When this debate was adjourned on Thursday evening, I had moved my amendment and we had had a reply from the hon. the Minister. I was trying to put a case to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision not to accept the amendment. I had put it to the Committee that this clause had three parts; that the first part provided that the council may approve the admission to the university of someone who was not a member of the Xhosa national unit, as defined, and I had put certain questions to the hon. the Minister as to how he or anybody would decide whether or not an applicant was a member of the Xhosa national unit. The hon. the Minister did not reply to that question and I should like to hear what his attitude is in this regard.

I had also pointed out that the second part of the clause provided that the council could admit some such person if the council was of the opinion that the admission of such person was justified. I asked the hon. the Minister what exactly was meant by this term “justified”; how did he consider that the admission of a person would be justified or not justified? I also got no reply to that and I would be glad to hear from the Minister the reasons for this term.

The third part of the clause is the proviso that the first admission of such a person to the university shall be at the instance of the hon. the Minister only. This is the proviso I have moved to be deleted. As I said, when such an application comes before the Minister the first thing he has to do is to decide whether the applicant is a member of the Xhosa unit or not.

Order! The hon. member is repeating what he said previously.

I am just leading up to the debate. I then asked the hon. the Minister for the reasons why he wished to take this power. His reply was that the council would see whether the physical facilities existed and it is incumbent upon the Minister that he should have a degree of control so that people are not admitted unnecessarily. I have made a note of his words, which were “sommer onnodiglik toegelaat word nie”. He qualified this statement by going on to say that people who belong ethnically at another university would not be admitted. Sir, this is the crux of the whole argument. The Minister also mentioned earlier in his reply something about people who “ethnically do not belong at this university”. Why is this division called for? Is this division entirely necessary, particularly in the sphere we are discussing now, namely the sphere of higher education? Is this division of the Bantu people into various groups really necessary? And while we are discussing this point, the hon. the Minister knows that we have five Bills before this House dealing with the education of non-Whites, and this same provision appears in all five of those Bills. This provision limits the choice of education of all the non-white people. All of them are being given the right to attend one university only, and if they want any variety in their education it can only be subject to ministerial approval. I submit that this is not only unnecessary, but it is authoritarian and autocratic. I submit that this is merely a further manifestation of the rigid regimentation of South African life and the degree of conformity which is sought by this Government. It is a further manifestation of the placing of each person in his own group, each in his own little black box, and the unwillingness of this Government to allow the freedom of the individual in this sphere of the highest education where surely people who have reached this stage and are setting out to serve not only their peoples but their country should at least have some degree of flexibility and of choice.

I have already replied to the last question of the hon. member last week, but I will repeat my reply very briefly. It is in connection with the deletion of the proviso which the hon. member moved. I replied that it was necessary to retain the proviso because it is necessary for the Minister to exercise some supervision in regard to the basic requirements that Bantu students should attend the universities where they would like to study in accordance with their ethnical classification. Where there is a good justification for us to deviate from that basis we do allow it.

Now the hon. member asks me what does the word “justified” include. It may include many things. There may be good reasons why a Sotho for instance living very near to Fort Hare could be allowed to go to that university. It may be that he wants to take specific courses at that university, and there may be many other reasons. I do not think we need at this stage theorize about all the various reasons which we may have to render his admission justifiable, as the hon. member put it. The hon. member also asked why “the first admission of any such person shall be subject to the approval of the Minister”. I have given some reasons now, and here is another one. It may be quite possible that the Department or the Ministry has some information concerning the particular person which the university might not have, and because of the information we have it may be necessary for us to say no to his admission, whereas the university might have allowed him. Of course, if the student’s first admission has been approved by the Minister then his admission for subsequent years is a matter for the council only.

The hon. member’s first question was how do we decide whether a person belong to the Xhosa national unit, or for that matter to the Zulu national unit or any other national unit. I can give two replies. There are a variety of matters in regard to which we may have information, but our main source is the Reference Bureau. As the hon. member knows, all Bantu people in South Africa are classified according to their ethnic status by the Reference Bureau when they get their reference books. The documentation of every Bantu will assist us in deciding whether he is in fact a Xhosa or not.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to anticipate the discussion of the following clause, but it is a question of the powers the hon. the Minister is prepared to give to the council. It all revolves round that. In the next clause the Minister gives fairly wide powers to the council. There is no doubt about the powers which he gives to them in the following clause. But in this clause 22 the Minister restricts the powers of the council in so far as their power to admit a student is concerned. I do not see why he should restrict its powers under clause 22 because when we consider clause 2 (3) of the University of the North Bill we see that subsection does not provide for one ethnic group only but for five ethnic groups. Surely the Minister can give the council a little discretion in selecting its own students? He gives the council discretion in the next clause to say a man is not desirable, but in clause 22 we find the Minister must give his approval. The proviso is quite unnecessary. Goodness knows, they get very little appearance of autonomy in these Bills, and if the Minister cannot concede that, one can only deduce he is not prepared to concede anything.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this matter of to which national unit a Bantu belongs a little bit further with the hon. the Minister. The Minister said the main deciding factor is what a Bantu is described as by the Reference Bureau. The bureau decides whether a man becomes a Xhosa or a Zulu or to what other ethnic group he belongs. I want to put a specific case to the Minister. The people who inhabit the area around Herschel, whether it be the trust area or the scheduled area, that big block of Bantu ground in the Herschel area, I understand speak mainly Sesuto. Yet those people live in an area which is part of the Ciskei, it is administered as part of the Ciskei, and it comes under the Ciskei Territorial Authority. My question to the Minister is this. Although those people speak Sesuto and are presumably for linguistic purposes members of the South Sotho group, are they for the purposes of this Bill members of the Xhosa national unit?

If I were a member of the Opposition, I would have given a better example. I am now going to quote the better example, namely the Bantu areas in the Matatiele district, falling within the ambit of the Transkei Government and being inhabited by Sotho people. Then I would like to remind the hon. member that one of the Cabinet Ministers of Matanzima is a Sotho, namely Moshesh. The hon. member must remember that when we drew up the Transkei Constitution, we made provision for the Sotho element in Xhosaland to form part and parcel of their political structure. The same applies to Transkei citizens who are Sotho-speaking. We are, of course, quite prepared to allow such persons to attend the University of Fort Hare. That applies to Herschel as well, which falls under the Ciskei Government.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member has had three turns already.

On a point of order, Sir, when this debate was adjourned on Thursday, I had had three minutes of a second opportunity.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Question put:

That the proviso stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause 25:

I am not going to move an amendment to this clause, Mr. Chairman. All I should like is an explanation from the Minister. Is it not possible for him at this stage to indicate to us whether the time has not arrived for the costs of these universities to be borne by the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not by the Bantu Education Account?

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

You can raise that under the Vote.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

In lines 5 and 6, to omit “Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance” and to substitute “council”.

The effect of this amendment is that the body that will determine the fees payable by students shall be the council and not the Minister. I appreciate that this amendment may very well meet with the same fate as, those in similar vein moved by us on previous clauses. However, the principle involved here is the same. If this council is going to be taken into the confidence of the Minister at all … Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Minister can hear me, because I find it difficult to hear myself on account of the noise being made by hon. members.

Order!

If the Minister is going to take the council of this university into his confidence, he will apprise them of the money he is going to make available and of the donations he is allowing them to receive. The council will then determine what sort of fee ought to be payable. My amendment speaks for itself. If this is to be a university, and if we wish to fulfil the wishes of this House expressed at the Second Reading of this Bill, the wish that this should be a university, then we should allow the council to decide on such a domestic matter as is the question of the fees to be payable by students. However, the Minister apparently wants to decide on this matter himself. But perhaps the hon. the Minister has an explanation. Perhaps he is going to say that he is providing the money and that, consequently, he should decide what fees are to be paid. If that is, in fact, his argument, it does not take the matter any further.

That might render the amendment unacceptable in that it might involve additional expense to the State.

But the matter we are discussing is the question, who should determine the fees to be paid by students. My point is, if we are creating a university in the real sense of the word who should determine these fees but the council of that university? If we really meant what was decided at the Second Reading, i.e. to establish a university at Fort Hare then, for goodness sake, the question of fees is a question to be decided by the council. Here there is no question of extra expense being involved …

I have not given any such ruling. I have only expressed the opinion that if the hon. member’s argument was valid it might lead to the amendment being ruled out of order.

Sir, you would not have said that had there been no substance in the thought.

The hon. member should not argue it, because then I may have to give a definite ruling and rule the amendment out of order.

I am not going to argue the matter because no point of order has been raised. All that I am saying is that the amendment merely seeks to give the council of the university of Fort Hare the right to decide what fees are to be payable, just like the council of any other self respecting university does decide. My submission is that this is a matter for the council to decide and not for the Minister.

Order! The hon. member has said that about ten times in about three minutes.

Well, Sir, it appears that I have succeeded in making my point. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will now give us an indication why he wants to take this power unto himself and not give it to the council, whose members, in any case, he will appoint.

I can quite understand the Minister saying to the university that a new faculty may not be established without the Minister’s consent. I can see that because it will involve extra expenditure for the State. But what I cannot understand is how how the Minister can say to a council of a university that it cannot decide on the fees its students shall pay without the Minister figuring in the picture. Surely the Minister could leave it to the council to determine the fees, provided these fees are not too high, in which case the Minister could withhold his approval.

I think the hon. member for Durban (North) knows more of the real reason behind this than he wanted to admit. He only admitted half of what he knew. As we all know, the bulk of the finance for these universities will, as has been the case in the past, come from the State. If the hon. member looks closely at the clause, he will see that there are in actual fact two Ministers involved, i.e. the Minister of Bantu Education and the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Bantu Education must act in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Therefore, it is not the Minister of Bantu Education only who has to decide. He shall have to act in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This is a requirement of the Treasury, and for an obvious reason. Now I am coming quite near to the supposition put forward by the Chair. Say, for instance, the Minister of Bantu Education is too lenient and also the Minister of Finance—which is indeed very theoretical!—by approving of very low fees, it will mean that the State shall have to give more money to enable the university to make both ends meet. Therefore, if the hon. member’s argument can be interpreted in that way, then he is asking for more money. However, the reason for this provisions that the money has to be advanced by the State and the Treasury is the watchdog of the State. Hence the two Ministers concerned have to act in collaboration with one another. But what does this provision amount to in practice? It does not mean that I, as Minister, must go and determine the fees; neither the Treasury nor the Minister of Finance. In practice the council will work out the fees. They will then submit a list of fees to me for consideration in collaboration with the Minister of Finance. In other words, it is the council itself which will initiate the whole matter and which will accept the major responsibility. I think that is all I can say on this point.

If the Minister is correct in saying that in practice it will be the council that will decide what fees …

I said the council would work out the fees.

All right, work out the fees. If in practice the council will work out the fees and then submit them to the Minister for approval in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, then provision should have been made here for the council to be consulted. But there is no such provision. In other words, he does not even have to consult the council.

Allow for some common sense, please.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to talk about common sense, then I am afraid the hon. the Minister is on a very sticky wicket.

I have lots of it.

In your opinion.

We have not seen any signs of that in the legislation which has been presented to us, especially not in this Bill. If the Minister says that it is a matter of common sense, then one would think that common sense would be translated into the words contained in this Bill. The Minister says that they, in effect, will put forward these proposals, but there is no provision here for even the slightest consultation between the Minister of Bantu Education or the Minister of Finance and the Council of this university. If the hon. the Minister means what he says, even though he obviously is not inclined to accept the amendment, he should insert the words “and in consultation with the council. What does he think about that?

There is nothing strange in making provision for the use of common sense in the application of ordinary administrative measures, in the application of every administrative measure common sense has to be used—and in our administration there is a great deal.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 32:

I should like the hon. the Minister to explain what is meant here by “organize any portion of the University as an institute”. Will he explain to us how he will organize “any portion of the University as an institute”?

This is an innovation to a certain extent. I had before me very recently, for instance, the case of the Department of Pharmacy of the University College of the North, where for practical reasons, especially with a view to collaboration with the pharmacists and other bodies, they would prefer an “institute of pharmacists” at the University of the North, instead of calling it an ordinary department. That is regarded as practical and in principle I have approved of this. But there may be other examples too. For instance, in the technical world, as the hon. member will know, there are numbers of certificates that persons can acquire, especially advanced certificates, to qualify them, for instance, to become members of the Associated Institute of Mechanical Engineers. There are lots of certificates that one can get, certificates which entitle one to put strings and strings of letters behind one’s name. Something of that kind is envisaged here, so that in co-operation with the college, we can have institutes available in which Bantu students can pursue technical studies under the general auspices of the university.

The hon. the Minister has given an example of the type of institute which may be established at the university; he has mentioned the engineering institute but, Sir, the institutes control their own affairs, just as any profession does. The Minister has suggested that he will establish at the university an institute for some profession and then the university will control the affairs of that profession. I cannot quite see what the Minister is getting at. It seems to me that he is establishing a faculty but not an institute.

I think the hon. member did not understand me very well. The hon. member is now projecting the knowledge he has of ordinary institutes, such as the institute I mentioned as an example, to the university colleges. There may, for example, be an institute in respect of some branch of mechanics, but then that does not mean that that institute in respect of that branch of mechanics forms part of the university, but for the purposes of training, for the purposes of lectures which may be required, for the purposes of certain practical work required to obtain a certificate, an institute may be established at a university itself at which classes will be given to people who may not have the necessary exemption qualifications to study in a faculty; they may then pursue their studies in the atmosphere of a university and with the general academic support of the university. It is only a way which is being opened here. The hon. member must realize that as far as white education in South Africa is concerned, we have ordinary universities, and in addition to the universities various technical institutions. In recent years institutes were established for advanced technical education which provide post-matriculation training, but training which is on this side of a university degree. We do not have something similar as far as the Bantu are concerned. This establishment of an institute under the auspices of and at a Bantu university may be a very good substitute and perhaps a cheaper substitute and may provide a fine academic atmosphere, which we do not have at the moment, as the whole pattern of technical and advanced technical education in the case of the Bantu is not exactly the same as that of the Whites. This is a possibility which is being opened up in order to cover a shortcoming which we may experience.

I just want to put this point to the Minister. In line 12 it says “and establish any. such institute also at a place other than the seat of the University”. Now the seat of this university is at Fort Hare. Has the Minister in mind that he might establish an institute of the university at some place such as Umtata, for example, and if so, what sort of an institute does he visualize?

Surely there are no difficulties as far as this matter is concerned. The University of Stellenbosch in point of fact has its medical faculty at Bellville. Why cannot the University of Fort Hare have some institute at perhaps Butterworth or Umtata? Why cannot Turfloop have an institute at perhaps Moletsi, approximately 20 miles away, and why cannot Ngoya, which is situated in the north of Natal, have an institute at perhaps Umlazi? The institutes need not be on the same campus.

In regard to the Minister’s explanation of the establishment of these institutes at Fort Hare, it is hard to understand what he means from the way he put it. The Minister knows that, for example, the Institute of Engineers maintains its own discipline, but you are not automatically a member of that institute; you have to pass certain examinations, and after that you have to have certain experience, and the experience may be for three or five years. How do you create an institute within a university on that basis? They are purely private institutions run by laymen, and it is not only examinations that count, but they are governed by certain ethics. How does the Minister hope to convey that into his institute at the university? It is very vague here because it says it must be prescribed by statute, and we do not have a statute in front of us and we do not know the regulations, etc. But I do not think the Minister’s explanation is correct. I do not think it was ever the intention to have an institute such as he has in mind. I think he is wrong, because those are built up by laymen. He may decide to set up at Fort Hare an institute of mechanical engineering. Now, what institution is that going to be? To be worth anything it has to be allied to one of the outside associations, in order to get world recognition. How does he hope to create such an institution without some form of experience being gained by its members, and without some form of discipline? It is not something you can just create by statute at a university.

