Mr. Chairman, George Bernard Shaw said on one occasion that there is only one thing that one can learn from history, and this is that one cannot learn anything from it. I think the hon. member for Springs, who was speaking just before the adjournment last night, has proved him wrong in this respect. The hon. member showed that social pensions did not simply drop from the sky one fine day, but that they have a long history in South Africa, which can also serve as a guideline for future planning. I think that one statement in particular that the hon. member made, deserves the attention of this House once again. I want to support it wholeheartedly.

This is the statement that social pensioners do not live on charity. They are simply receiving a small recognition for their share in building up the economy of our country.

On one occasion, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the young man Timothy, in which he gave him the following advice amongst other things: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” However, what is good for the stomach, is not always good for the head, particularly not when one takes the wheel of a motor-car after one has abused this good advice of Paul’s. In fact, driving a car under the influence of alcohol is having such a detrimental effect on the welfare of the nation at the moment that the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Pensions, in co-operation with the Department of Justice, the CSIR, the National Road Safety Council and the traffic department of Pretoria, started an alcohol safety school in Pretoria on 1 February 1978, by way of an experiment. The purpose of this school is to help to prevent people driving under the influence of alcohol. Drunken driving is in the process of assuming alarming proportions, and we dare not ignore the negative effect that it has on the welfare of the nation any longer. I think that the experiment with the alcohol safety school could not have taken place at a more suitable time. Between 1 July 1978 and 30 June 1979, 12 988 people were convicted in court of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In 1979, 3 754 accidents were caused as a direct result of driving under the influence of alcohol. During the same period 164 people were killed outright whilst driving under the influence of alcohol. This figure does not include the people who died in hospital later. What is perhaps most important, is that this does not include the large number of innocent people who are killed on our roads because other people were driving under the influence of alcohol.

In a report on traffic affairs that was tabled last week, the head of the traffic department in Johannesburg pointed out that drunken driving has also shown a sharp increase in that area. In an attempt to combat this growing phenomenon of drunken driving effectively, with the concomitant unnecessary loss of valuable human life, this alcohol safety school was started as an experiment by the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions. People who are convicted in court of driving under the influence of alcohol, can be referred to this school as part of a suspended sentence. By means of lectures and individual interviews they are then informed of the dangers of the abuse of alcohol and an attempt is made to bring about a change of attitude by way of re-education. Up till the end of March 1980, 278 people were referred to this school for the course. In fact, it seems as if success on the short term is promising. During this course, which runs for four consecutive Tuesday evenings, contact is made with people who really have alcohol problems and they are also motivated to undergo further treatment. Talks with people following the course indicate clearly that they benefit from this course. It is also envisaged to evaluate the degree of success on the long term by means of a research project.

Since this project was simply begun by the department in co-operation with other bodies as an experiment, I want to ask for this school to become a permanent institution. It could be debated whether the name “alcohol safety school” is the right one. On the face of it it may even seem as if the name is an indication that one can in fact drive safely with alcohol in one’s blood. But I shall leave it at that.

To my mind, the benefit of this project lies in the fact that it brings about a changed attitude towards driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. I think that such a change of attitude is essential in South Africa in particular. Too many people are too inclined to take the wheel of a vehicle after they have had a good few drinks. I think the re-education process is essential, and I think that the alcohol safety school is a step in the right direction for bringing about this re-education. If we bear in mind that 64,4% of the people referred to this school, have not been convicted of drunken driving again, I think that the prospects of re-education are promising.

I also want to say that I am confident that the department’s aim of extending this experiment to other centres too, will become a reality. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to request other departments and bodies to give their complete co-operation to this project, because if they do not cooperate, for instance if no one is referred to the school by the courts, this project does not have much hope of success. On the other hand, the co-operation of all will make this experiment a success, to the welfare of the nation.

Mr, Chairman, the hon. member for Randfontein dealt with the very serious problem of alcoholism, particularly as it affects a large number of young people. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to his suggestions. I think it is of great concern amongst many welfare workers that the number of young people abusing alcohol is increasing. Indeed, action should be taken against those persons who provide liquor illegally, i.e. to persons under 18 years of age.

I would like to deal with the position of war veterans and war disability pensioners. Yesterday evening when I was addressing the Committee I suggested that the means test should be abolished for old-age pensioners at 90 years of age instead of at 100 years as at present. The only other group which is not subject to a means test are those who served in the Anglo-Boer War and who qualify for a war veteran’s pension. I suggest that the means test for the war veteran pensioner should be reduced to 80 years of age. We know that from time to time many pleas have been made in this House for the abolition of the means test for those who served in the 1914 to 1918 war and we also know that the various Ministers of Social Welfare and Pensions in the past have not been able to accede to that request.

We are aware of the fact that the means test for those who served in the Anglo-Boer War was abolished some 15 years ago, in fact more than 15 years ago. It was felt that the stage would eventually be reached when people who served in the First World War could also enjoy that privilege. Indeed, if we look at the latest report, we see that there is a rapidly decreasing number of war veteran pensioners who served in the 1918 war or who were classified as protesting burgers in 1914. In fact, the report shows that over a two-year period the number of war veterans from the 1918 war receiving war veterans’ pensions dropped from 3 548 to 2 469. The number of war veterans from the Anglo-Boer War dropped, over the same period, from 486 to 243. So ultimately, within the next few years, there will virtually no longer be any persons from the Anglo-Boer War receiving war veterans’ pensions.

It is a phase in our history that is now passing, and it is only right that those from the 1914-’18 war, who were also volunteers who answered the call to defend their country, should gain some additional recognition. They are, of course, subject to the means test, and it is said that the means test is relaxed from time to time, and will be relaxed again from 1 October 1980. We on these benches believe, however, that a war veterans’ pension is something special. It is a debt the country owes persons who have served their country in time of need. Therefore there was previously a separate means test, for instance, for war veterans over 70 years of age. That was abolished, however, and they were put on the same footing as all other social pensioners when it came to the means test. So the only difference between an old age pension and a war veterans’ pension is the additional amount that is paid to war veterans. This amount of an extra R10 per month has remained the same over a number of years. Indeed, the whole question of how this amount is arrived at is one that should receive further consideration, because in today’s circumstances an additional amount of R10 per month is very little, in real terms, when one bears in mind the buying power of that amount of money.

This brings me to the amount paid in war veterans’ pensions to the other groups. This is also a matter of great concern. We know that the principle employed is discriminatory. We do know that this hon. Minister is only responsible for the Whites, but if there is to be a review of the additional amount to be paid to war veterans, I hope the hon. the Minister will, in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and of Indian Affairs, and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, see to it that the old ratio of 4:2:1 is eliminated. If we look at the situation, we see that an amount of R10 extra is paid to White war veterans, an amount of R5 extra per month to Coloured and Indian war veterans and only R2,50 to Black war pensioners. Surely we have now reached the stage when the Government can clearly state that it is to bring about parity, at least for that extra amount that is paid to war veteran pensioners. I believe that an amount of at least R15 per month extra, and not R10 per month, should be paid to those war veterans, and that the Government should declare its intention to eliminate the gap and bring about parity, perhaps over a three-year period, to ensure that all war veterans, irrespective of race, receive that additional amount in their pensions. It was pointed out to me only the other day that the danger allowance paid for service in the operational area is equal for all races. So a principle has been established. Now it is merely a matter of bringing the position of war veterans into line with our present position. It is time that those who qualify as war veterans are dealt with on a more favourable basis.

Then there is the position of those who are war veterans but have also been awarded a war disability pension in terms of the Military Pensions Act of 1976. We are indeed pleased at the announcement made in the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance to the effect that the position of those receiving awards prior to 1976 is to be brought into line with the position of those who received awards after that date. This is to be welcomed. With the increases granted to war disability pensioners, however, people receiving such pensions could find themselves no longer qualifying for a war veterans’ pension as such when they reach the age of 60 years. In this regard I think the hon. the Minister must give serious consideration—and I think this can be done by regulation—to disregarding war disability pensions or war widows’ pensions, in terms of the Military Pensions Act of 1976, for means test purposes by not classifying them as income. Of the people who were in the Second World War and who are now reaching the pensionable age of 60 years, those who suffered war disabilities and who are receiving awards which exceed the means test ceiling, will not have the opportunity of qualifying for a war veteran’s pension. Therefore I believe that the award that is made in recognition of injuries received or of the loss of a husband or son should not become a disqualifying factor when such people apply for a war veteran’s pension. This applies sometimes to widows who are disqualified from receiving an old-age pension because of the award they are receiving for the war disability that has been suffered or other recognition for the loss of a son in war service.

The whole question of war disability pensions caused a good deal of concern amongst some people, and particularly widows who were under the impression that they would receive increases in terms of the Military Pensions Act in accordance with the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance and who subsequently found that, in view of the fact that they became widows after 1976, it would not be dealt with on the basis of a consolidated pension in their case and therefore would not be applicable for the increases that were announced for war disability pensions at the time of the budget. This has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst some of the persons who were receiving widows’ pensions in this category.

The other aspect I wish to deal with concerns the position as regards the subsidization of old-age homes. As I indicated yesterday evening, there is likely to be a tremendous increase in the demand for accommodation at various old-age homes as the accommodation situation becomes more acute with the Sectional Titles Act affecting some people. Ultimately a large number of people could be affected and this would result in a tremendous demand being made on the organizations concerned. Therefore the whole question of the subsidization of the old-age homes requires review. When the new system was announced and came into effect in 1978, some old-age homes benefited from the basis of the subsidy, which took into account the average unit cost rate throughout the country. There is, however, a wide diversion as far as these costs are concerned. Indeed, replies that I received to a series of questions I put earlier this session, showed that owing to the method of arriving at the average unit cost—which, incidentally, was based on the previous year’s running costs of the homes—with the escalation in costs and the fact that it was not based on the budgeted estimated costs, some homes are facing severe financial difficulties. I refer particularly to those homes which accommodate persons who fall in category B, i.e. those who are not sufficiently frail to fall into category C in respect of whom the subsidization appear to be adequate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will pardon me if I do not react to his speech, because there is another subject which I should like to raise this afternoon.

We know that the hon. the Minister’s department deals with many matters which create problems from time to time. They also deal with heartbreak cases from time to time. There are, however, some compensations. We read in the Book of Books of those who have five talents, those who have two and those who have only one. This afternoon I should like to talk specifically about those in our population who have only one talent. Every parent, when he is standing at his child’s cradle, idealizes his child as someone with five talents. He expects his child to develop into a person who will make his mark in life when he grows up. But if the parent stands beside the cradle and realizes that this child has only one talent and that he will grow older in years, but will never achieve mental maturity and will always remain a child, it is a great shock and disillusionment, because it is only human that he would have wanted to share in the pride at having a child. My wife, Lente, and I have the privilege of having a child with one extra chromosome, a child who is also called a Mongol child, a child who will grow older in years, but never mentally and intellectually.

Among ourselves we also call them the children of heaven. But how much do the public really know about those children? They are children whose parents will have the privilege of having them with them always, throughout their entire life-span, as children in their midst. There is, however, the disadvantage that when that child has grown up it will never be able to care for itself, and if the parents are no longer there, that child will be an adult with the mind of a child and will not really be able to care for itself, unless the parents make the necessary provision. The parents of such children are greatly privileged to have an insight into the spiritual remorse which a parent perhaps has to endure until he receives the gift of grace from Above to accept such a child and raise it in his family in a spirit of total acceptance. Depending on the upbringing which such a child receives, the friendship, insight and understanding of friends and others are really of great value to the child as well as the parents, and gratitude for these things should be stressed. It is true that if one says that one Las a Mongol child the first reaction is “what a pity. We are so sorry that that has to be the case.” However, no pity need be felt for circumstances such as these. What is necessary, though, is understanding for the circumstances and for what might happen in future. It is a fact that many parents are, in bringing up such a child, either shy or ignorant in dealing with the situation. The realization of the acceptance of a handicap, and an upbringing which may best overcome that handicap, can help them to develop, in their limited way, into useful citizens.

There is another very important group of people involved in this matter, viz. those who are responsible for the further education and training of these children. It is important that these children should be placed in institutions where adjustments can be made according to their specific needs, so that they may receive an education. It is, however, not easy to send such a child away, perhaps with the knowledge that the child does not understand precisely what is happening and will perhaps never fully understand. Therefore I should like to pay tribute today to those people who are involved in the education of those children in those schools. These are people, who have experience of the problem, and who devote themselves to this task and do a wonderful job, despite the fact that they themselves are not personally involved. The only problem is that the facilities which exist for such children, are still so limited that many of these children are restricted to their homes and their family circumstances, thereby handicapping their parents and the other children in their activities. The children themselves are also being wronged because they are not afforded an opportunity of receiving an education.

