During the debate on this Bill last Tuesday the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in the first part of his speech explained for about half an hour how involved this Bill is. I agree with him, but matters in connection with water rights are always involved. Even the lawyers have great difficulties over water rights and therefore when we introduce a new Bill in connection therewith we may expect it to be involved. When the hon. member asks us to be careful in the matter I agree with him. This House must go very carefully into the point before fresh alterations are made because everything in connection with water rights is complicated, and an amendment may not always be an improvement. If, however, the hon. member contends that this Bill proposes to alter established principles in a drastic manner I differ from him entirely. I want to assure him that if hon. members opposite will try to go to work carefully in connection with new provisions on water rights, I, on my part, will give every assistance so that we should do nothing to make matters more involved. If, however, he states that the Minister wants to violate old principles, then I think I shall succeed in proving that he is entirely wrong. The Minister has already made a promise to the House and to members privately, that he will give every opportunity of moving amendments in the select committee and in the committee of the whole House, and I think it was therefore unnecessary for the hon. member to move that this Bill should be referred to a select committee before the second reading. I think the hon. member thereby shows that he did not accept the Minister’s word that he was prepared to accept any useful amendment.

It is not a question of the Minister’s word, but of what the rules of the House permit.

Mr. Speaker said that a member would be entitled in the select committee to even move the deletion of a clause. It is permissible. If, therefore, there is a clause in the Bill which the House in the select committee considers dangerous there is the fullest right of omitting it. I therefore cannot see for a moment why the hon. member moves that the Bill should be referred before the second reading. I cannot help thinking that the hon. member could not resist the temptation of in some way making party capital out of the Bill. It is very regrettable to see the hon. member making an effort to do that, even on this occasion. He knows exactly how panicky our irrigators are to-day about anything that may affect them, and when irrigation legislation is introduced we know that the irrigators are nervous and panicky. Therefore it is the duty of the hon. member to remember that, and not to do anything to increase the panic and the suspicion. His motion is just meant to make the public suspicious and to create the idea that the Government want to make a party matter of this and to push certain principles injurious to farmers through the House, which is not the intention of the Minister at all.

Leave politics alone.

Why does not the hon. member for Fort Beaufort takes the Minister’s word? The Minister surely said that he was prepared to accept any good amendment. I say in connection with this matter, it is the best policy for the House, before the Bill goes to a select committee, to discuss it here first, because the debate in this House will be the best lead to the select committee to know precisely how far certain clauses need alteration. I appeal to the House to use its common sense and to deal with the matter on its merits. The Minister is the agent of the farmers and must do his best to pass a law which will benefit them, and therefore we expect every member whether he is a farmer, or an advocate like the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), to assist in passing something which will satisfy the farmers. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not only make the accusation that we were going to make a far-reaching alteration in principle, but he even accused the Minister outside the House before the session commenced of greatly delaying the introduction of this Bill. Now that the Minister introduces it, he accuses him of bringing in over-hasty legislation. Where is the consistency? He first accuses the Minister of delay, then of over-haste, and then again he wants to maintain that certain holy rights are being interfered with here. I think it will not be difficult to show that there is no fresh violation of principles in the Bill. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort referred to the clauses which he thought made an alteration in principles. He took first the new Clause 2, in which “normal flow” is defined. He opposed that clause. Let me say in this connection that I want to be still more careful than the hon. member so that nothing is done to injure the irrigators, but I hold that we are not concerned here with an alteration of principle. The hon. member further dealt with Clause 3, which contains a new definition of primary rights in connection with the use of water. There it is proposed to give towns and villages certain privileges, and as the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) rightly interjects, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort actually agreed to that clause, and in my opinion that is just the one clause where there is a drastic alteration, viz., the extension of primary use. Just in connection with this extension I feel very nervous, and I really think that we shall be taking a dangerous step in connection with the grant of rights to villages and towns, and that that grant will be prejudicial to riparian owners adjoining villages or towns. Here, in my opinion, we are concerned with the only alteration in principle, but the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has, as a matter of fact, approved of this clause. Clause 8 gives a new version of sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 1912. The hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) make a fuss about the new definition, and I think they are justified. I shall try in select committee to get it so altered that the door is less widely opened, and that any detriment to the irrigators may be prevented, but I entirely doubt the statement that it is a new principle. Let us see what the clause proposed, more or less. We must first see what the old idea was in connection with the use of water, and what the basic principle of the old common law in that respect was. The use of water is divided into three groups, viz., for primary use (such as drinking water), secondary use (irrigation of ground) and tertiary use (for industries). Then there is our common law view, that the water could only be used by riparian owners, and only on riparian land. Now sections 20 and 21 contain certain provisions in connection with the use of water which differ from the old idea of rights. I hope, however, to show that the alteration proposed was already made in the 1912 Act. This Bill possibly goes a little further, but the violation of these principles was already made in 1912, and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort co-operated in it. Therefore I dispute the statement that the Minister is proposing to violate principles for the first time. Section 20 as now drafted gives the riparian owners the right to water, both surplus water and water of the normal flow, when it is in the public interest and to use it for tertiary purposes. Previously the provision always was that tertiary use was subject to secondary use. The new clause proposes that when it is in the public interest, riparian owners can use water for tertiary purposes before secondary purposes are considered. The secondary use of all riparian owners is encroached upon when one of the riparian owners may take water for tertiary use before the secondary requirements are met. I acknowledge that this is an alteration of the theory, but it was already done in 1912 as I shall show. The only difference made by the new sections 20 and 21 is that water can be used by riparian owners not only on the banks, but also elsewhere, in other words, the new amendment is that riparian owners, when it is in the public interest, can use water for tertiary purposes as well, not only on the banks, but elsewhere. That is a radical alteration, but one that already appears in the 1912 Act. It is only now proposed that the can use the water for tertiary purposes away from the river. It is, however, provided that “authorised under-takers” when approved, can also take water for tertiary purposes. The words “authorised undertakers” apparently frightened the hon. member for Fort Beaufort very much, but the Minister has already explained that the words also occur in an Act which the other side passed when they were still in office. I admit, however, that an alteration is being made in the old basic idea with regard to the use of water, and that tertiary use will no longer be subject to primary and secondary use by riparian owners. This alteration was, however, made for the first time in the 1912 Act. Section 21 of that Act provides that the water court, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11 (which fixes the precedence of primary and secondary rights), when application is made by a riparian owner to it, can grant him, under specified circumstances, leave to use for tertiary purposes a definite quantity of water from the normal flow of a public stream. The old Act therefore already contains this violation of the principle mentioned. Section 23 of the 1912 Act went further and also gave the right to the use of the water of a public stream, whether of the normal flow or surplus water, not only in the catchment area on riparian land, but to also use a part of the water outside of the natural water shed of the stream, outside the catchment area for household or for industrial purposes. This means that even in 1912, in certain circumstances, water could be taken from the river for tertiary purposes. I admit that we give more opportunity in this Bill for taking such water, but yet the principle was contained in the old Act, and in the Bill restrictions are actually inserted which the old Act did not contain, to wit, in the first place that this may only be done where it is in the public interest. That was not in the 1912 Act. It is further provided that where water is taken away in each case, compensation must be paid in future. The old Act provides in Clause 21 that “if necessary, compensation may be paid.” The Water Court has thus since 1912 been able to lay down that in its opinion the taking of the water was not of such consequence as to necessitate the payment of compensation. The compensation had only to be paid if the water court thought it necessary, but now it is provided that payment is compulsory. As to Clause 8, which was so challenged by the hon. members for Fort Beaufort and Cape Town (Central) because it was a change in principle, I think I have sufficiently shewn that there is no question of a new violation and that the hon. members are the last persons who can challenge the clause in as much as it was already done in the 1912 Act. I admit that the clause in the Bill goes further, but the alteration in principle took place in 1912. In the select committee and in the committee of the whole House I shall do everything in my power to see that we do not go too far and that the interests of the irrigators are protected. I think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will, however, himself admit that a dangerous principle was introduced in 1912 and a dangerous door opened which now is further opened under the new Bill. There is, under our common law, a different basic principle about the use of water, viz., that every person living on the bank of a river should have the right to make “reasonable” use of the water, and I can only say that this principle also was violated in 1912 with the complicity of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Clauses 15 and 16 of the 1912 Act provide that the riparian owners on rivers above storage dams must claim their rights within a certain period or they would otherwise be prevented from making the reasonable use of the water to which they were always entitled.

Surplus water.

Yes, but they always have the right to store the surplus water if they wish. Before 1912 they had the right to make reasonable use of the surplus water, a right that was taken away in 1912. An alteration was therefore made in 1912 in the principle that riparian owners can make reasonable use of the water of the normal flow as well as of surplus water. That was an actual alteration in principle and this Bill reinstates those rights as existing before 1912. In Clauses 15 and 16 the rights are given back to riparian owners. I think I have sufficiently proved that not one of the clauses challenged proposes a fresh alteration in principle, and as the Minister has agreed that the select committee can introduce new principles, I cannot see the necessity of referring the Bill to the select committee before the second reading. The principles were already encroached upon in 1912, and we must only take care that we do not go too far and that we do not damage the irrigators more than they were already damaged in 1912. I agree with the hon. member that we must try to amend many of the clauses, as e.g., the clause in connection with normal flow. I for my part will do my best to get it altered as much as possible. We know how, for years and years, attempts have been made to get a decision from the courts as to what normal flow means. The riparian owners had long been litigating under the old Act of 1906 to find out what the rights of riparian owners to the use of water were. In 1906 every riparian owner was given the right to make reasonable use of water of a river flowing through his land, but the courts then had difficulty in connection with what “reasonable use” in the Act meant and in consequence there were many cases on the subject. Accordingly an attempt was made in the 1912 Act to avoid the difficulties in connection with “reasonable use,” and therefore that Act proposed that reasonable use could be made of the normal flow of a river. The definition of “normal flow” was given to the effect that it should mean all the water that could usefully be employed by irrigators to irrigate land without conserving the water. Since 1912 they have therefore always been able to use the water which they usefully could do for the irrigation of their ground. Now in this Bill a new definition of “normal flow” is given, viz., the definition that normal flow shall be one and a quarter times the estimated average flow of water passing down such a stream at the cross section during a period of two hundred consecutive days when the stream is ordinarily at its lowest. Whether this definition of “normal flow” will assist in removing the difficulty we shall have to decide and discuss fully in the select committee. I think, in any case, that this is a very dangerous provision, and that it will cause many new difficulties. This provision first fixes that the normal flow shall in no case be more than enough to supply all the requirements for primary and secondary purposes. That is the maximum as laid down in Clause 2. The new definition therefore provides that it may not be more than the old normal flow, and it is further laid down that it may not be less than the figure obtained by a division by 40 in the greatest number of morgen of land which can be economically irrigated in five years. The Minister advances as one of his arguments for that that there were too many difficulties in connection with the definition of “normal flow.” But what does the new provision mean? There we come back again surely to the old definition, because the maximum will be the old normal flow. The difficulties the Minister wants to remove are again put in, and I fear that the definition will give much dissatisfaction, especially to the irrigators in the south-western districts. They have become accustomed to the old use under the definition of 1912. There has been much litigation about the interpretation of “normal flow.” I think that people have now reached the point of more pr less having an interpretation of “normal flow.” They have more or less agreed about it, and they are for the most part now agreed how the normal flow is to be divided. If we alter that, there will be a great deal of fresh litigation, and the same difficulties of fixing the “normal flow.” The irrigators of the south-western districts have now based almost all division of water on the old interpretation of normal flow, and if a different meaning is now to be given to it and a different division is to take place, it will place the people in an impossible position. Therefore, I shall do all in my power to prevent it, and to arrange that we either leave out the provision altogether or take account of the old vested rights since 1912. Take, for instance, the Swartbergen, where most of the rivers have two kinds of streams, viz., a winter flow which is usually strong, and a summer flow which is very weak. The winter flow is so strong that it gives them a chance to construct large furrows and to go in for crops which would not be possible with the weak summer flow. In the summer, again, they are restricted to certain intensive cultivation of a part of the ground on which they can grow specific crops. If a new definition is passed and the “normal flow” should not be sufficient, it will mean had harvests, and therefore I hope that we shall so alter the definition that the farmers in the south-western districts will be satisfied. The cost of fixing of the “normal flows” will also be very high. It is provided in the Bill that the normal flow shall be measured over the cross section. Who will decide what that is, and who will say which two hundred days shall be taken to get at the average flow? Further, it is provided that when the normal flow is fixed and subsequently is found to be based on inaccurate hydrographic estimates, they can be altered. In South Africa hydro-graphic surveys will always be relative. They often change from year to year, and what is accurate to-day will perhaps be entirely wrong in ten years. How can we expect such a system to give satisfaction? I think that it is a very dangerous thing, and in order to avoid litigation we shall have to adopt another method. The provision must be simple, and it must be easy to know what a person is entitled to, otherwise we shall have many court cases. Then there is the further provision that if a riparian owner uses the normal flow for more than ten years he will have reasonable preference over other riparian owners in the area. Formerly the preference was only given after 30 years, but now it is proposed to grant it after ten years. What about the Transvaal, where there are many little rivers which are not yet used for irrigation? It will be a dangerous principle to lay down that if anyone goes in for irrigation in the bushveld he will, after ten years, have the preference. It is a dangerous change. I said that I thought Clause 3 contained the most drastic alteration. A new definition of “primary use” is now being given, and according to the clause, section 11 of the 1912 Act is so amended that the right is now being given to riparian owners to use water for primary purposes, also for the dipping of animals, the washing of clothes, the cleaning of buildings and vehicles, the flushing of sewers and the watering of streets, and a water court in specific cases can even give consent to the use of water by a town or village for any other purposes.

