I wish to direct the attention of the House to the Notice of Motion on the Order Paper for to-day in which the Minister of Immigration is asking for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Trust Private Act, 1934.

Under normal circumstances such a Bill would have had to be introduced as a private measure and the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills would have had to be complied with. As I was assured that the proposed amendments were regarded by the Government as being of an urgent nature and in the public interest in that they would contribute towards encouraging immigration to this country and that the trustees of the Herbert Ainsworth Settlers Fund requested the proposed amendments, I informed the responsible Minister during the recess that I would permit the introduction of this legislation as a public measure.

I move—

Agreed to.

I now move—

Agreed to.

I should like to direct the attention of the House to the first Order of the Day for to-day, viz. the second reading of the University of Port Elizabeth Bill.

This Bill proposes to establish the University of Port Elizabeth and to provide for the administration and control of the affairs of that university.

It is the established practice of this House that Bills establishing White universities should be introduced and proceeded with as private measures, and had this Bill been introduced by a private member I would have ruled that the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills had to be complied with. The proposed university differs from other White South African universities in that it is the first university to be established ab initio, the other universities having their origins in colleges or similar institutions. Furthermore, I have been informed that the Government regards the measure as one of public policy in that the initiative for the establishment of the university has come primarily from the Government itself. I have also been informed that there are no private individuals or bodies that could easily undertake the responsibility of promoting legislation of this nature.

Under the circumstances I have decided that this measure may be introduced as a public measure and I have informed the Minister concerned accordingly.

First Order read: Second reading,—University of Port Elizabeth Bill.

I move—

This Bill is one which has a previous history and I undoubtedly owe it to the House to state it here briefly. In the early 1950s a conviction arose in Port Elizabeth on the part of many various bodies and individuals that Port Elizabeth had grown to such an extent that it justified the establishment of a university there. The City Council of Port Elizabeth in 1959 (before I became Minister of Education) sent a deputation to the Government, and also incorporated other bodies in this deputation, to make representations to the Government for the establishment of an independent university. A year before, in 1958, the University of Rhodes also applied to the Government for an extension of its faculties in the form, mainly, of a medical faculty and an engineering faculty. On that occasion the Government then appointed a committee of inquiry consisting of Dr. Wilcocks and Dr. P. J. du Toit, who investigated the circumstances underlying this request. The committee which had to inquire—the Wilcocks Committee, as I will hereafter call it—then issued a report and considered what the best thing would be to do in this regard. The committee decided to recommend that Rhodes University should have a branch in Port Elizabeth. The Government then considered the matter and decided in favour of the recommendation of this committee.

There were two reasons for the Government taking that decision. The first was that the smaller universities were fast expanding, whilst the larger universities were not fully occupied in respect of the faculties which had been granted to them. That applied to both the medical and the engineering faculties, which on the whole had vacancies at the various universities. But there was a second important reason why an independent university could not be considered. At the same time the non-White university colleges were established. That involved a large-scale financing programme, and organizationally much planning had to be done, and the various lecturers had to be obtained to do the work, and as the result the Government decided that they could not at that moment devote attention to the question of establishing an independent university. That is how it came about that part-time classes, particularly extramural classes, were established at Port Elizabeth under the aegis of Rhodes University. The Government supported such a Bill when it was introduced in 1960 by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), and it did so particularly for one important reason, namely that the young people employed in the large industries in Port Elizabeth should be given the opportunity to receive university training, even though only extra-murally. This concession made by the Government was, however, not unconditional. The Government imposed conditions, and the most important condition was really contained in the report of Drs. Wilcocks and du Toit, who, inter alia, said in their report—

That was already stated in the report of the committee which could not see its way clear to recommend that an engineering faculty and a medical faculty should be given to Rhodes and recommended extra-mural classes.

The other condition which is perhaps fairly generally known, but which is of importance for purposes of the record, was that when the then Deputy Minister of Education (Mr. Vorster, the present Minister of Justice) participated in a debate on 19 February, he stated the standpoint of the Department and of the Government very clearly. Inter alia, he said this—

Referring to the hon. member for Albany, Mr. Vorster further said this—

I refer to Hansard, Vols. 103, 104 and 105 in that debate.

Mr. Speaker, I think that from this we should certainly draw an inference so as to know precisely where we stand to-day, and that inference is that it is quite clear from these two statements that the extension of the activities of Rhodes University in the form of part-time classes in Port Elizabeth should be regarded as an interim measure and was approved as such until such time as an independent university could be established in Port Elizabeth.

At this point I briefly want to review the developments following on the institution of these part-time classes. During the course of 1962 various organizations in Port Elizabeth and its environs insisted on having an independent university for Port Elizabeth. Requests came from all directions, and let me say clearly that these requests did not come only from the Afrikaans-speaking, but also from English-speaking people. In order to consider the whole matter thoroughly, I think it was my duty as Minister of Education, in view of the fact that a city as large as Port Elizabeth with the whole of its hinterland made such a request, to appoint a fact-finding committee to ascertain all the facts and to submit a report which I could in turn submit to the Cabinet for consideration and for a decision in principle. This fact-finding commission, with Dr. J. H. Robbertse, the director of our Research Bureau at the head of it, a man with great experience of universities, one who grew up with universities and who has continually dealt with their affairs, went to Port Elizabeth and they submitted a report to me which for the sake of convenience I will call the Robbertse Report.

Advertisements were placed in the public Press, notice was given to all possible persons and bodies and organizations, and they were invited to give evidence before this committee, to draft memoranda and to submit them, and with all this information at their disposal they then submitted the report which I have here before me. The report of this committee is very convincing, and it unequivocally recommends that an independent university is justified in Port Elizabeth. I am convinced that if I just quote a few passages from the report of the committee, this House will agree with me that it is an important matter. The committee found that the area which can be served by this university, always bearing in mind that it is not a unilingual university but that it will have to be made available to both sections of the population, is an area with a large hinterland, the Eastern Cape, and for the purposes of the investigation the area was taken which lies within a line drawn from Mossel Bay northwards to the Orange River and then eastwards and southwards all along the borders of the Cape Province including the area known to us as the Eastern Cape.

The Committee made a surprisingly wide investigation. In the first place, they took the figures of the population census of 1960 and analysed them with regard just to the university cities, and if Port Elizabeth were to obtain a university, which would then be the ninth one, the ninth residential university then, according to the census, Port Elizabeth, in so far as the population figures are concerned, stands fifth on the list after Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria. According to the census, Port Elizabeth had 94,085 White inhabitants in 1960, Bloemfontein (which has a university) 61,000, Pietermaritzburg 39,000, Potchefstroom 20,000, Grahamstown 10,500, and Stellenbosch 10,600.

The phenomenal population growth in the area known as the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage-Despatch area becomes evident from the fact that whilst in 1936 there were only 27,700 Afrikaans-speaking people in that area, that number has increased to 61,800 in 1960 and the English-speaking people increased from 41,800 in 1936 to 59,470, and if all the Whites speaking other languages are added we find that in that small area there is a White population of 125,446 persons.

The first point I want to make is that if we look at the population figures in other countries and pose the question when universities are established, we should not be put off by that and we should not say that sufficient provision has been made. This report went into the matter and pointed out that in Sussex, at Brighton, a university was established in 1961 with 50 students and nine lecturers. In Kiel (Germany) a university was established in 1949, and in 1963-4 the number of enrolled students was 491. In Canada universities were established in 1954 where there was a population of 58,000, and in 1959 at Waterloo, with a population of 16,000, one was also established. I mention these facts to show that it is no argument at all to say that there are already too many universities. I shall come back to this later.

Since 1936—I now want to make the point that a university which can provide education in both languages has become an absolute and urgent necessity in the Eastern Cape—the number of Afrikaans-speaking people has more than doubled, viz. from 27,000 to 61,000 in 1960. The total White population of Port Elizabeth has therefore more than doubled since 1936.

Port Elizabeth has the largest municipal area in the whole of the Republic. It comprises 106 square miles. The net taxable valuation of Port Elizabeth in 1961 already amounted to R160,000,000. In the year 1930 buildings to the value of more than R1,000,000 were completed, whilst in 1960 buildings to the value of more than R7,000,000 were completed. There is enough water—8,702,000,000 gallons capacity in storage dams, and just recently the Minister of Water Affairs gave his approval to another 40,000,000 being taken out of the Kouga Dam. Electric power is unlimited in that port. The consumption of electricity is always an indication of the growth and progress of a town, and in 1927 the revenue derived from the supply of electricity was R181,000, in 1947 it was R1,000,000, and in 1958 it was more than R4,000,000. I could give many other examples, but I do not wish to weary hon. members by doing so. With all this tremendous expansion and development, the question of the available educational facilities for these people was then investigated, and I now read from the evidence of school principals contained in the report. From that it appears that many more Afrikaans-speaking students from the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, and possibly also from the hinterland, would go to a university provided there is one in Port Elizabeth. Whereas on an average 52 per cent of the matriculants in the country go to a university, it is only approximately 10 per cent in respect of certain Afrikaans schools in the Port Elizabeth area.

The example mentioned in the report is that of the High School Cillie. The enrolment there was 700 students, the number who matriculate every year is about 75, and the number who annually thus far have gone to a university from that school was approximately eight. That school serves the middle and lower income groups of the population. When the question is investigated as to how many matriculants would go to the university next year if one were established in Port Elizabeth, the reply was that there would be 25, i.e. three times as many as those who go to university at present.

A second matter which the committee investigated very thoroughly is this: Will this really harm Rhodes? What will happen there? The finding is that in the majority of cases a university does not draw its students from its immediate vicinity alone. The committee analysed where Rhodes’ students came from and found that of the 1,606 students then enrolled, 928 came from the whole of the Cape Province and 678 from other parts of the Republic, Rhodesia and even from overseas. Therefore the greater proportion came from the Cape Province but not from the immediate environs of Rhodes. In fact, that is true of all universities. The number of students at Rhodes coming from the Transvaal is 138. We can make the same analysis in connection with every university in the country. After it has built up a certain tradition it draws students not only on geographic lines.

There are many other things I could quote from the report, but quite independently of this report Professor A. C. Cilliers, who had to investigate the financing of universities last year, investigated the Holloway formula for university financing, together with his committee. Quite independently of this report, Professor A. C. Cilliers submitted a report—he knew nothing about the first-mentioned report which was submitted to me and which was not published—in which, inter alia, he says the following, after investigating the financing of universities—

If we compare the White population of South Africa with the White populations of other Commonwealth countries and the English-speaking United States, South Africa is at present second on the list, and probably second in the world in so far as the ratio between the number of students and the total White population is concerned. In 1911 South Africa had only 1,125 White students out of a White population of 1,116,806, or one student for approximately every 1,000 White inhabitants. The United States then had one for every 250. Fifty years after Union South Africa had reduced this figure to one for every 83, and in the U.S.A. it was reduced to one for every 50. Therefore during the past half-century South Africa has made appreciable progress in regard to the creation of facilities for higher education. South Africa’s progress in the economic and industrial spheres was just as phenomenal. Without any fear of contradiction it may be said that the last-mentioned progress would not have been possible without the first-mentioned. It was our universities which provided the necessary leaders and trained assistants in almost every sphere of activity and development. Professor Cilliers continues to say—

Then the report continued to point out that it takes approximately ten years for a university which is established to get going properly, and unless we ensure doing so in the large centres we will not succeed in our planning to provide for the needs of the Republic. Therefore we to-day have a piece of legislation before the House as the result of the recommendations of these two committees, and we dare not delay longer. We must act immediately and ensure that the necessary facilities are provided for steady, gradual development, because in regard to this matter one cannot set to work hastily. Gradual development must take place.

We set certain conditions before the establishment of this University could even receive the attention of the Government. The most important condition set to the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth was that in terms of the subsidy system the Government could not consider introducing any legislation to establish a new university by 1965 before at least R750,000 was either collected or properly guaranteed. I may say that this figure of R750,000 has been far exceeded; it is already more than R1,000,000. I may say further that the greatest proportion of this amount has already been received and the rest has been guaranteed in such a manner that it satisfied the Government, the Treasury, and everybody else who had to investigate the matter in detail.

The second condition was that land should be made available, and in spite of all the confusion and the political fuss which was made the City Council of Port Elizabeth decided, right at the beginning, to make available 250 morgen for this university. Moreover, their Property Committee has recommended making available another 250 morgen. That has not yet been approved of by the City Council. Having so much land available, they will probably ensure that this university will have a hinterland comprising 500 morgen. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate those farsighted people, in spite of the differences which arose, on the unanimity which was reached and their wonderful co-operation with the Government, those people who feel that here something great will be established not only for the sake of Port Elizabeth but for the sake of a very great cause.

