Mr. Speaker, as regards today’s business, we shall follow the Order Paper. On Monday, 3 May, we shall try to dispose of Order of the Day No. 2—Medical University of Southern Africa Bill—if it has not been disposed of already. We shall also start discussing the Votes of the Minister of Transport on Monday.

†On Tuesday, 4 May, and Wednesday, 5 May, we shall proceed with the Votes of the Minister of Transport, and also with the Votes of the Minister of Information and of the Interior. On Thursday, 6 May, it is the intention to start with the Vote of the Minister of Defence, and the discussion of that Vote will continue on Friday, 7 May. It will perhaps, on Friday, 7 May, also be possible to deal with Order of the Day No. 6 on today’s Order Paper, namely the Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer in brief to what was raised by two members on the opposite side, and then say a few words about the universities in general. The hon. member for Edenvale as well as one of the other hon. members over there had something to say in consequence of the Snyman Report. As long ago as February of this year I made a public announcement on the Government’s attitude in connection with the Snyman Report, as far as it concerns us. I stated that a whole number of the recommendations could be accepted. It goes without saying of course that some of the recommendations accepted, can be carried into effect administratively. However, there are also other recommendations which will require legislation.

I also said at the time that we would look at the legislation. It will not, of course, only concern legislation in respect of the University of the North, because the affairs of the other two universities, as the hon. member knows, are regulated by identical laws. Consequently we are going into the question of the legislation relating to the three universities, on a fairly wide basis, with a view to effecting amendments. From the nature of the case it will, of course, not be possible to do so this year. The amendments will affect various matters, such as the authority of the councils, as well as the position of the advisory council, to which the hon. member referred. It will also affect the composition of the councils, etc. That legislation will be introduced next year.

†The hon. member for Berea raised the question of Bantu pharmacists. I wish to explain that we of course do not compel the pharmacy students who qualify at the University of the North to work for us, for the State or even for the provinces Qualified Bantu pharmacists are very scarce, as the hon. member well knows, and as he pointed out yesterday. The salaries offered are, of course, very high, so that those who are qualified are very easily employed by the interested bodies and persons in South Africa. It must, however, be realized that many of them practise as individual pharmacists. Although there are others working for pharmaceutical firms, it still remains possible that in future some of these persons who are working for other employers may be employed in hospitals in the Bantu homelands or even in provincial hospitals. With regard to the question of salaries, to which the hon. member referred yesterday, I want to remind him that we gradually improve salaries from time to time. In this process we always try to narrow the gap between the salaries of White persons and those of Black persons.

*I want to say a few words in connection with the three universities in general. I think hon. members will realize that universities are a difficult proposition in certain respects throughout the whole world. There are various problems with which they have to contend. I think that if we evaluate our position in terms of world criteria and circumstances, we shall find that we in South Africa are relatively fortunate as far as our three Bantu universities are concerned. I realize that there are all sorts of problems and that the possibility of tension exists. Generally, however, I think we may be very grateful for the fact that the Bantu universities have been functioning extremely satisfactorily over the years and that they have produced excellent results up to the present time, fine products for the Bantu community and the Bantu peoples, and that they are still, to the extent to which this is practicable, meeting the new demands which are made. Of course, one cannot establish a faculty or a department if it will have virtually no students, one for which there is no demand. However, I can point out many interesting extensions we have in fact had. A particularly interesting extension is the one which came into operation in Umtata this year. A branch of the University of Fort Hare was opened in Umtata. The position there is even more interesting if one takes into consideration the fact that the Transkei is becoming an independent country later this year. The necessary provision for this is being made by the department, the Transkei and the University of Fort Hare. In the same way the University of the North has recently entered into negotiations and has started conducting inquiries into establishing a branch of the university somewhere in Bophuthatswana so as to serve the people there as there is a demand for something of this nature. At the University of Zululand in Natal we have the interesting development that an institute, for training, particularly in law and public administration, has been established. This is evidence of the way in which the universities adapt themselves to the needs of the Bantu homelands and of the Bantu peoples.

In the past, and particularly this year, a start was made on a reasonable scale at all three of the Black universities in South Africa, namely at Fort Hare, Turfloop and Ngoya, with the training of first-year students in medicine, since all three universities will co-operate with the proposed medical university. In the course of time we have had all sorts of extensions at all three universities, for instance, new departments and faculties. We look at matters in the light of the people’s specific needs and the available funds. We must have regard to the funds available. Everyone knows that unlimited funds are not available. For us, as well as for the poor universities, this raises problems. However, in this connection, this year especially, we have had a new turn as far as obtaining capital funds for universities are concerned, in that the three universities have been authorized to raise loans. Not only are negotiations in progress with the universities in connection with obtaining loans for certain capital extensions; but such loans have already been made, for instance in the case of Fort Hare. So hon. members will see in the estimates that funds are being appropriated to cover interest payments and the redemption of loans which have been made. In general I therefore want to give the assurance that, as far as the three universities are concerned, the Department of Bantu Education, and the Government as a whole, are fully intent on assisting the process of development in the future as far as possible and within the limits of possibility and reason.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the debate I should like to confine myself to the role which the Blacks are playing in their own education in South Africa. This role is becoming progressively bigger and is gaining more and more momentum. Consequently it is the policy of the Government, and particularly of the Department of Bantu Education, to place the say in and the control and supervision of their own education, completely in the hands of the Bantu themselves.

Therefore, I should in the first place like to dwell for a moment on school boards and committee boards. For every community school in Bantu residential areas in White areas, a school committee is established. These school committees are established by the parents. Where there are two or more Bantu schools in an area, a school board is established. Where there is only one school in an area, a committee board is established. What is important here in the first place, is the number of committees and boards. There are 1 364 school committees, 155 school boards and 253 committee boards. This gives us a total of 1 772. If we have regard to the fact that each one of these committees and boards consists of nine members on the average, it means that approximately 16 000 Bantu parents are directly concerned and have a direct interest in the education and training of their children. These committees and school boards are established by the school committees. Therefore it is the parents themselves who are responsible for the composition of the various boards. What is of greater importance, however, are the powers vested in these committees and school boards and the functions they have. They have wide and executive powers, especially in respect of the staff of the schools concerned and also in respect of the location of the schools. They are in control of their schools and are therefore the legal employers of their teaching staff. The teachers are the tutors and educators of the children, and for that reason the school boards and committee boards are given absolute power as far as the appointment of teachers is concerned, and also as far as their dismissal is concerned, should this be necessary. Through these boards parents therefore have direct control over the teachers who are to educate and train their children. Cognizance must be taken of this. The supervision and control of schools is therefore not official-orientated or White orientated. The full responsibility in respect of the person in charge of the class—the key figure in the education process—is therefore in the hands of the Bantu themselves, the parents of the children at school.

But what is even more important is to look at the composition of these school boards in the larger Bantu residential areas. Here the school boards are grouped and composed on an ethnic basis. In Mamelodi, for instance, there are separate school boards for the North Sotho, the Tswana, the Tonga, the Venda, etc. In Soweto there are no fewer than four school boards for the Zulu alone, three for the Tswana and one each for the Tonga and the Venda, etc. Sir, this ethnic grouping, the recognition of a separate national character, is condemned by both opposition parties, especially by the PRP. Only yesterday the hon. member for Houghton had a great deal to say here when she condemned the registration of Bantu children in Bantu residential areas in the White urban areas and objected to including the homeland, etc., of the child on the registration card. For them this composition and groupings of school boards on the basis of ethnic classification must be something odious, because to them it is discrimination. After all, here we are separating the Zulu from the Venda, the Tswana from the North Sotho, etc. I am afraid that they will even condemn the principle of these people exercising control themselves through school boards, composed of members from their own ranks. I have been a member of this House for a short time only, but one thing has become very clear to me, and that is that the party to my right advocates a strange policy, one of denationalization, of removing the national character of the various national groups and of denying various national groups an identity of their own. I gain the impression—and I am convinced that it is not a mistaken one—that they do not want others to have what they themselves have. They condemn separate development. If they want to be consistent, they must also condemn the say which those Black parents who serve on the school boards have with regard to appointment and dismissal of teachers and where schools are to be built.

I want to dwell for a moment on the cultural organization and youth organizations, especially as far as the homelands are concerned. A strong need for the development of their language and a pride in their language has developed in the homelands, and the various homeland governments, on Cabinet level, have launched some form of cultural organization. Bophuthatswana has progressed a long way in this regard, and I should like to use this homeland as an example to illustrate this. Members of the Cabinet of that homeland and others acted as founder members and patrons of an organization of this kind and are still acting in this capacity. Branches were established and extended to Bantu residential areas in White areas where members pay a nominal annual subscription. In Bophuthatswana there are already more than 10 000 members and each member is provided, inter alia, with at least four books—fiction or works of literature. This means that 40 000 books have been purchased and are being distributed in this manner. Purchases are subsidized by the Department of Education concerned. The result is, firstly, that authors and potential authors are encouraged to write as a market exists for their books.

In the second place it also serves as a stimulus for the publishers since manuscripts may be accepted without their running a great risk. In the third place a wide reading public has emerged as a result of this step. Fourthly, authors’ conferences are held at which the procedure of having manuscripts accepted, is explained. Furthermore, the members of these cultural organizations are divided into various sub-committees or work committees, each giving attention to a particular subject in its turn: for example, a language committee, a song and music committee, an art committee, etc. These cultural organizations have not been initiated by Whites nor are they the result of the efforts of Whites, but of the Black peoples themselves. For this reason I believe that something fine and positive will develop in this regard.

As far as youth organizations and youth preparedness are concerned, we should like to see the youth in the homelands being activated to a larger extent, being better prepared and motivated and acting in a more prepared and motivated manner. Consequently I am grateful for the fact that the Government has appointed an organizer for this purpose, viz. to investigate and to promote youth organizations in the homelands. These youth movements, however, must spring from the peoples themselves and must not be lame imitations of a Boy Scout, Voortrekker or Land Service movement. [Time expired.]

It is a pleasure for me to enter the debate at this stage of the discussion and, as it were, to bring it to a close. I should like to express my great appreciation for the positive contributions of hon. members on my side of the House, and also on the opposite side of the House. I want to thank the hon. members for Port Natal, Algoa, Rissik, Smithfield, Johannesburg West and Standerton, as well as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Gezina, very sincerely for the contributions they have made to bring what is being done in the sphere of Bantu education clearly to the attention of this House, and in that way of the entire country.

I think that members on this side of the House had a very easy task, for what is in fact being done in the sphere of Bantu education at the primary, secondary and tertiary level, is overwhelming. I want to rectify a newspaper report on the salaries of Black teachers. I think I made it clear in my speech yesterday afternoon that the salaries of Black teachers were not being increased by 13%, but that the 13% to which I referred was an increase in the amount that is being requested in the estimates for Bantu education, and not for the teachers as a group. I think I made it clear, viz. that the amount, requested for Bantu education in the estimates, represents an increase of 13%. I have already said that the salaries of Black officials and Black teachers will be supplemented by an amount which, percentage-wise, will bring about a considerable narrowing of the gap between salaries. No final decision has yet been reached on what the precise extent of the amount will be.

Judging by the speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition they had an extremely difficult task to level criticism. On the one hand it is possible to point out what has not yet been achieved. However, this is an aspect to which thorough attention is being given by this side of the House, and in particular by the Government and by the department concerned. Sometimes one cannot but gain the impression that the Opposition are extremely unwilling to express appreciation when this can and must be done, and that they ferret around to such an extent to find something they can criticize that in the end they paint a completely distorted picture. Therefore it will not be taken amiss of hon. members on this side of the House when, of necessity, they point out the positive aspects and also quote witnesses to support their arguments, witnesses who express appreciation for the things which are being done, and in particular by this department. I have here a letter which was received by my department. It was written by a representative of the Church of the Nazarene. He wrote—

He went on to say—

And I hope members of the Opposition will also be pleased—for it is in the interest of South Africa—

This is a letter from someone from that part of the world, someone who forwarded to my department the favourable comment of Americans on what is being done in South Africa. He added that it ought to help overseas.

I should like to react briefly to some of the remarks made by hon. members of the Opposition. I have already replied on some points, and therefore, I am not going to spend any further time on them. I want to refer to a few of the matters raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. Perhaps I should tell him that he need not be a so deeply concerned about my image among the Black people. Perhaps his approach is that my image can only improve. I want to give him the assurance that it will improve. I do not think that the responsibility for a certain part of that image is mine. It is attributable rather to statements made by hon. members on that side of the House and by a certain section of the Press which represents them, and which they support. [Interjections.]

You are now passing the buck!

I must say that there are no hard feelings between the hon. member for Edenvale and myself. However, I want to emphasize that if that so-called image of mine is due to the fact that I take up the cudgels in the interests of the White man, alongside that of the Black man and the Brown man, I accept full responsibility for doing so. I am not ashamed of doing so. I stand by what I said in my first speech in this House. It is an honour and a privilege for me, as an Afrikaner and as a White person, to render this service, and more service now to the Black people than I have time to render to my own people. I do so gladly. I do so as a Christian who wishes to render a service to other people across the dividing lines of colour and of race. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am saying this without reproach to the hon. member for Edenvale. I think he enjoys it. He referred to educational facilities in the Western Cape. It is of course well known that—under the policy of the Government—the Western Cape is a preferential area for Coloureds. Nevertheless there are four secondary schools in the Cape Peninsula, two of which are senior secondary schools. According to the formula of one classroom for every 250 families, the production of the full quota, with these four schools, is being complied with. A second aspect which he mentioned, was in connection with teacher training here in the Western Cape. I want to mention to him—perhaps he is aware of it—that there is not a single unqualified teacher in the Western Cape. In any event we cannot establish a training centre in every Black residential area close to a White area. Our policy is that those institutions should be homeland-orientated, and therefore should preferably be established in the homelands. As far as secondary schools are concerned, the hon. member in fact created the impression we were not establishing any new schools in White areas. The truth of the matter is that in Soweto, for example—I think the hon. member for Houghton will support me when I say this because I think she is aware of it—18 new schools were established in 1974-’75. Eighteen new schools were established there in two years alone, i.e. 1974 and 1975. I think this is an achievement, and I think the hon. member for Houghton could occasionally also state this as positively as I have just done. I think she would receive credit for it if she did so. As far as needlework is concerned—I am not very handy with that kind of thing—the facts of the matter are that needlework is of course compulsory for all girls in Black schools, and the subsidy in respect of handcraft subjects, such as needlework, has already been increased.

I come to the hon. member for Pinelands. I think I have already replied to certain things he mentioned. On this occasion I just wanted to reply to a specific matter which he raised. I think it is fair to him to say that he raised the question which he touched upon in regard to a statement by Dr. Hartshorne more by way of a question than a statement. Or did the hon. member make an accusation, a specific statement? I give him credit for having made inquiries in regard to a report which appeared on what Dr. Hartshorne had allegedly said.

It was a newspaper report.

Yes, it was a newspaper report. I think that if one had to form an opinion of that newspaper report, one would have to say that it was so bad and so distorted, compared to the original speech of Dr. Hartshorne … Oh well, if the hon. member for Pinelands and I had in our time interpreted the Bible in that way, then we would have been able to prove from the Bible that one should commit suicide, for in the Bible it is stated that Judas went and hung himself, and in another place it is stated: Go thou and do likewise!

But what did this official say? He said this—

He is therefore reacting to pressures on the part of the private sector, and in regard to that pressure on the part of the private sector he replies—

He was reacting to pressure on the part of the private sector. I think that I have, with that, in fact replied to the entire matter, but I could still quote the following—

And this “false economy” does not refer now to the policy of the Government, but to pressures on the part of certain parties in the private sector. He said—

Here he is stating the Government’s, and specifically his department’s, approach. Unless of course the hon. member, or the newspaper, wishes to imply that this official had allegedly had access to the budget before it was presented and is now advocating that we should, for that reason, take steps against this official. If they want to do that, they must do so, but this is the standpoint this official adopted in regard to certain agitation—one almost wants to say—on the part of the private sector to bring about a pruning of expenditure.

I am surprised to hear what you are now saying. May I ask him why Dr. Hartshorne did not deny that report?

I can tell the hon. member that, after the report appeared in the newspaper, the matter was discussed with this particular official. He then made this document of what he actually said available.

But this does not appear in the newspaper.

Oh, Sir, I can only let the facts as I have stated them here suffice. They exonerate this official. I want to quote just one more short sentence from what he said, viz.—

He can say this because he knows what the positive approach of the department and the Government is, i.e. not to prune expenditure on these basic items.

I want to go further. I discussed school leaving, compulsory education, etc. What the hon. member for Berea raised, his questions in regard to pharmacists, etc., has been dealt with by the hon. the Minister. I replied on the training of teachers and adult education.

I should like to come to the hon. member for Umhlanga. That hon. member discussed hostels. Our basic approach is of course not to convey pupils to the school but to bring the schools to the communities in which those pupils are, and for that reason the schools are being built in the communities in which those people are present. But over and above that, apart from the general basic policy, we are at present building four schools with hostels in the homelands through the agency of Bantu education. This is being done. If the hon. member wants further information about this matter, we can give it to him. However, I am simply stating this first as a basic fact.

A second aspect which he touched upon was the medium of instruction. It is of course the case that we regard the mother tongue as the medium in which the child should receive instruction, particularly in the primary school. The same applies to the primary schools for Bantu in the White area. There is mother tongue instruction up to Std. 4, and after that in the two official languages on a 50 : 50 basis. But now I think the hon. member will concede—I think the hon. member for Pinelands also discussed this—that the policy of 50% Afrikaans and 50% English in the secondary schools is being applied in such a lenient manner that in practice the instruction in matric is virtually 100% in English as against nill in Afrikaans. I think one could almost say: 95% English and 5% Afrikaans. That is the information I have at my disposal now. This is the case in spite of the fact that the official policy is 50 : 50. But in practice the 50 : 50 is being applied in such a way that it is predominantly English in the secondary schools! This year, I think, a single subject was taught in Afrikaans for the first time in a high school in Port Elizabeth. That is the picture. Now, I do not know whether the hon. member actually meant that we should have unilingual education, i.e. in English only in the secondary schools!

