CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions by county councils.) (Hansard, 8 June 1944)

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add: Provided that, where the amount of any such contribution is determined by the Minister, it shall not, without the consent of the council of the county, exceed the amount of the contribution which the Minister has himself undertaken to make. Those Members of the Committee who have any knowledge of local administration will be aware that, under the Local Government Act, 1929, and the Public Health Act, 1936, there is, at the present time, power for a council voluntarily to make contributions to local authorities when they wish to provide these water schemes. Many of the councils—most of them—have, to the best of their ability, made full use of this, and a great deal had been done, though not as much as we would have liked, before the introduction of this Bill. This is the first occasion on which it is being made compulsory that a county council shall make a contribution to a scheme which has been approved by the Minister, and we are asking that there shall be some safeguards given regarding this contribution, which is now to be compulsory as against the voluntary contribution. We are not raising any objection. It is only that we think that certain safeguards should be inserted.
As the Clause stands, there is no limit whatever to the financial contribution which a county council may be instructed by the Government to make towards a scheme, and we think that that is rather unfair. It is difficult to see how this could be regulated, because you could not put in a figure and say that a certain sum must not be exceeded. The schemes will vary, and you could not put in a percentage. The County Councils Association have asked me to put forward the suggestion of limiting the contribution which they may be asked to make to the same amount as the Minister himself is making. I think that is only fair, because the Minister will have the duty of saying that these schemes are necessary, and, taking into consideration the cost, of 1566 saying what is the limit which the county is to contribute compulsorily towards that cost. The county councils do not wish it to be thought that that will be, in all cases, the limit of what they will provide. If there is a scheme which they very much desire to put forward, and there are certain reasons why an amount double that which the Minister is prepared to grant, is not adequate for the purpose, they feel they should have the right and power to make a further contribution if they so desire. They ask that the limit should be the same as that decided upon by the Minister but that they should also have the right to make a further contribution if they wish to do so. I have been asked to read this from the County Councils Association: Notwithstanding this proposed limit upon compulsory contributions, the county councils will continue to be no less generous than in the past. If, for example, the Minister's own contribution under this Bill in a particular case is £500 and the county council would have been prepared, apart from the Bill, to make a voluntary contribution of £600, they should remain willing to offer this sum. I wish to make it quite clear that they do not wish to limit the possibilities of this Bill being quite successful in operation.

§ Major McCallum (Argyll)
I want to oppose this Amendment, for the very good reason that I feel that, to establish the principle of this difference, between the contributions of the Government and of local authorities in Wales and parts of England—I am aware that the Clause does not apply to Scotland—would be a great mistake. There are poorer authorities who just could not afford to put down as much as the contribution of the State. Therefore, I think it would be a great mistake to establish that principle of "fifty-fifty" in making these grants.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I did not make the proposal that it should be done on the basis of "fifty-fifty." I suggest it would be undesirable to do that. I am only asking for a limit to the compulsory contribution by the council so that it should not exceed that of the Government.

§ Major McCallum
I understood my hon. Friend quite well, but I am rather in a quandary. On the Second Reading, there were two contradictory statements by the two Ministers. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading Debate. The Minister of Health, speaking of the contributions, said: 1567 Wherever there is an Exchequer grant, that will carry with it a contribution also from the county council to the rural district which bears the primary responsibility, and it is contemplated that the county contribution will, normally, be not less than the Exchequer grant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 364.] The Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question which I put to him, said: No, Sir, the Minister is not handicapped by any such inhibition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1944; Vol. 400, C. 406.] I had asked the Minister if he would only give a 50 per cent. grant to local-authorities or county councils. I think it would be a mistake. Admittedly, this Clause does not apply to Scotland, but the rest of the Bill does, and I think it would be a mistake to introduce the principle of "fifty-fifty" into this Clause.

§ Mr. Willink
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) and to those for whom he has spoken, for what he said and for the terms of his Amendment. This Clause does, as he says, bring into existence for the first time a compulsory principle with regard to the county contribution, to which the counties have raised no objection. I can, however, quite understand that they desire this safeguard where, it having been impossible for the county and the local authority to come to an agreement, the case comes to me as a sort of arbitrator. The safeguard is that there should be some limit of my power with regard to the allocation of responsibility to the county councils. I am also indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) because, though Clause 2 does not apply to Scotland, he has given me an opportunity of saying another word about the principle of sharing the burden. I do not think that there was any actual contradiction, as the hon. and gallant Member suggested, between what I said and what was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Committee will observe that, in what I said, there occurs the useful word "normally." There might, certainly, be cases where, in the case of very poor counties, the normal principle will not apply but, normally, we do expect that the county will contribute at least as much as the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
Does that apply to Scotland as well?

