RURAL WATER SUPPLIES BILL. (Hansard, 13 March 1934)

§ The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young)
I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."
I have an easy task to propose the Third Reading of this Bill. I believe that it is a Bill to which there is no opposition in the House, and which all sections of opinion desire to see passed at the earliest possible opportunity. I 324 therefore intend, at this stage of the proceedings, only to delay the House with one or two practical observations in connection with the administration of the Bill on which I thought it would be useful to have information. The first practical observation which I think it is useful to make is that we are assured of the co-operation of the local authorities in the administration of the Bill, as evidenced by the very interesting circular which has just been issued jointly by the county councils and the rural district councils associations. In this connection there are two points which it may be useful to emphasise and to which it may be useful to call the attention of 325 the local authorities. First I would invite those who will be responsible for putting forward schemes under the Bill to remember the utility of putting their schemes forward in the first place, in outline, in order that the water scheme may he considered in outline and its practical bearings gone into by the experts, its national bearing considered, before much money is spent upon it. This may lead to a great acceleration of the work and also in the long run to an escape from expenditure.
Secondly, I would emphasise what is said in that joint circular about the very valuable aid which may be given by the county councils to parishes and to county districts. The county councils will make provision for putting the services of water engineering experts at the disposal of the parishes and the county districts. The Ministry, of course, will always give help from its engineering experts, but the supply of central experts is not inexhaustible and their time is not unlimited. To get this work done, we shall need more expert help, and it is therefore a most practical suggestion that the county councils should themselves assist with that help by putting the services of water engineers at the disposal of the parishes and rural districts.
There is one more practical matter to which I would refer before we allow the Bill to go from us. It is in order to clear up a matter which was referred to in Committee and which has not perhaps been properly cleared up yet, namely, the relation between the present proposed outlay of the water schemes and the question of sewage. It was rightly said by some speakers on the Committee stage that if you bring the water, you must take it away again, and also make preparation in schemes of water supply for accompanying schemes of sewage. The financial assistance available under the Bill is for the purpose of a water supply only, and is not more than adequate for the purpose. But that does not mean that the question of sewage will not be taken into consideration. All that I have to say now is that it will be taken into consideration in this way. The cost of sewage schemes necessitated by new water schemes will be borne in mind when considering the ability of the locality to pay for the new water schemes and, in consequence, the amount of the grant which is to be made. Therefore, although not 326 directly but indirectly, undoubtedly, the necessary sewage schemes will be taken into account in making the grants. Those are the only further matters as regards the getting of the schemes under way to which it is useful to refer at the present stage of the Bill.
I will commend the Bill to the House for its Third reading with but this single observation. There is, I believe, no investment of public funds which could possibly be more fraught with direct value in return for the outlay to the community as a whole than that rendered possible by the Bill, There is work waiting to be done. The amount which we are voting for it is, according to our estimate, commensurate with the amount of work which can be usefully undertaken, and I am confident that the House will not hesitate to make these grants possible for improving both the purity and the amount of the supply of water available in rural areas for the great benefit both of the health and the amenities of the people.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do this in order to ask the Prime Minister how far he intends to go to-night?

§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)
I had hoped that the House would have been able to get more work done than has been done to-night, but my right hon. Friend in announcing our intentions earlier in the day promised the House that it was not our intention to sit inordinately late, and the Government will certainly keep to their promise. I therefore propose that we take Orders No. 2 and No. 3, that is, the Rural Water Supplies Bill, Third Reading, and the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill, Committee, and then No. 6, the Overseas Trade Bill, Second Reading, about which, I understand, there is very little contentious matter. We propose to go on and finish those three items and then to adjourn.

§ Major HILLS
Are we to understand that Order No. 4—North Atlantic Shipping Bill, Committee—will not be taken?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Nos. 4 and 5—British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, Second Reading—will not be taken.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
So far as we are concerned that will suit us very well, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Motion cannot be withdrawn if the hon. Member persists in speaking.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Why has he dropped Order No. 4, the North Atlantic Shipping Bill?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is not dropped.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
I mean for to-night.

