Mr. Speaker, according to the Order Paper, instead of me continuing my speech which was interrupted last night, the hon. member for Alberton should have spoken at the resumption of the debate this afternoon. He does not want to do so, however. My complaint is not that I am always being mistaken for the hon. member for Alberton and sometimes for the hon. member for Middelburg as well. I am just wondering why those two hon. members are not sometimes mistaken for me. [Interjections.]

Yesterday I referred to the share the private sector would have in respect of levies for the estimated costs as set out in the White Paper. Apparently, I mentioned a figure of 4%. That was incorrect, of course, and I should like to rectify it. It should be 14%.

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was referring to three prerequisites, for an effective system of bus transport. I shall just go through them again briefly. The first is adequate parking for the so-called park-and-ride system that is to be introduced. The second is that there must be enough separate lanes for buses. The third is sufficient buses and a regular bus service. Adequate attention must first be devoted to these three important prerequisites before the legislation under discussion is implemented. I want to refer once again to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. It is an amendment I do not like one bit.

After a proper transport plan has been drawn up and approved, certain facilities will definitely first have to be created, facilities of the nature I have just referred to. Only then can we proceed to a full implementation of this legislation.

Where is that stated in the Bill?

It will probably take a long time yet, and if the hon. member for Durban Point reads the Bill, he will note that clause 21 provides specifically that the toll levy may be introduced only after reasonable alternatives have been found for substituting public or other transport for the ordinary motor-car. That is why it is vital that the legislation be applied in a co-ordinated manner. That is why, apart from the National Transport Commission, all the functions and powers of which are clearly set out in this Bill, provision is also being made for the establishment of Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards, as well as for the creation of a core city in each of these metropolitan areas in order to find a better method of coordination.

Apart from that, provision must also be made for the establishment of separate funds. In the first place, there is the Urban Transport Fund. Then there is the Consolidated Metropolitan Transport Fund. All these things are aimed at making urban transport as efficient as possible. Metropolitan transport cannot be regarded as being divorced from the comprehensive planning and development. Such a view could lead to an imbalance. It could also result in the decision-maker being unable, in practice, to form a proper concept of developments that are not directly related to transport. Therefore, co-ordination is very important. That is why I am also grateful for the broad basis and the manner in which the Metropolitan Advisory Boards will be constituted. I just want to refer to two representatives on those particular boards. The first is the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The fact that this department will also have a say in the advisory boards concerned, emphasizes anew the necessity for the transportation of Blacks in White urban areas.

The transportation of Blacks in White urban areas has become an extremely important factor, and a say in the aforementioned advisory boards by the department concerned is vital, because the overall planning must take account of the orderly regulation of the transportation of Blacks.

Secondly, I want to refer to the representation of local authorities on the Metropolitan Advisory Boards. In terms of the Bill, every local authority has the right to appoint a representative. I want to appeal to local authorities to give some thought to appointing councillors, and not just another official, to these boards, wherever it is at all possible to do so. In this way, the general public will have a say in the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Boards. I am very pleased to support this extremely important Bill and I hope and trust that active steps will be taken to implement this Bill expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina made one important point which I would like to support, and that is the importance that he attaches to public transport. However, in the same breath the hon. member indicated that the Bill that is before us, in particular clause 21(1)(a), provided that levies would not be imposed until such time as alternative transport had been provided. If the member did read that in his Bill, then he must have a different copy to that which the rest of the hon. members in the House have. In fact, it is not in the Bill at all.

What I think is important is that this piece of legislation is perhaps one which has received more attention and has been more discussed than most pieces of legislation that come before the House. In the first place we had a commission of inquiry. Then we had a White Paper, and we have also had seminars and public debates on the issue. What is remarkable is that, coming out of all of this, there is agreement on the fact that there is a problem, but there is certainly not agreement on what is the solution. A variety of solutions have been put forward, but there is very little agreement on what should actually be done.

I would like to start by immediately drawing attention to the fact that there are many ideas which are put forward, some of which have been voiced in the House, ideas which, I believe, are quite out of keeping with the reality of the existing economic situation in South Africa and quite out of reality with what the economic situation will be in South Africa for many years to come. Those people who have the idea that there can be grandiose road schemes in the years that lie ahead—that grandiose freeways can be built and that underground railways can be built which are going to cost hundreds of millions of rand—had better give some more thought to the matter. The truth is that the present economic situation in South Africa and the economic situation as it is going to be in South Africa for quite a while to come, does not allow this country to embark on more grandiose schemes in the future. On the contrary, I believe we have got to take a very hard look at what the situation is in South Africa to see with which schemes we can afford even to go on. We ought to do that rather than get involved in more grandiose schemes which may lead to more economic trouble for South Africa. I believe that attention needs to be given to those schemes in respect of traffic which can be implemented with the least degree of expenditure, rather than to those which are going to result in more and more capital being required.

There is one other matter which I believe the economic situation requires of us to give attention to. That is that I do not believe that we are entitled to impose levies, impose extra charges and indulge in an activity which will be of an inflationary nature. If we look at some of the things which are being suggested here, e.g. the imposition of more burdens like levies on the motorist, which are all going to be passed on to the consumer in the long run, and if we look at some of the things that we intend to do in the heart of our urban areas, things which are going to increase costs and rentals, then, in fact, one has to say to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to cause more and more inflation in South Africa, he should go on with some of these ideas, the spirit of which is contained in this legislation.

We have a number of differences with the hon. the Minister in respect of this piece of legislation. The first of these relates to the machinery which is being created by the Bill. We on these benches believe in the devolution of power, not in the centralization of power, and this piece of legislation is, again, legislation which is designed to centralize power, to put the power in South Africa into the hands of the top bureaucracy. That is what this piece of legislation is designed to do. It creates, in fact, the machinery for this powerful central bureaucracy, as opposed to the concept of the devolution of power. In regard to this type of problem which exists here, viz. the question of urban congestion and the need to do something about it, we believe that the people who are best able to deal with it are the local authorities on a basis of regional co-operation and not a central authority. The central authority’s function is to provide the money for it. However, the actual conception and implementation of the scheme should be left on a local basis in accordance with the concept of the devolution of power.

One of the hon. members in the Government benches, who was tackled on this before, indicated that the function of the National Transport Commission is really only a question of consultation and co-ordination. That is, of course, not true, because if one looks at clause 5 of the Bill, one will see that the power they have is to regulate and control, to determine the functions and to ensure implementation of the policy. Paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of clause 5 gives the commission the power to perform such other tasks, falling within the objects of the Act, as the Minister may impose upon the commission. Once again a blank cheque is being given in a piece of legislation. In paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of clause 5 we find the suggestion that the function is to co-ordinate and supervise. With that we have no quarrel. However, the truth is that here one is again centralizing power instead of devolving it. With great respect I want to say that that has been shown not to be the most efficient and effective way of doing it. If we want just two examples of what happens in this kind of activity, we need only look at the northern entry and the eastern entry into Johannesburg.

In both cases the local authority did not want business development at those particular points, in order to allow a reasonable flow of traffic into and out of the town. What happened? A bureaucracy imposed its will upon the local authority, changed the recommendations of that authority and authorized, against their wishes and their direction, the establishment of businesses which hampered the flow in and out of Johannesburg from two major directions. That is the sort of thing that happens when one allows the will of a central bureaucracy to be imposed upon a local authority, which, in the circumstances, knows better what the planning problems are.

The second matter over which we differ with the Government is in the whole approach to the role of transport. We in these benches take the view that living is not for transport, but that transport is for living. What one must do, is to make transport available to improve the quality of life. One must not design the way in which one lives around the transport requirements. That is an essential difference of approach between us and the Government.

I want to refer to the White Paper on another issue. I quote from page 6, paragraph 8—

This follows on the recommendations contained in the Driessen Commission’s report.

I represent an area which is a high density residential area. Anybody who is conscious of the problems of high density residential development, would not make such a recommendation. I am quite happy to agree that one must have smaller stands, but to encourage a greater degree of high density living with all the problems that go with it in order to merely make transport easier, is in fact demonstrative of a complete difference of approach.

We believe that it is our function to make sure that there is a reasonable quality of life for all citizens in South Africa and that transport is designed in order to make that quality of life more readily exercisable. If we all have to go and live in little boxes on top of one another merely to assist in advising a transport problem, the whole function of society will have taken a turn in the wrong direction. Our function is to provide a high quality of life and a transport system which helps to implement that quality of life. With great respect, Sir, one is tired of hearing from Government benches the new cry that our standards of living are too high, that they all have to be reduced and that the quality of life is too high and that it also has to be reduced. The function of government and the function of politicians is to increase the quality of life and not to decrease it and thus create more problems. That is part of the difficulty which the hon. the Minister has in his approach. He is now telling us that we have to adjust our living in order to fit in with transport requirements, while we on the contrary take the view that transport has to be provided in order to increase the quality of life of all our citizens.

The third issue I should like to discuss is the question in regard to the hearts of the cities of our land. If we look at the world we see what has happened to the hearts of other cities. The centres of these cities have been blighted. We now find that in the particular economic position in which we find ourselves, property development and redevelopment in the central city areas is extremely difficult It is now being made even more difficult. The result is not going to be that we are going to find attractive central areas which are the true hearts of the cities, but that we are going to find a deterioration in buildings, a non-replacement of buildings and not a redevelopment of buildings, because what is taking place is that the cost of such redevelopment is being increased, and business is being driven away from the centre of the cities.

I want to suggest that property development in South Africa is difficult enough as it is at the moment without us creating more problems for property development, and a situation where the hearts of our cities will become blighted. If the hearts of the cities are blighted, we in South Africa will reap some of the problems which we have seen in other parts of the world. I want to appeal that the hearts of the major cities in South Africa should be encouraged to be developed. There should not be a situation where such hearts can be blighted.

The fourth matter I want to mention is in regard to the funding of the various requirements. On page 17 of the White Paper we find the following policy statement—

This is of course a non sequitur because the mere fact that one has a user charging does not mean that capital is used effectively. It does not follow at all and it is therefore an illogical statement to start off with. Another point I want to make is that if the Government is going to continue to impose increased burdens on the people who use the roads and motor-cars as such, the Government will be double taxing in the circumstances. The truth of the matter is that at the moment in the seven major urban areas of South Africa we find 60% of all passenger cars, 40% of all goods vehicles, while only 25% of the total expenditure of all arms of government in respect of this type of development in fact takes place in those areas.

The majority of the South African taxpayers live in urban areas as well. Ninety percent of the Whites in South Africa live in the urban areas of South Africa and the funds for all this development come from the urban dweller. The money is taken from him in general taxation and then the Government still wants to tax him on a user basis as well. It is utterly illogical in the circumstances, and this type of activity is discriminating against the urban dweller, it is discriminating against the motorist. The motorist is regarded as the cow to be indefinitely milked for every conceivable purpose. We cannot support that principle in these particular circumstances. It is a measure which I believe does not create an equity situation and one which is not fair to the motorists. Furthermore, it is an incorrect principle to follow in funding this type of activity. The argument is that what we really have to do is to reduce the use of motor-cars and to reduce the number of motor-cars. It seems to overlook some fundamentals in our economy. The fact is that we have a motor industry and that this Government has encouraged it in South Africa. It is an industry which employs thousands upon thousands of people. The statistics show that while as recently as 1940 South Africa only had 399 140 licenced motor-cars, in 1976 we had 3 417 435. When we look at the situation from the viewpoint of the aspirations of the people, it appears that 80% of the Whites use motor-cars as a means of transportation while only 13% of the non-Whites do so. There is an obvious demand and an aspiration on the part of the non-White people that they too should progress to this level. The answer therefore is not to kill the motor industry, or to say that one must have less motor-cars in South Africa and that one must destroy the aspirations of people who have not yet reached the stage where they can use motor vehicles to that extent. What one has to do in South Africa is to provide the public transport so that people can use their motor-cars without congesting the places where they should not congest. That is the real crux of the matter. One must also provide the parking facilities so that they can park-and-ride into the central areas. However, it is in the circumstances utterly illogical to suggest that one must now start tackling the whole of the motor industry, to destroy that industry, to destroy that source of employment only because one is unable to deal with the traffic problem. That is an utterly incorrect approach to the problem. While we recognize the problems and while we see the solutions that have to be implemented, we regret that we cannot support legislation which centralizes power, which is selective in its taxation and which is illogical in its endeavours to deal with an acute problem.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville started by talking about “grandiose schemes” which people were supposed to be considering, but in effect the Bill provides for study, for research and for assistance with regard to the establishment of a professorship. Indeed, the last word has not been spoken on this subject. The Bill does not draw a line underneath it, as if everything were now said and done. The hon. member also said: “The job should be done on a more local basis. Control must be more local.”

†Last night the hon. member for Bryanston said: “This is a plan in isolation.” He wanted it on a much broader basis. I do not think those two members agree on this point.

*The hon. member proceeded to say that we could not live in little houses crowded together. But not all the people in South Africa can buy 1½ acres of land in Houghton. Nor can they afford a car with a chauffeur so that the chauffeur can go and park the car while he sits in his rich bank. Indeed, that is not possible for the masses of South Africa, unlike the members of that rich man’s party over there.

Today is 4 May 1977. We are living in modern times, in times with their own, modern problems. But not only do we live in this period in time; we also live in South Africa. In other words, we have problems peculiar to our time and we have problems peculiar to our country. [Interjections.]

Order!

We cannot transplant to our country the solutions to problems experienced by other countries, which are similar, but not identical. If one takes a critical and a positive—I said “a positive”—look at a Bill such as this one, one should ask oneself certain questions. The only question we have to answer is whether the objective of this Bill, the machinery which it puts into motion, will succeed in solving this problem which we have. It is the task of the Government to see from time to time which new problems have arisen and then to find solutions to those problems and to prevent those which may arise in future. Now the question is whether we have thoroughly identified the problem of urban transport, whether we have studied it thoroughly enough and whether the mechanism which we are putting into motion is the right one to solve the problem. When I look at the Bill, the answer, in my opinion, is “yes”. Right at the outset, therefore, we state that we are dealing here with a problem which is a relatively new problem, a new and modern challenge which requires a new and modern solution. The old solutions which we had to this problem, if we can call them solutions, are not effective. That is why the solution found in this Bill is not only urgently necessary, but should be welcomed by all of us. I do not want to repeat the whole debate conducted yesterday, but shall refer to only a few points and point out a few matters.

The Republic of South Africa comprises an area of 1 221 042 km². This area has 24 033 000 inhabitants. Of these 4 310 000 are Whites, 2 426 000 are Coloureds, 746 000 are Indians and the rest, the various Black peoples. These figures are derived from the core statistics for December 1976. The heart of the problem is that in 1970, 59% of the White population and 37% of the Black population outside the homelands were living in the seven big urban areas indicated here, viz. Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein and East London. The important point is that these seven big metropolitan areas comprise only 1,55% of the area of our country. It has been indicated that 80% and more of the Whites live on this 1,55% and, if one includes all the urban areas, barely 3% of the area of the country, and that at the end of this century more than 50% of the total population will be living there. And it is not only the population which is concentrated there, but also the concomitant activities, as pointed out by other members.

One of the major problems arising from this concentration of people is, as has already been said, that the city centre is being choked to death. Among the serious side-effects, caused by motor traffic and other traffic, inter alia, are health aspects and environmental factors. I am in possession of interesting, but damning proof of how this congestion affects and breaks a person bodily and spiritually. He is greatly harmed by this. The gases and the noise from the motor vehicles have a very damaging effect on a person’s health. I am not even referring to the 8 000 or more people who are killed in motor accidents every year. The vast majority of these occur in urban areas. It is interesting that researchers have diagnosed asbestosis, a disease of the lungs which people contract in asbestos mines, in people who had never been to an asbestos mine and who had never worked with asbestos. It has been found that people can contract this disease merely by living in the centre of a city. It is caused by the asbestos which is released from the brake-shoes of cars and which then pollutes the air.

†Prof. Buckley of the University of Pittsburgh conducted certain experiments in which he simulated the noise, tension, etc., of central city life. He described his experiments in a lecture under the title “Cardiovascular and biochemical effects of chronic intermittent neurogenic stimulation.” I quote from a report on that lecture—

*In other words, these are conditions which prevail in the central city, conditions of noise and stress as a result of heavy traffic. What follows now is important—

Another researcher, Dr. Lester Sontag of the Yellow Springs University, Ohio, pointed out the following—

It means that such conditions which affect the health of adults also has an effect on children even before birth. Dr. Sontag said the following—

According to page 10 of the Driessen Report, Pretoria was divided into certain districts of which the population density was determined. I now read from paragraph 3.7.3., as follows—

Experiments were conducted in Chicago which also involved dividing the city into circles. It was found that the incidence of psychological deviations and illness was much higher in the more densely populated parts. One of the important contributory factors is the tension, stress and noise caused by traffic congestion. We used to build beautiful roads to get people into the city, but now it seems that the process should be reversed and that one should rather try not to have people inside the city during peak hours, but outside.

The next point I should like to make refers to what hon. members on the other side have said with regard to co-ordination and cooperation. From the discussions thus far, and also from the Driessen report and so on, it has been quite clear that our problem is a major one; in fact, it is a national problem. It is not only a local affair, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to make out. It means that the problem has far-reaching indications. Therefore it is necessary to tackle the problem on a broad, national basis. It is absolutely essential that there should be the fullest co-operation and co-ordination between all concerned in the country.

If one asks oneself if this is really the position with regard to the principles contained in the Bill, one finds in the first place that there was a commission of inquiry which afforded the opportunity to all interested parties to give evidence and to state their case. That was where the co-operation and co-ordination started. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in the House, however, and one finds that since it was introduced approximately 30 changes have been made, which are contained in the present Bill. One may ask why 30 changes have been made. Then one finds that they have been made at the request of the Administrators, of local authorities, of the Planning Adviser of the Prime Minister, of the private sector, and of the Handelsinstituut and Assocom; in other words, the co-operation and co-ordination do indeed exist. If one examines the Bill, one finds that the question of co-operation and co-ordination is accentuated virtually page by page. For instance, clause 3(1) reads as follows—

In clause 4 we also find co-ordination between Administrators, local authorities and the metropolitan areas. Clause 5(1) provides that in order to achieve the objects of the legislation, the commission shall do certain things subject to the provisions of sub-section (2). The fourth of these reads as follows—

In subsection (f) we find that the commission shall—

Furthermore we find in subsection (2)—

It is self-evident that the Administrator will consult the local authorities concerned. In this way, the need for co-operation and coordination is emphasized throughout The composition of the board itself bears this out. We find that a transport advisory board is being appointed, on which the Railways, the Departments of Transport, Community Development, Bantu Administration and Development, and Planning, and the core city itself, the local authorities and the private sector will all be represented. Throughout the Bill emphasis is laid on the necessity for and the obligation to create co-ordination and co-operation.

I shall mention one final example of co-operation, where it is actually compulsory. I refer to clause 16(1), which reads as follows—

Here we find compulsory co-operation. Clause 17 reads—

This Bill is quite explicit on the subject of co-operation.

†Mr. Speaker, the writer Gordon Rattray Taylor wrote The Doomsday Book after an in-depth study of the problem of population explosion, the problem of pollution and also the problem of cities with their transport problems, etc. He concludes his book as follows—

Politically we have the good sense and the knowledge he refers to. I must admit that I believe that the hon. member for Durban Point has proved that he also has the knowledge. Unfortunately, politically he does not have the good sense. That is why he and his party do not support this Bill. Admittedly, with this Bill we are fallowing new soil. It may well become necessary for us to come back to the House with certain amendments concerning the finer details of this legislation. However, as far as the basic principles are concerned, I believe that we are on the right road. For that reason the Second Reading of this Bill deserves our full support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to rats, amongst other things. I had thought that he would tell us a little more about the moles of Krugersdorp which have been so active lately. [Interjections.] It seems to me that Krugersdorp is gaining a place in the annals of history, in spite of the MP it has. It also seems that the people of Krugersdorp are so far advanced that they have even made a start on an underground transport system. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to two matters raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. The first one is in regard to co-operation. We do not deny that the possibilities for co-operation are being created in the legislation. However, there are certain vital cases in which the necessary provision with regard to cooperation is lacking. That is the reason why this party has moved an amendment to the Bill.

In the second place, the hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to modern solutions. He tried to give out that the UP was completely opposed to this legislation. But this is not the case. If he reads our amendment, he will see that the UP accepts the positive aspects of the legislation, but that this party finds certain defects and certain negative aspects in the legislation, and that these are the things we are opposed to. If those aspects of the legislation are not amended, they could, I believe, frustrate the whole purpose of this legislation.

But you can try to rectify those things in the Committee Stage!

No, I do not believe that would be quite possible. We can in fact give the hon. the Minister an indication of our major objections to this Bill, objections which make it impossible for us to support the legislation. However, the hon. the Minister can help us by accepting some of our proposals in the Committee Stage.

As several other hon. members have done, I too should like to refer to certain aspects of the Driessen Report. An important aspect I want to refer to is the finding of the Driessen Committee that in 1911, 53% of the total White population of South Africa lived in urban areas. By 1970, that figure had risen to 87%, and according to all expectations it will continue to rise, to 93% in the year 2000. This aspect is an important reality we have to face, the tremendous increase in the number of Whites in the cities. If, furthermore, we take into consideration that no matter what policy the Government pursues, the number of non-Whites in the urban areas is also constantly increasing, we realize that the same tendency is found among the non-Whites as well. In our modern society—we had better accept this once and for all—we are doomed to urbanization. In its capacity as a legislative body, this House has one duty and one obligation towards the people in this country. This is to ensure that life is made as bearable as possible for them. Of course, this applies in particular to those who find themselves in the central business areas of our cities all the time. It is a fact that there is nothing which can have such a disruptive effect on one’s personal life and peace of mind as the problems caused by motor traffic. I am thinking of concomitant factors such as noise and congestion, to which so many references have been made in this debate. Seen against this background, we accept that a Bill such as this one is absolutely essential and that it is absolutely essential that we should have co-ordination and planning. It is absolutely essential that planning and research should be undertaken in good time and that action should be taken while there is still time. Aspects such as planning, research and early action cannot be over-emphasized. We on this side of the House believe that an efficient transport policy with the necessary long and short-term measures will only be feasible if there is proper co-ordination, especially in respect of the large metropolitan areas. I believe that these are objectives which one can in fact achieve by means of legislation such as this.

I am mentioning all these points specifically in order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding. Generally speaking, we accept not only the recommendations of the Driessen Report, but also the contents of the Bill. However, the principle we are not prepared to accept is the introduction of selective punitive measures. The hon. the Minister must realize that we are opposed to this in principle, especially in the case where selective measures are going to be applied before alternative opportunities have been created for the possible victims. As I see it, it would be completely unfair if we were to apply the provisions in clause 21, for example, before adequate public transport is available.