In order to publicize this matter as widely as possible, I published a draft Bill in a Government Gazette Extraordinary on 22 November. I hope hon. members have read it and are acquainted with the good intention of that Bill. Before it was even approved of by the Government or by the law advisers, I sent this draft Bill confidentially to the Rector of Rhodes, to the City Council of Port Elizabeth and to the Rector of Stellenbosch University, with a request that they should give their comments and make suggestions before we put it into more final form for submission to the Cabinet and the law advisers. I heartily want to thank those bodies for the suggestions and the comments they made and for their splendid co-operation, with the result that to-day we have a Bill which in my opinion complies with the requirements, and when in a moment I come to the provisions of the Bill I shall suggest various amendments which can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. Inter alia, Rhodes—and here I want to pay special tribute to its Rector, Dr. Hyslop—took a resolution when it was faced with the question whether it could still continue in Port Elizabeth or not, which briefly amounted to this, that in its efforts to serve the cause of higher education it would grant such support to the new university as it considered necessary to promote higher education and in the interests of the Eastern Cape. That clearly proved to me that in spite of all the political dust which was kicked up, particularly by the Press, I was dealing here with a man with very high academic qualifications, a scientist and a person who was able to elevate himself above the petty squabbles in connection with this matter. I am not saying that he agreed with everything, but when he was faced with the inevitable he adopted this standpoint: Everything is settled now, and now I will heartily co-operate for the sake of the expansion and the promotion of higher education in the Eastern Cape. Rhodes further decided that it would offer for sale to the new university the property it had acquired in Bird Street, and that it would confine its activities in Port Elizabeth to field work which may be considered necessary where any projects are undertaken by Rhodes for post-graduate study or any other project. This action by Rhodes made it unnecessary to submit this Bill to the House as a hybrid Bill, and it also made it unnecessary to amend the Private Act of Rhodes. I accept the word of people who say: We will do this. And when they ask me one day to amend this Private Act of theirs, to bring it into line with the practice, only then will I do so. I accepted that this would be the position without amending the Rhodes Private Act.

The comment of the University of Stellenbosch amounted to this, that it was willing to co-operate heartily and to play its role together with Rhodes, and to shoulder the extra burden of helping to bring to maturity this university right from its inception. I must say that the Mayor and the City Council of Port Elizabeth, when I sent them the provisions of the Bill, decided at a special meeting to accept it.

I now come to the main provisions of the Bill, with which I just want to deal briefly. At the outset I just want to say that one serious objection was brought to my notice: Here you come along with an old method, which was tried in Pretoria, of establishing a university where both languages would be used equally as the media of instruction, but it is an obsolete thing which has proved to be a failure, and now you want to deceive us, because very soon this university will not have two languages as the media of instruction, but it will degenerate again into a unilingual university, and it will again become an Afrikaans university. I want to remind hon. members of the old Roman adage that the times change and that we change with the times. What happened in 1916 is no longer true to-day, and this side of the House—I hope this does not become a political matter—believes that times have changed and that the people have changed to such an extent that it will no longer be an experiment but that it will rather be a demonstration of the real seriousness with which the South African people regard it, and of the ability of the South African to understand what he is taught in either language. I think our degree of bilingualism has increased to such an extent that it would be very wrong to say that it will be a failure even before it has begun. Therefore I wish to do my utmost in formulating the Bill in such a way as to put this very clearly. No possibility should be left in the Bill to evade it, because the law is not everything; I believe that the spirit in which this matter is regarded will be a revelation not only to us as South Africans but to the whole world, that in this country we have decided to co-operate even though we are a people with two languages and two traditions and two cultures. The provision in regard to the media of instruction in the Bill—it is contained in Clause 14—is worded in such a way that at the moment it may be open to another interpretation. It says that the media of instruction of the university are English and Afrikaans and that the circumstances in which a student is entitled to be taught through the medium of the one or the other language will be prescribed by statute. As it is formulated here a student may be put in a very difficult position, whereas the most important point is really the circumstances. Therefore I have decided in the Committee Stage to amend this formula as follows—

To make it quite clear what I intend moving in the Committee Stage, I shall also read it in English—

I hope that when hon. members have had an opportunity of studying it they will be satisfied with it.

Is that dual medium?

No, if one has to provide that the same subject must be taught in both languages it would mean duplicating the staff.

Why?

But of course. One may have a man who cannot give it in both languages. One duplicates the work, and that is parallel medium, and it will be a very expensive matter. But we can discuss that in the Committee Stage.

In other words, you prefer dual medium?

My standpoint is that if a student has passed his matriculation, for which both official languages are necessary, whether he passed it on the A or the B basis or not, then such a student who attends the university is quite able to follow lectures in both languages. Secondly, one does not compel him as a student to write his examinations otherwise than in the language he prefers, whether the examinations are oral or written. If you want to regard that as dual medium, I am willing to call it by that name, but I just want to say that then its meaning is not the same as that which the hon. member has in mind when it comes to other schools below university standard. It is a horse of quite a different colour.

Another thing I notice which evidently causes hon. members concern is that this will again be a Government-controlled university, particularly as the result of Clause 8 of the Bill, which deals with the appointment of the principal or rector. The law advisers preferred it to be drafted in the way it reads here because they say that this is a better form than the form in which the other Acts put the matter. In this Bill it says that someone who is approved by the Minister is appointed as Rector of the University and the Council, and if the Minister and the council cannot agree as to who should be appointed as Rector, the Rector is appointed in the other way prescribed by statute. I consulted the law advisers and asked why we should at this stage, when establishing a new university, want a better formulation; I prefer to state the intention of the Bill in the same words, and I then refer to the Private Act of Rhodes University which reads that the Rector of the University is appointed by the Council in the way prescribed by statute subject to the approval of the Minister. In English it reads as follows—

That is what I will propose in the Committee Stage, in order to give hon. members the assurance that there is no motive here other than precisely to give effect to the method still applied in a few universities, and which is also gradually disappearing. Therefore I took the example of Rhodes so that hon. members need not think that I want to do something else here which departs from the existing order.

The next point I want to draw attention to in this Bill is the various faculties indicated in the Bill. It has also been said that this Bill really provides for a duplication of faculties and that if the Government had just established a new university with all the main faculties necessary to comply with its needs, that would have been a good thing. But that is not how a university is established. Where experience first has to be gained, one usually begins with what is basic and easier, and now the Bill allows them to start with the faculties mentioned in it, but it is also clearly stated that the Council is not prohibited from prescribing other faculties. Therefore the Council, which is an autonomous body, can say what other faculties it wants, but of course it must obtain the Government’s approval for that, because great expenditure is involved.

I want to say a few words in regard to the examinations. Apart from its own lecturers, examiners from other universities will also be appointed as external examiners. In the beginning the old University of South Africa was the mother of all the university colleges, and as they became autonomous and reached maturity they became universities. They then developed and set their own examinations, which are recognized in this country as well as overseas. Here we have decided not to make this a university college first and to entrust it to the guardianship of the University of South Africa, but the whole set-up is that here we have two existing, recognized universities, Rhodes and Stellenbosch, representing the two language groups, and they are really the guardians of this university until such time as it reaches maturity and its examinations as well as its degrees receive the necessary recognition, and then the supervision of Stellenbosch and Rhodes will decrease until it disappears completely. In the examinations we will not only make use of examiners from these two universities, but we can call in an external examiner from any university. Further, it is provided in the Bill that students of Rhodes who are already studying in Port Elizabeth under this section of Rhodes may continue their studies at the new university as if it is the same university, and all the examinations they passed in that section of Rhodes in Port Elizabeth will be recognized by the new university. The Bill provides for the protection of freedom of religion of both students and teaching staff, and in order to make this university run smoothly right from the beginning it is also provided that vacancies in the university, and particularly in its Council, will not invalidate any actions. If one looks at Clause 22, and also at Clause 9, which constitutes the Council, one sees that there will right from the outset be a Council which is autonomous and where nominations may possibly be obtained from existing institutions without the statute prescribing how that should be done, such councillors may be appointed. And until such time as it is provided by statute how they should be nominated, the Minister can nominate them and they may act forthwith.

I want to conclude by telling the House that a very unsavoury and unfortunate incident took place in Port Elizabeth when this proposed establishment of a university became known. That was a great pity. I think that particularly with regard to higher education, a matter which is of such great importance to the country, it is a pity to drag in irrelevant matters and that much suspicion was aroused, but eventually on 19 September last year, when I had the opportunity of meeting representatives of Rhodes and of the City Council and we had a round table conference, we were able to iron out our differences. I think Port Elizabeth is surely a very happy city now that everything is over and that this conflict no longer exists. They shook each other’s hands and decided to make a success of it. Now we are going to make a start in 1965. The university will have as its guardians proved foster-parents, Stellenbosch and Rhodes. I am convinced, in view of the spirit in which this matter is being approached by both these high-standing institutions, that guidance will be given to a young university which will lead it on the way to maturity. I believe that the spirit and the enthusiasm are such that this new institution will soon be developed into an independent university with the necessary authority. You will also permit me, Sir, on this occasion to express my thanks and appreciation to the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes and for the valuable co-operation I had from both Rectors, and for the friendly and interested advice particularly of Dr. Hyslop, who from the very nature of the matter had to co-operate intimately. I also want to mention the bigheartedness and assistance and the sacrifices made by the City Council of Port Elizabeth, both the former Council and its Mayor and the present Council and its Mayor. I want to say that those people proved that the matter lay near to their hearts. Then I also want to mention the inspiration and the confidence displayed by a group of very good friends of Port Elizabeth, both Afrikaans and English speaking, who not only spoke with confidence and conviction but put their hands to the plough and within a short time achieved a record by making available such a sum of money for the university, unselfishly and without deriving any benefit from it, in order to achieve this great ideal. I move.

I think it is no more than right that I should, at the very outset, not thank the Minister—we practically expected it of him—but express our appreciation to him for having stated his case so clearly and in such great detail. It is not often that he speaks in that vein of completely leaving party politics aside and of even going so far as to submit United Party policy to this House. His speech has made it easier for us to understand the background of this whole question and also to appreciate it better. I on this side of the House shall be much briefer than the hon. the Minister because it is not necessary for me to go into the history of this matter.

Have you anything to say?

If the hon. friend will only remain quiet he too will learn something. I shall try to state the case of this side in broad principle. There are people on this side of the House who were, and still are, concerned with the university to be established at Port Elizabeth, people who will, inter alia, also deal with the background thoroughly and raise any points which the Minister may have omitted to raise. In the course of dealing with this Bill we shall touch upon various points but I think we should right at the outset, as the hon. the Minister has also done, draw attention to the praiseworthy attitude which the University of Rhodes adopted when they discovered that they were to be pushed aside and that they went so far not only of expressing their satisfaction with the steps that were being taken, but of even playing the leading role to-day in the establishment of that university.

The Minister has pointed out the new direction which is being followed in higher education in this Bill and you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, just in passing to point out what the approach of this side of the House is to bilingualism in South Africa. You will allow me, Sir, to point out that it has always been the policy of this side, as far as the schools in our country are concerned, to bring the two national groups together and at the same time to recognize the rights of the parent in the education of his child. In other words, we believe in parental choice, but then we go further and we say that we must consequently have certain institutions that will satisfy the parent as far as the education of his child is concerned—single medium schools, parallel medium schools, and dual medium schools. As far as universities are concerned we believe, of course, as we have indicated time and again in this House, in the autonomy of our universities but we realize too that the university follows upon our primary and secondary schools and that it plays an even more important role in our lives. Had I been Minister of Education it would have meant that the United Party would have made a special grant to any university who introduced the principle which is to-day laid down here, without interfering in the domestic affairs of that university. That is the background. I thought it was necessary for me to say that so that you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members would understand precisely what the attitude of the United Party was, an attitude which has been and will be consistently put into effect.

To return to the Bill itself I want to say that in the light of the figures the hon. the Minister was kind enough to submit to us, figures which are more or less the same as those we have, this side of the House is not opposed to the establishment of a university at Port Elizabeth. We also believe, as the hon. the Minister has said, that there are enough people in Port Elizabeth and in the adjoining area, the Eastern Province, to justify it and that they are entitled to such an institution. We also know that the people in the Eastern Province want such an institution. We also know that the majority of their Members of Parliament and of the Provincial Council—as a matter of fact I think every one of them—want such an institution for Port Elizabeth. The fact that Port Elizabeth has already raised R1,000,000 is proof positive that they are willing to assume the necessary responsibility for the establishment of such a university. Consequently, as far as that is concerned, we are not opposed to the establishment of a new university at Port Elizabeth.

The Bill, however, goes further; in my opinion this Bill contains another principle and that is that a specific type of university will be established and although the hon. the Minister is going to amend Clause 41 somewhat I think that, as far as the principle is concerned, that will not be changed. I think he is making a mistake if he amends it in such a way that the Senate will replace the Council, but that is another matter. The principle remains unaltered, namely, a bilingual university because it will be possible to use both languages of the Republic. We do not know at this stage how they are going to do that because that is left, as the Bill reads at the moment, in the hands of the Council, but at the moment in the hands of the Senate. I do not know how the Minister can leave such an administrative matter in the hands of the Senate. It is usually left in the hands of the Council, but we shall discuss that at a later stage. It appears that the principle of using both languages as medium is being recognized and introduced, though how they will use the two languages as medium will depend on practical considerations as far as lectures are concerned. It means that you will introduce the two languages as medium but only when that is possible in practice. The question arises, as it was also posed by the hon. the Minister in the course of his speech, whether they will have parallel medium or dual medium. The Senate of the university, if the amendment of the Minister is accepted, or the Council of the university, as the Bill provides at the moment, must decide whether it is possible, depending on circumstances and practical demands. The hon. the Minister, who was a school principal, will know what a major role practical considerations play when it comes to certain policy decisions. In this connection, if the amendment is accepted, the Senate will have to decide what will be done in practice—whether both languages will be used or whether only one language will be used at a time. Let me give an example. There are usually a large number of students in the first year B.A. history class and in that case it will be the easiest thing in the world for the Senate to decide to introduce parallel medium instruction, in other words, to have separate classes, the one having English as medium and the other having Afrikaans as medium. If the class can be divided into two the one student will attend the class where Afrikaans is the medium of instruction and the other one will attend the class where English is the medium of instruction. But when you come to the M.A. degree class and only five of those students remain, for example, it would be stupid to let those five students sit in two separate classrooms and in that case the dual medium system can be introduced. That is what I imagine will happen had I been a member of the Senate and had we to decide what the medium of instruction should be. The whole question of having two languages as medium of instruction therefore depends on practical considerations.

