to certain hotel establishments on an inquiry at a tourist office. If you do not, that is a shortcoming and will not convince the potential tourist to come to this country. The Department of Tourism must be placed in the position to be able to make, upon inquiry, adequate recommendations according to the purse and the budget of the potential tourist. It is clear that some form of classification may be necessary. But what we do not know, Sir, because no report of the Tourist Corporation has ever given any indication, is whether in the case of any inquires made in the past to the Tourist Corporation, the corporation has been able to make any recommendation to any potential tourist through any one of its oversea offices. I think that is an essential necessity. I do not think the overseas offices of the South African Tourist Corporation will be able to sell the idea of touring in South Africa without being able to make such recommendations. There is therefore a need for classification of hotels. But the classification should not take place on a discriminatory basis; the classification must be made on a fair basis. As the Bill reads at the moment it would appear that the Minister is taking unto himself the arbitrary right to make his own recommendations without due consideration of the position of the hotel industry. It may well be that the hotel commission will recommend that an independent body be established to arrive at some form of grading and classification of various classes of hotel establishments to suit the needs of the industry itself.

One other facet to the matter that we must bear in mind is that the acceptance of classification by various hotels under some other system which may be agreed upon by the hotel industry will also have the additional effect of raising the level and the type of hotel establishment in South Africa. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I ask the Minister at this stage, until the matter has been fully investigated, to hold this amendment over and not, in fact, prejudge the issue of classification before the hotel commission has reported.

We support this measure, Sir, and I hope, when the Minister replies, he will give us fuller information in regard to his intentions as far as the Department of Tourism is concerned.

We are grateful for the support given to this Bill by the House, including hon. members of the Opposition. This Bill is the result of the step taken by the Government to set up a Department of Tourism. A necessary result of this step is the fact that the hon. the Minister is now being given powers which in the past were given to an autonomous body, like the corporation; otherwise the Department would in reality have no powers at all. I think that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is a little unfair in saying that the hon. the Minister now seeks to deprive the Tourist Corporation of all its powers and that that body will now simply become an advisory body. On the contrary, this Bill makes provision whereby the hon. the Minister will be able not only to make use of the Tourist Corporation but also of the Provincial Administrations; in other words, he will be able to encourage these bodies to co-operate with the Department in order to achieve the Department’s aim. The hon. member also said that if we look at the statistics of people who come here from abroad, we will notice that the percentage of people who come here on holiday is very small.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I move—

1. (1) what has been achieved by the Government in respect of welfare services, particularly for the poorer sections of the population;
2. (2) the sympathetic and positive policy of the Government, particularly with regard to—
   1. (a) war and war veterans’ pensions;
   2. (b) civil pensions;
   3. (c) the general care of the aged;
   4. (d) preventive and maintenance services in respect of the family and the child;
   5. (e) co-operation with and the subsidization of private welfare organizations; and
3. (3) the efficient way in which the Government plans, organizes and administers its welfare services,
   • and requests the Government to build on these sound, established foundations, while constantly taking into account scientific developments in the welfare field.

This motion is an expression of thanks to the Government for what it has achieved in respect of welfare services, particularly for the less-privileged sections of our peoples. I think that it is fitting to have a motion of this nature before the House because we run the risk of becoming accustomed to this great and important work that is being done by the Department, work which from the nature of things is not sensational and therefore does not always catch the eye of the general public. It is not spectacular and sensational enough to attract the attention of the public. Nevertheless we must emphasize the fact that it is unthinkable that any civilized nation or society should be without welfare services. I contend that the standard of a nation’s education and inner civilization is reflected in and can be gauged by the standard of its welfare services. In expressing our appreciation to the Government we also want to express our appreciation at the same time—and I know I am speaking on behalf of all who have anything to do with welfare services—to those who on behalf of the Government are instrumental in making these services available. I think here of the hon. the Minister. I think he is well known in this country as a person with a warm heart for those in need. I think that I am speaking on behalf of all of us in expressing my appreciation to him. We also want to express our appreciation to the Secretary of the Department because we know that he always treats us with the greatest courtesy and gives us every assistance when we approach him in regard to welfare matters. The same thing holds good for all the officials under him. We can testify to the fact that there is a very fine spirit in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for which we have only the highest praise and appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, the appreciation that we express in this motion is linked up with a specific subject—welfare services and what the Government has achieved by this means, particularly in respect of the less-privileged sections of our people. We are grateful that at a time like the present, when South Africa is planning very important projects that have to be proceeded with, projects requiring vast sums of money, we can discuss this matter and emphasize it in order to make the country understand that in spite of those important projects that are being tackled, we can certainly say that welfare services are not suffering or being detrimentally affected in any way because of this progress.

When we speak of welfare services, we think in the first place of the tremendous field that is covered by these services and the scope of these services. Although less-privileged people are found amongst every section of our people, amongst all the races making up the population of South Africa, we want to confine ourselves here chiefly to the welfare services that are provided for the Whites. Because my time is limited—I shall also deal with the other services—I want to emphasize the welfare services provided for the Whites and in addition to say that the same signs of development and increasingly more efficient services are also to be found in the case of the non-Whites, the Coloureds with their own Department, the Bantu and the Indians. But when we discuss the scope of these welfare services as far as the Whites are concerned, I must say that it is very difficult to determine the actual scope of those services. That the services are comprehensive is evident from various facts. When for example we look at the latest annual report at our disposal and we see that amongst other things about 263,000 pay slips are issued each month, or we note that the number of people who derive benefit from war veterans’ pensions, old-age pensions, blind pensions, disability pensions, maintenance allowances, family allowances—excluding civil pensioners—totals 122,428, we gain some impression of the tremendous scope of these services. But when we also examine the Estimates which are approved of by this House, we find tremendous sums of money allocated to this Department. Last year this sum was in the vicinity of R80,000,000. Having regard to all the figures that I have mentioned, we can say that we are dealing with a fairly large group when we speak about less-privileged people.

When we take the various welfare services that are provided for our less-privileged people and we look at the composition of this group of people to whom we refer as “less-privileged people”, we find that these people fall into various categories; a large number of them are pensioners who fall below a specific income level and they are therefore fairly indigent people; there are other people whose particular living conditions make it necessary for them to be given maintenance allowances and to be assisted in various ways; furthermore, there are those who we know risked their lives and everything they had in the past on the battle fields to safeguard the safety of the country; there are the aged who have to be provided for; there are families which are on the point of breaking up for material or other reasons; children who have to be looked after because they have been left uncared for. We also have those unfortunates who are maladjusted individuals and who have to be cared for and rehabilitated so that they will once again be a credit to themselves and to society. There are also a large variety of needs which the Department does not provide but which are provided by the various welfare organizations, and here I may mention that we have between 2,000 and 3,000 of these welfare organizations to-day which the Department must consider, select and supervise, organizations that are of assistance to the Department in supplying the needs of people who cannot afford to supply these needs themselves. We can say therefore that we are dealing with a very vast and extensive field. When we look at this great field that must be covered, we realize that services must be performed and means of care made available in order to provide the necessary welfare services.

I want therefore to give the House some idea of certain of our important services. Sufficient has already been said this Session in regard to what is being done through the medium of pensions. A great deal has already been said about social pensions and so I shall not discuss this matter at all. But we can also say that all the other various categories of pensioners experience what is experienced by social pensioners—that the Government continues to keep a watchful eye upon the pensioners of our country; that it looks after their interests; that it always goes to work with two important facts in mind. The first is to see to what extent the cost of living has increased and to what extent the purchasing power of money has decreased and then to try and rectify these circumstances by increased contributions, but secondly, always with the idea that it will be within the ability of the State to pay those contributions and that the financial carrying capacity of the country must be taken into consideration. When, for example, we think of war veterans’ pensions, we find that in 1946 the maximum basic pension paid to a war veteran amounted to R208. No additional sums were paid. This pension was improved from time to time until 1 April 1963 when the basic pension of a war veteran amounted to R400 and when a bonus of R180 was payable, making a total of R580. There has been an increase of 170 per cent since 1946. Of course, we must also take into consideration the fact that the purchasing power of money fell considerably during that time. The only way in which we can gauge the fall in the purchasing power of money is by means of the cost of living index which in 1946 stood at 139.7 and which in 1963 stood at 235, an increase therefore of 68.2 per cent. That is why we can say that because of the concessions that have been made and because of the relaxation of the means test, the war veterans and indeed every other pensioner are far better off now, even though the purchasing power of money has fallen. They are better off now than they were prior to 1948.

But we must remember that every concession—and pensioners will of course realize it—immediately results in the fact that a very large additional sum of money has to be found. Some while ago, when it was decided to increase the pensions payable to war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War, it was estimated that this increase would cost about R100,000. But after this had been decided upon, it was found that that estimate had to be revised to cover a very large amount because it was discovered that the increase would not cost R100,000 but R2,028,000. That is why we realize that no matter how much we would like to increase pensions—we all realize that civil pensioners and others find it difficult to make ends meet and we would like to assist them further—we must always remember that when concessions are made very large sums of money are immediately required. We believe that this Government will not hesitate when it is at all possible to do so to keep a watchful eye on the position of pensioners and to improve that position if at all possible.

But when we speak about welfare services we must not always think only in terms of pensions. This is only one aspect of the work of this Department. We have to think far more widely when we talk about welfare services. There are, for example, the services that are provided for our aged. It is the privilege of every country to care for its old people properly and to ensure that they receive what they need in their old age. They are the people who in their youth were citizens of the country and who rendered great services to the country. We find that in 1948 there were 25 subsidized homes for old people of all races while in 1963 there were 113 old-age homes accommodating 4,753 sub-economic and 499 economic inmates. That is why we can say that the Government has again proved in this connection that by means of the welfare services that it provides it is serving the less-privileged section of our people. There is also the further important service of family care. The Department has the welfare of families and the promotion of a sound family life at heart. We can prove this in many ways but particularly in the shape of the welfare organizations that assist the Government to render these services. Their services are subsidized on a large scale. I have had the privilege of perusing the reports of Christian social bodies, and it is remarkable to note the efforts that are being made by these organizations to rehabilitate families that are in danger of being broken up, and to maintain family life. By means of the payment of maintenance allowances to needy families when the parents are not always able to provide their children with what the children need, the Department is also assisting in various ways to see that these maintenance allowances are paid in cases where that assistance is required. The maintenance allowance is R34 per annum for a primary school child and R48 per annum for a high school child. In 1947-8 these services cost R569,000 annually and in 1961-2 this figure had risen to about R3,000,000. So we see that allowances are paid to assist us in caring for these children. This brings me to the question of child care. In this regard I want to refer to the Children’s Act of 1960 which is an important milestone in our legislation in respect of the protection and the care of children. If we page through that Act, we find that the Act makes provision whereby action can be taken in many ways. For example, a child can be sent to a home if the parent is no longer able or fit to look after that child properly. The Act makes provision for observation centres where a diagnosis can be made by a team of experts—a doctor, a psychiatrist, a psychologist and a professional welfare officer—of a particular case that is in need of rehabilitation. There are attendance centres to which children in need of care over the age of 14 years, children who do not conduct themselves properly, can be sent for a few hours each week in order to be disciplined, trained and rehabilitated. In 1949 there were 70 certified children’s homes and in 1962 this number had risen to 124. These homes accommodate more than 5,000 boys and girls.

Then there are the specialized services that are made available by the Department, specialized professional services for maladjusted people and those requiring specialized attention. This was actually the original purpose of the Department of Social Welfare. Its functions were defined by a sub-committee of the Cabinet and they were expressed in this way (translation)—

Originally, almost all the emphasis was placed on that one aspect but now welfare services have been given a far wider meaning and a far more comprehensive meaning. As far as professional treatment is concerned, there are departmental institutions, settlements for indigent people, physically incapacitated persons and for the aged such as those, for example, at Ganspan, Sonop and Karatra. There are various retreats to which people can be sent and a number of hon. members of this House can testify to having had the privilege of visiting one of those retreats—the retreat at Magaliespoort—and seeing the wonderful work that is being done there in the treatment of these people. They are not isolated from society but their treatment is aimed at enabling them eventually to fill a valuable place in society. After we had seen the services rendered there, I think that every member of that group who had the privilege of visiting that retreat was impressed by the wonderful standard maintained and the methods used there. As I have already said, there is a very wide field that must be covered by welfare services in this respect, by voluntary organizations, and it must be said to the great credit of the Department that it has never tried to suppress these voluntary welfare organizations and to eliminate them in order by so doing to try and do all the work itself. On the contrary, it has always considered them to be partners in this important work. That is why welfare organizations can progress and be resourceful; they can test new methods and always rely upon the support and sympathetic guidance which this Department will give them. I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister who has had the privilege of seeing what is being done overseas in regard to welfare services and the co-ordination of welfare services will tell us in his reply whether the standard that he noticed overseas is higher than the standard in this country or whether we are in any way inferior to the overseas countries as far as efficiency and the co-ordination of services is concerned.

I also want to refer to the scientific methods used in the provision of welfare services. I have discussed the various services themselves but we must realize that these services can also be performed in the wrong way—that incorrect methods can be followed. But when we analyse these services we say that South Africa can be proud of the fact that our services are headed by experts. The Department has taken the lead in this respect. Where in 1936 the Department had only 26 probation officers, who were mostly people with legal training, it has 182 professional posts to-day, almost all of which are filled, and the people occupying those posts have a thorough background of and are fully trained in social sciences. Besides this, they have also received a thorough training in the service so that, as experts, they can correctly interpret the policy and the views of the Department and can utilize their expert knowledge in the correct way. These experts are employed in the institutions controlled by this Department, treat patients individually, do research in regard to their field services and play an important part in the reconstruction services, the group work and therapeutic and diagnostic work which we were able to observe at Magaliespoort. I also want to emphasize particularly the great work that is being done through the medium of after-care services that are provided by this Department. It does not help to do welfare work or rehabilitation work amongst people and then to leave those people to the mercy of the elements because we do not have welfare workers who can do the after-care work, who can follow up that work of rehabilitation and can ensure that the people who have been receiving treatment find their feet again in life. Aftercare is a great service rendered by this Department. I know, for example, as far as children’s institutions are concerned, that there was a time when those institutions tried to render those after-care services themselves. But they were not able to cover the field properly and could not afford to pay welfare workers to do this work until the Department took this work upon itself by making its machinery available to assist in supervising the young people leaving these institutions and having to make their own way in the world.

There is also the question of the research and planning that is being done by the Department. We think of undertakings in regard to which important reports have been issued; we think of the research and investigation that is initiated by the Department—I am referring to the outstanding report of the Piek Commission, to the Brummer Commission’s report in respect of the treatment of alcoholics; we consider the more efficient methods of treatment which the Department is continually discovering and we think of information pamphlets like the pamphlet “Research and Information” which was started during the last two years. We think of study tours, like the important tour of the hon. the Minister who was accompanied by experts in this field, tours that are undertaken to discover how our standard can be improved and to discover what we can learn from what is being done abroad. We hope that we shall be able to enjoy the fruits of the knowledge that they have gained.

I want to conclude by referring to the efficient organization of services. We have said that we originally had our probation officers but we have noticed how this field has gradually been taken over by experts. The Department has decentralized its work and we now have eight regions, regional offices, which control the work in those particular regions so that the whole country can be covered by the services of officials who are available everywhere. This is a very important step forward.

We hope that our welfare policy will not reach the stage where it will stagnate and begin to deteriorate but that it will continue to go from strength to strength. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible, as far as the future expansion and improvement of our welfare policy is concerned, to make more use of the National Welfare Council whose function it also is to advise the Minister. There are experts on that council who will be able to assist him and advise him in regard to improving our welfare policy so that its efficiency and scope can also be increased.

