HC Deb 07 February 1949 vol 461 cc87-107

Amendment made: In page 24, line 14, leave out from beginning, to the end of line 15.—[Mr. Woodburn.]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

It is appropriate that some of us should say a word about the provisions of the Bill as amended, before we send it along to another place. Hon. Members will appreciate that the Bill has three main parts. First, it provides for there being established in Scotland for the first time, a uniform system of rating and charging for water. May I say that we are all indebted to Sir Robert Bryce Walker and those who served with him on his committee, for the guidance we received from their report in this regard. Secondly, it increases by £20 million the total sum available in grants in aid of rural water supply and drainage schemes. Thirdly, it makes certain minor, but not unimportant amendments in the existing law of water supply.

It is desirable to understand and appreciate the relationship which this Bill has to Government policy in Scotland. The improvement of rural water supplies is an essential part of Scotland's national plan. We see efforts being made to build up a balanced economy in Scotland. Considerable industrial development is taking place. There is the development of hydro-electricity and agriculture and the fisheries, and much is being done to develop the essential services in the rural areas. This Bill is designed to make a valuable contribution to the welfare of those rural areas.

We all know that a proper supply of wholesome water is essential to farming, and particularly to the modern dairy farm where as much as 30 gallons a day is required for each milk cow. When we have in mind the high proportion of T.T. herds in Scotland and the public interest in increasing that proportion and keeping in the forefront in this regard, we quickly realise how desirable it is that rural water supplies shall be greatly augmented. The increased grants provided in the Bill will encourage local authorities to introduce regional water supply schemes and bring in water to the more fertile low lying districts in which our dairy agriculture in particular is carried on.

This scheme will also make it possible to provide good modern houses for farm workers, with modern conveniences, which hitherto have not been possible. I would, however, hasten to qualify those remarks by saying that this development will take some little time. Perhaps the House will bear with me if I gave one short example of how a county will benefit from the Bill. In one agricultural county in Scotland which I have in mind—Berwickshire—half the parishes in the county have at present no public water at all, and not more than one-third of the landward population of 21,000 live in houses with a public supply of water. Even where there is a public supply in a special district, it is often highly unsatisfactory. A recent inspection in one special district showed that supplies were quite inadequate in dry periods of the year and that at best the supply was intermittent. In this special district arrangements for maintenance and supervision of the supply were badly lacking.

This Bill will enable the county council to proceed ultimately with schemes covering the whole area of the county where water is required. Moreover, the Bill as a whole deals with water supply on a larger basis than the purely local one Grants under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, will enable county-wide schemes or regional schemes to be carried out and, with the disappearance of the purely local supply water district system, each county will for the first time appear as a water authority in fact as well as in name. Better supervision and maintenance and more economical running of water supply systems should result.

That part of the Bill dealing with water rates is an essential part of the improvement of water supplies in Scotland. Its provisions to set up a uniform system of water rating are intended to make the job of the administrator easier than it has been up to now, and the mere uniformity of it puts the owners and occupiers of premises being supplied and the public supply of water on an equal basis for the first time wherever the owners or occupiers may live or carry on their businesses. Since the Bill was introduced we have made some changes in it. In its general outlines the Bill is not materially altered. One has in mind, however, Clause 7, the Amendment to which was discussed for a little time this afternoon, which provides for an adjustment to be made between landlord and tenant to save the immediate shock of an increased rate burden on the occupier. I think that the Amendment we have made is one which, after little discussion, was found to be acceptable to Members in all parts of the House.

Clause 11, which relates to requisitioning by a supplying authority to recover expenses in supplying water in the districts of other authorities, has also been largely modified. The effect of the Amendment is to give greater elasticity and to allow local authorities to come to an agreement to operate, where that would be more equitable, a system of requisitioning slightly different from that envisaged when the Bill was first introduced. Many other Amendments have been made throughout the Bill, either in fulfilment of undertakings which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee or in response to the criticisms of the Bill that were made by persons and parties outside and particularly by the local authorities and the local authority associations.

