When the House adjourned last night I was drawing the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fantastic advances that have been made since we last discussed the question of the design of Richard’s Bay harbour and the plans for our harbours in South Africa generally. I had mentioned to the hon. the Minister that since 1966, when we regarded large tankers as being tankers between 86,000 and 100,000 tonners, these figures had advanced considerably until we were now thinking in terms of 312,000 to 500,000 tonners. I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice one point which I think stands out very clearly and that is that these huge tankers must use the Cape route. Even if Suez is re-opened they will not return to the Suez Canal route. When we come to the 500,000 tonners I believe that even empty they will be unable to negotiate the Suez Canal. What I want to do is to ensure that the hon. the Minister is updating the planning of Richard’s Bay harbour, which is designed to cope with these big tankers and bulk carriers, sufficiently to enable the harbour to cope with what is available by the time it is ready for service and also to ensure that it will be adequate, with adaptations, to cope with future requirements. That is the first aspect I want to put to the Minister. Then, as you know, Sir, I said in an earlier stage of this debate that the harbour at Durban, I believe, should be developed along modern lines for the handling of cargo other than bulk cargoes. I believe that Durban Harbour can become one of the most highly specialized harbours in the world, and I believe it should be. It should be specialized along what I believe is the modern trend in harbour development not only in South Africa but throughout the world. I stress containerization and I speak about containerization instead of containers, because containerization consists of more than just putting goods in big boxes and putting them on ships and transporting them where you want to transport them. I want to deal, firstly, with unitization and what is going to be required in our harbours for unitization.

Now, unitization seems to be sorting itself out as being particularly suitable to the coasting trade where goods are palletized and in fact they are bonded on to pallets, so that the future requirement of this type of trade is possibly going to be a shed which has no ramp. It will be some type of wharf which can serve drive-on and drive-off traffic, because these ships are going to be loaded in many cases in the future by side ports, where fork-lift trucks will take the goods on to the ship through one port and they will take it off at the other port.

Then I want to come to the question of containers and what they are going to require at our ports. My time is limited, but I want to deal with as much as I can in the time available. What is needed for containers? First of all, I think the Minister will agree that you need stacking space where the cargo for a ship which is due is assembled so that that ship can be handled without any delay. The Minister knows that to-day a full container is taken off the ship and a full one is loaded in its place because of the cell system which is employed. Such ships can turn around far more quickly. Then I think the Minister should provide for suitable cranes. These are specialized jobs to handle containers and the Minister is not unaware of the type of crane or gantry crane I am talking about. But containers are most common and it is rather interesting to note that in a report by Dr. Kleinbloesem, who is Rotterdam’s director of trade, transport and industry, his survey shows that ships now in service have a capacity for 25,000 containers. Ships on order will accommodate 65,000 containers. Old type ships which are converting will make provision for another 6,000 containers and ships under study will provide for another 22,000 containers, a total of 118,000 containers by 1970. This means that he envisages that the container trade will have trebled itself by 1970, in one year from now. I believe this is the speed with which containerization is overtaking us, and that is why I am bringing these matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that big companies are going in for a specialized type of container ship, which I think is evidence of their confidence in the future of containers. They do not believe that we will ever go back to the old methods of transporting goods by ship. Let us take a look at Moore-McCormack for example, a big American company of whom the Minister is aware. They believe in what they call “ro-ro”. They say. “Ro-ro rules the waves”—roll on, roll off. They believe that in due course everything is going to be carried on a roll on, roll off basis. Let me give an example to the Minister of their faith in this type of trade. They are building four new ships each of which will take 51 40-foot trailers and make provision for 290 containers, plus liquid in bulk roll on, roll off containers. This is quite fantastic for these are going to be very specialized ships and they are going to cost a lot of money. They believe in due course the container of which we are talking now, which is a box in units measuring 40 feet by 8 feet by 8 feet, will be put on wheels by mounting those containers on a set of wheels on a chassis. Those will be rolled on and off the ship. Already this type of traffic, as the Minister knows, is very fashionable between Britain and the Continent and so forth.

Then we come to the Lukes Lines who are spending 100 million dollars on three very specialized ships. They are referred to in the December issue of Ports and Terminals as “not so much a new ship, more a revolution”. They are in fact a revolution. The report goes on as follows—

I quote these points just to show to the Minister the fact that the shipping community throughout the world have placed their faith in the future of containerization.

What of South Africa? Is this going to apply to us here? Let me quote a South African on this briefly, Mr. Henri Timmerman, who is the president of McGregor Comaran, South Africa. What does he say briefly? He talks about ship owners, and this is what he says:

I do not believe South Africa can escape from or remain outside this revolution, because this revolution in shipping is something which is going to mean the survival or the disappearance of the shipping industry throughout the world. This is going to apply to South Africa as it is going to apply to every continent in the world.

My object in putting this matter to the Minister is this. I want to ask him to tell us, and I believe that he can, what his views are concerning the future of containerization. In which ports is he going to provide facilities? I believe he is going to provide it in Durban and Cape Town because he has already given such indications. I want to ask him if sufficient provision has been made, in his opinion, for the introduction of containerization in the new planning for Cane Town harbour. I believe it has because the committee report has dealt with this particular aspect. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the “Two-man Mutual Admiration Society” which has been functioning, has been most entertaining, but I think the dialogue should be brought back to what it was when we discussed matters in this House a year ago. I want to refer to certain criticism that was levelled at the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Umlazi which the Minister now rates as being “highly intelligent”.

A year ago the hon. the Minister was constrained to refer to the hon. member for Umlazi in this manner. He said to the hon. member, “One would think that our harbours are totally inadequate”. The reply from the hon. member, according to Hansard, is as follows: “I am going to ask him (the hon. the Minister) to pay more attention to planning so that we do not have to repeat this criticism every year”. It is quite interesting to hear the hon. member for Umlazi, if I might use the expression, “jacking up” the Minister with slightly different words. When what is now “highly intelligent criticism” was levelled at the Minister last year, he made this interesting retort to the hon. member for Umlazi, He said: “You overestimate your importance”. The charming retort from the hon. member for Umlazi was that the hon. the Minister did not know his Saldanha from his Rietvlei. May I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he takes particular care to distinguish his Harry of today from the “rooi haring” he also has to-day.

The hon. member for Umlazi last year said that “here in Cape Town alone the planning is chaotic. I use the word ‘chaotic’ advisedly”. Those were the words used by the hon. member for Umlazi. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the position in Cape Town remains chaotic to-day as well. I think that what is indicative is the fact mentioned by the hon. member for Umlazi himself to-day, namely that containerization will be on us by 1970, and nothing has been done in Table Bay to be able to cope with the problem. I want to say immediately to the hon. the Minister that I have no criticism of the persons actively employed in the job of running our docks. I have no criticism of the personnel and what they are doing in Table Bay harbour; but they are frustrated and handicapped by the Minister’s continuing inactivity so far as Table Bay is concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, and I do this with the greatest of respect to him, whether the time has not come for him to descend from his shooting box and to come and visit the Table Bay docks himself and see what is going on there. I hope the time will be found now that he has put away his gun. He should not leave it to the Management and the local officers in charge, but he should take a direct interest in Table Bay, in the matters that affect the members of his staff and the public in so far as Table Bay docks is concerned. There are delays in Table Bay docks at the moment which are causing concern. I want to say that I accept the explanation which was given by the authorities and that this delay in clearance is partly due to the dilatoriness of the consignees themselves.

But there is another cause for the delay in the Cape Town docks, namely the chaotic state of traffic in the docks area. That is due to a criss-cross of roads and rails that I believe is unequalled in any other dock area. There are delays of movement of trucks and trains, because of this criss-cross of transport facilities which should have been modernized many, many years ago. I put a question to the hon. the Minister about a plan for road over rail bridges in the docks area, and also with regard to access. He said that the matter was being investigated. The hon. the Minister should know that one of his former harbour engineers, who is now off on pension, submitted such a scheme years ago, which would have alleviated the chaotic position as it is in the docks area. But we hear that the matter is now to be considered. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister please to give his personal attention to this matter, because it is urgent. It is vital, and with the expansion of Table Bay docks, one does not know quite what will happen in that area, unless the road over rail facilities are provided.

The second point I want to mention to the hon. the Minister is the question of the tug service in Table Bay docks. Last night the hon. the Minister interjected to refute the idea that shipping was held up and that berths were empty at the Table Bay docks because of the slow handling of incoming ships. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to check whether during the last fortnight occasions have not arisen more than once in which a tug has remained idle in the docks because of lack of crew while ships were waiting to be berthed in Table Bay docks. It is because of the fact that the hon. the Minister will not take steps to see that those tugs are adequately crewed if necessary by non-Europeans in certain of the functions to be performed on those tugs. The crews are not there. The hon. the Minister in reply to a question indicates that, as far as our harbours are concerned, there are a shortage of 152 stokers on tugs and dredgers alone and that there is a shortage of 240 deck hands. According to the annual report the total fleet is 17 tugs, 14 pilot tugs and 9 dredgers. There is a shortage of 152 stokers as far as the service is concerned in regard to tugs and dredges. This is happening because the necessary white personnel cannot be found to fulfil many of the jobs which have to be done on these tugs. I understand that at other harbours the hon. the Minister is employing non-Whites as stokers on tugs. Why can this not be done to expedite matters in Cape Town? It can be done with full protection to the white personnel of the Railways and Harbours Administration. The hon. the Minister has found it possible to have jobs formerly done by Whites taken over by non-Whites in 8,000 cases, without a detrimental effect on the employment of Whites. The time has come that this should be done in respect of Cape Town docks. Then there is also the incredible story of the “Loerie”, which was purchased for Cape Town docks. It is an incredibe story of the expenditure of taxpayers’ money on a vessel which is hardly being used. To the hon. the Minister this may seem nothing—he talks about his billion-rand Budget—but it is R50.000 of taxpayers’ money in this one particular instance which has been unwisely spent. I think these are matters which indicate the necessity for the hon. the Minister to look into the position so far as the tug service in the docks is concerned.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister to take a personal interest in another matter. I emphasize the personal interest, because persons from the Mayor of Cape Town downwards have not been able to gain access to the hon. the Minister personally on a matter which is vitally important to the citizens of Cape Town, namely the question of public access to the docks over week-ends. Mr. Chairman, this might be regarded as a very small matter in a billion-rand Budget, but it is a very real facility to the ordinary man in Cape Town who wants to take his kids there over week-ends. This question of it being a security matter and that it is inconvenient will not be the case in a properly organized docks. [Time expired.]

I find it flattering that at least two members of the Opposition have had to burn the midnight oil going through my Hansard to find something to talk about in this debate. That, combined with the balance of the information which comes from my very good friend George Young, shows that the Opposition is a little bit bankrupt in material for the conduct of a debate on this matter. But let me go on with what I was saying, because I want to be a little more constructive.

To finish off this question of containerization, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to one more factor. This is a factor I should like to see him bear in mind because it is going to be very important in future. According to the experts, there is a tendency for the expansion of containerization to render certain ports redundant. This we find, for instance, with Elizabeth Harbour in New York, probably the most intensively developed harbour for containerization in the world. The threat exists that this harbour is going to render three nearby ports completely redundant, letting them lie unused in the years to come. This, I say, is a factor which must be taken into consideration in evaluating the effects of containerization on ships and shipping.

Having said this, I should like to return to a matter which is for me a local matter, i.e. the Durban harbour. I have already referred to Durban harbour previously in this debate. Now, however, I should like to deal point by point with the issues raised by the Durban Chamber of Commerce in relation to the Durban harbour. Any comments I should add, shall be purely personal. I want to say that at this stage. Before dealing with the report on the memorandum prepared by the Durban Chamber of Commerce on the Durban harbour, I should like to deal with the comment of Mr. T. A. Ellison, of the Natal University Department of Economics, who recently helped complete another survey on the harbour. According to this report, he pointed out—

Is this not a very realistic approach? It will become even more realistic as we deal with these recommendations of the Chamber of Commerce, recommendations which have been tabulated very well by Jack Keir, the shipping correspondent of the Natal Mercury. The recommendations of the Durban Chamber of Commerce are that Durban harbour should be improved by means of the following.

Firstly, an early start should be made on the construction of a dry dock capable of taking ships up to 200,000 tons. But, surely, this is asking for a duplication of Richard’s Bay. I know the hon. the Minister has, in fact, made provision for ships up to 200,000 tons to be docked in Richard’s Bay. All I wanted to know from the Minister was whether this would be sufficient. The Minister still has to answer me on that. In any event, provision is going to be made for ships of up to 200,000 tons to be handled in Richard’s Bay.

Another recommendation of the Chamber is that the Administration should buy, or build locally, two floating docks with a lifting capacity of 10,000 short tons and 20,000 short tons. Maybe that will help; maybe not. I think there may be a clear demand for another floating dock of a higher capacity in Durban. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us more information on this.

Another recommendation is that the port should be provided with further repair and fitting-out quays, including one capable of taking ships up to 1,000 feet long. Sir, the shipbuilding companies there are making good provision for repair facilities. But I believe a little more from the part of the Administration might help to solve the problem which faces them.

Their next recommendation is that work should proceed at once on the construction of No. 2 pier at Salisbury Island. This pier is planned for a site to the west of the new No. 1 pier. But provision has already been made for this. As a matter of fact, the link between the two piers is almost completed. The work is going very well.

The next recommendation is that a harbour berth be set aside for experimental purposes to test the advantages of loading or unloading ships fitted with side ports. But I believe that the coasting people. Unicorn for example, have already made provision for this. They have made provision for side loading ports in their new coaster which has just come into service, the Tugela. They have facilities at Congella which will prove or disprove the advantages of side port loading. I have already referred to this in my previous speech on containerization, or unitization rather.

Another recommendation is that an additional pilot boat and two tugs be purchased for Durban harbour. But, Sir, I think provision has already been made for an additional pilot boat. In addition to that a launch service is being provided to the new pier across the bay. Furthermore, new tugs are being built which will go along the seaboard of the country.

Another recommendation is that a harbour passenger service be provided between all points in the port for harbour staff, ships’ contractors and ships’ crews. In this connection, the only question which arises is the question of a service to the new No. 1 pier. And in the Brown Book provision is made for such a boat.

Another recommendation is that loading facilities be improved at the grain elevator and maize shed. The hon. the Minister can tell us what provision there is for improvement in this respect. I know that the scales used for weighing the maize is purported to be rather antiquated and, hence, not doing their job as well as they should. But this is a comparatively minor issue.

Another recommendation is that sheds at the Point should be remodelled without ramps. Well, to remodel these sheds is a big undertaking and should only be undertaken when the proof has come that fork lift trucks are to be used, because the main advantage of sheds without ramps is that you can drive fork lift trucks in and out. So, unless you are going to use side port loading, unitization or containerization, there is no necessity for that to be done.

A further recommendation is that consideration be given to the reintroduction of lighters for working cargo. Sir, this went out many years ago and I fail to see why they want it brought back. Personally I believe that it would add to port congestion. However, the hon. the Minister may perhaps have other ideas.

The last recommendation is that facilities for the fishing industry be improved by extending the fishing wharf eastwards along its present line. I should like to add my own plea to this. Present facilities for fishing boats there are quite inadequate and extra facilities could well be provided. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has anything of this nature in mind. Added facilities could bring about a great improvement there.

Before I close there is one more point I should like to talk about. This concerns buoy discharge points. When I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister in 1966, he told me I was already five years behind the times. It appeared then that the matter had been investigated five years previously. Now the hon. member for Umbilo has again raised this in this debate. He was afraid of the pollution aspect. I do not know whether he has read recent publications on this question. If he had, he would have seen that great strides had been made in the prevention of pollution in the case of these buov discharge points. Generally speaking, a floating dam which is placed around the ship and around the discharge point, seems to be the best. This has certain advantages. It not only stops the pollution, but also recovers for the company concerned any spillage that might take place. Having carted oil for thousands of miles one does not, if one can avoid it, want to see it being tipped into the sea.

Another point on which I should like to hear the hon. the Minister is the question which has been raised whether the discharge points should go off Durban, Isipingo in other words, or whether it should go off Richard’s Bay. It could go either way and I believe the man who wants to construct these buoy points is opposing the one at Durban and supporting the one at Richard’s Bay on the grounds, I take it, that there is already an oil pipeline serving Richard’s Bay. He believes that if you discharge there now on a temporary basis, that oil could be pumped back through the pipeline to Durban and that, eventually, when Richard’s Bay has been properly developed, the pipeline could take over from the direct discharge from the tankers alongside the quay.

These are points which I think the hon. the Minister could deal with with the object of putting the minds of people interested in this, at rest.

I was mentioning to the hon. the Minister the question of access to Cape Town docks as a matter in which I thought he could take a personal interest. Then I want to deal with two matters of staff affairs so far as the Cape Town harbour in particular is concerned and ask the hon. the Minister to be good enough to deal with them. Sir, I have already mentioned the shortage of stokers on tugs and dredgers in our harbours, a shortage which is particularly felt in Cape Town. According to an answer given by the hon. the Minister on the 12th August, 1966, there was then a shortage of 171 stokers but he was employing 165 non-Whites temporarily to fill those vacancies, so there was no break-down in the tug or dredger service. But his answer on the 11th March of this year was that although there are 152 vacancies, only 29 non-Whites are employed at the present time towards the filling of those vacancies. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is a policy step which he is taking, in other words, is his policy that these stoker positions should remain vacant rather than be filled by non-White employees? Whereas he was able to cover up the shortage of permanent staff in 1966 with a deficit of only some six vacancies as between temporary and permanent posts, we now have the position in 1969 that of the 152 he leaves something like 123 positions unfilled on a temporary basis.

