§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, the Bill to which I now invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading has already passed through another place and reaches your Lordships' House substantially the same, in its main objects, as when it was first introduced, but considerably amended in detail in response to the suggestions of the associations of local authorities and of various other bodies.
The Bill has three main objects. Perhaps the most striking of these, and one which has been universally welcomed, is that achieved in Clause 20 of the Bill—to increase from £6,375,000 to £20,000,000 the sum which the Secretary of State for Scotland is authorised by the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, to expend in grants in aid of schemes for the provision of water supply and sewerage for rural areas in Scotland. Throughout Scotland, comprehensive schemes are being prepared which will take wholesome water to parts of the country where at present there is no adequate supply. These schemes are a most important part of the development of Scotland, because they will bring to the worker who lives in the country some of the same comforts and conveniences as are available to those who live in towns. At present, housing schemes for agricultural workers are being held up in a few areas because there is no water available near the sites where the houses are required. Better water supplies are also urgently necessary for the development of dairy farming. The applications 46 that have already been received for grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, from local authorities in Scotland have shown convincingly that the amount of money made available for Scotland in that Act is quite inadequate and that, unless it is increased, many important and costly schemes may be held up indefinitely because they are beyond the means of the local authorities concerned.
The second object of the Bill is to provide, for the first time, for a uniform system of rating and charging for water in Scotland. There are at present as many as seven different systems of water rating in Scotland, and the many local variations have caused administrative difficulties in the allocations of grant and, in particular, have discouraged the combination of local water authorities. A Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Bryce Walker was set up in 1944 by the then Secretary of State to go into the whole question, and on the recommendations made in their Report, which was published it 1946, Part I of the present Bill is in the main based.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall not go in detail into the provisions of this part of the Bill, but I would call attention particularly to ore or two main provisions. Under Clauses 1 and 2, every local authority is required to defray not less than one fifth and not more than one third of their expenditure on water supply—so far as that expenditure requires to be met out of rates—by a public water rate levied as part of the general county or burgh rate and met equally by owners and occupiers. The remainder of the expenditure is to be met by a domestic water rate which is levied, broadly speaking, on the occupiers of premises that enjoy a supply of water provided by a local water authority.
These provisions, enabling a county council to levy rates for water throughout the area of the county, render the existing system of special water supply districts obsolete, and Clause 9 therefore provides for the dissolution of the special water supply districts. Henceforth the administrative unit in water supply in counties will be the county itself. The Bill also contemplates that the rating authority for water expenditure should be the normal rating authority, and in Clauses 10 to 12 provides that joint water boards and local 47 water authorities that supply water in the districts of other authorities shall no longer have power to levy water rates in the areas so supplied, but instead shall recover their expenditure by levying a requisition on the authority of the district.
The third main purpose of the Bill is to amend the existing law of water supply as contained in the principal Act, the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946. A number of amendments are made to simplify procedure and to remove difficulties that have been experienced in the operation of that Act. Two clauses in this part of the Bill, Clauses 26 and 27, may be mentioned particularly. Local authorities have sometimes bound themselves in the past to supply water free of charge or on special terms to certain estates, in return for the granting of water rights or of a wayleave or for some other reason. In some cases, the demand of the estates for water has grown considerably, and the obligation has become onerous on the local water authority. Clauses 26 and 27 enable the authority concerned to terminate such obligations on payment of compensation, either by agreement with the interested party or compulsorily by order of the Secretary of State.
The Bill also provides that local water authorities shall not enter into obligations of this kind in future, and that, whether they seek to end the obligations or not, they shall not be hound to supply more water on special terms than the quantity supplied in the year preceding October 27, 1948. Once the obligation is terminated, the persons concerned will become liable to pay the domestic water rate, and the compensation payable is to be assessed with reference to the amount of the rates that will then become payable. The Bill of which I have attempted to give some account to your Lordships is, I think, one which will not only be of assistance to local authority administrators, but will also be of the utmost importance in the future development of water supplies, particularly in rural Scotland. I heartily commend it to your Lordships, and move that it be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
48§ 4.53 p.m.
