HL Deb 05 July 1951 vol 172 cc658-69

2.55 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)

My Lords, this is a short Bill but, like many short Bills, it is a very valuable one. Its purpose is clear. It is to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning to continue his good work of making grants towards water supplies and sewerage schemes in the rural areas of England and Wales. It will be remembered by your Lordships that the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, fixed a maximum amount for grants towards such schemes of £15,000,000. All of the £15,000,000 provided under that Act has been allocated: £3,000,000 has actually been paid, and the remaining £12,000,000 premised, to local authorities. This Bill raises the maximum by £30,000,000, from £15,000,000 to £45,000,000. Grants are made from this fund for the smaller schemes on completion of each scheme, and for the larger schemes at intervals as each stage is completed. It will interest your Lordships to know that the number of approved schemes up to day is 800 for rural water supplies, and 550 for rural sewerages. The local authorities in rural areas are already preparing further schemes, which it is estimated will cost some £40,000,000. Therefore, the outlook in the rural areas is most encouraging.

Noble Lords will have noticed from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that it is expected that all the schemes coming under the new grant will be completed in seven years. I need not tell your Lordships that that depends on a number of unknown factors. If it is a period (as we hope it will be) without major catastrophies—that is to say, with no catastrophe of any kind which adversely affects the labour and materials position—the schemes will be completed within that period. It also depends on how quickly the schemes can be prepared. As your Lordships, especially those who have had experience of these matters, know, the provision of water supplies and sewerage in rural areas is necessarily a lengthy process. Schemes have to be planned to meet foreseeable needs for many years ahead, which is not always easy, and regard must be had to anticipated new developments in those areas, to the prospect of co-operation with other local authorities, and also to new agricultural demands and other similar points. All these things must be considered, and consideration takes time.

There is one administrative arrangement which I may mention between the Ministry of Local Government and Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in order to obviate delay. Under this arrangement, the Ministry of Local Government and Planning accept responsibility for schemes which are mainly for domestic purposes but which, nevertheless, have a large agricultural element, while the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will deal with the schemes—even though they may be promoted by local authorities—that are intended mainly for agriculture. My right honourable friend is anxious that I should stress that he desires to press on, through the local authorities, with the formulation of schemes, but it would be utterly futile —I hardly think it necessary to say this in your Lordships' House—not to realise that it is possible that the rearmament programme may slow down the preparing and the carrying through of the schemes envisaged. Otherwise, there is great confidence that all the schemes which are likely to be brought forward will be completed within the seven years to which I have referred. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

2.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord opposite for having explained so clearly the provisions of this short Bill. I should like to say how pleased we were on these Benches to hear two remarks which fell from the noble Lord. The first, if I understood him aright, was that there are to be no watertight compartments between the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; and the second was the real intention to press on with this business of providing rural water supplies. We are now getting towards the end of the Session, which I might describe as the season for Bills; as was once said, "Thick and fast they come at last." But this is a Bill which we on this side of the House wholeheartedly welcome. I understand that we are not the only people to welcome it, because I believe that the Rural District Councils Association, in their conference at Torquay, gave it an equally hearty welcome; and I believe that at that conference the great majority of the rural district councils in this country were represented.

I am well aware that this has been certified as a Money Bill, and, therefore, even if we wanted to (which we do not) we could not go to the length of rejecting it. If the Bill by itself were to herald an immediate improvement in rural water supplies and sanitation, I think there would be little more to be said. But, unfortunately, it is not so simple as that. The noble Lord himself has mentioned one of the difficulties namely, rearmament—which may come between promise and performance. After all, this is only a Bill to enable the Ministry of Local Government and Planning to make promises to local authorities that in certain conditions a certain amount of money will be allocated for approved water and sewerage schemes. That is all right, but I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that that is the easiest part of the whole matter. I feel almost inclined to quote the motto which one sometimes sees in the offices of harassed business men. "Don't worry, it may never happen."

I hope I am entirely wrong in that regard, because it would be a commonplace to say how important we think, and everybody thinks, this business of rural water and sewerage is. If we recall what has been done in the earlier years—the noble Lord opposite did not mention the earlier years, and I will not go into them in detail—I think we shall all agree that the earlier work was the easier work. Obviously it was. The simpler schemes were carried out, and they were schemes which would involve the ratepayers in as little expenditure as possible and would give benefit to the greatest number of people. The result was that, just before the war, over 7,500 villages had a water supply in one part or another of their village. I think it is fair to say that when the work of completing the rural water supply was started under the 1944 Act, there again the easier jobs and the more profitable jobs were tackled first, as they should have been. None the less, as one goes on tackling the easier jobs, so the hard core is left, and the task becomes harder and harder; the distances over which the water has to be carried grow longer and longer, and the deficits which have to be met by local authorities with the assistance of the central Government, are likely to grow greater and greater. I will not deny that.