Now the hon. member is completely off the track and the only reason for that is that he did not listen to my reply a short while ago. I replied very clearly to the hon. member for Transkei and I said that what we envisaged here was not a professional institute in the sense in which the hon. member has just used the term, i.e. an institute which has to maintain discipline and has to exercise discipline over its members. This is a training institute. This is an institute which provides training to people in a certain profession. Whether they have another institute or an association, or whatever they may call it, which formulates and controls and exercises discipline over their professional interests and standards and codes, is a matter which falls completely outside the province of a university. Here we are speaking of a training institute.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, clause 38 deals with the delegation of powers by the hon. the Minister. We find the Minister may delegate any power conferred on him by certain sections to “any other officer in the Department of Bantu Education”. It is usual where the Minister takes powers, and especially where he is taking the wide powers referred to in this Bill, to delegate them to at least an officer of standing, and officer of rank in the Department. I am sure my colleagues on this side would have followed me had I decided to oppose this power the Minister is asking for to delegate his powers to “any other officer”, be he a first-grade clerk or a second grade clerk, in his Department. When we look at which powers the Minister wants to have the right to delegate, then we realize why he wants to have the right to delegate them to “any other officer”, as I say, even the most junior officer in his Department. He will delegate his powers to control the purchase of pencils, of rubbers and other items which we mentioned a little while ago when we discussed clause 3 (4) (a) in terms of which the Minister takes the power to control the acquisition of stores and equipment, including, as I said, pencils, rubbers, and rulers. The aspect of this power to delegate powers to any other officer in his Department which does worry me is the power which the Minister is taking in terms of clause 14 (2), which deals with the power of the Minister to determine in which posts staff will be appointed as well as to control dismissals from the staff. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us whether it is his intention to delegate this power, in particular, the power which he has in terms of clause 14 (2), to senior officials of his Department only. It does perturb me to think that the Minister is taking the power to delegate the power of controlling persons such as professors and senior lecturers to a junior member of his Department.

Mr. Chairman, certain people who used to be junior officers in my Department, are no longer members of my Department, and consequently the danger to which the hon. member referred is smaller than it might have been before. I want to ask the Committee whether it is a fair insinuation and supposition of the hon. member to give out that a Minister will delegate a responsible task entrusted to him by the Act concerned, to a most junior officer, even though the Minister has the statutory power to do so. If hon. members opposite assume that the Minister does not have any discretion whatsoever, I cannot argue with them, and this is what the hon. member opposite does assume.

No Minister is going to be that indiscreet, except if that hon. member were to become a Minister one day—and there is absolutely no chance of that happening, no chance whatsoever. I can see no reason why this should not be done in this way. I want to point out to the hon. member that a man such as the secretary of a Department and other officers of a lower rank but who are senior officers nevertheless, are perfectly capable of maintaining the required academic standards and of displaying the right approach, administratively or academically, and of coping with the work entrusted to them. As regards clause 14 (2) I may say for the information of hon. members that up to now I have not delegated any powers whatsoever to officers in connection with the appointment or dismissal of staff. Up to now this has been done only by the Minister. Time permits me to attend to this because of the division of work between me and my Deputy Minister. As long as time permits, this can remain the position. I can think of no objection why this should not be the case. Surely the hon. member has no objection to the delegation to the council of control over supplies, even though there are no slates. I can assure him that very few pencils and rubbers are involved. We are not dealing with grade I scholars; we are dealing with university students.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned, I had come almost to the end of the remarks I had to make. As I explained at the time, it is not our intention to delay these proceedings unnecessarily. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon? Oh, I am sorry.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I was waiting for the Deputy Minister responsible to arrive, Sir. There are three Bantu University Bills. We have had a long and fair discussion on the Fort Hare Bill, and much of what we have to say on the other Bills would necessarily be a repetition; not on those Bills, but on the three Bills taken together. On the University of Zululand Bill I shall not delay the House very long. I wish to ask just this important question. Looking at the figures of the Zululand University College, which we are now asked to create a university, we find that in 1967 there were 174 matriculated students. At the end of last year they still had not reached the 250 mark. There were fewer than 250 students. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister: Is this Bill really necessary?

Is it necessary to create universities when there are so few students? From the beginning our case has been that this matter has been approached in the wrong spirit as far as making Fort Hare, where they did not have sufficient students, a university. This University College of Zululand has so few students that I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to hesitate and to accept the amendment which we have proposed in regard to the University of Fort Hare and which I should like to propose again now. My reason for moving this amendment is a very simple one. Before we can grant university status to a university college with such a small number of students, we should have further investigation. We should meet the people concerned and also the representatives of other universities, because we are lowering the standard of South African universities if we are prepared to grant university status on such slender grounds, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington is of course totally unacceptable. I maintain that it is totally unacceptable because of the reasons furnished by the hon. the Minister during the discussion of the University of Fort Hare Bill.

The hon. member is making a big mistake when he alleges that the number of pupils is less than was indicated by the figure for last year. The hon. member is not adding all the matriculants to the number of pupils which are there, and he made the same mistake when he expressed his opposition to the University of Fort Hare Bill. He stated that the ratio between lecturers and students was disquieting. I am pleased to see that in this speech the hon. member renounced his previous view, namely that the university college should be amalgamated with some kind of commonwealth of university colleges, because that is an idea which is about 50 years old, and a construction on which such an idea is based, is completely outmoded. With all this rummaging about and organ grinding on the part of hon. members on the opposite side during these debates, basically conflicting concepts held by the two sides of the House have once again been expressed. I should like to mention a few of these. The first is that with the granting of autonomy to this University College we are dealing here with a step in the direction of the full emancipation of the Bantu nations. [Interjections.]

I know that hon. members on the opposite side will laugh and sigh, but their sighs are actually a groan of embarrassment. They are embarrassed because they can offer the Bantu nothing of the kind the National Party, with its soundly-based concepts in so far as its policy towards the Bantu is concerned, can offer them. These universities are all of them functional constructions which we are building on a fundamentally sound foundation. Our principal construction is our policy of separation, and everything we are now doing in regard to education, i.e. the granting of autonomy, the strengthening of the economy, the strengthening of the economic conditions within the Bantu areas and the granting of political self-government, are all functional constructions which we are building on a deep-seated principal foundation. After all, these are the grounds on which a thinking party acts. We do not grab at this and snatch at that; we have a basic construction and we are acting according to a definite plan. The granting of autonomy to the University College of Zululand is only one step in the direction of the full emancipation of the Bantu, as we have stated throughout. This is a basic component of Afrikaner Nationalism. We are therefore dealing here with a clash of basic concepts in regard to which the United Party cannot offer any alternative. In the past we have seen a great deal of emancipatory acts in Africa. We have seen how colonial powers wrenched Bantu nations out of colonial periods and tore them out of the colonial structure; how they then emancipated these nations politically and then ran away. What was the result? The result was chaos and disorder, because they did not support that political emancipation of the Bantu nations with economic emancipatory methods, nor with educational emancipatory deeds. Consequently the entire structure which they built, collapsed, as we are seeing it happen to-day before our eyes. The United Party has no fundamental plan. Nor does it, as we want it to do, recognize two established, consistent historical factors which are inherent and peculiar to any nation on earth. These factors are so historically grounded that they have virtually become standardized and can be called constants. The first factor is that one cannot check the continually growing urge for independence of any nation. The second factor is that no nation will ever cease from struggling for emancipation. With this step, as one step in long series which the National Party have taken, it is taking into account these two basic historical facts.

However, there is a second basic difference. In the National Party’s concept, according to which it wants to develop the relations politics between Bantu and Whites, there are definite levels of authority. According to the National Party’s concept there is no room on the same level or levels of authority for the Bantu and the Whites at the same time. While the National Party …

Which National Party?

This National Party, the Party to which I belong. I will belong to this National Party longer than you will belong to the United Party. [Interjections.] I want to repeat: The National Party’s view of relations politics is that there must be definite levels of authority on which the Bantu and the Whites must move separately. I want to state that there is no place for the Bantu and for the Whites on the same level of authority, not even on the level of authority of training or education. This is a fundamental difference between the standpoint of this side of the House and that of the other side of the House. This does not mean to say that, after having recognized this, there is no joint standing room on the same level of authority; that does not mean to say that there should be a Berlin Wall between levels of authority. There will always be an opportunity for mutual inspiration and consultation, as far as knowledge and ideas are concerned. This will take place among different identifiable and independent levels of authority, as it will develop in future.

The United Party refuses to do this. The United Party refuses to create levels of authority of their own for the Bantu, it clings to the old colonial creeds. That old colonial structure with its built-in religious convictions and creeds is false. What did they do? Throughout the colonial period the colonial powers drew Bantu in next to them on an administrative level of authority, only a small group, while the masses were left to the wolves of poverty and pestilence. This action is one of the basic reasons for the unprecedented hate on the part of emerging black nationalism towards white goodwill.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I am still coming to it.

The hon. member is making a very long detour!

Mr. Speaker, the United Party’s refusal to grant academic autonomy to Bantu universities reveals a tendency to cling to old outmoded creeds and an old outmoded political structure. It also reveals a lack of confidence; that is also a built-in characteristic of the United Party as an Opposition in South Africa, and it eliminates them completely as an Opposition of any value. We maintain that granting autonomy to the Zululand University College is justified because the university can now rely on an expanding horizontal matrix. This is proved by the increasing number of secondary school pupils which form the source of supply of these universities to which we are now granting academic autonomy. When we say that, the hon. member for Kensington fiddles about with costs. If one were to go into this very carefully one would find that the Opposition opposes everything in this House which seeks to achieve a rich identity. If one were to go into this matter, one would find that these things are always reduced to a question of costs. Their opposition to decimalization in this country, to the granting of university rights to the Bantu and to the expansion of university training, can be reduced to the old worn-out argument of “what would it cost”. Hence, too, the hon. member’s calculation that the ratio between the students and the lecturers is so terribly unfavourable. Now we can. with justification, say of these universities to which autonomy is being granted that we have already seen the first results of the approach which we have adopted in respect of the Bantu education—not a narrowing vertical pyramid in education, but a broad and broadening horizontal level on which a maximum number of Bantu can share in the facilities which are being established for them there. Compare this with the state of affairs which prevailed before we made provision for these non-white training colleges. I want to conclude with that and state that the United Party has once again proved that they cannot wrench or remove or tear themselves out of the groove in which, I do not want to say they, but the old liberal school of bygone days which still had an influence in their Party, caused them to find themselves, and there the hon. member for Houghton is sitting as the exponent of that old liberalist school of bygone days. Mr. Speaker, in 1887 with the annexation of the Transvaal Mister Gladstone almost screamed his head off about the injustice which was being done, and in 1902 when the Boer Republics were deprived of their freedom, these liberalists cried blue murder against the injustice, and what did they do? Here she sits, stating day after day that these are nothing else but “bush colleges”; these are a lot of ethnic colleges; these are a lot of “tribal colleges”; these are a lot of “glorified schools”. But, Sir, leave it in her hands and she will act in the same way as did the old liberalists—they championed a cause but did nothing tangible—and that is the United Party’s characteristic which it is now displaying.

Mr. Speaker, the Bantu universities have the extremely difficult task of cultivating cultured Bantu without the deliberate influence of the Whites. At the conference which was recently held in Tananarive they emphasized the fact that the Bantu universities should be more Africa-orientated, and that is what we are doing here now, but the United Party does not want it. No, they want to turn the Bantu into colourless, spineless economic labourers. In view of all the considerations therefore, socio-pedagogical considerations, in view of the practical situation which exists to-day, and seen from the point of view of the academic ability of the Bantu, I maintain that it gives me pleasure to lend my full support to this step, this step on the road leading to the educational emancipation of the Bantu, as part of our entire emancipatory policy in respect of the Bantu nations. It is a well-founded, well-though out, sound and principally justified step which we are taking here in respect of Bantu education. It proves our honesty.

Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. member for Carletonville is in favour of this Bill. I am afraid that this is about the only conclusion to which I can come after having listened to the extraordinarily wide field that he managed to cover in the course of his speech. I would like to welcome him back to the world of the living, Sir. We have not heard much from the hon. gentleman for several sessions.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

The hon. gentleman paid me the compliment of singling me out in his historical survey; he took me way back to the War of Independence of 1884, and I want to pay him the compliment now of welcoming him back. I always enjoy listening to his speeches even if they are not always strictly on the subject. I think he is having a practice run for to-morrow. That is the truth of it. But I think he will have to do a bit more practising before to-morrow if he thinks that he is going to achieve satisfactory results.

Sir, I do not want to make a long speech on this Bill. It is, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, identical to the Bill that we have discussed at some considerable length intermittently over the past week or two. I have stated all my objections to the conversion into a university of the University College of Fort Hare, which, by the way, I have never referred to as a bush college. I have called it an ethnic college, which it certainly is in terms of its own constitution, and indeed in terms of this University Constitution it will be an ethnic university, so I do not think it is particularly unflattering to use that term. We have, as I say, covered the whole field of this conversion in the debate on the previous Bill and therefore I simply want to reiterate the main points that I made during the previous discussion and which apply equally, mutatis mutandis, to this University of Zululand. I want to say first of all to the hon. member for Carletonville who is so in favour of autonomy, that he must realize that this Bill is not granting autonomy to the University of Zululand; it is doing no such thing. Every single clause of this Bill shows the heavy hand of the Minister. In every possible way he is able to control the functioning of the university. Even academically the hon. the Minister has the last word in practically every regard, because he functions through his council and the council is an appointed body; he functions through the senate and the senate too is largely an appointed body. The advisory senate and the advisory council have no real powers whatsoever. I want to say that at this juncture I consider it an insult to have an advisory council and an advisory senate for so-called autonomous universities. They are set up clearly on a colour basis, although in fact the Bill itself makes no mention of colour. We know from previous experience that the appointed advisory senate and advisory council consist entirely of Africans in the case of the African universities, entirely of Coloureds in the case of the Coloured university and entirely of Indians in the case of the Indian university. But as far as the ordinary senate and council are concerned, which are really responsible for running the internal of education at the university, they consist entirely of white people. There is no autonomy therefore, directly or indirectly, in the Bill which purports to grant autonomy to the University of Zululand. That is the first point I want to make.

The second thing is that the hon. the Minister has tried to point out that there are other university patterns in other countries, patterns which are more similar to the one that we are adopting here for the University of Zululand than to the pattern adopted by the other South African universities. I do not think that this is a valid comparison to make. The university set-up for the non-Whites in this country—and I am opposed to this separate education, as the hon. the Minister knows—should, if it is going to follow any pattern at all, follow the South African pattern and not the pattern of some of the European countries. In terms of the same argument, I disapprove strongly of the exclusion of the new so-called autonomous university from the University Act of 1955, which covers all the white universities in South Africa, and thus excludes this university and its principal from the Committee of University Principals. There are several things which are excluded from this Bill, which I object to, as I did in the case of the Fort Hare Bill. I object very strongly, for example, to the absence of a conscience clause. I object to the fact that white students are excluded completely from this university, even if the Minister had been prepared to give his permission for them to attend, as he may do in the case of some of the other ethnic groups as far as attendance at the Zululand University is concerned. I believe that the treatment of the staff and the students immediately rules out any possibility that this institution, which will simply have a new name, which will be called a university instead of a university college, will be anything like a normal university. The staff are treated differently from the staff of white universities and the students are treated differently from the students of white universities.

No.

Yes. There are regulations applying to the students. One regulation says that students may not leave the college precincts without the permission of the hostel superintendent or a representative duly authorized by the rector. At white universities there are certain regulations which stop first-year resident students from being out at any hour of the night, and that is obviously the sort of regulation one would approve of, but do any of our white universities like Stellenbosch, Cape Town or O.F.S. have regulations stopping students from leaving the precincts of the universities without permission at any time of the day? I am quite sure no such thing exists. Then there is a regulation which says that any student organization or organizational work in which students are concerned is subject to the prior approval of the rector. Can you imagine any of our white students knuckling down to a regulation like that? They will say they are not schoolchildren to be treated like that.

Junior schoolchildren.

The hon. member is quite right. No meetings may be held in the grounds of the college without the permission of the rector. Can you imagine such a regulation applying to the University of the Witwatersrand or Pretoria, or even Potchefstroom, if it comes to that? And no statements may be given to the Press by or on behalf of the students without the rector’s permission. These are just examples of the sort of regulations which have been applied up to now and I am prepared to say will be applied also to the universities, as well as the university colleges.

That is all for the benefit and protection of the students.