My argument today is that the parents of such children, too, should be able to be justifiably proud of these children of heaven of theirs, who will always remain children in the house. A mother always longs to take a small child in her arms and treat it like a child. People in this position always have that privilege. They should be proud to know, and should accept, that those children, too, will have a task to perform in this country. As far as the education of these children is concerned it is a fact that the educational institutions could be extended to make room for a large number of children who do not yet enjoy the privilege of tuition. If we could create such institutions, these children could be trained for the tasks that they are indeed able to perform, in this way making a contribution, however humble, to the solution of our manpower problem. They may even become self-supporting in this process. My argument is that the State should perhaps show greater understanding for these children of heaven and make a larger contribution towards creating institutions for them where they may be educated, where facilities are available, where the staff are assessed at their true value and where these children can become an asset to the country. Therefore I make these representations today on behalf of those wonderful children of heaven in our midst.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville raised a very serious matter here. He put his case seriously and very well. I want to tell him that I think he is correct. Parents like those do not need pitty, but admiration for the way in which they accept the will of God. One cannot help but be amazed when one sees how lovingly those parents bring up their children and compares this to the way in which some parents with normal children neglect them and how those children have to face life without love. All I can say is that the parents of such unfortunate children deserve to be remembered in our prayers.

I should like to deal very briefly with pensions. Pensions have already been discussed several times during the course of this session, and particularly positive contributions have been made at times, such as the one which the hon. member for Umbilo made today. There are three aspects about pensions that have been raised already this session and to which I should like to refer briefly once again. The first is the increase that took place. I feel that this warrants appreciation, and it is time for us to show appreciation. The increase in pensions was granted, and although it might not be such that it covers the increased cost of living with a bit to spare, it is nevertheless sufficient to bring relief. I am thinking, for instance, of the case of a pensioner who lives in an old-age home and whose boarding fee is increased by approximately R10 per month. He might think that R12 does not make much difference, but then I wonder, if that increase had not been granted, and he had to pay the R10 increase in his boarding fee, what his position would have been then. Therefore, this increase contributed towards preventing a bigger hole being made in his income and we must put our appreciation for this on record.

Secondly, we have been asking for an increase in the means test for years, and at last there has been a modification. It was asked last night whether the case of pensioners would be reviewed in view of the increase in the means vest. I want to mention in passing that I am aware of the fact that the cases of pensioners are reviewed annually and therefore I am convinced that this will in fact be done. Perhaps I could just ask for adjustments of the means test to occur more often, because quite some time has passed now, which means that this increase is still somewhat out of line. However, I am convinced that if the adjustments take place more often, we can benefit a great deal as a result. The increase in the means test now puts an old-age pension within the reach of several thousands of people in our country, who were unable to obtain one in the past. No matter what the means test may be, there will, of course, always be people who only just fall within that limit, but we must accept that situation.

In the third place I want to refer to the contributory pension schemes. My personal opinion is that we have already discussed this matter thoroughly this year and that a further discussion thereof would be superfluous. The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about it again last night. However, it became very clear from the debate that we conducted earlier that considerable problems are related to such a scheme. One cannot put one’s head in the ground and deny that there are problems. In his reply, the hon. the Minister said that an investigation is necessary and that an inter-departmental committee was appointed to investigate the matter and particularly to take a look at the transferability of pension contributions between existing schemes. I am willing to abide by that and I think other hon. members should do so too. We must now accept that this matter is provisionally receiving attention and that we must now wait patiently for the report of the inter-departmental committee, its findings and the decision of the Cabinet. Since hon. members raised this matter here once again last night, I think it would be a good thing to refer briefly once again to the reply that the hon. the Minister gave to the private motion that the House dealt with this year. He said (Hansard 1980, col. 2783)—

A question was put in this regard last night and I think that we should answer that it will be the total population. The Minister went on to say—

The Minister went on to say—

I think this matter is under way, it is being investigated, I am prepared to abide by this and I hope that other hon. members will do so too. In doing so we would not be causing our interest in the weal and woe of our old people to diminish. We should still be maintaining our interest in the welfare of these people. However, there is one thing that disturbs me a great deal and this is the way in which our old people are being incited. At the moment there is a dastardly attempt in our country to incite everyone to take action. It is bad enough if scholars, students and clergymen are involved, but in heaven’s name, we must spare our old people this. Over the years we have argued in the House on the destiny of our elderly people. We are not going to stop doing so. We shall continue to do so, but it has never been necessary to call in the assistance of the elderly people ostensibly in an attempt to achieve something for them.

I remember that a private person launched a tremendous campaign a few years ago to get elderly people, pensioners in particular, to write letters to him. Every so often we read that this man had received thousands of letters. However, what I find very strange, is that whilst an effort is being made to improve the lot of these people, they are being asked to spend money on stamps and writing paper in order to write letters to someone. What a pointless campaign that was!

Last night the hon. member for Hillbrow told us about a petition with 20 000 signatures. Apparently this campaign is still under way. I am aware of the fact that people are placed at tables on street corners to ask people to sign a petition asking for those three things that have already been fulfilled to some extent this session, including a contributory pension scheme. After all, we have already heard that the scheme is in the process of being investigated. What is the aim of asking our elderly people to involve themselves by putting their signatures to a petition?

I wondered what purpose it could serve. Is it for the sake of the old people or is it for the sake of the political party that organizes that petition? It is pointless the hon. member for Green Point laughing about it now. I think their scheme is ludicrous. As far as I know, it is the first time in history that a public gathering of elderly people is held in order to tell them how badly off they are. If such a public gathering could make any contribution towards bringing them relief, then I say hold that meeting, but surely the hon. member for Edenvale who addressed that meeting, knows that one can arouse feelings and generate false hopes at such a meeting, because after such a meeting surely these people go home and then expect action. What action can he bring about?

Amongst other things, the hon. member for Edenvale made one statement in his speech that I agree with—

I am in absolute agreement with this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central replied in very clear terms to certain allegations that were made about pensions, and I want to felicitate him on this. I recall that pensions under Governments before the NP came into power, amounted to a meagre R10 per month. They have now increased to R109 per month. It is also interesting to note that in 1944, before the NP came into power, Whites received a mere R108 per year. In 1963 they received R324 per year.

In 1928, pensions were paid to Whites and Coloureds for the first time, and only in 1944 were pensions paid to Indians and Blacks for the first time. Therefore, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said too, it is quite clear what has been achieved with regard to pensions. This also gives us an indication of what has been achieved under the NP Government.

I now want to refer to the question of pensions for blind people. This is a social matter that must continually be given attention. It has been asked how many blind people there are in the world. As far as I was able to determine, there are 4 million blind people in the world today. Eighty per cent of those blind people live in Asia, Africa and Latin-America. According to the figures released by the S.A. National Council for the Blind in South Africa, there are 22 000 blind people in South Africa. This is less than 1% of the total in South Africa.

On 1 January 1980 there were 790 blind people receiving pensions. This means a monthly expenditure of R75 220 for the State. The annual expenditure on these pensions amounts to approximately R1 million.

We also find that the S.A. National Council for the Blind is our most well-known welfare organization today. The council celebrates its fiftieth year of existence this year. The council has a long history. We must also look at what has been done in South Africa, also by way of aid granted by the State. We find that 450 blind telephone operators, 50 piano tuners, 60 physiotherapists, and approximately 12 lawyers were trained here.

I am also thinking of the part played by blind people in politics. In the Other Place there is a person who continually amazes me with his experience and his clear way of thinking. Of course I am referring to Senator Klopper. Then I can also think of prof. Kenneth McIntyre, a blind man who lectured Greek at the University of Natal.

There also used to be a blind man who was a member of this House. Advocate Robert Walter Bowen was MP for Cape Town Central and he played a remarkable role in promoting the role of the blind people. He was one of the founder members of the S.A. National Council for the Blind and the first chairman of the council. It was interesting to learn that he had a parrot that he taught to say all sorts of things. One day the parrot disappeared. They searched everywhere for the bird and when they found the parrot somewhere in Sea Point it said nothing but: “Vote for Bowen, vote for Bowen, vote for Bowen.” [Interjections.]

Then there was Dr. Walter Cohen who was attached to the Information Section of the Department of Defence. In 1974 he was the chairman of the World Council for Braille. As a result of his fink with that body, we came into contact with the entire world. South Africa is a founder member of the World Council for Braille and many important things have been achieved by that council.

I have already mentioned what the S.A. National Council for the Blind has done in the 50 years of its existence, but I must also point out what they have done in the sphere of Braille, particularly at the School for the Blind at Worcester. I really think we can refer to this with pride. An important achievement was the translation of the Afrikaans Bible into Braille in 1941. At the time, Afrikaans was the fifth language in the world into which the complete Bible had been translated.

Then I refer to a report that was submitted on 30 June 1934 by the then Secretary of Public Health. Bear in mind that this was before the days of NP rule. What did he refer to in his report? He said salesmen travelled around the platteland in order to sell spectacles to people. They told the people on the farms: “You have very poor eyesight and you need spectacles.” They tested the eyes of those poor people and sold spectacles to them at exorbitant prices. Later it was discovered that some of the people became partially blind. Perhaps the Opposition did not take proper note of what was happening at the time and this may be why many of them are still not aware of matters of general knowledge today.

In 1936, legislation concerning the blind was placed on the Statute Book. This is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that was passed at the time. Ultimately this gave rise to blind Whites and Coloureds receiving pensions.

I must, though, also mention the S.A. Library for the Blind. The present supply of books in Braille exceeds 7 600 titles and more than 28 000 volumes are to be found in that library. In 1976 there were almost 5 000 titles in English and more than 1 000 titles in Afrikaans. The collection of books that have been recorded on tape, has increased to 3 000 titles on more than 18 000 casettes. It is a very important service that has been established there.

Then, of course, there is also the role played by the Guide Dog Association. During the past three years 38 new guide dogs have been trained.

I must also refer to the aid granted by Manpower Utilization. In 1978 they registered 8 479 handicapped people, including blind people, for employment. The potential of the blind people must be utilized to the full using psychological methods. They must not enter the labour market unprepared. They must be placed in employment where they can be fully productive by means of modern techniques. Their conditions of employment must also be very modern. Consequently, the employment of blind people is very important. In the sphere of programming, a great deal has already been achieved by and for the blind.

The department also gives active support to the blind in the form of subsidies on wages and on workshops for the blind. In addition, the department also subsidizes capital costs with regard to buildings, equipment and machinery. However, I hope that the Government will vote funds for purchasing technical aids which are being developed abroad at present, and that work on similar projects will also be introduced here in South Africa. However, before these articles can be imported to South Africa, they must be carefully selected, and there must be a practical calculation of the costs and maintenance involved.

The American foundation for the blind recently declared that they were aware of 150 new electronic aids for the blind. In this regard, however, there is tremendous competition abroad at the moment, and scientists, specialized engineers and technicians are co-operating on various projects of this kind. For instance, at the moment two machines are being manufactured, which have been developed in such a way that they can read any printed book aloud. Every blind person can therefore read a printed book with the aid of such a machine. One of these machines is known as the optacon, and the other as the Kursweil. However, one of these machines costs between $25 000 and $30 000. It is matters of this type that are ultimately of importance to us.

I feel obliged to refer in this regard to the words of Helen Keller, when, in 1951, she met the then Prime Minister, Dr. D. F. Malan, here in Cape Town. On that occasion she said something which I feel is also meaningful for our blind people in South Africa. She said—

These words clearly came to mind when a blind person from Rosettenville telephoned me in connection with his pension, which had been terminated for some time. The hon. the Minister and the Secretary, Mr. Wessel Meyer, gave their assistance so that that pension was reinstated. However, what I found so touching, was that this blind person did not open the door to me himself. Someone else did so. Finally, the blind person was led in by a guide dog.

He then told me the dramatic story of how he had been employed by the telephone department, somewhere near Queenstown. One day he had to support a ladder. Whilst he was holding the ladder, someone dropped a pot of molten lead from above. Unfortunately, the ladder shifted and the pot of molten lead struck him in the face. As a result of that he was blinded. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Rosettenville. I read what the late Dr. Walter Cohen wrote about service organizations, and I know what an excellent job he did with regard to the blind.

I should like, however, to disagree with one thing said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. When I called for a referendum yesterday it was because I was quite certain that about 90% of all pensioners would express their dissatisfaction by way of such a referendum. The hon. member referred to 20 000 people who had signed the petition. He was wrong though. The petition was signed by 23 000 people. That petition was a sequel to a public meeting which I addressed in Hillbrow, at 14h30 on a Wednesday afternoon. As a result of that meeting, which was attended by 300 people, I became aware of their problems and their difficulties. That was what gave rise to that particular petition. It stemmed from that and from no other reason whatsoever.

This being my last opportunity of speaking in the discussion of this particular Vote, I should like to thank the officials of the department for their kindness and cooperation, particularly in attending to so much correspondence referred to them by me and in dealing with so many queries received from pensioners. I sincerely appreciate that, and I am sure the pensioners also appreciate that.

I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with the care of the aged. I feel that the accommodation provided for aged people is not sufficient. Various old-aged institutions have very long waiting-lists. I am sure the hon. the Minister may be able to assist in this matter by calling for a survey to ascertain exactly how many names are on the waiting-lists of the various institutions for the aged and also by establishing the further needs and requirements of these people.

