With the leave of the House I should like briefly to refer to one aspect of the news that reached us yesterday, namely the liberation of Holland.

Hear, hear.

It is the intention of the Government on the conclusion of hostilities in Europe to present certain motions to the House which will offer an opportunity for the expression of our feelings. For that reason I shall not now refer to the general aspect of the surrender of the German forces in North-West Germany, in Denmark and in Holland. There is however one aspect of it that in view of our history has a special interest for us, namely the liberation of the Netherlands. Holland is the first mother country of the European population of South Africa. On that account there has been special significance in the heroic resistance the people of the Netherlands offered to the enemy and also in their painful suffering. Particularly in the last few tragic months have our thoughts travelled with compassion towards Holland. Today we are glad that we can rejoice with the Dutch people on the suffering of the war having passed and that Holland is again free— that that noble woman, her Majesty Queen Wilhelmina can again direct here government from the Hague. Accordingly to us also this is a day of joy, and, realising as we do that Holland is today in a large degree a land of ruins and inundations, a land of famine and disease and death, a land where the work of reconstruction will be exceedingly great, we wish today to express the hope that Holland will rise again as speedily as possible and that her people will again enjoy prosperity and progress.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule. When the Acting Prime Minister made an announcement a moment ago in connection with the war I noticed how hon. members on the opposite benches pricked up their ears and betrayed interest. We are now about to bring under discussion a vote, the Social Welfare Vote, which is also a war vote, but it is a war against poverty and disease, a war against bad housing and poor social conditions in the country, and I want to express the hope that hon. members opposite will devote their attention this morning in the same way to this important vote. It is a privilege to me to be able to make use of the half-hour rule this morning to voice a few thoughts about social welfare in general. In my opinion the vote of the Department of Social Welfare is one of the most important on the estimates. That department has from time to time issued various memoranda in connection with its activities and we form the impression that a considerable extension has occurred of the department’s activities in connection with welfare work. Moreover, when we examine the working expenditure under this vote, namely that of the first year of its existence for the financial year 1938-39, we find in that year it was £656,138 and then we see that that expenditure increased until it has reached the gigantic amount on the present estimates of £2,198,000. This increase of the department’s expenditure is in my opinion to some extent an indication of the exceptional growth and expansion of the activities of this department. We can say that there has been a rapid development. It is also interesting that when we make a study of the methods of the Department of Social Welfare we observe that actually from time to time new tendencies are indicated. Yet, Mr. Chairman, I think that I should sound a warning to the Minister that he should not imagine when there is an increase of working expenditure on this vote he should interpret this as being in itself an indication that the work of the department is being carried out in an effective manner. [Interruptions.] In England where large sums of money have been expended by the State in legislative measures for so-called welfare work ….

Why not go to Germany? There of course everything is right.

I say that we find that also in England where large sums of money …. [Interruptions.]

Order, order!

Yes, when something was said this morning in connection with the war hon. members opposite devoted their full attention to it and evinced their interest, but when we speak here about the war against poverty and misery in the country we have this callousness and lack of interest on the opposite side so that the Chairman is compelled to call the members to order. I want, however, to return to the thought that I was enlarging on, namely that in England also large sums of money have been expended on combating what was regarded as chronic poverty. But we found that the larger the amount of money applied in fighting chronic poverty the more did that poverty increase. And then the question arises with us what the reason was for it, when though they were expending larger funds the extent of the poverty became greater and greater. It was to be attributed to the fact that there was no element of personal contact, no element of personal interest between the helper and the helped. Though they expended millions of pounds— in one year £9,000,000—on combating chronic poverty pauperism actually increased and chronic poverty became a disease. Why? It was because they endeavoured to combat poverty by giving money to people, because they had not a system of organised scientific assistance which would have eventually led to the rehabilitation of the people they had under treatment. I mention these points to indicate that we should not fall under the impression that when there is an increase in the actual expenditure of the Department of Welfare this must be taken as a reflection of the efficient way in which the department is discharging its functions. This is no allegation I am making against the department today. In this I am not asserting that it is carrying on inefficiently in the expenditure of these large sums of money, but I am pointing out that we must be cautious how we assess the significance of the increase in expenditure. In this memorandum on the activities of the Department of Social Welfare for the year ended 31st December, 1943. I find that the department has itself defined its functions, or rather let me say its purposes, as follows: First maintenance, then reconstruction, prevention, co-ordination and research. These purposes are, in my opinion good. It is a very good analysis of the purposes of the Department of Social Welfare, and it complies with the requirements of a sound classification. We are in agreement with that. A Department of Social Welfare that tries to achieve those objectives and that is animated by these aims responds to a large extent to the object with which we envisage such a department. But here we have to distinguish between the theoretical speculations in the memorandum and the practical realisation of them, and the test is not whether the expressed purposes have been formulated well and correctly, but the test is in how far the activities of the Department of Social Welfare that are financed by this vote have really achieved these expressed purposes in practice namely in how far the Department is attaining those objectives it held out to us in its 1943 memorandum. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, this is the test. Let us now examine the various items to decide in how far the Department of Social Welfare has achieved its expressed purposes in its activities. When we examine the various memoranda the Department has issued to us we form the impression that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the expenditure the State undertakes from year to year through this Department is applied to the material and physical support of persons who need relief. The argument I wish to drive home in the House is that the main point of the work of the Department of Social Welfare is really the material and physical support of people. I do not resent this on the part of the Department. It is the appropriate body for that. But, Mr. Chairman, when we find what the activities of such a department cover, that the centre of gravity is relief grants, the according of material and physical assistance, the question arises with us whether the Department is really employing this physical assistance as a means of attaining its eventual goal, whether it is applying it for the real rehabilitation of those it is assisting, namely whether it is granting assistance in such a way as to lead to reconstruction and rehabilitation. That is the big issue. The question is really whether the Department of Social Welfare is, simultaneously with according material and physical assistance, directing its efforts to achieve the rehabilitation of these people. In other words rehabilitation and reconstruction must be the watchwords of a sound Department of Social Welfare, and not merely material rehabilitation but also spiritual rehabilitation. The Department of Social Welfare must, together with its physical support of people, strive to rehabilitate the people socially and spiritually ….

