I move—

1. (1)ter The Board may establish and keep a register in which shall be entered particulars of indentured apprentices whose contracts of apprenticeship have been registered in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 27; and.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

1. (a) by the insertion at the end of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of the following proviso:

“Provided that where the medical practitioner, dentist or authorized veterinarian who issued the prescription has omitted to insert the date of issue thereon, such date may be inserted by the person by whom the prescription is dispensed”;

and in line 14, after “of” where it occurs for the second time to insert “the said” and in line 15, to omit “of sub-section (1)”.

I move as an amendment—

To omit paragraph (f) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

(f) by the deletion of sub-section (3).

I trust that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. It will be of great help for the pharmacists and save them a good deal of irksome work. This whole clause is designed to provide for the checking of potentially harmful drugs. Now I think you must be clear that there is a great difference between the checking and control of habit-forming drugs and potentially harmful drugs. In the case of the habit-forming drugs the control is as near as possible absolute, and is designed to be so, but in the case of the potentially harmful drug, the design is to maintain some control, but I don’t think anybody could claim that it gives absolute control similar to that in the habit-forming drug section. Under these conditions it is as well, I think, to not make the control unnecessarily irksome when it can be avoided. In this instance the particular provision which is giving trouble is the effect that the pharmacist, the dispenser must retain the prescriptions for three years, and in practice this has been found to be very difficult. To remove this will not in any way interfere with control, because the pharmacist must retain in his books a copy of the prescription, and in any event it cannot be kept by everybody who dispenses it. The prescription may for instance be prescribed to be repeated say six times at fortnightly intervals, and it may therefore be dispensed fortnightly by six different pharmacists. Only the last one can possibly keep that, and he may be 2,000 miles away, because a traveller takes it with him and buys as he goes along. Furthermore, the Government has no check whatever on the stock which the chemist buys, so that if he happens to have 5,000 tablets of some potentially harmful drug and he only has prescriptions for 3,000, and there are 2,000 missing, the Health Department has no control over it. The irksomeness of this particular rule comes out because nowadays there are sick funds and benefit societies who allow their members to go to almost any chemist and they will refund the cost of the medicines if the prescription is shown to them and handed over to them. Therefore the pharmacist is precluded from keeping it, or he must copy it. That means that he has actually to make two copies of any prescription which is so demanded, and in any event, if he gives away the original, he is, according to the Health Department, doing something wrong. Now, Sir, this provision which I am trying to embody in the Act through my amendment is approved by both the Pharmacy Board and the Medical Council, and therefore I feel it can only be the Department of Health in its investigations in trying to keep some control over the potentially harmful drugs, which requires the Minister to retain this particular clause. And this is a clause which is local; unlike the Habit-forming Drugs Act, it is not of international consequence. I must say that I hope the hon. Minister will give serious consideration to this amendment. And even if he cannot decide at the moment, he may perhaps when the Bill goes to the Other Place consider doing what is asked of him here, because his control does not serve its purpose—his own Department must admit that when they find themselves faced with charges up to No. 300 against various pharmacists, showing that this is purely a technical control which is not of great value. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: The pharmacist is a professional man. He undergoes a long training and he is subject, like medical men, to a fairly rigid code of conduct in regard to his pharmaceutical activities, and I think in a case like this, he should be trusted like any other professional man would be trusted. We must realize that this Act is not designed to worry the pharmacist; it is designed primarily to protect the public, and as I have tried to show, it is not protecting the public. The health of the public and the protection of the public can only be in the honour and integrity and professional code of the pharmacist.

I rise to support the hon. member for Durban (Central) in his appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment standing in his name. It has been pointed out, Sir, that chemists and druggists are not the sole controllers of the distribution of potentially harmful drugs. Mention has been made of the fact that an opening exists under the Farm Feeds and Fertilizer Act, and also that medical practitioners themselves have the right to acquire and dispense potentially harmful drugs. The previous speaker mentioned the fact that chemists and druggists were professional men of integrity, and I submit that the record during the years since the promulgation of the Act in 1954 goes to show that these chemists and druggists have maintained an excellent record of integrity. Despite the fact that a question was addressed to the hon. the Minister in regard to the number of prosecutions which have taken place concerning the distribution of potentially harmful drugs under Section 65bis of the Act, the Minister did not provide this House with any details, and I say that to the best of my knowledge there has been no disciplinary inquiry made by the South African Pharmacy Board in connection with any contravention in regard to the distribution of potentially harmful drugs under Section 65bis. I feel that is a very good record, because one has to take into consideration that according to the Register of Pharmacies and the information supplied by the Registrar of the Board, there are over 2,000 pharmacies in South Africa and more than 3,000 chemists and druggists. I would like to make a comparison of what applies concerning the distribution of potentially harmful drugs under the provisions of the Farm Feeds Seeds and Fertilizers Act. These potentially harmful drugs under existing conditions can be supplied by general dealers who hold the necessary poison licence. And I would like to refer briefly to a memorandum on the sale of poisons, issued by the South African Pharmacy Board, which says in regard to the general dealers who are entitled to sell potentially harmful drugs—

The only qualification such general dealer must possess in order to sell these poisons is that he must be over the age of 21 and must be able to read and write one of the official languages. In addition any person in his establishment can sell the poisons under his supervision, a concession not even granted to a chemist and druggist.

I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment.

Unfortunately I cannot support the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) in his request. Before the introduction of this Bill, I also adopted the attitude that it was difficult for the pharmacist to keep these prescriptions for three years. But this amending Bill brings about a complete change in the situation, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member asks that sub-section (3) of the Bill which provides that the person who was the last to handle a prescription should keep it for three years, should be deleted because it places an unnecessary burden on pharmacists to keep prescriptions for three years. I do not think, however, that it is such a heavy burden. All businesses, and pharmacists as well, keep various documents for three years and longer. So I do not think that in itself can be an objection. But he has another objection and that is that if such a prescription is used by various pharmacists, in other words, if a person goes to one chemist and obtains tablets or whatever it may be from him and he then goes to another one within a week or a fortnight and obtains them from him, the difficulty which arises is which one of the two should keep the prescription. But that objection falls away, because you will notice from this amending Bill that Clause 7 (b) does away with the opportunity which existed previously of using a prescription more than once. Clause 7 (b) of the Bill reads—

In other words, if this sub-section is passed the position will no longer be that a potentially harmful drug can be provided more than once on the same prescription. There will, therefore, not be a second or a third pharmacist to dispense that prescription. It will only be the first one who keeps it in his possession and who must then retain it for three years. Secondly, I feel that it is absolutely essential that this prescription be retained for three years, because that is practically the only way in which control can be exercised over potentially harmful drugs. When there is an investigation, it is quite true that the pharmacist has to enter it into his register, but that entry in his register is no proof that there was a prescription for the provision of a potentially harmful drug. The only proof is the existence of the prescription which has to be kept. For these two reasons I want to plead with the Minister not to accede to this request. In the first place it will negative the effectiveness of having prescriptions for potentially harmful drugs and in the second place the objection of the hon. member no longer exists because if Clause 7 (b) is accepted that prescription can no longer be used more than once.

I enter this discussion not to serve professional interests. I do so rather quite objectively from the point of view of the public and the patient. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). Here we have a provision that has been on the Statute Book since 1954, and the representations made to me are to the effect that the provision has proved to be irksome to pharmacists. No one wants to have control merely for the sake of control. If we are going to have control, that control must have practical value and I say therefore that in view of the representations made to the hon. the Minister that the provision is irksome, there rests an obligation on him, if he wishes to retain the provision, to make it quite clear that he has evidence in his possession that since 1954 this provision has had practical value as a measure of control. Sir, it is also not yet clear to me to whom the prescription really belongs. Does it belong to the doctor who issues it and who has the professional knowledge; does it belong to the man who pays for it; or does it belong to the pharmacist who dispenses it? I should say it belongs to the man who pays for it, and I cannot agree therefore with the viewpoint of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) when he says this provision will prevent a prescription being used more than once. But apart from the question as to whom it belongs to, there is this provision that sub-section (3) talks about the prescription being kept from the date when it was “dispensed for the last time”. So I think the argument of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has no specific foundation. But it does seem to me that the hon. Minister has got to consider it from the practical point of view. We are dealing here with a potentially harmful drug. It does entail a considerable amount of work for the pharmacists to have to make a copy in their books, and I ask the hon. the Minister to make quite clear what purpose is served by this additional provision to keep the document for three years. If it is for the purpose of evidence in a court, possibly in a criminal court, then surely the onus should be on the doctor who issues it to keep a record of it, not on the pharmacist, the man who dispenses it. Anything can happen to the document in three years after the doctor has issued it. I can therefore not see the value of this control, or even the purpose which it is designed to serve. I have indicated that I am trying to deal with the matter objectively, because representations have been made to me that this provision is irksome and burdensome, and I think the hon. the Minister therefore must concede in respect of the professional side of the matter that it is also useless, unless he has, as I say, very strong evidence that since 1954 this measure of control has proved to be of practical value.