Hear, hear.

May I remind my hon. friend that he agreed to this section? He said that he agreed to the clause, but Clause 8, which contains the same principle, although in a more extended sense than the Act of 1912, has been challenged by hon. members. Here, however, for the first time the principle is introduced that, in certain cases, towns and villages have the primary use of water for purposes which were not previously regarded as primary use. I shall challenge this clause in the select committee and the committee of the whole House. I regard it as very dangerous. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort votes in favour of it, he will get into trouble with the irrigators of South Africa. [Time extended.] I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that the agitation about sections 15 and 16 in the 1912 Act was the principal cause of the introduction of this Bill. Those sections caused much trouble. The Minister now proposes to give back to a certain extent the rights taken away in 1912, and the country will be grateful to him. I just want to repeat that I think I have made clear that, except in Clause 3, no new principles have been proposed, and, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort agrees with Clause 3, I cannot understand why he wants the Bill first to go to the select committee. I appeal to hon. members opposite, and especially to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), to assist in keeping party politics out of this debate, and especially to be careful that we do not create the impression outside that fresh attempts are being made to interfere with vested rights. I hope the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will withdraw his amendment. Let us stand together in committee and make every effort to protect vested rights. The Minister promised to accept amendments, and even informed members privately that he would be prepared to alter the title if necessary so that we could have every opportunity of making improvements. We can possibly insert new clauses in the select committee, as, e.g., in connection with mountain fires in which the hon. member for Standerton is so interested and I discussed with him the other day. We must have something to put a stop to them and protect our natural water sources. The inclusion of provisions for that purpose will have my support.

I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), but I have found it somewhat difficult to understand his attitude. When my right hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) criticizes the Bill quite temperately and reasonably, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn thinks that he is making party capital out of this Bill, but when the hon. member criticizes the Bill with as much force, then I should like to know who is making the party capital. Surely criticism of a Bill here in this House does not mean that we are making party capital. What are we here for? We are trying to make a good Bill on a subject which is one of the most difficult possible in this country, and I am sure that the idea of party capital never entered the head of my right hon. friend on my right (Sir Thomas Smartt), not for a moment. If either on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House some of the provisions of this Bill are dissected and criticized and pulled to pieces, it is not done with any object of making party capital, but it is simply with a view to try and straighten out difficulties and get a Bill which is satisfactory in a matter that is of very great importance to the country. I have the hope that we may succeed in this. The most difficult aspect of this Bill has been eliminated from party controversy, or any controversy, by the consent of those who are interested. I refer to the protection clauses of the Bill. Hon. members will remember that for the last two or three years there has been a great controversy raging in this country in regard to these protection clauses. The Bill now comes before us with a more or less satisfactory settlement of the protection clauses arranged by all the parties concerned. All to the good. We want to have a good water law in this country and I am not without hopes that if we are patient, if the Minister is patient, and all sides of the House approach this subject in the right spirit, we may be able to put the other clauses of this Bill into such a shape that the whole of the Bill will be more or less satisfactory to the country. I believe that was the object and the only object that my right hon. friend had in view when he moved for the discharge of this Bill before the second reading. It is because he fears that by passing the second reading we may be stereotyping principles contained in this Bill, principles which my hon. friend the member for Oudtshoorn has criticized with a great deal of force just now. We do not want to stereotype these principles and place the select committee in a difficult position. We want the committee to have a free hand. I am sure that is the object of the Minister. I hope that some way will be found out either by means of the amendment moved by my right hon. friend or in some other way by which we can have complete freedom given to the select committee to inquire into this matter and frame the Bill in a way that will be satisfactory. The subject-matter is very difficult, and the Bill makes the subject-matter even more difficult because of its language. The Bill has been drafted, I am sure, with the greatest technical skill. I am sure that the Irrigation Department of this country, a most highly competent body, has given the greatest attention to the subject, and from a technical point of view the language, I dare say, is flawless, but there are expressions in this Bill which it is very difficult for the ordinary man in the street and the man behind the plough to understand—the language of engineers—and the result is that this Bill, which is a Bill for farmers very largely, is one most difficult to understand. Any law dealing with water rights is bound to be difficult. It is one that is highly technical, and I daresay that the technical expression in which it has been put is specially difficult, and if it is possible for the select committee by a simplified language to put the provisions into crisp, short sentences, which may be understood by the public, I think the select committee will be doing a great service to the country. Otherwise this water law will become an absolute mystery to the public. As soon as a man gets into any trouble he will have to rush to his lawyer. His attorney will go to his advocate. It will be before the water court before they know where they are, and ultimately they will find themselves before the Court of Appeal. I hope that the Minister, although his tendency, quite correctly, will be to stand by his department, will really try to be helpful to the country and to the House, and will do his best to see that the Bill is put in the simplest way possible, because I find it very difficult to understand, and I assume that the untrained farmer of this country, the untrained irrigator, must find it almost unintelligible. I do not think my right hon. friend, in dealing with this aspect of the Bill, laboured the point too much. I hope a serious effort will be made to simplify its provisions. One point I should like to mention which might be of service to the select committee is this—it is most difficult to follow this Bill in connection with the principal Act of 1912. The references are difficult. You see clauses mentioned here and numbers mentioned, and you do not know whether it is the amending Bill or the principal Act that is referred to. The idea has occurred to me whether it is not possible for us at the end of this Bill to fit in a clause to this effect, that this Bill when it has been passed will be printed and published with the principal Act as one Act and, therefore, you will not have two separate Acts with cross references from one to another, but you will have one Act; you will re-print the clauses of the old Act together with these amendments which are made now, into one Act. It seems to me it is technically possible for the lawyers to think out a clause for this Bill which will effect that. Any person thereafter using our water law will have one complete Act before him at once. I throw out this suggestion in the hope it may be of some use to the select committee. I turn to some of the provisions of this Bill, and when I criticize them I do it in no party sense or any destructive spirit at all. My idea is simply to point out we are making great changes, and the committee, this House and the country must scrutinize very closely the changes it is proposed to make. Let me take first the point made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) in regard to normal flow. The old definition in the Act of 1912 of normal flow was quite simple. The old Section 10 said that normal flow is any water in a public stream which a man can use for irrigation purposes, and big flood waters could not be so used; they are excluded. The definition gave riparian owners very full rights. Any water in a public stream which could be used for irrigation was normal flow. The riparian owners along that stream were all entitled to their fair share, their proportionate share, of this water. That is the whole river so far as it can be used for irrigation, and that was divided as regards its use between the riparian owners. That seems quite a simple definition. The new definition says in substance it is not the whole stream that can be used for irrigation which comes in question, but the stream as taken over the 200 days when the water is lowest. It means an entirely different thing. You take the ordinary river of this country—take the river up-country where you have a summer rainfall—you take five months of the summer when there is plenty of water in the river and you eliminate all that water and take the river simply for the seven months when it is lowest—it will be quite a different river. The old definition of 1912 gave the riparian owners the right to all the water that could be used for irrigation. The new definition eliminates the five months of rainfall whether it be winter or summer in the various parts of the country, and restricts the normal flow to the dry months, and then the riparian owners have their share in this smaller normal flow. The House will understand it makes a great difference whether you have your fair share in the big stream or whether you have it in the small stream in the dry time. The matter is of importance because it affects the question of compensation. It is important to know what you are compensated for. I am very much afraid the Bill takes away very substantially the water rights in public streams of irrigators, and that even if the water is taken away for industries or railways, there will be very little compensation paid. I think the Bill goes much too far in its new definition of normal flow, and I hope the committee will consider carefully whether it is necessary to have the new definition, whether it is advisable for us to disturb a state of affairs which has existed practically from time immemorial in this country. We know what normal flow is. All our case law is dependent on that, and all our decisions have been made on the existing rights. Now the Bill comes and puts instead an entirely new definition of normal flow, and to my mind you are going to affect the existing rights very materially, and you are going to upset a large number of cases where rights have been decided and have been apportioned. You have a river where the water court has apportioned rights on this definition of normal flow from the top to the bottom. Owners know exactly where they are. Once the new Bill comes into force with the new definition there may be a grave risk that all these settled matters may be re-opened and, at any rate, would be disturbed again. A farmer lives now on a river He knows exactly that the water court has decided what his rights are, but with the new definition of normal flow, which is a much smaller thing, he does not know to what he is entitled. I, therefore, would suggest to the House and the committee that we should go very carefully into the question whether there is any necessity for this change, and whether we should have this new definition which turns the whole situation, as decided by our previous legislation and the courts, topsy-turvy. Little is done in this Bill to preserve vested rights—to keep alive these decisions—and that is one of my troubles in regard to this Bill. Since 1912 we have had very large numbers of decisions, and the rights to rivers have been apportioned and settled to the mutual satisfaction of riparian owners and the public. I think we should not lightly disturb the situation thus created, and we should either have clauses preserving vested rights or leave things as they are, and not disturb this question of normal flow. The Bill should not be passed in a form which may lead to further litigation, and the water courts having to do their work over again, which must lead to expense and the unsettlement of the public. This is my principal criticism on this Bill. I wish to say a few words on what my right hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt) discussed the other night—the question of riparian rights, and secondary and tertiary use under new Clauses 20 and 21. I admit that the matter is most difficult. Our common law is very simple and preserves the old Roman Dutch law—of wonderful simplicity—and according to the Roman and Roman Dutch law, the water of a public stream was public property for the use of the riparian owners. They never acquired ownership, but had reasonable, proportionate use, which, under ordinary circumstances, was quite easy to apply. But difficulties have arisen, and there is not enough water in this country even for riparian owners. Where years ago a river had heaps of water, the flow of water has diminished owing to various causes; the number of riparian owners has increased, and the riparian use has increased very much; over and above this towns have sprung up, we find factories demanding water, industries and railways require water in all directions, and the law which worked quite simply and admirably under old conditions is difficult under conditions of modern development; and I can understand the Minister coming forward and saying that he must take into consideration these new developments, and we must have regard to the requirements of our towns, industries, railways and so forth. I so far agree with the Minister that we must see that the best use possible is made of the public water of this country. The question is, whether the Minister has not gone too far under new Clause 20. I should not say: “Minister”, but “Bill,” because I can understand it is a very technical matter, and the Minister will not assume responsibility; it is a matter of policy; it is a question whether the policy embodied in Section 8—new Clause 20—does not go too far. What the Minister has provided for are four cases, and I want hon. members to follow them. The first case is contained in the first sub-section of Clause 20, and it says that a riparian owner may use the water to which he is entitled, either for secondary or tertiary use, and not only on the riparian land, but anywhere else—not only for irrigation, but for any other purpose when it is in the public interest. So the result may be that the riparian owner may take his share of the water, take his cusec away, and it may never come back. Then under sub-section 3 there is another case which goes even further. Not only the riparian owner, but any person who is entitled to water for irrigation purposes may use that water for any purpose anywhere. Hon. members will see how far that goes. It departs from the essential principles of Roman Dutch law in the most material effects.

made an interjection.