The hon. member talks about the benefit of the students and the protection of the students, but the point is that university students do not want to be treated like schoolchildren, and the sooner the hon. member realizes that black university students and Coloured university students and Indian university students are no different in this regard whatsoever from white university students, the more likelihood there will be that these universities will obtain some sort of recognition as adult organizations. [Interjections.] Finally, I want to say that everything I have said about the University of Fort Hare applies to the University of Zululand, only more so, for the reasons given by the hon. member for Kensington, and that is the very small number of degree students attending that university college. I do not know what justification has been advanced as yet by the hon. the Minister, nor certainly the hon. member for Carletonville, who gave us a broad philosophical discourse but gave us no real reasons whatever. [Interjections.] In fact, I do not think he referred to the University of Zululand at all; it was just a broad discourse, and he has not advanced one single reason why this university college with a total number of students of less than 400 …

426.

The hon. member has forgotten that some students are taking diplomas only, because they are not matriculated. There are far less than 400 matriculated students and no cogent reason whatsoever has been advanced to explain to this House why the hon. the Minister and his colleagues consider that this university college has now reached the stage of development where it can be converted into a university. There has been no discussion on that whatsoever. Before we did anything with our original white universities—and some of them had been established for many years, one for as long as 30 years before it became a university—a separate inquiry was instituted for each university college to make certain that its standards had reached certain levels, that certain criteria had been conformed with, such as standard of education, qualifications of staff, achievements of the staff, achievements of students and post-graduates. All these things were closely investigated before the status of a university was conferred on the university colleges. Even now we have a very broad commission of inquiry going into the whole question of white university education. The University Commission of Inquiry, which was appointed last year, has something like 13 terms of reference going into every aspect of university education, such as the steps required to ensure efficient education, the range of study and the quality of work, the size of classes and departments, the length of the academic year, the main reason for the failures particularly among under-graduates, student relations, the role students and student bodies should play, the most effective means of teaching and research, qualifications of the staff, reciprocal recognition of courses passed by students at the different universities, the salary structure, bursaries and loans for students and the future policy in connection with the development of the universities. Sir, I suggest that all that need be done is that the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry should be altered so as not to exclude any non-white universities, so as not to make it exclusive only to the universities for Whites and the University of South Africa, but to include also the non-white university colleges. Then when a proper, searching inquiry has been made into the needs, the requirements and the standards of these universities, we might consider converting them perhaps one but certainly not all, and certainly not all at the same time, because their standards vary from university college to university college, into proper universities. Right now we are running the risk of creating ersatz universities, universities which will get no recognition anywhere else in the world, universities whose graduate students will have degrees which are not recognized elsewhere, and not because of the propaganda of liberalists, as the hon. the Minister has more than hinted at but in fact stated during his reply to the Second Reading debate on the University of Fort Hare Bill. University people sitting in judgment on the standards of our universities are not interested in what individuals in this country say, be they the hon. the Minister who lauds them to the skies, or liberalists like myself who say that the universities are not worthy of the status of universities. They do not pay any attention to individuals. They consist of academic people who have great experience of the standards of universities all over the world. They weigh the degrees in terms of their criteria, in terms of the academic qualifications of the staff, in terms of the research being done, in terms of the original work done at those institutions, and in terms of the work which the graduate students have done. Then they decide whether to give recognition or not. There are many universities in the U.S.A. whose degrees are not recognized, not only by other countries, but not even by other universities in the U.S.A. [Interjection.] It has nothing to do with the speeches of individuals. Not even such an illustrious person as the hon. member for Zululand will be able to convince the university councils and senate of great universities overseas that the degrees of the University of Zululand, which used to have such an illustrious person as a lecturer, mark you, should therefore be acceptable to them. I believe that we are running the danger that not only will the university college degrees no longer be accepted because they are now removed from the control of Unisa, whose standards were and are acceptable to other universities elsewhere, but we run the very grave risk of reducing the value of university education per se in South Africa.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not ashamed of myself at all, but the hon. member over there should be ashamed of himself. He prides himself on having played a great part in the formation of the University of Port Elizabeth and he should have enough sense to realize that the action this side of the House is taking now in respect of these university colleges may very well have an extremely unfavourable effect on the University of Port Elizabeth and our other universities in South Africa.

Sir, I am going to vote against this Second Reading. I do not believe that a Select Committee is really going far enough. I believe, however, that if such a Select Committee before Second Reading were accepted, it would have the right to reject this Bill in its entirety. For those reasons I am not moving any further amendment. I am going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill and against the next one for the same reasons that I advanced when we discussed the University of Fort Hare.

In the first place, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Houghton and to the United Party for not intending to oppose my two Bills as strongly as they did the University of Fort Hare Bill. [Interjections.] I want to thank them for the motion of confidence in me which they are moving by doing so. and I want to express the hope that we shall curtail the proceedings in regard to these two Bills.

Now I want to deal first with a few things that were said here by the hon. member for Houghton. On two occasions already this hon. member has presented these Bantu university colleges in the worst light imaginable. She keeps harping on one theme, i.e. that these Bantu universities have no chance of ever gaining world recognition. For that purpose she applies certain criteria, criteria which she herself determines. The fact of the matter is, after all. that a university is measured against the standards of academic training which it maintains. What this Government has achieved in regard to these university colleges, is to be found in the very fact that it has succeeded in setting such satisfactory standards at the university colleges that to-day it feels free to introduce legislation in this House for raising the status of these colleges to that of universities. The standards of these university colleges are in fact so high that they compare favourably with those of any white university in this country. In this regard we have already furnished figures relating to the number of foreign Bantu from elsewhere in Africa who have enrolled at these university colleges. On this occasion I do not want to react very sharply to the hon. member for Houghton, except to tell her that I personally take it amiss of her for trying so continually to make the world believe that these Bantu universities have no chance whatsoever of gaining world recognition. As a person who takes a great interest in these institutions, I am absolutely convinced that the time will come when these institutions will really gain world recognition. And why not? The hon. member is not rendering these institutions a service, nor is she rendering the Bantu a service. As I know the Bantu, they will definitely not put up with this attitude of the hon. member. She has the reputation of being so “liberal”. And yet she comes here and adopts an attitude such as this one. But she is not only rendering these institutions and the Bantu a disservice; she is also rendering South Africa a disservice. Here we have an honest and serious attempt on our part at placing the Bantu, by means of these three excellent universities, on the road to further progress. But now she comes here and refers to these institutions in a disparaging manner. She says, “A liberal is a woman with her mind open at both ends”. That is true, particularly of the hon. member for Houghton. She also came forward with another story here, and I want to furnish her with a reply to that as well. Having said that the standards were allegedly so low, she referred to certain regulations of the University College of Zululand and tried to make them appear ridiculous. But what is the contents of these regulations? If you listened closely, Mr. Speaker, you would have noticed that each of those regulations concerned discipline. Let me just tell the hon. member that I serve on the council of the R.A.U., consequently I can tell her that that university has regulations which are similar to those which she made to appear ridiculous here. And we are proud of these regulations, because through them we ensure that there is proper discipline at the Rand Afrikaans University. The hon. member should therefore not draw this kind of comparison here.

Another statement she made—and here I also come to the hon. member for Kensington and other speakers on his side of the House—was the denial that they had ever spoken of “bush colleges” or “tribal colleges”. In other words, they now want to make this House believe that they have never tried to disparage these university colleges. But that is definitely not true. On a previous occasion during this debate the hon. member for Koedoespoort charged the United Party with having stigmatized these university colleges as “bush colleges” and “tribal colleges”. In reply to that the hon. member for Kensington said, “That is absolutely untrue”. This assertion of his I cannot allow to pass without any comment. Subsequent to that I looked up what the United Party had had to say about this matter in 1959, when these university colleges were established. And what did they have to say at the time, makes incredible reading. I just want to quote a few excerpts here. In column 4471, an hon. member of the United Party said …

Who is he?

Mr. Bowker. Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, it is incredible to read what hon. members of the Opposition said at the time. The whole tenor of the United Party’s attack on the establishment of these university colleges at the time is expressed in these words of Mr. Bowker—

This was the attitude adopted by the United Party throughout. In fact, the reports of the debates conducted at the time contain so many similar statements that they really constitute a paradise for the person who wants to wipe the floor with the United Party.

Order! What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say?

Mr. Speaker, I say that the Hansard of that time constitutes a paradise for the person who wants to wipe the floor with the United Party. At any rate, I shall not attempt to educate them. That will, in any case, not be of much use. Here we have another excerpt from the attacks launched at the time—

He said that the “whole world” was shocked at this “setting back of the clock” through this legislation. He referred to the “wickedness” of this legislation; we were returning to the Middle Ages, he said; this legislation meant that we were slipping back to the times of Henry VIII or perhaps Richard III. Ten years ago the hon. member for Kensington himself referred here to “the rape of Fort Hare”. And the hon. member for Koedoespoort is correct in maintaining that this is still the tenor of the United Party’s attack to-day—to disparage these universities in the harshest terms. I shall prove this with the help of the Hansard reports of the debate at the Committee Stage. From these reports it is clear that their attitude was that these universities actually had no right to exist. They did their best to disparage these institutions; they still think in terms of “tribal’ and “bush colleges”.

You are putting up a very poor case. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I shall make another general statement before I proceed to reply to individual questions. I want to indicate why the United Party is adopting this attitude. During the three days the University of Fort Hare Bill has been discussed here in Committee, it has really been funny to see how the “three musketeers” and the hon. member for Houghton, the inevitable woman, acted here. What did we have to witness in regard to technical points of this legislation? They will take it amiss of me if I say it, but I just want to illustrate it and I should like to say it, because this is exactly what happened. Through the mouths of these three musketeers the United Party, along with the Progressive member for Houghton, gaily opposed clause after clause. Why? I shall tell you why, Sir. Their whole point of attack was aimed at the provision being made here for separate councils, for a separate advisory council and a separate advisory senate. Why? Every single proposal made by the Opposition during the Committee Stage was—with very rare exceptions of a more technical nature—aimed at giving these universities integrated councils; in other words, having fought along with the hon. member for Houghton for three days, their whole plea amounted to their being in favour of integration in order to condemn the policy of apartheid as it is being applied at these universities. But most important of all is this: What they wanted to promote, was in fact the integration of students, which is even more important, and then, when it came to discipline, the hon. member for Houghton would have none of it and disparaged that, too. That is something we shall not forgive the United Party; we shall tell this to the country, because the United Party is trying very hard to create a different image for itself here, but when they are put to the test, as happened in this case, they forget about it completely. Everything that happened was indicated by the attitude they adopted when they voted on clause 21. I want to ask the hon. member for Kensington whether he still adheres to the view he held in 1959, i.e. that white students should be allowed to study at these Bantu universities. Does he still adhere to that? I can prove to him that that was the view he held in 1959.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) had to get up alone. When the hon. member got up, and only he and the hon. member for Houghton got up, I could not help thinking of the nursery rhyme “Jack and Jill went up the hill … Jack fell down and …”

Order!

The point I want to make is this: If the United Party wants to correct its image, it should not, when it is put to the test, do what it did during these debates. They can look up the Hansard. That is the true factual position. Why does the United Party do that? This is the next point I want to make.

In respect of the Bantu they are making exactly the same mistake they have been making in respect of the Afrikaner in this country for years. They wanted to disregard the Afrikaner’s national feelings in respect of the flag, the anthem, the break with the Crown, the Republic and all those matters. They are now making the same mistake in respect of the Bantu, because they simply do not want to understand the following simple truths. A Zulu wants to be a Zulu and nothing else; a Venda wants to be a Venda and nothing else; a Xhosa wants to be a Xhosa and nothing else, and a Tswana wants to be a Tswana—and similarly a U.P. man wants to be a U.P. man, and it seems to me as though he cannot be anything but a U.P. man.

Tell us about your thesis.

The moment you get hurt, you refer to the thesis, in due course I shall use it with telling effect against you; just give me a chance. Why do they do that? I want to ask them a simple question now. They are disregarding the national feelings of the Bantu in South Africa and they are in actual fact not even noticing it. Will they never learn? You know, Sir, they say that the area north of the ears is the most unused area in the world; but honestly, Sir, one merely has to look at the United Party and to see how they are making mistake after mistake in South African politics, to be absolutely convinced that this is in fact very much applicable to them. Let me put this question to them now. Let them close down Fort Hare as a college and do as the hon. member for Kensington wants to do, in regard to which I shall presently have more to say, namely to establish an umbrella college for the Bantu there. Let them close it down and then we shall see what happens. Let them try to close down the University of the North and then we shall see what the North Sotho, the Venda, the Tswana, the South Sotho and the Shangaan will do to the United Party. Let them close it down. Let them go to Zululand and try to close down the University of Zululand. They can ask the hon. member for Zululand what would happen to them. That is why I say that their argumentation on the basis of principles cannot withstand even the simplest of tests. That is why I say that the United Party should give a great deal of thought to these matters before they start making such a fuss about them here.

There are certain specific questions that were put to me and certain points that were raised by hon. members. Before I reply to them, I just want to say this: The hon. member asked me this afternoon why this legislation was supposed to be so very necessary, and this was specifically in regard to the legislation relating to the University of Zululand. I just want to point out to him that, in terms of the last clause of this measure (clause 45), this legislation does not come into operation immediately. This will be announced by proclamation, and it will be announced when that university college asks for it. We were keen to introduce these three measures at the same time. I should like to say this to hon. members. It is only after more than two years of thorough and prolonged consultation with each of these separate university colleges that these Bills are now being submitted to this House with the greatest measure of responsibility. The hon. member should, therefore, not ask that question. He also wanted to know why these measures were necessary, and this is a fair question. As my first point I said that this legislation would be announced by proclamation. These measures are necessary because, after thorough investigation and after mature consideration, based on that investigation in regard to which they proposed an amendment but which has been finalized as far as we and the Departments are concerned, we were absolutely convinced by the expert educationists in this country who were involved in the matter, that these universities are maintaining the necessary standards which gives them every right to ask, as they are doing, for academic autonomy. That is the only thing and precisely what we are granting them through these measures. We are granting them academic autonomy by severing their ties with the University of South Africa, so that they may have full academic autonomy.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Kensington made a plea for mixed university councils. He said that this would afford the Bantu the opportunity of learning from their more experienced white fellow councillors. I should like to reply to this point in full, because this argument would probably have some significance to persons who do not have any experience of the problems of such mixed councils. Our experience has been that mixed boards of management do not hold the benefits the hon. member mentioned. The reasons for this is mainly the following: In the first place, we found that the more experienced white members of any mixed managing body tend to dominate the discussions. They set the pace and it is not possible for their fellow Bantu members to realize themselves fully and properly. The hon. member laughs at this, but this is a very important reason and the Bantu are asking that these councils should not be mixed because they realize this. In the second place, we find that the Bantu members do not always accept responsibility for resolutions taken by a mixed council. Even if they do agree to the resolution which is taken, they still take the view that the Whites as the responsible persons on that council should accept responsibility for those resolutions. Surely, we know this; this is, after all, plain common sense. Why does the hon. member present these matters in the way he did?

The reason is that ten years ago everybody except the Department told us the same story. What you are quoting is what the Department said. It did not happen, and it was turned down.

No, that is not true. I want to mention the third reason to the hon. member. For the Bantu who serves on such an integrated council there is, after all, not the same challenge as there is when he has his own council. In the fourth place, Whites and Bantu often differ on points where cultural background, level of development and knowledge come into play, and sometimes this has unpleasant consequences—and the hon. member knows that, surely. What I am mentioning here now, are facts and not unfounded arguments. What I am mentioning here, is based on practical experience which we are gaining daily in respect of these matters. The fifth reason is this: The rector and the registrar are always present at meetings of the advisory council and assist that council by giving advice and guidance. The advisory council may, for instance, also call upon professors and other members of the staff to assist them. I am told that at the University of the North, at the University of Zululand and at Fort Hare this is something which in practice happens almost daily and week after week. Surely, this is a much better system than would have prevailed if there had been a mixed council.

The next reason is that the advisory council has to learn to act independently so that at an opportune moment it will be possible for them to take over the responsibility of the ordinary council, as it exists at the moment. What is wrong with that? That is why we insist that we are placing these Bantu on the road to development. This is what this Bill also envisages as a further step on that road to development.