The other point regarding staff at Cape Town that I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is what planning has been done as regards the housing of the additional staff that will be required as and when the harbour extensions are completed. It is obvious that there will be a large increase in the staff employed in Table Bay Docks, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether he has given his attention to the planning of housing for these additional staff members, where that housing is to be provided, especially for persons who are on night and other duty, whether the housing is to be provided for Whites and non-Whites and on what basis it is likely that those facilities will be made available. There is a difficulty in Cape Town at the moment in the case of some of the key personnel of the Docks who have to find accommodation in various parts of the Peninsula which is not always conveniently near to their place of duty. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us an assurance that the question of housing of the additional personnel who will be required with the expansion of the Docks is being adequately planned by his Department.

The hon. member for Port Natal again raised the hardy annual that the Harbours and the Airways must be separated from the Railways. Let me say that it does not concern me personally, because even if the Harbours are separated from the Railways I will still be Minister of Transport and control both the Harbours and the Railways, so it is not a personal matter. It is alleged that I am afraid of losing some of my power or of losing different branches of the service which I am controlling at the moment. Sir, it is merely a question of whether that will be in the interests of the country or not. I am convinced in my own mind that it will not be in the interests of the country and that it will not be in the interests of the harbours to have a separate harbour authority. It has not even worked very successfully overseas. First of all, if this is done, it means that all the harbour revenue will be reserved for the harbours and will not be put into the pool; in other words, the losses on the Railways as such will not be recovered from Harbour revenue or from Airways revenue. The hon. member for Yeoville said that there was a loss of R35 million on the Railways alone. There is a loss of R45 million on passenger services. In other words, if that revenue is not obtained from the harbours, the Airways and the pipeline, then rates and passenger fares will have to be increased substantially to break even. I am quite convinced in my own mind that it will not be in the interests of the country to try to recover a loss of R45 million on passenger services, the loss on goods services, the loss on agricultural products and many other commodities by increasing tariffs. It would be detrimental to the whole of the economy to raise the tariffs. That is why the policy is that what you lose on the swings you make up on the roundabouts. If you lose on the Railways, you make up on the Harbours, the Airways and the pipelines, and I think that is in the interest of the country. But apart from that, the main reason why they want the Harbours separate from the Railways is that all the profits of the Harbours should be ploughed back into the harbours, but that will not be sufficient for harbour development. The new pier at Durban cost almost R40 million and the additional pier will probably cost another R30 million. You cannot get R70 million in a few years from Harbour revenue. This new harbour that is being built in Table Bay on the other side of the Duncan Dock will eventually cost over R100 million, and Harbour revenue will be quite insufficient to cover those costs. Loans will have to be negotiated. Funds will have to be obtained from Treasury and the harbour authority will have to stand in a queue together with all other departments, and it is extremely doubtful whether the Harbours will get sufficient funds for harbour expansion. I cannot see any advantage. At the present time the harbours are administered by specialists. You do not want to believe the stories about the Johannesburg station and the Railway mentality. There is a separate section administering the harbours, people who know their jobs and who know what they are doing. Our harbour engineers are the best in the whole of South Africa; you cannot get better, and if there is a separate harbour authority you will not get better engineers or more knowledgeable engineers or better equipped engineers than we have at present. Apart from that, you must have co-ordination between the Railways and the Harbours. It is no use expanding the harbours unlimitedly when you do not have the rail take-off. There must be the necessary co-ordination. I can elaborate on this matter for quite a time, but I do not think it will be in the interests of the country or of the harbours or of the railways to have separate Harbours, Airways and Railways.

Now, this hon. member made the charge that berths remained idle for 15 hours in Cape Town Harbour because of the shortage of tugs. The hon. member for Green Point, who is apparently replacing the hon. member for Umlazi as the spokesman on harbours, not very successfully at the moment, also made certain charges against the Administration in regard to the running of the harbours.

It is in my constituency.

He talked about the delays caused by the tug service in Cape Town Harbour. I had that matter investigated and this is the position. The allegation made by the hon. member for Port Natal is that berths in Table Bay Harbour are vacant for periods of up to 15 hours due to a shortage of tugs to bring in vessels. That statement is completely unfounded. Since 1st November, 1968, only eight berthing delays occurred. Of these, two were in respect of ships awaiting berths, four were in respect of oil tankers awaiting high tide to enter the harbour, owing to their deep draught, and two were in respect of ships which could not be berthed owing to the strong south-easter. Athough records prior to 1st November, 1968, have not been kept the System Manager, Cape Town, gives the assurance that no delays of the alleged magnitude due to shortage of tug power have occurred. I do not know where the hon. member got that information from, whether he got it from The Cape Times shipping correspondent or not. He should not believe everything he writes.

I can get that information.

I am quite prepared to stand corrected if the hon. member gets the information to contradict the information I am giving him now. If it is authentic, I am quite prepared to accept it.

It was due to the absence of tug crews.

That hon. member said it was due to insufficient tug power. It was not due to the tug crews. The tugs are running. I think these hon. members should be more appreciative of what these people are doing in Cape Town. With this diversion of hundreds of ships as a result of the closing of the Suez Canal and the handling of those ships with the minimum of delay, I think they should receive tributes instead of this type of criticism. In regard to the tug crews, I am not prepared to allow White and Black to work together on the same tugs. I am not prepared to do that, but if I have no Whites as stokers or deck-hands on the tugs I will use non-Whites. But I am not prepared to allow them to work together. I do not know whether the hon. member is prepared to allow that or if that is what he is suggesting.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Umlazi when he says the huge tankers will, even when Suez is open again, still use the Cape route. He wants to know whether the planning of Richard’s Bay is being updated to cope with these tankers. I think it was last year that I said the planning of Richard’s Bay not only provides for the very deep sea ships, in other words a depth where ships of 200,000 and 300,000 tons can be accommodated, but that the planning also includes the building of a dry dock, also to accommodate these huge ships of 200,000 and 300,000 tons. I read the following in the Financial Mail of the 21st February—

They will be able to handle the biggest tankers in the Persian Gulf. It is suggested that at that terminal point the work will be able to be done while the ships are empty. In other words, if such a repair yard and a deep-sea harbour are built, I do not think any of these tankers will call at any of our harbours for repairs, because it is much better if they are repaired at the terminal point and, as the article says, while they are empty. Apart from that, I am still planning—it is not to be built immediately—that at Richard’s Bay there will be a dry dock which can accommodate these very large ships.

The hon. member spoke about containerization. As he is probably aware, a committee has been appointed by my colleague under the chairmanship of Professor Steenkamp to inquire into this whole matter. I have also given a considerable amount of thought to it. I have instructed the department to proceed with the planning for a container berth and also the equipment that will be required. The main equipment will be a crane that can lift at least 40 to 50 tons, and moreover it must be a mobile crane. Then you must have stacking space. There must be suitable trucks to take away the containers when they are loaded. But that is not the end of the story. When they reach their destination you must have the facilities there to unload them. Siding owners will have to have the facilities to unload these containers at their sidings when they are sent there. I am prepared to provide the facilities directly I receive the green light. The initiative must be taken by the importers and the exporters. I told a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce the other day that directly they have come to a decision to make use of containers, and directly they are in a position to use containers for two-way traffic, I will act. They admit that one-way traffic as far as containers are concerned, will be quite uneconomical. Directly they are prepared to make use of containers I will prepare the necessary facilities. Only at Durban harbour do we have the necessary space. Containers cannot be handled at Cape Town harbour or at Port Elizabeth or at East London because there is insufficient stacking space. We are making provision for this, however, at the new harbour being built in Table Bay.

In the new portion?

In the new portion, yes. Provision will be made there for the handling of containers. Richard’s Bay, of course, will be a bulk traffic harbour, as the hon. member said, and I do not think it will be necessary to make provision there, but if necessary the arrangements will be made. At the present time the only harbour where containers will be handled will be Durban, and when the new harbour has been built, also in Table Bay harbour. We are fully aware of all the requirements that must be provided there. I might tell the hon. member that the size of containers has not been standardized yet. The width and the height are eight feet by eight feet, but some are 40 feet long, some are 20 feet, and there are some 30 feet long. The shipping companies are still waiting for standardization. I saw a very interesting documentary film last week about the handling of containers at different ports. It is not a very complicated matter. The ships have to be built to be able to carry containers. They have to be built for that purpose. If the ships are provided, all that is required along the wharf-side, is a mobile crane of sufficient power to handle these containers, as well as sufficient stacking place. We will also provide the necessary trucks. As a matter of fact, most of our trucks now, the dropside trucks, can convey containers. But what we cannot do, is to put wheels on the containers, which is being done with regard to some containers, and then to load them with the wheels onto a truck. Unfortunately, our heights are insufficient to allow that to be done on the South African railways, due to the narrow gauge tracks we have. It will disturb the centre of gravity, and we will not be able to do that.

In regard to the sea oil terminal being built at Durban, I have been informed that it is only over the last year or two that there has been developed the new rotating platform at the buoy, which is used to allow the ships when they offload oil, always to keep head on to the wind in bad seas. That is why it can be built outside Durban, where the seas at certain times of the year are rough. I believe that the oil companies and my engineers have investigated the matter as to whether it should rather be built at Richard’s Bay. They came to the conclusion that, mainly as a result of the weather conditions, outside Durban is a more suitable place. But the oil companies have given guarantees to the Durban Corporation, I believe, against oil pollution. I do not think there is any real danger of oil pollution off Durban.

With regard to the other matters the hon. member raised in regard to further improvements in Durban harbour, for example additional repair facilities, I want to say to him that we have the ground available. We can lease the ground in the reclaimed area to any company that wants additional ground. What I do suggest, is that they should form a consortium. Instead of these different ship repair companies, for example, Barendz, James Harmer and Brown, etc., they should form one consortium. Then they will have a company which will be able to meet all competition. I think they should become much more efficient and much more effective.

They are considering doing so.

I believe so, yes.

The hon. member for Green Point said that the position in Cape Town docks remains chaotic. I was listening with great interest to find out which conditions were chaotic. All I heard was that the roads providing ingress and egress to the harbour were chaotic.

In the harbour.

But the hon. gentleman made a blanket statement to the effect that everywhere the conditions were chaotic. The only specific matter he mentioned, was that there were delays on the roads in the harbour. That has always been there. There are delays. When they are shunting, of course traffic is held up.

It can be eliminated.

It can be eliminated at great cost, but it is not justified at the present time.

In regard to the clearance of goods, that is mainly the responsibility of the firms concerned. They do not clear the goods and they are stacked up in the sheds. We cannot get rid of them. But a chaotic state of traffic in the dock area only occurs at certain times when they are held up. There is not a continuous chaotic state of traffic in the docks. I have never seen it.

I have already dealt with the tug service. The question of public access to the docks has been raised over and over again. I have given the reasons why we are not prepared to open the docks to the public during weekends.

Why do you not look into the matter personally?

I have looked into the matter personally, and I have still come to the same decision. I think the harbour authorities have taken the right decision.

The hon. member wanted to know the circumstances as regards the Loerie, the police tug. The Deputy Minister gave him part of the information. All I want to tell the hon. member, is that this launch was designed and built by Messrs. L. J. Wilson (Pty.), Ltd., shipwrights and shipping contractors in Durban in accordance with outline drawings and specifications provided by the Administration. This firm has also built a number of other launches, which are rendering excellent service. The barge, which is being used at Durban, was built by them and has given no trouble. The launch is fitted with Cummings diesel engines—a well-proven make. The launch was delivered on the 24th July, 1967. During the 12-month guarantee period the contractors accepted responsibility for repairs arising from maker’s defects, and for the period when it was out of commission, namely from the 1st October, 1967, to the 12th March, 1968. Since the expiration of the 12-month period the builders have refused to undertake any repairs and these have been undertaken at the Department’s expense. This is a well-proven firm and a well-proven engine was put into the launch, but this is what happened. It often happens that half a dozen models of the same motor car are trouble-free, but that the next motor car is absolutely rubbish and that continuous repairs have to be undertaken. This is what happened here.

Could the launch not have been returned after it was found to be defective?

No, it cannot be returned, because it was bought under contract. There is the question of the guarantee and the hon. member, as a businessman, should know this. After it is paid for it cannot be sent back. The launch was bought under contract and the firm gave a guarantee of 12 months. During the period that the launch was under guarantee they were responsible for all the repairs and the cost thereof. Business is just not done in that way. If the hon. member should buy a car which has a guarantee of six months and the car should give lots of trouble, does he think that the sellers will take it back again?

Yes, if it is useless for the purpose for which it was bought.

But this launch is not useless. The trouble has been minor defects of the Cummings diesel engine. Most of the trouble has been with the engine and not with the structure of the launch.

But the engine is quite an important part of the launch.

Yes, it is, because if there is no engine it cannot go. That is obvious.

Perhaps you could have towed it with a tug.

Yes, I think we have towed it to its berth with a tug. The hon. member wanted to know whether I have provided for housing for the staff when the new harbour is completed. The Railway Administration is under no obligation to provide housing for its staff. We do, however, provide housing because we find it is in the interest of the Administration to have a stable staff. This is the reason we do it. By the time the new harbour is completed sufficient housing will probably be available for the staff and the Municipality of Cape Town will also probably see to it that sufficient housing is provided for the non-European staff. The hon. member must not worry himself about it, because everything will be provided for when the time comes.

Heads put and agreed to.

Heads Nos. 28 to 30,—Airways, R65,415,000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 6, R14,794,000: (Capital and Betterment Works).

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal firstly with the question of flying staff. I particularly want to deal with this matter in the light of a question which I asked the hon. the Minister on the 7th March and which stood over and which was replied to this week. In that question I asked the hon. the Minister what the establishment of the South African Airways was in the various aircraft pools and the various other groups of flying personnel and what the vacancies were in regard to those groups. In his reply, dealing with pilots, he gave no specific figures. He said that there were enough pilots and that captains were allocated according to the routes flown, the number of services, etc. In regard to the number of captains and senior captains he replied—

Firstly. Mr. Chairman, I want to question whether this is in fact the correct position. I do not question the aspect of safety at all. I believe that our pilots to-day are amongst the finest pilots in the world. I had experience only this morning when the reverse thrust cowling blew off from the Boeing in which I was travelling and I experienced the care with which the Airways dealt with this particular incident, namely the checking with Headquarters before we continued and the manner in which the pilot continued the flight without that engine being used for reversed thrust. This is typical of the sort of pilots we have. These are people who know their jobs and it is through the pilots that the South African Airways have achieved, with the two tragic exceptions, such a magnificent safety record.

But, Mr. Chairman, my complaint is that we are not planning our personnel numbers to meet the requirements of the Airways. The Minister himself has avoided giving any specific answer as to how many shortages there are in the various pools. He has answered the questions as to what the establishment is, but not as to what the shortages are except in regard to first officers and senior first officers, who he has said are up to strength. I want to compare this with the Budget which we are being asked at this moment to vote upon. Firstly, I want to point out that according to the Brown Book, we have 16 aircraft on order. We have, as I have gathered, four or five which are due to be delivered over the next year or so. This year money is being voted for aircraft due to be delivered shortly, either out of Loan Funds or out of Renewal Funds. On the Brown Book there are a total of 16 aircraft on order. Now, that is the material planning, the planning for the machines which are to be flown. When we look at the human angle, at the summary of staff for whom we are being asked to vote funds in this Budget, we find that there is only a planned gross increase of 11 pilots over the next year. This is out of all relationship to the increase in flights which we are putting on: the extra flight to America via South America and the additional internal flights in South Africa. And yet, we as Parliament are being asked to vote only 11 additional pilot posts in the South African Airways. Now, let me compare the figures which the hon. the Minister gave me this week in reply to a question, with the figures which we are being asked to vote upon in this House. Let us take the position of a first officer. In his reply the hon. the Minister says that there are no vacancies for first officers. The establishment is up to full strength. He gives that establishment as 111 people in the various pools. In the Budget we are being asked to vote for 119 first officers. What is the correct number? Has the hon. the Minister told me the truth in his reply to my question when he said that there are no vacancies for first officers? Or are we being asked to vote for a higher establishment than is in fact envisaged—in other words, 8 more. When we look at other groups of flying personnel, in his reply, the Minister states there are 118 flight stewards on the establishment. The Budget has asked us to vote funds for 96. Out of which funds are the remaining 22 to be paid? We are not being asked to vote the money, and yet the Minister says that it is the establishment. In regard to air hostesses, the establishment is 123, whereas Parliament is being asked to vote money for only 102. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not good enough! Is this Parliament a parliament which has the authority and the power to vote money or is this Parliament a group of people whom the Minister can fob off with any figures he likes? He answers an hon. member in this House by giving certain figures but we are now dealing with a budget which does not reflect the same picture. But what is more important than the discrepancy in figures, is the fact that we are being asked to vote only 11 new posts for pilots despite the vast increase in craft and flights which is contemplated? At the moment we have Rhodesian pilots flying for S.A.A. The hon. the Minister can tell me if I am incorrect in this statement. They are earning not only a very much higher basic salary—Something like R1,500 more per year—but in addition they get a daily allowance of some R13 per day. Those figures may not be the exact figures, but they are, as I am told, the approximate figures. In other words, flying in our own airline, flying our planes alongside our own pilots in the same pool, are people who are being paid a very much higher remuneration. Is this fair on our pilots? If we need additional pilots should we not rather see that we can draw people by at least offering them an equivalent salary scale as is being paid to those whom we get from neighbouring countries? I do not believe that you are going to have a good morale if you have this discrepancy within our own flying staff. I also understand, and I ask the hon. the Minister to deny this, that he has had representations about providing additional pilots, in other words, representations about the strain and the heavy requirements which are being placed on our existing pilots. Or is the hon. the Minister satisfied that none of these pilots are being asked to fly more than a reasonable amount of flying time? I ask the hon. the Minister to make a clear statement that he is satisfied that we have enough pilots to fly our planes not only with safety, which the pilots will care for, but with the convenience to which he refers in his reply to me.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to please give the House some information on the deal with Trek Airways. We have taken oyer a plane from them and they are to fly a flight for South African Airways. Could the hon. the Minister explain how this deal, apart from the fact that we needed a plane urgently to replace the lost Boeing, of the flight being flown for us by Trek Airways came about? Could the hon. the Minister tell us whether they are now going to take South African Airways passengers for their profit or whether a pool arrangement has been entered into or on what basis this deal has been concluded? As it appears at the moment, it appears to be a strange sort of arrangement to make. I can understand the take over of the plane and we appreciate that this has assisted us greatly, but the question of the reciprocal flight is the one that puzzles me.