I should like to put one additional argument to the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will be prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central), and that is this: The Minister has the power if he discovers that by agreeing to this amendment any danger to the public results, to come back during this Session, or early in the next session of Parliament, to put through an amendment which will rectify any danger which the public may be experiencing as a result of the relaxation being asked for in this amendment. I do feel that it is not unreasonable to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment, to agree with it, and then if he finds that there is a danger to the public, to come back to the House and seek an amendment to put that position right. I see no danger in him agreeing to this amendment now. Representations have been made to me by pharmacists to the effect that they do not feel that the present position can be justified, and like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) it does appear that the hon. the Minister has to make out a case for the retention of the present position rather than that we should prove the contrary. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider the position in that light. He has the power to come back to this House and then the position can be put right if there is in fact a danger in the relaxation now suggested.

I am surprised at the arguments advanced by the previous two speakers, particularly the last one. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who has just sat down, says we should accept the amendment and if it appears that it was wrong to have done so, we can amend the law during the same session. Firstly, it is quite impossible to do anything like that during the same session. As long as the law exists surely it is the duty of those persons who want to amend it to show that there are good reasons for doing so. I cannot reconcile myself at all with the arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It would mean that any person who experiences any difficulty with any law can simply come to this House and ask for its abolition and if that does not work, for the law to be reintroduced.

You people are doing that every year in connection with group areas.

That would create an impossible position.

However, I was also surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) who said that the existing provision was “irksome”, and because it was “irksome” it should be abolished. But, Mr. Chairman, all laws which place restrictions on people contain “irksome” restrictions.

I should have said “unnecessarily irksome”.

The statement of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) simply means that all laws which place restrictions on people in connection with any crime or contravention should be abolished because they are irksome. But let me point out to the hon. member that the whole argument is about one little clause which provides that a pharmacist should retain his prescriptions for three years. I want to say in the first place that when the Pharmacy Board discussed this matter with me, they assured me that it was no trouble for the pharmacist to keep prescriptions for three years. They even said that they could keep them for ever. It does not create a big problem for the pharmacist. The hon. member for Durban (Central) referred firstly to the sick funds. He said it was necessary to produce the same prescription to the sick fund in order to get payment. But there are other ways in which that can be done, and I wish to refer him to district surgeons who had the same problem. They have solved their problem by writing out the prescriptions in duplicate. The pharmacist keeps the one and the other goes to the Department. So there is a simple way out. But if this method is not satisfactory, there are other methods as, for example, the use of modem photographic apparatus for copying prescriptions. We should not forget, however. why it is necessary to retain these prescriptions. We are all concerned about the misuse that can be made of these drugs. These are dangerous drugs, or can be dangerous—the drug may, perhaps, not be dangerous when you use it for the first time, but it may become very dangerous later on, and we are all concerned about the effect it may have on the people of this country. We have to limit their use, and we are not the only persons who are worried, the doctors and pharmacists are worried about it. They were so worried that, with their assistance and cooperation, a section was inserted in the Act in 1954 for this purpose. The section was inserted with their approval. Their argument was that there was only one way of preventing abuse, and that was that a pharmacist should not sell such drugs freely to a patient; he should only do so on the strength of a prescription from a doctor. The doctor decides what the condition of the patient is impartially and he gives the patient a prescription. The doctor, therefore, is the controller. The doctor is not to blame if anything goes wrong with the prescription. The doctor is simply the person who gives the prescription so that the pharmacist will not give the wrong medicine. If anybody makes a mistake, therefore, and action has to be taken, it is not the doctor against whom action has to be taken, but the pharmacist. That was the other argument advanced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). This clause was drafted so as to exercise control over the pharmacists. Let me put it this way: Assuming we agreed that prescriptions should no longer be kept, and one of the inspectors of the Department of Health suspects that a certain pharmacist is abusing his powers, he will go to the pharmacist and say: “Look, you have provided A or B with some of this medicine. Show me that a doctor has given you permission to do so.” The only thing the pharmacist will say in such a case is: “No, I have not got a prescription.” Perhaps he never had a prescription, but had simply given the medicine to the patient. In other words, we will be abolishing the only possible control that we have over the pharmacist. You see, Sir, as much as we want to meet the pharmacists in this matter, that is, unfortunately, not possible, because it is the only control which we have and it is a control which the doctors and pharmacists themselves have agreed is essential, namely that a doctor should be able to tell a pharmacist whether or not he may give a certain medicine to a patient. That is the only solution, and I really want to ask hon. members to allow this clause to stand as it is. It has not been proved that it will create many problems. You can understand the request in the case of sick funds, but in that case there is an easy way out.

I followed quite clearly the arguments of the hon. the Minister. but I don’t think he proved his point altogether. His main argument is that the presence of the prescription is the sole arbiter by which his inspectors can find out whether a doctor has given a prescription or not. That is not so. Before the pharmacist dispenses a drug, he copies into his prescription book the prescription and on it he puts the doctor’s name. Therefore, your inspector can verify in that way whether a doctor has prescribed the drug. Therefore, your inspector of health has only to inspect the books. He does not have to inspect the prescriptions but only the books and the books will contain the name of the doctor and the doctor can be traced quite simply. It may entail a little extra work admittedly, but even that I doubt because the chemist’s writing in the book would probably be a good deal more legible than the doctor’s prescription. I do not think it would be difficult even to ask the pharmacists to keep a separate book for their potentially harmful drugs as they do in the case of habit-forming drugs. So that would make it even easier. There is no real gain in keeping those prescriptions. We know about the duplication of prescriptions for sick funds and benefit societies, but that is by no means universal. In fact that is far from being universal. It is very doubtful whether a doctor should issue duplicate certificates, because those certificates contain his signature and there is no law against the patient taking each one to a different chemist. So that there is a good deal of doubt about duplicate certificates. If this control which the Department of Health is trying to impose upon the pharmacists in respect of these potentially harmful drugs, were really successful I would be the first to support it. I think it is necessary that there should be some control, but to apply ineffectual control, a control which does not serve its purpose and which at the same time throws unnecessary work on the pharmacist, is unjust. I would rather see, not exactly what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has suggested, the hon. the Minister accept the amendment, and let us then get down to it together —the Medical Council and the pharmacists and the Department of Health which is represented on the Medical Council—and see if we can evolve some efficient method, but to perpetuate an inefficient method which does not help and which exercises no control is, to my mind, wrong.

The hon. the Minister has not dealt with the problem as posed. To say simply that all laws are irksome is no justification for this law. Although some laws may be irksome I do not believe that they are all irksome. I have said that representations have been made that the provisions of this clause are unnecessarily irksome and I have asked the Minister—he is the only one who has the information—to show that it is not control for the sake of control, but that it is control because it has practical value. The hon. the Minister has not said one word about that. He has not said one word as to what the practical value of this control is. He said it was to control the chemist. I ask how is the chemist controlled if he has given me the wrong stuff and I die? The document will not put the matter right. Secondly, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, he is entitled to transcribe a prescription and if he transcribes it incorrectly that won’t help the patient either. So I cannot see where the control is. I am merely asking the Minister to take this opportunity of seeing whether the provision which was inserted into the law in 1954 has any practical value to-day. He has now had seven years in which to test the practical value of that provision and when it is represented to me by pharmacists that its practical value is questionable and that it is unduly irksome, I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister not merely to say that laws are laws, whether they are irksome or not and that they must stand.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) did not follow my argument. I explained that the whole purpose of a prescription was to have control over the pharmacist. The only way is that the doctor has to decide whether a patient may have a potentially harmful drug and that the pharmacist may only provide it on the strength of the doctor’s prescription. The hon. member asked “What remedy has a man got if the chemist gives him the wrong stuff?” But that is not the argument. The pharmacist has nothing to do with whether or not the doctor has prescribed the right medicine. The only thing that the pharmacist should worry about is to see that he gives the medicine which the doctor has prescribed That is all. In other words, the whole question whether or not he may provide it, depends on the doctor. The prescription is only a control over the pharmacist. It has been proved in the past that it is perhaps not a 100 per cent effective control, but it is a reasonably good control. And if it is a reasonably good control, although it is not 100 per cent effective, surely you should rather retain the reasonably effective control than abolish it altogether. I grant the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) the fact that there are probably better methods, but they will have to be more stringent. If the Government wanted to make the control more stringent, it would be much better. I readily concede that. But I want to say at the same time that until such time as we have a better method, we should not discard this partially good method. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) also said that the book in which the pharmacist entered the prescription constituted control. But you must remember, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with pharmacists, they are probably the exceptions, who do not want to abide by the laws of the country. If a pharmacist who does not abide by the laws of the country wants to cheat, to put it that way, it is very easy not to enter the prescription in the book. In other words, if he does not enter it and there is no prescription, he gets away with it. But if he has not entered it in the book and he must produce a prescription, and cannot do so, he can at least be called to book. In other words, we cannot get away from the fact that a prescription is essential. It is not essential in the sense that it affords 100 per cent protection but it at least gives you 80 per cent protection. For this reason I think hon. members opposite really have no justification for insisting on this amendment.

May I ask the hon. the Minister what the position will be of the pharmacist who does not enter a prescription into his book and who in addition to that destroys the prescription.

In that case he will be caught. It usually happens this way that the police or an inspector suspects that a pharmacist is contravening the law. What they do in that case is to follow his clients and if he has provided a client with a potentially harmful drug and cannot produce a prescription for it, he will get into trouble.