§ Mr. Willink
I should not like to commit myself at the moment. This Clause does not apply to Scotland. Perhaps I might seek an opportunity to let my hon. Friend know about that as the Secretary of State is not in the Committee at the moment. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I was also very glad to hear of the assurance he gave on behalf of the Association that there is no intention to depart from their existing principles. It would frustrate the whole beneficial object of the Clause if the county councils reduced their contribution by the extent of or in relation to, the amount of Exchequer grant. With the assurance that he has given, and the small alteration of wording which he has made, I am very happy to accept the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add: (2) Where the council of any borough or urban or rural district or a joint board or joint committee submit to the Minister proposals with a view to his undertaking, under the preceding section, to make a contribution towards the expenses incurred by them in carrying out the proposals, they shall—

(a) before submitting the proposals to him, transmit for their observations thereon particulars thereof to the council of any county which will, under this section, be bound to undertake to make contributions towards those expenses if the Minister gives the undertaking; and

(b) report to the Minister, when they submit the proposals to him, the observations, if any, of any such county council thereon."

At the outset I had better refer to the quotation given twice during the consideration of the first Amendment that the contribution of the county council should not normally be less than that of the Government. It may be possible that the county council might have to provide considerable sums, and, if so, they should be given a reasonable opportunity of getting full consideration of the schemes sent forward by the local authorities to the Minister, and they should have an opportunity of expressing their views to the Minister on the schemes. The contribution will be made willingly, but it is only just and fair that they should have an opportunity of considering the schemes on their merits and of making their observations.

§ Mr. Willink
Though I would not like there to be any doubt as to the full 1569 responsibility with regard to these schemes and their planning remaining with the responsible authority, I feel that there is a very definite value in the county councils having an opportunity to consider and observe upon suggestions that are made. There may well be cases where the wider view has been overlooked in the local district, and the suggestion made here that, before proposals come to the centre, there should be an opportunity for the county council to see the proposals, and that there should be an obligation to forward the observations of the county council, with the proposals of the local authorities, appears to me, and, I hope, to the Committee, to be a valuable improvement. I am happy to accept the Amendment.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams)
The next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), appears to be consequential.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to add: (3) Where, under the preceding Section, the Minister withholds, or reduces the amount of, a contribution which he has undertaken to make thereunder towards any such expenses as aforesaid, the council of the county may withhold, or, as the case may be, reduce in the same proportion the amount of the contributions which they have undertaken under this Section to snake towards those expenses. I submit that the Amendment is not consequential, Mr. Williams. The Minister, in Sub-section (4) of Clause I, has the right of refusing or withholding his contribution if the work is not adequately and properly performed. If he has the right because the local authority has not adequately and properly performed the work of withholding or reducing that sum, we think that the county council should have a similar right in this respect. That is the object, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment, too.

§ Mr. Willink
This Amendment is, I think, practically consequential. It is reasonable and fair, where there is this compulsory sharing of the burden by the county, that the same right should be given to the county as are available with regard to the Exchequer grant; and I am happy to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Chairman
I must rule that this is really a consequential Amendment.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
This Amendment touches the case which I raised earlier in the proceedings where it is found that the Government reduce and withhold grants. Suppose they reduce the grant, under the Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend is accepting, the county council will be able proportionately to do the same. If the work has been done by a contractor, who pays for it?

§ Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)
May I, as a layman, ask who will decide whether the work has been carried out promptly?

§ Mr. Willink
The Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be. With regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend, in many cases where the work has not been satisfactorily done, the contractor will be liable in damages. The local authority does not usually do the work itself—that would be a very rare occasion. The cases where grant will be withheld or reduced, will, I hope, be very rare also. The who of this procedure is a necessary safeguard, leaving the responsibility for due supervision upon the local authority, in a case where grant is coming both from the county council and the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
It seems to me that we are now doing something which is entirely new. I do not recollect anything like this in previous legislation. The effect of it is that no contractor in future will have any guarantee that he is going to be paid. A contractor undertakes a very large water scheme, say, amounting to £100,000. The understanding is that the Government will pay so much and the county council so much. If the Amendment is accepted, both the Government and the county council may say, "We can reduce our payments if we like," and surely that is not right.

§ Mr. Willink
I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in two respects. In the first place, he says that he recollects nothing of the sort in previous legislation, whereas exactly the same provisions exist. with the exception of what I may call the "frills," under the 1934 Act; and, secondly, he appears to 1571 think that, because grant is to be given in respect of these schemes, the contract made by the contractor would be made with the local authority, the county council and the Crown. That is not so. The contract is made with the authority.