The hon. member seems to have some polemical idea at the back of his head. I want to see how far this provision goes, and see whether we could put the Bill in a form generally acceptable. Let me take the third case, which is that of the authorized undertaker. The Bill says, in Section 21, sub-section 1, that an authorized undertaker who has the approval of the Government and also of the water court, may take water anywhere for any tertiary use, and all that the lower owners may expect is to have water for primary use, that is, for drinking purposes for themselves and their animals. This is a very serious case, and is a case where a third person appears on the scene—not a riparian owner or anybody interested in the river, but railways, factories and so forth. They want water, and having secured the assent of the Governor-General, that is, of the Government, and having secured an order from the water court—the whole of the lower riparian owners may be opposed to this move—their consent is not asked—and the water court and Government in the public interest may act in direct conflict with the interests of the lower owners; the water is given away and passes away. That is the third case, which seems to me to go very far. The lower riparian owners may be greatly opposed to the policy which is being adopted, but if the Government thinks it should be done in the public interests and the water court approves, the lower riparian owners have to suffer. The compensation they receive may be very small in view of the new definition of normal flow. Then there is the fourth case under sub-section (3) of Clause 21. Any riparian owner entitled to water for irrigation purposes may sell his water to an outside party, such as a town council, the Railway Department or a factory. The water is then taken and used for tertiary purposes. The situation that may arise under these conditions may be a very difficult one. What may happen is this—you have a river on which there are a number of riparian owners. The water may not be sufficient even for their irrigation purposes. One, two, three or more of them out of a large number take the idea into their heads that they can sell their water profitably to a town council, the railways or a factory.

Their proportionate share.

I assume an apportionment has been made by the water court. It is easy to see that such a step may have far-reaching effects on the lower owners, who will find it very difficult to prove a case for compensation, because they still have nominally the water to which they are entitled.

If that is not allowed, how are the railways to get water?

I want my hon. friend to follow me. Permission is given to any riparian owner on his own account to sell his water, whatever may happen to the other riparian owners, and the result may be to create chaos on a river. I doubt whether these four cases that I have referred to really form a solution of the troubles with which we are faced, and I would ask the select committee to consider these cases very carefully. I can understand that where you have a reach or section of a river entitled to a certain amount of water and an outside authority obtains the consent of these people, not of one or two only, but of the great bulk of them, then a case would arise for a departure from the principles of the Roman Dutch law. But to leave it to any individual riparian owners to unsettle the water arrangement would be a very grave mistake indeed. A thing like this should not be done without the consent—either a unanimous or substantial consent—of the lower riparian owners. If that consent cannot be secured, then the case should be considered in Parliament. If you have a river with 100 people living on it, and if a majority of them are entirely opposed, I do not think you should leave the matter to any court as is proposed in the Bill. I think that goes too far. I take a perfectly reasonable view of the matter. Some change in the law and some greater flexibility are necessary. I admit that the Roman Dutch law has remained rigid, whereas the water law of modern countries has moved on. We shall have to make changes and advances, but looking at the cases which may arise under new Clauses 20 and 21, I am exceedingly doubtful whether we should go to the length of saying that water can be removed in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the riparian owners. If a town council wants water and secures the consent either of all or the great bulk of the riparian owners, then it might be considered whether the town council should not have the right to take away the water, but to act in opposition to the wishes of the majority of the riparian owners would be a great mistake. I want to refer to another point which the Minister should grapple with, and that is the question of joint liability. It is a very difficult matter, and it is the old policy of 1912. I am as much responsible as anybody in the House for the Act of 1912, but we followed the principle laid down for cooperative societies—joint and several responsibility for loans from the Government or the Land Bank. Under the Act of 1912, where sums of money were lent by the Government for the construction of irrigation schemes, the whole area was regarded as security for the redemption of a loan and the payment of the water rates. The result has been that where there are lame ducks—where riparian owners have dropped out—the remainder of the riparian owners are saddled with their liability. What is worse, the good riparian owner never really knows where he is. He is subject to an undefined liability. The greater the number of his neighbours who prove defaulters, the greater will be his liability. In the public interest, I doubt whether a state of affairs like that should be allowed to continue. It is not really defensible. The riparian owner should know what his position is. His rights should be defined, and he should not be saddled with the liability of his neighbours who go bankrupt, or do not pay their water rates. As long as we have this provision we have a millstone around the neck of our irrigation system. If I were moved to buy land under a big scheme of irrigation I should be most doubtful because I should not know what I was buying under such circumstances. I am not buying a clearly defined right; I am not undertaking a clear liability. I am always subject to the defaults of my neighbours, and in the end might go under because of their defaulting. I attack this principle for the sake of irrigation, and I think the State ought to be prepared to do something. We recognize that the State has a certain liability and it is a question whether this matter does not involve also a certain liability on the. State. As experience has shown, it would be most inadvisable to continue to saddle the good ratepayer with the liability of his neighbours who prove lame ducks.

I am very pleased to hear you say that. Now let us hear your solution.

I do not think there should be joint and several liability, and in the end I think the State will have to come to the assistance, by means of a scheme, in respect of those people who default, and who now look to the good neighbour to make up the losses to the State.

What will be the attitude of the State if we want to borrow outside joint and several liabilities?

The State will know exactly what it is up against. Nothing could be worse than the present position. We have all the uncertainties now, and yet in the end the State has to pay. Look at the report before us where the Irrigation Commission has had to go round and write off large sums of money. Is it not better, if the State is going to pay in the end, that the State should make its mind up at the start to take the incubus off the good ratepayers and see that they shall not be subject to this undefined liability. If I thought the State could get the money back, it might be different, but it is hanging a millstone round the good payer, and the State in the end has to pay. This financial system, which we started in 1912, is a great drawback to irrigation. It should be considered by the select committee of the House whether we should not go in for a different policy and have some flexibility and give the owner, buying under these schemes, certain and definite knowledge of his position, and not allow him to buy a pig in a poke. There is one matter I wanted to say a word or two upon, and that is mountain burning. The Minister is dealing with the irrigation question and, to my mind, one of the most important aspects of protection for public streams is the protection of our mountains, which are the sources of these rivers. I am glad to see there is an awakening of the public conscience on this question. I spoke very strongly at Swellendam and since I mentioned that subject I have received letters from various parts of the country from farmers who have expressed their concurrence with my views. I will read, as an instance, a few paragraphs from one such letter, and it is from one of the most important farmers in the country [extract read in Dutch]. He goes on to suggest that drastic steps should be taken. It does not fall within the scope of the Bill, as it is now, but I hope it is possible in the select committee, whether the amendment of my right hon. friend is adopted or not, to frame a couple of clauses which will make it a crime to burn down the source of rivers on mountains. The Government has taken action in regard to forest lands and has made it criminal to burn mountains which belong to the Government, and which are demarcated forest areas. Large areas of mountain belonging to the Government, or in the old days thoughtlessly sold to individuals, are now burnt down annually and the result is we are converting this part of the country into a desert. The natural vegetable sponge and grass is burnt down and the soil is washed down every year from the mountain sides, which are exposed as bare rock, and the rain water which does fall runs down to the sea in a few hours. I think the time has come to deal with this matter as one of the gravest national importance. Unless we conserve these important public resources we shall see, with our eyes open, the country being ruined by the thoughtless action of individuals and, in the end, we are making of this beautiful and thickly inhabited part something like a desert. I hope the select committee will deal with this matter and will frame a couple of clauses which will meet the case. I know it is difficult to frame clauses, and that it is difficult to carry them out when they are made law. But I do think the time has come for action. Hitherto it has not been possible because public opinion has been divided on the question, but reasonable and decent public opinion is becoming absolutely united on this question of mountain burning. There may be a division of opinion on the burning of veld, but these mountains should be protected, and when dealing with irrigation laws we should add some clauses which, although now without the scope of the Bill, might be brought within it by an extension of the title, to protect these important sources. I hope the Minister will take into careful consideration the amendment of my right hon. friend. It is not hostile and it has no party object. The only point is whether the committee will have the free-est scope in receiving evidence and in consideration of these important provisions and re-drafting clauses as much as possible. [Time limit extended.] I was just saying my last word. It is this, that I only want to see that we deal with this subject in a non-party spirit and to the best advantage for the country. The subject matter is very difficult. Hon. members who have been long enough in this House will remember the tremendous struggle that we had in 1912 over this Bill, and it was to me astonishing to hear some of my hon. friends opposite accusing the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) over these clauses. He was the greatest fighter against some of these clauses in the Act of 1912.

Will it assist very much in sending this to select committee before second reading?

I think it will. Take the case I have mentioned of mountain burning, which falls outside the scope of the Bill.

May I for the guidance of the House, just say this, that it will not be possible after the second reading has been adopted to introduce new principles into the Bill.

The Minister may be quite certain that our whole object is simply to help him. There is not the least idea of party capital, because what party capital is there in this Bill? We simply want a good law, just as he wants a good law, and we want the greatest latitude to this committee. I would ask the Minister to be as patient as possible over this matter. Do not let us hurry. A solution has been found in regard to the protection clauses, while two years ago it seemed impossible to find a way out of that protection difficulty. I am sure the difficulties that have been urged here in regard to this Bill can be overcome. I hope the Bill will go through. It is quite necessary for us to have a proper amendment of the irrigation law. The protection clauses are wanted and, in regard to some of the matters I have mentioned also, the Bill is wanted and badly wanted. I hope that very careful consideration will be given in a non-party sense by every side of the House to this Bill, and it is only from that point of view that I support my right hon. friend and I ask the Prime Minister to agree that we send this to select committee even before second reading, and so remove all doubt as to the evidence that can be taken and the reform that may be made in the particular clauses of this Bill.