One of the difficulties these institutions obviously have to contend with is the question of finance. They do not have sufficient funds at their disposal. Therefore, I think one should thank the many service organizations that assist these old-aged homes. In this respect I think, for instance, of the Rotary organization, the Lions organization, the Round Table organization, and also sport organizations such as bowling and golf clubs that organize charity days in order to collect funds to support the various care centres and institutions which they sponsor themselves. Without the assistance of these clubs and organizations, I believe, these homes and care centres would have grave difficulties. One of the greatest problems facing the institutions for the aged is that of subsidies. I see from the report of the Cape Peninsula Welfare Organization for the Aged that they raised the question of subsidies in respect of the indigent. They must be under the sub-economic limit of R130 per month for Whites and R64,50 for Coloureds. There was discussion concerning the raising of the subsidy of Whites to R180 per month. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this has been accepted and if so, what the increase is for Coloureds.

The other difficulty is one which was touched upon by the hon. member for Umbilo. It arises out of a change of calculating subsidies from a group classification formula to a new formula. As a result of this change the subsidies no longer meet expenses. If we are going to solve the problem, and if the system is going to succeed, it will have to be replaced by a subsidy based on the budgeted unit cost of the homes. The department will be able to check the final audited costs and in that way exercise control, should they have any doubts. Should costs be less than those budgeted for the department can make the necessary adjustments for the following year. Homes which unit costs are above average will lose out on their subsidy. The costs do not depend upon the size of the home. The same nursing staff can attend equally efficiently to 80 or 60 patients, in which case the unit costs would be 33% less.

Another difficulty is that too much time is needed to submit the returns with the complicated information required. I would also like to ask what provision is made for rising costs as a result of inflation. Another difficulty is that the categories are too broad. A home having 1% of its residents classified as infirm and another having 39% of its residents so classified are both placed in category A. This can result in different homes in the same category having widely differing costs. This factor must be taken into account if the subsidization scheme is to be fair. Furthermore the scheme seems to imply that where costs are above average it is due to inefficiency, but this is not so. It may be a result of better service, in which case the residents should not be penalized. The scheme seems to be run on the assumption that the cost of running a home is dependent upon the number of infirm or extremely infirm patients.

I hope the hon. the Minister will have a new look at subsidies and possibly revise them. The subsidy I referred to earlier goes back to October 1976. There have been many changes in the last four years. So I think the subsidies too deserve to be changed.

There are fit and infirm residents in these homes. We have reached the stage where more geriatric care is required. Perhaps a survey could be done to find out which hospitals that are not full could accommodate those geriatric cases which the aged homes cannot cope with.

There is one other point which I would like to raise and which has been drawn to my attention, viz. the existence of fire hazards at homes for the aged. I think we should ask the local authorities, who frame the fire hazard regulations, to see whether adequate measures are taken. It is all very well to have fire regulations for the fit aged. The infirm, those in wheelchairs, must be especially provided for by means of special fire protection clauses. We have read of various disasters which have occurred overseas. Thank goodness nothing serious has so far happened in South Africa. However, since this problem has been brought to my attention, I feel it is my duty to ask the hon. the Minister to keep an eye on the situation to see whether the regulations are suitable.

The other day we had the opportunity of going to Tenterten. We thank the hon. the Minister and his department for arranging it. Tenterten is a place for young people and houses 62 young boys and girls. It caters for children from birth to the age of 18 years. It is a place of care, and a very necessary place of care indeed. Many children go there because they are ordered by the courts to do so, whilst others are children who have run away from home. I spoke to a little girl of eight years old and asked her why she was there. She explained to me that she was in the school because she had not heard from her father who had disappeared. Her mother, she said, was in the Cape Peninsula and she hoped to join her in a few months’ time. That little girl is obviously not one of those sent there by the courts, nor one of those who had run away from home, yet she is in a home with other children who have been sent there by the courts or who are classified as difficult children. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether it is necessary for a girl like that, and others like her, to have to mix, in the same home, with children who need special care. I think a case can be made out for the separation of such children from the other types. I accept the fact that this is a place of safety and that the children come there for short periods, but they can be held there for six weeks, six months or even longer. Under those circumstances I think it is quite undesirable for children who are not sent by the courts, or classified as difficult children, to be thrown together with others who have been sent by the courts or are classified as difficult children.

There is another matter I should like to refer to, if I may. I am referring to the problem of pensions for people in certain categories attached to certain organizations. Basically we must accept, I think, that a woman over 70, who is a South African citizen and who qualifies in terms of the means test, even as applied today, should be entitled to a pension. I can see no reason whatsoever why such a woman, because she belongs to a certain church organization which has taken care of her during her lifetime, should not be able to qualify for a pension. I do not see why a person should not qualify for a pension merely because of the vows she has taken. I think that is manifestly unfair. If such an organization is to look after its aged, it has to pay in order to do so. It does not, however, get any funds from any other organization. Those people have rendered a service to the community by virtue of the social work they have done, and in education, and I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to please take another look at such applications. I say this because people have been turned down merely because they belong to a church organization. It is apparently the policy of this Government that the church should take care of them and that they should not receive a pension. In my opinion that is manifestly wrong and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about it. [Time expired.)

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow must excuse me if I do not react to what he said, because I should like to speak about a different aspect. First of all I want to say thank you very much to the hon. the Minister for what he, as a fairly new Minister, has already done for us. It is always good to see him, with his friendly attitude towards us as members of Parliament when we go to see him in connection with matters concerning our constituencies. My congratulations to him on his appointment to this post, as well as to the new Director-General, Dr. De Beer, and the Deputy Director-General, Mr. Wessel Meyer, on their appointment to this important sector of our national economy. It is my privilege to mention that I have known Mr. Wessel Meyer for many years, and I know what he is doing for our elderly people as well as for those of us who have to represent such people in our constituencies.

In my constituency I have various types of old-age homes, and therefore I can speak fairly authoritatively on them. For instance, there is an old-age home of the Smith-Mitchell and Co. type. There is also one for the elderly and infirm at Dunnotter, the Tini Vorster Home, and then there are also various old-age homes in the constituency which are managed and controlled by welfare organizations and church bodies. I can inform the House that the Smith-Mitchell & Co. type of old-age home at Vogelstruisbult is run very well. We know that this type of old-age home was criticized in the past, but I can testify to very good services and the good work that is done there. Various people have also come to me in my capacity as MP to thank me for recommending them to send their elderly people there. The Tini Vorster Home in my constituency is also well run. However, there is one aspect that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this is the tremendous need for a physiotherapist. We know that everything possible is being done to get a full-time person appointed there in that capacity. However, we also know that people with this type of training are very scarce. That is why I should like to ask whether advertisements cannot possibly be placed in the local newspapers which are published in the area. There may be housewives who are qualified in this regard and could fill that position in a temporary capacity. Once again I want to say thank you for what has already been done in this regard.

Our people are becoming older—there is no getting away from it. We know that several years ago a census was held in Europe in order to determine what percentage of people reached the age of 65. At the time it became apparent that it was only between 5% and 6%. After only a few decades that percentage had increased to 12%. This is thanks to better medicines, better living conditions and the larger number of institutions at the disposal of people.

Our elderly people form an integral part of our community. This premise was accepted as a policy by us as early as 1968 and professed accordingly. The premise is that elderly people should maintain an independent lifestyle in the community for as long as possible. The main objective is that they should be helped as far as possible to do so. This premise that they should be normal, independent members of the community, takes into account normal emotional needs. Elderly people like to feel that they are part of the community.

In the policy declaration in question, emphasis was placed on three aspects of providing service to elderly people in particular. The first is a network of supportive services by church and other welfare organizations for elderly people who are still living normally in the community, in order to provide for their primary needs and enable them to continue an independent lifestyle in the community. Then there is the aspect of providing for special housing for elderly people who are in special need thereof. Finally, there is institutionalized care, or old-age homes for elderly people who can no longer look after themselves due to spiritual and physical infirmity and for other reasons. It can be seen everywhere that this policy succeeds in its aims to a great extent.

There is another aspect that I should like to point out briefly. It concerns people who do not five in old-age homes but who still generally five in the community. Community involvement is spoken of in this regard. It is not the duty of the State alone to care for our aging people. Even if one does not have money to donate, one can nevertheless make an important contribution by showing love for the cause. We know that mayors and their spouses do a great deal and also collect a great deal of money in order to provide relief in this regard. We want to say thank you to the town councils throughout South Africa for what they have done over the years to provide better services and to make things more pleasant for our senior citizens and also bring it home to them that they are part of the community. It is simply impossible for the State to accommodate all our aging citizens in old-age homes. There are endless waiting lists. I know that due to the very high cost of living, both husband and wife are sometimes forced to work. Then there is no one at home to care for the aged person. One also encounters such problems. That is why it is a good thing that old-age homes can be utilized in such circumstances.

The system of service centres for elderly people who reside outside institutions, is something special. At service centres, of which there are fortunately a good number in the Republic already, and which are being operated with a great deal of success, provision is made for social intercourse between elderly people so that they can become accustomed to one another’s company. Man is a social being. At such service centres provision is made for recreation, educational programmes, hot meals, health services, library services and much more. The welfare organizations play a very important role here and we want to thank them very much for this.

A service centre is nothing but a place where community services are provided to elderly people. At the moment there are 19 such service centres in the Republic of South Africa, and they are subsidized by the State. During 1979, a further 19 were approved of for that purpose, and the State paid no less than R277 503 in subsidies to those 19 service centres during that particular year. Application can be made for such a service centre in any town where there is an old-age home. They must be made aware of the fact that subsidies are available for this. Such a service will serve its purpose. We know that the percentage subsidy for such a service centre for current expenditure amounts to 50% of the approved expenditure, with a maximum of R20 per person per year. Then there is also a subsidy for furniture viz. 75% of the purchase price, with a maximum of R20 per person per year. A subsidy of 75% is also paid for the rental of premises, if they have to be rented, with a maximum of R10 per person per year.

Every member of the community has a duty here, and it must not simply be left to the State, to the church and to the welfare organizations. So many of us are only too keen to leave these duties to other people and to other bodies in our community, whilst we forget that we too have a major duty to perform. We are living in a hectic age, and every one of us is concerned with his own affairs, so concerned that we sometimes forget that one of our main duties is to be human. We can do so much to make life more bearable for the elderly people than is the case at present, if we would simply be a little friendly towards the elderly neighbour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, our time has almost expired and I just want to say a few words about a matter which may perhaps be rectified. It concerns pensions for petitioners to Parliament.

As you know, the Select Committee on Pensions is drawn up on the basis of a motion introduced to Parliament at the beginning of every session. Petitions can be divided into two groups, viz. petitions for pensions and other benefits with regard to services provided to the State and petitions for pensions and other benefits that are not based on services provided to the State. Petitions with regard to services provided to the State, are submitted by the MP in question to the Secretary of Parliament, if they are approved by the Speaker, and are referred directly to the Select Committee. Other petitions have to be submitted to Parliament by means of a notice of motion.

To my mind, petitions have a dual purpose today. Firstly, they give a citizen direct access to the highest authority in the country. A citizen who feels that he is being prejudiced by pension laws, can put his case and if it is true that he is being prejudiced, his case can be rectified. Therefore, it may mean that a law is just towards people in general, but prejudices one person. The Select Committee can also recommend grants on grounds of charity. One of the matters that we deal with often, is the question of charity. It is true that when the Select Committee recommends that a pension be granted to someone on charitable grounds, when other pensioners receive increases that are announced annually by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that person does not automatically receive an increase. They must submit a petition each time in order to receive a small increase in the pension that they are already receiving. I feel that this is a deficiency in our system. I also feel that their increases should be automatic. We know that the hon. the Minister is already empowered in terms of the present legislation to grant pensions to those people. I just feel that it actually wastes time for those people to apply. In addition, some of them are ignorant and do not know that they can introduce a petition for an increase in their pension. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister, for his consideration, that in future we should also look at these people who received pensions by means of special legislation of Parliament at the recommendation of the Select Committee on Pensions. This will also mean that far fewer cases will come before the Select Committee. Petitions have decreased considerably in number over the past years because certain changes were made to the system. For instance, we received only nineteen petitions this year that had to be dealt with by the Select Committee, and I think that this can decrease even further if this category of pensions is increased automatically.

Mr. Chairman, right at the outset I should like to thank all the hon. members who have participated in the debate. We have now come to the end of this subdivision of Welfare and Pensions. I must admit that I have learnt a great deal in this debate. I shall certainly not be able to reply to everything, but I shall do my best in the time available to me.

†I should just like to correct something which appeared in The Cape Times of this morning. I think it is important to correct it; otherwise an incorrect impression might be given. I am not quite sure whether the reporter did not understand because I think I spoke in Afrikaans at the time when I was dealing with the question of the Biko findings. I just want to quote what the reporter said—

I never said this. What I did say, in fact, was that two of the members had been nominated to the Medical Council by my predecessor, and I also said that the five members of the preliminary committee of inquiry that is annually appointed by the Council are elected by the Council. I have nothing to do with their appointment. I did not appoint them and the Government did not appoint them on that preliminary committee. However, I want this statement in The Cape Times to be corrected, and I think it is their duty to correct it, because this would make it seem as if I was not telling the truth to the House in that I told the House that none of these members were Government nominees. Two of them are Government nominees on the Medical Council. I want to reiterate that I myself did not appoint them on the preliminary committee, and my Hansard will bear me out. I shall at this stage accept that the reporter did not understand what I was saying and that he was not being mischievous. At least I hope he was not trying to be mischievous.