It is necessary for you to say what methods you are suggesting.

The hon. member should not be in too great a hurry. I shall come to the methods that I suggest. At the moment I am dwelling on the idea of rehabilitation as the aim of such a department, and let me tell the hon. member that I do not condemn relief measures, but it is one of the means the Department of Social Welfare can employ to contribute to the rehabilitation of the people receiving material support. It is however unsound to grant only material assistance unless it is accompanied by after-care and rehabilitation, and the Department of Social Welfare will then and then only be effective when that material assistance it is giving to thousands and tens of thousands leads to the rehabilitation of those people. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that. I want to ask the Minister, how many of the thousands and tens of thousands of cases assisted and dealt with by his Department have been not only helped in a material sense but also helped and treated in a way that may lead to self-help and eventually to independence. In very close conjunction with this rehabilitation, may I also put these questions to the Minister: Is his Department contributing in this respect, and what rôle is it filling in connection with after-care, to care for the spiritual restoration of those people it is helping and treating?

That is the work of the church

Do not worry about him.

Where we are, as we see here devoting millions of pounds to the relief of distress among people, is this being done so as to restore in them a perception of self-esteem? When the Department of Social Welfare is helping these people, are they being so assisted that it conveys the idea of relief with a view to conveying a realisation of their individual worth; is it being done in such a way as to enable them to appreciate that they can rely on their own powers; is care being taken that these people are being so assisted that they will have that indispensable initiative, powers of application and perseverance that are indispensable if a person really wants to be independent? Can the Minister give me the assurance that these millions of pounds that have been expended and are still being expended on material and physical assistance are contributing to the attainment of this great purpose of the Department of Social Welfare, namely, the building up of self-respecting citizens in our country who may fend for themselves. That is virtually what it amounts to. In very close relationship with this idea of rehabilitation I must also associate the thought that I mentioned on a previous occasion, namely the idea of a reciprocal effort on the part of the people who are being assisted. As rehabilitation is the purpose we should not lose sight of the idea of a reciprocal effort. I see in the memorandum in connection with the activities of the department for the year 1944 a statement of the strength of the departmental staff, and I want here to emphasise that as we have had an exposition of the objectives of the department it is necessary for us to pay attention to the strength of the staff and the growth of the departmental staff, so that it should be in a position to approach these objectives. In the first year of its existence, namely 1938-’39, the strength of the staff was 257, of which number 202 were permanent officials, and 56 temporary officials. At the end of 1944 there was even then a fairly rapid increase. The staff stood at 600 officials, of which 371 were permanent and 239 temporary. Now I want to say this to the Minister, that the increase of the staff has been inadequate. When one sees how rapid has been the expansion of the activities of the department one feels that the rate at which the staff has increased has not kept pace with the tremendous expansion of departmental activities. We see the expansion as reflected in the expenditure. Then I would also like to put this question to the Minister. There are a few hundred temporary officials. Is this in conformity with the general policy of the Government during the war, not to appoint people permanently? I would point out that these are trained persons. They are professional social workers, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he will not give the assurance that they will be given permanent posts after the war so that they can have security. I see also that during the war there have been permanent appointments. At the beginning of the war there were 202 permanent officials and now there are 371. How did these permanent appointments arise? We are glad that they have been appointed permanently in the department, because here we have to deal with a department, that requires professional and specially trained people for its activities. We should not appoint such people on a temporary basis; we should give them permanence, and by doing this we shall continue to have’ continuity of policy, to enable us to have continuity in the activities of the Department of Social Welfare as a whole. I have intentionally dealt with this question of the strength of the staff because I should like to put this direct question to the Minister. I have already given the assurance that in my view the staff is entirely inadequate for the activities of the department, especially inadequate in respect of the necessary task of following up cases. This after-care work is very important, and in my opinion the staff is entirely inadequate to carry out this essential work. I have read the memoranda through, and also in respect of the explanation regarding the various organisations I want to urge there is a great lack of thorough inspection, and there is also great lack of proper after-care just because the staff are inadequate. Whenever an inadequate staff deals with rehabilitation we find this position arise in connection with the combating of distress, that instead of bringing poverty and pauperism to an end we create pauperism. I want to say that as today we are applying thousands and tens of thousands of pounds to material and physical relief, and as the Department of Social Welfare in one of its memoranda objects to charity, to assistance that is given ex gratia, I want to agree with it that a policy of charity is an erroneous policy in connection with the grant of relief, and the grant of assistance without after-care and without the necessary staff for the after-care work is a policy of charity. In this connection I would also like to mention the consideration that these thousands and tens of thousands of pounds are being expended without there being a responsive effort on the part of those who are assisted. I do not want to repeat this argument, but I should be glad if the Minister would devote his attention to it. Notwithstanding that the memoranda expresses dissent with the policy of charity and with ex gratia relief, we find that these large sums of money are applied without any corresponding effort on the part of the people who are assisted. Social Welfare work that is done in this manner has quite obviously a demoralising effect on the people who are dealt with. I maintain that if the staff is inadequate, if there is an absence of the work of after-care, the effect on the Department of Social Welfare will be that instead of fighting chronic poverty it will, in a certain degree, be the creator of pauperism. I am not casting any reflection on the department’s methods today, and I want the Minister to accept my remarks in that spirit. One must take care that the Department of Social Welfare does not become a department of social “ill-fare”. It is not a department that should merely grant’ material assistance and support with a lavish hand and then add with a paternal voice: It is more blessed to give than to receive. That will lead to the demoralisation of the people receiving assistance and not to the rehabilitation of those assisted so that they may become citizens who will fend for themselves and have an appreciation of their own worth. Those are, in brief, the few thoughts I wish to express in connection with the inadequacy of the staff, in order to show that unless we take strong measures to supplement the staff the department cannot function effectively in achieving the purposes it has itself so well formulated. Then I want to come to this point in connection with the subsidy that is given in respect of professionally qualified officials, or social workers, who are in the service of other organisations. I have in mind in this connection the attitude of the Secretary for Social Welfare, who delivered a lecture in Stellenbosch in regard to the new development in connection with the Department of Social Welfare, when he stated that it has become the policy of the Government to pay a subsidy in respect of these social workers who have professional qualifications. He said this was a new milestone in the policy of the Department of Social Welfare. I should like to read out what he said on that occasion—