I want to conclude by saying that when we look to the future and ask ourselves whether there is a future for our welfare work and our welfare policy, for these important welfare services, we must actually ask whether the Government will to an increasing extent realize its duty in respect of the less-privileged and socially maladjusted people in our midst. We must ask whether the Government will recognize, appreciate and praise the idea of charity as being the driving force to an increasing extent in this regard and whether it will reveal a growing realization of the possibilities that will be apparent in those less-privileged people and in persons who are maladjusted once they are rehabilitated and finally, whether it will have an increasing insight into the best methods by means of which this purpose can be achieved. Because we have no doubt that these questions will be answered in the affirmative when we look at the record of this Government in the sphere of social welfare, we say that it is fitting for us to express our appreciation to the Government as provided for in this motion.

The astounding eulogy from the hon. member makes me feel somewhat as if I were attending the Bunga or something of that nature where the praise-singer holds forth. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contradict his general attitude towards the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It is a Department which acts kindly, sympathetically towards those who come to it. But unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s suggestion that the Government as a whole should be praised for its welfare services. The Department does what it can, and does it well, with the miserly sums at its disposal. They cannot get blood out of a stone. The hon. Minister of Finance was most emphatic that this was not a welfare state. He laid it down firmly and definitely, and the hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions does what he can with the funds which are given grudgingly and sparingly by the Treasury. And for the hon. member to have spoken as he has as if there were no needy, nobody needing help, no sick, no injured, no blind, no old, no lame who were not fully cared for, no war veterans who are not completely and happily cared for, Sir, is quite ludicrous. I wish he could see some of the letters that we on this side of the House receive. He must live in a dream world; the picture that he paints is that of an old couple sitting in front of a sunny porch, covered with pink rambler roses, happily passing their days, interested only occasionally by the visit of a loving child to see that they are perfectly well. But that is not what happens, Sir. That is not what happens to the bulk of the old people here. As I have said, the Department does what it can with what it has, but it has so little, and the Minister of Finance made it perfectly clear that he has not the slightest intention of giving any more if he can possibly avoid it. I do not feel that we in this country really care for our old and sick, etc., in the manner that we should, and I therefore move the following amendment—

I shall confine my remarks to the life of the people when they reach the age when they can no longer work, that is the provision for the day when they, so to speak, retire. Frankly I feel sorry for the Government over this aspect of welfare work. They have been badly caught on the wrong foot. The increasing age of people has crept on them when they were not looking, and the proportion of people now living beyond the so-called retiring age has almost doubled in the last 25 years. Where the Government can be blamed is that they have failed to appreciate and still more have failed to make any endeavour whatever to cope with the problem in an intelligent and constructive way. It is a growing problem, a problem which will never disappear because more and more people will grow old and will live to older and older ages. To-day there are not a terribly large number of people who live well beyond the age of 70, but nevertheless people of 70 are comparatively usual. The age of 80 is remarkable and 90 exceptional, and 100 is a miracle. Children now born will see the time when people of 100 years of age will be like the seventies of to-day, and the ages of the exceptional cases will go to 110 years and 120. The problem is to keep them well and able to work, and this is where the Government has fallen down. It has fallen down in its provision for the aged and it has fallen down still more in the constructive efforts that should be made to keep the aged self-supporting.

As regards the question of pensions, there are basically two methods of approach. One is to look after the aged through the ordinary revenue of the country, i.e. from taxation, and this is always done most grudgingly. In the pool of money that the State possesses, the ugly duckling is always social welfare and pensions. It is always voiceless, but it will not remain voiceless unless something is done soon. But in any case those taxpayers and voters who grumble are not likely to live much longer and their votes will disappear before the next election. Therefore they have to look to the Opposition to do the best it can for them.

The second method is to have a universal tax as is provided in the welfare state. This, I think, is unsatisfactory because it provides for everybody, and many are provided for when they have already provided for themselves. Lastly, there could be a special tax earmarked for pensions, so that the public, when they pay that tax, know what it is going to be used for, and if the tax goes up they know it is going entirely for pensions. That is the scheme applied in New Zealand. But on this side of the House we believe in a contributory pension scheme. We believe that the worker must provide for the day when he can no longer work, and we believe that the Government should make every effort to help people to do this. Industry must be prepared to pay its employees a wage which lasts them from the day they start work to the day they go to their graves. This division of life into the pre-working age, the working age and the post-working age is a stupid and unkind system. One cannot expect the employer to pay for the person before he works for him, but we do expect, and the Government should enforce it, that industry and employers generally shall provide for the retirement of their old workers. A man who works for years is entitled in the evening of his years, when he can no longer work, to be cared for, not by charity but by the deferred wages which he earned during his life. The working man is entitled to be protected in his working life from ill-health and accident, and when he is past work he should have accumulated sufficient to provide for the days of his enforced leisure, and that money must be provided by the industry in which he worked in the form of deferred wages, and not in the form of a charitable pension. In order to accumulate these funds there should be deductions from wages, contributions from the employer, and relaxation of income tax and company tax for the employer. And if the man is unemployed the Unemployment Insurance Fund should pay his contribution for him to provide sufficient to carry him and his dependants through to a comfortable old age. The employer should be allowed to treat his contributions as part of his working expenses. The only part of a man’s life which must be provided for by someone else will be from infancy to the age when he starts work, and this should be provided for by the wages earned by his parents, as he should again provide for his children. It must come out of the wages he earns. This plan will produce that independent, free nation which the Minister of Finance spoke about. But he was not prepared to pay for it.

I hope I have now shown him a way in which he can pay for it indirectly. But before this can be done, the Government must be educated to appreciate that a man wishes in his older years to feel that he owes nothing to anybody and does not have to go cap in hand to an official for charity. The Government must appreciate that it is for them to initiate a system which will provide for the individual throughout his whole life. To do this they must educate the public and educate industry and commerce and themselves. They must change their own outlook and they must change the age structure of employment. We need a change of attitude towards retirement. The public must not regard retirement as a means of pushing people aside, nor must the Government, There should be no nominal age of retirement. The nominal age of retirement is an anachronism. To count a man’s birthdays and then tell him that he can work no longer is ludicrous. The Government which carries out that policy should consult its own Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The only age which should be spoken of is the minimum permissible pensionable age, the age at which a man will be permitted to retire under certain conditions. Before that he may not retire except through ill-health, disablement, etc., and no man should be permitted to retire when he is well and able to work and then expect to be supported by the State or by a pension fund. The traditional habit of thought that at a certain age a person may or will retire, or will be forced to retire, should be replaced by the thought of the minimum permissible age of retirement, and “permissible” should be interpreted literally, and every effort should be made to make the continuance of work attractive. It should be attractive to the man to continue working. The Government and the employer must make it attractive for him, and the Government must educate the employer to have that feeling. The Government should also investigate—which it has not done and is not doing and shows no evidence of doing—the means to keep a man as gainfully employed as possible or for as long as possible. There should be benefits accruing to the man who carries on working. His pension should be increased if he works, and any benefits earned from that should be passed on to his dependants. A man should be made to feel that if he works for more years, his widow-will get a better pension than the usual miserly pittance which is left for her. The man is receiving something he has earned; it is his own; he has contributed to it and he has worked for it. It is not charity. The Government should look into that question, that if a man cannot do a full day’s work, can he not do lighter work, and can he not be provided with lighter work? It is unlikely that the employer himself will search for this. It is unlikely that the foreman of the shop will be pleased to have someone in his team who is not doing a full, heavy day’s work, or who only works a half-day. It is all to the good. It is good for the man and for the State, and it will be good for the employer if he appreciates how much it will improve the relations between himself and his employees when they appreciate that he has their interests at heart and that he is trying to keep them working and happy. The Government should protect—(something it has not done, in spite of the remarks of the previous speaker)—the deferred wages, the pension, of the working man from inflation. When a man in his youth and middle age saves money, it has a certain value and a certain buying power, but when he collects his pension, is it the same, or has it depreciated in value? I have up to now not suggested that the Government should contribute in any way to the working man’s pension. I do not think the Government should contribute to his pension. He is earning his pension; it is his, but when he saves it it has a certain purchasing value.

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

Afternoon Sitting

I have dealt with the question of inflation, and I want to deal with the question of the cost of living about which the mover of this motion made great play. Unfortunately I feel that he does not appreciate fully what the cost of living means to a pensioner. The ordinary cost of living as calculated by the Department of Statistics has very little relationship to the life of the pensioner. In the ordinary way the cost of living is cluttered up by the cost of clothing, furniture, etc., but few pensioners, if any, buy wireless sets or clothing or furniture. Their cost of living is based almost entirely on rent, fuel and food. They cannot afford to buy luxury items, and the Government should institute a special investigation into the cost of living of the pensioner to appreciate to what extent the cost of living, just like inflation, affects his life. This is a point which has really never been given the attention it deserves. I have mentioned many things that the Government could do to help. In the time at my disposal I want to mention a few more. The important thing about keeping a man at work is that while he is working he is an asset, but when he no longer works he becomes a liability. A country lives on the work of its people. The only thing that the pensioner can purchase is the work of the workers. If you keep him working he is one of the workers with something to sell. By working longer he can raise his own standard of living and that of other people; he is an asset. The Government can do many things to improve the lot of the middle-aged person. For instance, they could make special arrangements in their own Public Service and persuade the big cities to do the same, by making arrangements for men to be recruited into the service after they have left their former occupations, like officers in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. These are usually educated, responsible and reliable men. Why must the Public Service always start its recruiting at the bottom? That is an anachronism; it is out of date. Why must the man who has served his country be put on the shelf? Employment should be found for him and the best place for him to be employed is in the Public Service because he is not interested in promotion any more and will not stand in the way of the younger men. In the teaching profession there are men in their middle age who have had a good general education, many of them being university graduates, and they can also be employed. In business there are educated men, managers, etc., who with a short course of training could learn to be teachers. They are responsible, reliable men. Time does not permit me to go much further into what the Government is not doing. They should particularly investigate every pension scheme to see that its conditions do not impede the employment of elderly workers. How many men are refused work because they do not fit into the pension scheme? The Government should not allow any pension scheme to impede the employment of elderly workers. The outstanding fact which I have found in my investigation of the employment of elderly people is the complete lack of co-operation within the Government itself. This unfortunate and hard-worked Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions stands alone, fighting to do something for those who look to him for help, whereas the main help he should get is from the Department of Labour, which should take some of the burden off him. The Department of Education should also help him. Then he can go to the Treasury and say: You keep your money; I have done so well with the help of these other Departments that I no longer need money for pensions. I move my amendment.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) suggested in the beginning of his speech that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Mr. W. L. D. M. Venter) had paid tribute undeservedly to the hon. the Minister and his Department. I want to express my complete agreement with every word uttered by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) in this connection. The hon. member for Durban (Central) did at a later stage give some credit to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions but then he made the Government the scapegoat and said that the Government was not making sufficient funds available. He also said towards the end of his speech: “There is a complete lack of co-operation in the Government itself”, and he referred to the Departments of Labour and of Education, Arts and Science. Despite the fact that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) discussed the matter in such detail, the hon. member for Durban (Central) said that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) was living in a dream world. It appears to me, however, as though the hon. member who has just sat down is not only living in a dream world but has been fast asleep, just like Rip van Winkle of old! He has on many occasions in this House and, just recently again, heard the hon. the Minister explain very definitely how much money has been made available for pensions and for social welfare purposes over the past years, but I am afraid that that information has gone in by one ear and out by the other. The hon. member took no notice of it. All he need do is look at the Estimates and see to what extent expenditure in connection with pensions and social welfare has increased. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he advocated a scheme which amounted to some sort of old-age pension scheme to include the payment of social pensions to virtually every old person. In other words, the hon. member was advocating what was virtually a welfare state, or actually, a socialist state. His plea amounted virtually to this: That, whether they could provide for themselves or not and also irrespective of what they owned, people should simply draw a pension at a particular age. The policy advocated by the hon. member makes me think of a locust policy, a policy in terms of which in our youth, during the period in which we can earn money, we save nothing; we must save nothing; we must spend everything, but then the State must assist and take care of us in our old age. Mr. Speaker, that is a very wrong policy. One of the reasons for training a child is to teach that child that he must put something away for himself when he has grown up so that he will be able to take care of himself in his old age and will not be a burden to the State. I think that the hon. member should pay some attention to the industry of the ant. The ant makes provision for the winter while he has the opportunity to do so during the summer so that he can live on what he puts away when the time comes when he can no longer put anything away.

In the short time at my disposal I want to pay tribute and express my thanks to the many voluntary welfare organizations that are doing particularly good work. It has always been the policy of the Department to have very close co-operation with voluntary welfare organizations and to consider the welfare organizations as partners in the welfare field. It has always been acknowledged that voluntary initiative must play a very important role in welfare work and in order to enable the organizations to make use of trained staff and to fulfil their joint task in an efficient manner, generous subsidies are made available to them by the Department. Although these organizations have a free hand as far as experimentation and the running of affairs in their own way is concerned, a basis of co-operation has at the same time been laid down to make provision for liaison between the State and these voluntary organizations. It is an extremely important function of the Department to take co-ordinating action in the sphere of welfare. In 1955, after negotiations with the welfare organizations, the Department worked out a sound basis of co-operation with these organizations and that basis of co-operation is being followed very successfully to-day. There is an allocation of functions and in terms of this system of the allocation of functions, the welfare organizations perform the family care services while the statutory work is undertaken by the Department’s officials. The Department remains the policy-formulating body. A very good foundation has been laid in this way for an interconnected welfare service in which the State and the private sector, the Church and welfare organizations all come into their own. This has brought about order and regularity in our welfare work and has stimulated progress. The Department continues to remain in close contact with about 20 national bodies, welfare organizations concentrating upon child and family care, or operating in more specialized spheres such as the care of the blind, cripple care, the care of the deaf and so forth. These national bodies serve as co-ordinating factors amongst their own branches and their own affiliated bodies and they in their turn then have liaison with the Department on a broad level. The National Welfare Council appointed by the Minister has the job of investigating the registration of welfare organizations—it also acts in a supervisory and controlling capacity—and in the second place has continually to advise the Minister in connection with welfare matters. Use is also made of the provisions of the Act to restrict the registration of new organizations which may result in overlapping as far as existing organizations are concerned. The National Welfare Council is also devoting more attention to the task of advising the Minister in connection with welfare matters.

During 1961 the National Welfare Council and the Department sent a joint deputation to the International Conference on Social Work with very good results. Information was also obtained in regard to how this task of welfare work is tackled in various countries. Sir, besides the two functions that I have already mentioned in connection with the work of the Department—that it renders services as a statutory body and that it also advises the Minister—there is a third very important task and that is the co-ordination of activities. Besides this, the National Welfare Council also protects the interests of the public by controlling the collection and spending of funds by the organizations—and I am speaking here of the general method of fund collecting, including street collections in cities and towns. I also want to refer here in passing to the contributions made by city councils in connection with welfare organizations and how they are sometimes overwhelmed with applications for permission to hold collections. But in any case they are protected now because welfare organizations have to be registered officially. This National Welfare Council consists of 23 members and represents various groups. In the first place, a quarter of its members are persons who themselves are welfare workers. These are people who are qualified in social science. In the second place, a quarter of the members serving on that Council are persons doing voluntary welfare work on the platteland, and the remaining half of the members of that Council are persons doing voluntary welfare work in the cities. This is a body which is very well balanced because it consists both of people who have the scientific knowledge and the people who have a personal love for and interest in that work.