I am sorry, I cannot follow the Minister’s reasoning. We are dealing here with potentially harmful drugs. In other words, the doctor’s function here is to examine the patient and to see whether this drug will harm that particular patient. Once he has examined the patient and he has found that this drug is not harmful to that particular patient, he prescribes it. These are not habit-forming drugs; habit-forming drugs fall into a totally different category. We are only dealing with potentially harmful drugs, the kind of drug which may not be harmful to one person whatsoever but which may be harmful to another person because of his make-up. This is where the doctor comes in. Before the pharmacist may give the drug to the particular person who wants it, he protects himself by asking for a doctor’s prescription. The patient then goes to a doctor, the doctor examines the patient, and if he finds that this particular drug will not be harmful to this particular patient, he gives him a prescription. The pharmacist is then covered. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister is confusing the two issues. The one is a potentially harmful drug only to certain individuals and the other is a habit-forming drug. In this case where the pharmacist has the assurance of the doctor by way of a prescription that he can provide the patient with this drug, I cannot see why this additional burden should be placed on the pharmacist.

The hon. the Minister spoke glibly about keeping photostatic copies of the doctor’s prescription. Does the Minister realize that there are chemists in small villages in whose case it would not pay them to buy a photostat machine. It is so impossible. It may pay a few pharmacists in big centres to have a photostat machine and to make photostat copies of the prescriptions that are handed in to them.

There are not sick funds in every small town.

It applies to everybody, whether he is in a small town or a big centre. As the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) pointed out, one prescription can be dispensed by chemists 2,000 miles from one another. What protection will this provision afford in that case because it is only the last chemist that is required to keep the prescription. I cannot see how this is going to be a protection at all. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has asked: What happens to the pharmacist who disobeys the law, who does not only not write it into his book but also destroys the original prescription from the doctor? The hon. the Minister says that in that case the police will watch the clients that come out of the chemist’s shop and ask them what they have been buying. Now. surely, Mr. Chairman, that position will be impossible. May I advise the hon. the Minister that he consults the Minister of Justice on that point. The Minister of Justice has not even enough policemen to cope with ordinary crime to-day. Where will he get enough policemen to walk behind every client who enters a chemist’s shop?

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down, I merely want to say that we should not minimize the danger of potentially harmful drugs. She wants to make things far too easy and she wants to create the impression that there is really no danger in these drugs. My contention is that it is essential that a measure of control is exercised and if hon. members opposite think the present control is not effective enough, I say all right let us employ a similar scheme and similar methods as those employed in the case of habit-forming drugs. Let us see whether the pharmacists will be satisfied with that. We simply cannot continue getting more and more slack as far as these things are concerned. It is essential that control is exercised and if that control is not 100 per cent effective, I maintain that we should make it as effective as possible. This is at least an attempt to meet the pharmacists, an attempt to afford the patient a certain measure of protection at least, even though it is not 100 per cent effective. Although I was of the opinion previously that three years was a long period to keep these prescriptions, I have nevertheless made inquiries and it appears that it is not so very difficult. Some people think that it could comfortably be done for five or six years. If it is true, therefore, that it is not so irksome, why do we have such a hullabaloo about something which is not really so very irksome? Mr. Chairman, I think we should also regard this measure concerning the retention of prescriptions for a period of three years as a measure which protects the pharmacist himself. If the inspector comes to the pharmacist and alleges that he has sold medicine over the counter without a prescription, the chemist is protected in this sense that he can produce the prescription and say: “Here is my proof; I have not sold the medicine illegally.” I am convinced that we are only wasting time on something which does not warrant it. This clause protects the pharmacist.

Hon. members have stated their case very ably and have shown professional interest in it; perhaps less so in the case of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). It is perhaps necessary that we deal with the practical problems connected with this clause from the patient’s point of view. This clause, which deals with potentially harmful drugs, deals with a question which is beginning to get very dangerous and which may have even more dangerous results. I refer particularly to the biotics which are being used more and more frequently to-day and which are regarded by the broad mass of people as wonder drugs just as sulphonamides were originally. We find that there is an approach, particularly on the part of Bantu patients, to these drugs which may be more dangerous than we realize. Because these medicines are expensive and because sensational results are obtained in some cases we find that when these drugs are prescribed to Bantu patients particularly, and the course consists of a dozen or two dozen capsules perhaps, they only take three or four capsules until the immediate symptoms have disappeared and then the Bantu puts the balance away until one of the children get sick and then he gives it to that child. Hon. members who know much more about this subject than I do, will agree with me that is a very dangerous practice because in that case the practice of taking the drug in repeated small doses very definitely places it in the category of potentially harmful drugs and it may be that stricter control should be exercised than we have at present. From the patient’s point of view he welcomes the relief which the first section of this clause brings about. I also think that hon. members who are more professionally concerned in this, welcome it. But I want to issue a word of warning that it will not be possible and practicable, as suggested by members opposite, to give greater relief in this regard. If we do that, we will be interfering with something which may be very detrimental and dangerous to the community as a whole. For that reason I do not think that the amendment of hon. members opposite can be accepted, an amendment which seeks further relief and which will facilitate the handling of these drugs.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Dr. Radford put and negatived.

I wish to move a further amendment to Clause 7, which will be as follows—

I have no hesitation in rising to move this amendment because unfortunately I am unable to agree with the hon. the Minister in the attitude that he has adopted in regard to the retention of prescriptions for potentially harmful drugs. There are so many other aspects concerning their control which could be improved that I feel our professional integrity as chemists and druggists entitles us to ask for this relief in regard to this particular clause. I would like to put the case of a man who walks into a shop which handles poisons in terms of the poison licence. That person could quite legitimately buy two containers of 500 tablets of a sulpha drug. He could go out and distribute those among all and sundry and I submit that it would be most difficult indeed to effect any control or to trace the manner in which this drug has been distributed. Here we have control effected by virtue of the fact that a doctor has to issue a prescription to the patient, the chemist has to dispense that prescription and he has to copy the prescription. In doing so he has to comply with certain provisions which practice has shown the medical profession has not been able to do over the last eight years. I am referring to the previous amendment. It has now become necessary, owing to experience gained over the past eight years, to take the responsibility which was placed on the medical profession in 1954 when the Act was introduced, and to place it on the chemist, because that responsibility has not been accepted by the medical profession. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as things stand to-day an additional burden has been placed on the chemist and no relief has been given. When I tell you that as a result of a survey in respect of prescriptions—and I have it here if anybody is interested—it was ascertained that of 81 prescriptions containing potentially harmful drugs, 44 per cent did not indicate the address of the patient, you will appreciate that the chemist and druggist will now have an additional responsibility in ensuring in all cases that the prescription contains the name and the address of the patient. As has been explained, this prescription has to be written in the prescription book. It has to indicate the name of the doctor so that the prescription can be traced at all times. Furthermore, in terms of the Act as it stands at present, in terms of Section 65bis (1) (e), “the name and the address of the seller or supplier, and the date of supply must be indelibly endorsed by the seller or supplier upon the prescription produced in terms of paragraph (c) whenever it is dispensed”. So that virtually too that prescription is cancelled. Then I want to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in saying that these prescriptions would be available. Those prescriptions are virtually cancelled. In terms of the Act they cannot be dispensed and no chemist will run the risk of dispensing a prescription which is no longer valid. So, Mr. Chariman, I feel that every protection has been provided to the public and I submit that the Minister has failed firstly, to indicate that this necessity remains, because he has not been able to indicate to the members of this House that an abuse has in fact existed which warranted legal action. There have been no court cases, apart from technicalities, and I submit, too. Sir, that in so far as the opinion of the two professional bodies is concerned, the Minister has not accepted that considered opinion, the opinion of the Medical Council and of the S.A. Pharmacy Board. The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that the President of the S.A. Pharmacy Board had indicated that this particular aspect of the Act could remain as a provision, but I have here with me the report of the interview that took place between the hon. the Minister and members of the S.A. Pharmacy Board and I cannot read into this report any impression that the Pharmacy Board had wished to see the retention of this particular clause, Section 65bis (3). It has already been made quite clear through the conjoint committee, endorsed by the Medical Council and endorsed by the Pharmacy Board, that it was the opinion of the professions themselves, bearing in mind the welfare of the public, that 65bis (3) was no longer practicable and was no longer desirable and no longer necessary. I therefore move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in essence this amendment is practically the same as the previous one. For the reasons which I have already indicated, I unfortunately cannot accept it.

There is one point which the Minister has not considered. If the Minister is determined that the prescription should be retained, is it not safer that prescription should be in the hands of the benefit society rather than in the hands of the chemist? Surely if the prescription has got to be submitted to the benefit society by the patient before he can claim a refund, that particular benefit society has got to keep that prescription for their audit purposes. And it may then be told that it should keep it for as long as the Minister wants. Surely the problem of the prescription disappearing, to which the Minister referred earlier on. will not arise if in fact it is in the hands of the benefit society. I say therefore that this amendment is not on all fours with the previous one, as the Minister now suggests it is. This makes quite sure that the prescription is retained. If it is not retained by the pharmacist it will be retained by the benefit society. If the Minister is determined that the prescription should be retained this amendment will not make it impossible for the prescription to be retained; it will only mean that the prescription will be retained by the benefit society and not by the pharmacist.

I agree with the hon. member that the prescriptions will be in safe custody in the hands of a sick fund or a medical aid society. But the hon. member must not forget that these medical aid societies have not thousands but sometimes tens of thousands of members. The result is that they receive tens of thousands of prescriptions every month, and if a prescription had to be traced in the case of a particular chemist and druggist. it would be a colossal task to search through tens of thousands and, over a month, scores of thousands of prescription. It would not be impossible but it would greatly hamper the implementation of the law.