§ LORD POLWARTHMy Lords, I am sure that noble Lords still here would like me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the admirable and concise manner in which he has expounded this Bill to us. He has dealt not only with the technicalities of water supply but also with the mysteries of the Scottish water rating system. I hope that his researches into the latter subject may encourage him to urge his colleagues to devote a little of their attention to a comprehensive overhaul of the whole Scottish rating system. I would like to make it clear, straight away, that we on this side of the House wish to support this Bill in its general principles, because in our view it is a really necessary measure. I am sure we should also join with Lord Morrison in paying, a tribute to the Committee which, under Sir Robert Bryce Walker, did a very good job of work by putting the different problems to clearly.
Our friends who come from the South are apt to wax facetious on the subject of Scottish water supply. "Surely," they say, "there is an abundance of natural water in Scotland," and they wonder what all the fuss is about. I am inclined to believe that sometimes they suspect us of embarking on these water schemes as a cloak for some nefarious activity! I can assure them that that is not so. The problem, of course, in Scotland is not simply to find water, but to catch it before it has run off the hillsides and down to the sea. People who live in the lower parts of Berwickshire can tell the noble Lord all about that, in view of their experiences in the disastrous floods of last summer. And yet, within two miles of the River Tweed, there are villages which are desperately badly supplied with water at the present time. Such is the nature of the problem confronting us.
I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords from England present in the House at this hour, because in this Bill we are, I think, going a step ahead of England. We are introducing for the first time a really comprehensive rating system for water, one which may well prove to be a pattern for a similar measure for England at a later date. Indeed, I think that this Bill ought to have rather more than an academic interest for our English colleagues and, as I say, I am, therefore very sorry that 49 there are not more of them here to take part in this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, this Bill is mainly a machinery Bill. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to carry out their duties under the Water (Scotland) Act of 1946, and it is a very essential piece of machinery. The principle of a domestic water rate, which we have had explained to us so clearly, is, I think, a very fair one—namely, that the main cost of supplying water is to be borne by the occupier, that is, by the person who uses the water. On the whole I think that that is as it should be. I am glad that it is laid down that the supply of water to be introduced into premises must be a wholesome supply, because in some of the smaller water supply schemes, certainly, there is trouble, both in times of drought and in times of flood, as the result of pollution of the source. I remember an occasion when my own water supply—not a public supply I am glad to say—at a certain season of the year, became polluted. A number of small, highly-active white objects were found coming out of the tap. I took the best possible local advice as to what cure to adopt, and I was told that the normal arrangement was to introduce a frog into the water system, as those creatures keep down the small objects to which I have referred. I would hesitate, however, to commend that remedy to any public authority!
When we come to this principle of a public water rate, I am not quite sure that justice is, in fact, being done. The noble Lord has explained that a proportion of the cost of supplying water—which may be as much as one-third and which, in any case, cannot be less than one-fifth of the total cost of a local authority's supply—will be borne, as a general rate, on all premises in the local authority's area, regardless of whether or not they receive a supply of water. This part of the rate will be borne equally by owners and occupiers. In the towns, I think it is conceivable that as much as one-fifth of the cost of the water supply may be in respect of water used for public purposes. We have, however, had examples given—particularly in another place—of services such as washing streets, cleaning out sewers and less essential purposes, like supplying fountains in parks, which come under the head of the public use of water.
§ LORD MORRISONAnd putting out fires also.
§ LORD POLWARTHWith great respect to the noble Lord, no doubt that applies in the towns, but in the country a tire brigade does not take its own water supply with it. What it does is to put its pipe into the nearest river. As I say, I think that the proportion may be as high as one-fifth, but I should have thought that even in a town it was very unlikely that the proportion would rise to as much as one-third of the cost of the whole water supply. In county areas, more particularly in the sparsely populated counties, both in the north and extreme south of Scotland, I think it is inconceivable that as much as one-fifth of the cost of water supply can be attributed to providing water for public services. There are many premises in the country—farms and other premises—which will never have the benefit of a public main supply of water, either because of their remoteness or altitude above the source of supply, or for the good reason that they already have an adequate water supply, provided at the expense of their owners, which does not need to be replaced. I think it is a little far-fetched to talk to a man situated like this about paying a rate for such things as cleansing streets and flushing out sewers, when he has to scrape the mud off his own farm road and periodically clean out his own cesspool. I do not think you would receive a very printable answer to such a suggestion. We do not intend to oppose the principle of a public water rate but I think that those who live in the country will realise that to some extent they will be subsidising their more fortunate fellows who are on the main supply.