The object of all these Amendments has been to make this a better Bill than it was when it had its Second Reading. Examination of them should show that my right hon. Friend had been prepared to listen to criticisms and suggestions from any quarter and to make alterations where consideration has shown that alteration was likely to lead to an improvement. We have had friendly and useful discussions on this Measure. It is a small Bill and has been often described as an uncontroversial Bill; but it is one that is of the greatest importance particularly to the rural parts of Scotland and it is one which we hope will be as well received in another place as it has been in this House. If further suggestions are made for the improvement of the Bill, I can give an assurance that my right hon. Friend will be only too glad to consider them.

6.25 p.m.

Commander Galbraith

I agree at once that the Bill is now a better Bill than it was at the time when we had it before us for Second Reading. I wonder whether at any time any Minister has ever been in a happier position than has the right hon. Gentleman throughout all the stages of this Bill, knowing perfectly well that no one would ever dare to take any serious measure against him, and that by reason of the fact that the Exchequer contribution which was fixed four years ago at some £6 million has now been advanced to the sum of £20 million. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman never had any fear at all but that his Bill would eventually pass through all its stages in this House without any serious opposition. But that huge increase draws our attention to the enormous sums involved nowadays in these matters. We should pay the most scrupulous attention to the financial side and make sure, so far as we in this House possibly can, that money voted by Parliament is used economically and to the best possible advantage of the community as a whole.

I wish to make one or two references to changes which have been brought about in the Bill as we now have it before us. The first is concerned with the uniform rating system to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. We must realise now that the cost to any local authority of providing water is borne in the first place by the public water rate varying to the extent of between one-fifth and one-third of the total cost and paid equally by owner and occupier. We debated that matter very fully in Committee. We know perfectly well that it is a departure from the 25 per cent. recommended by the Bryce Walker Committee but, in that it allows for flexibility, I think that it is all to the good, for it does allow within those limits a certain discretion to the local authority, and we approve of that wholeheartedly. I wonder, though, whether the discretion granted is sufficiently wide to meet all the varying circumstances of the many authorities concerned and also whether the 33⅓ per cent.—that is the upper limit—is not too high, and the lower limit of 20 per cent. is not low enough.

For example, is there today any local authority which is actually expending 33⅓ per cent. of the total cost of providing water on public services? If not, then of course one section of the community is subsidising another section. I should have thought that it would have been possible to arrive at the actual cost of supplying water for public purposes and to have rated accordingly to meet that cost without laying down what appears to be an arbitrary system. After all, we have that in regard to gas and electricity for public lighting. I can see no reason why the same system of paying for what is used should not be applied to water. That, surely, would be fair and it would get rid of any possibility of a concealed subsidy, which in my view is always a bad thing. People should be able easily to appreciate the actual cost to them as individuals of any public service.

We had a difference of opinion as to the propriety of people paying equally for the service or services the benefits of which were enjoyed more fully by some than by others. The outstanding case of that was, of course, that of those who, because they lived in remote areas, could never enjoy a public supply of water and could only benefit to a very limited extent, and that indirectly, from the public services. I cannot help feeling that injustice is done to such persons, and I have not been persuaded by the arguments of either the Minister or hon. Gentlemen opposite that is not so. That is also the position of owners, and that is another reason why the sum raised by the public water rate should not be more than the actual cost of the supply for public purposes.

Then we have the domestic rate, payable by occupiers on the gross annual value. Here, again, the charge might be on the amount of water actually consumed, but I appreciate that the argument against that is that it might induce some people to use less water than was necessary for ordinary personal or domestic cleanliness. It seems to me that such an argument, or the possibility that such an argument could be advanced, is a reflection on our standard of education and one which I hope may very shortly be removed. That the charge should be made in this arbitrary manner, instead of on the basis of the amount used, is certainly an incentive to carelessness in the use of water, and in times of shortage that places a very great burden upon the local authorities. This Bill, however, does recognise the principle that the user should pay, and that is certainly an advance on the existing practice.