With reference to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), I wish on my own behalf, and of those members who like myself take the greatest interest in irrigation, to express our thanks for the way he has dealt with the matter. We are particularly grateful for what the hon. member said about mountain fires, and that he pressed for the inclusion of a clause in connection therewith in the Bill. I am one of those who is in the position of a lower riparian owner. My experience now is that two days do not pass after a mountain fire at the source of a river before the water in the river is considerably less. Those reckless fires are still on the increase. There are many farmers today who appreciate the danger of mountain fires to our water-supply, but there is a great number who cannot be compelled other than by legislation to stop it. It is high time that in a Bill on the distribution of water, provision should be made against mountain fires. As one of the chief reasons why I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), without considering political feelings, is the circumstance that I am very anxious to make provision about mountain fires in this Bill, and I consulted the draftsman, who informed me that, if the second reading were passed, it would no longer be possible to incorporate such a principle. Therefore I want to urge the Minister to consider this matter in time, and not to wait too long before we pass the principle. If he can give the assurance that the amendment will be made I shall be satisfied, but, according to the draftsman, it is not possible. If it is not included now, it will probably not be possible for years. My attention has been called to the fact that the Forestry Act provides for such cases. There is, indeed, something about it in sections 16, 17 and 18 of Act No. 16 of 1913, but it is quite inadequate. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to include this new principle in the Bill, because it is necessary. With reference to the Bill itself I am sorry that the Minister of Irrigation is also Minister of Agriculture. It may sound absurd, but I think that the Bill which has been drafted in so technical and involved a way is not in all respects in the interests of agriculture. Therefore, I am sorry that the Minister is responsible for the defence of agriculture as well as of irrigation. Other members will say that that is really a good thing, because the Minister can in the first place bear in mind agricultural interests. I am certain that the Minister is in a very difficult position in having to take charge of the two things. The first thing to strike one in this Bill is that an attempt at uniformity throughout South Africa is being made, although we have to do with an enormous surface area and different circumstances in respect of rainfall, streams, development and intensive farming. The circumstances of one part differ entirely from the circumstances of another part, and I therefore want to suggest the undesirability of uniform legislation in this matter. The members of the select committee will have to enquire whether it is not desirable to deal in a separate chapter with those parts of the country which have a more regular rainfall and can work more intensively. I think that we must bear in mind that all parts are not equally developed, and other parts, owing to certain reasons, are possibly still quite undeveloped. As for the provisions of the Bill, the first difficulty is that of the definition. I have read it through in Dutch and English many times, but I must honestly confess that, after repeated readings and re-readings, I am still about as wise as when I started. I want merely to mention a few points with regard to definitions. A few weeks ago I attended a meeting where there were attorneys, farmers and parsons present. In that neighbourhood the Church Council did not approve of Afrikaans in the pulpit, and the sermons were in Dutch. After the meeting, the parsons were more amenable than before with regard to the use of Afrikaans in the pulpit. Take the definition “deel.” According to the Bill, it means “the aggregate of all parts.” A more illogical definition I have never yet met with. I hope it will be altered, because it differs from the geometrical idea of a whole. Then “rak.” Who knows what that word means? I have the greatest sympathy with the farmers who have to understand that word.

Have you a better word?

The Minister takes me unawares. I shall be pleased to assist him in a few days to find him a better one. I understand it just as little as the great majority of the farmers. Then I object to there being no definition in connection with “exempted works.” As far as I remember, the Minister gave the impression that small free works would only cover primary purposes. Now we notice from the report of the Judges’ Commission, that Judges van Zyl and Lourens have expressed the view that, although small free works must be subject to the discretion of the water court, nevertheless irrigation works should still fall under it, even such works that actually do no irrigation. I think that the trouble will be in connection with land that is put under water to decide how many morgen can be irrigated so far as small free works are concerned, but I think that, undoubtedly, it should also apply to secondary water for irrigation. I hope that is the intention of the Minister, as otherwise it would practically be meaningless, because the riparian owners, in any case, have the primary use, and, if small exempted works are not allowed water for secondary purposes, they will not amount to anything.

The court will lay down what are small works.

I should also like to know what small works for irrigation purposes are. In connection with the provisions of the Bill, I want to say at once that I chiefly regard them from the point of view of the riparian owners. How will the alterations or amendments that are proposed affect them? Will the rights of riparian owners be extended or curtailed? I am sorry that after reading and re-reading the Bill I have come to the conclusion that the rights of riparian owners are being considerably curtailed in many respects. I want to say at once that I do not intend in any way to frighten riparian owners or irrigators at all in connection with this Bill. I have merely formed an honest opinion in so far as I could understand the language of the Bill, and am trying to express an opinion to the House and the select committee, and in that way to contribute to make the Bill as practicable as possible. Where, according to my view, the rights are in the first place being curtailed is in the definition of flow. Particulars have already been given in connection with the fixing of the flow, but, in short, they amount to this, that the defined flow shall be the smallest and least possible. In defining it account will have to be taken of 200 days in the year when the river runs dry, apart from the objection that the defined flow varies from year to year and from time to time. The defined flow would be 1¼ times the flow of the river in the driest time. There is another restriction in connection with the maximum. I maintain that the definition curtails the rights of riparian owners. Under the old law the rights were considerably more extensive. Then there are new Clauses 2, and 10 (1). The principal Act in section 10 (1) gives a reasonably clear definition of a normal flow [section read], that is to say, that the riparian owners can make use of the normal flow of a river throughout the year without irrigation works. This differs, of course, for a portion of the year. If it is more rainy, there is more water, but when the rainfall is less the riparian owners lose. The new Bill gives no elasticity. The minimum and maximum is 1¼ times the estimated average flow of water which runs for a period of 200 consecutive days. The limitation therefore is that a riparian owner can no longer, as in the past, make use of surplus water in times of excessive rainfall. The second curtailment is also in connection with surplus water. Under the old law a riparian owner did not so soon obtain the surplus. In the new Bill he gets it very quickly. Of course, the fact that the riparian owners get the surplus quicker is the cause of the loss. In the new Bill there are, in relation to normal flow, four provisions, and the difficulty is that there may be streams that have no defined flow. In that way the upper riparian owners will be preferred to the others. The new Clause 10 (3) contains another provision by which the rights of riparian owners are considerably curtailed. This has already been referred to by former speakers, but what I want to strongly emphasize is where inherent rights of riparian land are taken away and under certain conditions water can be taken out of the stream. This is a vital alteration of principle which takes away considerable rights of lower riparian owners. It no less affects well-off citizens. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) has already pointed out that a man who builds irrigation works is in a privileged position within ten years. Well-to-do citizens along certain streams will not be affected by it, but, on the contrary, benefited. But what about the less-favoured man? The wealthy man can make an irrigation work out of a normal flow, and, after ten years, the upper riparian owners have very little rights. There is indeed a small exception in paragraph (23), but it will be at the expense of rights, and will cause great expense. I therefore hold that a certain amount of protection of the citizen who lives higher up-stream is necessary, and sufficient provision is not made in the Bill for it. This is a departure from the principle that water is vested in the land, that it belongs to the land and that the people along the river have a right to it. The man who can pay will now have all the benefit. The same applies with reference to surplus water in Clause 15, and this affects not only the less privileged citizen, but also children. A parent may, e.g., not want, or be able, to construct irrigation works, and, after ten years, there will merely be the protection for him or his descendants under paragraph (23) and no more. I think that the water rights are vested in the land, and may not be taken away, not even against compensation. I now come to the provisions in the Bill intended to encourage industries. I do not think that there is a single member in the House who does not appreciate that in a young country every opportunity must be given for development of industry. I think, however, that with regard to water, there should be a restriction. I think that no one in South Africa can deny that it is firstly an agricultural country. Agriculture is, and will, for hundreds of years, remain the chief industry in the country, and it is when we start with that conviction that we must in the first place take account of the needs of agriculture. The first object must not be to think of industries, especially not on the countryside. Therefore, in the powers in that we intend giving to the water court and to certain riparian owners, we must jealously guard the interests of the riparian agriculturalists. We take the view that they must have the first chance. In the provisions of Clauses 20 and 21 about the discretion given to the water court we must enquire what the interests of the public are. I wish to make no reflection on the water court, but are we going to allow full discretion to a small court of three members? The steps taken will be irrevocable, and I agree with the views expressed by other hon. members that we must guard the interests of the agriculturalist, and therefore I object to the granting of rights to the water court of having all the say over the water, not only as to the tertiary use for industries, but also as to the taking away of water in so far as the natural flow is concerned. The hon. member for Standerton mentioned one point. There are, however, two. The hon. member mentioned a point that lower riparian owners might be entirely deprived of water for irrigation purposes. There is, however, another provision in the Bill for alienating and expropriating water from the natural flow quite against the will of the riparian owners. They are not even consulted in connection with the taking away of water. As for compensation, the Bill provides that when water is taken out of the natural bed, or when it is used for tertiary purposes, compensation must be paid. It looks well on paper, but when one has experience in connection with the matter, one is nervous. I have personal experience in this connection. Water was sold by a former owner of a farm and taken out of a bed of a river. My neighbour and I own the ground, and it is arable land, but the water was sold years ago, I think for £5,000. If my neighbour and I could buy it back for £20,000, then we shall break our necks to get hold of the water. It was sold, however, and no one has the lightest benefit of it. The children of heirs have no benefit, and are occupying dry ground, and the £5,000 has vanished without leaving a trace. Personally, I think that no amount of compensation for the taking of water under such circumstances is in the interest of the public. What I mean is that no reasonable compensation can be thought of when a village or town takes water out of the natural flow. In a further respect, the rights of the riparian owners are terribly curtailed, to wit with regard to two sections in the principal Act of which section 23 is the chief. It is summarily repealed. It granted protection to the riparian occupiers, and it is completely repealed, which, in my opinion, is a very dangerous measure. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has already referred to the new principle. It is not a question of principle with me, but of curtailment of rights and the disappearance of the guarantee to the riparian owners. The rights to normal flow or surplus water disappear from year to year, and these can be used for other purposes. The water may be applied for tertiary purposes to the exclusion of secondary purposes. I hope that Clause 23 will be reinserted to protect the rights of riparian owners. There are a few other points where the Bill is defective, and, in the first place, I want to mention the jurisdiction of the water court in respect of private streams, subterranean water, standing water and public streams. I think that the Minister said at the second reading that he intended to make proposals with regard to subterranean water. The court has from time to time raised the point whether the water court also has jurisdiction over private streams, standing water and public streams. I do not wish to refer to court cases. I think the point can be carefully gone into in select committee. I conclude with an observation of the Minister of Agriculture which particularly struck me—

the Minister concluded—

I agree with that, and I think we cannot do better than bear those words continually in mind in debating a Bill which proposes to considerably curtail rights which in my opinion will make the conditions on the countryside still more insecure.

I need not reiterate the point made by my right hon. leader that in discussing this Bill we have no party object whatsoever. It is common knowledge that irrigation is the sick man of the Union. It is not the fault of the irrigators or the Irrigation Department, but is due to natural causes. For that reason we welcome any Bill tending to improve irrigation conditions. This Bill has many good points. It has been very carefully drafted, but a Bill of this kind which is designed for the average citizen must, at any rate, be comprehensible to the average citizen, and the Bill now before us transgresses that fundamental principle to a very serious extent. It seems to me to be like a cross between Thomas Carlyle and a chapter on holism. I have studied the Bill for days on end, and even now many of its clauses are very obscure to me. Irrigation has always been a fruitful source of litigation in South Africa, but if the measure goes through the unfortunate irrigators will spend the rest of their lives in the law courts. Even the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), who is an expert on irrigation, was very careful not to venture into the intricacies of the Bill. He reminds me of the theological student who, when asked to draw a comparison between Elijah and Elisha, replied: “Far be it from me to draw invidious distinctions between two such distinguished prophets, but I will give a list of the Judean kings instead.” The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet says in effect: “Far be it from me to touch on the very contentious clauses of the Bill, but I will give a discourse on the protection clauses,” which, however, are not an issue. Take Section 2, which defines the normal flow. The old definition of a normal flow was a very simple one, and it amounted to this—the normal or the actual visible flow in any river. That definition gave rise to many difficulties, but, at any rate, it was a definition understandable by the average irrigator, and could be ascertained by water meters or gauges. Instead of this old conception, which has worked, although faulty in many respects, we have a totally new conception of what the normal flow is. The new definition occupies five and a half pages of the Bill. It amounts to that, that the expression “defined flow” at a cross section of a portion of a public stream shall mean one and one-quarter times the estimated average flow of water which would pass down such a stream at that cross section during a period of 200 consecutive days in that part of each cycle of 365 days when such stream is ordinarily at its lowest, if during that period all owners of land riparian to the said portion had used exactly the quantity of water which they were entitled to use. Who is going to fix these 200 days in the cycle? Can you visualize a number of riparian owners meeting together to fix which 200 days are going to be taken? I do not think they will come to an agreement, so it will lead to more litigation. But there is worse to come. The Bill goes on further to elucidate its meaning, and it defines the minimum and maximum flow. Minimum flow reads [extract read]. This means in effect that the minimum and maximum amount of water to be used are arrived at on a different basis of calculation under which you might find the minimum to be more than the maximum which is a reduction ad absurdum. Surely it is impossible to have an absurd result of this sort, and it may be the result very often. And how are these unfortunate farmers going to arrive at this? In order to win a horse race I am told you have to have on your side the owner, trainer, jockey, bookmaker, stable-boy and the horse. The irrigators, to arrive at a decision as to what is normal flow will have to have on their side a surveyor, circle engineer, astronomer and a couple of prophets. The clause is so involved that a strong case exists to do away with it altogether or leave it in abeyance in accordance with the resolution of the congress. Then we come to Clause 8. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is strongly opposed to this clause which gives the rights of towns to take water. Clause 8 proposes to alter our common law. I am against this clause as it stands, but at the same time, I do not agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I do believe there are cases in the country where non-riparian lands should be permitted to use water. Take Zululand for instance.