§ The PRIME MINISTER
There are a number of Amendments down to that Order, and we promised that the House should not be asked to sit inordinately late. The Bill will come on as early as possible.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
This is a very serious business. Here is a matter that is holding thousands of men from employment, simply because Members of this House do not wish to be detained for an hour or two to-night. The thing is a scandal and the country will not stand it from any side of the House. It cannot be defended. Here we have a means whereby men can be put into work at once. If the Bill is not to be taken tonight it means that it will be put back for another week. It may not seem to be very much to Members of Parliament, but a week's work to members of the working class means a question of life and death. Thousands of men are waiting for this House to decide this Bill, and yet we have been calmly told by the Prime Minister that it cannot be taken to-night because Members of this House have had a Bill before them that it was essential they should discuss, and that it should not be rushed through. Hon. Members are quite prepared to stay tonight and I want to know the reason why we cannot stay. The very idea that because it is going to take the House two or three hours to discuss this matter it is to be put back for another week.
I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip. [HON. MEMBERS: "Appeal to your own party."] My own party will 328 see me through. I am perfectly satisfied that the Labour party will stand by the arrangement we made to-day. It was arranged that we should take up to Order No. 6. Now the Prime Minister withdraws that, because it means keeping some hon. Members out of their beds. They will be better here. They will be doing some good for their country. This is a serious business for Britain, for the whole of Britain. Britain is watching this House to-night. It does not matter whether we are Labour, Tory or National, we must do our duty. The very idea that this House will calmly decide to walk away to-night because it would mean staying two or three hours later if we took the Bill. No party can afford to do that. It is treating the workers with contempt. I hope that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears. I have appealed to the Prime Minister about this matter on many occasions for nearly two years, I have done all that man could do except sell his honour, and when it is about to be accomplished I am told that it must be put off for another week because it means sitting for an hour or two longer. I am sure that the House is with me in this matter and will stand by me and not desert the men and women I represent not only on Clydebank but throughout Britain. This is a British question, it affects the whole Empire, and I think I have said enough to convince the Government to allow us to get on with the Bill to-night.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson)
I cannot allow the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to blame the Government for the decision which has just been announced by the Prime Minister. On a previous occasion the Government was blamed for sticking to a certain arrangement and certain hon. Members below the Gangway kept the House sitting for many hours at a time. The Government announced that they did not intend to keep the House sitting unduly late to-night, and we have, as usual, complied with our word. We do not intend to keep the House sitting unduly late. Take the alternative. Suppose we were to say that we would drive the North Atlantic Shipping Bill through the House to-night there would be a storm of protests, and very rightly, from every corner of the House. I know how 329 very keen the hon. Member is on this Bill. The Government and the whole House is also keen, but he must apportion the blame where it is due. The fact is that if the first Order had been passed with greater expedition, as I believe it easily could have been, within a reasonable time for a fair discussion of all the points raised, we could easily have had a few hours Debate on the next Order and not have kept the House sitting late. I want to make it clear that the Government accepts no responsibility whatever for the fact that the North Atlantic Shipping Bill has to be postponed and taken on another occasion.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
And may I point out that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burgh (Mr. Kirkwood) did not even vote for the Bill.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member has already spoken once.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
But a personal point has been raised. Nobody voted either for or against the Bill.

§ Mr. E. WILLIAMS
There is one point I would like to put to the Minister of Health. I have had a communication from the Glamorganshire County Council. I understand that the water rate is to be paid by the consumer, that a special rate is to be payable by the parish, and that there is to be a contribution by the rural district councils. There is also a point in connection with the Local Government Act, 1929, which raises an important issue, upon which I have received a communication from the Glamorganshire County Council. This communication has been received by the Glamorgan Water Board, which covers a very extensive rural area in the county of Glamorgan. The board finds itself in difficulties. It says: Up to the present the view of the Minister of Health appears to be that if the county council refuses to make an application the possibility of participation in the Government grant will be jeopardised. 330 That is the essence of the question I desire to raise. During the Autumn Recess I had occasion personally to go to a large number of the rural districts in the Vale of Glamorgan, some of which were in my constituency, and I found that a substantial number of people in those rural districts have no water supply whatever. It would seem that the Glamorgan Water Board were prepared to supply these districts provided the Glamorgan County Council were prepared to make an application for a contribution. It would seem, however, that under this Bill there is no prospect whatever of this joint water board or any water authority obtaining a contribution from the Ministry unless the Glamorganshire or other county council makes an application for a grant. I would like an answer to that point. It concerns not only the county authority of Glamorgan and its relationship to the rural authorities within the county, but most rural authorities throughout the country that come under the jurisdiction of county authorities.