Following on these remarks, I do not think the House will be surprised if I say that I still find the provisions of Clause 8 objectionable. Why the county councils should be called upon to subsidise the domestic water rate I do not appreciate at all. Generally speaking, people should pay for what they use of any commodity, and should not expect to be subsidised in this way. I trust that that provision will be very seldom used in practice, because it is just another concealed subsidy. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman put forward and which we have accepted, while it is an improvement, does not bring home the actual charge to the individual consumer. The third method of meeting the cost is by charging the industrial user for the amount which he actually consumes, and I consider that quite unexceptionable. Apart from these matters the Bill is, by and large, acceptable to us on this side of the House.

I want to pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for having met us so fairly on a large number of points and also for the scrupulous regard which he has shown in dealing with all matters on which he promised further consideration. Knowing him, of course, we did not expect anything less than that. It only remains for me to hope that the Government may press ahead with the necessary work, that the local authority schemes will be very quickly sanctioned, and that the sum now available will be found sufficient to meet all the requirements so as to give to all except the very few to whom it cannot be provided the boon of decent sanitation and the great advantage of a piped water supply. I do not know of any other single Measure which could do more to improve the chances of our people remaining on the land, and of inducing others from the urban areas to move there, to help to repopulate our rural districts and achieve that much desired increase in our agricultural production.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Rankin

In view of the fact that there have been slight criticisms regarding some of the provisions of the Bill from this side of the House, perhaps I should bid it farewell by saying that I believe the Bill to be, on the whole, a good one, which could have been bettered had my right hon. Friend seen fit to adopt the very wise Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) with regard to compensation. I have not the slightest doubt that that would have made it not just a good Bill but one of the most noteworthy Measures that have ever emanated from this House. However, we shall take it as it is, give it a welcome and wish it success.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) referred to one or two small points on which he had qualified his praise. In Clause 16, there is one of these points on which I think a word may be merited in order to make clear my own point of view with regard to it. Throughout Clause 16, there is continual reference to the phrase "water rate." The water rate referred to in Clause 16 should be limited specifically to a rate in respect of a "supply of water," because I feel that the wording in this Clause includes the public water rate, and, in so doing, goes very far beyond the intention of the Clause. That is my own point of view on this particular Clause, though I admit there may be some unexplained reason for wording it as it is.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in his anticipation of what the Bill will effect. I subscribe to that entirely. May I indicate by one example the simplification of administration which should follow? When we consider that today local authority staffs have to go round offices and small business premises counting the number of taps used in those places and then charge for the amount of water used on that basis, we realise that, on that simple point, this Bill will save the use of a great amount of labour, because that task will no longer be necessary now that a charge by way of a rate in the £ can be made. While there may be little complications to begin with, once The machinery gets into working order, I believe this Bill will function smoothly and well.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Maclay

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill was non-controversial, and, obviously, anything which might result in a better water supply for Scotland should be non-controversial. As, however, various town councils and local authorities in Scotland have had little opportunity to study what happens under this Bill, I am not so certain that they regard it as non-controversial. The Bill is still in some ways rather obscure, and I think that the reason why certain points have not been raised in Committee is because the time was simply not sufficient to give local authorities a sufficient opportunity for going into the details of this Measure. Further, I doubt very much whether some of the points which they might have raised would have been permissible on Report stage. The Parliamentary Secretary did, however, say that if any further suggestions are brought forward before the Bill goes to another place, they would be very carefully considered, and, in that connection, I hope that any such suggestions put forward will receive due consideration.

There are one or two aspects of the Bill to which I would like to refer, and one concerns the position of local authorities which, in the past, have provided water for premises outside their boundaries. That position is protected by the Bill in Clause 31, and any premises outside a burgh which were supplied with water before 16th May, 1946, will be deemed to be within the limits of supply of that particular town council.