When the debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with Clause 9 and in particular with Clause 9 (d), which provides for the appointment of acting headmen for chiefs, and I said it was necessary that there should be certainty about this particular matter, and I hoped that the Minister might find that administratively when such acting appointments were made they should be made with considerable formality so that there can be no argument whatever as to the authority of the persons so appointed. The same applies when once the period of office of an acting chief or headman comes to an end. I have pointed out how often the heir to a chieftainship, if he is a mere child, was taken away a long distance from his tribe and the tribe lost contact with him and did not see him growing up, and when he reached the age when the Government felt that he should be established in the chieftainship he was brought back again and in many respects he was a stranger. There again I think that the acting chieftainship or headmanship should be terminated with considerable formality and the new chief established so that the tribe will understand clearly that a change of authority has now taken place from the acting headman or chief to the rightful heir, because of the lingering doubts that arise from time to time, particularly if the heir was a youngster. I have known cases where small children of five or six have been the rightful heir and when an acting appointment was made which lasted 20 years, the Government often, quite rightly, felt that these young men are not fit to take over the responsibilities of the chieftainship, particularly if it is an important chieftainship, until they are long past the age of 21, which under our law would make them majors. The result is that this long period can create in the minds of the tribe a belief that the authority has shifted, and there may be trouble when the young heir comes into office. That trouble sometimes can smoulder for years and cause a great deal of trouble. I just make that point. I say we welcome this provision.

I come now to Clause 10. The Minister, in speaking to this clause yesterday, paid Natal a tribute by saying that the registration of customary unions takes place in my province, and he wants that procedure extended to the other provinces. He went on to say that this clause would not make it compulsory, but that he hoped he would be able to make it compulsory in future; that for the time being this clause would be permissive, that he would like to make it compulsory later. Sir, here we are touching on one of the fundamental issues that we are facing in Bantu society, when we deal with this matter, and that is the status of the married woman in relation to the society in which she lives. We are dealing in this clause with the customary union, so we rule out at once any Bantu married by Christian rites. They fall into a group by themselves and are dealt with under separate laws. In the main, therefore, this clause deals with the so-called tribal Native, and to a tremendous extent with the so-called detribalized Native who is living in our urban areas. I call him the so-called detribalized Native because there is no accepted definition of a detribalized Native and although a Native may have been resident for many years in the urban areas and working there, he may still not be detribalized.

Hear, hear!

This question has so much importance attached to it, for these reasons, that in the case of many unions—I am using the term “union” as meaning a loose association between a man and a woman which corresponds more or less to the giving of marital privileges the one to the other. In the case of loose unions that are formed amongst the Bantu in our urban areas, there is no compliance with the tribal laws. Those unions in the main are not customary unions for the purposes of this clause. They are not a marriage of any kind or form. It is simply the coming together of a man and a woman who live together as man and wife without any kind of ceremony or formality When we look at the figures showing the number of Bantu children born in the big urban areas or on the outskirts of them, and we see the tremendously high incidence of children who are illegitimate, they are the children of these unions. It is a union of convenience and nothing more or less. But it has one or two very great evils attached to it, and that is why I say that in dealing with this clause we are dealing with one of the basic and fundamental difficulties we have to contend with in the whole of the recasting of Bantu society in the Republic. Let me give you one of the great evils, Sir.

It is becoming customary to-day for employers of Bantu labour to provide quarters for married Bantu and quarters for single people. The quarters for married people are provided for the simple reason that they want to make their labour feel satisfied and happy so that the labour will remain there for a continuous period of employment. We have known in the past—and I can go back more than 50 years—the very rapid turnover of labour which took place, where a Native under practically no circumstances would work for longer than six months and then he left. Those days, if they have not gone, they are going. Employers want to keep the same Natives in the same job as far as possible. He becomes used to his job and becomes more efficient, and one inducement is to provide married quarters. What happens is that a Native comes along with a woman, not married by Christian rites or married by any kind of officially recognized custom at all. It is merely a woman he has picked up for the purpose because he knows that in that way he will get a better cottage and better conditions as a married man. So he stands there and says he is a married man and this is his wife, and the employer asks the woman whether she is his wife and she says yes, and they are given married quarters, which, from whatever point of view you look at it, are infinitely to be preferred to single quarters, and the man stays there for two or three years. If there is a row between him and the woman, he kicks her out and soon gets another woman, and he still occupies the married quarters and there is no trouble at all. This is creating a great evil, because of the desire of the White man to have permanent labour. Because of that he gives an added inducement by way of married quarters and he procures a married man who is no more married than the man in the moon. This is a thing which can be grappled with by means of the registration of customary unions, but only if it is made compulsory.

Even in that case you cannot make it compulsory.

I agree that there will be tremendous difficulties because the master has to carry a share of the responsibility. If he allows a man to be registered with him as his servant and who purports to be married to the woman who comes with him, the master does not himself test the validity of the union between that man and the woman, so the law will have to put the onus on the master and the Minister will be in trouble politically if he does that. He can deal with the Native and his wife, but as soon as he deals with the master he is in trouble, and the difficulties will be very great, but we will have to grapple with this sooner or later and Parliament alone can grapple with it.

If we go to the older Native men—and I am now talking about the responsible section in every tribe—and you discuss this problem with them there is no one who is more emphatic on the need for the proper control of the union that takes place than they are. They lose their daughters and wives under this system and they have virtually no redress. There are individual cases I have had where a man who has wanted to get the advantages of married quarters has taken a wife from a Native and he has got the married quarters, but the wife is another man’s wife and she has been married to her own husband by means of a customary union, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The only time I have ever seen the authorities doing anything about it is when the Native Commissioner of the area where the husband lives has arranged with the police for this man to get an authority authorizing him to seek his wife. Then he finds his wife living with another man and he goes to the police there and they usually tell her to go home to her husband, and that is the end of the matter. It seems to me there is not much that can be done about it, although the simplest inquiry would have shown that this woman could not have been that man’s wife, because she was not carrying his toolbox. I do not want to take this point too far, but I think the Minister will have to go over to compulsion. Not only will it have to be applied to the other provinces, but it will have to be made compulsory, in spite of all the difficulties.

Sir, we use the term here “customary union”. I want to put this point to the Minister. Until this question of a customary union is defined and it is made compulsory to register it, I do not see how he will get pass the first step in Native custom which takes place when a Native woman, married by a customary union, is widowed. When she becomes a widow under Native law she is automatically accepted into the household of the elder brother of her deceased husband. She has a legal status as a wife in that household without more ado. That is Native custom. That is why the social system that was built up by some of the Nguni tribes like the Zulus and the Xhosas is so much better than ours. You do not have unwanted widows and orphans. Their social system takes care of them, not by giving them charity or putting them into an orphanage, but of right they have a legal status in a household. What then of the position of the widow accepted into the household of the brother of her deceased husband? Under Native custom, does that become a customary union when she has children by that second husband, the brother of her deceased husband? Is that a customary union? It is, according to Native custom and usage. What happens there? I say this has to be defined. It is one of those things where not only is the wind of change blowing as far as the White man in South Africa is concerned, but also for the Black man, and it is blowing very hard indeed. Native customs to-day are simply being annihilated so that there is growing up a class of women to-day who are widows, where the brother of the deceased husband refuses to accept them, for economic reasons. Gone are the days when there was the herd of cattle and every wife had a field to till and there was plenty of land available. To-day there is a tendency for economic reasons for monogamy where it used to be polygamy and where in certain circumstances now the brother of the deceased husband simply says to the widow and her children that he will not accept them. She can go to the younger brother if there is one, but she is likely to meet with the same position there. I myself employ to-day a shifting number, but approximately 20 widows of men who have worked for me and my father before me, who to-day would be starving if I did not give them employment. They work very well but they are all women. Had anyone suggested to me 20 years ago that I would employ a band of women, I would have said it is incredible to employ married women on that basis. You employ labour on a daily basis, but monthly? And I have had some of them working for me for five years now. This is a new class of person growing up. It is the breakdown of the tribal system and customs, and we are the only people who can really deal with it effectively. The Bantu themselves cannot deal with it. They can only watch these widows becoming outcasts, and no other male member of the family will accept them. That has to be provided for. These changes are taking place so fast that we should be applying our minds to it, because here is a growing group of people which will become a festering sore in the social community of the Bantu; and you add to that group every time there is trouble in the urban areas and the old shebeen queens are chased out by the police and law and order is restored in the slum areas and the slums are demolished and new housing schemes are built and there is a thinning out of the population. The group of people residing in those slums can do one of two things, but they cannot stay there. If they are entitled to do so, they can go to the new housing scheme or they must return to the rural area from which they came. They go back to swell the number of people there now. They have not broken their ties with the tribe but they will not be accepted in the tribe any more. That number of women is increasing and it is becoming a festering sore. In this set-up, I approve of what the Minister is doing but I think he should go further and grapple with the whole problem. This clause does not grapple with it. The Minister is taking a first tentative step forward and we congratulate him on it, but he does not go nearly far enough and the danger that looms ahead is one that we shoud grapple with timeously.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has spoken very sensibly to-day, and we appreciate it. We find it a great change and I hope that the example set by him will be followed by every member of the Opposition and that after the wise lead given by him, we will not find again, as so often happens, that he is followed by a number of mad-caps.

Order! The hon. member must not use the term “mad-caps”.

