I beg to state that I have been summoned by a committee of the Senate to give evidence before the select committee appointed by the Senate, and I desire, in accordance with the rules, to ask for leave.

Is there any objection to the hon. member giving evidence? … There being no objection the hon. member has permission.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Very few people will be found who will cavil at the proposal of the Government to make provision for the aged poor. During our travels as a commission I do not remember one witness coming forward to oppose the principle—I am wrong, there was one, the Chamber of Mines. But, of course, their people never grow old, they do not live long enough. But everywhere we went there was plenty of evidence as to the necessity of some provision being made by the State to provide for the aged poor. I could relate to the House quite a lot of our experience and of the sights we saw on our travels which would make the blood of some hon. member curdle. There can be no doubt but that the greatest human misery is caused through the absence of something of this kind. It is quite true that in the towns and villages, churches and various societies have to some extent stepped in and filled the breach in a small way, and, as far as their funds allow, thus providing for a number of these people, but there are thousands of others outside the reach of charitable organizations—even in the towns—who to-day are in very bad need of some assistance. We must not overlook the fact that in South Africa past droughts, epidemics amongst cattle, and the many ravages that have taken place in this country have in various places impoverished the people to such an extent that they have not only made poor many who would otherwise have been well-to-do, but they have impoverished the community to the extent that they are not able to help in charitable work to the extent they would like. It is only by a national effort that we can hope to reach these people or make proper provision. I am ignoring entirely the people who believe that when a person has lived long enough to pass the sphere of usefulness and of production, and has not the means to keep himself he should shuffle off this mortal coil—that he should take a dose of lysol or something—and get rid of himself as a nuisance to the community. There are very few of that kind in South Africa. Most people are willing to be taxed and to pay tribute for such a purpose as that for which this Bill is drafted. It is quite within all our experiences to have seen paragraphs in the newspapers, regarding some old person or the other who, in despair, has taken his life rather than face the poverty and privation endured by all those without means of livelihood. Would this House believe that we found one instance of a man of 95, nearly blind, compelled to earn his living in a relief camp? I must say that I think a great many people will be disappointed at the provisions of this Bill. The Minister has forestalled criticism by asking us to accept the provisions of this Bill as an instalment. I would welcome it if it resembled even a half measure of what I think would suffice to meet the needs of the country at the present time, but the Bill in its present form is not a half measure of what is due to the people of this country. Coming at a time when the treasury coffers are overflowing, and when a rebate of 20 per cent, is to be given to income taxpayers, I think we might have expected a more liberal provision in this regard. More important, perhaps, than the actual amount provided is the necessity of seeing that any measure of this kind is started on a proper basis. The ideal scheme would be one which contains no means limit, and which would provide that any citizen on reaching the pensionable age should be allowed to claim a pension. That is not such a fantastic proposal as it seems on the surface. At least, it would be doing justice to every member of the community. I want to quote a few figures which will show that all these endeavours to economize in this regard are quite unnecessary. I have no figures as regards this country, but I have figures in regard to the United Kingdom, and I find that of the persons of 70 years of age and over in Great Britain 76.5 per cent, draw old age pensions, and of these 97.2 draw the full pension. With regard to the argument that universal old age pensions are a shibboleth that no country can adopt, I would point out that as a matter of fact legislation all over the world is tending in that direction. The only argument I can find against it is some sort of fear exists in a few minds that some rich mining magnate, some South African millionaire, might have for the old age pension, and the mere thought of paying pensions to persons of that character seems to be enough to shift people entirely from the principle of entitling every person in the community to a pension. But though our minds, perhaps, are not sufficiently advanced to grasp the justice of what I have just said, on the other hand I want to point out that there is no reason why we should swing right over in the other direction and pauperize our people in South Africa by bringing in a sort of pauper relief bill. A typical instance of what I mean is contained in Clause 18. I know the Minister has gone out of his way and modified the clause. I would like to read some remarks I made in regard to the particular principle contained in that clause, which will be found in my memorandum to the commission’s report. [Extract read.] In some regards the Minister has met what I complain of by the proviso to the end of Clause 18, but what it amounts to is this—that the authority, I take it the Pension Commissioner, where he finds that there are relatives or children near at hand who can be easily found, will go on with the collection from them of the amount of the pension paid to the pensioners, but where it is difficult to find these people, he won’t trouble, and so an injustice will be committed in that way. It will not work out equitably at all. I want to draw a picture of just what would happen. In the evidence given before the Wage Board it was stated, and I think with justice, that something like £30 a month was required to keep a man and his wife and four children comfortable. If that is so, we will take the case of a man, with a wife and four children, earning £15 or £16 a month, where the pension commissioner steps in and takes away from them, it may be only £1, but £1 most necessary for the upkeep end education of the children of that family, and then when the family find out this has resulted from some relative applying for a pension under this Act, we can see the ill-feeling that is going to be created between relatives. We are going to have all sorts of irritation. What are we going to save in the finish? It will be a very small sum indeed, and not worth all the friction it is going to cause. To do the Minister justice he told the House he is not altogether wedded to this clause, and he was going to leave it to the House to decide, and I am going to appeal to the House to support me in this endeavour to have Clause 18 removed and to take the taint of pauperism out of the Bill. This Bill only provides for some 28,000 persons as against the 47,000 the commission recommended for pensions. Those left out include, to my mind, some of the most pitiable cases there are, persons totally incapacitated from work, people who are blind, people who are crippled, and people who are paralyzed. The very type of case we meet in the streets, and which, above all others, invoke our pity. We are only going to pay attention to the claims of the hale and hearty man of 65, but are going to cut out all the invalids whom it was proposed to incorporate. Every one of those cases recommended is a person who is totally incapacitated from obtaining work, or doing any work, if he could get it. That is the sort of person the commission intended should be included in this Bill. These people are not confined to the towns. Every village in the country has its quota, and they ought to be taken off the streets. Humanity demands that they should be taken off the streets. Many of these people have been so afflicted from birth. Many have met with accidents that caused invalidity at a time when there was no Workmen’s Compensation Act, when there was no legal provision, and in some cases where, even after the passing of that Act, the employer was not in a position to provide for them. These people have been on the streets for years, living on private charity. We find, in other parts of the world, they go out of their way to meet this particular class of case, and they treat them more favourably than even the aged. I would also like to know the position of children falling under this class. At present we have the Children’s Protection Act, by which a crippled child can be provided for until it is 21 years of age. But unless you bring them under an Act of this kind it will mean that there will be no provision after they reach 21 years of age until they are 65 and apply for the old age pension. Private charity does its best, but it is very unreliable. It is limited by the extent to which charitable people will subscribe. We cannot expect charitable people to take this burden of the State— it is a burden of the State—on their shoulders in all cases. We admit it is a State burden by providing for these invalid children until they are 21, but that is the extreme age under the Act to which the Minister can provide for them, and I would like him to tell the House how he proposes these children should be provided for between the age of 21 and the age of 65, when they will get an old age pension under this Act. What is more difficult still for me to understand is why we should differentiate in this Bill, simply on the ground of colour. There can be no other ground, no other excuse, no other reason or bias than that. Simply because a person is coloured, he is to receive a lower pension. We are talking about the class of persons who earn £24 per annum, or less. I wonder what hon. member could go amongst persons earning £24 per annum or less and distinguish as to the standards of living of coloured and white in a community of that kind. It is no use saying that over the whole community, generally speaking, whites live in a higher standard than coloured. We are not dealing with the whole community in this Bill. We are dealing with persons earning £24 per annum or less, and it is impossible to distinguish, with regard to cost of living, mode of living, cost of rent or anything else, between white and coloured living at such a low ebb as this particular class is. They do not have to pay less for bread because they are coloured, or less for rent. Their clothes cost the same. Whatever it costs the white man or the white woman to live must also apply to the coloured person. There seems to be no justification whatever for our allowing any differentiation to take place in the Act and no justification why the recommendation of the commission should not have been adopted, to put them exactly on the same plane. It might be argued that if you gave these people 10s. a week they would be really getting more than many of them ever got before in their life. I can assure you it is quite a common argument, and it may even be repeated in this House. It shows the disgraceful wages which have been paid to coloured men in South Africa. If, as the result of the Pensions Act, these people could spend their days with a little more comfort than in the past, no great injury would be done to the taxpayer; in fact, it is a most necessary thing that we should treat all people alike in regard to this particular Bill. I would like to say a few words about the amount of the pensions— not in any carping spirit—but to deal with some of the ignorance prevailing as to what a person can live upon. The evidence we have taken from all sources, from those competent to give evidence, shows clearly that 10s. per week would merely suffice to lay down a minimum food ration—nothing more—nothing for rent and for clothes. A comparison with the cost of keeping a criminal, a person in a public institution or in one of these charitable homes, shows that the amount of keeping these persons is more than double the pension proposed; it costs you considerably more than £1 a week to keep criminals and people in public and private institutions—considerably more—there is no private institution that can give a minimum living at anything less than £l per week. I can show you plenty of evidence on that point. Then, how do we expect these persons who have no income whatever to come out on this 10s. a week? They would be just as dependent on begging and on charitable institutions as ever; but these institutions, not knowing that these people get State pensions, would turn round and deprive them of that amount of 10s. a week they at present receive from charitable funds. Unless we lay down a sum—not an extravagant one—which would, at least, provide for a minimum of existence, a roof over their heads, and clean clothing, we shall be doing more injury to these persons in many cases— not in all cases—than at the present time.