Mr. Speaker, we of course accept this aspect of the Bill as well. We accept it because it is United Party policy. That has always been United Party policy. May I congratulate the hon. the Minister on ultimately having seen the light in spite of the policy his party has been following over the past 15 years, and on having realized that the policy of this side is in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am convinced that as far as primary and secondary schools are concerned as well, hon. members opposite will also accept our policy one of these days, just as they have accepted our immigration policy.

They are now ploughing the Afrikaners under.

Mr. Speaker, we have certain misgivings, misgivings which may be quite unfounded, and we hope they are unfounded, but we have them. One of our misgivings is that the university will in any case eventually become a single medium institution. My attitude is this: If you act in the correct way and in all sincerity right from the start you cannot be blamed if your actions fail. Even if it is done deliberately I do not think the Minister can be blamed for it; the Council or the Senate will be to blame. But I shall tell you, Sir, when this dual medium idea is going to fail. It can fail when we as politicians start to interfere; when we as politicians start to interfere in the domestic affairs of the university. When we as politicians start exploiting this issue for party political purposes then either the one or the other section will be afraid to attend that university.

You are becoming a Nationalist.

I have always been a national but never a Nationalist. That is why I say we must be careful; that we must have faith in this university which is to be established and in the specific method they are going to adopt as far as the language medium is concerned. We must not exploit the position and frighten the one or other section. How can I blame the Council in 10 or 20 years’ time if the majority of their students are English speaking? Then I cannot expect them to continue to have Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. As opposed to that if the majority of the students are Afrikaans speaking I cannot expect them either to continue to have English as a medium of instruction.

That is the most sensible thing you have said for a long time.

Just keep the Broederbond out of it.

You are seeing ghosts.

I also listened attentively to what the hon. the Minister said in connection with the establishment of Stellenbosch and Cape Town and the University of South Africa. I disagree with the hon. the Minister there. He says this Bill is based on the procedure followed in the past but I think the hon. the Minister is wrong. He ought to know—I think he has been told; he has only forgotten it—that Stellenbosch and Cape Town and the University of South Africa were not established as a result of a private Bill. With the establishment of Stellenbosch and Cape Town and the University of South Africa the same procedure was followed as we are following in the case of this Bill.

Yes, that is correct but there are others as well. You only mentioned three; there are six of them.

Very well, I am only pointing that out. I may have misunderstood the Minister but I think he stated it the other way around; he says this is not the usual procedure, but that in this case the matter is one of urgency and importance.

I said the others grew out of the University of South Africa as university colleges.

Let that be as it may, I am extremely sorry that we are not referring this matter to a Select Committee, and at this stage I still want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, with all due respect and in all friendliness, which is characteristic of me, to refer this matter to a Select Committee, although he is not obliged to do so because we do not regard this Bill as a hybrid Bill.

In this connection I want to raise a few points which I regard as important and which should be brought to his attention. The first is that Parliament itself has not as yet had an opportunity of hearing the views of the bodies concerned. It is true that we have heard the Minister, but Parliament itself has not as yet had the opportunity of hearing the views of the people who are concerned in this matter. They in turn have not had an opportunity of submitting their views and opinions to us. We know there was great dissatisfaction to start off with. It does not matter whether the reasons were political ones or not.

Only political reasons.

Some people will say they were political reasons and they will of course again blame the English Press! Naturally the Afrikaans Press is completely above suspicion, particularly because it is a Nationalist Press! But whatever the reason may be, that dissatisfaction which nearly led to bitterness between the races …

Is now something of the past.

… is now something of the past and we should like to know something from those people who were behind that quarrel. We want them to tell us, not the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo).

Ask the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) who is sitting there at the back: he will tell you.

It appeared to me at the beginning of the year, before I had further evidence on the matter, that because of this legislation Rhodes was getting the worst of it, but the hon. the Minister assures me that is not the case, and Rhodes itself says that it is satisfied and that it will co-operate and we appreciate that. What we should like to know is why there has been this change of attitude on the part of Rhodes. Rhodes is the only body who can tell us that and who can allay our suspicions. Then I should also like to know this from Rhodes, because the Minister did not tell us that to-day: Was Rhodes itself not prepared to become a bilingual university? I understand Rhodes did make the offer to the Minister: “Leave us as we are; let things remain as they are; we shall switch over and become a bilingual university.” We as a House of Assembly do not have the opportunity now of getting to the bottom of these things by listening to the people who were and still are concerned in this matter. I hope the hon. the Minister will still decide at this late stage—surely there is no great hurry—to accept our suggestion. We suggest it in all friendliness but urgently.

I now come to Clause 10 which I have discussed with the legal adviser of the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether he has submitted my views to the hon. the Minister but I am sure had he done so and had the Minister been in the good mood in which he is to-day, our suggestion would have been accepted. Clause 10 reads

1. (1) The senate shall consist of—
   1. (a) the principal of the university, who shall be chairman;
   2. (b) two other members of the Council elected by the Council;
   3. (c) the professors of the university;
   4. (d) the persons appointed by the Minister, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), in respect of each faculty of the university, and who shall be professors in a corresponding faculty of Rhodes University or the University of Stellenbosch.
2. (2) The members of the senate appointed by the Minister under paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) shall be not less than the other members of the senate.

I want to ask a few questions in this connection. In the first instance, it is not clear to me whether the number of members of the senate appointed by the Minister will be drawn equally from Rhodes and Stellenbosch. In the second place I cannot understand why it “shall be not less” than the other members of the senate. As the Bill is worded at the moment he may appoint more than half the number. But the most important aspect of the whole matter is this—and it surprises me—that the University of Stellenbosch in particular, that university which is so proud of its autonomy, is prepared to allow the Minister to appoint people from its own ranks to the senate of the University of Port Elizabeth without its approval. I know the Minister will tell me that he will naturally in practice consult the principal or the council but his Bill does not lay that down. The Bill says that the Minister may, irrespective of the wishes of Stellenbosch or of Rhodes, appoint members of their senates to the senate of the University of Port Elizabeth, without their approval. If the Minister bears them ill will he can ignore them, or if I were ever to become Minister and I bore them ill will I could ignore them. [Interjections.] My hon. friend over there need not be afraid; I shall not appoint him.

Mr. Speaker, those are my misgivings but for the rest, in principle, we have faith in this university which is to be established at Port Elizabeth; it has our blessing. We also trust that the actions of the university will always be above suspicion, that it will always base its commissions and omissions on scientific principles, unprejudiced by any party or pressure from whoever it may be. May I express this hope in particular that that university will develop in such a way in future that it will not be influenced by any politician and that it will be to the great benefit of our South African nation and to our education in South Africa.

I appreciate the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). We have, in the past, often worked together for education in South Africa, and we have thought much together. But what strikes me here is that he does not find anything vitally wrong with the Bill; he agrees whole-heartedly and pronounces his blessing on the university-to-be, and in this I wish to support him. But then he talks about the policy of the one party or the other in this House. I as educationist—and I think that I have quite a bit of experience—have never in the 16 years that I have been here, tried to associate any educational matter with the policy of either of the political parties. I have always endeavoured to keep it free from any party political policy and I am grieved that here claim is laid upon some principles as being those of the United Party. I should prefer the parties not even to be mentioned. On reading the Bill for the first time in November I said to myself: Here is something striving after an ideal, and that ideal, as it was so well put by the hon. member, is that the university in its growth, in its being and actions should always be above suspicion. But I should like to have a yet higher ideal, namely that it should be a free academical institution and not a political brewery. What I have advocated here in the past under the heading “academical” is a striving after truth by people who are not biased by party politics; an aspiration to seek the truth, to analyse that truth and to use it for the benefit of humanity. In so far as this university can do this it shall have my whole-hearted support. The hon. member used the word volte-face in connection with the attitude of Rhodes. It was not really a volte-face. The reason why Rhodes gave its support to this movement was that under the guidance of the principal those people thought academically. It is a well-known fact that when we think academically our efforts must be successful and that we will understand one another. That is why I feel that this request that this matter be referred to a Select Committee should not just be acceded to without more ado. The hon. member knows himself that his main reason for this is to give the people concerned a hearing. This Bill is not a conclusive Bill; it is an authority Bill and we are in a great hurry to tackle it to-day, the first Monday, in order to help that community so that this matter may be finalized before 1965. This authorizing Bill contains but one principle and that is that there is going to be a university. It must now return and then the new council of that university must draw up a statute for us to study. A university must have a statute. When we have that statute to be incorporated in the Bill it will tell us what those people want, not only what the public wants—that is not so important—but what the academical people, whose task it will be to run this university, want. I think we should be patient and when the statute is introduced in the House there will be ample opportunity to discuss the matter thoroughly and to shape it properly.

Serious thought will particularly have to be given to the matter of language medium. I am, of course, not—as the hon. members know—so much allergic to the language medium as to the real academical dignity of the institution. I attended Grey University College and we were satisfied with whichever language the lecturer or professor chose to use. We never quarrelled over which language we were going to hear. Take economics, a subject in which I majored. We had English text-books, either printed in England or America. But if we did not wish to take economics through the medium of English we would have had to take it through the medium of Netherlands, which was still more difficult. We therefore got on with the job in silence. However, circumstances will show us what will happen in this case. I am glad that the Minister said that the languages will be Afrikaans and English—not Afrikaans or English. A student who studies some subjects through the medium of one language and others through the medium of the other will find that no harm has been done. That is how I studied. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we come to the conclusion that the old method of carefully weighing out so many ounces of the one and so many ounces of the other medium is out-dated. We have advanced too far. We have advanced in our everyday life, I am not referring to our schools now, to the stage where we have reached that ideal where it matters not which language we hear or speak. At least I have. I feel sorry that the previous speaker had spoken about schools and the parents’ choice. We are not dealing with the parents’ choice now. If we want to talk on that matter we must consider Natal and I am not prepared to do so now.

There is another matter which I should like to broach, it is that word “autonomy”. I am one of those who believe that an institution worthy of the name of a university must have its independence and must think for itself. If the word “autonomy” is used so soon one must necessarily think of the financing of such a university. In America we have for instance the “State universities” and the “endowment universities”. The latter is completely autonomous. They have their own money and they carry on absolutely independently. They do what they like. There are universities in Europe which are subjected completely to some higher authority. If ever this should come about in South Africa I should now like to say to our friends on the other side that I sincerely hope that the State will not concern itself with the domestic matters of that university. Concerning the policy, if that is the correct word, of the university we are all agreed that the university should be as autonomous as possible. We should, however, always remember that it is dependent on the State financially and that legally the State will protect it. The State protects this institution and therefore the State must have some say in certain matters like for instance the approval of the appointment of a Rector. We realize how soon, especially in a community like this, a row can develop over the appointment or nomination of a Rector who does not meet with the approval of a certain section of the community. Much local unpleasantness can be caused if the final decision lies with the Council but this can easily be overcome by the Minister saying: I am referring this appointment back to the Council; the person you have nominated will cause dissension; do not appoint him; look for someone else; I have no one of my own choice, but nominate another one and I shall consider his nomination. I think this safeguards the local authority against a very odious task.

I should like to mention just one more matter. In England, e.g., upon whom we model our education in most cases, we find the old-established universities based on the old academical system. There are universities in Europe, e.g. Leipzig, Heidelberg, etc., institutions which were founded by the more developed section of the community, be it the aristocracy or the well-to-do section. But it was realized that whether the parent was rich or poor, whether he belonged to the aristocracy or not, the children of the working class, to coin a phrase, were given a new chance in life. Not for one moment do I wish to imply that Port Elizabeth is made up of only the working class. That is the last thing I want to do. Universities in England have, however, been established on the same principle that we are dealing with here. We have Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and other small universities particularly which cater for the youth of the environment, for the children of the industrialists and businessmen of that town. I am not advocating a policy of class or group-formation, and that is why I am devoting much time to this point. On the contrary, I am only endeavouring to make it possible for a certain section of the youth to become university trained locally and inexpensively. I think that we also agree upon this point. Years ago, I think it was in 1926, I was in Port Elizabeth, and I studied the community. I also studied that of Durban. Those communities have changed beyond all recognition. New population groups with academical desires have been added. Whereas in the past there was no need for even a primary school the want is felt to-day for a university. I am glad therefore that this university will be part of that community.

The question was mooted—fortunately it was answered satisfactorily, and therefore I shall skip it—why Rhodes does not go to Port Elizabeth, or why the Port Elizabeth students do not go to Rhodes? Rhodes will not forsake Grahamstown. They are too deeply rooted there and I do not think they will ever move from there to pitch camp in Port Elizabeth. However, I still believe there are still students who should grow up in that area where their interests will be catered for. What I mean by this is that Port Elizabeth will develop into an essentially industrial centre and there they will have to equip themselves academically, whilst Rhodes is in a much more academical and ecclesiastic environment. Rhodes has made such progress that many students from outside our borders go to it. Rhodes, together with the University of Stellenbosch, are now assisting this new university to gain prestige, a prestige of which it shall be worthy. It has been said, and I accept it, that for a new university to establish itself, ten years are required, but ten years are not enough. Some universities overseas took hundreds of years to attain status properly.