The other aspect of flying is that of maintenance staff. The hon. the Minister has said that there is no shortage and no excessive overtime. He has denied that it is necessary to take short-cuts. Why then is it that the law had to be amended in order to make working to rule one of the offences similar to striking? Is it not because if maintenance staff work to rule, it brings the running of the Airways to either a slow or dead slow or stop speed? [Time expired.]

There is an old Afrikaans saying to the effect that when one has porridge, one does not have a spoon. If we look at the Hansard of the hon. member for Durban (Point) of last year and the year before last, we find that his charge against the hon. Minister was that not enough aircraft were being acquired.

I was right.

I quote from his Hansard of last year (col. 2586)—

This was with reference to his complaint that there were not enough aircraft.

Was I not right?

This year the hon. the Minister is acquiring 16 aircraft and now the hon. member wants to know who is going to fly these machines. He urged the hon. the Minister to acquire more aircraft, and now that the hon. the Minister is asking this House to vote funds in these Estimates for the acquisition of aircraft, the hon. member is asking who is going to man them. A typical line of action of the opposite side is that they make certain complaints and then when a matter is being rectified they make new complaints.

Has it been rectified if one does not have the people to man the aircraft?

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to another point of criticism which is often expressed against the South African Airways, and I should like to put this matter in its right perspective and for that purpose I should like, to project it against the background of the pattern of development of the South African Airways. I have here the latest report of the S.A. Airways. During the past financial year passenger flights increased by 10.09 per cent, from 877,000 in the previous year to 976,000 last year. If we look at the working results of the S.A. Airways, we find that the profit amounted to R7½ million last year, in other words, more than twice as much as in the previous financial year. All this was achieved—and I think we should give them credit for this—by a staff consisting of 3,831 Whites and 671 non-Whites, a total establishment of 4,502, which enabled the Airways to produce these wonderful results on its 35th anniversary.

Sir, I want to make specific reference to the criticism we hear from time to time in regard to the reservation systems of the South African Airways. Once again I want to refer you to the annual report. During the past financial year, 1967-’68, there were 1,862,000 applications, sales and cancellations in respect of the internal as well as the international services of South Africa. These reservation figures were processed electronically. The telex retransmitting centre of the central reservation office in Johannesburg dispatched 1.7 million messages during that same period and received 1.6 million messages. This is a massive volume of reservation traffic which was handled by these reservation offices. Mr. Chairman, it may be necessary for one to examine the reservation system as it is being controlled by the S.A. Airways at present.

Messages containing the reservation requirements of passengers are collected at data processing units from all points of origin from where they are transmitted by teleprinter. The messages received are then set up at a central point according to recognized international patterns. There is an internationally agreed upon system according to which this is done. These reservation messages are then fed to a computer. First they are tested and then they are fed to a computer for certain particulars to be extracted, but before that is done certain facts are established; first the correctness of such messages are tested, especially in respect of the flight concerned, the sectors on which flights are going to be undertaken, the date, the classes, the number of passengers, etc. It is important to note that while the computer is being fed the data, a constant check is being kept from moment to moment so as to check whether the incoming figures are in agreement with the flight concerned, or the route concerned, and an additional check on the computer’s calculations is kept throughout the operation. Scores are kept of the number of reservations and the number of cancellations and the final figures are correlated with each other throughout the operation. This is very important so as to make it possible to determine the reservation-cancellation position at any time. From the nature of the case, numerous changes have to be fed to these computers. People reserve seats and cancel them as fast as they reserve them. At present there are procedures for expanding and supplementing and making additions to the system all the time. In the past years technicians of the S.A. Airways have constantly been engaged in perfecting this system, making additions to it as well as improving it. But, Sir, it should also be mentioned that a large percentage of the reservations of the S.A. Airways is done by agents throughout South Africa. There is a system of checking these reservations. Lists of reservations are referred back to the agents for checking, and if they do not receive lists of the reservations, they are contacted telephonically. The public of South Africa has an idea that if there are empty seats on an aircraft, the cause of that is so-called block reservations by agents. This is a misunderstanding which must be cleared up. Thirty days prior to the departure of a specific flight the travel agents are informed of the particulars, and the names of the passengers, the ticket numbers, etc., are forwarded to the reservation office for checking, and if the agents do not confirm their reservations, they are cancelled. Consequently the possibility does not exist that a travel agent can book a block of seats on a flight of the South African Airways and that this will be kept open until the departure of the flight, with the possible result that the flight may depart with empty seats. From 75 to 80 per cent of the reservations on the internal services of the S.A. Airways which are made, cancelled and made again, have their origin with agents of the Airways. Therefore an extremely large number of the reservations on the S.A. Airways originates from agents. Sir, it is important for the Airways to keep this relationship as fine as possible and therefore to ensure that the reservations are properly co-ordinated. I notice on page 103 of the Brown Book which is enjoying the attention of this Committee at the moment, item 1182, that provision is being made for an amount of R100 for this financial year for “fully automated and integrated message switching and real time reservations system (stage 1)”. Sir, this is quite a mouth full. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister can inform us as to what exactly is being envisaged here The estimated amount for this equipment is R3½ million odd, and I assume that this is in connection with improved reservation systems, and that to a large extent we shall be able to eliminate the shortcomings which exist at the moment, in spite of all the attempts which are being made, and that we shall be able to make considerable improvements.

I want to repeat an appeal which I made in the past and I hope it will not be a vain appeal, as it has been on so many occasions in the past. I wish to appeal to the Minister again to see whether some of the profit on the pipeline … Sir. may I ask whether we are discussing the pipeline now?

No. The hon. member should listen to the Chair before speaking.

The hon. member raised this matter in regard to the so-called shortage of flying staff in his speech during the Second Reading of this Bill. I said I would reply to him when I replied to the Third Reading. I did not reply to the points he made yesterday, but as he has raised it now I think I had better put the record straight. I think the hon. member is a bit mixed up when it comes to the figures, and he places an interpretation upon figures which is quite unfounded. He should really go more carefully into the matter. If the hon. member had also referred to the White Paper for 1968-’69, he would have noticed that provision was made last year for an increase of 78 first officers for training in order to strengthen the different pools. As a result it was possible to increase the pool for senior first officers by 10 units, senior captains by 37, compared with the position in 1967-’68.

How many senior captains?

Senior captains, not training captains. Senior captains were increased by 37. Compared with the position in 1967-’68, the number of pilots has increased by 88. Additional pilots are engaged in good time to finalize training by the time new aircraft are taken into service. First officer is, of course, the entry grade and it is logical that the number of pilots in this pool will fluctuate in accordance with additional engagements and promotions to higher-graded posts. The nine captains from Air Rhodesia were loaned to speed up training programmes to ensure that sufficient crews would be available for the additional services contemplated for 1970. The Rhodesian pilots are on loan from Rhodesian Airways to enable us to take our men off the Viscounts for training on the Boeings. It is only a temporary measure. They have been loaned for a period of 12 months. In regard to the personnel, as the hon. member is probably aware, we recruit from the Air Force. Whenever there is a shortage of Airways air crews on S.A. Airways, we recruit officers from the S.A.A.F. They are usually anxious to come over to S.A. Airways, because the emoluments are very much higher. We have no trouble at all in getting them.

But your first officers are down by 31.

Yes, that is probably due to promotion, but it will increase again. Another thing in that regard is this. Formerly we used to make provision for the establishment, disregarding vacancies in a particular grade. I am not specifically referring to Airways now. But since last year we decided not to make financial provision for the establishment or, in other words, to make provision for posts which are not filled. That is why the hon. member will find big changes in the figures from what they were last year. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that I hope and expect to have quite sufficient flying crews to man the new aircraft that have been ordered. As I say, we recruit from the Air Force.

Without strain?

Yes. Another thing, our flying crews do not fly under strain, because the regulations lay down what rest periods they must have after certain flights and what the length of a continuous flight must be. We observe that very meticulously. We cannot possibly allow our air crews to become overstrained through working excessive hours because that will not only endanger themselves but it will endanger the plane and all the passengers.

Have you had any representations from the public?

I have had no representations in that regard. The hon. member wanted to know what the deal is with Trek Airways. This is also a temporary matter. We have arranged with Trek Airways to hire their Boeing that they got from S.A. Airways in exchange for the new one that is on order, to do one flight a week, and we pay them for that. But there is no pool arrangement or anything like that. It is just an arrangement between Trek Airways and S.A. Airways. And this is no new thing. For quite a long time one of our crews flew to Australia with their Constellation. So, it is no new thing at all. We are only doing this because we are short of Boeings at present as the result of the Windhoek disaster.

Do they get the fares?

No, we pay them a certain hire, but we get all the fares and we do all the rest of the work.

Then the hon. member spoke about working to rule, and he said that that was proof of the letter of the law not being observed. But that is not so. Working to rule is quite a different matter altogether. In other words, it is a kind of “go slow” strike. That is what it amounts to. The artisans in the workshops did it once many years ago. They worked to rule. In actual fact it is a “go slow” strike. In other words, instead of taking five minutes for a particular job, they take 15 minutes or an hour, and as the result of the delays the backlog of work builds up. But it does not mean that if you work to the rule you do not observe the letter of the law. I gave the reply to the hon. member for Yeoville in the hon. member’s absence, to show that all the regulations laid down by the aircraft manufacturers are meticulously observed. Surely the hon. member does not think that we will allow slipshod work to be done to endanger the public and our planes? The technicians are the most important part of the whole organization. [Interjection.] I am not worried, because I know these men are doing a very good job of work. They are keeping the planes in the air.

What about overtime?

They are not working excessive overtime. I will give the hon. member the position. The technical personnel of Airways from 1st April, 1967, to 31st December, 1967, worked an average number of hours of 39.5 overtime per month. For 1st April, 1968, to 31st December, 1968, the average was 42 hours per month. That is the overtime, over the normal hours, and most of the men who do overtime are those doing servicing. Those are not excessive hours. These men work overtime, as the overwhelming majority of the railway staff do, to increase their earnings. In fact, they eventually base their standard of living on the earnings they receive, which includes overtime. So, there is no strain and no excessive overtime whatsoever. As far as my flying crews are concerned, they are certainly not under any strain because the regulations are strictly and meticulously observed. The hon. member may rest assured that the pilots will be the first to complain if they are put under any undue strain.

*The hon. member for Middelburg spoke of the new apparatus which is going to be introduced for handling reservations. As he said, it is quite a mouthful to pronounce this thing’s name. It is „die ge-outimatiseerde geintegreerde boodskapskakeling-en plekbesprekingstelsel” (the fully automated and integrated message switching and real time reservations system), which has been approved. This system, which we expect to be completed by the end of 1970, will connect reservation offices of the S.A. Airways in the Republic and South-West Africa with the central control in Johannesburg and will enable them to determine without delay by means of direct switching (on the so-called agents sets) whether a seat on the flight requested by the passenger is in fact available and to confirm the reservation summarily, or, if not, to be offered a seat on an alternative flight. The cancellation of reserved seats will be handled in the same way and will ensure the immediate release of seats to other passengers. This system will not only expedite reservations considerably, but it will also produce more reliable records and it is expected that over-reservations and other shortcomings which the present system has will be eliminated to a very large extent. This will increase the efficiency of the reservation organization of the Airways considerably, and will be equal to those of other international airlines.

†The English for this thing, for the information of the hon. member for Transkei, is the fully automated and integrated message switching and real time reservation system.

Now I know.

Heads put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I only have four minutes at my disposal, and if it is not an inadmissible threat, I just want to warn everyone who is fond of living to make way ahead! When the debate was interrupted yesterday I was pointing out how the University Colleges had been “de”-colleged. In passing I just want to point out that the Rand Afrikaans University and the University of Port Elizabeth never went through a college stage. There is one last quotation I want to make from what Dr. Ross said in the Bantu Education Journal of 1967. He stated: “The university colleges are on the march …” Allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a Natal march. He went on, “… and nothing and nobody can stop their development and progress”. “Nothing and nobody”, as we know, is very little. Nevertheless the hon. the Opposition appears to be of the opinion that they will be able to stem this progress. If that is the case, they would have proved to themselves that they are something less than “nothing and nobody”. But Dr. Ross goes on to write, “they are destined to play an ever-increasing role in the development not only of the Bantu homelands, but also of the Republic of South Africa.” This is what the esteemed professor has decided, this is how I second it, and this is as the history of Fort Hare has proved it to be true. We are all aware that 4 ½million Whites in this country have to bear approximately 18 million people both administratively and academically. This is good neither for the Whites nor the non-Whites. That is why I regarded the establishment of these University Colleges as a positive and fundamental extension of the policy of separate development. In this way it is being made possible for every section, each in his own homeland, to become self-supporting both academically and administratively. As the position is at the moment, we have many Whites on loan to the non-white homelands, Whites who have to be there because that is what is best for the non-Whites at the moment. In the long run, however, it cannot pay. When they are eventually in a position, with the people who are being trained at those colleges, where they are self-supporting academically and administratively, they will be cultivating for themselves a self-esteem and pride. In this way these university colleges are benefiting these non-white residential areas. But they also benefit the white homelands because we will then get the Whites who are now on loan in the non-white homelands back in order to supplement our own manpower shortage. For that reason I am able to agree wholeheartedly with what the esteemed professor said here, i.e. that the establishment and ultimate effect of these university colleges will be solely to the good of both the non-Whites and the Whites.

On 9th April, 1959, I made my maiden speech in this esteemed House on these very matters. For that reason I regard it as an exceptional privilege that I have now been afforded an opportunity of speaking on these matters again. On that occasion it fell to a certain Dr. D. L. Smit on the Opposition side to thank and congratulate me, as is the custom, but the hon. member could only get as far as thanking me. He could not bring himself to congratulating me. He said, inter alia, that he was amazed that I, after I had been in a position to listen to the debate in this House for a month, had not yet joined the United Party. I wonder, viewed in the light of what has happened in the meantime, whether the homes of the Odells and the Lewises are not haunted. In any case, the hon. member went on to say that it was a pity that I should have chosen such a contentious matter for my maiden speech. In conclusion he expressed the hope that I would before long find myself in the Opposition benches. Let us leave it at that. Let us review the position as it is to-day, ten years after the legislation by means of which these colleges were established was passed. Let us do so with reference to an article in the Cape Argus of 7th March, 1959. There the following phrase occurs, “A simple little Bill in a minor country”. Is this not a terrible thing to say about one’s country and about legislation which is being piloted through this the highest council chamber in the country. Sir, surely it is an impertinence to say a thing like that. It is true that this country of ours is small, but it is big in that thing which alone can make a small nation big, i.e. our spiritual defensibility. We are now engaged in one aspect of that. In this regard our Government is not indebted to anybody, neither to the Whites nor to the non-Whites. On the contrary, we can feel proud of having a favourable balance. On 23rd April, 1959, I concluded by saying that I had participated in the discussion and had placed myself before the tribunal of my conscience and the nation. I am doing so again now, with this difference however, that at that time I participated in that debate in the hope, without the knowledge. To-day, however, we have the experience of ten years behind us. Now I can participate in this debate with the knowledge born of facts. [Time expired.]

Clause 2 of this Bill provides that with effect from a specific date the University College of Fort Hare will be a university; secondly, that its seat will be at Alice in the Cape Province; and, thirdly, that the university will serve the Xhosa ethnic unit. Three interesting facts appear from this clause. Firstly, that a new and full-fledged university is being established; secondly, that the university will have its seat in the Eastern Cape and will, as such, be the third university in that vicinity; and, thirdly, that this university is specifically intended to serve the Xhosa ethnic unit. I now want to express a few ideas, briefly, on each of these three aspects.

Firstly, then, the establishment of a new, full-fledged and independent university in the Western Cape. For myself and my colleagues who represent that area this is undoubtedly a very important event. I am speaking here as a person who had to work very hard for the establishment of the university at Port Elizabeth, and who is to-day serving on the council and the senate of that university. Under these circumstances it is for me an exceptional privilege to be able to convey my most sincere congratulations to this new university of the Eastern Cape. The University College at Fort Hare has a long and interesting history behind it. In many respects this has also been an eventful history. To-day, only 10 years after a new course had been mapped out for the university college by this Government, and in spite of numerous prophesies of doom which were uttered from the opposite side of the House, this new step speaks volumes for the authorities of the university college. I also want to express my sincere congratulations to the new university on behalf of the University of Port Elizabeth. At the same time then I want to offer the new university our academic co-operation. Our hope is that this university will over the years develop into a tower of strength for the dissemination of light and truth to its environment.