What is the pension in England and in Australia?

The pension in England is 10s. at 70, and in South Africa it is a little more—£2 10s. per month at 65, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows there is a vast difference between the purchasing power of 10s. here and in England. Then, where are they going to find lodgings? That will cost at least £1 per month. I am not arguing about other countries, but saying it is quite insufficient for South Africa, and the cost of living here is much higher than in the countries the hon. member refers to. We are adding one more to the indignities about which these people complain. Their crime is that they the poor, and if you investigate you will find, generally speaking, it is through no fault of their own, but due to sickness, unemployment, drought and other things over which they had no control; these things impoverish the people, and they often have not the opportunity of getting on their feet again. The wages for which they were working for someone else barely sufficed to keep them and their children. It is ridiculous to ask these people to put something by for a rainy day. They need every penny they earn for their own livelihood. The charitable institutions, to satisfy the subscribers to their funds, have to hold their inquisition into the condition of these people at present. The pension commissioner will now have to do the same; it is going to be one more inquisition, and some of these people, rather than submit to that, commit suicide. I am not exaggerating. I can give you instances of scores of people over 65 who have committed suicide because they had no means of existence. On the other hand, I want the Minister to bear in mind that at present the question of poor relief is in the hands of the provincial authorities; to some extent they already make provision for this class. We have our boards of aid in the large cities. It is possible for those who are not too far away from towns to come in and get assistance in the form of pauper relief. Provincial authorities are to be relieved of this burden, and we are simply transferring the burden from the provincial authorities to the State, without really making proper provision for the aged poor of this country by giving them a minimum existence, so that they need not pauperize themselves, and beg in the streets. I want now to say a few words about the cost to the State. Hon. members may think that by putting the age limit high that we are, to some extent, escaping a burden in that regard. All the evidence tendered to the commission without, I think, a single difference, was that people in their old age generally need assistance from the State, and that it is only very rarely you find persons employed in industry after the age of 60. All the evidence points to the necessity of the State stepping in at the age of 60. The proper time, however, for the State to render assistance, in my opinion, would be when a person has ceased to be employable. Most countries, however, allow an interval to elapse between that time and pension time, under the impression that a man will be able to live during the interval on his savings. But should there be no savings, as happens in the majority of cases, these poor people are compelled to part, first with their charished relics, secondly with their furniture, and finally with their surplus clothing, if they have any, so that when at last they do reach the pensionable age the pittance they draw from the State is quite insufficient to provide their needs, modest as they are, as it would have done if the State had helped them earlier when they had their few little effects. The results of too high an age limit is to pauperize the pensioner and to drive him into the slums. That argument holds good with regard to women with even greater strength than it does with regard to men. No provision is made for a widow under our laws unless she has children, and then an allowance is only made if she has children under the Children’s Protection Act. Let us remember the war-created problem of the many thousands of surplus women who are compelled to fight the battle of life unaided. Look where women are employed, and see how few of them are able to find work after reaching 50. As a rule, women marry five years younger than men do, so that if we leave the pension age the same for both sexes many married men will arrive at the pensionable age when their wives are 60, so that two persons will have to struggle to live on 10s. a week for five years, more or less, when the man and the wife will draw a combined pension of £1 a week. In most countries the difficulty is overcome by putting women on the pension list five years earlier than men. I think it is the custom in all countries which have vagrancy laws to throw the onus of providing shelter for vagrants on the local authorities. Much as I deprecate workhouses, it must be admitted that, at any rate, they provide some place of shelter to people who are in extremes, thus preventing them having to sleep huddled together on doorsteps or seats in the park. Some unfortunate Europeans are glad to accept the charity of poor coloured people. The commission asked the representatives of public bodies if they did not consider that municipalities should be forced to provide accommodation for aged poor people at a reasonable rental, in exactly the same way as they were forced to provide dwellings for natives. [Time extended.] Most municipalities told us they would welcome an Act to compel them to provide small, cheap houses. The natives of East London and King William’s Town have decent little two-roomed houses which cost about £124 to build, the rental of which is considerably less than many aged white people have to pay for slum accommodation. I had the idea that the Government, in view of the strong recommendations of the commission, would at least have allocated £200,000 or £300,000 for the purpose of providing in various centres a number of small houses which could be hired by these old persons. The municipalities undertook to accept the management of these houses. We thought that would counter to some extent the rack renter, who otherwise will take advantage of the fact that people draw old age pensions from the State and consequently will raise the rent by 2s. or 3s. a week in a place like Cape Town, where there is a shortage of houses. They will have to pay or be thrown into the street, and the landlord will benefit to a large extent from the amounts we are giving them under this Bill. I want to thank the Minister for the careful attention he has given to some of the other points I raised in my memorandum, and for trying to improve certain other matters on which I should have felt compelled to speak equally strongly, but I see the force of my arguments have, in some regards, borne fruit.