Whilst pleading to-day—not quarrelling, because we are in agreement—for the support of the public and the State to make this undertaking an absolute success I should just like to point out that the day we approved of Rhodes extending its activities to Port Elizabeth I was the one who welcomed this move wholeheartedly and I congratulated Rhodes. I referred to other universities, not only local ones; I referred to Durham which was taking rapid strides in certain industrial areas in North-East England. The want was felt and Rhodes expanded accordingly, but even to this day Rhodes is catering only for the extramural students in Port Elizabeth. It has not yet become a residential university. Only when a university becomes a residential university can it meet the needs of the people in its environment. I naturally exclude the University of South Africa because it does not cater for any particular district or for any particular need. But this university will be of such a nature that it will have to become part of and supply the needs of an essentially industrial community. I want to emphasize this, so that I will not be misunderstood. I do not believe that universities should bear certain labels, such as primarily theological or agricultural or technological universities. When a certain person heard about this new university in November he remarked to me: I suppose it will be mainly a technological institution. I replied: No, I do not want that at all, because if one decides beforehand that such an institution should develop in a certain direction one immediately curbs its autonomy and academical development. I do not want that. If it should incidentally branch out into a theological university in a harbour city amidst all the industries, what will be wrong with that? It will only lend more prestige to the institution. I should like to stress that where other universities supply the needs of their people and make a study of their environments and adapt themselves to it, they will always have my support.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by expressing my fervent hope—and the Bill guarantees this—that the standard of this university will be unassailable right from the beginning. I have no doubt about this. Rhodes, which has a very high international standard, and Stellenbosch, which is rated just as highly, will see to this. I want to thank the State, not the Government or the Nationalist Party or some such body, because I do not want people to think that this university was the idea of a certain group or political party, because that is not the position; but I want to thank the State as such that it reacted so swiftly and deliberately to the idea of establishing a university in the Eastern Cape, a very young idea as yet. As far as I am concerned it is only fitting that in that part of the country a bilingual university should be established because it was there that the Afrikaner pioneer and the British Settler, especially in 1820, met and co-operated in an exemplary way and together became a nation. The Eastern Cape set a wonderful example there. It did not force the two sections to live in strife with one another but allowed them to live in harmony. I think especially of Uys and Thompson, men who could look one another in the eyes over a Bible. I hope that this spirit will never disappear in the Eastern Cape, but that this same spirit will be the spirit and the inspiration of this new university.

I regret that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) does not favour this Bill being sent to a select committee. I shall give reasons why I disagree with him. Nor do I agree with his statement that it is advisable that students should have their university training in their home towns. I know as an experiment it is certainly necessary but I would not for a moment say that it is to the advantage of any student to carry out his university education in his home town.

I am pleased, Sir, that this side of the House supports this Bill. No one will deny that Port Elizabeth, as a centre of great development and increasing population, merits having a university of its own. I should also like to congratulate the Minister on the way he introduced this Bill. He introduced it in a very efficient way. That does not mean that I agree with all he has said nor that this Bill is a perfect measure. For instance, I do not agree that Rhodes and other universities do not serve any geographical area but that the Port Elizabeth university will. I claim that if the Port Elizabeth university is to grow and to be the great university we would like it to be, it should also not definitely be defined to serve a particular geographical area.

That is not the idea.

That was what the Minister indicated namely that Rhodes and other universities did not serve a geographical area but that the Port Elizabeth university would. I am sorry if I gained the wrong impression. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that the development of Rhodes University must suffer through the competition of a university in its vicinity. I do not think Rhodes University is complaining about that. As the Minister has said the Vice-Chancellor of Rhodes University wants to do everything in his power to promote and assist in the development of the new university at Port Elizabeth. I appeal to the hon. the Minister nevertheless to agree to this Bill being sent to a select committee, even after the second reading if the Minister so wishes. There are definite reasons why I ask that, Sir. I regret that this Bill was not drafted so as to be a hybrid measure so that Rhodes University’s interests in its Port Elizabeth branch could have been cleared up once and for all. The Minister says that he will repeal their Bill at a later stage at the request of that university, but it is not only the rights of those universities with which I am concerned, it is the rights of the over 200 students who are at Rhodes University in Port Elizabeth; students who have already taken their first year of their degrees. Where must they complete these degrees? Must they take these at Rhodes University, Grahamstown? How can they afford to do that? Will the Minister give boarding grants; will he compensate these students or assist them in acquiring their degrees without losing the time they have already put in at Rhodes University at Port Elizabeth? I know this compensation could not have been provided for in this Bill because then it would automatically have become a hybrid Bill. But I would ask the hon. the Minister, in his reply, to give us some assurance that consideration will be given to those students and that some assistance will be offered them. I have no doubt the Minister will do that but I think that is a reason why this Bill should have been a hybrid measure, and gone to a Select Committee.

We are assisting these students in Clause 18.

Not if they go to Grahamstown.

They get the same facilities in Port Elizabeth now.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult and of great disadvantage to a student to have to change from one university to the other during the course of taking a degree. I claim that indirectly certain rights are affected by this Bill and for that reason I say to the Minister: Please send this Bill to a Select Committee, a committee which will be able to receive informed opinion and clarify the evidence and give Port Elizabeth’s new university a fair start. Mr. Speaker, all kinds of rumours circulated regarding this new university. Only a Select Committee can clear up all the damaging statements that appeared in the Press. I myself say that a lot of trouble was caused by the clumsy way in which this university at Port Eilzabeth was planned. It is on that account that there are certain justified public misgivings.

The Minister realizes what happened during the early stage of this proposition especially before the Minister himself visited Port Elizabeth and clarified the matter. We know a municipal election was fought in Port Elizabeth on this issue and that the prime advocates of this new university lost their seats. Some said that Rhodes University had been slow in its development in Port Elizabeth, others that it was ahead of schedule and complained that application for the establishment of medical and engineering faculties there had not been favourably received by the Government.

There is no doubt that this university, to be established at Port Elizabeth, is designed to bring about the withdrawal of Rhodes University from Port Elizabeth. That is how it should be. I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not refer this Bill to a Select Committee and let us clarify the whole position and satisfy public opinion. We have heard much about double medium education. Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult in the Eastern Province to divide the community. I say that the Eastern Province has set an example to the whole of the Republic to bring about the happy co-existence of the various national groups of our population. The member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) knows that is true. We brought that about in our early history when the two groups struggled together. We are informed that Rhodes University offered to provide parallel medium instruction in English and Afrikaans and that it maintained that it would have no difficulty in providing this immediately in certain faculties. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether this is in fact so and whether the offer was made. It is reported that Rhodes University too spent considerable sums of money on its Port Elizabeth development. Could the hon. the Minister inform the House how Rhodes University will be reimbursed? We know that Port Elizabeth provided R200,000 and that Rhodes has drawn on that amount, but it will take a Select Committee to decide, after taking a great deal of evidence, on the compensation to which Rhodes is entitled. I am pleased that the hon. Minister has informed the House of the cooperation that Rhodes University has offered in the development of this new university in Port Elizabeth. But no doubt Rhodes will have many difficulties; it will have difficulties in regard to its extra staff that it has in Port Elizabeth—it is not to say that that staff is going to be agreeable to be transferred to the new university in Port Elizabeth. Those are difficulties which should be cleared up in evidence. I would also like the hon. Minister to inform the House how he visualizes that Rhodes can assist the development in Port Elizabeth. I am in favour of the undertaking of our vice-chancellor, but it is one thing to say that you will assist in the development of a university, but it is another question of how one is to assist in such circumstances. I know that Rhodes University will have a representative on the Council. Is that all the hon. Minister can indicate? I think the hon. Minister should give a lead. We have two comparatively new universities, and there is no doubt that the Minister must give a lead. As we all say, we do not want any politics introduced in the reasons for the establishment of the university in Port Elizabeth and it is the Minister himself who can provide that guidance.

I have detailed a few of the problems and questions which have not been answered so far and which should be answered in the public interest. I therefore hope that in fairness to the new university at Port Elizabeth and in fairness to the Rhodes University and its Port Elizabeth students that the hon. Minister will take the public into his confidence by agreeing to appoint a Select Committee with power to take evidence and to call for papers, and to report to this House. That is the usual procedure in respect of all university legislation introduced as private Bills. I think that in the general interest the Minister should make this procedure available even if this is a Government measure. The hon. Minister will find that there will not be any controversy arising from such a report of a Select Committee. A Select Committee could smoothe over the wrinkles that have arisen through certain controversies that have arisen between interests in Port Elizabeth and in Grahamstown, and even if many of the things we have heard were merely rumours, I have seen quite a few reports which were correct, circumstances which have given rise to certain misgivings. I hope that the hon. Minister will regard what I have said as serious and that he will give his earnest consideration to our request.

It was really refreshing to listen to the speeches that were made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who adopted a tone and spirit completely different from that contained in the report which appeared in the Cape Argus as recently as 21 January in connection with an interview with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) adopted the spirit of a small group of people in the Eastern Cape who tried to cause friction in regard to this matter and to give it a political flavour. That is why it has been refreshing to listen to the two speeches that we have heard thus far from the other side. The only point on which the two hon. gentlemen differed from the hon. the Minister was that they wanted this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee and it was very clear from the speech of the hon. member for Albany why they wanted this to be done. This is a back door that they want to keep open, although they try to hide this fact under a pretence of curiosity. They want to know what is behind the agitation in regard to this matter and they also want to know why there was a change of heart—as they call it—on the part of the Council of Rhodes University. For example, the hon. member for Albany wants to know what is to become of the staff of Rhodes who are now employed in Port Elizabeth if they do not want to be absorbed in the new university. But that is their affair. If they do not want to work at the new university it is up to them to find employment elsewhere. The hon. member wants to know all there is to know about this matter. I do not think that a Select Committee is necessary in this regard. I think that I can tell hon. members the whole story in very few words. I am speaking now as a member of the Council of Rhodes University and as a person who has had the opportunity of gaining first-hand knowledge of the full history of the matter as it has developed. I can give these facts without betraying any confidences because we have a rule at Rhodes that a matter is secret while it is under consideration, but when once a decision has been taken on a matter it becomes common knowledge and every Council member can discuss it. The matter has been disposed of as far as Rhodes is concerned and that is why I can discuss it, although I shall not give details of the attitude adopted by certain members or mention their names, at least not unless I have to.

To begin with, I want to say that all the trouble started with a group of leftists at Rhodes University. When Rhodes University in all good faith asked to be permitted to extend its activities to Port Elizabeth and the Government agreed, under certain conditions, that group began saying that Rhodes should move to Port Elizabeth “to liberalize them”. That was the start of the trouble. When the Government announced that it had decided in principle to establish a university at Port Elizabeth, that group which in the meantime had increased in strength became very vociferous and I am sorry to have to say here that the former vice-chancellor, Dr. Alty, acted as spokesman for that group. They immediately stated openly at Grahamstown that so much fuss would be made about this whole matter that the outside world would be able to use it as an extra weapon against the Government. That was what was behind the whole matter. No less a person than Dr. E. G. Malherbe, the Principal of the University of Natal, told them on the occasion of some or other function at Grahamstown: “This sort of university that is situated in two different places causes a great deal of trouble.” He called it a Dachshund university. In the case of Natal University, he said, the Dachshund had two legs in Pietermaritzburg and the other two legs 60 miles away in Durban. He went on to say: “And so you want a Dachshund in Grahamstown which has two legs in Grahamstown and the other two legs 85 miles away in Port Elizabeth.” He said that this was a monstrosity.

The objections that were raised to the establishment of a new university in Port Elizabeth were not based on academic grounds. Right from the start my attitude on the Council was—and indeed I aired my views publicly in the Oosterlig—that the only proper academic attitude towards such a university was the attitude which the University of South Africa had adopted at the time to the University College of Rhodes. When Rhodes became a full-fledged university, when the hon. member for Albany introduced a Bill into this House to give Rhodes full university status, the attitude of the University of South Africa was the attitude which it adopted in the case of all the other university colleges. Its attitude was: “We are pleased that we have been able to assist you to reach this stage; we are pleased for the sake of academic education that we have been able to bring you to where you are. We wish you every success because you can now become independent. You have our blessing.” That was also the attitude that I adopted on the Council. But that group also had representation on the Council and, as I said, Dr. Alty was their spokesman. But there was also another group on the Council and we fought the matter step by step. The change did not come with the departure of Professor Alty. He was succeeded by an acting vice-chancellor. The matter was then discussed and a final decision was taken which can therefore now be made public. I suggested to the Council that Rhodes should continue at Port Elizabeth up to the end of 1964. This was also the request of the hon. the Minister. There was another proposal to the effect that the move should be made immediately. There was a further proposal which gave the impression of being a mediatory proposal; it simply stated that Rhodes would continue to fulfil its duties at Port Elizabeth to the best of its ability. This proposal was made in such a fine spirit that I felt that I could withdraw my proposal. But on the next Sunday a report appeared in the Sunday Times under the heading: “Council of Rhodes Defies Government.” And, unfortunately, whoever gave the report to the Sunday Times gave it in such a way that it was open to an interpretation of that nature. At that stage Mr. Hobson was no longer chairman; Mr. Acting Justice Cloete was chairman and I want to tell the hon. the Minister, if I may mention a name, that I should like to mention the name of Mr. Justice Cloete who did a great deal to bring about a better understanding and attitude. On 17 June last year I telegraphed Mr. Justice Cloete in the following terms (translation)—

On the next day I received a telegram from Mr. Justice Cloete in which he said that steps were being taken “to refute detrimental inaccuracies in Press”

I do not want to deal with what happened at Port Elizabeth because the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) is better qualified to do so than I am. But feelings were aroused by people from Grahamstown: a great fuss was made and meetings in regard to which we had issued warnings were held. Then the change of heart became more obvious with the arrival of Dr. Hyslop. He was an academic man and he immediately considered the matter from an academic point of view, as did the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). The swing that he mentioned was simply brought about by the fact that the agitation of that small group of leftists, the people who wanted to exploit this matter for party political purposes, was stopped.

That is briefly the story. Why is it necessary to have a Select Committee? I think it would be a waste of time to have to inquire into the attitudes of certain people and the reasons why they changed their minds.