I come now to the third provision of the clause, namely that this university will serve the Xhosa ethnic group. Perhaps the Xhosa nation to-day does not realize the phenomenal extent of the significance of this event. For any nation, but particularly for a developing nation, there is no greater gift they can receive than a university. This is the finest gift a nation could ever receive. One qualification must be mentioned, and this is the following: A university which is not ready to render service to the nation and the community where it has its seat, a university which stands aloof from the nation and the community it has to serve, a university which is removed from the national life and the national culture, can also constitute a danger to the community it has to serve. History tells us that the Bantu nations in this country have paid very dearly in this respect. They also suffered great losses. This was the position until this Government mapped out a new course for Bantu education—primary, secondary and higher—in the service of the Bantu nations and their own culture. Up to that stage the training of the best brainpower of the Bantu youth was aimed at putting their own people, their home language, national culture and way of life in an inferior light. Attempts were made to cause the ideals of Western culture, way of life and traditions to take root among the Bantu youth.

I can speak feelingly about this because there was a period in the history of my own people when we had to go through the same phase. An individual who despises what is his own, who has become detached from his own language, culture and national traditions, who strives to attain the values of another nation without ever being able to really possess them, becomes an uprooted, frustrated being who cannot make any contribution anywhere. For years the Bantu nations of South Africa had to endure this erosion process of their best brainpower, and if it had not been for that the Bantu nations to-day would have been much further advanced along the road to civilization. I want to hope and trust that the students who are going to study at this university will always realize that it will be their task to return and place themselves in the service of their own nation, in order to better their own nation in the social, economic and cultural fields. May this university succeed in placing large numbers of their young people on the production line which they will be able, after a few years, to send back to the area from whence they came.

In one respect the students at this university are definitely fortunate. This university will serve principally the Xhosa ethnic group. This community has progressed quite far along the road to nationhood, it is a community where peace and order prevails, where there is a stable and democratically-elected Government, the only black stable and democratically-elected Government in the whole of Africa. In addition that community is fortunate in having a guardian, namely the Government of the Republic of South Africa, Which really has their interests at heart. The establishment of this independent university is in fact a further proof of the interest and the efforts of the white guardian to help and to uplift.

Five years ago when we asked for a university for the Port Elizabeth area, and after we had proved that the need existed there, we first had to return and obtain a guarantee of R750,000 from the local community before the Government would consider establishing a university there. The fact that there was no question of a local effort of their own here, and that this institution was established with the help of this white Government emphasizes once again the well-meaning goodwill of the white nation towards the non-white people.

The influence and the calling of a university goes much further than its primary task, namely of rendering a service to the community in which it has its seat. It is the highest calling of every academician and also of every university to seek the truth in the light of reason and with the help of the research facilities at their disposal. This search for facts, for truth, for clarity and understanding brings people to common problems. Each one possibly sees a different facet of the problem and each one offers a positive solution in accordance with his findings. These findings can then jointly lead to greater clarity to better mutual understanding and possibly to the solution of actual problems. That is why there is also the constant exchange of knowledge in the academic sphere among the various universities in South Africa and also abroad. In this respect this institution will also be able to make an important contribution towards throwing more light on our numerous and complicated problems in Southern Africa and bringing us closer to a solution. In this way I also trust that this university will be able to make its contributions towards throwing more light on our difficult problem of peaceful co-existence in this multi-national southern-most tip of Africa and towards bringing us nearer to a solution. Recognition of and respect for the individual usually leads to improved human relations. It also applies to the relations among communities. Through its lecturers and students the university is very closely associated with the ideals and objectives of the nation it has to serve. But it stands to reason that through their acquired knowledge and wider experience they can also gain an insight into the other man’s point of view, and on the level of reason the idea of good neighbourship and peaceful co-existence must always triumph. That is why I have every confidence that in this respect as well, in regard to our problems of peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa, the university will make a valuable contribution because it is only through education that knowledge, reason and balance can be achieved.

But it will not help merely to idealize in regard to this institution, one must also be realistic and face up to possible problems and any growing pains which the new institution might experience. Unfortunately the university in our day is no longer known only as a centre of learning and knowledge. In our day some of our universities have also, regrettably, become breeding places of unrest and revolt. The student is no longer only a seeker after knowledge, but he has also in many respects become agitator, an inciter, a seeker after political power in order to overthrow the existing order. During the past 12 months students have caused chaos and led violent revolts on a large scale in many different countries of the world. Everywhere the pattern was virtually the same. There were clear indications that communistic agitators were in fact behind the unrest. Owing to timeous and firm action by our hon. Prime Minister and our Government. South Africa has been soared this disaster. Most students at South African universities, with their traditional attitude of respect for authority, will not easily allow themselves to be led astray into such unrestrained behaviour. But unfortunately we also have at some of our universities the anchorless, profligate cosmopolitans who can spread this disease to our universities. Because we in South Africa are very jealous of our peace and quiet, we must take thorough cognizance of this growing menace. Many students studying at teaching institutions here, who lean heavily for their financial support, on the State and the taxpayer, should never be allowed to create an upheaval here!

This brings me then to two matters about which a great deal has been said in this debate by members on the opposite side, namely the autonomy and the academic freedom of the university. These are terms which have been hawked about quite a good deal in the past, and which have been liberally used in this debate as well. These are usually fine-sounding terms to which prospective inciters try to attach excessive value, in order to raise an outraged, hypocritical hue and cry and to try to work up public opinion here and abroad against the Government if they do not succeed in their purpose. When I speak of the autonomy of a university I include two requirements. Firstly there must be a council which has been appointed in terms of the Act pertaining to that university, and which will be at liberty to take decisions in terms of that Act as regards the academic, financial and administrative matters of the university and in that way exercise proper control. In the second place there must be a senate which is appointed in terms of that Act and the Statutes, and which will be free to compile syllabi, set examination papers, hold examinations and tests, and confer degrees and diplomas which will enjoy recognition in the academic world, all according to the needs of its students. That is the second requirement which I lay down for the autonomy of a university. A university which complies with these two requirements is an autonomous university. The autonomy of this new university of Fort Hare is in my opinion also vested in the fact that it is becoming separated on an academic level from the university of South Africa. But now hon. members on the opposite side are laving down totally different requirements when they talk about the autonomy of a university. The hon. member for Orange Grove, for example, laid down the following requirements when he discussed the Extension of University Training Bill 10 years ago. The hon. member said (Hansard, Volume 100. column 3228) that his requirement was as follows—

In addition the hon. member stated that—

This is what the hon. member had to say about the autonomy of a university. On academic freedom the hon. member had the following to say (column 3228)—

I do not know whether hon. members on the opposite side still lay down these requirements for academic freedom and autonomy of a university. I do not want to dispute this matter with them, except that I want to say that it is precisely these terms which organizations such as Nusas use to formulate their concept of academic freedom and autonomy. We know what great problems we had to contend with in regard to Nusas and similar organizations. I also want to state that these concepts were formulated in a similar way by liberalists, under the influence of communism, the result of which has been that a shameful lack of control, authority and discipline is being experienced in the universities of the world, where so much chaos, affliction and disorder is prevailing to-day.

In his speech the hon. member for Kensington had quite a number of cutting remarks to make about the constitution of the council and the establishment of an advisory council at this new university. According to his views this university is not an autonomous university as long as the majority of the members of that council are appointed by the hon. the Minister. But does the hon. member not realize that such nominations are based solely on ability and interest, and that political convictions play no role whatsoever? Does the hon. member not realize that, in view of the fact that by far and away the largest amount of money for the financing of this university will come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, the Minister has a great responsibility in respect of the control of the university? Does he not realize that a university has an extremely responsible and complicated task, and that one cannot appoint any type of person to such a council? It is in fact imperative, in the interests of these people for whom that university is being established, that the very best and most capable people should be found to serve on such a council. Does the hon. member not realize that there are endless numbers of bloodsuckers and parasites who are sitting waiting with eagle eyes for any possible opportunity which is offered them to make mischief, to incite people to undermine the Whites and to sow hatred and envy? I want to tell the hon. member for Kensington precisely what the former hon. member for Witbank said in this debate 10 years ago. He said—

No, Sir, the Whites, as guardian over our nonwhite nations, can never allow their young brainpower to be thrown to the wolves before they have reached the stage of development in which they are able to defend themselves.

In regard to the question of the advisory council I just want to say that I think it is an excellent idea. I find it difficult to understand the derogatory opinions which hon. members on the opposite side have expressed in regard to this advisory council. Hon. members must realize that we are dealing here with a developing situation, with a continuous process of evolution, progress, development and growth. The university, as has already been said, is an extremely complicated institution, and the control of such a body requires knowledge, insight, integrity and balance. Nobody would like to see the present state of affairs continue, and the hon. member will probably be more grateful than anybody else when the day arrives when he no longer has to nominate people and it is no longer necessary that Whites should serve on that council. But, Mr. Speaker, in the times in which we are living at present this time has not yet arrived, and in the meantime the members of this advisory council have an excellent opportunity of acquiring knowledge and experience in regard to the control of such a university. I am of the opinion that this is an excellent plan. As recently as 1958 Prof. Thomas Hodgskin of the University of Oxford said that—

It is my heartfelt wish that this University of Fort Hare will supply the Xhosa ethnic group with sufficient “men of culture” in order to serve them in many fields.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in a free-for-all with the hon. member for Algoa about the causes of student unrest, because I have too much to say about this Bill to be distracted. I want to say, however, that he makes glib statements here about student unrest with no proof whatsoever. He does the usual slap-happy lumping together of Liberals and Communists and he, of course, is convinced that there can be no genuine grievances amongst students. What is more, Mr. Speaker, he does not approve of students having views or opinions on matters that are outside the strict curricula that they are supposed to be following. Quite obviously his ideas and mine are not going to meet at all. There will be other opportunities for me to go into the whole issue of student unrest in South Africa. The rest of the hon. member’s speech consisted largely of his telling us about his lofty sentiments about service to the community, with which one cannot quarrel, and he then went on to give us his ideas of academic autonomy with which I have a great quarrel.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Algoa who tells us that he had a lot to do with the setting up of the University of Port Elizabeth just how he would have reacted to the University of Port Elizabeth obtaining a constitution such as is being obtained by the so-called University of Fort Hare, and whether he would have considered that that was autonomy in the full sense even of his interpretation of university autonomy. Of course the answer is “no”. The answer is that he would have fought such a Bill tooth and nail. He would have been insulted on behalf of the University of Port Elizabeth to have a university being presented with a constitution such as is being presented to the University of Fort Hare, which we are considering here to-day. I want to say that whenever I use the word “university” now in relation to this particular Bill, I use it in inverted commas. Now, of course, the hon. members’ views on the autonomy of a university differ completely from mine. I might say that the views expressed by the hon. member for Waterberg are also different from my own, but he did not go quite as far as the hon. member for Algoa. The hon. member for Waterberg was very interested in Dr. Ross’ opinions and he quoted liberally—and when I use this word I trust I do not offend him—from the journal of the Department of Bantu Education. He ended up by saying that the time has come for the ethnic university colleges which have now achieved academic maturity, to be granted full academic autonomy and to be free from any of the shackles of the University of South Africa. I disagree with this contention and I will deal with this matter shortly. But if the hon. member thinks that the time has now come for the university colleges, such as Fort Hare and the other colleges that we will be considering, to be released from Unisa and to be given full academic autonomy, he should be voting against this Bill. I say this because the Bill we are considering to-day does not remotely present any form of university autonomy to those colleges. If the hon. member is quite sincere—as I am certain he is, because he is always a very sincere member—he should be voting against this Bill, i.e. if he really feels that autonomy is now due to those university colleges.

The other members on this side of the House, and more particularly the hon. member for Kensington, who made an excellent analysis of the clauses of this Bill, have pointed out the obvious shortcomings of this Bill as far as autonomy is concerned. I want to ask what possible claims to autonomy a university can have when tight ministerial control is, in fact, kept over every single facet of these new free institutions which we are supposed to create here to-day. There is a ministerial grip on the council and the senate. These bodies are largely appointed and there are very few elected members. There is also a ministerial grip on these important bodies which should be managing the internal affairs of the university like the appointment of staff, the dismissal of staff, the deciding of conditions of service, the admission of students, fixing of fees, giving of grants, determining what new faculties and what new courses should be initiated and even the accepting of donations. Even the appointment of a rector, as has been pointed out by other members, is in the hands of the hon. the Minister. They have to approve of practically every facet of life of these new “free” institutions. The normal powers that are held by our really autonomous universities (autonomous in these respects), our big white universities, are expressly excluded.

If one takes the long title of this Bill one sees that it is introduced to grant recognition as a university to the University College of Fort Hare. If we were to take this seriously I think that practically every clause of this Bill will have to be scrapped. In every aspect of internal affairs, other than the mere fixing of syllabuses, the examinations and the awarding of degrees and diplomas the so-called university will be a creature of the Minister, not even the Minister of National Education, may I point out, but the Minister controlling the particular ethnic group which this university has been created to serve. That the Bill makes absolute the divorce between university education for white students and university education for non-White students is quite obvious from an amending Bill which will shortly be introduced in the Other Place and which I therefore cannot discuss in any detail but to which I must refer because it has enormous implications for the Bill which we are discussing to-day. This amending Bill is going to exclude from the definition of “university” in the great umbrella Act, the Universities Act of 1955, the Fort Hare University and all the other universities which are being created by the Bills which we are considering in the House to-day. This makes absolute the divorce between white and non-White universities and, of course, this immediately means that these new non-White universities are degraded to a lower status because they are excluded from several important bodies, such as the Committee of University Principals and all the decisions which have bearing on the universities by the Committee of University Principals; they will have appointees to the Joint Matriculation Board under different conditions from the white universities and, of course, they are excluded from all the joint statutes and the joint representations to the Government on all the matters directly affecting the universities which the University Act of 1955 conferred on all our white universities. These new “universities” which we are purporting to create to-day, are excluded from all those aspects of the Universities Act of 1955 which are jealously guarded by all the white universities and which, as I have said, provide the umbrella Statute for all the white universities.

What about the universities of Swaziland and Basutoland?

The universities of Swaziland and Lesotho do not belong to the Republic of South Africa. Does the hon. member for Algoa think that Zululand is no longer part of the Republic of South Africa? Is the Transkei no longer part of South Africa? Is the Transvaal no longer part of South Africa? Because that, may I point out to the hon. member, is where these universities are situated. Does he not know that the Western Province is part of South Africa, that Natal is part of South Africa, where the University of Westville is situated? What a nonsensical comparison. The hon. member knows that it is a nonsensical comparison and he should think twice before he talks like that. Sir, the Government is past master, of course, at framing titles for Bills, titles which are completely contrary to the contents of the Bill, and this Bill is no exception. Let me mention a few examples: The Extension of University Education Act is one; then there is the Abolition of Passes Act; there is the Bantu Self-Government Act. All these were Acts where the titles conflicted with the contents, and here we have the University of Fort Hare Bill which, of course, is a complete contradiction of the contents of the Bill. The title is completely misleading if one studies the contents of the Bill clause by clause. Sir, I do not know whom the Government thinks they are fooling. They are possibly fooling themselves. They come along with all these illusory titles. It is quite obvious that some Government members are fooled. The hon. member for Zululand, for instance, was quite swept away by this illusion of fine happy communities, by the illusion that the Africans want things to be just as they are, that they like being at these separate universities, and so on. Well, if this is so, all we have to do is to give them the option, and if they are so happy and contented at these separate universities, then you do not need to close the open universities because no non-White would elect to go there. Sir, these are illusions, from beginning to end. All the speeches from the Government side are full of illusions.

But these are developing institutions.

I will show in a minute how far I believe they can develop. Sir, my definition of academic autonomy differs completely from that of the hon. member for Algoa, the hon. member for Waterberg and other members on the Government side. By the way, I want to say at once that I do not for a minute think that the hon. the Minister has deceived himself. I think he knows exactly what he is doing—not the Deputy Minister over there. He need not look so pleased with himself: I am not paving him any compliments. I am talking about the Minister who through circumstances beyond his control is not here to-day. I am quite sure that he has not deceived himself. I believe he just talks with his tongue in his cheek. He knows perfectly well that there is no autonomy whatsoever, not even according to the broadest interpretation of autonomy, being conferred on the University of Fort Hare. My definition of university autonomy goes much further than just deciding what syllabuses should be introduced and the granting of degrees and controlling examinations. My definition of university autonomy, of course, includes the right to decide who shall teach, what shall be taught and who shall be taught. I would say that these are three elementary concepts which are closely integrated with the whole idea of university autonomy. Let us examine each of these concepts. Let us first examine what shall be taught; let us take that broad concept first. Both directly and indirectly this type of autonomy is grossly undermined by the Bill that we are considering to-day. The very fact, for instance, that the powers of the council and the senate are by no means untrammelled, to put it at its lowest, by ministerial control, by virtue of their nominated status, means that the Minister maintains an indirect control over the internal affairs of the university as far as the interna of education are concerned, that is to say, the syllabuses and the examinations and so on. If the university council does things which the hon. the Minister does not like, he can kick them out.

He cannot kick them out for four years.

Well, after four years he can kick them out. Four years in the life of a university is not a very long time. The very fact that the hon. the Minister has to approve of all donations and bequests before the ethnic universities can accept such donations and bequests, is a limiting factor on what shall be taught, because under the normal regulations governing the other universities, which, of course, are not fully autonomous in other respects, the university is free to decide on any course which it can finance itself. It is only courses which cannot be fully financed by the university itself that require ministerial approval, and the Minister’s approval is not required for any donations or grants; so, if a university is offered a donation to set up a Chair of Race Relations at the Natal University, for instance, that university does not have to go meekly to the hon. the Minister and say, “Please, can we accept this donation?”

Oh yes.