I think we are all agreed, or nearly all, that a Bill of this kind was necessary. I do not think many of us are disposed to quarrel with most of the provisions of it. Of course, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has argued in the sense of the memorandum attached to the report of the commission. No doubt there is a good deal to be said for some of the arguments which he has brought forward in support of a more liberal measure. I think we have to look at this from a business point of view, and we have to remember that first of all, this is an Old Age Pension Bill, not an invalidity Bill, and still less a Bill for the provision of housing. No doubt it would be extremely desirable if all the people in the country could be assured of reasonable housing accommodation. We all know the difficulties in the way of that. We know what a vicious circle we get into, having regard to the rising wages and the consequent cost of building, and so forth. It seems to me that is a matter which must be left out of the purview of a Bill of this kind. This is a beginning. Whatever benefits people will get as a result of this measure, they will be new benefits, additional to anything they have had hitherto. We should all be glad if we thought the State could afford to pay a higher scale of pensions and enlarge the scope of the Bill. But we cannot do all these things—provide comfortable wages, comfortable housing, and comfortable old age pensions for every one without counting the consequences. The policy which has been largely the policy of the Government in regard to wage matters, which is no doublt supported by the hon. member, seems to have for its object the fixing of a comfortable wage for everyone. I think we have to consider whether, if that policy was pushed too far, the resources of the country would be sufficient to carry it out. It is obvious that if it is carried too far, employment, so far from being increased, will be diminished. The same argument applies to what the hon. member has said. We must consider that this measure, which is only a beginning, is going to cost something like a million a year. At the present time we have an the estimates a vote for pensions for no less than £2,355,000. I am not complaining of those. Some of those are pensions" of ordinary civil servants and war pensions, and they, as the hon. Minister says, exclude railways. Now we are going to have between £900,000 and £1,000,000 more in respect of the obligations under this Bill. That will make between three-and-a-quarter and three-and-a-half million. When we remember what the total revenue of this country is, and that the estimates of expenditure for the year 1928-’29 is just over £28,000,000, it is seen that three-and-a-quarter or three-and-a-half million forms a very considerable proportion. It seems to me it is quite as far as we can go to-day. We have also to consider the points that the hon. member made on the question of age. I do not think it will be reasonable to put the age lower than 65. It seems to me that 65 is a reasonable age to take. I notice from the report that the proportion of people in South Africa who reach the age of 65 is curiously low, much lower apparently than it is in England and other dominions. I suppose that is due possibly to ignorance of proper feeding, sanitation and so forth. It is reasonable to suppose that that will improve, and if that is so, the proportion of people who will reach the age of 65 years, and who may become pensionable, will increase. Experience of nearly every country shows that when you start a scheme of this kind public opinion, as time goes on, for party and political purposes I dare say, moves in the direction of increasing the benefits. I am perfectly certain in, say, ten years hence the benefits which will be given under the old age pension system, which will then be in force, will be appreciably greater than those proposed to be granted under this Bill. All the same, I must confess I rather sympathize with what the hon. member said about discrimination which is made in this Bill on the ground of colour. It is not proposed to grant any pensions to natives. On the whole, I think that is a wise decision, because we are not ready for that yet. We have to see how the administration of this present measure works. The Minister told us a certain sum, I think under £30,000, was allowed for administration. I hope that will not be exceeded. I expect it will be, but we have to build up a proper system of administration, and if we are going to start with the very complicated business of providing an administration fit to deal with the provision of pensions for natives, I think we would very soon find ourselves in difficulties. There are obvious difficulties in the way of applying a measure of this kind to natives. I imagine that large numbers of natives are ignorant of their ages. No one knows what age they are. If all the natives were what one might call civilized natives, or the class who have the franchise in this part of the world, there would be no great difficulty. Some of those natives, I know, feel rather sore that they are left out of this Bill. I have already had representations made to me by natives. They say: “Why should not we participate in the same way as other people?” I do not see how you can distinguish between educated natives who may have got the franchise down here and other natives. If you give the benefits of this Bill to any natives, you must give it to all natives, and it seems to me the difficulties in regard to that are at present, at any rate, insuperable. I, therefore, agree with the Government in that respect. On the other hand, there is the question of colour. I question if it is good policy to discriminate in the way in which this Bill does. After all, the amount at stake is not very large. Now the estimated number of Europeans with whom this Bill proposes to deal is 15,518. The number of coloured is 12,580. If the benefits applicable to those people were put on the same level as the benefits applicable to Europeans, it is obvious that the resulting increase in cost would not be very large. I very much doubt whether it is a good thing to make that discrimination. But there is another point which appeals to me, and that is the definition of a coloured person in Section 20 of the Bill—

My hon. friend, the member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), pointed out the other day that he doubted whether it was wise to discriminate against Indians. That seems to me to raise several questions. I understood the Minister to interject, when the matter was brought to his notice by the hon. member for Yeoville, that, after all, we are not attempting to keep the Indians in the country, but we are inviting them to leave this country. That is quite true, but the fact remains that many of these people were born in the country, and it does seem to me to be doubtful policy to discriminate against them because we are in this Bill doing the very thing which has caused so much trouble in the past. We are discriminating against these people practically by name. It is almost as if we said: “No Indian shall be eligible for a pension.” That raises the question whether that is within the scope of the agreement which has been made in regard to the treatment of Indians. I should think there would be more to be said for this if it affected a large number of people, but I see that the number of Indians, who, it is estimated, would be affected if this Bill were applicable to them, is 1,557. It appears to me very doubtful whether, for the sake of such a small saving as that would make, it is worth while to give rise, as this would give rise, to considerable discontent by discriminating against them. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has said, it is not open to us to move amendments in the direction of increasing the benefits to be given, and I suppose we shall have to be content with what the Bill provides. I do not agree with a good deal of what the hon. member for Jeppe has said in his appeal for further benefits. I think we cannot afford to be too generous, but I do think that it would have been better if we could have made this Bill applicable to all persons except natives, without distinction of any kind, and as I have said, the resulting economy is not great. I believe if we had done that we should have saved a great deal of trouble for the future and, we should, so to speak, have started fair, because it is useless to suppose that when this Bill has passed this session that will be the end of the whole matter. We shall be faced, as time goes on, with demands for increased benefits, and we shall, no doubt, be faced also with demands for a measure dealing with invalidity, which will meet some of the cases brought forward by the hon. member for Jeppe. I am quite sure that no Bill that is brought forward will meet all the points dealt with by the hon. member for Jeppe. On the whole, except that I think it is a mistake to have made the discrimination to which I have referred, I think that the measure is a good one.