I was pleased when the hon. the Minister said that he would move an amendment to Clause 14. I did not have the opportunity of discussing his amendment with him and in all the rush I was not able to follow precisely what was actually envisaged. I myself have framed an amendment. I feel that the clause should read as follows—

Like the hon. the Minister, I do not like the expression “circumstances in which a student shall be entitled” to use this or that language.

I want to explain precisely what I mean. We are dealing here with a bilingual university, not a dual-medium university and not a parallel-medium university. We are dealing with a bilingual university just as Stellenbosch was when I was a student there and when the hon. member for Hillbrow studied there. I studied Greek there under one professor through the medium of English and under another professor through the medium of Afrikaans and it did not trouble me at all. There were many subjects taught by one teacher in English and by another teacher in Afrikaans and the students followed them well. To my way of thinking certain subjects should be taught in Afrikaans and other subjects or even the same subjects taught in English at the University of Port Elizabeth. I do not think that students should be divided up into separate classes because this will only cause a great deal of overlapping which will simply prove to be a millstone around the neck of such a small university. As the hon. the Minister has said, we have probably come a long way in that matriculants must be able to follow lecturers in either of the two national languages when they attend the university. What is the position when our students go overseas? Many of these who go to Germany leave here not knowing a word of German, or knowing only a little German, but they very soon learn the medium and derive full benefit from those lectures. In the same way, students who are weaker in English or Afrikaans will very soon acquire the necessary knowledge of the other language at that bilingual university. I find that matriculants from the English-medium schools in Cape Town go to Stellenbosch simply because they want to improve their Afrikaans. That will be a fine characteristic of the University of Port Elizabeth and I am sure that it will receive the support of the vast majority of people in the Eastern Cape who will send their children there. The University of Port Elizabeth will not only serve the whole complex of the Eastern Cape but will be a great asset to the whole of the Republic. We have a potential that must be developed and it can only be developed properly if we have a university at Port Elizabeth. I want to repeat what I said at a Press interview: That as the representative of one of the Eastern Cape constituencies I shall do all in my power to promote the growth of the University of Port Elizabeth so that it can reach full maturity as soon as possible and I shall do so without neglecting or without its interfering with my duties as a member of the Rhodes University Council because the two bodies are completely separate. The one is an established university following a certain course and having a certain character which is such that it draws people from everywhere in the Republic, even from Rhodesia and abroad. I can therefore pledge my full support to the University of Port Elizabeth without in the least neglecting my duties as a Council member of Rhodes. This will be a great thing for the Eastern Cape and I am sure that my other colleagues from the Eastern Cape will want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, as I do, on this step and thank the Government very much indeed for having undertaken this important task. We are grateful that in his calm and quiet way the hon. the Minister has been able to overcome the trouble, the suspicion, the unjust and unacademic wrangling that has been experienced there and that all those problems have disappeared. I want to express the hope that no member of the Opposition will ever again try to rake up those old grievances.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has tried to drag controversy into a debate which up to now has been free of such controversy. I am not concerned with his contribution to controversy now or in the earlier history of this matter. So far as his reference to myself is concerned, it is quite clear that I said no more than is contained in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, viz. that there has been a departure from established practice and that the initiative for the establishment of universities in the past came from private members, whereas in this case the initiative comes primarily from the Government itself.

I want to add my plea to the hon. the Minister that he should agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading is taken. I do so firstly because the Bill comes to Parliament as a Government measure, as you have indicated, Sir, and not in the customary manner as a private measure. This is an exceptional step. The hon. Minister in an interjection indicated that there have been some six cases in which this has happened before. As far as I know it has only happened once before in the history of this Parliament and that was in 1916, almost half a century ago. As the hon. member for Hill-brow (Dr. Steenkamp) has pointed out, on that occasion three university Bills came before Parliament in exceptional circumstances when Parliament itself felt obliged to permit a departure from the customary practice so that it could pass the proposed legislation more expeditiously. On that occasion, Sir, Parliament itself specially condoned the introduction of the three Bills as Government measures because of the urgency that had arisen. The circumstances were, as the hon. member for Hillbrow indicated, that the old Cape of Good Hope University was becoming defunct and the change-over to what was then a modern arrangement in regard to university education in the Cape and the new arrangement in respect of university education in the rest of South Africa had to be dealt with expeditiously. As I have said, there were not only exceptional circumstances in that case, but there was prior condonation by Parliament to the break with convention. I myself do not believe and see that these factors are present in this instance.

Order! Is the hon. member questioning my ruling?

No, Sir, I have accepted it completely. The private Bill procedure of the House is frequently used, and there is no need for me to explain it in detail. But the essential purpose of that procedure is to provide an equitable measure of protection in those cases where proposed legislation, beneficial to particular interests or affecting particular local interests as opposed to general interests, may be injurious to others or may conflict with similar local interests. In those cases Parliament as a first measure, as a first step, assumes its judicial cloak in order to satisfy itself by its own peculiar form of Select Committee inquiry that conflicting interests are examined, that particular interests are verified and that the legislation is warranted. Only when so satisfied, does Parliament then resume its legislative cloak and deals with the proposed legislation on its merits. My first plea therefore is to the hon. Minister that this salutary and conventional practice should not be by-passed or sidestepped in this instance, because I think it would be regrettable if the Port Elizabeth University Bill were regarded as an exceptional measure rather than a Bill which is subject to the customary parliamentary scrutiny and the conventional parliamentary equity. I think it would be more than regrettable if it were felt outside this House that this new university should get its charter in a partisan spirit or as a party measure rather than in the conventional way as has happened in the case of all other universities.

Sir, I see no need to restart from the beginning. The conventional way can be achieved quite adequately at this juncture by the hon. Minister agreeing to the suggestion that has come from this side of the House that the Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading.

My second reason for making this plea is also based on precedent. Whilst the laudable object of the Bill is to bring into being another university in the Eastern Cape, the tragic fact is that it does so at the cost of bringing about the disestablishment of university facilities presently available to students in the same area. While it is true that the Bill purports only to do the one thing, i.e. to establish the new university, yet the second factor, the disestablishment of existing facilities, is implicit, certainly in practical terms if not in legislative terms, in the passing of this Bill.

I am quite aware, as the hon. Minister has explained, that Rhodes University Council and the Port Elizabeth City Council came to terms with the Minister in regard to the retraction by Rhodes University of its statutory authority to carry out its educational work in Port Elizabeth. But I am by no means satisfied that in coming to terms in the circumstances that prevailed at the time, it was ever contemplated by those two representative bodies that the procedure usually followed would not be followed in this case—that there would be a Government Bill and not a private Bill, which would then deprive other local interests of the opportunity of tendering to Parliament evidence, whether it be for or against the legislation, and whether it be for or against the precise terms come to between the Minister and these representative bodies.

When I make this plea, I am also fully aware that both these Councils are guardians of specific rights and interests, always of course within their limited sphere of jurisdiction. To that extent of course their decision admittedly carries weight. But nonetheless the domain over which the guardianship and sphere of influence of those two bodies extends is limited. Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, indicates the position. The initiative for the establishment of this university comes primarily from the Government itself, and to a degree this might be setting a precedent for the future. In any event, this is a matter of an important nature and where there is such a limitation of influence in local affairs, as I have indicated, I do not think that is adequate for the purposes of Parliament itself. In any event, Parliament is the upper guardian in matters of this kind and it should, as a matter of public policy, be the final arbiter. Therefore this House should be permitted to employ the safeguards in respect of particular private interests before considering the merits of the Bill itself. To have regard to safeguards can only do good. On the other hand, to ignore those safeguards may do harm, and I say quite sincerely that that is something which I believe neither the Minister nor any one on this side wants. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) used the words “absolute success”. That is commendable. One wants absolute success when establishing such a body, and my plea therefore is for that very purpose.

That brings me to my third reason for making a plea to the Minister. It also has an historical background. It is not a wholly un-contentious background. Nevertheless, as the Minister mentioned it I think I should also mention it, and I do so in the interests of a sincere approach for a better understanding of the problem than we have now. The manner in which the project of this new university was originally launched was unfortunately not a happy one. It is not my intention to reopen that bit of history or to retrace any of the events themselves, but it would be foolish, as the Minister has apparently recognized, to ignore the fact that that bit of history has led to much resentment, much suspicion and much unhappiness amongst persons in Port Elizabeth who value the extension of university education by Rhodes to that city. As I have experienced and seen the position, they are in the main persons who would have welcomed the setting up of a new university in Port Elizabeth if it was to be complementary to and not in competition with the existing facilities. They are people who would have seen the virtue of a new university which was to be complementary to what already existed, whether it be on language medium or whether it be on an equitable division of the faculty courses between the two institutions. I believe there is very great virtue in diversity in educational facilities, instead of the rigid similarity which seemingly will now take place. Having listened to the Minister’s glowing description of Port Elizabeth’s position in the country and its rapid expansion, with which I agree, it would seem to me to justify having two complementary universities and not a single university in Port Elizabeth, which will happen now. So whatever the Minister has himself said is an argument for submitting this matter to a Select Committee and for following the principles of equity and scrutiny which are contained in that procedure and which can result only in good and not in harm. In the circumstances, therefore, I believe that a gesture by the Minister to agree to the Bill at this stage of the proceedings going to a Select Committee would go a long way towards healing hurts and it would ensure for the new university a greater spirit of goodwill and co-operation than might otherwise be the case. I repeat that to follow the precedents of the past and to accept the suggestions made from this side of the House and to submit the matter to a Select Committee can only do good.

My last reason for making that plea to the Minister is the contents of the Bill itself. It has already been pointed out, both on this side and from the opposite side that there is scope for improvement in the contents of the Bill. Surely there is no better place in which to try to bring about that improvement than in a Select Committee. The Minister has had that experience on other occasions and he will know that in the calm and cool atmosphere of the Select Committee much can be done to improve the contents of matters and to leave the controversy to this House itself. If there were any indication by the Minister that he will accept that suggestion, I will sit down, because that is the purpose with which I have risen. Although the Minister gives no indication of acceptance, I still hope that he will accept it, having regard to the importance of the matter, to the past history of the matter and to the future prospects of the institution itself. I hope he will agree to the suggestions made from this side.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s expression of satisfaction at the way Rhodes University had handled the situation which arose. As the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said, Rhodes has a proud and honourable record which goes back for some 60 years. It owes its origin to the pioneer efforts and the enterprise of the citizens of the Eastern Cape. It has grown because of the initiative stimulated by those who valued what it has set out to achieve, and there is no doubt that it has achieved much. The expansion which has been developing since 1960 is now to be ended and it must be crippling in one way or another to Rhodes. I therefore say that if Rhodes university is to serve with the same degree of success in the future, it will need a great amount of sympathy and support from the Government. If the Minister continues in the spirit in which he introduced this Bill, I have hopes that that will be achieved, because as I have indicated, the tragedy of the present Bill is not that it does only the one thing. Admittedly the laudable object is to create something, but the tragedy is that it does so at the cost of this other institution. My plea therefore to the Minister is to bear this in mind in dealing with the problems which are likely to arise at both institutions in future.

Mr. Speaker, if there had been no need for university training in the Eastern Cape, one would not have had colleges like St. Andrew’s College at Grahamstown and Gill College at Somerset East being founded as early as in the 19th century, and one would not have experienced the fact that those colleges have made their marks on the history of South Africa and have justified their existence. It was fortunate that we had Rhodes University to replace St. Andrew’s, but in Somerset East the position was different. There were too few people and there was not enough money. But those colleges were established through the generosity of well-meaning people like the late Dr. Gill who achieved undying fame in the Eastern Cape because of his generosity to that part of the country by making a bequest to be used for university and higher education. I say that the existence of those colleges and the representations that were made proved that the Eastern Cape really needed a university and that was why we were particularly pleased to hear the announcement made by the hon. the Minister on behalf of the Cabinet in February last year that the Cabinet had decided to establish a university at Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape. On the same afternoon that the announcement was made, some representatives of the English-medium Press visited members of Parliament for the Eastern Cape constituencies and asked us what our attitude was in regard to that university. Hon. members on this side welcomed the step openly and without reserve. I just want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) as reported in the Eastern Province Herald of 14 February 1963—

I said even more than that. I added that Port Elizabeth which had already developed into an industrial city needed a university of this kind; that the city would benefit if it had a university that could also train technologists and that if this were the case it would develop even more quickly. The Eastern Province Heraldwas not slow to make inquiries, as our experience showed, and under the heading “City Reaction to Cabinet Varsity Decision”, it gave the views of Mr. Ernest Love, chairman of the Midlands Chamber of Industries. It also gave the views of Mr. S. Odendaal, chairman of the Afrikaanse Sakekamer, and this is what Mr. Odendaal had to say—

But a certain Mr. Edgar Crews also had his views on the matter. He sent a telegram to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman)—

It was most interesting to note that the second telegram was sent to Field Marshal Montgomery, but I do not want to elaborate on this fact. I want to show that a campaign against that proposed university was then started in Port Elizabeth by the English-medium Press. On 16 February, two days after the report that I quoted here the Evening Post wrote a leading article under the heading “Remarkable Behaviour”, and attacked the proposed university on the grounds that it would affect Rhodes so adversely. But that was not their only reason. The article stated—

The article continues in this way. It was then that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) joined the struggle. I refer to these matters because the hon. member stood up sanctimoniously here this afternoon and told us that he had only said what you, Mr. Speaker, had given your ruling in regard to this afternoon. He gave us a lecture on parliamentary procedure and the question of the establishment of the university. On the same date, 16 February, the Evening Post wrote as follows—

I just want to say that the hon. member who acted so sanctimoniously here had this comment to make—I do not want to quote everything he said—

The hon. member is a person who has no interest in Port Elizabeth except as far as the safety of his seat is concerned because he had to flee from Johannesburg (North), and he compromised the United Party into opposing this university. I do not want to refer to the further developments in the struggle and the fact that a municipal election in Port Elizabeth was fought on this matter; how the former mayor was not returned to office as a result of this struggle that was unleashed by the English-medium Press. But the hon. member made progress. In February the Eastern Province Herald wrote as follows—

The hon. member has been at the forefront of the struggle, but this afternoon he has welcomed it most sanctimoniously. On 21 January 1964, a few days ago, this hon. member gave an interview to the Cape Argus. I do not want to quote the report but the heading was: “University of Port Elizabeth. A Party-Political Issue.” That is what they said in pursuance of an interview that they had with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). If one compared this report with the leading article of the Sunday Times of the previous Sunday, one would notice that the two reports were very similar. The hon. member repeated exactly what had appeared in the Sunday Times. I want to say this to the hon. member. I welcome the change of heart that he has had and the fact that he can now also take his place in the ranks of those with whom I stand—those who are in favour of this Bill.