In this connection I must disagree with the hon. member for Maitland. He argued that the motor-car was the most convenient form of transport and that there was little one could do about this, except for applying punitive measures. He alleged that the public would not use public transport of its own volition. I cannot accept this argument. Some people will always prefer travelling by car, but if one examines the South African situation, one finds that in some cities there are already signs that people are beginning to prefer public transport. All we must try to do is to motivate people and to make public transport more attractive to them. I do not believe that public transport will ever replace the motorcar completely, but it can at least be made more attractive to the public. Of course, it is very easy to speak about levies on certain classes of vehicles, land, buildings and parking-places and to think only of the additional income which can be obtained in this way for the transport fund. However, one must also think of the other effects which levies of this kind can have. The financial implications for individuals and business concerns that are forced, by the nature of their work, or by a lack of adequate public transport, to make use of motor-cars, must also be taken into consideration. In our opinion, the over-hasty application of this levy system will also have an inflationary effect. Another aspect which worries me is that all these levies that are being planned are bound to lead to a situation where one will have to establish an additional bureaucracy, purely in order to see that the provisions of the Act are being complied with. One will collect money, but in actual fact it will only have to be spent again to defray the additional administrative costs of that bureaucracy. I must say that I have yet to see how a toll system such as the one referred to in clause 21 can be applied without creating the need for a large additional bureaucracy and without giving rise to future inconvenience as well, inconvenience which will be caused by the control points. The whole idea of a toll system is one that we are most reluctant to accept.

Other important aspects, of course, are those relating to the levies on land and buildings in the urban areas. I think that anyone who has examined the problems that are being experienced in the big cities today, such as the financial problems experienced by the municipalities, is quite allergic to any talk of new additional levies. As it is, the rates of all the local authorities run into vast amounts of money. I just want to refer to the findings of the Driessen Report as set on page 98.

†There is a comparison between the level of property rates and other charges for five major cities and the consumer price index for the period 1951 to 1971. When one compares the figures, one finds that the property rates, calculated on a basis of 100 in 1951, increased to 277,9 in 1971, whereas the consumer price index for the Republic only increased from 100 to 183 over the same period. This is a tremendous burden which the cities already carry.

*There is hardly a large municipality in a big city today which is not struggling with serious financial burdens and problems, and an additional levy is only going to aggravate the position, although this may not seem to be the case at first sight. It is said that land and buildings intended for private residential use will not be affected. However, they will be affected indirectly. In fixing new rates of taxation, the local authorities will take account of the fact that the industrial and business enterprises are already paying higher rates in terms of the Act. This may well mean that the rates of taxation in the residential area will be higher, on a pro rata basis, than they would otherwise have been. Of course, I am not at all satisfied with the fact that State property will be exempted from levies, as indicated in this clause, although I accept that other donations are made by the State. However, this is another problem which will have to receive attention.

The hon. member for Boksburg—he was the first speaker on the other side of the House—surprised me, of course. Apart from the attempt he made at one stage to lead us astray with his newspaper cutting, he did say a few things that are quite true. Perhaps this was because he confined himself to what was said in the Driessen Report. One of the ideas he expressed is in fact worth considering. He said that the objectives of this legislation could only be achieved if the co-operation of all parties could be obtained. Since this is the hon. member’s standpoint, I believe that he should actually vote for our amendment this afternoon. Clause 6(7) provides—

I want the hon. member for Boksburg to consider the fact that he said that the co-operation of all parties must be obtained and that if we succeed in doing so, the sky is the limit and nothing will be able to stop us, because all the developments will then be possible. However, as long as this provision is retained there will be a potential point of conflict. The hon. member simply has to accept this. This provision is going to make it difficult in certain cases to obtain the desired co-operation. In order to obtain co-operation, I believe, there must be mutual confidence.

I cannot share the child-like trust shown by the hon. member for Maitland. Of all the hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. member for Maitland made the best speech. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Maitland conceded that we had a point regarding the question that only the hon. the Minister will be able to decide if a dispute should arise and that the Minister will hear only the case of the commission and not the case of the Administrator as well. However, the hon. member said that we need not be worried about this, and that is why I say that the hon. member reposes such great trust in the Government. I suppose it is a good thing to be so trustful. He alleges that even if it does not say so in the Bill, the hon. the Minister will listen to the Administrator’s whole story in any case and will postpone his decision till afterwards.

What else can he do?

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member; all I have said is that I do not share his child-like trust. We may have a great deal of confidence in the hon. the Minister, but he is only human, just as I am, and we shall not always be here. Therefore we should feel much happier if the provision could be written into the Bill in this form. For this reason I believe it to be essential, in matters regarding which the commission and the Administrator have come to an impasse, for the hon. the Minister to hear the Administrator’s standpoint as well and to take the decision in consultation with the Administrator. Such a step will make possible the co-operation of all parties, which is so essential, as pointed out by the hon. member for Boksburg.

In my opinion, there is no other group among the inhabitants of our cities who have to put up with so much inconvenience and who have so many problems with transport as the Black and Brown workers in our cities. Millions of potential work hours are lost every year because of the fact that the Black and Brown workers have to travel thousands of kilometres between their residential areas and their places of work. I believe that this is one of the first matters that should be tackled on a large scale. In this connection I should like to read the finding in the report of the Driessen Committee which we support wholeheartedly. We should also like to bring this to the attention of the co-ordinating body which is going to be established. I quote the recommendation in paragraph 1.3.3—

The hon. the Minister still has a golden opportunity to improve the legislation during the Committee State, and I believe it will be necessary to make many more such amendments in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central who has just sat down …

And a good thing too!

Somebody said it is a good thing that he sat down. I am also pleased that he sat down. However, he participated in this debate very calmly, but one thing that he proved very clearly once again by his speech today is that the UP has really become a “Yes, but” party in the true sense of the word. They tell us that they are keen to support the idea of co-ordination and planning which is emphasized in the Bill, but the next moment they object to certain provisions of the Bill. Amongst other things, the hon. member objects on behalf of his party to the alleged punitive measures which will, he says, be applied selectively, without any alternatives having been provided. I ask the hon. member where it says in the legislation that one can be punished selectively before alternative provision has been made. The administration of the legislation is in the hands of the National Transport Commission and the hon. the Minister, and it would be foolish of them to begin enforcing so-called punitive measures without providing alternatives for the public, because we are concerned here with the convenience of the general public and their use of the transport system in our cities. After all, we are not stupid. We have been governing this country for almost 30 years and this is not because we are stupid, but because we know how to do these things. This is why we are governing this country, so that argument does not hold.

The stupid ones are sitting over there!

I do not say that those who are sitting over there are all stupid. Other people say so.

They are not all stupid, but all the stupid ones are sitting there!

The hon. member for Durban Central says that it is a great pity that it is the Black and Coloured people who have to travel the longest distances in South Africa in order to reach their places of employment. We agree with him wholeheartedly and I am not arguing with him about that. However, the hon. member for Langlaagte told us yesterday who was responsible for this planning in Johannesburg. It is not the people on this side of the House, because we have not been governing Johannesburg for the past number of years. We tried to get Johannesburg right, but we were unable to do so. Now that we are trying to impose central control from above on these transport systems, hon. members are objecting once again. I really cannot understand the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban Central in advancing this type of argument in the House—I thought that he was an intelligent man.

The hon. member for Yeoville also told us a few things in the House this afternoon. He told us that the central Government had no money available and that this Bill should not make money available for ostentatious schemes. I fully agree with him that we should not make money available for ostentatious schemes. Where could one find a better example of an ostentatious road scheme than the one which is in Johannesburg? The hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Maraisburg, who worked on this intensively, told us yesterday that the road scheme cost so much money that the Johannesburg city council were unable to complete it themselves due to a lack of funds. It is precisely in order to eliminate this type of phenomenon once and for all that we have come up with measures like the ones set out in this Bill. In this way control can be exercised over these matters. This will mean that much more regard will be had to the interests of the general public, the ordinary man whose money is used by the Johannesburg city council to create this showy road scheme of theirs. This is the very thing which we want to try and prevent in future.

Since Harry left, things have been picking up in Johannesburg!

The hon. member also objected to the fact that these proposed systems could contribute towards the decay of the central city areas. I do not want to take up the time of the House with this, but evidence has been presented during various symposiums to the effect that the contrary will be proved if this system which we intend to introduce into South Africa functions properly. Evidence has been presented to the effect that central city areas once again become an active part of the city after such systems have been introduced. If we take cars away, the people come back. This enables people to walk around there as they please and then they start buying in the central sections of our cities once again.

The fact is that the number of cars on South African roads will constantly increase in the days which lie ahead. No one doubts this. They are going to increase until they will number about 9 900 000 in the year 2000. The fact is also that we cannot simply widen our roads, elevate them or build them underground as we have done in the past. We cannot do this any more. We must find a solution to this problem within our financial means. In my opinion, the cost aspect rules out any possibility of large-scale widening or elevating of roads in the future. Evidence was given before a symposium, for example, to the effect that 800 metres of road near the Cape Town harbour was costing round about R6,3 million. This is big money and I think we all agree that we cannot afford it.

What alternatives do we have now? The hon. the Minister and the commission have proposed certain alternatives. I think that they have taken a look at the road systems, bus transport and parking facilities which we have. I think that they are taking the right view of the matter when they say that we should rather make the best possible use of the road systems and the facilities which we have. They suggest better utilization of them and that is what this Bill is also designed to bring about.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that any plan which we may draw up in this regard, will not succeed if it does not have the full support of the public. We South Africans are inclined to think, when we are driving along a road, that it belongs to ourselves alone. We think we can stop wherever we please and without caring what the consequences may be. We will have to get rid of those habits in the days which lie ahead. We cannot carry on in the way we have been doing.

On that point the hon. member for Durban Point said—if I understood him correctly, because I do not want to do him an injustice—that sufficient provision has not been made in the Bill for people who are forced to use their motor transport within an area which is isolated within a central area.

You said that, did you not, Vause?

I think he put it like that, if I understood him correctly. Yes, he agrees.

The exemption from levies of motor vehicles which enter specific parts of a metropolitan transport area is a matter of policy on which the National Transport Commission has not yet taken any decision. They will still have to go into the matter. We can try and anticipate matters a little and I should like to speculate a little and say that one can suppose that, in general, when they examine this matter, the National Transport Commission will look at specific classes of vehicles in terms of clause 21 of the Act and that they may say that the motor vehicles subject to levies will be those classes of vehicles which can conveniently be outside a metropolitan transport area during peak hours, but which nevertheless enter the sections of the city which have been designated as metropolitan transport areas during peak hours and therefore cause traffic jams and increase the risk of accidents. Here we can think of goods vehicles which block the streets at loading zones during peak hours and which could have off loaded their goods just as conveniently outside peak hours. We can also say that a specific class of motor vehicle is the private motor-car carrying only one or two people which is used by commuters to enter the metropolitan transport area during peak hours, although they could conveniently have used other forms of transport in order to reach their places of employment. We can also expect that the National Transport Commission may adopt the approach that levies will not be imposed on any class of vehicle which can or must travel on the road systems of such a metropolitan transport area during peak hours in terms of the policy of the National Transport Commission and in accordance with an approved transport plan. One can imagine that levies will not be imposed on the following examples which I should like to mention. Emergency vehicles, ambulances, police vehicles, traffic regulation vehicles, even private vehicles in emergencies, buses which transport commuters and scholars according to the approved transport plan, taxi services and private vehicles which are used for lift clubs—the so-called car pools—and which carry at least four persons. I believe that an exception can be made in the case of such vehicles and the Bill does make provision for these exceptional cases in terms of clause 21. We can also say that vehicles which are used for emergency services will not be subject to the levy either. In this connection I am thinking of Government or other vehicles which have to carry out essential services within the specific area and even of other private vehicles which have to enter a specific area of a metropolitan transport area, in terms of the policy of the National Transport Commission, because there are not sufficient public transport services and the ordinary man has no choice other than to make use of his own means of transport. I believe that in the cases which I have mentioned, the National Transport Commission may indicate when it decides on these matters, that no levy will be imposed on such vehicles.

Rather than sowing suspicion in the mind of the public about this Bill—I hold this against hon. members of the Opposition—I believe that the message which should be conveyed to the general public outside is that we want to do these things not in order to punish them, for these are not punitive measures, but in the interests of the public and of South Africa. When I say the public, I mean the Whites, the Coloureds and the Blacks. We must try and sell this Bill to our people and point out to them that they must support it because it is in their own interest just as it is in the interest of the NP and of all South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, naturally I do not intend replying to every speech. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss every subject which was raised in the course of the debate. Many constructive ideas were expressed, and my side of the House revealed a positive approach to the legislation. The other side of the House also expressed many positive ideas concerning the traffic in our cities. Many of the positive ideas which came from the opposite side of this House have already been dealt with by hon. members on this side, and consequently it is not necessary for me to reply to them again. Therefore I only intend discussing a few subjects and conveying my appreciation to hon. members who participated in the discussion. I am doing so particularly in view of the fact that everyone who sketched the background to this matter indicated that something would have to be done about our urban transport.

We are working on this and there is legislation before the House at present, legislation with which we want to deal with the problem in a more revolutionary manner than ever before. It is no use our concealing the problem, for it is a fact that the Driessen Report contains ideas on the problem of urban transport that are more than radical. In fact we may consider them to be revolutionary ideas, for it became apparent that it is essential that something should be done about the congestion in our cities. At the very outset I want to predict that if we strive to implement the ideas contained in the Driessen Commission report, as they are incorporated in this legislation, we could become a model for the world as far as the handling of traffic in urban areas is concerned.

Members of the Driessen Commission learned a great deal from other cities in the world, where procedures are being followed which the Bill attempts to emulate. This is why this legislation has, as one might have expected, gripped the imagination of the people of South Africa. It heralds a completely new approach to the use of roads in our urban areas. To begin with, it envisages comprehensive planning in respect of our traffic. The Driessen Commission has gripped the imagination of the people of South Africa, and there has been tremendous interest among the general public. Firstly there was the report which was tabled here, and secondly the legislation which followed. There was so much interest that, in the first place, a symposium was convened in Johannesburg, a symposium which was initiated by the National Development and Management Foundation of South Africa, in collaboration with Unisa. That was the first symposium at which the report was discussed. This was followed by a second symposium. Symposiums are not held on a matter if there is no interest in that matter. The second symposium was held in Pretoria, at the University of South Africa. I was asked to open the symposium, and therefore had the privilege of attending part of the discussions. A third symposium was subsequently held here in Cape Town, also under the control of Unisa, a symposium which members of Parliament had an opportunity of attending. The hon. member for Orange Grove is nodding his head; he was present there. Other hon. members of the House were also present; so, too, were representatives of all the major municipalities and local authorities in South Africa, because they had such a great and material interest in the envisaged legislation. Apart from the local authorities, who were present in large numbers at these symposiums, there were also, as far as I know, representatives of Assocom, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Federated Chamber of Industries present at all these functions and, at the symposium in Cape Town, members of Parliament as well. Instructive discussions were held on the matter which is before this House today.

Prominent people participated in the discussion: Members of commerce and industry and academics; the Rand Afrikaans University played its part, Wits played its part, and so did the University of Cape Town, the University of Port Elizabeth and the University of Stellenbosch. In addition a book was published, written by Dr. Welgemoed, who made a study of bus transport. Local authorities also participated in these discussions. Mr. Oberholzer, who is chairman of the management committee of the Johannesburg city council, also participated in these discussions. Let me say without any fear of contradiction that there were no signs whatsoever of opposition to the basic principles of the Bill.

We accept all its positive aspects.

I shall come to that. Throughout there was no question of this among these outside interested parties who were involved in this matter. There was no resistance to the basic principles of the legislation. Originally 1 200 copies of the Driessen Report were printed. Within 14 days those 1 200 copies were sold out. This indicates the interest shown by the people who are likely to be affected by this legislation. At the stage when the symposium was being held here in Cape Town, it was not only the Driessen Report which was under discussion. At that stage the legislation we have before us today and which remained basically unchanged—with minor changes which have been effected since last year—had already been tabled in Parliament and the symposium was able to take thorough cognizance of the form in which the legislation would be applied. Yet there were no discordant notes. There were no discordant notes whatsoever on the basic principles of the Bill. There was considerable discussion on the financial considerations, on the financial obligations which the introduction of this measure would entail, particularly in view of the present economic conditions. All things considered, however, there were no discordant notes. I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that never before has a report been published in South Africa which was greeted with so much unanimous acclaim by newspapers in South Africa. I know of no newspaper in South Africa which expressed any material objection to this legislation.

Except for the Sunday Express!

That is correct. The Sunday Express, from which the hon. member for Boksburg quoted yesterday, is the only newspaper I am aware of that did so. But that newspaper referred more specifically to roads, and not so much to urban traffic.

See, even your own hon. Minister rejects you!

No, I do not reject the hon. member. What he quoted was written with reference to this legislation, although his reference dealt more specifically with roads. Otherwise there was no newspaper which rejected this legislation. Several newspapers, in fact, published leading articles in which the contemplated measures were accepted with acclamation and in which these measures, particularly in so far as they affect our cities, were welcomed.

Apart from the symposiums which have already been held, another symposium is being envisaged. This is a symposium which is expected to be held in September this year in Pretoria. I have again been invited to attend for the purpose of familiarizing the public with this legislation—and it is accepted that the legislation will be passed. If we take cognizance of the extent to which this legislation has been accepted both by the public and all the interested parties, it is certainly understandable that I am greatly astonished to hear that the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Orange Grove say that they will not support the Second Reading of this Bill. After everything I have said, I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he is in earnest when he says that this legislation should not be passed by this House.

Only certain specific clauses. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Durban Point wishes to object to minor factors, factors in regard to which he is now asking me for an undertaking, surely it is quite correct to maintain that he can rectify the matter during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will accept the two matters, to which I refer in my amendment, as amendments during the Committee Stage.

No, I am not prepared to accept them. However, they are not relevant here. These are minor aspects of the legislation to which the hon. member is referring now. What he is trying to do now, is to throw away the baby with the dirty bath water.

The hon. member for Durban Point initially asserted that this was a good measure, that there was a lot of good in it. But, Mr. Speaker, he immediately afterwards introduced an amendment in which he asked that the Bill be rejected. In this amendment he requested the House to decline to pass the Second Reading of the Bill unless the Government undertook that—

He wants this undertaking from me. Surely he can, as he in fact intends doing … Oh well, that is Parliament; that is politics, and we shall probably have to learn to live with it. Surely the hon. member could just as well have argued during the Committee Stage that the provision which is being made in clause 21 for levies on buildings, is an aspect to which he is opposed. Surely he could then have argued that it should not be passed. He could have raised his objections during the Committee Stage. The hon. member advanced another matter as well in his amendment, when he requested that—

†I now want to turn to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I also want to ask him if he is really serious with his amendment? His amendment goes a little further. It reads—

The hon. member does not even want an undertaking from me; he specifically declines to pass it. The amendment reads further—

1. (1) it centralizes power and control and infringes upon the proper functions of local and regional government; and
2. (2) it accepts the principle of an increased selective financial burden on urban dwellers and motorists.

The hon. member does not want to approve of the Bill at all. After the Bill has been accepted to such an extent by the people who will be affected …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister if he is aware that at the various symposiums that took place there was considerable criticism? People were not asked to vote at these symposiums; they went there to get information on the background of the Bill.

If the hon. member is aware of criticism of that kind, I am not aware of it. [Interjections.] I was very well represented at these different symposiums and I am not aware of any criticism. That is why I think I am entitled to ask the hon. member: Is he really serious? Does he think that the passing of this Bill is definitely and specifically not in the interests of the country and not in the interests of urban transport in South Africa? If that is what he feels he must say so. He must tell me that he rejects the whole Bill because it is no good; they do not want it in South Africa.

*I am not introducing this Bill because it contains political or ideological principles. I would have no objection if we were to decide not to proceed with the legislation. If I am persuaded that it is not in the best interests of the South African cities, I am prepared to withdraw the Bill. However, we should not play politics like children. Hon. members are in fact playing politics like children in this House.

If you will give me the undertaking I asked for I shall withdraw my amendment.

The hon. member is not on the Government side; nor is he the Minister of Transport. He can have his say and say what he likes; he can try to persuade me, and I shall listen to him calmly and patiently.

During the Committee Stage.

Yes, the Committee Stage is the right juncture for that. If the hon. member can persuade me, it is still possible not to proceed with the legislation. At this stage I personally believe that the legislation is in the interests of the proper regulation of traffic in our cities, and therefore I think it is absurd, for minor reasons, reasons which may be discussed and settled during the Committee Stage, to say that the legislation should not be passed. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal with the arguments of the hon. members briefly. As far as the levies on buildings are concerned, it goes without saying that if we delete clause 21, much of the potency which we are creating for the proper implementation of the provisions of the Bill would no longer be there. In the legislation an attempt is being made to encourage people to do certain things, not to penalize and punish them. The purpose of the Bill is to a large extent to encourage people to use public transport. I am referring only to transport now. On the other hand the legislation envisages discouraging the public from doing certain other things. They are being discouraged from causing congestion in the city centre for example. That is why it is so essential that we should have the power and the means, by way of a levy, to discourage motorists who travel singly from travelling to the city, particularly when there is public transport available. No hon. member will argue with me that this indeed is the position today. I live in Newlands and come over De Waal Drive every morning. For kilometres cars drive bumper to bumper on a beautiful road, a road which was built for us. I can give hon. members the assurance that nine times out of ten there is only one person in a car.

How many passengers do you have in your car?

I have two passengers in my car: My chauffeur and I. That is bad enough. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, while he drives in from Newlands in the mornings in his car and has such a difficult time of it, he is aware that the hon. member for Durban Point is seated comfortably in a bus, without experiencing any of the problems which this Bill deals with? [Interjections.]

I envy the hon. member for Durban Point. All I want …

It is very easy. All the hon. the Minister need do is resign. Then he can also travel by bus.

All I want is that he should help me to find more people to travel as pleasantly as he does into Cape Town by bus.

There is a bus from Newlands.

Ours is a very uncomfortable bus. It is a Government bus.

Nine times out of ten there is only one person per car. That is not necessary. If we could discourage those people, a greater number of them could with greater convenience and to the greater benefit of themselves and the country drive in then-cars to the station, park there, and travel in to Cape Town by train.

Where do they park?

Parking is limited. However there are parking-places. There are parking-places in the vicinity of Kenilworth and Claremont. The hon. member can go and have a look. I admit, however that the situation is unsatisfactory, but it is that very situation which we want to remedy by means of this legislation. The position could be considerably improved if those people could be successfully discouraged from using their motor-cars if they wish to get to the centre of town. The same applies to the other provisions in respect of the buildings, parking and loading facilities. Who are the people who are responsible for congestion in the city? It is not only the motorist who has to travel in his motor-car to the city because he works there. His employer has constructed a large and imposing building, has equipped a large number of offices and is now appointing people to come and work here in the city, instead of their working elsewhere, a place which is easier for them to reach.

What is wrong with large buildings?

I am not saying there is anything wrong with them. All that I am trying to explain to the hon. member is that the person who is the culprit, and the cause of congestion in the city, whoever he may be—be it the owner of the building, the motorist or the person who makes money by providing parking—is the person who should help to pay and who should be discouraged from causing traffic congestion in the city.

Is it a sin now to do business in the city centre?