Not at all.

Then I do not really know what the hon. member meant, because we are applying the policy in such an accommodating way that it is in fact “one horse, one rabbit” and the horse in this case is definitely not Afrikaans.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the choice is not left to the community in which the school is established. In the Free State, for example, the majority of the parents and the children may want to be taught in Afrikaans, and in Port Elizabeth, perhaps, primarily in English. Is there a choice, which the parents, the children or the public in the place where the school has been established may exercise?

In practice it means that the language proficiency of the teacher, who has to teach the subject, is taken into consideration. What is also taken into consideration is the language which is used the most in that specific area. We adhere to the 50 : 50 principle, but we also adapt ourselves to the language which is in predominant use in a specific area. If the homelands were to change over to a specific language as the sole medium of instruction, that is of course their own business. However, they will have to reap the fruits of it. There is one fact I should now like to point out. The pass figure for matriculation in one of these homelands is 42%, as against the pass figure of 63% in the remainder of the Republic, and that is when English has already been used as a medium of instruction from Std. 3. Educationalists indicate that this is in conflict with sound pedagogic principles.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to certain results in Durban. I could not reply to this in detail when questions were put to me earlier because the matter was to a certain extent sub judice, but in this regard I think that I should now furnish a few particulars to indicate that this department, as far as examinations are concerned, is faced with an enormous task and certain stumbling blocks. Junior certificate results were released on 17 January 1976, and senior certificate results on 21 January 1976. However, I want hon. members to bear in mind that the following public external exams were held: Higher primary, i.e. Stds. 5 and 6, with a quarter million full-time candidates as against 2 000 private candidates; junior certificate, i.e. form 111, with 49 000 full-time candidates and 15 000 private candidates. We come then to the senior certificate, i.e. form V, with 8 500 full-time candidates and 20 000 private candidates. For the teachers’ certificate there were 7 000 candidates. This gives a picture of the tremendous task as far as examinations are concerned.

The department does not have its own computer. Perhaps this is a deficiency and we should look into it. It makes use of the computer of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. This means, however, that the time at the disposal of the department is very limited, and for the most part the staff had to work over the week-ends and after hours to process the many thousands of computer cards. This is the practical situation which can be advanced as a reason for the delay.

Arising out of questions which were put to me here there is one further point I want to refer to. In the case of the senior certificate examinations, irregularities occurred in the Durban area before the examination took place. There was an alleged theft of question papers from one of the KwaZulu inspector’s offices. However, there was no time to set new question papers. The question papers are prepared by the Department of National Education. Then they go to the internal moderator, and subsequently to the external promoter of the Joint Matriculation Board. Only then are they printed and distributed. That is the procedure. After the question papers had been corrected and the usual schedules drawn up, it became clear that the points obtained for history, geography, biology and physiology in the following six schools were abnormally high: Lamontville, Isibonelo, Ohlange, Vukazakhe, Menzi and Swelihle. I hope I am pronouncing the names correctly.

The pronunciation is entirely correct.

There were 507 candidates involved in this. Those results were abnormally high, without the normal achievement distribution and with an exceptionally high number of A, B and C symbols. When this happens, one must ask whether something irregular is not happening. A comparison with the results of the internal June and September examinations confirmed the suspicion that the candidates must have had access to the question papers beforehand., It was decided that the schools in question would rewrite the four subjects in the supplementary examinations in March. The schools were notified accordingly. The symbols which were obtained in the other subjects were made available to the candidates. As a result of this decision the candidates concerned could not gain admission to the University of Zululand since the registration of students closed on 1 March. However, that is not the end of the story. An interdict has been brought against the Minister by the father of one of the candidates. In terms of the interdict reasons had to be advanced by 20 February 1976 as to why the results of the subjects in respect of which irregularities had been suspected had not been made available to the candidates.

Since the department acts as an agent for national education in regard to the senior certificate, and the rules only make provision for action against a candidate if irregularities take place during the examination—not prior to the examination—the legal representative of the State was of the opinion that the case should, for technical reasons, rather be settled out of court. The results were consequently released to the candidates and those candidates were not prevented from enrolling. My information is that they received notification in time to be able to enroll. In other words, no obstacles were placed in their way.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Deputy Minister a question. I referred to senior certificate results through South Africa, not specifically to Natal senior certificate results. Would the hon. the Deputy Minister please comment on all other results in the Republic?

I thought I had already furnished the dates. For the junior certificate it was 17 January 1976 and for the senior certificate 21 January 1976.

I think I have now dealt with all the questions, except those of the hon. member for Jeppe. I think we have already discussed double sessions, salaries and text books. I think there is an idealistic scheme in progress to eliminate the backlog. In regard to the one point which the hon. member mentioned, I think he agrees with the aim of this department, i.e. that we should not rely on the provision of school facilities by outside bodies. We have to budget for that. The problem is that outside bodies have other aims as well, and sometimes there are all kinds of strings attached to their donations, however welcome those donations may be. We must budget for this ourselves, and make the necessary provision for it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in regard to technical training. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned this point already, but I heard no reply from him in this regard. What is the policy of the department in regard to the training of technicians, i.e. both those of artisans and the more advanced training of technicians? Is it the policy that that training will take place only within the homelands, or is there also provision for such training in White South Africa. If there is such provision, where are the colleges which are providing such training, and where will such colleges be established in future?

I would very much like to give a full reply to the hon. member’s question. Perhaps there is still time to put it on the Question Paper. However, I just want to mention that I referred in my speech yesterday to the industrial orientated training. A great deal of that training is taking place within White residential areas. Apart from the 18 ad hoc border industrial schools, there are the departmental schools which are actually regarded as an extension of existing schools within the communities. At these schools basic technical training is received for 2½ hours per week, over and above trade training which falls into a completely different category. Then there are the trade schools of which we have 24 throughout the Republic and South West Africa. In addition there are quite a few new ones which will open this year. I could also mention the trade schools in the homelands in particular. Apart from that there is the in-service training which is also technical training with a view to increasing the skill of employees who are already employed. There are certain categories of employees who may receive this training so that they may become better equipped for their task. I should like the hon. member to agree to my furnishing a more detailed picture of the matter on a subsequent occasion.

With that I have come to the end of my reply. I want to thank hon. members sincerely for their contributions.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of the amendment, if it is accepted, will be that the Minister of National Education and not the Minister of Bantu Education will be the responsible Minister.

The motivation behind the amendment is straightforward and simple. All medical education in South Africa up till this point has been under the aegis of the Minister of National Education. One recalls, for example, the fact that Black students are now being trained in Durban at that university and the education which they receive falls under the Minister of National Education. In view of the fact that the new university is, in terms of the Bill, to be called the Medical University of southern Africa and will deal specifically with medicine and allied disciplines, it seems to us reasonable that it should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Education rather than that of the Minister of Bantu Education in order to keep under one Minister and one department all the work of medical training in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central, as follows—

The amendment is basically in accordance with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, and I want to identify myself with his general motivation for it. However, I want to add that the amendment is not intended to cast any reflection on the competence of the Minister of Bantu Education, but we feel that it would be in accordance with the position we have in the rest of the country, the position that all our medical faculties form part of an ordinary university and fall under the Minister of National Education. I feel it would be only right for the medical training of everyone to take place in accordance with the established pattern.

In theory, perhaps, it could be argued that, whereas other universities offer other courses in addition to a medical course, the circumstances of the proposed university necessitate a deviation from the established pattern. Accordingly, it was pointed out during the Second Reading debate that other aspects became important in the case of the proposed university. The other aspects are related to the Government’s view on the development of national identity and so forth. In actual fact, such views are not applicable to strictly scientific subjects such as medicine and dentistry. Consequently, those considerations are not relevant in this case, even though they might be relevant in the case of other universities. Since the Bill provides for the university to be open to all Black people, and even to Blacks from outside the Republic, the whole concept of the development of a people and the building of a national identity cannot have any bearing on it. We must render a service to the Blacks and I agree with that, but the service must not be motivated by such philosophical considerations.

The hon. the Minister said that the status of the proposed university would be comparable with that of other universities in the country which provide medical training. With reference to this, I want to say that in order to create the impression in the outside world, and among our own Blacks as well, that the training which will be provided at the proposed university will in fact be, comparable with what is offered in the existing institutions it seems to me that the proposed university should fall under the Minister of National Education.

Mr. Chairman, I want to argue at this stage that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands as well as the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Edenvale is out of order. I base my argument upon the fact that the amendments militate against the already accepted principle that the entire responsibility, in so far as the State’s responsibility extends, will be in the hands of the Minister of Bantu Education. It has also been provided in existing legislation that the creation of such an institution is in order. In this connection I refer specifically to the Extension of University Education Act, No. 45 of 1959, which is a statute of this Parliament. The argument in connection with equal training is not relevant now, anyway, but it shows what the hon. members are after, and it does not have much to do with administration. I consequently advance at this stage that the two amendments are completely out of order because they affect the principle already passed at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Does the hon. member want to address me on this point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to address you on the point of order that has been raised. I want to address you on the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. member for Edenvale.

Then the hon. member must wait until I have dealt with the point of order. The point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West was carefully considered by me in advance. I have considered all the arguments advanced by the hon. member. My ruling is that the amendment is in order and consequently does not affect the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support what the hon. members for Edenvale and Pinelands said about this clause. Medicine and the medical sciences in South Africa should fall under one head. I do not see any reason whatsoever for a distinction being made in this regard between Whites and non-Whites. The medical profession is a profession we wish to foster in this country. There must be no clash of ideas as to the direction education in this field should take. The Minister of Bantu Education may quite easily have different ideas to the Minister of National Education concerning the direction it should take. I am talking about the Minister and not specifically about Mr. M. C. Botha. The present incumbent of that post may work hand in hand with the Minister of National Education and liaise with him. However, that is not the point. The point is that it ought to be controlled by one man. If that man should also be responsible for another portfolio, that is a different story. In this case we have two separate portfolios covering the same work. I want to emphasize that the work should at least be the same in both cases.

For the past few days we have been talking about discrimination. There must not be a vestige of suspicion that there can be any discrimination between students going to one university and students going to another. They must be on the same level. It is strange to people outside this House and also to people outside the country that when it comes to higher education, specifically in respect of medical students and paramedical people generally, the Blacks should fall under one Minister and the Whites under another. It is my contention that they should all fall under the Minister of National Education. The hon. the Minister need not be afraid that he is sacrificing part of his empire, because that is not the position at all. It is not that we on this side of the House want to deprive him of this work. All we want him to do is to see it as we see it, viz. that this type of education should fall under one Minister. Accordingly I should like to support the hon. members for Edenvale and Pinelands.

Mr. Chairman, one is surprised to find that the members of the PRP have suddenly begun to take an interest in the Committee Stage of this Bill, since they did not say a word in the Second Reading debate. I ask myself what they want to achieve by moving amendments at this stage. Are they being forced to do so by Durban North? Is this an attempt to secure a few votes in Wednesday’s election? One simply wonders.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, I want to allege that tertiary education for the Black peoples has developed much more rapidly under the control of the Minister of Bantu Education than would otherwise have been the case. I should like to illustrate briefly what I mean by that. Let us take a quick look at the natural development of medical science and medical training in South Africa. In this connection I should like to quote from a letter which was written as far back as 1851 in the then Transvaal House of Assembly to a certain Dr. H. Voormolen, in an attempt to persuade him to come to the Transvaal. I quote—

I assume that this was in the House of Assembly—

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the definitions contained in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to indicate why it falls under the Department of Bantu Education and not under the Department of National Education. The history of the development of medicine is one argument that can be advanced in this connection, I think.

The hon. member must not take that argument too far. The hon. member may proceed.

The letter goes on to say that the ordinary fevers of one, two and three days’ duration found in Holland did not affect them. This letter tells one two things: It illustrates that there is a geographic connection and that conditions are found which are common to certain countries and certain peoples. At that stage there was no need for Black doctors. That need only arose much later; it arose in the middle of this century. By comparison, therefore, the training of Bantu developed much more rapidly. The development which was found at Durban as far back as 1951 testifies to this fact, as does the development which is taking place at the moment. The importance of the national context—in this respect I have to disagree with the hon. member for Edenvale—must be emphasized here, especially in respect of medical training. Throughout history every nation has wanted its own training. That is why we have to give that training to the Bantu peoples of this country as well.

The criticism has now been expressed that the development of the institutions for tertiary education which fall under the control of the Minister of Bantu Education is not equal to the development there would have been if they had fallen under the Minister of National Education. The allegation has even been made in this debate that because of this, the standard is not the same either, and that the universities concerned are second-class universities. This is the so-called bush college idea we have encountered before. We had the same criticism in respect of the University of the North which is controlled by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. Where does this university stand today? This university is regarded as one of the best universities in our country today, as we heard from the hon. member for Smithfield yesterday. This university at Pietersburg has a campus which any university could be proud of. The university was only established in 1960 and had only 87 students to begin with.

Order! Which definition is the hon. member dealing with?

I am dealing with the fact that that university falls under the Minister of Bantu Education and not under the Minister of National Education.

The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the contents of the clause.

I just want to say that that university under the control of the Minister of Bantu Education is accepted by the homeland concerned. It was accepted precisely because of its national context and precisely because it is controlled by the Minister of Bantu Education. I want to point out that this university, which has already developed into the largest non-White university, will confer 306 degrees and diplomas upon students on 8 May. Therefore I want to allege that the fact that the university falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration holds advantages for these peoples. As regards clinical medicine, too, it is important that the development should take place in a national context, because there is a real difference between the medicine of the White man and that of the Black man. There is a basic difference, and this difference is not the result of separate development, but is caused by racial characteristics. For this reason, Bantu medicine is completely different from White medicine. I should like to mention a few examples. The hon. member for Rosettenville should know these things. Coronary diseases, for example, are common among Whites, while they are hardly ever found among the non-Whites. Liver diseases, however, are more generally found among the Bantu peoples, but never among the Whites. Ulcers …

Order! The hon. member is now going too far in his attempt to prove why it should fall under the Minister of Bantu Education.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. However, I do want to ask you to give me the opportunity of illustrating why it would be more appropriate to include the institution in the portfolio of the Minister of Bantu Education than in the one of the Minister of National Education, who controls other medical training. Another example is immunity to diseases, such as tuberculosis. Where the Bantu peoples have only recently come into contact with this, the European peoples have been in contact with it for many years.

Order! The hon. member is circumventing my ruling. He must confine himself to arguments relating to the Minister and not to the nature of the Bantu and his diseases.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. However, I should like to point out to you just one more important reason why it should fall under the control of the Minister of Bantu Education. I am referring to the complex psychological make-up of the Bantu, which differs completely from that of the White.

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon. member to continue in that vein. The hon. member must advance other arguments.

Then I just want to say that in my opinion, the development of the university under the control of the Minister of Bantu Education will be shown by history to have been one of the most precious contributions by the Government to the history of the development of the Black peoples in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that he ought to read the Snyman Commission’s report. He will then see that this fine university he is lauding now as an example of the excellent administration of the Department of Bantu Administration and Education and the Minister in charge of that department, in fact comes in for a very severe drubbing at the hands of Judge Snyman. Part and parcel of the comment made by the judge in this regard is that the students feel themselves separated. That is one of the reasons. I put it to hon. members that the separation of the medical school from the ordinary administration of other medical schools is simply going to add another grievance. I do not believe that the Department of Bantu Administration has such a good record in administering the university that it should now take under its wing the medical school which is about to be set up. Indeed, the history of the administration of the universities under Bantu Administration has been one of constant disturbances at the universities. The historical occurrences we know of at the University of Fort Hare and the University of Turfloop are indicative of the fact that the department does, in fact, not know to handle higher education. I believe the attitude which the department adopts is that it is dealing with glorified high schools when it in fact deals with universities. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister of National Education is far better qualified and far more experienced in the handling of institutions of higher education than the Department of Bantu Administration. For that prime reason I wish to support the argument which has been advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands and also by the hon. member for Edenvale, viz. that the new medical school should be placed under the Department of National Education, which is used to handling university institutions and knows how to deal with them and is likely to have a much easier passage in the future than if it were left in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration.

Also, I believe this medical school should not be called a university right at the outset. There are many examples of universities starting off as university colleges and after a certain number of years graduating to the status of a full university. Indeed, all the universities for Bantu education started as university colleges, as did our own. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider an amendment to clause 1. I do not know whether an hon. member of the Opposition has already moved an amendment to this effect …

I am going to move such an amendment.

Then I shall reserve my argument for later.

I should like to come back to the argument as to which Minister the medical school should fall under. I want to point out that, if it falls under the Department of Bantu Administration, it would mean that the rector of the new medical school …

It will not fall under the Department of Bantu Administration.

If it falls under the aegis or the authority of the department, then surely it falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration?

The Department of Bantu Education, not Bantu Administration.

Under the Minister of Bantu Education then. It is the same thing.

You are a bit confused, Helen.

I am not confused at all. It is exactly the same thing, because the Minister of Bantu Education is part and parcel of the Department of Bantu Administration. The Minister of Bantu Education and the Minister of Bantu Administration is the same person in any case. Why is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education not taking charge of the Bill instead of the hon. the Minister if it is not the same thing? If that is the case, why does the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education not handle the Bill?

He is not even in the House.

Order!

Exactly, he is not even in the House. Of course it should be the Minister of Bantu Education who should be involved. This is the point I am making. It is one and the same thing. The hon. members on the other side of the House do not know what they are talking about. The point I want to make is that the rector of the medical school will not be a member of the Committee of University Principals. I believe it is very important that the rector of the new medical school should, in fact, be part and parcel of the Committee of University Principals, which does so much to pull together the whole system of higher education in our country, which, as we know, is divided between the various universities on a language basis. A new university is here being set up, and the rector of this university will not be able to be a member of the Committee of University Principals.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Pietersburg that medicine is medicine whether it is practised for Black people or for White people and that disease, however much he would like it to be so, knows no colour bar.

Order! The hon. member may not reply to those arguments now, because I asked the hon. member for Pietersburg not to dwell on that subject for too long.

Yes, but you allowed him to develop his argument, if I may say so …

Order!