The Department has set up regional offices for the purposes of organization. The areas controlled by the regional welfare bodies for welfare work are the same as the areas falling under the regional offices. These regional bodies deal with applications from local welfare organizations for registration in terms of the Act and they act in a co-ordinating capacity. The Department continues to keep itself acquainted with changing conditions and it is for this reason, too, that the Welfare Act is amended in this connection from time to time according to circumstances. Act No. 40 of 1947 was amended by Act No. 75 of 1961. Besides many other provisions the position in connection with control over the collection of funds has been set out explicitly. There is permanent contact between the head office and the regional and branch offices. From the nature of things this contact must be maintained in order to follow a uniform policy as well as to keep the Department and the office informed of new developments and tendencies in connection with social work. The Department continues to implement its policy in that its statutory functions are carried out by its own officials, but the family care services as far as the important preventive and reconstruction work is concerned, as well as the after-care services to which the hon. member for Kimberley (South) also referred, are transferred to the voluntary welfare organizations. That is their responsibility. The regional heads and representatives of welfare organizations testify on both sides to the fact that this basis of co-operation and distribution of work has been particularly successful and that it has also created a sound spirit of co-operation between the Departments and these voluntary organizations. This basis does not exist in other countries as it does here and that is why we must pay tribute to the Department and its officials. We know that the Department and its officials take the initiative in these matters. The Department has various subsidy schemes by means of which assistance is given to these welfare organizations. In terms of the Department’s policy of co-operation with welfare organizations and the encouragement of private enterprise, those schemes have been improved over the years and they are being further improved at present. The social workers are subsidized by the Department and the purpose is to enable the voluntary welfare organizations to do good and efficient work everywhere by means of these trained welfare workers—to work in the cities and on the platteland. At the moment there are 525 approved social workers and if we consider that there were only 156 of these workers in 1947, we realize how the activities of the Department have increased. It is very important that the family should be cared for because the family is the most important factor in the life of any nation and if every aspect of family care is gone into, as is the case at the moment—and also by these voluntary welfare organizations—in an efficient manner, we know that our future nation will be guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by once again expressing our gratitude to those private welfare organizations for the gigantic task that they have performed during the past year in this connection; for the charitable work that they have done without any thought of compensation but simply because of the pleasure they derive from it and the love they have for the work that they are performing.

I just want to reply to one point that was made by the hon. member who has just sat down. He accused my colleague here of living in a dream world. It always strikes me as strange when an hon. member belonging to that party which is constantly living in a dream world, accuses someone else of living in a dream world!

I said that he was asleep.

As far as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) is concerned, I think we all agree that it is a very good thing that he raised this matter here. This is a facet of our society that is becoming more and more prominent and more and more important, and the problems that we have to deal with are not problems that will decrease in number; they will continue to increase. As the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has said, these are problems that we will always have with us. It is a good thing therefore that we have the opportunity to-day to discuss this matter in this House in a calm way and, if possible, outside the political arena.

Let me say immediately that I am not as enthusiastic about what this Government has done as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) is but I want to admit quite frankly that the Government has done a great deal, and that also applies to the various welfare organizations. But it is by no means enough. We expect a great deal more. We are experiencing in our country to-day what we can almost call unprecedented prosperity, and there is a large section of our people, the less-privileged people, the aged, the pensioners and people of that sort who are not sharing that prosperity. There is no other way in which we can enable those people to share that prosperity than to assist them through the medium of this Department to live decent and honourable lives.

I want to confine myself to two classes of these people. The first class is the pensioners who receive pensions from the State, pensions which they have earned and for which they paid while they were in the Service. We all know that those who left the Service before the Pensions Act came into operation in 1954, before consolidation took place, are going through very difficult times to-day.

How many of them are there?

There are thousands of public servants who retired before the 1954 Act came into operation. They paid a great deal for their pensions and because of the present high cost of living those people are struggling to make ends meet. It is true that they are being paid an allowance but it is not enough. They cannot make ends meet. The public servants who retired after the new Act came into operation and after consolidation took place are far better off, but I want to make a plea for those who retired prior to 1954.

The second group of people for whom I should like to step into the breach are the ex-soldiers. We all know that the war veterans of the Anglo-Boer War are receiving pensions today and that they are not subject to the means test, and we are all very grateful for that. They were exempted from the means test in 1959. Mr. Speaker, just as the means test is applied to people as far as the old-age pension is concerned, so too the means test is applied to war veterans of the First World War and also of the Second World War. We realize that it is not possible to abolish the means test completely but we ask the hon. the Minister to treat these people as sympathetically as possible as far as application of the means test is concerned. There are many people who participated in those two wars who did not have the opportunity to take up their place in society again and many of them are struggling to-day. We ask the Government and the hon. the Minister to give special attention to those people.

Then there is another matter as far as these ex-soldiers are concerned, a matter which we have raised on many occasions in this House and which we will continue to raise until things are put right. I refer to the time limit imposed upon them as far as the payment of the pension to the widow and the children of an ex-soldier is concerned if he dies as a result of his war service. That time limit, as we all know, is ten years. It sounds a very long time, but actually it is not when we bear in mind that many of those ex-soldiers were demobilized at the age of 18 or 20 years. According to the Act therefore they had to marry and have children within ten years, that is to say, when they were only 28 or 30 years old. Well, it was not always possible for ex-soldiers to marry at such an early age. These people returned from the war to an abnormal world and they were not always able to settle down immediately. We are not at all satisfied with the situation that the dependants of ex-soldiers are not eligible for a pension if something happens to the ex-soldier as a result of his war service unless he dies within ten years of demobilization.

In this connection it may perhaps be said that our pension conditions for war veterans are better than those in other countries which have already abolished this time limit and that we must not always seek to select and apply all the good points contained in the schemes of other countries. Why not? We must remember that the South African soldier was not conscripted in either of the two world wars. He heeded the call of his country of his own free will and he ought to be treated better than the man who was conscripted. Most of our wartime allies have abolished this time limit. There is still a certain limit in New Zealand and in that country they guard against what are called death-bed marriages. Well, we all realize that death-bed marriages are open to abuse but I do think that the Department ought to be able to find out where there are such cases. We ask that these death-bed marriages should be investigated and that the time limit should be abolished entirely in the case of these war veterans. I want to associate myself with the statement of the hon. members for Kimberley (South) and Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) that we have no complaint to make about the way in which the Department of the hon. the Minister is performing these services. We know that they have very zealous officials who go out of their way to help people. Not only do they go out of their way to help people but when any one of us in this House finds it necessary to approach those officials for assistance, we never come away with empty hands, and in that regard we are very grateful to them. But they are limited by the law and by the funds at their disposal. We say again that we expect the Department to do more. This is a problem that is assuming increased proportions and it is a permanent problem. More funds must therefore be made available. We know and we accept that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is doing his best amongst his colleagues in the Cabinet to be supplied with additional funds. That is why we are so bitterly disappointed that there are so few members of the Cabinet here to-day, because we want more money.

Discuss this matter with them when they are here.

That is precisely what we shall do. We have discussed this matter to-day in a calm atmosphere and I am very sorry that they are not present because this request that more should be done has come from all sides of the House. Lack of funds is the big stumbling-block. Mr. Speaker, South Africa is a very flourishing country; South Africa has a great deal of money. This Government is prepared to spend a great deal of money on its ideological plans, on what we can call castles in the air, but it is far more important to finance a service such as this than to continue with whose ideological plans.

I must admit immediately that it was rather more pleasant to listen to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) than to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). I think the hon. member for North-East Rand saw this matter in its correct perspective. Even though he did have some points of criticism to express he did acknowledge what is being done to a large extent and he also supported the measure to the extent of expressing a word of thanks to those who deserve thanks. This is more than we can say of the hon. member for Durban (Central). His criticism was purely destructive. He suggested a few schemes which may work on paper but which otherwise will be useless. He did not express one word of thanks to the officials or to those who are toiling for the people for whom he also made a plea here to-day. I just want to point out to the hon. member for North-East Rand in regard to civil pensioners who retired before October 1953 that their position has been greatly improved. In 1958 they received a 10 per cent increase in their basic pension but that basic pension is 20 per cent higher to-day. I feel therefore that the interests of these people have been well looked after.

I want to leave the hon. member at that and point out that while the hon. member for Kimberley (South) was introducing his motion it was very clear to all of us that a very wide field was covered by the motion. Because such a wide field is covered it is difficult in the time at my disposal to deal in detail with certain of these matters. It will only be possible to deal superficially with certain aspects of these matters and to refer briefly to the rest of these services. Because we have a motion before the House in which the House is asked to express its thanks to the Government, we may perhaps ask ourselves whether the Department which is under discussion here has a policy in terms of which it performs its work. In other words, what is the Department’s aim? What does it have in mind? This aim is very clearly defined. It is actually a two-fold aim but I want to confine myself more to the question of welfare services, and particularly, welfare services for Whites. The Departments for the other race groups have taken over virtually all their welfare services as well. Even if they have not taken over the welfare services as yet we know that negotiations are being carried on with the particular Departments to ensure the take-over of those services. Sir, if we want to know the aims of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, we can find them defined as follows in one of the Department’s Annual Reports (translation)—

I believe it will also be to our advantage to quote this further paragraph from this report of the Department (translation)—

I think that this describes the aims quite clearly. From these aims it follows that the Department has specific functions. These functions have also been clearly defined and we have to deal with these two important functions in regard to welfare services: Firstly the study and improvement of social conditions which give rise or may give rise to the fact that individuals or families may not be able to take or retain their normal place in society. Secondly, the treatment of the socially maladjusted or poorly adjusted individual or family with a view to that individual’s or family’s social adjustment to our normal society. It is in this regard, when we consider the functions of the Department and the manner in which it performs its functions, that we can support the hon. member for Kimberley (South) and ask the House to express its thanks to the Department and to the Government, mainly for the following reasons.

There is the question of research and investigation. Mr. Speaker, in our present age of industrialization and urbanization and development in the technological sphere, influences which formerly were not known to us have begun to affect the individual and the family. Those influences which affect the individual and the family require the readjustment of the individual and the family to present-day conditions. In these processes of adjustment the Department plays a very important role, particularly in respect of research work.

On page 53 of the report of the Department for the period 1959-62, we find a description of the research fields entered upon by the Department, the short-term projects that have been tackled and disposed of and the important information that has been correlated by committees of inquiry such as those dealing with alcoholics and family allowances.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that many hon. members have only asked that additional funds be made available. Money is the means by which we assist people but it is of no avail if we have the money but we do not have proper planning, proper research and proper study. Without these we shall not know how to use that money properly. Let us consider the care and preventive services provided for children and families. The Children’s Act of 1937, Act No. 31 of 1937, was completely reviewed and a new Children’s Act, No. 33 of 1960, came into operation. In this Children’s Act we have a model law which compares well with the best legislation in this sphere in the world.

It is also important to note that the Act that I have just mentioned emphasizes the responsibility of the parent towards his children. A few new provisions which are aimed at the establishment of preventive services also appear in that Act. We have the observation centres as they are called in the Act. The purpose is to set up these centres at which uncontrollable children and children with behavioural abnormalities and who are in need of care can be placed under temporary observation. In this way a decision can best be arrived at in regard to the manner in which they should be cared for in the future. But mention is also made of attendance centres in that Act. These are centres in which children over the age of 14 years in need or care and with behavioural abnormalities are detained for a few hours per day in order to discipline them, to train them and to rehabilitate them.

Let us also consider the existing children’s homes. In 1949 we had 70 of these registered children’s homes. In 1962 there were 124 of these homes accommodating more than 5,000 children. The Department pays a per capita subsidy of R204 per annum in respect of children at private children’s homes. Prior to April 1959, this subsidy was only R96 per annum. As I have said, it is at present R204. An amount of R1,140,000 was voted under the Vote of the Department for the financial year 1963-4 for the subsidizing of children’s homes. But we must also give attention to maintenance allowances. Since 1948 maintenance allowances have also gradually been improved and increased benefits have been granted. The annual expenditure in respect of maintenance allowances was R569,522 for the financial year 1947-8. In the financial year 1961-2 the expenditure in this connection amounted to R2,953,522. One can go on in this way. I want to refer further to the foster-parent allowances that are payable and to the amounts that have been voted over the last few years. We can refer to the care of the aged, to the two groups of old people, those who are still to some extent independent and those who are enfeebled and in respect of whom higher allowances must be paid because they require greater care. We can also refer to the balanced geographical distribution of old-age homes so that we do not find a number of these homes at one place and too few of them at some other place. We can continue in this way. When we mention these facts we are not trying to give the impression that the Department has already done all it can do or that provision has already been made for all the funds that are needed in this regard. But when we think that at present the State is spending about 10 per cent of its total budget on social welfare and pensions services, then we must admit that a large portion of our national income is being given to this Department and to those people who are under the care of this Department. I feel that we can be grateful to the Department and the Government in this regard.

I want to point out that the Department gives a great deal of attention to the family as the basic unit of society. The family that breaks up or the family in which maladjustment occurs forms an important field of study for the Department. The Department is to-day trying out many ways in which families which need attention can be assisted. Because of this fact, a committee was appointed to inquire into the question of family allowances. I do not want to deal with all the findings of that committee—I believe that hon. members are acquainted with those findings—but I want to refer to a recommendation contained in that report, namely that a body be established to co-ordinate a family policy. I also know that the State and the Department itself and the Government is giving attention to the proposal to establish a body of this nature which will be able to supply us with information in regard to the levels on which the family functions. When the hon. the Minister replies I should like him—if he is able to do so at this stage—to indicate to us whether any decision has already been reached in regard to the establishment of a body of this nature to co-ordinate a family policy. I believe that if we have a sound basis, if the family is basically sound, many of our other problems will be eliminated. I also believe that if the steps that the Government has in mind are successful in solving these problems, then that will merit our gratitude. I feel that we in this House should in any event express our thanks to the Government for the work that has already been and is being done by this Department.

I want to put one thing clear in the mind of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) and that is firstly, that this side of the House is not and has never advocated a welfare state. Secondly, that the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) must have been misunderstood by the hon. member for Pretoria (East). I want to tell the hon. member that what was advocated by the hon. member for Durban (Central) was that there should be a scheme under which people should be encouraged to lay-by something for their old age and this lay-by scheme is a contributory pension scheme. He advocated that that money should be paid into the coffers of the Government, kept by the Government for the people and paid out at a later date. If that is not an admirable idea the member for Pretoria (East) must tell me what is. We do not want anybody to be dependent on the State for help especially when they are old. We want the person to be encouraged to save during his working days so that, when the time comes for retirement, he will have sufficient on which to retire. The unfortunate part of the story in South Africa is this that there are too many people to-day who are not encouraged to be thrifty. Because if they manage to save up sufficient money to buy a property or if they manage to save up enough money in cash, the means test disqualifies them entirely from a social welfare pension. Those are the things that we want to try to obviate. I can assure this House that there is not a single pensioner who would not rather have an income of his own than to have to go and stand in a queue on a cold day to wait for the post office to open so that he can get his little pension paid out to him. That is no pleasure for anybody, young or old.

There is one point I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister and that is that I think the division of the Departments as we find them under the various Ministers to-day should be altered. I do not think that the Department of Health should be tied up with the Department of Mines. I would much rather see the present Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions have under his wing the Department of Health as well. He would perhaps even be able to give up the Department of Pensions and attach that to the Department of Labour. But I think the Department of Health is so intimately connected with social welfare work in every single one of its phases that it is becoming apparent to all of us that the two can hardly be separated. If would even be difficult for the Minister of Social Welfare to have it under two headings, but when it is under the direction of two different Ministers I am sure it is becoming almost impossible to correlate the work of the two Departments. In any section of the work that is undertaken by the Social Welfare Department we know that we have to have a specialist type of official. They are all specialist duties. Let me just take some of them, Sir. Take cripple care. The care of the cripple is intimately tied up with health, with the orthopaedic surgeon, with the masseur, the physiotherapist, the physical medicine man. What else does cripple care mean? To-day the function of cripple care is to take money out of the coffers of Social Welfare and pay for the health service that he is getting from another Department. Take the section which deals with the blind. It is not sufficient to have the money to carry out the work; you must have the personnel to teach the blind to work, to read Braille; the blind must be treated; the disease that causes the blindness must be investigated and treated.