§ Mr. LEVY
I was guilty of criticising this Bill on Second Reading on the ground that it was utterly inadequate, and did not go very far, if at all, to solve the water problem of this country. The policy represented by this Bill is a policy of patchwork. It seems to deal with the water supply problem on the parish pump system. That course, as I have pointed out, has been condemned for the best part of a century by official investigations. If the Bill were introduced frankly as an emergency Measure, and there was a definite promise of much more adequate and comprehensive action later, I could understand it and accept it with an easy mind. But that does not appear to be the case. This, apparently, is the last word of the Ministry of Health on the subject. £1,000,000 to be distributed under the most stringent conditions to help in the provision of communal pumps and tanks! It does not enforce co-ordination of supply, or even stimulate it. That is why I call it a patchwork policy, a policy perpetuating the folly of "every local authority for itself and the devil of drought take the hindmost." The Bill is not even "a stitch in time saves nine"; it is a stitch instead of nine, and it leaves sorry and 331 dangerous gaps all over the place. The principle upon which the Ministry of Health has proceeded all along, not only during my right hon. Friend's tenancy but during the tenancy of the Labour party, is the principle embodied in what is known as "passing the buck." They say "It is not our affair; water supply is the affair of the local authority."
If every local authority had a suitable supply placed at its disposal by bountiful nature and had merely to tap it, all would be well, but the reverse is the case. Local authorities who cannot fend for themselves are being told that they must do so. They are being asked to do the impossible. In its relation to the dry rural areas this Bill is like saying to a man who is stranded in a desert spot "Here is a shilling; go and buy yourself a drink." The charity does not meet the circumstances. The drink is not there and it cannot possibly be obtained there for the money. The futility of trying to solve the water difficulty by purely local action is demonstrated by the creation of the regional committees which were begun in 1930 after the 1929 drought. Where these committees have been set up—and they cover only a small part of the country—they have been brought to a standstill by their complete lack of authority. I will take an example from Yorkshire. First let me, even if it is a forlorn hope, try to overcome the incredulity of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. Yesterday, in answer to a question with regard to a resolution passed by a regional committee, he said quite distinctly that he did not believe my information. With the permission of the House, I will read the resolution that was passed—

An HON. MEMBER
Sing it!

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The resolution is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. LEVY
No, the resolution is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

§ Mr. LEVY
Having sat here all the afternoon, if the House objects to my speaking on the vital question of rural 332 water supplies and decides that I should not be heard on behalf of my constituents, I shall sit down at once. I do not think I ever fail in due courtesy to every Member who speaks, and they ought to extend to me the indulgence which I give to them. I have the honour of representing a constituency of 50,000 electors, and it is only my right that I should be allowed to express their views in this House. With regard to this matter, we have been gathering information for 80 years and we are still doing so. When are we going to take adequate action? The remedy which I have ventured to submit to the House is the creation of a statutory central authority to ascertain and develop water supplies.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member has had opportunities on the other stages of the Bill to put forward these suggestions. He must at this stage confine himself to what is now in the Bill.

§ Mr. LEVY
Perhaps it would be as well in the circumstances if I ceased to say anything further with regard to rural water supplies.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
After your proper rebuke to the hon. Member, I shall try to confine myself to what is in the Bill. Some words fell from the Minister which, I think, ought to be remembered—that the money which is provided in this Bill is not more than is adequate for the purpose. I think that is an admirable definition of the Bill. I am glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that he has now discovered that there is no single investment which will repay us better or be more useful in providing employment than the provision of water supplies, and shat this work is waiting to be done. We shall not divide against the Third Reading of the Bill. A million pounds for the rural areas is better than nothing, but it is not adequate, and the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to the county councils is one which will lead to no response. The hope that was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, and by the Parliamentary Secretary, that we should have a wet March seems to have met with a response from the Almighty so far, but I am not satisfied that even this wet weather that we are having now 333 will meet the requirements of very many rural authorities. The case which was put on the Second Reading, not merely on this side of the House, but on that, that the Bill ought to have dealt comprehensively with the whole problem of the reorganisation of our water supplies still remains. Everybody will be grateful that there is to be £1,000,000 devoted to helping rural authorities to provide adequate supplies, but, with protests against the inadequacy of the Bill, we are prepared to let it go through.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)
I have noted the protest of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have discussed the question of adequacy at considerable length, but if our £1,000,000 grant is better than nothing, considering that it is twice the capital value of the grant he made in 1929, I should say that it is twice as serviceable as the grant he made. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), nothing is laid down in the Bill which compels a contribution from anyone, but the basis of good administration must surely be that everybody who benefits from a particular supply of water must contribute a fair proportion. Every case must be judged on its merits. I do not say there will not be a case where a contribution would be unreasonable, but in the great majority of cases I think the county councils would be only too willing to pay their fair proportion, which would enable the supply to be forthcoming.

§ Mr. DAVID DAVIES
Take my division, where we have an enormous rural area. The Glamorgan County Council area is a distressed area, and in order to get a supply to the rural area in that district it will be necessary for the county council to make a contribution. In view of the difficulty in regard to their finances, if they are unable to make their contribution, is it not possible to make some provision that the water board and the rural district council should continue with a scheme in order to provide water for an area that has now not got any water?

§ Sir H. YOUNG
The hon. Member is really asking me to decide an administrative question on a particular application. I cannot say more than was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We are not tied by any legal conditions in this Bill. Where a contribution can reasonably be made, it will be required. Where no contribution can reasonably be made, then, of course, it will not be required in such a case as that. We must give administrative elasticity to deal with each question on its merits.

§ Mr. GREENWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman has really not met the point of my hon. Friend. It may be that the county council is either unwilling or unable to make a contribution. Should the rural authority be deprived of assistance under the Bill in that case when it is through no fault of its own?