laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Pharmacy Second Amendment Bill [No 88—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Health and Welfare).
2. (2) Laws on Co-operation and Development Amendment Bill [No 89—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Cooperation, Development and Education).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Mr Chairman, for many years I have complained, both privately and publicly, about the racist rules governing the dining facilities in the House of Assembly, but largely to no avail. This enclave of racial prejudice has so far proved to be impervious to other changes taking place in our country.

As long ago as 1979 when the International Cricket Conference, the body governing world cricket, was visiting South Africa on a fact-finding mission, an incident occurred in which I was involved. I was requested by the SA Cricket Union to entertain the visiting gentlemen to lunch here in this House. All of these men were international personalities in their own right and were presidents of their unions in their respective countries. Upon the findings of the ICC at the time hung the fate of South African cricket. Yet it was not to be. Mr Speaker of the day barred the lunch for the reason that not all of the visitors were White. Mr Champ Hunt, who was the president of the Barbados Cricket Union, and Mr Rashid Varachia, the respected president of the SA Cricket Union, did not qualify to eat in our diningroom. It has been since that year that I have been speaking on these insulting rules in this House.

Only a few weeks ago an ugly, demeaning little incident occurred in which two senior members of the House of Delegates, Dr J N Reddy and Mr Pat Poovalingam, were refused admission to the diningroom purely for racial reasons. I felt obliged to apologize to those gentlemen and to my other guests on that particular day who were an editor of a major South African newspaper and an ambassador to this country. Are hon members of this House not ashamed that an incident of that nature could occur in this Parliament?

Yes!

I have always believed that in every democratic parliament throughout the world it is a jealously guarded tradition that all members are equal in status and should enjoy equal respect. This is not true of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. All members are equal unless they are Coloured or Indian. In some ways the situation is in fact worse than it was in the past. For instance, a sign has been posted on at least one door in Parliament which clearly states “Members of the House of Assembly only”. This is a euphemism for “Whites only”. While apartheid signs in shops, offices, bottle-stores, lifts and other places are coming down, the Parliament of this country which purports to be in the forefront of reform, is erecting within its own corridors signs which divide and which discriminate against members on the basis of race alone.

What is worse is the response to the diningroom issue which occurred some weeks ago. The rules have now been changed. White members of Parliament may now invite Coloured and Indian members of Parliament into the diningroom, but they may not invite any other Coloured or Indian guests, and certainly not Black guests. Coloured and Indian members of Parliament may not enter the diningroom at all except if invited by White members of Parliament. They may certainly not book a table or invite their own guests. These new rules only add insult to injury. I cannot conceive of any self-respecting Coloured or Indian member of Parliament who would accept an invitation to lunch in that diningroom under these humiliating conditions.

For the catering committee to pass a resolution stating that these rules are being implemented because of “the limited space afforded by the catering rooms of the House of Assembly”, is both patently false and an attack upon our intelligence. To think that grown men holding high office and claiming a modicum of intellectual capacity can believe for one moment that this transparent ploy will fool anyone, is mind-boggling in the extreme.

Where, in regard to this issue, does the buck stop? Does it stop with the Leader of the House or does it stop with the catering committee or perhaps with the NP caucus? I do not believe it. I believe the buck stops with Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker is the master of this Parliament, no one else. He is the person who guards the rights of members and the traditions of every Western parliament, this one in particular. I call upon Mr Speaker to make his view known and to restore sanity to this island of culinary madness. If he moves swiftly to exercise his authority and influence to eliminate this manifestation of racial intolerance, he will have my respect as well as that of the Coloured and Indian members of Parliament. If he does not, he will remain the willing custodian of all that is shameful and shoddy in our society. The choice is his.

Finally, I wish to make public my personal protest and response. Until such time as the main House of Assembly dining room is opened to all members and their guests of any race or colour, I shall not eat there again or use its facilities. [Interjections.] The NP may laugh at that and some members may say good riddance but, as far as I am concerned, the main House of Assembly dining room can remain a small, diseased cocoon of White privilege, White domination, White prejudice and White apartheid, but it can do so without my patronage.

Certainly apartheid in the parliamentary dining room hardly affects the ordinary citizen but it is symbolic of the dread illness which afflicts our land. Until these intolerable, these mediaeval, these racist, insulting and obnoxious attitudes and restrictions are wiped off the parliamentary slate, reform in our country will, with justification, be viewed with suspicion and disbelief. It is a public disgrace and it calls for an answer from the hon the Leader of the House just as it calls for action from the Speaker of the whole Parliament.

Mr Chairman, for many years the hon member for Sandton has pleaded on behalf of the PFP for the opening of Parliament’s dining room.

The hon member on the opposite side over there agrees with you.

The hon member for Yeoville who is fighting with the members on the opposite side will find that shortly the NP will accede to the request addressed to them by the hon member for Sandton. The hon member for Yeoville need really not concern himself, for one of these days the NP will yield completely to every demand made by the hon member for Sandton. The NP will merely do so slowly; that party is introducing integration step by step and slowly but surely. [Interjections.]

Order!

First I want to say what we in the CP stand for. The CP stands for the fact that each one of the various peoples and therefore also the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa should have an own fatherland in which they can govern themselves fully. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the Committee to continue in this way. I called upon only one member to speak, and that is the hon member for Kuruman. The other hon members must restrain themselves. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

The CP believes that each of the various peoples can govern itself fully within an own fatherland and should have an own Parliament in which the dining rooms and the sports facilities, everything, are limited to that particular population group. That is what the CP believes. We believe it to be the policy that will bring peace and phase out the discriminatory measures to which the hon member for Sandton referred. This will take place without offence on either side.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that in this Parliament members of Parliament come together in the same target shooting team, and I saw in Die Burger the other day how the hon member for Walvis Bay and one of the members of the Coloured House were lying target shooting next to each other.

What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

Afterwards the members enjoyed a meal together. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I want to tell you the CP still has time. We shall also use our additional time if you cannot give us the opportunity to make our speeches in the Committee in peace.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman will concede that I am doing my best. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Sir, we have a certain programme to conclude today. I am telling the hon the Chief Whip of the NP that if he cannot effect discipline within his party, we shall continue, the discussion of this Vote until this afternoon, for we are going to put our case. The hon members on the opposite side will not silence our tongues.

I said they shoot in the same target shooting team. Fem wood, the parliamentary recreation club, is open to everyone. We are all members of the parliamentary association. We sit together in the same standing committees. Next year it will be possible for a member of Parliament sitting in this House to have a wife who may be a voter in one of the other Houses.

I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the House today that this is in accordance with the policy of his party. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is in accordance with the policy of the party of the hon the Leader of the House … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, those hon members on the opposite side may well laugh.

They are only laughing at themselves!

Yes let them laugh. I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the House, however, what moral right he has to contend, in accordance with this party’s policy, that people of colour may not enter the dining room of Parliament.

Yes! Well done, Jan!

What moral right does he have, in accordance with his party’s policy, to say people of colour may not enter the dining room of Parliament? I put it to the hon the Leader of the House that he has no moral right to do so.

Yes, quite right!

The course upon which the hon the Leader of the House has embarked together with his party, Mr Chairman, the slippery slope to full integration, on which he is with his party, is one on which there is no chance to turn back. He will simply continue to slide right into full integration. This is what will happen because he is going to accede to the pleas of the hon member for Sandton.

Of course!

Mr Chairman, that is exactly what I should like to say to the hon the Leader of the House and to all hon members of the National Party today.

Now I should also like to draw the attention of the hon member for Sand ton to what was said in this connection in the House of Representatives on 18 April this year by the hon the Leader of the House. An hon member, Mr J J A Smith, inter alia put the following question to him, and I quote, as follows: (Hansard: House of Representatives, col 1728):

This question was put with reference to the opening of the dining room to members here in the House of Parliament. The reply of the hon the Leader of the House to this was, and I quote again:

This then means, Mr Chairman, that what the hon the Leader of the House meant by this, amounts to the fact that hon members should not be hasty, that they should not try to pressure the Government—slowly but surely the Government will do exactly what is being asked of it, however.

We should inform the public at large about these things in more detail! [Interjections.]

If we move faster, you do not understand what is going on. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, many requests have been addressed recently. Some of them sounded a lot like threats. These are requests that legislation about general affairs—as in the case of the second reading speeches at present—should be dealt with in joint sittings of the three Houses of Parliament—should be dealt with fully; that there should be only a unicameral parliament.

In the debate about the Constitution Bill I made the prediction that in practice this system would force the Government to deal with all general legislation in joint sittings of Parliament—deal with it fully. I made that prediction when we debated the Constitution Bill in this House. [Interjections.] Hon members of the PFP say that is correct. They agree therefore. That was at a stage when the National Party still had to impress upon the voters that there would be three separate—with the stress on “separate”—Houses of Parliament, and that joint sittings would only take place on ceremonial occasions, for example at the opening of Parliament.

I know how hon members of the NP told the people throughout South Africa from platform to platform that they were not to concern themselves about joint sittings for these would take place only on ceremonial occasions.

Yes, that is correct!

They said they would take place only on ceremonial occasions—for example on the occasion of the opening of Parliament.

That Kobus Meiring went and told everyone in Paarl! [Interjections.]

On that condition, Mr Chairman, large groups of voters brought out a yes vote in favour of the new constitutional dispensation.

Last year—even before the Constitution of 1983 was implemented—that measure was amended to provide that all second reading speeches about general legislation would be made in joint sittings.

But Jan, did that harm you in any way? [Interjections.]

In addition, the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders granted approval for the three Houses to be brought together under one roof for practical reasons. There too it was decided that the old Senate Chamber would become the meeting place of the Coloured Chamber—first a temporary, and then a permanent decision. At present it is a practical reality, of course. It was also decided that provision would be made in the extensions to Parliament for an assembly hall for the Indian Chamber, as well as for a council chamber with 352 seats. That was what was decided there, Mr Chairman.

There are many Blacks, Jan! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I still remember very well how the hon Leader of the House said to us before the referendum: “I am going to have a good laugh at you CPs when the new dispensation is implemented and the Indians are in Natal and the Coloureds in Bellville South.”

You should be ashamed of yourself, Hendrik! [Interjections.]

No, wait! The hon the Leader of the House need not be ashamed of what he said. [Interjections.] I merely want to know whether he still remembers that he said that to us. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the House also sat in a meeting of the Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders when it was decided that the old Senate Chamber would become the assembly hall of the Coloured Chamber, and that a new council chamber would be built for the Indians, as well as a new council chamber with 352 seats. When these things were decided about the new Parliment, the hon the Leader of the House was present, Mr Chairman. I did not see him laughing about it then, however.

I now want to put it to the hon the Leader of the House, Mr Chairman, that naturally I do not blame him for not knowing at that stage exactly what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning envisaged. I really do not blame him.

Chris Heunis did not inform him, of course. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not tell people long before the time exactly what he intends to do. Of course that is why some hon members of the National Party are still laughing. In the same way the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will not tell them beforehand what he intends in respect of the political future of the Blacks. He will not inform them of that ahead of time either.

It is clear that Hendrik does not know these things.

Mr Chairman, I merely know …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I adhere today to my prediction that in practice the Government will be forced to deal with general laws at joint sittings of Parliament. In practice the Government is going to be forced to establish a unicameral multiracial Parliament. [Interjections.] The council chamber for that Parliament with its 352 seats is already being built. First the NP said that joint sittings would be held only on ceremonial occasions. Then they had joint sittings for second reading speeches about all general laws. They were forced to do that in practice.

The third action is going to be the establishment of joint sittings for dealing with all general laws. I want to say again that the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning are going to tell those members: “We sit together in the same standing committees; we all have a say and we make decisions together. We sit together in the regional services councils; we all have a say there and we make decisions together.”

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Kroonstad says “Hear, hear!”. The principle of all laws of communal interest being dealt with in one council chamber, has therefore been accepted by the hon member for Kroonstad. [Interjections.]

Do you want us to speak on the telephone, Jan? [Interjections.]

He accepts the principle of a unicameral multiracial Parliament, and I also want to say that that silly hon member for Vryheid will not be in this place for very much longer. We are simply waiting for a general election.

The discussion about this matter is again a talking point in academic circles, in the newspapers and also in this Parliament. I want to tell the hon the Minister, where there is smoke there is fire. Mr Chairman, I want to say here today I am ashamed of having belonged in the past to a party …

Which has so little discipline …

… which has so little discipline and so little respect for this Parliament and its members. There is no longer any discipline amongst the NP whips, after all. They can no longer maintain discipline. [Interjections.]

The Cabinet is not even here.

No Cabinet member is present here. There is no discipline in the House of Assembly, and I am ashamed of having belonged to the same party as those hon members. [Interjections.]

Order! I insist that hon members give the hon member for Kuruman the chance to make his speech in silence. [Interjections.] Order! Is there any hon member who wants to question my ruling? The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

The cost of the new council chamber with its 352 seats is a big slice from the R23 million which was budgeted for extensions to the new parliamentary building. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister: Does he think it necessary and a good investment to build such a massive council chamber at a cost of millions of rand and then to use it only one day per week and then only for holding second reading speeches at joint sittings? I am asking the hon the Minister whether or not it is a good idea, and I should like him to reply to me on this point. I also want to ask the hon the Minister very frankly: Has the NP or the Government decided that general laws will be dealt with at joint sittings of the three Houses? I want him to reply to me on this point this morning. Have they decided yet? I should also like the hon the Minister not to beat around the bush, but to answer me frankly. If no decision was taken for general laws to be dealt with at joint sittings, was it not a very extravagant decision of the Government to build a council chamber costing millions of rand for use only for joint sittings one day per week? I want the hon the Minister to give us a very frank reply.

In the NP we have said through the years that power-sharing is a dangerous policy and entails conflict and clashes with other people. The NP has accepted power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians and this instrument, this Parliament, is a reality. Thus far all Bills launched by Parliament were such that consensus could be achieved concerning them. The NP had to sacrifice some of its earlier standpoints and make concessions to keep the Coloured and Indian Houses satisfied.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Sir, I do not have time. Thus far the Government could keep the Coloureds and Indians satisfied by making concessions. Clashing interests which can lead to serious conflict, have never really been the order of the day.

There are flashing red lights, however, which point to the fact that this power-sharing can result in clashes and conflict, also in this House of Assembly. I should like to refer to this today. In the House of Representatives, Mr Lockey—who did not take the course of democracy, but was nominated by the State President—said according to The Cape Times of 15 May 1985, and I quote the newspaper:

Order! The hon member may not refer here to what a member of another House said.

Sir, I then want to ask you today whether members from other Houses can-hurl abuse at the leader of the CP and the White members of the House of Assembly in general, whereas I have to keep quiet. We have to pass a Vote in the House of Assembly today to pay the salaries of Mr Lockey and others as well, but you refuse to allow me to say I detest this …

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may not say he is being silenced. He is not being silenced, but there are Standing Rules and Orders to which we have to adhere. That is one of the provisions in the Standing Rules and Orders.

Sir, then I shall strive to have the Standing Rules and Orders amended, for we cannot, when we have to pass the Budget for Parliament today, allow members of other Houses to make offensive remarks about the leader of the CP, members of the CP and …

And Whites.

… and Whites in general whereas I may not quote what he said. I regard it as a very wretched and evil day and we shall take the matter further.

Order! I must point out to the hon member for Kuruman that naturally the same rule applies to hon members of all three Houses.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, who should have been here this morning, is not here, but in his absence I want to ask him to speak to the members of the other Houses and to point out to them that no offensive remark has been made about any member or members of the other Houses by the CP.

The House of Assembly as part of the tricameral Parliament is the Whites’ instrument of self-determination. It is true that only the Appropriation and Additional Appropriation Bills have been dealt with by the House of Assembly as own affairs Bills as against plus-minus 50 Bills of general interest. The House of Assembly deals with minimal own affairs and maximal general affairs. Despite this it remains the Whites’ instrument of self-determination and should therefore be respected as such.

For this reason I want to suggest that the members of the Ministers’ Council occupy the senior seats in this House of Assembly. I also want to suggest that the office Leader of the House of Assembly be done away with and that this task be performed by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, one thing has become apparent from this debate, something I have always believed and which has been confirmed for me today, namely that the true Nationalist Party still lives in this House but it lives under the leadership of the hon Dr A P Treumicht. [Interjections.] I believe more and more that if ever there was—if I may use the Afrikaans expression—”‘n party in wording”, then it is sitting opposite me. [Interjections.]

*They are sitting opposite me and are a party in the making. The National Party in fact is sitting here on my right. Here are the true Nationalists, because they talk like the Nationalists did in the old days.

Join them!

No, I am not going to join them. I am further away from them than ever.

The inevitability of a fourth Chamber of Parliament is in my opinion still a very, very real issue. At the same time I want to say that the sooner we do away with this charade and the sooner we sit together and jointly discuss matters of a general nature in joint sittings the better it is going to be. I have no argument with the three Houses sitting independently to discuss their own affairs but, when it comes to general affairs, we are going through a charade by sitting separately. We should be sitting as one House.

In the very limited time at my disposal I also want to talk about the dining room issue which is raised year after year. The hon member for Sandton put his case well. I want to stress that we in this party have always said—and we repeat our belief—that the dining rooms in this place should be open to all. That is our viewpoint in this regard. However, let us look at the logistics of the situation. We had 180 MPs; we now have 360 MPs. We have opened a new diningroom in Marks Building which has become the Parliamentary dining room. The old dining room is today the Assembly dining room. From a purely logistical point of view that is indeed the practical way to do it because the new dining room can accommodate more people than the old one. Therefore, the old dining room in this building is the Assemby dining room.

I want to place on record here and now that we believe any member of the House of Assembly should be able to invite anybody—and I stress “anybody”—to be his or her guest in the Assembly dining room as long as he accepts responsibility for that guest as far as the guest’s behaviour, dress and conduct are concerned. No member of the House of Assembly should, however, be refused the right to invite whomsoever he wishes, should the accommodation be available, to lunch or dine with him in the Assembly dining room. We all know that the Parliamentary Diningroom is open to all.

In the future we are obviously going to have additional facilities. We trust that if in the future there are dining areas that are set aside, once again for a logistical reason—it is not a racial issue—for people who have certain requirements in respect of food etc, then we also say that the members for whom those diningrooms are provided must be allowed to invite anybody to those rooms as their guest. Sir, this is a nettlesome issue, and I know that it is an emotional one. However, I do want to say that we must not confuse the Assembly Diningroom and the Parliamentary Diningroom. If it is going to make it easier, then let us call the one across the road the Assembly Diningroom and call the one in this building the Parliamentary Diningroom—if that is the issue. However, I really and truly do not think it makes much difference. The most important thing is that we must face the fact that at the moment we have a certain space available to us—in the future this space will hopefully be more ample. The one area is open to everybody; the other is open to half the number of people in this place. Those people must be allowed to invite whomsoever they wish and to be their guests and I think that is a reasonable request.

Mr Chairman, I began with an argument just now when I said the House of Assembly as part of the tricameral Parliment is the Whites’ instrument of self-determination. I said it was true that only the Appropriation and Additional Appropriation Bills had been dealt with as own affair Bills by the House of Assembly and that it had dealt with approximately 50 Bills as general Bills. I said that although the House of Assembly deals minimally with own affairs and maximally with joint affairs, it remains the Whites’ instrument of self-determination.

Then I suggested that the members of the Minister’s Council should assume senior seats in the House of Assembly. I also suggested that the office of Leader of the House of Assembly fall away and that that office be occupied by the Chairman of the Minister’s Council. [Interjections.] Then the hon the Leader of the House said I wanted to take his work from him.

Before I return to that matter, I merely want to say the following: I am of the opinion that when the State President is not present in the House, the Chairman of the Minister’s Council should be recognized as the senior Minister in the House of Assembly. I think that is how it should be.

I want to state very clearly that my suggestions have nothing to do with a personal vendetta against the hon the Leader of the House.

Since when has the hon member had a vendetta against me? I know nothing about it.

No, I do not. That is what I am saying. I am not asking for that office to be abolished to get rid of the hon the Leader of the House; on the contrary, I would welcome it if the present hon Leader of the House were to be appointed as Chairman of the Minister’s Council so that he can proceed with the task he is performing at present. The question does not concern him as a person, but the office he holds at present. I think the House of Assembly as the Whites’ instrument of self-determination should give greater recognition to members of the Minister’s Council and that is why I am making these suggestions.

Mr Chairman, I am very disappointed to hear from the hon member for Umhlanga that he is prepared to put up with the situation where a fellow MP, that is a Coloured or Indian MP, is not to be allowed the same rights as he in a particular area of Parliament.

I never said that.

Oh yes, he said that he was perfectly happy that a White MP could invite whomsoever he pleased as a guest to the diningroom, but while we had another diningroom across the road he felt that logistically it was acceptable that a Coloured or Indian MP would not as of right be entitled to have the same rights as a White MP.

That is nonsense. He has got the right over there at the moment.

In regard to the diningroom there are certain basic ironies I would like to point out to the House. Firstly, we have spoken on this issue to three Leaders of the House—Dr Lourens Muller, Mr Fanie Botha and the present hon Leader of the House. We have spoken to each on two occasions. This is the seventh attempt we are making to right this wrong.

We have been given a number of reasons—the logistics one is a new reason. The first reason was that we were a club. The old Assembly was a club and the rules were ours to make. That is of course no longer given as a reason because there are now 120 other members of the club and so that cannot be given as a reason.

The next year the reason was that there was a VIP room. Just as they are now using the argument that there is a restaurant across the road in the Marks Building, so the same argument was used then that Blacks could be entertained in the VIP room. Now we have the new argument that there is no space.

The next irony is that the last word that was spoken in this House on Wednesday night prior to this Debate was spoken by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply. I wonder if hon members recall what he said? He said that it had been a great pleasure for him to debate national issues with the South African leaders of his day. Is it not ironic that, while Ministers go to places all over the country calling upon the people of South Africa to do away with race prejudice and the shibboleths of the past, we, the leaders of the nation, cannot put our own house in order?

The next irony is this: The place we are talking about is the old Cape Colonial Parliament, the hundredth anniversary of which we celebrated only two days ago. This very diningroom we are talking about, both rooms in fact were part of a Parliament which knew no racism. A Black person was on the voters’ roll and a Black person could be a member of Parliament. Can you believe it that one hundred years later—is this not the supreme irony?—we are fighting over an issue like this?