Although it is generally recognized on both sides of the House that we ought to introduce some system of old age pensions, and that South Africa is a long way behind other countries in regard to care shown for the necessitous poor, a number of questions have been raised as the commission went through the country, and are being raised outside this House in regard to these national old age pensions, questions that have to be answered, and that have to be faced. People will say: “We have nothing against the principle of old age pensions, but we must Be careful not to do this or that. For instance, we must be careful not to undermine the responsibility of children towards their aged parents.” We have had this said to us over and over again, and it is certainly necessary to look at this Bill from that point of view and see if it will have the effect of undermining the responsibility which children have and should have, towards their aged parents. If we read this Bill, and especially that clause which has been spoken so much against by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson)—Clause 18—I think we will have no fear in regard to the responsibility of children being undermined by this Bill, if that clause is passed. If the clause is not passed, I am afraid that some of the objections that people hold against the principle of old age pensions, and the fear that some have that it will undermine the feeling of responsibility on the part of children, will have a certain amount of ground. I have heard again and again the hon. member for Jeppe say that it retains the stigma of pauper relief if we appeal to the children to do their duty towards their aged parents, and when that is taken into consideration in the granting of pensions. It is also said that it is the stigma of charity. I am sorry to hear it spoken of as the “stigma of charity”. I still think it is one of the grandest virtues of any community that it should have a feeling of charity, I mean charity properly administered. The Bill that is before us lays down that aged parents, if they feel they need this pension, and they are otherwise qualified to apply for a pension will not have the pension denied to them, even though they have children rich enough to support them. To day, under the Oud-Stryders’ scheme, it is different. If they apply for pensions their children are referred to, and if the Government knows they have children the pension is refused. As the Bill now stands the onus will be on the Government to compel children, if they are able to provide for their aged parents, to do so, but the pension will not be refused to the old people. We have had cases before us where old people have said: “We have children and they can do a little towards our support, but we do not like to go to the magistrate to compel them.” Now the old people will not have to go to the magistrate to compel children to give that support. If an application is made for a pension and if, after investigation, the Government finds that the children are able to support their parents and are not doing their duty—it is not charity, it is a legal duty—that may be enforced, and they will have to contribute as much as possible towards the pension fund of the Government if they are not doing their duty. Personally, I think that, if this Clause 18 is passed, many of the objections which people outside have to the introduction of an old age pension scheme will be removed. I think it would be a grave mistake if we were to introduce a measure that would diminish the feeling of responsibility which children should have towards their aged parents. Another question which is very often mooted is whether old age pensions will, in any way, undermine the sense of thrift. I quite recognize there are many people, especially among the working classes, who are unable to save anything towards their old age. We know the difficulties the ordinary working class man has to encounter, but still I think there ought to be the incentive to save as much as possible for the declining days of life, and that incentive should not be taken away altogether by the State. As the Bill stands at present, I do not think there is any fear. Admittedly, the pension is very small. It is not enough to provide for all the needs of an old man or an old woman. It is quite true that it is simply to provide the bare necessities of food and drink, and hardly that. According to the evidence given to the commission by many people, I think the lowest figure at which a person can be provided with food in this country is an average of 1s. 3d. per day. I think 1s. 3d. is the very lowest, and that is without taking into consideration the high cost of living in the big centres. The pension the Government is giving is so small that the incentive to save a little for old age is not taken away. As a matter of fact, I think the pension could be increased considerably before that incentive was taken away altogether. I think the commission has carried out this idea of stimulating the incentive to save as much as possible, much better than the scheme of the Government. As a matter of fact, there are some very strange anomalies in the figures quoted in connection with this Bill. If a pensioner has an income of £24, he will receive a pension of £30, which will give him a total income of £54. The anomaly is that if he has an income of £25, his pension will be so much decreased that he will really be worse, off with his income of £25 than he would have been if his income had been £24. If his income is £25 his pension is immediately decreased by £6, so it would be better for a man to have an income of only £24 than an income of £25.

Can you devise a scale without creating anomalies?

I think the scheme we recommended has not that anomaly. The scheme recommended by the commission was simple enough. We tried to make it possible for a man to receive a few pounds extra from the Government for every few pounds he saved on his own up to £52, so that if a man had an income of £10, that would be deducted from £52 and halved, so that his total income would be £31. Supposing his own income was £20, that would be deducted from £52, which would mean £32, and his pension would be half of that, so that his total income would be £36. A £10 income would give him £31, and a £20 income would give him £36, and so on, until we arrived at the figure of £52.

That would be very difficult to compute. The machinery would be out of all proportion to the benefit.

But even the Minister lays down relative figures. However, the idea is still kept before us that people should have some incentive to saving on their own. It is also often stated, and it is stated by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson), that people who at present contribute towards charity will no longer be prepared to contribute, and they will feel that there is not very much work left for charity. Even so, I think the hon. member is not quite right. People will realize that the pension given by the Government is not sufficient to keep an old man altogether. Here I am thinking especially of those old people who have no children and have no friends to care for them. That, of course, brings in the very difficult question of housing. I think we are merely assisting charitable institutions to give a little more to provide housing for these old people. In some towns people have been much more alive to the necessity of housing aged people. Places like Port Elizabeth and Kimberley stand out in my mind. In Kimberley, I believe, they have a fund which stands at £100,000 to assist old residents of this class. That sort of thing will still have to be done in future, and no doubt municipalities will have to consider the necessity of providing homes for old people who are not otherwise cared for. I am very glad the Government has not thought seriously of making Government institutions for old people. I think that would have been a great mistake. About eight or nine years ago I visited a number of these homes for old people on the Continent of Europe. If there was one conclusion to which I came it was that a big institution for old people should not be carried on by the Government, but by private people, and the Government may assist by giving a little pension and leave it to the people who carry on these institutions to find out what they should charge these people from their pensions. As regards Clause 16, I do not quite see why the Minister has departed from the recommendation of the commission. In practice it would not amount to much. He lays down where reciprocal arrangements can be made between Great Britain and the dominions and this country, these pensions will also be paid out. The recommendation of the commission was that if reciprocal arrangements should be made between this country and other countries, and they paid their own aged poor if they come to South Africa we should pay our aged poor if they went to the other country. I see the Minister has gone out of his way to limit this only to Great Britain and the dominions. I do not know why he has done that. It may please some people who have learnt more than I have, and who have learnt to think imperially and to make the British Commonwealth of Nations a sort of water-tight compartment. But I do not think politics like that should creep in. Suppose an old German or an old Hollander should receive an old age pension from this country, he has come here and wants to go back there in his old days, if we can make arrangements with Holland or Germany for their old people who come here, I do not see why we should make this invidious difference.

You are thinking internationally.

Yes, and I do not think it would do the hon. member any harm to do so. I would like to say a few words with regard to the coloured people. I was rather sorry to hear the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) spoke in the same strain, referring to this matter as an attempt to introduce a new colour bar. The hon. member for South Peninsula is prepared at the same time to satisfy himself with the bigger colour bar, if he wants to call it that, and is prepared to exclude the native.

I did not use the words “colour bar”.