It is not a sin. If hon. members on that side of the House proceed on the assumption that we should simply allow matters to take their course and should do nothing about the threatening problem which is being recognized for what it is by the municipalities of Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town and many others, they must say so. That is their business. However, we on the Government side have greater responsibilities than that. Therefore we say that something has to be done in this regard, and therefore I cannot do away with clause 21 which makes provision for the introduction of the necessary measures. By way of reassurance I nevertheless want to point out to hon. members that the Bill is flexible. Suppose the levy and permit system which we want to impose on motor-cars were to have an effect which clearly indicated that we were imposing measures to keep motor-cars out of our cities which were too strict, we could then, in accordance with the provisions of the transport plan, reduce the levies a little during the following year. We could do the same in respect of the levies which have to be imposed on buildings. If it appears that the application of the measures is going to have a detrimental effect on the city centre—the hon. member for Yeoville is apparently very concerned about this—we can reduce the levy. In other words, the measures for which provision is being made in this Bill, are flexible and can be adapted according to the circumstances.

The hon. member for Durban Point went on to say that since I have to act as the judge of appeal when the commission and the Administrator are not able to reach an agreement, I should take the decision in consultation with the Administrator. Surely that is an absurd proposal. If the hon. member had said that I should take this decision after consultation with the Administrator, then I would still have been able to understand it. Apparently those hon. members do not know how the machinery of government works. Well, how can they be expected to know? If the Administrator and the commission are not able to reach an agreement, a submission will be made to me, and in this submission the standpoint of the Administrator as well as that of the commission will be set out. If I think it is desirable I shall send for the Administrator so that we can discuss the matter or, if I want further information, I shall approach the commission so that we may discuss the matter. What the hon. member wants, amounts to this: There is a difference of opinion between A and B. They cannot reach an agreement. A decision has to be taken and I now have to push A to one side and appoint B as judge to decide on the matter in which he himself has an interest. Surely one cannot do that. The hon. member maintains that I am not able to take any decision now unless the Administrator, in consultation with me, agrees to it. In other words, it is the Administrator who is able to decide. I do not think it is necessary for me to take this matter any further. I am not unwilling to insert a provision in the Bill providing that I may decide after consultation with the Administrator, for I shall consult him in any case. That is how it works. If it is necessary and if the hon. member considers it to be feasible, we could insert such a provision wherever it may be necessary, but then it will have to be after consultation with the Administrator; otherwise I cannot do so.

The objection of the hon. member for Orange Grove is that the control is being centralized. The objection of the hon. member is that the National Transport Commission is now going to play too great a role, and he wants the power to be vested to a large extent in the local authorities. The hon. member has also lodged an objection to the moneys which we envisage collecting from motorists and others. He wants the money to come from the Government, but does not want the Government to have a say. The hon. member wants the Government, for example, to give the Johannesburg city council a few million rands “free and for nothing”, to do with as they like. [Interjections.] That is by implication what it means. What is the object of the National Transport Commission as laid down in the Transport (Co-ordination) Act of 1948? Section 7 of this Act reads as follows—

If this definition of the object of the Transport Commission, which was drawn up as long ago as 1948, does not fit in beautifully with the functions which we are allocating to it in the Urban Transport Bill, then I do not know what does. Every word which I quoted as it was inserted in the legislation, fits in beautifully with what we envisage in regard to the work of the commission in terms of this legislation. Section 9(iv) of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act provides—

I should like to emphasize the last words—

That is the object of the National Transport Commission. Do hon. members know what has always been the weak spot in regard to our transport systems in our various metropolitan areas? The weak spot was that there was no overall authority. Everyone carried on as it suited them. Of what use is it to have a co-ordinator that has to try to secure a policy of uniformity in respect of urban transport in South Africa if that co-ordinator has no authority? That is why it is essential, in this instance as well, that the National Transport Commission should have that authority in terms of the objects for which it has been established. However, it is not as bad as it sounds. The local authorities are strongly represented in the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board which is going to be established in terms of this legislation. For example, if one were to constitute a Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board for the Johannesburg area, it would not only have representatives of the Johannesburg City Council serving on it. All the various municipalities will be represented on that board, although Johannesburg will probably be designated as the core city of the metropolitan area of the Witwatersrand. Nevertheless the other municipalities will play a tremendously important part. When the metropolitan transport plan is prepared by the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board the initiative will be taken by the municipalities because they have representation on that board, and that board has to prepare the plan for submission to the Administrator. Therefore I do not think there need be any fear that we shall simply carry on without taking into consideration the interests and the desires of the local authorities. It was said many times in this debate—and I want to confirm and ratify this—that what we require for the successful achievement of what is envisaged in this Bill is that there should be co-operation on all levels, in order to bring to fruition what is implicit in the proposed legislation not only in spirit, but also in deed.

The second leg of the hon. member’s objection was concerned with finances. He said that this legislation accepted the principle of an increased selective financial obligation on the part of urban dwellers and motorists. I think I have dealt adequately with that aspect, and I do not therefore wish to deal with it any further. The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Durban Point were obviously vying with one another again, as happens on that side of the House. The hon. member for Durban Point succeeded in getting his name in the newspapers in a report under quite large headlines proclaiming that he was the great champion of the motorist who was being overburdened. How did the hon. member do that?

Now I want the hon. member to listen to me carefully. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what I think the hon. member did. If I did, you would rule me out of order. You will simply have to judge for yourself to what extent the hon. member acted contrary to his own better judgment in the discussion of this matter. The hon. member began by explaining what expenses this measure would entail for the motorist. He said that according to the Driessen Report there were three levies which would be imposed on the motorist. Firstly there was the levy on the motorist who wanted to use the city centre. Secondly there was an additional tax on those living in the metropolitan area and then there was a third tax on all the motorists in the country.

No. Read my Hansard.

No, wait; never mind. Those were the proposals. The hon. member then said that the total cost was calculated at R92 million and that the poor motorist would now have to fork out R74 million of that amount. Did the hon. member say that?

No.

What did you say then? Was it not R74 million?

I said that was the estimate of the committee of what would have to come out of the motorist’s pocket.

That is correct. Very well. Turn it round like that and say that is according to the estimate of the committee. Now he is telling the whole world that the estimate of the committee of what has to be obtained from the motorist was R74 million of the R92 million.

I never referred to R92 million.

If the hon. member did not do so, he ought at least to have known. The hon. member ought to have known that the figure of R92 million has been revised. We stated in the White Paper that the scheme ought to be curtailed and that provision cannot be made for more than R52 million. How on earth can the hon. member now tell the world that R74 million is going to be taken from the pockets of the motorist if he knows, as I suspect he did, that the entire cost of the scheme is going to amount to R52 million per annum?

But that is precisely what I said. I said that it had not been accepted, but had been cut down to R52 million, of which 15% were levies. Apologize!

What are the facts of the matter? At this stage let me first admit that the hon. member did say that the cost of the implementation of this scheme would in all probability be considerably less than was calculated at the time by the Driessen committee. The hon. member did say that, and I want to concede that he is correct. There is such a thing as inflation; there is such a thing as rise in prices, and it is therefore true that any scheme for which the costs were calculated five years ago, will cost more today. I concede that. But in the same way I want to tell the hon. member that the costs which we are now going to save are also far more than we would have saved five years ago. Now the hon. member is laughing. I should also like to satisfy the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of that point. The hon. member for Yeoville said that this scheme was inflationary, that it was going to cost a vast amount of money. He complained about its financial aspects.

Now I just want to remind hon. members that although we accept that the implementation of the scheme is going to cost more today, it is equally correct to calculate on the other hand how much more we are now able to save if we put the scheme into operation.

Like a woman with a bargain?

If the hon. member for Durban Point would only listen for a while, he would acquire a great deal of wisdom and become far cleverer than he is. In 1971 it was calculated that a commercial vehicle would cost R3 per hour and that if commercial vehicles were delayed in Johannesburg alone it would cost R150 000 per day on that basis. Hon. members must remember that I am referring only to commercial vehicles now. I am not saying anything about the long rows of motor-cars standing bumper to bumper for miles and wasting petrol. In that year, in 1971, there were 49 730 commercial vehicles in Johannesburg. It was calculated that if those commercial vehicles were delayed as a result of traffic congestion for one hour per day on an average, it would entail wasted costs of R150 000 per day, or R40 million per year. That is a calculation which was made in 1971.

Let us now consider the present position. In the year 1976 the cost of a commercial vehicle was no longer calculated at R3 per hour, but at R5,78 per hour. This is according to the best calculations of people who are cleverer than I. At present there are not only 49 730 commercial vehicles in Johannesburg, but 55 426. If those commercial vehicles are delayed for one hour per day on an average, it means that the total cost per day is no longer R150 000, but R320 000. The annual cost for Johannesburg alone consequently amounts to R80 million, instead of only R40 million per annum in 1971. Surely this is indisputable proof that the sooner we effect an improvement in respect of traffic delays in our urban areas, the better it will be for South Africa. I am not even mentioning the fuel which is being wasted in the case of private motor vehicles. The figures which I have mentioned here are only in respect of commercial vehicles.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that only R84 000 was being provided in the estimates for this purpose. He wanted to know what on earth we would be able to do with R84 000. Again he did not do his homework. I should like the hon. member to take a look at the figures in the Transport Vote as it is printed in the estimates. On page 5 of the Transport Vote he will note that an amount of R54 000 is being estimated for urban transport. On page 11 of the Vote he will note that an additional R84 500 is being estimated for urban transport. On that same page he will find the following item: “Research, etc. in connection with urban transport facilities—R2 210 000”. That is not much, but that is what we are starting off with. We appreciate that we cannot put this scheme into operation overnight. A start will be made with the preparing of transport plans in the various metropolitan areas. It is being envisaged to make the following amount of money available to the following cities—

In addition an amount of R50 000 will be spent on the PWV transport study. Contributions to Metropolitan Advisory Boards will amount to R10 000. In addition an amount of R450 000 will be spent on research by the CSIR. The total of the amounts I have enumerated is approximately R1,4 million. The R84 000 to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred, is for fixed expenditure. The total is therefore R1,4 million, and I still have a little left in the kitty which I can use in the meantime and which has not yet been earmarked for use during this financial year.

I have already discussed the centralization of authority to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. Inter alia the Bill provides that subsidies may be paid to the various transport companies. The hon. member for Orange Grove objected to the National Transport Commission also being able to assess the efficiency of transport companies, or transport operators—call them that if you wish, for some of them are municipalities. But the National Transport Commission nevertheless has to decide on the subsidies which have to be paid out to the various transport operators. Is it not therefore correct that when a recommendation has to be made on subsidies, the efficiency of the transport officer should also be looked into? When a transport operator—the hon. members will concede that I am correct on this score—does not conduct his business satisfactorily, he must be replaced by a person who can do it better. It also has this right in respect of road transport.

The hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Langlaagte had a great deal to say about planning. I concede that planning plays a tremedously great part in transport matters. But it is overall planning and does not fall under this department. In this Bill reference is made explicitly to transport planning, and it is true that in the planning of traffic and the preparing of these metropolitan transport plans, it is going to be of great value for the implementation of this legislation.

I think I have now dealt with the few matters I wanted to discuss. In general I just want to say that if I close my eyes and try to imagine what is envisaged by this legislation, then I see that what is being envisaged in this way is, in the first place, to keep as much inefficient traffic as possible off the road, in other words the motor vehicle carrying perhaps only one or two passengers. In the second place it is the object to provide the central urban areas with public transport in so far as this is in any way possible. To be able to accomplish this, it goes without saying that we must have the public transport, and that is why it is part of the endeavour of the Bill to improve public transport. Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that the best way of improving public transport is to make use of public transport, in other words the public must support public transport. That is why it is essential that we should encourage people, in some way or another, to support public transport. That is why we are contemplating that people should drive in their motor-cars to a certain point, at which there will be a large and ample parking facilities, which will not be in the city centre, but away from the city centre. From there they must be afforded an opportunity of moving towards the city centre by train or by bus, if that is where they wish to be. In that way we will be able to promote the traffic to the city centre, without causing congestion there. There are many aspects of the entire legislation which have to contribute to accomplish this result. There is no time now to discuss everything. However, I am absolutely convinced that this legislation and the Driessen Report will for many years to come be a towering monument on the way to the proper regulation of urban traffic in South Africa. I do not want to make the assertion that this legislation will not be amended. Hon. members have already envisaged amendments to it. This is a brand new piece of legislation. Therefore it is not unlikely that by next year it might be found that certain aspects of the legislation require amendments. The basic concept and the basic principle contained in this legislation, however, is absolutely essential for the orderly functioning of traffic in our metropolitan areas. This is a flexible piece of legislation, legislation with which we should definitely proceed. It is legislation which can be adapted to the circumstances. It is legislation with the help of which we can regulate our urban traffic in South Africa—as I said at the outset—in such a way that it could serve as a model for the rest of the world. That is what I believe.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—103: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—34: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments contained in this Bill owe their origin primarily to the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Urban Transport Facilities in the Republic of South Africa—the Driessen Report—and the accompanying White Paper both of which, as hon. members know, were tabled here and in the Other Place during the 1975 session.

Hon. members will recall that the Transport (Co-ordination) Amendment Bill was introduced during the 1976 session, but that it was not disposed of owing to a lack of time. The latter Bill provided that the Secretary for Transport would not necessarily be the chairman ex officio of the National Transport Commission. Since such an arrangement would not be conducive to the good administration and management of the Department of Transport, it has been decided not to deviate from the existing position, i.e. that the Secretary for Transport is ex officio the chairman of the commission. Further consequential amendments of a non-material nature were consequently necessary.

The amendment Bill which hon. members have before them at present is to a large extent self-explanatory. To save time I am therefore not going to deal with it clause by clause now, but elucidate only the most important provisions thereof.

As a result of the additional functions of the National Transport Commission, which are now being imposed by the Urban Transport Bill, it is necessary to increase the membership of the commission from eight to eleven. The commission will then consist of the Secretary for Transport, who is the chairman, and not more than ten other members, of whom not more than four members are members of the Public Service.

Under the new dispensation one member shall therefore be designated in terms of clause 2(b) as Commissioner for Urban Transport, apart from the existing Road Transport Commissioner, the Commissioner for Civil Aviation and the Commissioner for National Roads. These commissioners are usually public servants in the employ of the Department of Transport, public servants whom the Secretary for Transport makes available to the commission in terms of the provisions of section 12 of the principal Act to assist it in the performance of its functions.

In addition, one member of the commission shall in terms of the provisions of clause 2(d)(ii) be a person appointed after consultation with the General Manager of the S.A. Railways Administration and who, in the opinion of the State President, possesses a thorough knowledge of railway matters.

As far as the latter provision is concerned, I should like to point out that owing to the extremely important part which the peri-urban railway passenger service plays in the transport structure of our urban areas, it is obvious that the Railways Administration should be represented on the commission when urban transport matters come under scrutiny.

Because the Railways Administration is itself, however, an exploiter of road and air transport services, it is essential to protect the private sector against possible prejudice on the part of the Railway representative and for that reason the latter is prohibited in terms of the same clause, if he is a servant of the Railways Administration, to attend meetings at which road or air transport matters are being dealt with.

Just as in the case of a member who is appointed after consultation with the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, referred to in section 3(5) of the principal Act, clause 3(b) of the amendment Bill also places restrictions on the appointment of a Railway representative in so far as his interests and those of his near relations in any motor-carrier transportation undertaking, aircraft manufacturing industry, and so on, are concerned. Such a representative of the Railways Administration is of course only thus affected if he has any such interest in his personal capacity.

As far as the functioning of the commission with a view to its increased functions and powers as well as its increased membership is concerned, provision is now being made in clause 5(c) enabling the commission to hold more than two meetings simultaneously. Up to now the commission has only been able, in accordance with the provisions of section 6(6) of the principal Act, to hold two meetings simultaneously.

This is briefly what I envisage with the amendments concerned. If hon. members require further details, I shall gladly elucidate the matter to them further.

Mr. Speaker, we have no quarrel with the amendments the hon. the Minister has outlined. It is logical that provision should be made for the Urban Transport Commissioner and in view of the safeguards that are given in respect of a representative of the Railways, we also accept that appointment. I shall take the matter no further, because we support that aspect of the Bill.

This Bill amends the Act which actually provides for the top control of the road transportation administration. The local transportation boards in the Road Transportation Bill fall under the jurisdiction of and under the control and direction of this National Transport Commission. In the debate on that Bill, we took a line which we believe is an advance, a step forward, in urging that the representatives of all communities affected by the decisions of boards should be represented on the boards which take those decisions. This Bill now amends the top body, the commission, and to be logical we have to take the same line and therefore move the same amendment. It would be illogical to plead for representation of all communities on the road transportation board when the board is subsidiary to, can be overridden by and be dictated to and instructed by the National Transport Commission. Therefore, where the Bill provides for additional members of the National Transport Commission, we believe that this is the opportunity to incorporate the same provisions. I therefore move as an amendment—

I shall not repeat the arguments which we have put forward on the previous Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member for Durban Point has moved an amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, but I think I should rather leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to the hon. member. We do not want to spend much time on that matter. It is very clear from the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill—I do not know whether the hon. member has read it yet—that people from the spheres he has in mind may, in fact, be appointed. Seven people may be appointed and he is free to recommend them to the hon. the Minister. I want to leave the matter at that, however. The hon. the Minister will reply to it more fully.

Regarding the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill, I should like to say a few words about the activities and the salaries of members of the National Transport Commission. As the Bill reads now, there will be 11 members in future instead of eight as there were in the past. It is true, as the hon. the Minister has just said in his Second Reading speech, that the members may now hold more than two meetings at the same time, but I am of the opinion that the workload of the National Transport Commission is going to be increased tremendously as a result of the additional work which is now going to arise. Those people serving on the National Transport Commission who are not connected with the Government service, receive a salary of R4 200 per annum and all their travelling and hotel expenses are paid by the State. The National Transport Commission derives its functions from the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, No. 44 of 1948, as amended, the National Roads Act, No. 54 of 1971, the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, as amended, and the Aviation Act, as amended. The functions of the National Transport Commission are embodied in the aforementioned Acts, but I shall not deal with all the information I have in this regard now. Apart from that, many powers were vested in the National Transport Commission in the Bantu Transport Services Act of 1957 and the Transport Services for Coloured Persons and Indians Act of 1972. The powers in the latter two Acts relate to the subsidization of the fares of Bantu, Coloureds and Indians.

Clause 5 of the Urban Transport Bill provides for additional activities for the commission, and the general powers of the commission in relation to that legislation are set out in clause 6 of the Bill whose Second Reading we have just accepted. These activities and powers take up almost two pages of the Bill and this is a major task. I predict that as a result of the additional activities provided for in the Urban Transport Bill, the National Transport Commission will have to spend twice as much time on these matters as has been the case up to now.

However, the activities of the National Transport Commission are not limited to the matters prescribed in the various Acts. Section 9(iv) of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act, No. 44 of 1948, provides, inter alia—

That is a matter which may be raised when the hon. the Minister’s Vote is being discussed and not during the Second Reading of the Bill.

It is a matter which may be raised during the Second Reading, because what is at issue here is an increase in the number of members of the National Transport Commission and my question is whether, in reality, these people will still be paid enough, in view of the additional work they are to be charged with in terms of the provisions of the Urban Transport Bill. The number of meetings held by the National Transport Commission in the past, amounted to approximately two meetings per week. However, this does not reflect the true scope of the commission’s activities. Apart from attending meetings, a bulky agenda also has to be studied for every meeting. I predict that the agenda that will result if urban transport is also entrusted to the commission will be much more bulky. Apart from that, inspections have to be carried out, particularly of the routes of bus operators, national road projects and similar undertakings. Nor does the National Transport Commission hold all its meetings in Pretoria; to accommodate the public and so that the public does not incur any expense, such meetings are held in various parts of the country. From this it appears that a considerable amount of time is taken up in travelling and this must also be taken into account.

Since certain activities relating to urban transport have been added to the activities of the National Transport Commission, the commission will in future not only have to deal with matters under the various Acts which require a few local inspections—the members will also have to be prepared to undertake transport studies, to identify present and future bottlenecks and to submit projects aimed at promoting transport in the best interests of the public.

In the light of the reasons I have mentioned, it will be necessary to convene policy meetings and that could result in some of the outside members of the commission having to be appointed on a full-time basis in order to undertake specific tasks under the guidance and control of the various commissioners, and to report to the National Transport Commission on them. They will also have to keep abreast of all developments in the field of transport at all times.

In my opinion, anyone who is really interested in serving on the National Transport Commission would be occupied on a practically full-time basis. It seems to me, on the basis of the work the National Transport Commission has done in the past, that it will have to hold meetings at least twice a week and carry out inspections at least once a week. Besides that, they will have to consult and study all their agendas and this makes virtually a full-time job of it. That is why I am asking whether the Minister could not perhaps consider looking at the salaries of those people and whether there is a possibility of some of them being appointed on a full-time basis in future.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is largely an updating of the Transport (Co-ordination) Act of 1948, and as such we have generally no major quarrel with it at all. For example, we approve of clause 2, which increases the size of the National Transport Commission from seven to 10 members. We are a little mystified, when we come to clause 3, as to the reason why the section dealing with near relatives of people who are entitled to represent the commission on the question of manufacturing and selling aircraft, should be excluded. Presumably it is no longer considered necessary to include that section. We are also interested to see that clause 6 shows that the Government has such confidence that the Urban Transport Bill, 1977 will become the Urban Transport Act, 1977 that it is introducing provisions of this nature willy-nilly.

After taking note of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, I wish to say that we on these benches tend to think on a non-racial basis and to talk in non-racial terms. We therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure that among his appointees are people of various colours, people representative of the community as a whole, if they are the best people for the job. Perhaps we are being a little naïve. Certainly, on many of these bodies there are no appointees who are not White. We have no objection to the hon. the Minister being asked to give an assurance that his selection process will be on a non-racial basis. In so doing, and in giving our support to the amendment, we look forward to the day when this will no longer be in question, but that people will simply be appointed on merit, whatever the colour of their skins.

Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, it is not in the best interests of South Africa for us to look for opportunities to drag in the colour question in this House. We already know—the Prime Minister himself said so—that attempts will be made to appoint people of other colours as well to this, the most august Chamber. We know that this is indeed being done and that the Minister indicated in legislation before the House a few days ago that he was not unwilling to do so. I find it unfortunate that whilst he agrees entirely with the Bill, the hon. member for Durban Point has nevertheless seized upon the opportunity of bringing up the colour question. I believe that the hon. the Minister, who is charged with the administration of the matter, will do his best to see that justice is done to all races. Consequently, I am prepared to support the spirit of the Bill. I want to add that it is quite interesting to note that the amendment is the work of the hon. member for Durban Point. I hope the people in Natal will stand their ground and that a body like the Natal Parks Board will give representation to non-Whites as well.

A committee already exists for them.