All right, I shall leave it. I just wanted to point out to the hon. member that his argument is nonsensical.

I wish to support the hon. member for Pinelands’ argument, viz. that the new medical school should be left where the medical school it is replacing, unfortunately, was, i.e. in the hands of the Minister of National Education.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg did raise a very important point at the beginning, I think. It is a point which I believe to have a major bearing on the amendments. It referred to the fact that the PRP had nothing to say during the Second Reading Debate, but are now advancing arguments of principle in connection with their objections to the Minister of Bantu Administration. The only problem is that the hon. member for Pietersburg could not deal with sleeping-sickness as well. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to ask the hon. members of the PRP to tell us whether they were asleep, and if not, whether they support the principle of the Second Reading. It is a question which is relevant under every clause. Why did these hon. members not give an indication at least, as they ought to do during a Second Reading stage, of the fact that they intended to move material amendments? However, the members of the PRP turned their backs to the debate and seemed to be very satisfied with themselves. They must tell us now whether they were in the arms of Morpheus. If not, in whose arms? I think this is a matter we have to thrash out with the PRP, because we cannot allow them to advance important arguments here when we have not been able to prepare for them.

It has been on the Order Paper for weeks.

We did not have time to prepare ourselves because we did not know what their arguments were. The argument advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands differs basically from the other arguments. It is a very sweet-sounding argument, i.e. that it would be much easier for administrative reasons. Then the hon. member for Rosettenville called the whole quality of the education into question. The hon. member for Houghton, on the other hand, said that we would not be able to control the universities. How far have these arguments advanced by now? How could we have prepared ourselves for them if we were unable to see the way these people were thinking during the Second Reading Stage? We shall not let those hon. members get away with it. We want a reply in respect of each of their arguments.

As regards the amendment concerned, I want to point out that the Minister of Bantu Education is the obvious person, because it arises logically from the whole Bill. Secondly, it is in line with the whole principle of training in primary and secondary stages for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education to be able to deal with standards, etc. When it comes to consultation with the homelands, which is an important principle of this Bill, when it comes to representation on the council and when it comes to the opinions of the homelands leaders in connection with their needs, etc., do hon. members wish to involve another Minister in these matters or should they be dealt with by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education? Therefore this amendment of the PRP is ill-considered to begin with. Secondly, it is an amendment which seems to have come to them at a later stage, because they agreed with us at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into any quarrel as to why the PRP did not take part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I want to tell the House that it did not suit them at the time to speak. The several leaders of that party were sitting in their benches and never even raised a word of protest. Therefore, I take it that they did not want to take part in that debate. If that is the attitude they take in debates, they must not complain later. Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central on the Order Paper, as follows—

During my Second Reading speech I said that I thought that the “Medical University of Southern Africa” was a misnomer. I therefore also move the amendment which is printed in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North on the Order Paper, as follows—

I now wish to talk about the name of this university. As I said in my Second Reading speech, to me it is a misnomer. The two amendments which appear on the Order Paper go hand in hand and deal with the naming of this university. I hope it is going to be a university and not a university college. However, I do not like the name of it. I do not think it is a medical university and I would like, if it is going to have the name “medical”, to have “sciences” inserted between “medical” and “university” so that it will read the “Medical Sciences University.”

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members in the House have said that overseas there are medical schools which are attached to universities and which people can attend to obtain a degree. These are hospitals in medical schools and there are two opportunities of getting recognition for the work done. Let us take an example in Great Britain. One can obtain a degree from the Royal College of Surgeons or from the Royal College of Physicians and become a member or a licentiate of one of those colleges. At the same time one can take a university degree at the same medical school. That is optional, but here it is not optional. Here one can obtain a degree from a medical university, but it not a medical university in the full sense. I want the hon. the Minister to understand that a medical university can only give a degree in medicine and perhaps in dentistry. It certainly cannot give a degree in veterinary science.

Why not?

It cannot, because it is a medical school and the two faculties are separate. To overcome the difficulty and to make sure that we do not exclude veterinary science from this university I want to include the word “sciences”. It will then include medical science, dental science and veterinary science. What objection can the hon. the Minister have to that? It is only a matter of clarification. In any case, “Medical University of Southern Africa” is a cumbersome name. I am not going to harp on it again, because it is the second time I am arguing about this. Another point I want to make, is that I do not like the word “Southern”. The hon. the Minister said that he is using the word “Southern” and not “South”, because the university is going to take in students from all parts of Southern Africa. I sincerely hope that it will do so, but that does not mean to say that it should be a Southern African university.

It is our university here in South Africa and it belongs to the Republic. It is not going to belong to the Transkei, it is not going to belong to Bophuthatswana, and it is not going to belong to KwaZulu. It is going to be a South African university. If I wanted to go to the University of Heidelberg in Germany, they would not have to change the name of that university because I come from South Africa. They do not have to change the name of the Heidelberg University because a certain student comes from France. It remains the Heidelberg University in that area. It was established there. To indicate that a university is going to take students from other areas, by changing the name to “Southern”, is ridiculous. It is our university and I think we should call it the University of South Africa. The argument that that may clash with the existing University of South Africa also falls by the board, because one is prefacing the name of the University by calling it the “Medical Sciences University”, which does not exist in the case of the University of South Africa. He must think again about this. It is not a complete name; it is an untidy name and can mean anything. We do not want it to be so vague. I will be quite happy if the hon. the Minister calls it the Ga-Rankuwa University—finis en klaar. What is wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with that name. That should be the name of the university. We are certain of at least three of the faculties at this stage, namely the dental faculty, the medical faculty and the faculty of veterinary sciences. We know that because it is provided for in the Bill. So why not call it the Ga-Rankuwa University? The Minister, however, does not want to do it. He indicates that he is not sure of the place because the words “in the vicinity of” appear later in the Bill. He talks about the university being placed in the vicinity of Ga-Rankuwa. To meet all the objections of the hon. the Minister to our amendment, let us then call it the University of Medical Sciences. I am sure that will satisfy everybody and will not detract from the value of the university. The clause will then certainly get the support of this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, no new arguments have been advanced in connection with this matter, and therefore I should like to say something at this stage about the various amendments that have been moved. Judging by the amendments, the major objection of the members on the other side is related to the idea of the work being done by the Minister of Bantu Education or any other Minister. Members who have been in this House for a long time will know what the position is in connection with this subject. This is not the first time these hon. members have debated, during the discussion on a Bill, what the functions of the Minister of Bantu Education as against those of the Minister of National Education should be. We know that we have here a radical and basic political difference of opinion between the two parties, and that is what the argument is about. The hon. members on the other side cannot discuss this measure in the wider sense with us today, and therefore they confine their arguments to the narrow sphere of medical training. However, I know that it is the standpoint of both parties on the other side that the education of all groups in South Africa should be placed under one Minister, and this is the point at issue. However, the hon. members cannot advance that argument here today, because that wider scope is not allowed here. Now they advance feeble and transparent arguments, illogical arguments, in saying that all medical training should fall under one Minister. They simply argue that all medical training should fall under one Minister and that this should be the hon. the Minister of National Education. However, in that case all agricultural training would also have to fall under one Minister, all art training would have to fall under one Minister and all other subjects would also have to fall under one Minister. Must it be a different Minister every time? Surely this is a very unsound argument.

We know that the universities intended for the Bantu peoples fall under the Minister of Bantu Education. However, members who support this amendment want to bring about a division so that just the one university providing medical, dental and veterinary services will fall under a different Minister from the one who controls the other universities, such as Turfloop, Fort Hare and Ngoya. These three universities fall under the Minister of Bantu Education, but they now want this new university to fall under a different Minister. Surely it is an absolutely wrong administrative approach to divide one organism into two modules. Surely this is quite wrong and it cannot be condoned in terms of the administration of education. Nor can it be condoned from an educational point of view, and for that reason I really cannot even consider substituting the hon. the Minister of National Education for the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, as I am asked to do. The universities are integral units for administrative purposes, and they are controlled by the Minister of Bantu Education. He is the educational guardian of the various Bantu peoples which according to our ideal—and it is going to be realized one day—will each be able to manage its own affairs. For this reason the Minister of Bantu Education is the guardian Minister under the trustee concept which is a very old one in South Africa, and he is the Minister who has to prepare these matters for the day when each of the Bantu peoples will be able to take over its own affairs. They must not try to pass these matters on to another Minister who has another task in relation to the other population groups of South Africa. I find it strange that the hon. member for Edenvale also advanced this argument. As a good and experienced academic he ought to know that it is a fairly old classical ideal among academics that a theological faculty and training in the medical sciences are ideal directions which should be provided at any university to enable that university to function perfectly. However, he now wants to remove all these aspects from the Minister concerned with the other academic training activities in regard to the Bantu and he wants to entrust them to someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the academic training of the Bantu people. With this I have really dealt with all the arguments advanced by the hon. members who wanted this matter to be handled by the hon. the Minister of National Education instead of by the Minister of Bantu Education, and I do not think there is any of the hon. members’ arguments I have not replied to.

The hon. member for Houghton floundered today as I have never seen her flounder before. She said that in her opinion there was nothing to choose between Bantu administration and Bantu education, because both fall under one Minister. However, the hon. member sat in this House for six years while two different Ministers handled these two portfolios. My predecessor as Minister of Bantu Administration was Mr. De Wet Nel and my predecessor as Minister of Bantu Education was Mr. Maree. Two different Ministers handled the two different departments. It may be a coincidence in a certain sense that one person is now handling both departments, but they could be entrusted to two different persons at any time. She also asked me why it did not fall under the hon. the Deputy Minister charged with Bantu Education. The hon. member does not seem to know what is going on. She is living in a dream world. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education does not handle all the educational affairs of the Bantu. Did she not see me getting up on this very day and speaking in this very debate on universities, while the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke on the schools? There is a delegation of work, after all, so I cannot understand how the hon. member could have advanced such a silly argument as this one.

I must say that to some extent I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein West that the PRP members want to make use of the Committee Stage to raise matters that should have been raised at the Second Reading, because they were absent when the Second Reading took place and consequently neglected their duty. As regards the arguments in respect of the other amendments, the amendment of the name, I believe it was Shakespeare who said “What’s in a name?” A name is important, but in another sense a name is not important. I do not want to quarrel about this matter with my good friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville. I want to concede that one could argue about this for a long time. I want to tell the hon. member—this will please him greatly—that the initial idea—which did not emanate from me, but from the officials—was that we should give the university almost the same name as the one proposed by him, namely the Medical Science University, or something of that nature. We considered that name; we considered many other names. This is something I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, so I am not going to repeat it at any length now. We tried to consider the matter on a realistic and practical level.

We have been speaking for many years of university training for Bantu students in medicine, in dentistry and in veterinary surgery. We still refer to all three directions of study by the same umbrella name. We always speak of them as medical training. When we started the planning and when we considered what the institution would look like and where it would be situated, unofficially we were already referring to the proposed institution as the medical university. The name created itself. That is really what I want to say. It is therefore the most natural name we could find. We could think of other fine-sounding, academic-sounding and thoroughly justified names. I am not arguing about that. In practice, however, people are going to speak of the medical university. The hon. member asked why in that case it could not be the medical university, or whatever university, of Ga-Rankuwa. As far as I am concerned, I advanced enough arguments about this point as well during the Second Reading debate. These amount to the fact that we do not want to tie the proposed medical university specifically to Ga-Rankuwa, because Ga-Rankuwa has an integral association with one single Bantu people. As against this, all Bantu peoples will share in the university, in the composition of the councils as well as by supplying students and in many other ways. They must not be given the impression in any way, whether symbolically or indirectly, that the university belongs more to one people than to the others. We want the dedication and the support of everyone and we want to do justice to the needs of everyone.

The hon. member even said, “It is an untidy name.” I think the hon. member’s name is more untidy. Surely it would not be right for the university to have a name but to be referred to by another name in practice. The proposed name is short and to the point: The Medical University of Southern Africa. This name will probably be abbreviated to Medunsa.

During the Second Reading Debate I explained why the expression “Southern Africa” was preferable to “South Africa”. I gave the two reasons for this. In the first place it gives a wider idea of the work that is done there in regard to Southern as well as South Africa. In the second place, there is already a university which is known as the University of South Africa. Consequently there could be confusion. The hon. member realizes this, because he referred to it himself today. He anticipated my argument and tried to reply to it himself. For these reasons I believe that hon. members will understand that it is not possible for me to accept any of the proposed amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to some of the points which the hon. the Minister has just raised. I should like to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville. To begin with, however, I want to deal with the question of a name for the proposed medical university. We note the expression “Southern Africa”. In practice, the University of South Africa has in fact spread its wings far beyond the borders of the Republic of South Africa. If there is an institution which is entitled, by virtue of the service it has rendered, to use the name “Southern Africa”, it is undoubtedly the University of South Africa.

You are strengthening my argument.

No. On the contrary. What my argument amounts to is that if one accepts the argument of the hon. the Minister with regard to the term “Southern Africa”, the conclusion is that—by virtue of services already rendered—the term “Southern Africa” belongs to the University of South Africa rather than to an institution which has not even been begun.

The hon. the Minister went on to argue that the proposed name involved a wider context. By the way, I hope the hon. the Minister will be more accommodating when we are dealing with the remaining amendments. As I have already indicated, we are not concerned here with a reflection on the hon. the Minister in his official capacity. The term “Southern Africa” may in fact create a false impression. The normal meaning we attach to the term “Southern Africa” is one which includes at least all the territories, all the countries, in this part of the continent. If we were to use the term “Southern Africa”, we could expect, after all, that there should be some consultation at least with the BLS countries and that we would be creating an institution here to which people from the other countries, apart from the Republic and the Transkei, would also have access. Under those circumstances there might still be justification for the use of the name “Southern Africa”. But under the present circumstances it seems to me that those countries could object by saying that we are using a term here which is not correct but which is false and which does not reflect the facts of the matter. I am just mentioning this. I agree with the hon. the Minister that a name is a name, but under these circumstances it does seem to me that if we want to use the term “South Africa” to express a geographical area, the term “Southern Africa” would be less acceptable than “South Africa”. But I do want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville. I think there are other possibilities that could be investigated. We could even call it the “M. C. Botha Institution for Medical Studies”. [Interjections.] I mention this just to indicate that there are other possibilities. The name “Southern Africa” seems to me to be inappropriate under these circumstances.

Furthermore, I want to say that as far as the question of the medical university is concerned, the hon. member for Rosettenville indicated that this was once again creating a false impression. This institution is not devoted to what is normally regarded as medical science, not if we include veterinary surgery. I want to say again that the word “medical” as it is used here is one which creates a false impression, and to protect the Minister himself from accusations of this nature, I do want to say that it seems to me that the wider concept of “medical sciences”, if we have to use it, can in fact include veterinary surgery, and not the other way round.

I want to refer in passing to certain of the other arguments that were advanced here. The hon. the Minister himself refuted the argument of the hon. member for Pietersburg. The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke of national development which was supposed to be the basis of this whole Bill. The hon. the Minister replied to that by saying that this institution will be open to all the Bantu peoples, and he also said that the impression must not be created that one people is being favoured more than another. Sir, we cannot eat our cake and have it. Either the matter transcends the boundaries of ethnic variety as far as the Black people are concerned, or it does not. The hon. the Minister says very clearly that it does transcend those boundaries, and therefore he cannot motivate it by saying that this institution is essential for building a Bantu people, unless we say that we regard all the Bantu peoples as one people.

This is not true. The University of the North is not an ethnic university in the sense in which the University of Zululand or the University of Fort Hare is. Surely this is quite clear. [Interjections.] That may be so or it may not be so, but I just want to say that we must not use arguments which actually destroy our own case. This is my reply to the hon. member for Pietersburg as well. I want to say quite honestly: We must not put up our own windmills and then attack them again. This proposed university was not referred to as a bush college by this side of the House. I did not do this and I do not think that any of the speakers on this side did, and there were really only two speakers who took part in the Second Reading debate. I do want to have my objection recorded to the fact that we have been accused of something we did not say.

I did not refer to it.

No, I am speaking of the hon. member for Pietersburg. My impression was that he applied it to this debate as well.

Then I also want to refer to the argument of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. As we shall see later, the homelands are represented on the council of this proposed institution in terms of clause 10. Consequently it is not necessary to do this through the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education; they are represented on the council themselves. So I cannot concede any validity to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pietersburg, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West and the hon. the Minister that the responsible person must be the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and not the hon. the Minister of National Education. It does not matter at all who the administrative head is. Whether the Black universities had been established on an ethnic basis or on any other basis, such as the University of the North, would have made no difference. I am not prepared to concede that the hon. the Minister of National Education would have done any less competent a job than the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education in respect of those universities. Therefore the other arguments fall away. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider in a more positive spirit the objections in connection with these three specific points.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Edenvale whether he supports the amendments of the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North? [Interjections.] I just want the attention of the hon. member for Edenvale for a moment. I ask again whether he supports the amendments of the hon. member for Durban Central and Pietermaritzburg North as far as the name is concerned?

Yes.

Then I just want to ask whether it is in order for an hon. member to support two contradictory standpoints at the same time. I say this because I am sure those hon. members did not consult with one another. The hon. member for Durban Central moved in his amendment that “Universiteit van Suider-Afrika vir Mediese Wetenskappe” be used, but the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North proposes that “Suider-Afrika” be deleted and replaced by “Suid-Afrika”. So we have two different proposals here: One member proposes one name and another member proposes a different name.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that the amendments were moved in English and that the Afrikaans is merely a translation. The amendments were not drawn up in this way by the members concerned. The matter will be rectified automatically.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but “Suid-Afrika” and “Suider-Afrika” do not mean the same thing in Afrikaans. What is printed here, therefore, is a contradiction. The one amendment refers to “Suid-Afrika”, while the other one refers to “Suider-Afrika”. Consequently these two amendments contradict each other.

Order! The matter will be rectified. The original amendments were drawn up in English and were then translated.