But the hon. member for Yeoville did, and the hon. member for Jeppe also did so. The hon. member is prepared to swallow the cow; I wonder why he is not prepared to swallow the tail. He is prepared to swallow the exclusion of the natives. But coloured people are not excluded; they are receiving a slightly lower pension, and the hon. member has a quarrel with the Minister for excluding the coloured people from the larger pension. In any case, I am very sorry that we should introduce the words “colour bar” in this connection. I know that we discussed the question whether coloured people and whites should receive the same pension, which is not a matter of a colour bar, and the commission eventually recommended a flat rate. When we came to the figure it was not because we were so very much afraid of the colour bar in this connection; we were not thinking of that; it was only when we decided to place the figure so low, we said it would be hard to make it lower. The hon. member for Yeoville, I think, has also given away his case when he admitted that, generally speaking, the standard of living of the coloured people is lower than that of the whites. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) also, broadly speaking, admits that is the case. I think it was that which influenced the Minister in departing from the recommendation of the commission and also his decision to raise the pension a little bit higher than that recommended by the commission. He said he did so because he did not want to lay it down on a lower scale than what the Oud-Stryders were getting now. It was because the Minister is convinced that here we have to do with people who, broadly speaking, have a lower standard of living than the whites; and on that basis alone we may say we have the right to discriminate to a certain extent, I do not think it is right to keep on saying that the Minister is introducing another colour bar here, and that he is discriminating simply on the ground of colour. With regard to the natives, I am glad to hear hon. members of the Opposition are also prepared to recognize the impossibility of giving them old age pensions, because I know there are many natives, especially educated natives, who think we are doing an enormous injustice to the natives. People outside who do not know the situation do not know why the poorest people should be excluded. Superficially it is not right, but when all the difficulties are taken into consideration we will agree that the Government could not do more than is proposed in the Bill. It is mainly a question of finance. With our small white population and our huge native population, the burden of paying pensions to the latter would be an impossible one. Further, it would be impossible to find out the ages of about 60 per cent, of the natives, and in the second place, the payment of pensions would encourage the tendency for natives to de-tribalize themselves. At present many town natives, when they become too old for work, return to their kraals, but if we paid them old age pensions very few of them would go back to their homes. The commission, however, recommend that where pauper rations are given to the natives, they should be given on a somewhat more generous scale. We all realize that to some extent this is a half measure. Logically, there is no reason why, if you provide old age pensions, you should not also pay invalid pensions, and the question of invalidity will have to be considered by the State., Old age is a relative term. Some people are old at 55 or 60, whilst others are still comparatively young at 70. Although the pension is low, and will barely suffice to buy enough food, still I am sure a pension of £2 10s. a month will be welcomed by thousands of old people, and will go a long way towards relieving some of the pathetic suffering which attends indigent old age.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said the Bill must be considered from a business point of view, but if that view is the correct one the measure should have been drawn up in a very different way. Our point of view is social justice—the provision for what Section 1, Part 13, of the treaty of peace describes as “provision for old age and injury”. From that point of view we are glad that the Government has tackled one of our big social problems, although the Government has not gone so far as I should like. But we are at the opening of a new era, as this is the first time in the history of South Africa that a Government has introduced such a measure. We are very much indebted to the gentlemen who prepared the treasury memorandum and the commission’s report. I am sorry the Minister did not adhere to the definition he quoted, which contained no colour distinctions, viz., “a small pension, just sufficient to provide for the necessities of life, paid out of the national treasury to all destitute and deserving aged.” There is no colour distinction in that definition. There are different standards of living, but there is only one standard of starvation. When it comes to the necessities of life, how can we justify the drawing of a distinction between one man and another? I am sorry that the Minister thought it necessary to do this, because the commission’s report is against it. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has lost sight of the fact that the coloured man will not receive a pension of 10s. a week, but less than 8s. a week. The reason for excluding the man born in South Africa, although he belongs to the Indian community, I cannot understand. The total number of Asiatics involved is very small. The figures are quoted on page 29 of the report of the commission. The Minister will bear me out, I think, when I say as far as I know in other countries even with coloured problems like Australia, when there has been a reference to Asiatics they are included, as you will see from the memorandum, when born there. Any Asiatic born in Australia gets old age pension.

In Canada they don’t.

That is rather irrelevant to what I was saying. Does the Minister say that any Canadian born people are not included? What possible logical reason can there be for excluding the Asiatic born in Natal?

You exclude the native.

I am coming to that. I say you should exclude nobody from your scheme.

Then your scheme is dead.

I say we can provide a scheme which will give justice to everybody— a small amount, possibly, but to say that a scheme is dead if you provide for all, and then only provide for a favoured few, is a condemnation of the scheme itself. To say we will exclude the poorest sections, because if we included it there would not be as much as we want to give to those who are better, off is not right. I see no reason at all for excluding the natives. It is a poor thing to proclaim to the world that you cannot possibly afford to do social justice. Then again this Bill makes no provision for invalidity. I find it difficult there to follow the Minister. He said they had not yet reported on the second term of reference. The question of invalidity is included in the first term of reference.

I mean national insurance.

Then the Minister has not explained why the matter of invalidity, which comes under the first term of reference, does not appear, because the committee has fully reported on it. Why has not the Government provided for invalidity pensions? I am not now speaking of a system of national insurance, which is a very necessary thing, and which, I hope, will be provided later on, but of the first term of reference, and I am asking why the recommendations of this committee have not been acted on.

Invalidity is generally included in national insurance.

Not necessarily. There are two ways of dealing with these matters— contributory and non-contributory. Some countries adopt a contributory basis, which brings in the question of insurance, and some adopt the non-contributory. This Government has rightly decided, as far as old age pensions are concerned, that we should adopt the non-contributory basis, but that same basis is adopted in most countries which adopt the non-contributory basis for old age pensions, for invalidity pensions also. I would point out, while on this matter, that not only is a coloured man getting less, but it works out in an extraordinary way. The coloured man who has an income between £21 and £24 is going to get £12, whereas a white man whose income does not exceed £24 is going to get £30. In the case of an income between £27 and £30, the coloured man is going to get £6 and the white man four times that amount. A great deal has been said with regard to this question of the children. I must say I sympathize with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I think the question of the children should be left out entirely. Parents have their rights to enforce the obligation of the children to support them if they like to do so. Very few like to do that, we know, but under the law aged parents can compel their children to support them if they are able to do so. It is the law of the country. It is because it is the law of the country that the Minister takes power to the State to enforce that law. So far as they are able to do it, the courts of this country will enforce the children’s obligation. It is much better to leave it like that than to bring the State in, because when the State begins litigation between parents and children it is going to lead to a tremendous amount of family trouble. We can quite leave the position as it is now. Very few of these parents find it necessary to enforce this support, because most children do their duty. Those who don’t can be brought to book. To bring the State in by this machinery is going to do more harm than good. The tragedy in regard to the aged in this country is witnessed by us every day. Somebody has referred to the homes. These homes at present are doing a lot of good work, but how many do they provide for? Fortunately, the various churches and denominations do make some provision, and those people who are lucky enough to secure admission to those homes are happily provided for, but there are many who are unable to secure admission to these homes. There is no question that when we come to deal with matters of this kind, whether it be provision for the aged, provision for orphans, or provision for cripples, less is being done in this country than in many countries. We do not do enough. We leave these matters largely to the various denominations. Spasmodic efforts are made here and there on behalf of the aged, the orphans and the cripples, but, taking them as a class, they are neglected, and this old age pension scheme will do a great deal in that direction. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said that the age here, 65, is low compared with that of other countries. The hon. member is quite wrong. Sixty-five is the general age that is taken. In New Zealand, for instance, the age at which pensions are granted is 65 and over. I would point out to the Minister that if he looks up the New Zealand scheme, he will find that the Maoris are not discriminated against. Then take Australia, here, again, the age is 65, and in certain cases 60 for men and 60 and 55 in the case of women. In 1919 Holland passed a scheme of old age pensions by the State for people at 65. In Germany the pensionable age was originally fixed at 70, but in 1916 it was altered to 65. I think some countries have made the age a little less for women. On the whole, I think one can say with justice of this particular measure that it does mark a new era in South Africa, in that, for the first time, a measure of social justice is brought forward, but it does contain within itself things that one deplores, the small rate of pensions, discrimination between coloured and white, exclusion of Indians and exclusion of natives. These are defects that, I hope, will be removed as time goes on. One hon. member has said we may take it that this is not the end of the matter. One can say: “Thank God, it is not the end of the matter.” It is a beginning, and a very small beginning, and one can hope that, as time goes on, better provision will be made in regard to this measure of social justice. If this country can afford to spend huge sums of money every year on its agricultural department, on provisions in regard to animal diseases, and provisions in regard to property, how can you turn round and say that you cannot afford to spend money on schemes of absolute social justice such as this? I hope that this Bill will meet with success, despite all its imperfections, and that the Minister will be encouraged by the beginning he has made to proceed further and further while he is in office to make provision for those schemes of social justice without which South Africa will remain in a very deplorable position.