There are certain burghs in the East of Scotland which have, in the past, under their available powers, voluntarily given water to premises well outside their own boundaries, and incurred certain expenses in so doing. What is more, they have always had the right to withdraw the supply of such water if, for any reason, their own supplies were threatened. To be absolutely certain of maintaining these supplies under the present Bill, they may quite well have to incur additional expenditure. I am by no means clear whether these far-sighted and generous burghs are properly protected, or whether they may suffer in the future. I sincerely hope that if these points are to be brought forward between now and the next stage they will be carefully considered.

There is only one other point to which I wish to refer, and which arose in connection with an intervention earlier today. I feel it is rather a pity that one should have to go as far as Clause 24 before it is clear, certainly to the landlord, and even to the local authorities who will have to work the provisions of the Bill, that the Bill does not apply to water supplied for trade purposes. I should have thought it would have been perfectly simply to make that perfectly clear earlier in the Bill, even in the Preamble, and I hope the point will be looked at. However, if the Bill can go on its way with the hope of some improvement at a later stage, one must give it one's blessing.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ross

Despite a certain amount of misgiving regarding what happened over Clause 26, like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Bill. As the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, it is a small Bill, but a very important one, because anything we hope to do in the agricultural development of Scotland, and anything we hope to do in the Highlands in connection with the introduction of industry will depend, first of all, on our ability to use the £20 million which the Secretary of State for Scotland has somehow or other acquired from the Treasury. I only hope that, having found some way of getting money from the Treasury, he will continue to be as successful in regard to other matters, such as housing.

From the point of view of administration, I think this enabling Bill will be generally welcomed, although one point was brought out with which the Bill does not and cannot deal, but which we should take note of—the fact that there are still people in Scotland today, not in the rural areas, but as the Secretary of State told us, mainly in the cities, who are paying domestic water rates although they have no water supply actually in their houses. The Bill is making no change in that respect; it is just continuing an undesirable feature, not only of Scottish rating, but of Scottish life. I hope my right hon. Friend will seek a solution to that problem by the introduction of another Bill.

Another part of the Bill which created quite a considerable amount of heat was that dealing with the question of the institution of the public water rate. I cannot entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in this matter. I know that there are extreme cases which can be argued, but, while the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), pacifist that he is, has to pay taxes with which to provide an Army, an Air Force and a Navy, and whilst the same hon. Member, vegetarian that he is, has to pay for subsidies on meat, I think we can pass over the extreme cases regarding the public water rate.

I would only say, on the Clause about which, shall we say, I got slightly heated, that I feel—having given a bit of guidance to those who are going to arbitrate on these obligations and who are going compulsorily to terminate the contracts—there will be less chance of the local authorities and the people concerned coming to agreement under Clause 26 (1) than there would be by waiting for compulsory acquisition or, failing that, by accepting the guidance given by the Minister to the people concerned when they come to consider the voluntary termination of contracts.

However, the one thing that shines clearly throughout the Bill, and the one thing we Scotsmen cannot ignore, is this sum of £20 million, not merely because it is an increased amount of money, but because it is more in conformity with the hopes we entertain for our native country. I only hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland was a little out in his calculations when he said that it would take 20 years to spend this money, because I sincerely believe that, with proper drive and initiative, we need not wait 20 years in order to make a real start. Unless we get these basic water services, we shall not get our agriculture and industry built up, nor shall we get the increased amenities for the rural populations which this money implies. I hope that every effort will be made to get on with the work straight away, and that it will not take as long as the 20 years anticipated by my right hon. Friend.

6.49 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I would just like to say one word before this Bill passes. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), who gave us an interesting dissertation on one or two matters about collecting the sand of the sea by the wicked landlords, realises that his chief, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is one of those wicked landlords, and that he collects sea shells and sand from the islands of the west. Perhaps he did not realise that even Socialists can do these things.