The last reason I want to mention, and this is perhaps the most important one, is that a mixed council or a mixed senate would be in conflict with the Government’s policy of separate development. We are therefore opposed to integrated authority on any level or in any sphere. Wherever we can avoid it, we want to do so in the interests of the Bantu.

White supremacy (baasskap).

No, that is not true. The ultimate object of separate development—this is something we often say—is in fact to prevent joint authority, the so-called “sharing of powers” by Whites and non-Whites. That is why it is so logical that we shall proceed along this course. You will not permit me, Sir, to elaborate on this any further.

Then I just want to deal with another argument the hon. member for Kensington mentioned here. He said that an umbrella university of constituent colleges would have been something very desirable. The hon. member for Green Point also raised that point here. What is the position in that respect? I may tell those hon. members that very serious consideration was given to whether it would not have been better to establish such an umbrella Bantu university in South Africa. The other day I told hon. members that in the planning stage of these universities I have quite a lot to do with this. Serious consideration was given to this, but it was only after very mature consultation that it was found, for practical reasons with which I would be able to occupy hon. members for a long time, that in the given circumstances this would not be best for South Africa. The hon. member raised that matter after the analogy of the University of South Africa, which fulfilled a similar function formerly. But that was 50 years ago, and 50 years ago that was definitely necessary. However, because it was a practical reality 50 years ago, it does not mean that it is one today. To mention just one fact to hon. members: to-day we most definitely have at our disposal the services of a sufficient number of excellent men of learning who are capable of maintaining the desired standard at every university. If we do have a sufficient number of lecturers to guarantee that the correct standards will be set, why should we establish one umbrella Bantu university, which might in turn create the impression that the Bantu have an inferior university in comparison with the white universities, while we are in a position to grant each separate nation a university of its own in as far as it is practicable and realistic to do so? The intention with these universities is in fact to afford those Bantu nations the opportunity of developing themselves to the maximum. The attitude we adopt is that each of these universities should eventually become absolutely full and equal universities, each with its own character and individuality, a university which would be able to accomplish things on its own and to win its own honours. Surely, if that is the case it would mean something to that Bantu nation and to this country. This is my reply to the question of an umbrella university. Surely, a university which can, through exertion and devotion, gain for itself the first place amongst universities, will have accomplished something great. Surely, this is a tremendous challenge to those Bantu nations. Surely, a university which can acquire world fame on its own, is a tremendous challenge. The Bantu are prepared to accept that challenge. If there were an umbrella Bantu university, this would not be possible for every separate ethnic group, as we are making it possible now.

I want to reply to another question that was raised by the hon. member for Kensington. He also referred to these universities in a disparaging manner and created the impression that the failure rate at these universities was allegedly so high. I took the trouble to ascertain the failure rate of our white universities and of these Bantu university colleges in order to draw a comparison. I do not think the hon. member is playing the game by making a statement such as the one he made during the Second Reading debate, without having the facts at his disposal. What are the facts? The first-year failure rate at the University of Pretoria is 46.4 per cent. The first-year failure rate at Fort Hare is 26 per cent. Surely, it is ridiculous for the hon. member for Kensington to speak before he knows what the facts are. The first-year failure rate at the University college of Zululand was 33 per cent. The failure rate at the University of the Witwatersrand is 42.5 per cent, that of Cape Town is 41.2 per cent and that of Natal is 40.9 per cent. As against that the first-year failure rate in respect of the University Colleges of Zululand and Fort Hare is 33 per cent and 26 per cent, respectively. The second-year failure in respect of the University of Pretoria is 28.5 per cent, and that of Cape Town is 40.2 per cent. The failure rate at the University College of Zululand is 28 per cent and that of Fort Hare is 32 per cent.

You have it the wrong way round. I was speaking about the pass figures, not the failures.

But surely, that is very simple. After all, if one subtracts the failure rate from 100 per cent, one would know what the pass rate is. I am furnishing the failure rate, because I requested it, and I have it here. But I repeat, if I give the hon. member the failure rate, he simply has to subtract it from 100 per cent and then he would have the pass rate, not so? Uncle Flippie does not mean to tell me that he did not know that.

You misunderstood me completely.

But the hon. member misunderstands me. I am giving you the reply to your question. The third-year failure rate at the University of Pretoria is 33.9 per cent, and at the University college of Fort Hare it is 27 per cent. At the University College of the North it is 28 per cent. I hope I have now, in an effective manner, squashed that story, which is once again aimed at disparaging the standard at these university colleges. I have now shown that the failure rate at each of these Bantu university colleges is lower than the corresponding figures at some of our most famous white universities. If the hon. member still does not understand this, I want to tell him that in most cases the first, second and third-year pass rates at the Bantu university colleges are higher than the corresponding pass rates at our white universities. I shall make these figures available to the hon. member if he wants to have access to them for the sake of completeness. The hon. member should therefore not speak before he has obtained the facts.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Does he not understand that the figures I quoted were the figures from the Department in reply to my question? The question was, “What number and percentage of each college passed all their exams?” When I gave the figure of 21 per cent, it was a pass figure, not a “druipsyfer”.

But I have just quoted to the hon. member the figures we received last week. These figures are in respect of the white universities for the period 1962 to 1965, and in respect of the Bantu university colleges for the year 1968. I have the full set of figures, except that I was unable to obtain the third-year failure rate or pass rate at the University College of Zululand. These figures, together with the comparisons, are authentic and the hon. member may rely on them. They completely invalidate the point the hon. member tried to make here, and also show up how the hon. member wanted to throw dust in the eyes of the House.

The hon. member made another point. In this regard he reminded me very strongly of “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall”. In his whole calculation of the cost per student at these university colleges, namely R2,900, and also in the other calculations he made, he really did not go about it in the correct way. He is an ex-teacher. I think that in the first place one does at least teach a child that basically he should be honest. The hon. member is a real old fox. That I can say of him.

Order!

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Kensington did not play the game in this regard. He created the impression that only students who held matriculation exemption certificates could be taken into account at a university. That is not fair, because a student who holds a school-leaving certificate is, after all, just as much a student as is the one who holds a matriculation exemption certificate. When such a student is at a university, he should, after all, also be taken into account in the calculation of the cost per student. The fact of the matter is that in this way the hon. member for Kensington wants to make the country believe that it costs the tax-payer more than R2,900 to keep a Bantu student at such Bantu university. Both the hon. the Minister and I said during the Second Reading debate, and now I say it for the third time, that the cost per student at the University of the North, for instance, is only in the vicinity of R1,069.

We have not yet discussed the University of the North.

I just want to mention the figure. At the University College of Zululand, for instance, the figure was R1,418 per student in 1967, and the figure per student at the University College of Fort Hare is R1,490. These figures are approximately half the figure of R2,900 which the hon. member mentioned.

That is wrong.

The hon. member says this is wrong, but he should work it out and then he would see that this is the case. I should like to tell hon. members how this figure is to be calculated. In the calculation of the cost per student, there is only one formula in terms of which it can be done. i.e. the total current expenditure of that university less the revenue of that university divided by the total number of students, and not only by those who hold matriculation exemption certificates.

The hon. member for Kensington went further and said that at these Bantu university colleges there were many students who held school-leaving certificates, but that there were very few who held matriculation exemption certificates. I am trying to ascertain what the position is at our white universities in this regard. In 1966 there were 6,245 students at the University of Stellenbosch who had obtained matriculation exemption. In 1967 there were 6,356. In 1966 the number of students who studied at the University of Stellenbosch without having obtained matriculation exemption was 379, and in 1967 it was 378. Therefore the percentage of students without matriculation exemption was 5.7 per cent and 5.6 per cent, respectively. However, in looking at the percentage in respect of the Bantu university colleges, one sees that the percentage of students with school-leaving certificates as against those with matriculation exemption certificates, is more or less the same as is the percentage at the white universities. Surely, in that case it is not fair to infer what the hon. member for Kensington inferred. When the hon. member refers to the number of students per lecturer he makes the same mistake, because once again he is not adding the number of students at the Bantu universities who have school-leaving certificates, and consequently his figure in respect of the number of students per lecturer is considerably lower, which is by no means a true reflection of the actual situation. In this regard I should like to draw another comparison for the hon. member. At the University of Stellenbosch the number of students per lecturer was 6.6 in 1966; at Cape Town it was 7.8 and at Rhodes it was 6.9. At the University College of Fort Hare the figure was 4.7 students per lecturer in 1968, and 5.5 in 1969; at the University College of Zululand the figure was 5.3 and at the University College of the North it was 7.7 students per lecturer. It is for this reason that I say that it was unfair of the hon. member to make this misrepresentation during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.

With these replies I think that I have replied to all the points that were raised by hon. members. I want to conclude by saying that we do not have any objections to hon. members opposite discussing these matters on a high level and pointing out mistakes that have been made, but what we do object to is certain misrepresentations which have been made here and which are aimed at disparaging these Bantu universities. We disagree with the views held by hon. members opposite in that we say that these Bantu universities should be run on a basis of separate development in order that they may reach maturity in the service of their nation, and not, as the United Party is saying, on a basis of integration as is being advocated by them.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. U. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the University of Zululand Bill, it is a particular privilege and honour to me to move—

I could, in fact, have introduced this under the theme that what is a proven fact to-day, was only a flight of the imagination 15 years ago. What has happened here is that, as in the case of the other university colleges, something has been created out of nothing. This University of the North has without any doubt whatsoever already developed into a showpiece of a Bantu university. It has developed into a university in respect of which more than one famous visitor from overseas, people from various parts of the world visiting the university, spoke to me personally or in other cases in my presence with the highest praise and admiration for what they had seen there. The University of the North is often visited by overseas visitors. The reason for this is obvious. It is that the University is situated near to Johannesburg and Pretoria, which means that more overseas visitors are able to pay the University a visit.

Right at the outset I want to say two things in respect of these universities and the first is this: Except for the new provisions in which specific reference is made to the University College of the North the wording of this Bill is identical to that of the previous two. The principles contained in it have already beer discussed at length here and it is therefore not necessary for me to do so again now. The second thing that I want to say also applies to the University of Zululand Bill: The amendments which have been accepted in respect of clauses 8 and 9 of the University of Fort Hare Bill will mutatis mutandis apply to the University of Zululand and the University of the North, and hon. members will find those amendments on the Order Paper.

The University College of the North was established in terms of the Extension of University Education Act, 1959. This institution was established to serve the Sotho, Tswana, Venda and Shangaan national units in the main. It was opened at the beginning of 1960 and is, as hon. members know, situated at Turfloop.

Buildings and other facilities to the value of nearly R2,550,000 have been provided since 1960, and the institution can boast, among other things, a splendid library and a pharmacy building of which many an older white university institution in this country can rightly be envious. In addition, the University College already has five faculties and 36 departments, while 81 lecturers (18 Bantu) and 44 other staff members (25 Bantu) undertake the teaching of students and the administration of the college, respectively.

It is also gratifying to see the way student numbers at the University of the North are increasing. The very small number of 87 students with which a start was made in 1960 increased to 611 in 1968. As far as student numbers are concerned, the University College of the North is therefore the largest of the three Bantu university colleges in the country. There is also a considerable and encouraging increase in the number of students graduating every year. As against the 12 degrees conferred in 1963, for example, 51 degrees were conferred in 1967. From 1960 to 1967 the following degrees and diplomas were conferred: 138 degrees, 13 honours degrees, 24 post-graduate diplomas and 192 undergraduate diplomas. It is also interesting to note that the first Bantu pharmacists qualified at the University College of the North. You will agree with me that this is a very special achievement.

Although the Bantu university colleges are already offering tuition in a large variety of courses, there are a few fields of study in which the university colleges still do not provide tuition. Here I am thinking of engineering in particular. The need among the Bantu for training in engineering is still small but—and this is important––there are already a few students coming forward and wanting to qualify in this direction. Bantu students wanting to take a course in engineering have so far been advised first to take an ordinary B.Sc. course with the right choice of under-graduate subjects at one of the Bantu colleges and afterwards, that is to say, after completion of the degree course for a B.Sc., to apply to the Minister for permission to be admitted to the University of the Witwatersrand or Cape Town for further study leading to the degree in engineering.

As a result of this arrangement the training of Bantu students admittedly takes a little longer, but what has happened in practice until now has shown that a Bantu student enrolling for the course in engineering immediately after matric is unable to cope with it easily. They usually leave the university before completing their studies. At the non-White Medical School attached to the University of Natal the medical course for Bantu students also takes a year longer than the ordinary period of study. This is therefore not a completely new arrangement which only applies in respect of engineering students.

During the past four years 32 applications have been received from Bantu students wanting to enroll at white universities. Five of them were granted. To four students, all of whom were in possession of B.Sc. degrees, permission was granted to enroll for the course in engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand, while one obtained permission to enroll for practical laboratory work at the University of Natal. The other 27 could be accommodated at one of the three Bantu university colleges.

Mr. Speaker, while there may also have been some prejudice on the part of the Bantu peoples concerned against the College during the first years of its existence, I can say without fear of contradiction to-day that the University College of the North has since become a proud possession of these peoples. Not only do they accept it as their own to-day, but they are also intensely interested in the activities and achievements of the university college. The goodwill as well as the interest displayed by these Bantu peoples was, even to me, who actually expected or foresaw it, an absolute revelation on the occasions where it was my privilege to see it. The University College of the North has made a great name for itself in the short period of its existence and is known far outside the borders of our country to-day. Applications from interested Bantu students are for example received from as far afield as Uganda. As far as the foreign students are concerned, the figures have already been furnished to the House and I therefore need not do so again.

Mr. Speaker, this University College has been established and developed so successfully that it can take its place as a university with dignity next to Fort Hare and other universities. The Government is satisfied that the University College of the North is able to stand on its own feet academically and that is the main reason why this Bill is being introduced. It does not only have all the necessary facilities, but its staff also has the required experience and qualifications. In this regard I once again wish to express my special appreciation to the University of South Africa, which has contributed so much to making the University College and its staff fully conversant with the academic management of a university in all fields. I want to declare here that the service rendered by the University of South Africa to these Bantu universities has been of inestimable value, and for that we express our sincere and heartfelt thanks to the University of South Africa.

Now that these three Bantu university colleges are having university status and greater academic responsibility bestowed upon them, these three university institutions can enter the next phase of development with the greatest measure of confidence in the knowledge that they enjoy the full support and confidence of the Bantu peoples concerned and that the Government will continue to assist them financially. Everything points to it that these universities are on the eve of great expansion and development. The number of Bantu pupils receiving secondary education is continually increasing at an ever-faster rate. This increase is reflected particularly in the number of pupils passing the junior certificate and matriculation examinations. For example, 4,900 pupils passed the junior certificate examination in 1960, 7,517 in 1964, and 12,393 in 1968, and I do not have the slightest doubt that this tendency of increasing numbers of Bantu students passing the junior certificate examination will continue.

The figures in respect of matriculation and the senior certificate are as follows: In 1960 118 pupils passed matric and 279 the school-leaving certificate, making a total of 397; in 1968 the number of pupils who passed matric rose to 775; the number of pupils who passed the school-leaving certificate increased to 491, making a total of 1,266. The ethnic classification of Bantu pupils who wrote matric and the senior certificate in 1968 is as follows as far as it applies to the University of the North: North-Sotho: 339 wrote the two exams; 185 obtained the matric exemption certificate and 51 the school-leaving certificate; 221 South-Sotho pupils wrote the two exams; 54 obtained the matric exemption certificate and 45 the school-leaving certificate; 364 Tswana pupils wrote the two exams; 109 obtained the matric exemption certificate and 63 the school-leaving certificate; 57 Tsonga pupils wrote the two exams; 28 obtained the matric exemption certificate and 10 the school-leaving certificate; 49 Venda pupils wrote the two exams; 21 obtained the matric exemption certificate and five the school-leaving certificate.