Another irony is that all of us, including the Leader of the House, know that the opening of that room is as inevitable as night follows day. There are certain things in life which are inevitable. The opening up of separate amenities is inevitable. It was a French philosopher who said, if something is in inevitable, anticipate it. We know this is inevitable; let us anticipate the future and open it up.

A next irony is that the very room we are talking about is subsidized by the taxpayers of this country.

All the taxpayers.

All the taxpayers—Coloureds, Indians and Blacks as well as Whites.

Another irony is the following: May I ask the hon the Leader of the House whether his colleagues in the Cabinet, the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, are permitted to receive guests in the so-called Assembly Diningroom? If they are, there is an irony involved, and if they are not, there is a greater irony.

For these reasons I support the hon member for Sandton. I want to conclude by saying just one thing about the great big building that is going up next door. We in this party believe that there should be a new constitution. It is in our blue book and there is no doubt about what we stand for. However, in some kind of wild way, the hon member for Kuruman has logic on his side. If we are going to spend all these millions of rand on this new building, why do we not go the whole hog and say to the people of South Africa now that we are going to have joint sittings, debates and questions in the meaningful sense of those words? Why do we not tell them that we are going to have a proper, grand hall for Parliament? We are going to watch this building rise at vast expense, and we are told it is merely going to be for ceremonial purposes. It is unbelievable.

The liars of the century.

I hope that the hon the Leader of the House, who has shown courage in the past, will show courage today and give South Africa a message of hope when it comes to reform.

Order! To whom was the hon member for Langlaagte referring when he spoke of “the liars of the century”?

I was referring to the National Party, Mr Chairman.

He is the liar of the House.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw the word “liars”. [Interjections.] Order! If the Chair is speaking to an hon member, hon members may not interrupt. The word “liars” is un parliamentary as such and the hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw it.

I withdraw the word “liars”, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Vryheid who spoke while you were speaking, say the hon member for Langlaagte is the “liar of the House”?

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Yes, Mr Chairman, and I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I prepared myself with regard to financial matters, increases, etc, but nobody referred to the problem of the finances. So I think the management of this business is not bad. There was not one single question about that.

Give us your speech anyway.

My speech has been spoiled. In any case, I knew there would be a discussion on this matter. An hon member referred to racist and insulting rules. It is not a matter of insult. We altered the main diningroom so as to enable members of Parliament to invite members of the other Houses to accompany them. We are at present experiencing what is happening in this situation. To my mind, overcrowding is no longer such a big problem, but if we want to change the situation, we must refer the matter to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That is the place where this whole matter must be discussed. In the past, not even the senators could make use of the dinette—the small diningroom. There were certain rules in this place, and at the moment we still find that we cannot open the small diningroom to anybody else because of the problem of congestion. We cannot accommodate everyone in the small diningroom. [Interjections.]

*What bothers me about all this, however, is that the CP continually concentrates on what one aspect, and that is integration. It is not, as far as I am concerned, a question of integration. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kuruman says we should not be in a hurry. He says things will come right in due course.

I did not say the hon the Minister should not hurry things.

The hon member did.

I said that in the House of Representatives the hon the Minister has said that they should not be in a hurry … [Interjections.]

Order!

That is what I am referring to. Then the hon member for Lichtenburg said we should first “mislead” the people. Those were his words.

That is correct.

If we argue with each other in that vein, let me say that when we asked the people to vote “yes” or “no” that party told them the time for religious freedom was past. We were now going to bow to a Moslems or Hindus. [Interjections.] Cruel things were said, and I acknowledge that there was a time …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the House what hon member of the CP made that statement? [Interjections.]

It was the order of the day, but now they are holier-than-thou. I arrived at an old-age home where I was told there had been someone from the CP who had said that the time of religious freedom would be coming to an end because Moslems and Hindus were being brought into this House of Assembly. Those are the things that were said. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member has to acknowledge that some terrible things have been said.

What did you say at Wilgerivier?

Order!

Then there was a time when the trend of thought took hold that the Indians themselves thought they could sit in Natal. There was such a time, was there not? [Interjections.] Let me tell hon members, however, that we should go back to the 66% of the people who voted “yes” and ask them: Have these things you were told about ever happened? Here we have the Indian House and the Coloured House, and what have you reling-uished? If I asked this question in a referendum today, more than 75% of the voters would vote “yes”, because what those people said would happen, did not materialize. [Interjections.]

Order! When the hon member for Kuruman was speaking, I asked hon members to listen to him in silence. I am not requesting the same privilege for the hon the Minister.

The hon member says we can only satisfy the Coloureds and the Indians by way of concessions.

As you did.

I am speaking about practical politics. How many years ago did I not say that I had no need for a Mixed Marriages Act. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must comply with my request.

The abolition of that Act—if hon members can regard it as a concession, is not going to encroach on my survival for one moment. I repeat: I do not need that act and nor do my voters. The hon member, however, says we are dealing in concessions. That is what he is referring to.

Yes, one after another.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must also comply with my request.

What I am saying is that if the motion is introduced and discussed in my party’s caucus and it is said that this does not hold out any danger for my survival—we are now seeing how the new Parliamentary system has thus far worked in practice …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the House?

Just let me finish my sentence. I shall give the hon member a chance in a minute. If my caucus were to decide that opening up the diningroom would not pose any threat to my survival or encroach on minority groups, I would have no objection to doing so. The hon member for Sandton must acknowledge, however, that the present position is such that we have all felt: Let us open up the diningroom to guests if they are accompanied by a member of the House of Assembly; then anyone can go and eat there.

Not anyone.

A member of any of the other two Houses can be invited by a member of the House of Assembly. What I am saying is that opening it up to non-members of Parliament would be wrong. I am not in favour of that. [Interjections.]

And if they invite us?

Those are matters we can discuss. We can also refer that to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

Hon members must not come along and tell me that these are concessions and that we are careering down a slippery slope. I could never have imagined the hon members for Lichtenburg and Waterberg fraternizing to such an extent with the HNP. Jaap Marais gave those two hon members the fight of their lives. [Interjections.] On each occassion Jaap Marais pushed up his majority in Waterberg, and I told that hon member one day that he was scared to death of Jaap Marais.

Hendrik Hendrickse!

Today that hon member is, in essence, an HNP supporter. There is no difference between them.

You are a Prog, Hendrik.

Order! I have appealed to hon members, and the hon member for Kuruman blatantly disregards my appeal. If the hon member continues in this vein, he will leave me no other choice but to take drastic steps against him.

He is a real clown.

Order! Was that the hon member for Vryheid?

Sir, I said he was a real clown.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member must restrain himself and not proffer any comments when the Chair gives a ruling. The hon the Leader of the House may continue.

Sir, I want to emphasize that I have never misled the people, as the hon member says I have. When it comes to a matter such as a diningroom …

What of Bulge River?

What I said at Bulge River I shall repeat here. At Bulge River I asked: “Give me the name of the man who is going to be Minister of Transport Affairs.”

That is not true. I have listened to the tape.

Order! I am now telling hon members that I am not going to allow any further interjections whatsoever from anyone as long as the hon the Leader of the House has the floor. We cannot carry on like this in this Committee!

Sir, it is a tragedy when we sink to the level of HNP politics. I foresaw that. I have said consistently: Once the Afrikaners start reviling their fellow Afrikaners in this fashion, our people are going to be hurt. That is what is now happening. It is no longer a question of realism. Let me reiterate: If the majority in my caucus were to decide that under certain conditions even more people could have access to the large diningroom, it is not a question of my careering down a slippery slope, but rather a question of harmonious co-existence in this country.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Kuruman said that the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You ruled that you would permit no further interjections. The hon member Mr Vermeulen has just made an interjection. I want to ask you whether you are going to permit that?

Order! I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon member Mr Vermeulen making any interjection. I did hear murmurs and tried to ascertain the source. I was not, however, able to do so.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: If I now tell you that the hon member did, in fact, make an interjection which was objectionable, would you accept my word for it?

Order! Did the hon member Mr Vermeulen interject?

Sir, I could possibly have been thinking aloud for a moment, but … [Interjections.] I would be glad if the hon member could tell me what I said.

Order! I repeat my ruling and am now issuing a final warning. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

The hon member for Kuruman says the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should also be the Leader of this House. He is now turning his back on me, but I have consistently been courteous. I have not insulted anyone and have merely stated the facts. In the other two Houses a Minister is not the Leader. Each House is free to elect its own Leader, and here it is the tradition that the senior Minister becomes the Leader of the House. So to prescribe, in this debate, who should be the Leader of the House by saying it should be the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, does not, in my view, have any practical value in relation to the vote.

†The hon member for Umhlanga referred to the fact that there are now about 360 members as opposed to 180 in the past. This is a problem. He also said that we should not confiise the Parliamentary dining room and the House of Assembly dining room. We should keep this in mind. We have a Parliamentary dining room and a House of Assembly dining room and one is bigger than the other.

The hon member for Groote Schuur has a lot of experience. He said we are using old arguments, and now also that there is not enough space. He is perfectly correct when he says that the dining room is subsidized by all colour groups in South Africa. However, there are various other subsidies of which the same can be said.

I want to conclude by asking that we refer the matter to the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I will go there with an open mind and so will other members on my side. It is a matter of experiencing what is happening. If we find that there is a solution to the present circumstances, we can always alter the rules without hurting anybody’s feelings.

*We can do so on condition that we do not have to exclude minorities from the tradition. Parliamentary eating facilities are a matter with sentimental overtones. This applies to the House of Assembly as a whole. Those of us who have been here for a long time are sentimentally attached to certain things. This is not based on skin colour, but on the club idea. Without being a snob, let me say that we are a special club in which a special feeling of togetherness prevails. When one goes to eat, one wants a certain atmosphere of relaxation. That is what I bear in mind when we are speaking about this. It definitely has nothing to do with racism.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that you cramped my style when you forbade interjections, because then I do not enjoy speaking very much.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by thanking the department for the information brochure. I want to refer directly to what is considered to be own affairs. We on this side reject the assumption that one can have own affairs as far as health matters are concerned. In fact, if one looks at the medical terms one finds an expression such as “white blood corpuscles” which are present not only in the blood of Whites but also in the blood of all other racial groups. We also talk about white matter and grey matter. Grey matter is unfortunately very much lacking on the side of the Government; of white matter they perhaps have enough. On this side of the Committee we have grey matter. This white and grey matter, however, is also shared by all races. Therefore the term “own health” is still unacceptable to us and we shall continue to fight until we have health services as one organization and one system in South Africa.

On page 1 of the relevant report we read about health as an own affair and I want to refer specifically to subparagraphs (3) and (4) where reference is made to health and nutritional guidance and the registration and control of private hospitals. In the time available to me I should like to concentrate on two own affairs concerning health.

In the newspapers one reads about increasing malnutrition in South Africa. One reads that on the East Rand there is evidence of malnutrition and lack of food in White schools. We notice that diseases which are related to nutrition are increasing. As a result of malnutrition there is also an increase in the incidence of tuberculosis, especially among Coloureds.

On Wednesday we listened to a very excellent speech by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in which he discussed the distribution of milk and milk powder. In view of the prevailing conditions of malnutrition in South Africa I should like to make an urgent appeal to the State President and the Government for the immediate establishment of an organization which will be responsible for the collection and distribution of surplus foodstuffs. As we are experiencing increasing unemployment in South Africa, I think the establishment of such an organization is essential.

We have periodic surpluses of fresh milk and milk powder, fruit, vegetables, meat, grain products and fish. I think this is the opportunity not only for the Government but also for the private sector to organize a campaign so that, as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said, pigs in Japan do not get the surplus milk powder but it is made available to the people in South Africa who need it.

During the discussion of the Health and Welfare Vote for general affairs I tried to discuss health problems with special reference to matters which I considered important. The hon the Deputy Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Acting Minister thought it fit not to reply to my speech but to become personal. This is the usual method of the NP—when they have no answer, they become personal. There was no reply to the aspects of health which I had discussed.

I said, for example, that we should remove all racial discrimination in our health services, but not a single word was said in reply. The hon the Deputy Minister said—I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

That was not true. I told the hon member for Boksburg—he is one of the Government’s Whips—what the position was and he then walked straight across to the hon the Deputy Minister to inform him. If he did not tell the hon the Deputy Minister, then it is clear what a poor Whip he must be.

The hon the Deputy Minister did not have enough knowledge to reply to me immediately. He had to get one or two officials of the department to read and study my speech so that he could reply to it the next day. He sat humming and hawing there and pulling faces at me.

Who is being personal now?

If the hon the Deputy Minister wants to be personal, I can also be personal.

The hon the Deputy Minister said that I had a “nagmerrie”, but he is our “nagmerrie”. Sir, do you know why? Not only I but all the doctors in South Africa have nightmares because there is a possibility that the hon the Deputy Minister may become the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. That is the nightmare of South African medical people. When the hon the Deputy Minister was appointed in his present capacity, the doctors of South Africa laughed. Now that there is the possibility that he may become the Minister, they are crying. The hon the Deputy Minister also said that I had a brainstorm. I can quote from Hansard to prove that he really said so. However, that hon Deputy Minister cannot have a brainstorm. There is no physiological or anatomical reason for him to have a brainstorm. [Interjections.] I diagnosed the hon Deputy Minister during my second year in Parliament. I told him—and my diagnosis is correct—that he was not a paranoiac but that everybody did hate him. I repeat that diagnosis now. [Interjections.]

In the rest of the time available to me, I want to discuss private hospitals. I put questions to the department about private hospitals in South Africa. Now I have my questions and I have the answers. In South Africa today there are 155 private hospitals which fall under the control of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. These hospitals have a total of 6 398 beds. Another question I asked was whether there were any plans for the future location of each of these hospitals. I also asked whether any applications for registration as a private hospital had been approved or turned down. In reply to both these questions, the department told me that it was difficult to give me that information. So from its answers it appears that although the department knows how many private hospitals there are, it is not at all aware of any future plans in regard to the siting of such hospitals or in regard to the number of hospital beds that are to be provided.

I also asked how many of these beds were to be set aside for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks respectively. In reply I was told: “No beds are specifically allocated to any other group than to Whites.” We have just heard a debate in this Chamber concerning the diningroom facilities in Parliament. Does the hon the Deputy Minister know what the position in private hospitals is? The private hospitals admit White patients. They also admit Blacks and other races. However, in these private hospitals patients from the other race groups must, in terms of the permission granted by the hon the Minister, be placed in private beds. They are not allowed to share wards with Whites but have to have private beds.

*It also reminds one of the Parliamentary diningroom. Today in South Africa, with its joint Parliament, people of colour may only be nursed in private wards!

†These patients are admitted to private hospitals and are nursed by Coloured, Black and White nurses. In the Transvaal the Black nurses basically make up the majority of the members of the nursing services. As soon as there are not enough White nurses, Black nurses become good enough. That is the policy of that department. In private hospitals nurses of all races are allowed. Moreover, they may nurse patients of all races. However, Black patients and patients of other races may only occupy private wards.

In the previous debate we stated that we stood for the removal of racial discrimination. I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he can tell me today why, under the provincial system, we have White hospitals, Coloured hospitals, Asian hospitals and Black hospitals. In some areas where hospitals occupy only one building, this one building is divided into separate sections for Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks. Why? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Parktown said there is such a thing as own affairs as far as health affairs are concerned, and that they are going to strive towards getting it removed and will not stop before they have achieved this.

The hon member broached one matter, however, which I cannot ignore. That is that if the NP cannot reply to a matter, they make personal attacks. I have never seen as pointed a personal attack by an hon member, however, regardless from which party, as that made a moment ago on the hon the Deputy Minister of Health Affairs and Welfare by the hon member for Parktown. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Parktown had made that insulting attack outside this House, I believe he would have encountered great difficulties. I want to express most strongly my absolute regret about and complete aversion to the extreme attack by the hon member for Parktown on the hon the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

In addition the hon member for Parktown spoke about private hospitals. Other hon members on this side of the House will respond to that in time.

In the first instance I should like to apologize for the absence of the chairman of the NP’s health study group. I regret that he cannot be present here today. Hon members are aware of the fact that the hon member for Brits underwent a serious operation recently. He is making a fine recovery, and is well. He will not, however, be able to attend the rest of the present session’s proceedings.

This is the first health debate on own affairs. In this respect, of course, it is a historic debate. That is why it is an important debate. It is also an important debate, however, because it deals with the health and welfare of the White population group of the Republic of South Africa. When we take note of what Schedule 1 of the Constitutional Act says, we find that we are dealing in this debate with all welfare matters which are relevant to the White population group, including social pensions. Reference is so easily made to the regulation—and I address these words to our CP friends—that it is subject to any general law. For convenience’ sake, however, that Schedule is interpreted wrongly, and the regulation is not read correctly and fully. I therefore draw hon members’ attention pertinently to the following words in it, and I quote:

As far as health is concerned, I quote again:

This is what we are dealing with at present—for example hospitals, clinics and similar or connected institutions, medical services at schools and to the needy, health and nutritional guidance and the registration of and control over private hospitals.

It is a good thing for all these affairs to be set aside as own affairs because each population group can deal best with those matters that affect it. That is also where we differ from the hon member for Parktown, who wants to do away with own affairs completely and bring health affairs as a whole under one umbrella. We also give people the opportunity to render these services to their own people.

In the annual report we see that social welfare services, which fall under the Social Ancilliary Services branch at present—these are social pensions, grants and so forth—and the Social Services branch—these are general welfare services—as a whole, together with all the regional offices and institutions, have been transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly as own affairs. This gives the aged people great satisfaction, and also quashes the CP’s wild stories that there are going to be mixed old age homes.

Are you opposed to mixed old age homes?

Yes, I am opposed to mixed old age homes.

And what if two little old mixed people marry one another? What then?

That has nothing to do with the matter. [Interjections.] It has nothing whatsoever to do with this matter. I believe the hon member for Rissik is insulting the old people by creating the impression that they will throw all the social norms they are used to overboard without a thought. [Interjections.] The hon member must go and tell that to the old people in old age homes. He will see then what will happen to him. [Interjections.]

The health of the population remains very important to everyone because we all want to be healthy. When one is healthy, there is always the hope of a longer life; we all want to live longer. I also find it important, however, that the longer life, a gift of God, should always be serviceable and productive, that we shall always use this life joyously to the advantage of our fellow beings. We must do it in such a way that it will always fulfil the purpose for which we exist.

I want to refer again to the Department of Health and Welfare’s comprehensive task. We cannot over-emphasize the importance of this department. There is still a wide field in which research is being done on feared diseases for which effective remedies have not yet been found. Although great progress is being made, the fear of the various cancers, for example, and other diseases such as arthritis, remains in our midst. During the past year there have been a number of cases of Congo fever in the country, of which a few claimed the lives of the patients. Diseases of this kind place high demands on research.

The hon member for Parktown said in a previous debate earlier this week that he had dreamt a dream. If we dream about health, it is a dream of extended health services or of a health family which consists of various health disciplines which together render a health service which leads to a healthy, vital population. I want to repeat what I said in a previous debate, viz that a people can only be productive and prosperous if its health care is on a high level. That is why health services together with research into disease should always be matters that receive high priority.

In the sphere of welfare, we find that as a result of higher life expectancies, there is a steadily growing number of social pensioners. As a result of higher living expenses the demands of social pensions are increasing. Although the social pension in South Africa has always been a supplementary pension and has never been regarded as a total provision for the aged, the demand being placed on the Treasury is increasing steadily. It is logical that a country like South Africa is not capable of bearing an unlimited burden. It has always been the Government’s policy to help where it is in any way possible. We are therefore very grateful that the hon the Minister of Finance has found it possible in the present financial year to announce an increase in pension once again. I note great thankfulness for this amongst social pensioners.

I do want to advocate that we should strive towards making it possible for everyone, during his or her lifetime, to belong to a pension fund which can make provision for his or her old age.

Order! I am sorry but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Whip of the Official Opposition for the friendly gesture of giving me the opportunity to complete this speech.

Employers must co-operate in this respect and the transferability of pension funds should be compulsory and should under no circumstances be payable before the normal retirement age. One finds too often that people who belong to a pension fund and have some or other financial difficulty, simply resign, draw the paid up pension contributions and begin from scratch again. This kind of action obviously results in misery and the necessity of looking to the State for a social pension.

In a previous debate I referred to the high cost of medicines. I referred to various prices which are charged for various medicines. I constantly conducted dialogues with pharmacists who are very unhappy about this. I believe the problem can be solved. What I am very sorry about, however, is that the blame for this problem is placed on the Government. I think it is a matter, however, which can and should be rectified within the pharmaceutical industry. It is a matter between the producers’ industry and the Pharmaceutical Society. Those two sectors should get together to resolve the problem. The fact remains, however, that the price of medicine is not right, with the result that medical costs are made very high. Sophisticated medical care is becoming increasingly expensive. The general opinion is that this is not to be ascribed to the higher doctors’ fees in the first place, but rather to high costs of medicines. This is a matter which causes much concern, and attention should be given to this so that medicine will be available to all consumers at a fair price.

Obviously the doctors play an important part in general health. The general practitioner is an important figure, especially to the average citizen in the rural areas. The number of practising doctors has increased, especially in the last few years. We find 18 000 practising doctors in the country today. That brings us to the position of having one doctor for every 1 000 members of the population. This is the case in theory, however. In practice matters look a little different. The cities have a large concentration of doctors today, of whom many are specialists. In contrast, there are not enough doctors in all the rural areas. Certain remote places have no doctor at all. This means that there are still places in the country where sophisticated medical care does not reach the people. Surely this is a matter which can be investigated.

I referred to the increasing medical costs, and said the State’s involvement in medical care should rather decrease. In this regard the existence of medical aid schemes can make a large contribution. The ideal will be to reach a point by means of medical insurance at which the greater majority of the population will receive coverage in respect of medical costs by belonging to medical aid schemes. At present approximately 4,6 million members of the population belong to medical schemes. It is true that people join schemes of this kind to an increasing degree in order to derive benefit from such schemes.

Hon members may find it interesting to know that only 2 800 of the 18 000 medical doctors are contracted out. Of course this entails great advantages for the members of medical schemes. It is interesting to note that during 1981 medical schemes paid out R632 million in benefits, which was apportioned as follows: 19% to doctors, 21% to specialists; 16% to hospitalization and 26% to medicines.

