I desire to raise a question which is of interest to all parties in the House and which caused grave concern in the country last year. I refer to the position in connection with our water supplies. Before putting certain questions on this point to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, may I remind the House of some of the facts which lie behind the present position. It had been possible prior to the first Labour Government to obtain grants in favour of rural water supplies. The last Labour Government in its first month of office, partly on the intrinsic merits of the case and partly with a view to expanding the area of useful employment, made a substantial increase in the grants payable in respect of new water undertakings in rural areas. The grant payable in approved cases was fixed at 100 per cent. of the interest for seven years, and 50 per cent. of the interest for the remainder of the loan period or eight years whichever was the shorter.

In the following year, 1930, again with a view primarily to the provision of employment, it was my duty to introduce the Public Works Facilities Act of 1930, under which a great deal of money was provided in aid of water schemes. Leaving aside the actual loans which were sanctioned directly by Parliament under local Acts—I am referring to those which operated under the Unemployment Grants Committee—in the year, March, 1930, the amount of loans sanctioned for water schemes of all kinds was £2,318,000. In the following year it had risen to £3,116,000 and in 1932, after the period of the Labour Government, the sum sanctioned was £2,389,000, in addition to which under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, sanction had been given for works estimated to cost £830,000. In August, 1931, the first National Government was formed, prior to the Election and in view of what, in its opinion, was the general financial stringency, it reduced the unemployment grants, with the result that there was a contraction in the amount of work carried out on water undertakings. Even the reduced grants were only to apply to schemes commenced prior to the end of January, 1932. It was clear that the rate of progress in the provision of water supply which had previously been attained would not continue. In 1933 the amount sanctioned in loans had shrunk to £1,375,000, in addition to which schemes under the Public Works Facilities Act provided works estimated to cost £123,000. The Ministry of Health report for 1932–33 referring to, the position said:

"The falling off in the amount of loans sanctioned as compared with last year, which was most marked in rural areas, was to be expected in view of the general financial position, the withdrawal of grants and the large amount of work undertaken in previous years, much of it in advance of requirements with the aid of grants."

As regards the special problem of the rural areas the figures of expenditure are extremely interesting. In 1929 the loans sanctioned for purely rural areas amounted to £161,000. In 1930 that figure had risen to £424,000; in 1931 to £680,000 and in 1932 to £917,000, showing an expanding volume of work. In 1933, however, the amount of loans sanctioned for rural water supplies had fallen to £297,000. Last year the sum was a little larger, namely, £391,000. Last year the country was faced with a very serious drought, and the Government were very slow to take action. The only action that was taken early last year was a circular issued in February by the Ministry of Health in connection with this problem, but offering no kind of assistance to the local authorities, and I think indeed it is a fair thing to say that the Government last year endeavoured to minimise the seriousness of the situation with regard to the water supplies of both urban and rural areas.

It was not until the end of March last year that the Rural Water Supplies Act was passed and that a sum not exceeding £1,000,000 was set aside to be devoted to this purpose of assisting rural authorities in the provision of new water supplies. The Parliamentary Secretary 10 days ago, answering a question in the House, did not inform us how much of that £1,000,000 had actually been spent, but he did say that the total capital cost of schemes for which State grants had been made amounted roughly to £3,200,000. That action, I say, was very tardy, and the amount of money which was allocated in a period of one of the worst droughts in living memory was, in our view, inadequate really to deal with the situation. During last summer many Members felt that our organisation with regard to water supplies was inadequate, and questions were put, not merely from these benches but from other benches as well, suggesting that there ought to be some better machinery.

On the 16th July last year the Minister was asked whether he would institute a survey of the water supplies of the country, and his answer was very unsatisfactory. He said that he was always in touch with water undertakers and that he could get information from them from time to time. On the following day the Minister received a deputation from the British Association and the Institution of Civil Engineers, urging upon the Government a complete and systematic survey of the water resources of the country. On the 6th November last the Minister announced in this House that, as a result of the deputation held nearly five months before, he had come to the conclusion that steps ought to be taken to secure a proper survey of our water resources, but even then it was not until February of this year that the personnel and the terms of reference of this Water Survey Committee were announced.

That is the story, and there are certain questions which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I see, has now arrived, arising out of what I have already said. I should like to ask him how much of that sum of £1,000,000 has actually been disbursed to the local authorities—not merely the capital cost of the schemes that have been approved—how much of it has been provisionally allocated, and then how much he has still got left to play with. Further, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that the £1,000,000 has been adequate and whether the Government contemplates providing further public money for the assistance of rural authorities in this matter. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage) Orders Act was passed to operate until the end of this year, and I should like to ask whether it is the Government's intention to continue this Act, with the special powers that it gives, or whether it intends to let them lapse. I should further like to ask what the Water Survey Committee is doing, how many times it has met, whether it is undertaking now, actively, a survey of our water supplies, and whether there is any intention of reporting the activities of the Committee from time to time to the House.

More important than all that lies behind these questions is the further question whether the Government are satisfied with the present situation. As I said a little earlier, I think the Government have acted very tardily in this matter. They had to be driven by the pressure of opinion in this House and outside before they would take any action at all to assist the local authorities in the worst areas. The weather is a chancy thing, and no one is quite certain whether there is to be a drought this summer or whether there is to be excessive rainfall. The Parliamentary Secretary said in this House on the 8th April:

"The average total rainfall for the country as a whole for the six months ended 31st March last, the critical months for the replenishment of water supplies, was above the normal, and urban water undertakers generally are in a good position. Should the necessity arise, powers are available to them to obtain additional water supplies with despatch under the Water Supplies (Exceptional Shortage Orders) Act, 1934, which remains in force until the end of the present year. The primary need in the rural areas is for permanent supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1935; col. 794, Vol. 300.]

It may be true that for the six winter months, which are the best months of the year from the point of view of water supply, the rainfall was rather higher than the normal, but the call on the available supplies of water last summer was so abnormal that it needs a good deal more than a slightly higher average rainfall in the winter months to make good the situation. We are facing the summer now, with no definite knowledge that the situation will be such as to maintain existing supplies. We do not know whether there will be a drought, and we are entitled to ask the Government whether they mean to take time by the forelock, because if there is one thing that the drought of last year proves it is that mere emergency legislation is useless to deal with a problem of this kind. I should hope that the Government will be prepared to declare that they are not going to allow the situation to develop, should there be a dry season, as they did last year.

That brings me to my final question. Hon. Members on different sides of the House have from time to time pressed for a comprehensive national water policy. The method by what that policy should be carried into effect is a matter for discussion, and I should not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Chorlton) in all his proposals, but I think it is clear that experience of the last drought and the ever-growing consumption of water for various purposes just now call for a coordinated national policy; and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government, instead of having this catchpenny legislation and doing things bit by bit, to elaborate and bring before the House a co-ordinated policy for the conservation of our water supplies and for their proper distribution. Alter all, water is one of the elementary needs of human life, and it is time, now that there is a growing demand for water, that we should have such a policy. I hope that before the Debate closes the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to answer my questions and to inform us whether it is the intention of the Government to develop a policy on national lines.

Rarely do I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), but to-day he has been a good deal more temperate than usual in the way in which he has dealt with this problem and I can agree with him in a good deal of what he says. The real difficulty in this problem is the one which he mentioned, namely, the slowness with which the Ministry have tackled this problem. I can never understand the reasons for it. I do not know whether it be excess of caution arising from lack of knowledge or that they are afraid of the difficulties that would be set up by the numerous authorities which would be concerned in working out any policy of a widespread and co-ordinated nature. I should have thought that, as the water supply system of the country presented one of the finest chances of providing employment on a o large scale the Government would have done a good deal more than they have done. My approach to this subject was really made from that side. It seemed to me, looking into the future and studying the statistics of what has been consumed in the country in different areas and the statistics from abroad, that the general trend of water consumption is rising steadily and that the tremendous and increasing housing development in the country tends in the same direction.

All this means, in effect, that in a few years from now the demand for water will be vastly greater than it is now. The demand for water in London will be much greater, perhaps three times greater, than the consumption at the present time. There is even now a fear that in the local supplies of the London district there may again be a shortage during the summer. What is the reason why nothing in the way of a broader and wider understanding of the subject has been shown? The Minister of Health has shown courage in house building to a degree that we must admire, but why his steps have been so faltering when it comes to the question of water is beyond me. The survey to which at long last he agreed, and which goes considerably farther back than the right hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned, has been rather emasculated by the limited terms of reference. It is purely a survey, and when the Government have all the statistics available what will they do with them? Are they to be pigeon-holed? Was the survey only brought about in response to the popular cry? I begged all along that it should cover the question of allocation. It may be that collectively water belongs to all of us, but actually in practice it does not. How are we going, therefore, to allocate the water, as it should be allocated, to the dry areas as well as to those that are nearer the hills? The absence of this question is a limitation which I have regretted very much that the Minister has not seen his way to remove.

I have been charged a good deal for having described something which has been called a water grid. It has suited the purpose of those who have attacked me to distort what I have intended to convey. I have used the electricity grid as a simple analogy—not a direct one—in order to allow those whose minds are limited to the mechanics of the village pump to think a little further than the strict analogy would allow to describe the water side of it. Any engineer knowing something of the two sides of engineering knows the limits of the analogy and where it fails. You can with advantage connect up the different undertakings in the country and then, by establishing national reserves in the water areas, feed that network by a certain limited number of mains. I am not suggesting that that policy should be immediately rushed at, but, when anything in the nature of public works is being considered, surely this is one of those things that might occupy a prominent place, because it shows an advantage over so many other schemes that do not make a return on the capital expenditure. There was a scheme many years ago for drawing water from central Wales by an aqueduct to bring the water to London. That scheme has been discussed on more than one occasion, and it shows, coupled with the large amount of employment that would be provided, a complete safeguard for the future.