I rise to express my hearty approval of the principle of the Bill. Undoubtedly the Bill reflects the feelings of the majority of the people. I think that we, as Parliament, represent the national feeling, and that the Minister justifies that feeling when he takes the steps he is taking in this Bill. At the same time, I think that the people, and especially those like the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), must understand that something has already been done in the country in the matter of pensions. If anyone listened to the hon. member for Jeppes, and did not know the conditions of the country, nor what has already been done here about pensions, then he would come to the conclusion that the Parliament had been dealing sparingly in the matter of pensions. Undoubtedly, through Parliament, South Africa has already done much in the way of pensions. We cannot be accused as a people of not acting fairly with regard to pensions. Our pensions system is on a fairly generous basis. Thousands and thousands of pounds are spent on pensions for the public and railway service, for which we are responsible. Moreover, every year applications for support come into Parliament, which are granted, and our pension burden is increased by thousands of pounds every year owing to pensions which are granted over and above the pensions payable by law. It is said that many pensions are paid in England, but England does not know the Pensions Committee as it exists here and every pension granted there is paid out by virtue of the law. But with us it is customary every year to assist necessitous persons with pensions that are specially granted. What is the position this year? We are voting £2,350,000 for the general pension fund, and I notice from the Auditor-General’s report for 1927 that the amount for railway pensions is £1,400,000, so that we are responsible in a sum of about £3,750,000 for the railways and the general fund. Then the Auditor-General’s report says that about £100,000 is spent on pensions for which the provincial administration is responsible. So at present we are responsible to the public for the sum of £3,850,000. That is not all we do. Last night, under a vote of the Minister of the Interior, we voted £225,980 for child welfare. In that way we assist the poor children by subsidies to charitable and beneficient institutions. And much is being done for the maintenance of the very poor people through the provincial councils. I say this because I want the House to understand that South Africa cannot be accused of not having done her duty on a fairly large scale in the past towards the poorer section of her people. I hope that South Africa will, in this case, also be as generous as possible. The Minister is, therefore, justified in introducing a pensions Bill, and putting it on as safe a basis as possible. We must understand that it will not stop at £800,000. They experienced that in England. When these pensions were first of all introduced in England they thought that it would cost £5,000,000 a year. To-day it costs England £30,000,000, I think. We must, however, be prepared for the fact that if we pass the Bill it will not stop at £800,000. The amount will be higher, and will increase annually. Therefore, the Minister is quite right in more or less circumscribing what the requirements will be for persons entitled to pensions. The Minister has made it clear that the children and members of a family will have to fulfil their duties towards their parents as much as possible. I think the Minister is right when he provides that a child, if possible, must fulfil his duty of providing for his parents. In the past our people have, I think, done their duty in this respect. Then I want to say something on what was raised by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), amongst others, about the difference made between Europeans and coloured people. I represent a large number of coloured people, but I say frankly that the Minister is right. I shall say why. The reason is that the provision the Minister is making that, in the first place, the family must provide for the applicant, will be very much more applicable to Europeans than to coloured people. When a coloured person applies he is a poor man, and his family cannot assist him. And I think that we shall see that the Treasury, notwithstanding the apparent basis of inequality, will contribute nearly as much for coloured people as for whites. The white people have more personal responsibility, and relations who can contribute, which is not the case with most coloured people. I think on the whole the Europeans will get fewer pensions than the coloured people, because the former have often some means of income or other, or relations who can contribute. There will be many cases where the Europeans will not get more than £18, just as the coloured people. It is a good thing for us to think of the needy people in the country, but hon. members must not forget that we must also remember the man who pays the taxes. In assisting the people we must also protect them. I think the Minister did right in introducing the Bill on this basis. With these few words I heartily support the second reading of the Bill.

I think there will be joy, not only amongst members of this House, but everywhere in the country, when this Bill becomes law. In the past the circumstances were never such that a measure of this kind could be introduced, but it will cause pleasure that it is possible now. The necessity for the measure is generally felt. We, as members of Parliament, come into touch with a large section of the population, and know the circumstances of many of the old people. I start from the position that it is no more than right that Parliament, the representatives of the people should take steps to get rid of the difficulties of the old people, and that it is our important and pleasurable duty to assist them. When one goes about the country one sees how much good is done by the grants to poor people which have been made during the last few years, and we shall enable many poor and necessitous people to live better than when that grant was not made. I want to make a few remarks about some clauses in the Bill. Firstly, with regard to the obligation on the children. I want to tell the Minister that, where there are old people, and the children are at all able to support them, no pension Act is really necessary, because the feeling still happily exists amongst the Afrikaans people that the children are ready and willing to support the parents when old and infirm. In the Bill it is not, however, provided that the Government has the right to recover amounts, which it expends in supporting the parents, from the children. It will be difficult to decide whether a child is able to support his parents or not. There have already been difficulties in connection with the grant referred to. I will give one case. There is a young man in a Government appointment who probably earns £20 to £22. He is in Pretoria, and has been terribly worried by the commission to support his parents. How far does the law go? In such a case the commissioner will possibly say that the man who is earning £20 must support his parents. We must not forget that, when children go to live independently, and have to fight for their own future, they are probably poor and needy, and if they are compelled by the Government to contribute to the support of the parents I can foresee much trouble. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the clause with regard to the children. Another very important clause is that no one shall have the right to touch the pension, so that when it is paid the creditors cannot attack it. Several speakers have said that we must not make the distinction between Europeans and coloured people. I do not want to say much about it, but I cannot see how one and the same scale can apply to them. We must not forget that, in the existing circumstances, the expenditure of a white man is much larger than that of a coloured person, and that the European, owing to his income being usually more than that of the coloured person, does not easily obtain a pension. The education and way of living of the two differ considerably. A few hon. members also want to introduce the Indians. I think that, if we start by paying a pension to our old people, our country with its small population should, provisionally at any rate, begin with the system proposed by the Minister. If the country subsequently is in a position to pay a pension to other members of the population of the country also, the house can decide accordingly. If we had to extend it to-day to all the natives and Indians and that kind of person the State would not be able to bear the heavy burden. We must not forget that the revenue of the country to-day is principally obtained from the Europeans, and it is only right that they should have a certain benefit from the taxation they pay, and that the old worn-out white people should benefit by it. I want to add something about homes for our old people. When I was in Australia I visited a number of the homes. Every State has homes for the old people, where they live and are looked after. In Western Australia there was one home with more than 500 old people in it, and I must say that it appeared ideal to me the way the people were looked after. They feel at home there, can do gardening, have recreations, and can even catch fish. That is what we must aim at. Suppose we had 1,000 old people, and paid a sum of £20 to £30 a year to each for old age pensions, and we took the money and established homes for the old people, then we should come out cheaper and would house the old people and provide for them properly. It would work out better than if we paid pensions to people throughout the country. Of course one of the objections is that our people do not like being taken away from their surroundings. I think, however, the time will come when they will appreciate the benefits of being in the homes, and that we shall have the old people there, which will be much cheaper and easier. I hope that we shall not lose sight of this in future. In Australia, homes for the old people were first established, but subsequently also for disabled soldiers back from the war. They are all people who have no relations or friends to support them. Our trouble of course is that the people do not want to leave their children, but if the institutions are properly kept up, the time will come when they will see that it is better for them to go there than to receive a few sovereigns separately. I welcome the Bill, the whole country will be satisfied with the step that the worn-out people who have worked for their country will be looked after by the State in their old days.