That is the case now.

Zululand is one of the best watered lands of the country where you have livers like the Pongola with farms surveyed on the river, but neighbouring farmers, who are non-riparian, cannot water their stock and no water can be obtained within 20 miles. In addition to the Pongola you have the Umkosi, the black Umfolosi down to the Tugela. It seems to me a case might be made out to allow water to be taken further than farms on the river bank. I do not agree with the Bill in so far as it may disturb long established vested rights. Take the position in Oudtshoorn and other old occupied areas. It might be that it very drastically infringes the vested rights of irrigators, and before we adopt this clause we should take evidence and see if it is not possible to make it prospective and not retrospective. Make it applicable to areas where it can be applied such as Zululand or the Orange River. Take Knysna district, the rivers there run into deep gorges where it would be impossible to irrigate.

The Act of 1912 makes provision for that.

But it is so hedged round that it is inoperative. In towns the water is allocated on a peculiar system. The European is entitled to 75 gallons and the coloured man to 25 gallons. Apparently it is based on their bath-taking abilities, one of the strangest colour bars of all the strange colour bars in this country. As far as the protection clauses are concerned, I agree with them. We have an amendment referring the Bill to a select committee before the second reading, and I want to bring forward an argument which, to my mind, makes it necessary to refer it to a select committee before the second reading. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred to one question which we could not touch if this Bill was referred to the select committee after the second reading, namely, mountain burning. Witnesses would no doubt come forward with all sorts of suggestions, and under the rules of the House we could not incorporate them in the Bill once the second reading has gone through. I have studied irrigation in this country for a long time, and there is scarcely an irrigation scheme in the Union at present which is not a financial loss. Scarcely one scheme where the irrigators are not years behind in their water rates, and many of them are being threatened with insolvency through the piling up, day and night, of water rates. Why are so many of them in trouble to-day? Take Sundays River, where Lake Mentz has been finished for five years and it has never once been full. No single irrigator has ever had the water he has been rated for. He is assessed on the area of his land irrespective of whether he gets water or not. I am profoundly convinced we shall not put irrigation on a sound basis in this country until we scrap the whole system of water rates whether liability be joint or several. The case made out against joint liability is unanswerable, but I go further and say that even if you do away with joint liability you cannot go on making the irrigator pay for water he is not receiving, and the only way to put irrigation schemes on a sound basis is to introduce a system of water gauges so that the irrigator pays for the water he uses and nothing more. Under that system there would be no waste, and you will do away with the present condition of a man having to pay year by year for water he never used.

They don’t pay anyway.

Then that strengthens my argument for altering the system. It makes it impossible for a newcomer to buy land, because it is a legal liability. I quite agree they never pay, and they never will pay. Then scrap the system which has admittedly proved inefficient and unworkable. Make the man pay for the water he actually receives. I understand from the Director of Irrigation that in Egypt and in India in the more modern systems they make arrangement when the scheme is devised for automatic meters nowadays. Where that proves too expensive, they measure out the water in pipes. I feel very strongly that this particular point ought, at any rate, to be searchingly investigated in the interests of irrigation and we can only do that under this Bill if it be dealt with before the second reading. I may be wrong. I have been wrong before about irrigation matters. We all have. You have only to look at the 1912 Bill, which embodied the collective experience of the irrigators and legislators of this country. It was a non-party measure, yet see how many difficulties we have had to cope with under the 1912 Bill. With the exception, perhaps, of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), I do not believe there is a single member of this House who has not made mistakes about the irrigation question.

I admit having made mistakes, but not such serious ones.

I do not think I have made any serious mistakes. The hon. member referred to the Sundays River scheme as one of my blunders.

I never referred to anything.

The hon. member referred to that as a mistake. I would like to make a few more “mistakes” of that sort. I would like to impress upon the House, I won’t say the necessity, but the desirability of a thorough investigation of this scheme which I have now put forward, whether it will not be possible to put all existing irrigation schemes on a totally new basis, that of payment for water actually received and, if we cannot do so in regard to existing schemes, at any rate it might apply to all future schemes. I agree with the remarks of some member, I think the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux), that in future if we do away with the joint liability, the Government will lend no money at all for future schemes, but I submit that if we adopt the basis of paying for water actually received, the Government need be under no fear that it won’t get its money back and the Government will be a bit more careful in lending money, which is also necessary. A scheme like this, which may have very far-reaching effects on the irrigation position in this country and on the existing irrigation schemes, cannot be discussed unless we are able to do so unfettered by the fact of a second reading having been accepted by this House. I am a member of the Irrigation Committee myself, and I had intended bringing this matter before the committee when it arrived, but as this Bill is going to be referred to a select committee, I had intended raising the matter there. Surely it would be a far more convenient way of bringing forward this matter and having it thoroughly discussed and getting evidence if we are allowed to do so on this Bill, and it can only be done on this Bill if the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is accepted, and if we are allowed to discuss this, as I consider, very vital matter before the second reading of this Bill is passed. As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, I can only say that the Irrigation Department have taken a great deal of trouble about it, but as it stands, it seems to me more in the nature of a book of rules for the guidance of the water courts than for the guidance of the average farmer. It does seem to me that the phraseology and the construction of this Bill makes it quite impossible that it should ever be of any use to the ordinary man in the street, the average irrigationist, and for this reason and for the other reasons that I have mentioned, I hope that the Minister will agree to refer the Bill to select committee before the second reading.

I am certain that it is generally felt that our irrigation legislation has fallen into arrear and is no longer suited to the development of our irrigation works. This refers particularly to the storage dams and not so much to the older irrigation works. The storage dams are a new thing in the Union and they have become a problem or, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Reitz) said, a blot on the Union. The Government is here faced with a problem which is just as great and probably greater than that of the diggings. One has to see the conditions oneself to appreciate it, and I therefore wish to invite the Minister to come to my district where there are large water-works. I should much like him to come and I shall gladly show him round so that he can see for himself the difficulties we have. Possibly the conditions in the drought districts would be somewhat different without the irrigation works because they have become the refuge of the people who have retained a little, have sold out and put the money into irrigation works. The people who in that way leave the area to go to an irrigation scheme must change from stock-breeding to irrigation. It causes endless difficulties. They have not been trained to it and I hope that the department will not only give financial assistance to these people but also give advice as to how they can best carry out their works and make a living. We are very grateful to the Government for the select committee it has appointed to go into the matter, and I hope that it will result in the persons I have referred to being enabled to make a reasonable living. Coming to the Bill, I want to say at once, just like other members, that there are certain clauses which are above a farmer’s comprehension, at least as the Bill now stands. It consists of 64 complicated clauses and of certainly 100 amendments of other Acts. When one reads the Bill one has constantly to refer to other Acts to be able to understand it, and it causes great difficulty. I simply think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is a very good one, viz., to print the Act of 1912, so that we can read them together. I do not know if it is possible, but if it were, it would be very convenient. I may say, personally, that we feel the alterations are necessary, and the existing Act no longer meets the case. Circumstances have changed in various parts of the country. I want to say at once that I am sorry that the Minister did not allow the Bill to stand over longer until it had been improved or that he had personally investigated the position and introduced a consolidating Bill with reference to all the irrigation schemes in simple language which the farmer can follow. The proposed Bill is so difficult that if a farmer wanted anything done then he must go straight to an advocate or attorney. I do not want to go into all the other points of the Bill. It has already been properly done by hon. members who are better acquainted with the subject than I am. I only want to say something about the tertiary use of water, about which many members have spoken. I do not believe that it is so very injurious to the irrigation schemes. The great industries are usually situated in the large towns and therefore I do not see so much danger to the countryside in it. A danger that may threaten is that the railway in time may need more water in certain parts than can be given. In such a case the irrigators might be injured. We are thankful to the Minister for Clause 24, making provision that when he is convinced that a farmer has got into arrear with his payments, through circumstances beyond his control, an extension of time can be given. We recently had cases which I know that the people were only a short while on the ground and could not pay. The Minister wanted to assist, but he could not do so under the existing law. He eventually assisted them, but it was done under great difficulties because no provision existed for it. I am glad that under the proposed Bill the Minister can now directly assist the people when he is convinced that they have not got into arrears through their own faults. Then there is another point. I can assure the Minister that when I speak about it, it is not to create an agitation or to incite the people, but it is something which is a decided hindrance to us to-day. I hope that I can make it clear to the Minister. It is the joint and several liability of the irrigators. When these provisions were drafted with those about the irrigation works, they were possibly good. It was a protection of the Government, but developments have taken place and the position has changed so that we find the law is no longer suitable to-day. In 1923 a commission was appointed who went into the difficulty and they made an enquiry. They recommended an alteration of the 1912 Act in connection with joint and several liability because the successful farmer is made responsible for the taxes of the unsuccessful farmer. That is the report of the 1923 commission, and the Irrigation Congress at Cradock decided, in 1924, that it was necessary that the owner in an irrigation area should be exempted from the payment of any tax, except persons who in a definite area are separately locally taxed. Then we find the report of the Financial Irrigation Commission, the so-called Fourie Commission, which says: They think that the time has come to carry out the recommendation of the 1923 commission, and to make amendments in the joint and several liability because the owner is not prepared to develop the ground. They said that even during that session amendments should be made and that capital expenditure and attendant interest would be the first charge on the ground. They are men who thoroughly investigated the matter and those are their recommendations. I shall now say how the matter affects us. A little while ago a Bill was introduced by the Minister of Lands to grant land under irrigation schemes to farmers who were in difficulties owing to the drought. That is the sort of man the Minister should encourage to go there, because he will not get in arrear with his payments, but they consider the thing twice because they are then sharing with a “sick" man, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said. I believe that it is my duty to point out what the difficulties of that class of man are. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the spirit they are intended, and I assure him that I shall do all in my power to make the Bill a good one.

