When the discussion was interrupted yesterday I was discussing the alleged shortage of teachers. I concluded my remarks with a statement that I want very much to repeat and emphasize and that is that it has been proved in our history over and over again that every new development of the Whites has led to the supplying of the necessary labour forces for the maintenance and improvement of that development. As far as the academic sphere is concerned, I believe that in this country it is not so much a question of a lack of manpower to cope with the present growth, although I do admit that there is a shortage in certain highly specialized spheres, but is more a question of the judicious placing in employment of trained people who are able to do more responsible work. I do not think that we can permit an artificial restriction upon our growth to lead to gifted people being used in the performance of less important work. Indeed, a normal growth takes the trained workers higher up the ladder to the top and those people who are gifted are promoted in order to fill these vacancies. This has been the experience that we have had with, for example, the university colleges for the Coloureds and the Bantu. These institutions have all succeeded in obtaining the necessary teachers. They have attracted these people mainly from the other institutions and, I think that I can say, without this having a very adverse effect upon those existing institutions.

I would like to reply to the question of whether we have sufficient teachers by giving a few interesting figures. At the moment, we are producing 5,000 graduates per year of whom 1,000 obtain advanced degrees and 100 doctors’ degrees. About 1,000 people go abroad for further study, mostly for advanced degrees, and of these, 100 also obtain doctors’ degrees. We therefore have a potential of about 200 doctorates per annum. But what is more, if a university is at all worth its salt, one of its advantages will be that it will be able to supply its own needs, or, at least, to supply most of its own needs. I believe that the proposed university at Port Elizabeth will be able to attract more students from that group which at present is not attending or cannot attend some or the other university. I believe that it will gradually be able to obtain teachers from that group.

But if we approach the matter from another quarter and we presume what I do not believe—that there is indeed a shortage of teachers in the light of our present growth—then I would like to point out that the average number of students per faculty member in the Republic of South Africa is 13. I am speaking now of the Whites only, but I may say in passing that in the case of White and non-White jointly the number is also 13. In contrast to this we find that in Germany the average number of students per faculty member is 24 and in Holland it is 26. I ask myself whether any member will have the courage to stand up in this House and say that the university work that is done in Germany and in Holland is of an inferior standard to that done in this country. I also believe that even if there is a temporary shortage of academic personnel our present teachers at the universities are sufficiently conscious of their calling to take more upon themselves, if necessary, and teach more students in order by this means to release teachers for this proposed institution. I heartily support the establishment of this university and I wish everyone concerned with it every success. As I said yesterday, I trust that the success that they achieve will strengthen us on the Witwatersrand in our efforts to have a second university established there.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) who has just sat down has been talking about the shortage of teachers and technical manpower. We agree, and that is why we on this side support in principle the establishment of this university, but before we do so I would like to say in all seriousness that while this university, we hope, will help to correct the shortage of manpower, there are some essentials in this Bill which cannot be accepted without clarification. There is a need for a university in Port Elizabeth to train expert personnel for local industry as well as for the industries and social services of South Africa as a whole, and this side of the House also believes that a genuine bilingual university will be a meeting-point of English-and Afrikaans-speaking students. But we feel, too, that the establishment of this university could be made an important factor in welding the two language groups of our nation into South African national unity. I myself, as the hon. the Minister will recollect, advocated last year the establishment of a bilingual pre-university college as a factor to encourage national unity, but this college which I advocated, like the institution referred to in the Bill before the House, must remain bilingual. The safeguards requested by this side of the House are concerned with two main principles. They are mainly the high standards of teaching and true and free bilingualism.

Before dealing with these points, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of finance. In this Bill I see no reference to the sources of finance. While one understands that there are certain private sources busy at this moment finding finance for this university, this Bill has been introduced by the Government, and this is not a private Bill but a Government Bill, according to Mr. Speaker’s ruling yesterday. I feel that the Minister should state in this Bill the mode of financing, the capital cost of establishing the university, and also the annual cost of running it. I would like to have the Minister’s answer to this question of finance.

The second point I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is that I feel that the amendment which the Minister has put forward to Clause 8 is an improvement. As it stood in the original Bill the clause would give the Minister the power of blocking the appointment of a principal selected by the university council if the choice of the council did not coincide with that of the Minister, in which case the clause as it stands states that the principal should be appointed “in that other manner prescribed by statute”. Now one felt that this interference with the freedom of choice by the council had a sinister air about it, and one feels that the Government and the Minister have been well advised to avoid creating suspicion in the minds of the public that the Government intended to place its “stooge” in the Chair of the Rector of that university. Secondly. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this further point of possible friction, and that is Clause 10. It is important to the public to assure them of the avoidance of any possible appearance of sectarianism in the composition of the Senate of this new university, if we want to achieve a truly bilingual establishment; and yet this clause as it stands discloses the intention of the Minister. He could, if he so wished, pack the Senate with his appointees, because sub-section (2) states that the Minister can appoint members to the Senate but not less than the other members of the Senate, the other members of course being the principal of the university, two members elected by the university council and the professors of that university; and furthermore, in sub-section (10) (i) (d) it states that persons appointed by the Minister in respect of each faculty shall be professors in the corresponding faculties of Rhodes University or the University of Stellenbosch. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention particularly to the word “or”. Now, as it stands, this wording would leave the Minister free to appoint all the members of the Senate, if he so wished, either from Rhodes or Stellenbosch. I feel that the English-speaking section of this country has good reason to fear any implication of the packing of the Senate. We wish therefore to draw the Minister’s attention to this, as I notice that he has not put any amendment concerning this clause on the Order Paper. The test of the general intention behind this Bill is contained in Clause 14, to which the Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper. This section, as it stands, perpetuates the iniquitous curtailing of the freedom of choice of the medium of learning which already exists in primary and secondary education. We on this side maintain that academic freedom demands that in a genuinely bilingual university the student should have the right to choose both, or either English or Afrikaans, as the language medium of instruction, and furthermore, in practice, for the efficiency of the running of a bilingual university, such freedom of choice is demanded. This could be demonstrated very easily by a single example. Let us assume that you have a Faculty of Science at this university, and in that Faculty of Science the Chair of Physics has to be filled, and through advertisement or invitation the best qualified man or woman has to be selected, and such a person may be English speaking or Afrikaans speaking, or bilingual, and similarly in this department a lecturer in specialized subjects like electricity or magnetism or thermodynamics would be bilingual. It is surely for the students themselves to make the selection in what medium they want instruction. I notice that in terms of the Minister’s amendment the circumstances under which the instruction shall or may be given through the one language or the other shall be determined by the Senate. I would suggest to the Minister that this should surely be determined, if possible, by the students themselves, and that they should have the right to select the language, because it would be unjust to students to limit their teaching because of any restrictions. The Minister should bear in mind that with the shortage of personnel it may be difficult or impossible to fill every post with bilingual people, and in addition the cost of running the university might become prohibitively expensive if every Chair or lectureship has to be duplicated.

Order! I think the hon. member should not go into such detail.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, but I feel that the Minister should lay the emphasis on the students rather than on the Senate.

There are various other aspects of the establishment of this new university which concerns the public in general. Educational bodies have expressed their opinions and I feel that these voices should be heard before Parliament decides on the final form of this very important Act. While one appreciates that a commission has already sat on the desirability of establishing this university, I fully support the request from this side of the House that this Bill should go to a Select Committee to canvass the opinions of responsible persons and the educational bodies, including the two Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes, and also the Municipalities of Port Elizabeth and East London, in order to present to this House the best form of legislation and to improve the contentious parts of the Bill which have been referred to by members on this side.

There is a further important reason for asking for a Select Committee, and that is the necessity for allaying the fears and suspicions of those sections of the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people of South Africa who are not supporters of this Government, and for the establishment of a truly bilingual university. The Bill, after having gone to a Select Committee, can be an important factor in bringing together the Afrikaans- and English-speaking youth, and bringing about the much-desired unity between the two White population sections. Therefore, in supporting the motion that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, I feel that the Government and the Minister would be well advised to go out of their way to demonstrate their honesty of purpose by appointing a Select Committee to deal with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply as far as possible in the course of my speech to the case put forward by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). Sir, we are concerned here with the establishment of a new university, which can be a source of inspiration and knowledge to us in the rapidly growing Republic of South Africa. South Africa, with her phenomenal growth in various spheres, needs not only one additional university but, according to expert reports, possibly even two within the next few years. It is definitely necessary to establish this university, and to establish it in Port Elizabeth. People who have undertaken research in this direction have made the allegation that at least 8 per cent of the people of every country are the people who take the lead in various spheres of life. They are the leaders of the community, and it follows also that they are the people who have received higher education. In South Africa, where we have a White population of 3,500,000 and a much bigger non-White population, a much more onerous task rests on the shoulders of the Whites and a much bigger percentage of the White population must receive higher education because at this stage the non-Whites still do not contribute their 8 per cent to serve or to lead the non-White population. That is why we cannot make a true comparison between the figures for South Africa and the figures for countries overseas because their populations are differently constituted. I say that according to statistics and according to the research which has been done by various committees, an additional one or even two universities will be needed within the next ten years. I am grateful that the first one is now going to be established in Port Elizabeth. As an inhabitant of the Witwatersrand I also want to express the hope immediately that the second vacancy will be filled by establishing an Afrikaans university on the Rand.

But let us come back to Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth is now to be given a university but I was very interested to discover in one of the old works of reference which I looked up that there was a time earlier on when higher education was available in Port Elizabeth. I found a booklet written by Professor A. S. Kidd, who was chairman of the Senate of Rhodes. This booklet entitled “Higher Education in the Cape Colony, 1874-1910” contains quite a number of interesting bits of information about the educational institutions of the Cape Province in the previous century, with specific reference to Port Elizabeth. Grey Institute which used to be in Port Elizabeth gave higher education as far back as 1880-3 and even had students taking the B.A. degree. It is interesting to see that in those days there was an inspection of the various colleges and that an inspector-general named Donald Ross was appointed there. Well, we have a Mr. Donald Ross in this House at the moment, but even in those days this educationist displayed much more loyalty to South Africa and its education than this hon. member does.

Why do you say that?

I want to quote a few arguments in connection with this matter. Here is a report which was brought out by this Mr. Ross—

He held the view in those days that one central body should be established and that all universities and higher education institutions should be established as subdivisions of this super-body. What happened in practice in the following period proved, of course, that this was impracticable and impossible.

But to come nearer to Port Elizabeth again, there were six colleges in those days and he says that according to the numbers even the six together did not justify one university. He says—

Then he comes to this institution in Port Elizabeth—

I want to read out one further quotation and that is from the report which he drew up on this specific college, Grey Institute. He quotes from the report of the S.G.E. in 1885 and this is how he puts it—

This booklet was written in 1910—

In other words, there were higher education institutions in Port Elizabeth as far back as that year. The fact of the matter is that that institution came to an end, and from this conglomerate of colleges there arose the Universities of Cape Town, Stellenbosch and Rhodes and a number of teachers’ training colleges. As has already been pointed out, the number of Whites in Port Elizabeth has increased to 103,000 and these people, or large numbers of them, are people who actually work, middle-class people who make an honourable and decent living but who are not so well off that they can afford to send their children to distant universities and to pay for board and lodging there. In that respect the establishment of the university will bring about a very great improvement for Port Elizabeth and its environs because a large number of students will not be deprived now of university education because of economic considerations.