Mr. Rankin

My right hon. Friend does so on behalf of the nation and for its well-being, not for private profit.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

My second point is that it should be borne in mind by all when considering a Bill which deals with water that the trees which have been planted in vast numbers by landlords in the past are contributing, to a tremendous degree, to the water which is going to be available for the purposes of this Bill. The landlords should be given credit for that. It was the hon. Member for Tradeston who said that the Almighty had provided everything, that the water went up and that the rain came down, but——

Mr. Rankin

I deny that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

—the encouragement for the water to come down, and to come down where it does, is very largely governed by where the trees are.

Mr. Rankin

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I cannot give way for the moment; I must go on. The trees are the main means, as was said in the "Sunday Times" yesterday, which, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman saw, for the interplay of earth, water and air on which man's very existence depends. The landlords of Scotland have done a great service in planting trees, and have helped to provide the water so much needed in this country. The wholesale cutting down of trees is certainly going to affect the water supply of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. In giving credit to the landlords for these things, will he also give credit to them for the fact that during the period between the wars they destroyed 50 million young trees?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think this Bill has anything to do with trees.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Perhaps it would be better if, on both sides of the House, we left the subject of trees.

The only other comment I wish to make is to say how much greater value this Bill would have—and I do welcome the Bill—if it had only been part of an overall examination of the potential water supplies of Scotland. Until there is such an overall examination we shall waste water in every direction; the best use will not be made of it. Hydroelectric power, rural and city supplies will never develop as they should until that overall examination of the potential water supplies in Scotland is undertaken. It was promised years ago, and it has never been done. This Bill comes forward piecemeal after the 1947 Act and the various Hydro-electric Development Measures, none of which are co-related to each other. That is a tragedy, because water is strictly limited. It is very temperamental and it will not stand being played the fool with, as I have said in this House before. I hope the next item on the programme of the Secretary of State, so far as water is concerned, will be to set up a commission of experts to examine the water potentiality of Scotland. It is absolutely necessary, and it must be done before it is too late.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes

As I have offered a word of criticism of one Clause in this Bill, I should like now to say a word of welcome and add to the paean of praise which the Bill as a whole is now receiving. I still think the provisions concerning compensation are incomplete and defective. It is a great pity that the Bill does not contain more definite guidance as to how compensation is to be assessed. Compensation is dealt with under Clause 26, but the only guide to be found in the Clause is that compensation shall be assessed at the value of the rights secured. How is that to be done? What is the value of the rights secured? Clause 26 (3) says: The amount of the compensation to be paid under the last preceding subsection shall be assessed by reference to the value of the rights secured under the obligation as at the date of the making of the order. … There is no indication as to how that value is to be assessed or arrived at, nor is there any check upon it. At least, there is one check, namely, that the compensation must not be a figure which will impose an undue burden upon the ratepayers. The Clause goes on: … and in assessing that value regard shall be had to the amount of the rate or charge or of the rate and charge, as the case may be, which may reasonably be expected to become payable as a result of the termination of the obligation. That is the only check which is placed upon it, and in my submission it is very inadequate.

There should be some more concrete guide in the Clause as to how the compensation is to be assessed. There should be some limit as to the number of years' purchase. The Clause is left quite at large in respect of the assessment of compensation. It may, indeed, defeat itself by imposing an undue burden. Apart from that, the Bill is excellent and is bound to do good if it does not impose too great a burden upon the ratepayers. I welcome the Bill.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. McKie

I wish to make a few observations on the final stage of this Bill before it leaves us for another place. In passing, I should like to enter a mild protest against the Third Reading of a Measure like this being taken on a Monday, because the Secretary of State knows perfectly well that it is very difficult for Scottish Members, especially those from rural Scotland, to attend on Mondays. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, with far longer experience of this House than mine—some 30 years, I believe—that there has always been an unwritten tradition, that unless it is unavoidable, Scottish business should not be taken on a Monday. We put questions to the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday afternoons. This is not the first time in this Parliament that Scottish legislation has been presented on a Monday, and I do urge the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat this sort of thing again unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

Having said that, I wish, like nearly everyone else—a few caveats have been entered on the other side—to say how much I welcome this Bill in general principle. I was very interested in the Under-Secretary's remarks when moving the Third Reading, and I agree with almost every word. There is no-doubt that water is a commodity—if that is the right word to use about a fluid—which is being increasingly used. The consumption of water per capita in Scotland has always been high. It is increasing and it is bound to go on increasing if Scotland is to be developed in the way that it should.