*I now want to give a few replies to questions raised by hon. members since yesterday. I shall do my best to reply as fully as possible in the time available to me.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow started off by expressing his dissatisfaction with just about everything. He complained about the increase of R12; he complained about the bonus of R30 which only amounts to R2,50 per month and he complained about the means test, etc. At that stage a light went up. The hon. member is one of the main instigators in the country today in trying to work up the old people in respect of their pensions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred it. The hon. member for Hillbrow has a very interesting MPC, called Chilchik. He goes around making certain statements about me and his meetings. I want to read what he said at one of these meetings—

I never said that. I said that the aged have an opportunity during their younger life to make provision to support themselves when it comes to the end of their lives. I did not say that they should have provided for their old age. I also said in that speech, which I delivered early on in the session, that when they could not support themselves we had a duty to see to them.

Was it reported like that?

I have not yet finished with the hon. member, and I did not interrupt him when he was speaking.

*I find this kind of incitement of old people quite reprehensible. The hon. member for Edenvale is sitting there very innocently, but I want to quote from a report on a meeting he addressed. The report in the Natal Mercury is headed: “Fewer Whites eligible for pensions under the new means test.” According to the report, the hon. member for Edenvale said—

Surely this is completely untrue. How can the hon. member say this to a newspaper in a campaign to incite old people against the Government? Have the people in Houghton or the people living in the areas represented by the hon. member or the people in Hillbrow ever looked after the old people?

Certainly not you. You are doing a bad job.

The hon. member for Orange Grove should rather confine himself to vehicles. He often talks about the Railways, but he knows nothing about our old people.

I know a lot about them.

What did the hon. member for Edenvale say during his speech while addressing a few hundred old people? The report says—

*The young hon. member was not interested in pensions. In an attempt to get at the Government, he wants to persuade the poor old people to sign petitions. I think the time has come for the official Opposition to reconsider its position and to realize that it cannot treat the old people in the Republic of South Africa in this way.

[Inaudible.]

As soon as that gramophone is quiet, I shall continue with my speech.

It is not a gramophone; it is a blowfly. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “blowfly”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

At a particular meeting that was reported in the Rand Daily Mail, the hon. member had a lot to say. I do not want to go into this as it will take up too much of my time. I only want to say that I find it difficult to understand that hon. members of Parliament can stoop to this level of propaganda to obtain votes. They even go as far as putting tables on street corners in an effort to influence people.

*All this is part of the extra-parliamentary action which is going on in the country at the moment. [Interjections.] This is the example which is being set by the official Opposition.

Remember how you went for the pigeon lovers in King William’s Town?

What would happen if everybody began signing petitions and doing just as they liked? Why do the hon. members not discuss these matters in this House? Why did the hon. member for Edenvale misinform the people? Why did he tell the people that there would be fewer Whites qualifying for a pension under the new means test?

I never said that.

In that case, why did he not have the report in the newspaper corrected? Because that is the way the newspaper reported him. However, I want to leave the matter at that.

Hon. members heard the speeches that were made here. The hon. member for Nigel spoke about the old-age homes in his constituency which I visited with him. I went to investigate the conditions and I was very impressed, not only by his knowledge of the old-age homes, but also by the way in which he spoke to the old people when we visited those homes.

I come now to a second matter raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

†This hon. member always wants to bring colour into everything he discusses. He cannot keep away from the question of colour. He said that all the race groups should receive the same pensions. In other words, he wants parity in pensions.

*I think it is time we finally put paid to this matter. I have here a report of the Human Sciences Research Council which was published by request towards the end of last year. This report indicates the needs of the various population groups, i.e. the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. When one looks at the figures given under the headings “food”, “clothing” and “miscellaneous”, i.e. things like cosmetics, etc., it is interesting to see that the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks spend approximately the same amounts on these items. However, there is a basic difference in their needs in respect of housing, services, and certain other components. On these, the Whites spend R55; the Coloureds R11,69; the Indians R15 and the Blacks R8 a month. These figures are based on a scientific investigation that was made.

So you are telling us that their pensions are actually the same?

Does a Black person who spends R8 on housing have to receive the same pension as the White person who spends R55 on housing? For this specific reason, I have already given the department an instruction in this connection. I take a great interest in this matter. I think we should completely remove the element of colour from pensions. We should adjust pensions to people’s basic needs in respect of food, clothing, housing and miscellaneous things, for if we did that, it would no longer be necessary to speak of Black, Coloured, Indian or White pensions. Surely there is not a single hon. member of the official Opposition who can rise and say that if a person’s housing costs him R8, we should give him R55. On the other hand, surely there is no one who can say that if a person’s actual expenditure on housing is R55, we should give him R8. The hon. member made such a fuss about parity in pensions, but now it seems that he is not even listening to what I am telling him.

He is not interested.

He is not interested. He just wants to keep harping on the same old story of parity in everything when he speaks in this House. I want to tell hon. members that I shall give further attention to this matter during the next session. I believe that we can reduce the three components to which I have referred to one. We can divide the needs into A, B, C and D categories and then give people their pensions according to those needs, irrespective of whether they are Black, White, Brown or Asiatic. I want to tell the hon. member that it is not as a result of his representations that we are going to do this, but because, like any right-thinking person, we want to solve problems in this country and not aggravate them by inciting old people at meetings.

†I now want to refer to the question of the national contributory pension scheme. I have already said that personally I am not in favour of a pension scheme that will be controlled by the Government itself. In the past few months I have had long discussions with the private sector and with insurance firms which already have pension funds and schemes. These matters are much more complex than would at first sight appear. However, I think that we will make headway, and during the next session I shall, during the discussion of my Vote, report any further headway we may have made. I feel that the private sector must also take a hand and try to see whether they can help not only the person who needs the pension, but also the person who is working for them.

*The employer and the employee have to make a contribution in this connection through some kind of uniform pension scheme introduced by the private sector itself. Let them go out to sell the policies and persuade people to contribute. If the State were to introduce something like this as well, our administration of pensions and pension funds would get out of hand completely and we should not be able to control it. Something which is very important and which I have already mentioned is that the employer will also have to make a contribution. In many cases one is concerned with employees who receive a very small wage and who are paid on a weekly basis, but they can also be accommodated. One of our insurance companies which has pension schemes as well has a scheme even for migrant labourers from Transkei. One may ask how on earth they can control it if the labourers simply come and go. What happens, however, is that the employers pay in the contributions to the fund after the employee has been registered. If the employee subsequently leaves the service, he can receive a pension. This is something which I found stimulating.

However, I must immediately point out again that I am not prepared to recommend to the Government that we introduce a national pension scheme to be controlled by the Government only and to which only the Government is to contribute. Such a scheme would inevitably force us to establish an enormous administration. In my opinion, a national contributory pension scheme is something which I can fruitfully discuss further with the private sector. In fact, I have been so successful with the Tobacco Council and smokers recently that I believe I shall also be successful if I talk to the private sector about the matters I have just mentioned.

As long as it does not go up in smoke.

The hon. member also said that we should abolish the means test. I am not even prepared to discuss abolishing the means test.

If you would stop spending money on your apartheid ideology, you would be able to afford it. [Interjections.]

One thing that apartheid has achieved, is that that hon. member sits on that side and I on this side. That is something for which I am really grateful. I could not have tolerated that hon. member in our midst. I have discussed the question of abolishing the means test ever so often.

*Surely that would mean giving even more to people who already have. I indicated the amounts on a previous occasion. At the moment, social pensions for Whites cost us R320 million a year. If we had to make such pensions available to all Whites who are older than 60 or 65 years, we should definitely have to spend a further amount of approximately R230 million. I think we should rather increase the pensions of the other people who find it difficult to make ends meet in spite of the fact that they receive pensions. Why should we now—to repeat the names that are always mentioned —give a social pension to Dr. Rupert or Mr. Harry Oppenheimer while withholding it from people who actually need it more? The hon. member can forget about it, because I shall not make such a recommendation during my term of office. I am not interested in it at all.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

As long as it does not take up too much time.

Does the hon. the Minister not agree that the present means test gives no incentive for people to save?

I do not agree with the hon. member at all that there is no incentive for people to save money. By means of the present budget the means test is now being improved. We realize that people in the lower income groups may not have saved enough. The people who are receiving pensions at this stage are those who have survived the flu epidemic, who have gone through the depression of the early ’thirties and the war years. I think that in the years lying ahead we shall have an improvement in the pension situation. I do not say that there is definitely going to be an improvement, but I think there will be an improvement because we now have a more affluent society. I do not consider it wise that we should at this stage spend too vast amounts of money simply to eliminate the means test and to pay pensions to people who have looked after themselves. The hon. member probably knows dozens of such people in his constituency.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

This is the last question I am prepared to allow.

Will the hon. the Minister please deal with the argument of the abolishment of the means test in conjunction with the establishment of a national contributory pension scheme?

Mr. Chairman, that argument falls away because I am not in favour of a national contributory pension scheme. I therefore do not have to deal with it at the moment.

The hon. member asked for a commission of inquiry into the total pension situation. It has been announced and debated in this House that a President’s Council will be established. I think this is the type of investigation that ought to be referred to that council at some stage because, as the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated, that council will represent the race groups that receive social pensions from my department at the moment.

*The hon. member for Brits is not present at the moment, but he made his apologies. In order to ensure that it is placed on record, I want to congratulate him on the very interesting and positive contribution he made. He had quite a lot to say about people’s avarice. He also congratulated us on the sound welfare policy which is being followed. I want to thank him for doing so. I think he raised one very important point. That is that the transferability of pensions will be the first step towards a better dispensation for pensioners in the future. Other hon. members also referred to this. One hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Edenvale—asked when the report would appear. The report is already in the possession of the hon. the Minister of Finance. As soon as his officials have studied it, it will be sent to the department of Health, Welfare and Pensions and we shall also study it. I have every hope that one of the recommendations will in fact be that it should be possible to transfer pensions and that people will therefore not be forced to draw their pension money. If this is the first step, I think we shall be able to make much better and more rapid progress in our negotiations with the private sector in connection with the kind of scheme I have in mind.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow also asked whether people would have to reapply after 1 October 1980. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked the same question. My reply is “yes”. We cannot reprocess all the applications. This group is not very large, however. With the maximum now being fixed at R34 800, about 12% of those receiving pensions will receive an additional R2 in future. They will automatically receive that, without having to reapply for it. People whose applications have been turned down because they exceed the means test will have to reapply in the usual way.

I should like to deal now with some of the aspects referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo. It is always interesting and stimulating to listen to this hon. member. He makes a thorough study of pensions and is also capable of putting his case in a very constructive way. I believe past experience has proved that it serves no purpose to furnish members of the public with information on whether they will be able to apply for pensions or not. In fact, we distribute a detailed memorandum on this to hon. members of this House, and it often happens that we have to supply additional information in regard to that particular memorandum, particularly to hon. members who do hot deal with pensions every day. I think one should rather advise people through the Press or through hon. members that they should fill in an application form with the assistance of one of our local pensions officials, who can help them to complete the application form in a proper manner so as to give them the best chance to receive a pension.

Welfare organizations will also provide the necessary information.

Oh yes, they will. With reference to what the hon. member said in connection with old-aged homes, I wish to stress that we have embarked on a policy of trying to build enough old-aged homes to accommodate as many old people as possible. We want to try to create circumstances for them in which they can spend the final days of their lives in peace and quiet. After visiting Oudtshoorn about a week or 10 days ago, I must say that I was very impressed by what is being done there in this connection.

*The ACVV at Oudtshoorn has a fine organization. In the first place, they have a crèche for the very young children.

†Their crèche can accommodate about 120 children. Furthermore they also have an old-aged home, in addition to which they care for 299 old people living in their own homes where they are being attended to by a social worker and a nursing staff in their own environment.

*I think that in future we shall have to give much more attention to having old people live in their own environment and in their own homes as long as possible. Then we shall also be able to get away from the idea of always building new homes. Old people can then be placed in old-age homes as soon as it becomes clear that they can no longer be cared for in any other way or that they can no longer help themselves. The whole idea behind this concept, I believe, is community involvement. Surely organizations such as the ACVV and other service organizations—the hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to Lions and Rotary—can adopt some of these old people in every town and visit them to see that they have everything they need. The building of homes is not the be-all and end-all. This also answers the questions asked by some of the other hon. members. We shall try to expand this service. With the amalgamation of departments in the process of rationalization, we shall do our best to see whether we can ensure that these services are expanded and that investigations are undertaken at one or two places. I have asked the department to investigate the situation at Oudtshoorn, and we should see whether we can learn from that in order to provide a similar service in other areas.

†The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about the subsidy scheme. I certainly do not want these homes to suffer under a financial burden, because then the people who are running them may not want to carry on.