The proposals which I put forward were evidently considered of such importance that, although I have tried to get a combined committee to deal with them in the engineering institutions, for reasons which it is not necessary for me to go into, that idea was frustrated, and a committee was formed by the various water institutions themselves. That committee has issued a report. Although it in many ways attacks what I have said, it is a matter of great satisfaction to me to know that what I did say must have been of such importance that the combined committee of three institutions should specifically refer to it in their report. After showing the limitations of what I proposed, this committee proceeds to make proposals of its own, and they are very largely those which have teen put forward by my self and others in different words. Their attitude towards the problem is shown when they say:

"Water undertakings should remain autonomous, except for the existing measure of control and such further control limited to the specific matters hereinafter mentioned."

Their attitude is that the water supply of the country does not want to be in any way guided in a better and more co-ordinated way. They want to remain as early Victorian as they were when they started. The committee proceeds by one article after another to describe their suggestions to improve the situation. It says that the powers and responsibilities of such water department as they suggest should be set up in the Ministry of Health in addition to those now exercised by the Ministry, should be limited to certain duties which it sets out. In other words, they now suggest that a central water authority should be set up, but in order to keep friends with their friends, they say that it should only be a department at the Ministry. I do not quarrel with that, but I have so far seen no attempt to meet the wishes of this committee. If we can get such a guiding department set up within the Ministry, with certain powers conferred on it, then it is likely that the water situation will be dealt with more quickly than is the case now. The report proceeds to deal with the regional advisory committees which are now being set up in order to bring about co-ordination between different local authorities. I have suggested that the policy of appointing regional advisory committees should be continued, and that the new water department within the Ministry should be given statutory powers to sanction water schemes, to grant cheap loans and, generally, to facilitate the carrying out of various works without the necessity of having recourse to Parliament. While it is not mentioned in this particular report, many other reports have referred to the delays and expense occasioned by the necessity to promote Bills.

The main question I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to-day is: What steps are being taken in the Ministry to set up this central department, or guiding hand, or whatever it is going to be called, as suggested in the report of the water authorities who have been calling for a national water policy? As to methods of development I could refer hon. Members to a number of articles which have been written on the subject, for some of which I have myself been responsible. It has been suggested that a scheme should be worked out under which areas in the hills with a heavy rainfall will supply water, by suitable trunk mains, to those parts of the country where it is required. The wet spot of England is in the Lake District, the annual rainfall of that place exceeding 100 inches. It is suggested in this report that I have changed my mind, but I have not; I have merely tried to explain things in greater detail, because I found that to be necessary in order to meet the Victorian views of the elderly gentlemen who base their ideas of a water supply on the analogy of the village pump.

I would like to carry the comparison with other common supplies a little further. We have had the analogy of the electricity grid, but are told that that is not a fair comparison, because water is very different from electricity—as it is—though, as everybody knows, when starting the study of electricity the easiest way of gaining an understanding of it is to take the analogy of water, the comparison being relatively close. Let us take the gas position. Gas is now being supplied through gas grids. Practically the whole of Belgium is supplied through a gas grid controlled by an English company. All the industrial districts of Germany are linked to a gas grid which goes as far as Hanover and down to Hesse, and will ultimately go across to Silesia. That is one illustration of this method of common supply, under which one district can help another district, and supplies can be drawn from the best possible centre. We have actually started the gas grid system in this country. There is a gas grid in the district stretching between Sheffield and Doncaster. The argument that water is different from these other commodities may satisfy those who make use of the argument, but it cannot satisfy those who know anything about the subject in a broad way.

It may be that there is some explanation for the Minister's attitude towards this question of developing our water supplies, but I feel that he has been very faint-hearted, very timid, very frightened. He has power to spend £1,000,000 to assist the development of rural water supplies, but the work is not being carried on anything like so fast as one had hoped it would be. Instead of urging local authorities to go forward, and encouraging them to join together and connect up their mains, he seems only to have used the engineering knowledge of his staff in giving them advice to prevent them from going wrong in any of their plans. He has allocated only half the million pounds so far, and I do not know how much of that has actually been spent, but I suggest that it is probably not more than £250,000. In view of the unemployment which exists in the country that is a very timid way of handling an important problem, and, although this may not be the occasion for going into the matter in great detail, I feel we ought to be assured that some more vigorous policy will be pursued than has been carried out up to date. We should like to feel that there will be no further risk of a water shortage in any part of the country, and that provision is being made to anticipate a greatly increased demand in the future, and generally, that much more vigorous action will be taken.

I should like to stress certain facts in connection with the rural side of this problem. Many of us who have taken an interest in this matter for some time past will welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton), who knows so much about the question. I am afraid that I do not feel called upon to be quite so timid in my reflections on the inactivity of the Minister of Health as he was, no doubt because he is a loyal supporter of the present Government. He need not search very far for an explanation of the timidity of which he complains. The reason for it is that the Minister, whether under instructions or otherwise, does not want to spend any money. Not only arc the reflections of the hon. Member fully justified, but the Government stand convicted in this matter of gross and culpable neglect. We have had two years of drought and all the Government have done, after having curtailed and brought to nought as far as they could the efforts which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) had started and which were developing rapidly for the improvement of the rural water supplies, has been to make this pettifogging grant and to set up a committee, with very limited terms of reference, to make a survey. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was here a few minutes ago, and I would recall, as one who in another capacity in other days was concerned with the initiation of this work, that in 1921 a committee of the Board of Trade which investigated our water resources reported as follows:

"We find the difficulty in fairly allocating water is becoming greater year by year in England and Wales, and the evidence we have heard proves beyond doubt the urgent necessity, in the national interests, of some measure of control of all water, both underground and surface, in order that the available supplies may be impartially reviewed and allocated and may be made to suffice for all purposes in the future."

That is a recommendation, 14 years ago, of a committee of the Board of Trade which was set up in the post-war period, and which, as I know, for I was intimately associated, went with great care into this matter. Since then, especially during the last three years, affairs have become much worse. What is the method of approach that has been adopted? Apart from this survey, with the very limited terms of reference and with no power to do much, as the hon. Member who has just spoken said, it has been to encourage village undertakings of a very limited kind, and, so far, they appear to amount to grants in prospect figuring, we will say, altogether £500,000. Really, it is playing with the subject. The eastern counties of England, and certainly a large part of Suffolk and a good deal of Norfolk, are to a great extent sterilised in their agricultural development because of inefficient water supply.

Take some parts of the county of Suffolk as an illustration. The rainfall there is about a quarter of what it is in the west of England, and much less than a quarter of what it is in the Lake District to which the hon. Member just referred, but if it were well supplied it has some of the best pasture land in this country. The ordinary requirement—coming down to details—is 25 gallons of water per day per dairy cow, and I will undertake to say there is a considerable percentage of farms in that county which are inadequately supplied with water to meet the needs of a decent-sized herd. A horse requires 15 gallons a day, and it is quite impossible to develop the agricultural resources of that part of England until an adequate and a generous water supply is made available. What applies to Suffolk particularly applies to many other counties, and it is an exception in going up and down rural England to find a farm and a village adequately supplied with water, not only for human requirements, but for the purpose of developing the possibilities of the district.

This matter cannot be dealt with unless we have regard to making the best use of the supplies of water, whether underground or on the surface. It is well known—at least the engineers tell us, and my hon. Friend who has just spoken knowsߞthat there are in some parts of the country very large underground supplies of water. What is the use of a village putting a pumping station here and another village deciding to put down another pumping station to supply a few houses in the village? That is not going to develop the possibilities of the farms in the district, and, in any case, it is grossly extravagant to duplicate your apparatus. Some day or other, when the Ministry of Health wakes up to the fact that water runs down, hill, and therefore the sensible way is to get the whole area supplied in accordance with a proper engineering plan, all these little interests which will have sprung up will be vested interests standing in the way of forming a proper rational system of supply.

My hon. Friend referred to the old jealousies, with which we are all so familiar, which immediately crop up whenever a rational scheme of collection and supply is undertaken. Whatever happens, we are told that the water undertakings must remain "autonomous." It was not long ago in this House that a reference was made to the observations of some unfortunate agricultural labourer who was straining some green liquid through some cloth in order to get water for his tea, while alongside, as he knew, there was a glorious water main coming from a splendid reservoir. That applies to thousands of cases up and down the country. Until the matter is, or can be put, on a national basis, there will be no possibility of linking up or making use of these different undertakings which have already been developed. I see that the hon. Member for Platting, speaking before the Royal Society of Arts, I think it was on 31st January, 1934, referred to these undertakings as follows:

"So much has this individualism persisted"—

which the Minister of Health is now wishing to perpetuate even down to the village pump—

"that to-day we have no less than 1,100 separate water undertakings in this country, and water supply remains the outstanding example of the laissez faire policy of the age of industrial expansion and Victorian times. A study of the map reveals the mosaic of disconnected entities, a very jig-saw puzzle in their interlocking boundaries."

That is the reflection of the hon. Member for Platting, and, obviously, it is sound commonsense. It means that the right thing to do is to have a National Authority which will secure the proper linking-up of the water undertakings in the same way as in the case of electricity. We are all too well aware of the difficulties which always arise, the haggles which crop up when we try to secure a sensible, co-ordinated supply, whether of water, electricity, gas or anything else in any district. But the Electricity Commissioners have managed gradually, by pressure, and by the development of a sensible, rational system, to work into their scheme of supply—not yet of distribution, thanks to the Act of 1925, but, at all events, into their scheme of supply—the existing undertakings. It has been a difficult matter, and the existence of a large number of separate undertakings has made their task more difficult. Still, they are succeeding in welding them into one general system of electricity supply. What can be done for electricity can be, and should be, done for water. It is not a question of political opinion, but merely of common sense.