The ethnical classification of students at the University College of the North in 1968 was as follows: Xhosa, 5; Zulu, 15; Sotho national groups, 491; Tsonga, 48; Venda, 37. The Sotho national groups were further subdivided as follows, and I am only giving the figures in respect of the University of the North: North-Sotho, 235; South-Sotho, 81; and Tswana, 175. It can therefore be accepted that matriculants will flow to the Bantu university colleges in an ever-increasing stream in the years to come and that this university will be able to grow on the strength of the reservoir of an increasing number of matriculated and school-leaving certificate pupils, and that is precisely what we are expecting to happen. I am not, for the sake of briefness, going to give the loans which are made available to the University College of the North. If hon. members want the information in this regard, I shall gladly make it available to them. The amounts which are also being made available for bursaries and loans to the University of the North are quite large. I am satisfied that under this new dispensation the Bantu universities will succeed to an increasing extent in supplying the necessary trained human material required for service to their own communities and more specifically for the more rapid development of the Bantu homelands.

In conclusion I should like to pay special tribute to-day to the staff of the University of the North for their magnificent contribution and also the officials of the Department of Bantu Education. At three university institutions, two of which had to he started from scratch, the activities were expanded and established to such an extent in such a short space of time that the results speak for themselves to-day. When, in addition to that, it is kept in mind that all the buildings were erected with Bantu labour which had to be trained from scratch, you will realize what a great and praiseworthy achievement has been accomplished here by the officials of the Department of Bantu Education. I stress this point because when these university colleges were established in 1959 and the matter was discussed here for many days, serious doubts were expressed by the opposition as to whether the Department of Bantu Education would be the most suitable body to administer these university colleges. I do not have the time, but I can prove from Hansard what wild allegations were made here. I think it is fitting that this House should after 10 years pay the officials of the Department the tribute they deserve, especially in view of the doubts which existed. I just want to say that the co-operation between the Department and the college authorities has been excellent throughout. I want to make so bold as to say that no department could have handled this matter better than the way in which Bantu Education has proved it can. To all the other persons concerned in the matter and to those who served on various boards and advisory boards in the past nine years, my heartfelt and sincere thanks. Without their selfless assistance we would not have been able to make of these university colleges the success which they have proved to be. I therefore conclude by saying that I do not have the slightest doubt that this University of the North is developing properly, and one looks forward eagerly to the results at this University of the North 10 years hence.

I should like to say in the beginning that I want to give the Minister and the Deputy Minister the assurance that when they quote figures I accept them unreservedly. I should also like to tell the Deputy Minister that when I quote figures, they are figures supplied to me by the Department in reply to questions I have asked. There is no question of my having used figures to mislead the House, as the Deputy Minister seemed to suggest. I have not done that.

I want to say that when we discussed Fort Hare I quoted at length from my Second-Reading speech on Fort Hare and these other colleges 10 years ago, and I said: Establish these colleges; we will support that, but leave the open universities as they are. That was our argument. But they did not leave the open universities as they were. I stated that quite simply. That was the point. But I want to go further. When they passed the Second Reading, they then referred the Bill to a Select Committee which became a commission, and we served on the Select Committee and on the commission. We drafted a Bill to show how we thought these colleges should be run. I think our Bill was very much better than the Bill we ultimately received for these university colleges. The Deputy Minister says it is a matter of principle that Whites should not sit with non-Whites on the same board, but when we considered Fort Hare originally they had a board, a council, where Whites were sitting with non-Whites. A well-known professor from Stellenbosch was chairman, and every professor who gave evidence agreed that you must have your council constituted in that way. That is why we accepted it. The Minister does not accept it and I quite understand his difficulty. If it is the policy of his party, he should say so. But all the expert advice we got was that if you are going to teach these people how to run their colleges, we should have a multi-racial council, and certainly we should have a multi-racial senate. The Deputy Minister seemed to think that I was clever in quoting my figures. He did not really say “clever”, but suggested that I was being cunning.

He called you a fox.

Well, there are very many worse things than that. The excellent part about these debates is that one can refer back again. They are on record. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister and the House briefly what I did say in quoting figures.

The hon. the Minister told us about the progress they were making in appointing staff. If I look at my questions to find out about the progress they are making in appointing staff, I see there were 97 members on the staff for the number of students. That works out at 4.5 students per member of the staff. That is all students. There is no doubt about that. Then I added: For matriculated students—and not only those who enrolled for diploma courses—there are three students per member of the staff. Surely I made it perfectly clear. I was not trying to mislead the House. He can go on and read the same thing again lower down. When it came to the figures, in quoting the figures—I have them here—I quoted two separate figures. I gave the cost per matriculated student first, and having given the cost per matriculated student I then gave the cost for all students. There was no question of trying to mislead the House. I was trying to use simple figures to give a picture of Fort Hare, and of course, later on, of Zululand.

Your point was to show how expensive these colleges were and my point was that that was not quite correct, and I gave figures.

I was only working on the figures given to me by the Department. I have them all here; they are not my figures. I paid a tribute to the Department when I said that whenever I put a question on the Order Paper to the Bantu Education Department, I got a frank and full reply and I am very grateful.

I think we will now get on to the College of the North. There is quite a lot to be said about the College of the North that one could say about the other colleges. I understand from information I have received—and as I say, I have never had the opportunity to visit any of these colleges. Someone asked why I did not go. Well, Sir, surely you do not expect a Member of Parliament to go there without an invitation. I have not even been to the College of the Western Cape.

I said I invited you. You have a letter from me to that effect. [Interjections.]

I want to explain what the hon. the Minister has in mind. I live in Johannesburg and I represent a Johannesburg constituency. Soweto is not a suburb of Johannesburg. It contains all the Native townships and I was anxious to visit those schools. After some inquiries over a long period the Minister did eventually give me carte blanche to visit the schools in Soweto, and I am very grateful for that. But they are primary and secondary schools. I visited a vocational school there as well, and I was very ably assisted by the inspector of schools. I hope that removes any misunderstanding. I want to be quite frank about these things.

I come back to this question of Whites and non-Whites sitting together on the same board, which I mentioned earlier. When we sat on that commission we had evidence from Whiter and from non-Whites, but the only people who ever suggested that the Bantu felt inferior when he sat on a multi-racial board were the Department of Bantu Administration. They were the only people; nobody else suggested it. And you can read the evidence given before the Select Committee on Fort Hare and before the commission on the other colleges. Now let us get on a bit further.

I have been looking at this College of the North, and from the reports I have received —and one report I received was from a young man I had known from England. He came out here and asked how he could get some information. I told him to go to the Department, and they gave him the right to visit the College of the North. He told me he was very favourably impressed, and I was very proud of it. I told him that was what we were trying to do in South Africa and that we were very proud of the effort we were making. At the College of the North the number of students per member of the staff works out to be rather better than it does for Fort Hare or for Zululand. There they have very big staffs, but the College of the North does rather better. Even when it comes to examination results, there is progress. When I refer to examination results I am thinking of the cost to the country when students graduate. How long does it take—that is a question I have asked and I am sure there must be some statistics on it—the average student to complete his three-year course if he is taking a degree? I find at the College of the North things are rather better, from the replies I get to questions. In the first year they had 38 per cent passes. I am not telling the members of this House what the failures were; I am telling you what the passes were. The second year there were 49 per cent passes, and the third year 53 per cent. I should like to know whether students are promoted even when they have failed the first year. Does that mean that provided they have satisfied in certain subjects they are passed? I should like to have that figure as well. And how long does it take to complete a B.A. course?

Now I will come back to the general question of these colleges. I regret very much the hon. the Minister rejects our proposal that we should have a Select Committee. I think it is the obvious reply to this. Ten years ago we had a thorough investigation, and now we say: Let us have an investigation; let us consider the progress, not necessarily through a commission, but through a Select Committee. But the Minister is not prepared to accept that. Now, what could we have discussed on this Select Committee, what alternative proposals to this Bill? One is—and I am very glad to hear that it was considered by the Department—that we should now have a new university of constituent colleges, the University of South African Bantu Colleges. In other words, they would all become constituent colleges of one university. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister misunderstands that. He says: What will the people say in Zululand if they are not allowed to become a university, and what will they say in the North where they have made such great progress? The answer to that is a very simple one. They will be constituent colleges of a Bantu university for the three colleges, with perhaps more colleges to follow. We do not have these strict ethnic colleges because the College of the North, for instance, makes provision for five ethnic groups and not one. There are eight ethnic groups in this country, according to the legislation we have received from the Government. If there are eight ethnic groups, I am sure the hon. the Minister visualizes that eventually he will have eight of these colleges. Surely we are not going to establish eight universities?

You are trying to split hairs.

This is not hairsplitting. What I want is one university. Let us keep these colleges as they are. When it comes to promotions and the awarding of degrees, they can do What was done in South Africa in the early days. The hon. member for Carletonville thought that that was 50 years ago. That is what we did in the case of Whites. In South Africa we had constituent colleges of what was known as the original University of South Africa. I want to do a similar thing now. I have even heard it suggested that there should not only be a university of constituent colleges for Bantu, but for all non-Whites. We have a college for Coloured students in the Cape and we have one for Indians in Natal. I am not proposing this, because I am speaking to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, but it has been suggested that we should have one university for all these constituent colleges. I think that would be better than what we are doing to-day. I think it is acting prematurely when we say to a college like Zululand that it is to become a university. I think we are acting too hastily. That is the first thing we could have discussed.

The second matter is the rigid exclusion of Bantu of another ethnic group from any particular college. We have discussed this point in dealing with the Committee Stage of the Fort Hare Bill. For example, if a Zulu were to present himself to the College of the North where he wishes to take a course, he should be free to do so. The council should be free to admit him. We should not say that such a college should be exclusively for one ethnic group, or one Bantu group, if you like to put it that way. That is something we could have discussed. I am sure that we could have assisted the hon. the Minister. We could have given him something better than what is included in this Bill. I think the Bill is rather crudely arranged. It simply says that the Minister will decide, and as long as the Minister will decide, there need not be any alternative method.

Now I come to the third point we should have considered. These are points which have occurred to me. I am sure that there are other points which the Minister may have thought of. Should not all higher education, or tertiary education, as it is sometimes called, fall under one Minister of this Government? Why should we not have one Minister for all university education? But what is the case now? We have four Ministers. There is a Minister for white higher education, for Coloured higher education, and for Bantu higher education and then we have one for Indian higher education. Here we have four Ministers dealing with higher education in this country of ours. I suggest that it is a question of organization only. We have a Minister of Higher Education in South Africa. Why cannot all higher education fall under one Minister?

What do you have against the present set-up?

The difficulty is that, in terms of this Bill, the rectors of these new universities will not be regarded as university principals. The Minister of National Education has introduced a Bill to amend the 1955 University Act, in which he defines a university. A university, he says, is a university established by law, but it excludes these new universities. He does not accept them. So one Minister of the Cabinet establishes universities, and the other one says that for certain purposes he does not accept them. That is the position we are faced with to-day.

I now come to the question of the Committee of Principals. These university principals will not be on that Committee of Principals. They will have only one representative on the Matriculation Board, and he will represent the three universities.

Order! Will the hon. member please come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am discussing the amendment I intend to move. I shall read it now, if you wish. The amendment states that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee so that these points may be considered. I moved a similar amendment in regard to the previous Bill. I am going to move the same amendment now. When I drew up this amendment, I was too modest. At this moment, I stand astonished at my own modesty and moderation. What I should have asked for, is what the hon. member for Houghton suggested, namely, that a commission should be appointed. A judicial commission is at present inquiring into universities. It is a very important one. It is under the chairmanship of the hon. Justice Van Wyk De Vries. There are distinguished men serving on this commission. They have anything from 13 to 15 points of reference. They will be travelling around this country, considering this matter. If it is necessary to have a commission to consider university education, surely these university colleges should have been included in the commission’s terms of reference? The hon. member for Houghton has mentioned some of the points of reference. I need not repeat them, but there they are. Why should this commission not do so? I shall go further. We could have had a commission or a Select Committee to meet members of the college staff. We also have to consider the parents. There have been demonstrations at Fort Hare, and I think we should meet the parents. I have here a statement by Dr. Marolen, of Fort Hare, in connection with those disturbances. He made certain suggestions, which have appeared in the Press. He said—

They are not happy about the university colleges. He goes on to say—

He is quoting the Nationalist Party policy. He goes on to say—

They are not happy about this. That is why we suggest that, if this matter is to be investigated properly, we should have a Select Committee or a commission. During the course of these discussions we have spoken a great deal about the autonomy of a university. The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill on Fort Hare, was very careful to avoid the word “autonomy”. When he spoke of the autonomous universities, he meant the white universities. But there are no autonomous universities in South Africa. There are none. We stand for the autonomy of universities. Autonomy means that the council of a university, the executive body, will decide who shall teach, and secondly, whom shall be taught. Let us take those two points only. To-day the universities cannot decide whom they may teach. They cannot admit any student. That right has therefore been taken away. The second point is that they cannot decide who shall teach. Quite recently the hon. the Minister of National Education indicated to a university that he would not approve of a certain appointment. In other words, there is very little autonomy. Some of the words which have been bandied about here, and of which the Minister made a great deal, were “akademiese verantwoordelikheid”, “academic responsibility”, “academic independence” and “selfstandigheid” which, I suppose, could mean “self-reliance”. He mentioned that the universities would have those things. But these are all academic matters, and the academic side, or the work of the senate, is only one aspect of university government. The most important aspect is the constitution of the council. We have already stated that there is no autonomy. We are now not asking for autonomy, but we do say that if there is to be a senate which has such great power, and if there is to be academic freedom, which was mentioned during the Second Reading of the first Bill, the council of the university should also be given some power. But here we have another council being nominated by the hon. the Minister. So the executive power is not in the hands of the council, but in the hands of the Minister.

If they have complete autonomy you will not be able to discuss them in Parliament.

That is a risk we will take.

Oh no. We have taken many risks of that kind. I now want to ask one or two general questions. The one is what is the medium of instruction at these university colleges? Is it English or Afrikaans or one of the African languages? I should like to know that. When we speak about Fort Hare we must remember that the Transkei has now taken over its own primary and secondary education, and they changed the Government policy in education when they took over. Therefore, I think it is imperative for the Government to say that we will give the students what U.N. calls basic human rights. Basic human rights in education are that a man should be able to decide in which language he will be educated. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to tell me in reply what the language of instruction is at these three colleges. The next question I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to is on what principle the members of the council are chosen. I am not discussing the individuals of the council. I am discussing the principle. The hon. the Minister said to me at an earlier stage that there was for example at Fort Hare a professor from Rhodes. I do not want that. I wanted the representatives of Rhodes University to be choen by the Rhodes council. I want to know on what principle the members of the council are chosen. We have three university councils and we have three members of Parliament, one on each of those councils, but they are all from that side of the House. There are none from this side of the House.

Not even 60-40.

It is rather exclusive. That is not even 60-40, if I may say so. It is 100 to nil at the moment. I quite realize that there may be other good men. I am not suggesting that these men that are appointed are not good men, but I think the hon. the Minister should distribute these favours a little more equally, a little more fairly. We have had a lot of talk recently about cultural groups. We have had a lot of talk in this House of the promotion of cultural groups and so on. I think the hon. the Minister should say: Well, if I am going to appoint certain people I must try to preserve a balance. The hon. the Prime Minister has been telling us how important it is to preserve this balance. He told us about the two cultures, working together towards one united South Africa. Let us give ourselves a chance to work together. Let us get inspanned. Now I want to mention my final point. I have been going into the question of how many non-White members there are on the staff of these three Bantu colleges. I have worked them out, again on figures supplied to me by the Department. All those figures come from the Department.

Order! I have to point out that we are now dealing with the University of the North Bill and not with the other Bills of a similar nature. Those Bills have been passed.