I come to the question of donors and the collection of funds. It is very encouraging to see that the target of R750,000 which was set as the amount to be contributed by the people of Port Elizabeth has already been passed. It only goes to show that those people have the determination and the will to have an institution of this kind. That brings me back to this whole question of donors and the collection of funds, and I think the House will be interested to hear a few figures from the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I have looked up the allowances which are given by the State and the income which occurs to the various universities. I have worked out that in Cape Town the contribution of the Government per student is R253 as agains R143 which is collected by the university itself. In Johannesburg the State’s contribution is R296 as against a collection of R201 per student. At Rhodes the State’s contribution is R404 whilst the university’s own income is R134 per student. In Natal the State subsidy is R308, as against R133. In Pretoria the subsidy is R224 per student as against R113 from the university’s own funds. In Stellenbosch the State subsidy is R256 as against R109; in the Orange Free State it is R299 as against R90 and in Potchefstroom it is R366 as against R105. In every one of our institutions the State subsidy is much bigger than, and in some cases more than three times as much as, the amount contributed from the institutions’ own funds, which clearly proves that the State is fully discharging its duty in respect of higher education, and as far as this institution is concerned it will also discharge its duties to the full.

I want to come to the Bill itself. The first feature which distinguishes this Bill from previous Bills is that it is not a Private Bill but is being introduced by the Government itself. The second interesting feature is that what is being established here is not a university college but a university. We have had the criticism from the Opposition in respect of Clause 10 that the constitution of the Senate of this university is such that the Minister can pack the senate, to use the last speaker’s words. Our task, however, is to see that this institution becomes a recognized institution and that its degrees are recognized. Before it achieves status amongst the institutions of the world and before it can hold its own in South Africa and acquire the reputation which our older universities have, there is the problem, of course, of having its degrees recognized and its standard accepted. In my opinion, therefore, the Minister is perfectly correct in laying down the policy that the members of the senate will be appointed, half from Stellenbosch and half from Rhodes, and that these two universities jointly will have more representatives serving on the senate of the Port Elizabeth university than Port Elizabeth itself. That means that the two older institutions will have the majority on the senate; they will, therefore, give the necessary status to it and will exercise supervision over the standard, thus ensuring recognition of the degrees. The authority and the influence of the two other institutions will gradually disappear with the granting of recognition, with the result that we will then find, as at all the other universities, that the senate will be constituted on quite a different basis. I feel, therefore, that the Opposition is unnecessarily raising a hullabaloo here. There is nothing sinister or ideological in connection with this matter. The object is to give status to this institution and to have its degrees recognized by constituting its council in such a way that there will be no doubt as to the standard of the work which is produced there.

Then I come to the language question, which is apparently another sore point with the Opposition. The Minister has stated perfectly clearly that we are dealing here with a bilingual institution; that it will be an institution in which both languages will be used, and what happens in practice will depend upon the circumstances as they develop there. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has just put forward the proposition that the student should be able to choose in which language he wishes to receive his training. Mr. Speaker, is that practicable; is it administratively practicable if to begin with there is a small number of students? I am not talking about the B.A. class for Afrikaans or history or one of the popular subjects, a class in which there are going to be many students; I am talking about those specified courses which will be taken by only a few students. Let us assume that there are seven or eight students taking a certain course and that five of them prefer Afrikaans as the medium of instruction and two English. Does the hon. member really want this institution to go to the expense of appointing two professors for that particular subject or to have two sets of lectures, one lecture in Afrikaans and the next lecture in English? Must this be done for people in the Republic of South Africa which has stood for a policy of bilingualism ever since 1910? Has she really so little confidence in people of matriculation standard that she believes that they are not bilingual, that they will not be able to follow a lecture in the second language when they go to university? I know—and it was a shock to me to discover this—that there are certain places where little attention is paid to bilingualism. I do not want to talk about it here but may I just mention the City Council of Cape Town. I must mention it here because it shocked me when I happened to walk up the Avenue above Adderley Street and saw a notice board there, put up by the Town Clerk of Cape Town, on the instructions of the City Council, on which there was painted, “Kennis geskiet” (it sounds as though they want to shoot the doves in the Avenue) “hiermee dat ennigeen”.

Order!

I am talking about bilingualism in this sense that we have had bilingualism since 1910, and I accept that we are going to have bilingualism at this university because our matriculants are capable There is no doubt that the whole country of understanding the second language, but it comes as a shock to me that in actual fact the City Council of Cape Town still does not practice bilingualism. Let me state the position perfectly clearly. The fact that we are going to make this university a bilingual institution is in no way a departure from or a violation of the National Party’s policy of mother-tongue instruction. On the contrary the policy of mother-tongue instruction is educationally correct and that is why we will adhere to it, but we believe that our children should be able, when they reach high school and after high school, to receive their training in any one of the two official languages. It is therefore no departure from our policy of mother-tongue instruction, but in the primary schools we will adhere to it because it is in the interests of the child on purely educational grounds and not on political grounds, as Opposition members always seek to suggest.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I want to come to Clause 23—the other objection which came from the Opposition—namely the constitution of the temporary council. I think this objection came from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). After all, Clause 23 states perfectly clearly—

1. (a) such persons, not exceeding nine, as the Minister may appoint as members of the Council shall also be such members. …

The hon. member for Kensington strenuously objects to this as though the Minister is coming along here with a packed council, but surely it is perfectly clear that there is no question here of packing the council. It is quite clear that the Minister has no sinister motive here. This is an interim council which is being constituted until the statute is promulgated, and it is a question of time before that can be done. Why this objection is being raised, only hon. members of the Opposition themselves will know. Finally, the Opposition objected to the appointment of the Rector; to the fact that the Minister has to approve of the appointment of the Rector, the principal of the university. But surely that is the position in respect of every university institution in our country at the present time. It is stated in their statutes in one form or another that the appointment of the Rector shall be subject to the approval of the Minister. Why then create the impression abroad that this is only being inserted into the statute of this institution and that it does not appear in the statutes of the other universities? Why this great hullabaloo; why these insinuations? No, the position is perfectly clear to me. Sir, before I come to my final point I want to say just a few words about the Opposition’s attitude that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. We all accept—it was stated perfectly clearly by the Opposition—that there was a fairly great hullabaloo at the beginning about the establishment of this institution, but to-day everybody, even including the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), accepts that that fuss is over and done with and that to-day there is co-operation in connection with this whole matter. In other words, the problem has resolved itself. Certain problems did arise; there was a certain amount of unpleasantness, but in actual fact the problem has now resolved itself completely. Why appoint a Select Committee now to call up all those people to come and tell us here how they quarrelled? Such a Select Committee would be nothing but a platform for gossip; what else could it be? Why rake up all these old stories again? It would serve no useful purpose. The problem has resolved itself. The City Council of Port Elizabeth wholeheartedly supports the establishment of this institution; both the university of Rhodes and the University of Stellenbosch wholeheartedly support it and the whole of the United Party wholeheartedly supports it. What would be the purpose of a Select Committee in this connection other than to delay this matter? No, I do not think any argument has been advanced here which justifies the appointment of a Select Committee to delay this matter further and unnecessarily. There is a need for such an institution; members of the public have made their contribution; they have demonstrated their willingness quite clearly; the City Council of Port Elizabeth has donated the land; everything is in readiness; the time is as ripe as it could possibly be, and I think it would be mean towards Port Elizabeth and its inhabitants to go and delay this matter by the appointment of a Select Committee.

I want to conclude by conveying our congratulations to Port Elizabeth and by expressing the view that here we are going to have a university, which at the moment will be different from other universities in its constitution and in its form but where we are very clearly going to find one spirit only, and that is the spirit that we expect and that we are going to have at this university because it has grown out of this co-operation—a spirit of putting the interests of South Africa above all other interests in every respect.

There is no doubt that the whole country welcomes the establishment of a university in Port Elizabeth. People would similarly welcome the establishment of a university in other parts of the country. It is not only important for Port Elizabeth and its environs that a university should be established there, it is important for the whole country, and because it is important for the whole country one believes that it is necessary for the whole country to hear the details as to why an institution of this sort should be established in Port Elizabeth. The mere fact that hon. members on the Government side are so keen to avoid having a Select Committee makes me suspicious that it is necessary to have a Select Committee. I feel that there must be reason for suspicion. I don’t know. I know the Minister and I know how he carries out his work; he carries it out efficiently and along one line. Sir, let us say that the establishment of this university has become necessary. May I say constructively now that we who know how much this country needs selected manpower as much as ordinary manpower must make every effort to enroll into this university as many students as possible, students in all fields of scientific activity. I was a little perturbed when the Minister said that the university would open up with only certain faculties. I would like to see the university start off with those faculties which are difficult to establish, those faculties in which we find to-day that South Africa has the greatest shortage of manpower. I will come back to that in a moment. Let us just deal firstly with the suspicion I have about this university. The Minister has taken upon himself the power to veto the appointment of a principal. The Minister will virtually pick the man he wants. It is no good saying that he will not do that; he will do it. Not only will the Minister pick the principal but at the same time he will also select the person who will act as vice-chancellor and chairman of the senate. Sir. I am not afraid of the actions of this Minister. He is not always going to be the Minister of Education. There is going to be a change. He knows that as well as I do. But what I am perturbed about is the damage that may be done between now until the change does take place, and that is why we want certain safeguards. The safeguard which I want to see entrenched in this Statute is most important, and that is that the university shall remain a bilingual university. I do not like the attitude of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Muller) who, in the course of his speech here this afternoon, said that if there were not enough students to justify the continuation of classes in one language or another then one language only shall be used. The Minister says that we have passed the stage where we should concern ourselves with which language is going to be used in the class. I am concerned about that. I am concerned to protect the rights of the minority, and if there are five Afrikaans students and 25 English students it is not necessary for the lectures to be given solely in English and vice versa. You must remember, Sir, that in this university we hope that there will be a 50-50 enrolment of Afrikaans- and English-speaking students. We have to make sure that this Minister does not interfere in such a way that the rights of any of the students are interfered with. It must be the right of the student to pick the language in which he wishes to be taught. There are many, many students to-day who speak one language or the other and who want to be taught in the other language. I know that if I had to go back to university to-day I certainly would not go to an English-medium university. I would specifically go to an Afrikaans-medium university where I would have the privilege of learning the other language. That is what we want; we want to see parallel classes, and if this university is a success it can prove how wrong the Minister was when he advocated mother-tongue education in high schools as well when he was in the Transvaal Provincial Council. We want to reach the stage in South Africa where this university can be an example to the high schools, a university where both language groups can go and learn through the medium of the language of their choice. If it cannot be a success in these schools then it is going to be difficult for it to be a success at the university.

Why?

Because the age group at university is very similar to the age group at high school. You get boys of 16 going to university and you get boys of 18 who are still in matriculation.

What about that?

They should have the same choice in the schools which they have in the universities. That is what I want. It is surely wrong that only a student at university should have that right, and I hope that the establishment of this university is going to prove how wrong we have been in the past. As I have said, we have to protect the rights of the minority groups who wish to be educated through the medium of one language or the other, and it must not depend on the home language of the child or the student. It must depend entirely upon the wishes of the student and not on the language which he speaks at home. That is one of the most important aspects of this matter.

Why the wishes of the student? He must know the two official languages or he ought to know them.