*We are investigating these subsidy schemes. The main reason for the delay is the fact that although the management committees of the institutions have to submit their financial statements and annual reports within six months of the end of the financial year, they sometimes do not submit their statements in time. The hon. member for Prieska came to me the other day with a problem where the statements had not been submitted in time. This causes problems. When one looks at the set-up with regard to the categories to which the hon. member referred, I think it is important that we should give attention to this matter. As soon as this debate is over, I shall look at the hon. member’s Hansard and discuss matters with the department, because we are going into this matter. We do not want the people to suffer financially, because then we may have problems. We are continually investigating the situation—it is not something new. What happens in practice is that the difference between the number of extremely infirm aged may make the difference between an A and a B category classification. The hon. member referred to this. With only one or two old people, one can have such a big difference that if one is in the B category, the subsidy is R139, while in the C category it is R218. The difference, therefore, is R80, which the institution is not getting in that case. The hon. member should leave the matter to us to go into his suggestions.

†When the hon. member said that pensioners would have to wait until October before they received their increased pension, he perhaps lost sight of the fact that they were granted an increase in October 1979, which is the usual date on which it occurs. If the increase had been granted from the first of April, with the money at our disposal we would have had to reduce the monthly increase. What we have tried to do is to give the R30 bonanza, which means nearly R5 a month, to tide them over from April to October. We also found that by giving them a lump sum they can buy something which costs a little more without having to pay small instalments. If one bears in mind the funds at our disposal, I can quite honestly say that all the representations that we made to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Treasury were accepted. I think the increase is evidence of that success.

*The hon. member also asked that the age limit for exemption from the means test should be lowered from 100 years to 90 years and to 80 years in the case of ex-servicemen.

†I cannot give him an answer now. I shall first have to see what the implications are and what the costs will be. Obviously, if it is not high, then we can give attention to it. It is certainly a suggestion which we shall consider. I thank the hon. member for the way he presented his case.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston District for the way in which she paid tribute to the nursing profession. I worked with them for years and I can testify to the truth of what she said. These are able and sympathetic women whose task in life is to help others. I think the hon. member may be assured that they will appreciate the fact that she as a woman said this about them. I also want to thank her for what she said about Prof. Charlotte Searle. She was attacked here while she cannot defend herself in this House. The hon. member mentioned the fact that she is a good person. I was privileged to be among an audience of more than a thousand representatives while she was reading a paper at a medical congress in Dublin. When she had finished, everyone rose and gave her a standing ovation. This seldom happens to a South African. I am sure the hon. member’s fine tribute will be conveyed to her and will make her feel that what she is doing for nurses is being appreciated outside the nursing profession as well. I am sure that those who criticize her are isolated individuals and are not doing so because they want to, but because they are being incited to do so.

The hon. member for Edenvale spoke about social pensions and allowances. I have repeatedly said that it is the Government’s standpoint that we do not want a so-called welfare state.

†We are not interested in a welfare State. If I had more time I could have quoted extensively from an article I read a short while ago about Sweden. In the article it is stated that all the moral fibre has gone out of the Swedes and that this has permeated all the way down to the youth. They do not want to work and have lost all their will to fight, and Sweden is regarded as the top welfare State in the world.

Social pensions and the accompanying allowances have to be covered by the means test. I do not want to go into that again. I think the hon. member accepts it, although he might not agree with what I have said. The number of disability grants has grown from 20 800 in 1970 to 25 800 in 1980. With this escalation in mind, one must keep the means test going.

*One should try to place at least some people in sheltered employment. One should see whether they cannot do some sort of work. I think my department has long realized the therapeutic value of this kind of work. We can see whether we cannot do more in that connection. Often a man applies while his wife is still able to provide for herself, but refuses—I get this kind of letter too—to help her husband. We are investigating this aspect. Perhaps the man will be able to apply for a pension in his own right. We should not like to open the door to abuses, but I have received some pathetic letters in this connection. I think one may have to investigate this whole situation.

†The hon. member also referred to self-help villages, like the Flower Foundation where people donated the houses they occupied and yet were penalized. Those houses, even though they may cost R20 000 or R30 000, are merely recorded as costing R9 800. That is all that is debited against them. I think the hon. member suggested that we should even do away with that.

They eventually lose the right of ownership. It is then no longer their house, and is therefore different from a normal house.

Yes, but what happens in such cases is that persons have a contract, and the house only becomes the property of the old-age home or village at their demise. So as long as it is their property, we must regard it as an asset. We only record the value as R9 800, thus bringing their assets into line with those of pensioners who own their own homes. We do not take the full amount of the house’s value into consideration.

The hon. member also mentioned the problem in regard to religious bodies. We do have a problem in this case. There are sisters in certain denominations who, when they take their vows, resign all their property and income to the church. The condition that the church lays down, however, is that the church will look after these sisters to the end of their days. So I think the matter should be sorted out between the sister and the church since the church is looking after them, and if we pay them a pension, it would go to the church anyway. So what do those people want to do with the pension? It is a matter that I can look into, but merely looking at it superficially in the time I have had at my disposal, I do not think I can alter my present viewpoint.

Give us more information.

If the hon. member wants to bring any particular facts to my notice, I shall see if I can look into it further. The hon. member also wanted to know about the report. I have already told hon. members that the report is now with the hon. the Minister of Finance and that we shall go into it very thoroughly as soon as we get it.

*The hon. member for Springs outlined the history of pensions and gave some very interesting information. He pointed out that charitable organizations had done a very great deal, and this is an important matter. Our country has a wealth of charitable organizations. During the Anglo-Boer War, at the time of the influenza epidemic and during the depression years, these organizations developed out of our churches, and I think one should pay tribute to them. I am very grateful for the fact that the hon. member referred to this matter. The Government will do its best to co-operate with these organizations. The hon. member also referred to Mr. Chilchick, the notorious MPC. I shall not elaborate on that any further. I think he made the point at the end of his speech that the exploitation of old people should now come to an end. I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

The hon. member for Randfontein spoke about the rehabilitation of alcoholics. He began by quoting the Apostle Paul. Who am I to disagree with the Apostle Paul when he says that people should drink wine? Of course, it is a very serious matter to abuse alcohol and then to get in behind a wheel. In Sweden, where there is a great deal of permissiveness and other things that are wrong, they are very strict when it comes to drunken driving. When I was touring there, people told me that when a party was organized there, they rented a bus to pick up all the guests. They have their parties, but they keep an eye on the bus driver while the party is in progress. He is not allowed to drink anything, because he has to take them home. When I was there, a specialist surgeon was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for drunken driving. I think it is perhaps necessary to re-educate our people in this connection. In order to obtain better co-operation and more concerted action with regard to the problem of alcohol, the department, in co-operation with the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters, has drawn up a document entitled “National plan for the prevention and combating of alcohol abuse and alcoholism”. The intention is to implement this national plan systematically as far as possible. I am sure that the communication media will help us to do so. I have already granted approval for a conference to be held during 1981 where the emphasis will fall mainly on alcohol and related problems and the combating of those problems. This conference is being presented jointly by my department, the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters and the S.A. National Council on Alcoholism and Drugs. I shall ask the department to inform the hon. members, especially the members of the relevant groups, of this conference. Perhaps the hon. member for Randfontein will also be interested in it. I think the conference will be held in his part of the country. I thank the hon. member for his contribution. The way in which he made it was a serious warning to those people who may still be thinking of driving under the influence of alcohol.

†I now wish to return to the hon. member for Umbilo. I have already dealt with a few of the points he raised, and these matters will be looked into. I have already said that I shall make a point of studying his Hansard because there are certain intricate problems on which I cannot just reply across the floor of the House. But I shall look into them very carefully. I think I shall leave it there and possibly later on discuss these matters with the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Carletonville made a moving speech in which he told us about his personal problems. He did not tell us only about his personal problems, if one wants to call them problems. He also paid tribute to the educators of these little mongol children. The key words in his argument were acceptance by the parents themselves and understanding on the part of other people. I should also like to pay tribute to such parents, like the hon. member for Carletonville and his wife, for the way in which they accept this situation and make a contribution as well. Listening to the hon. member, it was a privilege to realize that these little children have parents such as these. It would appear to me that I still have a great deal to learn about these children and the level to which they can be educated. In the time that lies ahead I shall discuss this matter with the hon. member on a personal level, for I am sure that if there is anyone who can advise me, he is the one. I thank him very sincerely for his speech. He may be sure that we in this House not only listened attentively, but that in particular we want to pay tribute to two such people.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central thanked us on behalf of his voters for the pension increase, and I want to thank him very sincerely for that. He said that the means test should be revised every year, and in my opinion, that is the crux of the whole matter. There are times when one may reconsider it. I have already replied with regard to those people who applied, but did not qualify. They will just have to apply again. The hon. member also spoke about transferability, and I think he was absolutely right when he said that this was the first step one had to take in order to arrive at a better pension dispensation.

The hon. member also referred to the exploitation of the old people. I think we may leave it at that. He also gave me an opportunity to speak to the hon. member for Hillbrow, to see whether he will not change his ways.

One of the interesting points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville was that in 1941, the Bible was translated into Afrikaans braille. Unfortunately, my Whip is getting restless. I wanted to tell a good story, but perhaps I should rather leave it. As ex-Minister Paul Sauer used to say: “You are never sorry about a thing you did not say.” There is another very interesting point which the hon. member raised here. The National Council for the Blind is very strict in granting pensions. They ask, for example, that we should not give a pension to persons who cannot be trained before they have attained the age of 19 years. Those people who can be trained, for example, we have to afford an opportunity up to the age of 21 years to see whether they cannot be made useful and realize themselves in their own environment. There are already 790 persons receiving this kind of pension, as the hon. member said, but the amount is not large. However, I think the blind person is actually one who goes out of his way to try to manage his own affairs. I thank the hon. member for the attention he gave to this matter.

The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke a second time and mentioned the question of fire protection in old-age homes. This is actually a matter for the authorities concerned. When we build, we build according to their specifications, and old-age homes which are bought and adapted by someone else also have to be passed by the local authorities.

The hon. member for Nigel raised a few interesting points. I have already said that I was very impressed with the things I saw in his constituency. I also want to thank him sincerely for the way in which he raised some of these things here today. I think it is important that he should know that the matters he raised are receiving our personal attention and that we shall do our best in the future to do more justice to these matters as well.

There is one final matter I should like to mention here, and this concerns the question of child care. It was mentioned by an hon. member who went with a group of people to visit one of the homes where we “detain” children, if one wants to use this ugly word for it. Ever since I visited some of these places of detention, it has been worrying me that there is no continuity from the time the child is committed by the court and placed in the institution until he is referred to the various bodies. These institutions only serve as places where the children are kept for a while. I was absolutely depressed, when I visited one or two of those places, to see that they were almost like children’s gaols. But actually these are very difficult children that have to be handled with care, so they cannot be dealt with in any other way. After discussions with the department, I decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate the treatment of children in institutions. During a visit by hon. members to one of these places of safety, the Director-General indicated, in response to questions that had been asked, that I might say something about it. The committee will be a departmental committee under the chairmanship of a magistrate of the children’s court. Psychologists and departmental officials will also serve on it. Their instructions will be to investigate the whole set-up with regard to the treatment of children in these children’s institutions. They will also be asked to consider other aspects of the matter as well, such as foster-care and anything else which concerns the children. We must see whether we cannot “save” more children for society, children who are being kept in places of safety at the moment and are then sent to industrial schools or other places of detention. I think it is time we launched a total onslaught, by the clinical psychologist, the psychiatrist, the medical practitioners and the social worker, to find out whether there is anything we can do to rehabilitate these children better and sooner. I feel that we shall derive a great deal of information from this investigation.

I want to convey my sincere thanks once again to all hon. members who participated in the discussion. Matters were raised which we shall consider in greater detail, but I hope I have not omitted any member and that I have replied to each one as fully as time allowed me to do.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was adjourned, I was saying that often the rights of commuters are held in contempt. Perhaps contempt is a bit too strong a word. Let me say that the rights of commuters are considered to be of nuisance value only. Clause 5 of the Bill is a clear indication of this, and the lack of meticulous observation of procedures in the sessions of the transportation board which led to the court actions is also an indication of what I am talking about. If clause 5 of the Bill had been valid law a few months ago, it would have meant that the Cape Town bus company could have charged the higher fare that was improperly approved for at least a couple of months before the court came to a final conclusion about this matter. If this clause was law a few months ago, Mr. Rommel Roberts would have been unable to take the matter to court and the higher fares would have remained in force in spite of the fact that there was evidence that these higher fares were approved without sticking to the proper procedures.