Now we know where you stand.

I knew that within half an hour I would succeed in making even the hon. member for Sea Point understand how I feel. But there is still one man who has not joined our ranks and that is Mr. Crews. I want to tell the hon. member not to be afraid of Mr. Crews because Mr. Crews did not vote for him at the last election and will not vote for him at the next election either. The hon. member must stand by Port Elizabeth; if he does so he may perhaps retain his seat.

Mr. Speaker, there are people who have done a great deal for this university. There are so many of them that I do not want to mention all their names although I do want to make use of this opportunity to mention the names of some of the people who have done so much in this struggle, people like the former Mayor, Mr. van der Vyver, Mr. Albertus Delport and Mr. van Vollenhoven, all of whom have done everything possible without compensation and have given up their time to collect the necessary funds. We trust that they will acquire undying fame. We believe that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) will also acquire undying fame but I doubt that it will be in gratitude to him for the unnecessary political struggle that was unleashed in the Eastern Cape in connection with this university and in regard to which he was in the forefront. This university will supply a great need. We welcome it. It will mean a great deal to the Eastern Cape, to my constituency and particularly to Port Elizabeth. We also want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the Government. [Interjection.] Yes, I am not ashamed to thank the Government. That hon. member has much to be grateful to the Government for but he ignores that fact. I do not. We hope and trust that they will not be disappointed in their hopes for that university. We believe that their hopes will be exceeded.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo), but I want to say that I am sorry he introduced a political flavour which was not necessary at this stage. I want to say that we on this side are in full support of this university. I think those of us who know Port Elizabeth realize that our population justifies it, and I think the industrial development which exists and which will still follow alone justifies an institution of this nature to enable young men and women to fit into the future development. I would like to compliment the hon. member for Witbank. I find myself in agreement with the spirit of what he said. I, too, feel that the university will afford the opportunity to a greater number of young men and women to obtain higher education. Those of us who have lived in that city for a long time will realize that much had to be done to make it possible for some of these young men and women to go to the university. When there is a university in the town, the young men or women can go there on their bicycles. Over the years there has been a constant demand for a university. It dates back, as the Minister said, for a long time, and our local authorities and commercial organizations have all from time to time given consideration to what is now going to be brought about, this university. I do feel that it is to Rhodes that we owe much. They came in 1960 to establish a branch and to assist us to get under way to provide facilities for part-time and also for full-time students, to attend the university. None of us wants to see Rhodes badly treated in any way. They have made a big contribution and are continuing to do so. The Port Elizabeth people as a whole will also appreciate it. We will never forget the contribution they have made. I know it is the hope of many that this university will not in any way detract from Rhodes and that that great institution will carry on as it did before. Much has been said this afternoon in regard to submitting this measure to a Select Committee. We all hold our views, but so much has come out. We have heard various hon. members telling us that this and that happened. It seems to me that if we want to launch this university and give it a really healthy send-off, the Minister should give very serious consideration to this request; then all these so-called misunderstandings can be removed. The opinion has been expressed that the support for this university is one-sided. Surely if the air is thoroughly cleared we will find that full support will be forthcoming from all sides. Sir, I want the House to know that we in our particular area as English-speaking persons have never found any difficulty in getting along with other language groups. The hon. member for Wit-bank (Mr. Mostert) has told the House that too; that is the way we feel about it. But there is one thing that I would like to stress and that is that while I am grateful for this development there is, of course, a feeling that at a later date we may find that the dual-medium might be disturbed. The Minister has given us certain assurances that this cannot take place, but if this university is launched we may be sure, particularly if a Select Committee is appointed, that we will get full support from both sections of the community. After all, it is our earnest desire that the university to be established at Port Elizabeth should get full support from both sections of the community, and I have no doubt that that is what everybody here desires. It is for that reason that I would again say to the hon. the Minister that he should give very serious consideration to the request made to him to refer this Bill to a Select Committee.

Having listened to the speeches of the hon. members of the Opposition it is clear to me that they do not welcome this university at Port Elizabeth. They accused the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) of talking politics but the fact that they ask for a Select Committee without giving conclusive reasons why they want a Select Committee shows clearly that they want to retard this Bill as much as possible. They know that the Minister is in a hurry for this House to pass the Act; they know that a Select Committee takes a long time to complete its work. They want Rhodes University, the City Council of Port Elizabeth and other bodies to give evidence here. In other words, this Select Committee will not be able to conclude its work during this Session and that is why they ask for a Select Committee.

It is not necessary for me to point out here the necessity of having a university at Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister has already done so. The Minister said that in 1960 there were 94,000 Whites in Port Elizabeth. Now there are 103,000. Tremendous expansion has already occurred there as the Minister has said. But there are a few other matters that I should like to deal with here, and one of them is a matter which was mentioned here by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). He said that this matter was a Cabinet measure. This is the same as they have at the English universities, namely a “charter”, which means the right to found a university. After that “Royal Charter” has been granted then the statute is introduced. As Dr. Cilliers said in his report—

That is what has happened here now. The State is responsible for granting the subsidies and that is why it is essential that it should introduce this Bill, just as also happened in England, as I have already said. In the “Commonwealth Universities Year Book 1963” the hon. members will find the following on page 882—

That is what we are busy doing here now. We have no “royal charters” but Parliament gives them the right—

The same thing is happening here. We first give them the right and then the statute follows later. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says further that in reality it will be a dual-medium university, but after a number of years the Government will come and proclaim it an Afrikaans-medium university. But that is not so. If the English of the Eastern Cape, and in particular those of Port Elizabeth support this university, it will always remain a dual-medium university and will never become anything but a dual-medium university. But yet another argument was advanced against this university. It was argued that in South Africa we already have too many universities. The hon. the Minister mentioned the A. C. Cilliers report here last year. But even before we experienced this industrial development in South Africa Bradby wrote in 1939 in his book “The University outside Europe”—

That was said in 1939 already—

Hon. members have objected to Clause 13 in terms of which certain faculties may be established. The Argus wrote about this and suggested that it was the old pattern of a university and that a new pattern ought to be followed now. Mr. Speaker, had a new pattern been followed it would have been said that the university of Port Elizabeth was an inferior university. That is what the enemies of this university would have said. When the Bantu university colleges were established and the pattern was altered just slightly it was said that the Government was establishing inferior universities. But that is not all. They suggest that it should be a technological university. Technological universities do not exist anywhere. True enough, in England one finds the so-called colleges for “advanced technology”, but these colleges do not award degrees. Even to-day these institutions are being strongly criticized. It is contended that those institutions should remain an integral part of the university. That is also what Dr. Holloway said in his report—

He goes further and suggests that it should be in the same university institution. The commission cannot accept that the two should be in separate university institutions. It says that it will entail expenditure that the State cannot afford, but over and above this the commission says—

That is the spirit—no more separate technological universities. That is also the position in Canada to-day. I have here a book published in 1938, “The University Question”. I am not going to quote from it, but here we find the same—

That is the tendency. But I know why the Cape Argus pleads for a separate technological institution—so that they can say they are inferior institutions. But further, a training college for teachers is going to be established at Port Elizabeth next year. We are acquainted with the pattern followed by other universities and training colleges. There is close cooperation between the Normal College of Pretoria and the University of Pretoria, and between the Normal College of Bloemfontein and the Free State University. There will be the same co-operation between the training college and university in Port Elizabeth. The students at the training college do not take technological subjects. They will take a B.A. degree there perhaps with history or one of the languages as a major subject. There are many boys and girls in Port Elizabeth who do not want to have a technological training. They want to study languages; they want to study law; they want to study in other directions. Must they be deprived of the opportunity so that they will be forced to go elsewhere to get that special training? Surely that is ridiculous. The whole object of establishing this new university will be defeated because boys and girls of that area, who want to further their studies, will be compelled to go to other centres to do so. That is precisely why this university is being established, to create the facilities for these people to be trained at Port Elizabeth. Mr. Speaker, those are the arguments advanced against the establishing of this university. The Sunday Times—I do not want to mention the name of that newspaper, because I think no decent person any longer mentions the name of that paper in this House—yesterday compared the university of Port Elizabeth with Turfloop and called it the Turfloop of the Eastern Cape. The idea is of course to disparage this university in advance.

It was also argued here that the reason for appointing a Select Committee was the fact that Rhodes had invested so much money in Port Elizabeth. But not one penny of that money came from Rhodes. It all came from funds made available to Rhodes by the City Council of Port Elizabeth. Rhodes did not give a single penny out of their own pocket. Why should a Select Committee now suddenly be appointed? Rhodes is satisfied. The two parties who will be called upon to give evidence before the Select Committee, Rhodes University and the Port Elizabeth City Council, are satisfied. Why should they be called upon further to come and give evidence before a Select Committee? Surely it would be futile. The City Council and Rhodes University said that they agreed with the Minister but now they must come again and say: Once again we agree with you. Surely that it quite ridiculous. I repeat that the reason why this proposal was made to-day is because they do not want this statute to come before the House during this Session because they know that the Select Committee will not be able to complete its work in time. I know that this university will be a success. It can only be a success if both the English-speaking section and the Afrikaans-speaking section of the Eastern Cape support it. I know that the Afrikaans-speaking section will support it, and I appeal to the United Party to encourage the English-speaking section to support the university of Port Elizabeth, and then these dangers they envisage will vanish because it is a university for both sections of the community of Port Elizabeth.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) has spoken disparagingly of technological education. He says that the tendency in other countries is to regard technological education as something inferior.

No, I never said so.

He said that these colleges should become part of another university because they cannot exist separately. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) to-day explained to the House that our university system here is built and has been created on the British system, for historical reasons. I think perhaps we have adhered too closely to the British system. Had we considered developing along our own lines earlier it would have been better for South Africa. But in Britain itself they have now decided that they must change their direction; that they must follow the direction of the United States, Western Germany and Russia. In the Robbins Report, which has just been published on university development in Great Britain, the point which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) made is dealt with exhaustively. They have in Britain colleges which they call the C.A.T. Colleges, colleges for advanced technology, and it is recommended in the Robbins Report that these colleges should have university status and that they should be given the right to confer degrees. Technology in this modern world has a place quite different from what it had in the world 50 years ago. If there is any criticism of South African universities and of our system, it is that our South African universities are all planned in the same way. Where there is an opportunity for variation I think that opportunity should be seized with both hands.

I should like now to say a word about the Bill. No one in this House will say anything that does not welcome a university Bill. We know the procedure in this House for the presentation of a University Bill. We know that it is an occasion for mutual congratulations. We like to feel that South Africa is developing in higher education in a new direction. We are anxious, all of us, to do that. Where criticism has come from this House, where my criticism will come, where there is criticism, it is because of the maladroit manner in which the hon. the Minister has presented the Bill to the House. That is my criticism. Our procedure is well known to the House. The procedure is that vested interests or particular interests—generally the Council of the College, but it may be other interests—approach this House with a private Bill, and in doing so they give certain information in their preamble. The information which they give in the preamble is the historical background on which they base the application. The number of students available is given to us, as well as the prospects for the future. If I may say so, the reason why we have this procedure and why it is an excellent procedure, cannot be better stated than in our authority on procedure in South Africa, Kilpin. This is what Kilpin says in his concluding paragraph on the question of private Bills introduced into this House—

In other words, Kilpin has stated that what is necessary is that this should be divorced completely from any suggestion of party politics. It has not been divorced in this case. We know what has happened. I do not know how much political “log-rolling” there has been, but there has been an election fought on this subject. Surely that was most undesirable. It is most undesirable that a university should have been associated with it. Sir, in introducing the Bill before the House in this manner the hon. the Minister has ignored our procedure in Parliament and, if I may say so he has ignored us as members of the House.

Order! I have given my ruling on that matter. I have given guidance to the House in this matter and the hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Sir, I am going to accept your ruling. The hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill. There is no preamble. He gave us the preamble in his speech to-day. We should have had a preamble in this Bill to give justification for the introduction of the Bill. Now, Sir, as I understood your ruling you said that as no private individuals or bodies were available to promote the legislation, it was the duty of the Government to sponsor it. I accept all that, of course. The best authorities agree with that. But when I listened to the Minister speak a doubt came into my mind. This is what the Minister had to say; he said in regard to this application from Port Elizabeth that there were “instan-sies” (bodies) and individuals who from the fifties have asked for a university there. He also said that from all quarters the proposal was welcomed and that there was enthusiasm for it. He also spoke of the “groot voor-standers” of Port Elizabeth. I have seen a list, a very imposing list, of trustees of this university. Surely these bodies could have come before us with a private Bill, as interested parties, if what the Minister said is correct. Why could they not come along with a private Bill? Why could the trustees not do so? Why could they not say, “We intend to establish a university; we wish to come to Parliament”, instead of going to the Minister? Instead of going to the Minister they should have made it possible for the Speaker’s ruling to be what it has always been. It is not the Speaker’s duty to find that body; it is the duty of the Minister. The Minister’s response to this application should have been, “Get together in Port Elizabeth and come along to me with a private Bill and I will assist you”. We on this side of the House would have assisted him as well, and then what would have happened? The Bill would have come before the members of this House, under the chairmanship of perhaps the hon. member for Witbank.