What the hon. member has just said amazes me. It has been one of the disappointments of teaching in the high schools that it has not produced bilingualism. We have heard over and over again that very many high school children who have passed matriculation are not bilingual. We have heard that from the Afrikaans groups and from the English groups and you know, Sir, as well as I do, that that is a fact. You only have to go into the services where we have an enrolment of high school students from both groups and we find them deficient in both languages. They are not proficient either in English or in Afrikaans. Only a few of them are thoroughly bilingual. We must try to avoid that. The reason for that is the failure of the unilingual schools. I hope that this university is going to prove our point. Sir, I want to come to a very important aspect of this university, one that concerns me personally as a doctor. I have from time to time said in the House how short we are of medical personnel. I make an appeal to the Minister to start his medical faculty at Port Elizabeth as soon as possible. One of the tragedies of this country is that Ministers from time to time have neglected the call to increase the number of students at university who take up medicine. We have asked from time to time for an enlargement of the medical faculty in the already established universities but nothing has been done. All sorts of excuses have been given. I ask the Minister this afternoon to establish a medical faculty at Port Elizabeth immediately. In Port Elizabeth he has a chance which is denied to many other towns. He has sufficient hospital material there; he has sufficient space and I am sure he has sufficient money and, as he well knows, he has the support of at least 200 doctors in the area who will help to establish that medical faculty. That is something that must be started immediately. Even if he started this afternoon and, even if the first students entered the portals of the medical faculty this afternoon, it would still take seven years at least for that student to become a doctor.

It is going to take many more years.

As the Minister says, it is going to take many more years. There are the buildings to be erected and all sorts of things to be done. That is why I say let us start now, and let the Minister say that if he does nothing else he will at least establish a medical school as soon as he possibly can. He will have an opportunity there of teaching not only White students, but because of the non-White population in the adjacent areas such as the Transkei and because of the hospital accommodation in Port Elizabeth he will have an opportunity also to train non-White doctors. I make this appeal to him this afternoon and I say to him that if he does that he will justify the establishment of this university.

Sir, I do not want to keep the House any longer. I wish the Minister every success in his undertaking. I am sure that the people will give him every help. I am also certain that the industrialists and the businessmen in and around Port Elizabeth are waiting to help him not only to establish this university but to keep it going. I hope that all will listen to the appeals which have come from this House and put their hands deeply in their pockets and give to the university and give to the students who want to attend the university and who cannot afford to pay their university education.

When a new university is founded in South Africa it is, to my way of thinking, a joyful day for the whole nation. I say this because in the world and in the Africa in which we are living to-day, we cannot afford to lose any of our intellectual material. Our best answer to the attacks made upon us to-day is to put to the best use our youthful mental material; that is also why it is our best investment.

In the years just after Union came about, viz. in 1911, only one out of every thousand of our White population was a student. In those years the comparable figure of the United States of America, which is generally considered to be the leading Western power, was one student out of every 250 of the population. By 1961 there was one out of every 83 students in South Africa as against one out of every 50 in the United States of America. This enormous increase of students, of studying youths, is closely related to the progress made by our country in the economical, political and many other spheres and here we get a very clear picture of the advantage of making full use of our youthful intellectual material. Because of the constant attacks being made upon us we must promote every opportunity to make the best use of our intellectual material. South Africa is second to-day in the Western world with regard to the number of students in ratio to its total population. To-day there are 20.1 students per thousand of the population in the United States of America. Next comes the White population of South Africa and South West Africa with 12.1 per thousand. Canada is next with seven students per thousand; New Zealand with 6.6; Australia with five and the United Kingdom with 2.2 per thousand. That we have advanced so far is something to be proud about, but I do not think that this can be a reason for saying that there is no need for new university facilities in South Africa especially in view of the fact that it is accepted in the West that a residential university is most effective if it has not more than 5,000 to 6,000 students enrolled, and quite a number of universities in South Africa have passed this mark.

When we consider the environs of Port Elizabeth specifically we find that we are dealing with the fifth biggest city in our country, a city which is the centre of a very busy hinterland, a large area of the Cape where, true enough, they have Rhodes University at Grahamstown, but where still a large number of the students must go elsewhere to get their university training. Because this entails having to go elsewhere full use is not being made of the opportunity to obtain university education. I have said that it should be a joyful day when a new university is founded especially when it is established in this large city where up to now there has been no university; therefore everyone will rejoice in the friendly spirit in which this Bill is discussed in this House, and in the general welcoming of this Bill and the best wishes for this university expressed from both sides of the House, in spite of what had happened previously in connection with the establishing of the University of Port Elizabeth. The sooner we forget that bit of history the better. Yet I do think it will be fitting to tell my colleagues on the other side that they should be careful not to take part in a political agitation so easily and so quickly because they think that it might gain a few votes for them temporarily. They should be careful particularly in a matter like this where it concerns the future of our country and the welfare of our youth.

Look who is talking now!

The hon. member who made that interjection knows what is written in the papers that support him. He knows what the comment of some of his colleagues was. The sarcastic suggestion was even made during the past week in a newspaper on the Witwatersrand that the aim with this university is to gain a few extra seats for the Nationalist Party in Port Elizabeth.

Mr. Speaker, I want to leave this matter there and express the hope that we will no longer have this sort of thing in this country, and that the members opposite will refrain from taking part in such agitations for the sake of temporary gain. We need not debate the matter of the head of a university in the environs of Port Elizabeth any more and that is why I also see the request for a Select Committee which came from the other side of the House as an attempt to delay this measure which actually wants to expedite the drawing up of the statute of this new university so that the machinery can be set in motion. I can only regard the request for a Select Committee as delaying tactics, perhaps delaying tactics to give satisfaction to those elements outside who opposed the idea of a new university, to try and play an ambiguous game. Mr. Speaker, what will we gain by a Select Committee? We will only create an opportunity for a repetition of the unpleasantness which arose in this regard and which we would like to forget as soon as possible. While I welcome the spirit of this discussion I cannot but express my regret that here and there the members on that side showed signs of sowing suspicion as to the intention of the Government in establishing this university; there were signs of creating suspicion and the fear was expressed whether bilingualism would be practised there to the full; suspicion was created about the appointments in the senate, and about the appointment of a rector of that university. I really do not think that it is fitting in a case like this. If one compares the history of the growth of university facilities in South Africa with that in Great Britain one sees a considerable amount of similarity. In Britain there were initially the two large universities, the two well-known ones which are still there to-day, namely, Oxford and Cambridge, and much later, after Britain had developed, also as an industrial country, and when scientists had to be trained for it, one finds the establishment of local universities in the larger urban areas, or as they call them, the “Civic Universities”. Here in South Africa we also had in the beginning the Universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch and later others followed in the larger centres of the country and now we have reached the stage where they are also spreading to other large urban areas. But what is also interesting about the history of universities in South Africa is that shortly after Union, when serious thought was given to this matter, there were also opinions that the various universities should be grouped together in certain areas, as there were also opinions that a new university should rather not be established at Port Elizabeth, but that Rhodes University, with its extramural department, should continue to serve the population of Port Elizabeth. At that time a commission of inquiry was appointed and the finding of this commission was that two large universities should be established apart from the University of South Africa, one for the North and one for the South, and the southern one should take Cape Town, Stellenbosch and Rhodes under its wings—a kind of federal university—and the same in the north. Fortunately that plan was not accepted because it was met with strong opposition. Interesting on this occasion to-day is the opinion put before the commission by the well-known Professor Freemantle. In his memorandum he said among other things:

Where he gave this opinion about the advantages of all areas having their own universities he referred to the experience gained in Great Britain. As I see it, what Prof. Freemantle said here not only relates to the necessity of having universities in their own environs but it also relates to the other matter debated here namely, whether such a university which is going to be established in an industrial city like Port Elizabeth is aimed primarily at supplying technologists, to train people for the industries. There I want to agree with Prof. Freemantle in what he says in this memorandum that the function of such a university is a local one, and that it awakens interest, through channels at its disposal, in that local area for study in directions other than those which are required locally, because it will bring the local inhabitants and the local youth in contact with the advantages and opportunities of university education.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill covers but an intermediate phase, because otherwise in the case of the coming into being of our present universities, which developed out of university colleges, this university will have to be built up out of the ground. Hon. members opposite who have doubts should see the Bill in the light that this is but an interim Bill, and then many of their doubts will vanish. The council of this university, which is coming into being will draw up its own Statute and as it grows and develops amending legislation will again be introduced here to change the composition of its council and senate. In other words, the fears that hon. members opposite have, will vanish because we are dealing with an interim measure. Because this university will be the first of its kind in the sense that it is a declared bilingual university it is perhaps necessary for us to pause to deal with this aspect. Hon. members opposite expressed their doubts as to whether bilingualism will really be applied. Yesterday it was argued here whether it should be a parallel or a dual medium university. I want to agree with what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said that it would be, as was stated, a bilingual university. When we talk about a bilingual university in a bilingual country, I do not think anybody can have any doubts or fears that both language groups will receive just attention. The hon. member for Johannesburg North (Mrs. Weiss) to-day voiced her doubts about the constitution of the senate and that the hon. the Minister in terms of Clause 10 may probably pack the senate, I take it with Afrikaans-speaking members, pack it with professors of the university of Stellenbosch. However, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the point that every professor of the University of Stellenbosch, and as far as that is concerned, of every Afrikaans university, is a bilingual lecturer. I do not know whether this can be said about the lecturers at the English universities But I wish to make this point: There need be no fear for unilingualism in the constitution of the senate because everyone who will be appointed from the ranks of the University of Stellenbosch in this senate will be a bilingual person. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) yesterday paid his alma mater this unfriendly compliment when he asked, referring to Clause 10, what had now happened to the university autonomy of the University of Stellenbosch because the hon. the Minister can now appoint professors from the senate of this university to the senate of this new university-to-be and that the senate and the council of the University of Stellenbosch is not given the opportunity to nominate persons.

Surely that is so.

That is so, Sir, but the hon. member overlooked a very important point and this I want to put to him now. In the first place Clause 10 determines that the hon. the Minister shall appoint subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) in respect of each faculty of the university persons who must be professors in a corresponding faculty of the Rhodes University or the University of Stellenbosch. In other words, in constituting the senate of the new university there is a choice, either from a corresponding faculty of Rhodes or a corresponding faculty of Stellenbosch. If there is such a choice, how on earth can one say either to the senate of Stellenbosch or to that of Rhodes: Now you indicate the person.

You misunderstand everything.

No, Mr. Speaker, this point is as clear as daylight. The fact remains that the appointment in the interim rests with the hon. the Minister.

Let me mention another analogy case. Often teaching persons from the ranks of the professors of universities are appointed to commissions, boards etc. Recently professors from various of our universities were appointed to the Scientific Advisory Council. Were the university senates concerned asked: Whom do you recommend? Because the hon. the Minister in every case, in this case as well as in the other cases, has the responsibility to appoint someone he has the opportunity and that is why the opportunity is not there for the senate of the university concerned to propose someone. Therefore it is no transgression or infringement of the autonomy of that particular university.

You cannot get away with that.

The hon. member will have to agree that where the hon. the Minister has this task and where he has a choice between the two universities—Stellenbosch and Rhodes—the matter rests with him. The hon. member will further have to agree that the hon. the Minister will not appoint Professor A or Professor B on his own. He will go to the university authorities concerned and consult.

What does the Bill say?