I withdraw it. I cannot reply to the hon. member’s speech yesterday evening in which he had his annual quarrel with the Minister about the words “Bantu” and “muntu”. I cannot pose as a philologist, but I want to say that this Bill was drawn up in the English and Afrikaans languages and as far as I understand the facts the word “Bantu” or “Bantoe” is one which both in English and Afrikaans derives from the languages of the various Bantu races in South Africa, and we are entitled therefore to use that word in this legislation. I cannot argue with the hon. member about the correctness of the language, but I say that inasmuch as it is a derivative we are perfectly correct in using it, and the hon. member cannot expect us to use words which we would have used if our laws had been drafted in the Bantu language. I feel therefore that he will be well advised to drop this annual quarrel.

The hon. the Minister has said that this is an “omnibus measure”. I shall use the Afrikaans term “rommelkaswet”, (lumber box measure). This is par excellence a “rommelkasmaatreel”. I suppose many hon. members have already found it necessary to make use of “rommelkasmaatreels” (makeshift measures) to get their cars going again and they know that when one does a good makeshift job, one’s car is as good as knew again. I think that is what the hon. the Minister has done here with his “rommelkasmaatreël”. In the first place I want to congratulate the Minister on having taken this wise step of introducing the system for which I have been pleading for years for White workers, the P.A.Y.E. system, and I hope that the Minister will be so successful in this respect that other departments which are dawdling so much with regard to this question will emulate his example. This is a good system and it will also assist those people who are liable for taxation, here I am thinking particularly of the Bantu who have to pay a tax of R2 or R3 every year. It will meet them to some extent. I want to pay a special tribute to the Minister for coming forward with a measure which is designed to meet as far as possible the man who has to pay taxation by avoiding a disruption of his whole domestic budget when he is called upon to pay his taxes in one lump sum. That is why I am greatly in favour of this system of stop orders for taxation purposes, and I hope that it will be very successful.

The second measure proposed in this Bill is that the Bantu Commissioners, instead of magistrates will now be authorized to issue warrants in connection with the collection of taxes. It goes without saying that one does not need much imagination to realize that this will be of very great assistance in the collection of taxes.

The next measure proposed in this Bill which, of course, is nothing but a modernization of the existing practice, is that in future the local taxes in the Transkeian Territory, for example, will be paid to the Bantu Authorities, and these small bodies which have become practically obsolete will now be replaced by these new Bantu authorities.

Another important measure is that in the future fines which become due on arrear taxes will no longer be paid into the consolidated revenue fund but into the special account where it belongs, over which the Minister has control and which he administers. That is no more than reasonable, because that is what sometimes happens in White tribunals; the man who pays the fine has the right to say to whom the benefit of the fine should go. For example, when a mineworker is fined, he has the right to say that fine must go to a charitable institution or to an orphanage or to an old-age home or something of that kind, and I think it is.no more than right, since this is a State Fund which is administered by the Minister in the interests of the Bantu, that those fines should go to the Bantu and to nobody else. They ought to be paid into that fund which is administered by the Minister personally and not into the consolidated revenue fund as was done in the past.

Another important measure is that the Bantu authorities are now given the power to collect those taxes in the future. I think that too is a tremendous forward step. I think this is one of those measures which will gradually have this effect that authoritative Bantu bodies will feel more and more that they have developed to the stage where they are able to accept responsibility. This will not only serve as a training period, but it will also bring home to the Bantu the fact that the money which is collected is spent in his interests. Let me just say here in parenthesis that where a White official has to collect taxes, it inevitably creates the impression in the mind of the taxpayers, particularly in the mind of the primitive taxpayers, if there are such people, that this is money which the Government takes out of their pockets and uses for its own benefit. We are now removing, in a very effective way, that erroneous impression which has always existed hitherto. We can understand that if this system had been applicable to us, we would always have paid that tax with a certain amount of aversion. This matter is now being rectified in a very wise way.

Another step which I welcome very much is that in the future when taxes are paid, the receipt will be pasted into the reference book, a system which will give the bantu a greater appreciation of the value of the reference book, because if there is one thing of which any person, whether he be a man of high standing or a primitive individual, can be fairly proud, it is the fact that he is able to say to the world, “I may have other faults but at least I am one of those people who pay their taxes.” We are now giving the Bantu proof in the form of a receipt in his reference book that he has paid his tax, and when the police deal with such a person and find that he has paid his tax, they will know that he has at least one great virtue, and that is that he has paid his tax, a fact which immediately increases his esteem in the eyes of the police or in the eyes of a potential employer.

Another very important measure for which this Bill now makes provision is that the State President will be able to promulgate regulations which take into account the various conditions under which we can come to the assistance of the taxpayer. When regulations are made in connection with stop orders, or anything of that kind, it will be found in practice that there is a world of difference between the requirements for a male worker and a female worker, because there are also female workers amongst the Bantu who will have to pay taxation. It will be necessary therefore, because of the circumstances of the Bantu, to promulgate different forms of regulations from time to time to meet their requirements. For the sake of clarity I just want to say here that the regulations to which I refer are the regulations in connection with stop orders with reference to employers and employees. Another important point, not only to us but even to the Bantu Authorities and to those who collect taxes, is that provision is now being made that compensation may be paid to those Bantu Authorities which help to collect taxes, they are to receive a recognition bonus where they assist the officials to ensure that every resident of the area concerned does his duty as a good and loyal citizen of that tribe or of that Authority.

As far as the question of Bantu privileges and Bantu rights which are now being extended in Natal are concerned, I do not want to enlarge much upon that, because the hon. member for South Coast has dealt with it at some considerable length, and I do not want to go into the matter further. The hon. member went into this matter very fully and I am glad he did so because he has at least brought home to this House as well as to his colleagues the seriousness of that problem. That problem is perhaps even more serious that the hon. gentleman described it here, because on the Witwatersrand particularly there are problems which are simply going to get out of hand in the future, and I am very pleased therefore that the hon. the Minister has at least taken the initial step here which will enable him in the future to take such further steps as may be necessary to cope with that evil, of which we are all aware on both sides of the House.

I do not think that it is necessary for me either to enlarge on the question of the appointment of temporary persons. I think the hon. the Minister has proved the necessity of that to us very effectively. Then with regard to the question of commonages, in respect of which this Bill now provides that they can be acquired by the Trust, I do not think that it is necessary for me to enlarge upon that, nor need I elaborate the question of fines on ar-rear levies which will now also be paid into the same fund that will be administered by the Minister. That too is money which should properly be paid into that fund and no other fund. This Bill now provides that money will go to that fund which has every moral claim to that money. For the rest this Bill makes provision for the payment of R100,000 to the South West Africa Administration. In practice this simply means that we are practically doubling that amount, apart from other amounts which Parliament may consider it necessary from time to time to vote for that purpose.

The Bill then provides that in the future the word “Bantu” is to be used in place of the word “Native”. I want to conclude by saying that I hope that the attitude which the hon. member for South Coast adopted here will also be adopted by his colleagues, and that other type of person whom you, Sir, do not want us to mention by name, will be packed off on holiday and that the Minister will get the support that he expects for this measure and the support that this measure deserves. I hope that in this debate we are not going to have a repetition of what we had in the previous debate in connection with the group areas, and that is that things are said here which do not fall under this Bill at all.

Order! That is not relevant now.

Precisely, Mr. Speaker, and I think that what is relevant least of all is for an hon. member to get up in this House and to ascribe things to this Bill for which this Bill does not make provision at all, and it is against that I want to issue a warning in advance.

Notwithstanding what the last speaker has had to say about this question of “Bantu” or “Bantoe”, as it might be pronounced in both English and Afrikaans, I want to associate myself with the remark that came from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). It has become a common thing in this country to mutilate words and to use other words which are completely meaningless, and the word “Bantu” just has no meaning. “Abantu” means “people”. “Ba Ntu” just means nothing, and I think the Minister knows that, and yet we go on coining those words. The hon. the Minister himself refers to these various ethnic groups by their true designation. He calls them Gqika, Mfenja, Tembu, Baca, Gcaleka, so why cannot he use those terms? North of the Limpopo there are Congolese and Nyasas and so on. Why should we coin words such as “Bantu” to refer to the group of Black people in this country? And when I use the word “Black” I use it in just the same way as I would use the word “White” in reference to White people. Sir, this mutilation of words has become a daily occurrence. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that when he introduced this Bill he referred to the new township that he wants to establish just outside of East London, Umdanzane, Sir, he has changed his spelling to an “s”. He pronounced it correctly. What significance is attached to Umdanzane. That word signifies something and actually has a meaning. Why the necessity for the change? The Department is continually substituting “s” for “z”. What is the object in doing that? I will give the Minister another example. Take Gazella which was the name of the Chief who lived in that particular part of the border. He died there and he is buried on the farm known as Gazella, and the station there is known as Gazella, but now they have changed the spelling to Gasela, which means “go and drink”. Why is that sort of thing done. There are literally hundreds of those examples. The Minister in introducing this Bill yesterday afternoon suggested that I had not taken an interest in it. Well, I have. Clauses 11 and 12 affect me most seriously. It is proposed under those particular clauses to purchase land in a particular area. How he goes about it I do not know. Is the hon. the Minister going to start from the top-end and buy down or how does he propose to buy? As far as that particular piece of land is concerned, let me say that we have no objection to the exchange provided area 34 is excluded. We have no objection to his substituting that land. But let me ask the hon. the Minister why he did not purchase land that is more suitable, located in another spot and easier of access and that would have provided more reasonable transport, thus avoiding the necessity of going right into the catchments of the Buffalo River on which East London is entirely dependent? What he is doing may injure the water-sheds of the Buffalo irreparably. Has he considered what will happen as a result of sludge and effluent from that village? Has he considered what might happen if he fills up the whole of that 7,000 acres of land that he is now taking in substitution for the 3,000, without any health conditions being provided there? But he has chosen Umdanzane, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if there is not more to it than meets the eye. I want the Minister to be perfectly open with us on the Border. We are worried and we are irritated because of what he is doing. I indicated in an earlier debate that we were worried about the options that he is taking and holding. He is taking 7,000 acres in an area that puts him into line to purchase not only that land, but he can go on and purchase land still further up the Buffalo River, and from negotiations that have been taking place over a period of months we know where he wants to buy. I happen to have seen the maps that have been set out for that purpose. Does he intend now to buy on both sides of the Buffalo River? I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Lands is present, because I see here that the hon. the Minister has an eye for business because he wants to take a lot of Crown land for which he will have to pay very little. Some of the finest indigenous forest land untouched is to be found on the opposite side of the Buffalo River. Does the Minister intend to expropriate that right from Mount Cope to Fort Murray? Sir, there are options held on individual farms there but there are some farms there who refuse to sell. Let the Minister be honest with us and tell us whether he intends to do that.