Mr. Chairman, quite apart from the translation, one amendment implies “South Africa”, while the other amendment implies “Southern Africa”. These are two quite different terms. My problem is that the hon. member for Rosettenville moved the amendments on behalf of these two hon. members. The hon. member for Edenvale then said that he supported both amendments, and I therefore want to know whether an hon. member may support two amendments that do not have the same meaning. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree with you and to say that the substance of these two amendments is not the same. I should like hon. members on the other side to give me an indication of which of the two amendments they actually support. I should like to have a reply from the hon. member for Edenvale at a later stage.

However, what also interested me a great deal this morning was the sudden and absolutely unexpected interest taken by the PRP in this Bill. The Friday before, when the Second Reading debate on the Bill was resumed, the hon. the Leader of the PRP and the hon. member for Parktown were present. They have set themselves up to be the spokesmen of the Black man in this House. The hon. members also believe that they have to look after the interests of the Black people of this country. However, it seems to me once again that the PRP is not so sincere in its behaviour towards the Black people as it would have us believe, for it seems that some members on that side were to have spoken on the Bill. Perhaps one of the hon. members who were to have spoken on it was precisely the hon. member who was referred to earlier as Brother Superior, the hon. member for Pinelands. However, he did not want to change his arrangements for the weekend in order to be able to advance arguments on behalf of the Black people against the principle of a medical university being established for Black people. Consequently I question the sincerity of that party in respect of the Black people of South Africa.

The hon. member for Rosettenville is an elderly member for whom I have great respect, but he made a remark I do not feel happy about. He said that the fact that this university would fall under the Minister of Bantu Education would stigmatize the university, because it could create the impression that it was just an institution falling under the Minister of Bantu Education. He said that the university should fall under the Minister of National Education, otherwise it would look like discrimination. I think it was a very unfortunate remark which the hon. member for Rosettenville made, because his words implied that the education controlled by the Minister of Bantu Education was inferior compared to the education offered to Whites and falling under the Minister of National Education.

Oh, what nonsense!

This is the kind of argument which South Africa’s enemies will use against South Africa abroad. All they need do is to call the hon. member for Rosettenville as their witness. I feel very unhappy about the hon. member’s remark, and I hope that he will rise again to correct his statement.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of Mr. L. F. Wood on the Order Paper, as follows—

That subsection reads—

Order! I regret I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

I understand that and, naturally, I accept your ruling. Would you then allow me, Sir, to put a question on this matter? The list of units referred to in subsection (2) is quite extensive. The following units are involved: the North-Sotho unit, the South-Sotho unit, the Swazi unit, the Tsonga unit, the Tswana unit, the Venda unit, the Xhosa unit, and the Zulu unit. Does the subsection imply that all other units or persons will be excluded from the university?

No.

Clause 19, which I do not want to anticipate, makes provision for that. I want to know whether clause 19 will be in conflict with this clause in any way at all.

No, not at all.

Then I am satisfied.

Mr. Chairman, I shall move the amendment standing in my name a little later. I should like to refer, first, to the second part of the clause, since the hon. member for Rosettenville got in first. What I have to say is relevant to the subject he has raised. I realize that the principle has been accepted and that one can do nothing more than vote against the clause as such. However, I hope you will allow me, Sir, to make just one or two points in connection with this particular subject. Firstly, I find it quite unbelievable that in this day and age, in the last quarter of the 20th century, the hon. the Minister is contemplating setting up yet another segregated institution in this country. This comes at a time when we are talking of détente and of contact and closer communication between the different races in South Africa. At such a time the hon. the Minister is contemplating setting up an institution …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the principle of the Bill.

Sir, I thought you would allow me to express a few thoughts on this, since it is usual to allow one member of each party to express a few general thoughts in this way.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, it is unthinkable that at this time …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We accepted the principle of a separate medical university for Blacks at the Second Reading, and I submit that the hon. member for Houghton is completely out of order now.

Order! I have already given my ruling, but it is a tradition in this House to allow one hon. member from each Opposition Party to state the standpoint of his party and to lodge his objection. The hon. member may therefore proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, I find it quite unbelievable that we should be spending R30 million at this time of our history in setting up a new segregated institution in South Africa, more especially one which deals with a science which is so specifically non-segregated as the medical sciences are, viz. the science of teaching medicine, the science of practising medicine, veterinary science and the science of dentistry. That South Africa should be setting up this segregated institution is, to my mind, quite unbelievable. I simply wish to record our objection to the fact that the hon. the Minister is taking this highly indefensible and inadvisable step.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one or two matters in connection with clause 3. I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Obviously what I am trying to do, is to establish a siting for the medical school which I believe would be more appropriate than the one which has been chosen. I took the trouble to read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech with great care and I found in so doing that he gave three major reasons for the siting of the university at Ga-Rankuwa. It was necessary that the medical school be near a hospital which is large enough to provide the students with adequate opportunities for training, which of course is absolutely right And he stated also, correctly, to my mind, that there would have to be medical practitioners and specialists in the vicinity who could serve as part-time staff and instruct the medical students. Thirdly, he said that it was essential to ensure that such a new institution would from the outset maintain recognized standards in the training and evaluation of its students. He also said that the university would be specially situated so that it would be within reach of two established universities, both with medical schools, one being Pretoria University and the other the University of the Witwatersrand. Each of these has a medical and a dental faculty which would be of assistance to the new medical school at Ga-Rankuwa. He said finally that the Onderstepoort Veterinary Research Institute would also be within easy reach. Some of these reasons are valid, but others, I would suggest, are not so valid. To my mind the only really valid reason for siting Medunsa at Ga-Rankuwa is the last one, viz. that it is close to Onderstepoort. I would suggest, however, that it would be very easy to simply absorb Black students at Onderstepoort itself rather than set up a huge new expensive institution. The other reasons given by the hon. the Minister I do not think have such validity. Ga-Rankuwa, I believe, is about 40 km outside of Pretoria. I do not call that within striking distance of part-time specialists for teaching purposes. It certainly is not within striking distance for Johannesburg specialists who are attached to the University of the Witwatersrand Medical School. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many consultations he had in depth before he decided to site the new medical school at Ga-Rankuwa. He said that he had spoken to both the universities of Pretoria and the Witwatersrand and that they were willing to help him and, indeed, even to sit on the council. That we have established.

I wonder whether either of those universities had a better suggestion to make, or did they simply agree to serve on the Ga-Rankuwa council and to help with the development of the new medical school when they knew that the hon. the Minister’s mind was irrevocably made up? Then I wonder whether he discussed the siting of the new medical school with the one teaching medical school that has had 25 years of experience of training Black doctors, and that is of course Natal Medical School. Did he discuss the siting of this new medical school with them? Did he get their advice? Did he have any suggestions from them? I think it is very important that the experience of Natal Medical School be utilized before we establish a R30 million institution 40 km outside of Pretoria. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister consulted the University Advisory Committee, as it was, or the new advisory committee which has been set up as a result of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission’s report. Did the hon. the Minister consult the Committee of University Principals? At present I think there are five universities which have medical schools and they all have principals who belong to the Committee of University Principals. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would also have consulted those people. If he did consult them, were all of them in agreement that Ga-Rankuwa is the ideal place to site a new university? We all agree that there has got to be more training facilities for medical students, and particularly for Black medical students, but I would like to point out that the establishment of Medunsa is dependent on the closing down gradually, the phasing out, of Natal Medical School and at most it seems that by 1980, according to estimates made by experts, Ga-Rankuwa will be at its limit of 200 medical students in all. For a very small sum of money an additional 40 students could be accommodated at Natal and as far as taking more students is concerned …

Order! The hon. member has moved an amendment. She must confine herself to that amendment.

May I say that if I do not want the medical school to be sited at Ga-Rankuwa, I do want it to be sited somewhere else? What I am suggesting to the hon. the Minister are alternative sites. I want to put it to him that for an expenditure of much less than R30 million the existing facilities for instance at Baragwanath Medical School could easily be expanded to accommodate the students whom the hon. the Minister wants to train. Baragwanath fulfils all the conditions the hon. the Minister stated in his Second Reading speech for choosing Ga-Rankuwa. It has a large hospital containing, I believe, some 3 000 beds. It is already training medical students. All the Black medical students at the University of the Witwatersrand receive their training at Baragwanath. And, what is most important, it has the part-time specialist staff at hand, experienced in all the medical sciences and, I might say, in all the paramedical sciences too, which can provide the necessary training for these students at very much less cost than R30 million for a new medical school.

A final reason for asking the hon. the Minister to reconsider where he is going to site the medical school, is to remember that Baragwanath is closest to the largest Black city south of the Sahara, i.e. Soweto. This means that aspirant medical students can live at home and attend the medical school at Baragwanath. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I fear the hon. member for Houghton has really abused the opportunity which she had to try and delete the words “near Ga-Rankuwa”. She inserted nothing else in her amendment, and thereby she abused the opportunity by discussing all sorts of principles in connection with this matter and by raising all sorts of fundamental matters which really do not fall under the purview of this clause. This clause deals with the locality of the university and the locality only.

*I have already replied to that, in my Second Reading speech. I am afraid the hon. member is using this amendment of hers to continue to speak under the banner of Ga-Rankuwa and to say what she should have said in the Second Reading when she sat there and neglected her duties, together with her other colleagues. We may not abuse the procedures in this way to try and rectify our duties afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister not reflecting on the Chair’s ruling?

No. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

No, I am reflecting on that bench where the hon. member for Houghton is sitting, because she was sitting there during the Second Reading debate when she had the opportunity to speak. She was there.

I was in Durban, as a matter of fact.

She might have been there. I think I saw her there, but at any rate her leader and other members of her party were over there. They all sat sleeping or talking. The whole bunch of them were there.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “bunch”, since it is unparliamentary.

Sir, is this then a word with a derogatory meaning?

Yes, it is, because it appears on the list of unparliamentary expressions.

Did the word get that meaning here in Parliament?

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word.

Sir, I say that the whole group sitting over there …

Order! The hon. the Minister must first withdraw the word before he can substitute another word for it.

Sir, I withdraw the word “bunch” and say “the whole group of them were sitting in those benches”.

I do not intend repeating all the arguments which were advanced during the Second Reading debate, but I do want to point out that we consulted with people over a broad spectrum. It is true we did not consult with all the bodies which the hon. member enumerated, but we have the co-operation of the University of Pretoria and the University of the Witwatersrand in the body which we established. We never had any bickering on the part of these two universities over the fact that the planned university will be situated in Ga-Rankuwa. There is a good hospital at Ga-Rankuwa.

It would not be possible to omit the words the deletion of which has been proposed, and not substitute anything in their place, because then it would be a floating university which could float about all over the whole Transvaal. It would be a real “pie in the sky”, as the hon. members so often say here in Parliament. It is completely unpractical to delete those words and not insert anything in their place.

Mr. Chairman, it is a fact that during the Second Reading debate, both the hon. member for Rosettenville and I discussed the desirability of whether the proposed university should not necessarily be located in Ga-Rankuwa. We also referred to Baragwanath and Soweto as alternative locations. The hon. the Minister has already replied to our representations in this regard. I must say that his reply was not satisfactory, but I shall leave it at that now.

In regard to the proposed amendment I want to point out that there are to my mind two criteria in the location of an institution such as the proposed university. Simply as far as the consideration goes that there are two universities which have to be involved in the new institution, I believe that the hon. the Minister will concede that Ga-Rankuwa is not really of decisive importance, because there is a wide area within which the proposed university could be situated without it being difficult for these two universities to be involved in it. Apart from this consideration, there are to my mind two other criteria. The one applies to the development of a national identity, to talk in terms of the hon. the Minister’s policy, and as far as this is concerned, I have already pointed out earlier that that argument falls away in any case since the proposed university will not be confined to one particular population group. Therefore, seen from that point of view, there is no reason why the proposed university cannot, for example, be situated in Soweto. The argument is furnished that Soweto comprises of a conglomeration of people and that a university there would reflect the conglomeration and will therefore not be able to make a contribution to the creation of a national identity. But that argument of course is also applicable to the proposed university itself since it has already been said that it will be open to all the Black people of southern Africa.

The second consideration is that the establishment of the proposed university should make a contribution to the development of a particular area. Therefore it is necessary, for the sake of the future development of areas like the Transkei, the Ciskei, KwaZulu or whatever the case may be, for the state-in-the-making to have its own institutions for higher education. During the Second Reading debate we specifically asked whether the planned university would form part of a specific homeland and the reply to that was in the negative. I also asked whether, in view of the fact that the normal requirement is that trust land should be transferred to some homeland or other, the trust land on which the university will be set up, will be transferred to a homeland. The reply to that was that nothing prohibits the trust land from being held back and not being transferred to a particular homeland.

I said that it would be given to the university.

That is correct, but the concept that a Bantu state-in-the-making should have its own university, therefore, does not apply in this case either.

No, it may well apply.

I merely want to point out that that consideration concerning the location of the university does not apply in this case either.

With reference to the hon. the Minister’s reply to this debate, I want to suggest in all humility that, if the words “near Ga-Rankuwa” were deleted, it does not necessarily follow that other words should be inserted. The words “in the province of the Transvaal ” are still applicable. Other legislation exists which was passed previously on the other universities in which only the province is indicated within which a university shall be situated.

Although I am afraid that the die has been cast as far as the proposed amendment is concerned, I want to point out nevertheless that I believe, in the first place, that Soweto is the obvious place. In the second place I believe that Baragwanath is the obvious hospital. In the third place I believe that even if the university were to be situated in Soweto, it will be possible for the two universities to be involved in the contemplated university.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question about the utilization of Onderstepoort, a point which the hon. the Minister also touched on. How are Black students to be accommodated in the veterinary science department at Onderstepoort? If they are not to be accommodated there, I should like to know how Onderstepoort’s facilities will be used in the training of Black students.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a reply to the last question of the hon. member. The hon. member knows what my reply is to the other points which he raised and therefore I need not refer to them again. As far as veterinary students are concerned, it seems to me there is a misunderstanding. I am a little hesitant to deal with this matter under the clause which is now being considered, because I really do not know whether it belongs here. If I deal with it here nevertheless, the hon. member must please not raise the matter again under the relevant clause.

The intention is not that the veterinary students shall be trained at Onderstepoort. Their hostel and sport facilities will be provided on the grounds of the planned university and they will even be able to attend certain lectures there. Onderstepoort will render assistance at Medunsa. It may be that arrangements may be made with Onderstepoort so that students may attend demonstrations and so on at Onderstepoort, but the centre of veterinary training for Black students will be at Medunsa.

Amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the three amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, to omit paragraph (a) of subsection (3);
2. (2) on page 5, in line 25, to omit “with the approval of the Minister ”;
3. (3) on page 5, in line 36, to omit “, with the approval of the Minister, ”.

All three amendments actually deal with the position of the Minister in respect of the council and other university bodies.

This morning, by way of a passing reaction on the part of the hon. the Minister I formed the impression that he was not very interested in extending his authority to an unlimited extent. We are dealing here with the essence of the proposed institution and what we must try and achieve, is a pattern as close as possible to the pattern to be found at existing—if I may use the word—White universities.

Are your afraid of that word?

The hon. member must please not waste my time; I am concerned with very serious matters. If I am to answer the hon. member’s interjection, I want to point out to him that there are also non-Whites at some of the White universities. The hon. member knows this as well as I do. I therefore cannot speak of “White ” universities in the sense in which he usually means it. I would rather carry on with my argument.

It is essential that the pattern which we want to establish there, must fit in as closely as possible with those of our existing full-fledged universities. This morning, when we were discussing the Bantu Education Vote, the hon. the Minister indicated that he was considering legislation the essential aim of which would be to bring the excising Bantu universities closer to the accepted pattern of the universities in South Africa.

I did not put it in that way.

I am using my own words, but this is probably what is envisaged by implication as regards the composition and functions of the council, etc. I should like to repeat that it is essential, for that university too, that we should do so. This being so it seems obvious to me—I repeat that it is in the interest of the university institution which the hon. the Minister wants to found—that we must establish the same pattern with respect to the functioning of the institution as is already being followed at the other universities. No real objection can be made to this, especially not when considered in the light of clause 10. In clause 10 an explanation of the composition of the council is given. In the light of the confidence which the hon. the Minister himself expressed in the people who are contributing towards the founding of that university, and who will also serve on the council of the proposed university, there is a difference. It differs from the university colleges for Blacks, with respect to the manner in which the councils are composed. In this connection it would also be as well to take note of the university institutions of the Indians and of the Coloureds. Here we are dealing with a completely different situation. Here we have people who are capable of holding their positions in the council concerned in every respect. Therefore I believe that it is essential that the same powers be granted to that council as those possessed by the councils of our existing universities. In that respect it seems ridiculous to me that whereas in clause 4(1) the council is empowered to borrow money, in clause 4(3)(a) it is stated that the university may not borrow money without the approval of the Minister.

Earlier we spoke of the borrowing power of the Black universities. I did not gain the impression that it would be subject to Ministerial approval. However, it seems ridiculous to me to expect that a council as will be constituted here, should have the approval of the Minister before it may borrow money. The same applies to the question of the acceptance of donations or bequests. This does not apply to any other university. Once again, taking into consideration the composition of the council, it is surely totally unnecessary to make the acceptance of donations or bequests subject to approval by the Minister.

Clause 4(6) concerns agreements with other bodies which may be entered into by the university. It seems to me as if this is also a matter which should rather be left to the council. I want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister to try and see to it that—on the strength of the status of the proposed institution—an attempt should be made to get away from the impression which is consistently created by the Bill, the impression that it is not really an independent institution at all, but that it is actually an institution which is under the thumb of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education. This is the impression which is created there. It seems to be an institution with no authority of its own, with no power of its own and with no right to act as a corporate institution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Edenvale. I want to refer to clause 4(4), which says—

We on this side of the House have moved that the words “with the approval of the Minister” be deleted. If we delete those words and insert “with the approval of the council”—I have a written amendment to that effect here in front of me—this provision will fall in line with clause 4(5)(a), which reads—

Surely, if the council may determine that, why may it not determine which donations the university may receive. Surely, the council should be able to judge whether it is wise to accept such donations. They could do this much better than the hon. the Minister. I would like to hear the comment of the hon. the Minister on that.