But it is obvious, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will do so. It is also being done in practice to-day. I referred a short while ago to the appointment of the Scientific Advisory Council and there the universities concerned were also consulted.

Let us not argue further about this. I think the hon. member mentioned that point simply as delaying tactics and to raise objections to this Bill.

This brings me to the point of real bilingualism at this university. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that the Opposition accepts this aspect wholeheartedly because it is United Party policy. I think the hon. member and other hon. members opposite who spoke on this matter are completely in the dark as far as bilingualism at a high school and at a university is concerned. They are two completely different matters. Even though I should be criticized for it, I want to make this statement here to-day that it is not the function of a high school in the first case to make a pupil conscious of bilingualism. It is the function of a high school to impart to that child the necessary amount of knowledge, but after that child has left school and goes to a university, or goes further in life, then he must, with the knowledge of the second official language or any other language that he was taught at school make himself proficient, as far as the two official languages of the country are concerned, to be bilingual. The man who studies further will not only need the other official language, but he will also need other languages. The hon. member sitting next to me (Dr. Steyn) studied in Germany. Had he not learned this language at school and at the university here it would not have been possible for him to go and study there. I want to make this point here about all this argument about real bilingualism that the so-called Afrikaans universities are the true bilingual universities in this country to-day. I am not at all surprised that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said a moment ago that if he had to go to a university to-day he would go to an Afrikaans university. It does not surprise me at all because in fact the Afrikaans universities of this country are the bilingual universities.

That is your interpretation.

I will explain this point. I say this because the text books also at all these universities are in most cases predominantly English. Therefore the student has to make use, at least for study at home, of English text books and so from day to day he makes himself more proficient in that language. Yesterday reference was made to the University of Pretoria and that of the Free State. It was said that they also started as bilingual universities but later developed into so-called Afrikaans universities. But in practice they are still bilingual universities. Take the University of Stellenbosch of which the hon. member for Hillbrow is an old student. Even in these days when it is known as an Afrikaans university, nearly one-fifth of its students come from English speaking homes. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) only this morning went to the University office through my mediation and enrolled his son there to read law next year. The son of the hon. member for Constantia came as a student to Stellenbosch in my time. He could not speak Afrikaans because his father served in Britain as High Commissioner in his earlier years. What is the position of such a student who cannot speak Afrikaans? The bilingual Afrikaans lecturer repeats everything to such a student in the language that he can understand. The hon. member for Constantia can confirm that. It happened to his son. In the first years when he had not yet mastered Afrikaans, the lecturers taught him in his own language. I remember my own student years when I had a senior lecturer for a few years who could not speak a word of Afrikaans. He taught his subject in the English language but the university appointed him as lecturer because he was a first-rate and capable professional man. That is still the position at the University of Stellenbosch to-day. There are hundreds of English speaking students and they go there for the same reason as that given by the hon. member for Rosettenville to-day. And care is taken at those Afrikaans universities that the students, are taught in the language that they know best. I want to mention another point that yearly at the graduation ceremonies various doctors’ degrees are awarded where the thesis had been written by Afrikaans-speaking students in English at those Afrikaans universities. They do if for practical reasons; perhaps because most of their reference work was in English and because the technical terms of that particular subject was English in most cases. It has already happened that the thesis was handed in in another language, like German for example. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, there is not the least bit of doubt in my mind that the Afrikaans universities in South Africa to-day are really the practical bilingual universities. On that practical pattern this university at Port Elizabeth is now being established. It is being described by means of legislation as operating like these Afrikaans universities already do to a great extent. That is why I say that there need be no fear in this House about the extent or the pattern of bilingualism which there will be at the University of Port Elizabeth. It is not necessary to utter any fears in regard to that matter because that scaremongering can only lead to the English-speaking students in that area becoming estranged and that is something we are not anxious to have.

Mr. Speaker, the University of Stellenbosch which is going to act as guardian in connection with the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth has already given its full support to this institution in various ways; also in connection with the fund-raising it co-operated whole-heartedly. And the University of Stellenbosch will continue, in the shape of representation on the council of that university, in the form of representation on the senate and in the form of supplying external examiners, to give its whole-hearted support to this new university. That is why we want to express the hope that the new University of Port Elizabeth will help to utilize the intellectual talents of our young people further and better for the growth and safeguarding of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch, who has just sat down, gave us a long dissertation on what was to-day happening in that university town which he represents here. I want to tell the hon. member that he is correct of course when he says that that university plays an important role in stimulating bilingualism. But other universities are also doing that to-day, not only our Afrikaans universities but English language universities as well. As I was informed last year, for example, practically 50 per cent of the students at the Cape Town University are Afrikaans-speaking—they come from Afrikaans-speaking homes. So if that is the trend in South Africa then Stellenbosch is not the exception to the rule. I know Stellenbosch is playing an important role in that respect but it is also correct to say that the English language universities are following in precisely the same direction. That is the position in the case of Rhodes, for instance, where there are numbers of Afrikaans-speaking students. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) is himself an example of an Afrikaans-speaking person who finished his studies at Rhodes University. What I cannot understand is that the hon. member for Stellenbosch and other members opposite can accuse us of employing delaying tactics when we ask that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I cannot understand how that can be described as delaying tactics when we are dealing with a Bill, the principle of which has been under discussion in the Eastern Province for the past ten years or more, as far as I know. How can we be accused of employing delaying tactics when we ask for a Select Committee, a Select Committee which at the most will take three or four weeks before they will submit the legislation in its final form to this House. Surely we all know that it is the idea that the University of Port Elizabeth should start with its classes next year and where will it start with those classes? In the old buildings which the Rhodes staff are to-day using in Port Elizabeth. Why shall we be delaying it by merely postponing it for three weeks? The Board of Trustees have already been appointed; they can continue with their work. Let me give the hon. the Minister one reason—many have been given already—why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. We must remember that Port Elizabeth has a new City Council to-day. I do not want to argue about that; I am simply mentioning it. It is not the City Council which originally gave form to the idea of an own independent university. I noticed only this week in the Press that this legislation will only be discussed today by a sub-committee of that City Council. They are perhaps discussing it at this very moment; at the very stage when we are discussing it. Then hon. members maintain that insufficient reasons have been advanced why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee!

Why are they only discussing it to-day?

For this reason that they were only placed in possession of the details of this Bill a few days ago. If it is true that they are only discussing it to-day is it not perhaps necessary for us to hear the views of those people? Hon. members say we want to delay it. Why should we delay it? They admit that we all agree with them as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, but there is the question of the power of the Minister, the question of the constitution of the senate, the constitution of the council, etc., questions which, as hon. members have already stated, can be resolved out by a Select Committee. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) and the hon. member for Stellenbosch say that all we want to do in this Select Committee is to rake up old stories. Mr. Speaker, no chairman of a Select Committee will allow that. I ask the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who is an old parliamentarian, whether he can swallow such nonsense that we are adopting delaying tactics in order to rake up old stories? We are not asking for a Select Committee so as to rake up old stories but to improve this legislation still further. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort knows there is room for improvement in this legislation. The fact that the hon. the Minister himself has introduced amendments is an admission that there is room for improvement.

You were opposed to it in principle.

The hon. member is trying to distract my attention by saying that I was opposed to it in principle. The hon. member will learn during the course of my speech whether I am against the principle.

Mr. Speaker, for years influential persons and institutions in the Eastern Province have been making representations for Port Elizabeth to have its own institution. The question which always had to be answered was whether it was necessary and whether the development in the Eastern Province warranted it. These are the only two questions which must always be answered. However, when the Rhodes legislation was amended in 1960 that important principle was decided upon, namely, that we in Port Elizabeth admitted that Port Elizabeth had to have its own institution and that the development in Port Elizabeth justified it. We all know that Rhodes University, which was given the right by this Parliament to open a branch in Port Elizabeth, has done a great deal to meet the needs of Port Elizabeth and its immediate vicinity during the few years it has had at its disposal. Although the university had a considerable amount of money at its disposal, money it received from the City Council, it must nevertheless be added that the activities of Rhodes University in Port Elizabeth must have caused them great inconvenience at Grahamstown. It called for great sacrifices but without the youth who attended the branch in Port Elizabeth suffering in any way academically. It is only a person without any feeling who will not be deeply grateful to Rhodes for the wonderful work it has done in the past few years in Port Elizabeth. Many people in Port Elizabeth will be deeply hurt because Rhodes’ activities in that city will cease in the course of time. Many will feel hurt unnecessarily because the severity of the pain was closely related to unnecessary politicking and the stirring up of feelings.

In which you played a part.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort should listen to this. Both Afrikaans- and English-speaking people were guilty of this and I trust that we as a nation will emerge greater and not smaller in our outlook from such a struggle in which feelings had been stirred up.

I just want to deal with a few principals contained in this legislation, namely Clauses 2 and 3 and 14. The necessity for having our own institution in Port Elizabeth and for an additional institution in the Eastern Province is obvious. The Cape Province has three universities, two of which are situated in the Western Province and only one in the Eastern Province. Port Elizabeth is undoubtedly the most suitable place for another university in the Eastern Province. Port Elizabeth offers a legion of advantages and facilities; they are inexhaustible; they are unlimited. Let me just mention a few. Let us think of the motor industry in Port Elizabeth. It will fit in wonderfully well with such a university. The natural science faculty that will be established there and which will form the basis for the engineering profession, will fit in beautifully with that enormously strong motor industry at Port Elizabeth. We know, for example, that General Motors, Ford, Firestone, Samad and all those big industries concerned in the motor trade are going to spend enormous amounts of money here over the next decade or so. Tens of millions of rand will be spent. We know for instance that the wool growing industry regards Port Elizabeth as the most important port. Then we have the leather and shoe industry, not even to mention the heavy industries and the other manufacturing industries. All that will fit in beautifully with such a university bearing in mind the development we already have there and the development which will still take place in future.

Me must also take it that Port Elizabeth will get its fair share of immigrants, something which will make it even more essential for us in future to have an institution for higher education. We also think of the Orange River and Sundays River development which will take place there. That will mean tremendous expansion. The Eastern Province will be in great need of trained manpower and such a university will meet the needs of that development in the Eastern Province. Over and above that Port Elizabeth will be placed in this unique position that it will be able to serve a much greater hinterland. The argument is often advanced that existing universities should rather be extended and expanded instead of establishing new ones. Hon. members of this side of the House as well as on the other side have already pointed out that the number of universities in South Africa, in relation to the population, is not out of proportion in comparison with other parts of the world where they have far more universities per head of the population. But if we say that we must just extend existing universities surely we must apply the same principle in the case of our schools and colleges. And nobody will be so stupid as to suggest that we should apply that principle in respect of our schools and colleges. New schools and colleges are continually established.

When did you see the light?

I saw it many years before the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) saw it. I saw it is far back as 1956 and even before then. I already realized then that it was very necessary for Port Elizabeth to have its own institution.

I want to ask the hon. member whether the branch which Rhodes had in Port Elizabeth was not a unilingual institution.