Oh no, it does not have to do so. Let the hon. member show me the section in the Universities Act which makes that necessary. It is only when a university cannot subsidize a course entirely by itself that the ministerial approval may indirectly affect the setting up of the faculty or the course. The hon. member should know what he is talking about when he interjects. [Interjections.] It would make debate easier if people knew what they were talking about. I might say that such limitations apply also as far as the raising of loans is concerned. These new “free” institutions of happy communities may not even decide whether they want to raise any loans or not. They cannot even accept grants of land or other donations from the local authority in whose area they fall, without ministerial authority. What sort of autonomy is that? How far, therefore, is not the freedom to decide what shall be taught undermined by these controls? As to the right to decide who shall be taught, this is nonexistent. This right does not exist at all. First of all, the ethnic concept, as it is clearly defined in the clauses of this Bill, completely knocks out any idea of freedom to decide who shall be taught. Here, of course, the white universities are under the same restriction. They too may not accept students who are not white without ministerial authority, and this is the whole basis of the argument about academic freedom in South Africa. In this case, however, the Minister may give his permission where the White universities are concerned. He may allow non-white students of other ethnic groups to attend the universities under certain circumstances, and he in fact does this. All that the hon. the Minister can do here is to allow students of other African ethnic groups to attend the universities of Fort Hare and Zululand and Turfloop, but he is expressly forbidden to allow any white students to attend any of those nonwhite universities.

Of course.

Sir, I am not arguing the principle here. What I am arguing is the contention that these are autonomous universities.

[In audible.]

Of course, everybody has said it. The hon. the Minister has not been here; he has not listened to the words of wisdom that have fallen from the lips of his colleagues.

Academic autonomy.

I do not think he really understands what academic anything means; so I will not argue that with him. As I say, there is an absolute prohibition on allowing any white students to attend any of the nonwhite universities, so that is completely out. I might say that regulations lay down conditions governing the admission of students, conditions which have to be complied with, and the council which makes those regulations is completely under the domination of the hon. the Minister.

As to the third tenet of academic freedom or academic autonomy, that is to say who shall teach, this is also quite non-existent. I might say that the one limitation which I think should be in these university Bills, and that is the conscience clause, is significantly absent. That limitation which does not allow a university the right to refuse admission to a student on grounds other than academic qualifications—that is to say, it excludes the right of religious discrimination—is not included in this Bill; so anybody may be prohibited from teaching or may be refused admission to the university on religious grounds; there is no conscience clause. As far as the ordinary autonomy to decide who shall teach is concerned, we have no clause covering that at all. Clause 14—and I want to pause for a moment to deal with this important clause—creates the extraordinary situation of two kinds of staff posts. There are posts under the Minister and there are posts under the council, and as regards posts under the Minister’s control, he can decide which posts they will be, and he can convert one of the other kinds of posts to a ministerial post at any time he likes. Those posts are completely subject to the Minister’s approval, in every possible respect. Well, we can imagine what sort of posts will be designated as ministerial posts; we can imagine what sort of subjects the Minister will think of controlling, subjects such as History, Sociology and all those subjects which deal with contentious racial matters, such as the industrial colour bar for instance. In the case of posts such as mathematical posts not even the hon. the Minister could fear any sort of adverse indoctrination of students by the staff. The council has no say whatsoever in these ministerial posts, nor does the senate which, of course, should be the body most concerned with appointments to the staff. The Minister can order an inquiry into the action of any staff members, not only the incumbents of posts that he creates for himself, and if he does not believe that the council is taking sufficient action, that the council is not dealing in the proper way with people who he thinks are guilty of misconduct, he can take action over and above any action that the council decides to take. He can second or transfer staff. There is no security of tenure for anybody under this Bill. I want to know just what sort of university this will be. I wonder if the hon. member for Algoa would tell me whether the staff at the Port Elizabeth University would accept such conditions? Would they accept this insecurity of tenure; would they accept ministerial discipline; would they accept secondment and transfer by the Minister, without any appeal and without the matter being referred back to the council and the senate which govern that university? He knows perfectly well that the staff associations of any self-respecting white university would fight provisions of this kind tooth and nail. They would have nothing whatsoever to do with them; they would be in rebellion immediately.

Sir, I might mention that there is one particular clause in this Bill, clause 17, which is really quite remarkable. The provisions which are embodied in clause 17 are not to be found in any other University Act that applies to the universities in South Africa. Clause 17, however, is to be found, almost verbatim—and this is of great interest to me—in the Coloured Persons Education Act, the Act that governs Coloured school children. That is where we find the provisions of a clause which, if you please, is now inserted in a Bill which covers the education of university students, even including the wording of one interesting little clause which provides that a member of the staff, in the case of a female, may be dismissed on account of her marriage. If a female member of the staff “commits marriage”—and I use the word advisedly—she may be dismissed from the university. Has anybody ever heard of such a ludicrous position? As I say, a clause such as clause 17 is not to be found in any of our other university Statutes; but it is to be found in the Coloured Persons Education Act, which completely proves my contention that this Bill is not dealing with a university; this is dealing with a glorified school. The way in which the staff is treated and the way in which the students are treated suggests that they are to be treated like glorified school children and school teachers. Sir, I do not want to go into much more detail on the question of what I think of the existing university colleges. I say that the students there are treated like school children now. The fact that the white staff and the non-white staff hardly mix at all, the fact that they do not even share a common staff room, the fact that the non-white students have hardly any contact with white staff members outside of the actual lecture rooms, bears out my statement that these university students are treated like school children, and that might be one of the reasons for the student unrest at the University of Fort Hare some time ago.

Now I want to put the 64-dollar question to the hon. the Deputy Minister, which I hope he will convey to the Minister, and that is: Why the haste? Why this lumping together of all the university colleges for this instant promotion? Why is it necessary? Are there no differences between the state of development of Ngoya, of Turfloop, of Fort Hare, of the University College for Indians, of the University College of the Western Cape? They are all at different stages of development. Some have many more students than others. For instance, the Indian College is very much more developed than the others, but not any of them in my opinion is ready for this instant promotion before we have had a searching inquiry in depth by independent experts as to whether or not these university colleges have reached the necessary stage of development. I am going to oppose this Bill absolutely, because I do not believe we know nearly enough about the matter. I am going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington where he asks that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, and I am going to do it for this reason. It is because the Select Committee can reject the Bill entirely. It need come back with no Bill at all. I do not for one moment believe that a Select Committee of M.P.s, most of whom are unqualified to deal with this subject anyway … [Interjections.] That is so; there may be one or two who are. I am not against the principle of possibly putting these university colleges on a higher status at some future time, but I am dead against it now before we have had a proper inquiry—and that is what the Minister should consider rather than a Select Committee. We should have an independent inquiry by experts, and I could give him three names right off of three retired principals. I can give him Professor Malherbe, Professor Thom, and Professor MacCrone, three recently retired principals of our great white universities, who should examine by absolutely independent criteria whether or not these university colleges are fit to be promoted to the status of full universities. And I will give him one or two of the criteria which I think they should inquire into: The qualifications of the teaching staff, the achievements in research by staff and students, the achievements of students as post-graduates, and the comprehensiveness and diversification of courses. There is nothing new in these criteria. They were adopted for our white universities, or most of them, in the past before they were converted to the full status of universities. I say that this certainly should be applied to these non-White universities with their small student bodies and their isolated campuses in the case of the African colleges, with not even part-time students to draw on because they are situated far from the urban centres where many more students would come if these universities were situated in the cities. These are not universities like RAU, which has unlimited potentialities for development, which is situated in Johannesburg and which is enormously well-endowed. These are universities which sui generis have limitations because they are so isolated and because there is such an enormous drop-out of the school-going population among the African children, so that such a small percentage ever reaches the matriculation class.

These are the terms of reference I would recommend to a proper Select Committee and I believe that unless we do this, we are not enhancing the status of these university colleges but are lowering it; we might very well be lowering it, because there is the greatest danger that the degrees that these instant universities may confer will not be recognized as the degrees of the existing tribal colleges are recognized, simply because standards are maintained by Unisa. There is the greatest danger that their university degrees will not be recognized overseas for post-graduate studies. That this will jeopardize entirely the status not only of the non-white universities, but also in the end of our white universities is also possible, because there is a tendency for a country’s university standards to be judged as a whole. I say this is a reckless step. It is a step which might deceive the Government, but it does not deceive anybody who knows anything about academic standards or anybody who is able to take an objective view of the existing university colleges.

It has now been my dubious privilege to listen to the hon. member for Houghton. I can only say that it was probably one of the most superficial and irresponsible speeches I have ever heard her make. She carried on to the top of her bent here about the autonomy of a university and tried to create a definition for us of what her impression is of the autonomy of a university. She was not advocating a university in the sense in which we know universities in this country, universities which have to comply with the requirements of that to which they are bound, universities which are directed towards the people, towards the nation and even towards the ethnic groups which they serve. She advocated an international university where all the liberal ideas count and national ties and such factors simply do not count.

The permissive society.

That is precisely what she is advocating. We are used to her giving vent to her feelings on certain matters in the most irresponsible terms. We did not expect her to support this Bill. We did not even expect her to see something good in it. I want to state that if the hon. member for Houghton had risen here this afternoon and welcomed this Bill, my recommendation to the hon. the Minister would have been that we should seriously reconsider our views on it, because there would have to be a mistake with the Bill. She also put forward the argument that this is the final step in severing the bond between the white and the non-white universities—but that break occurred 10 years ago. There is nothing strange about it. It is after all the policy of this Government that we are not going to allow integration at that level either. But to spend my time replying to her speech now would really be to waste precious time, because she and I are not on the same wave-length. We do not even speak the same language. I do not view those matters in the same light, and that is why I shall leave it at that.

The problem of the Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton is that they always want to define concepts such as the autonomy of a university in absolute terms. I want to state now that there is no university in South Africa which is absolutely autonomous: but if we want to accept the concept which the hon. member for Houghton gave us, then we would be reaching out for a situation of anarchy and not of autonomy. In the final analysis the measure of autonomy of any university is determined by economic factors. The more independent an institution is, the greater its autonomy. But because the State in this country contributes plus-minus 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the cost of a student at the university, it is obvious that the university’s autonomy is, to a degree, subject to certain restrictions. The hon. member for Kensington told us the other day that the unit costs of a student at Fort Hare amounted to approximately R1,500 per head, of which the student himself contributed a very slight fraction. Now can it be expected of the Minister, who after all is responsible to this House for the expenditure which is incurred by such a university, to spend public money on a university such as Fort Hare in such a way that he cannot exercise control over it; can he be expected to grant any university so much autonomy that he has no control over the spending of such an institution? The Opposition would be the first people to protest very vociferously if that were the case, and if the hon. the Minister were to come here and state that he had no say over the money which he had given to Fort Hare.

I want to deal with a few arguments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He stated: “The only new principle in this Bill is that the apron-strings are being cut.” That is precisely what the Minister said. Did the hon. Minister suggest anything else in his Second Reading speech? He stated very emphatically that the Government was now granting Fort Hare provincial academic freedom; he was granting them university status. In this Bill we are giving Fort Hare nothing more and nothing less. They are simply obtaining academic independence, in other words, university status. This is true to the principle that we are, in respect of the Bantu, giving them their facilities step by step. We cannot all at once exempt them from all restrictions and from all ministerial intervention. These institutions are being sent in a specific direction for a specific purpose. That is why they were established. That is why the State took them over, It would be foolish if the Minister did not consequently retain his control over such institutions so that he could see to it that the institution did in fact develop in the direction in which he envisaged it should move. I can also mention that provisional academic freedom does not even apply to all the faculties, but only to some. The Bill also makes provision for the abolition of these so-called assessor members in the various faculties.

The hon. member made another statement as well. He said: “The University of Fort Hare is turned into another State Department. There is actually a clause in the Bill empowering the Minister to transfer personnel to other departments.” The hon. member really took leave of the truth in this respect. He created an impression here of something which does not exist in this Bill. Let me read to you what is stated in clause 9, to which he was apparently referring—

Now read the English version.

It reads as follows—

And that is the crux of the entire clause—

[Interjections.] I do not want to go into the technical details now, but the hon. member created the impression here, and he did say this, that Fort Hare is simply another State Department.

But is that not correct?

Where do you read that in this clause? I can just say, for the information of the hon. member, that this clause was inserted into the Bill to make provision for lecturers at the university college of Fort Hare, as has already happened in the past, to be seconded even to other governments. Last year a lecturer at one of these colleges was seconded to the Government of Lesotho in order to assist them and to furnish them with advice. [Interjections.] We can argue about that in the Committee Stage. The fact of the matter is that when these lecturers are employed by the Department they are simply taken off the pay-sheet of Fort Hare and placed on the establishment of the Department. It is very necessary that this should happen because many of these lecturers go to undertake research in State Departments. What is sinister or wrong about this?

The United Party has a habit of seeing everything through the eyes of a white person, and do not realize that when we are dealing with the Bantu we are dealing with people who have only been in contact with universities for a few decades. They must still be trained and brought to maturity for university training. We are engaged in that process. I am mentioning this particularly with reference to their vehement protest at the per capita costs of a student there. From the nature of the case the costs at a Bantu university will be much higher than those at a white university, because these people are not yet ripe for university training. Does the Opposition expect us to get the student at the university first, and then the faculty? Surely it would be foolish to try and attract the students to the university first and then to see to it that the necessary faculties are there. In any institution just the reverse applies. That is, after all, the sensible way of doing things, and if it is in fact done in this way, it must push up the unit costs. But although the Opposition protest so vehemently against the per capita costs at the non-white universities, they complain, through the hon. member for Durban (Berea) about the lack of faculties and courses at these nonwhite universities. Sir, how must we reconcile these two standpoints? The one wants more faculties there, and the other wants a reduction in the unit costs.

As council member of the University College of Fort Hare it is to-day an exceptional pleasure for me to stand up here and to accord my wholehearted support to this measure, which is at present before the House. I believe that I am not only doing so on my own behalf, but also on behalf of my colleagues on the council of the University College. I believe that I am speaking on their behalf when I say that we are grateful for the fact that in this short space of time of 10 years after the take-over of Fort Hare by the State, the quality of the training, the academic skill of the lecturing staff, and the way in which the institution is being controlled and managed, is of such a quality that it justifies the present step by the Government. Not only is it a well-earned status which is being accorded the institution. It is also a tribute to the two rectors who have already served there, namely Professor Ross, who has already retired, and Professor De Wet, the present rector. It is also a tribute to all lecturers and administrative staff who have over a period of years performed academic and administrative work of the highest order there, and have in reality expanded the institution into something which is a credit to the Xhosa nation and a lasting monument to the National Party Government, which took over Fort Hare as an act of faith. To-day we are plucking the fruits of that far-sighted policy which the Government applied at that time.

Sir, you will recall how vehemently the present Opposition opposed the take-over of Fort Hare in 1959. Every means was employed to thwart this well-intended and honest attempt and to cause it to fail. But, thanks to the faith of a small group of enthusiastic, purposeful and dutiful lecturers, they have not allowed themselves to be put off. They performed their task and they are to-day plucking the fruits in that full academic status is being granted to them.

Let us lift the veil slightly, in order to see what the Opposition’s attitude in respect of Fort Hare was in 1959. So vehement was the opposition of the Opposition that they even opposed the notice of motion of the Bill in language and terms which, to say the least, were unbridled. I want to read what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say at the time (Hansard, volume 99, column 1553):

The hon. member for Kensington even admitted during the present debate that he spoke at the time of “the rape of Fort Hare”. But, Sir, he (the hon. Leader), went even further. He said (Hansard, volume 99, column 1565):

In the light of what we are experiencing here to-day, I think it is fair to ask whether those two hon. members still adhere to the statements they made at the time. In the light of what has been accomplished at Fort Hare, I think that those two hon. members …

Where has Fort Hare progressed?

Academically Fort Hare has progressed to such an extent that academic freedom can be granted to it, with the co-operation of the University of South Africa. Now that hon. member is asking the foolish question: “Where has Fort Hare progressed?” I want to make the statement that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kensington owe it to this House to stand up and apologize for the attitude they adopted in 1959. That the Opposition realizes that it made a grave error at the time, and adopted an unpleasant and indefensible standpoint, are proved by the fact that all resistance has disappeared to-day. The best they can do at the moment is to ask for a Select Committee. From the speech by the hon. member for Kensington, who was in fact the main speaker on this matter, one cannot deduce whether they are for or against the principle of the Bill. Not one of those hon. members has as yet given us a well-motivated statement as to why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. During 1959 a Select Committee was appointed to go into the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Bill. At that time already this matter was gone into very thoroughly. Nothing has happened since which should now make it necessary that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee again. Which principles do the Opposition want thoroughly investigated before this Bill can be passed? This Bill which is at present before the House is merely the manifestation of a natural process of evolution. It is namely the natural consequence of what was established in 1959, and what has since been developed and stabilized with dedication and purpose. I am therefore asking the Opposition what more they want to find out by asking for a Select Committee.