Mr. Chairman, all three amendments which have been moved here affect a very important matter. I do not want to allege that they affect the central principle of the Bill, but they do affect a very important aspect of it, an aspect with implications for the principle of the matter. This is the question of the financial control of the university. Hon. members will remember that similar provisions exist with respect to the other three Bantu universities, as well as with respect to the universities of the Indians and of the Coloureds. These are universities which receive every cent of their money from the State, apart from money which they borrow, the interest and repayment of which is the responsibility of the State. In the last instance, therefore what it amounts to is that they do indeed receive all their money from the State. For that reason it is a very important financial policy requirement set by both the State and the Treasury, and the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the permission of the Minister is required before the university may borrow money or accept donations. In my turn I am responsible to the hon. the Minister of Finance and, as is quite clear from the Bill, consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance is prescribed. This is a very important matter, and we must not lose sight of the fact that, since the State is entirely responsible for the provision of all funds, the State cannot therefore be eliminated entirely, as the proposed amendments envisage doing.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville however states that if in the instance of clause 4(5)(a) it could be said that with regard to supplies the council alone can decide, that could serve as a good argument in favour of his amendment. It is not a good argument, because the money is primarily made available to the university. When the university has received that money, the Government trusts them to use that money in order to obtain supplies. It is not necessary that I or the hon. the Minister of Finance should control their supplies. What we do control, is the money allotted by us. That is what we do account for here.

*That principle is at issue here, and we find the same principle in several other places, throughout the Bill. I can say in advance that I shall oppose any attempt to change this. I shall do so on the principle that the State must protect its joint responsibility from the financial point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale. I think it is quite right that he attempts to limit, at least to some extent, the authoritarian control that the hon. the Minister wishes to exercise over this proposed medical university. He states as a reason that the same provisions exist in respect of other Black universities. Of course, he is quite right. The three ethnic universities for the Bantu, the Indian University of Durban Westville and the University of the Western Cape, all have to adhere to the same provisions, and in every case it is with the approval of the hon. the Minister. Not one of those universities may accept money without the approval of the hon. the Minister. However, the fact that he introduced it at that time—and I may add that it was opposed very strongly by this side of the House—does not make it correct now. As we opposed it then, we wish to oppose it again now. I cannot see any reason why the hon. the Minister has to have his thumb down on this new university medical school. He gives it the title of university immediately. It is not even a university college. It is not a college of medicine or of medical sciences. It is a university.

Surely, one of the hall-marks of a university is that it has some measure of autonomy. However, that is not the case under thus Government or under this hon. Minister. He has to dictate …

It is not universally so.

I am sorry, I did not hear.

The hon. the Minister said it was not universally so.

It may not be. I said it was a university.

It is not universally so.

Well, it is so with the other three ethnic universities, the Indian university and the Coloured university. However, I want to know why the hon. the Minister is so nervous of the State losing its control over this university. He is prepared to give it the glorified title of a university, but he is not prepared to relinquish any of the controls over this university.

Where does the money come from?

Well, if the money is going to come from other sources, it is going to save the Government some money, is it not? Therefore, the hon. the Minister ought to be glad if the money comes from any sources. However, that is not the case. He would rather let us pay every cent of the money for this university than relinquish any of the control over the university. That is what it boils down to. I support entirely the amendment and the arguments by the hon. member for Edenvale.

Sir, the hon. member for Edenvale says that this clause contains provisions which also appear in other Acts relating to Bantu universities. The hon. member for Houghton also says so, but then opposes the provision that the Minister of Bantu Education exercises that authority because, she says, it cannot be justified in the case of a university which is becoming a full-fledged university, there are discriminatory noises, and so on. I want to point out to both these hon. members that the Universities Act, No. 61 of 1955, applies to White universities, and section 21 makes provision for every application for a loan to be subject to the agreement of the Minister of National Education. Now the hon. members must tell us whether they reject completely the function of Parliament of exercising financial control by means of its executive. In other words, what these hon. members now want to do, is to introduce entirely new principles as far as financial control over universities is concerned instead of those which apply throughout to all the White universities. This derives from the central act which applies to White universities and runs through like a golden thread through the Bantu universities too. It is a universal principle, as the hon. member for Rissik rightly said. That is why these amendments cause discordant sounds to be uttered, and this also goes for the second amendment of the hon. member for Edenvale. It is a fact that every form of expansion or an agreement for the provision of services by other bodies or persons, which is also a form of expansion, is subject to the approval of the Minister—the Minister of National Education in the case of every other university. Therefore all the arguments which are raised in this context, fall flat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said that the principle involved, in this power to be retained by him, is directed towards the financial control of the institution because of the Government’s involvement in the continued financing of these universities. I wish that that was correct, because I believe that when we look at the particular provision in this clause and similar provisions throughout the other clauses— which, with your leave, Sir, I will deal with merely because of the pattern of which this forms part—one finds that in no less than 21 instances in this Bill before us the residual power remains vested in the Minister. Sir, one wonders why that is so, because those powers are not, as the hon. the Minister said, merely to exercise financial control. It goes much further. This particular clause is part of a pattern presented in this Bill. I wonder why the Minister must have these powers retained unto himself. In clause 4, which is before us, this power restricts the university; and if one looks at clause 5 one sees the persons whom the hon. the Minister now wants to make subject to his control. I need not go through it. It is the whole format of a university: the chancellor, the vice-chancellor, the council, the senate, the convocation and so on. That is what constitutes a university. The hon. the Minister now wants, right throughout the Bill, not only to deal with the financial aspects, but the principle which he wants to get accepted in clause 4 is a principle which also goes through to the appointment of staff and everything— the whole way through. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that if he wants to give—and I believe he does—the proper status of a university, of a medical university, to this institution, then for heaven’s sake let it be seen to be so, with all the powers which are normally given to a university. But throughout the attitude of the Minister, as is evidenced in clause 4, is that powers which would normally be exercised and should be exercised by the controlling body of this university, will be subject to his approval or disapproval. As I say, this occurs in no less than 21 instances in this Bill, and if I might be allowed a little latitude on this point, Mr. Chairman, it would save me speaking 21 times during this Committee Stage. This is not offering separate development with the sky as the limit for a medical university for Black people when there is this retention of power in the hands of the Minister. The hon. the Minister might well say that in future, so far as this university is concerned, it is going to be conducted by the Minister and directed by the Minister. That is what goes through the whole of this Bill.

There is one other matter I wish to raise, with respect. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, with his knowledge of the conduct of the affairs of a university, affairs which require the fulltime attention of the university and the staff of that university, it is practical for him to suggest that these powers of control should be exercised by his department. He himself certainly cannot do it. His responsibilities for other matters in his portfolio take up too much of his time for him to be able to attend to every one of these matters that require his approval. I ask the Minister not to detract from what can be a valuable institution, from what can be something of value to the Black people of South Africa, by restricting in every possible aspect the powers of those bodies which are appointed to run this university in terms of the Bill before us.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak, I should like to say that in this clause we are dealing with the question of the approval of the Minister. This is repeated like a refrain in many of the amendments on the Order Paper. For the convenience of hon. members I therefore want to suggest that they now debate this aspect fully under this clause and that, when we come to the next clauses, the amendments are simply moved for approval or rejection. I cannot give a ruling on this because any hon. member is entitled to speak about it, but if everyone agrees, I now give hon. members the opportunity to elaborate on this subject fully, with the reservation, of course, that there be no repetition.

May I ask, in terms of your suggestion, whether we will be allowed to argue on the other clauses which contain other principles?

That is quite a different matter. My suggestion is applicable only to this question of the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the Minister’s argument if this clause dealt only with moneys. If it provided that the university may with the approval of the Minister receive money, then I could understand his reluctance to allow the council to determine from where the money shall come. But this goes further. It deals also with property and donations. Does the Minister seriously think that he should interfere to the extent that if a person wants to give this medical school a microscope, before they can accept it they have to go to the Minister to get his permission? That is what the clause says, and it is quite ridiculous. It also means that if a bequest is made to the university, before they can receive this bequest they would have to go to the Minister and make sure that they can in fact accept it although it may be too late to go back to the man who left it because he cannot change his will. And yet the Minister for some reason or other could decide not to allow them to take money from the person who is offering it. It is donations, material donations, given to them which they will not be able to accept unless they go to the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister should have another look at this. As I have said, I can understand if it dealt with simply the financing of the university. However, it goes much further. What is the hon. the Minister’s intention? Is it that every time somebody wants to give the university a gift of some sort, must they go to the Minister for permission to receive it? That is what the provisions of the Clause boils down to. I want the hon. the Minister to have another look at this before he rejects the amendments we have put forward.

Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the argument of the hon. member for Rosettenville. However, I also want to return to the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontien West. Am I correct in saying that the hon. member referred to section 21 of the Universities Act?

My remarks concern the first amendment.

Yes, the one which concerns bursaries and loans. I should like to point out to the hon. member that he did not read section 21 together with section 20 of the Act concerned. Section 21 only concerns loans made by the State. Section 21 specifically states—

If the hon. member looks at subsection (l)(e), he will see that the following is appositely mentioned—

This excludes any loans from moneys voted by Parliament—

It is therefore a recognized practice and the right of the university council to raise loans. It is a recognized right. Section 21, to which the hon. member referred, only applies to loans raised out of funds which were provided for this purpose by Parliament. It is therefore much more restrictive than in the case of loans which must be approved by the Minister in terms of this Bill. I also want to point out that if this principle is accepted, the Universities Act, 1955, would automatically apply to the proposed institution. That is of course our whole idea, that this institution be treated on an equal footing with other university institutions. The hon. member therefore left us under a wrong impression as far as this matter was concerned.

As far as the arguments of the hon. the Minister are concerned, I want to say that, as the hon. member for Rosettenville indicated, the only real argument the hon. the Minister advanced, was that relating to finances. But this is nevertheless something which occurs gradually. Our other universities are financed by State subsidies to the extent of 70% to 80% nowadays. Is it necessary to change the whole pattern when there is 100% subsidization? In any event it seems to me that the hon. the Minister’s argument does not hold water. Even with the provision as stated here in (3)(a), there is the possibility of donations and bequests and there is an income from tuition fees and boarding fees. Clause 23 already provides that this money should go to the State. The hon. the Minister is therefore creating the situation that this university will indeed have no financial fund. This is not in accord with the nature of a university. Nor does it follow from the fact of the contribution made by the State towards the financing of the universities. The universities are therefore going to have their own sources of income— for example tuition fees, boarding fees, the possibility of donations and bequests and the possibility of other income by way of loans or whatever. As far as the financial argument is concerned, therefore, there is no reason why this university should not be cast in exactly the same mould as the other universities in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something in connection with the request which you made to us. We do indeed feel that if we cannot make progress here, it will be pointless to motivate our standpoint afresh in respect of each clause. However, there are two major points of difference. The one, of course, concerns the financial affairs of the council, while in the other case it actually concerns the functions of the council with respect to the internal administration of the university. We shall still deal with that, but what I want to say now, is that in this case, too, it is obvious to me that the council taking into consideration the way in which it is composed and the responsible people who are going to serve on the council in terms of the existing provisions, there is no reason at all why the council, as far as the internal administration of the university is concerned, should not have the same powers and authorities as the university councils at other universities.

Mr. Chairman, bearing in mind your suggestion of a few minutes ago, I was going to save my own energy and strength for a little later on in the other clauses. However, rather than letting hon. members anticipate, I would like to speak about it now. I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Eden-vale. The one thing which is very clear is that the hon. the Minister has decided that he will give and give generously with one hand and that he will take back almost as generously with the other. That is, of course, to be expected. It is the kind of paternalistic attitude we have come to expect from this department. We do not only have the word “Minister” being repeated ad nauseam in the Bill, but also the words “approval”, “with the concurrence” and “consultation”. The only time it changes is when we have to have the “prior approval”, whatever that may mean, as distinct from “approval”. I hope the hon. the Minister will rethink the whole approach towards this new venture. We are all agreed that it is a venture that is due in South Africa, but I am sorry for the way in which it is being done. It is sad that the hon. the Minister feels that he cannot trust the senate and the council to administer this university.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the suggestion you made, with the agreement of hon. members, in connection with this clause.

†I would like to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I am not as nervous about these matters as she pretends I am. It is a matter of State finances and the customary practices and principles applying in this respect. The hon. member speaks of me being nervous, but the truth is that she believes so much in unbridled freedom that she does not trust the Government at all with the necessary control where interests of the State are concerned. That is the difficulty I have with the hon. member. She agrees with me.

*The hon. member for Green Point asked why all these powers should be granted. He asked if this was really a very practical method. I can tell the hon. member that I have already had ten years of experience of this at the other three Black universities in South Africa. The same goes for my two colleagues in respect of the other two non-White universities in South Africa. In practice it works quite satisfactorily. I give very much more attention to various other types of activities of the two departments than to financial control of the universities. Everything is arranged properly on the basis of the prescribed procedure and action is taken according to this. The hon. member for Rosettenville cannot make it out to be ludicrous. It is an old trick of hon. members, if they have a poor case, to present the opponent’s case as being ludicrous. Now the hon. member says that if those people want to buy a microscope, they shall have to run to me first …

I say that before they accept a donation of a microscope they will have to go to you.

Yes, the argument remains the same. The hon. member said that before they could receive money to buy a microscope or before they could receive any little present, they would have to run to me to find out whether they could indeed accept it. It is ridiculous to put it like that.

That is what the Bill says.

No. The hon. member is reading his own wishful thinking into the Bill. Were clause 4(4) not in the Bill, then our universities would not have proper authorization to establish private development funds, because they receive private development funds by means of donations. The hon. member can just as well go and find out at the other three universities which I have been administering for ten years already, whether this is the case or not. These development funds were established during my time as Minister. Those universities do a great deal on their own campuses with money which they receive from outside. Everything which they receive is managed in accordance with to a proper set of rules, which we drew up for that purpose. In other words, they receive a general authorization and approval if they receive money, donations, things like microscopes or properties of various other kinds. This takes place according to that procedure which is laid down and they do not have to come to me or to my department with each of those matters; it is properly arranged.

Why is it then not in the Bill?

It is not necessary to put it in the Bill as such because it lies within the discretionary power of the Minister to arrange it in this way together with his department. However, I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member should not, however, become so excited, because it seems that he is even becoming angry with me. I do not take it amiss of him, because he does not even have half a day’s experience of ministerial administration. I cannot take him amiss of him because he does not know how a Minister operates nor how a department works. What does the hon. member know about this? He has no experience of it. The tragedy is that he is never going to gain any. The hon. member does not even want to accept my explanation either. After all, one should not define every discretion, every sensible action taken by the Minister and his department, in an act. Then hon. members on the other side of the House would complain even more. In practice, therefore, in respect of matters of this kind, this university will operate in the same way as the other three universities which fall under my administration have been operating in the past. After all, it would be very unfair to try and deal with this new university according to a completely different pattern. With time one can always re-organize these things, but let us keep the whole group of universities with which I as Minister of Bantu Education am dealing, on the same course, broadly speaking. If this does not happen, one can create unpleasant circumstances not only in the department, but also between the universities themselves.

The hon. member for Pinelands complained about the money which was taken back. He said that I gave a great deal with one generous hand and took far more back with the other stingy one. It is not I who am doing so; it takes place in terms of procedures of the State, of the Treasury; it is the financial principle where the State makes investments and spends money on certain matters. The proceeds then return to the Treasury. That hon. member does not know it, because he has even less knowledge and experience of State administration than the hon. member for Rosettenville, he has only been in this Parliament since the year before last. I do not think that he gained any experience of financial administration in the church to which he was previously attached.

A great deal.

Is that so? Well, then it does not help the hon. member here at all. Unfortunately hon. members conjure up spectures every where instead of approaching the matter with goodwill. I think I have answered all the questions now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has the amazing ability of accusing everyone else of being excited, whereas he is the only one in the House who is becoming excited.

Oh nonsense, man!

No, really. The hon. the Minister also has the amazing ability to consider himself the only person with a monopoly on making personal remarks, but is extremely sensitive if someone else, so far from becoming personal, is merely critical of him.

What clause are you on now?

I am answering the first part of your speech.

I should just like to put it very clearly that the hon. the Minister said at the beginning that the hon. member for Rosettenville actually interpreted the section incorrectly. After all, it is stated there very clearly that the university, with the approval of the Minister, may receive money or other articles as donations, bequests or in another manner. After all, this is stated in the Bill. It does not help now to say that in practice—in the hon. the Minister’s experience with respect to the other universities—he is not going to follow the Act to the letter. Surely this is no answer.

The detail to which you are objecting, is not in the legislation.

But I have just quoted it from subsection (4).

That is from legislation in connection with the other universities.

No, there is no other legislation concerning universities— except the Black universities—where the council’s authority to make loans or to receive donations and bequests, is subject to the approval of the Minister concerned.

This applies to all Black universities.

This does not work with respect to Black universities, because the hon. the Minister has already indicated this morning that next year he is going to bring about amendments as far as Black universities are concerned because it has become apparent that the system does not work effectively. Furthermore I want to say, for the information of the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who is sitting there grumbling, that this is a specialized institution and will provide medical training. It is not like an ordinary university. That hon. member knows as well as I do that there is status involved in the training of doctors and dentists. The status involved here is much higher than that of an ordinary B.A. degree or something similar. From that point of view alone, it is essential that this university should be controlled in accordance with the administrative system and control which applies in respect of other universities where there are medical faculties.

Mr. Chairman, I am not completely sure whether I can argue now about the provisos concerning the approval of the hon. the Minister in other clauses. There is a different principle involved where some of the other clauses are concerned. Here we are dealing with the approval of money. Later on there is the question of the hon. the Minister’s approval for the appointment of rectors and members of staff.

No, we are now only dealing with the question of money.

But, Mr. Chairman, did I not understand you to say that we were not going to discuss the approval of the hon. the Minister under other clauses?

No, only as far as the question of money is concerned.

Oh, then we shall have to argue each clause separately. I was under the impression, Mr. Chairman, that you wished to avoid that.

