Lords Sitting of 4 July 1944

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
LAW OFFICERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read and 1a, to be printed.
AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a, (according to Order), and committed.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Bill which I invite your Lordships to consider this afternoon has already travelled through another place and reaches your Lordships' House substantially in the form in which it was introduced. I think I can rightly say that this, measure is a further indication of the reconstruction plans which His Majesty's Government are preparing or have prepared but it cannot, of course,
610
come into operation until after the end of the war. The Bill covers both the provision of piped water in rural areas and the extension of sewerage facilities which are consequential upon the greatly increased use of water. Your Lordships will have noticed that this Bill comes before Parliament in advance of the main Bill which it is the Government's intention to introduce, but the passage of this measure will, of course, leave your Lordships perfectly free to debate the future Bill, with the assurance that the provision of facilities for piped water in rural areas after the war has been specially provided for.
The principal object of this measure is to enable my right honourable friend the Minister of Health to make financial contributions in England and Wales for the provision of water supply and sewerage in rural areas. Although as I have just stated the works cannot be started until the end of hostilities in Europe, there will be nothing to stop local authorities from beginning now to formulate their plans as far as their staffs allow and they will have the assurance that they need not be deterred by any feeling that they cannot afford it. Indeed it is one of the principal objects of the Bill that local authorities should begin to prepare now. I think it is only right and proper that I should remind your Lordships, if reminder is necessary, that all measures passed by Parliament for reconstruction purposes cost money and in our effort to abolish the parish pump—or perhaps I should say to prime the parish pump—we are authorizing my right honourable friend to spend a sum of £15,000,000 in England and Wales. But that sum only accounts for the expenditure which will be borne by the Exchequer, for under the second clause of the Bill county councils will be called upon to make contributions towards the expenses of any scheme in cases where a promise of financial assistance has been given by my right honourable friend. The expenditure entailed under that head will naturally fall upon the county ratepayers.
But it should not be thought that by making that remark I am in any way bemoaning the expenditure of money for this scheme, for, on the contrary, any noble Lord who is acquainted with rural areas will appreciate the urgent necessity in many cases—and I need not deal with any of them now—for the provision of

611
piped water in particular areas and particular localities. Of course, the starting point of expenditure will be borne by the authority upon whom the statutory duty of providing water rests, and the consumers will bear their share of water charges. Any assistance or grant will be assessed upon the financial position of the authority and upon the merits of the scheme. It will be seen therefore that His Majesty's Government will assist by grants in aid to rural authorities who would otherwise be faced with the cost of extensions of piped water and sewerage well beyond what the ratepayers and the consumers could reasonably be expected to bear. Every encouragement will be given to local authorities to plan their extensions of mains so as to fit in with the needs of agriculture so far as is practicable, and my right honourable friend intends to maintain close contact with the Ministry of Agriculture who are extending their own schemes for the provision of water for land, farms and farm buildings.
Perhaps I might now turn to deal with one or two clauses in the Bill. I have probably explained adequately the purpose and intention of the first two clauses. Clause 3 places a more definite and extended obligation upon local authorities and joint boards as regards the provision of water supplies. The House will notice that it does not enlarge their powers because my right honourable friend does not think that that is required. Clause 5 of the Bill will have effect in rural areas, where the local authority does not itself supply water but where there is a statutory water authority operating under a local Act which incorporates Section thirty-five of the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847 or some modification of it. Under that Act, owners and occupiers can in such cases demand a supply of water for domestic purposes from the undertaker if the aggregate amount of the annual water rates payable in respect of their premises is not less than a prescribed fraction of the expense of providing and laying the necessary mains, and further, if they agree with the undertakers to take a supply of water for not less than a period of three years. Subsection (2) of Clause 5 places an obligation upon water undertakers to accept a guarantee of sufficient income if given by a local authority, who therefore step into the position which
612
was formerly occupied by the owners and occupiers. At present, the local authority can give this guarantee, but, in point of fact, the undertaker is not bound in any way to accept it. I think the House will agree that subsection (2) of Clause 5 fills a very obvious gap.