There are certain clauses in this Bill which I am sorry have not been framed long ago. I, for one, am pleased that the Minister has redically changed the Bill which he had before the congress, and has now come into line with the agreement arrived at by various members of the congress with regard to protection. There is no doubt that this question of amending Clauses 15 and 16 is the most important part of the Bill, and something the country has been crying out for a very long time. We know what contention there has been regarding this matter, and what different views have been held; how high feeling ran with regard to Clauses 15 and 16 in the old Act. Now certain other matters are also in dispute. There were certain clauses about which there was much difference of opinion at the congress, and would it not be wise to postpone such matters? After all, if we had said two years ago that we would have arrived at an agreement on Clauses 15 and 16, no one would have thought it possible. I know that at the congress there was a tremendous lot of difference of opinion about normal flow. It was not a matter on which you could adopt a uniform principle, and had to be dealt with on a different basis in different areas. The Bill, as it stands to-day, is undoubtedly most intricate and difficult to follow, and I, as a farmer, find it extremely difficult to understand. I do not understand why we should not have it framed in simple language—so that one could easily get a good idea of what the intention of the clauses are. I agree with the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that if we are not going to evolve simpler language it is going to lead to litigation. A farmer will be unable to decide; he will have to go to an attorney; and he may have to go further and consult a barrister—which will lead to expense and trouble. It is one of the finest things for the lawyers, who are going to do well out of this, and irrigators, who are already heavily taxed, are going to be still further taxed. I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion of the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to refer this Bill to a select committee before the second reading, because undoubtedly this is very essential. There are in this Bill quite new departures which require very careful consideration. After we have taken evidence, we may come to entirely different conclusions, and we may then be prevented from altering the Bill. I remember some time back the Minister spoke with regard to artesian waters, and introducing some clause in the Bill; but that cannot be done after the second reading. There is also the matter of the burning of the mountain sides, raised by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition. I know the Minister is out to try to amend the Act of 1912 in such a way that it is going to be a very useful measure, and he means well. If he were to send the Bill to a select committee before second reading, he would find he will not have the difficulties which may crop up if the Bill first passes its second reading, and then goes to a select committee. I cannot see what delay there will be if the Bill is sent to a select committee before second reading. The matter has been very well discussed this afternoon, and I do not think it is necessary to labour very much further some of the points which have been raised. I would like to say a few words with regard to joint and several liability. I must say that I was rather surprised to see the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) so persistent in his attitude to the Minister in not knuckling down to joint and several liability. A man does not want to buy a big piece of land and try to irrigate until he knows the whole thing is on a satisfactory basis, and when he knows he has a sword hanging over his head, or that if his neighbour or anybody in that particular area does not meet his liability, he will be held responsible. I think we should come to some basis which is workmanlike, and put it on a sound footing. I would be glad if the Minister would take the whole thing into reconsideration, and see if a settlement cannot be brought about. I support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) when he suggested that we should reorganize the entire basis of irrigation payments, and that the State should take over irrigation schemes and sell water to the irrigators on the principle of no water no pay; then we should be able to push irrigation ahead. We must not be frightened because some irrigation schemes have not been successful, for our future consists in completing further irrigation works.

I feel somewhat at a disadvantage in taking part in a debate of a technical nature like this, but there are a couple of points of considerable importance to Zululand and the whole of the east coast to which I wish to draw attention. Hitherto irrigation seems to have been the particular reserve of the arid portions of the Union and with very little success, while those portions of the Union where irrigation could have been carried out with enormous benefit to the country have been entirely neglected. The Irrigation Department pays little attention to the needs of the east, yet it is a country of copious rain and very large rivers, and has an area which is now becoming a small settlement district. Considerably more attention might be given to that area. There is a distinct trend of population from the dry regions of the Union to the east coast, and I think much of our production is to be found in those regions. Unfortunately, a difficulty has arisen recently in carrying out any irrigational development along the east coast, owing to the question of riparian ownership. Although I understand provision is made in the old Act for taking water to non-riparian ground, difficulties have arisen because of the question of riparian ownership. The original pioneer took up, say, 5,000 morgen which bordered a stream, but in an area on the east coast which has been surveyed in comparatively recent years, in 100 acre lots along the borders of which runs a large river, is in a different position. We have numerous instances in Natal where irrigation settlement could be assisted, but for the difficulty of riparian ownership. In Zululand we have a very large river and there is a settlement adjacent to it. Only a few farms are riparian to the river, yet the river is sufficient for the water needs of the whole of the settlement. If the Bill is sent to a select committee before it is read a second time, perhaps some principle might be adopted which might permit of that being done.

It can be done under Clause 22.

But all sorts of difficulties crop up. Irrigation in Zululand should be considered as a whole. There are four large rivers—the two Umfolosis, the Umkosi and the Pongola—all very much rising in the same watershed and in native reserves. I cannot understand how it is that the Irrigation Department does not have a little imagination and foresight and drain the whole of those rivers on to the dry area along the mountain ranges. You have large alluvial areas only needing the water which is running into the sea to be spread over them in order that they may produce abundant wealth. Yet the settlers are leaving because they cannot raise crops owing to the lack of water. If a little of that energy of the Irrigation Department now devoted to the arid regions could be diverted to the places where water already exists, the agricultural wealth of the Union could be increased considerably. As it is, the Union does not grow enough food to keep itself, as we import more food than we export by two or three million pounds annually. Compared with Australia, we are only a very small country, only the size of Queensland, say. Another point I wish to draw attention to is this. The Irrigation Department is concerned with taking water on to the land, but there are places in Natal where it is necessary to take water off the land. In other words, they require draining. Around the coastal regions of Natal there are areas of magnificent fertile land which require only drainage to make them productive. A few years ago the Umfolosi settlement formed an irrigation district for the sole purpose of getting water off the land. The Irrigation Department helped them, and did a good deal to try dig channels, but it was then found that there was no provision under the Act whereby the people concerned could avail themselves of the loan facilities which ordinary irrigators can obtain. Consequently, the whole scheme fell through. Drainage ought to be one of the functions of the Irrigation Department, especially in those areas where, if the land were drained, it would be worth £40 to £50 an acre. I take this opportunity of asking the Minister to try and get the forces of his department directed a little towards Natal and the east coast, because it is from there you are going to get most of your agricultural wealth in the future. We are not making nearly sufficient use of the fertile areas of the east, particularly in the north, where you have placed a lot of settlers on the land. They could produce in abundance if they had irrigation. The sugar belt stretches from south Natal to the north, and there is not a single sugar field in Natal which could not be irrigated. There is not one of these fields but would quadruple its production if it was irrigated. This is established by experience in other countries, and if you quadruple the sugar industry it would be twice as valuable as diamonds to this country. I often think that we ought to send experts to Hawaii, where they syphon water over the hills and flume it across the valleys. We have no experience in this country of that sort, and the Minister might do something in that direction.

I do not wish to go into the whole Bill as it is a very involved matter. I just want to call the Minister’s attention to a few points in connection with the injustice that is being done to the farmers in the Klip River vlei. As generally known, the Rand Water Board at that time pumped the water out of the vlei with the result that the river was pumped dry. The farmers there suffered great loss in consequence, and they made complaints about it year after year. Finally a select committee was appointed to make inquiry as to the damage suffered in consequence of the action of the Rand Water Board. The committee was appointed under the last Government, and they found that the damage suffered by the farmers amounted to from £50,000 to £60,000. The last Government, however, thought this too much, and they recommended the payment of the sum of £7,000 as damages. That was, of course, only a drop in the bucket, and no compensation for the damage. The farmers of the Klip River vlei had many fruitful farms, and, with the Johannesburg market close by, made a very good living. After, however, the water was pumped away the farms depreciated more and more, and most of the farmers were obliged to sell their farms for a mere song. They trekked away. There are, however, still residing there some of the original owners, and they are always crippled by the loss of the water. The Rand Water Board now has a large dam in the Vaal River, and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible in some way or other to give compensation to the owners.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that, as it does not come under this Bill.

I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible for the Rand Water Board to allow a part of the water from the Klip River vlei to run to the riparian owners.

The hon. member can only discuss matters that come under this Bill.

I hope the Minister will give his consideration to what I have said.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) and others have emphasized that there is no departure in Clause 21 from the old Act. I want the House to be clear on that point. Old Clause 23 of the Irrigation Act allowed the removal of water to non-riparian land and into another catchment area only if the primary and the secondary requirements of the use of water by riparian owners were satisfied, and only if the water was not required in the catchment area itself. The present Act allows the removal of water into another catchment area for any purpose, and only provides that riparian owners shall have their primary usage of water provided for. I think it is a new principle which has been introduced. The other old clause’s provision was not a principle of the Irrigation Act. It could only be applied in certain restricted circumstances. The Minister knows quite well that we are all out to make a success of irrigation in this country. It has not been a success in the past, and we are trying to make it so now. It is no good saying the old Act was passed by this or that Government. That helps no one. When the Act of 1912 was passed, there was little experience of irrigation in this country, and in view of the little knowledge we had of irrigation I think it is on the whole a very good Act. We want to amend any imperfections. In considering this particular clause, we should remember that it is one of the most important in the Bill. I would like the Minister to consider the position of riparian owners under this Bill. You may find one owner or a group of owners in a “portion” of a river have sold their rights to water to an undertaker. It can be used in another catchment area or on land non-riparian to the river in respect of which they have water rights. The Minister knows in most of our big irrigation schemes the rivers are used as the main canals, and it is in these river-canals from the larger conservation dams that the water runs down and is taken out at weirs for distribution en route. If a block of owners in a section of that river sold their water, it is going to be removed from the river to another catchment area, and certainly on to non-riparian land. After the water has been sold, it would be taken well away from the river banks out of that portion, and would leave the main river-canal dry. The result will be that the lower riparian owners would lose a great amount of water which when their turn comes would have to flow down a dried river bed, where it would sink into the sand, fill water holes, etc., before available flow takes place. Water so removed is a distinct loss to other riparian owners in the way of seepage back into the river as well. We have all found, by experience, that in the course of time these dry rivers, these magnified sluits, which only run during the rainy season, gradually become perennial rivers owing to irrigation on their banks. You will find that right through the Karroo. It is true that much of the water at present is brake, but that is beside the point, which is that valuable seepage takes place. I say that that usable water should not be removed from that catchment area, but as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said this afternoon, there are reaches of the Orange River flowing for miles and miles through gorges where you cannot use the water in the river on adjacent land, and in a case like that it would be a perfectly legitimate thing to do—

Do you object to the water from the Orange River going to another catchment area?