I am now speaking on clause 4 of the Bill, dealing with the establishment of a constitution for the university. In the establishment of a constitution for the university there is a chancellor, a rector, a council, a senate, an advisory council and an advisory senate to which we have taken strong objection. I am now going to speak about the advisory council and senate referred to in clauses 4 and 8. I find there are five non-White professors and 42 non-White lecturers, a total of 47. The hon. the Minister in reply to a question from me said that not one of them is sufficiently qualified to serve on the advisory senate. That is the position we have reached. Here we have professors who cannot sit in the senate because of the policy of this Government, namely that white men and black men cannot sit together in their own college. Now they cannot even be there in an advisory capacity. That is the other point I wish to make. When we come to the later stages of these Bills—and we have had quite a surfeit of university education Bills by now—we should like to see the hon. the Minister distribute these favours a little more generously, and we should like to see a reasonable council appointed. I should like him now, at this late hour, to give consideration again to our proposition or suggestion that we should have one South African Bantu university with three constituent colleges. My views and those of this side of the House are well known. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago a battle was fought in this House in the advance of separate development. On that occasion the United Party, together with all the leftist groups in the country made a stand here and opposed the legislation which was to have authorized the establishment of the University College of the North. But what happened to-day? To-day they are employing delaying tactics, a sort of guerrilla warfare, with this amendment which they have submitted and with which they wanted to throw up a smokescreen. The erection and development of the University College of the North is a wonderful achievement for the white trustee. It is an excellent testimonial for the trusteeship of the Whites. It testifies to the honesty and his unimpeachable integrity, not only of the Whites in general, but of the National Party in particular, towards the non-White groups of South Africa. These universities did not fall out of a clear sky. They went hand in hand with sacrifice and dedication on the part of a hardworking and purposeful Government, and a dedicated Minister. This happened with the co-operation of faithful officials. In the last place, but not least, it was brought about with the support of that group of vocationally-minded, conscientious, patriotic white lecturing staff at those university colleges. They were people who were only too well aware of the major task resting on their shoulders, i.e. the task of being the builders and the shapers of the future relations pattern which would prevail between Whites and non-Whites here in South Africa. These people hold the clay in their hands, i.e. that which forms the embryo of the non-White leaders of the future. They are shaping that clay. This clay of to-day will tomorrow be the stone and concrete advisers of the non-White leaders. If that educational basis of those leaders is wrong, there will be problems. But if that educational basis is correct and this takes place with great understanding and in the best academic traditions, as it is in fact being done, there will be great blessings for us all in South Africa and in particular for our children in future. May there be greater understanding, greater support and greater sympathy among us all for our people who are serving on those advanced posts. Let us therefore honour these people as they deserve to be honoured for that titanic task which they are performing on a lesser-known but nevertheless vitally important national front. They are working at another foundation, another entrenchment for the continued existence of the Whites.

I said that the University College of the North did not fall out of a clear sky. I have been watching that university college grow from its foundations, and it is still growing. I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the University College of the North is not only situated near to Pretoria and Johannesburg, it lies only 15 miles from Pietersburg, at a place called Turfloop, and on that barren veld of Turfloop. among the stony ridges and hills there, Turfloop has arisen. That is where the University College of the North originated. There a beautiful, impressive, yet mystical building complex has arisen, representative of the powerfully primitive tempered by the refined and the civilized. It represents an exceptional architectural feat. The University College of the North has definitely brought us something new in South Africa. It is something out of Africa, something like Africa, and something for Africa. It is something which personifies the relationship between trustee and ward. It is something joined, but yet not integrated. It is something which makes each strongly aware of his own but also respectfully aware of what is peculiar to the other. In this way this university college has been established. Its first rector is still there, as well as a great many of the other white academic staff members. Academic freedom has flourished and remained in force, a characteristic which is necessary for the survival of a university and which is necessary to allow it to adjust to time and circumstances. The academic freedom to which I am referring is not the autonomous administration. I am referring to the relations between lecturer and student in the lecture halls, where the subject which is being taught is being investigated and where the truth is being sought. In this the University has achieved outstanding success, as I shall indicate later. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House. I would like to read out to the House something which indicates how he viewed the position ten years ago if these university colleges were to be established. He spoke about the policy and the direction of the National Party and about apartheid, and stated what he thought would happen if this university college were established. I am quoting from his speech in Hansard of 11th April, 1959, (column 3708). It reads as follows—

That was the opinion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ten years ago. I am certain that as a soothsayer or prophet he would not even receive the booby prize. How wrong he was is obvious, I do not want to discuss it further. It indicates that the United Party is completely out of touch with the Bantu and have no idea of what the Bantu’s needs are. These words demonstrate once again the complete inability of the United Party to solve the colour problem in South Africa, and it proves that they are a Party without vision and without a message. That is a fact.

I want to go further and put forward a certain hypothesis here. This is not only my opinion but it is also the considered opinion of people who are intimately concerned with this University College of the North, people who know what they are talking about. It is that this University, through its educational work and the services which it has rendered to the population groups in the North—I am speaking now of the North Sothos, the Vendas and the Tsongas—is of such a nature and so comprehensive that this institution is not only a great success but has already become an absolute necessity in their social national life. These are not idle words, because statistic analyses in general, as well as other phenomena in their national life, clearly indicate that this institution has become an indispensable factor in the betterment of these nations. It has given these nations increased self-confidence. It has supplied them with educated leaders from among their own ranks. It has already improved the standard of the teachers and the general educational level in the area has already been increased, especially in the schools there. This University College of the North has, through the achievements of its students, shown that they are not inferior students. On the contrary. They are at present more mature people than they ever were before. Their lives are now more meaningful because they have been educated and prepared in a disciplined way. Each one of them has the opportunity of developing into a mature person within the context of his own ethnic ties. They are inspired by the ideal of serving their own people. This salutory interaction, inspired and initiated by the establishment of this institution, in the general national life of these people, is already being reflected in the fact that this college, up to the end of 1968, sent 186 graduates and 258 diplomated individuals through its portals. To-day there are 43 non-Whites on the staff of 125, whereas in 1962 there were only 13. Therefore the number of non-white staff, in proportion to the numbers of Whites, is gradually increasing. In 1926 the proportion was 26 per cent, and to-day it is 34 per cent. This interaction has penetrated to such good effect that the recent matriculation results contained quite a number of first-class passes, something which previously was a very rare occurrence. All the students that have been admitted to that college this year, have matriculation exemption, except for the few students from other ethnic areas. The standard is definitely becoming higher and higher. According to my own personal opinion the greatest advantage which this university holds for the various nations is the fact that these students are now realizing that people with empty humanistic principles, such as Nusas and the kindred spirits of the hon. member for Houghton, merely took advantage of them. They are realizing this to a greater extent than before, owing to the distinctive background in which they are developing. These students are no longer susceptible to their empty clichés; they are no longer susceptible to their integrationistic views. The students realize—and they say this as well—that it is their most important task to render service to their own community and to their own nation. This institution has become indispensable to them, so much so that a greater understanding has developed among the other population groups. Even Vendas and Tsongas who are students there display the desire for such education centres for their own people in their own areas. They have now become aware of the deficiencies in their own national life, and they realize that such institutions can enrich their national life to a very great extent. They have therefore become aware of the value of such training centres.

This institution has now been established. It is teaching itself; it is approaching itself critically on an academic and scientific basis. It is maintaining a high standard at present, and will continue to maintain a high standard in future. This college is definitely mature enough to become a full-fledged independent university.

The Opposition now wants to condemn us because we did not also do what is being done overseas and in other Western countries. We are not doing as those people are doing, we are doing what has to be done in Africa, because we are of Africa and we undertake planning which will be for the good of Africa. Autonomy is less important, but it is very important that the hon. the Minister should keen a firm hand on the reins. Academic freedom is in fact important, but what is most important of all—and this is what the Opposition does not understand—is: What kind of people will the products of these universities be? We want products which will be for the good of Africa. We are not interested in what theoreticians from overseas or from Houghton or from Kensington tell us. We want to ensure that our society will co-exist in peace, in good neighbourliness and in mutual recognition and respect for what is peculiar to each, based on an underlying Christian moral foundation. In that lies our salvation and our future, as well as those of all the Bantu nations here in Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long and detailed discussion on these university Bills and I am quite sure I have already made my point of view very clear in the House. Therefore I really have very little to add to what I have already said.

But that is fine.

Hon. members must not get too pleased because if I get provoked I am likely to go on for half-an-hour.

Oh, no.

So if they take my advice they will keen quiet and then the chances are that I will sit down within two or three minutes.

I want to react to one thing the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he introduced this Bill. He mentioned, as did the hon. member who has just sat down, that the University College of the North—or Turfloop as it is familiarly known—is close to Johannesburg and Pretoria and therefore has acquired a larger number of students. The Deputy Minister also mentioned that the number of matriculants was increasing and, therefore, the number of university students could be expected also to increase. I want to say that the Government’s entire policy as far as Bantu education is concerned is in fact going to defeat this objective, or rather it is going to slow it down considerably. Despite the fact that the universities are located where they are, and however close this institution may be to Pretoria and Johannesburg, they are still not nearly close enough to big centres so that they can draw on the large field of additional students which all our big white universities—viz. Pretoria, Witwatersrand, R.A.U., Cape Town, etc.—have or had to draw on, namely part-time students. These are students who have to earn a living and who attend part-time classes. This is a particularly inhibiting factor as far as African students are concerned because they have great difficulty in being financed by their parents. They come from the poorest section of the community, and most of them will have to earn some money while they are studying. This, of course, is why so many African students study through the University of South Africa. They take correspondence courses because then they are able to earn a living at the same time. The fact that the African universities are situated so far away from the major urban areas is in itself an inhibiting factor and is one reason why the number of students has grown so slowly. As far as an increase in matriculants is concerned I want to say here that the Government’s policy as far as school education is concerned, is also an inhibiting factor. It is now the policy of the Government to do two things. One the hon. Minister has already described and the Deputy Minister has also done so, and that is to provide a broad basis of school education so that as many African children as possible can get a few years at school. My contention is not an original one; it is a contention held by educationists of great standing, particularly in the other parts of Africa, and it is that this is quite the wrong way in which to tackle the position where a large illiterate population is involved. The thing to do, of course, is to start concentrating on secondary and highschool education in order to develop the number of teachers, the teacher material, the university material and then thereafter to provide a broad basis where children may go to school in the lower classes. But to do it the other way, to devote most of the available money to sending a large number of children to school for two or three years, so that a very minute percentage of those who start school in a certain year, finish school ten years afterwards, is completely the incorrect way of doing it. It will stop, or rather inhibit, the development of education for Africans. This in itself is going to make it more difficult for these universities to grow.

The second factor I want to mention is the establishment of high schools in the rural areas rather than in the urban areas. Up to now the number of children who were able to attend the high schools, largely come from the urban areas. The fact that they are not readily accessible to children who live at home, is a factor which is reducing the number of high school students and thereby reducing the number of students who ultimately are going to be able to attend a university. These factors which I have mentioned now, added to the other objections I have already mentioned in respect of the University of Fort Hare and the University of Zululand, express the reasons why I shall be opposing the Second Reading of this University Bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I shall go to a great deal of trouble not to displease the Opposition. I really do not want to do that. We have now really dealt quite exhaustively with this university legislation in this House. Everyone will agree with me on that. After this Bill there is another one of the same nature.

I should just like to reply to a few questions put by the hon. member for Kensington as well as a few points raised by the hon. member for Houghton. I shall try to respond in a very courteous and complaisant way. I want to say immediately that I did not try at all to tread too violently on the hon. member for Kensington’s toes. I merely wanted to suggest that there were two ways of using those figures and to make it quite clear to him how I thought those figures should be used. I fully accent the explanation given by the hon. member for Kensington. I hope that with this the matter between him and me has been disposed of in an amicable way.

Then I want to raise a second point. I have a high regard for the hon. member and that is why I referred to Humpty Dumpty otherwise I would never have done that. I know it is true, and I have seen it in Hansard, that the hon. member for Kensington himself, as far as I have been able to establish, never spoke of a “bush college” or a “tribal college”. It is quite true the way he nuts it. His point of view throughout was that these “younger university colleges” should be given a fair chance, as he rightly said. That was his point of view. The only point I want to make is that while this was really his point of view, for which we on this side have the highest appreciation, it was not the point of view of the Official Opposition. or of all the members on that side, as I proved to hon. members. As regards that point. I think that the hon. member for Kensington and I therefore understand each other very well.

The hon. member again spoke about an umbrella Bantu university. I have already mentioned the arguments why it cannot be done. I stressed that it had been very seriously considered whether an umbrella university for the Bantu would not have been better. After mature consideration it was decided that it would not be better. I mentioned some of the arguments, because this is a matter about which one could talk at length. I am not going to repeat the other arguments, except that I want to mention only one additional argument now, because the hon. member again raised this matter. As this situation has developed, the Department of Bantu Education is already an umbrella body. In my Second Reading speech I paid tribute to the Department of Bantu Education, which, while the greatest concern was felt on that side of the House at first that they would not be able to handle it properly, gave practical proof in the past ten years that they could do it in a praiseworthy and excellent way. It seems to me as though it is becoming abortive to argue any further about an umbrella Bantu university while there will be three Bantu universities that will be at least academically autonomous, as well as an umbrella Bantu Education Department, which is acquitting itself of its task in an excellent way. With this I want to content myself in respect of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kensington.

I do not again want to go into the whole question of the principle in connection with a mixed council and senate as against an advisory council and senate. Our point of view has repeatedly been explained by the hon. the Minister and myself. In my reply to the Second Reading debate I said that we should rather agree to differ, as the saying goes. My objection is in fact that this is the basic difference in principle that there is between the Opposition and this side of the House. The one stands for a policy of separate development and the other stands for a policy of—may I put it this way—“semi-integration”.

Balanced development.

The hon. member may call it what he likes, but that is the basic difference between them and us. On a previous occasion, and again this afternoon, the hon. member for Kensington said quite rightly that he wanted to know how long it took a Bantu student to obtain his degree at these Bantu university colleges. That is how he phrased it. Unfortunately we cannot give a definite figure which shows how long it takes a Bantu student to do so. We tried to establish how long it takes a White student to obtain a degree at the white universities. At the Bantu university colleges we tried to establish the same. But they do not keep statistics of that kind. Consequently we cannot make them available. But I can remember from my Stellenbosch days that there are some students who do not want to study, and then it takes them seven years to get a degree. I assume that it is much the same at the Bantu university colleges. I remember that at Stellenbosch there was a student—I think his name was Willem—who had been studying for seven years. At the end of his seventh year he crammed all he could in an attempt to pass his examinations, because he had never studied during the year. He studied right through the night and never slept. He then became somewhat confused as a result of the terribly concentrated cramming at the end. One day his room-mate found him seriously praying that, if the Almighty Father would only help him not to become insane, he promised that he would never again study as hard as he had been doing the last day.

Some students take a very long time because they never study, while others do not take as long. The fact of the matter is that we simply do not have those figure. But now I just want to stress again that these figures I gave hon. members this afternoon, in respect of the number of failures, are absolutely excellent compared to the present number of failures at our white universities. Let me just repeat that in 1968 the number of failures among first-year students at the University College of Zululand was 33 per cent, while the figure at the University of Pretoria was 46.4 per cent. I now want to furnish an absolute pass figure to the hon. member for Kensington. He must remember that a pass figure, as I said during the debate earlier this afternoon, can be obtained by subtracting the percentage of failures from 100 per cent. But if one goes into the matter a little more thoroughly, one realizes that during the first year some students mss some of their subjects, but not all of them. In the second year they pass some of their subjects, but not all. We must therefore see what percentage of the students passed all their subjects. That figure I can give hon. members. At the University of the North the number of students who passed all their subjects in their first year was 38 per cent—a very good percentage. This is excellent compared to the percentage of passes at our leading white universities. At the University of Zululand 37 per cent of the students in their first year passed all their subjects. At Fort Hare the percentage of students who passed all their subjects in their first year was lower, i.e. 21 per cent, but this compares very favourably with the percentage of passes at the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Stellenbosch, for example. In the second year 37 per cent of the students at Fort Hare passed all their subjects; at the University of Zululand the figure was 30 per cent, and at the University of the North it was 49 per cent. The latter percentage of passes is higher than that at leading white universities in South Africa. In the third year 62 per cent of students at Fort Hare passed all their subjects, a brilliant achievement, and if one adds the few who passed repeat subjects, the percentage of passes is over 70, which is an excellent achievement by any international standards Therefore I repeat that these universities have set a standard which is absolutely beyond suspicion and is comparable with the best. In this connection I should like to compliment the Opposition: the Opposition continually raised the complaint that these universities would not be able to maintain the required standards, and for this very reason we were continually on our toes and the Department of Bantu Education went out of its way to ensure that high standards were maintained. However, since I have now given the Opposition credit for the contribution they have made, I hope that they will in their turn be prepared to admit that excellent results have been achieved at these Bantu universities. I repeat that a pass percentage of 62 per cent in all subjects in the third year is an outstanding achievement. At the University of Zululand the percentage of passes was 66 in all subjects, and at the University of the North, where the pass figure in all subjects in the first year was very high, it was 53 per cent in the third year. I hope that with this I have dealt with this matter duly and effectively.