I am very pleased to hear it. I hope that their Town and Regional Planning Commission will also give the necessary representation to non-Whites in order to provide the necessary guidance in that province. Sir, we support the Bill before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maraisburg broke a lance for those members of the commission who do not have permanent appointments in the Government service or in the Railways Administration. I want to set the hon. member’s mind at rest by telling him that this is something that is receiving my attention, although at this stage nothing has yet been done about it. Particularly in view of the fact that the activities of the commission have been extended so much, we shall have to devote some attention to the salaries being paid to outside commission members at the moment. This commission is one of very high calibre. This is as we should like it to be, and I think we have reason to believe that it is indeed so. It is a commission that does very important work, and that work does not relate only to people’s interests. The commission deals with large sums of money as part of its activities relating to national roads and other matters. Therefore, it is vital that we get the right people, competent people, to serve on this commission. From that point of view it is desirable that we give some attention to this matter.

Sir, I cannot but confirm every word the hon. member for Maitland has said in respect of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. Why is it necessary to wear spectacles in South Africa that do not permit one to see anything but colour? [Interjections.] It is not merit that has to count, but colour. Now the hon. member is saying in his amendment that he refuses to give his approval to this until the Government undertakes to appoint or co-opt people in the National Transport Commission who are representative of the various communities affected by the commission’s decisions. In other words, it does not matter whether the man I get is competent or not; if his colour is right, I must appoint him. Is that not ridiculous?

Who said that?

The amendment says so. It does not say I should appoint the best people. It does not say I should appoint a Coloured person or an Indian if he is better than anyone else. It says I must appoint him, or I must co-opt him. Sir, do you know what we have experienced here today? Today we have experienced the phenomenon of the hon. member for Orange Grove being more realistic than the hon. member for Durban Point. During the discussion of the Road Transport Bill, the Second Reading of which has already been passed in the House, I gave the undertaking—and provision has been made for this in the Bill because I was of the opinion that it was desirable—that co-option may take place in the case of the local road transport boards. After all, one has to start somewhere. One cannot begin at the end, when all is said and done. In the first place, one must take account of whether the other population groups have sufficient interest in the matter in respect of which one wants to appoint them. Secondly, one has to take into account whether one can get people from the other population groups who are competent enough for this. Sir, allow me to stick my neck out on this issue today. The Prime Minister has said that we will appoint these people to boards as time goes on. I have made a start with this by opening the doors to co-option in the local road transport boards. I have no doubt that in future, one day—I cannot say when—whenever the conditions of a particular area justify it—I have not undertaken to do so—some of them will also be appointed to the road transport boards. I also suspect that one day they will be appointed to the National Transport Commission. But those people will first have to grow into the economic community before they can play their part. Now the hon. member wants us to appoint people to the boards, irrespective of interests, irrespective of colour, simply because he is obsessed with colour. I am not prepared to accept it; I am sorry.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosch, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the Vote Social Welfare and Pensions comes at a time in South Africa’s history when there are difficulties facing almost every sphere of Government policy. Indeed, there are difficulties facing the sphere of Social Welfare and Pensions, if one takes into account the increased demands that have been made on welfare services. As a result of unemployment, further demands will be made in future. Therefore, it is important that we should reconsider our position in order to endeavour to find ways and means of meeting this challenge which now faces South Africa. It is for this reason that we believe it is important that amendments to the Welfare Act, 1965, should gain some priority.

The report of the National Welfare Board, a report which was submitted a few years ago and which covered the period up to December 1973, indicated the various activities of the Welfare Board and of the various commissions.

However, it is since the annual report of 1974 of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions that the difficulties facing welfare planning in South Africa were highlighted. We know that the 1965 Act made provision to meet the needs as they were at that particular time. Now, after 12 years, it has become apparent that the welfare planning requires an urgent overhaul as far as the department and its activities are concerned, to endeavour to find ways and means of meeting a changing situation. Therefore, it is important to note that there have been a number of reports tabled in the House and submitted to the hon. the Minister on various subjects. However, one thread that seems to run through all these reports is the urgency of the changing situation having to be taken account of.

I refer to the whole question of the national welfare planning services and to criticism that has been levelled from various quarters. It is interesting to note that as far as the Coloured community is concerned, Prof. Theron also dealt with this matter in the professional journal for the social worker, Social Work of March 1977. I think it is significant to quote her views because she is the chairman of the Welfare Planning Commission and as such is in a position to give an authoritative view. In South Africa the welfare services are based on a divisional basis whereby the department only deals with social welfare and pensions for the Whites, while the other groups are cared for by their respective departments. As a result of the findings of the Theron Commission, Prof. Theron comes to this conclusion in regard to the planning—

These are very significant words coming from an authority who has been professor of social work at the University of Stellenbosch for many, many years and who is an authority on welfare matters. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give some indication to the Committee today as to what steps his department is taking to meet the challenges which arise as far as welfare planning is concerned.

We realize that the life of the National Welfare Board was extended by a further two years as a result of legislation passed last year. At the time when the legislation was introduced, the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that amending legislation would be forthcoming in 1977. However, from a reply that I received to a question which I put in the House earlier this session it would appear that this legislation will not be forthcoming. Therefore I ask that the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister should be directed towards the difficulties that exist in co-ordinating the welfare services in South Africa in their present fragmented form. I believe it is also important to note that the Welfare Board plus the commissions and the regional boards, which comprise a considerable number of persons—the Welfare Board and the four commissions alone mean 44 appointments—deal with matters affecting all race groups. The Welfare Board, the commissions and the regional boards do not, however, have representation as far as any of the other race groups are concerned. I believe therefore that in terms of the Government policy of allowing other race groups to have representation on various boards, the Government should give an indication at this stage that the amending legislation will make provision for other race groups also to be represented on boards, particularly the regional boards, which deal with matters on a community basis. I believe it is also important to extend the powers of the regional boards, so as to bring about a greater degree of community participation, which is so important in bringing forward suggestions and for planning our welfare services in South Africa. We have seen how the community, through motivation, can respond magnificently.

In recent times, as a result of publicity about the plight of squatters, a fund known as the Shelter Fund was formed, which raised a sum of over R200 000 in the space of about six weeks. This shows that where there is a worthy cause, the community comes forward magnificently to support such a cause. As far as the regional boards are concerned, it is vitally important that we should devise ways and means of getting greater community participation in our welfare services.

Allied to the question of our welfare services, we had the Auret Commission report on separate legislation for the social work profession. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister saw his way clear to table this report prior to the Vote being discussed in the House. This report is indeed a vital one if we are to extend our social services and if we are to see the part to be played by registered social workers in the overall planning and the future development of welfare services in South Africa. This report also indicates that there is a situation in which there is a tremendous shortage of social workers. It certainly poses the question as to whether our social services are ready to meet the challenge of the times that are facing South Africa. It is important that we should note in the recommendations of this report the position as far as social workers of other race groups are concerned, although we fully realize, of course, that today we can only deal with the position as far as Whites are concerned. However, the report on the social work profession does not draw any lines when it comes to race. It is important because it shows, for instance, the tremendous turnover of social workers. Many of those who register as social workers are no longer able to practise as social workers, one of the reasons being that they are predominantly women who get married and because of their family commitments are unable to continue. However, it is alarming to see that only 11,16% of the registered social workers are male and also that there are so few non-White social workers. If one looks at the report and sees that there are only 302 Black, 233 Coloured and 83 Indian social workers in the Republic, it appears evident that the hon. the Minister and his department must give their urgent attention to introducing legislation so as to place our social workers on a professional footing. Our National Welfare Act of 1965 for the first time granted recoginition to social welfare work as a profession. However, there is still an enormous field to be covered in providing adequate numbers of social workers in South Africa. Why this is so important, is because it coincides with other reports which have been tabled in this House. I refer to the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System in the Republic. In this report, although it is under the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Justice, great emphasis is laid on the fact that probation officers and probation services must be provided on an extensive scale if we are to meet the modern trend of having first offenders, particularly young offenders, from the age of 18 or 19 and under 30 years of age, put on probation in order to receive professional help and assistance. Indeed, this report emphasizes this matter. At the same time, however, there was an article in the social welfare and pensions magazine, an article that was written by the late Dr. A. T. Winkler, a deputy secretary of the department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I move that the hon. member be given an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for his courtesy. In this article projections are given as far as the requirements for social workers are concerned if an adequate system for probation services is to be provided for adult offenders. On page 18 of this magazine, dated December 1976, it mentions the fact that it has been calculated that an additional one hundred units are required for probation work in the White section of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Furthermore, if only one half of the first offenders under 30 years of age with prison sentences of under six months, should be found suitable for probation, approximately 360 additional Coloured social workers, 13 Asians and 1 250 Black social workers would be needed. This gives an indication of the enormous task that faces the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, should they be put in a position to provide adequate probation services as envisaged by the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of South Africa.

There are certain other difficulties which I too should like to refer to, difficulties concerning child abuse. This forms part of the whole question of the shortage of professional social workers and the shortage of available funds to provide an adequate service as far as the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is concerned. According to the annual report of the Durban Child Welfare, that organization is also facing financial difficulties. They have a deficit of R36 000, and this necessitates a reduction in the number of social workers. They have retrenched nine social workers this year. This in turn will adversely affect their child abuse unit established in an endeavour to tackle the tremendous problem of baby-battering which is occurring in South Africa. The report indicates quite clearly that the organization is unable to give the necessary attention to this very important problem facing us in South Africa. Their entire service, as far as child welfare is concerned, is threatened by a lack of funds and a lack of sufficient subsidized social worker posts. If whereby they had these posts they could concentrate on preventive work rather than merely having to deal with emergency cases as far as child welfare is concerned.

Another important repot which was made available after the last session of Parliament, relates to the question of pensions. This is the other very important function of the department, i.e. to deal with pensions. We know, in the light of the economic stress that is being experienced by a number of pensioners, that the loss in the purchasing power of their pensions has been considerable, and I should like the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to give us an indication whether he has had an opportunity of giving further attention to the position of the civil pensioner to whom the Government has a responsibility, particularly those who retired before 1 July 1973. When the matter has been raised before the hon. the Minister indicated that he was giving the matter consideration, and I should therefore be pleased if he could give us some indication as to whether any further progress has been made in this regard, particularly in so far as this year is concerned, because there has been no increase in civil pensions, whereas they received a 10% increase last year with a minimum amount of R25 per month. I have looked at some figures concerning the erosion of the purchasing power of pensions. It is interesting to note that a person who retired in 1971—I am taking as a guideline the changes in the consumer price index—would by now have lost 45,6% of his pension as far as the buying power thereof is concerned. This illustrates the problem of the older pensioner in meeting these inroads as far as inflation is concerned. The report on the investigation into the possible establishment of a contributory pension scheme, aroused a great deal of interest when it was tabled last year. I hope the hon. the Minister will not be deterred by the tremendous campaign which has been launched by certain vested interests in an endeavour to destroy the recommendations that were made in the report. I refer particularly to Press headlines such as “The One Thousand Million Pension Monster”, a description of the findings of this investigation into the establishment of a contributory pension scheme.

I know that the hon. the Minister has indicated that he intends giving full consideration to the reactions on the report. I also realize that the hon. the Minister, in the foreword of the report, emphasized the fact that the findings and the suggestions contained in the report did not at this stage interpret Government policy. But I think it is of great interest to the country as a whole to know what progress has been made considering the various reactions that were received as a result of the report. I am aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister called for comments to be submitted by the end of December and I understand that this date was extended until the end of January this year. However, I think it is important that the hon. the Minister, if he can, should also give some indication as to whether he and his Government agree in principle that there should be a contributory pension scheme in South Africa although not necessarily accepting all the recommendations and the suggestions outlined in the report. I think it is important to try to establish the principle that is involved, and that is to ensure that people of all races can be members of a pension scheme in South Africa. It is, after all, the very essence of any system of social security in any modern industrialized country to ensure that people do make provision for their old age. This principle involves the question of incorporating existing schemes and providing for those persons who do not belong to any scheme at all. I think that this is one of the major considerations, bearing in mind the principle that is involved. Various figures were quoted in the report, indicating that there are still a large number of the economically active people in South Africa who are not members of any pension fund whatsoever. There are, of course, various other figures that have been quoted. The Life Insurance Association of South Africa has indicated that there are a considerable number of pension funds. We are all aware of that. However, they indicate that a larger number of persons are covered by these schemes. I believe it is possible for us to devise a scheme in South Africa that will meet the needs of the people. One must immediately appreciate the fact that there are a number of considerable problems that have to be overcome. But I believe it is feasible and possible for us to proceed to devise a scheme for South Africa that will ensure that we meet the need of providing a contributory pension scheme for all.

There are certain matters which were not dealt with in the report in any detail and these, of course, also require answers. For instance, the question of actuarial projections is not accounted for and the position in regard to the cessation of contributions during periods of unemployment. This is another problem one has to look at particularly if the country faces periods where there may be considerable unemployment. Further aspects are premature retirements, the minimum period of contributions to qualify for benefits and, as has been found in some places, contrived boosts of pre-retirement income so as to increase pensions. These are important matters which must receive attention when consideration is given to the question of a contributory pension scheme.

There are also other aspects which are also important and which the hon. the Minister should give a reply on later when he replies to this debate. One such matter is the question of the means test. The hon. the Minister has indicated that there is evidently not to be any relaxation of the means test at this stage. If one takes into consideration that the present means test income ceiling and asset ceiling has remained unaltered since 1 October 1972, one can appreciate that this is another matter which requires the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister and of the hon. the Deputy Minister. We know that the cost of food, for instance, has rocketed in recent times. A report recently published showed that the price of food alone had increased by some 23,5% during the past year. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture has already indicated that the price of bread is to be increased later this year. These are all vital matters which affect the everyday lives of pensioners because over 50% of their pensions are spent on food alone. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo covered a very wide field in his speech and unfortunately it will be impossible for me to reply to everything he said in the short time which I have at my disposal. I leave this to other hon. members on our side and to the hon. the Minister. However, I shall return to some of those matters in the course of my speech.

One of the aspects he dealt with was the National Contributory Pension Scheme. Now I want to tell the hon. member at once that I have appreciation for his point of view as I know that he has repeatedly discussed this subject in the past. The position is that the hon. the Minister announced in 1974 that an inquiry was to be conducted into the possibility of a contributory pension scheme like this for South Africa and that that report has since been completed and made available to us. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the department most sincerely on this fine piece of work. I think when we look at the report, all of us are impressed by what a thorough, comprehensive study has been made of the subject. Not only do we congratulate them, but we thank them too.

The argument is often advanced that other countries have a national contributory pension scheme and that South Africa should also have one for the same reasons. That is why we are grateful that this inquiry considered and investigated the schemes of five different overseas countries. But in addition to the investigation into those schemes of the other countries, a thorough investigation has also been conducted into the retentivity of pensions and the transferability of pension rights.

Very interesting statistics are provided in the report, but to my mind some alarming particulars are given as well. I say alarming, and I think the most alarming of all is probably the increase in the number of beneficiaries in receipt of social pensions and the values paid to them. In discussing this, I want to deal with Whites and non-Whites; then I shall be including everybody.

According to the report and the statistics which it provides, there were 509 504 beneficiaries who received values amounting to R71 million in 1965. Ten years later, in 1975, the number of beneficiaries was 589 450 and the values amounted to R240 million. This indicates an increase of 15% in the number of beneficiaries over that ten-year period, and an increase of 238% in the values paid. This, Mr. Chairman, is in the space of a single decade only, i.e. from 1965 to 1975. In the meantime there have been considerable increases in social pensions. Unfortunately I do not have the present number of beneficiaries, but with the increases announced in the latest budget, it is going to cost the State an additional R51 million in the ensuing financial year. This means that social pensions will cost the State approximately R334 million in the 1977-’78 financial year. This represents a further increase of 40% on the amount in 1975. The number of beneficiaries and the amount, viz. R334 million, are indicative of the fact that a large section of our population has made no provision for their old age, for the day when they retire on pension and are no longer able to work. There are many reasons for this. Firstly, the position probably is that the majority of our old-age pensioners did not have the opportunity to belong to some pension fund or other. There are many of them who belonged to private pension funds and who now find that those private pensions are far too small. The result is that those pensions have to be supplemented. Statistics which are available indicate that private pensions are so poor that between 30% and 40% of those in receipt of private pensions qualify for a social pension.

There are also those who belonged to pension funds which failed. If we look at the statistics, we see that while the number of funds dissolved totalled 160 in 1964, that number had increased to 245 in 1973. This, of course, contributed a great deal to the fact that many of those people are without a pension. A large number of these people, however, were simply not interested at all in providing for their old age. A person like this simply wants to depend on what he can get from the State. There are probably other factors as well which contributed to the dependence of certain people on the State.

I should like to make it perfectly clear at once that I have sympathy with our needy. I think the Government has always done its duty towards those needy. But this does not mean that we need not be realistic about the matter. When one considers the heavy burden this imposes on the State, one asks oneself at what stage the point is reached when one says, “We cannot go further than this.” I think that it would become an impossible task if it were to be expected of the State alone to provide for our needy people, because everything cannot simply be pushed onto the State. We shall reach a stage where our economy will simply not be able to carry this any longer. My standpoint is that the onus of providing for one’s old age is firstly on the individual himself and on the employer to whom that person has given many years of faithful service. Secondly, I think that the community as well as the children of those people have a responsibility and duty to see that they are cared for. There is a saying that one parent can look after 12 children more easily than 12 children can look after one parent. We are often reproached by the children that the State does not look after their parents. Worst of all, those children often feed on the pension which their parents receive from the State. In saying this I do not want to suggest today that the State does not have any responsibility towards the needy. I think it remains the task and the duty of the State to provide assistance where people are in distress.

As we have just heard from the hon. member for Umbilo, too, pleas are made for a relaxation or even for the abolition of the means test. If this were to happen, I doubt whether we would be able to calculate what it would cost the State. What I do know is that it would be as astronomical amount of money which no Government, and especially not our economy, could afford. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat concentrated in the main on pensions and the responsibility of the individual, the employer and the community to make provision for that, as well as to hold the balance with the provision of the State. He quite rightly emphasized that the State cannot be looked to for total provision.

I want to come back to the national contributory pension scheme and the report in just a moment, but I want to refer very briefly to the Auret report to which reference has already been made. I should like to remind the House that when the National Welfare Act was debated in 1965 the hon. member for Houghton objected at that time to the Second Reading, stating that it was wrong to attempt to legislate for the entire field of social welfare services and for the profession of social work in one measure, and suggested that the latter should have their own social welfare Act to regulate conditions of work and to give them a code of ethics and proper professional status. At that time the Government and the UP of that day disagreed. Now it is refreshing and encouraging to note that 11 years later the Auret Commission supports and recommends the bringing into being of separate legislation regulating the profession of social work and the setting up of an autonomous statutory council for social work. Mr. Chairman, the point I am making is that a number of recommendations which were suggested at that time in the 1965 debate by the hon. member for Houghton have now been incorporated in that report. We hope very much indeed that these recommendations will be accepted by the hon. the Minister and the Government.

That Bill gave them recognition for the first time.

To return to the national contributory pension scheme, in the introduction to the department’s report, the hon. the Minister reminds us of the basic objectives. Then, of course, we have the enormous response to the department’s report which has been in the main highly critical. In summary form, because we simply do not have the time to deal with all the criticism which has been outlined by various individuals and bodies and, indeed, vested interests, the major criticism, as I understand it, includes three questions. Firstly, what will be the impact of the implementation of the scheme on existing pension funds, bearing in mind that at the end of 1973 there were well over 8 000 pension funds registered in South Africa? Secondly, will the ability of presently existing funds to accumulate finance be curtailed with the introduction of the proposed South African pension scheme? This is a very important question, for obvious reasons. Thirdly, what will be the cost to the Government to administer and, if necessary, subsidize the proposed South African pension scheme? The fact that these questions are still unanswered, that no answers were given, and that there was a decided lack of actuarial evidence to support the proposal, has led to widespread outright rejection of this scheme. The question which one has to ask now is: What do we do? Do we simply turn away from this scheme because of the criticism or do we move forward? I would hope that the hon. the Minister would remind his critics that the proposal for a State pension scheme arose out of an attempt to overcome some of the serious defects which exist in many pension schemes in South Africa today. I list only a few of these, for example, the inadequate provision for the preservation and/or transferability of pension rights, and the payment of benefits on death or retirement in lump-sum payments rather than in the form of a monthly pension. The situation was so bad in 1973, according to the report, that pension funds paid out only R72 million in annuities, as against R76 million for lumpsum payments under circumstances other than retirement or death. But there are many other anomalies which exist at the moment. Not only is there a need to resolve the anomalies, but a national pension scheme would obviously do away with the present disparity which exists between pensions paid to the various race groups. For these and other reasons I urge the hon. the Minister not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

It is true that the scheme as proposed in the report has significant weaknesses but I believe that these can be overcome if the emphasis is changed to a compulsory contribution by all citizens to any suitably approved private or retirement annuity scheme. The advantages of doing it this way are quite clear. In the first place, the administrative machinery for this already exists. In my judgment a duplication by the State would be extravagant. Secondly, private enterprise and the profit motive will ensure efficiency and economy together with imaginative investment, where, of course, this is permissible. Thirdly, the use of existing private institutions will speed up the introduction of such a scheme by making use of their accumulated knowledge and experience. Fourthly, the State could control the activities of approved funds through the Registrar in order to ensure the security of those funds and the well-being of those who will have to depend upon them in years to come. If the department, if the hon. the Minister, were to follow the above recommendations, the following provisions would have to be incorporated. Firstly, all private schemes contracting in, should be standardized as far as contributions and minimum benefits are concerned. Secondly, contributions as a percentage of income should be compulsory for all workers over a given age, but obviously with a qualification of making them voluntary for economically active married women. Thirdly, collections should be made by employers and paid into the private scheme selected by the employee. Fourthly, the transferability of pension rights—something which is so vitally important—from one approved scheme to another must be made legally possible. Fifthly, extra contributions over and above laid-down rates should be encouraged through tax incentives. Finally, lump-sum repayments of individual pension contributions must be stopped forthwith.

I believe that the objectives, as set out in the hon. the Minister’s introduction to the report—a report which has been made available—remain sound, namely that all economically active people who do not belong to any pension fund or scheme, or who belong to funds or schemes the benefits of which do not at least equal those of the proposed South African pension scheme, become members of the scheme. We have already heard from the hon. member for Boksburg of the way in which the liabilities of the State in respect of the payment of pensions has increased remarkably over the last years. We have also realized that these pensions themselves are inadequate. Here, I believe, is a scheme which will make it possible for all to provide in large measure for the latter years of their life so that there will be a responsible allocation of those funds. Therefore, I urge the hon. the Minister, notwithstanding the critics, to follow this through so that, when the weaknesses have been ironed out and some of my suggestions have perhaps been considered, we can proceed as urgently as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in connection with social pensions and the means tests. In the present economic conditions, it is clear that I would definitely not request a lowering of the means test. Indeed, my personal opinion is that the means test is very liberal. Firstly, certain standard deductions are made from the income of a person who has reached the given age level, and who applies for a pension. Those deductions are also quite liberal. His income from farming, no matter what it amounts to, is calculated at a total of R144; a calculation which is also very liberal. If such a person receives any income from a business, the net amount is allotted to him. If it is someone who takes in boarders in his house, amounts paid by his own children, children who live with him as boarders, are not taken into account. If three or more boarders live there, only 25% of the amount which the boarders pay him, is taken into consideration. If someone like this sublets rooms or part of his house, then once more than two rooms are let, only 25% of his gross rent is taken into consideration. I think that this is very liberal.