We have heard quite a good deal about the senate and the advisory council and the powers which are being granted them. In terms of existing legislation the non-white lecturers at the University College of Fort Hare do not form part of the senate, but let me add at once that those lecturers co-operate very closely with the rector and the other members of the senate. They are consulted on the highest level. There is continual close liaison with these people. They are consulted in regard to everything affecting the welfare and the academic aspect of the students of Fort Hare. The fact that this co-operation does exist there must be seen as one of the factors which contributed to the successful development of the University College of Fort Hare, as we know it to-day. The Government’s standpoint is or has always been—and we make no secret of this—that integrated authoritative bodies cannot be allowed to be established, at any level whatsoever. That is the policy of the Government which runs like a golden thread through its legislation and all its actions. I make so bold as to say that nothing has happened up to now to compel the Government to reconsider this principal standpoint. In fact, experience has shown that this formula is the only one which can be applied successfully where there has to be contact between Whites and non-Whites. Therefore there is no reason for an exception to be made in the case of Fort Hare. All concerned accept it as a sound and sensible arrangement, and even the Bantu members of the staff favour the arrangement. As far as the advisory council is concerned, I must honestly admit that I am very sorry that the hon. member for Kensington spoke about this council the other day in terms which were definitely not flattering. Referring to these people he used the word “humiliating”. I am very sorry that he describes the position in which they find themselves as “humiliating”, because it is anything but that seen from their point of view. I do not think the hon. member was doing these people a favour when he said that. In addition I believe that they will take it very much amiss of him for making this remark if they have an opportunity to do so. The advisory council of Fort Hare consists of a group of Bantu who have the interests of that institution very much at heart. They are in fact making a very valuable contribution to the control and the administration of that institution. I can testify from my own experience that these people are relied on very heavily, not only by the rector, but also by the council. We take very definite cognizance of what happens on the advisory council. Their advice is frequently requested, and many matters are referred to them for comment. I can testify to the fact that we are receiving only the best and most wholehearted co-operation from those people. They appreciate their position and recognize it as a schooling where they can acquire experience in their own time and in their own way of the control and management of institutions of this nature. When it comes to the discipline of students this advisory council plays a very important role. If it had not been for the members of the advisory council who supplied us with competent and mature advice during the recent strikes, there would probably have been far more disturbances on the campus. The advisory council is really affording the Bantu who are interested an opportunity of acquiring experience in his own way and in his own time of the administrative control which such an institution naturally requires.

Separate experience.

I want to know whether those hon. members are opposed to this. If one acquires experience, whether it is separate or integrated, it still remains experience. I cannot see why that hon. member now wants to imply that integrated experience should necessarily be a better article than separate experience. The only experience which is lacking in quality is United Party experience (Sapondervinding). It would be an impossible task at this early stage to afford the advisory council full powers of control over the University of Fort Hare. The ultimate ideal is of course—and this Government makes no secret of this either—that this institution will ultimately be governed by a non-white council, by Bantu who are elected from their own ethnic group. But the time is not yet ripe for that. We are doing these things step by step and when they are ripe for that, the final step will undoubtedly be taken. This standpoint is principally correct and is the only valid standpoint which can lead the Bantu to self-determination in this specialized field as well.

I want to discuss another little matter which was made much of here, namely the number of students at Fort Hare. The statement was made here that these numbers have recently, or since the take-over by the State, decreased to an alarming extent. It is correct that at the take-over there were approximately 450 students registered at Fort Hare. Thirty-five per cent of those students were non-Xhosa. During 1966 this figure decreased as far as 239. But this year a record number of students have been registered, namely 540. This is the largest number of students that have ever been registered at Fort Hare, and this took place in spite of the unsavoury and unpleasant happenings towards the end of last year and the disturbances which took place. This is irrefutable proof that this institution is already being accepted by the Xhosa to an increasing extent as something which is their own, and that they are cultivating a love for it because they realize that the establishment of the facilities is a well-intended and honest attempt on the part of the State to help them to acquire those means which will equip them for the future as well.

I just want to refer to the question of academic independence in regard to which a great deal was said here. The hon. Minister admitted that the academic freedom being granted to this institution was provisional. This is clearly provided in clause 10 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d). But it is not a principle which is applicable in respect of Fort Hare only. It is in fact applicable to the University of Port Elizabeth and the Rand Afrikaans University as well. It has only been inserted there to see to it that the high academic standards are maintained, and that there is uniformity as far as these academic standards are concerned. And, these assessor members on the senate, these people who are brought over from other faculties and institutions in order to serve on the senate of Fort Hare are only there in order to express an opinion on these specific academic matters. Their duties are very clearly defined in the Bill. This does not apply to all faculties either. Only some of the faculties will have to include some of these assessor members in their faculty. The Bill also provides that they can be abolished at any time.

In spite of the Opposition’s attitude, and in spite of the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton, I believe that what we are developing here to-day will be a credit to and a fine edifice for the Xhosa nation, and that it will serve as a monument to indicate to the Xhosa of the future that the National Party Government of the Republic of South Africa was honest and sincere in its intentions towards them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, firstly, to extend to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat my hearty congratulations not only on the excellent speech he has just made, but also to congratulate him personally on being a member of the council of the University of Fort Hare. I congratulate him, together with his other colleagues on that council, on the tremendous contribution they have rendered in the interests of the Xhosa community, and in the interests of South Africa, over the past years. I think that this is appreciated by all the members on this side of the House. I shall not comment on the fact that the hon. members on the other side of the House do not appreciate it. I was really under the impression, after the hon. the Minister had made his Second Reading speech in this hon. House a few days ago, that this Bill would be passed and enacted by this hon. House without any opposition and without more ado. But this did not happen. What did we find? We found tremendous opposition, almost as much as we did ten years ago, except that over the years the pungent language had been toned down to a certain extent. Of course, one is grateful for this.

But if we take the sum-total of the objections raised here by hon. members on the other side of the House, including the hon. member for Houghton, all of it amounts to this, i.e. that these objections are based on points of departure which are not quite correct, and this afternoon I should like to refer to four of those points of departure. The first incorrect point of departure amounts to the fact that, without any grounds for doing so, hon. members are comparing the institutions for which provision is being made in the Bill before the hon. House with similar institutions which exist at our three older universities in South Africa, which have been in existence for more than a century. I am referring to the universities of the Witwatersrand, Cape Town and Stellenbosch. If these hon. members who are objecting to this legislation, had compared these institutions with similar institutions which came into being in the initial years of these older universities, we would at least have been able to say that they had taken a great deal of trouble, even if we would not have agreed with them. Hon. members are going so far as not to compare these institutions with similar institutions of recently established white universities in South Africa either. But they are even going further than that. One of these hon. members made the blunder of saying that in terms of clause 5 the chancellor is elected by the university council, and that the chancellor ought to be elected by the convocation. I am now issuing a challenge to hon. members on the other side of the House. The majority of them were here when this House placed on the Statute Book Act No. 1 of 1964, in terms of which a new university was established in South Africa. In terms of that Act a similar provision was placed on the Statute Book, i.e. that the chancellor be elected by the university council of that university. And now I ask those hon. members whether any of them objected when that Bill was before this House. That Act dealt with the establishment of a white university in our country. No, there they are. They did not raise the slightest objection. It is our intention here to grant a non-white ethnic group the necessary university facilities. In terms of clause 5 we are making provision for the chancellor to be elected by the university council, and according to those hon. members this is supposedly a terribly wrong thing to do.

I say, in the first instance, that the point of departure is wrong because, without having any ground for doing so, they want to compare these important university institutions, as embodied in this university legislation, with and test them against existing institutions at our older white universities in South Africa. Hon. members are also making a second blunder, i.e. that it has never penetrated to them that we are now dealing with the provision of university facilities for an under-developed community. My colleague the hon. member for Cradock said that there was no university in the world which had absolute autonomy. Whereas it is our duty to make available, by way of granting facilities, to an underdeveloped community this precious thing which in colloquial language we call learning and which is referred to as the academic fruit of many years in university language, there must of course be control. If we have a great deal of control at the recently established white universities, there must of course be certain reservations as regards control at this young university for an under-developed community. Hon. members also adopt a third incorrect standpoint. Hon. members are actually advocating directly—but I shall give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they are advocating by implication—for the hand of the Government and consequently the hand of the white man, really, to be withdrawn immediately from the control of these universities, except—and once again I shall give them the benefit of the doubt because they did not say so, but I accept it—that they can find no fault with those representatives who have to serve on the university council and be appointed by the State President. Whose interests do we serve if we advocate something of that nature? Are we serving anybody’s interests? Are we serving the interests of the community for whom this institution is being established, or, whose interests are we serving? I think that if we lend an ear to that, we shall perhaps be serving the interests of three groups, i.e. the Black Sash, the Liberalists and the poor hon. United Party.

They are also adopting a fourth incorrect standpoint. I mention these incorrect standpoints because we shall be arguing and debating with one another in this hon. House until we are blue in the face. As long as the arguments raised by hon. members opposite are based on these incorrect standpoints, we shall get nowhere, surely. As a matter of fact, we are actually dealing here with an ethnic university, and this is no foreign or new institution. In this regard I as an Afrikaner can probably refer with the greatest measure of pride to what Stellenbosch has done for the Afrikaans-speaking community over the years, or to what the Rhodes University meant to our English-speaking frontier farmers in the olden days, in the formative years, or to what the University of Cardiff did for the Welsh, or to what the University of Edinburgh meant to the Scots, or to what Cambridge and Oxford meant to the English in the previous century in making a mighty nation out of them. [Interjection.] If the hon. member over there would listen for a while, he might also be inspired with idealism and then one would perhaps be able to get somewhere with him.

Here we want to grant an under-developed community the privilege of an independent university of its own. We want to do so with certain reservations; none of us deny that. What a major share such an institution could have in bringing about community development in that under-developed ethnic group! Last year the hon. member for Wynberg made a fine speech here on the advantages of community development in our non-White residential areas, and on that occasion I cordially asked her also to convey the ideas she had expressed here more in particular to her fellow caucus members. I believe that she did so, but, really, it has had no effect. Through the creation and establishment of this separate university exclusively for that non-White ethnic group, we have a powerful factor which may contribute to the enhancement of community development in the true sense and the true scope of the word. But this is not noticed, this is not mentioned. The institutions which are being created in terms of the legislation before the House, are simply and blatantly being compared with similar institutions at the three older universities which have been in existence here in South Africa for more than a century.

I regard it as a privilege to be able to support this measure, because in the main principle we see recorded—and I want to put it modestly—the reconfirmation of a university exclusively for a non-white ethnic group. Admittedly, this will be the first of its kind in South Africa. If a person were to ask me why I attach so much importance to the reconfirmation of this main principle in particular, I would say that I have three good reasons for doing so. In the first instance, the Xhosa people do not only have a need for higher education, but also for a university of their own. One will find that any nation and any community has such a major need. It is a fact that in terms of our policy of separate development we require that the necessary facilities and opportunities be granted to our non-white ethnic groups, not only to develop themselves individually, but also to enable them to develop their community. If we do not create those opportunities for them, they will not be in a position to produce their own teachers, their own leaders, their own technicians, their own economists and their own philosophers. If they are not in a position to produce leaders and other people, it will, in addition, not be possible for them to have balanced development in the nation itself in the spheres of agriculture, economics, education and technology.

There is also a second reason why I regard this reconfirmation of this main principle as having so much significance. It has been proved conclusively that amongst underdeveloped nations not only higher education, but also university education can best be provided in separate institutions. In this regard I want to refer to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler on 27.1.1968. This report was in connection with a report by Dr. H. J. van Zyl, the Deputy Secretary for Bantu Education, and reads as follows (translation)—

I think this is a tremendous achievement, and it proves what I have just said.

There is also a third very important reason why I regard the reconfirmation this main principle as having so much significance. This side of the House is convinced that, as circumstances permit, the continued admission of non-Whites to our white universities should be terminated. It is true that this fine fruit for our non-Whites, i.e. to have a university institution of their own, really did not drop from the skies as far as they are concerned. There were, if I may use the metaphor, political natural elements which sought to smother this little fruit before its blossom could really develop. In this debate there have been frequent references to Hansard reports of debates held in 1959 as well as to newspaper reports of those times, and now I think it is a quite reasonable conclusion for us to summarize these political natural elements which sought to destroy this fruit, by saying that they really consist of a triumvirate under the leadership of the United Party. The other two partners were the leftist university graduates and the United Party Press. Their modus operandi was exactly the same as the one followed by hon. members opposite, and this is the same modus operandi which has been followed for the past 20 years whenever we dealt with creative and constructive things in this fine southern country of ours. These three were as follows. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for Simonstown would just keep quiet for a moment we would be able to discuss this presently. Their actions actually had three facets. The first was that they did not only want to make us believe here in the House of Assembly, but also the public outside, including the Bantu population, that this separate university institution was not only unnecessary, but also superfluous. In the second place, in these speeches they made here, they tried to brand these institutions as being inferior. I do not want to repeat it. For instance, they referred to “tribal colleges”. In the third place, they could not really see any good intentions on the part of the Government as regards the establishment of a university college for our non-white ethnic group in the Transkei.

Now the following question arises and I think this is a question which arises in the minds of all hon. members on this side of the House: Is it possible for people who were born and bred in this southern country to be opposed to the establishment of separate university institutions for a non-white ethnic group? Is it possible that there are people who can have such vehement objections to it? Should there not be underlying ideas, should there not be underlying motives if people can go so far as to speak of such a fine institution in such a manner? Surely, this cannot be possible in modern times. Hon. members opposite must not take this amiss of me, but I should say that to a certain extent one has to attribute their actions to political motives. At that time, just as is the case to-day, hon. members opposite actually wanted to advocate academic integration under the cloak of academic freedom. I do not think they should take it amiss of me if I put it this way. The hon. member who is sitting right at the back over there confirmed that here by implication a moment ago. In the second place, ten years ago, just as is the case to-day, hon. members of the United Party were still inspired with the idea of political integration. I do not think that we are moved to anger when we refer to that. Surely, that is the case. After all, hon. members do accept that. After all, it is they who want representatives of certain non-white groups in this white Parliament. How can hon. members support us when we want to establish a separate university for a non-white ethnic group, if they adopt that point of view? These things cannot be reconciled. In the third place—I do not think hon. members should take it amiss of me, because this is the truth—these hon. members have, after all, never lifted a finger to promote social separation in South Africa. On the contrary, they cannot deny that they have hampered every step the Government has taken under difficult circumstances to bring about social separation. I am very sorry that I must refer to that; but now one can understand why they have for ten years consistently proceeded on incorrect assumptions and opposed essential institutions, such as a separate university for the Xhosa nation. This has been the case simply because there are political motives behind it. The course the confirmation of this principle has followed over the years, has not only been a difficult one, but actually a tragic one as well; because under the guidance of hon. members opposite and their partners not only confusion, but also frustration was aroused in the minds of Bantu students and prospective students. Fortunately for our relations problem some of those partners have now disassociated themselves from this point of view and one no longer hears of them. They actually stand alone in this regard, except that whenever we deal with matters of this nature, “old faithful”, the hon. member for Houghton, faithfully stands by them.

Then she is in her element once again. *

Then she is in her element for then she has once again found spiritual and political stable-companions. Confusion and frustration were not only aroused in the minds of students, but also in the minds and in the hearts of the parents of those students. But, what is more, the enemies of South Africa were also unnecessarily and groundlessly supplied with political ammunition. Hon. members opposite have now asked my colleague from Cradock what progress has been shown. That is why it was a privilege to me to thank him. In spite of the United Party, in spite of all this incorrect political ammunition that was made available to the world, in spite of the frustration that was aroused in the hearts of students and parents, that hon. member, his colleagues, the hon. the Minister and the Government saw to it that the University College of Fort Hare developed, prospered and grew. In terms of this Bill we are to-day establishing the first independent university for a non-white ethnic group.

To me the legislation before the House also embodies a second very important main principle. Actually, I can say this was already envisaged in terms of sections 21 and 22 of the Act of 1959, i.e. the fact that Fort Hare is also gaining its academic independence now. The matter was debated at great length. Many requirements were laid down for academic independence. But it does, after all, amount to this, i.e. that there are two important reasons why this step can be taken. In 1960, for instance, there were 360 students, including Indians, Coloureds and Bantu. Last year there were 451 Bantu students. Compared to the numbers of the older universities of the world, this university is probably not a very large one; but if one looks at this in the light of the history of our own white universities, it is a considerable number. Many of our older white universities had small enrolments in their lean years. As far as staff is concerned, this university can insist on academic independence, because the staff have proved that they can comply with academic requirements.

The legislation before the House also embodies a third important principle. In respect of each faculty one or more persons of a corresponding faculty at another university will be appointed as members of the senate, with academic duties only. As it was also put by the hon. member for Cradock, this is the customary formula which has recently been devised in respect of the establishment of young universities in South Africa; because this implies the guarantee that a high standard will be maintained.

In conclusion, this university is merely another of the fruits we reap along the difficult course we have to follow in order to provide separate development for our people. But just as we did not pay any notice to the obstacles that were placed in the way of the Government, so the hon. the Minister, the Government and the council of that university proceeded with their task, and this independent university will be established shortly.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the two consecutive speeches by the hon. members for Cradock and Port Elizabeth (Central). The hon. member for Cradock went to great lengths and spent a considerable amount of time, explaining why this academic freedom had now been earned by the University College of Fort Hare. He spoke with great feeling of his own experience on the council. Without going into the merits as to whether or not this academic freedom in fact is contained in the Bill before us, he felt that the college was entitled to academic freedom. But he was immediately followed by his colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), who even moved a motion of thanks and congratulations to his colleague sitting on that side of the House. Then he proceeded at great length to explain why the autonomy had to be curtailed, why it was not real and complete, because we are establishing a university for an underdeveloped people. Now which is the argument? Does this complete academic autonomy exist, or is it a controlled, restricted autonomy, because we are dealing, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said, with an underdeveloped section of the population? But that is the type of argument we hear. Then we have diversion upon diversion far away from the question of education, which is before us at the present time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) seems to suggest that all other factors and all other considerations, educational, practical and financial, must go by the board. We must now as a House agree to the establishment of a separate university for the Xhosa people, just because it is in keeping with the Government’s policy of separate development. Let me concede immediately that the idea of a separate university for the Xhosa people might be an ideal, but it is as real an ideal as was admitted by the hon. the Prime Minister, when he said that total separation is merely an ideal, a direction, and not a policy, because it is unattainable.