Take the case of the alcoholic. It is not sufficient to have a home for the alcoholic, Sir. It is not sufficient to keep him in a home; his treatment lies in the hands of a doctor and that doctor must fall under Social Welfare. The hon. the Minister was good enough to give some of us an opportunity of visiting one of these homes, Magaliesoord. We were very very impressed with what was being done there but I would have been more impressed had I seen one or two doctors who were there permanently, not visiting doctors, but permanent doctors and a psychiatrist. That will give those doctors and psychiatrists an opportunity, not only of attending to these people when they are in an acute stage of their illness and to help them to rehabilitate themselves, but to run a proper research department. Such a place is ideal for that. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to rush through his reply. I would much rather hear him at a later stage, perhaps under his Vote. And I should like to hear from him what is being done in other countries. The Health Department and the Social Welfare Department must work in harmony and their activities should be so tied up with one another that it is becoming ridiculous to have the two separated. The hon. Minister must give this considerable thought. It is a thought for the Cabinet—to see whether or not there should be a changeover. Personally I would welcome it for more than one reason but I think it would be acceptable to the people who fall under the Minister of Social Welfare. Those of us who know what difficulties the present Minister has will assist him in trying to do this work efficiently.

There are some other points that I shall try to deal with in the short space of time which I have. The family life is obviously tied up with health services. The old-aged person who needs help must have the help of a hospital or a district surgeon. The child at school has got to be examined by a health officer. The nutrition of the child at school has to be looked after by a dietician or an expert in dietetics. No matter where you go in the Department of Social Welfare, Sir, you will see the whole set-up is tied up intimately with the health services.

I do not want to be too critical because I know the difficulties that this hon. Minister has. Most of these arise from the fact that he has not got sufficient money to spend. I listened carefully to the Minister. I know how he feels about these matters. This would be a much happier country if the Treasury were to be more liberal with its funds. We will always have those who never have enough in our midst, but we are talking about those people who are reasonable in their wants. It was only two or three days ago that I asked the Minister to assist the old-age pensioner with an increase of R2 per month. That is not an awful lot to ask but these people need it desperately. Again I plead with him to give this consideration. I want him to use his influence with the Treasury and see whether or not he cannot get another R3,000,000 per annum from the coffers of our buoyant economy, that we hear so much about, so that he can distribute a little extra pittance to these people. It will mean a great deal to those people who are at present struggling on the little pension that they are getting.

I just want to make one other point. The voluntary welfare organizations in this country must be thanked by all of us and they must be encouraged to keep their work going. They are doing this type of work not only voluntarily but out of the goodness of their hearts. I think the hon. the Minister must make sure that there is no break-down in the link between his Department and the voluntary social welfare organizations. It is good at the moment but when I have a little more time at a later stage I shall elaborate on that point. I want to tell the Minister what dangers we are facing in the work of the social welfare organizations. It is not entirely due to financial difficulties but they have internal difficulties that the Minister must know about. It will take a little longer time to go into that than I have at the moment.

I should also like the Minister to do something, if possible, about the many vacancies that exist in his Department. You cannot run a department efficiently if you have 160 vacancies. These vacancies are vacancies which have to be filled by people who are specialized in their work. It is difficult to get specialists for the type of work that the Minister does because of the low salaries that the Government is paying. I say the salary scales of the officials who do this type of work must be reviewed in the light of the fact that they are specialists in their work. They are not just ordinary officials sitting in an office doing routine work, Sir. Many of these people whose places are not being filled to-day are people who have had specialized training in one form or another. They will not apply for the Government jobs while there is competition by voluntary organizations for the same type of people at a higher salary scale. That is why we find that there is this growing list of vacancies in the Minister’s Department.

One last point, Sir, before I sit down: I want the hon. the Minister please to investigate whether or not he can reintroduce the school-feeding scheme or encourage school feeding, not only in the schools for non-Whites but also in the schools for White children. Winter is approaching and during winter I am back home in my practice and I meet …

Order! I think that is outside the scope of this motion.

I am sorry, Sir. I was going to raise the question of malnutrition which is another aspect of the Minister’s functions, but if you, Mr. Speaker, consider that it is not suitable to raise it in this debate I accept your ruling. But I shall be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he would just bear it in mind.

I think it has been a long time since we have had so much unanimity on both sides of the House. I appreciate the spirit in which this motion has been discussed. Hon. members opposite did not say that insufficient was being done although they did say that more should be done. I expected them to say that; I expect everyone to have the right to say so. Since I took over the Department I have said in this House year after year that welfare work is not static. I have expressed over and over again the sentiments which hon. members have expressed here today. I said that we would always have these people with us. I said that that had always been the case and it was still the case. I also said that the position in the world might change to such an extent that at a certain stage we might have a larger percentage of these people. During a previous discussion in connection with welfare work I said that the number of old people was increasing because present-day life expectancy was higher than was previously the case. I admitted that. I am pleased that there is complete harmony on all sides of the House, with one exception, and that appreciation has been expressed of the manner in which the work of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is being done, both administrative and otherwise. We have discussed the question of pensions on various occasions and I do not want to discuss this matter in detail at this stage because it is not covered by the motion and because we have already had a long discussion in this regard.

A great deal is said and written about welfare work. There is a great deal of planning and many schemes are drawn up in this regard. Sometimes the ink on the plans for certain schemes has hardly dried before the plans are torn to pieces and new schemes are drawn up. Because we are living in a changing world in which circumstances are continually changing, it is necessary, as I have already often said, for us to adapt ourselves. We must make the necessary provision for the people in our midst who need assistance.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) understood his old friend, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), to say just what I understood him to say. He did not understand him differently. I made a note of what the hon. member for Durban (Central) said. He attacked the hon. the Minister of Finance in connection with a reply which the hon. the Minister of Finance gave on a previous occasion. He said that the hon. the Minister of Finance had said: “This is not a welfare state.” The hon. member for Durban (Central) very strongly attacked that statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. What conclusion can any sensible person draw other than that the hon. member advocates a “social welfare State”? The hon. member next to him understood him to say exactly the same thing. The hon. member for Durban (Central) went further. In taking his argument further he said: “We want a universal tax such as we find in a welfare state.”

No.

Oh, yes! That is what the hon. member said. I do not want to deal harshly with the hon. member. I like the hon. member and he knows it.

May I correct the hon. the Minister? I did not say that.

We were all sitting here and the hon. member for Rosettenville was also present. The hon. member for Rosettenville found it necessary to correct that statement because he was afraid that we would interpret it in the way in which he interpreted it. I do not blame the hon. member for Rosettenville. He was afraid on that score and that was why he offered that explanation.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) made a number of suggestions, completely unpractical proposals as far as the practical administration of a country and a State is concerned. He said, for example:“No man should be permitted to retire.” That is just a statement, Mr. Speaker. Then he qualified that statement by saying: “There should be a minimum permissible age to retire.” What will be the position if we have a retiring age and we then come along and say that we are going to do away with that retiring age? “We must have a minimum age to retire.” That is when a man retires. He retires at that age but he also retires when he reaches the age prescribed for his retirement. I mention these statements made by the hon. member simply to show how conflicting they are. I do not want to do the hon. member an injustice. I always like to listen to him because he is one of the older members of the House who has ripe experience. I like listening to him. Amongst other things, he also said something in pursuance of a scheme that he had before him, a blueprint. I do not know what it is all about because I have not seen it but, according to the note that I made, he said—

The Government should not contribute to pensions; only the employer and the employee should contribute.

Quite right.

That is what we all understood him to say, but what the hon. member has advocated here is diametrically opposed to what he opposed 14 days ago—the establishment of private pension schemes—because these are private pension schemes and the people who are concerned are the employers and the employees. He also said that the type of scheme that he proposed should only affect the working man. He did not give us a definition of a “working man”. Was the hon. member thinking only of the people in the urban areas or was he also thinking of others? In every country in the world there is a group of people who are not “working men”. In every country that I have visited I have asked whether there are people there who do not work and I have been answered in the affirmative. As far as contributory pension schemes are concerned I asked who paid the contributions in respect of the man who was not working and who was therefore making no contribution. I was told that the State paid that man’s contributions.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

My time is unfortunately limited but the hon. member and I can discuss this matter at a later stage.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) referred in passing to contributory pension schemes. I cannot in the short time at my disposal in a debate such as this give an explanation of the various schemes that I investigated during my European tour. I have already said that they differ from country to country; that they differ from system to system and they differ from one another in degree. When I have the opportunity, I shall give a resume of the impressions that I gained there. Let me tell hon. members that it was an impressive study tour. In certain respects we were able to learn from people there but they were also able to learn from us. We discussed matters in those countries at ministerial level and also at a lower level. I have already mentioned the fact that in the long run the basic allowances are more or less the same. The basic allowances paid in South Africa are more or less on the same scale as those paid in other states. I have also said that I came across supplementary schemes. As far as statistics are concerned I just want to say—and I am speaking now of the care of indigent people—that there are different schemes in all the countries of Europe; these aid schemes of all kinds, aid schemes assisted by local authorities. There are also aid schemes with a means test—a means test and a needs test. There are such schemes. These are applied, amongst others, in England and also in Holland. The hon. member for Rosettenville asked a few important questions that I should like to discuss. Let me say generally that I do not think that hon. members know so little about parliamentary practice that they can come along here and say that while they are quite satisfied with my work and the work of my Administration, they are dissatisfied with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Sir, everything that is done is submitted to the Cabinet and we all bear a joint Cabinet responsibility. The insinuation has been made here to-day—in one case it was stated in so many words—that the hon. the Minister of Finance apparently said that he would put a stop to any increase in contributions as soon as he could and that they would get no more. The hon. the Minister of Finance did not say that. It would have been in conflict with the facts given here by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) and other hon. members. The expenditure in this connection has risen by millions and millions from year to year in order to meet the needs of the people whose interests we are discussing here. The increase in these funds has been far higher than the increase in the cost of living. How can hon. members be so irresponsible as to try to give that impression? I do not want to limit any hon. member but if hon. members do want to discuss matters of this kind they have the opportunity to discuss them with the hon. the Minister of Finance in this House. Like him I am a member of the Cabinet and I also accept responsibility for the decisions of the Cabinet. It has already been stated here that the amount that we spend on social welfare services is about 10 per cent of our entire national budget. This amount has increased until to-day it is about 10 per cent. We do not say that it cannot rise any higher but I want to tell hon. members that in all the countries that I visited the amount spent on this type of service amounted to more or less 10 per cent of each country’s national income—not more, as far as I was able to ascertain. The hon. member for Rosettenville said: “Persons should be encouraged; there are too many people who are not encouraged.” The hon. member knows that we do encourage people every year in three ways. We say that we must encourage people to remain economically independent as far as possible and that is why we must make people depend as little as possible on these maintenance systems. Unless we do that we will be destroying that encouragement that we give them to remain independent. When another motion was before this House we said that private pension schemes should be encouraged—schemes showing a rapid growth. We do give that encouragement and I am pleased that the hon. member is also giving that encouragement. The hon. member went on to discuss the question of the co-ordination of Departments. This is certainly not a matter to which I can reply now. It is a matter which the hon. member can discuss and in regard to which he can formulate an opinion but it is not a matter which falls within the scope of this debate. We have often brought about co-ordination in the past, believing that what we were doing was the right thing, but then we find that circumstances change again. This is a matter on which we can express an opinion but we cannot make a decision in this regard. The hon. member mentioned the Magalies haven of rest. I am glad that the hon. member visited it. I invited a number of hon. members but only a few went there. I think a great deal of good work is being done there. I might just tell the hon. member that we are building a retreat for women at Caledon. It has already progressed quite far and we are already considering the establishment of a rehabilitation centre for women.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) gave a very interesting resume of the activities of the Department in recent times. I want to congratulate him on that resume which was so efficiently given in such a short time. He has been congratulated by hon. members on both sides of the House and it is not often that an hon. member is congratulated in this way. He also asked a few questions. One important question was in connection with the future of the National Council of Welfare Organizations. May I say that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) is an expert in the sphere of child care. I knew him in the years when he was the head of one of the largest children’s institutions in the country. He is a member of the National Council of Welfare Organizations which I have so often discussed in this House. That organization is now turning its attention to other matters. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) and the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) also made their contribution to this debate and one realized that they were discussing matters of which they had had practical experience. I want to express my appreciation in that regard. I just want to say that the Family Year Committee and the Piek Committee both recommend that attention should be given to the establishment of a body to formulate a policy in connection with family allowances. These recommendations have been followed up and attention is at present being given to the possible conversion of the National Welfare Council in order, amongst other things, to make provision for a committee to give attention to the formulation of a policy in connection with family allowances. It is also the intention to have other specialized committees. By making the work of the National Welfare Council specialized we will be able, after specialization, to co-ordinate the organizations in that body again and we will be able to derive the maximum advantage from it. The request to refer this matter once again to the regional welfare organizations and other bodies came from the Executive Committee of the National Welfare Council. The committee will have the services of experts in various spheres. The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to this fact. More and more we are realizing the necessity to have expert services. The motion also refers to that fact. We must be grateful that we have come so far but we must continue to improve on a scientific basis. All I can say is that this matter is receiving attention.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) raised a few matters here and I want to express my appreciation of the fact that he expressed his gratitude for what has been done up to the present. I want to join him in saying to this House: Do not let us as a country and a nation hamper the services which have been built up over years and years, services which concern the State and society and which intimately concern our churches; do not let us reject the things that we have built up and which have served us well up to the present moment and say that we no longer want them. If we do so we will be doing welfare work in South Africa a great deal of harm. I want to express my appreciation of the work that has been done by all religious bodies, by the many welfare organizations and by the general public. We appreciate public interest in our institutions since these organizations have to deal with child care and to a large extent, also with the care of old people. I want to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute—and I think this House will associate itself with me in this regard—to the welfare work done by the late Dr. Zerilda Steyn of Cape Town during her lifetime. I think she did wonderful work and placed that work on solid foundations, and we want to express our appreciation of the work that was done on her initiative and the initiative of those who worked with her.

The hon. member for North-East Rand referred to war pensions. I just want to say that since 1951 basic pensions have been increased by way of additional bonuses. We have increased all pensions by way of bonuses. On 1 April 1951 they were increased by 25 per cent and on 1 April 1952 they were increased by a further 61 per cent to 311 per cent. On 1 April 1953 they were increased by a further 61 per cent to 371 per cent and on 1 April 1959 by a further 71 per cent to 45 per cent. It would be wrong therefore to give the impression that we have been neglecting these people. I may just say that war veterans’ pensions used to be paid to Coloureds and Indians on the basis of 3:8. This basis was changed from 1 April 1962 and the basis is now 1:2. The hon. member spoke about a matter which we have often discussed here before and that is the question of the ten-year time limit. I do not have much time. I want to point out that I have discussed this matter each year. Objection has been raised to the provisions of the Acts governing war pensions in terms of which the wife or widow and the children of war veterans are not entitled to benefits in terms of those Acts of the pensioner married ten years after his demobilization. A great deal of investigation has already been done in this connection. Originally the time limit was two years. That was the position in 1946. The period was then extended to ten years. I just want to tell the hon. member that in 1945, when the United Party Government was in office, representations were made that the time limit should be abolished. The Brinton Committee was appointed in 1945 and the Brinton Committee recommended an extension to ten years. Everybody thought at the time that it was a very great concession to extend the period from two years to ten years. In 1948 another committee was appointed, the H. P. Smit Committee, and this committee reconsidered the whole matter. Its finding was that there was no real obligation on the State to supplement disability pensions by the payment of allowances to persons other than the victims themselves, because the disability pension was based simply on physical disability and any loss incurred because of that person’s inability to earn a living could be made up by a supplementary pension. In spite of that, however, it was done. One of the main reasons which the Legion advanced was that the time limit had been abolished in other countries. But we felt that the absence of a provision regarding the time limit in legislation in other countries was no valid reason, because the South African scheme made ample provision in this regard and this provision was better than the provision made in other countries. This was readily admitted by the Legion from time to time. The legislation of every country has certain provisions which are more beneficial in comparison with the legislation provisions in other countries. Basic pensions paid in terms of the laws governing war pensions in South Africa have been supplemented by a bonus which makes the pensions payable to disabled war veterans and widows considerably higher than those paid in Great Britain or Australia. We are already paying more than they are. Disability pensions in the two countries I have mentioned are also subject to review. In this country disability pensions are not subject to review. A disability pension in South Africa is made permanent after the passage of five years and this is also a very great concession.