However, there is the work and we all agree that the work is necessary. In practice, we are getting to the point—I know that we are in my own district—where a great deal of this work which is now to be undertaken by local authorities will link up with the work carried out by the country landlords, not under this group of Acts, but under the agricultural group of Acts, whereby subsidies have been Granted for estate water supplies. Here, I suppose, I must declare my interest, because I am a country landlord. I myself have carried out more than one water supply scheme under the Agricultural Acts, and I am looking forward to the day when our own water supply will link up with the estate's supplies. That is very important, because estate supplies, coming from wells, springs and so forth, are now fully extended in providing for the essential domestic needs, and also for the demands which are increasing all the time—the demands for water caused by the tightening up of the specifications and the standards under the milk and dairies ordinances.

In a great many cases local water supplies which were quite sufficient for things as they were in the past will not now be sufficient for the new requirements—cleanliness of cowhouses, for instance, and all the other requirements. They are all important, but they consume a large quantity of water and the supplies which the estate provides will not be able to meet the demand unless, so to speak, estate supplies are boosted by the local authorities' water provided under this Act and the previous Acts. Until that happens it will not be possible, in a great many cases, to do more than provide the actual water for domestic use; and in many cases it will not be possible to furnish water board sanitation and all those things which are described in advertisements as "every modern convenience." Therefore, we have this need to reach out and to link up with this group of Acts following upon the 1944 Act and the Agricultural Acts which subsidised and encouraged water supplies on agricultural estates.

May I give your Lordships another reason why this matters important? We have often talked in this House and elsewhere about the problem of stopping the drift of young people from the country to the towns. Speaking as a countryman, I would say that there are three directions in which that problem requires to be solved—water supply, electricity and transport in and out of the towns. In my part of the country, certainly, those are the three vital needs. If we can reach a proper standard of facilities in those three directions, then the country will become just as good a place to live in, and in some ways a better place to live in, than the towns. But if we cannot, we shall fall down on the job, with all the consequences, which everybody realises, to agriculture and, therefore, to the defence effort and so forth. Those are the three prime needs, and perhaps noble Lords opposite will agree with me when I say how important it is that people in the country should get their fair share of these benefits when they are going.

Now let me turn to a practical point of view, the impact of the Government's capital investment programme on this question of sewerage and water supplies. I think it was forecast in another place that £8,000,000 yearly was to be spent for the next three years. The noble Lord opposite, if I heard him aright, said that the money to be provided under this Bill was to be spent in seven years. That, if I may say so, begs the question—as I think the noble Lord opposite realises—of whether we shall be able, in the years following the next three years, to allow a bigger proportion of capital expenditure to be spent on these things. If so, well and good. The scheme would then probably be likely to come to fruition. But if by any chance it is not possible to make a bigger allocation from the money available for improvements of this sort at home, then none of us must suppose that this programme is going to be fulfilled in seven years, and we shall have to wait a little longer. I am quite at one with the noble Lord opposite in realising that the requirements of the armament programme may be overriding requirements, and that if they have to be fulfilled, they will demand a higher priority than any expenditure on rural water, much as we should wish it to be otherwise.

Let me turn to one or two other problems. We shall have to see whether we are making the best use of the money available for allocation for meeting capital costs of providing rural water, and we shall have to see whether we are making the best use of the materials available, the steel, iron, cement, and so forth. It strikes me very forcibly, from what I have seen going on in the country, that we may not be getting the best value for money in some of these water schemes. I do not want to lay that complaint only at the door of the Government, because I know that a great deal of the responsibility for careless expenditure, if there is such a thing, or for delay in the execution of contracts, if there is such a thing, or for anything else like that, may rest not with the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, but with the local authority, or even with the contractor. But if we are to be limited in the amount of money we can spend on these things, surely it stands to reason that we must see that the money we spend is spent in the best possible way, that there is no waste in the money paid to contractors, and no undue delay, and that we do not create unnecessary difficulties over the question of raw materials.