I quote that to emphasise that we need professionally qualified workers to carry out the work of this department properly. This professionalising of social welfare work is something that carries the approval of all lovers of social welfare. It is a foregone conclusion. In America too social welfare is today a profession. I really believe we must make use of trained people to a large extent, people who possess the professional technique in social welfare work. We have no objection to that. It is nice for us to talk in this way about the professionalising of social welfare, but seven years after that announcement was made we are asking what the position is today. If you make a study of the remuneration paid to these people it appears in my opinion, that the salary scales are nothing else than a brusque denial of the professional status of these people. I cannot emphasise this fact sufficiently. I notice that in the financial year 1942-’43 we spent £10,569 on salaries and allowances, and in 1943-’44 the amount was £12,405. Last year, I believe we estimated for £16,700 and this year for about £17,000 on this vote. I want to say this is just the weak point in the Department of Social Welfare, that such poor salaries are offered to these people. Accordingly you will find when you invite applications for posts in the department, when you advertise such posts in the Government Gazette you never attract sufficient applicants. Why not? On account of the miserable salary you offer to persons who have the B.A. degree in Sociology or Social Welfare. They feel that they cannot begin on the salary, especially as the policy is to employ them temporarily. If you want to accomplish professionalising you will have to institute an improved scale of salaries, you will have to make it more attractive for them. If you want to attract people who have the right motives and will throw into their work their utmost energy, as it were, and know at the same time that it is accompanied by many responsibilities, you must revise the salary scales.

They get starvation wages.

It is not a question of starvation wages, but if you want to professionalise social welfare you will have to pay salaries that take into consideration their professional status. Now I want to come to another objective. When we examine the estimates we find that little is done to realise the objective of co-ordination. As far back, however, as the report of 1939, the first memorandum by the department, the idea of co-ordination was placed in the forefront. I read from the report—

Even in the first memorandum we distinguish the threads of the objective of co-ordination. And then I find in the report for 1943 the following—

Let me tell the Minister that no one who has social welfare at heart and who is a protagonist of the professionalising of social welfare, as such, will attempt to torpedo any effort directed at sound co-ordination, because such an individual would be doing a disservice to sound social work. But what we do say is that we must work with the utmost prudence when dealing with voluntary organisations as well as with the church in that rôle. In this same departmental report for 1943 I find something that brings me to the conclusion that everything is not quite in order; it is stated—