While we are talking about medicines and medical schemes, I should also like to refer to the serious battle in progress at present between pharmacists and dispensing doctors. In my opinion it is really an unnecessary battle. It should end in the interests of the patients, doctors and pharmacists. There is more than enough room for the doctors and the pharmacists in the health family. The one need not be a threat to the other. I agree with the pharmacists that it would not be fair if the doctors were to compete with them. A doctor should not supply medicine to a patient on the prescription of another doctor. That is not what the doctors want to do, however. In the rural areas there are small communities, for example, where a pharmacist can never make a living. In certain cases pharmacies are situated in completely different places—possibly in neighbouring towns. In such cases it is in the interests of the patient if the doctor can prescribe and supply medicine to the patient right there.

The hon member for Germiston District made a very fine speech in a previous debate about the role of the nurse in the health family. I think too little recognition is given to the nurse’s role.

The nurses are organized into the South African Nursing Association which is one of the nurses’ official mouthpieces. That association’s objective is to assist in the institution of effective nursing services for the Republic’s population, to increase the status and importance of the profession, and to manage matters concerning the nurse’s profession.

According to law, membership of the association is compulsory for all nurses who are registered with the Nursing Council or are enrolled as nurses and practise the profession.

There are 115 000 registered nurses. Nursing is mainly a female profession with problems peculiar to it, for example mainly young women are in the profession and then leave it when they get married in order to bring up children.

One does find a large percentage of married women who re-enter the profession. I should like to put on record that there is great appreciation for the dedicated service performed by married nurses. I was the chairman of Middelburg’s Hospital Council for 10 years and I have knowledge of the nurses’ spirit of sacrifice. I have also seen how families make sacrifices to give the mother of the family the opportunity to obtain further training on tertiary level.

If I refer to training now, I should also like to express my anxiety about the pirating of staff which is taking place in the nursing profession. Training of nurses costs the State a great deal of money; the training is done exclusively by the State’s training hospitals. According to a recent study the direct cost of training a student by means of a diploma course, is R17 000. This is all done to keep them in the profession so that an effective nursing service can be provided to the population of the Republic. For this reason the South African Nursing Association makes annual inputs to the Commission of Administration via the Department of Health and Welfare for better salaries and conditions of service for its members.

The fact that there are other bodies which make no contribution to nurses’ training, but steal nurses from the State institutions, gives cause for concern. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Middelburg reproached the CP at the beginning of his speech for telling all kinds of tall stories, among other things about old-age homes. He also made the assertion that he was absolutely opposed to mixed old-age homes. How naive! He finds a mixed Cabinet and a mixed Parliament quite acceptable. Mixed marriages are acceptable to him. How naive! [Interjections.] I want to ask those hon members: If a mixed married couple have to be admitted to an old-age home one day, where do they think the couple will have to be accommodated? [Interjections.] Those hon members will have to accept the full consequences of the total mixing of our South African society.

Read section 12 of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

I shall enlarge on the discussion of that point later on.

When it comes to a discussion of a Vote of a department of own affairs it is clear that so-called own affairs are difficult to distinguish from general affairs. As the hon member for Barberton pointed out in the agricultural debate on Wednesday, there is so much interweaving of interests that even the hon the Minister has become entangled and confused by own affairs and general affairs. I shall get to that in a while. As the hon member for Middelburg referred to the Constitution, let us read exactly what the memorandum on the Constitution provides:

The following are then mentioned:

Where is there a purely White hospital in South Africa? I just want to know from the hon the Deputy Minister under which administration a hospital falls when there are non-White sections in such a hospital? The list continues as follows:

The hon member for Parktown pointed out that private hospitals employ non-White nurses, and that non-Whites are also admitted to private hospitals. Is this then an own affair? The memorandum also contains the following:

I want now to ask hon members where own affairs are.

Let us just take a look at what the hon the Minister of own affairs says own affairs are. The other day he was dumbfounded that those of us on this side of the House nodded so approvingly at the statements he made in the debate. I shall quote for the hon members what the hon the Minister said:

Order! From what is the hon member quoting now?

I am quoting from a speech which the hon the Minister made in the general affairs debate.

The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Minister went on to say:

Then the hon member for Rissik said: “Een honderd persent.” That is the standpoint of this side of the House. We want to have the right to decide not only on these matters but also on every other matter right up to the most important. That is the standpoint of this party.

Secondly the hon the Minister also says:

According to the annual report, however, these matters are general affairs. The hon the Minister has said, however, that those in particular are own affairs. The hon the Minister goes on to say—and I quote from the unedited version of his speech:

Hon members must listen carefully to this:

[Interjections.] My good heavens! The breeding places of flies are own affairs! In other words, according to the hon the Minister, flies are own affairs. According to him no such things as general flies exist … [Interjections.] … except, in terms of the Constitution, as soon as these flies affect more than one population group; in other words, if they alight on all the population groups they then become general flies! [Interjections.] Can you believe it! It is the entanglement of own and general affairs in which those people become enmeshed.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may not read a newspaper in the Chamber.

I am just looking at the flies here, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister identifies particularly the combating of tuberculosis and family planning as belonging to own affairs, although both affairs, as I have said, are really general affairs according to the annual report.

However, I want to agree immediately with the hon the Minister in this regard: The rate of family growth is an own affair, and I do not think that any population group should try to prescribe to another population group what its growth rate should be. Let us just take a look at that of the Whites for example because after all this debate is about them. When we spoke about this matter the other day, I did not have the official figures before me but, according to the Science Committee of the President’s Council on Demographic Trends in South Africa, which appeared in 1983, the growth rate of the White population during the period from 1904 to 1980 was 1,86%. According to page 45 of this report, the total fertility rate is, however—

This figure should be 2,1 to keep a population constant numerically but look at what has happened to the White population. I quote once more from the report:

That is why I take it—these figures are only up to 1980—that it is considerably lower now.

However, I want to get down to a matter that is most closely linked to the decreasing birth rate among Whites viz the application of the Abortion and Sterilization Act of 1975. The annual report covers a period of only 11 months. In terms of section 3(1)(b) an abortion is legalized when a continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the mental health of the woman concerned. What bothers me when I look at the figures, however, is the fact that 50 of the 57 authorized abortions occurred in the age group 15 to 19 years among Whites. In the next age group of 20 to 24 years, 57 of the total number of 63 authorized abortions occurred among Whites, and in the age group 25 to 29 years, 39 of the total number of 41 abortions occurred among Whites. In the age group 30 to 34 years, 32 out of a total of 41 abortions occurred among Whites, and the total number of authorized abortions in South Africa rose from 474 to 566 in a period of 11 months in comparison with the previous year.

I have been keeping an eye on these figures for a few years now and I have noticed that these abortions are still increasing in number. Why—one wants to ask—does this trend occur only among Whites? I think there is increasing pressure from all quarters now to have abortions legalized or made more freely obtainable. I just want to state that the CP is forthrightly and very strongly of the opinion that an abortion which ends the life of an unborn child should also continue to be strictly controlled by this House. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member will excuse me if I do not respond directly to his arguments. There is only one remark which the hon member made to which I just quickly want to respond. He said that the hon member for Middelburg was in favour of mixed marriages. That is a nonsensical remark. If the hon member said he did not think that marriages should be controlled and constrained by legislation, then it surely is not at all possible to say the hon member is in favour of mixed marriages. [Interjections.] It is a completely nonsensical remark and I think if the hon member for Rissik makes the same remark it will be just as nonsensical. [Interjections.]

I should very much like today to speak about our policy, our attitude and our philosophy regarding private hospitals and to refer to certain positive and negative aspects. I also want to refer specifically to the private and public sectors. In this connection I should also very much like to refer to the present, the past and the future. Before I do so, however, I just want to state my personal interest. The other day an hon member said: “But you have a vested interest”. I want to state that I am a shareholder in a private hospital and a director of a company that owns a small private hospital. The name of the hospital is the Krugersdorp Private Hospitaal Bpk. That company has 7 500 shares and I own 19 of them. The aim of this company is not to make much of a profit and to plough its profits back into the hospital. The company consequently seldom pays a dividend. I have only once received a dividend. I have the slip here in my hand. In July 1982 I received R1 per share for my 19 shares. That is therefore R19. If my speech today leads to my dividend doubling from R19 to R38 every few years, I will have no objection and I also will have nothing on my conscience.

What is our position now? What are we looking at at the moment? To demonstrate this I should very much like to quote from Rapport of 12 June 1983. In a report under the heading “Hospitale moet praat—mediese dienste sit op ‘n tydbom” I read the following:

I also want to refer to the medical journal Die Voorskrywer/The Prescriber of 30 April 1984 in which reference is made to Dr Nak van der Merwe’s having said that he had had projections made which showed that by the year 2000 we would be spending R5 000 million per annum on pensions and welfare services and a further R5 000 million per year on medical services. This means a total anticipated expenditure of R10 000 million per annum in barely 15 years. The question is now: What are we going to do about it? What is our attitude, what is our policy, what is our philosophy on this matter?

As far as the past is concerned, I cannot do better than to quote from the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Private Hospitals and Unattached Operating*Theatre Units. It is the report of the so-called De Villiers Commission which appeared in 1974. On page 2 of this report, under “General Outline” the commission stated that it had been mindful of certain premises. I may just say in passing that I think that one of the greatest shortcomings of the commission’s report was that it held too many premises before the time and made too few findings after the time. What were the premises held by the commission? Granted, they were premises which were valid at that time, 10 years ago. On page 2 they stated several premises of which I just want to quote a few. The second premise reads:

It does not say “the State and the private sector”. It also does not say “mainly the State”. It says it is the duty of the State to do this. The third premise reads:

One can agree with that entirely. I have no problem with that. I come then to their fifth premise which reads:

They state therefore that it is the duty of the State to provide health services and hospitalization for the entire population, rich and poor, across the entire spectrum. I have problems with that. The sixth premise is as follows:

The philosophy is therefore that it is the task of the State and, if the private sector wants to give assistance, it should be readily accepted. This approach is negative rather than positive. The last premise of the commission is something with which any right-thinking person can agree wholeheartedly:

I shall return to this later on in my speech. We should not create a psychosis about its being a sin to make a profit. It is not a sin for a doctor to make a profit; it is not a sin for a pharmacist to make a profit; it is not a sin for a private hospital to make a profit. That principle is also entrenched in the report of the commission.

One should also take note of the policy in the various provinces. At the time, and it is still the case to a certain extent, the situation was pretty confused. The commission states that there are a few private hospitals in the Cape Province but that their fes are considerably higher than those at provincial hospitals. The fees at private hospitals are obviously higher. In Die Vaderland of 7 June 1984 Mr Kirsten of the Transvaal said the following:

In other words, after someone has paid his account at the provincial hospital the State has to pay 90% of the actual costs. The fees at private hospitals therefore obviously cannot be the same.

In regard to the policy and approach in the Transvaal the report has the following to say about private hospitals that are run for gain:

In this report it is mentioned that these hospitals entice the nurses away from the provincial hospitals, and also states the following:

I shall return to the issue of nurses.

It is of course not true that hospital wards are closed because the private hospitals entice nurses away. There are many other reasons too. It is really almost ridiculous to give only this reason. The report shows that only 60 of the 130 private hospitals were visited by inspectors as a result of a manpower shortage. Surely the private hospitals have not lured the inspectors away. Why is the shortage of nurses but not the shortage of inspectors attributed to enticement by private hospitals? Or is this also the fault of private hospitals? I ask that we view the problem as a whole and not just look at a small facet of it.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

I thank the hon Whip for his kindness.

As far as the situation in Natal is concerned, I want to quote as follows from what is stated on page 5 of the report:

It is also stated that they will do everything possible to oppose the erection of private hospitals in that province.

There are a few small private hospitals in the Free State but apart from the hospitals at the mines etc this province is also opposed to them.

It is stated that in the Transvaal the nonpaying patient is always given preference at provincial hospitals.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for George allowed to read a newspaper?

Order! The hon member for George may not read a newspaper in the Committee.

Mr Chairman, on a point of personal explanation: Am I not entitled to do some research in one of the best publications that exists, Die Nasionalis?

Order! The quality of the publication is not at issue. The fact at issue is that it is a newspaper.

What is the situation in the Cape Province? It is very interesting that according to the report the Cape Province makes the assertion that it is the duty of the State to see to it that private hospitals comply with the norms and standards that have been determined by the State. If the State has determined those norms and standards and a private hospital makes an application, the Executive Committee is virtually obliged to accept it. Let me also quote what the Cape Provincial Administration said:

Standards are therefore not at issue here:

We therefore have a wonderfully positive approach from the Cape Province.

The Transvaal even objects to someone with money having the right to apply. Whereas the Transvaal states that application may not even be made, the Cape states that it must be approved because, after all, what the applicant wants to do with his money is his business.

We therefore find that the approach was completely different in the past, but what is the position at the moment? I want now to quote a highly intelligent and very skilled person in medical as well as State circles, the Director-General of Health and Welfare, Dr Retief. On an occasion at which I myself was present in July 1983 at the University of Cape Town, he said in a lecture before the Medical Congress:

Our approach is therefore—I also want to advocate it most earnestly—that there should be a strong partnership between the private and public sectors to provide these health services. This not only includes hospitals but other services as well. We have the case of psychiatric hospitals where the private sector deals with thousands of patients on an agency basis on behalf of the State. They do it for a very low fee but make a profit nonetheless.

What I therefore want to say is that a need for private hospitals really exists insofar as hospitals of a higher class are concerned. There are people who want private wards. There are people who want to watch television programmes while they are in hospital. One cannot place a television set in a large general ward.

I had a certain Van der Merwe as a patient. I cannot remember right now if his name was Daan or perhaps Koos, but his name was most definitely not Willie. As soon as that patient saw a person of colour on television he began to have slight spasms. If a White and a person of colour were shown together on television he would have a proper convulsion. If the preacher ending the television broadcast that night was a person of colour, he would start cursing instead of praying.

One cannot switch on a television set in a hospital ward in which someone like that is lying, but then there are people who want to be in their own ward and have a television set and a telephone. There is a need in this regard and the private hospitals can provide for such a need.

The point I want to make is that that need is felt not only by the sophisticated but also by the less sophisticated.

I have an article here entitled “Profile of the company doctor”. The company to which this doctor belongs looks after 10 000 Black people and it does not cost the State a cent. The company provides the primary care, the hospitalization, treatment and so forth without the States having to contribute in any way.

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly.

What I want to say is that the private sector has a very important part to play. That is why we must develop the practice of co-operation between the private sector and the State. There has to be a partnership.

How does this partnership work and how does the private sector view it? In a paper that Mr Tony Norton presented on 23 January 1985 he spoke about the concept of a partnership. He describes “partnership” as follows:

Mr Norton goes on to say that there is a simple and a complex form of this. He says, and I quote him again:

So while I am appealing for a new style, and asking that we follow a different approach to that which we find in the report of 1974; a new approach, as indicated to us by the Director-General of Health and Welfare, the same appeal for a new approach is in fact also being made by the Surgeon-General in giving us possibilities to consider in a lecture to the Medical Association of the West Rand on 23 February 1985. On that occasion he said the following, and I quote:

That is the positive aspect of the matter. I think the private sector can manage this task better and also at a lower fee. We must just realize that when we pay at the provincial hospital we are only paying 10%. The remaining 90% has already left a man’s pocket. I believe that the private sector can provide this service more cheaply and better as has in fact already been shown.

However, what is the negative aspect of the matter? Reference has already been made here to certain negative aspects, for example the training of nurses. It is of course true—and we also see it in the report of 1974—that when private hospitals wanted to train nurses, they were prevented from doing so. Now we are angry with them, however, because they did not do it. I do not have the time now to elaborate fully in this regard.

We also see in that report that the private hospitals continually offered to train people. However, it was always either the Nursing Council or the Transvaal Provincial Administration or someone else who put a stop to it.

Another negative aspect is the high prices that are sometimes charged for medicine by private hospitals. It is a matter … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umbilo will be dealing with the question of private hospitals on Monday. I will therefore not deal in detail with the speech of the hon member Dr Vilonel.

I should also like to express my appreciation of the information brochure, although I must add that we only received it this morning as a sort of five-minutes-to-midnight presentation. It was, however, a useful source of information to receive. It is useful to have because it proves indeed that I was not being stupid in deciding to discuss certain problems here today, problems in relation to which I thought I might find the solutions in this information brochure. Those answers, however, do not appear there, and I hope we will receive them during the course of this debate.

I shall return later to specific aspects of this vote. However, in the general discussion of this particular subject I should like to begin by referring to the aspect of hospitalization. This is correctly, I believe—the actual hospital aspect of medical treatment—a very intimate matter. It is an intimate matter which can, I believe, be correctly described as an own affair.

However, the hospital itself is in reality not something one can simply classify as an own white affair. What I should like clarity on is how this is going to work in practice. While there are certain Black and Indian hospitals which are exclusively for Blacks and Indians, 90% of the other hospitals in South Africa cater for at least two races. In fact, most of them cater for all four races. Should one now exclude Coloureds, Blacks and Indians, one would be faced with the practical problem of how these are then to be handled. I see the hon the Acting Minister of Health and Welfare as well as of Health Services and Welfare has just arrived. Perhaps he, as the general affairs Minister, will tell us how this is going to work. There is going to be an overlap both in respect of the patients treated in the hospitals and in respect of the administration and staff of these hospitals.

I know that the Constitution provides that services may be rendered by one group to other groups on an agency basis. However, we are dealing here with a specific allocation of particular services to particular groups and we do not have a picture of how these will be co-ordinated, regulated and handled financially. This budget is a case in point. In terms of this budget, money is allocated for White hospitals as an own affair. What happens about the money that those hospitals spend on providing agency services for other groups? Let us take one example with which I am concerned: I am a member of the Advisory Board of Addington Hospital. Whites and Coloureds are admitted normally to that hospital. This is an accepted part of the system there. However, we also share the renal unit with patients of any other race requiring specific specialized treatment be he Indian or Black. We deal on a regular basis with patients from the other two race groups. However, the money required to run that hospital is going to be voted as for a White own affair. Is there going to be provision for allowances or additional allocations to hospitals which render services to others on an agency basis? I should like to get a clear picture of this. How is the co-ordination and administration going to take place?

Addington Hospital is not the only example—Wentworth Hospital in Durban is another—of hospitals where services are provided for different groups. This system works. It works in practice, particularly in the specialist departments. For instance the Black hospital, King Edward VII, in Durban has the only unit that deals with rabies. So if a White person contracts rabies, he has to go to King Edward VII. Thus the provision of this specialist service cuts across racial barriers.

When one is sick, nobody has race prejudice. One wants to be treated and one wants to be cured. Even though some people had forebodings of what would happen, we have found that at Addington Hospital in Durban where we now have doctors of other race groups treating White patients, there has not been the slightest bit of difficulty. The only complaint I know of was from a foreigner—a New Zealander as it happened! However, there were no complaints from the South Africans. Treatment is something that one accepts with gratitude. In the general affairs debate I mentioned that I owed my life to an Indian doctor in a military hospital. When the other doctors had given me up and my unit sent all my mail back home marked “Died on active service” that doctor stuck to it and pulled me through.

Did he not tell you to stop smoking?

No, not at all. He encouraged it! So it is not a question of race; it is a question of health, and that is the problem when one begins to separate the administration of hospitals like that.

Let us take another aspect. There are central dispensaries serving all the hospitals of a region such as Natal. There is one dispensary serving Black hospitals, Indian hospitals, White hospitals and Coloured hospitals from the same central point. Who is going to administer that? Is that going to be a White dispensary or a general affairs dispensary?

Let us take laundries. There are laundries which cater for the hospitals of the various groups. Who is going to administer those laundries because they are a general affair as they serve all the hospitals. So they should fall under general affairs but at present they are being administered by the provincial authorities as an own affair. That will have to be removed because at the moment dispensaries and laundries fall under the Health Vote of a province. Are they going to be taken away when health is taken over from the provinces and made a general affair or are they going to be handled on an agency basis?

An innovation is these Metro emergency ambulance services. Natal also has one, like the Cape and the Transvaal. They go out to any accident where they are needed and deal with any victim of an accident, whatever his race may be. Who is going to budget for that service? Is that going to be a general service because at the moment the provinces subsidize ambulances? Who is going to provide the cash and the administration? In Durban that service is run under the auspices of Addington Hospital which falls under the provincial administration. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Durban Point will receive an answer to his question because it is actually so simple that even I can answer him!

*Leave it at that, we shall solve that matter.

As an appreciated and respected ageing member of this hon House I want, in the time available to me express my appreciation for the care and attention that the Department of Health and Welfare, and now the Department of Health Services of the Administration: House of Assembly as well, are giving to the aged. I want to lodge a special appeal for the establishment of service centres for the aged, because there are many of us here who are going to need them any day now! It is a known fact that the White population in South Africa as in other Western countries is growing older; in other words, the percentage of the aged in the community is increasing. According to projections it is expected that 9% of the estimated world population will be elderly people by the year 2000—that is approximately 585 million people. In developed countries the aged will comprise 16% of the population and in underdeveloped countries 7% at that stage. In highly developed countries the life expectancy in the 20th century is estimated to be as high as 75 years for women and 70 for men. It is a fact, Sir, that women are tougher; an old man is a feeble old creature! [Interjections.]

According to projections that have been made by the Human Sciences Research Council, the South African White aged population is going to increase in the next four decades from the present 7,8% to just over 14% of the total White population. As a consequence particular attention has to be and is being given to providing for their needs by the departments concerned. They are endeavouring not only to make life more meaningful for the aged but also to make full use of their contribution to the community for as long as possible.

When an evaluation of the care of the aged is done one must bear in mind that there are certain generally valid characteristics of advanced age. It is these very fundamental characteristics of age which gives special meaning to advanced age to people and communities generally … For example, for everyone, advanced age means a gradual decrease in vigour—we can see this around us here as well—health problems which suddenly develop, a reduction in the means of livelihood, an increasing inactivity and a shrinking circle of friends, the loss of an independent family and uncertainty about a useful life. As a consequence the State, and voluntary welfare organizations with the assistance of the State, provide a multitude of auxiliary welfare services for the purpose of creating facilities to compensate for each of the characteristics referred to and in so doing make life more meaningful and more precious for the aged. [Interjections.]