If the applicant has a wife who works and receives an income which amounts to more than 50% of his own income, only 25% of the wife’s income is taken into account. However, if he receives other pensions administered by the Department of Social Welfare, he is not considered and cannot apply for a pension. The problem lies in the fact that the assets of the pensioner, whether it be a house or a farm, are quantified on the strength of an annual income. Unfortunately, the people who live in cities are worse off than those who live in the country. A house is very much cheaper in the country, it is valued at much less and this in fact means that it is much easier for the owner to get a pension. Properties are more expensive in the cities, but such a person’s expenses are also greater in the city. However, this is not the worst. We know that as far as an income for the owner is concerned, the value of a property—whether a house or a farm—is more of a burden than an actual asset. We find that the value of such a house increases with inflation. A person who possesses a house today will not be able to qualify for a pension, whereas a person who had the same house ten years ago, would in fact have been able to qualify for a pension. However, the present owner is no better off, because his rates increase and a house yields no income.

I should like to express the thought that the department should consider linking the valuation of a house to the rate of inflation, or the consumer price index. Let me put it like this. If I had a house last year which was worth R20 000 and the rate of inflation is 10%, then that house is worth R22 000 today. However, the house is no more valuable to the man who applies for a pension. If one takes last year’s index at 100 and this year’s at 110 due to a rate of inflation of 10%, and one calculates the value of the house at R22 000 for pension purposes this year, and multiply it by 100 over the index figure, one gets the amount which represents the real value of the house. If this method is used, it should not cost the department much, because I know it is pointless to ask for a lot more money considerably in these circumstances.

If more funds were available, the department could have done anything. No matter how much one would like to do everything in one’s power for our old people, there are limits to what the State can do. That is why the issue here, as far as I am concerned, is one of fair treatment. Everyone must be treated in the same way. A person who applies for a pension in five years’ time must be given the same opportunity as the person who applies today.

Why am I so serious about people who could perhaps receive a small pension? Hon. members must bear in mind that when I talk of properties which are valued too high, it may concern somebody who receives, say a pension of R6, R7 or R8 per month. This is minimal, but the important point is that if he receives that small pension, he also receives a pension certificate with which he can go to the district surgeon in order to receive free medical treatment. In today’s circumstances this may perhaps be more valuable to any pensioner than anything else which he receives. It is almost worth more than the pension. To me this is the most important thing. Even if a person receives a minimum pension of R2 per month, he is entitled to a pension certificate with which he can receive free medical treatment from the district surgeon. If this can be done, we have helped that person a great deal. In addition, it does not cost the Department of Social Welfare a cent more. This is important for me, because medical care of our old people is an extremely important matter.

The problem here—and I am speaking in my capacity as a doctor—is that the progress made in medical science is the direct cause of people becoming so old. It is our doctors who are disturbing the ecology. That is why it is also our duty to see that those people can be helped. My friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville, will know that when we served on the commission of enquiry into the Health Act a year or so ago, we recommended a health advisory board. At the same time we recommended that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should also be represented on that advisory board. That is how important we considered it to be. This was not accepted by the Department of Health, but such possibilities are being created in the present Act by the advisory committee of the Department of Health being entitled to appoint subcommittees. I think that it should be the task of this department to be represented on one of those subcommittees so that they can stress this and discuss matters when it comes to the case of elderly people. I think that this can be done very easily under the present Health Act, much more easily than before, because in terms of the present Health Act the situation is that district surgeons will fall under the provincial administrations in future. In other words, the same bodies that are responsible for caring for the aged as soon as they become ill and are put into hospital, are now also responsible for the curative services which have to be provided to the pensioners while they are still at home. All the planning provides for district surgeons holding more and more clinics. In the surrounding areas of large hospitals those hospitals will have out-patient clinics, not necessarily only in the city where they are situated, but in the surrounding areas, too, similar to those at hospitals, where pensioners can receive all the treatment they need. If these people have to be hospitalized, there is really no medical problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this House agrees with the hon. member who has just sat down. He made a very well reasoned speech. I entirely agree with what he has said. I think all hon. members who have so far spoken, have added weight to the argument which I want to advance this evening with regard to the care of the pensioners and the finding of money for old-age pensioners.

As has been remarked by the hon. member for Umbilo, we have seen a steady deterioration in the living standards of pensioners in South Africa, because they had to cut back on their standard of living as a result of the increased cost of living and were thus unable to make a go of it. One wonders why this is so. One wonders what has been done about it. We welcome the news that was published about the new contributory pension scheme. It has, after all, been UP policy for many years. We do hope that it will come into operation soon.

Even if it were to come into operation next year, there is going to be considerable time-lag before it will come into full effect and it will not assist the present generation of pensioners. This is our greatest problem today. What are we going to do to assist the present generation of pensioners? More and more people are qualifying for pension, and—as the hon. member for Boksburg so rightly remarked—a generation is developing today which I call “the new poor”. After the wars we used to get new generations of “the new rich”, but we are now getting a generation of “the new poor”. They are mainly the people who retired 10 to 12 years ago with what they then thought was sufficient money in the bank on which to live in comfort for the rest of their days. I am thinking of an amount of a R100 000 or so. Those very people had to draw on their savings since then, because they have a house which needed repair, probably they have had to buy a new motor-car at a very inflated price, a price which is far more than they ever expected it to be. So they have been spending their capital. Many of them are today able to qualify for old-age pensions at the ages of 70 years or 75 years. It is being said that life expectancy today is anything up to 85 years. What is going to be done about the situation? In his budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the inability of the Government to help these people. He apologized for it and said that he was sorry that he could not give them more, but it was impossible to do so. One can only wonder what the answer to this is. When one returns to one’s constituency, the question which is continually being put—I am sure it applies to Government members as well—is: what is the Government doing about the old-age pensions? One usually does not know what to answer them. I am certain that many of them do not get satisfactory answers even from the Government members themselves, because the hon. member for Umbilo and myself are continuously receiving letters from people living in constituencies held by Government members.

I must confess that one would like to attempt to make political capital out of the matter by saying that the Government is not going to do anything, but one has to be honest and tell people that they have to accept the realities of the situation, that the country is having economic problems and that they therefore cannot expect further help, at least not in the foreseeable future. My advice to them is to try and help themselves, because the oldest adage in the world is: “God helps those who help themselves.” The results of this advice in my consituency have been remarkable, because homes have been built for the aged, places of refuge have been found for those who were homeless, meals have been laid on in comfort for those who were not able to care for themselves, entertainments and fund raising have been embarked upon in order to raise funds to help the aged and the needy. But many people feel that something more than this is required, something on a national scale. It was suggested by one of my committees that perhaps we should try to persuade the Government to agree to a State lottery to supplement the old-age pensions. I immediately advised them that I thought that they were wasting their time, but it appears that people are not quite as pessimistic as I am and that they seem to have child-like belief in the compassion of the hon. the Prime Minister. They said they were sure that if the hon. the Prime Minister was presented with the facts and if he realizes that people desire a State lottery and that the object of the State lottery would be a worthy one, he would agree to it. Of course I had no idea that the Government was going to come with the defence bond scheme. When we started with the scheme two years ago, by coincidence we arranged D-day to be 1 May. A petition was placed before Parliament at the time with 22 000 signatories. Many were still outstanding, but we could not wait any longer. So I submitted the petition. I did so in all humility, because it was not my work, but the work of hundreds of people who have tramped the streets, who have sat at little tables on street corners to collect signatures from everybody—from every religion, every class and every language group. They all signed willingly. I am certain that one could get many more signatures if it were necessary. I cannot for one minute promise that the Government is going to embark on this scheme. However, I hope that it will. I have already asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to give the scheme his support and I now ask this hon. Minister and his hon. Deputy Minister to give this scheme their blessings as well, so that the petition will not be allowed to lie in the shelves downstairs and collect dust, but that something tangible be done about it. Something can indeed be done if hon. members bear in mind what has been done in Ireland by the Irish Sweepstake. That is a country which, in comparison with South Africa, is a poor one. Today they have the finest hospital system in the world. We also know what was done by the Rhodesian and the Ndola Sweepstakes, and we are certain that something similar can be achieved here. I realize that everyone is now trying to climb on the sweepstake bandwagon and that everybody is coming forward with ideas for a lottery.

I am certain that South Africa can only carry one State lottery, and whatever such lottery is going to support, it will have to be a justifiable and a worthy cause. While the defence bond scheme is a justifiable one—we support it because the object is the defence of our country—I feel that the object of a State lottery would be just as justifiable, because it concerns the care of our aged who, as has been confessed by hon. members on that side of the House this evening, can no longer be helped by the Government. I do not suppose any other Government would be able at this stage to give the pensioners more than we are giving them now. If we are going to give every social pensioner only R5 extra per month, it will cost us R1 million per month. What value has R5 today? One can spend a R 10-note in five minutes and one can hardly see what one gets for it. Five rand today is chicken-feed. I feel that a State lottery, if run once a month and if one can sell three million tickets, will probably bring in R1 million per month. That will be just sufficient to give R5—which is very little—to each old-age pensioner. The argument may be used that once a contributory pension scheme is in operation we shall not require a lottery any more. But the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will always require money. We will always have the handicapped, we will always have the disability and we will always have the poor. It is our duty to care for them, and a lottery is going to be the easiest way to do that. There will be no cost to the State, while the people will benefit because prizes may be won. I have no doubt that it will be popular. I feel that the Government when it turns the petition down, will do so at its own peril. But I have the greatest confidence that this hon. Minister will support it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon. member for South Coast that one would like to do more for the aged. However, we must take into account the fact that when we want to give our elderly people more, we must know where we are going to get it from. The hon. member said that we must give more, but he did not say where the funds must come from.

The hon. member for Pinelands again asked for a national pension scheme tonight, and so did the hon. member for South Coast, in his speech. The one says that it is the hon. member for Houghton’s baby and the other one says that it is the UP’s baby. I think they should settle the matter between them. While the hon. member for Pinelands was speaking, I hoped that he would give us an indication in passing of the content of the message which his leader, the hon. member for Sea Point, gave to Zaïre on behalf of the Marxists and what message he brought back from them. While we are on the subject of welfare services, I want to say that I have a lively interest in welfare services. I am specially interested in these matters in my constituency. I want to give the members of the Opposition a word of comfort here tonight. They look so concerned to me that my word of comfort, as a person who is very interested in welfare services, is that they should not be so concerned. In only two months’ time they will be UP members no longer. Then they will be rid of that millstone around their necks. Then they will be free to go to any political squatter camp that they wish. They can go to the PRP squatter camp or to the IUP squatter camp. They can even come over to this side, although I do not know whether they will be welcome. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is too limited, otherwise I would have answered his question. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the staff of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the services which they are rendering. I want to say very honestly that they are admired for the way in which they are coping with the work of that department. I would also be neglecting my duty if I did not refer to the regional office in Port Elizabeth. There can be no criticism of the service which is provided there. The services provided by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions cover a very wide field. When one makes a study of all the activities of the department, one realizes the magnitude of the services of the department. I shall not refer to all the services this afternoon. If we take a look at the budget, we find that, after the colossal amount of money which is being made available for defence, the next largest amount is being made available for social welfare services, old-age pensions and the care of our aged. This is an amount of R369 924 000. This proves how much the State does in caring for aged and physically handicapped people, as well as for needy children. Since the hon. member for South Coast is calling upon us so persistently to do more for the aged, I want to ask him whether he has ever thought of the sins of the UP in 1948? At that time they gave the aged a mere R10 per month. It is different today. The aged do not receive R10 or R72 from the State, but R79 per month. The hon. member must not think that this is all which our aged have to live on. The first R9 000 which an aged person has in cash, is not taken into consideration in determining his pension. He can also own property.

We know all that, because we also have pensioners in our constituencies.

The hon. member for Pinetown knows nothing. He should rather remain seated. A pensioner may own property to the value of R24 000, and still qualify for an old-age pension. When he exceeds the limit of R34 000, he still receives a pension of R14 per month. Therefore our aged people do not have to live on R79 only. They have other income as well. The hon. member is not taking this into account. I should like to point out that the services which are provided to our aged people and their circumstances of life cover a very wide field. The aspect in caring for our aged people with whom the greatest progress has been made in the past few years, is the accommodation of the aged.

I should like to dwell on this for a moment. In this regard we can distinguish between the accommodation in old-age homes of certain elderly people who are no longer able to look after themselves, that is institutional care, and accommodation by means of providing special flats and houses for those aged who are still able to look after themselves and run their homes on their own. On this occasion I want to ask that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should see that the standard of those old-age homes, flats and dwelling units which are provided to our aged people, should not be lowered. I want to point out that some of the dwelling units which are being built by certain municipalities for the aged, are not all they should be. This may perhaps be due to the high building costs, but if we bear in mind that those dwelling units will still have to be used by future generations, we must insist that the capital provision for them is increased. I believe that, where necessary, we should provide our aged with houses of which we and our descendants may be proud. I also think of most of the subsidized old-age homes which are being built in recent times with a great deal of pride. Our aged who have the privilege of living in those old-age homes, are very happy and are also very grateful for this.

In relation to the number of White aged in the country there are more aged people living in old-age homes in South Africa than in most other developed countries in the world. On 31 December 1976 there were 272 subsidized old-age homes which were under the control of welfare organizations and in which 15 346 inhabitants of the sub-economic group were being accommodated. The hon. member for South Coast should listen to this, because this proves that we care for our aged. As I said, there were 15 346 of the sub-economic group who were being accommodated by the department. 2 624 of the economic group are also accommodated by the department, as well as another 3 124 in private institutions. Four old-age homes are managed by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and can accommodate a further 360 persons. Then there are also four old-age homes which are managed on the State’s behalf by the firm Smit, Mitchell and Co and which accommodate a total of 374 aged people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is a very bad-tempered man. For no reason at all he began holding a political meeting during the pension debate. However, when he could not find anyone to fight with, he did calm down a little.

Mr. Chairman, I think that he really insulted the hon. member for South Coast. He said that, although the hon. member for South Coast had asked for increased pensions, he did not say where the necessary money should come from. However, it was in fact the hon. member for South Coast who came up with a marvellous idea of how the necessary money could be obtained, namely by means of a State lottery.

Thank you Boet, you are good.

Come back, Boet!

No Sir, I need not go back to them, because I gave them that idea at the time. [Interjections.] I think that, under the circumstances we should all be very pleased that pensions have been increased by R7 for Whites, R4 for Coloureds and R2 for Bantu. I want to remind hon. members that pensioners are still suffering extreme hardships. The R7 increase which they have received is only 23 cents per day. Once the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has finished with them, they will not even be able to buy an extra loaf of bread with it. [Interjections.] That is why it is absolutely essential that we should find other resources. One could not have done better under the present economic circumstances, and that is why the suggestion of the hon. member for South Coast is so attractive. This is my honest opinion.

I should like to raise another matter. When the budget was announced, the UP and the PRP immediately ran to the newspapers. They issued simultaneous statements. I do not know if they were joint statements, and whether it was part of the joint strategy. However, they said immediately that the gap in pensions must be eliminated. We could ignore this if we wish; we could say nothing, but the policy of this party has never been to remain silent. We are prepared to investigate any matter, and we want to investigate this matter. We accept that there are people in South Africa with different standards of living. There are people with different lifestyles. I do not think that we should eventually be giving a person a pension so that he, as a pensioner, receives more than he received before. I do not think he ought to benefit unduly from a pension.

I should like to quote some figures in order to show that the amount for old-age pensions to Coloureds amounts to R28 million, while war veteran pensions for Coloureds amount to R2,7 million. Disability grants amount to R13,4 million, and those for the blind amount to R6,13 million. The total amount is R44 million.

However, then we come to foster parent grants. This amounts to R4,2 million in the case of Coloured. Maintenance grants amount to R12,2 million. As regards these foster parent grants, we find today that the foster parent receives R34,65 for each child. Amongst the Coloured community the number of foster parents is 8 073, and the children involved number 13 632.

Then we come to the maintenance grants for widows and unmarried mothers. Here we see that the widows and unmarried mothers each receive R38,50 per month. This is the figure for 1975. It has been increased since then. For every child she receives R8,15 per month; in other words R16,30 for two children, R24,45 for three children and R32,60 for four children. An unmarried mother can therefore receive R67,25 per month for four children. There are 29 038 parents who qualify for these grants. The number of children involved is 91 000.

Now I want to refer to the Theron Report. It states that 43,1% of the Coloured children which were born in 1970, were illegitimate.

This debate concerns Whites only.

Yes, I am coming to the Whites now. I want to mention these figures so that hon. members can understand what it is all about. If living-together relationships are considered as marriages de facto, the illegitimate cases amount to 31%. Furthermore it has been found that 82,3% of all the mothers under 20 are unmarried, and therefore can qualify for a pension like this. One has a great sympathy for these people. However, the question arises whether these maintenance pensions are not being abused. The hon. the Minister asked me why I am raising this argument. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he will have to undertake an investigation. It is essential that, in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, he should authorize an investigation into this matter. This must be done in order to determine whether we are not perhaps encouraging and subsidizing illegitimacy in South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I wonder why these hon. members are so sensitive when one raises a question like this. The hon. member for Benoni, for instance, ought to know what happens in the rural areas. [Interjections.] After all, he knows what happens in the rural areas.

You are dealing with the wrong Vote (Pos)!

Oh, is that the only objection? [Interjections.]

Order!

You are under the wrong bush (bos)! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, those hon. members do not have the courage to raise matters which concern South Africa. Now they come up with trivialities, like which Vote or bush (Pas of bos) it is. [Interjections.] In any event the Votes are so intertwined that I believe that all Cabinet members are responsible for all Votes. [Interjections.] But of course there is nothing like joint Cabinet responsibility! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if an investigation is carried out in the rural areas, it will also be discovered to what degree liquor stores are subsidized in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The children do not get that money!

Mr. Chairman, something will have to be done about this matter. Or should those children be put into hostels? There is something else. I want to point out. In 92% of the cases of unplanned pregnancy the mother said that they did not want the children. This is according to the Theron report. However, now we are subsidizing the mothers. Those mothers make a flourishing business out of this. On top of that they are still supporting the lay-abouts, the men who are responsible for those children. Surely this cannot simply be allowed to continue. The hon. member for Albany suggested a marvellous plan here, a plan which has my full support. The hon. member said that, in terms of the policy of our party, this phenomenon should be considered as a socio-economic problem, and that an SSB should definitely be formed for the Coloured and Black population.

If the White child can give two years of his life to the State for the defence of South Africa, those people can also give up two years of their lives. They do not necessarily have to do this for defence. They can just as well be trained to erect houses in their own residential areas, houses for their own people. One should look at what can be done when those people are mobilized. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for King William’s Town has just referred to the difference between the pensions paid to Whites and those paid to non-Whites. I am very pleased he has referred to it. After all, it is true that the pension of the non-White makes up 56% of his median income at present whilst the pension of the White amounts to only 20% of his median income. This only goes to show that the Government is active in this respect as well, narrowing the gap between White and non-White.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the frequent custom of making a political issue of the awarding of old-age pensions and pensions in general. I just want to tell the hon. member that if one were to consult the Hansard of the past few decades, one would find it on record that whenever pensions have been increased, that side of the House has seen it as a political move on the part of this side of the House. Those hon. members have never shaken off the bad habit of regarding every good thing the Government does for its voters with a measure of suspicion. I should just like to give the hon. member that to think about.

It has become the practice, in the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote, for us to discuss only the pension aspect of the department’s activities. But there is another side to it, too, namely the welfare aspect of the department. The welfare work of the department began in 1937 when the Department of Welfare was established. It was only in the years that followed that the welfare work became part of the Department of Pensions. Since that time, the department has done a wonderful job. So much so that the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the secretary and the staff of the department have the thanks of not only this House, but of thousands of needy children, adults and aged persons who have benefited from the care of the department.

The granting of pensions is a very important function of the department in the life of the nation. In the same way, the various grants-in-aid that are made freely available, are also very important. During the past financial year, an amount of approximately R300 million was appropriated for various aspects of the activities of the department. This is a vast sum. It gives rise to concern as to whether we could be degenerating into a socialist State. One wonders how long the State will be able to continue increasing the pensions of the needy every year and whether consideration should not be given to priorities in respect of the awarding of grants-in-aid or pensions to a section of our population. As a result of better medical services and the development of medical science people are becoming inactive at an increasingly greater age. Should we not reconsider aspects such as the fixing of an age limit in awarding a pension or administering the means test; alternatively, should we not link the request for a pension or grant with a medical certificate? We shall certainly have to consider these aspects in the near future.

Another aspect of the department’s functions is care of the aged. The most important aspect of care of the aged is certainly housing. Accommodation of the aged is becoming an increasingly important task. In practically every community, most elderly persons have either a financial or a physical deficiency. Whatever the case, housing remains the most important facet of the elderly person’s needs. As an example, let me take the pitiable fate of the elderly person who is chronically infirm, the geriatric case. How often does it not happen that infirm elderly persons can no longer be kept in a normal hospital and are practically turned out onto the street because there are no children who can look after these old people? How many of them do not spend a whole day in pain and suffering sitting at a hospital as an out-patient and waiting for the treatment which the hon. member for Fauresmith mentioned just now? There are conditions like these that are really heart-rending. This is a state of affairs which demands to be given a high priority. That is why the efforts of the local bodies that provide care for this type of elderly person are truly admirable. The numbers of elderly persons like these are steadily growing and in addition to this, the socio-economic revolution in the community also plays a major role which affects the elderly persons very directly.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I ended just now by saying that I was very sympathetic towards those elderly persons who often have to spend a whole day at a hospital in order to receive treatment as day patients. Often, these elderly persons are in great pain and endure much suffering. What one finds in this regard is that the numbers of those elderly persons are increasing. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has kept up very well in the provision of housing to our aged. In that regard, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the staff of their department for the homes that have been established in my constituency during the past year. I am thinking of the old age home in Algoa Park, one in Kirkwood and one in Somerset East that has already been approved. This is really something to be very thankful for. We thank the department very much for this. Research has shown that that section of the population, namely the elderly group, makes up a substantial section of the population. It is calculated that the number of White women over the age of 60 and White men over the age of 65 make up 9% of the total population of the Republic of South Africa. It is in that sense that I should like to ask for better planning in respect of accommodation for the aged, because the socio-economic conditions, as well as the increasing urbanization of our people, is to an ever increasing extent, placing the elderly person in a critical position. That is why advance planning in respect of housing for the aged is a very important aspect of care of the aged. In view of the growing number of elderly persons, I feel that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is going to play an ever increasing role in welfare work in this way. We are in the fortunate position of having an hon. Minister and Deputy Minister, as well as a Secretary and his staff who are all experts in their field. That is why their work is appreciated so much because we note that planning for the aged keeps pace at all times with their requirements. Therefore, I am pleading here this evening for a new attitude in respect of the granting of pensions benefits to the aged. I am also pleading for better planning in respect of housing. In this respect, I am thinking particularly of the geriatric elderly persons in our midst. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Somerset East has just made a very worthwhile contribution in regard to the problem of aged people. I do not believe that this problem, acute and great as it is, is only a State problem. I believe that this is a problem for all individuals to do something about, particularly those individuals who form part of the family unit. I want to come back to the report which was issued by the department on its investigation into the possibility of the establishment of a national contributory pension scheme. I do not want to go in any depth into the proposal in this report for a South African pension scheme. I believe that the recommendation for a pay-as-you-go pension scheme is not, in its present form—I emphasize that—a financially sound one. I also believe that the scheme, as recommended in its present form, would have some very serious implications. It would have serious implications for the South African economy as a whole, because it would cut off a source of savings that is very important for the development of the country and it would have serious implications as far as the long-term insurance industry is concerned, because being, as I believe it to be, not a financially sound scheme in its present form, it would put long-term insurers in a position of not being able to compete with it as far as their pension fund business is concerned. It would kill those schemes stone dead. Having said that, I would like to say that although I find a pay-as-you-go scheme, as recommended in this report, to be unacceptable, a national contributory pension fund is still something which is highly desirable to fill the gap that is left by private pension schemes as far as persons who are not covered by them are concerned. I would like to see the right type of national scheme being introduced and I would like to see it introduced as soon as it is possible to work out a scheme that is going to be financially sound and acceptable.