On the successful accomplishment of this objective of co-ordination depends our attitude towards other organisations and I wish to sound a warning that it is absolutely necessary for the Department of Social Welfare to remember that social welfare not based on voluntary efforts that does not co-operate to the fullest extent with voluntary organisation, remains to a large extent in the air. We would not today have had a Department of Social Welfare, and certainly we would not have been able to announce these fine new policies in social welfare if it had not been that the church and other voluntary benevolent organisations had done the pioneering work and the task of awakening a consciousness of social welfare. If we are going to effect sound co-ordination in South Africa it is necessary for the Minister of Social Welfare to attempt to take due cognisance of the voluntary organisation. I want to tell the Minister that he should work in a spirit of mutual cordiality in connection with the organisations. The hon. Minister must regard the systematic efforts of voluntary organisations in a spirit of tolerance. He should really go out of his way to establish a sort of mutual affection between the various systems of social welfare. What is more, if the objective of co-ordination is to be attained we must take private initiative into account, and private initiative should be one of the important factors within social welfare work. Therefore, we do not wish to follow the policy of undermining or of systematic breaking down of other organisations, but the whole of social welfare work must be an admission and an extension and a promotion and a continuance of the foundation that was first laid by voluntary organisations. These are in brief the few thoughts I wish to express in connection with the idea of co-ordination. I think the hon. Minister should not effect compulsory co-ordination. I believe I cannot put it better than by quoting a few thoughts that were expressed by the late Professor Batson in a lecture which, if I remember aright, he delivered in Stellenbosch under the title, the “Co-ordination of Social Work”—

I wish specially to emphasise the fact that we must proceed with caution in connection with co-ordination so that it is not a sort of appendage from outside, but a growth from within, from the social welfare work of the voluntary organisations and also the church poor-relief in our country. The Minister will have to distinguish between the external administrative machinery as against the internal matters, the features of social welfare which I may perhaps describe as the professional technique within social welfare. When you come with co-ordination you must not meddle with the internal affairs of the various organisations and you must not interfere too much with the professional technique which the various welfare organisations in the country subscribe to. I have reason for saying this. And now I want to link up the following thought with that. The Department of Social Welfare should not be too mechanical, it must not operate too much as a machine. I do not want to cast any reproach on the head of the Department. The Department has not had adequate staff to utilise the various methods of treatment that would enable them to say that their social services are no longer mechanical, that they are no longer pieces of machinery. Our line of action is not entirely ideal. We do not want numbers of ways of treatment, but a sort of case treatment. You do not want to treat the people as a mass, but you need to treat the person as a citizen of the country, and deal with him against his religious and cultural background so that when he is assisted he will be able to assist himself later on. I think the hon. Minister will also be in agreement with this thought, because in the report of his Department this thought finds expression and I see, for example, that the present Secretary for Social Welfare formulated it in this way in his report for 1939—

I think that there the nail was hit on the head. That is precisely what we maintain. We must take account of the fact that the great majority of the thousands and tens of thousands of people who have to be assisted are just these less-privileged Afrikaners, people with a strong religious and cultural background, and only if we want to utilise that channel of assistance will these words have weight and significance; we must see clearly this fine means of assistance in connection with the thousands and tens of thousands of people and place it against their religious and cultural background. This thought has been further enlarged by the Rev. Du Toit, who also at that time said something about social work—

I do not want to read further, but what he says is tantamount to this, that the spiritual means afford the most important means of rehabilitation, and the best means to apply by social workers in our country. And if we want to achieve the desired results these people must be dealt with and regarded as if they really are members of the community and citizens of the country, so that they may be rehabilitated within the compass of the nation and so that when they are rehabilitated they will again be able to function in our national life. I think there are at least eight or nine principles that we shall have to take thoroughly into consideration if we want the Department of Social Welfare to function in an effective manner. [Time limit.]

The House will have been impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), but particularly by the emphasis he has laid on the value of personality in connection with social welfare work. My time will not allow me to dwell any further upon the very valuable suggestions he has made. I just want to say, in the limited time, at my disposal, that my experience of the Department of Social Welfare gives me this impression that the heads of the Department are a band of enthusiasts, concerned with ever widening the scope of their activities in connection with the human needs of South Africa. I wish to express my appreciation of certain features of the work of that Department. In the first place last year has been historic in that it has seen a Social Welfare conference held in Johannesburg with an attendance of 1.500 delegates from the whole of South Africa, largely representative of every interest. It was a great week in September and the eyes of all those who are interested in this valuable part of our work were focused upon Johannesburg. I wish to pay a tribute first of all to the Minister and the head of his Department because of the inspiration they had in connection with that conference, secondly to the Department itself for the excellent organisation and for the wide range of subjects brought to the notice of the enthusiastic social workers who were present, and thirdly to the City Council of Johannesburg and to the Director of the Social Welfare Department of Johannesburg, Mr. Murray, for the full co-operation and the ample facilities given in order that the conference should be made a success, and it was a great success. Now, what is to come to South Africa as the result of this national conference?. I want to ask the Minister when the findings of the conference will be printed and issued to the delegates, what action, if any, has already been taken as the result of the deliberations of the conference, and what is his policy in regard to the following up of the conference? I suggest to him that a conference should be held at least every two years and that there should be a Liaison Council appointed so as to ensure that the valuable discussions which took place lead to a consecutive and progressive policy in relation to social welfare from the national point of view. I also want to refer to the value of the voluntary agencies in South Africa. Reference has been made by the Secretary for Social Welfare to the importance of that innumerable body of men and women in South Africa whom he says in his annual report, are the Department’s best allies, and he makes this very important reference—