The Department of Health and Welfare administers 19 civil pension funds and schemes according to the latest annual report. Altogether 6 550 new civil pensions amounting to R79 million per annum were granted during the past year. As at 31 December 1984 altogether 101 433 civil pensions amounting to R53 million per month were being paid.

Apart from this, extensive health services are provided for the aged in the community to enable them to function for as long as possible in their own social and cultural sphere. The aged who experience problems in attending clinics are visited at home. The department carries out ongoing research into the needs and care of the aged. In the present financial year, for example, the administration of social pensions and grants for Whites was investigated. By means of a subsidy of R45 million in the past financial year the department also subsidized 380 000 old-age homes. At present there are 12 000 infirm aged as opposed to 8 000 non-infirm aged in subsidized homes. At the same time there are also four State homes with an expenditure of R2 million per year.

It is a well-known fact that the number of White aged in South Africa living in homes is one of the highest in to the Western World—approximately 8% as against only 1,4% in Britain and between 3% and 6% in most other Western countries. There can be no doubt about the need for care in institutions for the infirm aged in particular. Unfortunately the tendency has arisen in South Africa for the aged to apply for admission to homes while they are still relatively healthy and in a position to care for themselves. This tendency must be discouraged. Once the aged have been admitted they do not move out of their again. The old men in particular just sit in the sun. We must do everything possible to enable our aged to live an independent life outside old-age homes for as long as possible. As a consequence they will not be dependent on the State but may in fact be an asset to the community. Besides, it is also normal for the aged to need to maintain their independent lifestyle for as long as possible and to remain members of the community as usual.

We also appreciate the fact that this attitude is the point of departure for the care of the aged as carried out by the State. There is tremendous appreciation for the assistance of the State in connection with service centres, of which there are 75 at present and for which a subsidy of R1 million was paid in the past financial year. These service centres serve a total of 20 000 aged.

A service centre is a welfare undertaking which uses a building to make a variety of services available to the aged on a daily basis. The social worker plays an important part in effectively involving all the members of the service centre according to their talents and capabilities.

In conclusion I want to appeal to welfare organizations to establish more service centres for the aged and in this way to assist them as independent members of the community to make a contribution and consequently also to enrich and make their lives more meaningful. I can testify what a service centre does for young widows.

Mr Chairman, I have no quarrel with the hon member for Worcester. We all share a common concern for the aged and their care. What we are concerned about is that there do not appear to be enough institutions to house all the aged. We should direct our attention towards making those institutions available. The pension payable to the people living in these homes is insufficient to cover their costs. I hope the hon the Minister will take note of that.

I want now to address the hon the Minister who occupies the position of Minister of Health, both generally and in respect of own affairs. I have in my hand two reports. The one is on the South African tobacco industry and is issued by the Tobacco Board, and the other is a report on smoking and health issued by the Medical Research Council of South Africa.

Referring to the report of the Tobacco Board we learn the following: Two thousand two hundred farmers employ 70 000 people. The industry contributes R453 million to the State coffers, which includes GST and customs and excise duties. The capital invested is R933 million. The figures for 1982-83 which are shown in this report and are the latest available show that the value of the crop was R147 million. It was handled by eight co-operative societies.

There has been an increase in the past five years. The total value has risen from R81,9 million to R171 million. The mass of tobacco consumed has risen from 34,1 million kilograms to 39,3 million. This means an additional one million kilograms per year over those five years. The cigarettes consumed increased by 3,4% annually. The last increase was by 7,4% against a decline of 5% in respect of pipe tobacco. This is because the Black population have become a little more affluent and can afford cigarettes. In its statement the board comes to the following conclusion:

I should like to correct that statement and say that it should read as follows:

Let us weigh what I have just said against the following in the struggle between vested tobacco interests and the health and welfare of the nation: Firstly, medical and hospital costs, absence from work and low productivity amount to R3 million per day or over R1 000 million per annum in South Africa. Secondly, 8 000 people die annually in South Africa because of smoke-related diseases.

These are facts. The tobacco industry is a mean machine set up to kill people, slowly but deliberately. It is set up to slow down productivity and debilitate the health of a nation, and in this the South African Government acquiesces. If vested interests are so important to the Government, why do they not grow dagga and sell heroin? They can make much more money out of that.

The Government should be ashamed of a senior Minister, the chairman of a standing committee, who killed the Smoking Control Bill before it got off the ground by stating that the tobacco industry yields R600 million for the coffers of the Government and that it employs 70 000 people. Why did the Government not do something about the people who became unemployed in Port Elizabeth and the other Eastern Cape areas? Why did they not do anything there? Why are they not so worried about them? Where is the justice?

The Bill that was presented to Parliament annually for five years contained a warning. Is anybody against a warning? It contained a control over advertising and it granted power to the Minister to ban smoking in public places and to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to children.

There is overwhelming support for this Bill and in particular for the points I want now to mention: Firstly, it is a fact that through a study of 30 000 people worldwide, the relationship between smoking and death has been clearly established. Secondly, 75% of children who smoke more than one cigarette a day are going to become chronic smokers. Ten percent of children start smoking at the age of 11; 55% are smoking by the age of 15, and 72% are smoking by the age of 18.

It is significant that in South Africa 55% of Coloureds, 45% of Whites, 31% of the Indians and 36% of the Blacks smoke. This is why lung cancer among Coloured people increased by 40% in the past decade. Far too many people in South Africa smoke.

Pregnant women who smoke place their unborn babies at great risk because of the risk of abnormal foetal breathing, miscarriage and intellectual retardment, says Prof Rosendorf. That is a fact.

There is a new trend developing throughout the world according to a study of the ill-effects smoking has on non-smokers. In a study of 100 000 non-smoking women in whom lung cancer was assessed over a period of 14 years, it showed that those married to smokers had a higher risk of dying of lung cancer. Not only the wives but also the children were affected as they developed chronic bronchitis.

Tobacco farmers can easily turn their land to productive use and employ a large number of people.

There is no such a thing as a safe cigarette. Low nicotine or tar content simply means that a smoker smokes more cigarettes. South Africa spent R1 080 million on tobacco and R25 million on the advertising of tobacco last year. A study made at Tygerberg Hospital showed that 90% of lung cancer patients were smokers. That is a fact. Death from heart attacks can be reduced by 25% if people give up smoking. That is a fact.

The Government and the hon the Minister must act now and do the following: Phase out all cigarette advertising over a period of one year from now and control the type of advertising so that it is not flamboyant and misleading; prominently display warnings on packets and in advertisements; ban cigarettevending machines; ban sales to minors; the maximum permitted nicotine and tar yields should be established and enforced by law; ban smoking in public places, in all restaurants, in public transport on land and in the air, and in hospitals and nursing homes; embark upon a major continuous health education campaign at school level and in the Defence Force with the object of reducing smoking by at least 3% per annum; offer incentives to commerce and industry to promote anti-smoking campaigns in their establishments; and boldly phase out the tobacco industry and tobacco farmers. The smoking epidemic is preventable.

The facts I have spoken of appear in a statement issued by the Medical Research Council on smoking and health. They are based on references to some 83 works by specialists throughout the world. Support for all these measures is obtained from the Medical Association of South Africa, the Dental Association of South Africa and the Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa, as well as other responsible organizations.

The PFP caucus has officially taken a decision to support anti-smoking legislation. The members of my caucus passed a resolution confirming that smoking is a health hazard and that it is necessary that legislation should be passed to warn the public of the dangers and to compel manufacturers to prominently display the necessary warnings.

I should like to challenge members of the NP to put a similar resolution through their caucus. I have a feeling that such a resolution would in fact succeed. I also wish to issue a challenge to the Tobacco Board to produce scientific evidence to the effect that smoking is not injurious to health.

I would like to ask the hon the Acting Minister of Health and Welfare whether he has read this report of the Medical Research Council. Has he read the report? If not, I would gladly hand it to the hon the Minister to read. Has the hon the Deputy Minister read it?

Which report is it?

This is the latest report on smoking by the Medical Research Council.

It falls under the Department of Health, strangely enough!

I am amazed that neither the hon the Minister nor the hon the hon the Deputy Minister has even read this report. I shall gladly give them the report. [Interjections.] I urge them to do something tangible about it.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip. I shall only take a moment. Significantly enough an additional pamphlet was issued in the Tobacco Board report. This pamphlet says the following:

I want to agree with the Tobacco Board when it says the following:

I believe this consideration should be shown to others and that we should have legislation in this regard for the comfort and convenience of the people in South Africa. It also says:

Now, if the Tobacco Board says that, why cannot the Government do something positive and tangible to focus attention on the problem, to ban cigarette-vending machines and the sale of cigarettes to children and to embark upon a massive campaign at school level and in the Defence Force? This is supported by the Tobacco Board.

Finally, the Tobacco Board says:

I fully agree. Let the Tobacco Board be the first out of the R48 million that it has in reserve to vote money for this research, and let the hon the Minister and his department vote money for it. Let us do whatever research is necessary so that we can establish maximum permitted levels for tar and nicotine. I do not wish to embark upon a campaign to stop everybody from smoking. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and if people want to do it, they can do it. However, we owe a duty to this country and its people.

Mr Chairman, I want to say right away that I have some appreciation for the struggle the hon member for Hillbrow engaged in here but if we are going to try to put a stop to everything that seems wrong to us by means of legislation, Parliament is never going to go into recess. I think there are many other things which if one were to use them to excess could be very injurious to health. I agree that we should go out of our way to persuade people to use tobacco and other things in moderation. However actually to attempt to do so by means of legislation is in my opinion unnecessary.

I would very much like to talk about the question of the care of the infirm aged. The hon member for Worcester spoke about the many aged people in South Africa and about the fact that our people are growing older. I find it quite strange that the hon member for Hillbrow came up with this story of his—and I agree with him—in the face of evidence that people throughout the world, but particularly in South Africa, are in fact becoming older as a result of better medical services and better medical care. I therefore think, as far as the problem of the hon member for Hillbrow is concerned too, that people are making more moderate use of cigarettes. That is why our people are living longer. Subsequently the hon member for Worcester referred to the average fife expectancy being 70 years at the moment and that it would be 80 years by the end of the century or early next century—despite the fact that people continue to smoke.

The treatment and care of the infirm aged is in my opinion one of the most important matters with which this department of own affairs has to deal. The people concerned made very important contributions in their younger days to the building up and the advancement of this beautiful country in which we live. I think we owe it to them now to look after them in their old age when they have become mentally and particularly physically debilitated.

The hon member for Worcester focused on the wonderful work of service centres and their great success, and one can only agree with this. The community, the State, the Church and welfare bodies will have to plan to find joint solutions for the problems connected with the care and support and particularly the expensive medical nursing of our aged. It is the policy of the Government that in future provision should only be made for the infirm aged in institutions, and that the fit and healthy aged, like the hon member for Worcester, should continue to live independently in the community.

There has been much speculation about the best way of caring for the aged. I must say I have often wondered how it is possible that so many people do not make timeous provision for their old age. The fact is, however, that they do not do so. The information brochure of this department which we received yesterday indicates that the department itself, either directly or by means of subsidies which it pays out, maintains 371 homes for the aged. 25 000 people live in those homes and this will cost the State R60 million in the present tax year. The main problem with most of those homes, as the hon member for Worcester correctly pointed out, is that although those homes have made provision for the elderly and still do so today, they do not actually do so for the elderly who have really become infirm. This is causing a very big problem at present.

The SA National Council for Care of the Aged has for many years adopted the standpoint that care in institutions should only be provided when people can no longer get by on their own. The Department of Health has in turn accepted the principle that no application for the erection of an old age home may be approved at present except in cases where provision has been made for the care of the infirm aged. They require continuous care and nursing at great expense. Facilities and the accompanying services for the infirm aged are the job of specific welfare organizations in partnership with the authorities because they could never do this on their own. Facilities for the aged consist mainly of sections for the infirm aged in homes for the aged and homes for the infirm aged. These facilities are staffed by highly trained nurses and nursing assistants.

As far as the future is concerned, the ideal is that all facilities and services for the aged be utilized for a variety of purposes and be planned in such a way that provision is made in one programme for the entire continuum of services; in other words by means of service centres and so forth for the healthy aged right through to the infirm aged. On the practical level I am thinking here of a complex consisting of a service centre, a day care centre, housing and an institution for the infirm aged.

I should like to come a little closer to home and talk about my own constituency. I went to seek advice at the regional office of the ACVV in the Boland which provided me with very interesting figures. The total provision for subeconomic cases covers 668 people in 11 old-age homes but there is a waiting list of 643. This means that for every person in an old-age home in that area there is another elderly person who is waiting. The irony is that people who are waiting to be admitted are very often in poorer health than the people who are in the old-age homes at present. In the 11 old-age homes the care of the infirm aged is the greatest single problem. Many of the residents have grown infirm over the course of time. Perhaps they came to the old age homes too soon. The fact remains, however, that they are there today, that they have become infirm and that the lack of adequate facilities for the infirm aged creates tremendous problems. There is a case in my constituency where the management of such a home has collected enough money over a number of years to enable it to contribute 10% of the capital cost involved in the addition of a new section for the infirm aged and, as a consequence, they are in a position to go ahead with the erection of the additional wing to the home. There is however a problem which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister—the running costs of such a section for the infirm aged. It is one matter to erect a building for the infirm aged but the biggest problem is really the running expences of such a section for the infirm aged. I therefore want to ask, while it is the policy of the department not to allow the erection of old age homes without a section for the infirm aged, that a serious effort will at the same time be made to assist and give preference—by way of operating subsidies—to old age homes which are going out of their way to do their share in the establishment of such a section.

I want to conclude with the thought that a section for the infirm aged is very often a halfway house for the aged on their way to their final resting place. I really think that we will have to go out of our way to make those halfway houses, those halfway wards as comfortable and as pleasant as possible for our old people who contributed so much to our country in their younger days.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in following the hon member for Paarl. He made a very good speech in the interest of our aged; any nation which cares for its aged exemplifies civilized standards. In the course of my speech I shall return to certain aspects touched upon by the hon member.

When the hon the Minister of the Budget made his Budget speech, he announced an amount was being budgeted for this department and I shall return to this shortly. One aspect I regret is, as the hon member for Pietersburg said when he replied to the hon member for Middelburg, that this department should also be subject to a “but”. I shall not elaborate on this because I think the hon member for Pietersburg replied adequately to the statements of the hon member for Middelburg.

Once again we are faced with the reality that what concerns us here can only be a subdivision of any piece of legislation. It leaves the situation open to many future abuses and we shall scrutinize this matter very thoroughly in future.

The amount of R679,97 million is not very large for this enormous department. It is true, according to what the hon the Minister said—I am referring to Hansard, 1985, col 2669—that 63% of this is going on the care of the aged and the debilitated aged. This is far from adequate and again the inception date is 1 October instead of immediately.

In previous years we also appealed very earnestly that when an increase was announced it should become operative simultaneously with salary increases for the Public Service. When such salary increases are announced, prices escalate and when increases for the aged are announced, prices shoot up further.

This happens because certain people are absolutely intent upon raising their prices too when certain increases occur. This creates great distress to pensioners—those who can least afford it. Meanwhile prices reach the heights with a hop, skip and a jump; it is simply repugnant that something like this can happen. It is a fact that when the Public Service receives an increase and/or there is an increase in pensions, there are always excessive price hikes.

This country can only mourn the unemployment of the Price Controller; the Price Controller has been unemployed for a long time—in fact, he no longer exists. It has been pointed out in the House that the same article on the shelf of a store is constantly exhibiting a new price although it was purchased quite a while before. On behalf of our people, on behalf of our country, on behalf of peace and on behalf of all that attends it, we wish to request the reinstatement of the Price Controller to his post—if it is possible—so that our people in South Africa may fare better.

Control boards remain.

That hon member has made that comment because he does not want control.

When the subject in question was discussed in the House last year, the hon member for Langlaagte displayed tins here containing certain types of food. He illustrated clearly how the prices of those products had risen and how cheating takes place in that field. At the moment prices are not merely shooting up; they are simply soaring. A sombre future awaits the inhabitants of this country.

The picture is dismal, to say the least of it, for the social pensioner who has little. As from 1 October social pensions are being increased by R14 a month—that means an increase of 8,4%. We express our thanks for the crumbs dropping from the table. We are not ungrateful for these but this morning it was announced that the inflation rate was currently running at 17% and prices rise by at least that rate. I am therefore expressing our gratitude for something which is officially worth less than what those people are at present to receive as an increase.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, when business was suspended I was indicating how the growing inflation rate was adversely affecting the pensioner. According to information we received this morning, the inflation rate is 17% at present and threatens to rise to 20% shortly. We also know the hon the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech that the means test would be increased by R186 per annum and that it would be pegged at R2 160 per annum. This is merely a drop in the bucket—actually a very small drop in a mighty ocean; pitifully little can be done with it.

When we note who is actually supposed to benefit from the means test, the picture becomes complete only after we have added quite a number of other relevant factors to it. Naturally they still have to pay rates and taxes on their property—something which is rising by the day. They have to settle their electricity accounts which are also escalating daily. In addition there is a multitude of other costs they have to cover.

I now wish to make a few comments about homes for the aged. The hon the Minister of the Budget said in his Budget speech in the House, on 25 March this year, and I quote him (Hansard, 25 March 1985, col 2670):

Here the hon the Minister was already speaking to the converted. It is a fact that in every community there are people who assist voluntarily and often stint themselves financially because they feel it their duty to do what they are doing. Here for example I am thinking of church, social and charity institutions as well as many private individuals. For instance, I know people who would sacrifice anything day or night to make conditions more comfortable for those in old age homes.

There are women from the community who do everything possible in homes for the aged to make life pleasanter for those people in need of care—not only financially but also by acting as companions to them and even instilling a little courage into them—this already goes a long way.

It is naturally true that it is the duty of children wherever possible to look after their parents. I know of cases—these are factual—in which a parent who has raised six children for example and made every possible sacrifice for them no longer receives any attention whatsoever after those children have left home. Fortunately cases of this nature are the exception rather than the rule but unfortunately they do occur.

There is another matter which we should understand very clearly today. Unfortunately life has become so expensive nowadays that it has become essential for both husband and wife to continue working. In consequence the family barely has the time to pay attention to its own affairs. I believe there are people who would very much like to care for their parents but that they are so exhausted after a hard day’s work that they find it very difficult to carry out even that essential duty. Nowadays it is impossible for them to fulfil their duty towards their parents; unfortunately that is the truth. The children of such working parents can naturally also suffer because they do not always receive proper parental care; from the nature of the case this results in child neglect. Each person has a limit to what he can accomplish. It is very easy to say today that people should save for their old age; every rightminded person would like to live independently on retirement—not to be dependent upon the State. But what is the position today?

Interest on investments depends on the term of the investment, where the money is invested, how risky the investment is and the amount invested. How can one save economically today if the inflation rate—as we heard only this morning—amounts to 17% at the moment and is on the way to 20%? In addition the investor also has to pay income tax on that interest. He therefore simply cannot manage; he cannot come out on top—he is finished and done with! It therefore means a person has to spend money to save because prices will rise again shortly.

It naturally happens that many people do not buy what they require; they do not buy those articles they cannot do without but unnecessary things in order to have them on hand before prices rise again. There is very real reason for concern about present-day pensioners but there is even more reason for concern about the pensioners of tomorrow. Pensions of those who do everything in their power to save are reduced to absolutely nothing. At their retirement on pension, the amount they receive—perhaps a large sum of money, in fact—is worth so little that they can accomplish hardly anything with it. Mr Chairman, this is simply a tragedy.

In September last year the Director-General of Finance, Dr Joop de Loor, warned the country and told people it was technically bankrupt. People listened to this but not the Government—oh no! The Government simply did not listen to this.

No, they are hard of hearing!

That is our greatest problem.

They listen only to Chester Crocker.

They do not listen to these warnings. We need only note the extravagant financial expenditure by the Government; the Government does this at the expense of the poor of this country—at the expense of the taxpayer of tomorrow. The Government simply no longer listens even to people who should know what they are talking about. That, Mr Chairman, is the tragedy of our times. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before getting to the hon member who preceded me, I wish to comment briefly on an aspect of the debate earlier today. I should say the hon member for Parktown acted in a most undignified manner and if I were the hon the Deputy Minister, I should not reply to that unbridled language. [Interjections.]

I now wish to return to what the hon member for Nigel said. I find it wonderful that the hon member for Nigel succeeded in confusing the hon member for Rissik utterly. [Interjections.] Very clear proof of this was that the hon member for Rissik constantly interjected while his own man was talking and that is most extreme.

The hon member for Nigel complained about general affairs as against own affairs—and specifically their division. Arising from this I have two problems: The first is that, if the hon member says general affairs are essentially more than own affairs, surely it proves one thing, namely that our society is interwoven to such a degree that one’s discussion should be more broadly based but one does have many affairs covering an own basis. If, on the other hand, they specifically as a party denigrate own affairs as such a small component of our total society, the danger arises that they are actually contributing to an increasing diminution of what is our own and dear to us. I find that distressing.

The hon member for Nigel spoke about pensions being too low; naturally they are too low—pensions are always too low. I should like to give every aged person R1 000 a month. Having once said that to one another, however, we have to ask who ultimately pays for this. I shall return to this question shortly.

The hon member made a poor start but then followed with an excellent speech, only to close in a way on which I would rather not comment. I wish to return to the care of the aged which is something which concerns us all.

Say good-bye to Simonsvlei.

That would be a great help to the hon member when he is old and worn and he is rapidly reaching that stage. [Interjections.]

The care of the aged and the debilitated aged concerns us most specifically in our personal lives; it is something we attempt to ward off—we do not want to think about it. It happens in our own family life, however, and those of us who do not keel over prematurely—like some men who are too frantic in debate—are all going to grow old one day and possibly also reach the stage of the debilitated aged. [Interjections.] It is a fact that the average age of our people is continually increasing; it is estimated that the life expectancy of Whites will increase by 3,7% per annum from 1980 to 2015. This is attributable to improved medical care.

On the other hand there is unfortunately a lower birth figure. It is calculated that in the year 2010 the number of people above 60 will be exactly the same as that of people under 20; the number of people over 80 is expected to increase by 70% over the next 25 years. This all means that the economically active population is continually dwindling. I wish to emphasize that we should examine the circumstances of those aged people in particular who have become debilitated. This requires new thinking.