One other point I have about Part I of the Bill is Clause 16, which concerns the supply of water to certain nationalised undertakings. This may be merely a confusion in my own mind, because the clause is rather involved, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to clear this up. But certain local authorities have been under the apprehension that, as it stands, if a nationalised undertaking on one of their premises increase their consumption of water, it might not in all cases be possible for the local authority to exact a higher charge than they exact at 51 present. The sort of thing I was thinking of was a power station which installs an extra generator, thus causing more water to be used for cooling, or the use of more water on a railway station by the installation of a filling point for railway engines. Perhaps I am wrong, and it may be possible that in all such cases the local authority can meter the additional supply. I know that some authorities are concerned that there are cases where this might not be possible. I should like the noble Lord to clear up that point for me.
I come to Part II, which, as the noble Lord said, is really the mainspring of the Bill, because without this additional grant it would be impossible for local authorities to go ahead and carry out the schemes they have made. I think we should congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on having extracted this additional sum from the Treasury. At the same time, if we look at it alongside some of the astronomical figures which are brought out about this season of the year—we have seen quite a few in the last few days—I do not think there is any danger that anyone will think we in Scotland are being unduly generously treated. The only thing I am afraid of is that many people may think that the provision of water in Scotland is not a very expensive affair. That is far from the case, especially with the present high cost of labour and materials. We should be on our guard against deluding ourselves into thinking that we have received a munificent gift when, in fact, in the end we are all paying for it. After all, it is only a question of-whether the extraction is more or less painless, according to whether or not we are under the anæsthetic of a subsidy. It is rather a sobering thought that we should be paying for the provision of one sort of liquid by the exaction of a tax on another—sobering in more than one sense!
I do not intend to go into any detail on Parts III and IV. I think that some of my noble friends have one or two points on these to raise now and on Committee stage. I have spoken only in general terms about the Bill, but we support it as being essential. We must remember that by itself it can achieve nothing: if it is to achieve anything, local authorities must prepare their schemes 52 and have them approved; dams have to be built, pipes laid and all sorts of things like meters provided, and a very large amount of labour and materials made available. That is the difficulty to-day, and it has certainly been the difficulty during the last few years. I wander whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us how much of the previous grant of £6,000,000 has been spent on water schemes—I do not mean allocated to local authorities, but actually expended on the provision of water. I believe it is not a very great amount. If the schemes are to go ahead, the necessary priority must be given for labour and materials.
Of course, it is the country districts which will reap the main benefit of the schemes under the Bill. The towns are not too badly off as it is, though they have need of additional water for new houses and for expansion. We all know the importance of agriculture at this time, and if it is to play its part in our economy, it must be given every possible assistance. Farms must have water, and particularly for dairying it is essential to have a large supply of water. It is essential that we should keep our existing agricultural population on the land and that we should also attract more people to it. If we are to do that, no single amenity would do more than the provision of good houses with a good water supply and all the benefits which that would bring. I ask your Lordships to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ 5.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEMy Lords, I desire to say only a few words. Like my noble friend, Lord Polwarth, I, too, deprecate very much that so few noble Lords on this side of the Border are present, because, as he says, we are far ahead of England in this matter. England will have something on much the same lines as this at no distant date, and noble Lords could possibly have reaped some benefit from listening to the words of wisdom from the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government. I feel that this is not an unreasonable Bill and on the whole I desire to support it. The provision of water is one of the most important questions in Scotland, particularly in regard to housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, the Bill introduces a new system of rating. I am 53 personally not entirely against the system of public rating, except for the fact that a great many parts of the country will be paying for something they can never possess. For instance, some parts of Scotland are so high that they cannot hope to get water brought to them, and other parts are so distant that it will be practically impossible to take them a supply.