Do you favour a funded scheme?

I think funding has got to be taken into account. My main purpose in referring to the report, is to refer to chapter 5 which deals with the preservation and the transferability of pension rights. I find it an excellent chapter that deals with a matter which, in my view, should be dealt with by the Government as soon as it is possible to do so. In the foreword to the report the hon. the Minister indicates that he feels that while the national contributory pension scheme is being investigated, arrangements can be made in regard to the transferability and the preservation of pension rights. I believe that these two things should be treated as separate matters and that the Government should get on as soon as possible with steps to preserve or to deal with transferability of accumulated pension rights.

It is now 11 years since the Cilliers Committee reported. It recommended that steps should be taken to compel all pensions funds to provide for preservation or transferability of pension rights in certain circumstances and yet, in the intervening 11 years, nothing has been done in this respect. It is a fact that up to 1973 more was being paid out by way of lump-sum repayments in circumstances other than retirement or death, that is in circumstances where members of pension funds left their employment in those pension funds, than was being paid out in annuities. The report provides plenty of evidence that those lump-sum payments are not in the main used to provide retirement benefits. They are used to cover ordinary current expenditure and in many cases these lump-sum payments, when they are paid out, are squandered. This is naturally not the purpose of a pension fund or the pension fund movement. The payment of lump sum benefits that are not used to provide for retirement creates social problems and ultimately creates a greater liability for social pensions.

I find it very regrettable that the latest figures available are those for 1973. I know that this is not the responsibility of this hon. Minister but nevertheless, to have such outdated figures to go on in an important matter like this, is to be regretted. I think it is quite possible that since 1973 the position may have improved in regard to the payment of lump sum benefits because since that time the economic position has deteriorated and members of pension funds hang on to their jobs more than they did a few years ago. At the same time the position has certainly deteriorated in one respect with the deterioration in the economic situation. Unemployment has increased and with the increase in unemployment, more people have lost their jobs and more people have been paid out lump sum benefits. They have probably been compelled to spend that money in the circumstances in which they have found themselves. I therefore believe that the time is overdue when steps should be taken to deal with the question of compulsory preservation of pension rights when a member leaves a pension fund for any reason other than retirement or death. I appreciate that there are administrative difficulties in respect of preserving pensions in a pension fund in cases where a member has left it. It is costly to preserve these pension rights in the form of deferred pensions in the original pension fund particularly when a member subsequently changes jobs again and again and he changes his address. I do not believe, however, that the problem is in any way insuperable. It can be overcome by providing for the transferring of accumulated pension rights to retirement annuity funds to buy non-commutable and non-assignable deferred pensions, or when the central pension fund is set up these accumulated pension rights could be transferred to the central pension fund. I believe that the whole process could also be simplified by making preservation compulsory only in certain circumstances, for instance when a person has reached a certain age and has had a minimum period of service with a pension fund. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my sincere thanks for the contributions from both sides of the House during discussions which are always of a constructive nature when this Vote is discussed. I am especially grateful to the hon. member for Umbilo who always does his homework thoroughly and comes forward with positive proposals from the Opposition side.

I want to reply in passing to only a few of the matters raised, because I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will reply at more length especially to the speech made by the hon. member for Constantia. I am grateful to the hon. member for Somerset East for having drawn attention to the fact that this department is called the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I mean it sincerely when I say that I appreciate the contributions. In no way do I want to criticize the people who participated in the debate, but in passing I do want to point out that virtually everything that was said here was concerned with pensions. What was discussed was old-age pensions and the differences between the various population groups, but primarily the concern was with payments made to people at a time when they were no longer on the labour market or were no longer able to enter the labour market. I am grateful to the hon. member for Somerset East for having pointed out that this department had another, and in my opinion a greater, task as well, i.e. to do welfare work. Of course, this does not exclude the fact that the making of contributions by the Government, indeed the contributions made from all quarters, for the benefit of our aged, the senior citizens of our country, is something which no Government can neglect. We would be doing them a disservice and we would be showing gross ingratitude if we did not do our duty to the largest possible extent towards those who have dedicated their lives to the service of the country, towards the veterans of the different wars and towards everyone who has rendered service and who is at present no longer able to look after himself. Therefore, the doors of the department and the Ministry have always been open to representations on behalf of the veterans or others in financial need. It is undoubtedly so that our people, especially the pensioners, are suffering more hardships and are affected more severely by the inflation rate. We cannot get away from the fact that those who receive only R79 per month—I specifically say “only R79 per month”—find it much more difficult to make ends meet than we who are still privileged enough to be in full service.

The hon. member for Boksburg and others pointed out that the world, and, consequently South Africa as well, was faced by a tendency that the number of people growing older than 65 years and 60 years, was increasing. The time is going to arrive when we shall perhaps not be able to exploit fully the norms we have laid down. Therefore it is necessary for us to give our attention to what was said by, inter alia, the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Pine-lands, i.e. that a contributory pension scheme receive the urgent attention of the Government. This will indeed take place.

Hear, hear!

I want to say at this stage that it is a pity that responsible leaders, representative of insurance companies as well, leaders who are highly regarded in the country, people I honour for the contribution they have made, have found it necessary to cast suspicion on a well-intentioned scheme, a scheme supported by all sides of this House, and to shoot it down from motives which I cannot always call selfless or charitable. Unfortunately, I have to say that the way in which officials of the department who conducted the inquiry and others too, were brought into discredit, certainly does not bring the officials in discredit, but those people who expressed such unnecessary and premature criticism of a scheme which is still in embryo. Nevertheless, we shall not allow ourselves to be deterred by that but will continue to work out an actuarial scheme with officials and others, a scheme which we hope will bring relief in the years to come in respect of the burden which is at present resting on the Government alone. In any event, with regard to the inadequacy of these pensions, I want to say, firstly, that we should note that what was said here by various speakers, also in the circles in which we move, should always receive active attention. This is, to be more specific, that the care of people who have reached the end of their course of life or working life, is not the obligation of the Government alone. To me it is always a privilege to visit homes for the aged. However, if there is something which I want to say to the Whites in South Africa—I am making no excuses for this, I am saying it only because it hurts me to have this knowledge—it is that one finds elderly people in homes for the aged who long to have not only a roof over their heads, but also children taking an interest in them and other people taking an interest in them. It is not to the credit of our White nation that there are lonely people in beautiful homes, people who are lonely because their own people, their own children, their own flesh and blood, think that their duty has been done when they have found accommodation for father or mother in a home for the aged so as to be rid of them in this way.

We owe the many people who do charitable work a debt of gratitude. Today I want to express the gratitude of the Government to the members of all population groups who contribute so generously in this respect. One of the hon. members has pointed out that, when people in distress have to be resettled as happened recently, one can always rely on the support of the public of South Africa. I believe that millions of rands is not too high an estimate if one is seeking a contribution for the construction of homes for the aged. To the people in church organizations everywhere who have worked to render the task of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions possible, I want to express my sincere gratitude.

The hon. member for Fauresmith touched on a matter here this afternoon which also deserves our serious attention, and that is that apart from a cash payment to people, there are other things which people need to survive in their old age. In reply to the hon. member for Fauresmith, who is not present, I want to say that at the moment the department is considering whether methods cannot be found for closer liaison with the Department of Health in order to assist people who have to incur immense medical expenditure. I can say that after talks with the Secretary for Health I have already made arrangements to meet the various provincial health officers and to have discussions with them, especially on geriatric services in provincial hospitals, but also on additional services which can be rendered in homes for the aged. I hope that I shall be able to report progress in this respect soon.

We have dealt with the aged, but after we have distributed pensions, there is another part of the work which we have not yet come to. Pensions are mailed to some people every month. Once their names have been fed to the computer, this process continues automatically. There is, however, another duty which deserves the attention of the department and I want to postulate, especially now that we have received the report of the Van Rooyen Commission, that we shall certainly be able to give attention to this matter next year. To be able to perform this duty, we need the money in the first place and the staff in the second place. Hon. members spoke about the Auret Report which deals with the profession of social worker. In this regard I have to make some alarming announcements. To those hon. members who have the report, these announcements will be nothing new. At the moment we have approximately 3 700 registered social workers in South Africa. Of this number of 3 700 only 16,5% are non-Whites. I shall return to this aspect later. As the hon. member for Umbilo and others pointed out in passing, it is surely true that work within a particular community can best be done by somebody from that community. Another alarming feature is that the ratio of women to men in this profession is such that there are six women to every man in this profession. As far as field work is concerned there are twelve women to every man active in the profession of social worker.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I propose that the hon. the Deputy Minister be allowed to continue.

Thank you very much. Sir, I must tell you, furthermore, that of the total of 3 700 registered social workers, we lose at least 35% annually. Among our field-workers there is a turnover of more than 35% per annum. One can imagine what that amounts to, if one bears in mind that 55% of our qualified working force has experience of less than five years and that almost 29% can only boast of two years’ experience, or less, in the field of social welfare work. These people have to work with problem cases. They have to be trusted by people who have all sorts of troubles and they have to make out reports to enable the department to come to decisions. I need hardly stress the further fact that the mobility of this working force, going from one place to the other, advancing to senior posts when they are really not qualified to do the work they are doing creates problems for the department which, as hon. members can well imagine, is of immense proportions. Now that we have decided that the report of the Auret Commission should be considered I think we can give further effect to the training of people, also of the other racial groups, to work in their own spheres.

*I want to repeat this evening what the view of the department is, especially with reference to circular No. 29, about which much has been said. It is the policy of the Government—and it seems to me to be the accepted policy among other population groups as well—that welfare work should be community-directed. It cannot be expected of a White person to understand fully the conceptions held by another population group of morality, marriage or childcare, nor can it be expected of them to communicate properly with people who are problem cases to them.

It needs to be more than community-directed. In the recommendations made in the reports, especially in the Auret Report, an umbrella body covering the various population groups to deliberate on welfare services in the country, is envisaged. Decisions will still be taken in this regard, but in the meanwhile it is essential that community work also be done on a local level. The department conducted an experiment at a few towns in the Vaal Triangle, at Meyerton, Vanderbijlpark and a few others, to get interested people in the city councils and in other organizations to determine the needs of that region. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not hold it against me, if I say that we still need many homes for the aged, but that in some places homes for the aged have been established where that money should rather have been spent in other directions. I hope that you will pardon me if I say that parochial considerations sometimes prejudice our priorities and that sometimes things are done, although with good intentions, which are not always to the benefit of welfare work in general. That is why an experiment was conducted in this region to determine the needs with regard to family care, children’s homes, homes for the aged and rehabilitation centres. To determine the needs of such a large region and of the various population groups in it, is something which can best be done by the local community. The policy of the department has always been that a partnership exists between the Government and the public. We do not want to turn this into a bureaucratic department which dictates from the top and gives the public no share in things. The public of South Africa has always displayed an interest in and knowledge of welfare problems. Therefore we try and keep it as community-directed as possible in this regard.

There are shortcomings, and I want to conclude by dealing with them. When I open the estimates of expenditure for this year and make a rough calculation, I see that R10 million is being voted for the administrative expenses, all other expenses included, of a very large department, a department which manages the affairs of thousands of people. To the elderly, the aged, and for people who can no longer make a contribution, the nation proves its gratitude by means of a contribution of more than R300 million to war pensioners and others. When one comes to family care, the disintegration of marriages and preventive work, the rehabilitation of alcoholics and of people who are addicted to drugs and others, an amount of only R25 million appears in the estimates.

I ask myself: When we have distributed this money to the aged, and it is our duty to do so, have we done our duty completely? What of the children who are born with defects? What of the children who are crying out for help so that they may be enabled to perform a small manual task and to become somebody independent somewhere? And what of the children from broken marriages who are committed and who never get the same opportunities as other children do? What of the people whose marriages have disintegrated because of a misunderstanding, marriages which could have been saved but were not because there were no social workers and other advisors? What of the many wrecks who lie about and who can be saved if we co-operate? What of the help that we can obtain from psychiatrists and others, the help the department can obtain in co-operation with the Department of Health so as to render assistance also to young children who are already crying to us for help? The aged have children who help them, or they help themselves, or there are good Samaritans who help them fill in a form to obtain the pensions which keep them alive. But there are children who are lost because of the ill-treatment they receive from their parents. Here I have to refer to newspaper reports. There are children who are lost because they do not know where to go for help. It is these people who form part of the welfare work referred to by the hon. member for Somerset East. It is for their sakes that the recommendations of the Van Rooyen Report, in a revised form, should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible next year. It is an excellent report and will be tabled before long. I hereby express the hope that when this legislation on social work is introduced next year, the legislation based on the report of Prof. van Rooyen, this department will be able to function even more efficiently to the satisfaction—as up to the present—of all members on both sides of this House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has always been known for his deep sincerity, and I must say that we appreciate what he has had to say this evening. It makes us all, I think appreciate the fact that he, his Minister and the department are, in fact, the fathers of the nation and not only of the aged. I appreciate very much the concluding words of the hon. the Deputy Minister tonight. He mentioned the fact that there are neglected children in this country who need attention, and I am very grateful indeed to hear that he speaks of more positive steps that are to be taken in this direction next year. I say this because one tends to forget these children entirely and to leave them to the care of various parties. The reports in the Press these days make increasing mention of child-beating which seems to have become the disgusting fashion in this modern day and age. I believe that we should take great care of our young children because they are the citizens of the future and the aged of the more distant future.

There are one or two points which the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with that I shall probably come round to later in my speech. I should also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation, that of my colleagues on this side and, I believe, that of the whole House to Mr. Van Vuuren and the whole department for their very friendly cooperation at all times and for their patience with some of the cases that have to be dealt with. There are, of course, people in South Africa who think it is simply their right to have a pension because they live here. One has to report these cases in detail and one always receives sympathetic and detailed replies.

The hon. member for Fauresmith raised a very important factor here tonight when he spoke about the valuation of the house in which the pensioner lives. I support his plea most wholeheartedly, but I disagree with him perhaps on one small point, i.e. his statement that the valuations are lower in the platteland than in the cities. I represent a constituency bordering on a coast-line, and there are many people there who retired to tiny seaside resorts where valuations of land were absolutely negligible. That was the case some 10 or 11 years ago. Because these places have since become popular, the valuations of land have soared out of all proportions. May I just mention the case of a property I own myself. This property I purchased in 1966. At that time the valuation was R150. I have done nothing at all to that property, but by 1970 the valuation of that property had risen to R2 500.

I know of a genuine case of a pensioner in a nearby seaside resort, someone who qualified for the means test. The divisional council of that area revalued his property, putting him beyond the means test. Fortunately, we were able to save them, because he and his wife had a small sum invested, and they only slightly exceeded the means test limit. I gave them the advice to spend their extra money in order to bring themselves back within the limits of the means test. They spent it on their own comfort. They bought a television set. In the process they restored their pension.

I believe that the original valuation when someone applies, should be the valuation in relation to an old-age pension or a war veteran’s pension. I believe that is the policy, but I would like the hon. the Minister to confirm it. If it has to be readjusted to a revaluation of the property, I believe it is wrong. I do not believe that one can correlate—as pleaded for by the hon. member for Fauresmith—according to the rate of inflation. Every year this country spends millions and tens of millions of rand on providing housing for people of all races. I believe that, in the long-term, this country could save millions of rand if only the value of a house in which one lives, were taken completely out of the means test. People would then be convinced that if they built a house it would not disqualify them from receiving a pension in their old age. It would also save us building old-age homes, because those people would then have a home of their own to live in.

Therefore, I lodge a very strong plea tonight with the hon. the Minister to take the value of a house completely out of the means test. Let us have a means test as far as financial assets are concerned. I believe it may be necessary until a national contributory scheme is introduced. However, the value of a house, I believe, should be taken totally out of the means test. In the long-term, I believe, such a step would save the State a substantial amount of money.

One must admit that in this country there are also pension parasites. There are some people who believe that because they were born here, or because they served in the last war, they must receive a pension from the State.

Only UP supporters believe that!

I shall prove the contrary to the hon. member if he asks me to do so. However, I am not talking politics tonight; I am talking about pensions. [Interjections.]

†There are people in this country who are the parents of well-off families, people who are above pensionable age, people who were well-off before they started receiving a pension. They are people who arrange things in such a way that they have nothing when they reach pensionable age. Consequently they apply for a pension, which they are ultimately granted. I am sorry to say, but I have had to deal with cases of this nature. However, there is unfortunately no way one can get away from that sort of truthful evasion of the truth. I do not know how to put it, but there is a great deal of this going on in this country today. It is to the detriment and to the cost of the State. I disagree with it entirely.

I believe that this report, which is a good report, can go a great deal further regarding the contributory pension scheme, something which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions referred to tonight. Until we can get a contributory pension scheme to which everybody contributes, one is going to continue to have this type of malefactors; the so-called pension parasites. I do not deny anybody who is aged his pension. I believe that there are thousands upon thousands of deserving cases. However, someone who is comfortably off, and whose family is comfortably off, should not have the temerity to ask the State to subsidize them.

Here we come to the whole basis of this department being the father and mother of the whole nation. Family life has to be restored if we are to become the nation we want to be. It so often happens that children say to a widowed mother or a father who has lost his wife that they are finished with them, that they must hand over the business to them to look after and that the parent must go and draw old-age pension. That is the last they hear from their family. They are dumped into an old-age home at State expense. I have had experience of this. This is not entirely appropriate under this Vote, but it is an example of what happens. I served on a hospital board of a hospital for chronically ill people. We had patients in that hospital for 10 to 15 years and they never saw their family from the day they were put in there until the day they died. But the day after they died their family came and asked how much money there was in the Post Office Savings Account. “Waar is die testament?” they asked.

I think the Department of Social Welfare can play a very important role in rectifying this type of attitude among our people. The family’s concern must be for its older people and its children. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite right when he said that many times we concerned ourselves too much with the aged and not enough with the children. Children are just as important as the aged people. If children are brought up wrongly, they are probably going to end up as parasites on the country.

In conclusion I once would like to make a plea for the complete abolition of the means test for veterans of the First World War. I have made this plea here before. There cannot be many of them left and those who are left are very old. We did give this concession to veterans of the Boer war. I therefore make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider abolishing the means test for veterans of the First World War. I think the time has come for us to do that. I do not think one can go further than that. My successor as MP in the distant future can appeal for the abolition of the means test for myself, if I live that long.

Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Albany made a positive speech, a speech which speaks for itself. When one listens to the hon. member for Albany and to the other speakers in this debate, and when one reads the debates of the past few years, one realizes that what we are concerned with here is the welfare of people who suffer hardship, experience want and are handicapped. In this sense we are not concerned about the welfare of the Oppenheimers, the Wassenaars, the Anton Ruperts and the Waddells. They will look after themselves. We are concerned about the welfare of people who suffer hardship, people with handicaps and children who are ill-treated. We are concerned here with the effect of liquor and other drugs, and broken families. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just stressed this again. One hears this refrain whenever unfavourable economic conditions prevail, as is the case at present. When that happens it is the very people who were already suffering hardship who are affected first and most severely. Under such circumstances those people deserve more attention and aid than before, for the very reason that they are unable to work harder or longer hours to improve their condition. That is why I ask that we in this House and the entire population reassess our priorities. The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to priorities. Are our priorities in this connection entirely what they should be? In my opinion we should put more emphasis on welfare work and service to one’s fellowman.

With that as a background I should like to refer to two matters. The first is assurance. When a person is in his prime, we find that he usually takes out assurance. The aim behind such a step is to ensure that if he should die one day and is no longer there to be the breadwinner, he will have provided for his family.

What happens in practice? Due to inflation and due to all the increasing prices, it occurs that the provision which he made, which I made and which all of us made 10 to 15 years ago is now no longer adequate. One often finds that because the economic conditions are poor, the man is unable to take out much additional assurance in order to obtain the necessary cover. What is more, frequently such a person is no longer insurable. What happens if such a person should die. He probably has more debt than usual, due to economic conditions, and if he should die, the so-called insurance forms part of his estate and is used to pay his debts. The purpose for which it was intended, viz. to provide for his family—which is what the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to—is not fulfilled in practice. In practice, that money is simply taken and used to pay his debts, without further ado. However, that was not the man’s intention; his intention was to provide for his family. I am not referring in this regard to assurance one takes out with the specific aim of paying off one’s house if one should die, or the assurance that is lawfully ceded to a company to cover the amount one owes the company. It goes without saying, of course, that that type of assurance covers the debts.

I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should perhaps use his influence to see to it that the problem be given very serious consideration and that very serious consideration be given to the possibility of not simply regarding such assurance as part of the estate to be used to pay debts, but instead, earmarking it to provide for the needs of the family. After all, that is what it was originally intended for. When the family is well cared for, the balance can be utilized to pay the debts.

In the second place, I want to make a very earnest appeal this evening for all of us, my colleagues, the welfare organizations and the State itself to put far more emphasis on the fact that we should make more use of service centres. Service centres are a fairly recent phenomenon in South Africa. Twenty years ago there was not a single service centre in South Africa; the first one came into being 19 years ago. Ten years ago there were only 5 service centres. Since then quite a few more have been established but there are still far too few. A service centre is defined as follows by the department—

Van Enkelen, a well-known Dutch researcher, has defined a service centre as follows (translation)—

In my opinion this is a very good description and definition of the service centres.

We also find that over the past few years the Government has introduced subsidies for service centres in South Africa. As far as capital costs are concerned, the State will provide a 100% loan at 1% interest, repayable over 40 years. This is for the construction of a service centre. In exceptional cases the purchase and conversion of existing buildings will also be given consideration. Such a loan covers virtually all expenses. If such a building is rented, the State considers a subsidy with regard to 75% of the rent for approved accommodation but up to a maximum of R10 per elderly person per annum. As far as furniture is concerned there is a non-recurring subsidy of 75% of the true purchase price of the furniture, but with a maximum of R20 per member. Subsequently a subsidy is paid once every five years. This represents a subsidy of 75% of the amount required for the repair or replacement of the furniture etc. We find that as far as operating expenditure is concerned, the State pays a subsidy of 50% on the approved expenditure. The rest is contributed by welfare organizations and by the elderly themselves.