It is logical that there should be an old age home in every community in consequence of the activity within that community. It is provided by means of State funds and often the sick-bay section is added as an appendage—an afterthought. As previous speakers have said, these homes for the aged are further filled by people who are fit and healthy in many cases and could continue playing productive roles in society. In saying this, however, I wish to appeal against overreaction because room will always have to be made for such people as well. The idea of granny flats is certainly praiseworthy but, after one has erected one in the back yard, it also creates problems because within a few years it may no longer be profitable. It also brings disruption to family life and often contributes to even greater isolation of such an aged person.

There is a new thought, namely to arrange a spacious dwelling for approximately 10, 15 or 20 of the aged. They can live together there companionably and be put to productive use. They know one another whereas in larger homes for the aged they are inclined to become increasingly isolated.

We must care specifically for the debilitated aged. While compulsory transferable pensions are being examined at present, we believe that these are the very people who could contribute a little more in future to their care, even in their state of debility, so that State subsidies could eventually be decreased or at least stabilized. We know the greatest need of the aged is for care as regards medical services, the provision of food, recreation and other social services. Such homes for the aged could also be used as the service centres about which other hon members spoke. While our greatest concern today is not so much the alert and fit old person but the care of the debilitated aged, we should make an in-depth study of what we can do for these people.

In my electoral division a private person has erected a smaller building in which old people now live. It is very near the home for the aged with the beautiful name of “Silwerkruin”. A private builder took the unique step of building a second home for the aged exactly opposite the first so that services could be exchanged between the two. Within a few years, however, so many of those old people are going to be in a debilitated condition and then require medical care, that the facilities at “Silwerkruin” will be totally inadequate. This applies not only to my constituency but nationwide. That is the origin of my appeal that we should look upon the debilitated aged with compassion and create all the necessary facilities.

We may well agree that the aged should remain productive longer in the community, that they should retire later and be worth more to our economy, but in the end it is our duty as a society and a Government to see that these people are well cared for. Consequently my plea is that we should do our duty by these people to whom we owe so much.

Mr Chairman, I want to raise three matters, two fairly briefly and one at rather more length.

The first is my concern about this department’s services termed the nutritional services. I trust the hon the Minister or the Deputy Minister will have taken note of what was published in this week’s newspapers which stated that the only major miller of rice in South Africa has called for a tariff increase of 300% on milled rice imported. This is a very important area and I trust that this department that has responsibility for the nutritional services of South Africa will certainly advise the Department of Trade and Industry that such an increase which will drastically affect the importation of low cost milled rice from Thailand will be resisted as far as possible. Our consumers certainly need it.

Secondly, I should like to turn to child care. The hon the Minister is aware of my concern in this area. He and I have been in correspondence and no doubt I will, after this debate, be pursuing this matter still further. To date he has given me certain information which leads me to hope that a full reassessment is coming in the field of child care. However, several questions remain unanswered and I hope the hon the Minister will give attention to them.

Firstly, what has become of the regulations which are necessary for the full application of the Child Care Act? These have been due now for three or four years and the answers that I have received to questions posed in this House on this lack of regulations have been puerile. These regulations cannot be delayed any longer; if they are, then this hon Deputy Minister can expect further criticism on the lack of regulations.

Secondly, is it not possible to raise the level of competence of persons concerned with places of safety through an increase in salary? I am aware of the fact that salaries have been raised a little in the recent past, but to set a only Standard Eight Certificate as a requirement allowing for persons in these places of safety seems folly in the extreme.

Thirdly, can the hon the Deputy Minister not give an assurance that at least the very young children in places of safety—and here we are talking about babies and pre-primary children—could be separated from the more deviant adolescents?

Lastly, after various incidents have come to my notice, I would sincerely appreciate it if this hon Minister and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture could together ensure that punishment procedures for children and young people in detention are updated, made public and that all staff scrupulously abide by them.

I should like now to turn to civil pensions and civil pensioners. This hon Minister may say it is not his concern but that of his alter ego, but then he must whisper in his other ear what I am saying to him today. Any examination of the current statistics of Government officials who retired some time ago should cause all current officials some concern. Promises made to individuals in the Government Service have not been kept. Persons who believed that their years of service to the State counted for something have been rejected or partly rejected. I will merely give one or two examples demonstrating something of the problem. A principal of a very large high school who retired in 1960 after the maximum service period is today receiving a pension of R765 per month. What is interesting, is that this is R1 980 per month less than a comparable colleague who is going to retire this year. He will in fact be receiving some R800 per month less than a teacher who retires this year. Sir, this applies right across the board to all Public Service officials.

What is the problem then? Firstly, it is the Government’s inability to comprehend that when they changed the ground rules, the formula for the determination of pensions for these civil pensioners, these changes were not made applicable to existing pensioners. Therefore before 1968 pensions were calculated over the last seven years of service. In 1968 this was reduced to four years and in 1969 to the final three years’ salary. This was altered to the final salary in 1982. Thereafter the formula was altered from one eightieth for each year’s service to one fiftieth from 1 July 1973. An immediate effect of this was to raise the pension by 40% over the previous month’s pension. A third major factor affecting the formula was the institution of buying back. This first allowed persons to buy back to the age of 18 and later to 16. This means that any State official today who retires at the age of 65 could have 49 years service to his credit if he has bought back. With a denominator of 55, this means that he retires on 89% of his final salary. This does not take into account his gratuity which—in the example of the principal I mentioned—would run at about R120 000 which is 3,25 times his final annual salary.

This is where the gap comes from. Notwithstanding the percentage increases—and the State has granted percentage increases to civil pensioners from State funds, latterly from the Stabilization Fund—the old civil pensioner is today considerably worse off than his more recently retired colleagues. The initiatives of granting older pensioners a 1% increase for each year of retirement in addition to the flat 10% increase across the board has improved the situation marginally. However, this was negated last year when the hon the Minister of Finance granted all civil pensioners a 10% increase, with an additional 10% increase granted to all post 1973 pensioners. The gap between the old guard and newer retirees thus widened.

I believe it is only right that the hon the Minister give due consideration to this matter. As I said before, this is a dying group. It is a group that will disappear in the near future. Yet they are part of the servants of the State who helped build this country. In many cases the increases of these pensioners have slipped well behind the increase in the consumer price index even by 50% to 60%.

A second matter under civil pensions is the unaccountable delay in the upgrading of widows’ pensions from 50% to 75% of those of their spouses.

Order! The hon member will appreciate that this is basically a general matter that he is at present discussing.

Mr Chairman, I said that at the start.

Order! The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is another area where the Government’s delays have caught up with them. They have done it for the spouses of MPs and Ministers, now they need to do it for all State employees.

Lastly, I turn to the state of the funds themselves. At 31 March 1984 there was some R8 783 million in State pension funds with an income running at R2 631 million a year and expenditure at R919 million.

One of the major contributory factors to the growth of these reserves is the number of persons who leave either by resignation or absconding. Since these persons are only repaid what they have contributed plus 3% interest—in 1984 a total of 65 000 people so left—these funds have grown.

I believe it is now time for the Government to seriously rethink their contributions to these funds. The State contributes nearly R3 to the Government Service Pension Fund for each R1 from a contributor. Last year the State and State institutions contributed R1 900 million to the funds. Nearly R2 billion of State money went into State pension funds.

I do believe these bear some reconsideration together with the Civil Pensions Stabilization Account. Here is possibly an area where the benefits can be made available to the old guard. I am well aware that this also receives some consideration when State pensions are examined.

I believe the Civil Pensions Stabilization Account is drastically in need of review. This should be converted into an account and the funds utilized according to the needs of the old guard.

I believe the state of this department and the consideration the hon the Minister receives will very much depend on the light in which it is regarded by the persons whom it is serving. The two groups it is basically serving are: Those most in need of care, which are the young and the aged, and those on limited incomes. I believe those two have in the past been very poorly served by this Government.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Pinetown who spoke on a deserving cause. I shall not go into details now on State pensions and the other matters he discussed.

I should only like to say how striking the differences are between the hon member for Pinetown and that for Parktown; they are both members for “towns” but there are many contrasts. The hon member for Pinetown stated his case well and dealt with the most important aspects of that problem. The hon member for Parktown could really—I mean what I am saying—make a very positive contribution in this House as regards health matters by making proposals which to his mind would improve health services for our population in general. The tragedy is, however, that when this hon member rises, he becomes so enmeshed in racial problems that he does not arrive at the actual subject. He confines himself only to the racial aspects of the services and he does not reach the actual core, namely the service to our people. That is actually a great pity because I think he could really make a positive contribution. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Middelburg has already pointed out health affairs which are own affairs and have to be controlled by this department so I shall not expand on that. I may just remark that, if one sees the list of matters entrusted to the department, it is clear that those are affairs concerning people personally and in reality very important to them. That is why the services for which this department is accepting the responsibility are important to our entire population.

I wish to comment briefly on hospitals. I believe we accept that provincial councils are to be replaced and consequently we also accept that hospital services in particular will become the responsibility of this department in time, especially as regards own affairs. Previous speakers have pointed out, however, that hospitals and related institutions which are now probably to be transferred to this Department of Health Services and Welfare are not altogether a simple matter. It is perhaps somewhat premature to mention this in detail as I presume the transfer and the way in which it is to be planned are still under consideration. The hon the Minister can probably provide us with more clarity on this.

I should like to quote the following statistics briefly which give us an indication of the extent of this important service to the community. Unfortunately the latest statistics at my disposal are those of 1980. There are 199 provincial hospitals providing over 51 571 beds; the Central Government has 32 hospitals with 19 703 beds and there are 595 subsidized and private hospitals with over 98 308 beds. In total there are 826 hospitals with 169 582 beds in the country, excluding the self-governing and national states. The budgets of the respective provincial councils as regards health services amounted to R745 million—this figure also applies to 1980. I assume that by this time that amount is appreciably higher because costs have risen considerably owing to inflation.

The Health Laws Amendment Act of 1977 is the framework on which the health services of the country are based and a structure for co-operation and co-ordination by the respective institutions providing the benefits of medical science to the population most advantageously. I am mentioning this because there is an existing order as regards this service. The National Health Policy Council and the Health Advisory Committee co-ordinate the services; in other words, this is no loose service in which there is not a reasonable degree of uniformity. When the transfer takes place, it will be that of an organized service which can be expanded further.

I wish to make use of this opportunity to refer to certain practical aspects of the service which will have to be taken into account thoroughly when the service is transferred to this department. Firstly, there are numerous general provincial hospitals where services are furnished to all population groups in separate departments. The overall management and administration then controls the hospital as a unit. In these cases—especially in rural areas—the physical division of the departments would bring about appreciable capital outlay and operating costs. In fact, as regards smaller hospitals, the introduction of separate institutions would cause the viability of some of the hospitals to suffer. That is why I say these matters should be approached judiciously; that process should be tackled in such a way that the service is not adversely affected.

Under certain circumstances it would be in the best interest of the respective population groups for this department to provide the service on an agency basis until such time as circumstances justify the provision of independent hospitals for respective population groups in their own residential areas. I should think this the ideal as regards smaller general hospitals; I am not referring to hospitals which provide training and specialized services.

Meanwhile hospital advisory boards may obtain a greater say and, along certain guidelines and under financial management, be responsible for the provision of services to the satisfaction of the local community. The large academic hospitals can even function as autonomous institutions on a basis similar to that of the universities. It is possible to plan and regulate services in such a way that management structures can function under the new dispensation without the disruption of services and even be furnished in a more purposeful way. Further I wish once again to emphasize that there should be an interaction between the officials of the respective services. I honestly think these people could be applied more purposefully if sensible action were taken. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom broached several matters here, particularly matters relating to hospitals. He will realize that we in the department do not have the information because at present hospitals still fall under the provinces. He advanced some very sound arguments about the division of functions, giving his views on the matter, but at a later stage in my speech I shall be going into this in greater detail.

The hon member for Parktown apparently has an inborn inability to understand that with the new dispensation and the division of functions we are not dividing up people, but rather the service into its separate components for the respective race groups. It is in that way that we want to rationalize and divide things up so that each component of the South African population will have a say in the health service furnished to his own population group, a health service over which he himself exercises control and with whose circumstances he is best acquainted. I know it is not in accordance with his or his party’s philosophy or policy that we do so, but that is what the Government in power has decided to do, and we are in the process of implementing this. What the hon member has to say about that will make no difference.

He also referred to the creation of a structure designed to distribute the food surpluses, so often encountered in this country, amongst the needy. That is a very fine, idealistic scheme, and I can assure him that in the past this system has repeatedly been put to the test. In many cases, however, this food is not made available, and in many instances in which it is, in fact, made available, it is found that the administrative costs involved in the fair distribution of the food, including the transport costs, are so high that we simply cannot afford it. Where the food is made available to us, however, and we find it possible to handle it, we make it available to welfare organizations which then distribute it amongst the people who need it.

In regard to school medical services, the hon member ought to know that this rests with the provinces. Malnutrition amongst school children is therefore, at this stage, still a matter for the provinces. If food surpluses were to be made available, we would also make them available to those children, but at the moment it is simply not a practical proposal.

The hon member for Middelburg spoke very intelligently about various welfare campaigns, old-age homes, etc. I can give him the assurance that our research services, for example the MRC and the Research Institute for Occupational Diseases, do work of a very high standard and furnish a comprehensive service in this specific field.

The hon member referred here to pension figures. This afternoon I want to present him with certain figures. Here I have totals involving old-age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, pensions for the blind, disability pensions, etc. I am, however, only going to single out the aged. The number of White beneficiaries is 143 000. They receive a total of R269 million. As far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, an amount of R136 512 000 is spent on 122 475 of them. As far as Blacks are concerned, on 517 552 people an amount of …

Give us that figure again.

It is 517 552. Is the hon member satisfied now? [Interjections.] He is easily satisfied. An amount of R354 million is spent on these people. At the moment, however, we are spending a total of R369,5 million on pensions for Whites, an amount of R342,3 million on Coloureds and Indians and an amount of R468,2 million on Blacks. This gives a total of R1,2 billion that we are spending on pensions at the moment.

If we now project our figures to the year 2000 and take into account that we envisage achieving parity by the year 2000, in terms of the present position normal expenditure on pensions will be R4,9 billion. Then parity does not come into the calculation. If we want to make provision for parity, by the year 2000 we shall have to make provision for a further R3,5 billion. [Interjections.] That is a great deal of money. I wonder if the hon member has ever seen that amount of money all at once. [Interjections.] Those are the kinds of pension payments we shall have to make if things go on like this without any change. Fortunately a commission has been appointed to investigate the question a contributary pension fund, a commission which we hope will devise some method that will result in this amount being kept as low as possible and not reaching the present astronomical figures.

The hon member for Middelburg also referred to the high cost of medicine. In the previous debate I asked that we should rather not discuss the merits of the case here. The hon member for Durban Point reproached me very severely for saying that, and I apologize for his having misunderstood me. If he were to read my Hansard, he would see that I was lodging a plea and not attacking him. I shall leave it at that, because we do not have to quarrel with each other. I am asking that we refrain from politicizing the matter—I am not saying the hon member is doing so—because it is an extremely sensitive matter. There has already been some considerable delay, and I think we should rather leave it to the ad hoc committee appointed by the SA Medical and Dental Council and the Pharmacy Council. The committee will go into the whole questions of doctors who dispense medicines, the profits made, etc. Then there is also the Brown Commission and the pharmacists’ investigation committee under the Chairmanship of the hon member for Waterkloof which has brought out a report. Let us first wait until we have the information before us before we express any opinion about the merits of the case.

We must realize that we in South Africa have a major problem in regard to the supply of doctors. We exercize no control over the placement of doctors in South Africa. In a previous debate an hon member said that there were parts of the country where there was one medical practitioner for every 300 people. We are aware of the problems and have already asked the Medical Association if it could not suggest steps for combating the situation, because it does happen that in certain parts of the platteland where the services of a doctor are urgently needed there is no doctor available. I would be the last to make use of the obvious solution of licencing doctors to practise in a specific area, and then when a certain area has enough doctors, cease to issue licences there. That is such a drastic step that no one even considers it. It is, however, the only alternative if we want to have a more balanced distribution of doctors in the country. I am definitely not prepared to consider that alternative.

Then the hon member for Parktown would still have been in Koekenaap.

And then Koekenaap certainly would have had a good doctor.

The hon member for Pietersburg expressed his concern about the control and staffing of hospitals by the own affairs and general affairs departments. I shall come to that again in a moment. We must remember that the nature of a hospital will not be determined by the kinds of patients treated there, but rather by the area in which it is situated. Then there is the possibility which the hon member for Durban Point highlighted, but which he does not like very much either, and that is that until another population group—the hon member for Welkom also referred to this—establishes its own hospital, the White Administration should administer that hospital—let us say the hospital is situated in Pietersburg—as a hospital for own affairs and that Black people, Coloureds and also Indians be admitted on an agency basis and on payment of compensation.

The hon member must not forget that the own administration will not, in isolation, institute a new health policy. The own administration is going to make itself an integral part, for example, of the population development programme so that the health service facility plans can come into operation.

I am sorry that the hon member referred jokingly this morning to flies as being own affairs.

But that is, after all, what the hon Minister said.

No, that is not what the hon the Minister said. He said that the combating of flies was an own affair. Surely there is a big difference, or does the hon member want the flies in Pietersburg merely to multiply and to have others seeing to the matter because it is an own affair. That is surely a ridiculous argument. The hon member surely knows better than to make such remarks to me.

What is, of course, a source of great concern to us, as it is for the hon member, is the increasing tendency of Whites to have abortions. In this connection the hon member referred to the annual report, but if he merely looks at the next page—the hon member did not quote this—he will see that in the period 1 December 1983 to 31 October 1984 29 000 incomplete miscarriages occurred. The table contains figures in regard to inevitable miscarriages, septic miscarriages, noticeable signs of foreign material and injuries and other pathological conditions, but there are no figures for the latter. We must therefore assume that the said cases will, for the most part, be backstreet abortions. There were probably as many or even more backstreet abortions that were never reported. This bothers me. The hon member must understand that there will definitely be no provision made for abortion on demand on the Statute Book while this Government is in power.

The hon member Dr Vilonel also spoke about the cost of pensions. I hope he has taken note of the truly astronomical amounts we spend on pensions in this country.

To him I concede that it is not the State’s job to build hospitals. In the past the State regarded it as its duty, but as far as this matter is concerned, the State has a responsibility towards the underprivileged and those in the sub economic group. There the State does have a responsibility, but simply building hospitals on an arbitrary basis can no longer be justified. Nor do I think it will ever happen again in the future.

I can give the hon member the assurance that as far as health services and welfare are concerned, this administration is completely in favour of the establishment of private hospitals. I can also give the hon member the assurance that since my appointment to this portfolio I have already approved many of them. We also ask them to shoulder a specific responsibility. I do not want to go into differences that existed in the past. Suffice it to say that there are certain shortcomings that we shall have to eliminate either by way of discussions with the people concerned or by way of legislation and/or regulation.

The situation will have to change. I shall also be referring to that. The fact of the matter is, however, that it will have to change. Those people will simply have to meet their obligations with regard to the basic training of nurses. Recently we have also made the licensing of those private hospitals subject to their giving the undertaking—and they also held discussions about this with the Nursing Council—that in relation to the number of beds they have available, they will provide basic training for a specific number of nurses. We made their licences subject to that. If they do not comply with this requirement within a reasonable space of time, we shall therefore be withdrawing their licences—of course with all the consequences that that would entail for them. We do, however, feel that those people should be more widely involved in the furnishing of an overall health service. In this regard we do, of course, have problems owing to an ethical rule of the SA Medical and Dental Council which does not yet want to allow doctors to be employed by a specific organization. We intend holding discussions with the SA Medical and Dental Council about that ethical rule in an effort to get them to abandon it so that doctors can, in fact, be appointed to private hospitals on a full-time basis. In this regard let me refer, in particular, to the casualty section of such a hospital. A casualty section cannot exist unless there are doctors on duty there on a full-time basis—unless they are also in the employ of the organization running the respective hospital. At present, however, medical practitioners may not be employed on a full-time basis by such a hospital. This consequently means that the whole concept of a comprehensive medical service at a private hospital simply collapses.

We are engaged in evaluating all these aspects. We shall probably soon be engaging in discussions with the owner association of those private hospitals in order to update our regulations and also to make certain aspects enforceable. This will all crystalize in due course, however, as the new dispensation progresses. We are actually taking over hospitals, although we have recently fulfilled that function on behalf of the general department. On 1 June of this year, however, we shall be taking over this function. We therefore do not yet have a complete list of all the hospitals or all the applications. I know there are a large number of applications that have not yet been considered.

The hon member for Durban Point also spoke about hospitalization. He will realize that it is a general affair—or rather a matter which, at this stage, is not yet a matter for the provinces—on which we cannot yet give an adequate reply. It is, of course, going to be difficult. I concede that in this respect I do want to agree with the hon member. To classify hospitals such as King Edward VII or Addington as own affairs or general affairs is definitely going to be a difficult matter. My own opinion is that they are specialist hospitals. They are hospitals to which people are referred from regional and town hospitals. At this stage I do not want to try to give any finality. There is, however, one point that I do want to state very clearly because I do not want any misunderstanding about this. I cannot give any finality about these matters because they are still under consideration, as it were in the melting pot. There certainly is, however, some merit in the idea which the hon member expressed about its definitely being possible to consider this a general affair.

As I said, however, the position has unfortunately not yet been clarified. We shall therefore simply have to wait until it is finalized. This whole unravelling of the health set-up in this country is a very complex process. It must take place on an evolutionary basis. We also have the problem that until now the provinces have still been in charge. We cannot simply ignore their interests. Long discussions still have to be conducted with them about this, and they must also be given an opportunity to make their contributions. The finalizing of this classification is therefore a long and difficult process. We must regard it, however—as, in fact, we do the whole new dispensation—as an evolutionary process. It is not something that can be finalized overnight.

The hon member also spoke of—as he put it—a “central dispensary in Natal”.

I am not casting any aspersions. We had our little fight—not with him, but with other people—about this “dispensary” in Natal.

I just want to say, however, that this is also one of the subjects at present being discussed in the National Health Policy Council. Let me then just add that Natal is the only part of the country that has such a “dispensary”, and he can go along and ask Dr Clark how he got hold of it. It is a very interesting story.