I am not entirely against the new principle of rating provided that, having accepted it, we realise that there will be a demand from other quarters for a similar treatment of rates. I can see that demand coming from transport. To my mind, transport in Scotland is almost as important as water. In far-flung districts we must provide uneconomic transport to get people to the towns; otherwise they will not stay in those areas. I do rot want to depart from the subject of water, but, having accepted this principle, we will find it being carried out in other Bills as well. I desire to draw the attention of the noble Lord to two rather unfortunate facts of which he is aware and about which he was good enough to talk to me. They effect only my county of Angus. The county council and the county clerk are not trying to be awkward, but in the case of the county of Angus it is physically impossible for the procedure laid down in the Bill to be carried out in time for a proper rate to be levied for the financial year 1949–50.
It is not for me to deliver a homily on this subject, but it points to one of the chief difficulties of the present day, which is the fact that in another place they have got into the habit of trying to push legislation through Parliament with terrific speed, without affording an opportunity for it to be properly considered or, what is worse, without properly consulting the local authorities who in nine cases out of ten have to administer the Acts. It is a fact which reflects very badly on another place, that local authorities are not being more fully consulted than they are, and that a county council can find themselves in the position of being required to fix a rate without having either a proper requisition or an accurate note of the actual premises to be rated. I understand that the noble Lord is going to inquire into this point. It does not sound very good sense to bring in a Bill and find that one county 54 cannot possibly fix a water rate for the year 1949–50.
§ 5.10 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has the art of presenting a with great simplicity, but the fact is that, although the principles of this Bill are fairly straightforward and are principles which we can generally agree, the actual drafting of the Bill is of some complexity. It is not simple. With the simple principles to be enunciated, it should have been possible to present this Bill is a simpler form. The noble Lord said—I do not know whether he is correct—that it is intended that the administrative area should be the county. I can see the emphasis on "the county" in the Bill, but it appears to me that the burghs remain water authorities at the same time. That is a matter of some importance, because the burghs want to know how they stand. Is this an effort to squeeze out the burghs? At the present time a curious situation—which I believe may be associated with what the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said—has arises in certain parts of Scotland in which supplies are already being made by burghs outside their boundary. Under this Act these supplies become obligatory and formerly they were paid for under special arrangements. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us (we will have to investigate this point at a later date) how this matter stands. What is to be the relationship between the burgh and the external area? And is there any suggestion that the burghs are to be squeezed out of their present functions and the whole water supply taken away from them?
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred to the question of the public rate. I think we should be quite clear on this point. Emphasis has been laid in this Bill on the fact that we are paying a uniform rate in the counties. The fact is that when this Bill was produced it was the fact that some people who would never get water were being charged a rate, and some people who were getting water were not paying the rate. I am bound to admit that that extremely anomalous position has been changed somewhat, in the sense that those who are getting water will always pay a minimum rate. But the fact remains that 55 some people whose interest in water supply is very small are still being charged a rate. I would like to go into that matter. The Government are acting on the recommendation of Sir Robert Bryce Walker's Committee. The explanation is that they have used an insurance premium or, as has been explained elsewhere, a sort of vicarious benefit. I do not know how you can insure yourself on somebody else's welfare. It certainly is a vicarious benefit, because some of the actual payers of the rate will get no benefit whatever. For that reason, I think we must be careful to see to what degree they will have to pay.
There are three differences between the Report and what is in the Bill. In the first place, the Report laid down a maximum payment in cash. That has been abolished. In the second place, the Report laid down the figure of 25 per cent. That has been increased to 33⅓ per cent. In the third place, I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 8 (1), where it says that at any time in which it is held that the burden on the occupiers in the district is greater than they can reasonably be expected to bear, the whole matter is then separated from the occupiers and put on the council rate. What does that mean? It simply means that the figure of 33⅓ per cent. is increased to some further figure—it may be 40 or 50 per cent. It means that in certain cases in the more remote counties the people will have to pay a heavier rate for water, although they get no benefit whatever, other than perhaps the pleasure of a visit to the towns which are well washed and possibly have good sewage arrangements.