That is the opinion of the Department of Social Welfare in relation to the work done by the voluntary organisations in South Africa, and it is well to place it on record. Then I wish to refer—and I am very glad that the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, is present—to the school feeding services in operation. The school feeding services were inaugurated by the Department of Social Welfare and whatever the future policy may be the Department itself is entitled to a great measure of credit for the valuable work they performed in the initiation of this vital service to the school children of South Africa. It was begun by this Department during a difficult period and with a staff attenuated by the demands of war. We know now that in relation to Africans the school feeding service will be continued by the Union Department of Education and that it will be a national policy. In other ’words, what has been started by the Department of Social Welfare will be continued to the full under the Department of Education. In relation to the other children of the Union I notice that an amount has been deleted from the estimates for Social Welfare, and I understand that in consultation ’the Provincial authorities will undertake the school feeding service for them. Now, I want to ask the Minister this: Will the principle of school feeding—a full national scheme—be provided for, and, secondly, does the financial arrangement with the Central Government ensure that what was started by the Department of Social Welfare, inclusive of all school children, will be carried out by the Provincial authorities? Then, briefly I want to refer to the question of the distribution of food. We have just passed from a debate in relation to the health of the community. The Department of Social Welfare has been working along the line of the distribution of food to the lower income groups, particularly in the large urban centres of the Union, and I see that there is an amount of £50,000 on the estimates, an increase of £20,000 as compared with that provided for last year. I want to know from the Minister whether the scheme is receiving full support from the major municipalities of the Union. Its extension is eminently desirable in view of the effect of the feeding of school-children upon their general health. I think the importance of this question will be evident to the Minister without my elaborating upon it. Finally, in the short time at my disposal I want briefly to refer to the question of child welfare. It is significant that during the period of war the amount expended in relation to child welfare by the Social Welfare Department has increased from £383,000 to £751,000, and even if we allow that that amount includes something like 15 per cent. for cost of living allowance to the children, it is nevertheless a striking increase and a striking indication of the value placed by the Government on the importance of child welfare. Any Government which fails to place child welfare at the head of its social welfare programme would fail in its primary duty. I have received a few figures which I will give to the House. They are a comparison between the years 1941 and 1944. The total number of children provided for in 1941 was 20,849. The number in 1944 was 28,490 an increase of 7,641 children. One does not take into account here the number of parents and guardians who are assisted in their work of providing for the children committed to them. Now, I think that with these four subjects I have given the Minister some points and I would like him to reply to them as fully as possible.

He will write to you.

I think the answer to this question should not be given in a letter but should be stated for the information of the public, particularly in relation to the school feeding service. I know that in this year we will spend over one million pounds, but when we come to the implementation of the full scheme in South Africa it may amount to as much as £5,000,000 and we do want to know whether this principle will be carried out to the full.

I know the House is in a mood to finish this vote and I shall be as brief as possible, but there is something which compels me to rise to draw the Minister’s attention to it, and that is the condition ons finds at what is evidently the stepchild of the Department, namely, Ganspan. If I do not speak about Ganspan I will be neglecting my duty. I however wish to add that since the report was submitted by the Commission which investigated matters there under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) there has been fairly extensive improvement at Ganspan. However, the conditions we found when we visited the place amounted to the greatest dishonour which the Department has to its discredit. I want to tell the Minister that his social welfare scheme and the activities indulged in generally amongst the public in sight of members of Parliament and the public outside as a whole function fairly effectively and smoothly and are very praiseworthy. But I shall never forgive the Department for Ganspan because circumstances there were such that it seemed as if we had condemned the people there to a condition equal to that in which a man finds himself when he has deserved the death sentence. I wish to add that there has been improvement in those conditions, but it just shows that where the Department’s activities are exposed to the public eye and especially the eyes of members of Parliament are continually directed to them, things go well, but at Ganspan where members of Parliament or church bodies never had direct supervision over matters, the people were treated in such a way that it is really a scandal. Well, I hope that the official, or officials, who were responsible for that state of affairs will receive the sentence they deserve from the Great Judge of the Universe, because conditions there are simply indescribable. One found there returned and mutilated soldiers, people who can no longer work, but are physically defective, under conditions which are a dishonour to us. I understand that since the emergency report was submitted improvements were made, but I am going to see for myself whether conditions have really improved. But the main reason why I rose is to deal with another matter, and I should like the Minister to listfen carefully. I wish to give a serious hint to the Minister and tell him that he must make friends with the Department of Lands, and I want the Minister of Lands to inaugurate a system at each State settlement according to the example of what is done at places like Ganspan and Sonop and Rhenosterkop where rehabilitation will be achieved, where the aged and maimed can be put, so that they do not feel that they are completely isolated from the rest of the world as they are now at places like Ganspan and Sonop. The main reason why I press for that is that the children of these unfortunate people grow up in that isolated place and they feel that they are growing up in an isolated atmosphere, which develops an inferiority complex. I therefore feel that it will be good to set aside a pro rata portion of the ground at each settlement for the aged and the incapable, so that the children of these poor and unfortunate people can mix with those of the more well-to-do at school daily and do not develop such an inferiority complex, and in order that one day when they are grown up they will have the same social point of view and feelings as all the other children. They will not develop an inferiority complex there. They will grow up in that atmosphere and one day when they are older they will have the knowledge and the social feelings which all other children have. But if we are going to continue to isolate the people in those places, the position is that we may be giving temporary assistance to the parents of those children, but I am afraid that the children will grow up in an atmosphere which is such as to make them become strangers amongst their own people in their own country. They will then have an inferiority complex and will not be able to fit in with the rest of the community. I think it is possible for that to be done at every settlement. It was done at Kakamas, at Rhenosterkop. There they have an extensive settlement scheme, but they also added a pro rata portion for those people, and it worked so well that those children will now have a better chance in life. They are now in the same school as the other children in the vicinity and develop on the same lines. I am just asking the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation to ask the Minister of Lands to see to it that each settlement will play the same rôle, so that provision can be made for those children to have an opportunity to grow up under such circumstances that they will not one day have to be strangers in their own country.