The hon member for Worcester furnished some very interesting figures about our aged. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I have already said this before, and I want to reiterate, that there are really too many aged in old-age homes who still ought to be active in the community, debilitated aged excepted. It is the duty of the State and that of welfare organizations jointly to fulfil the function of caring for the aged. I want to appeal to the aged, however, to keep themselves out of old-age homes for as long as they possibly can.

I also want to appeal to local authorities once again to change their standard building regulations so as to make it possible for an elderly couple’s children to have granny flats built onto their houses. It was mentioned here today that children no longer fulfil their obligations towards their parents as they ought to. I therefore want to appeal for a closer examination of this concept of granny flats. Children can have such a small flat let for these old people attached to their houses and their parents can then be cared for there, if indeed they need care. They can also spend their final years there in comfort. There are sacrifices involved. That much I concede. I had the privilege, however, of growing up in a home where my grandparents lived with my parents in the same house, and I do not begrudge any child the pleasure of having a grandmother and grandfather in his home. It is an absolute pleasure; it contributes to the child’s formative years and to his cultural heritage. [Interjections.] That is why I am advocating this principle. [Interjections.] These aged have a special influence that preserves …

That is the CP’s influence.

Let me assure the hon member that that is not the CP’s influence. It is definitely not the CP’s influence. These aged have much more sense than that.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, really, the hon member for Langlaagte must not bring in the question of mixed marriages here. [Interjections.] This Government will know what to do with the products of those mixed marriages which the hon member for Langlaagte is trying to propagate. [Interjections.]

Another matter about which I should also like to make an appeal is that of the establishment of more service centres instead of old-age homes. Hon members know about the wonderful role these service centres play in communities where they have already been made available. In East London I saw how they operated. One can go to such a service centre for meals, for the conviviality of companionship and to have someone to talk to. They can have three meals there if they want to, and in the evenings they are transported back to their homes by the organization concerned, and there they are again on their own. They consequently do not have to live in that institution. The great benefit is that these people remain active in the community. That is what one wants amongst the aged. As far as debilitated aged are concerned, however, it is the State’s responsibility to provide them with accommodation.

Now we come to the hon member for Hillbrow. This hon member can almost drive me to tears when he starts talking about smoking. I really cannot find any objection to some of his arguments. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I myself mentioned these amounts: There are 453 million cigarettes sold every year. There is capital to the tune of R933 million invested in this industry. The annual tobacco crop is valued at R147 million. These are large amounts. Here we are dealing with vested interests. This is not something we can simply do away with all at once. We cannot do so. [Interjections.] I do not think, however, that that is what the hon member is suggesting. I just want to give him an assurance. I have requested the MRC’s report, but thus far it has not yet reached me. It is the latest Medical Research Council report on smoking. It is apparently a very disturbing report and it would quite probably be a gross dereliction of duty in the department if we did not examine that report very thoroughly. With a view to that, the hon member can be assured of the fact that certain steps will be taken. We cannot ignore or simply reject the recommendations and findings of a body such as the MRC which is appointed by us and which does valuable work. The hon member must understand, however, that the combating of smoking is a very difficult problem.

If we do what hon members are requesting, those who are opposed to alcohol will be coming along one of these days and saying that we should also prohibit advertisements for alcohol. Alcohol causes cancer of the esophagus and cirrhosis of the liver. It is therefore also a harmful substance.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

No. It is strange, however, that the hon member did not lodge a plea for the abolition of alcohol.

Next year.

Oh, is that the next step? [Interjections.] Very well then. Let me just say that I would had expected something like that.

That is a spurious argument. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

I agree. The hon member will appreciate this one fact, however, and that is that everything which is wrong cannot be corrected by legislation. It is also a question of educating the people concerned.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon member has made his speech. I do not want to conduct a conversation with him now. I am trying to be fair to him and am also trying, as far as my responsibility permits, to agree with him and exchange ideas.

Order!

The hon member only made one statement which I really cannot endorse. He spoke of our neglecting to help Port Elizabeth. Have I understood him correctly?

Yes.

He said that we had done nothing about the unemployment in Port Elizabeth. I do not even want to mention the millions of rand that have been voted for the development of the Eastern Cape, but just want to tell him what our department has done there. Our department is engaged in an emergency campaign. We have obtained additional money to spend there, and since the first week of May 1985 an amount of R4 064 has been paid out in Port Elizabeth to White destitutes as a result of the unemployment situation prevailing there. Help has been granted to 132 adults and 136 children. In the second week of May we paid out R4 135 to 134 adults and 108 children. It is therefore apparent, from the latest figures, that an average of R4 600 per week or approximately R18 400 per month is being paid out.

It is like a pension. Not one of us is saying that it is enough. No one is saying that people can live on that, but it is nevertheless a contribution which the State is making towards relieving the distress of those people.

I accept that.

Speaking of this, let me just say that there is no one in this House who would allege that the pensions paid to our aged are adequate. They are not, and we acknowledge the fact. I have, however, mentioned to hon members the astronomical amounts that we would have to pay out if we were to continue in the present vein, as inadequate as this may be. The fact is—and one must emphasize this—that everyone has a responsibility to make provision for his old age. A pension is merely a supplementary measure aimed at making life a little easier for those people.

As usual the hon member for Paarl made a very good speech. This time he spoke about the care of the aged and the shortages reflected in waiting lists. As I have tried to indicate, I acknowledge—and he will probably be the first to agree with me—that it is simply not possible for the State to comply with all the appeals made to it in regard to the care of the aged. In a moment I shall be coming to another aspect that we shall have to consider very seriously. As the hon member has indicated, it is true that the running costs for old-age homes are very high. Another hon member also referred to that, but I shall be responding to his speech in due course. As far as the high running costs of old-age homes are concerned, we find that we are simply no longer able to meet the demands for assistance. At the moment we are saddled with approved projects to the value of more than R20 million for which we cannot provide the running cost subsidy. Once again, however, I suggest that having this specific problem, as they do, the hon member for Paarl should ensure that more attention is given to the question of service centres; that would solve the problem to a very great extent. When consideration is given to making money available for the establishment of old-age homes, money collected by the community is regarded as a bonus. Poor communities, however, must also be given assistance, and the fact of their having their own money can therefore not be the only consideration. A procedure is now being instituted so that capital funds for the establishment of facilities and funds to cover running costs be considered jointly.

I now just want to say a few words about our philosophy in regard to welfare campaigns in this country. I have perhaps mentioned this before, but I think it is worth repeating: The RSA is not a welfare state and does not want to be one either. We cannot afford it, and I think we should forget about ever becoming a welfare state. A second philosophic principle that I adhere to is that without the multiplicity of welfare organizations in this country we simply could not furnish the welfare services that we do, in fact, furnish. I have the utmost appreciation and gratitude for welfare organizations—for the type of work done and for the great measure of success with which they achieve the goals they aim at.

I can perhaps just mention that this week—a few days ago—we received a welfare strategy plan. I have unfortunately not yet had the time to go into it, but after the necessary contributions by the relevant departments and other bodies, the strategy will certainly be adopted in due course.

The State’s task to look after the aged cannot be denied. Without the assistance, active co-operation and sympathy of our voluntary welfare organizations, however, we simply could not carry out this task. The care, including the medical care, of the debilitated aged is primarily the responsibility of the State. Again let me say that without the assistance of the welfare organizations we would not be able to carry out that task. The care of our children is likewise a very important facet of this department’s service. We shall have to achieve a greater balance between the expenditure on the aged and the expenditure on our children who need help. Now I am not merely talking about material assistance; I am also talking about spiritual and other assistance. We are honour-bound to assist our aged, but what we spend on our children is an investment for the future. We shall have to think of these principles.

The hon member for Nigel said that when there were increases in the Public Service and increases in pensions, prices increased. That could well be true, but unfortunately it is not the function of this department to reappoint the price controller to that position. We can therefore do nothing about the price structure involving these aspects.

About the means test I just want to say a few words to the hon member. Arising out of a debate that took place in Parliament earlier, I enquired about the abolition of the means test. I had the matter investigated and it was found that at present there are 48 498 beneficiaries under the social pensions scheme who own and occupy fixed property. Approximately 85% of these people already receive a maximum pension or allowance and would therefore receive no benefits if we were to abolish that means test.

The remaining 15%, however—ie 7 274 cases—would receive an increase of R48 per month. The expected additional expenditure would amount to approximately R4 million per annum. It surely goes without saying that such a step would further benefit certain people with assets and then elicit more criticism. It would be unfair if a certain group of people were to benefit to a greater extent than the much larger majority group.

I agree fully with what the hon member for Wellington said, ie that we could never make pensions large enough. If I understood the hon member correctly, he advocated smaller old-age homes. We have ascertained through experience, however, that such smaller old-age homes can simply not be run economically. It was found that an old-age home with fewer than 40 occupants was simply not an economic proposition. I therefore cannot quite agree that we should establish smaller old-age homes.

The hon member for Pinetown referred to certain regulations in the Child Care Act. Let me just tell him that those regulations are at present being processed and that they will shortly be recirculated.

The hon member also referred to the places of safety, advocating that we should not place children of varying ages in the same home. The problem is not that simple, because there is also another problem that crops up. According to the De Meillon report we do not, in any event, allow children under the age of 6 years to be placed in such a place of safety if there are older children there too.

We are now also having pressure exerted on us. In places of safety one finds boys and girls with diverging backgrounds. Some children arrive there with personality defects caused by factors I need not mention now. Other children quite innocently arrive there because they are the products of a broken marriage and simply have to be removed from that atmosphere.

Unfortunately we also have to take children who are sent there after having committed a crime—sometimes a very serious crime—to prevent their escaping. Now pressure is being exerted on us by people who say that herding three categories of children together is an unhealthy state of affairs. To a certain extent I agree with that. My department has already made attempts to improve the situation, but as a result of the shortage of money we have not yet been able to put the plan into operation. We want to separate the children from one another. I recently visited one of these places of safety. We were sitting eating when the children walked in. The matron told me that not one of those girls had not been sexually assaulted by her father; in other words, every girl who walked in there had been sexually assaulted by her father. Can hon members comprehend the terrible emotional and personality problems that result from something like that? That place is run like a model home. It is a beautiful place. The children are happy—they get the best possible food and the most wonderful atmosphere prevails. I chatted to some of the children, and one sees them as merely normal children. All they want is a proper education, discipline and security.

In all places of safety we separate the children of between six and seven years of age from the others. The hon member also advocated that this department should concern itself with the question of “milled rice”, as he calls it, the price of which is being so greatly increased.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, this would have to be submitted to the other Ministers so that the prices could be decreased. We have no say about that.

Unfortunately the hon member referred to correspondence, between him and the hon Minister, of which I have no knowledge. I cannot therefore reply to him on that score. I shall, however, have the matter investigated at a later stage.

I have already responded to the hon member for Welkom’s speech. At this stage I think I have responded to all hon members’ speeches.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon the deputy Minister. In regard to what the hon member for Nigel said in connection with the increase in old-age pensions with effect from 1 October, with the increase in the general cost of living having chiefly occurred in April, does the department envisage having these people’s increases backdated to April?

That is a matter that has already received a great deal of attention. Basically the point is that these people receive an increase every twelve months. Whether the increase comes into effect in April or in October is not the point. The hon member must understand that the budget announcements are made in April. It is only then that we learn about what pension adjustments are going to be made. The hon member must understand that there is a great deal of administrative and other work involved in this. The necessary money is not simply transferred to us on 1 April—it takes a while. To finalize the administrative process as a whole it is most convenient to make the commencement date 1 October. No one suffers any loss as a result of that, because that increase is applicable from this October to the following October, and whether it is from April to April or from October to October makes no difference. I hope the hon member understands that.

In other words, they always remain six months behind.

For the same reason one could say that they are always six months ahead. [Interjections.] They also stay six months ahead.

Give them that backlog; then they will break even.

That is what the standpoint is, and I do not think we can conduct a dialogue about that.

I just want to thank all the hon members who have thus far participated in the debate very sincerely for the constructive debate and the healthy spirit that has prevailed here, with the exception of one incident. I appreciate the productivity displayed here. I also want to thank the officials of the department very sincerely for the assistance they have granted. The majority of them are here for the first time this afternoon, in particular Dr Slabbert, the executive official of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. In him we have obtained an official of the first order who knows what he wants and is dedicated in the work he does. I am very grateful for the help and assistance I have thus far obtained from him.

Mr Chairman, if any hon member had hoped, as a result of this debate, to acquire more clarity about what precisely own affairs are and what precisely general affairs are in the health services, he would definitely be disappointed. The only aspect about which there is now clarity, is that flies are not an own affair, but that the combating of flies is indeed an own affair. [Interjections.]

What about fruit flies?

My hon colleague of Greytown is no doubt entitled to ask whether fruit flies are an own affair or a general affair.

It is an agricultural affair!

Order!

It is something he was not clear about. Perhaps it is an own affair in agriculture. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister told us that it was not the aim of the department to divide people, but in fact to divide services. That was his reply to the questions which were posed and about the criticism expressed in regard to dividing own affairs and general affairs. This is not yet an answer. Why is it necessary to divide the services? The CP, of course, want people and services to be divided, but it seems to me that the Government is still clinging to the concept of dividing services, without explanation or justification. The only answer that the Deputy Minister has, is that it is now policy and that we simply have to accept it, because no further explanation will come from that quarter.

†The hon member for Durban Point put some very pertinent questions to the hon the Deputy Minister about, for example, Addington Hospital in Durban. One does not need to deal with that hospital specifically. There are many other similar hospitals where the patients and staff are mainly Whites, but all the other race groups are also represented as far as patients, nurses and doctors are concerned. Through this separation of own affairs and general affairs, one is dividing these services under different administrations. How can one justify that besides merely saying it is policy? We are still waiting for an answer because people working in those hospitals approach us for an explanation as to where they stand and what the future is going to be like. One comes to a debate like this in the hope that some clarity will be forthcoming, but the picture just becomes more murky. I hope that at some stage some explanation will be given as to what the future of those hospitals is as far as the different race groups are concerned.

Then the hon the Deputy Minister gave us a few points which he referred to as the department’s philosophy as regards welfare services. He stressed the point that we do not want to be a welfare state and that we are not a welfare state. May I suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister and his department that some clarity also be obtained as far as the terminology of “welfare state” is concerned, because whilst he stresses that they do not want a welfare state and that we are not a welfare state, he states categorically in his third point that the elderly are in the first instance the responsibility of the State.

Are they not?

I would agree with him, but that most certainly is part of a welfare state system. I must tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I am against the concept of a welfare state in its pure, absolutist form. I do not think we can afford it on that basis. However, I do not see any indication from the hon the Minister and his department that they recognize that the Third World aspect cannot be dealt with in terms of private enterprise. I do not see any recognition of the fact that the State does have a responsibility towards the poorer sections of our community.

I said that. Read my speech.

Where does one draw the dividing line? Two days ago I suggested to the hon the Minister by way of interjection across the floor that in small towns one will not succeed with the privatization of hospitals because the people are not there. The hon the Deputy Minister shakes his head. He also made some rude remarks in response to my interjection.

But it is not …

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue to be conducted.

Today the hon the Deputy Minister accepts that in small rural communities they have a problem as far as medical practitioners are concerned.

*He indicated today that the Government has no control over where doctors are stationed. He indicated that the Government acknowledges the problem and that there are rural areas where doctors are desperately needed.

†It is precisely because of this problem, which the hon the Deputy Minister accepts, that the Government has a responsibility to see to it that the distribution of medical staff, doctors and others, is effected in as fair and effective a manner as possible. This is a point my hon colleague from Parktown made as well. The hon the Deputy Minister indicated that one possible way of dealing with this lack of balance between cities and rural areas is perhaps to introduce a licence system. I would go along with him that that is a problem-ridden and very suspect way of doing it, but I do believe that one cannot just fob that responsibility off on the medical profession itself. I believe that the State and the department itself will have to look at ways and means of somehow encouraging, or luring, or in certain circumstances even forcing, medical services to the rural areas.

You cannot force them.

It is nice for a fatcat medical practitioner like the hon member for Rustenburg to serve his wealthy White patients—he makes a lot of money, as he is entitled to do because he is qualified and works hard for it—but what is the position of a person who lives in a rural area far away from a medical practitioner? Is that person in the rural area not also entitled …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how many advocates are practising in the rural areas to which he is now referring?

That is not the same thing.

I do not wish to elaborate on this matter, except perhaps to explain to the hon member that there is a system amongst advocates according to which advocates appear pro deo on behalf of people who cannot afford an advocate. I would welcome it if such a system could possibly be devised among medical practitioners. If such a system could be devised, we could perhaps partially solve the problem in the rural areas. I do not know whether the hon member is aware of such a system whereby medical practitioners make their services available at lower tariffs or perhaps at no charge in areas where their services are required. That is in any case the position as far as advocates are concerned.

†One point the hon the Deputy Minister made in his speech related to granny flats. I agree with him that the department ought to do its utmost to persuade local authorities to relax their building restrictions as far as granny flats are concerned. I believe that in countries like Australia the building by-laws have been relaxed even further to the extent that they allow temporary structures or movable structures to be used purely for the purpose of housing the elderly, the grandparents of a family, the idea there being that very often, once the grandparents are not there anymore but have passed away, it is quite easy to remove that temporary structure so that the home-owner is not left with a capital outlay in the form of a permanent structure. I am informed that that has led to a great response in a country like Australia. Maybe we could even think of that here as well under certain circumstances. However, I accept the point that we in this House and the department ought to encourage the elderly not to move into old age homes in masses. I think that almost a greater responsibility rests on individuals and families than on the department. It is very difficult for a government to legislate and to apply pressure preventing the elderly from going to old age homes. It is our task to try and rectify the situation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central will forgive me for not lingering on what he said. At the beginning of his speech it appeared to me from all his gestures that he thought he was appearing in a court in Port Elizabeth. Later he obviously realized he was in the House and calmed down somewhat.

I should like to voice a few thoughts on aftercare for handicapped children. The Mentally Retarded Children’s Training Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1974. From the nature of the Act, such children are exempted from compulsory school attendance solely on the basis of their inability to be educated. On the other hand they are regarded as capable of being trained and benefit from a training programme which extends from preschool age to the age of 18. Training centres are erected in co-operation with the Department of National Education. At the moment there are approximately 75 of these centres in the country where fine work is being done. The child is kept there, however, only until attaining the age of 18 and is then regarded as an adult. As soon as the mentally retarded child has completed his training, a large percentage is unable to take up posts in the open labour market in consequence of limited mental capacity. This percentage is augmented by marginal cases from special schools and the special classes under special education.

Aftercare actually revolves around these people. The greatest concern of the parents of a retarded child is what is to become of him when they are no longer there. Then that child will be an adult with the brain or ability of a child. Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians: “He who has many talents, will not have too many, and he who has few, will not have too few.” We should not ignore those with only a few; they should be directed to put their abilities to fullest use. I believe this can be done in aftercare centres of which there are approximately 43 in the country today. One of them is in my electoral division, namely the Free State Aftercare Centre. The head of this centre is Mr B J K Beukes, who is present today. I make so bold as to say that through his zeal and enthusiasm and under his capable leadership this centre has developed into one of the best in the country. At the moment the centre accommodates 57 men and 53 women while there is a waiting list of 134. Last week the centre held a fête and the amount of R13 000 was made. This is proof of the zeal and enthusiasm of the staff in mobilizing the co-operation of the parents and the community in such a way.

In July 1984 a programme about the Free State Aftercare Centre was televized and elicited an enormous amount of positive reaction and nationwide enquiries were received. The director felt the time was ripe to get together for exchanging ideas and seeking answers which might help to create a more viable dispensation for the mentally retarded. It was decided to hold a symposium in October and to get all heads of training and aftercare centres as well as paramedical staff and parents together to consider future action.

This symposium will be opened by Dr Slabber and a very interesting programme will be provided—I have one with me. Unfortunately time does not allow me to refer to it more fully and that is why I shall illustrate only one point on the agenda, namely staffing and greater involvement in aftercare.

At this stage the Department of Health Services and Welfare partially subsidizes the following items: Equipment, operating costs and salaries, but is responsible for the full payment of social pensions to the handicapped.

While the child follows his training programme at the training centre, the members of staff working there also have to have certain qualifications and experience according to which they are remunerated. If the same child is taken into the aftercare clinic, he finds himself in an institution where no specific qualifications or experience are required of the staff. Consequently the child is exposed to qualified educationists during his training programme but at the aftercare facilities anyone can keep him or her occupied. Neither are qualified or trained staff prepared to work at aftercare facilities without housing, pension or medical benefits.

I believe it to be of the utmost importance that truly specialized services should be provided by these aftercare centres. The two basic problems experienced by these people are their aggression and depression and only trained people can give them the necessary guidance to rid them of these.

Especially in the light of the variety of the handicapped such as epileptics, the deaf, the blind and war casualties, it would be fatal to expect the Department of Health Services and Welfare to accept full financial responsibility, even only as regards salaries.

During April 1982 a memorandum was presented to the then Minister of Health and Welfare, The Hon Dr Munnik, by the Free State Aftercare Centre. On 7 June 1982 I received a letter from the hon the Minister—I have it with me—in which he informed me that an interdepartmental committee of the Departments of Health anti Welfare, National Education and Manpower had been appointed to investigate the life of the handicapped “from the cradle to the grave”, as he put it. The hon the Minister also said he would inform me as soon as he had received the report. Meanwhile another Minister of Health and Welfare has been appointed and up to the present I have not heard what has become of that inquiry.

The entire matter of aftercare which I have raised is truly one of urgent interest. It is not only of interest to the Free State Aftercare Centre but to the whole country. If we could institute this matter “from the cradle to the grave”, if we could accommodate these people who have few talents, it would bring peace of mind to many parents.

I wish to repeat that I do not want the Department of Health Services and Welfare to stand good for everything. I merely request that it should give guidance so that this matter may be seen to.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for Winburg. He dealt with a very important aspect of a problem existing in our national economy and also came thoroughly informed on the problem he illustrated here.

I should also like to speak on the care of the aged today. There have already been various references to problems within the structure of the care of the aged and I shall attempt not to repeat what has already been said.