I have a further objection to this system. It means that we are subsidising urban or town areas from the country, just as, in a sense, last week London was being subsidised by the rest of the country by the erection of a National Theatre in London. In the same way we are subsidising the water supplies in the urban areas by drawing part of the county rate from the remote areas. I suggest we have to be careful to see that the county rate does not go too high. I would now like to turn to the commercial rate. This Bill deals very little with the commercial rate; in fact, it deals so obscurely with it that I have some difficulty in deciding what is intended. I take it that in Clauses 4, 5, and 6, which deal with the levy of domes 56 tic rate on business and commercial premises, it is not intended to cover any trade water at all. I have no particular comment on that, except to say that, so far as I can see, the Bryce Walker Committee's Report has been followed. Whether it will be satisfactory or not remains to be seen.
I would like to comment on the manner in which the nationalised industries are going to pay for their water. In the 1948 Act there was an extremely complicated arrangement—which, with respect, I very much doubt if anyone in this House fully understood—which was passed in reference to the Transport Commission and the British Electricity Authorities. That, so far as I can see, is repeated in Clause 16 of this Bill. Can we be told what is happening with other nationalised industries—the National Coal Board, the Gas Industry, British European Airways and other nationalised industries in the same category? Do they pay rates in the same form, or are they to be excluded by some particular formula laid down here? It is important that this should be understood at the present time when we are considering this Bill. This is not a place in which the principles of rating of nationalised industries should be argued, but, none the less, the water rate is an important factor.
The second point to which I would like to draw attention is the effect of Clause 26 on commercial water. I am not absolutely clear which case the Government have particularly in mind. So far as I can understand it, the idea is that in certain cases where land has been taken from a proprietor, and local water rights have remained, those rights should be terminated. Surely, the wording covers exactly the premises envisaged by Clause 24, under which special arrangements can be made for making commercial water available to specialised firms. I submit that this is very important, because at the end of Clause 26 it says:
No local water authority shall after the appointed day by agreement or otherwise incur any obligation of the kind to which this section applies.This clause applies, so far as I can see, to any special arrangement which may be entered into for the large sale of water. It is of great importance in certain places. There are industries which want a large 57 supply of water, and may in fact require such a large supply that it will be worth the while of the local authority greatly to increase their water supply. In many cases the local authorities are glad to do so. I want to be quite clear (if the noble Lord is unable to answer now we shall have to press the matter on the Committee stage) that nothing of this kind is being interfered with, or intended to be interfered with, in the terms of Clause 24, with which I entirely agree.I will end by saying this. Probably it is not possible to give an answer now, but I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he can answer the question which my noble friend Lord Polwarth asked: Just what has been spent since 1944? So far as we are aware, a certain amount of money—something like £20,000,000—has been provisionally allocated. The words used in another place were that £3,000,000 had been granted, but not taken up. Does that mean that no money has actually been spent by the Exchequer since 1944, and that the whole of the £20,000,000 envisaged in this Bill still remains open? The second point I would like to ask (upon which I think we should have sonic information) is whether any idea can be given of what the water rate is likely to amount to in some of the counties, so that it may be known what the effect of this Bill will be. I am quite sure that the principle of the Bill is sound and is one which will commend itself to your Lordships. There are, however, a number of points which will require closer examination in Committee.
§ 5.20 p.m.
§ LORD MORRISONMy Lords, I did not anticipate that this would be an exciting debate and neither, I think, did any of your Lordships. The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, said that water is one of the most important subjects in Scotland, but it is not one of the most exciting. I have a foolish dream that some day it may be my great honour and privilege to stand at this Box and introduce a Whisky (Scotland) Bill. I have no doubt the House will then be crowded!