Then I come to this question of compensation. to Potsdam and I want to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the Potsdam people and whether he realizes that they are very divided? As a matter of fact the majority of them do not want to sell. Why does he hold a lot of options there? Many of them are under threat that they will be encircled and isolated from their neighbours. If he does buy, has he gone into the question of compensation, because this is a very difficult matter? That land on which they have a right to departure—and they have had it for more than a 100 years—is entrusted to the Minister of Lands. They have had those rights for 160 to 170 years. Is he going to compensate them for that land? Because if he is not, in any displacement how can those people be expected to re-establish themselves under anything like the same conditions? They cannot. Besides this they have their churches; they are a settled community; they are the old German settlers. They have their burial grounds there in which six to seven generations of their forebears are buried. Those are all things which have to be provided for. I want to remind the Minister that this is the only protection that we have in the Native Trust and Land Act, and if he intends to depart from that by buying this land for the purpose of being able to spread his tentacles further afield, then we are going to object, and I think we have a right to object, because it must not be forgotten that the European is not treated on the same basis as the Native is under that Act. The Native, if he is displaced in any shape or form, be it from his own property, be it from a lease as a squatter or as a tenant, it is the duty of the Government to find land for him and to put him on that land as a tenant or as a squatter doing nothing. It is an obligation that rests upon the Government, but that is not an obligation that rests on the Government towards the White men who are going to be uprooted from their village—and there are numerous of them. I want to ask the Minister whether he has given any consideration to the question as to how those people are to be absorbed in some sort of community or how they are to re-establish themselves under the difficult conditions that exist to-day. The hon. the Minister wants to go further than that, and there again I am going to plead with him to tell us whether if he goes north and takes Chabu, he wants to take the whole of the Western side of the Berlin municipal ground or village management ground. It has been asked for and negotiations have been in progress in that connection. If that happens I want to remind the hon. the Minister that land is now vested, as the result of a Crown grant, in the Village Management Board. How then is he going to compensate those farmers so that they can re-establish themselves, because any compensation he pays for that land must go into a Land Account as provided for under the Ordinance. How does he intend to do it? I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he intends to go even further than that. He holds options over the farm Pembroke to-day; he cannot get options over Barnes brothers’ farm, but once he has exercised those options, is he going to isolate those individuals and thus freeze them out of their farms? You see, Sir, it creates a difficult position for the farmers on the Border unless the Minister is prepared to come clean with us and tell us exactly what he wants to do.

Now I come to possibly the final point and that is that the Minister is taking ground belonging to the Minister of Lands in close proximity to the abattoirs in East London. It is the only resting place for stock that treks down from as far as King William’s Town. What is he going to leave there as a necessary provision, as a resting place for that stock? It is most important that something should be done. The hon. the Minister is well aware that I came down here with a mandate to oppose the sale of any ground to the Native Trust until such time as the Minister makes a statement as to what he wants. That is how we feel about it, and if the Minister will make such a statement I think it is going to ease the position very considerably. Let him consult with the parties concerned; let him meet the various farmers’ associations and find out whether we can provide a solution to the problem. I want to ask the Minister why he is taking 7,000 acres instead of 3,000 acres which he intends to release from the schedule? Is he going to shift people, because if he sets up this township, then he connects up from the Chabu location and Mount Cope right through to Macleantown. If the Minister intends to fill them up with Natives from elsewhere, then I want to assure him that he is going to create a nasty situation in the eyes of the people who have to forego their land.

I should like to reply just briefly to what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said here yesterday evening about the terms “umuNtu” and “abaNtu”. We readily admit that the word “umuNtu” is the singular and the word “abuNtu” the plural, but what would it be in other Bantu languages? The Afrikaanse Woordeboek specifically mentions the word “Bantoe”, which is described as follows—

That, briefly, is what the word “Bantu” embraces, but if the hon. member objects to the word “Bantu”, what does he say, for example, about the Natal Witness, the Natal Mercury, the Natal Daily News and the Sunday Tribune of Natal which continually use the word “African” instead of “Bantu”? Not one of those newspapers ever uses the word “Bantu”; it is against their principles; they only talk about “Africans”. We have, for example, the Xhosas, the Sothos, the South-Sothos and the North-Sothos, the Tswane, the Vendas, the Shangaans, and then we also have the Bakwas, etc. All those people are included in the concept of “Bantu”. I am told that the hon. member for South Coast speaks on this subject every year and uses the same theme. We hope that the matter will now end here. Ethnologists have found that this is the best appellation for all the Native tribes, and we must accept it therefore.

I should like to deal with Clause 11 which provides for the purchase of more land in the Transkei. There are 26 magisterial districts in the Transkei, and the average size of the commonages there is probably about 1,500 morgen. These commonages are far too big for the sole use of those little townships. They have a historical background. In the early days they were bought by the colonial government, together with the tribal authorities, to establish a garrison and a magistrate’s office there. They were the headquarters in every district, and they were also used as pastures. They were also used by the military authorities and they were used for grazing their oxen, but with the development in the course of time these pastures were no longer needed, and with the advent of the new form of transport—motor-cars and lorries—those pastures are now being let. Many of the commonages have been divided into farms, which are hired by speculators, and it is a very good thing that the Minister has come along with this legislation. Those commonages could be considerably smaller. They could be purchased for the establishment of Bantu towns to keep pace with the expansion in the Transkei. This will also improve the legal position because to-day there is no certainty under the 1936 legislation, under Section 6 of the Act of 1936, whether we can lawfully purchase those commonages.

This Bill introduces a number of desirable amendments to the existing law, but before dealing with any of the clauses, I should like to dwell for a very brief moment on the use of the word “Bantu” which my hon. friend, the member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has already touched on. I shall not detain the House on this subject save to say that it is a mistake to coin a phrase for any purposes we might have in South Africa and then to expect that phrase to be adopted by the people here and to be understood abroad. I can illustrate that point by a story I heard the other day which I believe is true, when a friend of mine received a letter from a professor at an American University in which he said that it was very interesting to hear of all these things being done for the Bantu, but what was being done for the poor Africans? When we read that global sums are being spent to justify the situation in South Africa in the eyes of people abroad, whether we like it or not we must use terminology which is familiar to them, and the phrase “Bantu” is not familiar to them. I agree with the speaker who spoke earlier who referred to certain newspapers and said that it was fashionable in those quarters to use the phrase “African”. We all know that. I myself prefer the phrase “Native”, because it is one that we have grown up with and that we all know. But in answer to the last speaker from that corner of the House, the phrase “Bantu” is not accepted in ordinary usage in South Africa in every quarter. Certainly in English usage it is not yet accepted. I was in Natal the other day, and from hearing the word used often in this honourable House, I, when speaking to my friends used the term “Bantu”, and they said to me: “Why do you always talk about Bantu, surely these people are Zulus or Natives or Africans”, and it was noticeable that they should pick me up because I used the term “Bantu”, as being a term strange to them.

You prefer the term “Africans”?

I am not justifying the term “African”. In answer to that hon. member I may say that it is a term that I do not use personally, but we do know that it is a phrase which is used abroad, and if we want to convey to those people what we are doing for the Black indigenous people, we are obliged to use that phrase.

I should like to come to some of the clauses in this Bill, and the first is Clause 3. I should preface my remarks in this regard by apologizing to the hon. the Minister for not being in the House when he dealt with this clause. I was unfortunately necessarily absent, and he may have dealt with the point that I am now going to raise. I refer in particular to Clause 3 (b), the deletion of that section of the Native Taxation Act which provided for the levy of rates by the Glen Grey District Council under the provisions of Section 48 of the Glen Grey Act of 1894. The White Paper tells us that the provisions in that regard were withdrawn in 1956. The White Paper says “The powers of the Glen Grey District Council to impose an annual rate were withdrawn in 1956”. I have not been able to find that section has been repealed by any legislation. I am subject to correction, but I have not been able to find that clause has been repealed, that is Section 48 of the Act of 1894. In the absence of any statutory repeal, I don’t think those rating provisions can be withdrawn by any administrative action, and if that is so, then there will be an anomaly created by the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Native Taxation Act, because that makes reference to the previously existing legislation under the 1894 Act. If I am right in that regard, then it means either that the Glen Grey District Council can levy a rate without the authority of the Minister, or there is a hiatus between the existence of the Section 48 and the repeal of sub-section (3) of Section 11.