It remains the desire of every community to care for its local aged in convenient facilities. The involvement of church and women’s organizations, which not only render service but also make large financial contributions, is actually the backbone which makes it possible to furnish these services to the aged. Nevertheless it is impossible for those institutions to provide these services without State help and the contribution the State has made in this respect is also a praiseworthy achievement. Fixed guidelines and standards were laid down in an attempt to care for and accommodate the greatest possible number of the aged with the aid of finance made available by the State so all luxuries were for the account of local organizations.

It has happened, however, that set standards were ignored in many cases and—one could almost say—five-star facilities erected. This meant not only a higher cost incurred once only for the erection but also resulted in much more expensive maintenance and higher operating costs—expenditure which many of these governing bodies can no longer afford. Owing to the rise in costs those institutions are going to find it even more impossible to operate their old age homes in future. If they were to comply with the fixed standards, a larger number of people would be able to be cared for in homes and at the same operating costs as now apply.

The cost to the State of caring for the aged has to be kept within certain limits; there also has to be consideration of the interests of the taxpayer who is directly affected by this. Each enhanced contribution for the care of the aged will necessarily go hand in hand with higher taxes and that part of our community which is already taxable has a very heavy tax burden and responsibility. In fact, most of the aged who are cared for in homes also receive social pensions which therefore means that the entire maintenance of those people is financed by the State and service organizations. As costs are becoming too high, it has now been decided pro tem to proceed only with service centres and to offer subsidies for them.

Fortunately there are enormous numbers of the aged still living in their own homes and proud of having a place of their own. They sometimes refuse in the face of much inconvenience to go to homes for the aged but we also have to attempt to furnish certain essential services to those people. Nevertheless the problem is that there are many debilitated aged in need of help and assistance who may be aided by means of service centres. Many of those people receive civil or other pensions and allowances; people whose incomes just exceed the limits of benefits payable in terms of social pensions. Those people cannot obtain free medicine; they have to pay for their medicine and medical care. Those are the people on whose behalf I wish to plead here today. I wish to request that service centres should be operated in such a way that the provision of medicine should take place in accordance with the financial ability of those aged people—either free or at a nominal charge.

Furthermore I wish to appeal for a scientific investigation to determine which income group may obtain free medicine and which should pay pro rata for medicine they may possibly require. Just as tariffs are determined according to income in certain provincial hospitals, there should be a fixed ruling in respect of the aged with small incomes as regards their contributions to the cost of their medicine. At present a magistrate may decide on free medicine in co-operation with social workers but there is no fixed rule under which persons may, in fact, receive this free medicine. If there were a fixed rule, effective care could be carried out at service centres.

We also have clinic services at most of these centres. A degree of co-ordination between service centres and clinic services should be investigated in order to bring about greater effectiveness and lower costs. There are many of the aged, especially in rural areas, who do not belong to pension schemes. In spite of advanced age, they are working at present because they would otherwise be dependent only on social pensions and those would be inadequate. Service centres could provide a great and effective service to this group as well to keep them reasonably independent as long as possible.

It is true that problems are sometimes experienced in obtaining staff to operate service centres so I wish to appeal to local inhabitants: If a person were to furnish only two days’ free service at a service centre a month, it would take up very little of his time. An enormous number of services could also be rendered in a group context without resulting in costs to the State or the community. We have many competent retired nurses and nursing sisters living in these communities who no longer work in consequence of their domestic circumstances and only run their homes. If these people could assist in supporting these services on a voluntary basis, we could make a very great success of these service centres. I therefore wish to appeal that these aspects should also be examined by local communities who are eager to furnish services to our aged.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Parys in speaking with understanding of pensioners resident in their own homes. In fact, this will form the main theme of my short speech to which I shall return but, with your permission, I wish to make brief mention of two old people living in my constituency.

I wish to tell hon members there is no hon member in this House who can speak with such intimate, practical knowledge regarding an own fly than the hon member for Meyer-ton. Years ago I was the deacon for my area and an old couple lived in it—they were the cleanest and neatest people I have ever known. As usual the woman served coffee that day and, when I took my cup, I saw a fly in it. This called for a quick decision—faster than a member of Parliament has to think on his feet! I immediately realized: If I were to point it out to the lady, she would feel very bad as she was such a clean, neat person and there was otherwise no fly in the house. I also realized: If I were first to extract it with the teaspoon and leave it in the saucer, she would discover it later and feel bad about it after I had left. I then realized there was only one destination for the entire contents of that cup of coffee and that was that they should all be swallowed. [Interjections.] Subsequently I realized two facts: The first was that it must have been the fastest time—a record—in which a cup of steaming coffee had ever been swallowed. The second was that it was definitely not the tastiest cup of coffee I had ever had.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon member whether that was the first or the last time that he ever swallowed an own affair? [Interjections.]

I must say it was decidedly an unsavoury affair.

I now get to the Department of Health and Welfare of the Administration: Assembly which I have here. It is stated in this:

The 90 is almost the number accommodated in our home for the aged at Meyerton—”Tehuis Meyerton”. At present 80 are being accommodated. I quote further:

We are pleased about this appreciable increase. It continues:

In every town and community there are aged pensioners living in their own homes. In time, numbers of these people feel obliged either to sell their houses or give them to their children and then to seek accommodation in homes for the aged. As soon as they are accommodated in a home for the aged, the State pays a considerable subsidy for that inmate who is transferred from his own home to the home for the aged.

A reliable newspaper, The Citizen, featured an article last year in which it tabulated 23 towns in the Transvaal and found that, of those 23 towns, Meyerton was the third cheapest to live in. This related to property tax, water and electricity and all other municipal rates and taxes. Property tax at Meyerton is R45 a month, water and electricity approximately R30 a month if it is used very thriftily, sanitation R15 a month and refuse removal R10 a month which comes to the round figure of R100 a month. In towns where the tax is higher, many people find it difficult to remain in their own homes and in their own communities.

I therefore wish to submit a proposal to the hon the Minister and the department this afternoon. I know it is drastic but I wish to say that we should not hold back in this respect because in the long run it will merely come down to a transfer of funds. One could call it a subsidy or incentive fee which could be paid to those old people living in their own homes. This is not an increase in pension but an encouragement to those people living in their own houses to remain there. In the long run this would come down to a transfer of funds. I know it would not be easy to launch the administration but it is something which could be looked into.

I wish to close by saying that this group of people, the aged pensioners, wherever they may live, are all people born in the twenties—women born before the year 1925 and therefore over 60 already; men born before 1920 and over 65 already today. If we look at this period from 1925 to the forties, history shows that it contained among the most difficult decades in the history of South Africa. In the early thirties came the Great Depression; there was the great drought. These people involved were either children or young people at the time so they experienced those difficult years.

Sir, I wish to cite only one example to you of what life was like in those years. At the time there was a farmer in my constituency—naturally I was just a boy then—who carried on mixed farming on a large scale for that time. In the year of the depression he sent away his wool and, whereas he had received £800 for his consignment the previous year, he received a cheque for £80 in that year. That is what life was like in those years and the people we are discussing today experienced those times.

In the thirties and forties the second great trek—as I should like to call it—took place in the history of the Whites. Many country people moved to the cities in their thousands. It was those people themselves and their influence which brought the old National Party to power in 1948. There are many of those people who still tell us the National Party of 1948 remains the same party and I am not talking politics—merely stating a fact.

I wish to request that we should continually exhibit all the sympathy and understanding possible toward this group of the aged who not only experienced those difficult years in the history of South Africa but who actively laid the cornerstones and assisted in the building of the Republic of South Africa as we found it when it became a Republic and as it continues to exist to a certain extent today.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the fine contribution of the hon member for Meyer-ton, on a topic regarding which a great deal has already been said this afternoon, and regarding which the department and its hon Minister really deserves congratulations for what is being done for our aged. Later on I shall touch on another aspect of the same service of the department.

This afternoon I want to pay a symbolic compliment to the public arm of this department because without this section the department cannot function properly, or render the same quality of work, with the funds at its disposal. I am calling them the “public arm”—there are a few men in their ranks, but they consist mainly of women, and I am referring in this way to the organizations, to which reference has been made time and again this afternoon, which behind the scenes dutifully offer their services and everything they possibly can to welfare work in South Africa.

The one aspect we should like to give recognition to here is the way in which they capitalize the funds which the department makes available for this work. We also want to give them recognition for what they manage to do with this money. In this connection I am thinking of the Federale Vroueraad and the women’s federations in their various forms in the respective provinces.

I do not think there are presidents in every community like those of these organization. I am thinking of the Rina Venters, the Liz Krugers, the Dien Bothmas, the Fransie Coetzers, the Dollie Kromhouts, the Ellie Pretoriuses, the Tia Kotzés and the Bettie Strydoms—people who over and above the families they care for, and the way in which they have brought up their own children, also still have time for the weak and woe of others. I am thinking of the matrons and the staff members of the respective old-age homes, and the tremendous work they do and the compassion with which they do it.

This little group of people increase every cent at their disposal thirty-fold with every pancake that is baked; they increase every cent three hundred fold with every delicious home-made loaf of bread, cake or milk-tart. On Saturday mornings they have to go and sell these items in the street, sometimes in the most inclement weather. That is how they raise this essential money with which they do their work.

These are the people who increase the cents three thousand fold with their fêtes and jumble sales. These are all efforts to raise money for the aged or for the places of care they have been working on recently.

I want to say a few words about these places for care. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister who said that the time had come for us to concentrate our attention on places for care for children.

There is also a small group of people there who completely fulfil their calling with their contribution to the care of children who do not have happy family circumstances. Those places of care are divided into crèches—nowadays the delightful word “wiegies” is used for them—half-day nursery schools, day care centres or full-day nursery schools, and the after school centres for school going children. In those institutions wonderful work is being done to prepare the infant up to his second year, the toddler between two and three years of age, and the young child between three and six years of age for the life awaiting them. This is in cases where the working parent is not in a position to care for the child during the day.

Those people stimulate the total socialization process of the children. Those people are the driving-force behind the youngsters, making them want to learn, enjoy things and live. It is those people who work on the self image of the child. This is they who stimulate his sensory development programme and make him a physically balanced little person. It is those people who make an effort to get the home training pattern to develop to such an extent that the child can grow up to be well-balanced.

Together with the managerial ability of the thousands of women who work in this field, they have the unique ability to impart life’s basic lessons in morality. What wonderful people these are, who establish hidden principles of morality in the fives of children, by means of stories such as Jakkals en Wolf, Haas Das, Wielie Walie, Krokkie Krokodil and Ou Skillie Skilpad. In this way they lay the foundations of sincerity, honesty, self respect, obedience and the ability to love and to respect. The child can cling to these values while he is developing into the person he is going to be one day.

It is tragic that in the baptismal vow in which we say that we shall teach our child and cause him to be taught in the ways of the Lord, we have replaced the word “and” with the word “or”. This happens when the parent who brought the child into the world is not able to guide him and transfers this task fully to the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

This matter is becoming a source of great concern to me. I feel that the “or” should no longer apply and that the “and” must be reintroduced. At our clinics where we are prescribing feeding programmes for children, we should rather place more emphasis on giving proper guidance to young mothers and mothers who need it, on the non-material upbringing of a child. They must be helped in such a way that those children can rather be raised by themselves and the parents in their own milieu.

I have great appreciation for what the department is doing and for the money they are making available. I have great appreciation for the many women who enter the lives of these people to help to lead them and to replace what we, who gave life to them, have denied them. Let us give that money in such a way that we can create permanent structures to allow children to become the people we want them to be one day in a natural milieu.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon member for Brentwood. He spoke with compassion. He almost moved me to tears. It is true that nowadays one does not come across that many people who are willing to render these voluntary services. We do so ourselves in our modest way.

I just want to tell you what happened to me recently. One Saturday I arrived on the farm and the people reminded me that I had promised to donate a pig the next time the ACVV held a bazaar. It was bazaar time again, and I had completely forgotten about the pig, but they wanted it. The only place where I could lay hands on a pig was at the cellar, where the pigs eat the “press” skins. The pig was lying there drunk—it could not stand up. [Interjections.] I took this drunk pig to the ACVV bazaar, and I then bought it back. [Interjections.] I do not think there is a black mark against my name in the Big Book—I still feel all right. [Interjections.]

The history of our provincial hospitals is a proud achievement of many years of service; not only because of their excellent care of the sick, but also because of their leadership in connection with research in the field of medicine. Pioneering operations, such as the historic first heart transplant at Groote Schuur Hospital in 1967, liver and kidney transplants, and so on, were performed at provincial hospitals. Research is very important and must be done. It is therefore unthinkable that conditions can arise or develop in which provincial hospitals are going to disappear.

The erection of private hospitals has increased considerably in recent years. There are various reasons for this, but in my opinion it can be ascribed mainly to the initiatives on account of privatization. It is really praiseworthy that the private section is also displaying its involvement in the rendering of health services to the inhabitants of South Africa.

As far as the providing of services at private hospitals is concerned, there are probably still shortcomings which will have to be streamlined. Things are still going in fits and starts. One of the reasons for this is that general casualty and emergency sections are not operated. In the second place, the payment of motor vehicles insurance claims is delayed for too long. Consequently these specific cases are not admitted to private hospitals.

If a patient is ill for too long, he is referred to a provincial hospital. Medical funds also have limits and when they are exceeded or the patients have no reserve funds left, they are transferred to provincial hospitals. When a patient is discharged from a private clinic a rehabilitation service is usually not rendered.

Further points which want attention, are the cost comparisons. The patient cost per day is far higher in private hospitals than in provincial hospitals. The day cost in smaller provincial hospitals, such as the Eben Dönges Hospital in Worcester, is R42 per day and the tariff is R23 per day. There one can still afford to become ill and they restore one to health there what is more. Compare this with some private hospitals with tariffs of hundreds of rand per day. The ordinary man in the street will eventually no longer be able to afford to become ill—let alone die. He will have to become a ghost right away. [Interjections.]

At the moment the private hospitals are intended in the main for the so-called wealthy or elite patients. This is as it should be, but I am worried about the tremendously high prices private hospitals make their patients pay for medicine. It cries to high heaven. I know; I went through this and I thought my pills were studded with gold and diamonds.

As far as nursing staff is concerned, in the Republic almost all of them are trained at approved provincial hospitals and in the Defence Force. Without making much of a contribution towards training, private hospitals draw their nursing staff from provincial hospitals. It happens that private hospitals offer higher salaries and in that way attract the cream of the nursing staff to the detriment of the provincial hospitals. I strongly recommend that when private hospitals do not want to or cannot train nurses, they must be compelled at least to make a financial contribution for that purpose.

Training hospitals set a high standard in the training of medical and nursing staff. State subsidies directly help to do this. The private sector has neither the time nor the facilities to undertake sophisticated research. These achievements by provincial hospital staff have already made a name for South Africa throughout the world. Here we are thinking of the renowned work done at the Groote Schuur Hospital by my hon colleague Dr Marius Barnard and his brother Prof Chris Barnard. Their research brought South Africa fame and made it a world leader in certain spheres—it is just a pity that my learned hon colleague could not do something positive about his political heart, but it is not too late yet. [Interjections.]

Speaking of research and standards, I want to raise a delicate matter on behalf of my medical friends. At the moment no doctor in South Africa is allowed to deduct the costs involved in attending a world congress in an overseas country from his income tax. This results in doctors scarcely being able to attend congresses. The Medical Council of South Africa is one of the very few South African professional associations which still enjoys world recognition and is affiliated to the World Medical Association. I want to put in a good word for the doctors. Does this hon Minister not want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance to reconsider the matter, so that they can deduct their expenses again? The doctors are battling. They play a little golf, but they are having a hard time. [Interjections.]

I should like to congratulate and thank the provincial authorities for providing what are considered to be the best hospital services in the world. There is a matter which is bothering me. The building of over-luxurious and large hospital complexes by the authorities is a bad thing. The expense involved can be scaled down without lowering standards. More attention must be given to day hospitals which cost less.

Then we heard that on 14 May during the discussion of his Vote in the House the hon the Acting Minister of Health and Welfare made mention of the fact that certain functions of provincial hospitals had to be transferred to the own affairs administration. If this happens, and the hospital at Worcester comes under his wing, I want to advocate an immediate expansion there because it is heart-breaking to see how doctors and nurses do their work there in a very confined space—and every investment in Worcester has always been worth while.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his open and honest reply to my earlier speech. I appreciate it. He admitted that my questions were to the point and that at this stage there were no answers to them. He indicated that it was a question of evolutionary development. That was honest. He made no attempt to evade the questions. He said that he had no answers to them at this stage. Therefore, it would serve no purpose to ask the other questions I wanted to ask in this regard, for the answer will be the same. Accordingly I shall proceed to deal with two other matters.

†The first concerns something the hon the Deputy Minister and the department can do something about. As regards the allocation of money for hospital services, Natal has been the Cinderella year after year because two things have not been recognized. One is—and this affects White hospitals—that Natal is extremely popular for purposes of retirement. My constituency and the South Coast probably have the highest proportion of pensioners and retired people of any area in South Africa. Then, as regards Black health, Natal treats hundreds of thousands more Blacks than any other province because members of the kwaZulu population come to the provincial hospitals for treatment as much or more than they go to their own which fall under the kwaZulu government, and also because the Transkeians who work in Natal and very often Transkeians who do not work in Natal come there for medical treatment. This load placed on hospitals in Natal is not taken into account when the formula is applied for the allocation of funds. Credit is not given to the treatment by the health services of Natal of holidaymakers, retired people and non-South Africans. They are treated because they are there and have to be treated. As a result a hospital like Addington—the same applies to Greys and, I believe, the Johannesburg Hospital—has empty wards because there is not enough money to provide the nursing staff required to be able to utilize those wards. So, ward after ward and hundreds of beds remain unused simply because there has not been the money to create and fill the nursing posts. The posts can be filled; all that is required is the money. I would ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not plain common sense that those wards should be staffed and opened to attract private patients who can, if necessary, pay a higher rate than the present rate to bring in greater income and reduce the high cost to the public of the private hospitals.

The other factor is that as a result of this squeeze that has been put on hospital finance, Natal has fallen behind the other provinces. I asked the hon the Minister a question, Question No 631, about co-ordination in respect of salaries and conditions of service. The answer was:

I can tell the hon the Deputy Minister that at this moment nurses in the Transvaal pay half, about R37 against R72, of what Natal has to charge its nurses for board and lodging. Natal nurses got their shoe allowance more than a year after the other provinces. They had to wait eight years after the other provinces before overtime payments could be afforded. The same applies in respect of catering, drivers and maintenance staff. It always follows after the other provinces because there is never enough money. Natal, unlike the Transvaal and the Cape Province, spends its money on treating the patients first, whereas the other provinces look after their personnel first and spend and overspend what is left, and the Government just turns a blind eye. This has to be corrected and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will pay attention to it.

In the short time left to me, I want to turn briefly to social welfare issues. The hon member for Worcester said there was a problem getting voluntary workers, but I want to pay heartfelt tribute to the voluntary workers throughout South Africa who work in organizations which assist the public. In my constituency I want to refer in particular to TAFTA, The Association For The Aged, which has done an unbelievable job in housing pensioners and aged persons and without which there would have been total chaos in Durban today. They are providing accommodation in six or seven buildings which they have bought up. I have asked the Government year after year to buy buildings where they are available so that they can be let at reasonable rentals to the aged. This association is doing that with the aid of subsidies. For some aged people this is their only hope of getting accommodation. I also want to mention other organizations such as Child Welfare, the churches, the organizations for the blind and the deaf, St Giles Cripple Care, Meals on Wheels etc. These organizations are staffed by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time. Some run a little tearoom in the botanical gardens to raise funds, some take it in turns to drive the Kombi’s that take the meals on wheels food round. South Africa owes these organizations a debt of gratitude we can never repay. Except for Tafta where men do play a part, more than 90% of the people doing the work are ladies. I believe everybody owes them a debt of gratitude, and I want to place this fact on record this afternoon.

There are two other matters I want to raise. The first concerns sheltered employment. I often get complaints about the special workshops for these people. I think a lot of it has to do with self-respect. They complain about the amount they are paid, the fact that they have to work on public holidays, the hours they have to work etc. There are continuous complaints and I think we have to take another look at these workshops where people are trying to keep themselves occupied by working and where they should be made to feel that they are making something of their lives despite their disabilities and, of course, are being paid accordingly. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister who deals with this matter to look at it.

I see that pensions are to be decentralized and determined regionally. I hope that this will eliminate some of the delay in the finalization of pension applications. I think this is a step in the right direction. I should like to see many more things decentralized and dealt with on the spot where decisions can be taken.

This hardy annual has been mentioned already, but I must come back to it. There is the illusion that the social pensioner has not lost six months because it takes a year from increase to increase. I want to point out that they started off losing six months. Eventually the bonus of R30 was brought in, but that bonus of R5,00 per month nowhere compensates for the six months’ loss of valuable money. I ask that this be looked into again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point reminds me a great deal of a lighthouse; now he lights up, now he does’nt. That is how it goes with the NRP too. Now they light up, now they don’t; they come up with a good contribution, and then they start fighting again. The hon member made a good contribution this afternoon and we thank him for doing so.

He made a good case here with regard to the allocation of funds for Natal, but ultimately it seems to me as if the answer is going to be that we had better get rid of the NRP-controlled provincial council there that is dealing with the matter at the moment, because once we have brought it under our wing, things may go better in Natal.

Then there will be a mess!

When the hon member for Parktown opened the debate he told us that in their view the solution for our problems and the answers we are looking for could be obtained quite easily in an open society. That is their answer to the problem—it is as easy as that. We differ so radically as far as that is concerned, that we shall not argue the matter further at this point.

But surely you are accompanying them to that open society.

The closest the hon member for Rissik will come to an open society is his open mouth when he gapes at everything that is said here.

But what is the difference between you and the Progs?

The opposition Carties differ radically in certain respects—ere I refer to the Official Opposition and the CP—but now that we have listened to their various spokesmen it is quite clear to us that they have not the slightest idea what is going on when we talk about own affairs. I can understand that as far as the Official Opposition is concerned, because they are by no means in favour of own affairs. They want to see own affairs merging into an overall unity.

Surely these hon members of the CP, who have repeatedly described themselves as the champions of own affairs, ought to seize the opportunity in this debate to make the best of own affairs. The other day, when I asked the hon member for Rissik whether he was satisfied with the definition of own affairs, he initially did not understand me correctly but said later that the definition as worded in the Constitution was acceptable to him. [Interjections.] Now he does not take the opportunity, when we are discussing own affairs, to approach the State President with proposals and say that this or that matter ought to be dealt with as an own affair. He does not suggest ways in which we can broaden the issue of own affairs.