The Under-Secretary spoke about the potentiality in the future, and referred to hydro-electric schemes and agriculture. It is with agriculture that I am more or less wholly occupied. I thought the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a little ungenerous when he alluded to the increase of £13 million. I agree with the Under-Secretary that that increase should do very great things indeed for Scottish agriculture. The Under-Secretary spoke about conditions in Berwickshire where 50 per cent. of the inhabitants live almost entirely, I think he said, without any public water supply. Let me tell him that there are other counties in Scotland where conditions are quite as bad and in some cases worse than they are in Berwickshire. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to one of the two counties which I have the honour to represent in this House—Wigtonshire. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been there during his term of office; if not, I urge him to go there at the earliest possible moment, and he will find much room for improvement all round. That is a county where dairy farming plays a very important part.

It is the policy of this Government, as it was the policy of the previous Government, and I hope it will be of any Government in the future, whatever its political complexion, to increase dairy production. If we cannot have the proper water facilities for purposes of cleanliness dairy production will not continue in the satisfactory way which we want to see from the point of view of public health. I hope that point will be borne very carefully in mind. There is another point which will appeal to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) with her great knowledge of educational matters. The Under-Secretary will not deny that in Scotland there are many schools which are without proper water supplies and sanitation. I hope he will keep that point carefully in mind.

I wish to say a few words about two of the Clauses which have been amended. I am glad that Clause 11, which deals with the expenses of a local authority supplying water in the district of another authority, has been amended. All the Amendments which have been made to this Bill are important, but I am particularly glad of the Amendment made to that Clause. It will go a long way to smooth out the position, because no one will deny that in this question of one local authority supplying water in the domain of another, it is probably the smaller local authority which will be the supplying authority. Therefore, we must be very vigilant to see that the interests of such authorities are in no way jeopardised. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree with me there, because I know he has always been one to look after the interests of minorities, and he would not wish to see the supply of a local authority which may be a small one jeopardised in any way by the demand that is made upon it by a larger authority which is drawing water from it. It might even be the City of Edinburgh or Glasgow. I think the Amendment goes a long way to meet my fears on that point.

The only other Clause to which I want to refer Clause 26, which deals with the termination of the right to a supply of water on special terms and which, of course, raises the vexed question of compensation. I am glad it leaves us this evening without what I consider would have been a very wrong Amendment. Some hon. Members on the other side come to this House whenever compensation matters are raised with their minds very severely prejudiced, if not already made up. [Laughter.] That laugh shows how right I am in saying that. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) lashed himself almost into a fury saying that whenever the question of taking water from either the hills or the waste moorlands is concerned, people always look to see how much money they can get. I must dissent from that point of view. I am entitled to my opinion just as he is entitled to his opinion, and I feel that my opinion is probably nearer the truth.

I will make a present to the hon. Gentleman; in the past there have been landlords who have not been too willing to give water facilities. We all know that. But not from the point of view of wishing to make money—simply because they thought, and very often thought erroneously, that the water undertaking would make a great mess of the property concerned. That is the sole reason. In this quickly-moving age we have left that state of society behind. I do not think we shall find it today and certainly we shall not find——

Mr. Gilzean

I recall the 35-mile long aqueduct between Table Reservoir and Edinburgh, because of which I am informed, the city authority has to pay, among other things, a considerable share of the rates of the County of Peebles—about one-third, I believe. The same thing occurs, though to a lesser degree, in Midlothian.