Then I come to Clause 9 of the Bill presently before the House and I should like to refer to the retrospective operation of a portion of that clause. We are here dealing with the appointment of acting headmen and sub-section (2) is to the effect that whatever has been done under Section 2 of the Native Administration Act, prior to its amendment by sub-section (1) of this section, shall be deemed to have been lawfully done. Now one can understand that circumstances might arise whereby it is necessary to have such a provision, where certain bona fide appointments or the determination of such appointments have bona fide been made under the impression that power existed, and one can understand that there may be administrative difficulties in regard to certain tribes unless the Minister has this power at his disposal. But we should like to have the assurance of the hon. the Minister that this retrospective operation is not aimed at any particular individual or any particular situation so that it operates in a harsh and unjustified manner. If the Minister can give us an assurance that it is merely to legitimize bona fide operations in his Department, we would be glad to have that assurance from him.

Finally I should like to refer to Clause 10, which is the clause making provision for the registration of customary unions, and the same clause sets out in detail the various circumstances which can be dealt with by way of regulation. Now the first thing that springs to mind in this regard is that it is unusual to have such a comprehensive set of provisions to be dealt with by way of regulation. One would normally expect these items to be set out in the Act itself. But I think it is fair to say to the hon. the Minister that one can understand different regulations having to be made in respect of different tribes because of the customs differing between those tribes, and in that regard one can understand this provision, or these types of provisions being dealt with by way of regulation instead of forming a part of the legislation as such. But I should like to touch on the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), and that is the difficulty that is met with due to the situation in having towns whereby you have a rising population who live their whole lives under the cloak of an irregular attachment between man and wife. Formally speaking, we have two liaisons between man and woman. You have the ordinary Christian marriage and you have the Native customary union which in Natal is registered under the Natal Native Code. The Native customary union is not merely an arrangement between a man and a woman which is registered. There are all sorts of formalities which lead up to it. There are all sorts of rights and duties which stem from it. it is regulated principally not only by the morals of the tribe, but by the economic circumstances of the people living in that tribe. Those are the two permanent situations. I would ask the hon. the Minister to take care in framing these regulations relating to the registration of customary unions and regulations prescribing the requirements to be complied with, to take care that he does not create another type of Native marriage, namely a simple marriage by registration where you have two people probably living in a town location, merely appearing in an office and registering a union, and that being a recognized customary union simply by way of registration. Because it may well be that type of union which does not have all the preliminary ceremonies and formalities of a proper Native customary union, is not recognized for other purposes in Native law, and you will have three types of legitimate union amongst the Native people: The Christian marriage, the proper customary union (which one still gets in tribal areas) and a third type of union in the towns, namely a marriage by registration which although it puts a seal on that man and that woman living together, does not create all the other rights and duties which normally flow from a Native customary union and from a proper Christian marriage. It will merely make the present situation whereby you have these irregular attachments worse, because it will put the seal of legality on the irregular attachments, but it will not create rights and duties which spring from a proper Native customary union. That is one of the difficulties which will have to be met in framing regulations under what will become Section 22bis (1) (a), (b) and (c). Not only that, but great care will have to be taken in prescribing the requirements to be complied with before a registration can take place and prescribing the persons who may cause a customary union or the annulment or dissolution of it to be registered, because such a person will in effect be in the position of a Judge granting a divorce, and of course that strikes at the roots of family relations. These things, as I have said, might be done by way of regulation, but I trust that the hon. the Minister will see to it that they are sufficiently authoritative and carefully framed to obviate these difficulties which I have mentioned.

In the first place I really want to express my sincere appreciation of the very objective manner in which hon. members discussed this Bill. If there is one thing we need in South Africa, it is a completely unbiased and objective approach to the problems in connection with the Bantu. I really hope that the time is not far distant when we will be able to approach more of these problems in that manner, so that we can put our heads together and combine our energies in order to do what is in the interest not only of the Bantu and of the White man, but of South Africa as a whole. I want to express my appreciation to both sides of the House for that objective approach.

We have had the interesting matter here which was raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in regard to his views of the word “Bantu”, in which he was succeeded by a few other hon. members. I do not want to deal with it at length, but it is always interesting to go back a little into anthropology and the science of languages. I had the privilege of having a professor of languages who spoke fluently no fewer than 31 languages, particularly the Bantu languages. He spoke practically all the Bantu languages of South Africa just as fluently as a Bantu, and I had the privilege of studying comparative languages under him. I do not profess to having been much of a student, but at all events I passed the examinations. I just want to say that this matter has two sides, and to a certain extent the hon. member for South Coast is correct. If in South Africa we had only Zulus, he would have been quite correct. He also referred, for example, to umuNtu and abaNtu. But now we should not forget that the word “Bantu” was created in 1862 by the eminent linguist Bleek. Hon. members know that Dr. Bleek was librarian to Sir George Grey. He is regarded as one of the most brilliant philogists we have ever had in this sphere. He created that term in connection with the languages he found to be similar in Southern Africa, particularly this lower area from the mouth of the Tana River right up to the bend of Africa, this heart of Africa where one finds the Bantu languages. And there he discovered this interesting phenomenon that, if I may use the expression, the skeleton of these languages was more or less the same. There were differences in regard to certain matters, let us say, in regard to the flesh on the skeleton, but there was so much resemblance that he then described it as Bantu, derived from the root word, as the hon. member for South Coast said, “Ntu”. But this root word “Ntu” is found only in the Nguni languages and there is also a difference. In the Nguni groups in South Africa we have, for example, the Zulu, the Swazi, the Xhosa and the Ndebele, and the Ndebele are again split up into Sotho-Ndebele and Nguni-Ndebele. There is, for example, a difference in the terminology of Xhosa and Zulu in regard to this word. The Xhosa, for example, says “umNthu” with a “thu”, and abaNthu. But now one comes to the other groups. They also have that basic word but with a slightly different pronunciation. So, for example, we have the Sotho group. There the root word is “Nto”. They have, for example, “Batho”, meaning “people”. Now I want to go further and say that this word “Bantu” really means “people”. “AbaNthu” means “people”. This group of races had one interesting thing in common, that they described themselves as “people”, They were really the people of Southern Africa; they did not regard the others as people of Africa. Hence the interesting phenomenon that they hardly ever used that term in connection with White men. They called the White man “Abelunzun”, They themselves adopted that term, one of the nicest terms imaginable. Now I readily want to admit that Dr. Bleek created this term, but then it went further. Other philologists also devoted attention to it and came to the same conclusion, that it would be best to call this language group the Bantu language group. Then the matter was further examined, particularly by the International Institute of African languages and cultures, and many years were devoted to the work. I may just mention one interesting fact here, namely that at one stage, when the terminology was decided upon, they were on the point of accepting the Afrikaner’s spelling for the Bantu languages as the basic spelling. Various experts suggested that Zulu should not be spelt “Zulu”, but “Zoeloe”. Later, of course, that was set aside and eventually other people decided on the word “Zulu” and they accepted this term for the whole group of Bantu languages in Southern Africa. That is a term which was created there. It is a term which was fairly generally accepted and which lies at the root of the way in which the Bantu were regarded. But that was not all. After that, various persons came along whom I really regard as being the fathers of the term “Bantu”. Hon. members will be surprised if I tell them who was also regarded as one of the fathers of the term “Bantu”. That was as late as 1948. I want to read here from one of the books for which I have a high regard, and I wish every province would issue such a book, and in the foreword one of the fathers of the word “Bantu” says the following—

Then he continues—

The word “Bantu” is used here three times, and this was signed on 20 December 1948, by D. E. Mitchell. There sits one of the fathers of the word.

I asked why the plural was used and not the singular.

I say there sits one of the fathers of this beautiful word “Bantu”. Now it is quite correct, as the hon. member says, that one can use it in the plural but not in the singular. Now there is just this difference, that one has the philologists, of whom a prominent group consists of the experts of the International Institute for African Languages and Cultures, and they recommended, and this is how it is applied throughout in general practice to-day, that some of the prepositions in regard to this matter should be dispensed with and that one should merely use the basic word. In this way one will no longer in any important scientific book find the words “amaZulu” or “Basuto”. It is just “Sotho”, “Zulu”, “Xhosa”, “Venda”, etc. They then determined that “Bantu” was preferable. But I go further. Thereafter the term “Bantu” developed to denote the national group, not only the language group but the national group, and this word is to-day accepted by practically all the national groups. I want to admit frankly that in many circles, particularly on the part of our English-speaking friends, there was opposition to this. Why? Because the Press waged a propaganda campaign against it because it was promoted by the Nationalist Government, although they did not conceive it. Before the National Party used the term there were other people who had already used it. I therefore quite admit that it was really more the creation of the philologists than of the Bantu themselves. But I must also add to that it was also the creation of the Bantu philologists themselves. We know that a language is not only formed by usage. In regard to its scientific construction it is the philologists who attend to that. I may just remind hon. members that the English we speak today is the language of London the creation of Samuel Johnson. Today still 75 dialects are spoken in England, and the same applies in the case of Xhosa and also Zulu and the other Bantu languages. There are scientists who also create the terminology. Therefore I am quite sure that as far as the future is concerned we are quite safe.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) asked why the correct spelling and pronunciation could not be used of Bantu names, and particularly place names. I want to tell him frankly that I am striving as far as possible to give effect to it. But we are not all philologists. I am not one myself. There are few people left in South Africa who still know the Bantu spelling. Hence the fact that I am one of the great protagonists of the compulsory teaching of a Bantu language to every boy and girl in every school in South Africa. But we find this phenomenon that the terminology is causing great trouble. However, that does not apply to the Bantu languages only. We find it also in connection with the European languages. I just want to remind hon. members of the fact that in the Northern Transvaal there is a place which was given the pretty name of “Eekhoringhoek”. To-day it is called “Acorn Hoek”. There is not a single oak tree in the whole of the vicinity, but there are many squirrels. That shows that we experience this trouble also in regard to the European languages. But I can tell hon. members that this is something to which much attention is being devoted, so much so that my officials receive special allowances when they can speak a Bantu language and can pass an examination in it. Then they receive a special allowance.