Of course it was a unilingual institution. Just as the medical faculty of Stellenbosch in the northern suburbs is, as I understand, an Afrikaans-medium faculty. No country in the world can have too many universities. If we have more universities it will not of necessity mean a lowering of the standards. Nor will that come about overnight. It is only when it starts at the bottom that an institution eventually, with the passage of time, becomes a full-fledged institution. What you have to admit, Sir is this that you can always raise more enthusiasm for that which is your own and consequently the development will be much faster because of the support of the public. That, I believe, will happen in the case of Port Elizabeth. I do not for one moment doubt the ability of the Eastern Cape in the passage of time to cope with another full-fledged university. The potential is there. As a matter of fact, everybody realizes that a university is not only maintained by its own environment but that it is usually strongly maintained by distant areas. Hon. members opposite want to know when I saw the light. The hon. The Minister himself told us in this debate that the Government had changed its attitude. He said times had changed and for that reason they had changed and were to-day in favour of a bilingual university. If they want to change their attitude to-day, if they want to convince others, it is not necessary for them to try to convince this side of the House. We have for a long time believed in this principle which we stand for. Hon. members opposite, however, while congratulating Port Elizabeth, talk in the same breath about the possibility of a new university on the Witwatersrand, an Afrikaans university. Where we in the Cape Province are prepared to allow it to be a bilingual university why do they not ask their hon. Minister to make that new university on the Witwatersrand a bilingual university as well?

Make Wits bilingual.

The hon. member knows that we on this side of the House are in favour of every university being autonomous. That is his business; nobody will prescribe to them what to do, just as little as I will prescribe to Stellenbosch that it should become a completely dual medium university. It is for them to decide.

Mr. Speaker, this new institution must comply with certain demands. It will be some time before the feelings which have been stirred up will quiten down. The slightest indication, the slightest proof that what was envisaged is not being fulfilled, can do a great deal of harm to the undertaking. The hon. the Minister should rather use the power which he has under the law to assist the project than to lend an ear to cold political demands that may be put to him in future. Both sections must be made to feel equally at home in this new magnificent undertaking. The two language groups should be treated on an equal basis. That should not only be the ideal but it should be carried out in practice. What the project needs above everything else is the confidence of the public. If it gets that the institution will indeed be a great success. Why do I believe that that project will ultimately be a great success because in the year 1964 it is a very drastic departure from the historical procedure followed in the past; once again it is something new. Hon. members are inclined to say that we consist of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people but a large section of the nation use both languages in their homes, and for the first time in approximately 50 years’ time attention is once again given to this ever-growing group of our population which uses both languages in their homes, in other words, a group that will prefer to send their children to such an institution. We have been waiting for a long time for a real bilingual higher educational centre in South Africa. With the passage of time it will be a success because the attention of the whole country will be focused on this institution because of the disputes that preceded its existence as well as the inherent desire of the national groups to work in closer co-operation. We have already been told that both language groups were to an increasing extent attending existing institutions. We are already heading in that direction. That is merely becoming an accomplished fact and other institutions in South Africa may follow that example.

Finally, I believe that it can be a success because of the seat of the institution, namely Port Elizabeth. Port Elizabeth with its background of the 1820 Settlers and their traditions, with its background of the 1830 “Trekkers” and their background of sacrifices made for their country and the mutual respect those two sections had for each other and the strong bonds which still exist between them to-day. In spite of language and cultural differences I believe that will be the main reason why this institution will be a success—because it will assist South Africa, in the years to come, to create conditions under which the two national groups will be drawn still closer together.

It is gratifying to hear of someone becoming converted. That still goes back to the days of the Bible, namely that there is greater rejoicing over one lost sheep which is found than over the 99 which the shepherd has in the fold. I must say that in any case it took quite an appreciable time before that hon. member became converted, because I read in the Eastern Province Herald of Saturday, 23 February, that there was “a joint protest” of “East Cape M.P.s and M.P.C.s”. And they mention the names of all the members sitting here now: “Mr. T. B. Bowker, Mr. R. P. Plewman, Mr. D. Myburgh Streicher and P. R. Dodds.” If one now reads this protest and the grave objection to the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth, then I say thank you and heartily welcome them in the fold of the converted and those who believe in the welfare and progress of South Africa. I want to assure those hon. members that I am being neither cynical nor sarcastic. I say to them open heartedly: Welcome to the ranks of those who now want to tread a new path in South Africa.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

I do not know whether I have just said anything which justifies a question being put. I think the hon. member should just have a little patience. Perhaps he will have no questions to put when I have finished.

I want to start with the main speaker opposite in this debate, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I want to thank the hon. member for having described my speech as one which excluded politics and as an introductory speech which dealt with this matter on its merits. He congratulated me on that. But then the hon. member failed to see the trap and stepped into it. He immediately welcomed me into the ranks of those who adopt their policy. Then he dragged me headlong into politics, and immediately started with his dual-medium policy. I just want to tell the hon. member that there is no idea here of a dual-medium policy. The United Party right from the beginning tried to exploit this matter of a dual-medium policy in such a way that it ought to leave a bad taste in their mouths. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) knows that in 1955 a great fuss was made on the part of the English-speaking high school teachers in regard to the dual-medium policy. Principals of schools strongly objected because it was just impossible. If hon. members opposite still talk about a dual-medium policy, they are still living in the decade where one put one spoonful of English and one spoonful of Afrikaans in a cup, stirred it well and swallowed it. Sir, the days of that kind of measurement and the days of that kind of determination of rights is past. This is a bilingual country, with Afrikaans and English as the media of instruction. Let us now understand that once and for all, and if that is so, no citizen of South Africa today, if he cannot understand both languages and at least read them—I am not referring to the fact that a man prefers one language to the other as his home language—should make a university the subject of this type of squabbling. It is deplorable. I call it a squabble. It was nicely worded, in nice civilized language, and it was stated cautiously, but do not let us bluff each other here. This proposed amendment makes it quite clear to me that we are still very immature, particularly hon. members opposite, and in addition we are ignorant …

But you said that I had spoken intelligently.

The hon. member did speak intelligently when he congratulated me on not having dragged in politics and said that I had made a good speech. I think the praise expressed by the hon. member was deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice that I would move an amendment to the effect that the language media at this university would be English and Afrikaans and that the circumstances in which education would or could be given by means of one or the other language would be determined by the Senate. The Senate of the university is the body which has to do the work, and this Parliament cannot determine it. The statute will be drafted in such a way that the Senate will have the say, and they are the teachers who will have to teach those students, and particularly in the beginning the Senate will consist of the professors or lecturers of the university itself, of the University of Stellenbosch and of Rhodes University. I really do not think hon. members have taken the trouble to study it, but in the 1955 Act all domestic matters are entrusted to the Senate. The Senate concerns itself with domestic affairs in regard to education; it decides on the curricula and the content of the courses and the standard and scope of the knowledge required to pass in a subject (the examination). The Senate also decides on the medium of instruction. But because in the case of the other eight residential universities no problem exists because they are either English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, nothing is laid down in the regulation in regard to the media used. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) gave us a sound exposition of the procedure in an Afrikaans-medium university. I can support him on the basis of my knowledge of other universities, and I can also confirm that there are certain English universities where lectures are also sometimes given in Afrikaans. But here we now come and say that it is a definite requirement that the two languages should be used. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) wants to make it even more rigid. She will not find two stones which are alike. And it is unnecessary. It is such a pity that there is so much suspicion in regard to this matter. But you know. Sir, we did not have the difficulty with the academic and scientific people with whom we discussed this legislation. They are not party politicians. They are people who know how it works in practice. But here we now want to be suspicious and say: You must be careful. Let me put it frankly: “You English-speaking people must be careful. This group of Afrikaners is going to deceive you, and we will not allow it.” Mr. Speaker, those days are past, and I hope it will not be measured by the yardstick whereby if a man’s surname sounds Afrikaans he will be stigmatized as an Afrikaans-speaking person, and if his surname sounds English he will be stigmatized as an English-speaking person. Even those days are past. It is just the other way round in regard to many of the names I have mentioned, in so far as the language is concerned.

I now want to come to the most important criticism of the Bill. All of us were unanimous about the principle. But now they want a Select Committee. That really came as a shock to me, and Mr. Speaker on two occasions pointed out to hon. members opposite that they were really evading his ruling. Mr. Speaker ruled as follows—

And this is the important point—

Then Mr. Speaker says in conclusion—

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) wanted to force me to give a reply as to whether I would send this measure to a Select Committee before the second reading was in my opinion an attempt to evade the decision of Mr. Speaker. I shall explain why I say so. It is such an attempt because, when a Government measure is accepted as such, it is for the Government to say that it would like to have more information and more clarity on certain points, and it is for the Government to say that before the principle is accepted in the second reading the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has given us a long lecture on parliamentary practice. My standpoint is that if I were to agree to it, the hon. member knows that the principle of the establishment of this University will be in issue. And that is what those hon. members wanted, but as the result of Mr. Speaker’s decision they did not have the opportunity again to discuss whether a university should be established or not. They had to accept the principle of the establishment of the university, and then all this hullabaloo started here: Now we must at least get something out of it, and if the Minister does not grant it before the second reading but we can still get it after the second reading, we can still attain our object. Mr. Speaker, my question is what do those hon. members envisage by having a Select Committee? Do they want to re-hash all the information already given to them, and which ought to be common knowledge by now? Whom do they want to protect by means of a Select Committee? Whom do they think has suffered an injustice? What more do they want to know in connection with this whole matter? Do they think anything has taken place behind closed doors which they are hoping to ferret out? These are the questions which arise in one’s mind: Who is concerned in this matter? In the first place, it is Rhodes University. And now? And if they are now told what the position is, not by me but by Rhodes itself, what will they say then? We have arrived at a good understanding. I am not referring to the prehistory. We have come to an amicable settlement. Everybody in that university has come to realize that if this is Government policy, then we do it that way. And they did not do it under pressure. On 19 September I met the Rector of Rhodes with Professor Rennie, and also the Mayor of Port Elizabeth and one of the members of the Finance Committee. After three hours of consultation, the person who drafted this joint Press statement, Professor Hyslop, the Rector of Rhodes, was the one who accepted the following. I read it once again—

I read this to show that in all this confusion, in which the party politicians, and particularly the representatives of Port Elizabeth, took such keen delight in participating, this is the standpoint adopted by the people immediately concerned with the matter. The party politicians wanted to fish in troubled waters, because they hoped that they might be able to catch something there. Perhaps I should except the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds). He made a good speech yesterday, the best one of the four, and it rather seems to me that they forced him into doing something which he did not want to do. I still like him more than any of the others. Because after they had stirred up muddy water in Port Elizabeth, hoping here and there to catch a Nationalist fish, we had these consultations and the waters became clear.

Thereafter I had the privilege, at the request of the other two gentlemen, not only to make this announcement at a reception given us by the Mayor of Port Elizabeth, but also to say a few words, and with the exception of Mr. Edgar Crews, the whole audience and all the people with whom we then had cocktails, more than 300 of them, came and said: We thank you very much for having come here in order to throw light on these problems and to remedy them.