At this stage I want to refer very briefly to something that was said by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I want to thank the hon. member and his party for supporting our amendment, but I think he made some fairly unkind remarks about certain people who he said were taking the question of higher bus fares to the Supreme Court for reasons which he considered to be suspect, or words to that effect. He was followed by the hon. member for East London City who also mentioned the term mala fides. Quite frankly, I disagree with that completely. I want to pay tribute to those people who took up this question on behalf of the commuting public of Cape Town, and to Mr. Rommel Roberts, who is now in detention, in particular, as well as to the Green and Sea Point Rate Payers’ Association and in particular to Mr. Sam Gross who took the matter before the transportation board on their behalf. I want to pay tribute to those people who do take up an issue like this on behalf of the public, because if these gentlemen do not take up these matters, who will do it on behalf of the commuting public? How many people who have to commute by bus on a daily basis have the means or expertise to appear before a transportation board, let alone have the means or expertise to brief counsel or an attorney to appear on their behalf before the Supreme Court or a road transportation board to fight for their rights? The result is that it is very often a bit of a one-sided affair.

I want to deal very briefly with a couple of things which the hon. member for East London City had to say. I was impressed with the analysis which the hon. member made. I think he spoke as a man who knows the law in respect of this subject and who also knows court procedure. I was impressed with what he had to say, but unfortunately he could not convince me as to the necessity of having clause 5 in this Bill to preserve good order.

*I specifically want to refer to one or two of the things mentioned by him. The hon. member said, for example, that when a matter relating to the determination of a higher tariff was brought before the Supreme Court or when an interdict was pending, the road transportation board might, for example, at the same time submit an application for condonation of their defective procedure which might render the final decision of the Supreme Court irrelevant. I concede that this is quite possible, but then it shows once again how unnecessary it is to insert this clause into the Bill. If the Supreme Court were to find that non-compliance with procedures on the part of the road transportation board was of such a nature that it could grant condonation, the Supreme Court would find in any event that nobody had really suffered as a result of the non-compliance with the procedures and the matter would be settled in this way. Another point made by the hon. member was that clause 5 would in fact not result in any person emerging at the other and as an injured party, or that any of the rights of the commuting public would at this stage be abolished. As far as that aspect is concerned, I want to differ from the hon. member, because it is, in fact, often necessary for a member of the public first to apply to the Supreme Court to have a determination by the road transportation board declared nul and void before he is able to appear before the Road Transportation Council de novo to dispute that case anew. Some of the interdicts granted up to now were granted on the grounds that proper notice had not been given, as a result of which certain members of the public were definitely unaware of the fact that an application would be made and of the date on which the application would be submitted to the Road Transportation Board. Consequently these people were not in a position to dispute the case. I believe that in such cases the Supreme Court should in fact have the right and the jurisdiction to accommodate such an approved person by declaring that determination by the Road Transportation Board nul and void and by affording the member of the public the opportunity to take up the case again by ruling that the application should be resubmitted to the Road Transportation Board. In my opinion this is a far more desirable course of action, and a much more effective way of ensuring that none of the parties will suffer as a result of the non-compliance with procedures as far as the Road Transportation Board is concerned.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made the further point that the Government is doing everything in its power for the commuting public and that it is doing its duty in seeing to it that the cost of public travel is kept down to a minimum. Once again I want to take issue with him on that question. I believe that more can be done. I am not saying that nothing is done. I appreciate the contribution the Treasury makes towards public transport, but I still believe that certain extra things can be done. I particularly want to make the point that the Government is, at this point in time, still making money out of public transport. The other day I obtained some figures from the City Tramways, the Cape Town bus company, in respect of the financial year ended June 1979. They paid R0,5 million for bus licences to the provincial council, R200 000 in general sales tax on spare parts, etc., that they have had to purchase for their buses, and a fuel levy of about R0,5 million, a levy which admittedly has since then been reduced quite considerably, something one must obviously appreciate. Then there are other customs duties and surcharges that they still have to pay.

Are you arguing that bus companies should not pay tax?

What I am arguing is that there is no point in the Government giving a travel subsidy with the one hand while taking with the other hand, with the result that the commuting public has to pay eventually. In this way the Government is missing an opportunity of generating interest in public travel and a greater demand for public transport so that fewer people will use their private cars for travelling purposes, thus conserving fuel, something which is obviously in the national interest. I think this is an opportunity the Government is missing. In fact, it makes a laughing stock of the whole question of the transport subsidy if the Government tries to make money out of this. I am not suggesting that a bus company should not pay tax. However, if the Government is prepared to subsidize public travel, and if it wants to have a say in the fixing of tariffs, why can it not do away with the taxes that are being imposed on these bus companies? They have a duty to keep down their fares. The Government takes the responsibility upon itself to keep the profits of a bus company at a reasonably low level in order to protect the public. Surely, part of that whole operation could be the Government’s willingness to allow these companies some tax concessions.

Surely, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Tax has to be paid by someone. A subsidy is a subsidy.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is in fact making exactly the point I have been trying to make. The hon. member is making the point that the Government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

On the contrary. Won’t you accept that a subsidy is the same as a tax concession? [Interjections.]

With what purpose in mind? Is the purpose to prove to the public that they are looking after their interests, while they are in fact not doing so? What are we doing? We are playing games. Therefore, I want to appeal in earnest to the Government to look at the matter again. The hon. the Minister should discuss this matter with the provincial council so that they can do something about the bus licensees. The hon. the Minister should also have discussions with the hon. the Minister of Finance in connection with the GST these people have to pay, and also in connection with their customs levies.

I have enough work of my own. I cannot do other people’s work for them too.

Furthermore, I want to argue that clause 5 represents a gross incursion into the jurisdiction and the powers of the Supreme Court. It limits the power of the court to protect the commuter by prohibiting an interdict, an interdict which is after all a form of legal protection that can be given in respect of virtually every conceivable right enjoyed by members of the public. Clause 5, which seeks to insert a new section 8A in the principal Act after section 8, prohibits the court to declare a higher fare nul and void, even should there be evidence which justifies such an order to be granted immediately. I consider it to be a particularly repugnant aspect of this Bill that the impression should be created, by the mere insertion of the proposed new section 8A, that the Supreme Court will grant such an interdict lightly or without sufficient reasons.

Where do you get that from. You are talking through your neck.

That is obviously correct. The hon. the Minister himself uses terms such as “technical reasons”, and he uses these terms lightly. He tries to ridicule the “technical reasons” in terms of which the Supreme Court could grant an interdict. He wants to limit the power of the Supreme Court to grant such interdicts. Yet he tries to argue now that such a suggestion is not implicit in the proposed new section 8A. It is obvious that the court will by no means grant an interdict without proper grounds, and merely with the excuse that it has only a temporary validity. This clause seeks to remove a basic right enjoyed by members of the public, and a basic right and the duty of the Supreme Court to protect the public, all in order to eliminate administrative delays and potential administrative and legal delays, as well as the potential of resulting monetary losses. In our view this is not a good enough reason for such drastic steps to be taken.

Furthermore, delays can be rectified or minimized in other ways. The hon. the Minister himself admits that the normal procedures—even the normal administrative procedures—for obtaining higher fares are of a protracted nature. I believe these procedures can be shortened without necessarily affecting the rights of interested parties in a material way.

As regards the delays experienced through Supreme Court procedures, I believe, the solution to this should be sought in the streamlining of the judicial system, because we in South Africa cannot afford to remove the rights of people merely because we lack the judicial and administrative staff needed to enforce and to protect those rights. In dealing with clause 5 the hon. the Minister maintains that the grounds for interdicts recently granted in this respect were mainly technical points of law. Unfortunately the proposed new section 8A does not distinguish between interdicts on technical grounds and interdicts on more substantial grounds. That is obvious because it is not legally possible to make such distinctions. It does, however, high-light the dilemma in which we are landing ourselves when we tamper with the jurisdiction of the courts and when we try to incorporate in our legislation those aspects which should belong within the discretion of the judiciary. If, therefore, a very substantial ground does exist for the nullifying of a new bus tariff, the courts are prevented from giving judicial recognition to those grounds in the interim period. For those reasons, particularly those existing in respect of clause 5, we on this side of the House will not support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in having an hon. Minister with a very good memory. This is now already the fourth instalment or fragment of the Second Reading of this measure, and I really hope that we shall be able to dispose of it this afternoon.

At this stage I am not going to deal with the argument by the hon. member for Green Point in connection with clause 5. The hon. member for East London City stated the case so strongly the other day that his argument has in no way been affected by what the hon. member for Green Point has just said. As far as I am concerned, the case argued by the hon. member for East London City remains quite unimpaired.

The approach by the official Opposition to this measure, as reflected in the contributions by the hon. members for Orange Grove and Green Point, is characterized by an attitude that is not based on rational considerations but purely on prejudice, rancour, spite and similar emotional considerations.

I refer, in the first place, to the carriage of goods. The hon. members would like to pose as the champions and the patrons of private enterprise. There is obviously a resentful prejudice on their part against the official transport authorities, namely the S.A. Railways and the Road Transportation Board. The hon. member for Orange Grove, for example, states that applicants (Hansard, 1980, col. 6794)—

He went on to say in col. 6795—

That is right.

The hon. member for Green Point added that the interests of the bus users were being held “in contempt”. He also said (Hansard, 1980, col. 7019)—

He spoke, in the same column, of—

I do not know which bus company he was referring to, but I assume that he was referring to the bus company in the Cape Peninsula. I do not think it is altogether fair to talk of a monopoly in the sense he is evidently trying to imply, that it is a monopoly which they acquired as a favour from the State. I think it is altogether wrong to make such a statement, for, if the bus company in the Cape Peninsula is in a financially strong position, it is not as a result of preferential treatment on the part of the authorities, but is something they have accomplished through generations of hard work, good service and managerial skill. One cannot accuse them of having been given preferential treatment. I do not think it can be said with any justification that there has been any benevolence on the part of the authorities towards these companies.

In the second place, when it comes to urban transport, the hon. members again wish to pose as the champions and the patrons of the bus users. That is completely incongruous, too, since there are certain factors which the hon. members conveniently overlook. Let us take the question of fuel. The hon. members are contesting the new provisions that would make fuel consumption a factor that has to be taken into consideration in the consideration of applications. They are implying that it is no longer necessary to save fuel, as if it were no longer necessary to guard against the wastage of fuel.

That is absolute nonsense, it is ludicrous.

Such an inference is inescapable, since they are questioning the need for these provisions in the Bill. I wish to second a warning against the impression they are trying to create. I think the Government is already experiencing a problem as a result of the impression being created among the general public that it is no longer so important to save fuel and to guard against wastage. The way in which people make use of the roads, confirms this. I think too little heed is being paid to the control measures and speed restrictions. The sort of argument the hon. members have advanced here, will only give further encouragement to people who are so inclined, to pay even less heed to speed restrictions.

You are talking absolute rubbish. It is unbelievable.

I think the Government is entitled to expect the Opposition to assist with the task of educating people in an effort to influence them to continue to save fuel in future. I think hon. members conveniently lose sight of the announcements which the hon. the Minister made last week during the debate on his Vote. I am thinking, for example, of the idea which the hon. members have that the Road Transportation Board, the licencing authorities and the bus companies are acting in collusion or that there is a very good understanding between those people.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister recently announced that the head of his department would, for example, no longer be serving on the road transportation boards. Provision has also been made for the appointment of members of other population groups to serve on the boards. If the hon. members wish to imply—and that is obviously what they are trying to do—that these boards are not impartial, that they are prejudiced, they have certainly not taken cognizance of the measures which have been announced and which would definitely contribute to making the boards more independent of Government influence. This would undoubtedly be conducive to a more objective consideration of applications.

There is yet another very important fact which the hon. members also overlook as a result of their obsession with the interests of bus passengers. If the interests of bus passengers are really to be served, then priority number one is not bus fares. It is not low bus fares that are the highest priority to commuters. To bus passengers, priority number one is a reliable, effective public transport service. A reliable and effective transport service does not simply drop from the sky. I think we should be grateful that a city such as Cape Town has a transport service of such quality and effectiveness. We should not be indifferent to it and disparage it. We should not imply that the authorities are favouring the bus service and giving it benefits to which it is not entitled.

It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister and his department to ensure, in terms of road transport legislation, that the rendering of such a service is made possible. It is necessary to take that into consideration as well. One cannot consider only the interests of the users of the bus service. One also has to take the interests of those who provide the service into consideration, and the hon. members have no conception of that at all. They have no sympathy with those people.

One should also realize that it is not only the tariffs that determine how much profit is made with such a service, or even that such a service could be profitable as a result of the tariffs. History has shown that when a local authority provides such a service, it is usually unprofitable. I think we can be sure that if such a service in the Peninsula were to be taken over by the local authority, the service would either be less efficient or would be run at a loss, even if the tariffs were doubled. Evidently the hon. members are envious of the fact that these companies are apparently doing well, and I cannot understand their attitude. I do not think it is a sensible approach. If these companies are indeed operating at a profit, and if they are prospering, the secret does not lie in preferential treatment by the authorities, but simply in sound organization, effective management, a sensible financial policy and of course managerial skill. It is these things that make this success possible.