The only other clause to which I would invite your Lordships' attention is Clause 7, which applies this measure to Scotland with certain modifications. Noble Lords will observe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is authorized under that clause to spend a sum of £6,375,000 for practically the same purposes for which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is authorized to spend money in this country. With those few introductory remarks I cordially commend this Bill to your Lordships, and move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I would say that we cordially support the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced. At the same time we recognize, as I should think that he does, that in the long run this measure will not be adequate to meet the full needs of rural England. Notwithstanding that, it will be a most valuable contribution towards meeting those needs, which are exceedingly urgent in some districts. There are two or three comments which are material and should be made. It has become especially manifest during the war, owing to the increased consumption of milk, which we all sincerely hope will continue and even increase, that in a good many rural areas there is a considerable deficiency in the supply of water to farms. Large numbers of schemes have been helped during the war by the Ministry, but they represent only a small fraction of the cases which require adequate supplies of water.
I am a little disappointed, therefore, that these provisions have not been "married up" with the proposals of the Ministry of Agriculture, which we are promised in a separate measure. So far as this Bill goes, it places a duty on the local authorities In this respect I think that what the noble Earl said requires a little amendment. This Bill enlarges the scope of their duties, but I do not think that it enlarges their powers. It imposes

613
the duty on every rural authority to provide pipes affording a supply of water to such points as will enable houses or schools to be connected thereto at a reasonable cost. That is a very important and welcome extension of the duties of those authorities, but I hope that your Lordships will take note of the fact that we shall look for a considerable drive in the administration of this Bill if it is to be made as efficient and useful as we should all like it to be, because these words are qualified by the conditions that such schemes must be practicable and such as can be carried out at a reasonable cost.
Everything will turn on what is meant by "practicable" and by "a reasonable cost." I myself have first-hand experience of orders made in war-time which are qualified by the term "reasonable." We stand in constant apprehension of the interpretation which the Department which the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, represents in this House will place upon the word "reasonable," because it depends on how much a thing is going to cost, what it is going to be made of, how urgently it is required and all sorts of other considerations. You have to ask yourself a large number of questions, with some apprehension, before being bold enough to put a scheme forward to the Department for approval. The word "reasonable" is a very elastic term. What I think that we ought to recognize is that according to the very valuable White Paper, A National Water Policy, which was presented to Parliament some time ago, fifteen times as much water is available as the community requires. The Lord sends an abundance of rain in some parts of this country, and there is fifteen times as much water available as will be needed for industrial and domestic purposes.
I should like the word "reasonable" to be understood to mean that water shall be supplied to groups of houses or villages unless there is some very substantial reason to the contrary. Every village and every school and every group of houses should have an adequate water supply, and I do not want the supply of water to them to be qualified by such expressions as "practicable" or "reasonable," which might, and I am afraid will, in many cases curtail the activities of the local authorities. I can quite appreciate
614
some apostles of economy on local authorities making great play with the word "reasonable," and raising all manner of objections to any sort of scheme, however urgently it might be required. Therefore, while I know that we shall not seek to remove these words, and while I am very doubtful of my ability to suggest offhand a better formula, we ought to understand that every village, every collection of houses, every school and every farm which needs a water supply ought to have an adequate supply. There is plenty of water; it is only a question of making adequate arrangements to see that it is supplied.
I do not wish to underrate what is being suggested here, but I hope your Lordships will not be content to think that £15,000,000 will meet the bill. Nothing of the sort. If we were to add another nought at the end it might be within measurable distance of what the country needs, but certainly £15,000,000 is not enough. Moreover, I should like the noble Earl to tell us how this scheme fits in with the very courageous and farsighted proposals which are set out in this excellent White Paper, A National Water Policy. We are there told, and very truly, about many of the existing difficulties—the multiplicity of authorities, the gaps between authorities, leaving districts with inadequate supplies, the overlapping of authorities, the imperfect powers of the Ministry or other governing authorities, and the many other obstacles to the achievement of a proper national policy. I am a little apprehensive that in the development of this proposal it will be made more difficult for the Minister to bring about that amalgamation of areas and amalgamation of supply which the White Paper tells us, and obviously with truth, are urgently required; because, as this plan develops, the different authorities will enlarge their schemes and will each have an increased vested interest and pride in their own scheme, and it will be more difficult than before, I think, to bring about that amalgamation and unification of authority which the White Paper tells us will be required. To that extent I am afraid that, unless it is very skilfully administered, this Bill may perhaps intensify those difficulties in the course of time.