But now the hon. members opposite want a Select Committee. Let us get Crews and a few others and rake up the whole thing again and dig up the old skeletons so that they can rattle their bones and make a noise, and let us see whether in this way we cannot blow life into the United Party. I challenge any hon. member opposite to name any body or individual in Port Elizabeth who told them to come and ask here for a Select Committee. That does not come from Rhodes University, nor from the City Council of Port Elizabeth. It is not they who said that this Bill could not pass as it is. But here the United Party acts off its own bat, and its only solution is a Select Committee. I think, Mr. Speaker, they were obstructed by your ruling. They thought that they could win their point on a technicality, but your wise ruling, based on the facts, made it difficult for them to do so. The hon. members found themselves in a difficult position, and on 8 November I was able to release a statement to the Press in which I said this—

I sent this Press statement both to the Rector of Rhodes and to the Mayor of Port Elizabeth before it was published, and the Mayor replied to me as follows on 20 December—

Now the United Party come here, late as usual, and after all the problems have been solved in Port Elizabeth and there is peace and quiet and co-operation, they say, “Appoint a Select Committee to determine whether Port Elizabeth should have a university.” Has one ever heard such nonsense? I have never heard the like. Speaker after speaker got up, and when in a moment I come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and what he had to say, namely that even the contents of the Bill may be improved by such a Select Committee, I should like to take the opportunity to point out that even an hon. member like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who ought to know better, made alarming statements. But I shall come to that. Mr. Speaker, I allege that Rhodes has been heard and that it has given its reply. I say that a Select Committee can in no way improve the matter, and that it would rather confuse the whole matter and drag it into politics, whereas we have succeeded in keeping it out. But I was also an eye-witness of what happened in Port Elizabeth right from the start, and let me say this. You cannot bring me one person in Port Elizabeth who said: We are doing this to the detriment of Rhodes and to gain advantage for ourselves. Their slogan was: We do not want to harm Rhodes, but we are pro-Port Elizabeth, and we do not see how we can harm it in regard to its number of students, because they themselves said that within ten years—and that was said in 1962—their number of students would double itself. That is after this investigation took place.

I gave the House an analysis in broad terms of where the students of Rhodes University come from, but perhaps it is just as well for me to show hon. members how the number of students at Rhodes cannot be affected by this university.

That is not necessary.

It is very important, because hon. members opposite think that we will now harm Rhodes. The homes of the students, where they come from, were as follows in 1962: From the whole of the Cape Province 928, from the Free State 52, from Natal 84, from the Transvaal 297, from South West Africa 16, from the Protectorates 10, from Mozambique 2, from Angola 1, from the Federation 199, from East Africa 6, and from other places 5. In other words, it is not true that the number of students will decrease, and Rhodes enjoyed no advantage by way of subsidy for its Port Elizabeth section, because right from the outset it was determined that it would not be subsidized for its students on the same basis as Natal. It is not subsidized according to the dual system. The result is that the City Council of Port Elizabeth had to undertake to cover their losses by voting R200,000 for it over a ten-year period, and they could not continue in that way. Dr. Hyslop told me: If you had not come along with this suggestion, I would have been compelled to ask you to be allowed to give these classes on a different basis. Because the R200,000 did not go at the rate of R20,000 per annum, as was originally intended. When I was there last year it was only the second year that this had been going on, and then the R200,000 was almost spent already. They simply could not have continued in that way, and the Government and every sensible member of this House would not like to see a repetition of what took place in regard to the University of Natal. One of the hon. members—I think it was the hon. member for Fort Beaufort—mentioned that Dr. E. G. Malherbe, the Rector of Natal University, felt that this thing was a monstrosity. The mother, which is in Port Elizabeth, has become smaller, whilst the child is in Durban, and there is a continual tug-of-war. It is an impossible position. I have given the House the reasons why the Government at the time agreed to it, and I also said that it was not intended to last forever. Therefore I do not know what the trouble is. Everybody is satisfied and happy, but now the United Party comes along and tells us at this stage that we should appoint a Select Committee. I hope it is clear that this cannot be done after the Second Reading, because it can serve no good purpose, and it will only result in delay, and what will such delay lead to? The decision has already been taken, and Rhodes has arranged all its affairs in such a way that it will withdraw its classes in 1965. The students who remain behind can continue at the new university in exactly the same way, and everything they have done will be recognized. Rhodes is withdrawing, and we must now start a new university in these few months. That is why the Government was kind enough to grant priority to this legislation, because only when the Act is on the Statute Book can there be a Council, and it is only when there is a Council that appointments can be made, and only then can a start be made, and even so it will be very difficult for a new organization to take over these university classes in February 1965. Everybody concerned will have to work hard, and it is a very difficult task. Even a week’s delay would be detrimental to the whole matter, and if it would still serve a good purpose we could do it, but it will not. Hon. members opposite said it would clear the air and remove any suspicion. Please do not use those arguments. We know that is not true. All it will succeed in doing is to rake up the old reproaches which have already been forgotten. When once an old scandal is revived, it becomes even worse than before, and I admitted in my second reading speech that this was an unpleasant conflict. I can only advise the people of Port Elizabeth to act positively. It was unnecessary for all these objections to be raised, and if I were a voter in Port Elizabeth I would surely settle accounts with those hon. members at the next election. I personally have no grievance against them. I am just glad that they have become converted and have realized that they were on the wrong road.

A few other things were said here. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), an ex-inspector of schools, makes a fuss about Clause 12. He says we provide for the appointment of staff, but not for the dismissal of staff. Surely the hon. member knows of the existence of Act 61 of 1956 which applies to all universities, and that the dismissal of staff is provided for in the Act. He is an educationist. Did he say it only to prove that there are so many mistakes in the Bill that it should go to a Select Committee? The hon. member further says that the University of Natal has separate provision for Whites and non-Whites, but that we do not want to make any contribution towards the resulting extra costs. Surely the hon. member knows that is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot say that. He must withdraw it.

Then I withdraw it and I say he ought to know it, because surely it is general knowledge. Three-quarters of the subsidy of 12 professors is paid, and as the number of non-Whites at Natal University became fewer, and in order to enable them to face all their problems, the Government paid them an additional subsidy of R143,000, and in the Cilliers Report there is a recommendation now that this should be increased, but the Government has not yet considered it.

Surely as responsible people we cannot make such loose allegations. Surely we are not just seeking debating points. The hon. member asks in regard to the appointment of the Chancellor, where have we ever seen this provided for in an Act? But the appointment of the Chancellor of the University of S.A. is provided for in that Act. He is appointed for ten years. The hon. member also objected to the fact that he could be dismissed at the request of the Council by the State President, but that is also contained in that Act. However, the hon. member says this is a new principle; it is not provided tor in any Act. In other words, the suspicion has to be aroused outside that here we again have one of those “tribal universities” which the Government holds in its iron fist. I am in favour of a man raising arguments, but an educationist like that hon. member should not make such wrong statements.

May I put a question? Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether he consulted the Advisory Board and the Committee of Principals as provided for in the 1955 Act?

The Advisory University Committee must be consulted by the Minister, but certainly not in regard to the establishment of any new university. I challenge the hon. member to show me the section which says that I am required to do so. The Act very clearly states in which regard the Minister must be advised. But it was not considered necessary to do so, nor was it considered useful, because as far as the Central Committee is concerned, that Committee deals with quite different matters. I have here a speech by Professor Thom, the rector of one of our largest universities, when he spoke at the sitting of the Academy, and this is what he said—

It is not my duty to consult the Committee of Principals of Universities if the Government wants to establish a new university. The Leader of the Opposition asked what we were doing to fill the shortages, and therefore it is not fitting for the hon. member for Kensington now to ask what they said. Nor would it matter to me if they had said something else, because the Government has to determine what the requirements of the country are.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). I want to ask her how she manages to read Clause (10) (d) in the way she does? She objects to that clause, particularly to the concluding words, “and who shall be professors in a corresponding faculty of Rhodes University or the University of Stellenbosch.” She objects to the word “or”. I cannot see how anyone can at the same time be a professor at Stellenbosch and at Rhodes and that is why the word “or” is used. Surely one can be a professor at only one university. It means that one takes professors of Stellenbosch University or professors of Rhodes University. And if the hon. member has such doubts, I should like to know how she would remedy the position.

Then the hon. member spoke about the financing of this university. Hon. members should really make a study of these matters. Sections 21 and 25 of the General University Act, No. 61 of 1955, provide for the financing of capital and current expenditure at all universities. Therefore it is not necessary to provide for it in this Bill; it would just be duplication.

Now there remains the question raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). The people of Port Elizabeth will certainly erect a monument to him if I accede to his request, because he asked for a medical faculty at that university, and they all want that. I myself would have liked it. But there are also other places which want it. The Free Staters would like one in Bloemfontein. The people of Port Elizabeth would jump for joy if they heard that they were to get a medical faculty. In view of the shortages which exist, the hon. member thought that that was the solution. I told the people in Port Elizabeth, through Dr. Nel—he is in the building at the moment and in probably listening—the following in a letter. They made their request on 23 December, and I replied as follows—

Now, this is as far as we have got in regard to this matter of a medical faculty, and that is the reply I gave Port Elizabeth, as well as the reply to all the questions put in this regard. I hope that we will very soon receive this report so that we can continue dealing with the matter.

These, I think, are the most important matters mentioned here. There are many points which we can discuss further in the Committee Stage. I hope that just as the Opposition gave us their support here, they will then also give us their co-operation, so that we can place the best possible Act on the statute book in order to make a success of this new University.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move as an unopposed motion:

1. (1) That the following members constitute the Committee of the House of Assembly, viz., the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Gay, Dr. J. H. Steyn and Mr. Waterson; and
2. (2) that two members of each House form a quorum of the Joint Sessional Committee.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, with this Bill which is before the House it is the intention to lay down certain principles in connection with the investment, safe custody and administration of funds by financial institutions in an attempt to combat as far as possible by way of legislation the evils which are responsible for the collapse of financial institutions and with which we have had to cope in recent times.

According to the experience of my Department, some of the instances where financial institutions have collapsed are attributable to the fact that the persons in control of those institutions did not display a proper sense of integrity, a fact which in many cases resulted in personal benefits for themselves. They did not observe the necessary good faith towards their institutions and they made risky or practically worthless investments in order to benefit themselves in an improper way. The type of person who engages in these practices is usually able effectively to conceal the circumstances in the institution’s financial returns and in a certain cases returns where even falsified.

Our problem is how best to cope with malpractices of this kind. The question may be posed whether it is not feasible to incorporate more preventive measures in the various Acts such as the Banking Act, the Insurance Act, the Building Societies Act. etc. My Department is of the opinion that that is impracticable and that it would be undesirable to try to do so. It would involve the State more and more in the ordinary management of institutions. Thus for example, approval would have to be granted for the making of all sorts of investments and the public would tactily accept that the State guarantees the safety of the investment to which it gives its approval. I think hon. members will realize at once that the State cannot take upon itself the responsibility of managing institutions.

Our great problem lies in the integrity of the persons who control these institutions. In our opinion preventive measures will not help much to keep the real sinners on the right path. We feel that the only language that they will understand is to provide for drastic sanctions to deter the type of person who may be inclined to depart from the usual high standards which are maintained by all respectable institutions.

To this end my Department proposes that we lay down by legislation that persons who are responsible for the investment and the custody of the funds of financial institutions, including ordinary trust funds which may be entrusted to them, shall observe the utmost good faith and that they may not benefit themselves in an improper manner as a result of their actions. At first glance these ideas may appear to be vague but my Department is convinced that if we had had this instrument in the past we would have been able, with comparatively little loss of time, to prove the violation of these principles before our courts and to secure convictions. As things stand at present we can only rely on the crime of fraud, which offers a weapon which it is sometimes very difficult to use and which can only be used after protracted police investigations.

I may mention that we find support for the principles which are proposed in this Bill in the recommendations of the so-called Jenkins Committee which recently instituted investigations in the United Kingdom into the working of the Companies Act there. The Committee recommended, amongst other things, that it should be laid down by legislation that all directors of companies will be required to uphold precisely the same principles which are being proposed here.