Not in the least, provided there is not enough room for irrigation in the catchment area itself, and that riparian owners are not penalized. I have preached for many years that we should take the surplus water of the Orange River and put it into the districts south of that river, where much irrigable land exists, say into the catchment areas of the Fish and Sundays Rivers; and even into the Robertson district, if feasible! I do, however, most strongly protest against the removal of water when it is going to damage the riparian owners and irrigators in the catchment area from which it is taken. Men who have invested in land and spent years upon development and thousands of pounds in improving their land, I think it is far from right that they should be suddenly faced with the possibility of their work being thrown away. Another point upon which I would like to touch is the sale of water as apart from the land. I hope this House will not agree to divorce water from the land where the water rights belong. You may have a poor man or an unenterprizing man owning the most valuable irrigable land on a river, and because he does not use it I think it is wrong that for all time that land should be made valueless by the sale of its water rights. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred to the irksomeness of this joint and several liability in irrigation schemes. Everything he said I want to endorse fully. I know of a number of men who are afraid of investing in an irrigation plot, or settling in an irrigation area, because they do not know when they will be faced with having to pay up the liabilities of those who have so far failed to pay. In regard to the proper use of water, I want the Minister to understand that we do not want, in any way, to put a check upon the proper use of water. We want to safeguard the interests of the irrigator, which, I think, take precedence over those of other people in this country. We want to get settlement on the land; we want to get a prosperous rural population, and irrigation is one of the means of getting the largest number with the greatest hope of success, and the most contented home-makers. I think we ought to encourage the irrigator first, and let other people take their chance, and when they do get water see that they make full and proper recompense to the man who gives it up. Another reason why I would like the Minister to accede to the request of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is because I would like to see a provision inserted in this Bill that where European farmers abut on a native reserve, and there is a river as the dividing line on which good irrigation prospects exist, the reserve shall be compelled to come into the irrigation scheme for the benefit of the country. I know of one or two cases where there are very likely irrigation schemes, but because there is a native reserve on the one bank and most of the land which would be most usefully irrigated happens to be in that native reserve itself, nothing can be done. Year after year efforts have been made to get the natives, or failing them the Native Affairs Department, to participate in this scheme. Attempts have been made to get the natives and the department to agree to an exchange of land. They won’t agree either to participate in a scheme or to an exchange of land and the department says it cannot come in as irrigators, and I think some provision should be made in order that such valuable plots of land should not be held up, and that in a case such as I have quoted the Native Affairs Department should be compelled to participate on behalf of the natives. With regard to the sale of water rights to non-riparian towns, villages and so forth, and industries, “undertakers,” as this Bill calls them, one does not want to hinder the establishment of industries, but should it be necessary or advisable to use water for purposes of that sort, I think the landowner should be compensated to the full not only for his bare water rights, but on the basis of the potential value of the land as irrigable ground and the surrender of his work and home. At present the right exists for them to use surplus water. This Bill gives them the use of every sort of water. I think this is going to militate very seriously against the proper settlement of South Africa. There is another matter that ought to be dealt with, and very soon—whether it can he dealt with entirely from an administrative point of view I am not prepared to say—and that is the question of curtailment. There is no doubt that the failure of most of our irrigation schemes is due to the fact that too much of the land has been scheduled in proportion to the water that is available. I think it would be wise to deal with the question of curtailment in this Bill, so that there will be no change of method or alteration of policy in the future. I do not suppose any of us can realize what a drag on irrigation settlement this curtailment question is. I think in committee the matter might very well—I think will—be settled, if evidence is called and we hear these different people and get their views. I think there lies the hope of salvation for our irrigation to a very great extent. I regret speaking so long, but if the Minister would accede to this request for referring the Bill before second reading, it would save a great deal of breath and a good deal of time. However, in this matter of curtailment all sorts of difficulties arise; the question of the quality of the soil, the crops grown and their relative value; conditions in the area itself, distances from the head works; the canals and the amount of loss in transit; all these things have to be taken into consideration, and I think machinery should be provided in the Bill. I do not want to see curtailment made finally definite—for all time. There is no reason whatever against revisions, and it would make for the better working of our irrigation enter-prizes, if from time to time revisions were made. People will learn how to use water to better effect. At present irrigators use far too much, I make old to say. You should give your authority the power of curtailment, and also of re scheduling curtailed land. To-day nobody knows what land is going to be curtailed, and on what basis. It has been exercising the minds of the people particularly on the Sundays River. As to de-scheduled land, any land so de-scheduled should be exempt from rates, and rates paid thereon should be refunded. Do not do more than that. The fact that it is adjacent to irrigable land and developed to some extent improves its value, which is a sufficient set-off for its being de-scheduled; therefore, no other compensation is necessary. You must take into consideration that there are men who have been irrigators in the face of the gravest hardship, and the result is that rates are piling up; it is not only distressful, but it is not creating a good state of things, from the moral point of view, shall I say, in view of the fact that some men do not mean to pay their arrear rates. I would suggest that the men who have developed their land should be the last to be curtailed. I would also give an assurance to the small men, holders of, say, 25 or 50 acres, or whatever may be decided, that they will not be curtailed, because after all if you reduce holdings below a certain limit, they are not worth working. Then again, if there is surplus water, and I hope in future the years are going to be fatter than these last few years, the de-scheduled “neutral” land under the canal systems should have first call on such surplus water which should be supplied at a lower rate. It has come to my intimate knowledge that many sales have been held up owing to people not knowing what is going to happen. They are afraid to buy land or to go in for irrigation, because they do not know how much of the land they will be allowed to irrigate. Then again the safety limit of water-duty should be increased. I have been assured that there was a very grave danger of the Hartebeestepoort Dam being emptied this season, if the rains had not come along opportunely. Suppose that the water from that dam had been sold in any volume, say to Pretoria or to some industrial undertaking. What would have happened to the poor white settlements and the great irrigation schemes there? It would have been a scandalous thing if the Hartebeestepoort settlements had come to grief through the water being disposed of to non-irrigators for use elsewhere. This should be a grave warning before we start disposing of water which was originally meant for irrigation purposes. Then there is the question of the abatement of water rates. I am speaking for a very large number of irrigators when I say that very few of them want a free gift or complete cancellation of their indebtedness to the State. These men have taken off their coats and endured great hardships and surmounted innumerable difficulties—in short, they have put up a man’s fight in a country which requires men. On their behalf, I claim that an abatement of rates and charges should be made. It pays the State to have a large number of successful settlers, for then we have increased production, a larger population and a freer circulation of money, the whole community thereby benefiting. It has been suggested to me that a parallel can be drawn between the grain elevators, which were built and are owned by the State, and Conservation dams. As grain elevators and charges for their use are to the grain growers, so should be the dams, canals and rates to the irrigators. It is held that the latter should be the State’s property, and the water should be sold to the users at rates which would pay interest and eventually repay the cost of construction.

The users of the railway pay for the grain elevators.

Yes, but they are State property, nevertheless. A flat rate for water for irrigation purposes is very unfair in its incidence, as one block of land may be worth twice that of another block, although both have to pay the same amount for the water they receive from the dam. I am of opinion that water rates in an area should vary in relation to the value of the soil, and therefore its productivity. From time to time, say at ten years intervals, I would have a review of the abatements of rates. With regard to the working of the Act itself, the amendments in this Bill provide for further powers for the river boards. There are such questions as the better use of water and the waste of water, which can be dealt with in committee. With regard to the irrigation boards, I think the minorities and the small holders in these irrigation districts feel strongly that they have not the representation they should have on the boards. They feel their interests are subservient to the bigger interests, and something might be done to meet that idea and adjust the matter. Then, as to those members of boards who are in arrear with their rates. They should be excluded from membership of the boards; and irrigators who are in arrear should not be allowed to exercise their vote. Then the point arises here with regard to powers of irrigation boards and river boards. I would like the Minister to make provision that in its own area of jurisdiction, the irrigation board shall have the same power as the river board. The river board has fairly extensive powers, which the irrigation boards have not got. Clause 26 (a) to (d) lays down the river board’s powers, and I want to see that the irrigation boards have the same power in their area, especially in reference to the control of water in their area, the control of the canals, the control of the distributaries, and the control of the local intake head works. Where you have three or four irrigation boards in a river district, one takes water when it is not its turn to do so, and there is nothing to stop them. The rights on the river are ill-defined. They belong to people through whose property the river flows, but there is no right to the water, and so we want to get control in order that the irrigation board might control all water flowing through its area. Another point is that the major board of an irrigation district should control the head works of all distributaries. The Sundays River and Fish River are being used as canals to take water from the head works, and that is why the boards should have complete control of the water within their jurisdiction. We shall have to face, in this country, the point whether the State is going to assume responsibilities for the main works, and sell the water and make proper charges, or whether we shall go on as to-day, not knowing what will happen in the future and everybody being frightened as to what is going to happen.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

I move—

It is not my desire to delay the passage of this Bill, or to oppose it, but I want once again to draw the Minister’s very serious attention to the fact that the Bill is very unsatisfactory, particularly in its provisions in regard to the restrictions on men having the break in their service condoned, who went on strike. Injustice is being done to railwaymen because they are not getting some of the privileges under the Act of 1925. The slate having been wiped clean in respect of railwaymen who went out on rebellion—and I do not object to the slate being wiped clean—the same should have been done in the case of men who went out on strike. When the Minister introduced the Bill he should have gone to the length of the other clauses dealing with railwaymen in 1925. However much the Minister has done, and I am the first to admit he has done much to improve the lot of the railwaymen, he must of necessity by passing a Bill of this kind, leave a sense of injustice and grievance in the minds of certain railwaymen. One is justified in pointing that out to the Minister, because these railwaymen were entitled to expect they would have received more ample justice in connection with this matter, because the Government depends for its majority on the Labour party.

I do not know that it is necessary to cover the same ground again which I did at the committee and report stage, except to draw the hon. member’s attention to a fact which he has evidently overlooked, that is, that in respect of men who have been retrenched and left the service on account of ill-health, completion of work or resignation before 31st March, 1910, their breaks have only been condoned for pension purposes. My hon. friend will appreciate that if we were to grant what he wants, the position would become quite impossible. Surely a man who has been retrenched or left the service through ill-health would also claim to have the break in his service condoned for all purposes. In view of that, I trust hon. members will rest satisfied that substantial justice has been done to these men.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I should like to invite the attention of the House to a few figures with these additional estimates. Hon. members will see that the sum asked for amounts to £758,734, but on the other hand there is a saving under various heads amounting to £122,780, so that the actual amount we want is £635,954. The amount for the railways is £753,819, which applies to the main services, while £4,915 is an expenditure on the net revenue account for interest on the superannuation and other funds. The amount of £753,819 is made up as follows: £5,974 more is spent under general expenses. Hon. members will see that this is caused by the gratuity of £7,500 given to the late general manager. An extra amount of £393,349 is devoted to the maintenance of rolling stock. It is important to refer to it, because the expenditure must entirely be attributed to the fact that the traffic over the railways has been very much greater than what we expected at the commencement of the financial year. Hon. members will see that the train running costs have also increased, viz., by an amount of £226,346. The extra expense was caused by the number of train miles being 3,433,888 more than what we expected. It is an increase of 6 per cent. The same increase of traffic is responsible for the extra traffic expenditure amounting to £128,150. That is also due to the increase in the tonnage of the goods carried by the railways. The amount of £4,915 of the net revenue account is caused by the raising of the interest on the superannuation and other funds from 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent. It will be interesting to the House if, without going further into detail, I give a preliminary estimate of the result of the financial year. I emphasize, however, that it can only be done approximately. At the end of December last there was a deficit of £33,428. The last two months of the financial year will have to make up the deficit which we had at the end of December. It is impossible to say with certainty if we shall do that, but, if I am to judge by the revenue of the last two months, then I think I can say that the financial year will close without a considerable deficit or a large surplus. If there should be a surplus, then it will not be large. I want to add that as our country has suffered during recent years from abnormal drought it made the carrying of hundreds of thousands of stock necessary, and if that had not been necessary the account would have closed with a considerable surplus. The carriage of hundreds of thousands of stock at one-quarter the ordinary rate makes a tremendous hole in the revenue of the railways. It does not only mean a sacrifice of rolling stock, but it also means the loss of paying traffic. The country cannot possibly maintain sufficient rolling stock to provide for all the necessary services in case much rolling stock is suddenly required for such a need. The result of this is that in case of drought the railways often have to lose paying traffic. I hope to make this clear when dealing with the main budget, but I only mention it to point out that if there had been no transport to and from the drought districts, the railways would certainly have shown a surplus. As the department has rendered great services to the farmer, we cannot grudge it to them, because there is going to be no surplus. If further information is required, I shall willingly give it to the committee.

seconded.