May I explain in detail what I mean? In the past, it has been the practice in water and sewerage schemes to make use chiefly of iron or steel pipes—and, of course, they are the best possible type for this purpose. But there are other kinds of pipes. There are the asbestos and cement pipes. Incidentally, cement and asbestos are not such useful materials for the war effort as cast iron or steel. It strikes me that we may have to reconsider our standards. It would be satisfactory to say that nothing but the best should go into water or sewerage pipes, but the best may be the enemy of the good. I hope that, for the time being, at any rate, no one in local government or in the Departments is going to be "sticky" about insisting upon cast iron or spun pipes and thus set up competition with the armament programme, since asbestos or some other substitute pipes may be equally good. I believe that during our debate the other day on the Ministry of Materials Bill it was mentioned that the Minister was charged with looking into this question of substitutes. Here is a job for him straightaway.

So, my Lords, although we have been promised this £30,000,000, there are many fences to be got over before promise is translated into performance; and before promise is translated into performance we want to see the money spent to advantage and to see these numerous schemes coming off the drawing board and being put actually into operation. For these reasons we on these Benches support this Bill. We support it all the more because of what the noble Lord said in introducing the Bill: that the Government intend to press on—and therefore, I imagine, intend to see results obtained. That will require a constructive partnership between the Government and the numerous rural districts and other local authorities who are concerned with this scheme. We all know that the rural district councils vary in their efficiency, and in their power to press on with schemes. I am sure that, with all die powers which the Minister of Local Government and Planning has, he will be able to support the efficient and progressive councils, and to guide and encourage those who have not the same experience and the same facilities. Let us not forget that it may well be that the people who most need these water supplies are the least well organised to achieve what they want. I feel certain that the Government realise that these people will watch to see that the schemes are proceeded with while the real need exists. We are delighted to find the scheme conceived in this way because, as the noble Lord has indicated, this is a practical scheme—far more practical and objective than any talk of national water grids, which is now, I think, all over. We shall not wish to amend so short a Money Bill and we shall hope to see it reach the Statute Book at a very early date.

3.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill and to say how glad I am to hear of the progress that has been achieved and the determination of the Government to carry on with the work. But we who are concerned with local gmernment live in a world of make-believe. We are encouraged to make great schemes and then are told that we cannot carry them out. Therefore, we must be excused if we look even the most promising gift horse in the mouth. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that many of these schemes are complicated and take a long time to prepare, and that is certainly no exaggeration. There is in my own county a scheme in which I was interested as long ago as 1947, partly because it was designed to provide many villages and other places with water. I inquired then how long the scheme would take to come into operation. I was told three years. I have made similar inquiries annually since 1947 and I am always given exactly The same answer—three years. I am glad we are keeping abreast of the problem: but it would be encouraging if we could make some progress.

It is easy enough to blame local authorities for this delay in a scheme, where there are two or three district councils, a county council, one water company or more, and the Ministry of Health on the scene. Of course there are delays, and of course it is quite normal that we should blame each other for these delays. But I think there are one or two reasons for the delays. One is the degree of inflation of prices that is going on all the time. What happens is that die scheme is prepared—it may even be ready to be put into operation—and then there may be a shortage of pipes, and that may mean delay. When the delay is over and the pipes are there, they may be a good deal more expensive and labour costs may be higher; and this may upset the entire financial aspects of the scheme. It may be that some of the constituent authorities have to raise their charges, and that means Parliamentary procedure of some kind, which, again may lead to some delay. I am only saying in effect that, valuable though this. Bill may be, it will be still more valuable if these ancillary difficulties can be removed, and if every possible reason for delay can be tackled at the same time as the actual scheme to lay the pipes and make the reservoirs to supply the water. I know the Government have given some attention to this matter and I hope they will continue to do so.

3.19 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, there is such agreement about this Bill that I wish to say only a very little. But I should like to join other noble Lords in blessing it and in saying how much we on this side of the House welcome it. It concerns a most vital problem, which becomes more manifest when we consider that something like one-third of those who live in our rural areas at the present day are still without a water supply. I speak with a particular interest because in 1934 I was Parliamentary Secretary to the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Walter Elliot, who was responsible for introducing the first Rural Water Supplies Act. Under that Act, something like half a million rural dwellers were given a piped water supply. The points that have been made by noble Lords on this side of the House amount to this: we trust that from now this matter will really be pressed on. It is a little discouraging when we recall that in 1944, £15,00C,000 were voted for this purpose, and only about £250,000 has been spent. Now that we are in creasing the amount available from £15,000,000 to £45.000,000, the rate of progress will, we hope, be more rapid.