In my view, and in the view of everybody, politics apart, who has looked at how we have been developing in this country in the last three years, the Ministry of Health have neglected to use a great opportunity. Not only so, but, by their pettifogging policy of trying to develop the supply and distribution of water in terms of parish units, instead of the proper use of water resources, they are creating a large number of petty and obstinate vested interests which some day will have to be dealt with, but which will stand in the way of a rational system. The Ministry of Health takes no account at all of the real needs of the country and the way in which water may be used enormously to develop productive resources. I know that in the surveys we made at the Ministry of Agriculture into the possibility of developing here and there horticulture and other forms of cultivation, one of the first questions that cropped up every time was, "What about water supply?" It is the first thing that anybody asks who looks into these matters. Horticultural supplies to Covent Garden market are greatly prejudiced in districts that could be very profitably used for that purpose simply because of the lack of an adequate water supply. Those districts never will be supplied until we decide to constitute a responsible national authority with adequate powers to make full use of the existing undertakings to secure that the houses of the people and the land are fully supplied with water.

It is not as though we had not any water. We have plenty of water during the year. I remember introducing a Drainage Act to see that we managed to carry the water away instead of it flooding the land. Taking one year with another, Providence sends us plenty of water. I suggest that it is time the Minister of Health pulled himself together and decided to confront the veto of the Treasury. Everybody knows perfectly well that that is what is the matter. The Ministry want to make a show of doing something without spending any money; that is the plain English of it. Everybody who has been inside a Government department will understand what has happened during the list three years in the interchange of communications between different Ministers on this matter. If he wishes permanently to enrich the country, I exhort the Minister of Health to lift his eyes above the parish pump and to see the great reservoirs of supplies that Nature has already provided; let him fashion a scheme that will make proper use of them.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) has been true to his reputation, as usual, as a generous distributor of public funds. The Land Drainage Act which he was instrumental in passing in 1930 provides machinery which to some extent helps to deal with the present question. The hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) referred to London's water supplies and has told us that in a few years the amount of water required by the London district will probably be greatly increased. There are two bodies who deal with London's water supply, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Thames Conservancy. As a member of the latter body, I may perhaps be allowed to say a word on the subject.

Those two bodies are fully alive to the vital necessity of seeing that London is adequately supplied with water. The Thames Conservancy have the duty of conserving the water of the Thames Valley for the supply of London and the Metropolitan Water Board have the duty of distributing it. The Metropolitan Water Board have shown themselves conscious of the necessity of providing for the future by reason of the Bill which is now before the House to provide for two very large additional reservoirs. It is necessary to have those reservoirs. What are the Thames Conservancy doing in the matter? By the Act which was passed under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon, the Thames Conservancy were made the drainage authority for the Thames Valley, and certain sections of the chief tributaries of the Thames were added to the main river. Another duty of the Conservancy is to prevent floods as far as that be possible. The prevention of floods and the conserving of London's water supply are, to a certain extent, contradictory, because, if there are districts up river which are marshy, they act as sponges, as natural reservoirs, to retain the water. The people of those districts very naturally want the marshes drained, but, if you drain them, the water runs off more quickly, and the supply is lost to the country altogether.

The Thames Conservancy having become the land drainage authority for the whole of the Thames Valley have already in their power certain sections of the main tributaries which contain weirs. Some of those weirs are obsolete, but the Thames Conservancy are in process of repairing and renewing some of them. If, and when, in conjunction with the counties the Thames Conservancy takes over the whole of those tributaries, as may well be the case, and which is probably what the right hon. Gentleman opposite recommends, the Thames Conservancy can gradually re-weir the whole of the tributaries by putting in the weirs which are necessary, and in that way control more effectually the water supplies of London. An hon. Member has referred to the possibility of bringing water from Wales for the supply of London. That was discussed some years ago, but the cost is almost prohibitive. If you can provide, with a river like the Thames and with its tributaries, against all the ordinary possibilities of drought, that seems the wisest course to take. I thought it would be of interest to the House to know that the two bodies responsible for the water supply of London are fully alive to their responsibilities and are taking steps to provide for the future.

It is appropriate before we adjourn that the very important question of water supply should be raised, but I am rather anxious about it, because on previous occasions when water has been discussed in the House the debate has been followed by a succession of wet days. We have not always suffered from drought, and I shall take the liberty of blaming the Opposition for raising the water supply question on this occasion should the debate prove to be a prelude to a wet Easter. A practical and sensible contribution has been made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), but we have had a number of speeches on water supply which bore no relation to the facts. All last year it was my privilege to hear water debates, and we had to listen to the gloomy Cassandras telling us what would be the effect of drought and how the larger urban areas were in jeopardy. I used to leave this House with a parched throat, and anxiously to turn on the bath tap when I got home. But the plain fact remains that, in spite of the hopeless inadequacy of our water supply, in spite of the pettifogging policy of the Ministry of Health, this country last year weathered the worst drought in British history, with no hardship suffered in any of the areas under urban undertakers—I am leaving out the rural areas for the moment—and with hardly any incon- venience suffered in the areas covered by the 1,500 large undertakings. That is a complete answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton). Nevertheless, the existence of the drought did reveal certain respects in which water policy was inadequate. The House will remember that we passed an emergency Bill giving complete powers to undertakers to dispense with all preliminaries and to take water where they could find it. So far, 36 Orders have been issued by the Minister. Half of them concern new sources of supply, and half deal with the temporary reduction of compensation water. But there is no doubt that the existence of these powers enabled undertakers to make arrangements which they would not otherwise have made but for the fact that these powers lay in the background.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) asked for an appreciation of the present position and the outlook. I say emphatically that at the present time the outlook is encouraging. A year ago the reservoirs were depleted, and we had an unparalleled and prolonged drought, but the position is quite otherwise to-day. As everybody knows, we have had more than the normal supply during the last six months. The reservoirs are now full. We have been in touch with some of the large undertakers, and the matter was discussed only yesterday with our advisory committee, who have confirmed the view I am now expressing, that, owing to the efficiency of the water supply of this country— I am dealing with urban undertakings—we can, even if we have a dry summer, look forward with no apprehension in any quarter of the country. So much for the gloomy prophecies of my hon. Friend, who seems to think that to him alone is vouchsafed the gift of prophecy in this matter.

My prophecies are not gloomy. I am only asking the Government to prepare for expansion in future.

My hon. Friend never does justice to the efficiency of the present position; he never does justice to what the Ministry is doing. He forgets altogether that since the War over £60,000,000 of capital work has been undertaken in connection with water in this country. As for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), he has always taken the line that, ever since he left the Ministry of Health, it has become completely inefficient. I assure him that that is not so. The work of the Ministry of Health in regard to water supply has involved a great strain on the Department. We coped with the emergency; we have considerably increased our staff; and, as the general position shows, the steps that we have taken saved the situation last year, and we can now face the future with great confidence.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the last three weeks water has actually been transported in carts within 40 miles of London?

I am coming to the rural position in a moment, but there are some farms in this country where they have always carted water, and always will, in spite of any national policy. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that any national policy will enable water to be supplied to some of the very scattered areas in this country without bankrupting their taxpayers and ratepayers, he is living in a world of pure delusion and fantasy. I disagree with him fundamentally. The main question in connection with water supply is that of choosing the right unit. It is fantastically wasteful to have grandiose schemes for water supply when in fact the economic unit of supply and production usually lies within the urban district.

You have not a scheme at all.

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the water policy. He has not to my knowledge intervened in these Debates before. He intervened unfortunately in regard to housing last time, but has not done so since. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument, and will listen to my account of what has been done and what we are doing. In the urban areas the problem, for the most part, is primarily a local problem, but we have always to recognise that there are larger geographical areas, according to watershed and physical conditions, where co-operation and planning are necessary. There are at this moment eight regional committees functioning, serving a population of about 14,000,000. That is a good and wise policy, and where it is found that in the large areas of population coordination between water undertakers—inter-connection, if you like—is the best policy, that is being done. This stimulation of regional development has been going on very actively. During the last year we have appointed a special liaison engineer, who has succeeded in getting a good measure of co-operation in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for example, where hitherto the progress has been rather dilatory.

The rural problem, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, is really a special one. It is a question of getting a permanent supply. The position in rural areas has always been chronic, but I claim that the measures taken last year by the Government are well on the way to breaking the back of the problem, even in the rural areas. I will try to prove that statement. We were granted a capital sum of £1,000,000. It is known that in just over 2,000 parishes the drought showed the position to be acute owing to the absence of a permanent supply. Let us see what progress has been made. We estimated, when the grant started to operate, as from March of last year, that just over 2,000 parishes required permanent schemes, and we estimated that, if we could allocate this grant and get the schemes in operation within three years, we should be moving at a reasonable rate. In point of fact the progress has exceeded our expectation. The schemes on which grants have been allocated have reached a capital value of £3,200,000, and cover some 1,100 parishes. In addition, about £500,000 of loans have been sanctioned in respect of 200 parishes.