It all depends on how long we have to wait before this much more ambitious project is put into definite shape. There

615
was an excellent discussion in your Lordships' House some time ago, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, which unfortunately I was not able to attend, and which dealt with this scheme. I should like to say that I am sure that it is worthy of much more consideration than it has hitherto received. Finally, may I emphasize the urgency of extending this scheme for the benefit of agriculture? All that the authority does in the Bill is to bring the water to a point and then the inhabitants or owners of the houses or schools or whatever it may be in the vicinity will, of course, have to pay the costs of putting in the supply to the premises. I am not very satisfied with that, because we know that in many of these country areas the cost of laying a pipe or pipes across fields or along country lanes is sometimes quite prohibitive. That difficulty will surely have to be met, because we cannot expect isolated groups of buildings, often half a mile away in fields, which may be farms producing a large quantity of milk and urgently requiring supplies of water, to be able to bear the cost of taking the pipes a great distance along those roads or across those fields. That difficulty, I should hope, will be met when we see the proposals of the Minister of Agriculture, but until it is met we shall not be able to assure the people of this country of those adequate supplies of milk which are so exceedingly necessary. Nevertheless, I know that this particular difficulty is in the mind of the Ministry and I hope that the forthcoming proposals will provide for it. Meanwhile we are glad to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am a warm supporter of this Bill personally, because I live in a district in Sussex where the actual difficulty has arisen which this Bill is designed to meet. We have a rather scattered population with no general supply of water but each of the houses or cottages is supplied by a small well, never a very deep well, and often, I should imagine, a purely surface well. That is a situation which I am quite certain from every point of view is as bad as it can be. The actual danger to health is considerable, because surface wells are always subject to contamination of some kind or another. But, quite apart from that, there is the great want of water which from time to time takes
616
place and, as your Lordships know, has been very acute in the earlier part of this year. I feel very strongly that a simple measure like this to meet that immediate difficulty is essential. Indeed, I rise mainly for the purpose of urging the Government not to allow that essential object of their policy to be postponed by the consideration of anything else. It is quite true that this Bill is confined entirely to water supply and sewerage, and in the White Paper which accompanies the Bill there is what my noble friend Lord Addison has been referring to—the larger policy for a general survey of water. I do not want to say a word against that: that may be a very admirable plan. I observe the very considerable amount of machinery which is contemplated—a central board, central advisory boards and regional advisory boards, research boards, water surveys, and so on. That, I dare say, is quite necessary for the larger policy, but it fills me with a little anxiety lest these designs should be allowed to precede the meeting of the really urgent need of supplying the rural parishes with water. And that seems to me to be the most dangerous thing that could take place.
In that connexion I notice what seems to me to be one small omission from this Bill. The Bill is designed to leave the initiative in the hands of the local authority. I think that is quite right and wise. But then in Clause 3, which would seem to be a very important clause, there is a provision regarding what the local authority are to do. They are to provide a piped supply of wholesome water, and they are to bring the pipes sufficiently near to the consumers to enable them to use the water. That is all quite right and very proper. Then it goes on with a proposal, which personally I very much welcome, to give to the Ministry of Health the power to see that these objects are carried out; and it they are not carried out then to have an inquiry into the subject and make an order if necessary for the local authority to do them. Looking at it from the point of view of the water consumer, as far as I am concerned that is quite right. But there is nothing about delay. What is contemplated is a refusal or an omission by the local authority to carry out their duties under the Bill. I should be very glad if the Government could see their way to put three or four words into

617
that clause to make it also the duty of of the local authority to do all these things "as soon as practicable." Then there would still be an appeal to the Minister if there was anything like a delay.
I do not want to say a word in criticism of the local authorities. They have got difficult jobs to do, and they do them on the whole very well. But at the same time, like all deliberative bodies, they are subject to individuals whose one object is to prevent something being done. With a large policy on the horizon it seems to me that there is a very great possibility of delay or what, in some departments of the Legislature of this country, might perhaps be called obstruction, thereby preventing this very wholesome and admirable project being put into force. If some such words as I suggest could be inserted, then it would be always possible to go to the Ministry if there was anything in the nature of obstruction, and to say, "Well, these people may say that they are going to do their duty, but they are not doing it, and we ask you to take action to see that they do do their duty."