Rather stand still and talk less nonsense.

Sir, we are discussing universities now—a most serious subject. Our desire to assist in the establishment of a university is not in doubt, and the manner in which we could have assisted would have been to have sat in the usual way on the Select Committee, but we were not given that opportunity. The hon. the Minister has tried to impress us today by telling us that he had committees of investigation. In the 1955 University Act which we passed in this House, the first section, of course, is the definition clause, but Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 deal with the establishment of an Advisory Council. There are from three to eight members on this Council, and I should like to ask the Minister whether he called this Advisory Council together to advise him. Under the law the Minister is called upon to consult the Council. Did he call this Council together? Did they advise him and if so will he lay the advice he received on the Table of the House so that we can see what advice was given to the Minister by this Advisory Council, a body constituted under our University Act. But following on Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 there are Sections 6, 7 and 8 where another body is established, the Committee of Principals. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Committee of Principals was consulted. If they were consulted what advice did they give? Did the Committee of Principals of all the universities in South Africa advise him to proceed with this Bill? Can we have their opinion laid on the Table of the House to assist us in Committee? I am very anxious to see that. I am not satisfied with the explanation which was given by the Minister. Why should we have to listen to the finding of one of his committees which is sent to investigate? Why should we not investigate? We are the jury. We are the people who sit in this House: the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), the hon. member for Wit-bank and others with whom I have sat on these committees. We are the people who sit here to consider an application of this kind.

Sir, in the time at my disposal I should like to have a look at some of the clauses and perhaps make one or two suggestions to the Minister which he might introduce himself as amendments. He is willing to do so. He has already intimated that he is prepared to introduce an amendment on the Medium clause. I come now to Clause 6, dealing with the Chancellor of the University. I should think that the hon. the Minister is an authority on this because as Chancellor of a University he has personal experience. He knows what the duties of a Chancellor are; no one knows better than he does. The Bill says here that the Chancellor shall be elected by the Council and so on, and in sub-section (2) he says that the Chancellor shall hold office for a period of 10 years. Why 10 years?

I was also appointed for 10 years.

Well, what about taking the very fine example of Potchefstroom University. The hon. the Minister has been quoting Rhodes. I want to quote the university with which he is most familiar, Potchefstroom. In Potchefstroom they do not say that the Chancellor shall be elected by the Council; it is decided by the Statute. Why take the period out of the hands of the Council? But, worse than that, this is what the Bill says, “the Chancellor shall hold office for 10 years,” but if he is to be removed the request shall go to the State President. Why bring the State President into it when you have a council of the university? I hope the hon. the Minister will put that right.

It is a safeguard just in case they appoint you.

I am not ambitious enough for that. Now I come to Clause 8, which deals with the appointment of the principal of the university. The clause says that a person approved of by the Minister shall be appointed. Well, let us go again to my authority; let us go again to Potchefstroom. Let us hear what they do in Potchefstroom. There is nothing like that in Potchefstroom. There they say this: “The Rector of the university shall be elected by the Council in the manner prescribed by the Statutes.” What is wrong with that in Port Elizabeth?

Read Section 5 (1) of the Rhodes Private Act. Why pick on Potchefstroom?

The people of Port Elizabeth should have decided this not the Minister. The people of Port Elizabeth should have told us what they wanted. I am sure they will not be satisfied with this. Let us go a little further. We come to Clause 10, which deals with the Senate of the university. I did not quite understand the Minister when he spoke on this in introducing the Bill at the second reading. Does he mean that he will nominate professors or lecturers to the Senate, or will he ask Rhodes and Stellenbosch to nominate the members. Will he nominate individuals himself? Surely that is an intrusion on the rights of Rhodes and Stellenbosch. Surely it is for them to decide. The next thing is this: For how long are they to be nominated? For how long are they to hold office—these representatives of Rhodes and Stellenbosch? Surely they cannot form half the Senate indefinitely and that is what is proposed in this Bill—“that for an indefinite period half the Senate will be nominated by the Minister from Rhodes and Stellenbosch.” Well, if the hon. the Minister were to come along and say during the teething period, during the first three or four years, that he would make that arrangement and then leave it to the Council to decide in their Statute, I would understand it. But I think to put that provision in the law as an indefinite period is something quite unknown in the organization of our universities. So much for that.

I come to Clause 10. Sub-clause (5) says the duties of the Senate will be “the organization and control of the curricula and examinations of the university”. The Minister has forgotten the discipline of the classes that is a very important function. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would make a note of that. Had the Bill gone to a Select Committee of the House we would have been able to put that right for him.

Now I come to Clause 11 “Convocation of the University”. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he introduce an amendment to give us in convocation not only the members of the Senate and graduates of the university but, as in the case of the Potchefstroom University, the lecturers, the librarian and the registrar. If he wishes to follow the Potchefstroom system I think it is an excellent system to follow. We now come to the appointment of professors. There is one point forgotten in Clause 12, if I may so. Provision is made for the appointment but no provision is made for dismissal which is a very important feature. I think that should be noted and I think the Minister should introduce an amendment there.

We now come to Clause 14 “Mediums of instruction”. I want to say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot become emotional over that. I have seen so much of the medium of instruction and I have heard it discussed so much! Why not leave that to the people of Port Elizabeth to be dealt with in their own university. Let us accept their autonomy. When I hear the Minister become emotional about medium, about the new start, about how they are now going to bring the two language groups together, I remember that they were the people who introduced White apartheid in the primary and secondary schools. This is the party that separated the children in the schools. Now they come with an emotional appeal to bring everybody together! That leaves me cold, Sir, I refuse to become emotional about the medium of instruction in Port Elizabeth. That does not affect me. I am not annoyed with Pretoria; I am not annoyed with the Free State. The Pretoria University started off the same way. I do not say they have failed. An hon. member says they have failed; I do not say that. They developed the way in which the community wished them to develop as the Council wished them to develop. The same is true of the Free State University. They are very fine institutions and I believe Port Elizabeth will develop in the same way, If in the course of time they say they wish to change the system it is for them to decide—not for us. It should not be laid down in the law. It should be laid down in the Statutes, the Statutes which can be improved by the Council, accepted by the Minister, and laid on the Table of this House for three months as they usually are.

That is what they will do if they develop in a certain direction.

The hon. member says that is what will happen. I think he is probably right. It should be left to them. I do not see why it should be laid down in the law. However, if you want it in the law who am I to object to it! That is the story of the medium of instruction. I want to say this: if they are going to develop in the manner that the Minister thinks probable it is going to be a very expensive system. I have in mind the Natal University. The Natal University made provision for parallel classes on the ground of race. In other words, they made that gesture to the policy of the Government. They had White classes and non-White classes, but the Government was not prepared to give them the extra financial support to carry it out. It will require more money here and I hope the Minister will be able to provide it.

I now come to this question of discipline. “A student at the university shall be subject to the disciplinary provisions prescribed by the statute or by rules made by the Council”. I object to “rules made by the council”. The disciplinary provisions should come into the Statutes and appear before Parliament. Parliament should be able to approve of them; they should not be rules by the Council. That is contrary to the whole principle of universities. Here again I refer to Potchefstroom University. They do not say this in Potchefstroom University and I do not see why they should say it in the case of Port Elizabeth.

I now come to the last clause, Clause 23. “Until the publication of the statute in the Gazette such persons will be appointed by the Minister.” Now, Sir, how long is that going to last? How long will they hold office? Is it for an indefinite period or is it only until the Port Elizabeth people elect their own Council? There are people there who are interested and who will become members of the Council. How long does the Minister suggest this provision should last? Three years? Two years? I think that should be stated in the Bill. I do not think the Port Elizabeth people should be told that indefinitely they will have a Council appointed by the Minister. “The Minister may appoint any person as an alternate, the Minister may prescribe, in such manner as he may deem fit, the quorum and procedure at meetings of the Council.” In other words, it is the tribal college system, Sir. But I hope it does not last. I would ask the hon. the Minister, when he introduces his amendments in the Committee Stage, to make provision for that as well and to give us a limited time.

It is unnecessary for me to say as a peroration that we wish them success in Port Elizabeth. Everybody in this House, every member I have ever known, is anxious to wish success to an undertaking of this kind, especially where there is good local support. I do not think it is necessary to say so; I think that is taken for granted. We shall be able to discuss the Minister’s amendments when we come to the Committee Stage.

The hon. member who has just sat down put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister. I presume that the hon. the Minister will reply to those questions when he replies to the debate and so I shall not refer to them. I want to come back to one matter he raised, and that was when he referred to the provision dealing with the medium of instruction. I want to ask him whether he is not aware of the fact that that provision dealing with the medium of instruction is worded in the way it is worded in this Bill with the express purpose of combating any attempts to cast suspicion upon the establishment of this university. I want to give the hon. member some good advice. I want to tell him that I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will have no objection if the hon. member moves at the Committee Stage to omit this clause and to substitute a new clause containing more or less the ideas that he has in mind. I want to urge him to tell the House of his intention to move this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply disappointed because the Opposition did not see their way clear to give this Bill their unqualified support. I really thought that at a time when there was so much talk about a shortage of trained people in our country, any effort to establish an institution for higher education would receive the general and wholehearted support of both sides of the House. Unfortunately this was not the case. The motion that this Bill be referred to a select committee appears to me to be something of a delaying action. I listened to the arguments that were raised in regard to why the matter should actually be referred to a select committee. In my humble opinion not one of those considerations justifies a step of this nature. All the reasons that were given can be put right at the Committee Stage of this Bill. The only conclusion that I can draw, therefore, is that because of the force of circumstances, because of the fact that the representatives of the Eastern Cape are mostly United Party supporters, the Opposition have been compelled to give their support to this matter because otherwise they will not be able to face their voters.

I have actually risen to speak because I am most closely connected with an effort to establish an Afrikaans university on the Rand. I should like in this capacity to congratulate the people of the Eastern Cape very heartily indeed on what has been achieved by means of this historic step. I should like to give my full support to the principle of the establishment of new universities. I trust that they will succeed in getting this university under way so soon that it will make the achievement of our goal on the Rand so much easier and quicker. Various methods have been used to try to cast suspicion upon the necessity for such a university. I would like to deal more fully with a few of these considerations. Why should we have an additional university? We have noticed that some of the daily newspapers have published data to show that as far as the number of our universities in relation to the number of our students and our White population is concerned, we are just behind the United States of America. That may be so. I contend that in this country of ours the Whites carry a tremendous intellectual responsibility. Upon us rests the responsibility of supplying leaders not only for the White section of the population itself but up to the present we have also had to provide leaders for all the various non-White sections of the population. I think that this will be the case for some time to come. But what is more, we also have to supply trained people for countries far beyond our borders. I think that we can accept the fact that that development will continue for some time. So I say that here in the Republic of South Africa the need for academically trained persons is proportionately larger than in any other country of the world, and this fact alone justifies the establishment of an additional university at the right and most strategically situated place. It is a fact that the intellectual potential of our White population is not being developed to the full in this country. When we consider that barely half of the number of students who enroll at our White universities leave those universities with degrees, we must realize that somewhere there is a great wastage of our intellectual potential. I feel that an additional university will succeed in attracting more students to university and also in producing more graduates.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very interesting point that I want to raise in connection with the growth of the population in the Eastern Cape. Mention has been made, and rightly so, of the tremendous increase in the population in the Eastern Cape and the growth that it is anticipated will take place there. When we make a study of the information at our disposal we find that that growth has occurred chiefly in the urban and peri-urban industrial centres and, indeed, at the expense of the platteland. It is a fact that those platteland people who have moved to the cities have mostly found their niche in the lower structure of our urban economy and that for that reason they are not able, even with a great deal of assistance from the State in the form of bursaries and otherwise, to send their children to universities elsewhere. A very enlightening and expert survey has been made in this regard by a team of American scientists. According to that survey it appears that the entrepreneurs and the highly professional group continue to emerge from the same group; in other words, there is very little movement from the lower income groups to the higher income groups. This means that we have what virtually amounts to a petrification of the professional structure. It must therefore be clear to all of us that it is an almost impossible task for those people moving into the urban areas—most of them are from the platteland—to gain access to that higher professional structure of the entrepreneur and the professional class. A second point that this investigation proved and a point that fits into this picture well is the fact that it is stated that the most effective way of assisting those lower income groups to break through to the higher groups is the establishment of universities and higher institutions for technical and commercial development. Sir, that is precisely what the Government has in mind with this Bill that we have before us. This is why I deprecate the fact that we do not have general support for this step; that the method that is being followed here is criticized and that some of us by our actions in this regard are seeking to undermine the principle involved in this matter.