I should like now to raise a point which, though not strictly relevant to this Bill, is relevant to the subject under discussion. I am convinced that the real problem here is the administrative difficulty. It is not a question of the willingness or the desire of Ministers and Departments to push ahead; it is not a question of policy. It is just this administrative machine that seems to be "getting us down" in so many directions. May I give your Lordships a short personal experience of mine the other day connected with administration? For some years, I have been trying to lay on water—as I think most other landlords have been doing— to my remote cottages and farmhouses by the simple method of pulling a pipe behind a tractor, thereby saving the cost of digging. I proceeded on that basis to supply a cottage that was three-quarters of a mile from any other water point. so your Lordships can visualise that that cost a certain amount of money. When the scheme was completed, when the pipe was there and the matter had already been mentioned to the water authorities, we asked the water authorities to turn on the taps. An inspector came along and said: "The pipe is only eighteen inches deep. We have justpassed a model by-law which says that it shall be two feet six inches deep. Therefore, we cannot let you have the water." That is not the way to encourage landlords to improve their properties.

It is a situation that is made even more crazy by the fact that I own only a small estate another part of the estate is under a private water supply; this part is under the rural district council water supply. I am still allowed by the private water company within half a mile to put the pipe only eighteen inches deep. I am not complaining of the action of the district council, because they have been trying in every way to be most helpful; they said that they were working under direction from the Ministry of Health, and could not do anything about it. This may seem a small point, but it is vital in the case of those remote properties. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord, if he will pass on the suggestion to his colleague in the appropriate Department, that, although two feet six inches may be for most purposes preferable to one foot six inches (I will not go into that technicality), with regard to these special rural cases, where the only practical way of laying on these remote cottages at a reasonable cost is to pull the pipe under the ground it cannot be sunk much deeper than one foot six inches. In my view, the district council should be given power to use their discretion, so that this method, which is the only method of getting supplies to those cottages at a reasonable cost, may be continued. That is the only practical point that I want to put to the noble Lord. Having said that, may I again say that we are delighted that this Bill is put before us, and we hope that it will go through, and come into active operation as soon as possible?

3.25 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, seldom have I heard a Bill given a warmer welcome by the Opposition than this Bill has been given. I am truly grateful. It seems to me that the whole of the debate has turned on the question of the rate of progress, how quickly can the job be done. Before I deal with the facts that affect that. may I assure the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that though he has raised an irrelevant point, it is a vitally important point, and I shall certainly bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend. There are three factors which affect progress. They have all been mentioned: the shortage of material, the ever-changing costs and the rate of progress of the buildup of the labour force. May I make a brief statement on each? I realise that your Lordships are interested in the debate which is to follow this Bill, but I would say this. As regards the rate of progress of the build-up of the labour force, I asked for figures, which I will give your Lordships. The average monthly head of labour employed in the period from January to December, 1947, was 9,804. From January to March, 1951—I will give no intermediate figures—it was 19,156, more than double.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

On schemes under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

That is right. I could separate those figures into water and sewerage, but it is not necessary. I am giving the totals—9.804 from January to December, 1947; 19,156 from January to March, 1951—that is, this year. The shortage of material I will mention briefly. The noble Lord was right when he mentioned the danger of confining ourselves to one type of material. He referred to spun iron and asbestos cement pipes. He realised that, at the present juncture in our history, we may find it better to use one type of pipe rather than the other. The Department, I would add, keep in close touch with the manufacturers of both, and this question is constantly under attention.

As regards steel rods and bolts for reinforced concrete, temporarily they are almost unobtainable. Otherwise, there are no serious shortages of materials at this momment. The other matter with which I want to deal is the question of costs. I agree that these are so uncertain that no one dare venture to give any firm prediction. There has been a steady increase in costs during the past two years, and some evidence that they are approaching the level of three times pre-war costs of similar works. What will happen between now and the end of seven years' time I do not know. I said earlier that whether or not these contemplated schemes can be completed within the seven years depends on very many unknown factors. All we can do is to give a definite undertaking that we shall do all that is possible in the circumstances to see that these schemes are completed during the next seven years.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he undertake to convey a message to the Iron and Steel Corporation with regard to the nuts and bolts?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

If it should be necessary, I will.

On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.