I really do not desire to say anything more about this Bill. I think this is a very important matter. The condition of the rural water supplies is a great scandal at this moment, particularly in view of our experience of the enormous benefit to the health of the community that a good water supply affords. In the White Paper it is pointed out that water-borne diseases have almost ceased to exist in the great towns because of the excellent water supply. Things like cholera and typhoid, instead of being a very great danger to human life and happiness, have become almost negligible. There is no such safeguard in the rural parishes. The time is overdue when that ought to be corrected, and I personally hope that this Bill will be passed with the greatest rapidity and the greatest energy.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I must apologize for addressing the House on this most important Bill without having listened—through circumstances beyond my control—to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced it on behalf of the Government. I warmly welcome the Bill but, if I may say so, with an inquiring mind. It is obviously the first instalment
618
of a much larger scheme which is foreshadowed in the White Paper, about which we had a short discussion a month ago. We are told that the water falling from the clouds and collecting in our springs and water courses is more than adequate to provide all the requirements of town and country, including apparently not merely water for drinking purposes and for sewage disposal but for all the amenities which we as an up-to-date civilized community now enjoy. But, speaking quite frankly and speaking as a countryman, I think it cannot be denied that the towns have in the past profited at the expense of the countryside and its inhabitants in this matter of water supply, as indeed in many other matters.
In many rural areas, thanks to the domestic amenities that urban communities enjoy in their catchment areas, you have the strange paradox of water-logged land with a very urgent and increasing requirement of drainage and, at the same time, water-starved villages. I hope this Bill may do something to end that strange paradox. In passing, I should like to say, as regards the pollution of the water courses, rivers and streams, it is surely the national love of angling, and the pressure exercised from time to time to keep our rivers and streams as pure as possible for the sake of the fish, that has been largely responsible for our enjoyment in the rural areas of the country of as pure a water supply as we have at the present time.
I want to put to the noble Earl certain questions of which I have given him previous notice. Bearing in mind that, admittedly, we are dealing here in piecemeal fashion with what is going to be a very large national scheme of water supply, I should like to ask whether there should not be a complete national, or at least regional survey of water supplies and water requirements before the needs of particular localities are catered for. Failing that, should there not be in each catchment area a comprehensive survey, both of essential water requirements and of the sources of water supply and their average normal gallonage of water, before either private persons or the local sanitary authority can put in hand the execution of any scheme for supplying the local community, as for instance a particular village, with water? Thirdly, if the water is to be used for sewerage purposes, the supply, I submit, must be sufficient to

619
enable water closets to replace earth closets in every dwelling-house in the area unless—and it is a big and important proviso—an efficient septic system of sewage disposal is substituted and approved by the Minister.
I am rather inquisitive to know whether, as provided by this Bill, a sewerage system ought to be a condition precedent to a supply of water in connexion with the disposal of sewage. I cannot help reminding your Lordships that if there is going to be a large increase of water closets up and down the country—and incidentally as is found by experience, a considerable waste of water in carrying off that sewage—there is going to be a great and increasing lack of very valuable fertilizing material for which no chemical dressings are a complete substitute. If I am right in that—and it is difficult to controvert—ought there not to be a premium put upon septic tank disposal of sewage rather than a premium put upon water closets with their effluents in substitution for earth closets, with the very large quantity of additional water which would be required in order to operate them?
The next point I wish to ask about is this. The county councils come, apparently very inappropriately, into the picture. In the rural areas the local sanitary authority is—in most cases—the rural district council. If the rural district council submit an inadequate or unprepared scheme, of if they do not act under the instructions of the Ministry of Health or its local or regional representatives, apparently the county council come into the picture—whether as a default authority or not is not quite clear from the Bill. What I am going to suggest is that the council of a county and even the councils of several counties, acting as a joint water authority, are not really the best bodies to deal with such a position. After all, neither a county nor a group of counties is conterminous with the catchment area. It is the catchment area, I submit, which should be regarded as the unit for the supply of water within that area and, to some extent, for the disposal of it.
It is not quite clear from the Bill to what extent the river boards, as the successors of the catchment boards, come into the picture as controlling authorities. If they do not, there is going to be very serious overlapping in regard to their
620
particular functions. I think I am right in saying that surface water may not now be tapped in one watershed to be discharged into a catchment area that is fed from another source. But this does not apply to underground sources of supply and if it does not apply to underground sources of supply surely there ought to be some impediment to or restriction upon the competitive boring for water which is going on at the present time in many localities. Largely arising out of the recent drought many local authorities are boring for water and hoping to obtain as a result of that boring at any rate a temporary supply. Surely there ought to be some control of this process, either by the Government or by the county authoririties, if the water is going to be available not merely for the particular village in which such boring takes place or the neighbourhood of such a village but for the benefit of the whole of the region that ought to be fed from that particular supply.