I now want to come back to the second point raised by the hon. member for South Coast, and I want to thank him heartily for the informative speech he made here. I want to say that it is a matter which lies very close to my heart, because we have this unfortunate position in South Africa that the moral foundation of the Bantu population groups is being broken up, particularly as the result of the tremendous development in the White sector, where they are separated from the stabilizing influences of their own people. There the moral standards in practically every sphere have to a very large extent, been broken down, particularly in respect of marriages. I think we in South Africa have made one big mistake over a number of years, namely that we have not devoted enough attention to the role and the task and the vocation of the Bantu women in the community. I am not blaming any particular party for it; I blame myself and my own party for it too, and I think it is a matter which should in future receive much more attention. I may say that I have already given instructions for a special investigation to be made in this regard to ascertain what can be done so that the Bantu women may again take their rightful place as wife and mother, and often as a leader, as she has always done, because she enjoyed a high status in her own social community. Unfortunately, as the result of the confusion and fragmentation which arose in the social structure of the Bantu, particularly through the agency of the White people, the position arose where the Bantu woman no longer receives that respect and consideration she enjoyed in the past. I had a few polls taken and I was really shocked. I myself in my younger days conducted research in this connection, but now I want to mention just one case. Some time ago one of my officials took a poll, and he found a certain Bantu woman working in the city. She appeared before this official and she declared that she had nine children, and she admitted that every one of these nine children had a different father, and that she did not know where a single one of these fathers was. There she is sitting in her old age with nine children and it is up to her to see that they become educated, whilst the fathers have disappeared completely and she does not know where they are. That position should be remedied. I am very concerned about it and it is my intention to make every possible effort to see how we can remedy this matter. I may say that we have already made reasonably good progress in this regard. But the hon. member will agree with me that eventually we shall have to apply a form of compulsion in regard to the registration of marriages. A method will have to be evolved. Now I immediately want to agree with the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) that the old traditional Zulu wedding and also the old traditional Bantu marriage were very important events, and everybody in the tribe knew about them, and the wife had a very high status in the life of the family and in the community and of the nation. There was never any doubt about that, and it is not necessary to ascertain it. In addition, we have to-day, on the other hand, a development which is increasing to a large extent and which I personally am encouraging, namely the marriage by Christian rites, or to put it in another way, the Western form of marriage. I want to say immediately that even that does not guarantee the position of the wife as much as did the old traditional marriage of the Bantu or of the Zulu. Still, that is the direction in which we are moving to-day. But now we have the middle group which never really marries. The man just takes a woman as it suits him, and when it no longer suits him she is simply discarded and left to her own devices. I repeat that in many respects we have made quite a lot of progress in regard to building up the Bantu social structure, but this matter constitutes a very great social danger, and the sooner we deal with it the better it will be for the development of the social order, not only of the Bantu but also of our White community, because it even entails a danger to the White community. Therefore I want to give hon. members the assurance that I will go into this matter even more thoroughly to see to what extent we can really get to the root of the evil and ensure that the marriage particularly is put on a sound basis and that family life will again be put on a sound basis, as it was in the olden days.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) put a few questions to me. In the first place he referred to the retrospective effect of the legislation and wanted to know whether that would not harm some people, or whether it was not intended to legalize things done in the past, where a chief was appointed, or something of that nature. I can certainly give him the assurance that it is purely because this process was already in progress before 1927 and that this policy was even at that time already being implemented to legalize cases which possibly did not comply with these requirements. It is in no way intended to deal with a specific person who may perhaps be victimized in terms of this Bill. I give the hon. member that assurance wholeheartedly. In regard to the other few questions the hon. member put to me, I can only assure him that he need not be concerned in the least. It is merely intended to allow right and justice to be done to the community concerned.

I would like to pause for a moment to deal with the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). The hon. member had many doubts about the purchase of this area of land at Mdantsane. There are perhaps also other persons and groups which have doubts about it. But as I have already said, we are faced here with two big problems. In the first place we have the problem of the location in East London. Last year a position arose there which was very serious. We intervened and saved the position, but it is not yet what it should be, by far. In the area which East London has available for the development of the residential area, it cannot be done properly because that area is too small. Therefore there is only one way out, namely that we must expand. The existing area is far too small. I have had various discussions with the City Council of East London. I was there myself; my predecessor went there, and when the late Mr. Jansen was Minister of Native Affairs, I went there again. Some of my officials were there, and it was clear that the existing area was too small for a location. Now there are two possibilities. The first is the development at Mdantsane. The other possibility is to develop on the western side of the river. If the development takes place on the western side of the river, portion of it will be along the coast, which is not always desirable either. But there is this problem, that you cannot link it up with the Bantu area at all, otherwise you will have to buy out that whole piece of ground, which will simply take many years and is something to which the hon. members representing East London will never consent. There the hon. member has a case. Now we have to choose between these two things. Are we now to take this area and buy up the whole hinterland, or should we take Mdantsane where we will have to purchase only 7,000 morgen?

I have no objection to that.

I am glad the hon. member puts it so clearly. Therefore we are now on the point of purchasing Mdantsane. We link it up with the Bantu area, and now we are developing the Bantu towns there which will have enough space. There we will not have so many problems, although there are a few. The first problem we are investigating is whether the people will be satisfied to sell. I can just tell you, Sir, that not only are they satisfied to sell, but they are keen on selling. I have received various telegrams from these people thanking me for the fact that the whole matter has now been resolved. But there is one matter about which I am myself concerned. If there is one thing to which I attach great value it is the preservation of our catchment areas and rivers. Coming from that part of the world, I must state that the Buffalo River is one of the vital arteries of the Eastern Cape. Therefore it is my duty to guard over the Buffalo River as a mother guards her small child, because unless that water is preserved, and preserved effectively, we shall not be able to carry out the great development projects we have in mind from King William’s Town to East London—that King William’s Town-East London complex. Therefore that is Priority No. 1. That is why we took so long, so as to make quite sure that this danger does not exist. I can only say that we sent an expert there from the Department of Water Affairs. His report is to the effect that with the development we envisage there, there is not the least danger that the water will be contaminated. But I was not yet satisfied. Later we consulted Dr. Stander of the C.S.I.R., who is to-day regarded as one of the outstanding experts in regard to the matter. His attitude is simply that he is not prepared to state that as the result of the scheme we envisage that water will be contaminated. One never knows what might happen later. Anything is possible. Even the engineers who know that area well stated that they were not prepared to say that this scheme we envisage will result in any danger of the water being contaminated. But I want to say immediately that this scheme must be developed in such a way that the water will not be contaminated. It is our duty and our task to ensure that this will be prevented. The hon. member need not be concerned about that. For the sake of the development of East London—and I foresee great developments for East London—we must bear this matter in mind thoroughly. The hon. member will perhaps be surprised to hear that only to-day I received a letter from a very large company in London which is interested in opening a factory in East London as soon as possible. They just want to learn how far our plans have progressed. That therefore shows the confidence people are getting in these methods we are adopting.

Then the hon. member further asked what would happen to that outspan which is used by people who herd their cattle along the road. My own information is that this place does not play such an important role. But he can also have the assurance that the necessary facilities will be provided there for cattle if necessary. We all have sympathy for cattle which have to trek and we shall certainly see to it. The dangers he sees are imaginary.

He asks what I am now going to do in regard to the purchase of land on the western side of the river. It is impossible at this stage to give the hon. member a complete outline of our plans. I just want to say this, that it is my policy to consult all the bodies concerned. I readily admit that there are people who have granted options on their farms. But every person has the right to offer his farm for sale, and then we go into the matter and see whether it is in the interest of the community and of the Bantu, and thereafter we will decide whether to buy or not. But we consult the bodies concerned. I may say that only last week a deputation from the City Council of East London visited me in regard to this matter. We discussed the whole matter and they went back, not only quite satisfied but also very enthusiastic about it. The day before yesterday I again met the Deputy Mayor at East London and he immediately said that they were very pleased with the prospects offered by this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the main points. If I have omitted anything, I have not done so deliberately. I want to conclude by again expressing my appreciation for the co-operation I have received in connection with this Bill, and to express the hope that in future we will have this experience more often, namely of dealing so pleasantly and objectively with matters affecting the Bantu and which are of common interest. The hon. member for South Coast set a very good example here, which I really hope will be followed in future by both sides of the House. I move the second reading.