The Minister has explained the probable result of the year’s working. The result may prove satisfactory, although from the figures published up to the present, I think the Minister is somewhat optimistic. The first nine months of the year show that the expenditure has been increased by £452,000 above the three-quarter mark for the year, but during the same period the income increased by only £419,000. It therefore seems to me that as the expenditure is increasing very much faster than the income, the present deficiency which, it is true, has been reduced by an abnormal increase in income during December—one of the best months of the year—is going to prove rather a stumbling block in the way of the Minister achieving a surplus. I hope, however, he is going to have a surplus by the end of the year, although I think he will experience some difficulty. The position is growing more serious year by year. From the 1st of April, 1927, to the 30th of November, the railways earnings were £16,753,974, an increase of £779,000 or 4.6 per cent. over the previous year. The working expenses were £13,550,948, an increase of £704,924 or 5.2 per cent. over the previous year. Then we find working expenses going up in proportion greater than the income of the railways year by year. Take Head 1 of the votes: General Account, £5,974. That is the amount asked for now to be voted. The original estimates showed an increase of £21,575 over the previous year. In other words the increase is £27,549 for the year. I draw the Minister’s attention to the note in which he says this is required to cover a gratuity of £7,500 awarded to Sir William Hoy in appreciation of his services. Personally, I do not criticize that, but I ask the Minister to remember that in preference to gratuities to deserving servants we should arrange they get adequate salaries. I must criticize the increase in the administrative expenses. During the last year they have gone up very greatly. For the last four years under this head only: In 1924-’25 the original estimate was £341,574, and the actual expenditure £350,200, giving an excess of £8,626.

The hon. member is going into the estimates generally. He must confine himself to the heads.

I am within my rights in confininig myself to these particular heads. In 1925-’26 on the same head the original estimate was £350,109 increased by £27,159 to £377,268, whilst the actual expenditure exceeded that by £1,914. In 1926-’27 the original estimate was £366,232, whilst the actual expenditure was £397,467, or an excess of £31,235. In 1927-’28 the estimate is £387,807 and is being increased by this vote to £398,781, or in other words under this one head the increase since 1924-’25 has been £52,207. This applies purely to head office administration charges alone. It is difficult to appreciate there should be these enormous increases. The Minister points to train miles, but I hope when I am permitted, later on, to do so, to refer to the fallacy of such a comparison. The present system is a Government concern operating without the opposition which railways in other countries have to contend with. There are no waterways or other railway services as in other countries.

Are there no motor-buses?

That competition is small and merely on the local lines and branch lines, but on the main lines he is running the system without competition which makes it difficult to see why these costs should continue to rise by such large sums—sums out of all proportion to the expansion of our system. Take Head 4. Here, the Minister says £226,346 additional has to be voted, and this amount represents an increase of 4.67 per cent., and he goes on to say what a small increase there is because the increase in train mileage is 6.01 per cent. That may appear to be encouraging, but let me apply the Minister’s argument to Head 3. Now Head 3 relates to maintenance of rolling stock. The original estimate shows an increase of £445,587, and the amount shows that the increase for the year will be £671,933, and it is stated to be due to increased traffic. The additional amount to be voted is said to be due to increased traffic. It represents an increase of £393,349, which is nearly 10 per cent. of the original estimate of £4,106,415 compared with the train mileage increase of 6.01 per cent. The increased expenditure is, therefore, out of proportion to the increased train mileage. Then we have many reports in regard to the defects of the new rolling stock supplies. We might fairly ask what proportion of the increase is incurred in making good these defects. The Auditor-General, in his report, page 165, says: “Expenditure on maintenance of rolling stock in 1925-’26 amounted to £4,049,582, compared with £3,763,603 in 1924-’25, an increase of £285,979. Expenditure on running repairs carried out at transportation depots was £1,206,820 compared with £1,059,586 in 1924-’25, an increase of £147,234.” In his 1926-’27 report, page 169, he shows that the increases are £174,433 and £41,265 respectively. That is in those two years the increased cost of repairs amounted to £648,911. Take electric locomotives alone. True there is no provision asked for here under the head of wages, but under the head of materials the original estimate of £9,800 is increased to £26,435. For the two previous years repairs to these electric locomotives increased respectively by £25,868 and £14,524, and now we have this enormous increase of £26,435 All these are new locomotives which have recently been imported, and it is common knowledge that a good many of them have had to be reconstructed owing to structural defects. One would inquire, therefore, why there is this extraordinary increase in the estimates and whether this increase is due to the defects in the locomotives imported for the electrification scheme. [Auditor-General’s report for 1925-’26, page 10, quoted.] I think it is fair to ask how much of this increased vote is to remedy the defects to which attention is there drawn by the Auditor-General. In his last report, at page 7, the Auditor-General refers to these contracts again. He says—

That seems to be a position which requires some very clear explanation. It is also pertinent, I think, to ask how much of the increased cost now asked for is due to increased overtime. The amount paid in overtime in 1926-’27 in all departments was £1,166,135. As regards the daily paid staff, the amount paid for weekday overtime in 1925-’26 was £573,563, and for Sunday time £599,764. As regards the salaried staff, in 1925-’26 the amount paid for weekday overtime was £15,254, and for Sunday time £66,123. In the mechanical department the expenditure on weekday overtime and Sunday time of the salaried and daily-paid staffs in 1926-’27 was £122,650, or a percentage increase over 1923-24 of 299. The earlier estimates indicated the increased provision required to cover the additional costs of employing civilized labour, but we have not got that now, but we are able to deduce that the increase asked for is to a very great extent due to the increase in payments for what is called civilized labour. If we turn to the Auditor-General’s report for 1926-’27, at page 85, we find that he says that he applied for information to the general manager in regard to these increased figures and he wanted to know what it was costing the country to employ civilized labour. The general manager replied—

That means that while from July, 1924, to November, 1926, the increased cost was at the rate of £15,935 per month, from that date to September, 1927, this has been increased to a rate of £26,666 per month. In other words, the rate of increase on increase is £10,731 per month in wages alone. That is in wages alone. We now know that that is not the only cost in regard to this new labour. We know from what was said in the report of the commission appointed by the Administration that there would have to be an expenditure in the near future of something like £7,000,000. We know also from the figures that the amount in proportion to the increased employees to be expended in this way has increased since that report by about 50 per cent., and we have the position now that in wages and salaries alone the increases are as follows—

I think the hon. member is not confining himself to the Additional Estimates. He must not go into the general question. We cannot discuss reduction of rates on these estimates.

I merely put it to the Minister, how is it ever possible for us to have a reduction in rates with these increases?

My hon. friend has referred to the increase in working expenditure, but surely he realizes that with growing business we must have an increase.

But you are increasing expenditure faster than revenue.

But revenue has increased. If my hon. friend will only read the information supplied on page 3, he will see that the increased expenditure represents 4.67 per cent., whereas the extra mileage is 6.01 per cent.

What about page 2?

Head No. 3? I will deal with that separately. I am now dealing with the point made that our revenue is not keeping pace with our expenditure. I want to point out to the House that the increase in traffic is largely low-rated traffic.

It always has been the case for the last 20 years.

It has not always been the case.

We are rather tired of that argument. I used it myself, as a matter of fact.

I am afraid my hon. friend will continue to get tired of this, because they are the facts. Take maize, or cotton. The more these goods increase, the more the staff increases, because for low-rated traffic we require an increased staff.

You carried less maize last year.

That has nothing to do with the question. I say that there has been an increase in low-rated traffic. You cannot increase your business, especially in a country like South Africa, where the rates for farmers’ produce are low, unless you are also prepared to make provision for the handling of the goods. My hon. friend says we have no competition in the way of waterways, or private railways, but he forgets the very serious competitor which has entered into the sphere of transport in South Africa. I do not know whether he has seen that goods are being carried by motor car from Cape Town as far as Prieska and Adelaide.

No, no. Come, come.

Furniture is being carried from Cape Town to these two places, and goods are being conveyed from Port Elizabeth to Graaff-Reinet. My hon. friend has surely seen the motor competition in the Cape Peninsula. Does he know that we are suffering in loss of revenue to a very severe extent? So when hon. members speak of expenditure growing and revenue not keeping pace, and then say we have no competition, they are not stating the position fairly. We have a very serious competitor in the road motor service. Take the wine traffic in the Western Province. The State had lost a large portion of this traffic, and I had to make a considerable cut to almost half the ordinary rate in order to recover the traffic. Hon. members must be fair, and appreciate that the position at the present time is that we are faced with very serious competition. We are considering ways and means to deal with the matter. Those who are competing with the Administration with motor lorries must appreciate that we shall not take this lying down. We have had several instances where people have started running motor lorries in opposition to the State, and where we have taken steps to protect the interests of the railways, they have come and said “You must not destroy private enterprize and the capital which has been invested in it.” The policy of the Administration is that where private enterprize comes and cuts into the interests of the railways, we shall take every possible step to protect the interests of the State.

I refused to come to Parliament and ask for powers.

I am not coming forward at the present time, but the time is not far distant when the House will have to face this problem. Great Britain is facing it, Australia and New Zealand have faced it, and South Africa will have to face it.

You would have to have more economical management first.

I do not know that economical management will retain traffic that is being lost. Does my hon. friend suggest we should follow his policy of retrenchment? I shall be glad to hear hon. members on that subject, whether that is the way we should economize. Another point my hon. friend has made is the question of repairs of the electric locomotives, and he has asked whether the amount provided here is not a very big increase on what we anticipated. Undoubtedly it is; but we must not forget that the officers had not been accustomed to the repair of electric locomotives before, and undoubtedly there was an underestimate as to the amount of the repairs. I am informed that the normal percentage in the shops is four per cent., and my hon. friend will admit that, in comparison with steam engines, that is satisfactory. They are, of course, new, and one would expect a smaller percentage in the shops. As to the increased maintenance costs of rolling stock, that is largely caused by the amount of traffic we have had to handle. As a result of the increased traffic, the engines go into the shops, and the increased expenditure has to be made to get them and other rolling stock out earlier than they otherwise would. As to Sunday time and overtime, the closest attention is being given to that. It is always possible that these may grow to an extent—to an inordinate extent—but I can give the House the assurance that we watch this aspect of railway working very carefully. Does my hon. friend think we can eliminate it? You cannot do it; if we were to endeavour to eliminate Sunday time and overtime, it would mean increasing the staff to a very great extent, and that again means increased expenditure under pensions and other heads; so that while it is true that there are overtime and Sunday time payments, we in South Africa with our peak periods of traffic cannot possibly eliminate Sunday time and overtime. If we did, we would have men spare when traffic was slack. Then my hon. friend went back to his pet subject—civilized labour. All I wish to say is that it is the definite policy of the Government. We are not prepared to keep separate accounts of the cost of civilized labour. We say that this is the deliberate policy of the Government—and of the State represented by the Government at the present time.

It makes an extra charge on the State.

We have said to the people, this is part of our deliberate policy: that white and coloured men must have an opportunity to do the work, and the extra cost must be shouldered by the user of the railway.

made an interjection.

Are the railway users in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and other European countries not paying the cost? They are paying it gladly, because they are prepared to do something for the less favoured portion of their people. They have patriotism, and say “Our own people first.”

What nonsense!

My hon. friend would again undoubtedly carry out his policy of letting the white man go, and increasing the number of native employees. Of course, the country knows his policy—it is a clear one—the dismissal of white men and increasing the number of natives.

That is wrong—absolutely.

The country has no doubt what policy he would follow. My hon. friend has seen the results of the policy to which I have referred for two years—we had a big profit; last year a small deficit, and this year, notwithstanding all the attacks and prognostications of hon. members opposite, hon. members have the pleasurable task this evening of hearing that we anticipate more or less squaring our accounts. With regard to the figures mentioned by the hon. member as to the cost of civilized labour, they are approximate, and were supplied to the Auditor-General at his request. Separate accounts are not being kept. The hon. member has referred to the figure of £7,000,000 with regard to the capital expenditure required in terms of organization and the report of the Development Committee. Although I have read that report very carefully—I have not edited it as he suggests—I do not think it contains that statement.

Motion put and agreed to.

On the motion that the House go into committee now,

objected.

House to go into committee on 7th March.

I move—

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries when the scandalous tax on superphosphates will be removed?

Is there a vote about that on the Additional Estimate?

I will wait for the moment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 7th March.