I hope that I have replied to all the points that have been raised here. I want to express my appreciation once again of the manner in which this motion has been discussed, with the one exception that I have already mentioned. I want to give the hon. members the assurance, in view of the fact that the House has been able to say virtually unanimously that up to the present moment the Department has done reasonably good work, that we hope to carry on in this way. I also want to express my appreciation to my Department and to the whole of my field service. There are two things that impressed people overseas in regard to our system. The first that our service is centralized and that we cover the whole country by means of an observation organization so that we know precisely what is going on. Another fact that impressed people overseas was that we not only make money available but that we also have after-care services. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) also referred to this matter. On one occasion I spent nearly two days with one of the senior officials in a certain country. He brought me one file after another. I told him not to bring me any more files because I understood what the position was there. I asked him how the people whose files we were discussing, lived. After discussing the matter for some time he picked up the file and peeped underneath it and said: “Oh, you want to see the person under the file?” I told him that that was what I wanted to see. That is what we all want to see. As far as our services are concerned we want to see people and not simply files and figures. We want to know how our people are progressing.

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

I move—

In rising to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I think it is appropriate that I first preface my remarks by paying tribute to the work performed by members of the Public Service. Irrespective of what Government has been in power, I think it can be said to the honour of our Public Service that they have performed their duties with devotion and with diligence in the interest of our country and the public.

I think it is necessary in the light of what is happening within the service to-day and the conditions of service that apply and the social needs of the civil servants, that the spotlight of public attention and of this House should be focused on these loyal civil servants, because I think it can be accepted as fundamental that to have a contented public service, their needs and conditions of employment should bear fair comparison with the conditions of employment in the private sector of the economy, and there should be fair comparison between the rates of pay and the conditions of service in respect of posts held by men who hold responsible positions in commerce and industry, and the other realms of the economy—a fair comparison with men holding the same responsibility, in the Civil Service of our country, not only in order that public servants who form an important part of the South African community can maintain a decent standard of living, but also to meet the needs of the administration of public affairs in an industrial economy into which our country has developed in the past two decades or so, but also for the further reason that the key to full efficiency in the Public Service lies in the intelligent use of the people in that service.

Because the motion calls for a commission of inquiry into conditions prevailing in the Public Service, I would like immediately to set out the present position. According to the latest figures available, namely the Report of the Public Service Commission for the year ending 1962, the Public Service consisted of a fixed establishment of some 161,035 posts, allocated broadly to 34 Departments of State, the four provincial administrations and South West Africa. This establishment of 161,000 posts were in the administrative divisions, the clerical divisions, the professional divisions, the general A and B divisions and the services and non-classified posts, and according to the Estimates for the 1962-3 year, these posts demand a salary bill of some R209,500,000.

Since the establishment of the Public Service in 1912, at that time headed by a service commission of three members, there have been two special commissions of inquiry appointed into the Public Service. There was the Graham Commission appointed in 1920, and there was the further commission of inquiry appointed some quarter of a century later, the Centlivres Commission, which was appointed in 1944. But the point I wish to make is that the appointment of both these special commissions of investigation had one thing in common. Both of them were appointed in times where the march of events and the review of conditions prevailing in the service were considered necessary, and also that a review of the services rendered by the Public Service was considered necessary. It will be my contention, Mr. Speaker, without detailing the position of the 1920s, but taking 1944 as a comparison, that conditions in the service to-day are similar to those that prevailed in 1944. Since 1944 the change that took place between 1920 and 1944 bears a similar comparison with the changes that have taken place in the South African economy and the administrative needs of the State in the same period of the last 20 years since 1944 to 1963. The administrative organization of the service, it would appear to me, to meet the needs of the 1960s, is based on the out-dated conception of the administration of public services in 1944. I will immediately admit that certain steps have been taken to tune up the administrative machinery within the Public Service. We have had the increase in the Public Service Commission from three to five members. We had the further trend, unknown in 1944, of the delegation of certain powers of the P.S. Commission to the heads of departments, according to modern management techniques. In regard to promotion, we have had the introduction of a system of merit rating. But the fact remains that since 1945, in the 17 years until 1962, the number of posts in the Public Service have increased by no fewer than 87,770 on the approved establishment. In 1945 there were 73,000-odd posts on the establishment, and in 1963 there were 161,000-odd, an increase of no less than 120 per cent in the establishment of the Public Service.

But that is not the end of the story. Added to the present figure of the authorized establishment of 161,035 must be added the number of temporary appointments in the authorized establishment, which total a further 6,114. So one may say that it takes to administer the Departments of State to-day no fewer than 167,149 persons who have to be paid by the State in order to carry on the work of the State. The question one must ask is this: Are those 167,149 persons—not units or posts, but persons—a happy and contented group of men and women, efficiently and economically organized to administer the public affairs of South Africa? It is my contention that this is not the case and that in many ways it cannot be said that these 167,000-odd people represent a happy and contented labour force, because I will contend, and I hope to prove it, that there exists a large measure of dissatisfaction at all levels in the Public Service.

Let me cite one fact in substantiation of that contention. I pointed out that there have been 87,770 additional posts created on the authorized establishment during the last 17 years. Why have there, in the same period, been no fewer than 47,560 resignations? In the last five years resignations from the Public Service, in relation to new appointments, is more than 50 per cent, and one is therefore faced with the inevitable question: What are the consequences of this position? If you have this continual drain of trained personnel from the Public Service, what will the future hold in regard to the training of men for the higher and more responsible managerial positions? Sir, I have contended that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the Public Service, but it is my submission to the Minister to-day that this is not only my contention and that of this side of the House, but it is also the contention of the organizations representing public servants who, in the most responsible way, let me say, have represented these matters of discontent to the Public Service Commission from time to time in the past few years. They have done so in the most responsible way because those who hold responsible positions in the Public Service to-day realize the inevitable disastrous consequences if steps are not taken to have a full investigation of the Public Service. It is not generally realized that public servants themselves in the higher grades and the middle grades and the lower grades are asking for an impartial commission of inquiry into the conditions prevailing in the Public Service.

Let us look at some of the reasons why it is necessary to have an impartial commission of inquiry. My first contention is that the Public Service does not recruit and retain sufficient staff to perform essential services in an efficient manner. The reports of the Public Service Commission indicate that the resignations of men represent 50 per cent of new appointments in the clerical division, and that the resignations of women in the clerical division represent 100 per cent of new appointments. In other words, for every new appointment of a woman in the Public Service, there is a resignation. In the professional and technical divisions the position is even more serious. Resignations there represent almost 70 per cent of new appointments, and in the General A Division resignations represent approximately 80 per cent. If the Minister has any doubt about these figures, I would refer him to Annexure “C” of the Commission’s Report for 1962.

But there is another important reason. The shortage of well-trained and experienced staff is creating anxiety in the higher managerial ranks of the service. The position is becoming alarming because the most senior managerial posts cannot now be suitably filled. It may be asked how I can make such a statement without proof, but I will let the public servants speak for themselves. The Public Servant, the official organ of the Public Servants’ Association, commenting on the 1962 report of the commission, had this to say in an editorial. I quote from a leading article in the August issue—

That is the report of the Public Service Commission—

Here they themselves say that if the position is allowed to deteriorate they cannot say how the senior posts will be adequately filled. Relate this position to the turnover of staff in the past 15 years. In any other business organization where you have a fantastic turnover of staff of 50 per cent in the same period, you would obviously be faced with the most difficult problems of finding the most suitable personnel to train for responsible positions, and that is precisely, as this editorial points out, the difficulty in the Public Service to-day.

But apart from this, you have the difficulty in the top grades. There is in fact no comparison to-day between the salaries paid to the higher administrative grades and the professional men in the Public Service and those who carry managerial responsibility, with the salaries paid to those who carry the same responsibility in the private sector of the economy. There is also the other issue that the head of a department, the Under-Secretary, the chief clerk, carry in the Government service to-day no real status relative to a man in the private sector having similar executive responsibilities. Let me give an example. We pass Estimates in this House to give R100 or R200 to the Secretary of a Department for entertainment purposes. Take the Secretary for Mines. He has to associate and mix with executive officers and directors of some of the biggest mining corporations in the world. He carries responsibility for millions of rand, and he is expected to associate with these men on an allowance of R200 for entertainment. But even his salary, relative to the responsibilities he carries, is too little. The salary of the head of the Mines Department is probably equivalent to that of a chief clerk in a mining company. Take another example. Look at the salary of a trade commissioner. I leave his allowances on one side for the moment. He has to represent in the country to which he is posted the entire industrial economy and export potential of our country. He has to make contacts of the widest range possible to develop our export trade. The salary paid to a trade commissioner is so little that he can leave that job and go to any commercial concern and earn double his salary. Any man worth his salt in private business certainly would not work for the salary a trade commissioner gets. The test is this. If the Minister said to the higher grades of the technical and administrative staff to-day that they could take their pensions after 25 years of service, what would be the position in the Public Service? There would be wholesale resignations because those men, with their experience, could get good jobs anywhere in the private sector. But why accept my argument? Let me call again as another witness Dr. Enslin, the President of the Public Service Association. What did he have to say? I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting all of it, but he pointed this out in an address which was published in the November issue of the Public Servant. Dealing with the question of an inquiry into the Public Service, he said this—

I do not propose to read it all. But there is even a better observation in the June issue. This is what they say to show the situation that has arisen in regard to the higher grades. In an editorial the Public Servant said this—

I make these references because I wish to emphasize that if this is the trend, if this is happening, our Public Service cannot afford it, and the administration of public affairs cannot afford to lose these trained men with their knowledge and experience, because they have to be replaced, and what is coming into the service to-day, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, does not have the same potential. There is only one way to keep these men in the service and that is to offer them remuneration and conditions of service which can compare with that which they can earn in the private sector.

But there is dissatisfaction among public servants for other reasons. The present promotion system is based on a system of merit rating. When this was first introduced, as the Minister knows, there was considerable and widespread dissatisfaction. I am not saying that all of it was justified, but it existed. The feeling arose in the service that discriminatory practices were applied in making promotion, and when appeals were made by officials who felt that they had been unjustifiably overlooked for promotion, these appeals were fobbed off. That is a far-reaching statement to make, but I think that if there has been victimization, as I believe there has, on the basis on which the merit system was introduced and operated, it is necessary to prove it, and here again the public servants speak for themselves. In an editorial in January 1963 the Public Servant says this, and this is only one example I am giving. There have been other references in the official organ, the Public Servant, dealing with allegations of victimization of public servants in regard to promotion. This is what they say—

This is a very strong observation, but I repeat it is not the only observation. I have taken the trouble to study the matter a little. I have studied this publication, and I suggest the Minister does, too, and he will find, even in the correspondence column, the complaints of victimization for whatever the reason may be. The main reason, as far as I can judge, is in regard to the question of promotion under the merit system.

But there is also the question of discriminatory treatment meted out to public servants. Here I can bring quite a lot of evidence from the public servants themselves. I think the Minister will accept that the official organ of the public servants is a responsible organ. What do they say on the question of discriminatory treatment? Let me quote from the issue of January 1964—

Then they go on to detail the position of certain field staff in the Transvaal who were discriminated against in regard to their allowances. They carried out an investigation on behalf of that staff and they say—

And they conclude by making this observation—

But they say it was rectified.

Yes, but the point is: How many times has it happened? They start off the editorial by saying that on more than one occasion they have deemed it necessary to focus attention on this matter. And why was it rectified? Not because the P.S. Commission did anything about it, and not because the Department did anything about it, but because the Association presented the matter to the authorities. The point is that if this sort of thing continues, what is the effect on the morale on the whole of the Public Service? Is it any wonder that you get 50 per cent resignations?

There is another issue. There is a feeling of dissatisfaction held by large numbers of public servants in regard to the dilatory and unsatisfactory manner in which their salary scales are determined. I do not want the Minister to accuse me of making statements without adequate proof. I can only accept as bona fide, as I hope the Minister does, the statements made by the official organ of the public servants themselves. What do they say on this question of the dilatory and unsatisfactory manner in which salary scales are determined? Let me quote it from the issue of September 1963—

They say it happened on more than one occasion, and that is quite right, because I have been dealing with it for the past two years, and on more than one occasion they have made this appeal—

The whole Public Service was talking of this matter, and it upset the entire morale of the service. The report of the P.S.C. merely contained a little report to say that an inquiry was conducted, but they said nothing about what the result was and what benefits resulted to the staff. Then it continues—

The point at issue is that the dilatory manner in which these issues were dealt with by the authorities is even now resulting in private group meetings by sections of the staff in order to get satisfaction. In this particular case they went to the Press and it became a public issue, and only then did they get satisfaction, after the commission had submitted its report. They conclude by saying this—

We cannot help calling to mind the old saying about cutting down a giant tree. It takes the human being a few seconds to destroy that which nature has carefully and painstakingly built up over a long period of years.

Sir, that is my point. If dissatisfaction is growing in the Service, if there are grievances, no matter what the reason, then, as they very wisely say here, before cutting down the tree which has been built up over a number of years, before it collapses, let us investigate to find out what is causing the tree to rot. That is why I asked for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to go into this matter, and I know that I have the support of the public servants as represented by their own official organization. Sir, I do not want the Minister to say in his reply that grievances do not exist. If he says that they do not exist then he must say that what appears in the official organ of the public servants is not true; that the views published here are the views of agitators; that the people who run this organization are troublemakers; that the office-bearers of the Public Servants’ Association are men who have grievances themselves and that they are publishing those grievances. The plain fact of the matter is that the Minister cannot say that because as he well knows the Public Servants’ Association is run by some of the most responsible officers in the Public Service and that their official organ is accepted by the masses of the public servants as their official organ speaking for them. Let me just read to the Minister what they say on this question of grievances in an editorial in May 1963 dealing with the handling of individual grievances—

They go on to make many other comments which I do not want to quote, but in conclusion they say—

Sir, I took the trouble to go through the reports of the Public Service Commission, going back quite a few years, and in only one case—I think it was in 1946—except for the last report could I find any evidence that the Public Service Commission itself interested itself in individual cases to the extent of hearing an appeal to remove the grievances of what may or may not have been a very good public servant. I do not know their names and I do not know them. But only in one instance in 50 years was there one report indicating what steps the Public Service Commission had taken in this regard, and I think that is a dreadful state of affairs. If the Minister replies to me that there is no provision in the Public Service Act for the hearing of appeals other than by a departmental head, then I would say to the Minister that the time has arrived to review the situation, and to my mind the only way to review the situation is to appoint a commission of impartial outsiders who in an impartial manner can investigate the conditions prevailing in the Service.

Sir, one could speak at length on various other matters. There is the question of the large percentage of failures in language tests, whether in the Afrikaans or the English medium. There is the position prevailing in the Service with regard to married women. There is the question of the appointment of married women to permanent posts. Sir, I have pleaded in this House on former occasions—and I will continue to do so and I know that I will do so with the support of the public servants—for all avenues of employment in the Public Service to be opened to women on the basis of equal pay for equal work. This principle is fully accepted by the Public Servants’ Staff Organization. I think the time is past when women in the Public Service should be shunted into dead-end jobs. When one looks at the figures which I quoted and which reveal that the percentage of resignations in the case of new appointees in the case of women in the clerical section of the Public Service is 100, then I say that something must be done to offer the hope of a career and a future for capable, qualified women in the Public Service. We cannot afford this wastage. I notice from the report of the Commission that every time a resolution comes from the Public Servants’ Association, the reply is that the matter is under consideration. That goes on from year to year but the public servants are never given satisfaction. There is no man in the Public Service worth his salt who would oppose the principle of women being employed in the Public Service on the basis of equal pay for equal work. We see in other countries that women hold high executive positions. I know that that has been my personal experience in meeting officers in the American Administration. One sees it in the United Kingdom, in Canada and in other countries. Why then should women be relegated to inferior posts in the South African Public Service merely because of their sex? That is a matter also on which an impartial commission of inquiry could express a view after proper investigation.