Mr. McKie

It would be out of Order on Clause 26, which deals with compensation, to answer the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh in the way I should like to answer him. He was a member of the City Council of Edinburgh at one time and he knows the sins of omission of that body with regard to making provision for the citizens of Edinburgh. I said that only because, in a sense, I was goaded by the hon. Member and I will not pursue the matter further. I believe Clause 26 will operate quite fairly and, despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) may say in his speech or indicate by shaking his head, I am of the opinion that it will work fairly to both sides. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kilmarnock wishes to see it working fairly only so far as one side is concerned. I prefer to take a larger and more generous view than he does.

I welcome this Bill in its broad outlines. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew made the point that perhaps it is too soon to say how local authorities will receive it. I do not mean to suggest that they will not be grateful, as we all are, for the £13 million, but it may be that those who are responsible, the civil servants employed by the various local authorities, will have many headaches before they unravel the many complicated issues in this Bill. We have all received complaints from local authorities about the way legislation is rushed through. I am not complaining in general that this Bill was been unduly rushed, although perhaps there could have been more time between Second Reading and Committee, but there is no doubt, as has been truly said, that local authorities are somewhat resentful of the way legislation is continually being hurled at them. Certainly before they unravel all the many points in this Bill, they will have many headaches.

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) referred to me as "the hon. Member for West Renfrew." I think that should be corrected.

Mr. McKie

I am sorry for the error. It arose from my having spoken in the hon. Member's constituency—or rather in the constituency where he is now candidate. I expressed the hope that at the next election he would become the Member for that constituency. I am well aware that he sits for the constituency of Montrose Burghs. My mistake does not in any way undo the truth of his remark, with which I cordially agree, about the great burden which the staffs of local authorities have to bear, a burden which is increasing as the years go by and as legislation is thrust upon them. I do not wish to end on a note of criticism however, and may I therefore assure the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome this Bill?

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

We have now reached what I hope will be the final stage of this Bill in this House and we are sending it with our best wishes to another place. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) raised a point about the fact that this Bill has been taken on a Monday. I regret that that should be so, but I must make it clear that there is such an amount of Scottish business for Parliament during this Session that it is impossible to delay Bills merely in order to find some other day of the week than Monday. I hope hon. Members will make it their business to be here on a Monday—as indeed the hon. Member for Galloway is here—even though it may be somewhat inconvenient.

Mention has been made of the danger of the waste of water. I believe it is not generally realised that this is a most important factor which is inherent in this Bill. The mere fact that we are to spend this amount of money on producing water should bring to the notice of people that it is an extremely costly business to produce water which should not, therefore, be wasted. I regret that in the past engineers have not designed our houses so that the hot water was nearer to the place of use. Every time one uses hot water there is a considerable waste of cold water. Water is becoming much too valuable to be expended needlessly and I hope that fact will be taken into account by the designers of houses because, as has been pointed out, every house built leads to a greatly increased consumption of water.

It is not generally realised south of the Border how costly it is to provide water in Scotland. It is a first-class engineering project of great magnitude. It is, indeed, equal to hydro-electric schemes and things of that kind. This is not because we have a scarcity of water, but that the water is there today and gone tomorow unless it is captured as it falls. The provision of water in Scotland is therefore a totally different proposition from the provision of water in most parts of England.

The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) raised a question about the county levy but I think he did not quite foresee the benefit this would bring to the countryside. If we were to say that people in isolated villages must bear the whole cost of taking a domestic water supply to them, that would be equivalent to saying that they would never have a domestic water supply. In some cases it will be necessary for the county to carry some of the burden if it is not to be insupportable.

The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) asked about the survey of Scotland's water supplies. Fortunately, Scotland has been well ahead in surveying water supplies, and because of that survey we are well enough ahead in Scotland to proceed with the schemes that are adumbrated in this Bill. His point is still a valid one, that there is a necessity for a complete survey of the inland water resources of this country. There was a committee, the Inland Water Survey Committee, which was in being up to the war. It has not yet been reconstituted, but the Government will take into consideration the question of reconstituting it with a view to a complete survey as early as possible.