The services provided by these service centres are legion. They are really of outstanding quality and are sorely needed. We find that the following services can be provided there and that they are in fact provided at such places. I have had experience of one in Krugersdorp and it works outstandingly well. The services that can be provided consist of lectures, films, dramatizations, painting, library services, discussions, information service, chiropodist services—and reference was made here to medical problems—meal times, ablution facilities, labour therapy, physiotherapy, indoor and outdoor games, outings, hairdressing, gymnastics, laundry services, debates, music, singing and folk dancing, a shop to sell manufactured articles and so on. One could go on listing all the services provided. They are being provided where these people still form part of the community.

Apart from the services rendered, the advantages of these service centres—this is what is being found overseas where they have far more experience of this than we do, but it has been found here, too—that the more the community services, of which these service centres are undoubtedly the most important, are developed, the less demand there is for old-age homes. We find too that this is a better way to treat people and to make the elderly happy than is the case as regards old-age homes. We have already referred to the economic conditions and it is true that this method of caring for the aged, by its very nature, is far cheaper than the building of old-age homes. There is yet another economic advantage, namely that the work done there is done by volunteers from the community and in this way, too, savings are effected. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should firstly like to correct a misconception which may exist or which may be perpetuated as a result of remarks made during the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands when he referred to the recognition of social workers. I should like to quote from Hansard dated 15 May 1965, col. 6088, the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo. He said—

The people to whom the hon. member referred were the social workers. I now want to quote from an article published under the name of Prof. Erika Theron in which she said: “All Government welfare services should fall under one department.” I believe that that is a very wise suggestion as it would eliminate many of the inequalities, the anomalies and the dissipation of effort which are evident now under the divided system which pertains today.

Your basis is wrong.

I will argue that outside the House because my time is too valuable now. Most legislation falls under the ambit of this hon. Minister. Most legislation affecting social welfare is introduced by him and some of it is dealt with by means of regulation for other racial groups. There is a major exception and that is the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances and the Rehabilitation Centres Act, No. 41 of 1971. The Coloureds have their own Act in this respect.

This evening I wish to deal with the question of beggars, particularly those who frequent the main streets and sidewalks of the towns and cities of our Republic. There appears to be no co-ordinated effort to limit begging or to assist in cases of genuine hardship. All races are involved. Anyone who reads chapter 40 of the South African Year Book of 1976 will gain the impression that all the handicapped and all the underprivileged persons are treated similarly.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this is as far as I am concerned an over-simplification of the position. But when we come to Act No. 41 of 1971, which deals with rehabilitation, I want to refer to another section from this very article in the yearbook about people who are committed to rehabilitation centres. I mention only three of the headings mentioned here: those who habitually beg or induce others to beg on their behalf; those who have no honest means of livelihood, and those who live an idle and or dissolute life. As a result of complaints which I have received I tabled a series of questions. As far as I am concerned the answers reveal that as far as Whites are concerned they were not a major problem; facilities exist under various Acts, I assume under the Rehabilitation Act as well, to assist White beggars. As far as the other races are concerned the position appears to be confused, unco-ordinated and uncontrolled. Rehabilitation centres for other races are either non-existent or completely inadequate. It must be borne in mind that the late Dr. Verwoerd as early as 1934 originated the concept of a co-ordinated State Department of Social Welfare. This concept was actually put into effect in 1937. That is 40 years ago. The concept was that this department should co-ordinate all social welfare work. The yearbook continues under the heading: Disability grants are also paid and assistance to the handicapped is administered to all population groups.

Then reference is made to the National Welfare Act, No. 79 of 1965, in which the National Welfare Board is charged with the responsibility of advising the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions on matters affecting social care and to promote and encourage co-ordination of the activities of registered welfare organizations. Specific reference is made to the fact that when Black, Coloured and Indian organizations apply for registration in terms of the Act these matters are considered by the National Welfare Board. If I examine the expenditure on rehabilitation services my examination discloses that in respect of the 4,2 million Whites an amount of R2¼ million has been budgeted this year. When we take the other groups, and I am not referring here to the Bantu in the homelands, an amount of R400 000 is voted for the other three groups, for a total of approximately 11 million people. If we put this in round figures in the form of a simple comparison it means that almost six times the amount of money is expended for less than one-third of the population of the Republic, excluding the Bantu homelands. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence and the services at his disposal urgently to coordinate or initiate a campaign to provide for people who find it necessary to beg and to help them so as to rid the cities and towns of these people, some who induce others to beg on their behalf, and some poor wretches who have to do it because they have no other means by which they can maintain a livelihood.

Then I want to deal, Sir, with the question of alcoholism and drug-dependence with special reference to Whites, the only persons who really enjoy what one could describe as adequate rehabilitation facilities. I believe that the situation with regard to alcoholism and particularly with regard to dagga is worsening. The incidence is escalating and the number of inmates in State and registered rehabilitation centres serves to illustrate this because the number of inmates has practically doubled in the last eight years. The expense per patient per annum has almost trebled in most instances. What is alarming to me is the fact that the consumption of alcohol is increasing. Convictions for drunken driving have risen from 700 per month in 1970 to 1 130 per month in 1976—that is for all races. In addition to that, at least three Whites are convicted every day for being in possession of, or selling dagga. That gives a figure of 1 367 per year for the year ending June 30, 1976.

Sir, working from the official statistics that have been supplied to me over the years, I have calculated that in the last 20 years 20 million kg of dagga have been destroyed by the S.A. Police. I would say that that possibly constitutes a world record in so far as the production and destruction of dagga is concerned. However, then we see that at the end of 1976, 37 people were inmates of rehabilitation centres as a result of alcohol or dagga. I have mentioned already that three per day are convicted of dagga offences. It makes me ask the question whether we concentrate on the committed or on the convicted? Is the emphasis on rehabilitation or is it on incarceration? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the increase in payments for welfare work, I cannot but arrive at the conclusion that there will have to be an entirely new approach in regard to welfare in South Africa. All the parties will have to work together in this regard: the State, the private sector, the municipalities, the children of the aged, and others. The comparative figures are as follows: On 1 April 1970 the basic pension was R420 per annum or R35 per month; in 1976, only six years later, the basic pension was R864 per annum or R72 per month. Therefore, it has more than doubled in six years. In the financial year 1972-’73 the number of old-age pensions amounted to 114 563 and a total amount of R56 396 000 was paid out. In the financial year 1976-’77 there were 134 548 pensioners and a total of R113 918 000 was paid out. In 1972-’73 there were 16 403 pensions and the amount involved was R9 892 000. In 1976-’77 there were 14 484 pensions and the total amount involved was R13 956 000. We could go on in this way, looking at the tremendous increase that has taken place in the short space of a few years. If one goes back to 1948 and compares the figures since that year, one is astonished. That is my reason for saying that we shall have to take another look at the entire set-up of welfare work in South Africa. Having said this, I should first of all like to express my appreciation to the State for this care, particularly to the aged. That is not all these aged people receive from the State. There are also the infirm aged who get buildings and equipment as well as grants. In addition, I want to express my thanks for the large amounts the Community Development Board is making available at 1/20% interest for the construction of accommodation for the aged. In addition to this, the aged receive free medical and hospital services. Appreciation must also be shown for this. They also receive treatment from local district surgeons, people who are dedicated to their work.

I should also like to express my special appreciation to those municipalities which provide the aged with free bus transport. Then there are the children of the aged who look after them, who look after their parents. We must accord them our appreciation. Then there are those old people who have themselves provided for their old age. We should express our appreciation to them as well. But then we have the unfortunate aged who, for some reason, were unable to make adequate provision for their old age and these people are the only ones we need consider. These old people, who did not have the means, have not given away their farms and possessions to their children only to ask the State for maintenance grants later.

Since 1948, major and important adaptations and concessions have been made in respect of care of the aged. There have been direct increases in pensions. There have been adaptations and a broadening of the means test. This has been done gradually and has had a bearing on income as well as assets.

Now there is something which, in my opinion, is giving rise to a problem. This is that old people who have not been so successful at making provision for their own requirements, have nevertheless been able to buy a small house in the city. Meanwhile, rates in municipal areas have increased to such an extent that those old people who have bought their own houses now simply have to get rid of them. Now they are once again dependent on the State as far as their accommodation is concerned. It is a tragic phenomenon that people who are used to those houses, who have moved in a community for many years, now have to sell their houses, because they have no choice, and approach the State, hat in hand, to ask for accommodation. Now, I have been wondering whether or not there is some way to subsidize these people. The State has to lend money to local authorities at almost no interest anyway. And after that, the State still has to provide these people with accommodation. I wonder whether it would not be cheaper in the long run to keep these old people in their own houses. A great deal of capital goes towards providing accommodation and this could be defrayed to a great extent in this way.

I think the local authorities, too, ought to do something in this regard. They, too, ought to make a contribution. Perhaps they ought to help old people like these, who are not sufficiently well-off, to meet their obligations in respect of rates. Is there no way the local authorities can accommodate them? Could we not perhaps think of something else? Where old persons own such a house, could not that asset—according to merit, of course—be disregarded when applying the means test? This would help to keep those people in their houses and hence in the community. It is possible that this could also entail a saving for the State into the bargain.

I should be neglecting my duty were I not to express my appreciation to the department and its staff, who are dedicated to rendering the best—and only the best—service at all times. Because this is an emotional matter, we are perhaps a little too generous in some cases. Then again, in other cases, there are people who really do need help and who really must be helped. I think the time has come for us to pay closer attention to welfare work in South Africa, because as a State that believes in a free economy, we cannot lapse into a welfare State. For those of us who believe in a free economy, these figures in respect of the growth rate in social work really appear to be very high. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules has spent most of his time talking about the aged amongst us who are in need, and I want to support his plea. In particular I also want to support his emphasis on those aged who are living in their own homes in the urban and suburban areas but who, because of the rise in costs, for example, increased rates, have been driven out of those homes, aged people who very often become a liability on the State. That is a matter he also touched upon. Referring back to the hon. member for Albany, I think he is quite right that it may be true that there are what he termed “pension parasites”. However, I think it is an unfortunate phrase, because for everyone who seeks to undermine the State there are a thousand aged or old-age pensioners who are in very dire straits, and those are, I think, the people we should concentrate on in a Vote like this.

I therefore wish to link up with the hon. member for Hercules and just talk for a brief while about the plight of many of the older senior citizens in South Africa, particularly in the urban and suburban areas. I want to do so because this has again been brought to my attention in the past few months by people within my own constituency and in the areas around Cape Town. The spiralling cost of living and the high rate of inflation have eaten into the purchasing power of those living on fixed incomes, yet with the improvements in science and with new knowledge, people are living longer. I therefore believe that the care of the aged must receive higher priority than we have given it up to now. I do not, however, want to detract for one moment from the work that is being done. I just want to say that because of these factors and the situation in which South Africa finds itself at this time, I believe that we have to give this area of concern in social welfare even more attention than we have up to now. The old amongst us must not be allowed to become human derelicts. This is, however, a grim possibility for many people of all race groups. When I think of a number of older people I have seen in the last couple of months right here in Cape Town and I think of the conditions under which they are living, I wonder how many like them there are in South Africa as a whole.

The elderly people who are living amongst us have two major needs. The first is an assured income to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. Many of our senior citizens are, for one reason or another, totally dependent on their old-age pensions. We all know all the arguments about this being undesirable, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of old people who are totally dependent on this alone. Against the background of the increased costs of basic foodstuffs and the high cost of medicines, these pensions remain inadequate. No one of us would suggest for a moment that the pension on its own speaks of luxurious living. It is to be regretted therefore that the increase granted to old-age pensioners in the budget was not more than it was; indeed, it was niggardly. This is compounded by the fact that the old-age pensioners must wait until October before they receive this increase. We have raised this matter before, and one hopes the time will come when the department will be able to find a way through and pay these increases before October.

Aged people need not only an adequate income, but also a place to live. Again I am not talking about luxury, but of a place which is at least clean, warm and secure. There is a premium on accommodation for most people and especially for those seeking to eke out a living on a very low income. The aged, especially, are in great difficulties and pensioners more than most. It must be clearly understood that there are simply not enough old-age homes in South Africa. In dealing with individuals and in talks that I have had with those who administer old-age homes, the central fact which emerged was that for every aged person who is accommodated there are still hundreds of others on waiting lists. The majority of the aged simply cannot afford private hotels or even private old-age homes.

The hon. the Minister informed the House earlier this year that there were 361 old-age homes for aged Whites in South Africa, accommodating 21 828 people. This is simply not enough. We know that the figures for the aged of other race groups indicated an even far greater need. The fact is that the aged in our society are not getting a square deal. For many of them there is no alternative but to spend the last years of their lives in a small, often cold and dark room with poverty and insecurity as their constant companions. Whilst it is true that charitable organizations, and churches in particular—the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to this—are working in this field and are to be highly commended for the very good work they are doing amongst the aged, it is an area of concern which cannot be left merely to voluntary organizations. Spiralling building costs and a lack of funds have resulted in a critical shortage of homes for the elderly throughout the country. Hundreds of homeless people are turned away from old-age homes each month. I urge the hon. the Minister to give priority to this and to embark upon a programme of education for all age groups. The young need to be reminded that the aged have a right to live and that they too will one day grow old and therefore should be mindful of their responsibility. The aged should have the fullest information about every facility that exists which can make life a little more pleasant and a little more bearable for them. I find one of the biggest tragedies to be that there are many aged people in our country who, for one reason or another, simply do not even understand and have no knowledge of the limited benefits which could come their way. I hope further communication will be sought in such a programme of education.

The last matter I want to refer to is quite a different matter and I am very glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister is here to listen to it. That is the pension benefits for ex-servicemen who served in the First and Second World Wars and in the Korean war. Towards the end of the 1976 session very significant improvements were made in pension benefits for those who served.

At that time I and others in the House pointed out the wide disparity between benefits paid to soldiers who had fought in the First and Second World Wars and in the Korean War, and the pension paid under what is called the new dispensation. We welcome this new dispensation. At that time the hon. the Deputy Minister assured the House that pensions and allowances paid to these ex-servicemen who had fought in earlier wars, would be reconsidered. I use the word which he used himself—“reconsidered”. One is aware, of course—and the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned it himself—of the very difficult economic situation in which we find ourselves. We know that all military pensions were raised by 10% in the recent budget. Nevertheless, I believe that these ex-servicemen deserve consideration.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall that he, very graciously, received a delegation just a couple of weeks ago, a delegation consisting of several disabled ex-servicemen. That very day, when we went to see the hon. the Deputy Minister, the budget for the United Kingdom was announced, and the pension for 100% disability pensioners rose to R550 per month with immediate effect, rising to R600 per month by the end of September this year. This excludes a free automatic car supplied and maintained by the State. I am talking now about the 100% disabled military pensioners.

It is ironic that these commendable pensions and allowances were paid, not only by most Western countries, but also by the very country so many of these ex-servicemen fought against. When one compares the amount paid to ex-servicemen one realizes that a 100% disability pensioner gets considerably less per month than a young typist. Many of these men with whom I have been talking lately, have spent years in hospital; not only years in active service. They have had countless operations and are constantly in discomfort and pain. I hope that consideration will be given to their plea.

Mr. Chairman, there is a great degree of certainty about one thing this evening, i.e. that not a single hon. member has any doubts whatsoever about the fact that pensioners and handicapped people should be given a better dispensation. We will definitely not argue with one another about that. However, I should like to shift the emphasis slightly. We have said a great deal tonight about welfare and welfare officers. That is why I now want to refer to the Auret Report in connection with the necessity of separate legislation for social work as a profession. We must bear in mind that social work covers all spheres of the community. On the other hand, welfare work deals chiefly with those who are materially or physically less privileged. That is why we must not let too much emphasis fall on welfare work. We must rather talk in more general terms when discussing social work.

I want to emphasize that in these times in which we are living, a time of hurriedness, of concern and frustration, of economic and social crises, and of moral degeneration, there is an occupation on which even greater demands are being made. I am referring to the profession of the social worker. That is why we welcome the report by Auret and others in connection with the social worker, a report in which advocates that social work as a profession ought to receive the same recognition as the medical profession and nursing profession, in the sense that the social work as a profession can also lay claim to its own independent board, a board which can advance the interests of the profession in the service of the community. In the same way as the clergyman cares for spirit, the medical practitioner and the nurse are responsible for physical care. Social care is the task of the social worker, and the psychologist or psychiatrist can give advice.

In connection with the report I should like to indicate that we must also pay attention to social workers in private practice. The hon. member for Sandton showed me a shocking newspaper report yesterday. Fifteen high school boys were charged with car theft. What is most shocking of all, is that these are the children of well-to-do people. An advocate and a lecturer; amongst others, are mentioned. Bearing in mind the time which is spent in our courts by social workers, for instance, who have to hand in reports in terms of the Children’s Act and in respect of divorce matters, I think that we should let the balance swing back a little to society as a whole. I do not begrudge the poor their pensions which are vital to them. Our country loses a tremendous number of man-hours due to the thousands of hours which are spent on social problems in the courts. Anything from child neglect to divorce cases appear in court. Millions of rand are spent on means of escape, from tranquillizers through to alcoholism and then the psychiatric services where most of these people end up. Taking all this into consideration, we would do well to put aside a few minutes of the debate for a discussion of the profession of the social worker as a whole.

As I have already said, the social workers have to spend many hours in court in connection with neglected children and children from broken marriages, children who fall under the provisions of the Children’s Act. On television on Sunday we saw a film about children who live in orphanages. There are 9 000 of them. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether we should not look at the Children’s Act and our welfare legislation once again as far as the adoption of children is concerned. I well remember that this was one of the first tasks the hon. the Prime Minister carried out when he served as Deputy Minister of Social Welfare. He made certain changes in the legislation so that childless people who wanted to make some child their own, and who wanted to accept the responsibility for such a child and its future, could adopt an orphan. Today there is still a very long waiting-list of people who would like to adopt children. Why can we not make it easier for them to adopt one of these little ones from a children’s home so that they can say: “I do not have a child of my own, but the Lord has helped me to find one to care for.”

I am referring to these matters because I know that there are such people sitting in this House. I am also mentioning it because I am aware of the many children who live in children’s homes because of divorces and the fact that the parents who still have a say as regards the child, do not want to give this say up, but on the other hand do not want to accept responsibility for the child they brought into the world either. That is why I think that we should see whether we cannot change the situation. It bothers one very much if one is aware of friends and colleagues who are childless and would like to accept responsibility for one of the unfortunate children, but are prevented from doing so because the parents of these children, parents who do not want to accept any responsibility, are being protected. The Langlaagte orphanage has more than a 1 000 children; in 85% of the cases one or both parents are still alive. Only 15% of them are really orphans. Hundreds and hundreds of potentially good parents are waiting to offer those children a future.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Berea about the dagga affair to which he referred. However, I want to tell the hon. member that rehabilitation is an effort made after the event and that we must begin somewhere else. We can begin by giving the social worker such a high status that anyone, myself included—I do not only need my doctor, because I may need help in my family life—can go to a social worker, and put family problems to him and ask him for help. That is why I ask whether we should not reconsider these matters and whether the hon. the Minister could not perhaps pilot through the legislation as soon as possible so that we can give the social workers a higher status. It is their right and they deserve the credit that is due to them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brentwood, who has just resumed his seat, succeeded in bringing the importance of the work of the department home to us. He placed special emphasis to the importance of the social worker, and we are grateful to him for this. It was also very clear from the discussions that there are actually two aspects in this department which are very important. The first is a question of funds and the second is the question of sufficient trained staff.

In the time at my disposal I should like to extend my praise and appreciation to the almost 2 500 voluntary welfare organizations which exist in South Africa. We owe the welfare organizations a great deal of thanks for the sacrifices they make in carrying out their work. These organizations, their administrations, staff and members do this selfless work year after year in the interests of those who need their services. Tonight I am thinking of efforts of the many workers who devote their services and their lives to our aged, child welfare, the handicapped and our rehabilitation centres, etc. I want to pay tribute to the staff of these institutions. These people move in a world apart and do excellent work in relieving suffering, particularly of children and the aged. These people are actually brimming with love, which they give to people who are sometimes cloistered in loneliness. Money can actually not repay these people for their labour of love. It is gratifying to note that even in this hard, materialistic age we still have people who are prepared to dedicate their whole lives to the service and upliftment of their fellow-men, sometimes in extremely dark and difficult circumstances. Sometimes they do this work without any appreciation for what they do. South Africa is fortunate in having these people, and we want to thank them for the excellent work they do.

Secondly I should like to mention a very fine complex which has been built for the aged in Kempton Park. There they can live on their own in small single and duplex flats. When one visits these people one is impressed by their gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity they have of looking after themselves and living independent lives. My experience of these people is that they are happy, satisfied and grateful. Here we really have an example of the fine co-operation that exists between a town council and government bodies, enabling them to provide for the needs of the local community. Just recently permission was received from the Department of Community Development to go ahead with the building of a community centre for these people. When it has been completed, it will fully provide for all their needs.

I should also like to propagate the idea of self-sufficiency today. I want to advocate the virtues of independence and self-sufficiency amongst our people. In the times in which we are living, our people must firstly be taught to save for their old age. Everyone who is able to do so must be taught to provide for his old age, because to be self-sufficient builds character. To be dependent, to live on charity, destroys that very feeling of independence and it has a very adverse effect on one’s feelings of self individual worth, pride and respect. There is still a section of old people in our community who adamantly refuse to receive assistance from the State, even if they have to struggle. They refuse to go to institutions. They are determined to look after themselves and they definitely do not incline towards going to an old-age home or settling in with other people.

Leaving this attitude aside, I also want to ask children to carry out their responsibilities towards their parents. It is not only the State which has a responsibility towards the aged, but also their children as well. In this connection we, as Whites, can sometimes really learn something from the Bantu as regards caring for the aged. In spite of poverty, the Bantu will not neglect the aged members of their family. The children care for the aged. The aged look after the little ones, and when they are older, they look after the aged. Many White parents give their possessions to their children. Then they expect the State to give them the livelihood they have been accustomed to.

I therefore ask our people to save and to provide for their old age themselves, because I realize that the State cannot go on, without limitation, providing more and more pensions. I also realize that pensions cannot be increased, without limit, from year to year. We have already reached the position where the pensions are sometimes so high that they exceed the earnings of certain wage earners. Increased pensions are obtained from taxes. Hon. members have already mentioned figures which I do not want to repeat now, but the point will come where we shall have to call a halt. The amount of R396 million is already astronomical. We will not be able to continue giving increases without a stop. We simply cannot manage.

We must take into consideration that our country is going through a very difficult period in its economic history. We must cut down. It will probably not even be possible to fill certain posts. The department will have to consider the possibility of even changing the age limit of women, which stands at 60 years at the moment, especially if we consider that the number of pensioners is always increasing. We have heard that they already constitute 9% of the population.