Surely Parliament is an own affair.

Order! No, the hon member for Rissik does not have a turn to speak now.

As I understand the hon member for Rissik and his people, it seems to me they have not the faintest idea what this is about.

I wish to say a few words about the government’s approach to own affairs—with specific reference to health services and welfare—and to emphasize the importance of this component of government. I want to argue that this policy approach is not only defensible, but that owing to the diversity and multifacetedess of health and welfare services, the provision of these services could be better addressed in such a system to the benefit of the separate communities. Now that announcements have also been made with regard to the replacement of the existing provincial council system of administration by another system, and we are now awaiting what will necessarily arise from this, I believe that if we meet here in future and consider the budgets of Parliament with reference to this specific department we shall be amazed at the extent of the functions of such an own department and at the enormous amounts of money to be voted for this purpose. In doing so we shall also be able to estimate the true value of this department for the first time and to pass judgment on it because one thing is very sure—the activities and the scope of this department are vast.

Those people who disparaged own affairs and own affairs departments—they did so in the past and they are still doing so—and pass them off as watered-down little departments that were established merely to bluff the public at large, will simply have to swallow their words in future.

One would be justified in saying that the department the budget of which we are discussing here today is not only important but is, indeed, an extremely sensitive department. The hon member for Durban Point emphasized this point very clearly here this afternoon. It concerns a very intimate part of the everyday life of the community. Alongside education, this is accordingly a matter which is, or ought to be, close to the heart of every right-thinking and developed person.

It is true that a healthy body contains a healthy spirit. That, too, is why it is necessary and important for every responsible government to make ample provision for health and welfare services out of the money made available in its budget, particularly with regard to the establishment of infrastructure to make possible the provision of those broad services that will be necessary.

Of course, if this is all that had to be budgeted for, it would not be such a great problem. However, we have a welfare burden on our shoulders which is intolerably heavy, and its weight is increasing to the point at which the situation is becoming untenable. It is not in a negative or wrong sense that I describe it as a burden. However, the fact remains that that burden must be taken into account in the decisions that are taken when budgeting is being done for the domestic economy. Nor can I put it negatively, because there are those in the community that may lay claim to state aid. The government has ample evidence that over many years it has never evaded its responsibility in this regard.

However, we should guard against becoming an out-and-out welfare state. There are hon members who also referred to this. The enormous amounts that the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned here and that could become a reality in the year 2000 if we carry on as we are doing, are amounts that certainly give rise to considerable concern. I believe that we shall obtain a detailed reflection of the true picture with regard to health and welfare services from the inputs that will be received from the various own departments. The priority plan will then necessarily be drawn up more responsibly and can also be implemented. The government has never had any doubt about health and welfare services as an own affair. In other words, there has never been any doubt that health and welfare services will have to be defined and treated as an own affair.

Is that why Mr Hollander became Chairman?

That was a decision which we believe was correct and in the interest of own communities. I did not hear what the hon member for Langlaagte said …

I merely want to know whether that was why the hon member Mr Hollander had become chairman of the committee.

Oh really, the question asked by the hon member for Langlaagte is a tipical Langlaagte question. He is accustomed to plodding through the mud. [Interjections.] I say again to this hon member …

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! The hon member for Rustenburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon acting Whip of the Official Opposition.

The hon member for Langlaagte must bear in mind that these are the people that he will have to co-operate with one day. Whether he wants this new dispensation or not, this hon member—however anctimoniously he may be sitting there—will have to co-operate with them. I therefore say to the hon member that he should not slam the door in his own face. He should not do that. [Interjections.]

The establishment of such a department, together with the change-over, is not an easy step. Nor does it occur without trauma. I wish not only to extend my cordial thanks to each of those who started this pioneering work and who are still engaged in it, viz Dr Coert Slabber and his people, but also to sincerely congratulate them on the success they have already achieved in this connection. We hope that the announcements made in regard to provincial authorities, viz the establishment of the new department, will facilitate the work considerably. We wish them everything of the best.

The Official Opposition—and this is a matter very often raised here by the hon member for Parktown—often speaks about fragmentation and the effect it supposedly has on the provision of services in general and health services and welfare in particular. They always argue that this is the underlying cause of the existing disparity. If fragmentation had resulted in general policy, overall planning and its execution being handicapped, we should necessarily have had to consider whether this plan that we are now dealing with answers to the requirements. I reiterate that, fragmentation is seen, particularly by the Official Opposition, as the fundamental cause of the existing disparity. According to that party it is just this that opens the door to unfair discrimination between communication and groups. We on this side of the House do not deny that there is a disparity in the provision of health and welfare services; on the contrary, we go further and try to address this problem with all the power and means at our disposal. The fact remains that we have committed ourselves irrevocably to the socio-economic upliftment of all people in this country and of the country itself. This serves to prove that we wish to eliminate disparity. The PFP believes that this can only happen under a single ministry and in a single department with the establishment of a totally integrated service. However, we on this side of the House believe the contrary. By fragmenting it into three departments for own affairs—with overall co-ordination, of course—the inputs from all sources can be meaningfully evaluated and incorporated in a total strategy. We must not forget that a heterogeneous society such as ours, and the way it is represented in this Parliment, entail unique problems, and unique answers will necessarily have to be sought. After all it is true that what may be a priority to Whites may not be so to one or more of the other colour groups.

As far as illnesses are concerned?

Of course, as far as illnesses are concerned too. After all, they differ. Surely the hon member knows as well as I do that in certain regions there are ailments which Black people experience as sicknesses and which …

I am speaking about Coloureds and Asians.

Now that hon member says that we are speaking about Coloureds and Asians. However, if they are speaking about one overall department then they are speaking about the whole Republic. Who would be better judges of such an affair than the representatives of each separate group? [Interjections.]

Order!

Who would be in a better position to judge than those very people who move among their own people? The hon member for Langlaagte will not know, because he does not have people to move among. The members of the other two Houses who move among their own people know what the needs and priorities of their people are. I therefore reiterate that contributions by the other groups from their own ranks will contribute considerably towards an appropriate answer to our problems. I contend, with special reference to this department, that responsible fragmentation and differentiation of service will lead us to the correct answer, as far as we are concerned. We must realize that the department is a technical department with a multi-faceted and wide field of influence, and innumerable disciplines are accommodated in this department in the interests of health. For that reason we believe that the recognition of own affairs in the health and welfare services and the corresponding handling of these services by the own department will mean that each group will be able to give more effective and undisturbed attention to its own interests.

Why is there an insistence in certain quarters that health services be thrown open to all members of the population? I contend that one of the most important reasons is the disparity with regard to hospital, out-patient and out-clinic services. If we can succeed in achieving parity in this instance, the reasonable insistence that they be thrown open because they, too, demand just and fair treatment, will undoubtedly become less.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why Blacks have to be accommodated in private wards in private hospitals and not in the general ward?

I do not know what the hon member for Parktown is referring to. After all, many Blacks are treated in private wards. Surely that is not a problem. Will the hon member please repeat his question?

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to steal the hon member’s time, but he made the statement that Blacks in the private hospital may not lie in a general ward; they may only be accommodated in private wards. The same applies to Indians and Coloureds. Why is this so?

The hon member for Parktown surely knows what our policy is in this connection. After all, we have a policy in this connection. [Interjections.] However, we adopt such widely differing standpoints in this regard, that it is not worthwhile arguing about it now. [Interjections.]

There is another very important reason as to why fragmentation can fruitfully be applied. There are obvious reasons why we should in future place more emphasis on preventive medicine as part of our health plan for tomorrow and the next day. If we place more emphasis on the preventive aspect and less on the curative, we shall see that structures with regard to preventive services will be better able to address the unique problems. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, when one speaks of welfare, and broaches matters such as old age homes and the problems of children who come from childrens’ homes—a form of welfare which has become a practice over the years—it is a problem to listen to a member like the hon member for Rustenburg, who spoke about the people of Langlaagte in a humiliating way.

No! No!

Oh, the hon member for Johannesburg West should rather keep quiet. I am tired of the NP’s distortions when speaking through hon members like the hon member for Johannesburg West. Sir, this hon member spoke of the “geploeter” of the people of Langlaagte. [Interjections.] This is a party which speaks arrogantly of Whites, and which has brought them to a stage in which one reads newspaper headlines such as the following: “Hard times—Hunger hits White Pupils”. This is a government which has taken so-called experts into its ranks but could still find no one good enough to be the chairman of an ordinary standing committee. Matters went so far that they had to get a person of colour to act as the chairman of the standing committee, but then someone like the hon member for Johannesburg-West wants to reprimand me. [Interjections.]

The one point I want to make in this House today, is that welfare in this country should not be seen only as a temporary facet. As a young man, I did a lot of welfare work. This was during the years 1946-47. The urban children were in my care. [Interjections.] Yes, if hon members do not want to believe that—I was one of the well-known sociologists. [Interjections.] I had a lot to do with child education and I know what I am talking about if I tell hon members the urban problem of welfare is not a temporary one. Indeed, at present it is a problem that many people—often those who have to care for their families—are unemployed. They need help to pay for housing, but at this stage attention has to be paid in a very large part of Johannesburg to nourishment. The hon member for Parktown also pointed out that nourishment is a very important question in certain parts of Johannesburg today. I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister, as the provincial system is being phased out, and provision cannot really be made at present for feeding at schools, please to ensure that food is provided to an ample degree—as the hon the Minister mentions in his report—in those places where it is necessary. In this respect I am thinking inter alia of schools and organizations which are in a position at present to feed children.

The problem I have is that through the years there has been no place in our community to which a woman could turn if her husband was caught up in a problem situation—often as a result of liquor—and had to go to jail for two or three years. She can go to Welfare, but Welfare, as I have said, is geared more for a temporary phase and problems of a passing nature.

The children from a marriage of this kind live with their mother, who will lose the roof over her head within two weeks or a month. Normally things begin to deteriorate for a woman in this position and her problems increase. I am referring now to statistics which date from 1946. This kind of family is a problem for the Welfare.

After six or seven months the woman no longer has a roof over her head and has to move in with other people. The next problem is that she has another child by another man. Her two children therefore have two different fathers. The first father, who is released from jail, is an even greater problem to the woman than her two children.

A long-term project is necessary for institutions for such women. They are often not trained to do any work, but must be given the opportunity to care for their children. If their husbands are then released from jail, there is a homely atmosphere in which the children can be brought up. The environment has a great influence on a child’s upbringing; as does heredity. In such cases heredity and environment both have a strong influence on the child. The welfare problem does not end with the child’s growing up, but there is a chain reaction which continues for years.

Places such as Doomfontein, next to the centre of Johannesburg, display this problem clearly. Adults who experienced this kind of problem situation as children, are still victims and this is transferred to their children as well.

Many people say the answer is the Kibbutz system. I think a similar institution is the answer to the problem. One can also include older people and pensioners in such institutions. People can obtain proper training here.

I know it is not always possible for the hon the Minister to say yes to everything people ask of him, but I feel that this urban problem is so great and widespread that ordinary institutions are not sufficient. Unfortunately it is human material that is detrimentally affected—young children with good minds. I made a survey in Hillbrow last year and found that children between the ages of seven and fourteen had sometimes not eaten for two days. Such cases are often not reported because the mother is ashamed of being helped by a welfare organization. The children are the ones who suffer. These problems are increasing daily as the urbanization process takes place. I merely want to tell the hon member for Rustenburg, I think my people have a good name in South Africa in our relationship to the Coloureds and the people of colour. I do not think there has ever been talk of a door being closed in the faces of others.

Even worse!

No, the Coloureds and the Indians who know the Barnards as a whole, will be able to testify today that we believe in other people’s human dignity. [Interjections.] This never means, however, that I have no right to stand up for the people I represent in this House.

Mr Chairman, it is very difficult for me to follow after the hon member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] I am not a well-known sociologist. I can tell hon members of this House that I did Sociology I at university, but that was the end of it. Therefore the hon member for Langlaagte will have to excuse me if I do not reply to him in a scientific way. In answer I want to refer him, however, to a Cabinet decision of 30 August 1983. I believe he knows what I am talking about. On that day the Cabinet decided, on the basis of the proposals of the Science Committee of the President’s Council which investigated the demographic tendencies in South Africa, that a national population development programme was to be introduced. I believe the hon member studied this population development programme, but to refresh his memory, we must look at what falls under nutrition services in this programme to which he referred—and this department believes in it and therefore wants to apply it in practice. The hon members for Hillbrow and Langlaagte highlighted certain aspects here. I have sympathy with the people of Langlaagte. I have understanding for their problems, and I have understanding for the problems of the people in Hillbrow. [Interjections.] I have understanding for the problems of the people in South Africa, but we must remember one thing: What the hon member referred to is a tendency experienced throughout the world. We do not want to condone it, but the hon member must remember it is a worldwide tendency. Every government in the world is trying to find a solution to this matter as far as is possible. This Government has tried, and is still trying, to find a solution to the problems referred to by the hon member. That is why we have come forward with this population development programme. I can go back in the past and indicate how this, Government has tried to solve similar questions, and has succeeded.

Let us look at these nutritional services to which the hon member referred. In Marsden’s hierarchy of human needs the need for physiological survival is absolutely basic. In the best sense of the word it means health, of which good nutrition is the cornerstone. To help man in his process of development and his endeavour to self-realization, good nutrition is therefore of cardinal importance. I am using “high” language now, but the hon member is a well-known sociologist and will know what I am speaking of. The overall purpose of the Nutrition Section is the promotion of balanced nutrition among all Whites in the RSA, to improve the quality of life and prevent nutrition-related diseases peculiar to the Whites. It is directly associated therefore with the major objective of the population development programme, viz the increasing of the standards of living and the quality of life of all people in South Africa. Nutrition is also directly associated with one of the major components in this programme, viz health.

The primary focus is on the family. The family is the most important economic and social unit in a community. People live in a family context for the greatest part of their Uyes, whether as adults or as children. They are born, fed, clothed and formed spiritually within a specific family context. Eating habits, which determine health and therefore quality of life to a great extent, are formed within family context. That is what this Government is striving for: The building up and continued existence of a family. A child must grow up within his family. The hon the Minister referred to that in his reply, and it is a major problem that we are trying to solve.

Let us go further, however. There were very interesting speeches in this House today, and I should like to refer specifically to the hon member for Middelburg, the hon member for Brentwood, the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Parys and the hon member for Durban Point. As far as welfare organizations are concerned, reference was made to the partnership between voluntary helpers and the State. It is clear to us that the South African welfare structure rests on two legs, viz the professional leg and the contribution made by volunteers. If we look at the history of the development of welfare, we are impressed by the great role played by volunteers in the development of welfare organizations. On behalf of this side of the House I want to express our appreciation for the thousands of volunteers who are playing a great part and have done so in the past. I am thinking specifically of the churches and service organizations, and then in particular of the role played by women in this connection.

It is said that a monument should be erected for the koeksister, but I am of the opinion that a monument should rather be erected for women, specifically for the part they play in welfare and in welfare organizations. [Interjections.] If we refer to the role of women in welfare organizations, we must look specifically at the Federale Vroueraad. If one analyses this women’s council, one finds that the four provincial female organizations, the SAVS in the Transvaal, the OVV in the Free State, the NCVV in Natal and the ACVV in the Cape, have established a welfare structure which has an annual turnover of approximately R30 million at present. These services are visible in every large town or city.

The State has always maintained a fine partnership with these voluntary welfare organizations by means of subsidizing and the provision of other services. The State has also permitted these organizations to develop an own nature and character in service of those in the community who need help and assistance of this nature. These days there is a problem, however, in recruiting volunteers to render services and the welfare organizations will be forced to recruit volunteers in an alternative way to help them in the great task they have to perform. How are they going to motivate or encourage these workers, however, to render their services on a voluntary basis? I believe that informal training courses which encourage people to render voluntary service are of cardinal importance, but no voluntary welfare organization can do this alone. Once again stress must be laid on the partnership between the State and the voluntary welfare organizations. I am asking today for this bond of partnership to be forged even more strongly than in the past.

Grant me the opportunity merely to refer in passing to a local affair in the Vaal Triangle. I should like to refer to the brochure published by the department. I want to thank the officialdom and the Minister for this illuminating brochure. I am referring specifically to two projects, viz KORIS and VIGHOR. I want to refer more specifically to the VIGHOR project, that is the Van der Bijl Park Information project in connection with Health, Overweight and other Risk Factors. The purpose of this project, which is being carried out in co-operation with the Van der Bijl Park Medical Assistance Fund and the health section of the local municipality, is in substance the same as that of KORIS, except that in this case the community is an industrial one. I can give hon members the assurance that the people of Van der Bijl Park and the people of the Vaal Triangle are grateful for the initiative taken in getting the VIGHOR project under way here. This VIGHOR project receives all our support and we are doing our best to develop it to even greater heights. We can merely convey our sincere thanks for what the hon the Minister does in his department. I want to give them the assurance that the community, the city council, Iscor and all interested parties appreciate the trouble they go to.

We have referred to the welfare organizations and many projects which have to be launched, but what is the purpose of this? The general health condition of the White population group is promoted by the implementation of the National Health Facility Plan. This plan was approved by the Cabinet and announced in 1980 by the Minister of Health Affairs and Welfare. I think it is important to outline the purpose of this plan once again. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at this late stage I just want to make one remark to the hon member for Langlaagte. I should like to ask him at what stage of one’s life and at what stage in one’s education and training one becomes a well-known sociologist. I should like to know that.

You will never become one! [Interjections.]

No, I shall never become one, that I accept. However I have a little more sociological training than the hon member for Langlaagte. That, in fact, is why I put the question to him. [Interjections.]

I have a few remarks to make about pensions. I recognize that in discussing this I am covering an area that lies very close to general affairs. However I think that this department and the House of Assembly are also intimately concerned with what is being done in regard to pensions in future. There is at present a select committee—I am not a member of it—which is looking at pensions. It is for that reason that I venture to make a few remarks.

In South Africa a great deal has been done by the State in regard to the provision of pensions. We need only look at the Public Servants pension fund. This was referred to earlier today. Allow me to say that the pension fund of the officials of South Africa is among the best in the world. Hon members can compare it with any other comparable pension fund and they will see what I am talking about.

The State itself undertakes further extensive social services of which I want to mention only a few: Old age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, pensions for the blind, disability pensions, maintenance allowances, foster parent allowances, family allowances and other material aid provided by the State. Therefore the State looks after the security of the individual. This care extends from before his birth until even after his death. In the past this function was performed by the churches. However it has systematically been transferred to the State—this applies to all communities, including those in South Africa.

In South Africa the first statutory commitment was undertaken by the State in 1928, when the State provided by statute that it would assume responsibility for the care of the elderly. This was done by way of Act 22 of 1928. Owing to the economic circumstances in those times the State had necessary to concern itself with the care of the underprivileged and of the aged. What has happened over the past 20 years is that all people in South Africa, over a very broad front, have begun to enjoy economic prosperity and our situation has drastically improved. This has enabled people to become self-sufficient.

There are innumerable savings possibilities today and the State provides many incentives, inter alia, by way of generous tax concessions, to any person who tries to make provision for himself by way of a pension fund. As far as the above is concerned the rate at which State aid is being provided in South Africa at present is disturbing. At the present rate the State will shortly be simply incapable of meeting the demands it has set.

In contrast, the present tendency is representative of a socialist approach, and that is something to be avoided at all costs. The ideal in any community is for no person to be in need of assistance. If people are in need of assistance, everything possible should be done to achieve the goal of care. We cannot permit a situation in which only the prosperous look after the poor. Nor is a voluntary programme always desirable. Therefore steps must be taken on a more formal basis to achieve the ideal of self-care. Various governments have given attention to this matter in the past.

The concept we hear about nowadays, that of “social security”, is almost as old as man himself. There are two schools of thought in this regard, viz provision which must take place on a voluntary basis between inter alia the employer and the employee; and secondly, that if voluntary and private efforts do not succeed, an obligation must be imposed on employers to take steps to ensure the replacement of income on retirement. This question, among other things, received the attention of Bismarck a hundred years ago. He introduced a compulsory scheme in Germany in 1880 in accordance with which various insurance institutions had to undertake the task of insuring workers against, inter alia, sickness and disability, and helping them to make provision for retirement. In order to finance this system contributions had to be made by the employers, the employees and the State. The State lay down the ground rules in terms of which it had to operate. During the same period Britain decided on a State-financed scheme whereby the taxpayer had to pay for the benefits. Doing it in this way causes certain problems to which I shall refer in a moment.

As soon as there is an increase in the wealth of the population and the net birth rate is relatively high, one can proceed with a State-subsidized scheme, but when the economy deteriorates and the population rate begins to decfine this is no longer possible. Economic conditions prevailing inter alia in the seventies showed that the pressure on the State in such circumstances was such that the State could no longer afford this. We find that efforts are being made in the USA to water down State schemes that had been introduced, because there, too, the State can no longer afford it. I am convinced that the present State-financed system of social aid must definitely not be extended. We ought rather to have less direct State involvement in the financing of old age pensions, etc. All employers must be compelled to make provision for pensions for employees in accordance with the specific minimum standards. Our insurance industry is highly sophisticated and I believe that it will be able to meet this need. Contributions in this regard would have to be made by the employers and the employees.

Thirdly, the full benefit must be preserved for an employee until he reaches pensionable age. Permit me to make one remark about the pensionable age. We have heard several times here today that the life expectancy of people is increasing, and I think the time has come for us to look at the pension age of people in South Africa. I certainly do not think it is meaningful that a person should retire on pension at age 65 if he is still strong, vigorous and clear-headed. We might well begin to consider increasing retirement ages.

We have a problem with self-employed people, but we ought to monitor this situation. I think this could be done by way of the Receiver of Revenue. A person who contributes to a pension fund could indicate that he was indeed contributing and that this was deductable from his taxable income. Therefore, if no deductions are made the Receiver of Revenue can monitor this and deduct additional taxation from such a person. That amount could then be paid into a consortium of insurance companies that could provide a pension for this person as well. This would mean that at least all the people in South Africa who were economically active could be provided with a pension on retirement. The State has responsibilities, but the responsibilities of the community ought to be emphasized. A socialist community is ideologically unacceptable to South Africa and we simply cannot afford it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.