I do not think it is necessary to say very much about the various clauses of the Bill. Anyway, time does not permit me to go into the clauses in detail. I do think, however, that I should refer to a few things which other hon. members have not touched upon yet. I should like to come back to the two clauses that contain the principle of the greater onus that is being placed on the applicant. Before doing so, I just wish to refer to clause 1(a) which, as far as I can remember, has not been touched upon by any of the other hon. members either. It concerns a new definition of “decentralized industry”. I think it is very necessary that this new definition should be furnished, since practical experience has shown that people who were not intended to derive these benefits, are in fact doing so at present. The intention with the new definition is to ensure that the benefits under the existing Act should only be available to those people for whom they are actually intended. In terms of section l(2)(q) and (v) of the Act, there are certain specific benefits that are given to industrialists in decentralized areas. One of these is that under certain circumstances they can undertake transport at railway tariffs, and the other is that they are allowed to use a single commercial vehicle with a carrying capacity of not more than 8 000 kg. Practical experience has shown that many more people are availing themselves of these privileges than was intended. Consequently, the definition of “decentralized industry” is now being narrowed down so that in future, only certain categories of industrialists will be able to avail themselves of this privilege, namely those which, prior to declaration of such an area, had been moved to a remote area, to the detriment of their operations and consequently at a sacrifice to them; those which, in terms of a scheme of expansion of an enterprise, establish a business in that area; those established in an area after it has been declared to be a decentralized area; and finally, those in self-governing territories declared to be national States.

I should like to refer next to clauses 10 and 13. These are the two clauses that place a greater onus on applicants. I think it is justifiable that in terms of clause 10, a greater onus should be placed on applicants. At the moment, it is merely necessary for the applicant to prove two things. He merely has to prove that he has the ability to render such a service, and then he also has to pass one of four other tests. So, it is actually two things he must be able to prove. Now he is obliged to comply with at least three requirements: He must prove that the existing transport facilities are unsatisfactory; he must prove that the current tariffs are unreasonable; and then he also has to prove that he has the ability to render the service. There are other requirements as well that are set and which are not compulsory, but which may indeed be taken into account by the Road Transportation Board and the Transport Commission. What it amounts to is that it will now be necessary for the applicant to prove all material factors. This applies in respect of all three types of permits for which the Act makes provision, namely public permits to convey persons and goods for reward, for which provision is being made in sections 12 to 16; private permits for people to convey their own goods, for which provision is being made in sections 17 to 19; as well as temporary permits in terms of section 20. As is the case in respect of the other sections, the new test is also introduced here that the consumption of petrol shall be a consideration. Please note: The consumption of petrol as a consideration applies only when there is competition with other transport services. That factor will only be considered in those cases.

Finally, I just wish to refer to clause 13, where the onus of proving the necessity for the service is specifically shifted onto the applicant. At present this is not the case. Up to now it was merely necessary for him to make a statement and to say that it was urgent, and then the commission was in the invidious position of deciding whether to accept his word or whether to ask for further proof of his statement. In future there will be a specific obligation on the applicant to prove the necessity for such a service, and certainly there is every justification for this.

I wish to content myself with these few observations. Even the official Opposition was prepared to concede that there were very good improvements in the Bill, but through the attitude they displayed in respect of the two aspects they mentioned, they now feel that they simply have to make this demonstration—it is in actual fact a demonstration which is surely intended for consumption outside this House—by digging in their heels over clause 5. I wish to repeat, however, that the case they have made out in support of their arguments, is obviously not convincing whereas the hon. member for East London City, in particular, argued the case for clause 5 very strongly and convincingly. I am sure that the House will have no problem in readily accepting it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking hon. members who have supported the Bill most sincerely for their support. I refer to the hon. members for Algoa, Losberg and East London City. I shall deal with their speeches later.

Sir, you will no doubt permit me to make a few remarks with regard to the attitude and the conduct of the official Opposition with respect to this specific legislation, conduct as reflected by the hon. members who took part in the debate, but also as reflected by hon. members of the official Opposition who did not take part in the debate but did take part in an extra-parliamentary action, as is becoming the fashion nowadays.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Algoa said about the attitude with which the hon. members of the official Opposition approached this and other legislation. I want to begin by saying that when the announcement was made by the National Transport Commission relating to the increase of bus tariffs in Cape Town, the hon. member for Sea Point reacted.

†And let me say immediately, Mr. Speaker, if you find a bandwagon, you will find the hon. member for Sea Point on that bandwagon.

He will be behind you.

I think that that hon. member, who crosses from one party to another, should rather be quiet. [Interjections.] All he achieved when he made his move was to aggravate the problems of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he did not add a single idea to the 14 points of the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

North.

My apologies. North. The further north, the better.

The hon. members’ conduct testifies to a specific standpoint, and it is only with the greatest difficulty that they manage to consort with the truth. Let us look at what the hon. member for Sea Point said before he ascertained the facts. Before he ascertained the facts, he granted an interview to The Cape Times. And what did he say to The Cape Times, as he was reported on 16 May? The report is entitled “Call on Government to subsidize the buses.” The newspaper quotes him in quotation marks.

This sounds like part of your speech during the Transport debate.

I do not want to speak to that hon. member now. The hon. member for Sea Point says with regard to the increased bus tariffs—

He could have discussed it on the 16th, because on that day, as he gave notice, he wanted to discuss the bus tariffs and he also had the opportunity to speak about them.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member should really give me the opportunity to complete my speech.

The hon. member for Sea Point had the opportunity to speak at the time because the Transport Vote was discussed on 16 May. However, he did not speak. What does that make explicit? His statement is that the Government does not subsidize urban transport. Surely that is a lie, and he knows that what he said is not factually correct.

You only referred to the subsidy after he had made the statement.

That is not true. The bus company, City Tramways …

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member is not making the speech.

I say the statement is a lie.

I say that it is not so.

The fact is that bus companies in urban areas are already being subsidized. The fact is, too, that an amount of R50 million was voted as a subsidy for urban transport in respect of bus companies in last year’s budget. This amount has been paid out to them. On top of that, that amount had to be increased in the course of the year by more than R15 million, if I remember correctly. Surely the hon. member for Sea Point cannot plead ignorance in this connection. I therefore ask him why he acted in this way. I want to furnish the reply, too. He does it because he wants to incite protest actions, because they also form part of extra-parliamentary action in the country, something which leads to unrest.

It is not so.

I want to object in the strongest terms to this kind of conduct.

I take the strongest exception to that allegation.

The hon. member can take exception until he is blue in the face. It makes no difference. I want to ask why hon. members of the official Opposition make statements which are factually incorrect. [Interjections.] I say that they do it intentionally.

I agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that we must set right our communication with commuters and users of services. I do not differ with him.

What is the most powerful instrument one can use to bring about contact with the consumers? Surely it is our news media, is it not? The news media quite rightly claim to have the duty, in the first instance, to inform the public. I have no objection to that standpoint. However I want to make a qualifying statement and say that there is a duty to inform the public correctly. Let us now take a look at how one of these terribly pious media conducted itself in this connection.

The Argus wrote a number of editorials and reports on the whole issue of bus tariffs. I want to repeat that I do not deny their right to state the facts. Nor do I deny their duty to do so, but I dispute their right to misinform the public, by keeping things quiet, as they have in fact done, or by way of statements containing incorrect facts. Since I have gone out of my way to ensure that the information is at their disposal and they have nevertheless failed to use it, I cannot but infer that their motives are the same as those of the official Opposition. I am sorry to take up the time of the House in this particular regard. On 13 May this year a report appeared in that newspaper entitled “Lone Fighter Roberts ‘Dismayed’”.

†Rommel Roberts has apparently been made a hero by this particular paper throughout the whole sad history of the application for an increase in fares by City Tramways. I believe that he did not speak for the commuters. Let us look at what happened subsequently. On 14 May an editorial appeared in The Argus under the heading “Keep Fares Down.”

*I have no fault to find with people calling for fares to be kept down, but nowhere in the editorial is it stated that a substantial part of the increases are borne by the State in the form of subsidies. Now in all fairness, I ask what the reason is for such conduct? What is their motive when they act in this way?

†In this editorial the newspaper said, inter alia—

I have no comment to make on this editorial except to say that my objection is that the subsidization, by the State out of Revenue, of the commuters is not mentioned at all. What is the impression that is being created by this type of editorial? Firstly, the impression is created that no subsidy is paid; secondly, that the increased tariffs are to be paid in full by the commuters, and, thirdly— exactly the same as the hon. member for Green Point did—that the Government is enriching itself with taxes at the expense of the commuters.

*I think this is a scandal. However I want to go further and see whether the hon. member for Green Point will still agree with the reporting of this newspaper concerning this subject. On Monday 19 May, viz. the Monday after the discussion about bus fares had taken place on Friday, 16 May and after I had given the full details about the fares and the part which the consumer of the bus services would pay and the part which the State would pay—hon. members are my witnesses—there was no longer the excuse that the facts were not known, if there ever was such an excuse.

†In a leading article the impression was created that all clip-card users’ fares had increased by nearly 70%, whereas in fact nearly 38% of all clip-card users were not affected at all.

*Again I ask: Why? In most cases the new clipcard cost is still down on the old cash fares, and this certainly does not tie in with the headline or the opening paragraph of this report.

Let us now see what else they did. I am afraid hon. members must be patient with me, because I think we must make this information available to the House for once and for all.

†There are glaring errors in the table of figures appearing under the headline “Bus fares old and new” in different editions of the same paper on the same day, namely 19 May 1980. Let me quote examples in this particular regard. According to one edition, a single trip between Cape Town and Pinelands used to cost R0,30 as against the new fare of R0,40. Incidentally, these figures reflect the true position. In another edition the old fare for the same single trip is given as R0,30 but the new fare has now become R0,55. Hon. members will understand that this makes quite a difference. In the one case the increase is 33% and in the other case it is 83%. Again my question is: Why?

I want to go further and point out another example. The old fare for a single trip between Mowbray and Langa is listed as R0,25 and the new fare is listed as R0,35. This means an increase of 40% in the tariff. Another edition of that paper lists the corresponding fares as R0,30 and R0,55 respectively. This time the increase is 83,3%. I shall tell hon. members what the position is. According to the best figures I have at my disposal, errors of this kind appeared no less than 31 times. These errors thus mislead commuters reading the various editions of the same newspaper on the same day.

*I now wish to ask what the motive was for this. I can understand that one can make mistakes. I myself make many mistakes.

They soon find out how much they have to pay.

That is not the point. The point is that the same newspaper made 31 mistakes on the same day. However, not one of the mistakes was in favour of the bus company, if I may put it like that. All the mistakes it made were made in order to get people up in arms. I am not prepared to accept the bona fides of a newspaper that deals with this subject in such a way. I am on record as having said that I do not quarrel with newspapers, but I want to say that the hon. member for Sea Point and his mouthpieces must refrain from conduct which leads to unrest in the country.

Now he is laughing.

Now the hon. member for Sea Point is laughing. [Interjections.]

On the same day—19 May 1980—another editorial appears in The Argus, entitled “Bus fares bite”.

†No reference is made in this editorial to the fact that transport subsidies already exist. The subsidized 10-ride clipcard system which has operated on all City Tramways routes for a number of years makes it possible …

For Coloureds only.

Oh do be quiet now, man.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please just be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to put a question to the hon. the Minister.

Must you make such raucous noises?

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister aware that the clip-card system is only available to Coloureds?

Oh, really, surely that is not the point I am arguing. Surely we are now arguing about people who do not give the facts correctly. The fares I mentioned are not the clipcard fares, after all. I was not discussing clipcard fares when I maintained that 31 mistakes had been made in the report in this connection. However, let us take a look at what is going on here. Let me repeat what I said earlier.

†The subsidized 10-ride clipcard system which has operated on all City Tramways routes for a number of years makes it possible for the regular commuters to effect considerable savings on the cash fare.

That is the point I want to make.

For instance, on the Bonteheuwel to City route quoted in the editorial, the clipcard would cost R4,50 for ten rides or 45c per ride instead of 80c.

*Once again the facts in this connection were at the disposal of the publication in question. However, I do not wish to say anymore about this subject. I maintain that the only reason why the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Green Point oppose this legislation—on the basis of clause 5, as they maintain—is that they are part of the action which preceded this.

[Inaudible.]

I shall deal with that. Just give me a chance. Permit me to begin right away with the hon. member for Orange Grove, since he keeps making interjections. He has already made three speeches about this matter; now he wants to make a fourth. [Interjections.] The hon. member maintains that we are taking away the right of appeal to the courts. Surely that is not true. Surely the courts did not have a right of appeal on tariffs. In his speech the hon. member says: “The court must in all cases be the arbiter.” He alleges that I have taken that right away from the courts. What he says is factually and legally wrong.

Do not become involved in semantics now.

Oh, please, can you not be quiet. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I must give the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is the PFP’s chief spokesman on transport, credit for being acquainted with the subject. I must also give him credit for being acquainted with the legislation he discusses in this House. Where is it stated in the present legislation that the courts have the right to revise tariff increases substantively?

I am talking about the general right of the courts.

No, …

[Inaudible.]

Oh, please, I am asking you to be quiet now. [Interjections.]

Order!

He has no ears.