The hon member for Kensington asked how many Bantu lecturers we had at the University of the North. I may tell him that at the three Bantu universities there are 11 Bantu teaching staff members and 26 others, which gives a total of 37. But now I want to give the hon. member the figure for the University of the North, for which he asked. I have already given him more than he asked for, but I am now specifically giving him the figures for the University of the North. There are two Bantu professors, both of them brilliant professors; at present there are three senior lecturers; there are seven Bantu lecturers and six Bantu junior lecturers. At the University of the North we therefore have 18 Bantu lecturers at present, of whom two are full professors. I know why the hon. member asked this question. He asked it in view of the advisory senate, but, as the hon. member knows, the establishment of an advisory senate is permissive. If we can appoint more Bantu teaching staff, we shall obviously be only too glad to do so. We shall from the nature of the case go out of our way to appoint them there taking into account the important fact that we do not want to and do anything and that I am not going to do anything that will lower the standards, because the standards have to be maintained under all circumstances. I hone I have satisfied the hon. member on that point.

Why are they not members of the senate or of the advisory senate as well? They are brilliant.

The answer to that is quite obvious. If you only appoint two professors on an advisory senate, you only have a dialogue and that is not really an advisory senate.

It is of no value.

It is of no real value. As I have said, the establishment of such an advirory senate is permissive. If certain of the Bantu lecturers move up to the position of senior lecturers the matter becomes more feasible and in that case we will certainly do so. But now that I have said this, the hon. member must not use it to tell me that we should do away with the principle of an advisory senate for this practical reason, because then we again have different premises. This is the position in respect of the advisory senate.

You referred to Bantu lecturers. Are there any other lecturers at the University who are non-Whites?

As far as I know there are only Whites and Bantu. I have already given the House the figures and I hope that this will satisfy the hon. member.

The hon. member for Kensington has again raked up the matter that was raked up by the hon. member for Durban (North) the other day, and that is the question of 60-40, as they call it.

That is the new division.

The hon. member referred to the fact that so many persons with Afrikaans surnames were serving on this council. Sir, I do not want to discuss this matter at length; I only want to say that it goes without saying that we shall not go out of our way at all to appoint only Afrikaans lecturers or Afrikaans people on the council. Where we can get them we shall be only too glad also to appoint English-speaking persons on these councils. In fact, the hon. member can take my word for it that we shall take pains to find English-speaking persons for this purpose. I shall take no delight in appointing unilingual Afrikaners or Afrikaans-speaking persons only on the councils, but I am not necessarily going to maintain an exact 60-40 basis. However, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever about this: In so far as I have a say in the matter, the Minister and I will go out of our way to appoint English-speaking persons if they are available. [Interjections.] I knew that hon. member would speak too soon. I have a good reply to him, but I shall rather keep quiet because I am afraid the Opposition will get annoyed with me. The point is this—and I am going to mention it here after all, but hon. members must not ask me for further details, because I am not prepared to furnish further details—we have had two English-speaking persons on these councils …

Where are they now?

… and for reasons we are not aware of both of them resigned. Sir, I do not want to start a political debate again, but I want to tell the hon. member for Transkei this: If the hon. member for Houghton and the Opposition adopt the attitude that these institutions are “tribal colleges” or “bush colleges”, and they belittle them morning, noon and night, and suggest that they do not comply with world standards, one can understand that if one approaches a first-rate English-speaking person to serve on such a council—I repeat that these appointments are made on merit—he thinks it is a “bush college” or a “tribal college”, and that is probably the reason why he rejects the appointment or why he resigns if he has already accepted the appointment. He does not want to waste his time serving on such a council. These are usually persons with very good incomes who are very busy, and one can appreciate why they refuse to waste their time by serving on such a council. I do not know whether this is the case here, but hon. members can take my word for it that we have in fact appointed such people and that two of them resigned for reasons unknown to us.

May I ask the Deputy Minister whether this is an admission of the fact that the National Party has no first-rate English-speaking supporters?

My reply to that question …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must come back to the Bill.

I promise to do so, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Kensington also asked me what the medium of instruction at the universities is. I do not know whether that question is so innocent, but I will regard it as being an absolutely innocent question. The fact of the matter is that the current medium of instruction at the University of Fort Hare is English. At the University of Zululand the current medium of instruction is also English. At the University of the North it is both English and Afrikaans. Sir, the hon. member for Kensington quoted here from the U.N. charter on human rights, and he said that a student should be able to choose his own medium of instruction. Is this correct?

Yes. They have no choice.

Mr. Speaker, this just shows you how confused people can sometimes be because they do not understand the situation. At these universities, which are in fact in the initial stage of development, one problem is that one must build up a Bantu terminology in subjects such as philosophy, for example. This is no easy task; it takes time, and therefore it is only realistic to use the medium of instruction I have mentioned here because it is the current medium, and because it is the obvious one. The hon. the Minister may correct me, but as far as I know there has never been any complaint at any of these universities about the language medium or the medium of instruction. So let us not make a political football out of this; I do not think it is necessary.

The hon. member for Houghton spoke about a broad basis of school education and said that that was not actually the correct method but that one should concentrate particularly on secondary and higher education.

I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for Houghton about this. This is certainly a valid point of view; I agree with her wholeheartedly, but here too one must be realistic. As regards Bantu education in South Africa, I think we have to a large extent succeeded in achieving what I want to call the “happy medium”, and this is also proved by statistics. The figures I mentioned here this afternoon, prove that increasing numbers of Bantu pupils pass the matriculation and junior certificate examinations, with a fairly large base in the lower standards. The hon. member can accept that we are aware of the necessity of stressing higher and secondary education as regards the Bantu, and that is exactly what we are doing, but I must add that this may not be done at the cost of a broad basis of school education. As regards that point we therefore do not differ at all.

Then the hon. member said that Turfloop was reasonably close to Johannesburg and Pretoria, but that students did not have the opportunity of attending classes on a part-time basis. This, of course, is a matter which can be rectified; it is true, but I want to point out that there is in fact a way in which any Bantu in South Africa can receive education on a part-time basis, and that is by way of correspondence through the magnificent University of South Africa. Neither is there any reason why these Bantu universities cannot make proper provision for part-time students. I think I have now replied to all the questions asked by the hon. members for Kensington and Houghton, and I want to thank hon. members for the good spirit in which they have debated this Bill.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I regard it as a privilege to be able to-day to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is as far as the Coloureds are concerned, a further milestone on the road to becoming independent. We are here dealing with a Bill which is virtually identical to the three bills which have already been introduced by my colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and the Deputy Minister. The broad principle of this Bill has therefore already been discussed and scrutinized by this House, and it will therefore serve no useful purpose if I were to cover the whole terrain once again.

This Bill must be regarded as the logical consequence of the Extension of University Education Act of 1959. As you know, when that Act was passed by Parliament, the idea was that the university colleges which were to be established in terms of the provisions of that Act, should in due course develop into universities. However, in 1959 it was realized that it had to be ensured that academic standards were maintained and that syllabuses, examinations, degrees and diplomas would in no way be inferior. Consequently it was decided to make use of the syllabuses, examinations, degrees, etc., of a recognized university, namely the University of South Africa. This arrangement did not only instil confidence, but the lecturers were also given the opportunity, where necessary, to become more conversant with academic standards. It is, therefore, no wonder that the university council of the University College of the Western Cape pointed out to me two years ago that their standards were in fact comparable to those of other universities. Subsequently various discussions took place with representatives of the council and the senate, as well as with the representatives of the other university colleges, and it will interest the House to know that the advisory council of the university colleges was duly consulted in this process. At the outset I therefore want to emphasize that the University College of the Western Cape has developed to such an extent that academic autonomy may now be granted to this institution without the slightest hesitation. Everybody who has visited this institution—and let me say in passing, not nearly as many as I should like to have seen—can bear witness to the excellent work done at this college and also to the fact that the buildings, the lecture rooms, the laboratories, the apparatus, the libraries, etc., are comparable to those of our other universities. Prominent professors visiting this college—and I can testify that a great many of them visit this college all the time, including university lecturers from abroad—have been particularly impressed, judging from subsequent discussions with them, by the services, the campus, buildings and other facilities of this university. It has also been said repeatedly that it compares favourably with some of the best comparable institutions in other parts of the world. It will also interest the House to know the following facts.

Since 1960 good progress has also been made in the provision of facilities, and buildings to the value of R1.8 million have been erected, including a gymnasium. In addition a modern swimming bath was built at a cost of R112,000, as well as four tennis courts, two rugby fields, a soccer field and a netball field. I merely mention this to indicate to the House what substantial facilities do in fact exist at that institution. Since the establishment of the university college up to the 31st March, 1968, a total amount of R3.5 million was spent, including the cost of equipment and current expenditure, and the most recent estimates amount to R857,000. The modern hostels have room for 100 students, i.e. 80 men and 20 women, and in addition to this two hostels are in the planning stage at the moment.

As far as the staff is concerned, the institution was already, in regard to the appointment of the first rector and his professors and lecturers, in a most fortunate position in that it obtained the services of people of a recognized university standard. They were not only particularly well qualified, but also very capable professional men in their respective fields. In addition to this they have proved to be people who are conscious of the vocation and who have been doing their best for the development of this institution. The appointment of Prof. Meiring as the first rector of the University College of the Western Cape has inspired the public and the lecturers with confidence. He was a lecturer at and the principal of a teachers’ training college and he was a university professor and up to the end of 1959 was Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape—he is, therefore, a recognized educationist with a thorough knowledge of universities and of the aspirations of the Coloureds. This confidence was consolidated by the appointment of a council with Prof. Thom, Rector of the University of Stellenbosch, as chairman, and also persons such as Prof. Pauw, Rector of the University of South Africa, Prof. S. P. Olivier, Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Cape Town, Prof. Coetzee of the University of the Witwatersrand, and also Dr. J. D. du Plessis, all of them persons of university standing who have meant a great deal to this council of the college. Under the guidance of Prof. Thom this council has in fact acted in such a manner that it has been able to attract other persons held in high academic esteem, thereby ensuring a staff at the university college which was the best that could be desired. For the past nine years these lecturers have also co-operated very closely with their colleagues at the University of South Africa as well as at other universities, and have gained additional valuable experience in connection with university standards, examination methods, etc. Since the question of standards is of such fundamental importance and is also a deciding factor in the granting of a higher status to this university college, it is important to point out that the external examiners, i.e. the professors and other lecturers at the University of South Africa, speak most highly of the standard maintained at this college. As an example of this, I refer to the report on zoology. This quotation is illustrative of the high regard which the external examiners have for the standard of this university college. The report on zoology reads as follows (translation)—

Similar remarks are made in respect of English III—

In other words, people who are conversant with examination standards at a recognized university, are agreed that the examination standard at the University College of the Western Cape satisfies the necessary requirements. In addition, because the maintaining of the standard is of so much importance, certain guarantees are being written into this Bill so as to ensure that the syllabuses, examinations, etc., will continue to satisfy the required high standards once ties have been severed with the University of South Africa. Thus members of the senate of any of the existing universities will be appointed to the senate of the University of the Western Cape, and they will be able to judge whether the syllabuses and the examinations are up to standard.

As far as examinations are concerned, an external examiner will be appointed for each field of study. These persons will be lecturers of existing universities and will have to ensure that the question papers are up to standard and that the marking of answers satisfies the requirements. You can see, therefore, that every possible effort has been made to guarantee that the degrees and diplomas of the University of the Western Cape will be up to standard.

In 1960, with the establishment of the University College of the Western Cape, there was tremendous suspicion and mistrust. The University College was, just as were the other colleges already mentioned, also labelled a “bush college”, and a propaganda campaign was launched against this college so as to keep students away. But notwithstanding this campaign the number of students at this university college increased remarkably well. In 1960 this college had a mere 164 students. The number has increased to 808 this year. In 1960 the college began with a staff of 17. The number has increased to 88 this year. It is also of importance to note that, of the 14 full-time appointments in 1960, 10 are still with the University College, seven of them being professors and three senior lecturers. Since the establishment of the University College 197 degrees have been awarded, including M.Ed. and M.Sc. degrees, as well as 247 diplomas. Ten degree courses and nine diploma courses are offered at present and a good deal of expansion is contemplated, such as inter alia, faculties for music, the fine arts, etc. In addition discussion took place recently with a view to obtaining land in the vicinity of the University College for the erection of a training hospital, which will make the establishment of a medical faculty possible at the university-to-be.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time one hears that complaints are made or concern is expressed about the medium of instruction at the University College. Therefore I should now like to say a few words about that. The complaint is sometimes made that the instruction at this University College is mainly in Afrikaans. The position is that Afrikaans and English are both used for purposes of instruction. If the majority of students in a class are English-speaking, all lectures are given in English. For example, students taking B.Sc. II (Pharmacy) and B.Sc. III (Pharmacy), receive their lectures in English because the majority of these students are English-speaking. In classes where Afrikaans-speaking students are in the majority, Afrikaans is again chiefly used by the lecturers. What is also of interest, is the fact that questions which are asked by students during the lectures are answered by the lecturers in the language in which they were asked. In classes where both language groups are present, technical terms are given in both languages. Tests and examinations are written in the language which the student prefers. In addition it is of interest to point out that 80 per cent of all text-books used at the University College are in English. When a large number of English-speaking students support the University College, the ideal may perhaps be realized of dividing the classes into two. The one group will then have its instruction exclusively in English and the other group in Afrikaans. In that connection time will tell.

There will be no change in respect of the financing of the University to be established, as in the case of the three universities for the Bantu race groups, for which we have already voted in principle. Although the Coloureds are making good economic progress, their economic potential is still limited and they can make no appreciable contribution to the maintenance of their own university. The State will consequently still have to shoulder this financial responsibility for an indefinite period. Such a virtually 100 per cent State contribution of necessity entails that the State will have to retain control of certain administrative and financial matters. But such a State contribution and State control ought not to affect the rightful recognition and standing of this university institution as a higher educational institution. It is true that absolute autonomy is the ultimate ideal for every university, and therefore for this university institution as well. I also believe that, as the Coloured community progress economically and educationally, they will reach the stage where they can also contribute financially to the maintenance of this university. They will then in fact reach the next stage on their road to full autonomy. When they reach that stage, they will enjoy greater recognition. Although this measure does not grant autonomy to the university institution, it does in fact place the institution squarely on the road to complete independence and eventual autonomy. It is our sincere wish that the day will come when the council of this university will consist only of Coloureds. It will be a very glad day for me when the council of this University can consist exclusively of Coloureds. But the Coloured leaders of to-day will be the first to say that it cannot happen now, neither in the near future. Members who must serve on that council, must be people with the necessary educational and academic background. But when sufficient Coloured leaders become available with the necessary academic background to take over the task, we shall welcome it most sincerely, but until that time comes, the Government and the white academics—not only the academics serving on the council, but also those doing actual teaching—are prepared to make their contribution to the development of the Coloured people towards independence.

Mr. Speaker, to sum up: The University College has spacious and well-equipped lecture rooms, laboratories, a modern library, sports fields, the necessary equipment, etc., as well as a competent staff who are conscious of their calling, rich in academic experience, and under the guidance of an able rector with extensive and mature experience. The numbers of students have also increased, as was expected, and their academic achievements can generally be regarded as satisfactory. What is more, the University College has proved itself time and again over the past nine years, and the Coloureds refer with pride to this institution as their university. Thus the new dispensation contemplated in this measure also enjoys the support of the advisory council of the University College. The University College of the Western Cape is now generally regarded as having outgrown its swaddling clothes and as having reached the stage where the institution deserves to be elevated to the status of an academically independent university.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion allow me to express my sincere gratitude and the gratitude of the Government to the council and staff of the University of South Africa for the splendid co-operation which they have given to the University College of the Western Cape for the past nine years.

Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I am in the fortunate position that there are other members on this side of the House who have more intimate knowledge of the University College of the Western Cape and its development up to date. Therefore I shall not have a great deal to say about it. However, there are certain points to which I feel I should call attention.

The hon. the Minister has said that the pattern of this Bill follows closely on the pattern of the Bantu university Bills. Was that absolutely necessary? The hon. the Minister seemed doubtful about the fact that the Coloured people had developed to a stage where they could accept and could benefit by a greater measure of responsibility. The hon. the Minister seemed to have that at the back of his mind.

The hon. the Minister also came with the old story that there was opposition to the establishment of the University College of the Western Cape. I hope he does not suggest that we, on this side of the House, objected to it, because we did not as I have pointed out previously. After the Second Reading of the Bill making provision for these colleges a select committee, and later a commission, was appointed to investigate the matter further. We drafted and gave our support to a model Bill. I want to say that I was present at the opening of the University College of the Western Cape. It was opened by the late Mr. Serfontein, who was then Minister of Education, Arts and Science. When it was decided that the college should be established, we gave our wholehearted support. We were anxious to be of assistance. I am sorry we have not had more opportunities of being of assistance.

The hon. the Minister has mentioned in his opening speech that good men had been obtained to serve on the council. I agree wholeheartedly, but they are not the only good men available. There are other good men available too. I think the hon. the Minister, as I have said to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education, could have made a wider selection. The men he mentioned are men of academic experience, but I am quite sure he could also have found excellent men, of academic experience, from the other section, the forty section and not the sixty section.

I want to know why the hon. the Minister finally made up his mind to follow the pattern of the Bantu colleges? I think he could have done something better. I would rather not say anything about the medium of instruction because that is for the people internally to decide. I know there have been complaints, but that is a matter which I cannot discuss with any authority.

Then there is the question of Coloureds on the council. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has set his face against any council containing Whites and Coloureds?

Yes, definitely. We are not an integration party and you know what our policy is.

I am not speaking of a party or of integration. Does the hon. the Minister find that it is impossible for Coloureds and Whites to sit together on the council of the University College of the Western Cape?

Yes, definitely.

Is the idea that the Coloureds must remain as an advisory council until some day a miracle happens and they become the council and the Whites the advisory council to the Coloureds?

The Whites will disappear.

Will they disappear? That is not what we were told at the beginning of the establishment of these university colleges. Then we were told that the position would be reversed.

I should like to come down to some observations I have to make myself about this Bill. I should like to ask a question about the staff of the University College of the Western Cape. Is there only one Coloured academic person in South Africa who can be appointed to the staff? Are there no other men available? Have they all gone to Canada and other countries? Are there no good men amongst the Coloureds who can be appointed to this staff?

There is only one.

I know there is one and I will refer to him later.

I think the hon. the Minister should bear in mind that in the future this university college will not be able to provide all the facilities needed for the Coloured people. There is a very large Coloured population on the Witwatersrand. I understand that there are 100,000 Coloured people there. There are Coloured people also in the Eastern Cape. They may also want to enjoy the privileges of the University College of the Western Cape. The hon. the Minister should have in mind some provision that should be made for them. It has been pointed out frequently that they are dependent on the University of South Africa for correspondence courses. I want to come to this point that during 10 years we have never succeeded in providing the university education they had when these university colleges were established. I have been fortunate in getting the annual reports of the department. In these reports there is a section devoted to university education. In March, 1966, there were 156 Coloureds attending universities for Whites. In 1967 there were 126 attending the University of Cape Town, the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Natal. These Coloured people are still not able to be accommodated in the University College of the Western Cape. Why are they attending universities for Whites? It is because the Government has failed to provide university education for the Coloureds as was intended 10 years ago. The facilities are still not there. Provision is made for these students under section 31 of Act No. 45 of 1959 which says that non-Whites can attend White universities provided they have the written consent of the Minister. We know of course that under section 17 of that Act no white person may attend a non-white institution. Here we have this large number of people still attnding white universities.

Have they been integrated?

If I may use the hon. member’s words, they have been integrated. But it goes very much further than that. These Coloured people are attending these universities and the hon. the Minister sends them there. They are the Minister’s students.

This hon. Minister?

The Minister of National Education sends the Chinese; the Minister of Bantu Education sends the Bantu; the Minister of Coloured Affairs sends the Coloureds, and the Minister of Indian Affairs sends the Indians. What I object to and. I am sure what the university authorities object to, is that after the Ministers have sent these people there, this Government tries to lay down terms under which the autonomous universities, as they are called, should treat these Coloured students. We have had hon. Ministers in this House threatening the white universities that unless they behave as the Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, dictate, legislation will be introduced to make them behave that way. If the hon. the Ministers send their non-white students to the white universities they have no right to lay down the conditions on how they should be educated there.

Why not?

The reply is a very simple one. They are the Minister’s students. Send them to Potchefstroom, Pretoria and Stellenbosch and then you can lay down your conditions. Send the Coloured students to Stellenbosch, because we have just heard the predominent medium of instruction is Afrikaans. But they are sent to the University of Cape Town, to the University of the Witwatersrand, to Rhodes University and to the University of Natal, and these people say they will oblige the Minister and take them. Then we have criticism of these universities about integration or as Die Transvaler calls it “’n deurmekaarboerdery”.

Order! We are not concerned with what Die Transvaler called it.

Yes, Sir, I am in complete agreement with you. I abide by your ruling on that; the less we hear of Die Transvaler, the better. But I should like to put that position to the hon. the Minister. This Government is not justified in criticizing the universities, when they send their own students there. I shall give him a solution. Instead of having this difficulty in Cape Town, for example, where they say non-white students attend certain social events of the Whites, the hon. the Minister when he sends Coloured students should say: “I am going to give you permission to go there; you are my student; I am acting in loco parentis; you will behave as I wish you to behave. Here are certain rules I wish you to observe, and if you do not observe them I will not renew my permission.” That is the answer; do not blame the universities! Legislation has been threatened for this Session.

Well, I leave that for the time being and come back to the pattern of the Bill. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister has followed the pattern of the Bantu university colleges—surely, he could have relaxed a bit! Let us take the question of the council—he will have nothing to do with a mixed council. Let us take the senate. According to a list I have before me, we have a galaxy of academic talent, of very good names, in the senate of this university college. But, when we discussed the Bantu universities, the Minister of Bantu Education said …

Order! Bantu education is not under consideration.

I am on the question …

I think we have had enough of that aspect. The hon. member must come back to the subject of the debate.

In regard to the question of the advisory senate, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education has said that these Bills really all belong to one pattern. The hon. the Minister has also said that there was no Bantu qualified to become a member of the advisory senate. Here we have one.

Not enough!

It is out of order for the hon. Minister of Bantu Education to make an interjection now. I rule the making of interjections by him out of order. The hon. member must not reply to him or take any notice of him.

Mr. Speaker, I have been replying to him for about four days!

Mr. Speaker, there is an advisory senate at this college. There is one Coloured member, the only Coloured member on the staff, Mr. Adam Small. Who is this man? This man is a distinguished South African litterateur. He is a great author in both English and Afrikaans. He is a distinguished academician, a learned man. He is a lecturer in philosophy, literature and language. He is one of the outstanding academic men in this country. What do we do with him? We tell him he cannot serve on the senate of his own university. We tell him to serve on the advisory senate. We tell him to get out, because he is a Coloured. Now, Sir. I spoke about humiliation when we were discussing the Bills regarding the Bantu university colleges. This is humiliation; this is persecution of an individual. I feel very hurt that a man of such high academic standing, the only Coloured man, may not sit in the senate. I think we have pushed the policy of the Government too far! My appeal to the hon. the Minister is to introduce reason as well as political prejudice. Now I wish to go a stage further. I come to the question of autonomy. I have said previously that we know there is no autonomy in our universities. However, we speak of academic “verantwoordelikheid”, of independence and of responsibility. We have heard all that. Now, if they have that, why does the hon. the Minister not broaden the basis and give more authority to the council? Why follow the pattern of the Bantu university colleges by saying that the Minister will nominate eight, with two to come from the senate, while the rector is to be appointed in the same way as in the case of the Bantu colleges? Surely, the hon. the Minister can relax a bit! I want to say, as I did on the first Bill, why we introduce our amendment, because I am going to introduce the same amendment. Why do we introduce our amendment? The answer is a very simple one. I should like to meet some of these people from the College of the Western Cape. I have visited it only once, and that was on the opening day, before the college buildings were there. I should like to visit it again. I should also like to meet these people. We should also like to hear the views of the staff. I should also like to meet some of their students and some of the students’ parents. Surely, the students are mature people and we could discuss the possibilities with them!

You have had nine years to go and pay them a visit! It is only seven miles from here.

I have never been invited. [Interjections.] Oh no, I have never had an open invitation. I know people who have been there, but they have all been invited. I cannot just burst in there. I should like to be invited too!

Where did you get that idea of invitations?

I do not know what the hon. the Minister thinks of the suggestion which I have made in regard to the Bantu colleges. I suggested that the Bantu colleges should be constituent colleges of a university of South African Bantu colleges. What does he think of the idea of one university for non-Whites? We shall have to have a college for Coloureds in Johannesburg? We shall have to have a college there because of the large Coloured population. We shall probably have one in Port Elizabeth, which should have as many students as, for instance Zululand has in its university college. If that is the case is it not possible to look further ahead and say that we should consider establishing such a University? Should we not postpone the consideration of these Bills, and appoint a select committee or a commission similar to the commission we have for the white universities? However, as I have said, there are other more able people, people with a more intimate knowledge of this College, who wish to speak on this Bill and I therefore move—

Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault that I have to participate in this debate at this late hour of the day, a debate which is virtually being repeated for the fourth time within a matter of a week. It is simply my fate.

The hon. member for Kensington expressed a great deal of criticism, but actually he did not express one single positive idea. His thoughts were still milling around the year 1959; he is still living in that year, just like the United Party. Truly, a stagnant and incorrigible political party which is unable to make any contribution to this matter!

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Order! I decide whether an hon. member is in order or out of order!

The hon. member for Kensington would very much like to make a great issue of the question of why the University of the Western Cape is on the same footing as the Bantu universities? The fact is that nine years ago the university colleges were grouped together under one piece of legislation; there was no separate legislation for the individual establishment of these institutions. They were established in terms of a single piece of legislation. The fact is that there is not much of a change being brought about here. There is actually only one principle involved in this piece of legislation and that is that the university college is now becoming an independent university. The Minister has already given reasons why further steps cannot be taken at present. Let me now say this. In the nine years we could have progressed much further, but there are the guilty ones, there on the opposite side. When one refers to their debating of 1959 one sees that they are to blame for the fact that the Coloureds did not make quite so much use of their university college in the course of the first few years. The cry of the Opposition rang out over the country and penetrated the ranks of the Coloureds, and the unfortunate part is that in those days the Coloureds still listened to them. They had the ear of the Coloured population. They were the prompters; they said, “Do not go to the University College of the Western Cape, because there you will receive inferior training.” It is their fault that we have not yet progressed as far as we could have with the Coloureds in the academic field.

The hon. member made a great issue of the question of why there were no Coloureds serving on the council. The Minister gave the reason in his introductory speech. The one reason is that we are not going to establish a mixed council there. Let us argue as much as we like; in this country of ours there are simply not enough Coloureds available to fill that council.

That is incorrect.

The hon. member for Wynberg says that it is incorrect. Well, the hon. member for Peninsula can at times be objective. I think he knows better than the hon. member for Wynberg, and I think he will agree with me that there are not sufficient Coloureds available. The fact of the matter is that as yet a sufficient number of Coloureds are not available to form a municipality.

What about the Coloured Council?

That is a countrywide council.

The position in respect of the staff is also still the same. One is grateful that one has one man such as the Coloured who is a lecturer there.

Are you satisfied that there is only one who is qualified?

Yes, I am satisfied that there is only one as yet; there are no more of that quality as yet. The fact of the matter is that the hon. the Minister and his Department of Education do not know which way to turn because, although they would very much like to appoint Coloured inspectors, there are simply no suitable Coloureds to fill those posts. That is also the Opposition’s fault. If there ever was a period of inferior education for the Coloureds, it was during all those years that that Party was in power. They did not allow the talent of the Coloureds to come to the fore; that is the cold, hard fact.

The hon. member for Kensington now says that a university must be established in the Transvaal. This is an altogether new theme. We are now making this appeal to that Party: Change your tune and encourage the Coloureds to staff this university. We have heard here what it is costing the State. There is still room for many students at this university college. The State bears most of the costs and therefore I say that it is not at all expensive for a Coloured to study there. His costs cannot be compared with those of a White student. There is no comparison between the costs which it involves for him to come from the Transvaal or any other place to study at the institution and those of a White student, because the State bears most of the costs.

The hon. member complained a great deal because there were still Coloureds at the White universities. They were not sent there by the Minister. The hon. member wants to send them to Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom. There they are definitely not accepted; those universities have never had integration. The University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand have had it over the years and they are prepared to accept the Coloureds. With this legislation they will definitely be drawn to the University of the Western Cape in feature. Those students are people for whom facilities do not exist in the Western Cape. They are engineering and medical students, and there are no such faculties at the college here in the Western Cape. As this institution is now becoming an independent university, those faculties will in fact be established in the course of time.

The hon. member also spoke about autonomy. For the past two weeks we have been hearing this question from the other side: Why does the council not receive greater powers? The Minister made it very clear why they are not obtaining greater powers. The State is here accepting full financial responsibility, something which we do not find at any White university in the country. When the State accepts full financial responsibility it is only right that the Minister should obtain certain powers.

There is one other point. The hon. member for Kensington said that he had never been to the University College of the Western Cape because he had not received an invitation. I may say to him that I have already been there, and I had not received an invitation either. I do not consider it a very good argument that he should specifically have had an invitation in order to have visited the institution.

I have already said that the most important change is that the university college is becoming an independent university. There has been a great deal of complaint here about the council. The council has done good work over the past nine years, and even though it will in the future only be advisory in nature, it will then be able to do much better work. I say that it is a great pity that there has thusfar merely been one Coloured suitable for appointment to the University College of the Western Cape. I say that the most important factor is that Coloureds are not available. I now want to appeal to the Coloured population of South Africa to make greater use of the facilities created for them by the Government. Where university training is concerned, more is definitely being done for the Coloureds than for the Whites. If there is one field in which the Whites can say that more is being done for the Coloureds, it is this field. There are no Coloureds there, no Coloureds on the staff, on the advisory senate or the advisory council, because they are simply not available.

If the Coloureds make use of the opportunity now being created for them by the Government the doors are open to them. As far as the education of our Coloureds is concerned, the fact of the matter is that there are not sufficient Coloureds available as teachers. There are hundreds of vacant posts. There are numerous retired Coloured ministers and others who are to-day engaged in Coloured education.

I want to conclude by saying that the United Party is to a large extent responsible for the position which has developed over the years and which still exists. Instead of complaining about matters such as university autonomy and inferior education, I want to suggest to the United Party that it should advise the Coloured population to grasp with both hands the opportunity offered them by this legislation and this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs in his introductory remarks this afternoon told us that the broad principles of this Bill had already been discussed when the previous Bantu Bills were before the House and that the pattern of this Bill had in fact already been approved of by this House. Therefore he did not want to waste much time in discussing at this stage the pattern of this Bill now before us. I want to say to the hon. the Minister there is an important distinction in this Bill. The Government by legislation has decided to establish a Coloured Representative Council, which will be elected by the end of this year, and one of the functions of that council will be the question of Coloured education. Before we adjourn in a few minutes I want to ask the Minister whether he has given any consideration at all as to why this Bill should be rushed through this House before that council has been elected and why the council-to-be should be deprived of one of its most important functions, namely Coloured education. Why should we, in all fairness, allow this Bill to be rushed through this House and deprive the elected voice of the Coloured people of this country of the opportunity of having a say in regard to the constitution of their own Coloured university? I put this to the Minister because I regard him as a very fair-minded man and I should like him to tell us in due course what necessity is there for us to rush through this legislation and deprive the new statutory body which the Government has created of an opportunity of dealing with their primary function, namely that of Coloured education. Why should they be deprived of having a voice and a say in the constitution of their own Coloured university?

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