Last year, therefore, action has been taken and grants have been allocated or loans made in respect of a total of £3,700,000. This is the policy of gross and culpable negligence to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If we compare the total of £3,700,000 in one year with the average loans sanctioned since the War, including the period when the Labour party were in office and when the Unemployment Grants functioned, the average for the last 10 years was £425,000, and I think that, in the judgment of any reasonable person, shows the intense activity in Which the Ministry of Health has been engaged. Indeed, since the war period a total of £5,000,000 has been spent in rural areas. Therefore, again, the figure for the one year makes a striking contrast.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me how much of the grant of £1,000,000 had been allocated? Just over £500,000, and we anticipate that the balance will be allocated this year. We have dealt with 1,300 parishes, and at this moment there are in the Ministry 300 applications from further parishes, and we estimate that we shall approve something like £3,000,000 worth of capital schemes in rural areas in the coming year. To sum up, schemes in respect of 1,600 parishes have already been prepared and in 600 schemes are being formulated. That means that in these areas, within a year or two, owing to the policy of stimulation which has been encouraged by the Ministry of Health, they will have a permanent source of supply, and that ought to gratify even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). So my advice to hon. Members is, "Cheer up!" The hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton) can go on his Easter holiday with the knowledge that we are breaking the back of this problem. The drought was an evil or a blessing in disguise like so many of our problems. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers the hymn which we sometimes sing:

"Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take,

The clouds ye so much dread

Are big with mercy, and shall break

In blessings on your head."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield asked some questions about the progress of our inland water survey. Here we have recognised for some time that we need full information as to the water resources of this country, and the House will remember that though we collect this information from time to time and have a body of information in the Ministry owing to the ordinary routine work of our engineers, we thought it advisable to appoint a strong committee early this year under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Lyons, who has had a long experience of water survey in Egypt. He is assisted by an independent committee of scientists and technical men, and it is their task to collect records as to the flow of rivers and streams and records as to underground levels. Two meetings have already been held. They are pursuing their inquiries actively, and they will be a permanent standing committee to correlate and evaluate the evidence and give reliable information as to the actual water resources of this country. I believe that this body of information will be of great assistance to water undertakers, scientists and all consumers of water. I was asked when they would issue a report. They will certainly issue an annual report, but I imagine that from time to time they will publish statistics as regards particular rivers and so forth which may be of assistance. If the policy of the Government in the realms of water supply is judged by the ordinary, honest, prudent man, I do not fear his judgment at all.

Let me repeat that to have withstood without any hardship the severest drought in our history and to have taken steps to overcome a position which has always been chronic in rural areas, shows, at least, that we are grappling with the gravity of the problem and are taking steps to overcome it. I neither apologise in this House nor outside for our water policy. In fact, I do not apologise for any of the Government's policy. On every item of our policy one can go to any informed audience and get a sympathetic and enthusiastic hearing. I was asked what steps we are taking to implement national policy. The time will come, of course, when our regional committees are properly functioning, and not before, when we shall be able to link up their work. We have at the present moment a system, which, I think, is the best national policy, and that is, to leave the primary undertakers to do their proper jobs and to assist them in every way possible and to co-ordinate their efforts with this new body of information. We shall be able to provide a well-organised water policy on real national lines. I claim that taking it at large the Government are adequately carrying out a policy in the country which will provide the best water supply in the world, and the steps that we are now taking will rectify some of the minor deficiencies and make our whole policy waterproof in the whole field of our activities.

There are two questions which the hon. Gentleman did not answer. One was whether the Government contemplate a further grant after the expenditure of £1,000,000, and the other was whether they have it in mind to continue the operations of the Emergency Act of last year, which ceases, to operate in December?

Whether we are to have a further grant must depend upon the situation towards the end of the year. As to continuing the emergency powers, if we get another summer of exceptional drought we may have to ask Parliament for the extension of those powers, but I think that, on the whole, the chances are that they will lapse in 1935, because they have already fulfilled. their purpose.

Now that the country has been thoroughly reassured as to the future of its water supply, I wish to detain the House for a few moments in order to raise a somewhat different matter, namely, the management of business in this House and the unsatisfactory way in which, very often important issues are presented to us for our decision. I regret the necessity for detaining the House, but I make no apology for it for if my intervention does nothing else, it will give the House the somewhat rare pleasure of hearing a speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Patronage Secretary. His interventions in debates are generally of the briefest and usually consist of, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn," and we all look forward to hearing him on rather less stereotyped lines. In these days when the Parliamentary agenda is drawn up almost entirely by the Government of the day the private Member is left more than ever at the mercy of the Executive as to what he shall do and what he shall discuss. Not only the business that we are to deal with but the form in which we have to deal with it and the time when we are to deal with it are left in the sole discretion of the Government and their advisers. Except on private Members' days, which have been abolished during the present Session, and the Adjournment, which provides very limited opportunities and a still more limited audience, it is exceedingly difficult for private Members, for the rank and file of this House, to exercise any control over the time-table, over the form in which Motions are put, or over the subjects of debate.

The first question to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention is the form in which Financial Resolutions are sometimes presented to the House. Everybody will remember that a discussion took place and protests were made on the Money Resolution for the depressed areas a month or two ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Resolution was drafted in such a way that it was practically impossible for any Amendment of substance to be moved either during the Committee or the Report stage. Not only were there expressions of indignation on that occasion from all quarters of the House and from Members of all parties with regard to the form of the Resolution, but the way in which it was drafted brought a severe rebuke from yourself, Mr. Speaker. I would remind hon. Members of what you said about that particular Resolution. In answer to a question by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) you said:

"It must be evident to all hon. Members that under the new procedure which has been adopted by this House for some years now, Members are very much restricted in their powers to move Amendments either on a Resolution itself or indeed on the Committee stage of a Bill. If I were asked for my opinion on the subject, I should say that not only has the limit been reached but that it has been rather exceeded in the amount of detail which is put in a Money Resolution."

A little later, in answer to a Supplementary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), you said:

"The powers given under the Rules of Procedure have really reached their limit. They affect the Government as well as private Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1934; cols. 1237–8, Vol. 295.]

If I may respectfully do so, I should like to emphasise the last words in that quotation. When a Financial Resolution is drafted in this way it reduces Parliamentary discussion to a mere formality, except, of course, in Second and Third Reading debates. Hon. Members may deliver very eloquent and cogent speeches, they may have constructive contributions to make, they may have ideas to put forward, but not only are they prevented from making any substantial Amendment to the Bill in question, but the Government themselves are precluded by the terms of their own Financial Resolution from responding to any of the appeals that hon. Members may make.

I know that this is rather an old grievance. It is not a grievance that is peculiar to this Parliament, or to the régime of this Government. Even before the war there were protests occasionally against the form in which Money Resolutions were drawn. On the 6th July, 1911, when the National Health Insurance Bill was under discussion and the Financial Resolution with regard to that Bill came before the House, a very strong protest was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir Austen Chamberlain), who said:

"Neither can I, nor will I, vote for a Resolution deliberately framed in order to withdraw from the consideration of the House a great number of questions which the House ought to have an opportunity of considering."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1911; col. 1449, Vol. 27.]

That was said in 1911, and the words might have applied with equal force to the Money Resolution that was brought forward on the Depressed Areas Bill. What was objectionable in 1911 is equally so, and I think is even more objectionable, in 1935. In that same debate on the Financial Resolution of the National Health Insurance Bill protest was made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. I should like briefly to tell the House what he had to say. He said:

"The Government ought not to tie our hands and apply the Closure in an indirect way, as the hon. Gentleman opposite very truly said, as it is doing, by the form of this Financial Resolution."

At a later stage in his speech he said:

"Anybody who knows the Rules of the House knows that the private Member cannot bring in a Finance Resolution. That is a matter for the Government. Unfortunately, I am not the Government, but if my hon. Friends around me were sitting on the Front Bench it would not be a difficult matter to arrange. We could substitute some satisfactory Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1911; cols. 1441–2–8, Vol. 27.]

My right hon. Friend has sat on the Front Bench on three occasions. It is true that it has not always been with the same set of Members that he has sat, but on each occasion he has been at their head and responsible for the trend of Government policy and for the management of the business of the House. Is it too much to ask that after all these opportunities, some effort should be made to prevent Money Resolutions in the future from being drafted in such a way as to preclude hon. Members from moving, or the Government from accepting, any substantial Amendment on the Committee stage? If it can be done by an Amendment of the Standing Order, will the Government consider drafting such an Amendment? I am rather doubtful whether it can be done by amendment of the Standing Orders. If it cannot be done in that way, will the Government give an undertaking that they will endeavour to avoid bringing forward Resolutions drafted in that way? I would suggest that before a Financial Resolution of an important character is put on the Order Paper in future it should be submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Committees, and that if you or whoever saw the Resolution had any objections to it as being too tightly drawn, it should be sent back to the draftsman to see whether he could not devise some more satisfactory form. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say on behalf of the Government whether they will seriously consider that suggestion.

I have already pointed out that this Government is not the only offender in this respect. I do not think there has ever been a time when questions of this nature were of greater importance than they are to-day, because we are constantly being told from all sorts of directions that nowadays Parliamentary government is on its trial. Parliamentary government is not on its trial, but Parliamentary government stands already condemned if debate in this House is to be effectively gagged and if we are expected to be here simply to register the decrees of an omnipotent Executive in the exact form that they are presented to us.

I want very briefly to turn to another aspect of this question, and that is the growing habit, which we have seen on many occasions in the lifetime of this Parliament, of presenting important Measures to this House such a short time before they are due to be debated, that it is impossible for hon. Members to acquaint themselves with all the issues involved. I might give one or two examples. Take the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. When the Government brought in that Bill they may not have thought that it was a very important Measure, but by the time it reached its Third Reading they were left in no doubt as to the light in which it was regarded by a great many people in this House and the country. That Bill received its First Reading and was ordered to be printed on the 10th April, 1934, a Tuesday. The text was issued and the Bill was made available to hon. Members on the Wednesday. The Second Reading was taken on the following Monday. Why the hurry? After all, its best friends—if it had any—would not have claimed that this was really a measure of urgency. Is there any reason why, in the case of a Bill like that, longer notice should not be given? I do not say that it was a very complicated Measure, but it was one which as it was originally drafted and presented to this House introduced certain rather strange innovations into our criminal law. Surely, Members might have been given a little more time before being asked to give a decision on the Second Reading.

Take another example. The English milk marketing scheme was ordered to be printed on 20th July, 1933, which was a Thursday. It was actually printed on the Friday, and I think I am right in saying that it was not circulated and that probably most Members did not see it or have a chance of considering it until the following Monday or Tuesday. Although that was an excessively complicated Measure, containing a large number of Clauses, many of them very intricate Clauses, and although it was a Measure which needed a good deal of study to understand fully, we were expected to give it Parliamentary sanction on the following Thursday evening, when it had only been printed for six days and available to hon. Members probably for two or three days. It was with reference to that scheme that the Minister of Agriculture made a remark which I have quoted before in this House, when he said:

"My scheme to revolutionise the milk industry had 90 Clauses; and although Parliament knew nothing about it on Thursday morning, by night it had, become law."