In addition to the preceding principles and the sanctions the Bill contains a number of provisions which are deemed necessary for the effective implementation of the aims of the Bill.

My Department consulted the relevant financial institutions such as the various commercial banks, the central organizations of long term and short-term insurers, of building societies, of pension funds and of trust companies with regard to this proposed legislation. Some of these bodies made an important contribution in helping to iron out the proposals, and generally speaking the proposals which are now before the House enjoy the support of the institutions referred to. I might mention that the trust companies themselves are of the opinion that the principles of this legislation should be applied not only to financial institutions but also to individuals who administer trust funds.

Although the proposed legislation, in the opinion of my Department, offers the best solution for our problem and although it enjoys the support of financial institutions in general, I am prepared to consider any other proposals in connection with the proposed legislation, and I therefore propose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee after the second reading. It is my intention that the Select Committee, within the broad principles aimed at by the Bill, should have a free hand. It must not regard itself as being bound, and it will be free to consider any other proposals which have the same objects in view.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate cases which have occurred where financial institutions have collapsed have deeply perturbed me and my Department. This is a serious problem that we have to face, and I am sure therefore that we can rely on the full co-operation of this House to place the best possible means at our disposal in an attempt to safeguard the fund of the public. Here I just want to utter a warning note, a warning which I have uttered before in this House, and that is with regard to the limitations of legislation. We can never ensure through legislation that unsound investments will not be made. We can only try to curb the dishonesty and the recklessness of persons who work with trust monies, and even in this attempt it is not always possible to achieve 100% success. The investor himself cannot be entirely relieved of responsibility as to the person or the institution to whom he entrusts his trust moneys or his savings. A certain measure of responsibility must also rest on his shoulders and he must not be under the impression that what we are doing here relieves him of all responsibility.

The Bill, in the first clause, sets out the scope of the institutions which will fall under this measure. The first six financial institutions which are mentioned here are all institutions which are registered and which fall under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. Then we have also added in (g) “a board of executors or trust company required to take out a licence to carry on business as such under the Licences Act.” That is the scope of this measure. The principle which I have just set out here is contained in Clause 2 and it is tantamount to this that any director, official, employee or agent of a financial institution, when dealing with the investment, safe custody, control or administration of the funds of that institution, shall observe the utmost good faith and exercise proper care and diligence; and similarly in the making of any investment or in the safe custody, control, administration or alienation of such trust property, he shall observe the utmost good faith and, subject to the terms of the instrument by which the trust concerned has been created, exercise the usual care and diligence required of a trustee in the performance or discharge of his powers and duties. Then finally in (c) it is provided that he shall not alienate, invest, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise encumber, etc. any such funds or trust property in a manner calculated to gain directly or indirectly any improper advantage for himself or any other person at the expense of such institution, trust or beneficiary.

Then in Clause 3 provision is made for the measures to implement this principle. The first principle which is laid down there is that of registration or identification of the particular trust property so as to distinguish it from the other property of the institution or of the person who has to invest the trust funds. Where registration is not possible there must be a different form of identification, which is set out here. Then hon. members will observe that all existing institutions will be expected, within 12 months, to bring into conformity with the appropriate provisions of sub-section (1) or (2) any investments which do not comply with those provisions. If they have to go to the office of the Registrar to bring about the necessary changes, those changes can be affected without charge. They do not have to pay any transfer duties on the trust property or other property which is in their possession in order to have it registered in this way: They do not have to pay any stamp duty or other charges; it will be done without any charge and they are being granted a period of 12 months to put their house in order. A second way to ensure the implementation of these principles is provided for in the powers of inspection. Hon. members will observe that Clause 4 refers to the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act which we passed here last year. That Act does not apply to boards of executors or trust companies and this clause is merely designed to make the same Act, which is applicable to financial institutions, applicable also to trust companies and boards of executors.

Clause 5 deals with records and entries in account books admissible in evidence as prima facie evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded. Clause 6 simply provides that where there has been an alienation of assets in conflict with the provisions which are laid down here, that alienation is null and void unless the person concerned proves that at the time of the acquisition he was not aware of and had no reason to suspect the contravention or non-compliance and that he acquired such funds, assets or trust property, as the case may be, for valuable consideration. The same onus which rests on a person who has received stolen goods is also being placed now on directors, officials, employees or agents of financial institutions. Clause 7 deals with offences and penalties.

Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing here with such an important matter which is of a somewhat technical nature, I hope that we shall do our best, that the Select Committee will do its best, to see whether it is not possible to find a better way to achieve the object which we have in view and which is laid down in the long title of the Bill, namely to make better provision regarding the investment, safe custody and administration by financial institutions of funds and trust property.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that what he is attempting to do here is to lay down principles which will guide institutions along the right line and prevent abuse such as has taken place in certain instances. This Bill, insofar as it is an attempt to prevent or to curb malpractices in the handling of trust funds, is quite acceptable to this side of the House. What is not quite so clear to me is what the Minister expects to achieve by this Bill. It is quite clear what he would like to achieve but it is not quite clear from the Bill as it stands what his prospects are of achieving his objects. He talks in the first, second and third clauses about calling on the people concerned to display the utmost good faith and to take proper care, to exercise great diligence in carrying out their responsibilities and he says that he has consulted with the leading institutions and that for the greater part they have agreed with him and have accepted this Bill and have even made suggestions to him in regard to its drafting. I have no doubt that that is so, but of course they are not going to be the people whom the hon. the Minister is after, and I do not think that this Bill is in the least likely to make a bad man good. I think it is possible that it may make a bad man a little more careful and it may be that the sanction in Clause 7, which carries a very heavy penalty of a fine of R10,000 or ten year’s hard labour or both, may make the reckless, irresponsible person, whom the Minister really has in mind, more careful. The Minister says that the question had been asked as to whether it would not be necessary to tighten up the existing legislation in pursuit of the object which he has in view, and he said that his Department felt that that was not desirable and possibly not practicable—I do not know. Well, that may be so, but the legislation which we have passed in recent years in this House has placed very wide powers in the hands of the Minister and his officials, and if his Department and the Minister feel that the Department is armed with sufficient powers to carry out the law, one does wonder whether perhaps what is required is not stricter administration. There are cases known to all of us of very great delays which are taking place in certain instances in the publication of the accounts of large institutions. Accounts are sometimes a year overdue before they are published, and in one or two instances there have been cases that where they have been published they have been found to be in very bad order. I should have thought that there was a case for suggesting that administratively the officer of the Minister should have the power, where any firm or any concern handling trust funds or people’s money, registered under any of the six or seven Acts mentioned here fails to produce its accounts within, say, three or four or five months with a full auditor’s certificate, promptly to suspend that firm or concern from doing any further new business until their accounts are published and found to be in order. That is only one suggestion that one can make. If the officers administering the Act do not have the power to do that sort of thing, then it seems to me that we could possibly make out a case for an amendment of the Act to give them necessary power to do it, because there is no doubt that there have been instances and there may still be instances where people are defrauding the public in a reckless and immoral way. The trouble is, of course, that very often this does not come to light until after the losses have been incurred and the ordinary small investors, the people who have put their money into that particular concern, whether it is an insurance company or some other institution, have lost all their possessions. The Minister’s problem—and I am sure he will agree—is to devise machinery which will enable him to keep an eye on any concern which he has any reason to suppose is not functioning in the proper manner and to have powers quite ruthlessly to suspend them from operating the moment he has reason to believe that there is anything irregular going on, until such time as things have been put right.

The hon. the Minister said that he realized that this Bill did not attempt to cover the whole field. He said that it had been suggested that a Bill of this nature should be extended in its scope, from the field of institutions and companies, to try to cover the case of individuals who mishandle moneys which are entrusted to them. He said that he was prepared to send his Bill to a Select Committee and that he would be happy to receive constructive proposals which would strengthen this Bill, to make it more effective and assist him in achieving the objects which he said he had in view. That being so, I do not think there is any need for a prolonged debate at this stage, beyond saying that in principle we support this Bill and on the Select Committee we shall be very happy to co-operate with the Minister and his representatives in an endeavour to strengthen it as far as we can.

I am pleased to hear from the hon. member who has just sat down that the Opposition are not going to oppose this measure. I think that the hon. member is rather enthusiastic about the idea behind this measure although he does not want to show it. The hon. member said that we were trying to illustrate some sort of moral, if I might describe what he said in my own words, by the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3, because the people who were cunning were going to continue to be cunning and that the provision was merely some sort of ethical appeal to them. But I want to direct the attention of the hon. member to one important point that the hon. the Minister raised in his speech when he said that any person who did these various things mentioned in clause 2, things which should not be done, would get away with it to-day unless one could prove conclusively that such person had committed fraud. I know of cases that have been going on in Pretoria over the past months, and also in other parts of the country, cases dealing not only with institutions of this nature but also with individuals handling public money, cases in which the accused persons have admitted to all these things except that they have said that they have not committed fraud. For example, a person may invest somebody else’s money for his own benefit; those people then lose their money and that person says that it was not his intention to commit fraud; that he had hoped to make a success of the investment and that these people would then have got their money back. I think that Clause 2 (c) is fairly explicit on this point at least that a person may in the future also be found guilty of crimes, excluding fraud, and be liable to tremendously heavy penalties, in terms of this Bill, when he does this sort of thing.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) raised the point that action should be taken sooner. Well, the Department must try to do so if they can. But an important point that he raised was the long period that elapsed before reports were received from the various companies and undertakings dealing with these matters, and I am in full agreement with him in this regard. The public is at a tremendous disadvantage in that such a long period of time elapses before an audited statement of the affairs of any public undertaking becomes available. I want to ask the hon. member whether he does not think that this matter should be submitted to the commission that is at present reviewing the Companies Act, because I believe that that commission will also have the right to make recommendations in regard to matters affecting not only companies as such but also undertakings that are not companies but which are run on company lines. I feel that that commission under Mr. Acting Justice Jan de Vries and appointed by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should have been appointed a few years ago to review the Companies Act so that through the medium of that Act we would have been able to control these various companies more effectively in order by so doing to prevent their letting things slide until in many cases it was too late.