In the past there appeared under this vote, under sub-head 11, “National Feeding Scheme”, an amount of £620,000 to make funds available for the school feeding scheme. In future that amount will no longer appear under this vote, and the amount of £620,000 which Parliament in the past voted for school feeding will no longer appear on our estimates. In future it will appear under the lump sum voted as a subsidy for each of the provinces. That means that in future we will vote an even larger amount for school feeding, but Parliament will not know what it is voting. There will be nobody who can be held responsible by Parliament or by a Select Committee of Parliament, and there will be a divided control in connection with this matter which can create chaos in future. I think the best time for raising this matter is when the Minister introduces his legislation regulating the new financial relationship between the Union Government and the provinces, but I just wish to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether I shall then be permitted to discuss that matter in detail.

Yes, I think so.

Then I will not deal with the matter further now.

There is only one request I have to make to the Minister. Under Section E, there is an item of £200 for libraries for the blind. I should like to suggest to the Minister when times are normal we should place on the estimates another small grant for a purpose which I think is of considerable importance to the blind. Some of our blind are old and have practically no enjoyment in life, and they are also unable to read. During a visit I paid to England many years ago I discovered how well the British Government were treating their blind. According to statistics we have 2,000 European blind in the country and to give these people some enjoyment in their old age I suggest the Minister should consider the question of supplying small radio sets. This is done by the British Government, and these radio sets are the property of the Government; and if something similar could be done here it would relieve much of the monotony of the unfortunate blind people of the country.

I shall not detain the House long. I regret that I have to speak but there is a matter which I must bring to the Minister’s notice. Hon. members will know that the Government spends a certain amount on the feeding of children; I think it is 2d. per meal. Now the Government tries not to make the feeding of school children monotonous; they do not now give only cheese to the children, but also raisins. I saw the Minister about this matter privately, and he told me that he does not see why the Government cannot pay a subsidy. It is not reasonable to expect that the wine farmers should subsidise the raisins which must be given to the school children. They are the only body in the country from whom it is expected that they should pay between £8,000 and £9,000 per annum in order to give the school children raisins. In my opinion it is not only a scandal but an insult to the wine farmers. The Government grants a subsidy of approximately £4,000, but the wine farmers must give between £8,000 and £9,000, and then the merchant still gets his full commission for the sale of the raisins. I therefore wish to direct an appeal to the Minister to investigate the matter and to rectify it, because it does not seem reasonable to me that the wine farmers should be expected to give cheap raisins to the school children, while there is no other body which has to subsidise the feeding of school children. It seems absolutely unjust to me. The Government ought to pay that amount of £8,000 or £9,000 itself, and they cannot expect that that portion of the community, namely the wine farmers, whom the Government is already mulcting in heavy taxes, should pay that subsidy.

I want to refer to one of the important recommendations of the excellent report of the Sonnenberg Food Committee, that is in connection with communal canteens. In November last the public were advised that the Department of Social Welfare had in mind the establishment of communal canteens at Durban, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Salt River. The recommendations of the Sonnenberg Committee suggested two types of communal canteens—dining rooms, restaurants or whatever they may be called. One type was for industrial workers, apparently visualising an extension of the work done in this respect by some progressive industrialists in the country today. Canteens for the industrial workers were to be established on a non-profit basis. The second type was for those in the lower income groups. These were to be run, so far as I know of the recommendation, on a subsidy basis, so that they will provide food adequately for the lower income groups. It was pleasing to note in the annual report of the Secretary for Social Welfare that the Department intends to proceed with this matter. What I want to put to the Minister is this: Has he decided to adhere closely to the recommendations of the Sonnenberg Food Committee, keeping in mind the fact that the plan put forward by that committee was a long period plan on the lines of the British Restaurant system and was designed to be an important part of the system of food distribution in the country?. The Minister in February assured the House that the Government was committed to the scheme. I hope he will now speed up completing these plans and get the communal food centres established without delay. We must keep in mind that we are moving into a national food crisis in South Africa, and we shall require all our ingenuity to meet the food problems that will have to be faced. Peace has its dangers and emergencies no less than war. The country would appreciate a clear indication from the Minister as to how far he intends to go with a system of distributing food to the community (particularly to the sections of the community in greatest need) not on commercial lines but as a social service.