I have always regarded that remark as being the high-water mark up to now of Ministerial despotism in this country. What an anomaly it is that under what is still supposed to be a representative and democratic Constitution Parliament should constantly pass things which it has had no opportunity of considering properly. In reference to that milk scheme there had been months of inquiry. There had been a Milk Reorganisation Commission under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), which sat a considerable time. Then there was a statutory committee of inquiry to hear the objections of various interested parties. There had been prolonged examination, I think from the beginning of the year, but the necessity for speed only arises apparently when it is required to obtain Parliamentary sanction. A scheme which had to be considered by all these eminent bodies for weeks and months on end was placed before Parliament only a day or two before Parliament was required to pass it. When Parliament is required to give its approval to Measures which it has had no time properly to scrutinise or consider, then one is reminded of Carlyle's famous phrase:

"Government by blind man's buff."

I will take one more example, which I think will be fresh in the recollection of hon. Members, and that is the example of the Unemployment Act regulations. Those regulations were drafted and made available to Members just six days before the beginning of the Debate upon them. I think they were made available on 11th December, and the Debate had to begin on 17th December. I think everyone will recall the remarkable difference between the Debate which took place on these regulations in December, when they were given Parliamentary approval, and the Debates that took place at the end of January and the beginning of February of this year, when hon. Members' constituents had had a few days' experience of the working of these regulations. There was a most remarkable. contrast between the comparative complacency with which these regulations were regarded by many hon. Members before they were passed and the remarks, very often of the same hon. Members, after they had seen how the regulations were working in their own constituencies.

Those regulations also were a rather intricate matter. The only way to appreciate what their effect was going to be was to compare the scales which were already in operation under public assistance committees with the scales proposed in the regulations. It was a matter of somewhat intricate mathematical calculation. A few of us were in the fortunate position that we had already arranged to visit our constituencies in the intervening week-end, and we were able to make these particular calculations and to appreciate, at any rate to some extent, exactly what their effect was going to be arid how large the reductions in benefit were likely to be. But many hon. Members were not able to do that, through no fault of their own, and they, in consequence, were left entirely in the dark; and as we know they were completely misled as to what the effect of these regulations would be. It was not their fault but the fault of the Government for giving them such a short time to consider the matter.

I would ask the House, looking at the history of these regulations, to consider the contrast. The Unemployment Assistance Board took four months to draw up and consider these unemployment regulations. Then they were handed on in draft to the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Labour then took another six weeks. Between them the Unemployment Assistance Board and the Ministry of Labour had the regulations for five-and-a-half months, with all the resources at their disposal— with their officers and offices in every part of the country. Yet some 600 private Members of this House were expected to scrutinise these regulations and appreciate exactly what their effect would be within a space of six days. One could understand this somewhat cavalier treatment of the House of Commons if the Government had any difficulty in getting its verdicts through this House. But everybody knows that that is not the case. During the whole lifetime of this Parliament they have had no difficulty at all, and it is well known that the Government have behind them the most docile and subservient House of Commons which has existed in this country since the reign of Henry VIII.

When Members of the Conservative party make speeches in their con- stituencies the principal item nowadays is generally an attack upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I am not criticising them for that, for I generally agree with the substance of those attacks. But the principal criticism which is directed against the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol is this, that when he has a Parliamentary majority behind him and when he has passed his enabling Act, he then proposes to govern by means of Ministerial decrees, without the necessity of formal Parliamentary sanction. But what real difference is there between naked decrees that simply issue from Whitehall and decrees that are certain to receive a blind, formal, automatic Parliamentary sanction? In substance there is no difference at all, and Parliamentary approval is only of value and should only be required when it is possible for Parliament to have time to scrutinise the Measures involved and to arrive at a considered judgment. So I do Ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot give us a second assurance— that is, whether he cannot assure the House that in future, when it is not a matter of urgency, but when the House is to be asked to consider matters of considerable complexity affecting a, large number of people, a reasonable interval will be allowed between the time when these documents are available for Members to examine them and the time when we are required to pass them in this House. I am not asking for this assurance from the right hon. Gentleman simply for the convenience of myself or of a handful of Members in any part of the House. I think it is a much more important matter than this. I ask for this assurance for the sake of the credit, reputation and efficiency of Parliamentary government in this country.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity of addressing a few words to the House. It is true, as he said, that my nightly speeches are somewhat restricted, and this afternoon, on the day of the Adjournment, I shall have the opportunity of making some longer observations to this House. Nor do I complain that there are so few to hear me to-day. I realise that Members have to go to the constituencies and on holidays, and one wants to take advantage of the opportunity for getting there before the crowds get busy to-morrow. The hon. Gentleman has raised two points—first of all, the form in which Financial Resolutions are presented to this House, and, secondly, the interval that is offered to hon. Members before votes take place on Motions and Orders, and indeed on the Second Readings of Bills.

Let me deal with his first point first. He read out certain remarks which you, Mr. Speaker, addressed to this House on the subject in December last year. I do not think that I can give a better reply to the hon. Gentleman than to quote to him the reply which the Prime Minister gave in answer to a question put on this very subject by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones). The Prime Minister said:

"I am not aware that it is the practice to insert in Money Resolutions any provisions which do not affect the provision of finance. There is certainly no such deliberate practice though I recognise that legitimate differences of opinion may occasionally arise on borderline cases. The House is well aware of the constitutional principle that money is only voted by the House upon the recommendation of the Crown, and the Government cannot divest themselves of the responsibility for determining, with what degree of particularity the purposes and conditions for and under which money is asked for should be set out in the Motion to which the King's Recommendation is to be signified. The practice of the present Government in this matter has not differed from that of their predecessors but I will carefully bear in mind the observations which you, Sir, expressed on Monday last."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1934; columns 1820–1. Vol. 295.]

I do not think that the House will expect me to go further than that to-day. The observations which Mr. Speaker addressed to the House on that occasion are being borne in mind by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has asked me if I can give an assurance that Standing Orders will be altered in order to make the change which he has suggested. I fear that I cannot give him any such assurance. The position is being very carefully watched, and the remarks which were made by Mr. Speaker are being borne in mind.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Govern- ment would consider the suggestion that before Financial Resolutions are placed on the Paper they should be submitted either to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees?

It is a point that can be considered, but obviously today, when it has just been put to me, I cannot go further than to say that the matter will receive consideration. As regards the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the papers relating to Orders or Regulations are made available to Members as soon possible in order to allow time for reasonable consideration of the details before the necessary Motion for approval is submitted. It must be clear to hon. Members that some of these Orders do not raise great issues of principle, whereas other Orders do raise big issues. If debate be necessary, the particular business has to be fitted by the Government into the Parliamentary time-table. During this session on two occasions a number of Import Orders occupied only half an hour. That was on 14th December and 15th February. On the other hand, the Iron and Steel Order, which was debated last Friday and was of considerable importance and interest to this House, occupied practically the whole of the Sitting.

Therefore, it is clear that all these Orders must be judged on their merits, and the time allotted by the Government will be such as they deem to be necessary when consideration has been given to the importance or otherwise of these Orders. As regards the Unemployment Regulations, three days were given for debate. There was no attempt to shirk debate on the part of the Government. I remember that when the Government gave three days to this discussion I, being the fountain head of the "usual channels," was told that I had given too long a time, and that two days would have been all that was required. In fact, I remember that on the second night of the three days the House before 11 o'clock on account of a typing error which had crept into the regulations. This was made a reason for curtailing the Debate.

I did not make any point of this kind. I made no complaint of the amount of time allowed to debate these regulations or any other subject. My complaint was that inadequate time was allowed between the day when the regulations were printed and made available to hon. Members of this House and the day when the Debate began, and that whereas the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board took 5½ months to consider these regulations, hon. Members were expected to become fully seized in a period of six days.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I was pointing out that when it came to debating these regulations the House did not find it easy to keep the Debate going full steam ahead. At the time when the regulations were made available I received no protest that we were taking them too quickly after their presentation into the House.

I made a protest myself.

l did not hear it. I think that my point is a good one, that when the regulations were taken with the three days allowed hon. Gentlemen did not find that they were cramped for time in discussing these very important regulations. It is true that they were made available to hon. Members on Tuesday, 11th December, circulated on Wednesday, and debated the following Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Hon. Members, therefore, had Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in which to discuss these regulations, and they had as well the week-end in their constituencies when they could consult their constituents. Let me point out also that the House had recently, before the regulations were presented, devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of the matter while the Unemployment Bill was passing through the House— not the regulations themselves, but the principles of the Bill. The Bill then having been passed, there was, I think, a very general desire that it should be brought into operation as soon as possible. The Government had already fixed 7th January, 1935, as the first appointed day for the operation of the scheme, and it was necessary to get approval of the regulations before Christmas, so that the Unemployment Assistance Board could carry through their arrangements to bring the scheme into operation. I think that it must be clear to the House that if the appointed day had already been fixed—and there was a great demand in the House for fixing the appointed day—then these regulations had to be got before the Christmas Recess was reached.

Similarly with marketing schemes. Once they are prepared and presented to Parliament, a strong case can be made out for their early approval so that the particular industry concerned can get the benefit as soon as possible. We are to have such a case very shortly under the Herring Industry Bill, which by general assent was passed as quickly as possible. It went upstairs to a Standing Committee and was passed there with rapidity, because we were all told how urgently the Bill was needed in order that the herring industry might receive the benefit. As a result of that Bill, there is going to be a scheme for the industry. I have not the slightest doubt that directly that scheme becomes available, having passed through all the machinery of discussion and so forth, there will be a demand, and quite rightly, from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney (Sir R. Hamilton) and the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood), both of whom take a keen interest in the herring industry, that the Government shall as quickly as possible pass that scheme into law. I make no complaint of that at all. I merely say that when schemes come forward and members have had a chance of examining them there is a demand to pass them quickly so that industry can benefit.