Mr. Chairman, I have here the amendment which I moved in my first address to you but which I have not yet handed in. If it is your ruling that the amendment has not yet been moved, I now move this amendment as follows—

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived and amendment moved by Dr. E. L. Fisher dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, we are now concerned with the second aspect about which I spoke earlier. The relative position of the hon. the Minister and the council with respect to financial control has already been mentioned. Here, in clause 8, however, we are dealing with the powers of the hon. the Minister as against those of the council in respect of the internal control of the university. Everything which I said in connection with financial control of the university also applies here. In all honesty taking into consideration the composition of the council, I cannot see why the hon. the Minister’s approval should be required for the appointment of a rector, vice-rector, lecturers, etc. This is not his task. That can be done by the council. In the light of the fact that I have already put these points very clearly, I now want to move the amendments in my name on the Order Paper without further discussion, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 60, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 5, to omit all the words after “shall” in line 61 up to the end of subsection (1) on page 7, and to substitute: be as prescribed by statute.
3. (3) on page 7, in lines 3 and 4, to omit “, with the concurrence of the Minister,”.

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that we are now dealing with a completely different matter, namely the approval of the Minister with regard to other matters besides financial aspects. Therefore in the discussion of this clause, I shall allow hon. members to discuss that particular aspect in full so that a repetition will not be necessary when it comes up once again in later amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we agree with the arguments used by the hon. member for Edenvale. We do not think that it should be within the purview of the hon. the Minister to have approve the appointment of the rector and vice rector.

Mr. Chairman, I think the members of this Committee will agree with me that the rector of this university, like the rector of any university, is a very important—certainly the most important—executive, policy-forming and policy-protecting official of the university. This university is of course completely dependent on the State and since this university must undertake extremely important ventures, great care must be taken in the appointment of the rector. I am certain that my hon. friend on the other side has already realized—and if he has not yet discovered this I just want to point it out to him—that this provision differs from the provisions which apply in respect of the other five universities for non-Whites. In those cases the Minister appoints the rector and that is the end of the matter. He can consult the council in this regard, but he does not require the approval of the council. In this case we made two very important changes. Firstly, we gave the council the power of appointment, admittedly with the agreement of the Minister. Secondly—and this is a very important matter—we shifted the initiative which will result in the appointment of the rector, from the Minister to the council. The council will be the body which will begin looking for a person to occupy the post of rector. The council will have to obtain the Minister’s permission for the appointment of that person.

In other words, we have brought about a major shift in emphasis and responsibility from the Minister to the council. However, I hope that hon. members will understand that it is not possible to eliminate the Minister in this case. I have already given the reason for this. The rector is such a vitally important executive, administrative and academic officer of the university. The institution is also entirely dependent on the State for its money and must serve large communities and the government of other homelands. Therefore the appointment of the head of such an institution requires the approval of the Minister of Bantu Education. That person must have the confidence of the Minister in everything he does because he is responsible for the whole functioning of that university. Therefore it is by no means asking too much that the Minister should give his permission. This is a very major concession, if I may call it that, in comparison with the position up to now. Indeed, it is a very much greater concession than one finds abroad at other universities, where the whole council— including the rector—must be appointed by a Minister merely because those institutions are also considered to be State institutions. We do not do this here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister only emphasized one point, namely the question of the appointment of the rector. As a matter of fact my arguments went further. I refer to the position of the Minister as against the council as far as the internal administration of the university was concerned. Let me first answer the point with which the hon. the Minister dealt. Everyone will grant at once that the appointment of the rector is a very important matter. It is clear that it involves great responsibilities. However, this applies to all universities.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not rule me out of order if, in the light of the general nature of the discussion, I come back to the composition of the council as it is set out in clause 10. If we look at the composition of the council, we see that it will consist of the rector and vice-rector, one person appointed by each of the Bantu homelands as official representatives of the homelands, two members of the senate of the university, one person from each of the faculties of medicine, dentistry and veterinary science of the University of Pretoria, who are nominated by the council of the University of Pretoria—a total, therefore of three persons nominated by the University of Pretoria; one person each from the faculties of medicine and dentistry of the University of the Witwatersrand, a total, therefore, of two persons from that university; one person nominated by each of the other three Black university councils; then, the Secretaries of Bantu Education, Bantu Administration and Development and of Health, as well as another two persons appointed by the State President, the chairman of the Hospital Board and, in conclusion, one person appointed by the Minister. It is therefore a body of stature. It is a body which consists of persons who possess the highest sense of responsibility, persons who are fully acquainted with the functioning of universities—most of them, anyway. They are people who carry the full authority of years of experience of university administration. Not one of these people are people of whom it can be said that they will not carry out their duty in a responsible manner at that university. Had the council been constituted in another way, I could still understand the Minister wanting to have control of the internal administration of the university. However, why is the approval of the Minister necessary for the appointment of a vice-rector, of lecturers, etc? By this means the hon. the Minister is moving a motion of no confidence in this body in advance. I want to tell you frankly and in all honesty that except in so far as one wants to provide a service to the Black community, if I were to be asked as a thinking, responsible person to carry out my duty within the university system if it was subject to limitations and supervision of this kind, and if this lack of confidence was expressed in anticipation, I would find it very difficult to participate in this. I want to tell the hon. the Minister once again that by doing this he is doing himself an injustice because he has, after all, made it apparent that to him, he, as Minister of Bantu Education is not the issue. What should apply here, is the status of the university, including its status in the eyes of the outside world, the sort of institution which we want to create and the involvement of people who would be only too keen to carry out their full responsibility in this respect. I want to say in all honesty that in the light of these circumstances it seems to me to be entirely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary, but entirely undesirable, that the Minister should take upon himself all the powers mentioned in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edenvale is making a great fuss about the right of veto, if one may call it that, which the hon. the Minister possesses. The hon. the Minister did, after all, spell it out very clearly that, from the point of view of the hon. member for Edenvale, this is a great improvement on the present position at the existing Black universities. As the Act reads at present, the council recommends someone to the Minister. The council does indeed take the initiative. Actually, the whole matter is in the hands of the council. The Minister only has to express his approval. Since this is a new university and since one knows that clashes or disputes may arise in such a council, it is necessary, as is the case in many other acts, and many other boards and councils, for the Minister to have the final say, in spite of the fact that the boards and councils, including the university councils, may have certain powers. In the case of the marketing boards, for example—to mention an analogous case merely to illustrate the point—all the decisions of those boards are subject to ministerial approval. In this case it is not true that the Minister can tell the council what it must do, because the entire initiative rests with the council. I do not believe one can say that the Minister does not have confidence in the university council he has appointed. I do not believe that this is the intention at all. However, I think that it remains a sound principle in the case of a new body like this university that, especially in the beginning— things may change later—one should give the Minister that right, seen, too, in the light of the fact that practically all the money for that university comes from the Minister. However, the cardinal point is that the Minister is responsible for the way things are done at that university. The Minister is the person who will come under fire in this House if things go wrong at that university. I therefore believe that the clause, as it reads at present, is entirely in order and I support it as such.

Mr. Chairman, I do not actually have anything to add to what I said to the hon. member who spoke a moment ago. The only thing I must still do, is say something about the second amendment of the hon. member. In that amendment he moved that the words “shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be as determined by the council with the approval of the Minister”, be deleted and replaced by: “be as prescribed by statute”. The hon. member is now smiling broadly. After all, he said that I become excited and angry, but does he realize that with that amendment he has undone precisely what he tried to do by means of the first amendment? To be specific, the statute must be approved by the Minister. In other words, the position remains unchanged. I do not believe that the hon. member is actually gaining anything by his second amendment, and therefore I think it was rather senseless to move it.

Mr. Chairman, what has apparently not yet penetrated to the hon. the Minister, is that we want to place this institution on the same basis as the medical faculties at our existing universities. At the existing universities it is provided specifically that this function may be prescribed by statute under the University Act.

But this statement here is incorrect.

Yes, but the statute meant is the common statute for the universities.

No, it is the statute for which provision is made in clause 29 of the Bill.

I am referring to the common statute of the universities. In any event, this is what is envisaged by my amendment.

No, now the hon. member has missed the point.

Our whole aim is that this institution should function on the same level as other universities, and in other universities this function is prescribed by statute.

Mr. Chairman, let me just assist the hon. member. He suggests that “be as prescribed by statute” be included in the clause. If the hon. member looks at the definition in clause 1, he will see that in the case of this Bill the statute is not the general common statute for the other universities, but a statute which may be prescribed in terms of clause 29. Clause 29 of this Bill stipulates that a statute of Medunsa must be approved by the Minister, as I, too, put it. The hon. member made a mistake there.

Yes, thank you; you are correct.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 12 and 13, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 15 and 16, to omit “with the approval of the Minister”.

Mr. Chairman, I only rise to indicate that those amendments are not acceptable.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Berea, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 37, to omit “one person” and to substitute “two persons”;
2. (2) on page 7, in line 41, to omit “one person” and to substitute “two persons”;
3. (3) on page 7, to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (e) of subsection (1):
   (f) two persons of the faculty of medicine of the University of Natal;
4. (4) on page 7, in line 49, after “Development” to insert “, for National Education”;
5. (5) on page 9, in line 25, to omit “Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance” and to substitute “council”.

I understand that by increasing the number of persons, as is requested in the first three amendments, it will be in conflict with the financial requirements as it virtually means an increase in expenditure.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendments Nos. (1), (2) and (3) moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville, because they involve an increase in expenditure and accordingly require the State President’s recommendation. However, I shall allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of the amendments and to attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister, if possible, to take over the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a waste of time because the Minister has already made up his mind. In addition, you have ruled me out of order, so I shall not take up the time of the Committee doing that. The same applies to the other two amendments, i.e. amendments Nos. 4 and 5. We have already discussed this and the hon. the Minister has refused to consider the words “for National Education”. Our arguments would be the same in this case as they were previously. The same applies to amendment No. 5, since I have just had a similar amendment negatived. For those reasons we shall put forward these amendments and simply vote on them.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not move the amendment printed in my name because it is consequential upon the amendment I tried to move under clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I must say to my good friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville, that I cannot take over his amendments.

Amendment (4) negatived.

Amendment (5) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 40 and 41, to omit “with the approval of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 54, to omit “the Minister and”;
3. (3) on page 9, in lines 57 and 58, to omit “after consultation with the Minister”;
4. (4) on page 9, in lines 65 and 66, to omit “the Minister and the”;
5. (5) on page 11, in lines 37 and 38, to omit “Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance” and to substitute “council”.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 13, in line 12, to omit “with the approval of the Minister” and to substitute:
   after consultation with the senate
2. (2) on page 13, to omit all the words after “council” in line 16 up to the end of the Clause.

The second amendment I proposed comes within the scope of the previous provisions. As far as the first amendment is concerned, I want to point out that subsection (1) reads as follows: “The establishment at the University shall be determined by the council with the approval of the Minister.” I have now proposed that the words “with the approval of the Minister” be deleted and replaced by “after consultation with the senate”. It seems to me that even though the words “with the approval of the Minister” were to be retained, it would still be essential for it to be formally stated that the council should act in consultation with the senate, with or without the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accommodate my hon. friend opposite to some extent by having the words “after consultation with the senate” inserted, but the words “with the approval of the Minister” must be retained.

I must be satisfied with the crumbs from the table.

May I just repeat for the sake of clarity that I am prepared to have the words “after consultation with the senate” inserted in clause 15 but not to have the words “with the approval of the Minister” deleted. In other words, what this amounts to is that the words “after consultation with the Senate and” be inserted after the word “council”. The amendment must read that the words “after consultation with the senate and” are inserted after the word “council” and that the rest remains as it is.

Order! The hon. member for Edenvale has already moved an amendment. If he wants to amend it, as the hon. the Minister suggests, then he must withdraw his amendment, redraft it and move it again. I therefore give him the opportunity to consider this in the meantime.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Edenvale will not amend his amendment to suit the hon. the Minister because the hon. the Minister’s concession means nothing at all. The hon. the Minister’s amendment does not mean a row of beans. The obvious intention of the hon. member for Edenvale is to cut the Minister out of this, not to include him in together with the Senate.

The election is drawing closer.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will listen to me. The obvious intention of the hon. member for Edenvale is to exclude the hon. the Minister and not to bring him in together with the senate.

And I thought that we had come to terms.

No, I have certainly not come to terms and I am certainly going to vote against it anyway. I have no desire to have the hon. the Minister interfering in the appointment of staff at this university. I do not know why he continues to call it a university; it is not even a high school because he is giving it no autonomy whatever. When it comes to the university’s staff and the hon. the Minister does not even have enough confidence in the council of the university to leave it to their discretion whether or not they are going to appoint or discharge staff, I think it is just a joke to call this institution a university. It has no autonomy whatever. Even if the university is given the right to act after consultation with the senate, but still with the approval of the Minister, that does not, as far as I am concerned, meet the case at all. I intend voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is unnecessary for either the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Houghton to prescribe to me what I must say, but I really cannot drop the amendment. I cannot accept that the words in my amendment “with the approval of the Minister” be deleted. What I can do, if I may be permitted, is to come up with a new amendment. I should like to propose that the words “after consultation with the senate” be inserted after the word “council” in line 12. However, I cannot accept the amendment as stated there because that is the whole basis of my argument.

Order! I shall first have to consider the proposed amendment in order to determine what its effect will be.

Mr. Chairman, if it would be of assistance to you, the necessary alteration may be effected in the Other Place.

Order! It will facilitate my task if the hon. the Minister moves such an amendment now or in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore move as an amendment—

Amendment (1) moved by N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Bantu Education agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. N. J. J. Olivier negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has an amendment on the Order Paper—“To negative this clause ”. I want to speak on the clause and ask leave to have the amendment withdrawn.

Order! An amendment along those lines can in any event not be moved. The hon. member may speak to the clause.

After a having listened to the hon. the Minister when he spoke on clause 3, I take it that clause 19 is, in fact, extending the restriction mentioned in clause 3(2).

It actually widens the scope of clause 3(2).

Clause 19 contains the following proviso—

I feel that the hon. the Minister should give an explanation in this regard. I can well understand that there are certain formalities which must be dealt with when a student from another country in southern Africa applies for admission to South Africa. Those formalities will have to be dealt with even before he can apply for admission to the proposed university. Those formalities bear a relation to the Department of the Interior and I should like to have the position in this regard clarified. I take it that when a student from another country in Africa applies for admission to South Africa, his application has to be considered by both the Department of Immigration and the Department of the Interior. I should like to know whether, if both those departments have recommended the application, those papers are then referred to the hon. the Minister.

Yes, those papers are referred to me.

Does it then depend on the hon. the Minister whether the application will be granted?

Of course, but I rely on the recommendation of those departments when the application is eventually referred to me.

I take it that after the hon. the Minister has received the recommendation of those departments, he will give his decision.

That is the position. When I have given my approval, the council can proceed.

If those two departments have recommended the application of such a foreign student, does the hon. the Minister have the right of veto?

The final say lies with me.

Well, that is exactly what I do not like and that is why I should like to have this issue clarified. If the Department of the Interior has already scrutinized the applicant’s credentials, and the Department of Immigration has done the same, why should the hon. the Minister have a final say?

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Rosettenville is too suspicious.

Yes, I am.

He is too suspicious, and he has taken a very difficult example. This could apply to a Coloured person, for instance. If a Coloured person who happened to live near this proposed university, wished to enrol there, the Minister would have to give his consent first. In such an instance I would not consult my colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, or any other hon. Minister. The hon. member has given a very difficult example. However, the final say must rest with one person, and not with three or four.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, in moving this amendment I want to omit the proviso—in other words, I want to cut the hon. the Minister out of this. I think it is time this university had the right to do something without being compelled to obtain the hon. the Minister’s consent for it. It is really ludicrous. Again, if the university wants to admit students of other ethnic groups it is, in terms of clause 19, empowered to do so. I fail to see why it should also obtain the consent of the hon. the Minister to do so. The council should take the decision.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in lines 40 and 41, to omit “with the consent of the Minister given after consultation with the Minister of Finance”;
2. (2) on page 15, to omit subsection (2).

With regard to my second amendment, I nevertheless want to request the hon. the Minister to delete clause 23(2). I want to know whether this is acceptable to him, since I cannot see why a part of the tuition fees should be paid back to the State. Why can the control of this not be left in the hands of the council? In any event, the council exercises its authority under the control of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the discussion that has taken place, the hon. member apparently expects me not to accept the first amendment. As far as the hon. member’s second amendment is concerned, an amendment which amounts to the deletion of clause 23(2), this in fact affects a matter which we discussed earlier, when the hon. member for Pinelands maintained that I was giving freely with one hand, but taking back with the other. I referred to that too. It is the essence of the financial practice of the Treasury. When the Treasury provides money for a certain undertaking— makes a certain investment—it claims the return from it. I should very much have liked that money to go to the universities, but things simply do not work that way. The State takes that money back and, in the same year, or in a subsequent year, gives it back by way of a vote in Parliament. This is financial procedure which is followed by the Treasury and Parliament. It is impossible for me to accept that proposal.

It is a question of parliamentary control.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Berea, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 46, to omit “and veterinary science” and to substitute:
   veterinary science and such other faculties as may be prescribed by statute
2. (2) on page 15, in line 47, to omit “with the prior approval of the Minister” and to substitute:
   after consultation with the senate

I do not know whether the first amendment is going to be allowed by you, Sir. The arguments in this connection have already been put forward by me during the Second Reading, and I said that in due course I hoped that the Minister would be prepared to allow other faculties to come into being in that university.

The hon. member’s suspicion was quite correct. I am unable to accept his first amendment as it requires the State President’s recommendation. I shall, however, allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of his amendment in an attempt to persuade the hon. the Minister to move the amendment himself.

I shall not take up the time of the House, Sir. I have already said what I wanted to say about extending the faculties at this university and I will leave it at that. The second amendment is in line with the attitude we have adopted right throughout the discussions this afternoon and I will not go further than that. We have made our points over and over here and I am quite satisfied at this stage to give notice that we will oppose this clause.