I want to mention only two other matters. Sewage is not, I submit, the only source of water pollution. Oil and mineral grease surely should not he discharged from any premises, whether it be from a factory or a cottage. Those of us who use our eyes are all aware that there is a considerable amount of oil and grease collected to-day on river banks, piers and other structures, thus indicating the large amount of oil and grease that there is in many of our water courses as well as on our coasts. Surely some provision ought to be made for that oil and grease to be intercepted so as not to interfere with a pure water supply.
As for the requirements of cattle, I understand—I do not know whether I am right, and the noble Earl may have mentioned this—that the amount of water reckoned as necessary for each individual human being per day is from thirty to forty gallons. I believe the text books say thirty gallons but the experience of most rural district councils is that forty gallons is a fair consumption per head. I understand that in the United States the consumption per head is sometimes up to one hundred gallons. But, however that may be, the requirements of cattle are obviously much greater than the requirements per human unit if a pure milk supply is to be procured. I want to be quite certain that that is taken fully into account by the framers of this Bill.

621
If it is possible to give an answer—and I do not say it is—what is the estimated per caput consumption of dairy cattle, and are the mains that are laid going to be of sufficient diameter to carry the water that will be required for stock drinking purposes, milk cooling and other purposes upon our dairy farms? If the amount is very considerable, as I suggest in the public interest it should be on dairy farms, what is likely to be the rate charged upon dairy farmers for the supply of water for their cattle? If it is relatively excessive, I should suggest it ought to be on a lower rate than that required for human beings. If not it may in some cases make a dairy holding an uneconomic proposition.
With those words I welcome the Bill, but having presided over a Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, when all these matters were in their inception and under consideration in 1929, I suggest that in carrying into effect the provisions of this Bill we take a long view and be extremely careful that we do not in any way interfere with the larger scheme which may be necessary both for town and country later on.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I agree with the general line of criticism that this Bill does not carry out the larger scheme which is envisaged in the White Paper, but I must say that the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down fills me with consternation if he really is expecting that we shall wait until the whole of that very elaborate scheme is put into effect before we can get any improvement in a very deficient rural water supply. I think the danger of delay is something that would appal most of us who for so long have been asking for some improvement in this direction. Nor do I quite agree with the criticism of Lord Addison about the inadequacy of the money. It is true that £15,000,000 eventually may not be enough, but after all it will be a beginning. It is something to have got £15,000,000. Some years ago we did not get £1,000,000 and now it is £15,000,000. If the policy is successful and the country is sufficiently pleased it can ask for more and more will be found. At this stage I think it is a little ungenerous to complain that more has not been given immediately. The view I take is that the Government have certainly laid an egg. They must not cackle
622
too loudly about it. While they may cackle a little they must not forget that this is only a beginning. It is of course a useful beginning and those living in rural areas will be very grateful for it. But it is not the end and I only hope the bigger scheme that is envisaged in the White Paper will not be forgotten when once this Bill has been, as I hope it will be, passed through Parliament.
This is only the advance guard of the water policy set out in the White Paper. I am afraid the machinery in the Bill already tends to show that there may be considerable delay in carrying out even this instalment of the water policy. I do not quite like the prospects of delay that exist in the various arrangements that have to be made between the local authorities and the Ministry of Health. I do not like to see everything having to go through that bottleneck of the Ministry of Health, which has already so many other urgent problems to deal with, and which in times past has not been unduly careful about our need for water in rural districts. I am afraid it is going to be a slow process and I should like to see it speeded up. I should like to see at an early stage some delegation of power from the try of Health to regional or local authorities representing various areas. By this means I think something rather more expeditious could be found that would do away with the possibility of constant delay as a consequence of various conflicting authorities coming to the Ministry of Health and going backwards and forwards to the Ministry, which is the process that, it seems to me, is involved in this Bill. I hope therefore the Government will not leave this matter where it is but at the earliest possible moment deal with the present chaos of water undertakings which has been alluded to and which I need not any more stress.