The details of Schemes, Regulations or Orders are made available as soon as they are ready, and time is alloted to debate them, having in mind the date on which approval is required and also the exigencies of the Parliamentary programme. Generally speaking, I do not think that the hon. Member who raised this question has any very great cause for complaint, but I will tell him that the Government are grateful to him for having raised this point. The subject matter which he has laid before the House will, I can assure him, receive very careful consideration, and representations made to me on future occasions through the usual channels, which on the whole have not flowed too badly during this Parliament, will be considered, and we shall do our best to meet the wishes, not of one particular section of the House only, but of all Members of the House.

I apologise to the House for not having been able to be present to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot). I did not think that the subject would be reached so quickly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has dealt with the issue with his customary courtesy and adequacy, but I am afraid that this is a subject which exceeds even his powers to give it proper consideration. I understand that the two points under consideration are, first, that Money Resolutions of Bills are drawn too generously—

Too closely.

It all depends on the angle from which they are viewed. They are drawn so as to include the whole of a Bill, and the consequence is that when we come to discuss the details of the Bill we find ourselves prevented from doing so in the way we wish because of the language used in the Money Resolution. On a number of very important occasions, particularly in connection with the Unemployment Bill last year, we found ourselves gravely limited in our discussions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury was wrong when he said that we had many opportunities of discussing the subject-matter of the unemployment regulations when the Unemployment Bill was before the House.

I did not mean that even if I said it. Obviously, the regulations could not be discussed during the progress of the Bill, because they had not then been drafted.

I refer to the subject-matter of the regulations. I understood that that was the point that the Parliamentary Secretary made, and that it was not necessary to have so much time to consider the regulations, because the House was fully seized of the subject. As a matter of history, that is not correct. When the Unemployment Bill was before the House we were specifically prevented from discussing what became the subject-matter of the regulations owing to the Money Resolution and the timetable. On three separate occasions we were unable to discuss the means test. We were prevented from moving Amendments on the household means test because of the time-table and the Money Resolution. I do not want to quote my own speeches, but I remember that I reminded the House at the time that the failure of the Government to give proper time and opportunity for discussing the means test was going to result in the gravest possible errors afterwards, as actually occurred.

This happened not only on the Unemployment Bill, but the form in which the regulations were brought before the House prevented the House from giving them detailed examination and from putting down Amendments of a kind which would have brought out the defects of the regulations, and would have furnished the Government and the Civil Service with the very considerable experience of hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was largely in consequence of the fact that the Civil Service succeeded in their conspiracy against the House of Commons that the country has had to pay this very heavy price in having to withdraw the regulations, and the Government have had such a deplorable loss of popularity in the country. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the Civil Service are engaged in a conspiracy to seduce, to cajole, to sidetrack and bully the House of Commons.

The hon. Member must not say that. Ministers are responsible to Parliament, and they answer for the Civil Service.

I understood that, provided I did not indict a civil servant, I was entitled to consider the Civil Service as a whole.

The whole Civil Service is represented by Ministers in this House, and it is the invariable rule that no attacks are made on civil servants as such.

It is true that this contest has always gone on, because the bureaucracy is naturally jealous and anxious to get its own way with the elected representatives of the people. I do not complain of that. It is the natural tendency of all bureaucracies. But never was there a time when the House of Commons was so weakly armed against that kind of thing; never a, time when this House was in such deplorable weakness in combating it. There are many reasons why the House should be given far more opportunity to examine proposals than is given. Owing to the change in the character of representation here, there are far more poor people in this House than there ever were before. That is a very important consideration. A Member of Parliament has many things to do. In these days when democracy is being blown upon in so many countries, people are not sufficiently appreciative of the difficulties of private Members of this House. Those difficulties are very considerable indeed. We have no secretaries upon whom we can call; we cannot have statistics and other information looked up for us. All that work we have to do ourselves. To-day an enormous range of subjects is discussed in Parliament. The subjects of Parliamentary discussion are, I think, far more diverse to-day than ever before. We deal to-day with subjects of great financial and economic intricacy such as Parliament never had to consider before. Information on all these matters has to be obtained by means of the deplorable resources which are at the disposal of private Members.

There is another consideration which has a bearing upon this matter. This work is being done in a building which ought to have been set aside long ago as a historic monument. It is not suited to business at all. It is all right for those who wish to lead a, contemplative life but it is the very last place in the world for people who want to lead an active life. The committee rooms are bad; it is badly arranged and it has one of the most deficient libraries in the world—a library which is all right for the lawyers but which for the purposes of a debating chamber is just too funny. There is no controversial literature in it, and, if any particular issue is brought up before the House, hon. Members have to search all over the place in order to get the relevant information. It is no good looking for it in the library, because it is not there.

Owing to—I will not say the personal defects of private Members, though they are many, but the handicaps under which private Members have to work and the archaic and stupid nature of the building—we are under the greatest difficulty in the discharge of our public duty. Here we have an Opposition, small in numbers facing a huge majority. The official Opposition has a great public duty to perform. Under our Constitution it is supposed to scrutinise all legislation in the interests of the community as a whole. Indeed, a Government does not look upon its own legislative proposals as microscopically as it might otherwise do, because it knows beforehand that that legislation will receive microscopic examination in the House. Here you have a Government with a vast Civil Service behind it. However incompetent a Minister may be even his incompetence is made into competence by an efficient bureaucracy. Every detail is furnished to him. A Government with all those advantages is faced by an Opposition suffering under the handicaps which I have described. In spite of all that the Government thrust a proposal upon the House and give us two or three days in which to consider it before discussing it.

That is not giving democracy a fair chance to work, and I am sure if the ordinary citizens of Great Britain understood how things are discussed in this House they would not tolerate it. They would demand that if they sent representatives to the House of Commons, proper machinery should be placed at the disposal of those representatives to enable them to discharge their task adequately. I am speaking to but a few Members, and yet this subject is so important that it deserves a full House for its consideration. I am sure all Members will be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue which is of paramount importance, if the House is to discharge its duties efficiently. Any Government which is anxious to preserve democracy and make representative Government work properly will take it into consideration and allow it to influence their future conduct in these matters.

On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to state again the ruling which you gave some time ago with regard to discussion of the Civil Service. I suggest that it is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I understand your ruling to be that Members of the House are not allowed to discuss the powers of the Civil Service. With great respect I suggest that you might give that ruling some further consideration. I am not aware of any Order which precludes discussion on the powers of the Civil Service, and indeed it seems to me to be of first-rate importance that we should be able to discuss that subject if the necessity arises. I, myself, after a long Ministerial experience feel great gratitude to the Civil Service and no one could have much patience with people who try to put the blame for the incomepetency of a particular Minister on to his Civil Service staff. I think that, generally, is the feeling and I have always found them only too willing to support the Minister. But if, as I gather, you, Sir, have ruled that the House is not entitled to discuss the powers of the Civil Service, I would ask you respectfully to be so kind as to develop that ruling a little more fully.

There is, apparently, a misunderstanding due, possibly, to the way in which I put my Ruling. I did not wish to suggest for one moment that the House has not the right to discuss the position and the powers of the Civil Service. The rule, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that there can be no attack on a civil servant or body of civil servants as such, because they are responsible to a Minister who is here to answer to the House. There may have been some misapprehension or misinterpretation of my use of the expression "Civil Service," and, if I spoke of attacks on the Civil Service, I did so having in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) at the time was referring to a body of civil servants personally. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need fear that my Ruling was anything more than a recital of the rule which is well known, but I am glad that he has given me the opportunity of removing any misapprehension which may have existed.

I hope that anything which I have said and which has given rise to this short discussion, will not create the impression that I have made any attack upon the probity or efficiency of the Civil Service. I was merely discussing the relationship between the Civil Service and the Government.

The hon. Member will, of course, realise that things may be said which are objectionable as references to individuals who are civil servants otherwise than because they reflect upon the probity or efficiency of such individuals. There are other reflections which might be made improperly upon the Civil Service.

I certainly feel grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) for raising this question, and I regret that there is not a larger House to discuss it. That is probably due to the fact that few Members realised the importance of the subject which was to be raised to-day. With reference to the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), and particularly his statement of the difficulties of private Members, I am in agreement with practically all he said. I certainly think that it is a matter which Ministers, to whatever party they may belong, ought to take into consideration in the future. I also agree with what he said about the unfortunate and regrettable conditions which exist in this House for the conduct of business. That is a big subject, and I do not propose to detain the House on it now.

The one point raised by my hon. Friend opposite on which I do want to say a few words is the question of Financial Resolutions. The Patronage Secretary, in his reply, was most conciliatory, and I am sure everybody in this House will agree that he tries to conduct business through this House to the best interests of all concerned, but I do not feel so satisfied with the reply which was made by the Prime Minister on this question. It is true that Mr. Speaker made some observations in this House, as the Patronage Secretary said, and that those observations have been paid attention to arid will doubtless continue to be paid attention to in the future, but I think I am right in saying that when Financial Resolutions were originally introduced in this House, they contained practically nothing except that part of a Bill or Motion which was printed in italics and which practically amounted to three or four lines only.

I had intended to ask Mr. Speaker, and should therefore, in his absence, like to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this question: My recollection of Mr. Speaker's observations—unfortunately, I have not got them before me at the moment—is that he not only expressed the view that the present tendency to expand a Financial Resolution had gone too far, but that he also said that the remedy was not in his hands but was in the hands of this House. That, of course, was an expression of Mr. Speaker's opinion, and it will undoubtedly have its effect on the conduct of business in this House, but I do not feel that it provides sufficiently for the future, and I should like to ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker himself would he prepared, in the interests of business in this House, to give us your further guidance on that matter and say whether, in your opinion, it is not desirable that this House itself should take some steps. so to amend the Standing Orders that in future the business inserted in a Financial Resolution should be kept within more proper dimensions.