I am grateful to hon. members for the manner in which they have dealt with the various items affecting the Department of Social Welfare. In the very thoughtful speech made by the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), he gave an admirable exposition of the fundamental principles which should underlie the administration of the Department of Social Welfare. He expressed a certain number of fears in regard to new tendencies, and he particularly emphasised the importance of the independence of voluntary agencies and the value of the work of voluntary agencies in conjunction with any Central Government Department of Social Welfare; and at the same time he stressed the need for dealing with people not along mass lines but more on the lines of individuality and personality. I entirely agree with the hon. member; and I can assure him if he has any fears I would set them at rest at once by assuring him it is not the policy of the Department of Social Welfare to attempt to interfere with the initiative and the agencies whether they are rum under the auspices of the churches, whether they are municipal welfare agencies, whether they are organisations like the Child Life Protection Society, and many other organisations, we look upon them as partners with the Government in the work of welfare along national lines. I look upon them as indispensable, and whatever changes may be made in the future, under whatever system of social security we may find ourselves living in the next five or 10 years, whatever improvements we may make, I feel there will always be a need for these individual voluntary organisations, staffed as they are, administered as they are, by individuals whose sole purpose in participating in these activities is the welfare of their fellow citizens. You will have difficulties under the best system of social welfare; you will always have your problem cases; you will always have difficulty in dealing with the problems of adolescents, and we can never hope that the State can step in and do in the same way the work which has been done by many of these organisations. Of course there is a need for co-ordination and I agree with what the hon. member has said in regard to the manner in which this co-ordination should be approached. He has urged there should be no diminution of the work of voluntary agencies, and that in bringing about co-ordination we should not seek to usurp their functions and compel them to enter into new arrangements they may not consider suitable. There is no intention whatsoever of interfering with the autonomy of voluntary organisations. But of course in certain cases the State has to step in if it feels in any particular field of social welfare work the voluntary organisations are not going as far as they ought to. There may be gaps in the work they are doing. Take the question of places of safety for children and places of detention for children. The department subsidises a number of these places, which are run by voluntary organisations. It does, however, find from time to time that a voluntary organisation refuses to take in a child whom we would like committed to a particular place of detention. In some cases it is because of the history of the child. For instance, one of the child’s parents may have had leprosy; there is no danger whatever of that child being a menace to other children, but the committee responsible for the institution, knowing the case history, refuses to take in the child. There may be other grounds. We cannot hold this child in a place of safety for an indefinite period. The result is that that child, which is in need of care and needs to be committed to a particular institution, has to be released. We have now taken power under a Bill which was before the House allowing the Department to build these institutions of its own. It is not attempting to oust the voluntary agency. It is merely a corollary, it is merely for the purpose of stopping gaps in this work. The hon. member for Brits based a good deal of his initial comments on the assumption that poverty was increasing in this country.

No, I was referring to England in that connection,

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. member. As I understood his argument he set out that obviously the ultimate aim and objective of social welfare work is the rehabilitation of the people, building up those who need help and rehabilitation, putting them on their own feet, making them self-respecting, making them independent; I rather inferred from him these objectives were being lost sight of by the Department, which was confining itself more to providing material assistance rather than spiritual guidance. Let me remind the hon. member that the Department proceeds along the lines suggested by him. It is because of that that it works in conjunction with local bodies, with voluntary agencies who are able to maintain the personal touch. It is for that reason we are subsidising so many of these bodies at the present time. The Department of Social Welfare works in conjunction with the Kindersorg Vereniging, the S.R.P.P., the Cripples Association, the Association for the Blind, and numerous other organisations as well as municipal welfare departments and so on. All these are agencies whose objectives are along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Brits, and we supply them with part of the funds necessary to carry on their work. Apart from that the hon. member has referred to the question of staff. We have a staff of 600 and the impression should not be allowed to remain, if it is present, that the whole of this staff of 600 is merely doing routine administrative work. Some 360 of that staff are members of our field staff, and in addition to the field work this staff is doing the type of work the hon. gentleman has in view. In addition we are subsidising the field staff of private and municipal organisations to the extent of 98. So we have then roughly 458 officials, many of them highly trained, who are doing this particular rehabilitative work in various parts of the country at the present time. I do not think the hon. member need have cause for fear that the Department is going off the rails in these matters. I do appreciate, however, the thoughtful manner in which he has addressed himself to the subject. It is another instance, I think, of the fact, as I believe it, that the public conscience of South Africa has awakened to the vital necessity of bringing all our resources to bear on health and social welfare and that these matters are far above party political considerations, and the time is ripe for approaching these problems on sound national lines.

Have you any idea of the miserable pay that persons who have got their B.A. degree get for this class of work?