Some of my hon. Friends felt very strongly on the question of compensation. The matter in this Bill is not a serious one in magnitude, and it would not justify departing from the principle. I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) misunderstood the question of finances to such an extent that he suggested that because of compensation people who were paying for a service would be paying additional money for compensation. I know of no service which has been nationalised in which the persons paying for the service will pay a penny extra on account of compensation. The compensation is a capital charge, and is a transfer of capital from individuals to the State, and does not involve any charge—any extra charge—upon the people who are purchasing the service.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his argument applies to the nationalisation of the buses of S.M.T.? Will not the travelling public have to pay for compensation in high bus fares?

Mr. Woodburn

That is not quite in the Bill, but the point is this. If we transfer the capital value of a waterworks, or of a bus, we are simply transferring the share certificates from the names of the former shareholders to the name of the State. There is no extra cost for meeting charges on the capital by a mere transfer of share certificates from one to another. Therefore, my reply to the hon. Gentleman is that nobody need pay any extra money in contribution towards meeting a capital charge, if that is carried through, for due compensation. If there were abnormal compensation the case might be otherwise, but the State will be extremely careful about that; and, judging from what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the various occasions when we have had Measures of this kind before the House, they are not under the impression that extra compensation is being paid for the transfer of the certificates.

The Bill brings great benefit to Scotland. We are thinking in terms today of £20 million granted by the State. As for the suggestion that people may think they may be wasteful because there are £20 million to spend, I am sorry to say that the problem of harnessing Scotland's water supplies is so great that £20 million will by no means solve it. The guarantee against wastage is secured, inasmuch as the total amount to be spent on developing water services will be anything from £60 million to £65 million. Therefore, the local authorities and others who are making their contributions to the services will have adequate incentive to ensure that those services are in no way wasteful.

Those who have suggested that we ought to cut down the estimate I made of from 15 to 20 years, have not really measured the practical realities of the situation. Willingly would I cut down the estimate. That would be a simple matter. However, the physical task of spending £65 million on engineering works in Scotland is something that will take years to accomplish, no matter who does it. The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), with his great skill in these matters could, no doubt, have given us an estimate of what it means in man hours and in engineering capacity to spend £65 million on water works in Scotland. He will agree that if we spend anything like that in 15 or 20 years there will be little unemployment in the civil engineering trade in Scotland during that period.

The Bill benefits not only the Highlands and Islands but also the Lowlands. In the Highlands and Islands it will bring great benefits. It is already bringing great benefits, because, fortunately, by previous grant we were able to give the "Go ahead" signal to many of the local authorities in Scotland, and already many of these water works are under way, and every month and year the number of men occupied on these works is steadily increasing. As other works come to an end, such as the hydroelectric work, the men employed on them can well be transferred to similar work on the water schemes.

In the Lowlands this Bill is also of tremendous importance. We are now reaching the stage in housing when in some areas it will be difficult to proceed with more housing until we have water supplies. That is the case in my own constituency. We are building so many houses, in spite of the pessimism of hon. Members in all parts of the House, that we are reaching the point of exhaustion of existing water supplies, and as the law says we must have water supplies this problem may have to be solved by speeding up the provision of water even at the expense of some other projects we should all love to have. Mention has been made of the provision of water for schools. It is absolutely necessary. All these questions involve the allocating of the existing labour and material that we have, to the provision for the best services we can provide for Scotland.

I concluded by thanking hon. Members for the co-operation they have given in the furtherance of this Bill and in helping to bring it to this present stage. Like them, as it is about to go to another place, I hope it will be welcomed there, and that we may have it back very soon with the endorsement of another place, and that it may soon become an Act of Parliament. Many local authorities are straining at the leash waiting for the authority of Parliament to go ahead with their projects. Some have had that authority, and some are still holding back waiting for this Bill. When this Bill becomes an Act, Scotland will make another big step in her comprehensive planning; for this Bill is not designed in isolation, but is part of a great scheme for developing the Highlands and Islands and Lowlands, for their well being. I am sure the House is doing a good job for Scotland and its people by passing this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]