I desire to congratulate the Minister on introducing a measure which is undoubtedly an important step in the direction of social reform. I regard it, however, as only of value in so far as it is a step in the direction to secure justice for the old people. I realize that we should congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Minister has gone the length he has gone. As far as I am concerned—and I think I can speak for the Labour Party—we shall press not merely for an alteration in the amount of the pensions, but more especially an alteration in the principle underlying the Bill. The only justification for the differentiation between the pension for Europeans and coloured people is to be found in the fact that the requirements of the coloured population are less than those of the European population. That remark might also meet the argument regarding the exclusion of natives. It may be said that the overwhelming majority of natives can return to their reserves, so in their time of need they are not placed in the same distressful circumstances as are Europeans who have no reserves to which to return, and who are left to their own resources. That argument, however, does not apply to the industrialized native living in the towns. Unless it can be shown that the reason for the exclusion of the native is based on the different needs of different sections of the population, I agree with the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) that to make a differentiation is an act of injustice. If the Government is to consider the needs of the people who apply for pensions a differentiation will have to be made in the case of a pensioner who lives in the country whose needs are less than those of a pensioner residing in a town, and a similar differentiation would have to be made where the cost of living varies, as it does in different towns. Apparently the question of the needs of the individual, the cost of living and the standard of life, have not been taken into consideration. Further, we find that the principle underlying the Bill appears to be that the less a person has the more he shall get. The Bill lays down a general principle that as a person’s income increases so the pension decreases, until such time as the income comes to £51 a year, and then the State says to the person concerned, “You can get along very happily on this amount and you have no longer any claim on the State.” From that aspect the Bill seems to be rather illogical. Whether the State pays the pension, or whether it does not, in the long run the community pays just the same. The only distinction being that the community pays inadequately and the recipients obtain relief inequitably. Taking it as a whole, the money which it will cost the State to maintain old people will be just the same, and from that point of view it is doubly wrong for the State to be niggardly, and it would pay the State very much better to abolish charitable organizations altogether and provide sufficient by way of a pension. In addition, that would ensure an equitable arrangement, for the citizens will pay in accordance with their ability and not in accordance with their charitable instincts. Anyone who examines the present situation and sees how people are dependent on charity must realize that every charitable institution and every street collection for the poor constitutes a definite indictment of the efficiency of the whole of our economic system. If it were not for the fact that the whole system is based on the inequitable arrangements by which wealth may be accumulated in the hands of the few, you would not require charity and charitable institutions.

interjected a remark.

I am not concerned with Russia. With the utmost respect, I am more concerned with the application of Christian principles to the life of the people in this country than with any theories and prejudices the hon. member may be talking about. I submit the right principle for the State to adopt is not to deal with old age pensions as a matter of charity but as a right which every citizen has when he gets to a certain age. My friend asks where are you going to find the money. I have suggested that the money is found in any case. Unless you adopt a principle by which when a person comes to a certain age he has to be done away with, that person is maintained just the same, whether it be by means of private charity or otherwise, so that you are finding the money just the same, and I say it is better to find it by a systematic method than by the present method. I am not criticizing the Minister in any carping spirit, nor do I blame him for having pursued methods laid down in other parts of the world. I want to draw his attention to another aspect. Provision is made in this Bill by which any one in receipt of less than £51 per annum is going to get certain sums to make his income up to a certain amount, and as his income is reduced his pension is increased, so that the pension is on the principle that the more a person has the less he shall receive, and the less he has the more he shall receive. That is a laudable principle provided you do not stop at £51. I want to compare that with another principle which actually applies at the present time. If you take your annual civil pension list—judges, civil servants, and men like Sir William Hoy—I am not criticizing the amount Sir William Hoy has received in addition to his pension—the principle laid down is the more you have the more you shall receive. When you come to the poor people you say, “If you have £51 a year you are going to get nothing at all.” I submit in dealing with a matter of this kind we ought to try and get away from class distinctions and not differentiate between the well-to-do and the poor to the detriment of the poor and the benefit of the well-to-do. The national conference on old age pensions, a body that has been in existence for something like 11 years and representing 10,000,000 people, dealing recently with the general question, laid down this principle, that State pensions are the equal rights of industrial veterans without the taint of pauperism, as of military and naval or civil pensions are. That, I submit, is a principle that will have to be ultimately applied to any method of old age pensions—that all sections of the community, whether they belong to the civil service, defence force, or industrial workers, who have done their bit, or if they have not done their bit, have been prevented through circumstances for which they are not responsible, shall all have a certain provision made for them without any question of poverty or taint of pauperism at all. This inquistorial investigation that is to take place is bad in the first place, but limiting the pension to anyone who is in recipt of not more than £51 a year is also bad. It does away with that principle which I am sure will appeal to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The moment you tell a person that if he is in possession of, say, £51 a year he is to receive nothing, but if he is in possession of, say, £30 a year, he is to receive a certain sum you are doing away with the incentive for thrift; I believe the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was always anxious to encourage people to be thrifty, and I believe he is doing some very useful Work. I am in favour of thrift, but a principle like this discourages it. You are telling a person not to save anything, because if he does he will be deprived of his right to a pension.

That argument would be against the whole principle of old age pensions.

That may be unless you accept the principle of a social right. I also want to refer to the provision in Clause 18, and in that regard I want to associate myself entirely with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I am glad that the Minister has indicated that, as far as he is concerned, he is prepared to leave that to the House. I hope that the Minister will go further and definitely decide when the Bill is in committee not to leave it to the House but to move the deletion of Clause 18. I hope that before the Bill goes into committee he will definitely decide himself to move for the deletion of that clause. As I indicated a minute ago, I am definitely opposed to the inquisitorial provisions, to any question of investigation as to the means of the individual who is to get a pension, because I feel that by adopting that attitude you are basing your whole system on the wrong principle, on a principle of relief, on a principle of pauperism. You are pauperising people, you are telling people that they will only get that amount on the strength of showing that they are paupers, instead of saying to these people that we recognize at last that when you have come to a certain age you are entitled that the State shall make provision for you. In any case, I do hope that the Minister will at any rate, until such time as the principle I have indicated replaces the principle that underlies this Bill, minimise the provisions in regard to that investigation and see that it is carried out in the most sympathetic and least harsh manner possible. This principle of old age pensions is not a novel provision, it may be novel in South Africa, but it has been accepted in every other part of the world practically. At any rate, in very many countries where the principle has been accepted it has been carried into effect for two reasons; firstly, because from a financial point of view it is better that provision should be made by the State instead of by social charity and, secondly, I believe in a large number of countries where this provision has been made, where Labour has no influence whatever, it has been made because it has been recognized that something has to be done to allay the discontent of people who are placed in harsh circumstances, and the principle of old age pensions has been accepted in a large number of countries because they are beginning to realise that capital has to give some recompense to labour for the security which it enjoys at the present moment. I believe if the Minister had taken his courage into his hands and made a more generous provision than he has done under this Bill it would have been accepted by this House, because a large number of members in this House recognize the justice of this provision, and other members, who are opposed to the principle generally, would have accepted the provision as something in the nature of a ransom for the good behaviour of the mass of the people in South Africa. The only point that is made against giving an increased amount is the question of the amount of money required to make that provision. That objection I could have understood when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was in the Government of the country and we were faced with continuous deficits, but I believe it would have been better not only for ourselves but for posterity if more generous provision had been made for the aged people of this country rather than the very generous provision that is made for the liquidation of debt. What is needed, and what I hope this country will continue to press on this Government, or whatever Government may be in office, is that the provision of pensions shall be more adequate and the principle shall be much more distinct, and that, instead of treating pensions as a charity, they shall be treated as a right to which every individual, no matter what his income may be, is entitled when he reaches a certain age, because, unles you do that, you are introducing a pauper system of old age pensions. I am sorry the Minister did not see his way clear to at any rate make the provision £1 a week, which I think is the minimum that any self-respecting country should give in these days. I think he would have certainly found much more generous and genuine support, ’ certainly from these benches. We thank the Minister for the provision he is making, but we cannot thank him with any genuine gratitude; we cannot raise any great enthusiasm for these provisions, because I think the provisions are niggardly and the lines on which they are given are wrong. I believe it will be our duty to continue pressing for alterations from time to time in the Old Age Pensions Bill, so that the amount shall be more adequate than it is at the present time, and the principle shall be more just than the principle underlying the present Bill, and we shall press until such time as we secure the adoption by this House of a Bill based on the principle giving the right to a pension to all people when they reach a certain age without the stigma of pauperism.