Certainly there are things which can be got on with now. There is very great need for comprehensive maps showing what the possibilities of local supplies may be in various areas. There is also great need, as other noble Lords have suggested, for a continuance of the improvement in the general survey of our water supplies. It is true we cannot deal with this question satisfactorily until we know exactly what we have to deal with. Experts tell us with a light heart that there are ample supplies, but unless you have the supplies properly distributed you will

623
not get the result desired. I should like to see the survey more completely carried out so that we may know more exactly than we do now what the actual possibilities are and what we can do to improve the distribution. There must be of course some control of supplies by the Government; that is obvious; but I do hope that in exercising that control they will remember the advisability of delegating rather more than this Bill does to local areas, because local knowledge is after all the thing that is very necessary in these matters. The thing will have to go through the bottleneck of the Ministry of Health and that means delay, so that I am afraid we shall not for a long time get the supplies needed. It is not fair to complain that we cannot get the full scheme at this moment, because this is war-time and it would involve a very large operation. While I am very grateful to the Government, as I am sure everybody in rural areas will be grateful, for this instalment, I hope the Government will remember that this is only the beginning and that we expect the full measure as soon as they are in a position to carry it through.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, like everybody else who has studied the question I am very grateful for this Bill and the observations I am going to make will be chiefly on the lines of approval, with a suggestion or two as to things that can be done. This much must be admitted. This Bill, as I think everybody knows, will not result in every house in rural districts being supplied with tapped water. The proviso to Clause 3 which has been already mentioned shows that quite clearly. The noble Lord who introduced the White Paper here some little time ago gave us an example of what he thought would be unreasonable. He thought it would be unreasonable to supply water by pipe to a house at an expense which was in excess of the cost of the house. That would be the fact in the case of a number of rather remote dwellings, and those of your Lordships who listened to my speech on the last occasion may remember that I gave examples of the cost of a piped supply together with the requisite sewerage which would be occasioned by it. It would run into enormous figures in a district where a penny rate only brings in, we will say, £100 or less a year. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and
624
it is quite clear that we should like this Bill to be at least as successful as the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934. That Act resulted in the supply of piped water to half the houses in rural districts which were without a proper supply. That has brought a blessing to a large number of people who had had to go bucket carrying, which was the case in hundreds of thousands of houses. If this Bill has the result in a short time of once again halving the number of such people I, for one, shall be very glad because it will mean an increase in the health and happiness of a large number of people.
It must be recognized that this Bill does not touch the position of farms. I gave your Lordships on the last occasion some figures with regard to the cost of supplying water to farms and I will not repeat them, but I would observe that when farms are the subject of compulsory water supply you will have to remember that farming land has been derated. You will therefore have the curious result before your eyes that those who have been clamouring for water will not themselves have to pay additional rates for its supply. That is a very serious consideration and I am not sure that you will be able to impose on the owners of dwelling houses and the like extra rates for supplying water to farms which are going to derive great benefit but are not going to contribute a penny in respect of it. What is passing in my mind is that if farms are to have the really ample supply of water which is required it will be necessary to make them contribute something, perhaps by means of a tap which would make them pay a small sum per thousand gallons supplied.
May I say just a word on a subject which I have enlarged on before and is very closely connected with the happiness of rural people? That is the case of the bucket carrier. All your Lordships must have seen men and women at the end of a long day's work trudging along the road carrying buckets of water taken from some distant stream or spring. When I say distant, three hundred yards is a considerable distance to carry water, but many people have to carry it more than a mile. That I should like to see diminished. What I want the Government to consider is this. When the war comes to an end there will be tens of thousands of motor vehicles in the possession of the Government which they will not be able

625
to get rid of, except as scrap. Could not a scheme be devised by which these motor vehicles, many of them at present in excellent condition, could be used to supply water twice a day by fitting cisterns into the vehicles? Those vehicles could go round the districts like the vehicles which take children to school in remote districts. It would result, in my belief, in enormous benefit at small cost to poor people who may only be able to get water by buckets for, it may be, ten years or it may be, humanly speaking, for ever.
I would like the Government to consider whether help could not be given in that respect. I am not asking for an answer now, but if it can be done I am quite sure a great many people will bless the Government for doing it. Many rural district authorities are exceedingly poor. A penny rate brings in a sum which is almost laughable because it is so small having regard to the fact that a great part of the district is derated. They must have assistance from somebody, but the amount would be small. It is very largely a question of getting somebody to work out a scheme of arranging for the vehicles to be put in order and for pumps to be installed at suitable places. The people in the district, I believe, would he willing to pay some small sum per bucket for the water they receive. I hope that suggestion will be thought worthy of consideration by those in charge of this measure.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bingley said the Government had laid an egg. They have, I am afraid, possibly laid a double yolked egg, certainly a curate's egg, because there are really two Bills within one in the measure we are now considering. If the two had been separate it would have been a great deal easier to deal with this Bill. On many grounds I welcome whole-heatedly the majority of the provisions in the water supply part of the Bill, but I am very doubtful if the urban mind, ignorant of country matters, has not been at work on the sewerage side of it. If we are going to have a water supply system out of the £15,000,000 which have been promised I agree that it should be adequate; but if this expenditure is to include sewerage in difficult areas I believe that the figure would be most inadequate.