I want to suggest to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) that we need to take another look at the whole concept of education which is basic to this Bill which is before us this afternoon. I think this Bill gives an opportunity to the House to have another look at non-white education leading up to the necessity for the establishment of this particular university. There are many facets to this problem—and, Sir, let us not mince words; it is a problem with which we in South Africa are faced, namely the extension of civilization through education to our non-white people—facets which have been considered before but which are worthy of reconsideration after a lapse of time, as we are doing in this Bill; we are virtually reconsidering what was debated and discussed here ten years ago. This Bill also presents the opportunity to deal with the facets on which decisions are required in so far as they pose new problems. I think we have an opportunity here to look at the whole problem on the basis first of all, of considering priorities; secondly, we have the opportunity of evaluating the cost of any planning which this House approves; thirdly, of evaluating the achievements in the line of nonwhite education up to university level and, fourthly, to do some planning for the future. Sir, I want to suggest that there is no urgency in this matter; that there is no reason why an urgent decision should be taken to-day ox to-morrow as to whether the constitution of the University College of Fort Hare is to be changed. There is no urgency. There are many white universities that have had to exist and develop over a period of 30 years, and they have not suffered as a result. We come here to-day to discuss Bantu university colleges which have existed for a mere ten years and which have had to be constructed from rock bottom. Now suddenly there is a great urgency to get this legislation through the House and to make these decisions. Sir, I stress the fact that I believe that there is no urgency and I stress the reasonableness of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, an amendment which asks that a Select Committee should be appointed, a committee which will give us the opportunity of gathering the facts, of consulting others, of obtaining opinions and of planning and looking at the many facets of university education which need to be considered. Sir, I have mentioned the question of priorities and the necessity to consider these priorities. There are many matters which require consideration and reconsideration, and the mere establishment of a university certainly requires that we must look at the infra-structure of education at the lower levels to see first of all whether there is a need for the university, what the demand is going to be on that university from students or available students and in what time and over what period of time that is going to happen. Sir, I wonder whether any member in this House knows exactly how many Xhosa children there are in the different standards at the present time in Bantu schools; how many Zulu children there are at school; how many Venda children there are; how many Tswana children there are and how many children of other ethnic groups are at school today. I do not think that information is available. I do not think it is available in respect of any group.

I can give you that information.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister can give it to me, then I say it is an extraordinary achievement because it was not available a matter of a few months ago.

I can give it to you for the universities.

That is a different matter. The point I am trying to make is that if a university is to be established for the Xhosa people, then I think it is essential to know what number of Xhosa children are at school, how many are reaching secondary education and what the facilities there are for expansion so that we will then know what sort of university is going to be required. Sir, then there is also this important aspect, and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will be good enough to pass this on to the Minister so that we can hear more about this: In setting up the infra-structure for the education for the Bantu people, is the Government’s attitude aimed at extending elementary literacy to the greatest number, in other words, to see how many children can get basic literacy, or is it directed towards conventional education with secondary and higher education being provided for selected persons. The answers to these questions must influence one’s approach to this Bill. When one looks at the position of primary education amongst the Bantu people—and I say again that I do not know how many of the various ethnic groups fall into this category—one finds that the numbers of Bantu children receiving primary education in South Africa has increased and we are all grateful for that. The figure as at the 1st of June, 1967, was 1,889,046 children. Let us assume that at the present time there are 2,000,000 in schools. But, Sir, one must then analyse to what extent they remain at school; one must see what the wastage is. That basic figure is a fairly satisfactory one but when one analyses the standards at which the children leave school, one finds that there is a considerable wastage and that there seems to be a pattern. One finds that of the Bantu children attending school approximately 70 per cent do not go beyond St. II.

The explanation is obvious.

Yes, because the infra-structure is not there; there are not the teachers; and because there are economic factors. But what I am trying to get at is this.

What about the human factor?

I am not arguing about that. We have to face this fact. This has happened in the case of our white children. We had this problem with white children and it is a problem which still faces us and that is to keep children at school to the maximum of their ability to benefit by schooling. They leave too soon; they go into the labour market and there are all sorts of reasons. This is happening amongst the Bantu children. We find that .1 per cent of Bantu attending school are in Form V, the equivalent of matriculation standard. If that is so, where do we give our priorities: To extending the universities or looking into the building up of education at this particular school level? Where do we spend the money that is available—on extending the universities or finding ways and means whereby we can uplift the general standard of education of the Black people? I believe we must be realistic. Sir, how many matriculants are there, for instance, amongst all the Bantu ethnic groups? One thinks of matriculants as being the source of university students. In 1967 there were 485 matriculants in the whole of the Republic and of those 485 a mere 125 had mathematics qualifications. When I talk about matriculants, I mean matriculants or people who have passed the Senior Certificate with university exemption. There are others who pass Std. X but they do not qualify for admission to university. Surely these figures which I have indicated show a position which needs reconsideration.

Sir, I think at this stage I must be clear and refer back to the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg. There have been certain other remarks as well as to the attitude of this side of the House. The hon. member for Cradock quoted portions of the debate which took place here; the hon. member for Waterberg quoted extracts at various times in the course of his speech but, Sir, I want to make our position clear because it is our attitude to-day on this side of the House. The amendment which was moved by my hon. Leader on the 26th February, 1959, read as follows (col. 1553)—

Sir, we did not want to have Fort Hare demoted, and what is the purpose of the Bill before us to-day? To restore, according to hon. members on the other side of the House, academic freedom to Fort Hare. That is what we asked them to retain in 1959 but which they took away, and now they tell us that they are putting it back. Then I want to go on to quote what my hon. Leader said. He said—

Sir, that is our position to-day and that is why we say that these matters must be discussed. There is no great urgency in this matter, and that is why we feel that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I want to go further. I think we appreciate in this country and in this House that the cost of education is a heavy burden, and because of the economic conditions in this country the cost of civilizing and educating our non-white people is a burden which must fall on the white South Africans who are in a position to finance that education. But, Sir, that does not mean that money must be spent extravagantly because it is being spent in the cause of education. What is the position at the moment? We are being asked now to support a Bill to establish one university for the Xhosa people—we know that the other Bills are still coming—when we find that the total enrolment in the university colleges at the end of 1967 was 1,305. Sir, that is not one-sixth of the number of students at one white university, and we are now faced with the proposal to create three separate universities. I accept that the Minister’s intention is to allow these university colleges to go right up the whole scale of independence and autonomy eventually, if they are not there now, but, Sir, is it right that we should do this?

Let us look at the amount of money spent on these three universities. The amount of money spent in 1967-’68 on these three university colleges totalled R3,075,158; that is both from the Bantu Education Account and from Loan Account. The cost—and this is the average—on Loan Account and the Education Account was R2,356 per student, for one year. And how many graduates were there? There were 114 with degrees and 100 with diplomas. Take Fort Hare alone. In 1967-’68 there was spent on Fort Hare from the Bantu Education Account, R784,642, and from Loan Account R340,739, making a total of R1,125,381 for an enrolment of what? Four hundred and thirty-six students. Sir, are we being unrealistic, are we being unreasonable when we say that this is something in which we must not be hasty; that we must look to see how we can best discharge our responsibility to the non-white people, and that we must not be wasteful. My point is simply this: The Government has got to the stage that at this moment there are three Bantu university colleges, and this is the cost. If the hon. the Deputy Minister takes time to think over this, is it not possible—I am not here to give the answer and that is why we feel that this matter should be investigated—that one of these institutions can be retained as a university, in the proper sense, for the Bantu people, and that the other two might well be used to bolster and to assist and to develop the lower standards and the lower grades of education and technical education?

If that education is not being provided, then there is no development. 465 Matriculants cannot provide professional classes for the millions of Bantu, and until you have that matriculant class among the Bantu it is nonsense to talk about setting them on the road to separate development. I say that if the Government is sincere, that is where it should look to the development of education. We must build up a mass from whom the brighter ones can come to the top and become the leaders. It is necessary whether we have separate development leading to total separation or not, because the white population cannot for all time provide the know-how and the knowledge and the professional classes for the whole of the population. We already find that in various walks of life the non-Whites have to take more and more responsibility. They are taking over jobs which were previously done by white people. Our responsibility is to find out what are the priorities. Is the priority to say that we have created a marvellous university for the Xhosa people, when below there is a great void between Std. 2 and the matriculant? Those are the matters which make me urge hon. members opposite to consider again even at this late stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister must concede that there is no urgency about this change. There will still be five students to one member of the teaching staff, whether they are turned into universities this year, next year or the year after.

There is surely an urgency on the road to development.

Yes, there is an urgency to give attention to the development of the education of the non-white people, but not as regards putting up an edifice or an institution whereby there is a wastage of money which can better be spent in other spheres of education. I stand by what was said by my leader in 1959. Education is important, but I say to-day that there is no need to rush through legislation of this sort without a proper investigation and a proper re-assessment of the priorities within the field of nonwhite education. I believe we must do what is practicable. As I say, we do not wish on this side of the House to deny to the Bantu, who is capable of absorbing the education, real and sufficient facilities for university education. We need them. One only has to look at the health services. The Deputy Minister knows how far health planning and hospital services can go in the Transkei—exactly nowhere, because there are fewer Bantu doctors being educated to-day than there were 10 years ago. Until we have built that infra-structure of education, we will never be able, either under the Government’s plan of separate development or under the system of communal councils, to hand over responsibility of this nature to the Bantu. It is for that reason that I believe we need time and we should take time to consider an important matter like this; if this Bill is passed and this House agrees that there is to be a university for the Xhosa nation, then even if the wastage of money is enormous the Government will be bound to carry on and create two more universities and there will be no turning back, whatever the cost to the taxpayers. When once this Bill is accepted, there will be no turning back and the further two universities will have to be established. For those reasons I trust that the Minister, during the time that is still available to him for deliberation, will see the wisdom of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington and will see to it that this Bill goes to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Here we have now once more heard the real old United Party mentality, the real old United Party arguments. When I was a young boy, I was always told that the old political tactics of their previous leader Gen. Smuts, were always to “let things develop”, and here we have heard it again to-day. They said, “there is no urgency”. And that is how it has been with every step taken by this National Government to ensure the survival of the Whites here and to give the non-Whites a rightful place in South Africa. There has always been the argument: “There is no urgency; let things develop.” When we had the Group Areas Act and the Physical Planning Act before the House, in order that the non-Whites might take their rightful places, and to safeguard the survival of the Whites, we heard those arguments from them. We do not know when the day will come when they will also want to see advance planning being done by means of legislation in order to make conditions safe for us here.

The hon. member came along with arguments that the numbers at the non-white universities did not justify it. We should now first take care of primary and secondary education, and when there are sufficient numbers, we can establish universities. What a foolish argument! Now I wonder: He probably wants the stage to be reached where we have a few thousand matriculants—he did not say whether it should be 50,000 or 100,000—and then provision must be made for university training. Is that what the hon. member wanted? I can understand their feelings on the Opposition side because they have never had a feeling for that which is their own. They have never had a feeling of nationalism; they have not even felt pro-South African. If one does not have that feeling, or one has no national sentiments, one cannot understand the sentiments of another population group either. Therefore, neither do they understand that feeling of pride, that self-respect, which the non-white has for himself. Neither do they want to understand that by this legislation a feeling of national pride and self-respect will be cultivated in the Bantu. I can understand their feelings, because with the introduction of the Extension of University Education Act in 1959 it was proposed and promised that the non-white colleges, which were originally to be State institutions, would gradually develop to greater independence, and eventually into fully-fledged universities. With the introduction of this Bill to afford independence for Fort Hare, we once more have proof of the sincerity of this Government in keeping its promises.

As the National Party has placed the various non-white groups on the road to self-determination, it is now also doing so in the field of education and higher education. Through the history of each nation there runs a golden thread of development based on the facilities which are created to develop each nation, and the need has also arisen among our non-white people. With its honest application of the policy of separate development, the National Government has kept its word and is providing for the needs of those non-Whites. I say that therefore I can understand their feelings. They realize, and they also know that the proof is there, that the policy of separate development is succeeding in all aspects. They realize that what they talk about such a lot is not an illusion, since the National Government proposed fully-fledged universities for the Bantu and it is now becoming a reality. I can understand their feelings, because this is only sour grapes for them. They are disheartened people because every day they see the policy of the National Party being carried out and succeeding and over against that they see themselves being broken down and exposed and wasting away. We can understand their feelings, because they are sourmouths (bitterbekke).

Order! To whom is the hon. member referring?

To the United Party members.

That is not a Parliamentary expression. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but I want to say they have a bitter taste in their mouths because they realize that the Whites and the non-Whites are realizing more and more that their future and their welfare lie with the policy of this Government.

As their chief speaker, the hon. member for Kensington ushered in this debate from their side. He is quite an old man whom I respect, and I listen to him quite gladly, but I want to tell him that he is really doing the Bantu a disservice by the mocking and ridiculing manner in which he spoke here of the institution which is the beginning of fine and great things for the Bantu. He reeled off clause after clause here without any real arguments, and throughout he was merely engaged in ridiculing this legislation. I regret that the hon. member is not here, but I want to tell him that in carrying on in that way no good relationships will be cultivated between the Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. He referred here to clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, which deal with the appointment of the chancellor, the vice-chancellor, with the composition of the senate, the council and the advisory council of a university, and he even made the remark that the Minister now had a hold on this university as never before. He even made the reprehensible insinuation that the Minister of Bantu Administration was aspiring to the chancellorship of that university. I do not know who the hon. the Minister is going to appoint on that council, but I do know that who ever he is going to appoint, the appointment will be made with a view to development, not to domination.

Every University which has thusfar been established in South Africa has come into being as a result of certain circumstances and needs. We think of the University of Potchefstroom, where a need existed with the Dutch Reformed Church for such a university, and we think of the geographic circumstances responsible for the establishment of the University of the Free State, and of the needs of the Afrikaner which lead to the establishment of the RAU in Johannesburg. But I also know this, that each of those institutions began on a small scale, and each time the State must make laws and intervene to assist those universities. And since the Bantu community is not yet at that stage of development as to be mature enough to provide their own development, initiative and guidance, the Government is now coming along with this Bill. Here the State is now coming along as guardian of the Black man and seeing to it that an institution is established for them where they can be placed on a higher level than ever before, so that this university can begin on a much more comprehensive level than many of our own institutions. I know what I am talking about. My own son attends the Rand Afrikaans University, and I know how they made a start last year with very few facilities. But it demanded perseverance, and that is what we have in the Bantu. The need is there. If we now put a spoke in their wheel, how can we expect those universities ever to develop further. When the State begins with an institution under these circumstances, it must also guide it in the right direction. Such an institution must initially be strictly controlled. But when the time is ripe I believe that the white council and senate will no longer be necessary and that the non-whites themselves will be able to take over that council and senate.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Opposition realizes how few non-white professors and lecturers are available. That is the reason why Whites are being depended upon initially for the council and also for the senate. It is stupidity to claim that we do not find the same circumstances in any other university in South Africa. It is only because white professors and lecturers are available that the councils and senates of the white universities consist of Whites. However, I believe that as the white professors and lecturers are replaced by non-whites, the non-Whites will also gradually take over the senate. Therefore it is necessary to realize that this Bill is aimed at development, not at a poor type of institution as the Opposition wants to claim.

The decline in respect of numbers was spoken of disparagingly. This is again typical United Party arithmetic. One of the Opposition members who spoke recently said that there was now a total of 1,305 non-white students attending universities. I think it a very fine achievement. It is tremendous progress. Or did they want the numbers to be the same as those in respect of our white universities?

Complaints were made about the composition of the council, the appointment of the rector and the election of the chancellor, I now want to ask the Opposition whether they would have had any objection if the hon. the Minister appointed Mandela to that council. Would they have had any objection if Bram Fischer were to have been rector of that university? If that were the case, they would not have had objections to a State-controlled institution, where the State President or the hon. the Minister makes the appointments. They would not have had any objection if one of them had been chosen. If I now run my eye over those hon. members, I do not know whom I would choose. I do not know whether I would elect the hon. member for Transkei, Port Natal or Durban (Point). Why does the hon. member for Transkei look at me now as if he really has aspirations in that direction? Sir, that is what they want. They want institutions which they can use for political ends. They want persons there who can incite people against the Government and who will impair the good relationships between non-Whites and Whites here in South Africa.

Then mention was also made of what it costs to run Fort Hare. I agree that it costs a great deal to run that institution. Now I want to ask him a question in connection with what it cost to get the Rand Afrikaans University going last year. Was that expenditure justified, with a view to the number of students they had initially? Or ought that project also to have been shelved? They are now silent. The need existed for the Rand Afrikaans University, just as there is a need for the non-white universities. That is why these facilities are now being created for the non-Whites. It is said that Fort Hare does not provide for all fields of study and that the full range of courses are not offered there. What a ridiculous argument! I know that there are many courses which the Rand Afrikaans University and the University of Port Elizabeth do not offer yet. I wonder if those hon. members know that some of our oldest universities in South Africa, for example the University of Gape Town, the University of Stellenbosch and the University of the Witwaterstand do not even offer courses in pharmacy. The University of the Orange Free State does not even have a course in medicine yet. Now mention is made of the fact that Fort Hare cannot offer the full range of courses. Why do hon. members not complain about the fact that the University of Gape Town does not offer a course in pharmacy, or that the University of the Orange Free State does not offer a course in medicine? Surely that is a foolish argument. But we know that in the years to come, as progress and development take place, provision will in fact be made for more courses. Or do those hon. members want provision to be made now for all fields of study? Must provision now be made at Fort Hare for a course in engineering and in medicine? Let us hear from them. They must please merely say “yes” or “no”. Do they now want courses in all fields of study? You see, Sir, now they just sit. They do not want to reply. They now have forebodings. They do not want to reply and one can never understand their method of reasoning. On the one hand they complain about the tremendous costs and on the other hand they want more courses. Then again they want to spend too much money there.