I think the hon. Member will realise that that is a question which is unnecessary for me and which I think it would be improper for me to answer personally; certainly, in view of the fact that I have not had the opportunity of consulting with Mr. Speaker first.

Then may I ask you to be so kind as to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to this matter? I should like to give notice that I will put down a question on the subject.

I hope the House will forgive me referring to the unprecedented step that the Government have taken with respect to Merthyr Tydvil. As the House knows, the Government have decided to appoint and have in fact appointed a Royal Commission with a view, judging from the answer which we had in the House yesterday, to considering what might be done with respect to the status of Merthyr Tydvil as a county borough. I would not have troubled the House to raise this matter this afternoon or on any other day were it not for the fact that this is a step on the part of the Government which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is absolutely unique in the political history of the country as far as both Parliamentary government and local government are concerned.

The House must be mystified at the step taken by the Government. Quite recently they appointed a Commissioner, in the person of Lord Portal, as he now is, to inquire with considerable, even meticulous, detail into the conditions obtaining in both Merthyr Tydvil and other parts of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Lord Portal produced a very substantial report, and I must confess, as one who lives and has lived all his life in that part of the country, that he reported to the Government in such considerable detail that I was amazed that the Government should have found it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission with respect to the status of that county borough, the Government knowing very well what has been responsible for the difficulties that that county borough is experiencing. I and many other hon. Members of this House who have discussed this matter with me are extremely alarmed at the step taken by the Government. Are we to assume that, whenever a county borough or a local governing body finds itself in difficulties economically as a result of circumstances and conditions absolutely beyond its control, the Government have no alternative but to discuss the status of that body and to question whether it can be merged possibly into a larger area?

We are alarmed at the fact that the Government have now apparently abandoned their pretence with regard to the distressed areas in this country. The difficulties, as I have said, are extremely well known to the Government, known in detail. Commissioners were appointed for the distressed areas quite recently, and notwithstanding the criticism that some of us indulged in at the expense of that short and circumscribed Act of Parliament, we were told that the appointment of the Commissioners was intended to assist these distressed areas. Now, instead of any assistance being given, the Government, with all the facts in their possession, knowing exactly what has caused the economic depression in these areas, take this step. Many a time on the Floor of this House Measures have been proposed with a view to rehabilitating, industrially and economically, these distressed areas, but the Government at any rate have nothing to offer Merthyr Tydvil at this stage but the appointment of a Royal Commission merely to decide what is to happen to its status as a county borough.

I am most disappointed, and other Members of this House, I am sure, are also disappointed, that the Government have willingly, without any kind of temptation, unmasked their pretences with regard to these depressed areas. They merely appoint a commission with the powers of a Royal Commission just to consider the status of that county borough, presumably ignoring or having no contribution to make with respect to the depression in that area, forgetting for the time being its 13,000 unemployed, and having no message of help for the continuance of local government in that area. The tendency is an alarming one. A local government unit may, perhaps, have had a creditable history and have made a splendid contribution towards the wealth resources of the country, but once economic distress gets hold of it the Government can presumably do nothing but consider its position as a local government unit. We are compelled to infer from this step on the part of the Government that what is likely to happen to Merthyr Tydvil to-day will happen to other county boroughs tomorrow if they are unfortunate enough to find themselves faced with serious economic conditions.

There are other local government units in this country which are watching very anxiously what the Government propose to do with Merthyr Tydvil. The depression in the coal and iron and steel trades of South Wales has affected those important great county boroughs on the seaboard, and they cannot help being anxious, knowing that the depression in the coal and iron and steel trades up in the hills of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire is affecting them to their disadvantage. Their struggles are becoming more intense as local government units. The fact that they are so much bigger than Merthyr Tydvil, so far as population is concerned, is not a factor that might save them at all, because there was a time in the middle of the last century when Merthyr Tydvil could boast a population greater than the three greatest seaports on the Welsh coast of the Bristol Channel.

I appeal to the Government to consider the implications of the appointment of this Royal Commission. They have given gratuitous evidence to those who are interested in these distressed areas that they have absolutely no policy and that they have apparently abandoned the distressed areas to their problems and difficulties. Now there is nothing left for them but to attempt to reverse the hands of the clock and to deprive these local government units of the powers they have, ignoring the contribution they have made towards the progress and the standard of civilisation in this country. I am absolutely of the opinion that no force or influence in the country has contributed more largely to the raising of the standard of civilisation in this country than our local government units, and we regard this step of the Government with considerable anxiety. I believe that if they had worked out the implications of the step they have taken they would not have proposed it. The difficulties in Merthyr Tydvil are very well known. It is no use talking about the possibility of merging the borough into the administrative area of Glamorgan. Glamorgan has its troubles; its economic and industrial difficulties are increasing, and it will certainly be compelled, not because of any lack of feeling for Merthyr Tydvil, for there has always been the happiest relationship between the county borough and the county, but because Glamorgan economically is not in a position to absorb Merthyr Tydvil, to protest against any such proposal. Naturally, therefore, an enlightened administration like Glamorgan County Council must regard with considerable anxiety, if not hostility, the policy which is now initiated for the first time in our political history.

I am saying this as one who, although not born in the borough, has been there long enough to appreciate the splendid and devoted work that so many people have given in that town. Some regard should be had for the traditions, the unique traditions in some senses, of the borough and the great industrial contribution it has made. It is the part of the country where the industrial revolution was first expressed in iron and afterwards in coal on anything like a considerable scale. It is an area which has, thanks again to the devoted service of men and women for several generations, a splendid standard of culture. I am compelled, on behalf of the people who are living there to-day, who have put up such a splendid struggle under such appalling disadvantages, a struggle without any whining or complaining, without any grovellings, to appeal for far greater consideration than to have this insult added to the many humiliations they have experienced during the last dozen years.

On behalf of those people, I must ask the Government to appreciate the alarming step which they are taking and to realise that there is only one solution; that is to help Merthyr Tydvil to rehabilitate its industrial life. It has all the resources, apart from financial resources. It has great works and a highly industrial population, with thousands of highly skilled men in the coal and iron and steel trades who are easily adaptable to any other industries that might be established. If the Government really wish to take any step to help Merthyr Tydvil, let me emphasise the appeal made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D Grenfell) last night. Let them get hold of Merthyr Tydvil and make an attempt to reconstruct the industrial life in one of the oldest industrial areas. It is the place for such an experiment, and I can assure the Government that Merthyr Tydvil will provide all else in the form of labour and skill and a willingness to help any scheme that the Government may bring along.

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies may I put one or two questions, because the constituency which my hon. Friend represents so brilliantly in this House borders upon my own? I should like to know whether, in the regrettable eventuaity of Merthyr Tydvil losing its status as a county borough, the Royal Commission have power to make recommendations concerning financial readjustments.

I must remind the hon. Member that, although I am allowing him to put a question, he has exhausted his right to speak.

I thought this was a second Debate. This is a new issue.

But it is on the same Motion.

I ask that question relating to the financial readjustment of the burdens on Merthyr Tydvil in the light of the deplorable poverty of the county to which Merthyr Tydvil might be transferred. My second question is whether the Government will take into consideration, on any representations on the subject, the excessive burden which the Monmouthshire County Council still has to carry in respect of the loan charges of the Bedwellty Board of Guardians. The county now pays a 9d. rate in respect of the old loans, which is gravely resented, and I hope that in considering the position at Merthyr Tydvil the Government will take steps to prevent the same thing happening in the case of Glamorganshire.

I do not criticise the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) for raising this question of the Commission, because I know his feelings and his personal interest in the matter. I understand his interests, but I cannot share his alarm, and perhaps I may be able to assure him that the step we are taking is a wise one. It a out of the report of the Commissioner and out of the recommendation that we should hold a limited inquiry in view of the great difficulties experienced by Merthyr Tydvil, in the light of its unique position, and in view of its changed prospects and changed circumstances, which are quite different from those which prevailed when it obtained its county borough status. The inquiry is a limited one. It is not a roving inquiry into the general economic causes of the position in which Merthyr Tydvil finds itself, but into the simple question whether, in the best interests of local government, it should remain a county borough and what alternatives can be suggested. I am sure that the hon. Member will have noticed the personnel of the Commission with pleasure. Sir Arthur Lowry has had 40 years' experience of local government and no man with a wider knowledge of local government could be found. We have associated with him Mr. Richards, of Cardiff, who has a considerable knowledge of Welsh conditions, and it is our intention, as I am sure it will be the intention of the Commission, to take all the evidence available on the spot, to hear all sides, to consider the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and to bring their experience and judgment to bear on this difficult problem in the light of the facts revealed. I know that Merthyr Tydvil will co-operate. I have had an assurance not only from my hon. Friend but from those whom I had the honour of seeing the other day as a deputation; and we have had the same assurance from the county.

In view of what I said just now I must remind the House that the Parliamentary Secretary can only address the. House again by leave of the House, but I assume that in the circumstances the House will give him permission to speak a second time.

Hear, hear !

May I say that I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I should not have spoken again had the Minister of Health been here, but at the moment I am doing double shifts. The question asked by my hon. Friend was whether, if they suggested a change in status, they would report what financial adjustments would be necessary? I imagine that such consideration would be incidental to their report, but, of course, before they made any recommendation they would give the fullest opportunity to all who might be concerned by such a change to make representations.

Financial readjustments are often a matter of negotiation. Would the terms of reference include power to make recommendations on financial readjustments?