It has been admitted, I think, by every noble Lord who has spoken that, although
626
there may be enough water in the country as a whole, we do not as yet, by any means, know the right methods of using it. While undoubtedly we want to get proper water supplies in rural areas as soon as possible, I personally feel that we should be very careful lest we make grave mistakes in over-abstraction before we know where we are. Therefore, I suggest, that riverine abstraction should be the rule rather than the exception for new water undertakings, and that underground extraction should not be resorted to freely until we have ascertained definitely what the extent of our underground supplies really are. This is a matter which needs much research.
The sewerage problem is an extremely difficult one. The remarks of previous speakers in this debate have brought to my mind a picture of out-of-the-way isolated country areas with a few farms and barns tucked away in corners among the wind-swept hills. The trouble is that most rural areas are half urban with just a certain amount of forgotten rural district. Throughout almost the whole of the country that is the case, and this gives rise to some very serious problems which have to be faced. We find in this Bill that the charges and rates for water and sewerage are to be general to the district and not specific charges. That means really that the majority in some suburban corner will be having their rates for water and sewerage largely paid by people whom it will take years for new water and sewerage systems to reach. It it is going to be a general rate, this will be a very serious thing for some rural districts.
I have had some personal experience of this matter. I have seen how it has worked out in areas of the kind to which I refer, and I have gone into it with the clerk of a rural district council which is concerned with an area running from a dormitory area in a big city to a completely rural area. It has been estimated that a highly populated residential area with an existing sewage scheme would have as much as 2s. knocked off its rates while rural areas which could not possibly benefit might have anything up to 1s. or more added. The greater the extension of rural sewage to sparsely populated areas the higher the general rates become and, in addition, the more injustice to ratepayers who still could not benefit. To-day some of our Allies are celebrating

627
a day which was to us not a very happy one in our history—July 4. This is the anniversary of the day, I have always understood, which saw the final outcome of a war about taxation with no representation. It seems to me that we are making the same mistake of taxation and no representation here, on this question of sewerage being paid for by people who cannot possibly benefit in cases where the expenses will undoubtedly be very large. I repeat that to me that seems extremely unjust.
Again with regard to the question of water, a great many people who have put in excellent and adequate water supplies will be asked to pay rates for something that they have provided for themselves; that is to say, for schemes from which they will receive no benefit. That is a small matter, however, and because of the necessity of a proper water supply and because of its universality as a need, I feel that we ought perhaps to give our blessing to the idea that the rate should be general. But, on the other hand, I feel very strongly that the rate for sewerage should be confined to those who are the beneficiaries from a sewerage plan. I hate to have to repeat some of the things which I said in our debate on this subject on April 26, but I feel I must allude to some of the grave dangers attendant upon having sewage schemes put into operation, especially in having schemes which are not connected to forced pressure pump sewage. There is no definition here of what is a suitable sewage scheme. There are points which require very careful consideration before encouragement is given to water sewage. When it is impossible to connect to the main, sealed cesspits or an expensive septic tank system are necessary. Cesspits have to be emptied and incidentally I may say they are almost bound to run over and pollute underground sources of water supply. That also will be a very great danger.
Many people believe that civilization really began with the use of porcelain in these matters. My own view is rather the opposite, that not one person in a hundred who bas not a forced pump sewage system has any idea of the proper use of a water closet. It is generally used for all unwanted household bric-a-brac and practically all the detritus of modern civilization goes down its maw. Wherever cess
628
pits are used there is always danger of unhygienic conditions arising. For my part I would gladly see £500,000 of the £15,000,000 which have been allocated diverted to research for the mass production of a healthy, dry, hygienic system of rural sewage disposal. It would be both convenient and useful and would effect an enormous saving in rates in the future. I am afraid we have promised that this new world, about which we have spoken so much, is going to appear very quickly after the war. It is going to comprise a most complete electricity supply, ideal houses, ideal sewerage, and ideal water supply. People having been taught that, it will be very hard if what we should like to see happen in isolated country districts should have the effect of sending us back and not forward.