Over and above these problems, people are constantly advocating concessions in regard to the means test. As has already been indicated by other hon. members, the means test is very accommodating. Any concession just adds more people who are more well-to-do and who mean a further drain on the funds. Every concession costs money and there is no money. We shall have to think of these things on the road ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kempton Park has just said that there is no money. He also complained at the beginning of his speech that there was a major shortage of money. In the course of his speech he also said that we could not possibly afford a pension increase. I just want to tell the hon. member that I personally find it a pity that he did not listen to the plea made by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast made a truly brilliant proposal. He said that all the money that is required, and more, could be obtained by means of a State lottery. To my surprise, only one hon. member on the Government side has reacted to that, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, and that hon. member said that he rejected the proposal. He said that he looked after his voters; he does not seem to know that several thousand of his voters signed the petition of the hon. member for South Coast. So I am sure that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North does not treat his voters as he should and that his voters would like to see such a State lottery. The money which, as the hon. member for South Coast said, can very easily be raised in this way, can then be used for increasing pensions, and for making the people in Port Elizabeth North happier than they are today with a member such as the present hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, who is so narrow-minded that he does not want to accept any new ideas. [Interjections.]

You can forget about a State lottery.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that a little life has been breathed into the debate. When I entered the House a few minutes ago it seemed not as if the House was conducting a debate about the aged, but rather as if a debate was being conducted by elderly and weary people.

I agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park when he says that we should encourage elderly people to remain self-sufficient. However, I do not agree with him when he says that we should go to the aged today and say to them, “It is a great pity that you did not save in the days before you grew old.” This is of no value to the aged. We should rather render assistance today to the elderly people who did not save and who may not have had the opportunity to save. Under the present Government, very few people have had the opportunity to save, because the Government has been wasting money for many years.

Nonsense!

Of course it has. It is no use saying it is nonsense. If a sensible interjection is made, I shall reply to it.

I should like to refer to another matter which also concerns the self-sufficiency of the aged.

†In this connection I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to Vote 15, page 9, of the Estimates of Expenditure. I particularly want to refer to subsidies paid to clubs for the aged and subsidies paid to service centres under subhead Q. I am very disappointed to see that in the case of service centres the best the Minister could do was to increase the subsidy from R120 000 to R145 000. That is absolute chicken feed. I am really very disappointed with the hon. the Minister. I am even more disappointed when I look at the subsidy that is paid to clubs for the aged. In this respect the Minister has taken a most retrograde step in that he has reduced the subsidy he paid last year, which was a miserable R8 000, to a still more miserable R5 000. How on earth can clubs for the aged be subsidized with R5 000 a year? It is too ridiculous for words!

Why did I talk about these matters? I talk about them because I believe that one of the most important things we should do for the aged is to make them feel that they are still useful members of society. There are many people who retire today at an age of 60, 65 or 70 and who are still very useful citizens. I call them “senior citizens”. I think that is what they are. They are just as good as any other citizen; they are merely a little bit older. Most of them possess a great fund of knowledge and experience, and they could use this knowledge and experience to the benefit not only of themselves, but also to the benefit of all the people in South Africa. All they need is a little encouragement to get together. I have an idea at the back of my mind—it is a very unkind idea, but I think I must express it because I would hate to talk behind the hon. the Minister’s back—that he has reduced the subsidy to the clubs because he is a little worried that if he increases the subsidy to the clubs, these clubs will be able to organize themselves into a body and as such be able to exercise quite a bit of influence. Being almost 9% of the total electorate, they could exercise quite an influence on the hon. the Minister.

I would like to see the hon. the Minister increasing this subsidy to clubs, because when one talks to these people, as I do from time to time, they tell you that they are very interested in senior clubs. They are very interested in organizing something for themselves, but they say as far as the organizing itself goes, they find it a bit difficult to do that. They would therefore like to have assistance in so far as the organizing is concerned. What I ask the hon. the Minister to do is to think about increasing the subsidy so that an honorarium can be paid to a younger person, to a person who would be prepared to do the organizing for these senior clubs, organize them into a body where they can start talking about themselves to see how they can improve their own position. I do believe that they themselves can do a great deal in improving their position, apart from becoming a pressure group. That is only one of the ways in which they can improve their position. Apart from that, they can do a great deal more. I am perfectly certain that they could be of great assistance to the hon. the Minister by putting up cases to him in such a way that he could not resist them. I am also perfectly certain that under those circumstances he would be able to increase his benefits to these senior citizens. The same applies with regard to service centres. We know that the service centres are centralized; they have to be so because of the very small subsidy. But if for example there were service centres throughout the Peninsula, I am perfectly certain that they would do a great deal more good for these senior citizens than at present. For example, it is quite an undertaking for many of the people living in the Plumstead area of my constituency to come to Cape Town, and if they can have a service centre in the Plumstead area they would be there every day. But where is the service centre? Service centres are usually on the outskirts of the general business district, which means that these people have to travel quite a way and probably walk quite a long way, to get to such a centre. We know that the service centres can do a great deal of good for these people. It can show them how to work with their hands and it can make them feel that they are being useful. I have told the senior citizens in my constituency that I would be very happy to do the organizing for them, but they then asked me what would happen when I was sitting in Parliament. I replied that I obviously could not organize for them during the parliamentary sessions. However, I would talk very nicely to the hon. the Minister; perhaps he would give a further subsidy so that when I was sitting here …

You are just getting out of it; that is all.

No, I am not getting out of it at all. I am doing a very good organizing job. I organize almost as well as the hon. Minister of Defence organized in his younger days, and that was jolly good organizing.

You were less successful.

I am almost as successful as he. Given a little time, I shall probably be quite as successful as the hon. the Minister of Defence was. [Interjections.] I do believe that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister—sometimes I wonder whose ear I have—will both give this matter their urgent attention, because I am positive that this is an easy way of helping these senior citizens and they will be helping them too.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg obviously wanted a reaction, from this side of the House, to the so-called State lottery. However, to furnish comment on so ridiculous an argument is beneath the dignity of this side of the House. I therefore leave the hon. member at that.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Kempton Park and also convey my humble but sincere thanks to the administrators of the various old-age homes, and there are about 250 old-age homes in our country. I am referring, in particular, to those in supervisory and custodial capacities. They are performing a service of love, a service to the nation which is not always noticed and appreciated. I want to pay tribute to those male and female supervisors, matrons, nurses, other supervisory officials and all the workers in old-age homes who are available, day and night, to care for and look after our aged in the old-age homes. I should also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the aged, of expressing our thanks to the Government for the increase of R7 per month from 1 October of this year. I should like to quote from Hansard where the hon. the Minister of Finance made the announcement. He said (Hansard, 1977, col. 4668)—

We would certainly have liked to see a greater increase in subsidies to our aged, but I believe that throughout the country people understand the economic position and that the R7 per month is welcomed. At the same time I want to say thank you for the fact that the hon. the Minister has announced an increase in the subsidies payable to old-age homes. Here I am referring to the subsidies to group 1 residents of 50c per month per resident, to group 2 residents of R3,50 per resident per month, to group 3 residents of R6 per resident per month and to group 4 residents of R8,50 per resident per month. One is also grateful for this increase. However, may I just make a friendly appeal to the administrators of our old-age homes: Will they try this year, particularly in the strained economic situation in which we find ourselves, not to request an increase in rates or rental from the residents. May I express the hope that this increase in subsidies will be sufficient to combat the cost increases. And if there must be an increase in rates, I trust that only the most essential adjustments will be made so that the aged can get the maximum benefit from this increase in pensions.

The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions had its origins in the material distress of a large part of the population during the first half of this century. It was therefore probably unavoidable that over the years the department should be branded with the stigma of a distributor of alms. Unfortunately some people were left with the impression that the department has an obligation as far as social pensions are concerned, regardless of the financial standing of such claimants. The State certainly has the duty to its citizens, but the State must also guard against being identified and characterized as a welfare State.

In a capitalistic State like South Africa it is certainly the privilege of all citizens to be self-supporting in all spheres and also to ensure that in their old age they can look after themselves. Too frequently, however, an economically active person reaches retirement age without qualifying for some or other civil pension or benefit from some or other provident fund. It has frequently happened—I think we all encounter this problem in our constituencies—in recent years, particularly in periods of economic prosperity such as the one a few years ago, that people resign from their work, cancel their pension benefits and go on in that fashion until they reach retirement age without having made any adequate provision for their old age. Not only does this create tremendous anxiety and problems for such people and their families, but it frequently happens that when they qualify for social pensions, they have to lower their standard of living so drastically that they can hardly bear it.

It is surely the task of every breadwinner to ensure that he makes adequate provision for his old age. These days there are sufficient schemes, almost 250 of them, that make such planning possible. It is consequently also the State’s view that the community and the State share responsibility for the welfare of the people. I believe—and this has repeatedly been raised during the debate—that just as the community and the State have a responsibility, the individual likewise has a responsibility towards those for whom he is responsible.

I want to pay tribute to those who are today still prepared to look after their parents and to take such care of them that their old age is pleasant for them. This does not necessarily have to involve financial assistance or accommodation. It is so easy for children to shrug off this obligation towards their parents by way of financial assistance and to leave the matter at that. There are other methods, apart from those of financial assistance and accommodation, the most important of which is perhaps the preservation of family ties. In the twilight of their years this cannot come from the parents themselves. In every respect it is up to the children to do this. In this regard I should like to link up with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said about this.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that all those who have listened to this debate unfolding are, as I am, impressed by the high standard that has been maintained throughout. I do not think I can single out any one speech as having deviated from this. I should therefore like to express my sincere thanks to all hon. members who have taken part in the debate, particularly for the way in which they reacted. In the course of the debate we have listened to quite a number of speakers referring with great discernment and expertise to certain social problems that exist in the country. Several bottlenecks were highlighted and numerous suggestions were made which we shall profitably be able to have a look at when we have more time. That will certainly be done. On the other side of the House there are several hon. members who advocated an increase and an improvement in certain services, higher subsidies, better pension benefits, etc. I think that in the course of their pleas some of the hon. members were inspired by their own eloquence. They did, in point of fact, ask for so much that they lost touch with reality. The hon. member for Pinelands gave a very good example of what one should not do unless one wanted to prejudice a good case. In any case, we had speeches here of a truly high standard. Everyone who took part in the debate is interested in the welfare of our people, in the less privileged and the handicapped, people who are our fellow citizens, and I believe that it is the honest and sincere endeavour of all of us to at least alleviate their lot it we cannot completely extricate them from that situation.

A variety of aspects were raised. I think I must begin with the pension aspects before I proceed the policy aspects that were raised here, in particular by the hon. member for Umbilo, but also by several other hon. members. In relation to the representations made here, there are many hon. members who really did not take the reality of the situation into account. Many of the requests can be complied with, many of the fine schemes presented here can be implemented and we can accept many of the suggestions if, as the hon. member for Kempton Park has said, the necessary money is available and if we have the trained manpower to do the work. When judging the budget, and more specifically this Vote, we must at least bear in mind the ability of our economy to meet the high demands that are made.

As I have said, I want to speak about the pension aspect. The hon. members for Umbilo, Pinelands and Constantia referred very specifically to the report of the department on the possible establishment of a national contributory pension scheme, a scheme which, for want of another or better name, we can call the South African Pension Scheme. Hon. members will recall that on 10 October 1974 I made an announcement here in the House to the effect that the Cabinet had agreed to an investigation of a scheme that would be different to the scheme which, for many years now, has been advocated by the UP in terms of their policy and which is probably still advocated, although today there was a bit of disagreement amongst hon. members of the opposition. The Cabinet agreed to an investigation of a scheme to which only the employers and employees would contribute, and not the State.

What of the administration?

As the hon. member will have noticed, there is nothing about the administration in this report. It is remarkable that in the criticism there was no mention of the administration. However, I shall come back to this at a later stage. For the purposes of information and comment, the report of the investigation was published on 9 September last year. It is a fairly expensive report, but the department nevertheless distributed 1 500 copies of the report to all interested parties throughout the length and breadth of the country. In the Press, on radio and at congresses we requested anyone, who had any specific ideas about the scheme, to send their comments to the department. The reaction we received was good, and the department is grateful for the fact. However, I stated very clearly in the introduction—it appears that the hon. member for Umbilo finds fault with this—that this is a provisional report and that it should, in point of fact, serve only as a basis for discussion.

Secondly, I said that it should not be interpreted as Government policy. At that stage the Government had, and today still has, a completely open mind about the matter. Wide-ranging comments were received from various bodies. Financial institutions, in particular, let us have their comments. We expected that, because they can speak with authority about the matter. There were also comments from commerce and industry, from pension funds and provident funds, from actuaries, from Government departments, from the agricultural sector, from trade unions, from church institutions, from welfare groups and from individuals. All the comments were studied by the department. We divided them into two large groups. On the one hand there were the supporters of the scheme, whose comments varied from unconditional acceptance of the scheme to acceptance with certain reservations. In that connection it is rather interesting to note that experts, for example actuaries, did not summarily reject the scheme. I say that particularly for the benefit of our colleagues on that side of the House who criticized the scheme and raised certain aspects of that criticism. I find it very informative that an esteemed firm of actuaries, for example, expressed the opinion that the time had come for the State to play a bigger role in placing the provision of pensions in the private sector on a sounder footing.

That is Socialism.

That comment did not come from nondescript people in the community but from a responsible firm of actuaries.

Could you please tell us what firm?

I would prefer not to mention names across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. member need not try to ridicule the matter. After the hon. member has listened to my argument, he will have every opportunity of refuting that argument. One the one hand, therefore, there were the supporters of the scheme, with or without reservations, and whether the hon. member for Sea Point likes that point of view or not, is not the question at present. I again do not like his political standpoint. [Interjections.] On the other hand there were, of course, also many who came forward with objections. The hon. member for Constantia raised a few objections which, he will find, are also included in my list of objections. I want to summarize the main objections as follows: Firstly the scheme will destroy large sources of investment capital. I think the hon. member for Constantia also mentioned that aspect.

Secondly: It would interfere with the insurance industry and probably do it irrevocable harm. That is also a point the hon. member mentioned, if I remember correctly. Thirdly: The scheme would drive private pension funds out of the market. Fourthly: The scheme would mean the unjustified intervention of the public sector in the private sector’s domain. Fifthly, the scheme is not financially viable and will give rise to serious financial problems in the future. In the sixth place: The scheme is socialistic—that is the point the hon. member for Sea Point raised—and would discourage saving. Lastly, the scheme would push up the inflation rate. Those are standpoints we wanted to hear, standpoints we wanted to elicit, as it were, from all those who wanted to join in discussions about this matter. Those are objections we cannot simply wave aside, objections we are going to be busy with from now on so that we can really get the hang of it. The severest criticism of this scheme came from a well-known actuary. I hoped he would be able to make a very big contribution towards keeping us on the right path in case we were going astray. He went as far as devoting a chapter, in a book he was writing, to this scheme. He described it as “amateurish mediocrity”. I studied that chapter and I do not want to start a feud with him. However, when I see what has happened, and when I see the efforts still being made now, even at congresses, to have this scheme condemned before one has had the chance to discuss it properly I ask myself, in the light of the standpoint he adopted in his book, whether the report is not perhaps so important, and the scheme perhaps such a threat to vested interests and institutions, that everything must be done to destroy it.

About whose book are you talking?

It is generally known that the hon. member for Yeoville is not one of the stupidest members in this House. [Interjections.]

Why do you not want to mention the person’s name?

Because, in contrast to the hon. member, it is not in my nature to be personal.

You must mention the person’s name.

The overwhelming impression I have thus far gained, from the criticism against the scheme, is that personal interests and vested rights, rather than the interests of the pensioners, have decided the issue.

This brings me to ask what we intend to do in the future. Why is it necessary for us to give further attention to this matter? Let us first look at the achievements of the existing private pension funds. On 25 March of last year, here in the Cape, I opened the congress of the Association of Pension and Provident Funds of South Africa. On that occasion I made a statement and, in connection with that statement, asked a question which I should like to quote here. I said the following—

Now comes the question—

I put the question publicly, and we must find the answer. One of my colleagues, the hon. member for Boksburg, said here this afternoon that between 30% and 40% of persons, who receive private pensions, today still qualify for social pensions. Now the hon. member for Sea Point is pulling such a wry face at my question. At present there are 9 367 private pension funds in South Africa and it is my view that if their achievements were such that their benefits exceeded the level of social pension benefits, we would have far fewer problems in this sphere, which we are discussing today and about which we have heard many complaints. Many figures were quoted here today. I do not want to juggle with figures, but I do want to tell the House that the total amount paid out, in the past five years, in old-age pensions for Whites alone, has exactly doubled. In a period of five years the amount has doubled, from R56,396 million to R113,918 million.

What one of my colleagues said here in the course of the debate is true, i.e. that the level of our social pensions is so high at present that payments exceed what some people, who are still working, earn, and also that it is equal to the average for the private pension funds. This is not a state of affairs we can feel very happy about. I hope that we, in collaboration with all the interested bodies will be able to solve this problem. I do not intend to make war on those people, but we must reach some or other compromise; the present state of affairs cannot continue. I do not think that any of the hon. members who have taken part in this debate, and have proved that they really have an interest in this problem, can be satisfied with the situation. What are we going to do? The Cabinet has taken decision on this matter which is in accordance with what I said previously about this matter, i.e. that I want to arrange a conference, as quickly as possible, between representatives of my department and the representatives of certain opponents of this scheme. For the moment let us leave the people, who are in favour of this scheme, out of the picture. Let us first speak to those people who are opposed to the scheme. Here I have in mind, in the first instance, representatives of the private pension fund movement, actuaries and insurers. I hope that in such a conference we shall be able to weigh one argument up against another. Quite early, just after the report had appeared, we were already hearing that 7% was a ridiculous figure and that the scheme could not work on that basis. Thereafter, at a certain company’s annual general meeting, we heard that the scheme could function for a certain period on even less than 7%. The report did not state that this scheme would work on a 7% contribution for ever and a day. As impossible as it is for any of the private bodies, which now object to the scheme, to state that their fund or their body will remain in existence for ever, it is likewise impossible for me to say that this scheme will function for ever on a 7% per annum contribution. That is simply unthinkable. We shall hold this conference and try to weigh up these standpoints to see if we cannot reach a better understanding. We can also consider the suggestions raised in this debate. Then, depending on the progress in the discussions, we can consider whether we should perhaps refer the matter to a parliamentary Select Committee, if it is worth while. In this regard I want to emphasize that as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions it is not my responsibility to look to the formation of capital, to the development of a sense of thrift amongst people and to the interests of vested institutions. My responsibility, as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, is to look after the interests of the pensioners. That is why I am interested in the scheme and would like to hold these discussions. At this stage no final decision has been taken on the matter. The final decision rests with the Cabinet, and I foresee that it will still be quite some time before a final decision can be taken about this matter.

Mention was also made of civil pensions. I think it was the hon. member for Umbilo who alleged that there had been no mention of civil pensions in the budget. I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that if civil pensions are to be supplemented, it could not be done from the pension fund of which the pensioner is a member. The pension fund has met its obligations to the pensioner in terms of the agreement between them. However, over the years the Government has shown proof of the fact that it is not indifferent to the lot of even civil pensioners. From time to time adjustments have been made, and it goes without saying that the money for such adjustments has had to come from the taxpayer’s pocket. Not inconsiderable adjustments have been made in that connection. Every year we look at the question of civil pensioners. In the past few months we have had another look at the matter, and particularly at pension funds which do not furnish satisfactory results. Concessions to pensioners, concessions which are not a right, but a privilege, are dependent on the availability of money. No Government, however well disposed it is to pensioners, whether civil pensioners or social pensioners, can simply dish out money if it does not have the necessary means at its disposal. We must all realize that in the light of the economic problems we are faced with at present it is not possible, at the moment, to make adjustments to civil pensions. Hence no provision was made for that in the budget. It goes without saying that we would have preferred it otherwise. However, I want to remind hon. members of the fact that only last year we granted civil pensioners an increase of 10%, with a minimum of R25 per month. This is the second time in the past few years that we have done this. I think that the Government and I have furnished sufficient proof of our goodwill towards these pensioners and that it is not necessary for me to offer further confirmation by way of the data and figures I have before me.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about military pensions. He actually addressed himself to the hon. the Deputy Minister who piloted the Military Pensions Act through this House last year. I take it that is the reason why the hon. member made his request, i.e. that the pensions of ex-servicemen of the First World War be lined up with the benefits offered by Military Pensions Act, as passed last year, to the Deputy Minister. On that occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he could not give the exact data. This evening I have more precise data available about this matter. I should like to tell the hon. member that there are virtually 11 894 White and 3 230 non-White war veterans involved. If one calculated what it would cost to bring the pensions of that large number of pensioners into line with the provisions of the Act, one would find that an estimated additional cost—this is not an exact amount—of R11 million per year is involved. In connection with what I said a moment ago, at this stage there can be no question of our finding such a large additional amount, and unfortunately, as far as this matter is concerned, we cannot do what it is our endeavour to do. The hon. member mentioned, as an example, what Britain does for its ex-servicemen. I am glad that Britain sees its way clear to doing this. One is not indifferent to the fate of these people, and I do not think there is any Government in any country in the world which would not like to do more for people who, because they have participated in a war for the sake of their country, are handicapped and saddled with problems affecting their livelihood. It is simply not possible, however, to do anything about that now.

In conclusion I want to remind the hon. member of the fact that the pensions of veterans of previous wars will also, of course, be increased by 10% from 1 October, as he well knows. That will help to a certain extent, even though it does not nearly comply, with the request he has made. I hope that he will agree, having heard the figures, and bearing in mind the number of people involved, that at this stage it is simply an impossible task.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he accepts the principle that ex-servicemen who were injured in a war—whether it be a current war or a previous war—should be considered on the same basis? Will the Government do everything in its power to see that servicemen who were injured in previous wars are placed on the same basis as persons who may be injured in current wars?

It is, of course, a principle in the pension field that when improvements are introduced, when an improved scheme is established, it is impossible, because of cost implications, to have all the existing pensioners brought into the new scheme. I concede that the hon. member is right about the fact that it goes without saying that more feelings are aroused for ex-servicemen who have been injured, crippled or even maimed in wars, than for other pensioners. However, to say that this should be accepted as a principle, and given effect as such, would be going a bit far. I think, though, that it should remain our endeavour to reach that level and continue to effect improvements in relation to the means we have at our disposal.

Here I want to link up the point raised by the hon. member for Albany. Again, as in the past, he lodged a plea that the means test should be abolished in respect of ex-servicemen of the First World War. By this time he knows the department’s answer, i.e. that one cannot draw a distinction between ex-servicemen of the First World War and those of the Second World War, apart from the cost aspect and the numbers involved. When I answered his question last time, he countered it with another question: What about the ex-servicemen? The answer to that, of course, is that at the time the ex-servicemen did not receive army pay as did those who took part in the First and Second World Wars. That is why that distinction was possible. I am afraid that at this stage we cannot yet comply with the hon. member’s request.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.