We are dealing here with a number of kinds of undertakings that are controlled by the Registrar of Financial Institutions. There are six kinds. The hon. member asked whether we should not review each one of these laws separately. I feel that they should all be governed by the same provisions. Let us rather lay down one central pattern in order to control this sort of thing and to enable us to curtail the activities of those people who handle money belonging to other people and who are guilty of criminal practices. The Boards of Executors which are now being included under this Bill do not fall under the Registrar of Financial Institutions. I do not think that it is necessary for us to review each of these laws with a view to the offences that we are trying to combat. I think that they can eventually be reviewed in one law as is being provided for here. I do not want to suggest that this method is the only method. There may be better methods. The Select Committee can go into this matter. For example, I have already heard of other methods but I do not think that those methods are quite practicable. I do not think that I should discuss this question. Mr. Speaker, one thing is very certain and that is: We have many cases in this country where people who are not scrupulously honest are, in a variety of clever ways, placed in control of trust funds in many cases, the trust moneys of poor people who know no better and so lose their money. We must do everything in our power to prevent that sort of thing. We are dealing here more specifically with the group of undertakings that fall under the Registrar of Financial Institutions and with Boards of Executors which do not fall under the Registrar. I want to make one suggestion to the Select Committee and that is that we must extend the scope of this definition. As the hon. the Minister said, the Trust Bank asked that these provisions should also be made applicable to individuals and other companies handling trust moneys. I am inclined to agree with them. We are dealing here with cases where the same persons may perhaps control a group of different undertakings each of which lives off the other. They all work with other people’s money and in the long run they become very wealthy although the people themselves lose their money. They are like an octopus which has different undertakings clasped in each tentacle and which controls the whole group by means of those tentacles. A tremendous amount of exploitation takes place in this way. Mr. Speaker, we must look beyond this type of investment. We must also give our attention to people handling trust money for short terms and here I want to mention specifically the fact that the estate agents, for example, have for some years now been asking for a law to be passed compelling them to keep trust accounts. They want to have a private bill passed by Parliament. A bill of this nature was introduced but it was not passed. They want a law of this nature giving them a certain professional status. But such a law will never be passed by this House. There are firms of auditors to-day that act virtually as deposit-receiving institutions; there are firms of attorneys and various other bodies which also do this sort of thing. If we can extend the scope of the definition in Clause 1 in order to include all these various undertakings, provided that the hon. the Minister will proclaim them as such, then I feel that we will achieve a great purpose—far beyond the provisions of this Bill—and we will then be protecting the public where they need protection most. I can tell this House that there is a strong desire on the part of persons who are more scrupulous than others handling trust moneys to be protected against the person in the same type of profession who misuses his position, who takes deposits from people who may perhaps want to buy a house and never pays that deposit to the seller. I feel that with a view to protecting trust moneys we can cover a far wider field than that covered by this Bill. I hope that the Select Committee will give careful attention to this matter. I hope too that the Institute of Estate Agents and Auctioneers will make use of this opportunity to give evidence before the Select Committee. If they do not do so they must not say that Parliament does not want to give them the opportunity to protect themselves.

I feel that while we have a Clause 1 (g) in this measure we may just as well have an (h)— something to the effect that the Minister may by way of proclamation make the provisions of this measure applicable to any undertaking or class of undertaking and that such an undertaking or class of undertaking shall then be regarded as being a financial institution for the purposes of this Bill.

We are thankful to the hon. the Minister that he has come forward with this Bill. It is a measure which perhaps should have been on our Statute Book long ago. The hon. the Minister himself was very worried about this hiatus at the time when he appointed the inspectorate. We understand—and we are glad that that is so—that the Opposition not only support this Bill but welcome the fact that it is going to a Select Committee. We know that the hon. the Minister realizes that this Bill does perhaps not go as far as he would like it to go. I have in mind, for example, what happened on the 26th May last year when Dagbreek pointed out that over a period of 18 months South African investors had lost over R10 million because of the actions of financial institutions of this kind. Warnings were issued on various occasions but in spite of those warnings it was always stated that unfortunately that was how the Act read and circumstances unfortunately were such that before one could pounce upon these financial institutions, which misuse or wrongly invest the trust and investment money of the public it was too late. That was the problem in the past. The hon. the Minister as well as the Registrar has this difficult task in the first place of protecting the investor to see, when an organization of this nature is tottering, when it is on the down grade, whether he can prolong its life in some way or other so that it can possibly rehabilitate itself so that the investor will not suffer. That is the difficult task which the hon. the Minister and the Registrar had. That happened in the case of the Boere Bank. When they tried to save the investor by giving the Boere Bank perhaps a longer period of grace than we think was necessary, the manager and others concerned used it as an opportunity to escape and the damage was done in any case.

It is not necessary for me to point out that it is especially the less privileged persons who are affected, those people who invest their savings and pensions. Unfortunately it is human to invest where one gets the highest rate of interest; it is human to take out a policy where one pays the lowest premium. It is a human factor without the person realizing that by doing that he is taking the greatest risk. I am afraid that we have still not made sufficient provision in this Bill. That is why I am pleased that it is going to a Select Committee so that that aspect can be gone into. Look for instance at Clause 2, the clause that should really apply the protective measure, especially Clause 2 (b). When you look at that clause, sir, you will see that the norm is a very arbitrary one because there it is stated “… observe the utmost good faith and exercise proper care and diligence …” “… the utmost good faith” is so arbitrary that you can only clamp down on a person after the harm has been done. Then you still have to prove that it was not done with the utmost good faith, that it was done with the intention of committing fraud and that it was done knowing it to be in bad faith. That is why I am afraid it will not give us enough power. I hope the hon. the Minister will instruct this Select Committee to attend especially to the following aspects namely the exercise of better control with regards to reinsurance and with regard to the re-insurers. In other words that the directors of an insurance company seeking re-insurance shall to a certain extent be responsible for an inquiry into the financial position of the company carrying the re-insurance so that they will also there act as inspectors. Secondly, that control should be exercised over affiliated companies. Let me put it this way: That there should be reciprocal responsibility for the methods of investment.

On 26th of July last year I pointed out an inquiry had revealed that there were seven companies with the same director. I did not mention the names at the time but I shall do so now: The Tradition Transport Company, The Auto Protection Insurance Company, Bagley and Stevens, Lives’s Transport, Jack Meyer Transport Company, South African Reinsurance Corporation and The Provident. All of them had the same accountant and the same auditors. In this type of organization it is easy to let the funds do the rounds while the financial position of all seven is doubtful, or rather while all seven are already insolvent. By transferring funds you can bring the investing public under such a false impression that they will never realize what is happening. That is why I want to support the idea of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in the first place namely that we should ask that when a financial institution—that is not applicable to companies—cannot publish its financial statements within three months, it should immediately stop its activities as far as the writing of new business and the collection of new investment capital are concerned, until its financial statements, its profit and loss accounts, etc., have been published and brought properly to the notice of the public. This will immediately have the effect that such a financial institution will do its work. I think there is one financial institution whose financial year ended in December 1962 and to this day its financial statements have not yet been published although it is continuing to operate. We do not know in what state its financial position is. There is another institution whose year ended in June 1963. To this day its financial statements are not yet available, have not yet been published. If it should go insolvent to-day, not only will the policy-holders be affected, not only will the third-party policyholders be affected but all those people who have claims against those policy-holders will be affected. We cannot tolerate such a state of affairs.

I am thinking of another possible measure and it is this: I want to ask if the hon. the Minister and the Select Committee will not consider the question of imposing upon auditors a liability towards the public. I want to explain this, Mr. Speaker. One finds that the auditor issues a certificate together with the balance sheet and the profit and loss account.

What has that to do with this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the control of financial institutions, and the documents of financial institutions are audited. Those audited documents could be made available to the inspectorate. They are the documents which in the first place come before the board of directors, this board of directors which we want to hold responsible. We find that some of these financial institutions, when they receive the audited documents which have been certified, take care to see that they are not published, that their annual meetings are delayed for up to 13 months as in the one case that I mentioned here. I want to ask whether it is not possible within the scope of the Act—and I think it is—to require an auditor to bring audited documents to the notice of the Registrar of Financial Institutions once he has issued his certificate. The inspectorate will then know that they should institute investigations. At the moment that does not happen. That auditor is only responsible to the board of directors of that financial institution. He has no public liability. Would this not close the loophole immediately. Once this is done it will be possible to use the auditors of the country to expose these financial institutions which are wasting the money invested by the public. That is why I make this request.

I want to mention a further example in this connection. The hon. the Minister lays down in this Bill that financial institutions must see to it that investments made by them are not to their own advantage and that such investments are made in good faith. I should like to mention a few examples. I went to look up Gunn’s Gazette of the 7th January. There I found that a certain company, on securities worth R4,400 raised a first mortgage loan of R34,000. That is something which is not brought to the notice of the auditors. If it is certified and the auditor has public liability then it comes immediately to the attention of the Registrar. There is another company which against a security of R3,460 granted a first mortgage of R36,000. That is the investors’ money.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying once again: We welcome this legislation and we ask that this aspect too, be considered by the Select Committee.

I am very pleased that the House has shown so much concern for the problem with which my Department has been faced for quite a long time. I am only afraid that too much zeal may spoil the whole object we have in view here. I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm of hon. members, but I think that we must go slowly. There are many difficult points involved and we have to see that many interests are fairly treated. The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) asked me what we hoped to achieve with this Bill.

I know what you hope to achieve; I asked what you would achieve.

It it very difficult to say. But I can say this that here is an entirely new approach to the problem. It is not a question of demanding further statements and papers which we all know are not always as reliable as they purport to be. This is an approach to the person who is responsible, to the person who is in control. We make it easier to get hold of him without ruining the organization. Many of the steps which were taken in the past resulted in the loss of money, money invested in the concern by way of insurance premiums or of deposits in that particular institution. Had we been able to lay our hands on the person responsible, then the institution could have carried on. That is the new approach we have here, and not the clumsy approach of laying a charge of fraud, something which is very difficult to prove; it is a lengthy procedure. We are looking for something that will show results in a much shorter period.

The other thing that we hope to achieve with this Bill is that it will act as a deterrent. The mere fact that there is this greater demand on the persons in charge of these institutions, a greater demand for extreme good faith, should serve as a deterrent. The hon. member has suggested that we could perhaps give more power to the Registrar to say, if he has called for returns and they are not handed in in time, that such an institution must cease its activities. Power is of course given in the various Acts which are referred to in the Bill for the Registrar to call for returns and to apply sanctions if they are not returned within the time stipulated. It is possible that these various measures may be tightened up, but I do not know whether this is the place for it. If we are to give any further powers of that nature it should be given in the various Acts themselves. I doubt whether it will be possible, to go to the lengths the hon. member has suggested namely to say: “If your statements are not in in time you have to cease business altogether”. As I say, we are approaching it from another angle and that is to get at the person responsible. We throw the obligation on him to show the utmost good faith when he deals with trust money. I think we must wait and see whether this approach yields any success. I may say that these proposals are really born out of the experience we have garnered over the years in regard to those various institutions. My Department feels certain that had they had this instrument at their disposal in the past few years, they could have stopped many of these institutions from going on the rocks altogether without any loss to those people who had invested their savings in those particular institutions.

*The hon. members for Pretoria-Central (Mr. van den Heever) and Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) asked that we should extend the principle of the Bill. I doubt whether it is possible to extend it to individuals, as was asked here. I think that would be contrary to the principle of the Bill, which is merely confined to financial institutions. That is a matter which they can investigate in the Select Committee. If amendments cannot be introduced in this regard, that is not the end of the matter; suggestions may be made to me or to the Minister of Economic Affairs to provide possibly in another Act for a general protection of trust funds in the hands of individuals. But these are all institutions falling under the Registrar of Financial Institutions. The trust boards also fall under the Banking Act. We are concerned with all of them. The only object of this Bill is to assist the Registrar to ensure that no trouble ensues in connection with the particular institution falling under him.

A Commission has been appointed in respect of the Companies Act. Possibly many of these suggestions may be put to that Commission. But the main thing we are trying to do here, as the principle implies, is to make better provision for the safe custody of trust property and funds of these financial institutions mentioned here. I am not wedded to the particular method provided for here. Our investigation at the various institutions have brought to light no better method. I may tell the hon. member for Constantia that these institutions are greatly interested in this because they want to protect their good name. They will support any means of dealing with the black sheep. They are therefore really interested in the matter. Nor were they able to shed further light on the matter. I can only hope that the Select Committee will be able to suggest something better and then I will welcome it with open arms.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Agreed to.