I do not wish to do more than raise a couple of points in connection with this Bill. I am sure everyone in the House and in the country is glad that Parliament is now able to deal with a matter of this kind, which for many years has been hoped for. I do not know that the Bill is much helped by the somewhat grudging criticism we have just had from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). What I do wish to say is this: I wish to associate myself very strongly with what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said about the regretable way in which the coloured people are discriminated in this Bill and also the fact that Indians are left out entirely. I speak in accordance with the views that some of us have expressed all the while, and we feel very strongly that there is no justification for doing this. When we consider that the Commission, after the fullest investigation, made a report which, as far as everybody, except natives, is concerned, meant that the Government should provide an equal sum for everyone in the country, I cannot see what justification there is for the differentiation made in the Bill. It is suggested that if you come to make a certain allowance you will find that the money paid to the coloured person is to him of just as much value as money paid to the white person under this Bill. When you look to the fact that amongst the coloured people you have a large number of persons whose standing is just as high as the other people who benefit under this Bill, it seems to me you are making an unfair basis of discrimination. The amount which people are to get under this Bill is not according to the extent to which they may have helped to contribute to the revenue of the country, but it is based on the fact that you are fixing an all round sum as a minimum to protect people from the worst evils of old age. I fail to see what justification there is for making a discrimination between two sets of people merely based on colour, when the coloured people have been accustomed to the same standard of living and have contributed to the revenues of the country and are as much taxpayers of it as the others are. I wish to urge upon the Minister that even now he should follow the recommendations of the report, in which the suggestion is that there should be a uniform payment irrespective of class or colour, and that seems the only fair thing to do. I do urge it is the right thing to do. There is only on other thing I want to refer to, and that is the excellent recommendation of the commission with regard to housing. It refers to the Memorial Home in Port Elizabeth in terms of commendation, and it is a very pleasant thing to read. I hope the Minister will be able to carry out as supplementary to this scheme the recommendations of paragraph 135 of the report. [Paragraph read.] That can be put on a self-supporting basis, and the only question is to find the money at as low a rate as possible. I would go further and ask, if the Minister should not put it on a self-supporting basis, that the State should be prepared to provide houses for old people, and even to provide money at a rate a little lower than that at which the Government itself can raise it. It is not enough for the Government to be ready to do it and to find the money, but it should initiate and organize a scheme by which the recommendations of the commission can be carried out, and so that people can know in what way they can come in.

I think it is very clear, from the debate, that the large majority of hon. members support the Bill as introduced. We, of course, have enthusiastic idealists, who would like to go much further than the Bill goes. Statements have been made that an injustice is being done to certain sections of the population, and there are, of course, members who would like to see us going further in various directions. We can take it, as far as the public and the House are concerned, that we are all prepared to do something to alleviate the lost of the old people, but it is also certain that the large majority are not prepared to shoulder a burden which is above the capacity of the people, and which goes beyond the resources of the country. I have had to do with cold hard facts, that is, what are the people prepared to do with reference to the existing social evil. I had to enquire what the amount would be if we removed the restriction which is contained in the Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) criticised certain provisions, and he has been supported therein by certain members who say that we ought not to include these restrictions, and that the amount to he paid is too small. Do the hon. members know what the burden would be if we were to agree to the recommendations of the hon. member for Jeppe? It has been calculated, and the amount will be at least £2,250,000 a year. I ask every hon. member who looks at the practical side of the proposal, is it possible to adopt the scheme which will amount to £2,250,000 to-day? It is quite impossible. I have said from the commencement that I am prepared to support a fair and reasonable scheme. According to this Bill the scheme at the start will amount to £800,000, and that is the utmost limit we can go to. Hon. members must not forget that in various other ways very large sums are spent with this object. We must go as far as public opinion in the country permits. It has been said that we ought to go much further, but I think that, as we are now taking a very large step forward, we must be careful, and not comply with all the wishes expressed here. There was criticism on the exclusion of the natives, but it soon became evident that the House would never accept a proposal to include them all. It is quite unpractical and impossible. Various reasons have already been given why it is unpractical. I have already said that the scheme will be killed if we pass that. There is not the least chance of this House, or the public, agreeing to it. The difference between the amount for Europeans and coloured people was called a new colour bar by a few hon. members, but at the same time a few of them were prepared to exclude the natives. I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I was glad to find that some hon. members, who represent many coloured people, agreed that the measure is justified on the difference in the standard of living between the various sections of the population alone. We cannot shut our eyes to that fact. And, where we have to do with a large forward step, it is, I think, fair that we should so draft the scheme as to get the support of the public. I do not want to go into the criticisms made in connection with various other points. I presume they will be raised again in committee, but I just want to repeat that we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the people are not prepared to assume an unlimited burden by the removal of all the restrictions in the Bill. We must see that we do nothing which is out of proportion with the resources of the country. I do not doubt that pressure will be exercised to go further. Provision for invalids has already been mentioned. I admit that it is not easily justifiable to pay pensions to old people, and to exclude certain other classes of the population who are completely unable to provide for their maintenance. We must, however, bear in mind that it is a supplementary measure, and that the various authorities who formerly had to provide for the people will still exist, and they will be able to do more than before, because they will be relieved of a large share of the burden formerly borne by them. If there are individual hard cases the House will still always be able to consider petitions from time to time in those cases. The clause in connection with the right claimed by the State that the commissioners who have to deal with the pensions in certain cases can call upon the children to provide for their parents has also been criticised. Let me say that in my opinion it must remain in the Bill. The feeling of responsibility on the part of the children towards their parents must be maintained as much as possible, and not weakened. I can, however, assure hon. members that it is not intended to administer the reservations as strictly as is Being done in connection with the oud-stryders. We shall not come down on children who can hardly provide for their own families, but in cases where it is clear that the children, although able, contribute nothing to their parent’s support, we ought to reserve the right to demand it of them. As I have said, I will abide by the decision of the majority of the House, if the view is that the provision ought to be deleted. The provisions of the Bill have been drafted as simply as possible, we do not want to make all sorts of investigations in connection with the possessions of children. We shall have to do so in connection with applications for pensions, but I think the reservation in the Bill is a good thing in certain cases. I am glad that the measure, with all its limitations, apparently meets with the approval of a large majority of the House, although some possibly think we ought to go further. I hope that everyone will co-operate to put the Bill on the statute-book as soon as possible, so that it may come into operation at the time intended.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 18th May.