EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (Hansard, 18 December 1935)

Mr. McKIE
I feel that this Order should not go through without a few words being said. I do not want to oppose it, but something might be said about the Order that has been promoted by the Edinburgh Corporation. The main feature of the Order is that providing for additional water supplies for the Scottish metropolis. Some two years ago I had the privilege of being a member of a Parliamentary Commission representative of both Houses of Parliament which investigated a Provisional Order which provided for the taking of the whole of the concentration water given back to the River Tweed under the Talla Linn reservoir scheme, which was first entered into by the Edinburgh Council in 1895. Evidence was given at considerable length on both sides before the Commission and the Commission—I think I am liberty to say this—only came to their ultimate decision after much discussion.
At that time the Committee decided to reject the proposal in the Provisional Order to take the whole of the compensation water given back to the River Tweed under the Talla Linn reservoir scheme. In the Provisional Order tonight the House is asked to empower the Edinburgh Corporation to take, admittedly, not the whole of the compensation water as proposed in the 1934 Provisional Order but a limited amount of that water, amounting in the winter months, when the rainfall is most plentiful, to three-fourths. Some 5,000,000 gallons per day is the amount of compensation water provided for under the 1895 Act. Under the scheme now before us we are asked to allow the Edinburgh Corporation to take 3,650,000 gallons daily of the 5,000,000 gallons provided for under the 1805 scheme. In the summer months, when the rainfall in Scotland as well as in most places is supposed to be negligible, the Edinburgh Corporation propose to take one-fourth of the 5,000,000 gallons compensation water per day.
When the 1934 Provisional Order was before the Commission representing both Houses of Parliament the right hon. and learned Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. T. M. Cooper), whom we are delighted to see on the Treasury bench to-night, and who no doubt will intervene at a later stage of the discussion in his capacity as Lord Advocate, entered a most powerful and eloquent plea on behalf 1850 of those who were upholding the principle of the compensation water. I should not be exaggerating if I said that the plea of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion went very far towards turning, if it did not entirely, turn the scale and influence the minds of the Commissioners in coming to their decision not to allow the taking of the compensation water. This evening we have a scheme which provides for the taking of a proportion of the compensation water. It is a more moderate scheme, but nevertheless the same principle is involved.
Hon. Members who took an interest in the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage) Bill which we passed in 1934 will remember that that Measure allowed for the taking of compensation water all over the country by municipalities and corporations during a period which has expired in the present month of December. I am sure the Scottish Members will readily understand and appreciate that we are now quite outside the danger zone so far as water supplies are concerned and are back again in the same position with regard to water legislation which has obtained in this country for 50 years, namely, that when a municipality or corporation desires—

§ Mr. G. HARDIE
What justification is there for a corporation giving compensation to individuals for compensation water?