The terms of reference are simply that they are to inquire whether Merthyr Tydvil should continue to be a county borough and if not what other arrangements should be made. But I imagine that if they recommend another arrangement it will only be after they have considered any representations made to them by other authorities likely to be affected, particularly the Glamorgan County Council. I cannot ask the hon. Member to agree with me, but I hope that what I have said may reassure him.

Will the Commission have power, if it so desires, to recommend to the Government the lines along which new industries could be established within that borough?

No, I think that would be a matter for the special Commissioner.

I asked the Minister of Transport a question to-day with regard to road restriction signs, and asked him whether he would do me the honour of remaining in order that I might raise this question at a later hour, but I can quite understand that the Minister is a very busy man. He has to try to demonstrate how not to be run over at crossings, and perhaps appear before the cinematograph handing money over from the Road Fund to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I can understand, therefore, that he cannot be here. But I must thank my hon. and gallant Friend who has just taken up the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for remaining, and I think the House will be delighted that I shall be the instrument of getting him on to his legs to make his first speech from that Box.

I want to raise the question of the administration of the recent Act regulating motoring. I have never disguised my feelings about that piece of legislation. I have always thought it was one of the most fatuous Measures ever passed by this House, though other people disagree with that view, and now that the casualties—not deaths, but injuries—have gone up rather than gone down I would have liked to raise the question of its repeal, but that would not be allowed in this particular Debate. What I wish to draw attention to is the fact that the Act is not being administered fairly. The position as to the speed limit is this. Outside the actual urban areas, at the approach to what are called built-up areas, which are defined, restricting signs have been erected to show that the motorist is limited to a speed of 30 miles an hour in those areas, but as the motorist comes out of those particular areas there are no de-restricting signs to indicate that he has left the 30-mile-an-hour area.

In Committee upstairs the Minister gave us a definite pledge that when there was a restricting sign there should also be a de-restricting sign. Only last week 1 motored some 250 miles in Kent, and except upon the actual main roads I never saw a de-restricting sign. The de-restricting signs are of little value on the great by-passes, because you know from definite statements which have been issued that they have been scheduled as de-restricted areas; but though on those by-passes you see de-restricting signs on every lamp post, yet, on the other hand, as you go out of a village you see nothing at all. So you proceed, thinking you are probably offending against the law if you exceed 30 miles an hour, until suddenly you come to another restricting sign, in which case you realise that you have been passing through a de-restricted area and have wasted a good 10 minutes of your time. That is a very tiresome, and almost offensive thing. Owing to the lack of de-restriction signs, when you pass a restriction sign facing the wrong way as you go along you take it for granted that you are passing into a de-restricted area. It does sometimes occur, however, that local authorities like to remind motorists a second time that they are in a restricted area. Therefore, you probably see a 30-miles-an-hour sign against you after you have accelerated under the impression that you were in a de-restricted area, and you are caught.

I ask the hon. Gentleman, first of all, that he will give an undertaking that where there is a restriction sign there must be a de-restriction sign, and where local authorities have erected a second restriction sign in the same area it should be put up on both sides of the road. I know he will gay he has no power over local authorities. I dare say there is a lot to be said on either side as to whether you should have an omnipotent Whitehall or whether the local authorities should decide how to act. We pass an Act here of which I disapproved, but as a general member of the public I should like to see it properly worked now that it is passed. The whole structure of the Bill is being destroyed by lack of cooperation by the local authorities. I ask my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that he will do all in his power to see that the motorists have a fair deal in this matter, and that local authorities should do what they are asked to do.

I have not quite appreciated all the questions which have been put in this House on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in the preface to his remarks was a little unkind. The 30-miles-an-hour limit has not operated yet for a month, and to describe the regulations as fatuous is, to say the least, unkind.

I said the Act was fatuous.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean to refer to the number of casualties increasing in that way, because it is not quite in keeping with his general demeanour in this House. If the application of the regulations has resulted in fewer deaths and a decrease—although I will not say a corresponding decrease—in the number of injuries, that is, in itself, a good beginning. But I want as a member and a chairman of a highway authority to endorse what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey said in regard to these signs. Reference has been made to the omnipotent power of Whitehall, and I, as a member of a highway authority, am of opinion that the final word rests with the Minister of Transport. I am not in favour of that. I must say that, although we have no cause for complaint as to the ultimate settlement between the Minister's advisers and our own engineering department, I have always pleaded that the highway authorities certainly know more about their local requirements with regard to speed in certain areas than people sent from Whitehall.

I represent West Ham, as my hon. Friend knows, and a sub-committee of the highways committee associated itself with his advisers. What rather disappointed us, and in fact astonished us, was that although we have been there for many years and know the requirements of every street in the area, the only acquaintance with the neighbourhood which the Ministry officials enjoyed was by maps. Yet the final decision as to where pedestrian crossings should be placed, and all things connected with safety, rested with them at Whitehall. I raised the matter with the Minister of Transport. I quite appreciate that neither the Minister nor his assistant can alter the Act for the moment, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey has commented, it is not always the Statute which is at fault, but the manner in which the words are applied.

Now that the Minister is here, I hope he will not think I am standing here to make complaint. I am very pleased at the way in which the thing has been applied, but I am very anxious that the local representatives shall have the final word, and that those who know the local requirements should be able to decide in the end where the safety crossings or the speed limit signs should be placed. My own view, as a local administrator, keenly interested in the saving of lives, is that once having brought the public, and especially the motoring public, to understand that in all made-up areas the 30-miles-per-hour limit is to be applied, you have decided the main question. I have never seen the necessity for the placing of the 30-mile signs. I do appreciate, however, that when motorists are coming out of certain restricted streets or roads into another area, they should be informed by sign that they are not in a made-up area. I approach this problem, and I am sure the Minister does, with a full belief that the general body of motorists desire to abide by the law of the land, and apply the regulations with general good will. I suggest to the Minister that he should eliminate the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit signs, but indicate to the motoring public whree his 30-miles-an-hour limit does not apply.

I have been interested in the remarks of some of my motoring friends. We all have our various experiences. I have been driving for many years, and have never had an accident, and never had my licence endorsed. I approach the problem with the full belief that the great number of motorists desire to do what is right. But there is to-day, certainly a good deal of misapprehension. I put a question the other day about the arterial road leading to Southend, which is the one that I use a great deal. I can see no sense in the derestricting sign on the arterial road itself. It is obvious to all people where there are houses and street lights that it is a restricted area. Where it is obvious that the speed limit might apply it is understood that it already does apply, but where we come out into roads which are open to all, and where the limit itself does not obviously become an obligation, the duty of the Minister, I suggest, is to make it clear that those are the spots where the limit does not apply. It has had only a very short time for the experimental stage, and no word of condemnation should be used of it in this House just before we go away on holiday. Those of us who have watched the work of the Minister would say to him, More power to you. Do what you have done right through; apply it with moderation, and you will have our full backing if you do what is sweetly reasonable, as you have done in the past, for the public safety.

I would, first of all, thank the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) for his kind references to myself, and I apologise to the House for not being able to make a very full statement with statistics on the various points which have been raised. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, the matter has been raised at very short notice. I do not think any Minister could complain of the tone of the speeches. The Ministry, while not shirking criticism, have hoped, ever since the Act was passed, to have the co-operation and good will of everybody in what is admittedly an experiment.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked two specific questions. The first was as to the placing of a derestriction sign on the other side of the road to a restriction or 30-mile-an-hour sign. I think he had a definite answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport this morning. As only one sentence in that reply is relevant, I will read it:

"There should be a de-restriction sign on the opposite side of the road wherever a restriction sign is erected."

As the Minister said, in answer to a question some days ago, we are seeing whether we can put a large de-restriction sign on the back of the present 30-milean-hour notice. In that way you would have at the end of the 30-mile-an-hour limit two notices, one on each side of the road, which ought to catch the eye of any motorist going at 30 miles an hour. The other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member is a comparatively new one. It is, supposing there to be a 30-mile-an-hour notice in the middle, of a restricted area, cannot notices be put on each side of the road? I would not like to give a definite answer on that point at the present moment, but it is one which should be looked into. In the answer which he received this morning, my hon. and gallant. Friend was told by the Minister that restriction signs should not normally be necessary within a restricted area. It may be that such signs are erected, and if they are, it may be better to have two of them.

As regards the rate at which the de-restriction signs are being put up, I quite agree that there are places, as both hon. Members have said, where those signs are not yet erected. It is as well to remember the dates in this matter. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, directs that these signs should be put up. The Bill became an Act in July, 1934, and notice was given on 14th January of this year as to the actual date when the speed, limit would, be imposed. The speed limit was imposed on 18th March. In the notice given on 14th January, permission was given for the use of temporary signs. Having had information in July last year that the speed limit was to come, and being definitely warned on 14th January and given permission to use temporary signs, local authorities have not a great deal of excuse for not having those signs up at the present moment. There has been most wonderful smooth running since the speed limit first came in. Local authorities, on the whole, have carried out their task amazingly well, considering the magnitude of the scheme involved. As everybody knows, there are good local authorities, and some, shall I say, not so good, and it is the duty of the Minister to jog those who are not so good.

I want to make this point: As has been repeatedly said in answer to questions, if any hon. Member knows of a particular place which he would like the Minister to investigate where signs have been wrongly placed, I hope that he will let us know, and there shall be an immediate investigation. It is so much easier to deal with specific cases than with a general complaint without details. I do not think there is much more to be said on the matter. The Minister has continually said that the whole scheme is admittedly an experiment. In carrying out that experiment we want, if possible, to carry everyone with us, pedestrians, motorists, highway authorities, local authorities and everybody who is concerned. If it is to be a success, as I believe it will be, the scheme must be carried out with commonsense. I maintain that it is the duty of the Ministry to see that that commonsense is exer- cised. The Bill was originally brought in because of the rising toll of accidents. We wish to prevent those accidents and to bring down the horrible total of deaths. I hope the House will give us all the assistance in its power to carry out this very laudable ambition.