In conclusion I wish to say that this party supports the viewpoint of the public servant. It supports the viewpoint generally and widely held amongst public servants in South Africa to-day that the time has arrived for a full, impartial investigation into the Public Service itself—not on the basis that it must be torn apart, not on the basis that it is in itself a bad organization, but in order to get a more efficient, a happier and a more effective organization to administer the Government Departments. I hope that when the Minister replies he will see my argument in that light, because, as I pointed out at the beginning of my address, on two former occasions when commissions of inquiry were appointed, the result in each case was better conditions for the public servants themselves and better administration of our country’s affairs.

I am rising immediately to reply. I want to say how sorry I am that we have so little time at our disposal to deal in detail with such a major comprehensive and important subject as this. I want to commence by saying that I am not at all convinced by the case the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has made out for a commission of inquiry because his approach and his application of certain data have been totally wrong. He made use of certain data in an effort to build up a case for the appointment of a commission of inquiry. I maintain that it is quite unnecessary to appoint a commission of inquiry and I want to prove that by referring to four matters. I want to prove that the appointments to the Public Service are keeping pace very well with the resignations and I want to prove that we are getting our full quota; in the second place I want to prove that the percentage of resignations from the Public Service is not abnormally high. I want to prove that the general improvements brought about by the Public Service Commission have been so satisfactory that there is great satisfaction in the Public Service to-day. Had the hon. member taken the trouble to read the leading article in the Public Servant of February of this year he would have gained a totally different impression. I also wish to point out that tremendous progress has been made in the Public Service as far as efficiency is concerned.

I want to start with the question of appointments. I maintain that the appointments in the administrative, the professional, the clerical and technical divisions are on such a scale that they balance the normal losses, losses which are suffered in any big service such as this. The normal losses are due to resignations, retirement on pension, deaths and dismissal. What is more we are also increasing our staff by way of recruitment for the Public Service amongst the public. The divisions I have mentioned, namely the clerical, the technical, the professional and the administrative divisions, form the kernel of the central Public Service. The hon. member for Turffontein has referred to the great number of resignations and to the temporary appointments—there are over 6,000 approved posts which are not permanently occupied—and he used that as the basis of his whole case. I want to give you the following figures, Sir, in respect of these four divisions of the Service that I have mentioned. In 1963 we had a total number of officials of 42,275 and in the year 1963, 5,041 appointments were made in those four divisions. The normal loss was 2,986 so that there was a gain of 2,055. I want to give you the average figures over the past six years from 1958 to 1963: New appointments, 4,985; normal losses, 2,781; an average gain per annum of 1,862. The average loss in these four divisions was 11.2 per cent in the year 1963. The average for the six years was 12 per cent. Here are a few other facts which are important to bear in mind. Expressed in percentages appointments to the various divisions have been as follows since 1958: To the professional division in 1958, 7.1 per cent; in 1963 8.8 per cent; to the clerical division it was 16.3 per cent in 1958 and 18.2 per cent in 1963. There is a slight decline in the technical division; in 1958 it was 15 per cent and 13.9 per cent in 1963. The reason for that, however, was that the costs involved were transferred to other divisions and the fact that here was consequently a relatively smaller need. The appointments that were made in that division, therefore, have completely kept pace with the resignations, as a matter of fact they have exceeded the resignations. Large scale dissatisfaction amongst the staff does not attract people to a service at a time of more than full employment, at a time of manpower shortage. There cannot therefore be such great dissatisfaction in the Public Service as the hon. member tried to make us believe. The net annual gain as far as appointments are concerned therefore has shown a rising tendency since 1960. There is not a declining tendency.

Yes, but the resignations …

I interrupted once when the hon. member made his speech and he should rather listen. Mr. Speaker, the second point is the number of resignations from the Public Service. The hon. member made a very great point of that. He tried to make us believe that people were resigning from the Public Service on a very large scale. He also complained about the losses that we were suffering as a result of people going overseas. Let me just tell the hon. member that the private sector is also losing people because they go overseas. The private sector works overseas and we too work overseas. In 1963 we got 9.1 per cent of our clerical staff from the private sector, because matriculants also fall in the private sector; we got 22 per cent in the professional division and 26 per cent in the technical division. But the hon. member tried to create the impression that the entire Public Service was collapsing. In these days of a manpower shortage, will a person who is dissatisfied remain in his position in the Public Service? Surely it is easy for him to walk out of the Public Service and walk into another one but the facts prove that that does not happen. At such a time the number of resignations is a faithful barometer of any unrest and dissatisfaction which may exist, or what the hon. member would make us believe exist. Let us see what the position is in regard to resignations from the Public Service. I am taking the same four main groups. Here are the facts: I have said that there were 42,275 public servants in these four divisions of the Public Service. That includes all those senior officials to whom the hon. member has referred; the others constitute the props that have to carry the Public Service of whom a great many are on the temporary staff. There are 6,587 posts in the administrative division and the resignations were .5 per cent in 1963. There are 19,898 in the clerical division and the percentage of resignations was 8.6 per cent. There are 6,665 officials in the professional division and the percentage of resignations was 3.8 per cent. There are 9,125 posts in the technical division and the percentage resignations was 4.2 per cent.

May I ask a question?

I wish the hon. member would remain quiet. He should take his medicine.

Do you allege that this report is wrong?

The Minister did not interrupt when you spoke.

The hon. member wanted to prove that there had been a rising tendency over the years; the tendency is just the reverse. In 1960, for example, the percentage of resignations in the clerical division was 10.5 per cent; in 1963 it was 8.6 per cent. There is therefore not a rising tendency but a declining tendency as far as resignations are concerned. In the other three divisions the percentage of resignations is either insignificant, as for example .5 per cent in the administrative division, or there is a declining tendency. The percentage has been constantly low with a declining tendency, as I have said. In any case the tendency in respect of resignations is nearly the direct opposite from that stated by the hon. member for Turffontein, namely, that the percentage of resignations was rising. There is no truth in that whatsoever. The hon. member alleged that senior officials with 25 years’ service would leave the service if they could be sure that that would not adversely affect their pensions in the years that lay ahead. I wonder where the hon. member gets those arguments from; where he sucks them from. The fact of the matter is that highly placed officials who are no longer in the prime of their lives do not want to go on full pension unless they have reached the age of retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot devote too much time to all the points, but the third point I want to make is that the general improvements that have been brought about in the Public Service have given rise to growing and general satisfaction. You have in the first place the structural improvements. Since 1948 the structural improvements have phenomenally increased the chances of public servants for promotion. I just want to refer briefly to these structural improvements. In the salary group R780 to R2,280, there were 12,290 officials in 1948 in the clerical division, and 19,899 in 1963, an increase of 7,609 in those 15 years. In other words, there was a slight increase in the lower income group; expressed in a percentage it was 62 per cent. But what did this Government do to remunerate these public servants fairly? In the administrative group R2,280 to R3,240 the percentage increase in the number of officials was 101 per cent and there was a 156 per cent increase in the group R3,480 to R8,100. In other words, the structure is composed in such a way that it has become an attractive service offering promotion possibilities. In the lowest group, that group of people who do the plodding work in the Public Service, the increase has been the lowest, namely 62 per cent. In the highest group where the number of officials has risen from 602 in 1948 to 1,540 in 1963, the increase has been 156 per cent. You find exactly the same position in the professional division. In the lowest group, that is the R1,410 to R3,240 group, the increase has been 94 per cent over the 15 years. But in the higher group, that is to say the R3,480 to R8,100 group, the rise has been 182 per cent—twice as many. Mr. Speaker, we are today living in the technological era. What has happened in this section? There the increase has been more phenomenal. The increase was 85 per cent in the lowest group—from 3,740 posts to 6,934. In the next group, the R2,280 to R3,240 group there has been an increase in the number of posts from 578 to 2,013, namely, an increase of 248 per cent. In the higher group, the R3,480 to R8,100 group there are 116 posts to-day. Mr. Speaker, this Government realized that in order to make the Service attractive chances of promotion must be created and that there should consequently be a greater number of high posts. But I go further. In the case of professional officials we are now applying the exchange promotion system to a salary of R3,840 to most of them. That means that if somebody cannot be promoted because there is no vacancy he can automatically be promoted to a salary of R3,840 as though he had been appointed to a vacant post which did not really exist. I also think that great satisfaction has been caused by the re-grading of 135 professional control posts from a previous salary notch of R4,080 to salary scales which vary from R4,080 to R6,150. The salary scales applicable to 135 of these high posts have been raised by an average of R450 per annum. The second matter which has caused very great satisfaction in the Public Service is the improved service conditions. The hon. member touched lightly on this matter in order to salve his conscience and said that there have been some improvements but he did not paint the complete picture. Had he mentioned all the improvements he would not have had a case. There are those that are not so obvious and of which you do not hear every day, but of which the public servant is only too fully aware, such as his leave and pension benefits, the shorter period within which to qualify for promotion, recognition of the qualifications he has attained, improved transfer facilities and allowances, etc. But you also have the improved salaries. Why did the hon. member not mention those? Why did he not mention the great satisfaction amongst the public servants with the improved salary scales? Then you had the consolidation of cost of living allowances with ordinary salaries which came into effect on 1 October 1958. Then there was the second latest concession accorded to public servants from 1 January 1963 in the form of improved salaries to an amount of approximately R10,000,000. There is the medical aid scheme which the Government has already been supporting since 1956. Last year the Government contributed R42,000 to this medical aid scheme in order to assist the public servants to keep it alive. Legislation was passed last year which enabled the Public Service to introduce a compulsory medical scheme so that everybody could get medical assistance. Then you have the housing scheme. Does the hon. member know what has already been done for public servants in this connection? The public servants have expressed their great satisfaction with the housing scheme which was introduced in 1956 and under which they can raise 100 per cent loans. Up to the end of 1963 7,738 loans were granted amounting to R44,923,568, and of this amount the Government guaranteed over R13,000,000. No, Mr. Speaker, bearing these facts in mind you are surprised at the hon. member for Turffontein for ever entertaining the idea of asking for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to inquire into the dissatisfaction and the poor treatment meted out to public servants to-day.

We could have been home already.

It is of no avail just talking about these temporary and financial aspects. What has been done over the past few decades? Reference is made to that in the leading article in the Public Servant of February, and I shall read what they say there in a moment. Everything has been done to place the official who is willing and keen in a position where he can improve his chances of promotion and to make a more efficient worker of him. They are inexperienced when they come to us and they are not sufficiently qualified. It has become a profession to-day. It is not simply a little task that you have to do behind a desk. The following have been done by this Government: The bursary scheme was introduced in 1956. Since 1956 1,861 bursaries have been awarded. There is provision in the present financial year for R289,000 in the form of bursaries for those who want to better themselves. And if he remains in the service of the Government he does not repay one penny. That is an opportunity which has been created for them which can well be emulated by the private sector. We went further: In order to make these officials efficient and in order to enable them to qualify for promotion a diploma course for clerical and technical staff was established in 1957. That is only six years ago and what have been the results? The public servants have proved that they are anxious to improve their positions if they are given the opportunity. Since the introduction of that four-year diploma course 383 diplomas have been issued. During the past three years 1,587 learner technicians have been admitted to various of these courses. Mr. Speaker, people who are dissatisfied and who regard the Public Service merely as a stepping stone to get somewhere else will not avail themselves of these facilities in that way.

What has the Public Service Commission done? The Public Service Commission has not marked time for a moment with their formal training. They have introduced an initial training scheme for newcomers. They are not left at their desk to carry out their little duties as best they can. Courses for supervisory officials have been introduced and those courses are regularly attended so that these newcomers can be made more efficient. They undertake the training of the Organization and Method officials, the O and M officials, who not only play their part here in South Africa but who have already become famous beyond the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Rhodesia, for example, make use of this O and M training course which we offer. That is how effective this course is. There is the training of personnel managers. So I can go on. The hon. member for Turffontein should just come to the offices of the Public Service Commission; he is very welcome. He must not draw his own conclusions from reports and underline those sections which he regards as important to score debating points. Go and see what is actually being done and the results that are obtained.

The merit system, in respect of which the hon. member did not have much to say, has in any case contributed most to greater efficiency because it offers an opportunity to the officials; and it is also a challenge to them to show what an official can do. My experience over the few years that I have dealt with the Public Service Commission and the officials has taught me that it is surprising how, when you give a person the opportunity of improving himself, he regards that as a challenge. If you go into the merits of those people who are so quick to write letters you will usually find that they are the people who cannot be promoted. The person who complains most is the person whose merit is so low that he does not stand a chance of being promoted. But the person who enters open competition and holds his own is the person who never complains. What has been the results since 1958? As a result of this merit system 302 special promotions have been made—special promotions on merit. Why do they complain about the language provisions and the language requirements? The official who obtains an A for English and an A for Afrikaans does not complain. But the person who complains is the person who did not want to try, or perhaps could not; the person who has a B in the one language and a D in the other one and who cannot be promoted any further. I am talking about the period since 1958. That is to say, over a period of five years 758 special salary increases were awarded and 411 bonuses on the ground of merit. How can hon. members ever complain and suggest that there is a vestige of discrimination? It is the same as usually happens in the case of the child who did not study and comes home with a bad report and who tells his parents what a bad teacher he has; and the parents accept it at that; the child is never to blame.

There is a continual process of smartening up on scientific lines in order to improve the organization and the management of the various Departments. Under this head I can mention the following, inter alia: The closest contact between the Departments and the Public Service Commission; better organization and division of work; simplification and standardization of working methods; the elimination of overlapping and cumbrous methods; better utilization of the labour forces; making more use of mechanical aids; planning and control of production; developing and augmenting management techniques; more efficient service to the public. I am merely mentioning these points; I want to give my hon. friends the opportunity of enlarging on them if time permits. I maintain that there is consultation between the Public Service Commission and the staff associations. The hon. member for Turffontein made great play of this and said that it was in that connection that there was this great dissatisfaction. There is probably greater co-operation between those bodies to-day than ever in the past. There are clashes at times. It is the task of a staff association to demand as much as possible for its members. If you read the journal of any staff association you will always get the impression that they are asking for a great deal but when it comes to the point where they have to place their dissatisfaction or satisfaction on record this leading article in the Public Servant of February 1964—the hon. member got as far as January—becomes very significant to me. They say this, inter alia—

That is to say the whole Public Service—

What an admission! What an admission on the part of the associations of the Public Service, representative of their members, that they too have come to the conclusion that very often what they have asked could not be granted because they were convinced of the attitude of the Public Service Commission or of the Department that it could not be granted. I read on—

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more condemnatory of the hon. member’s request for the appointment of a commission of inquiry. Very well, admittedly it has only happened now, but be grateful that it has happened. Why revive old disputes? Whether it happened a month ago or 14 days ago, be grateful for it. The official attitude of the staff associations is that they are to-day on such a footing with the Public Service Commission that it is not necessary to comply with this request of the hon. member for Turffontein. I maintain therefore that the hon. member for Turffontein has come forward with a request which has in reality only taken up the time of the House unnecessarily. It has however afforded this side of the House an opportunity of stating what the actual state of affairs is in the Public Service. I for my part, as the responsible Minister, want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Public Service Commission, to the public servants and to the public servant associations, to all those bodies with whom I am daily in the closest contact. Knowing full well that they sometimes have to work under difficult circumstances, knowing full well that they often have to tackle difficult tasks because of the development that is taking place in the country, and when there is a shortage of suitable staff, I have been deeply impressed by the fact that these people no longer work to the clock—which has also become a slogan—that is, of starting at a certain time and stopping at a certain time. No, Mr. Speaker, they are willing to complete a task and that task is in the interests of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister tried by quoting statistics and facts—if one could call them that—to prove that there was great satisfaction in the Public Service and that there was no reason at all for a commission of inquiry. I wish that the hon. the Minister would read more issues of the Public Servant.