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

I want to know why the services of external examiners or moderators appointed by the council on the recommendation of the senate may not be discontinued unless the hon. the Minister so determines. This I find an extraordinary provision. This is a purely academic matter and surely it should be left to the council, as advised by the senate of the university, to decide when the time has come to dispense with the use of external examiners. I do not understand why the hon. the Minister wants this particular power. Can he explain to us why he is interfering in a purely academic matter like this? Surely it must be left to the council to decide when it wants to dispense with the services of external examiners. I would like an explanation, failing which I wish to move the following amendment—

The practice of appointing external examiners and other members of the senate from outside is a procedure which we have followed at the other universities, especially during their initial years, and which we should like to follow here as well. In that connection we shall certainly make use, not only of Pretoria and of the University of the Witwatersrand, but also of other universities, particularly universities with medical faculties. This is to render assistance in regard to the standards and the academic work and the reliable conducting of examinations so that there cannot be any doubt about the graduates of that university. That is the whole purpose and it is one of my duties to help promote it. Of course, we shall not allow it to continue for too long. If eventually it proves to be unnecessary, we can dispense with it and then I need not give that approval any more.

I do not think the hon. the Minister is really qualified to make such a decision and therefore I move my amendment.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central—

I do not know whether we will be allowed to discuss this amendment.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of this Committee. The amendment therefore drops.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to introduce a new clause. It is a very important clause and it is a clause we have in the legislation dealing with most of our universities. The new clause I wish to include is what is known as the “conscience clause”, and it reads as follows—

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept this new clause moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville as it seeks to introduce a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

On a point of information I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that this is a very important clause.

Order! I have given my ruling on that point.

I do not wish to speak on it. This is just on a point of information. Mr. Chairman, I accept that this, in terms of your ruling, introduces a new principle. What I am trying to ask through you is whether the hon. the Minister will at some other time consider the introduction of such a provision. That is all I am asking.

Mr. Chairman, you have ruled this out of order and that we, therefore, cannot discuss the matter, but is it possible for us to vote in any way to show that we are in disagreement or agreement with the proposed new clause?

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to talk to or to vote on the clause, because it has been ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members would have noticed that the object of the Bill before the House is to make provision therefor that the Sishen-Saldanha Bay Railway line may also be used for the handling of traffic other than that of Iscor only.

On the introduction of the principal Act in 1973, the then Minister of Economic Affairs advanced various sound and valid reasons for the Government’s decision to limit the use of this railway line to the conveyance of Iscor’s iron ore only. He emphasized that it was of cardinal importance that the primary traffic over this line, namely bulk iron ore traffic, be handled with the maximum degree of efficiency and speed—in other words, without the encumbrances involved in station to station traffic. This was of prime importance in view of the fact that Iscor is called upon to compete on the international iron ore market, in respect of which rail transport is a primary cost component, unlike the case with most other export traffic.

All Iscor’s competitors on the international market have control over their transport systems and, consequently, over their transport costs.

However, he also pointed out at that stage that it would nevertheless be possible to maintain this underlying operating principle if part of the traffic would not be Iscor’s, but the bulk traffic of other parties. I am sure I need not repeat all the arguments put forward at the time by my predecessor, but should hon. members wish to refresh their memories on this particular score, I should like to refer them to Hansard, cols. 3688 to 3962 of 29 March 1973.

Hon. members may now well question the Government’s decision to change the nature of the Sishen-Saldanha Bay railway line, and I therefore propose to dwell on this point for a little while.

In the process of carrying out this project at an estimated cost of R378 million—I may mention in passing that the line was completed on schedule on 28 April 1976—the establishment of this new connection with a seaport of enormous potential triggered off renewed interest on a very substantial and large scale in the development of mining undertakings in Namaqualand and the north-western Cape. These new facilities do not only create the required transport and port facilities, but also provide new potential to areas which did not appear to be economic propositions in the past. These developments consequently resulted in representations from various sources that the Government should allow Iscor also to handle the traffic of other parties.

As was explained in the House in 1973, the railway line was designed to make provision for the construction of additional crossings which would permit the operation of more trains and, in doing so, increase the capacity of the line considerably. Iscor has in fact already spent a considerable amount of money on requirements with the object of expanding the line’s capacity.

Having regard to the fact that the basic railway infrastructure is already being established, the costs pertaining to the addition of crossings and ancillary facilities, such as signalling and the purchase of the necessary rolling stock, will be proportionately lower than Iscor’s primary capital expenditure, and it can therefore in the long term be in the interests of both Iscor and the other users of this line if the traffic provided by them is added to that of Iscor. These advantages will, however, only materialise if certain important requirements are complied with.

In the first instance, the additional traffic must be of sufficient tonnage and be offered over a sufficiently long period in order to justify the additional expenditure. Secondly, it must be possible to fit in the additional traffic with the primary Iscor traffic without disturbing the smooth functioning of the line, which will be to the detriment instead of to the advantage of Iscor’s costs. Thirdly, the third party users of the line must also keep in mind that Iscor will initially have to contend with considerable interest obligations which will only be wiped out over a number of years, and that the true benefits of the project will in fact only materialize in the long term.

In view of these considerations, and having regard to the enormous contribution the Sishen-Saldanha railway line may be able to make towards the national economy if operated as a multi-purpose project, the Government has decided to lift the original limitation on Iscor.

*In addition, the Straszacker Committee of Inquiry also came to certain conclusions and made recommendations which led to the announcement by the then Minister of Economic Affairs on 29 August 1974, that the Government had decided that the Sishen-Saldanha Railway line could be utilized for the conveyance of public transport in conjunction with the South African Railways Administration.

To return more specifically with details concerning the railway line and the traffic it is expected to carry at this stage, I may mention that private entrepreneurs are interested to have in causing to be conveyed annually over this railway line approximately 1,5 million tons—primarily ore—as from 1977 and approximately 15 million tons as from 1979.

It is being planned that trial runs with the first ore trains will commence in the middle of May 1976. I may also mention that the railway line and its 22 bridges, the longest of which is 1 035 km, and one tunnel of 800 metres have been constructed at an average rate of 3,5 km per day. I believe hon. members will agree with me that this is indeed an achievement for Iscor and its contractors.

Clause 1(a):

Clause 1(a) of the Bill seeks to amend section 2(1 )(b) of the Sishen-Saldanha Bay Railway Construction Act, 1973, by deleting the present prohibition on the conveyance of public traffic over the railway line.

Clause 1(b):

Clause 1(b) of the Bill empowers Iscor to enter into any agreements with the S.A. Railways Administration or with another party, which may be required in connection with the working and use of the control and management of the line of railway in order to regulate in an expedient manner the conveyance of public traffic.

Clause 2 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, I rise to give this Bill our enthusiastic support. We should like to take this opportunity of associating ourselves with the hon. the Minister’s comments in conveying our congratulations to Iscor and to the contractors concerned in this vast and historic transport undertaking in that it was completed only a few days ago and only three years after the Bill was passed. Having said this, I am going to make use of this opportunity to be extremely critical of the Government’s original Bill which became the Sishen-Saldanha Bay Railway Construction Act. I want to refer to the statement which the then hon. Minister of Economic Affairs made to the House when he said that the decision that Iscor would build a single-purpose line for carrying Iscor’s iron ore from Sishen to Saldanha, was a Cabinet decision. At that time we on this side of the House, with the introduction of that Bill which the then Minister of Economic Affairs described as a “tiny little Bill”, took exception to two things. The first was that the Bill was at that stage being rushed through the House and the second was that what was important in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech was what was not said rather than what was said. I think it is only right that I should read the following words of the then hon. member for Parktown, Mr. Emdin (Hansard, Vol. 43, 1973, col. 3662)—

We know that at the time there was a great deal of discussion and that there were two different viewpoints. Many people in public life and on this side of the House believed that the Railways should have constructed this line, while many others believed that since it was merely to be a single-purpose line, it therefore could well be constructed by Iscor. The hon. the Minister himself, when introducing the Bill, pointed to one of the main principles of the Bill, and I quote the following (Hansard, Vol. 43, 1973, col. 3658)—

We find that there were two other principles contained in the Bill, namely the right of expropriation and the fact that Iscor would not be allowed to expropriate land which was already held under the control of the Railways. Those were the three principles. We now find in the Bill before us that, in essence, the railway line may now be used for the conveyance of public transport. We on this side of the House may claim validly that we associated ourselves with the thoughts of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who became known in this House as “Saldanha Piet”, “Railway Piet” or “Progress Piet”, and that we believed that the Cabinet was wearing blinkers in relation to the ultimate future of that section of our rich and prosperous country, in taking the attitude at that stage that it should be a single-purpose line. We have a right to expect that the Cabinet of the Government of South Africa should plan ahead and should be far-thinking in its planning. Here we have the factual situation that before the first “toot” of the first railway engine has been blown and before the line has been completed, a decision to negate the original principle of the Act is being taken in order to carry out, what we believe, any sensible Cabinet should have done. We should have had enough faith in South Africa at the time to consider the building of a multipurpose line. Had that decision been taken then, this project would have probably been undertaken by the S.A. Railways. If it was not to be a single-purpose line, there would have been a White Paper outlining the project and this House would, at that stage, have been given the fullest possible information.

I also want to refer to a salient factor concerning the Bill which is before us. The original Act envisaged that Iscor would require a two-station line, namely a station at Sishen and a station at Saldanha Bay. Tremendously heavy trains would roll down this line and they would pass the returning empty trains at a halfway siding. It would be co-ordinated so that there would be virtually no stopping. If Iscor was to compete in the world market for the necessary tenders for the sale of its products overseas, it had to eliminate all unnecessary expenditure. The hon. Minister himself was at great pains to say that if they were to achieve that high level of efficiency, there was no doubt at all in the minds of anyone he knew that it was by far the best that this should be a single-purpose railway line. He said it was of the utmost importance that the train which departs fully loaded from Sishen to Saldanha Bay should be back at Sishen as soon as possible to take another full load. This was the essence of the requirement for the line to be single-purpose. I would like the hon. the Minister to give this House an assurance that this facet has been examined and that in now opening the line to further public usage, Iscor as such will not be prejudiced in their costing of the whole operation upon which the decision was based to develop Saldanha Bay as an ore harbour and to develop this railway line. I think it would be irresponsible of any member in this House, particularly on the part of the Opposition, if we did not get this assurance from the hon. the Minister. I say this, because it was this very point on which they based their argument when we pleaded, at the time, that the North-West Cape deserved further consideration than merely a single-purpose railway line, and that we should have envisaged a multipurpose line at that stage.

Sir, we are going to support the Government on this occasion, but this is indicative of the fact that when legislation is brought to this House, it should not be rushed as the original Act was rushed. The fullest information should be given to the House. We want to record in Hansard our belief that the Cabinet was at fault and should accept the criticism that it was not far-seeing, that it did not do its homework properly and that it had no overall plan for the future when deciding in 1973 that this line should be a single-purpose line. We on this side of the House are on record in Hansard as having pleaded during the discussion of that Bill that the Government should have had more faith in the future of the North-West Cape, more faith in the Development of Saldanha Bay as a potentially large general harbour, and more faith in the railway line than to allow it to be a single-purpose line only. With these words I wish to say that we have the greatest pleasure supporting this Bill, but we go on record as having said in the original debate that in every stage we were 100% behind the concept that Iscor should develop Sishen and Saldanha.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that we differ from the gentlemen sitting to the right of us and from those sitting to the left of us. The basis of our objection to this Bill is really quite simple, because what this Bill is actually doing, is turning the Sishen-Saldanha railway line into a line which may be used for the conveyance of public traffic. We have good authority for that, which comes from that side of the House, and I wish to quote it. If Iscor has stuck to a single purpose private railway line, in respect of which we already had objections, we might have been able to support this Bill. However, all this Bill is doing, is simply producing a situation where Iscor is in direct competition with the Railways, or it is granting Iscor a privilege which is not extended to other corporations or to other businesses in the Republic of South Africa. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to come along with the rationale for this legislation, stating that Iscor’s competitors overseas have control of their own transport systems and therefore have control of their own transport costs. Will the hon. the Minister give us examples of Iscor’s competitors overseas who have control of their own railway systems and therefore of their own transport costs, those railway systems being used to convey public or general traffic? To my own knowledge, the railway systems owned by corporations in Australia, for instance, are restricted entirely to moving their own ore from the mining site to the ports. In Canada and America, as far as my knowledge goes, any corporation owning its own railway system is restricted to carrying its own products, i.e. the ore processed from the mines. The question of Iscor being able to vie with its overseas competitors has to date been the only rationale the hon. the Minister has offered. We all know of another company which owns an iron ore deposit. I am referring to Mr. Wilhelmi’s company. Is it now to be entitled to own its own railway line, to take its ore to the ports and, if necessary, in order to make it an economic concern, is it going to be entitled to transport the ore of other parties so as to be placed on an equal footing with Iscor? I should now like to go back to 7 March 1973 to quote what the hon. the Minister of Transport’s predecessor had to say when discussing the original Bill, the founding father of the Bill we are now discussing. He said, and I quote (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 2104)—

We have no quibble with that. He went on to say—

After certain other remarks, he then goes on to say—

That condition has gone by the board. Let me quote further—

I cannot say whether that condition has been met or not. He continues, however, by stating—

There we have it. That was the reason given in justification. Now let me quote the present hon. Minister in charge of the S.A. Railways (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 3729)—

Well, there we have it. There we have heard two Ministers in charge of the S.A. Railways and Harbours saying that if the line becomes a public line, it should be run by the Railways. To that we have absolutely, no objection. In fact, we are in favour of it, and therefore it is no use saying that simply because Iscor controls the management of the present line, and will continue to control the management of the public line, the point has therefore been taken, because the difference between a line which is restricted to private traffic, in the sense of carrying only Iscor’s products, and a line carrying general traffic is very clear and extensive. Since we cannot support this Bill, the only other point I should like to make is that the hon. the Minister has said that Iscor has spent a considerable amount of money increasing the capacity of the line and building up the ancillary equipment and line plant to make provision for its use by others. He said that Iscor is going to lay down conditions that traffic coming from third parties—if one can use that phrase— must be of sufficient tonnage and available for transportation over an extended period of time so that Iscor will not be detrimentally affected. That is the heart of the matter because Iscor is not running this line in the way it would be run if it were being run by the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to say that there is absolutely no difference between the management, charges, construction and facilities of that line and any similar line run by the S.A. Railways and Harbours, because clearly there is a difference.

I now just want to refer briefly to the explanatory memorandum tabled in the House today. I quote—

Then comes the significant sentence, and I quote—

All we can say is that we wish the same applied to the railway line because then everything would be clear-cut and tolerable.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens by also expressing my appreciation for the change of approach we have had, an approach which led to this railway line being changed into a multipurpose line. I was one of those on this side of the House who felt from the outset that it was unfortunate that Iscor was restricted to the use of this line as a single-purpose line only. We stated our point of view quite frankly in this House at that time. To me it matters very little whether this line is going to be operated by Iscor or by the S.A. Railways and Harbours. However, what is predominantly important to me is that it is now going to be a multi-purpose railway line and that this will open new doors for an area which has been very poorly served by public transport up to now. This entails development possibilities for those areas situated in the vicinity of the railway line. It will be possible to construct sidelines from this railway line to serve other areas, and for that reason I think we can express our great appreciation for the fact that this legislation is serving before Parliament today. I think the public in that part of the world is very grateful. This is all I want to say in connection with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for his support of this legislation. Although he expressed his support in a very strange manner, I think that we nevertheless agree with one another in the final instance. However, I should like to refresh the memories of hon. members in all fairness. In 1973, when the principal Act was introduced, my predecessor never denied the fact that the time might come when the railway line would also have to be used for other traffic. To prove this, I want to refer hon. members to the Hansard of 1973, col. 3689, where my predecessor had the following to say—

Furthermore, he said (col. 3690)—

The only basic difference between the point of view of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the point of view of my hon. predecessor in 1973 is, in all fairness, only a matter of timing.

He anticipated it.

Let me say immediately that, as a theoretical argument, such a standpoint is very easily anticipated. As against this, hon. members will agree with me that the hon. the Minister, at that stage, advanced valid reasons as to why very high priority had to be given to Iscor’s own requirements as far as the construction and the management of the railway line was concerned at that time, and indeed with the object of making it competitive on the international markets where it had to compete. I readily want to concede the academic argument, but it remains a fact that, with the construction of the railway line, the stressing of certain geographical areas with great potential and the extension of the facilities of the railway line, it became obvious to me that it should also be used for other traffic.

I now come to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. If the hon. member is opposed to the legislation, I know that I am right. The hon. member must not take it amiss of me because I am saying this. His basic problem is that he is unable to divorce himself from the idea that this institution, Iscor, competes with certain interests of his company.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not make a statement of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. But it is known that the interest of Iscor clash with organizations in which the hon. member has an interest. The hon. member is not only opposed to this legislation; basically he is opposed to the fact that Iscor exists at all. In addition, his argument this afternoon was basically aimed at the fact that Iscor should have a railway line. Let me say immediately that I cannot accommodate him in that respect. The fact that Iscor is prepared also to carry other traffic on that line, emerged in the final instance from the consideration that it is in the national interest that it should do so. Let me make it quite clear that Iscor is prepared to extend the capacity of this line as a result of the very strong representations received from North-Western Cape, that they should also be given the opportunity to exploit the enormous potential of the mineral wealth, for example at Aggeneis, of that area. If we could promote the purposes originally anticipated at the time of the construction of this railway line and if we could reconcile these with the general requirements of that area, we should not come along with academic arguments as to who should control the railway line or who should not control the railway line. I am not prepared to take this aspect any further at this stage. I accept that the hon. member does not want to accept the principle and I therefore leave it to him. Nothing I can say will persuade him to change his point of view. In view thereof any further argument will, to my mind, be fruitless and senseless.

I want to say at this stage that I appreciate the point of view we had from the hon. member for Parow, who was also the chairman of the railway group on this side of the House. I want to say in general that we may make this railway line available to other people and other areas, as has indeed been anticipated originally.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister this question? If the line is going to be used to convey commodities other than those of Iscor, who will lay down the tariffs for those commodities and who will decide to what extent the other commodities may be carried? Will the line for instance be able to carry livestock to the various markets, or will it be confined to the transportation of minerals and related commodities?