Mr. McKIE
My hon. Friend asks about the question of individual rights. I hope he will understand that I am not approaching the matter to-night with any individual in my mind. I am speaking on the broad general principle of compensation water and I hope that before I have done he will allow that I have made at least one fairly good point so far as compensation water for the Edinburgh City Council is concerned. I was endeavouring to point out, when the hon. Member interrupted me, as was pointed out by the Minister of Health at the time, that the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage) Bill was purely an emergency arrangement and that that time is now over. It was a very difficult period that many corporations and municipalities were going through, in view of the drought conditions that prevailed in 1933–34.
1851 When the Commission rejected the scheme for the taking of compensation water in tote—which was very largely influenced by the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend—they were actuated by the feeling that the adoption of the Provisional Order might be setting up a precedent with regard to water legislation. I remember my right hon. and learned Friend pointing out, very cogently, that in passing the Provisional Order we should be reversing what this House had invaribly done throughout the last half century and that we should be going back to the state of affairs that existed from 1845 to the eighties, namely, that you could give adequate compensation in terms of money for water that municipalities and corporations were taking from catchment areas which, as in the case of Edinburgh, might be situated 40 or 50 miles outside the boundaries of their own town. The Commission decided in favour of maintaining the principle that had obtained for 50 years.
On behalf of the city of Edinburgh the point was made very forcibly in evidence and by counsel opposing the Order that members of the Town Council of Edinburgh in 1895 when the Talla Linn reservoir construction scheme was started realised that as the years went on they would have to provide increasingly water supplies for the benefit of the citizens of Edinburgh, and they realised that it might only be a very short period of time before an additional reservoir perhaps bigger than the one constructed at Talla Linn would be necessary. There was a scheme in contemplation at that time to tap the catchment areas by the Fruid and Menzion Burn scheme, to provide additional water supplies which would be necessary as the years rolled on. When the Talla Linn reservoir aqueduct was constructed the pipes were made far larger than was necessary for the supplies of water that would daily be carried to Edinburgh through that scheme, showing that the city fathers of that date had it in mind that their successors would be called upon to provide increased water supplies for a very long period of time.
I have been making inquiries into the daily consumption of water in the city of Edinburgh, having regard to the increase 1852 of population. I am speaking from memory, but I understand that the daily consumption of water is approximately 26,000,000 gallons, of which 15,000,000 gallons come from the Talla Linn reservoir and the remaining 11,000,000 gallons from the reservoirs constructed later. The population of Edinburgh is about 438,000. There has been an increase of 22,000 since the last census in 1931. If that development continues the population at the next census in 1941 will have gone up by 50,000 and will be about 488,000, compared with 438,000 in 1931. I hope the local authorities of that great city realise that under the scheme which they are promoting in this Provisional Order Bill they are again exposing themselves to the charge of entering into a makeshift or temporary policy.
I do not wish to oppose them, but I should not like the Bill to go through without the short-sightedness of the scheme being pointed out. Forty years ago the Edinburgh Town Council had in contemplation, as we were told at the Parliamentary Commission in 1934, the construction of a secondary and perhaps larger scheme in the valley adjacent to the Talla, Linn reservoir, but after the rebuff—it was a rebuff, and my right hon. and Learned Friend was very surprised at the result of the Commission's findings, even after his eloquent speech—we find the city council owing forward today with a smaller scheme and a very much milder proposal. But the principle is the same, and there is still no sign of the town council bestirring themselves as a local authority and making adequate provision for a rapidly increasing consumption of water. It was the drought, of course, which made the town council of Edinburgh realise that their supplies might run short. I happened to drive past the Talla Linn reservoir and through its romantic gorge, the scene once of a great gathering during the civil strife during the latter part of the 18th century, and I was amazed to see the low level of water in the reservoir.
The provisional Order of 1934 was rejected by the Commission, but it is equally a fact that while they did not wish to be parties to reversing the accepted principle el water legislation during the last 15 years they wondered whether the Edinburgh Town Council would make provision on the best lines, having regard to the increased water 1853 supplies which would be necessary for the citizens of Edinburgh as the years went by. They wondered also whether the construction of the additional scheme, the Fruid Menzion Burn Scheme, might not be a very valuable asset for the town council if they were seeking to re-absorb some of the large army of the Edinburgh unemployed. During the last few years we have had a great many pleas put forward as to the necessity of the Government going in for schemes of large public works. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) went to the country at one election with grandiose proposals to this effect. It is true that the country, perhaps owing to the absurdities of our electoral system, did not give a very ready response to the huge public works proposals in the Liberal programme of 1929, but that did not deter the right hon. Gentleman from bringing similar proposals forward in the New Deal scheme which he offered at the last Election.
Speaking seriously, I suggest to the Edinburgh Town Council—this provisional Order will, of course, go through to-night—that, having regard to the insistence that we should allow no opportunity to pass which will secure more work for the unemployed, they should seriously consider whether it is not time to set about the construction of the alternative reservoir scheme which the town council of Edinburgh in 1895, 40 years ago, anticipated would be necessary within a comparatively short period of time. I do not know whether there is to be any real opposition to this Order. If any hon. Member chooses to challenge a Division and go into the Lobby I could not wholeheartedly follow him. I heard the whole matter thrashed out 18 months ago, and although I thought the taking of the whole compensation water was an indefensible principle, having regard to the period of time that has elapsed and the recent additional evidence which has been brought forward, I do not think I should be justified in following any hon. Members into the Lobby against the Order. I hope that the Edinburgh Town Council, although the House is not disposed to give definite opposition to the passing of this Provisional Order, will, nevertheless, consider very deeply and seriously the alternative reservoir scheme which their 1854 predecessors of 1895 thought was necessary, and also remember that by so doing they will find more work for the large army, unfortunately, of the unemployed which exists in the city of Edinburgh.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I should like to know whether this is another case in which water is taken from one catchment area and put into another. In England we have some difficulty which arises from the fact that large corporations, without very much opposition, take water from one stream and put it into another, with the result that the stream into which they put it sometimes overflows its banks. If this is a case in point I should like to draw the attention of the House to a danger. I understand that there are no catchment boards in Scotland as there are in England. These boards look after the interests not only of the riparian owners but of the agriculturists, who are interested in the amount of water which can be maintained for their stock. It means that in some cases where large corporations are taking away their water they may be short of water for their stock. It may be that these difficulties do not obtain in Scotland, but the principle whereby corporations can take water from one catchment area and put it into another is a serious inconvenience to the country.
I should like to know how the compensation water is assessed. I understand that the system on which compensation water is based consist of two or three extremely complicated formulae, drawn up by expert water engineers belonging to certain associations, and that for a long time certain of these formulae have been adopted as likely to be right. But is it not a fact that the water from most rivers, particularly in Scotland, has not been systematically gauged? It is only since the passing of the Land Drainage Act that there has been any official body, with the exception of the Thames Conservancy, who have gone in for a systematic gauging of rivers over a number of years, and, therefore, I should like to know the basis on which this compensation water is calculated. How many years have the rivers been gauged in order to know whether compensation water can be afforded and whether it is sufficient for the lower reaches of the river?
1855 In Scotland the procedure seems to be somewhat immature. A large corporation comes along and because there is a great deal of water at a certain time they say that there is enough. Those who have seen the Falls of the Clyde absolutely dry owing to the large public works undertaken, will realise that Scottish rivers fall and rise very quickly. Has this been taken into account? I should like also to press this point of view on the House. I hope that the Scottish Office when they are inquiring into the river Tweed, which is partly an English river, will take advantage of the information which has been obtained in England as to the rise and fall of the river and the expansion of the river in dry and wet seasons. I hope they are not going to keep themselves in watertight compartments so that any information about the river will not be available for England, and I hope that in the English office there is information which is available in regard to English rivers. I view with great apprehension the setting up of dual control and responsibility, and this is a good example to take, as the Tweed is partly an English river and partly a Scottish river.