May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, upon his exceedingly interesting speech? I think it is the first time tint he has taken on the task of leading for the Opposition, although I say at once—and I know he would not dis 58 agree —that in this particular Bill the word "Opposition" is not the right word. As he says, the problem is to catch the water and store it. The noble Lord particularly pointed out that both in Scotland and in England one often gets floods and droughts in the same locality. As one who served a good many years on the Metropolitan Water Board, I have always thought that the problem of water supply was really a problem similar to that of other commodities; it has to be caught and stored so that when the season of drought comes the water is there. I entirely agree that the towns are not so badly off, and that the main problem is in the country areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, asked me a question, which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just repeated—namely: How much has been spent to date? I am advised that the amount is rather less than £1,000,000. I hope that from the passing of this Bill, and as materials and labour become more free, it may be possible considerably to increase that figure. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and amplified by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, it is true that, in a limited number of cases where a public water rate has been paid in the past in respect of railway or electricity premises and no meter charge made, the water authority will not in future under Clause 16 be able to charge by meter for water supplied to the premises. I would point out, however, that there are provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1948, for revising the standard amount in a manner which takes account of increased use, and thereby compensates local authorities for additional services provided.
The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, raised a question which, as he said, he was good enough to mention to me although, as he knows, it was a little unfortunate that it was not brought to my notice at an earlier stage, and not mentioned at all during the long process through another place.
§ LORD MORRISONIt went through the Scottish Grand Committee and all its stages in another place, and one would have thought that someone would notice 59 it. But I am not complaining about that. I am merely making it an excuse for not being able to give him a full and complete answer now.
§ LORD MORRISONThere has been a good deal of consultation throughout, and as recently as January 7 the Secretary of State met all the local authority associations. The noble Earl's point, so far as I know, is mainly confined to one particular county, and from my own knowledge of it I freely endorse what he said, that neither the county nor any of its officials concerned in this are trying to be awkward; they are quite prepared to be helpful, but they are up against what they believe to be a very real difficulty. In reply I can say only that the Secretary of State for Scotland—who authorises me to make this statement—proposes to arrange for further discussions to be held with the county clerk who raised the matter. If, as a result of these consultations, it appears that the wording of the Bill as it stands would give rise to real difficulty, an appropriate Amendment will be introduced into the Bill on the Committee stage. If, when the noble Lord sees that Amendment, he is still dissatisfied, there will yet be another stage beyond that, as he knows. I hope that in the meantime he will be satisfied with that reply.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEI did not want to interrupt, but the noble Lord mentioned this question of delivery by meter. I understood that the water authorities were not to be allowed to deliver metered supplies. One of my points was that we could not get an accurate note because the water was delivered by Dundee. I take it that that is one of the points into which the noble Lord will be inquiring.
§ LORD MORRISONYes. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the drafting difficulties and the obscurity of the Bill. If I may say so, it is one of his favourite subjects, and the only reply that I can make is that whatever other responsibility I have for Scottish legislation I am never consulted as to the drafting of a measure. If it appears obscure to the noble Earl, how much more obscure does it appear to me! I am 60 glad the noble Earl has raised it, but it does not come under my responsibility. The noble Earl pointed out that there may be cases where those who pay the water rate obtain no benefit. That is not unusual in legislation. There are quite a lot of people who make contributions—for instance, people who have no children still pay the education rate—
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMay I ask who receives the benefit of the education? Is it not the people who have to live with the educated people?
§ LORD MORRISONSimilarly, I think it might be argued that the people who drink no water except the water they find for themselves still get the benefit of mixing with people—
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKThe noble Lord realises that it is domestic water he is talking about.
§ LORD MORRISONI do not want to pursue this subject too far, in case we get away from water and on to something stronger. I am not able to answer all the questions of the noble Earl, as he anticipated, but I can tell him that there is no legislation excluding gas et cetera from rating provisions.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKWhat about coal?
§ LORD MORRISONI could not say at the moment. My information is "gas et cetera," and I do not know whether the words "et cetera" include coal—I am informed by the mysterious method of communication that we have in this place that they do.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEAnd also whisky, which is coming on the public rate, I understand, from this munificent Government!
§ LORD MORRISONI have answered many questions put to me this afternoon, and it remains for me only to thank the noble Lords from Scotland for commending this Bill. The Bill went through another place without any Divisions, and it seems to be generally accepted as a strong point, appealing to all in Scotland, that the amount of money available for water in Scotland has increased from £6,000,000 to £20,000,000. I am sure that this will meet with the sup- 61 port of everybody in Scotland, whatever his political opinions.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.