I read them all.

Because the hon. the Minister has read them all I want to ask him how it is then that he has not noticed that Dr. Enslin in his Chairman’s address to the Congress of Public Service Associations at Windhoek asked for a commission of inquiry?

He did not ask for it.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has read the latest report of the Public Service Commission. I accept the fact that he also reads those reports regularly. I have here the latest report of the Public Service Commission for 1962. In this report appear a number of requests made by the important Public Service Joint Advisory Council. Heads of Departments and representatives of the Public Servants’ Association, amongst others, serve on that body which was set up in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957. This is therefore virtually the most important body representing public servants in South Africa. That Council made this recommendation to the Minister and the Public Service Commission—

This is a specific request from the Public Service Joint Advisory Council to the Public Service Commission. The latter published this request in its report and now the hon. the Minister tells us that there is no need for a commission of inquiry! How can the hon. the Minister be so much at variance with the views of an important representative body? The hon. the Minister boasts about the fact that in a leading article in the Public Servant mention is made of the fact that the members of the Public Servants’ Association were given a hearing by the hon. the Minister and heads of his Department.

I often give them a hearing.

According to this particular leading article, it was the first time that they had been given a few hours in the morning to meet the Commission. I would like the hon. the Minister to read that entire leading article again. I shall be pleased if he will read another report in that issue in which it is stated that where concessions were made to public servants it was as a result of the repeated representations that were made by the Public Servants’ Association itself. And now the hon. the Minister tells us that he is not impressed by the fact that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says that a commission of inquiry is necessary! The hon. the Minister has said that the statements of the hon. member for Turffontein are far from being true.

The hon. the Minister has told us that the Public Service is not experiencing staff difficulties. The hon. the Minister has also told us that we are getting our full quota. He said: “The appointments, in the technical division as well, are adequate.” Mr. Speaker, there is so much proof to the contrary that I cannot mention it all here. Let me quote another of the resolutions adopted at the 13th ordinary meeting of the Council. This resolution states—

Can this be put any more clearly, Mr. Speaker? Can it be put more clearly than in these words, that there is great concern on the part of the officials in regard to the position in the Public Service? These words appear in the report of the hon. the Minister’s own Department that has been submitted to us. And then the hon. the Minister tells us: “We have our full quota”! Complaints have been made here about the shortage of well-trained and experienced staff. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) insulted the strongest organization in the Public Service, including all those public servants, because they asked for a commission. He said that he did not believe what they had said. He believes that their reasons are wrong and are inadequate. How dare the hon. member act in such a way in regard to 160,000 good South Africans? [Interjections.] No, I am not prepared to answer a question from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is putting words into my mouth that I did not use. I would like him to withdraw them.

How I can withdraw the words of the hon. member, I do not know, Mr. Speaker. We have proof here given to us by the Public Service Joint Advisory Council. I have here as a further proof the Report of the Postmaster-General for 1961-2. The Postmaster-General has this to say—

If the Post Office had adequate staff it would not be necessary for the Postmaster-General to talk about a heavy and at times an almost impossible burden which was placed on those hard-working officials. I want to read another extract from the report—

Just listen now, Sir, to the way in which the work of the Post Office—to mention only one Department—is going to be hampered unless there is an improvement in the position during the next few years. The Postmaster-General also has this to say in his report—

And then the hon. the Minster tells us …

That is the position everywhere.

Now the hon. the Minister admits that this is the position everywhere. Why did he tell us that this was not the position in the Public Service? Why did he tell us: “We are receiving our full quota”? Why did he say: “The appointments also in the technical divisions are adequate”? He admits now that there is a shortage but that this is the case throughout the world. We have eventually had that admission from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister told us that the number of resignations from the Public Service is not abnormally high. He said that the number of resignations is a good barometer of the unrest or dissatisfaction that exists in the Public Service. I want the House to note, Mr. Speaker, that the number of resignations from the Public Service is to-day two and a half times what it was in 1946 under a United Party Government. It is therefore a clear indication—according to the yardstick of the hon. the Minister himself—that there is twice as much unrest in the Public Service to-day as there was in 1946.

Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister himself set the norm. He said that the amount of unrest could be gauged by the number of resignations. The number of resignations of male clerks in the clerical division is two and a half times what it was in 1946, and it is far larger, very much larger, in the lower divisions generally. The number of resignations in those divisions is about five times what it was in 1946. The number of resignations are given in the Blue Book. They are almost unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. According to the latest statistics, 3,250 male clerks were appointed in 1962. As opposed to this, there were 1,195 resignations. In the professional and technical divisions there were 1,200 appointments and 600 resignations—50 per cent resigned.

I am afraid that I cannot accept what the hon. the Minister has told us about the great satisfaction that is apparently prevalent in the Public Service to-day. Numbers of matters have been brought to his attention and these matters have not always been dealt with by him with as much sympathy as they should have been dealt with. I do not want to discuss all the details. There are matters such as the five-day week; there is the question of gratuities in respect of accumulated leave and there is also the question of the special allowance that is paid in the Transkei by certain Departments although officials of the Post Office in the Transkei are not paid this special allowance. I would like the hon. the Minister to go into the matter and see whether something cannot be done in this regard. There is another justifiable complaint on the part of officials in regard to which I am sure that something can be done. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that leave in the Public Service to-day is not a right but a privilege? It is regarded as a privilege and not as a right to which officials are entitled. In other branches of society leave is, after all, regarded as an established right.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the great contentment prevailing in the Public Service to-day. The hon. member for Turffontein quoted a report to the hon. the Minister—complaints that were made regarding cases of victimization in the Public Service. If the Public Servants’ Association had not known of these cases of victimization it would certainly not have published them in its periodical. There are cases of victimization, blatant cases of victimization. There are also cases of victimization of which perhaps the country as a whole does not know. There may be cases of victimization in which the public servants themselves may be too afraid to bring such cases to the attention of the Minister or to the attention of the Public Servants’ Association. If there is one place in South Africa where that dangerous secret organization the Broderbund has a foothold, it is in the Public Service.

If you can provide me with factual cases of victimization I shall have them investigated.

The hon. the Minister asks that cases of victimization by the Broderbund should be submitted to the Broderbund, because he himself is a member of this organization! I have just said that those cases are not brought to everybody’s attention because public servants are afraid of being victimized further. Public servants have already mentioned this fact to me. They have mentioned cases of victimization to me, cases of removals from posts, cases in which special salaries have been fixed for certain posts, just so that there could be some manoeuvring in connection with promotions and matters of that nature.

If you will mention one specific case to me I shall have it investigated.

It has already been said that there is a Broderbund nest in Pretoria. Another public servant told me that in the United States they have a movement called the Black Moslems, but we have the White Moslems of Meintjieskop who are to-day running the Public Service.

Old maid stories.

If the public servants are wrong in what they say, why then not appoint a commission of inquiry to make sure? Then all these cases can be investigated. This is a wonderful opportunity to discover whether there really are these cases of victimization. I say that there are, and I say that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the 100 or 200 most senior posts in the Public Service are occupied by members of the Broderbund.

You are talking nonsense.

Is that hon. member a member of the Broderbund? Do you see, Mr. Speaker, when the question is put to them they remain absolutely silent. I note that when Cassius Clay was declared World Champion …

Order! That has nothing to do with the motion.

I am discussing the complaints of public servants, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Broderbund. Accordingly, because of the requests made by members of the Public Service, because of the representations made by officials, because of the requests received from the Public Service Joint Advisory Council and because of the fact that there has been no investigation of this nature for many years, I think that the hon. member for Turffontein has made out an excellent case for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the Public Service and I hope that that commission will be appointed as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has loudly proclaimed here that he is not going to give the House the names of the people who carried all sorts of stories to him but he says that if a commission of inquiry is appointed, people will be able to submit their complaints. But after all if that is done then everything will be made public. Where is his logic? If he cannot give us those names now, then he will not be able to give us those names if a commission is appointed. Those people simply do not exist; it is pure hallucination on the part of the hon. member. One thing that strikes me about this debate is this: Where is the hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock)? He is the only man in the United Party who knows anything about the Public Service and he has not participated in this debate. He is standing outside the Chamber. He has come in a few times and looked around and has walked out again. Hon. members have not been able to make out a case in this debate at all. All they are doing is to raise a hullabaloo and they think they can pull wool over the eyes of the public servants but they cannot do so.

I want to come now to what has taken place in this House in the course of this week. I find it strange that the United Party of all people should come along here to-day and say to the officials: “Aap wat ben je ’n mooie jongen.” It was their Leader who insulted the officials during the course of this week as they had never been insulted before, and it was the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) who insinuated here that public servants were not realisable and could not be trusted to perform the task which will be entrusted to them in terms of the Bill which was read a second time here yesterday.

He was pointing out the dangers.

The hon. member must not try to make excuses now. He knows nothing about the Public Service, and that applies to most subjects that he tries to discuss in this House. He should remain silent about public servants. If they get hold of him there will be very little left of him. No, the United Party are the last people who can talk about public servants after what their own Leader had to say about the Public Service in the course of this week. It is a shameful thing that remarks of that kind were made here about people who cannot defend themselves in this House.

I asked hon. members not to drag politics into this discussion.

The hon. member is now trying to gloss over the fact that they dragged this issue into politics earlier this week. Now all of a sudden he does not want politics to be brought into the debate but I want him to take his medicine.

Take this story about Dr. Enslin about which the hon. member for Orange Grove fulminated such a great deal. He said that Dr. Enslin asked in his Chairman’s address at the Public Servants’ Congress at Windhoek for a commission of inquiry. He did not ask for it. He was reporting on an earlier request from the Public Servants’ Association for a commission of inquiry and in his report he said that they had negotiated with the Public Service Commission for the appointment of a commission of inquiry and that the Public Service Commission had pointed out to them that it was fully aware of every development in the Public Service, not only in South Africa but also abroad, and that in those circumstances it regarded the request as being unnecessary and rejected it. Dr. Enslin also had this to say—

He did not even say that he was going to approach the Minister over the head of the Public Service Commission. He accepted the argument of the Public Service Commission that it was unnecessary. Dr. Enslin then went on to remind the Public Servants’ Association of the duty which rested upon them and he said that their approach to the Commission immediately placed the Association under a greater obligation to motivate their request and to adopt a realistic approach. In other words, he said, “We are going to negotiate with the Public Service Commission on a very responsible basis”. There is almost an implication that there have been times when they have not acted quite responsibly.

That is a complete misrepresentation of his words.

The hon. the Minister has quoted from the leading article to indicate that there is excellent co-operation at the moment. But I want to put one question to the hon. member for Turffontein. He spoke about the unsympathetic treatment of officials by their heads. These are individual cases. Does he want to tell me that a commission of inquiry can do anything in that regard? These are individual disciplinary cases. Surely he knows there is machinery in the Service to rectify these things. He knows that it was decided recently to appoint staff managers in the departments to give particular attention to this sort of thing. No commission of inquiry can give attention to it. A commission of inquiry works on principles; it does not concern itself with individual cases.

Then the hon. member says that the commission can inquire into the position of women in the Public Service. I have discussed the position of women in the Public Service in this House on many occasions and this side of the House has carried this matter so far that in the senior posts to-day women are dealt with in exactly the same way as men; they draw exactly the same salaries. But in the junior posts one expects women to marry and they cannot therefore be treated in the same way. That is the position that has been reached to-day. If that commission of inquiry were to find that there was no justification for placing a junior female clerk on the same grade as a male clerk, would the hon. member for Turffontein abide by that decision? No, the hon. member has given his decision even before the commission has been appointed. I want to ask him whether he will abide by the decision of that commission if it goes against his own views? No, he will continue to make propaganda.

You know that I cannot answer you now.

I want to take this matter of the congress and the so-called request by Dr. Enslin a little further. I have here all the resolutions passed by that congress and I can find no indication that there was a request for a commission of inquiry. The Congress of Public Servants’ Association accepted the statement by Dr. Enslin in the Chairman’s address that there was not much justification for the appointment of such a commission.

At the moment we have enough machinery to bring about co-operation between public servants, the Public Service Commission and the Government. There has been tremendous expansion in recent years. We have inspectors and we have the O and M officials; we have staff managers; we have the Public Service Joint Advisory Council which consults with the Public Service Commission and there is a right of appeal to the Minister who addresses the heads of Departments every year and who is prepared to grant interviews to officials who have good grounds for seeking an interview.

I want to raise another few matters in the short time at my disposal. The first is that in the Public Service there is a higher percentage of persons in highly paid positions than there is in any private undertaking in this country and perhaps in the whole world. It is far more difficult for public servants in their initial years of service to reach a salary of about R3,000 than it is in private business, but once they reach the salary scales above R3,000, we find that there are far more public servants who draw higher salaries than is the case in private enterprise. We find that this tendency has increased under the present Government. There is a much larger percentage of highly paid officials in the Service today than was the case in 1948. I want to mention a few examples. In 1948 we had a departmental chief clerk, an under-secretary and a secretary. At present we have an administrative control officer, the equivalent of a chief clerk and we have a number of undersecretaries and deputy secretaries and a secretary. A large number of new and highly paid posts have been established. I also want to point out that the salary structure has changed completely since 1948. In 1948 a clerk who was appointed to the Service after matriculating started at R360 but to-day he starts at R900, almost three times as much. An assistant professional officer who started in 1948 at R900, to-day receives R1,410, and whereas the head of a department received R4,200 during the period of office of the United Party, he now receives R8,100 plus an entertainment allowance of R200 per annum—more than twice as much. As far as pensions are concerned, the position is that a head of a department who retired in 1948 after seven years’ service in that capacity received a pension of R2,100. If he retires to-day, he receives a pension of R4,050.

I want to come now to the improvements in salaries. In 1948, the number of clerical administrative staff in the lower grades totalled 15,251, or 96.2 per cent of the establishment. In 1963, they numbered 24,946, or 94 per cent of the establishment—a decrease of almost 3 per cent. In 1948, the number of senior posts—from administrative control officers up to secretary—totalled 602, or 3.8 per cent of the establishment whereas the figure to-day is 1,540 or 6 per cent of the establishment. The statistics as far as professional officers are concerned are of importance. In 1948 the number of lower-grade posts totalled 2,025, or 70 per cent of the establishment and in 1963 this figure dropped to 3,928, or 61 per cent of the establishment—there was a drop in percentage but not in numbers—while the number of senior posts rose from 903 or 30 per cent of the establishment to 2,538 or 39 per cent of the establishment. We see therefore that the number of senior posts has been greatly increased and the number of junior posts reduced accordingly. We must also remember that salaries were adjusted in January of last year. Generally speaking, the adjustment meant an increase of one notch of the salary scale but in the case of the senior officials the increase was much bigger. Take the case of a man earning R4,800 per annum whose salary was increased to R4,950. He was placed on a scale which takes him up to R5,250. A man earning R6,000 per annum would eventually have earned a salary of R6,300 but, after adjustment, his salary scale went up to R6,600. These systematic adjustments will continue to be made. This also applies to the salaries of professional officers which were not included in those adjustments at the time. In the latest issue of the Public Servant of February of this year, we find the new scales for the law advisers in the Department of Justice. Their salaries have been increased considerably but I do not have the time to mention the actual figures.