Mr. Speaker, there will be no competition between the Railway administration and Iscor. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I want to point out that arrangements have been made for exporters wanting to use the Iscor railway line to make arrangements with the S.A. Railways as the general transport agency of the country and that they should negotiate with that administration about the tariffs. The tariffs which will apply on the railway line will be determined in an agreement between the Railways and Iscor, so that the position of the Railways will not become involved as a result of alternative tariffs. Since the hon. member comes from the Eastern Cape, I want to add that this will also apply to the railway line from the north to the Port Elizabeth harbour. I am able to give him that assurance. The hon. member will appreciate that this line will initially and primarily be used for the conveyance of minerals and ore. I am unable at this stage to say precisely what the situation is going to be with other traffic, such as the conveyance of livestock. However, what I can tell him, is that I eventually foresee the day when the railway line will be used without any restriction, if the need exists.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Minister give this House the assurance that, in consultation with Iscor, it has been established that Iscor’s rates will not be prejudiced by the Bill which is now being passed, to the extent that they will no longer be able to compete in world markets with the export of ore?

I can give that assurance immediately. Indeed, this Bill may make it possible for them to be more competitive because of the additional traffic on the line, which may possibly result in a reduction of the unit cost of traffic.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, said that we in these benches were not arguing on the basic principles of this measure, and that our objections were founded outside the Bill. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph (a) of this clause, which substitutes a new paragraph for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Act. This provision is in fact the “guts” of the matter. The really important change is the deletion of the words “shall not” and the substitution therefor of the word “may”, which means that the line “may” be used for the conveyance of public traffic. That is what this Bill is about and that is why we have objections to it. We shall therefore object to this clause as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister gave an extraordinary reply to a question from the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. The hon. member asked the Minister whether he would give him an assurance that, as a result of the carrying of other traffic on this line, Iscor’s rates would not be prejudiced.

That was not the question.

That is exactly what he said, and the hon. the Minister said in reply that, as a result of carrying other traffic, Iscor could in fact be placed at an advantage, as compared with its overseas competitors. Mr. Chairman, we would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he meant by that. Did he mean simply that the extra volume on the line will reduce the rates? If he means that, then obviously Iscor is in a privileged position on this line as opposed to running on other South African Railways lines. On the other hand, did he simply mean that there would be increased revenue to Iscor and that the rates would stay the same? If the rates stay the same, it is difficult to see how they will improve their competitive advantage compared to their overseas competitors.

Finally, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the costs which Iscor will have in moving that iron ore up and down this line will be changed in any way by the addition of other traffic on this line. Furthermore, will he give us an assurance that, in so far as third parties are concerned, when they have their traffic moved on this line, the rates will be exactly the same as those which would be charged by the South African Railways for moving similar quantities of goods on similar lines?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. We support this Bill for reasons which go right back to 1973, when the whole of this question was debated. At that time this party took a very strong view about the necessity of creating a railway line in that part of the country which could in fact serve the multiple interests which exist there and which need to be developed. The argument which was brought against us, not only in this House but privately as well in discussions with the people concerned, was that Iscor should carry ore to the coast in order to compete on the international market and if the freight charges which are standard in South Africa under the S.A. Railways were to be applicable on the transport of ore, then Iscor would not be competitive on the international market. The S.A. Railways’ reply was that they had to charge a higher freight rate because of their commitments, commitments not only in respect of general freighting policies, but also in respect of the higher expenditure to be met when one operates a multiple line because a dual-purpose line is a much more complicated line.

One needs more station masters.

Yes, one will have to have more station masters and more signals. One will have more complicated equipment to handle and one needs a better electronic system as well as more loop lines and things of that nature. Because of these implications the cost will be higher.

We have come to the point where it is proposed that the line between Sishen and Saldanha be made a multi-purpose line. This means that we shall have to introduce these more complicated techniques and provide additional platforms and buildings, the whole paraphernalia which goes with a multi-purpose line. This, inevitably, must raise the cost of operating the line. Although we support the development of a multi-purpose line, the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens still remains: Is it not a fact that this is going to increase the freight charges on this line and therefore make Iscor less competitive? This was their own argument. However, the hon. the Minister replied to the question of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens as follows: “No. On the contrary, the freight charges are going to become cheaper by virtue of the line becoming a multi-purpose line. ” Presumably the hon. the Minister has in mind the fact that in addition to the ore, the line will also carry a few hundred milk cans.

Sir, this argument is hardly convincing. If the original argument was correct, it appears that the freight rates on this line must increase. It is reasonable to ask whether the freight rates are going to be increased, and whether Iscor is going to be competitive when it comes to selling its ore on the international market, because, if Iscor is not competitive, if Iscor does not make a profit in selling its ore on the international market—we should remember that that was their original contention when they rejected the idea of the S.A. Railways operating that line—the question remains: who is going to bear the losses? The losses are bound to become the responsibility of the taxpayers. Inevitably, as happens when public corporations fail to produce a profit, the hon. the Minister himself will have to come back to the House and ask for money to wipe out the deficit. That is why I ask this question. When the hon. the Minister tells us quite glibly that it is simply a question of more traffic generating more profit and hence a drop of the freight rates resulting, I must say that I think it is too simple an answer. I believe all the evidence, which was produced in the arguments put forward over the years, suggests that the true case is contrary to the hon. the Minister’s contention. For that reason, Sir, we would like to hear an explanation by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, there were two arguments under consideration at that time. On the one hand, it was argued whether or not the railway line should be a multi-purpose line. On the other hand, there was the question as to who should control the railway line. At the time of the original consideration of the construction of the railway line—however, I do not have the technical qualifications to evaluate the matter—it became apparent that the railway line, together with the rolling stock, the signals and all other accessories, would be considerably more expensive than had originally been calculated according to the calculations based on the standards laid down by the Railways. As I understand the matter, this was one of the reasons advanced for the control over the railway line to be entrusted to Iscor, and that the railway line should be a single purpose line.

In my Second Reading speech I indicated that during 1977, 1,5 million tons of freight of another nature is expected to be conveyed on the railway line. This is a calculation based on the inquiries which have already been received. In the second place, I pointed out that the said volume of freight is expected to increase to 15 million tons by 1979. The freight to be conveyed, will be mainly ore. The movement of goods is extremely important. Although the railway line will be a multipurpose line, it will mainly have only one commodity really, i.e. the conveyance of ore. The fact that the railway line will be a multi-purpose line, may, however, mean that it could also be more profitable. I have already told the hon. member on which grounds I base my statement. From the nature of the case I cannot—and I do not want to try and do so either—pass judgment as far as the distant future is concerned. As a matter of fact, the situation may arise in due course that large volumes of freight of a totally different nature will have to be conveyed on that section. However, this is something in respect of which I am unable to venture a prediction now. I do not have the gift of clairvoyance. With what I have just said I have also replied party to the question posed by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. However, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked me whether I am sure that Iscor would not be prejudiced by the implications of this legislation. He put this question as a result of the fact that Iscor’s ability to compete on the international market was under consideration initially, also when it hasd to be decided whether the railway line would be a single purpose line and whether it would be controlled by Iscor. I gave him that assurance. I want to say again that this is not expected to happen. I also pointed out that as far as tariffs are concerned—and I want to repeat this—conveyers wishing to use the railway line should, in the first place, negotiate with the South African Railways. In the second place, I said negotiations would then take place between Iscor and the Railways in respect of the tariffs which would apply and the provision of the transport facilities. The determination of the tariff is being left to Iscor and the Railways. With this we want to try and ensure that there will be parity of tariffs. It may be that the transport will not be cheaper, but if only bulk trucks and trains are used for additional traffic, a reduction in costs is indeed a possibility. This is what I am trying to tell hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56 —

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 18 of the Companies Act, 1973, which came into operation on 1 January 1974, provides for the appointment of a standing advisory committee which may make recommendations concerning any amendments to the Act which it may deem necessary or advisable.

The said committee has received representations from interested parties, asking for the rectification of obvious shortcomings in the Act and of problems experienced in the practical implementation of the Act. The committee has considered these and has also consulted several interested parties in connection with the amendments to the Act which are embodied in the Bill. I now want to discuss the main proposed amendments to the Act which have been incorporated in the Bill.

Clause 1 of the Bill will amend section 15 of the Act in order to authorize the Minister of Economic Affairs to make regulations concerning the microfilming of documents in the Companies Registration Office and in the office of the Master of the Supreme Court, as well as the use of reproductions made of such microfilms for official purposes and the admissibility in evidence of such reproductions in any proceedings. The Bill provides for the proposed amendment to come into operation on a date fixed by the State President. The reason for this is that the administrative arrangements for the introduction of a microfilming system will take a considerable time and I cannot give any indication at this stage of when it will be completed.

The proposed deletion of section 44(5) of the Act, which is provided for in clause 3 of the Bill, will mean that it will no longer be necessary for a company, after it has changed its name, to continue using its previous name along with its new name for a period of 12 months. In practice, this provision had the effect of unnecessarily delaying the announcement of the new name of a company.

Since the Act expressly provides that a company may amend its memorandum of association, the requirement laid down by section 55(1) of the Act that such amendment of the memorandum must also be authorized by its articles is considered to be superfluous and it is proposed that it be deleted. Furthermore, the proposed amendment to section 55(1) of the Act embodied in clause 4 of the Bill will make it clear that a company is authorized to make additions to the objects in its memorandum and that an amendment to the memorandum of a company does not involve only an amendment to the existing objects of a company.

In the absence of a specific provision in the Act to provide for the possibility of converting issued or unissued shares of one class into another class, doubt arose as to whether this could in fact be done. To remove this doubt, it is now being proposed in clause 5 of the Bill that an additional paragraph (i) be added to section 75(1) of the Act to provide specific authorization for the conversion of shares into other classes and to legalize such conversion of shares into different classes as has taken place since the commencement of the Act on 1 January 1974.

The proposed amendments to section 99 of the Act which are contained in clause 6 of the Bill will make it clear that if a company has converted any of its shares into redeemable preference shares, the provisions of the Act relating to such preference shares will be applicable.

†It is proposed to simplify the provisions of the Act relating to rights issues by companies listed on a recognized stock exchange, whether in the Republic or elsewhere. Stock exchanges invariably require that when shares or debentures are offered to existing members or debenture holders, the latter should have the right to renounce the offer in favour of persons who are not members of the company. It is contended that in these cases, although the offer can be regarded as an offer to the public, a prospectus should not be required since the affairs of the company are already known to the public by virtue of information published in annual financial statements and Press reports. In view of the fact that stock exchange committees do exercise control over companies which are listed or which apply for the listing of new shares, it is considered as desirable that the provisions of the Companies Act be amended to meet the requirements of the stock exchange in order that listed companies would be able to issue new shares in the form of rights issues at a minimum cost by inter alia limiting the documentation requirements and eliminating unnecessary duplication of forms and reports. Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill contain certain proposed amendments to the Act in the said connection.

Clause 7 of the Bill will insert certain new definitions in chapter VI of the Act which contains provisions relating to the prospectus requirements. The expressions “letter of allocation” and a “rights offer” need to be defined and, in order to remove any doubt as to whether an external company must comply with the requirements of the Act when offering shares in the Republic, it is proposed that, for purposes of the said chapter, a company be defined so as to include an external company in the said expression.

The amendment to the Act proposed in clause 8 of the Bill will exclude a rights offer from the provisions of the Act relating to an offer to the public.

In clause 9 of the Bill provision is made for the insertion in the Act of a new section 145A which will require that a letter of allocation shall not be issued or distributed without the approval of a stock exchange.

In clause 10 of the Bill the insertion in the Act of a new section 146A is proposed which will provide for the registration of a letter of allocation by the Registrar of Companies and for the application to a letter of allocation of certain provisions of the Act relating to a prospectus.

Amendments to the provisions of section 148 of the Act relating to matters to be stated in a prospectus, are proposed in clause 11 of the Bill. A new principle will be introduced into the Act in the sense that a public company not listed on a Stock Exchange will be permitted to offer shares to its members with a right of renunciation in favour of other persons not members of the company. These companies will be allowed to offer shares by means of a shortened form of prospectus. It is expected that the relevant proposed amendments will result in a saving of costs and will eliminate certain administrative requirements in the office of the company making the issue.

The existing provisions of the Act relating to an offer of shares by a listed company in an advertisement will, by virtue of the amendments to section 157 proposed in clause 12 of the Bill, be extended to all public companies, listed or otherwise, when shares which are the subject of a rights offer, with or without the right of renunciation, are offered to the members of a company. The proposed insertion of the additional para (g) in section 157(1) of the Act will enable a company to include, in the relevant advertisement, particulars of the last day on which subscriptions for the shares may be lodged.

Section 173(8) of the Act presently requires a company to lodge with the Registrar, together with its annual return, particulars of the other directorships of every director of the company, unless such return is lodged by another company of which the director is a director. The purpose of the said provision is to enable the Office of the Registrar to complete the Central Register of Directors established under section 217 of the Act. Particulars in regard to all directors of companies are now available, and it is therefore proposed in clause 13 of the Bill that section 173(8) of the Act be deleted with effect from 1 July 1975.

In clause 14 of the Bill the insertion of a further proviso to section 175(1) of the Act relating to the payment of annual duty by an external company is proposed. The said proviso will exempt certain external airline companies from the payment of annual duty. In this connection, I must explain that when the Republic enters into a bilateral agreement with another State, in respect of a scheduled international air transport service between the Republic and that State, one of the conditions contained in the agreement is that there should be reciprocal exemptions in respect of the payment of taxes and other State levies. The annual duty payable by a company in terms of the Act is considered to be a State levy. Whereas airline companies became liable for the payment of annual duty when the Act came into operation, it is necessary that the proposed exemption should apply as from 1 January 1974.

Clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill contain certain proposed amendments to the provisions of the Act which deal with the exercise by members of a company of voting rights at general meetings and annual general meetings of the company. The proposed amendments to section 189(1) of the Act contained in clause 15 of the Bill will allow a company to provide in its articles that a proxy may vote on a poll as well as by a show of hands. The proposed amendment to section 189(2)(a) of the Act makes provision for the inclusion in a notice, calling a meeting of a company, of an indication that a proxy is permitted also to vote otherwise than on a poll. At company meetings it is often necessary to expedite the disposal of routine matters and, if proxies were unable to vote on a show of hands, the proceedings would inevitably be delayed.

Some doubt apparently exists as to when precisely voting rights in relation to preference shares arise. It is, therefore, now proposed in clause 16 of the Bill that section 194(1) of the Act should state that, when any dividend or any redemption payment on the shares is in arrear, the shareholders shall have the right to vote at meetings of the company.

Section 226 of the Act presently contains a prohibition on loans by a company to its directors and officers. In clause 19 of the Bill it is firstly proposed that the said prohibition shall apply in respect of the managers of a company and not to its officers. Secondly, it is proposed that the said prohibition shall apply not only to loans but also to the provision of security by a company to its directors and managers. For purposes of the prohibition, the directors or managers of a company will include the directors and managers of its holding company and any other subsidiary of the holding company, as well as to any other company or body corporate controlled by the directors or managers of the company, its holding company or a subsidiary of the holding company. It is also proposed that “loan” be defined as a loan of money, shares or debentures or other property and to include extended credit which is not paid in accordance with the normal business practice of the company and that security be defined to include a guarantee.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the manner of control by directors or managers over another company be sufficiently defined so as to indicate what would constitute effectual control for purposes of the said prohibition. However, certain transactions will be excluded in cases where all the members of the company consent to the loan, or where members consent by means of a special resolution, or when the company actually and regularly carries on the business of making loans or giving security. Other transactions excluded relate to the provision of funds to purchase the shares of the company for the benefit of directors, officers or employees in connection with a scheme, controlled by trustees. Also excluded is the provision of funds to provide housing for its director or manager, subject to the consent of the company in general meeting. In order to enhance the efficacy of the said prohibition, it is also proposed that directors or officers of a company who authorize transactions which are prohibited by virtue of the provisions of section 226 of the Act, as well as the directors or officers of the holding company may, apart from any criminal liability which may apply in respect of such directors or officers, be held personally liable to indemnify the company against any loss it may suffer as a result of any such loan or security.

Clauses 20 to 22 of the Bill contain certain proposed amendments to sections 270, 277 and 278 of the Act relating to the reappointment and removal from office of the auditor of the company. The amendment to section 270 of the Act proposed in clause 20 of the Bill will ensure that the Registrar of Companies is informed if the auditor refuses to be reappointed as auditor of the company. Clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill contain proposed amendments to sections 277 and 278 of the Act which will in effect defer the removal from office of the auditor of the company, unless such auditor has complied with the relevant provisions of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951, relating to reporting material irregularities which could cause loss to the company, its members or creditors, to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board within the time limits prescribed by the relevant Act.

In clause 23 it is proposed to amend the provisions of section 280 of the Act relating to the resignation of the auditor of the company. The section presently provides that an auditor shall furnish the company with an affidavit to the effect that at the time when he resigns he has no reason to believe that any material irregularity has taken place or is taking place which could cause loss to the company, its members or creditors. The Act presently also provides that the said affidavit shall be lodged by the company with the Registrar. It is now proposed that the affidavit in question be replaced by a notification forwarded to both the company and the Registrar of Companies. The amendments concerned will also provide that it shall not be necessary for an auditor to re-audit the books of account of the company before resigning, but in appropriate cases he will be required to mention in his notification of resignation the material irregularities on which he has reported. Since it would be necessary to prescribe by notice in the Gazette a form of notification, it is also proposed that the amendment shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation.

In clause 24 of the Bill it is proposed to make section 288(2) of the Act subject to the provisions of section 291 thereof which prescribe the circumstances under which it is not necessary to deal with subsidiaries in the group annual financial statements.

Clause 25 of the Bill provides for the substitution for section 295 of the Act of a new section relating to disclosure by a company in its annual financial statements or particulars of loans made to and security provided for the benefit of its directors or managers.

Order! I should have liked to allow the hon. the Minister the opportunity to complete his speech, but in terms of the rules I now have to interrupt the proceedings.