That is not what the Bill is about.

I also want to ask: If clause 21 was not in this Bill and if this legislation made provision for Font Hare to be an open university, would they then have had objections? Do they now want white students to be allowed at Fort Hare? I repeat my question.

Do you want Bantu at Stellenbosch?

No, answer my question now. I put a question to the hon. member. Let the hon. member now say “yes” or “no”. Do you see, Sir? They do not want to reply. They are afraid to reply because they are repeatedly caught out. I just want to remind the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just put a counter-question, of what he said in 1959. The hon. member was then already a United Party member. He was already on the wrong track then. At that time he said (Hansard, vol. 100, col. 3233)—

That is now Fort Hare, about which it is said, inter alia—

Does the hon. member still say so?

Helen said that.

No, it was the hon. member for Orange Grove. Now the hon. member does not want to say whether he still advocates it. Now he is dumb and does not want to answer. We know the hon. members, Mr. Speaker. They oppose this Bill today on the same grounds as they opposed the Bill of ten years ago when they wanted a university so that they could obtain a hot-bed for agitators. It is a pity that the hon. member for Houghton is not in the House at the moment.

She is here, but she is sitting in the Senators’ bay.

The hon member for Houghton is at least honest, because she said that she would like provision to be made for white students at this University of Fort Hare. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may not make interjections from the gallery.

Last year, with the student demonstrations in Johannesburg, the hon. member for Houghton was the general who commanded them there. One afternoon I went to have a look at how things were going and saw how the hon. member for Houghton walked up and down between them there. The United Party members were once more in the background and too afraid to make any comment. When the danger was passed, the hon. member for Hillbrow—we know, do we not, that the hon member aspires to the leadership of his party—forestalled the official leader of the United Party and said to the students that it was a good thing that they had not taken part in the procession, because it would only have caused trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by congratulating the hon. the Minister on the introduction of this Bill whereby the hon. the Minister not only gives proof of the Government’s sincerity and good intentions, but is also creating an institution which the Bantu can be proud of. It is an institution which the Bantu can regard as their own and in which the Bantu can train individuals from their own ranks, thinkers, educationists, professional and technical people, thereby making them of service to their own community.

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to this debate for a long time and the United Party has had ample time to advance valid reasons for their not wanting to support this Bill. I say “ample time”, particularly when I also consider the many hours taken up by hon. members on that side of the House in 1959 when the basic principle on which we are now developing this Bill, was discussed here. When we reach the end of this debate and the hon. members of the United Party have had their say, there will be a large number of hon. members on this side of the House who would have liked to have participated in this debate. However, this discussion will come to an end and then hon. members of the United Party will still not have told us exactly what the basic problem is which they have in regard to this Bill.

A great many grounds and arguments were advanced by the United Party in 1959, and the question with which I am faced, is whether those arguments are as valid to-day as they were in that debate. If this is the case, it is up to the United Party to come forward and debate those points. In the course of the discussion at the time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia (translation)—

We must remember what the hon. the Leader said on that occasion. At a later stage he also said that these universities would only be a State-controlled school for higher education of some sort or other. I want us to bear these thoughts in mind when we think of the arguments advanced by hon. members in the course of this debate.

The hon. member for Peninsula said that university apartheid would lead to a lower standard of education. Now I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it was not to be expected, after all these and many other instances of suspicion-mongering amidst which the principal Act was passed and the university colleges had to be established, that they would struggle initially? After all, right from the beginning there was a deliberate attempt on the part of that side of the House to prevent these university colleges from getting into their stride.

In that debate, and also in this afternoon’s debate, a great deal was said about needs. According to the Opposition it had first to be proved that there was a need for such universities or university colleges. But what is the criterion employed by hon. members opposite for determining those needs? Who has to determine these needs? The hon. member for Green Point called attention to the small number of pupils enrolled at these schools. Other members called attention to the small numbers of students enrolled at university colleges, and the hon. member for Green Point also asked, “What is the hurry with such a university?” The hurry with this is that we have to make up a backlog which was created by the United Party before 1948. [Interjections.] Yes, you are told this repeatedly and it hurts. Now, 21 years later, they are prepared to remain where they were in 1948, i.e. to say that there is no need for such a university as there are too few matriculated non-Whites.

Do you still remember how you attacked us in regard to the education we provided? *

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make his speech on his own time. A number of direct questions have already been put to the hon. member for Transkei. My argument is that hon. members opposite want to make us believe that there is no gravity in regard to this matter. When we look at the numbers by which the students at those colleges have already increased, I want to ask those hon. members whether they do not think that this is a good start. The non-Whites of the various ethnic groups must eventually be given those people who will be able to lead them when they eventually need leaders. Mention is made here of border area development and everything that is coupled with it. Where are the qualified and academically-equipped people to come from to lead the non-white groups, and here the Bantu in particular, if the hon. member for Green Point contents himself with his claim that there is no hurry with it? What is involved here, is also the quality and content of the courses. The hon. member for Orange Grove made a speech here in 1959—I was not in the House at the time, but I can imagine how he flung his arms about when he asked for this—about the content of the courses, what was to be taught and what was not to be taught. In this debate we have not heard a single remark from one single hon. member opposite in regard to the content of these courses. Not one of them told us that there was something in one of those courses which ought not to be taught. The hon. member for Houghton was the only one to refer to the content of courses, but I assume that she did not speak on behalf of the United Party. She asked that something should at least be taught in regard to “race relations”. We know what she thinks and we can understand it, but the United Party did not tell us what they considered was actually lacking in the courses that are offered.

We see that these university colleges have grown consistently. We know that this growth is not rapid, for there are few matriculants. The idea that they have to look after themselves, that they also have to sacrifice their own people to study and consequently to be able to carry out specific functions and to be academically qualified, should steadily be fostered amongst the non-Whites, amongst the Bantu in particular. We are also engaged in this process. Those hon. members say that there is no hurry with it. What could we expect from the other side of the House? At that time they did not only mention the nine points which the hon. member for Kensington held before us a few days ago. The hon. member for Kensington mentioned to us nine points which were taken from the minority report at the time, but he neglected to mention to us all the points which hon. members opposite, of whom some are still left, mentioned to this House as reasons why this whole matter was doomed to failure. Not one of those points was brought to our notice, and nobody pointed out to us the nature of the failures which would, allegedly, already have been apparent at these university colleges. It is not the function of the National Party or of the Government to emphasize these successes that have been achieved. We spell success with one word and that is with this Bill which is before this House at the moment. To us this is proof of the faith we have in this university college and of the successes we have already achieved there. Mr. Speaker, we expect the United Party to furnish us with a reply in regard to each of these aspects, but this is not being done. I should like to ask them whether they are prepared at least to give us this undertaking that they will rectify these aspects if they should come into power—I do not know when that would be. I am aware that in respect of certain other matters the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that there were things which one simply could not throw into reverse gear. But, after all, they think that they are going to come into power soon; let us challenge them by saying, “Suppose you do come into power very soon—let us assume that this would be within the next 80 years—would you send these non-white students back to white universities? Would you do that?” Apparently they prefer not to listen; they are doing what they usually do when the hon. member for Umlazi speaks, for they do not like listening to him either. They turn their backs on him.

The main emphasis in the speech made by the hon. member for Kensington was placed on the idea of the ineffectiveness of the control, the organization and the constitution of this university college. The hon. member concentrated on the question of the autonomous power of the university councils, the advisory councils, and so forth. Because the Government must accept the sole responsibility for making something of the non-Whites, I must tell the hon. Opposition that we do not intend applying methods here which will afford the Opposition the opportunity of misappropriating the money which is being made available by the Government for this development. It is the Government’s intention to implement separate development. Since the development of these university colleges forms part of that policy, we are not ashamed to admit this. The hon. members opposite are afraid to admit openly here that they do not want integration, or they are afraid to admit that here at an inopportune moment. Perhaps they are also afraid to admit that they are also accepting a measure of separate development now, because, as you see Mr. Speaker, they will soon have to use these standpoints at elections again, as they did at Newcastle recently. They do not know exactly what to say at the moment, and that is why they are trying to divert attention from it. They are speaking here about organization and administration, about academic freedom and about the curricula which will allegedly be upset because there will not be sufficient autonomy in the hands of the university council and the advisory council of the university. I should like to put this question to the hon. members opposite: What would they like this university council, as it is to be constituted in terms of this Act, to do which it cannot do in terms of this proposal as it is embodied in legislation? Do they propose to change curricula? Does the U.P. propose to effect deliberate changes in regard to the staff and all sorts of other aspects and so to hamper the entire development of these independent universities? Or do they, by doing that, merely want to create the impression that they have achieved a slight breakthrough into the policy of the Government? No, Mr. Speaker, I think the United Party is merely using this legislation to play a game. They dare not say anything, for they do not know what the repercussions would be in regard to another matter.

What does the Government envisage with this development of independent universities? We are definitely not afraid to say that the Government believes that these universities must produce people who will be able to benefit and be of use to the ethnic community or the group whose interests they must serve. The product of the university must fertilize and enrich that community. What we envisage, is not that the product of that university should come to white areas in order to bear some sort of fruit here. We want this to happen in their own area. That is why we believe that the university will have to develop in accordance with modern requirements so as to serve that community. As we see the matter, the university must become a cultural centre for the people in that particular community in which it is situated. Because we put it this way and because we are honest enough to say it and to admit it, the United Party finds it difficult to accept it, as these things which we are advocating are not conducive to integration, and this is the policy of the United Party. If the United Party’s policy were implemented, we would be allowing them, by means of this method by which they would do it, to drive in the thin end of the wedge as far as integration is concerned. The National Party has no intention whatever of affording them that opportunity. When we vote funds for the development of these universities, we are responsible to the electorate. The idea expressed by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. that we are wasting money since the time is not ripe, does not deter us at all; nor does it deter the electorate outside.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, i.e. to refer this matter to a Select Committee, is nothing but an attempt to gain a little time for themselves. They hope that at a later stage they shall once again be able to debate this matter. They want to gain time because at this stage they have nothing more to say in this regard. If I think of what the hon. member for Green Point in particular had to say in this regard, I want to tell the United Party that we, the Government, seriously doubt whether they are really in earnest about equipping the Bantu academically. Is your real concern the fact that a university may develop which will perhaps not attain the standard of an Oxford, a Stellenbosch or a Wits? Or are you perhaps concerned about the fact that the effect of this university will hamper your integration policy?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down did not talk about this Bill. He wanted to say something and he wanted to go on and on saying it because he wanted to believe it. What did he go on saying? That we were opposing this Bill because we wanted integration.

That is the reason.

You see, Sir, there we have a Deputy Minister agreeing with him. He echoes these words. The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know why this hurry, why cannot we have a select committee, why cannot we in fact examine this matter properly, why cannot we examine it with thoughts a little more sober and a little nearer than the ground than the thoughts expressed by hon. members on that side of the House. The answer of the hon. member for Westdene was that “we have to make up the leeway”. But there are ways in which we can make up the leeway and there are ways in which we should not make up that leeway. The way this Government in this Bill proposes to make up the leeway is just to say suddenly that this is now a university—and then we have made up the leeway. You pass a law, you call the institution concerned a university so that by force of law it is called a university, therefore you have made up the leeway, it is now a university Q.E.D. [Interjection.] Of course that is the attitude.

You do not believe that yourself.

Of course I believe it, I would not say this if I did not believe it. First of all there is the admission that there is a leeway. The hon. member for Berea gave us the figures as to the number of Bantu who go to school and matriculate. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned this again. .1 per cent of those who go to school matriculate. Then you have the situation that there are so few of them there that you have a ratio of teachers at Fort Hare of 4.15 to one student, at the University College of the North the ratio is 6.8 to one, and in Zululand 4.7 to one. This emphasizes the very point that has been made by hon. members on this side, and that is to say: Why is there all this hurry if that is all you have to deal with at this stage? Surely there are better ways of dealing with a situation like this, but this is absolutely typical of the Government. The hon. member said I do not believe what I said, but let me tell him I do. In the time that I have been here, I have seen more often than not the Government try to resolve its difficulties by giving something a name. Call a place a university and then it is a university, call people citizens and then they are citizens, call places homelands and then they are homelands. This is the whole process, this is what they always do, but this resolves absolutely nothing at all.

Why do you think we call you “Sappe”—it is an excellent name.

If that hon. member were to look at this Bill he might understand what we are talking about.

The hon. member also says that independent universities are part of their policy and they are not ashamed to say so. What is this? They call it a university, but is it an independent university? Of course not, and had he listened to his colleagues he would have heard all the various things they said about why they have not given it full status. Then he talks about academic freedom. What do these hon. gentlemen know about academic freedom? Look at their history, look at the history of the Government in relation to academic freedom. What academic freedom is there than can be envisaged or allowed by this Government that is not this Government’s concept of what your particular education should be. Do you remember the Education Act, Sir? The provinces could not be trusted with our education, only this Government. Only in the hands of the Executive responsible to this House could this ever be done. [Interjections.] All right, let me then ask the hon. member, if there is really this sort of freedom, how this council will exercise its powers under this Bill. The hon. member said the council in this Bill will have the same powers as a council that he might want to propose. That is true. But how will they exercise those powers? What sort of thoughts will they have, and how enlightened or otherwise are they going to be? We have an example already as to what they are going to be, in the shape of what they have been in the past.

You are just being suspicious.

All right, let me read the names of the members nominated to the council of Fort Hare at this moment. The names were given in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kensington in this House on the 4th of March. Let us have a look at the names. We have Professor P. F. D. Weiss, who is also the chairman. Then there are Professor J. J. Gerber, Dr. C. H. Badenhorst, Professor J. de W. Keyter, Professor S. P. Olivier, Professor G. van N. Viljoen, and then there is an English name here, Dr. G. de V. Morrison, M.P., who is the Afrikaans-speaking member for Cradock. Then there are also Professor A. Coetzee, Professor G. C. Coetzee, Professor J. A. van Heerden, the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development ex officio, and so on.

What is your point?

I thought the point was obvious from the names.

They are all academic people.

Yes, but from where do these hon. gentlemen come?

From Stellenbosch.

Yes, that hon. member knows, they are well-known people. That hon. gentleman talked to us and said, “In your English-speaking universities you want integration.” Where did the people who are trained at these colleges come from, what universities did they have to go to when there were no other institutions that would have them; and how many non-Whites are there now in the white universities? Quite a lot, and every single one of them is there because this Government has given them permission to go; otherwise they cannot go, that is why they are there. The facilities that are afforded by their own university colleges just are not there, that is why. They have fallen down on the job, as the hon. member who has just sat down said. He said they want to make up the leeway where they have fallen down. And how do they make up the leeway? They call it a university.

I still do not know why you read out those names.

The Deputy Minister says he still does not know. Do these names mean nothing to him? Let me ask the hon. member why he does not allow someone else to choose some members of the council?

Who?

Who? Why not allow the people who are responsible? Why is it that a body like Rhodes University, which has been associated with Fort Hare over these years, is not given an opportunity to nominate some? What about the convocation? We never heard anything about a convocation. Every other university in South Africa has a convocation. Is this to be a university in the South African pattern or is it to be a university in a special Bantu pattern? That is what we should like to know, and we should like an answer to that. Is this to be different from the normal South African university establishment that we know? [Interjections.] I am going to come to some more. There is also the Transkei Legislative Assembly. Why should they not have the right to nominate members to this council?

Why should they?

Why not? Everyone has said how wonderful this is; they are going to produce this university as part of the whole pattern, they are going to develop the top echelons and the “gees” of the Xhosa national group. Why can they not nominate someone? [Interjections.]

You are giving them independence but you will not let them nominate members of the council! [Interjections.]

That is the whole point. Why can we not have a council like that? Why must the council be absolutely and completely controlled by the hon. the Minister? It is a question. What is he giving them? Have they been consulted? Has the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei been consulted? Have they? We should like to know. This Bill provides a university for the Xhosa group. Have they been consulted? Has the legislative elected body, created by this Government, been consulted about their own welfare? Now they are “tjoepstil”, as the saying goes. You know, Sir, this gives the words “separate development” a hollow ring. This is part of the pattern of their policy, they are going to build this up—by going backwards. This is not doing the Bantu a service.

Of course it is, it is giving them something to strive for.

That is most interesting. What does this Bill in effect do? It removes from every Bantu student when all three Bills have been passed under the umbrella, the protection, and the academic cohesion of the University of South Africa. That is what it does. It removes that from them. Why do the Bills remove that from them? When we are dealing with higher education then we are dealing with higher education, and the more association you can have with other institutions of higher education, then the better is your higher education. Now the umbrella is being removed and they are being cut adrift. Worse than being cut adrift is the fact that each one of these universities is going to be in the hands in the end of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Now, what is the best thing: To be under the umbrella of the University of South Africa, to be associated with white universities, or to be under the thumb of the Minister and have him determine what should be done, because he in fact is going to nominate the whole council.

What does this Minister know about a university and what should happen there?

What do you know about it?

It is no good asking us what do we know, we would not provide for a situation like this. We would if we are going to have a university, have some elements of a university, where you have a council which has a broad base, not a narrow base, not the hon. the Minister’s base, not the sort of thing the Minister will do as he has indicated to us by nominating a council like that.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.