I would like to say something in regard to another matter and that is the question of promotion in the Public Service. The fact remains that promotion in the Public Service is much more rapid to-day than ever before. In 1948 it took a person 13 years to become an administrative control officer at a salary of R1,200 per year. Nowadays he reaches that post in seven to eight years but at a very much higher salary—R2,280. After 13 years’ service, according to the structure in the Service to-day, it is quite probable that he will be a chief administrative control officer earning a salary of R3,480 to R3,840, where in the past the salary attaching to this post was only R1,200. I also want to say that the State is very competitive on the labour market and it is attracting a far larger percentage of workers from the private sector to the Public Service than ever before. I would like to mention the following statistics in this regard. Out of a total of 3,628 appointments in the clerical division in 1953, 330 (or 9 per cent) were appointments to senior posts of people entering the Public Service—in other words, these are people who were attracted from other spheres of employment to the Public Service—while in 1948 under the United Party régime, only three people or 1.6 per cent were attracted to the Public Service from the private sector and were appointed to posts in the clerical division. In 1963, 126 people, or 22 per cent of the total of 589, were appointed to senior posts in the professional division, while 216 of the 817 appointments in the technical division were to senior positions. In 1948, only 16 people or 3.6 per cent of 437 appointments, were appointed to these posts. To say that the private sector is drawing these people away from the Service on an increasing scale is absolute nonsense. What is actually happening is that the Public Service is highly competitive in the labour market. The norm as far as the Public Service is concerned is that it ought to attract more or less 12 per cent of newcomers to the labour market each year, and not more, because if it attracts more, this will adversely affect the private sector. I want to say here that if we examine the statistics for the past few years we will see that the average that the Public Service has attracted from the labour market as a whole has been just over 12 per cent. The Public Service has to gear itself not to attract a higher percentage because if it does, this will have an adverse effect on the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, it seems from what has been said so far, that the hon. the Minister is not going to appoint a commission, and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has proved conclusively that Parkinson’s Law is working very hard in the Public Service. I want to refer particularly to the failure of the Government to appreciate the importance of the higher grades in the Service. This is demonstrated, amongst other things, by the grave shortage of professional men, in spite of what has been said to-day, in the Service. Every time I ask a question I am told that the Department of Health has more than 100 vacancies for professional men. This Session the Department of Agricultural Technical Services had vacancies for nearly 200 professional officers. I see from the Cape Argus of 21 February this year that the Minister of Transport said that he had vacancies for 150 civil engineers and that he could not compete with private practice nor with the Cape Town City Council.

There is a reason behind this difficulty on the part of the State to obtain high-grade professional officers. The reason is that the top jobs in the various Departments rarely fall to a professional officer. Speaking generally, the professional officers have a rate of pay below the level of the Secretary for the Department. The pay for the professional officers is below that of the Secretary, except in one or two instances. Now the Secretary of each Department is no doubt a highly competent, diligent and devoted servant of the State, but he has in general moved up through the various grades of the Service and he has learned his work in the Department. He is not in great demand outside the Public Service. I am not saying he would not get a job, but it is unlikely that he would get a job equal to the one that he holds in the Service, so that compared with the professional officers he is at a disadvantage, and yet these officers must work below him and can rarely reach that level. This matter of professional responsibility was high-lighted in the report on the Coalbrook disaster, and it quoted Sir Robert Kotzé, and I cannot do better than use his words. He said—

So it goes on, and he says the man is afraid that he might lay himself open to the suspicion that he was working with an eye to the day when he could better his position by relinquishing his appointment and rejoining some private firm.

Then he says—

These words used by Sir Robert Kotzé back in about 1906 have been supported by the mining houses who have advised on similar lines. Unfortunately the salary of the Government Mining Engineer, with all his responsibilities, is tied to that of the Secretary for Mines. This officer has no doubt many great qualities, but he has not the qualities which put on his shoulders the fate of 500,000 men who are taking risks practically every day. There can be no comparison between the responsibility of the Government Mining Engineer, not only to the miners but to the State itself and the prosperity of the State, and that of the Secretary. He must make decisions which only he can make, decisions which affect the country as a whole and are not confined to the Department. But for disciplinary purposes he must come under the Secretary of the Department, and he is responsible, or was in the days of Sir Robert Kotzé, to the State President. The same conditions exist in other Departments. In the Department of Lands the Secretary is more highly paid than the Surveyor-General or the Chief Forestry Officer. In the Department of Public Works the architects and engineers are paid less than the Secretary, and in Water Affairs the engineers are paid less than the Secretary. In the Department of Mines it is even worse. Up to last year the officer who valued the diamonds received a higher salary than the Government Mining Engineer. Consider the absurdity of this position that a man responsible for 500,000 lives is paid less than the man who decides on the value of the diamonds! The director of the medical bureau of the mines is paid very nearly as much as the Government Mining Engineer, and this officer has extremely few responsibilities, either medical or otherwise. The same applies to Posts and Telegraphs. The engineers of that Department, who must decide on the telecommunications of the country, which could throw them back for years if they made an error, must carry that responsibility, but they are paid less than the Postmaster-General. Unfortunately, I have no information about the Department of Defence, and I have no information about the pay of the Commandant-General of the forces, but it obviously could be just as absurd if he is paid less than the Secretary for Defence. There is only one Department I can find in which the professional officers are paid more than the Secretary, and that is the Department of Justice, where at least some of the Judges are paid on a higher scale than the Secretary. Sir, I am not disputing the importance of the Judges nor the importance of the work they do, nor the fact that they must be above suspicion and independent-minded. I am only too pleased that they are paid a higher salary, but important and responsible though their task is, it cannot be compared with the onerous position occupied by the Government Mining Engineer who, as I have said, carries the responsibility for so many lives, whose decisions can affect half the revenue of the country; who decides when a mine must be opened or when a mine must be closed; who has the power to close a mine immediately. How could we expect to avoid the Coalbrook disaster when this state of affairs existed? It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be argued that he should not be the best available man and that he should be placed far beyond temptation, far beyond the temptation of even the Chief Justice of the country. That is why in 1907 this officer was appointed by the Governor-General at that time. The mining houses themselves have recently said that the salary of the Government Mining Engineer should be comparable to that of one of their own chief consulting engineers, and they have recommended that he should receive a salary of R11,000, which is actually less than a chief consulting engineer gets, but presumably they feel that the State should get services more cheaply or that the State can obtain a dedicated officer. Sir, there is a new era in the Civil Service. If the Civil Service is to be efficient it must employ large numbers of scientific men; it must employ professional men, professional men who have to make their own decisions. The decision is not made by the Minister. He can lay down the policy but the actual decision is in the hands only of the professional officers. They must be very good men, and to get good men in the modern world you have to pay for them. The scientists of the world hold the world in the hollow of their hands, and they must be treated properly. Several of these scientists carry far greater responsibility than the courts of the land. The courts interpret the laws, but the laws are made by human beings and they are easy to interpret because they are committed to writing. They have time to think and they can delay the decision while they consult authorities and up to a point there is an appeal or a review. But the professional officer as a rule must make decisions on the laws of nature, and these laws are never committed to writing nor are they definitely known. These men make decisions and make them at short notice. Their decision affects the country as a whole and, Sir, as a rule they do not live long lives; the Judges are noted for the fact that they live to a ripe old age. Not only must these professional men be well trained but they must keep up to date. Unlike the Judges, they do not go back into the past for their knowledge; they have to go into the future for their knowledge. They do not look to Marcus Aurelius; they look for the latest information from the satellites careering around the earth.

I have gone into some detail as regards the Government Mining Engineer because he has been the subject of a Government Commission of Inquiry. But the same state of affairs exists in the Department of Health. In this Department the Government should separate the functions of the Chief Health Officer and that of the Secretary for Health. This is the one Department where there is a professional officer as Secretary. I know well that it was at the request of the medical profession that these two posts were combined in the early years of this century, but time marches on and with it marches knowledge and experience. The country’s population has increased. It has moved from a pastoral to an industrial State and it is no longer desirable that these two posts should be combined.

It is interesting to realize that just as in the case of the Government Mining Engineer who is appointed by the State President and can only be dismissed by the State President, the Medical Officers of Health of the various large cities are protected by the Minister of Health. No city can discharge its M.O.H. without the consent of the Minister, and that is as it should be. A professional officer here is protected from interference by public representatives. But this power has worked to the detriment of the cities who are unable to pay their Medical Officers of Health adequately, with the result that the preventive side of medicine has suffered and is not attractive to the profession as a whole. We find that in a city like Durban the Medical Officer of Health ranks about sixth in the salary scale. There are five other officials receiving higher salaries than the M.O.H.—the Town Clerk, the City Engineer, the City Electrical Engineer, etc. In order to get any improvement in their salaries the Medical Officers of Health have to go to a conciliation board. But the effect of this state of affairs on the country is bad because, as I have said, it means that the preventive side of medicine, which is in the hands of the Medical Officers of Health of the State and of the large cities, is no longer attractive to the best men. The average doctor who wishes to specialize therefore does not take up preventive medicine. Naturally when the salaries of Medical Officers of Health are fixed lower than the salary of the Secretary of the Department, whose salary is tied to other secretaries, there is great dissatisfaction. This state of affairs has been appreciated in the United Kingdom where the Secretary for Health is paid on the same scale as any other secretary but the Chief Health Officer’s salary is in the region of 12,000 per annum, a salary which compares not unfavourably with that of the Prime Minister. This officer carries on his shoulders the burden of decisions which affect the life and health of every person in the country. Here the Minister has tried to find a way out of his difficulty. He has apparently realized that he has not in his Department the professional officers he requires and he has therefore set up a planning committee. This planning committee takes the place of the Chief Health Officer who should be a highly qualified and highly experienced professional man. This planning committee consists of some members of the Minister’s own staff and outside doctors. It has to be called together and the man who presides at meetings of that committee is not the Chief Health Officer; the chairman of that committee is an outside doctor who, because he has other employment, is able to accept lower remuneration than a Chief Health Officer in full-time service would expect. This is most unsatisfactory because the decisions of this committee involve no responsibility. They are carried out, but who is responsible for them? I am quite certain that the Chief Health Officer, the Secretary for Health, would simply say, “Well, that is what the committee decided.” Would the Minister accept professional responsibility? I am sure he would not. Who, for example, was responsible for the decision, which is doubted by some people and which was taken about a year ago, to give the widespread anti-polio inoculations? I should like to know, and I should like to discuss the matter with them to find out whether all the pros and cons were considered. And, Sir, similar things are happening. I have no time to go further but I want to draw attention to the Water Department. This Department is going to be faced with the problem of caring for the Orange River scheme. I should like to ask the Cabinet Committee which has been appointed: Where are you going to get the great men to tackle this work? Where are you going to get them at the salaries you are offering? There have been other great schemes in the world, and I have no time to draw attention to all of them. We must remember that de Lesseps built the Suez Canal but he failed at the Panama Canal. Why did he fail at the Panama canal? He failed because nature beat him. He did not fail because he was not a good engineer. He did not fail because he was not an honest man. He was defeated by a mosquito, and it was only when the American Government discovered a great scientist who could beat the mosquito that the Panama Canal was built. That could happen to us here. It was not until the American Government found Col. Gorgas, to whom all the credit must go, that they were able to control the mosquito and build the Panama Canal. We must find some great scientific man to make a success of the Orange River scheme. He may be a Zoologist, he may be a Botanist; he must at least know something about plants. He must be able to appreciate disease. When you change the water courses of a country you change the solvents that carry the food to the animals and to the plants and you change the climate. As I have said, to make a success of this scheme we must find a Col. Gorgas.

I think the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has already regretted his seconders if he has not already regretted his own speech. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) pointed out that the hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock) was not here to-day to participate in the debate, nor could he even listen here. There is also someone else on the opposite side who should be interested in this debate and who should participate in it, and that is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). He is not here either. It is significant that the two hon. members opposite who introduced the debate are really the two members whom one can call the propagandists of the United Party, the people who, through lack of argument, really beat the drum. That was the trend of the whole speech of the hon. member for Turffontein. He thought that if he told us enough about “alarm” and that it would be “disastrous”, he would make out a case for the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not say a word to intimate that he also wants a commission of inquiry. He made a speech dealing with a few of his pet subjects, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the hon. member for Turffontein’s argument in regard to the great unrest and the bad conditions which are alleged to exist. What the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said he could have said equally well in any other debate where a commission of inquiry into the Public Service was not relevant at all. Where he pleaded here for the professional officers, for their salaries in relation to the administrative and managerial officials, I am not sure that if the hon. member had included that in his motion he would in any way have received the support of the public servants. In fact, I think that the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Central) to the effect that the salaries of professional officers are at the moment lower than those of the Secretaries, and that this should not really be so, will evoke much criticism from the public servants themselves, if he wants to make that a general rule. He accordingly does not recognize the fact that the people at the head of a Department bear responsibility which really cannot be borne by anybody else in that Department, and that the responsibility borne by the Secretary of a Department is comparable, and perhaps twice as heavy, as that borne by the Mining Engineer. However, I do not want to expand on that. The hon. member for Durban (Central) should just remember that he made some faulty comparisons to-day where he simply compared the salaries of Judges with those of other officials and practically described the Judges as being professional officers. He came along with a story that the Judges deal with man-made laws, the scientists with the laws of nature, and that is such a difficult thing to deal with. He should just remember that Judges deal with the lives of people.

What about the State Mining Engineer?

The hon. member for Durban (Central) is more intelligent than that. He ought to know that the Mining Engineer does not directly control the lives of people. He only has to apply certain safety standards; he can judge objectively in regard to human frailty. But the Judge judges subjectively by the yardstick of objective standard as to whether he should deprive a man of his life. Those things are not comparable. It is no use expressing such pious thoughts here; it does not convince anybody.

I want to come back to the plea of the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that there should be an investigation. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) pointed out that the Chairman of the Public Service Association had said that such an investigation was not necessary. The point relied on by the hon. member for Orange Grove was the quotation he read out to the effect that the Joint Advisory Board had asked for something like that. Now I just want to say for his information, if he is not aware of it, that at the last meeting of the Joint Advisory Board that suggestion was discussed and it was decided not to carry on with it. Does he agree? Does he know about it?

Read the minutes of the last meeting.

It is recorded in the minutes of the last meeting. That is a meeting which was held towards the end of August 1963. It is recorded that there was a motion to discuss a commission of inquiry, that it was discussed and that it was decided to minute the discussion, and that was the end of it.

They just left it; it was not rejected.

It is quite clear that the Joint Advisory Board …

That is wrong.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein cannot make one speech after another.

It will do the hon. member for Turffontein good to understand once and for all how misleading many of the statements were which were made here. The Joint Advisory Board ceased discussing the matter and it thereby clearly indicated that it did not agree at all that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the Public Service. If the hon. member for Turffontein understands that, we have at least achieved something since 4 o’clock to-day.

The hon. member for Turffontein said that it should be noted that public servants in the higher grades receive a much lower salary than people in the private sector. Surely it is well known that that is the case right throughout the world. It is generally known that the Public Service cannot compete with the private sector. He advanced this general ground for the appointment of a commission. Having made that suggestion, does he realize how much unrest, tension and trouble is caused by a commission of inquiry into a body like the Public Service? Does he realize that the benefits which may perhaps flow from such an inquiry—and then it should be held in a totally different set of circumstances from those obtaining to-day—cannot quite be weighed up as against all the misery and disadvantages caused in a service like the Public Service by an external inquiry such as he evidently wants? The problems are not understood by outsiders. There is machinery in the Public Service which deals with these problems every day. Failing to recognize that machinery and practically to expose the public servant to the mercy of people who just rush into the matter will only cause unrest and tension and hamper the work. Does the hon. member not realize that? It is no joke to do something like that, Sir. But I am afraid that is how the hon. member put it to-day. It is just a little job that can be disposed of quickly; appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the so-called dissatisfaction in the Public Service! And then he does not really know why, and what he can hope to achieve.

I want to state that we are very grateful for the fact that despite the manpower problem we are experiencing in South Africa today, the Public Service is getting more than its quota of the people it requires in the managerial positions. I say this with emphasis, that the Public Service is getting more than its quota of people to fill those responsible managerial positions. I say we can be grateful for that. That is due to one fact, Sir, namely that the Public Service, as compared with employers who offer higher salaries, like e.g., the mines, offers its employees something extra, and that is the joy of working for an ideal, of working for their country, and devoting their lives to it. That is the reason why public servants to-day, from a sense of duty, work harder than they would have worked if they had had more staff. That is the factor which to-day enables the public servants to keep the Public Service on this high level, despite the material attractions of the private sector.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and motion lapsed.