I want to refer to the tremendous growth that has taken place recently at our universities. I want to tell you that according to a survey that was made by Professor Pauw, the Afrikaans universities in our country have grown over the past ten years by 112 per cent. Nowadays it is true to an increasing extent that the lecture-rooms of our existing universities are crammed, that the hostels are full, that there is no space in the laboratories and, alas, not always space in the time and attention of professors and other teachers. In saying this I am not accusing the teachers concerned; I am merely sketching the circumstances prevailing at present. We find that if that same rate of growth of the past ten years is maintained during the next ten years we will have more than 100,000 students at our White universities by 1974—an average of about 10,000 per university. Pretoria University will then have more than 17,000 students, Stellenbosch more than 11,000 and our two smallest universities will then each have about 4,000 students. It can of course be said that there are universities in other countries which are far larger than this and which nevertheless do good work. That may be so, but I hold the view that the standard of a university does not depend upon numbers and that many of the universities with world-wide reputations and world-wide status are deliberately kept small. That is why I advocate the more personal as against the impersonal.

I want to ask hon. members who have objected so vociferously to the establishment of an independent university at Port Elizabeth as opposed to the division of Rhodes University, whether the fact that Rhodes University started with a division at Port Elizabeth does not prove conclusively the need for a university at Port Elizabeth? If they admit this—and I hope that their sense of logic will permit them to admit it—then I want to ask them: What is the fundamental difference between a branch of one university at some other place and an independent university there? If they support the branch there, why can they not far sooner and far more easily support the establishment of the full-fledged university there? Mr. Speaker, the question of expense has been raised. I hold the view that it is cheaper to build new than to enlarge and to renovate. I think that we have had proof of this over and over again. We have had the experience that our existing universities have not been planned on a sufficiently large scale. When they were planned at the time, it was impossible to foresee the tremendous expansion that would take place with the result that all of them suffer from impossible limitations. Expansion to-day necessitates the purchase of expensive premises, the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of new ones. That is why I say that if we can erect a new university that is planned to cope with expansion at a place where the need for university facilities already exists we will be doing far more than by wanting to continue in the old way. In this connection it is interesting to know. Sir, that the loans asked for by universities last year in order to enable them to supply their capital requirements amounted to about R9,000,000. I ask myself whether it will really make such a great difference as far as expense is concerned if that money is used for the establishment of a new university instead of providing the expansion that is required in the existing institution. But there is also another consideration as far as I am concerned and that is that any university makes a great contribution to the cultural and intellectual development of the area in which it is situated. I ask myself why this privilege should be limited to the places where universities already exist. I think that this is also a question to which we must give our serious consideration. Mention was also made of the shortage of teachers. This is the same argument that was raised when the establishment of the universities for Coloureds and Bantu was being discussed. I just want to ask hon. members opposite whether they have not learnt that the history of this country has proved that it has always been possible to find the necessary staff for every new development that has come about on the initiative of the White man.

At 6.25 p.m. the business was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the debate adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

I do so in order to raise a matter which I consider of great importance to the farming community in particular and to the public in general. I refer, Sir, to the outbreak of a mould in the 1963-4 groundnut crop, known as Aspergillus flavus, in common terminology, aflatoxin poisoning or contamination of this crop. I do so, Sir, because it somewhat astonishes me that in an important matter of this nature, a matter which is obviously dangerous to the public health, which is considerably dangerous to our export market and which is dangerous to the whole of the 1964-5 crop, there has not emanated from the hon. the Minister’s Department any statement. The Minister’s Department has been aware of this outbreak as far back as October last year, as I understand it.

In order that I may place the position clearly before the House I wish to read to the House the instruction given by the Oil Seed Control Board to their agents—all their agents I understand—in order to make desperate efforts to recover what residue remains of the 1963-4 crop both in regard to seed and any supplies held by the farmers in the way of feed or compressed meal or any other form in which the residue of the 1963-4 crop is held—in plain terminology the residue of the monkey-nut crop. Sir, this instruction is worded in the strongest possible terms. I see the Minister looks slightly surprised; he is apparently not aware of this instruction. Let me place it before the House. This is an instruction to all producers of ground nuts—

It goes on to say this—

Now comes the most important part of this instruction by the Oil Seed Control Board. It is underlined in this circular—

To show the earnest nature of this appeal made by the Oil Seed Control Board to its agents let me read how they preface this circular. They say—

I repeat that I am aware that this matter was known to the Minister’s Department as far back as October and that up to date there has been no statement whatsoever from the hon. the Minister in regard to the effect of this outbreak and contamination and the dangers it holds to humans and animals alike. Admittedly the outbreak is confined at the present moment, as I understand it from the Department, to a certain area, an area northwest of Lydenburg in the Transvaal. The plain fact remains that it holds dangers for the infestation of the entire 1964-5 crop, and to show the danger to human life and animal life, I would like to indicate to the House that the consumption alone of edible groundnuts in the internal market consumed by the public, was no less than 12,000 tons-odd in the 1961-2 year and that seed used for seedplanting alone was in excess of 6,500 tons. But more than that, Mr. Speaker, we have to think as well of the economic effects of this outbreak. It must be realized that our exports of oil from groundnuts was in excess of 68,000 tons in the 1961-2 year and our exports of edible nuts were in the region of 24,000 tons for the 1961-2 year. It is increasing every year. If one relates that to what has happened on the overseas market in regard to the same disease as far as the export of nuts from Brazil is concerned and the export of nuts from East and West Africa and the effect the outbreak of this disease had on the groundnut crop as far as Indian exports were concerned to the European and British markets, it must be realized that the effect of this outbreak of aflatoxin poisoning may be that our export markets will be seriously affected. I think all producers in this House, all farmers who know anything about the groundnut crop, will know that prices are presently maintained purely on our exports of oil seed.

I have raised this matter and have placed the facts before the hon. Minister and House because I feel that because of the dangers that are contained in this outbreak, it is a matter of urgent importance. Let me emphasize again the statement made by the Oil Seed Control Board: “Aflatoxin-besmetting is uiters gif tig en hou ’n groot gevaar in vir mens en dier.” A report of this nature, issued by the laboratory of the Oil Seed Control Board would not be issued lightly. In the light of what I have placed before the House in regard to this appeal to an agent of the Board—and I assume that all agents of the Board have received it—I think it is a matter worthy of the attention of this House and a matter worthy of an adequate statement by the hon. Minister in order to allay any fear that may exist among the consuming public and the farming public of this country.

The hon. member said that no statement was issued in connection with the mould on groundnuts which was caused by toxin, but at the same time he quoted from a circular in which all producers and receivers of groundnuts were warned that this toxin could in certain circumstances be poisonous. What statement did he expect to be issued? He even cast a reflection on the export of groundnuts.

Let me just tell the hon. member that this toxin, this mould which appears on groundnuts, has been known for a long time. We know that it appears on South African groundnuts and that it also affects other grains, in certain circumstances. The infestation has, however, never before assumed any significant proportions in South Africa. Some time last year, however, the oil pressing industry drew the attention of the Oil Seed Control Board and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to the fact that certain supplies of groundnuts had become infected by this mould, Aspergillus flavus. More or less at the same time various cases of death among chickens which could be ascribed to aflatoxin poisoning were brought to the notice of Onderstepoort. It is a toxin which is caused by this mould and is particularly poisonous to young chickens, turkeys, ducks and pigs.

The Departments concerned, Agricultural Technical Services and Health and my Department, decided immediately that the whole matter should urgently be investigated, particularly to determine the extent of the mould infestation, and also the areas in which the groundnuts have become infested and in which areas not.

The laboratory of the Oil Seed Control Board was converted into an emergency laboratory and chemists were obtained from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the C.S.I.R. and the Bureau of Standards who did the necessary analyses. Samples of groundnuts were obtained from all depots and agents. Chemical tests showed that the infestation was general in groundnuts which came from the area north of a line from Lydenburg in the east to the north-western area of Western Transvaal. South of this area any sign of infestation was only found in exceptional cases and only in low grade groundnuts.

At the same time the Oil Seed Control Board arranged with the oil pressing industry that no more groundnuts would be pressed and that no groundnut oil cake or compressed meal would be made available to the balanced diet manufacturing industry unless it had been analysed. Some of the larger pressing units have their own laboratory facilities, but it was suggested to others to make use of the services of private concerns in order to do the necessary analyses.

While the investigations were in progress the Oil Seed Control Board did not rail groundnuts anywhere and all exports were stopped. It was only after the extent of the infestation had been determined that groundnuts were once more supplied from the aflatoxin-free area to groundnut roasters, domestic groundnut manufacturers and oil pressers.

On the strength of the knowledge and data available at the time concerning the toxin, a committee of experts made recommendations regarding the use of groundnut oil cake. The maximum percentage oil cake, in various stages of infestation, that could be added to the various feed mixtures was indicated. According to these recommendations no cake which contained two parts or more per million of the toxin could be used in any mixture at all. Cake containing more than 0.1 part per million was recommended for chickens, milking cows and pigs. For human consumption the groundnuts must be completely free of toxin. The investigations revealed that the mould infestation appeared mainly in the lower grade of groundnut and that there was no infestation in those groundnuts which were specially selected for eating purposes. In the case of the hand-selected groundnuts which are exported by the board and which are also made available by the board to local buyers no afla-infestation has so far been found, either here or overseas, not even in those groundnuts which come from the area where the infestation is mainly evident. All processers of groundnuts do not, however, buy hand-selected supplies and it was arranged with the health authorities that, for the sake of safety, the board would only supply groundnuts from those areas that were found to be free of infestation. When infested groundnuts are pressed any infestation is removed from the oil by the caustic soda which is used in the refining process so that the oil is completely free of infestation. It is only the oil cake which contains the poisonous element.

As far as can be determined there are approximately 29,000 short tons of groundnuts in the hands of agents of the board and more or less 13,000 tons in the hands of pressers which are considered to be infested to a greater or lesser degree. Apart from this there are approximately 4,500 tons of oil cake which is regarded as unusable on account of the degree of its infestation. The board has succeeded in finding a market overseas for the infested supplies in its own possession while it is also trying to find a market for the infested oil cake as fertilizer. There may be 12,000 tons of such oil cake if the cakes to be manufactured from the 13,000 tons infested groundnuts still to be pressed are added.

Since the middle of October 1963, the date to which the hon. member has referred, only a minimum amount of groundnut oil cake has been used in feed mixtures, and that was only done in those cases where the oil cake was regarded as completely safe. Apart from any maize germ meal and other possible sources of vegetable proteins that may be used, the balanced diet manufacturing industry normally uses approximately 30,000 tons of groundnut cake, 31,000 tons sunflower seed cake, a few thousand tons cotton seed oil cake and approximately 38,000 tons fish, whale and carcass meal per annum.

In view of the fact, therefore, that groundnut cake barely constitutes 20 per cent of the supplementary protein ingredients, it has so far been possible for the industry to make the necessary adaptations, particularly by pressing more sunflower seed. It is also expected that towards the end of April/May sunflower seed will already be available from the new crop. Apart from the requirements for human consumption there are in any case considerable supplies of infested groundnuts available for the pressing industry.

It will be seen therefore that the appearance of aflatoxin, to a dangerous extent, is something which is completely new in South Africa and that preventive steps were immediately taken when we became aware of its existence. The danger of aflatoxin poisoning has, however, been confined to animal feed mixtures and as far as feed mixtures were concerned immediate steps were taken, when we became aware of the danger, to ensure that dangerous oil cake was not supplied to agricultural producers. This aflatoxin infestation in groundnuts is well known overseas. The oil pressers there know how to set about ensuring that it did not appear in dangerous quantities in feed mixtures. That was why the board succeeded in finding a market overseas for a limited supply of infested supplies and the buyers were aware of this.

As far as the future is concerned, measures are already being taken to try to prevent a recurrence of the infestation as far as possible. The aflatoxin mould flourishes especially where you get the right amount of moisture accompanied by high temperature during the harvesting season. These circumstances prevailed during the 1963 harvesting season in the northern areas as a result of un seasonal rains during June 1963. It is surmised that infestation takes place particularly during the harvesting season when the groundnuts lie in heaps on the land but if the necessary conditions of moisture and temperature prevail the mould can also develop further during storage.

A pamphlet containing advice and hints to the producer has already been prepared and will shortly be distributed. In the meantime the first of a series of talks over the radio in this connection has already been delivered. The desirability of harvesting timeously and the precautionary measures to be taken during the harvesting season are emphasized as well as the necessity of a low moisture content to ensure that the groundnuts can be stored with safety. Naturally the extension officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are also kept informed so that they can assist producers with advice, etc. The Control Board will also consider ways and means to encourage its agents and producers, by way of price fixations and by prescribing the grades, to take the necessary precautionary steps during the harvesting season and so as to limit this danger to the minimum.

I think. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will agree that when this infestation became known all necessary steps were immediately taken to keep infested groundnut oil cake and even groundnut seed out of the trade and I think that instead of attacking us and saying that we did not do enough he ought to congratulate the Department and the Oil Seed Control Board and the pressers on having taken action so quickly in order to smother this danger at birth.

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister when he says that the Department took all the necessary steps. It seems to me that his Department took very little interest in human health. There is no evidence whatsoever that his Department, with this dangerous foodstuff floating about the country, apparently in several thousands of tons, took any steps whatsoever to inform the Department of Health of this fact. I happen to know that up to about eight o’clock this morning one of the regional departments of Health in the Republic knew nothing about this infection at all nor its danger to humans. How are the doctors to know what is happening when they are not informed by the Department of Health whose duty it is to inform them? How would an ordinary doctor, who is called to a sick child, suspect for one moment that a few seemingly innocent handfuls of monkey-nuts, which every child will gobble down with the greatest of glee and which every member of this House no doubt has eaten, contain a deadly poison? I am certain that had the Minister’s Department informed the Department of Health of these facts the Department of Health would have had the disease investigated and would have issued notices to doctors warning them of the danger and if possible, instructing them how to deal with such cases, especially as the symptoms are very often masked by other diseases and imitate the symptoms of other diseases. I think this reflects gravely upon the Minister and his Department.