I appreciate there have been complaints about the salary scale laid down for professional workers. At the present time any new entrant to the public service who has taken a university degree is eligible for a special allowance, but even taking that allowance into consideration there is room for complaint, I imagine, in respect of certain salary scales. But this is just the kind of matter that is having the attention of the commission that is now sitting, the Centlivres Commission; it is one of the matters on which that commission will have to give a decision. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has raised a number of important questions. He has asked when the report and findings of the Social Welfare Conference, held in Johannesburg, will be printed. The plans in regard to that have already been completed, and the only question outstanding is the form in which the report will be printed. I hope that that matter will be cleared up in the immediate future, and the public will have the report available before very long. Various very valuable discussions took place at that conference and the points that emerged are being followed up by the Department of Social Welfare. But it would be premature for me, and indeed I am not in a position now to give the hon. member or the House details of all the steps it is proposed to take. Many of these proposals are under consideration, and when the report is published hon. members will be able to a large extent to judge for themselves what progress has been made since the last conference. The hon. member for Roodepoort and other hon. members have referred to the school feeding scheme which was inaugurated by the Department of Social Welfare last year. We had an amount of £800,000 on the estimates for the purpose of assisting the provinces to carry out the scheme. That amount now disappears from the Social Welfare Vote, but the Minister of Finance in making grants in future to the provinces will take into consideration the amount spent in school feeding and the Government will contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of such school feeding. I do not think there is any reason to doubt that the provinces will carry on the scheme along the lines laid down by the Social Welfare Department. We shall have to watch it, because though we are no longer responsible we did inaugurate the scheme, and as it is a matter affecting the children of this country we shall have to keep a fatherly eye on it, and if the Department feels things are going wrong we shall have to make representations in the usual way to the provinces concerned. Linked up with the question of school feeding is the question of communal restaurants, to which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) has referred. Several members have mentioned this matter to me and some of them have not spoken this morning—the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), and other hon. members who are interested in this particular subject. The Government is committed to a policy of providing communal restaurants in various parte of the country, or rather it is committed to the policy of making an experiment with a limited number of restaurants. For that purpose I have obtained new posts in the Department of Social Welfare and I have filled these new posts with persons whose duty it is to work out a scheme for communal restaurants. There are various schemes under consideration, and these will involve consultation with local authorities and other bodies. There is the question whether certain local authorities, such as the municipality of Cape Town, will be prepared to co-operate in such à scheme, and whether if so they would be prepared to co-operate on the financial side. My intention at the present moment is to establish as soon as possible such restaurants, one in the Cape Peninsula, one at Jeppes, one probably at Germiston, one possibly in Johannesburg. These will be on an experimental basis. We have also followed up the possibility of looking after our own Government servants in this manner. Many of the lower-paid members of the public service, I am sure, would welcome some form of communal restaurant where a good well balanced meal could be obtained at a reasonable price. I believe at the present time the South African Railways, the post office, and the Cape Provincial Administration are doing something along these lines, and the Department of Social Welfare has recently been in touch with the Public Servants’ Association, and that association has agreed to sponsor a scheme in Pretoria, and we hope to bring it into effect before very long. We hope to arrange that at the restaurant at Union Buildings provision will be made for these meals based on a properly balanced diet.

That will be very nice for the Ministers.

I am sure the hon. member would not like to see our welfare being lost sight of in these important matters.

Will the restaurants at Jeppes, Germiston and Johannesburg be for the lower income groups and will they be subsidised?

They will certainly have to be subsidised, and the intention is they should be available for the lower income groups. But as I see it at present, there will be no means test. They will be open to everyone, but they will be placed in such strategic spots as to be easily available to those whose work brings them into the congested area, or whose work brings them within the lower paid groups of the community.

Would the Minister state further whether there have been negotiations with industrialists with a view to working them, whether there is co-operation between them and the department?

A portion of the scheme which has been formulated by the department involves collaboration with industrialists, and where particular industries are prepared to provide these feeding services at cheap rates, it is part and parcel of the scheme that they will be able to have certain items of food, such as milk and butter, made available to them at low prices, which will be possible through a Government subsidy. In return for their running these services and being prepared to bear part of the cost the idea is the Government will subsidise the cost of the food itself, that it will make the food available at cheap prices. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) has gravely exaggerated the conditions which did exist at Ganspan. I agree there was a time when certain improvements were required, but as a result of an inspection that took place there things have been much improved.

They mentioned that certain of these things were involved, but it has improved now; I admit that. The day we were there it was a disgrace.

I hope my hon. friend will appreciate an improvement has taken place. Finally, let me refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) who asked that the department should subsidise wireless sets for the blind. I am informed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill), who is the treasurer of the National Council for the Blind, that for the past few years his council has had a special wireless fund for this purpose, and he has made available to me a balance sheet in which this fact is apparent; and if any individual or organisation wishes to acquire wireless sets for the use of blind persons, they only have to apply to the National Council for the Blind and the case will be dealt with on its merits. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has asked about the £8,000 subsidy on raisins. In view of the fact that the school feeding scheme now no longer falls under the Department of Social Welfare, but has been placed in the hands of the Provincial Administration, it is obvious that this department cannot bear such a subsidy. I would suggest that the hon. member direct his attentions now to the Cape Provincial Administration.

I do not wish to make a speech again but only wish to put a question to the Minister. Until just before 1943 professionally qualified officials were appointed at £250 per annum. They had the degree of B.A. in social work. After 1943 they were appointed at £200, for the posts created. Now my information is that round about 1937 two officials, one with the degree of B.A., LL.B. and the other with the degree of M.A., with sociology as the main subject, were appointed in Port Elizabeth and East London at a salary of £500. I understand that there is a feeling of dissatisfaction as a result of this. We can understand that the degrees of these persons have nothing to do with the qualifications they ought to have for social welfare work. It caused friction. I do not wish to reduce the £500. I should like to see everybody receiving that salary. But these officials are now senior to others who are professionally qualified, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he is willing to investigate this matter and to rectify the injustice.

The hon. member will understand that I have not the information available at the moment, but I will have it investigated.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Directorate of Demobilisation”, £3,532,500, put.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 7th May.