The hon. member for East London City dealt with the subject with reference to its theoretical facets. I do not want to repeat that. However, I maintain that hon. members of the official Opposition cannot plead ignorance. That is what I want to say. I therefore maintain that I can only come to one other conclusion, and that is that the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Green Point spoke in these terms because they wanted to create a certain impression outside this House. That impression they wanted to create was to link up with the conduct of the hon. member for Sea Point and of the newspaper to which I referred. If I am right, I ask again: What are we doing? One is forced to conclude that the hon. members opposite …

Are engaged in extra-parliamentary action.

Yes, together with the newspaper. The story of the hon. member for Green Point with regard to the taxes appeared in The Argus as much as 10 days ago. He only came and quoted it here. The hon. members need not argue about the matter because we know what they are going to say, since we read it in the newspapers. One must inevitably conclude that this subject, which is a sensitive one, has to be exploited in order to sow unrest.

It is all clear.

How else is one to explain the irresponsible conduct of the hon. member for Sea Point?

What irresponsible conduct?

Man, you have just come in. Do not ask my stupid questions now. [Interjections.]

I shall debate the various arguments on the respective clauses with hon. members during the Committee Stage, because I agree with hon. members that that is a more appropriate occasion on which to do so.

However, I want to refer to a third point, relating to the conduct of the hon. member for Orange Grove.

†He said that this Bill, like the curate’s egg, is good in parts. Apparently the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is of a similar conviction. Firstly, let us look at the difference in attitude between the two hon. members and, secondly, let us look at the difference in action between the two.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove proposes on the basis of clause 5 that the Bill, and even the improvements thereto, should be rejected in toto.

Yes, that is correct.

The hon. member could have proposed—as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did—that the clause objected to be deleted. Why did he not do so?

It is for the simple reason that once one passes a Bill in principle during the Second Reading, that principle cannot be discussed again.

Surely the hon. member could have proposed that we delete clause 5. After all, there are clever lawyers on that side. They draw up 14 points at a time. However, he did not do so. I want to go further. I hope that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will understand that my next remark is not directed at him in an unfriendly spirit. What are the facts? After the conduct of the hon. official Opposition, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and his party had no choice but to oppose the legislation. I find it a pity that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti allowed himself to be misled by the conduct of the hon. official Opposition.

They were just convinced by our argument.

Let us see whether I am right. I ask any hon. member and any impartial observer to tell me that my inference is wrong. In contrast to the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti championed the interests of all the parties involved. Indeed, the whole motivation of his standpoint amounts to an acceptance of clause 5 and not a rejection thereof. The hon. member knows that is true. Last time I had to buy him a dictionary. If there is one hon. member with whom I should prefer not to quarrel, it is that hon. member.

Let us now sum up the situation in connection with clause 5. We can discuss the detail during the Committee Stage. During the discussion of my Vote—and the hon. member for Orange Grove was present at the time—I announced what my standpoint was in respect of the impartial upholding of the rights of the bus companies—or transport contractors, if the hon. member wishes —and passengers, the user of the service. What was my standpoint in this particular regard? My standpoint was that the decision taken by a road transport board constituted a judicial function. The hon. member will recall that. Secondly, it was my standpoint that when the Transport Commission sat as a body of appeal, it also sat in a judicial capacity. Therefore I said I found it wrong that the Director-General of the Department of Transport should be the presiding officer when the commission sat as a court of appeal. Why? Because I believe that it must also be seen that the presiding officer in an appeal case is impartial and independent. I stated that if the Government agreed, I would effect the appropriate amendment after consultation with all the bodies concerned, did I not? What right, then, has the hon. member for Green Point to say that we have contempt for the rights of the user of the services?

He is a stupid Van der Merwe.

Let us go further. [Interjections.] Wait a moment! Let us go further. Let us evaluate this on the basis of a further point. On 16 May—that important day when the hon. member for Sea Point said that he was going to state his standpoint and then did not do so—I also announced that I had instructed the local road transportation boards to co-opt members of all population groups when their interests were at issue. For what purpose? Once again, to avoid any suggestion or innuendo that we were giving the bus companies preferential treatment. What right has the hon. member for Green Point to say that we act with contempt for the rights of users?

Thirdly, I instructed the Director-General of the department to request independent accountants to investigate the financial position of the bus companies. With what purpose? To ensure that I have the evidence, if the evidence proves it, that exploitation of users does occur. I repeat: What right has the hon. member for Green Point to say that we have contempt for the interests of the users of bus services? Once again the conduct of the hon. members of the official Opposition is a façade. They are the great apologists for the free enterprise system. Now I want to ask: Which one of them in this debate adopted the balanced standpoint that the various interests that had to be considered, of which the interest of the consumers is one, that of the companies another, and that of the State a third?

The appeal against a decision by a local road transportation board on the merits of the decision of a local road transportation board, goes to the National Transport Commission, while the review goes via the courts. It is not a question of the substantiation of or justification for the increase. In one respect the hon. member’s argument is correct, and I want to concede that. He says that it could happen that with the implementation of clause 5, the court could give a final decision which could set aside the finding of the local road transportation board or even of the commission. That is correct. I concede that point to him. Now the hon. member asks me what would happen to the overpayments which the people had made. That is a fair question and I must reply to the hon. member in that regard. The users of buses, of this type of transport, are usually regular users. If it should happen that increases are rejected, then this will delay further increases and the consumers will derive benefit from that. Surely that is factually correct.

Just look at what happened in the case of the case of City Tramways. I do not know where Mr. Rommel Roberts is now.

He is behind bars.

I do not know whether he has paid his account yet.

He is being detained.

I do not know whether he has paid his legal costs.

Whose legal costs?

Mr. Rommel Roberts’ legal costs …

Would you not like to know!

… and those of the people against whom he entered into litigation. However, I know what it has cost the taxpayer during the period in question. It is costing the taxpayer R12 million.

Are you criticizing the courts?

It costs R12 million, which has to come from State funds. Just take the R12 million paid to City Tramways for this purpose, and then take the trifling amount with which the hon. member for Green Point is taking up our time.

Rommel van der Merwe.

Do you see now what I meant by contempt?

What is he engaged in now? He says the bus company must not pay licence fees to the province. I am now to be the hon. member’s messenger and am to tell the Administrator that the bus company should not pay licence fees. [Interjections.] He says that they should not pay excise duty either. He says that they are now reducing the tax on fuel, or so I understood him. But how does he square his standpoint that the tax is reduced, with the standpoint of the hon. member for Sea Point that it is due to the exceptionally high tax on the bus company that it has to increase its tariffs.

It is still there.

I just want to know how we are to square the two standpoints with one another. Let us take a look at what is happening with regard to contributions relating to transport costs, chiefly for urban …

This is such a serious address.

Oh, please, I did not quarrel with that hon. member, after all. Just give me a chance to inform the House; then he will be informed too.

But you take so long about it.

Yes, but you take so long to understand, because you have nothing between your ears. What is the position with regard to bus subsidies? [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Pinelands wants to ask a question, he is welcome. The hon. member for Pinelands must consider how many efforts the hon. member for Orange Grove has made with regard to this legislation. He has had three. He has spoken for longer than I have spoken up to now. However, I intend speaking for much longer; the hon. member need not be concerned about that.

I do not mind. We can stay here until the end of June.

Order!

What is the position with regard to aid granted by the State chiefly with regard to urban transport? In 1970 the total amount of aid to bus companies provided by the State was R193 000. This year R76 million is being budgeted for in respect of bus transport alone. Apart from that, the State pays the Railways an amount of R70 million for the losses incurred on the conveyance of commuters to the resettled areas. As regards these two items the State is therefore paying a total amount of R146 million from Treasury funds. Apart from that, the losses incurred by the Railways with regard to passenger transport, calculated at total cost, are calculated at R485 million this year. Therefore, the position is that as far as transport costs are concerned, approximately R700 million is made available, directly and indirectly, for the users of buses and trains.

Whose money is it?

The R485 million is the Railways’ money.

It comes from the people.

That hon. member does not pay to travel by train. I am considering in all fairness whether it is possible for me to put the matter in perspective. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said—and I agree with him—that that is totally impossible. In terms of clause 16, which amends section 25 of the principal Act, it is possible for the road transportation board of its own accord to institute investigations into bus activities and to amend their permit conditions. This is done specifically to enable us to prevent exploitation from taking place. I want to put this categorical question to the hon. the official Opposition: Do they maintain that the bus companies are exploiting passengers? The hon. member for Sea Point is supposed to be such an expert. Does he maintain that. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, that, unfortunately, is what one encounters in this House.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to various other clauses of the legislation, and also, inter alia, to those clauses that he accepts. He also revealed another attitude which has already been referred to by the hon. member for Algoa. That is to say, he attacked the integrity of the members of road transportation boards by making what to my mind is a disgraceful innuendo. In the first instance he says—I am not using his words now but mine—that the road transportation boards are in fact merely the agents of the S.A. Railways. [Interjections.] That hon. member goes on to insinuate that when applications are submitted to the road transportation boards, the Railways are always the first to know about it. By making this accusation he is in fact saying that the road transportation boards give the information to the Railways. That is what he is saying. However, what are the facts? The true facts are that any person affected is entitled to information with regard to the application. Again I ask the hon. member why then he places these people under suspicion. The hon. member also said that when fuel prices are increased, an automatic tariff adjustment of not less than 10% can be imposed as a result of that. I want to say at once that I shall move a further amendment of that clause during the Committee Stage, and I hope the hon. member will accept it.

The hon. members for Algoa and East London City referred to the new definition of “decentralized industry”. I do not want to discuss this further because there is agreement in this regard but I do just want to point out what the effect will be. The effect is that we can now decentralized industry within a self-governing territory which has legislative authority over its own transport matters. I effected this amendment, inter alia, on the grounds of representations made by the hon. member for East London City and his colleagues due to the problems that occurred at Dimbaza, which can be rectified after this legislation has been put into effect. The hon. member objected to the possibility that the consumption of fuel could also be a factor to be considered. But after all, we have established a series of committees specifically with a view to conserving fuel in this country, and due to the decisions we have taken, a member of the staff of the Director-general of Transport is chairman of one of the committees which is concerned with road transportation. With great respect, how on earth can hon. members argue that this operates against the interests of the private sector and that this is a pro-Railways provision? Surely there is no sense in such arguments.

I believe in competition, but I also believe in equal competition. I have said on occasion that when people say I must sell the pipelines, I say I shall give the pipelines away, but whoever takes them must also take over the passenger services. It is easy to take the profitable elements and leave the rest which are operated at a loss. Therefore let us compete with one another, but on an equal footing. Then, surely we shall make progress.

What is the position with regard to road transportation in South Africa? The facts are that 99% of the goods conveyed by road transportation are conveyed by the private sector and only 1% by the Railways. Why, then, are the kind of arguments we have had to listen to, advanced? The Department, the road transportation boards, the National Transport Commission and I, operate in terms of the spirit and the letter of the Road Transport Act of 1977 as it was passed by Parliament.

I want to conclude by summing up the whole matter. We have taken all the steps necessary to ensure that mechanisms exist for the proper protection of the respective rights of those bodies involved in transport, and when I say that, I include public transport. I concede that these mechanisms are not infallible. I therefore concede that mistakes can occur, but I seriously object to accusations being hurled in this House at people who conscientiously perform their duties in the road transportation boards, without a scrap of evidence to the effect that they …

Ask the transport organizations in the country and they will tell you what I said.

I prefer to approach them directly and I often do so.

Yes, and they will tell you the same story.

I need not carry messages, nor need the hon. member be my messenger. I object to these people being accused without a shred of evidence to support the accusations. I object to the irresponsible allegation that we regard the rights of users with contempt, allegations that are contradicted by the evidence I have provided, which was available to hon. members, including the hon. member for Green Point, concerning the steps we have taken over the past few months to ensure that the very things we are being accused of, would not take place.

Because it understands the problem relating to the cost of transport, the Government appointed the Franzen Commission to investigate the whole question of transport costs and subsidization of the user. Since it has not yet been possible to finalize the matter, the hon. the Minister of Finance has in the interim taken an ad hoc decision in terms of which we are going to receive R241 million this year as partial compensation solely for the transport of passengers by rail. Surely these and other actions do not justify the accusation that the Government approaches the interests of the user in a reckless and contemptuous way.

It is irresponsible nonsense.

We in this House sometimes differ with one another, and I am prepared to endure everything that hon. members want to say about me in this particular connection, but I want to make an appeal that we should not exploit explosive situations. [Interjections.] Oh, sir, I wish the hon. member for Johannesburg North would stop mumbling over there. I was not speaking to him, because I did not want to wake him up. [Interjections.] However it is very clear from the reaction of those hon. members that this advice has fallen on deaf ears. I want to say once again that the question of bus fares is a sensitive one.

That is just what we have been telling you.

But I did something about it. I did not merely talk about it as that hon. member did. I also want to ask that when we discuss this matter, we should acquaint ourselves with the truth. I put this request specifically to the hon. member for Sea Point.

What are you attacking now?

I ask that when a debate is being conducted in connection with this matter, it be taken into account that there are people outside this House who do not have all the information that we have, and that one’s disapproval of the Government should not be more important than the maintenance of order in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Report adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.