I did a few calculations about these costs. I agree with providing water and bathrooms where practicable and reasonable, but individual sewage systems I find very difficult to reconcile myself to, unless there is a good natural drainage system available. It is quite likely that by the time we have built our improved houses, provided the extra cesspits, extra services and so on, the farm labourer whom I am more than glad now has a minimum of 65s. a week, may find himself paying 25s. of that in rates and rent. If that happens he will be in a worse position than he was in before the war, because the cost of living has gone up a great deal. For twenty years I have tried, in practice and otherwise, to work for the betterment of the conditions of the people on whom this country depends and without whom it will perish—the rural craftsmen and the farm workers. I am very frightened that by this means we shall set up a vicious spiral of high expenses, which will in the end result in unemployment and slump and the very situation which we seek to avoid.
Everything that has happened since our last debate tends to confirm not only my own observations but those of nearly every expert with whom I have talked—namely, that underground abstraction has already proceeded far too fast and far too far, and that it has a cumulative effect in dry seasons. We cannot afford to take our average water-levels for calculating what we can abstract; we have to take our drought levels, because, if we do not, the result may be cataclysmic. Whatever form this Bill takes, I hope

629
that the Minister will, above everything else, watch that position to see that it does not get out of hand, because, if it does, there will be no recovery.
LORD BRABAZON of TARA: My Lords, I should like to say a word as to the positioning of water-mains and sewers. We have seen recently the complication which exists under our roads to-day. When we have to carry our repairs and alterations, we find a regular macaroni of tubes and pipes of water, sewage, gas, electricity and so on under all our roads. When any repair or alteration has to be made, up domes the road. It is a most expensive way of proceeding, but it is somehow enshrined—I do not know why—in a long tradition which it is hard to break. I tried to break it when I was Minister of Transport, but I found that nothing could be done. In the new districts and the new roads, I hope that all the ancillary services which have previously been put under the road will be put at the side of the road, so that repairs and alterations can be undertaken without dislocating the traffic and wasting money in pulling up the road and putting it back again.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to reply to some of the questions addressed to me. I cannot complain of the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill, because it has had a general welcome from all sides of the House; but I am bound to say that some noble Lords, and especially my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, asked many questions which are not germane to this Bill, but which will in fact be germane to the bigger Bill which is to follow at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the course of his remarks asked whether my right honourable friend would see that vigorous administration was undertaken to make sure that the local authorities carry out their duties under this Bill. My right honourable friend is fully alive to that need, and will do everything he can to ensure that that vigorous administration does take place as soon as the Bill is passed.
Lord Addison expressed doubt as to whether £15,000,000 was a sufficient sum of money for dealing with this vast problem. We have never maintained that £15,000,000 was sufficient, and as my noble friend Lord Bingley says, the Gov
630
ernment can always come back to Parliament for more. This, however, is not the total figure but only the Government contribution in the form of grants in aid. In addition there will be the sum of money—pound for pound—provided by the county councils, and there will also be the expenditure incurred by the local authorities, who will, moreover, be able to count upon the income received from consumers in the case of water.
With regard to the White Paper, many of the remarks which fell from the noble Lord will, of course, be dealt with in the bigger Bill which is to follow, and I hope that noble Lords will not press me at this stage to give an indication of what will be in that Bill when it is presented. There is undoubtedly every reason why local authorities should plan and prepare at this time, so that as soon as possible after the war these schemes may be put into effect. Personally, I should deeply regret it if this Bill were to be delayed in order that we should make another survey, as was advocated by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. He will, I know, recognize that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has a vast mass of information, to which he is constantly adding, which will assist him in examining the schemes which are put to him by the local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Bledisloe raised the question of fertilizers. I understand that this whole question of the use of sewage material is being examined by the Agricultural Research Council in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture. He also raised the question of pollution. That does not come into this Bill at all, but will be dealt with in the bigger Bill which is to follow. And I should like to say that I am not so pessimistic as the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth. I believe that this Bill will be of great benefit to rural areas. With regard to the question of payment for sewage schemes, I would make it clear that up to 1929 the whole of the expenses of such schemes in rural areas was invariably a charge on the parish rate, and at times meant an extremely heavy burden, amounting to several shillings in the pound for this one service alone. In the case of water, a large part of the cost was borne by the consumers, but whatever part fell on the local rates was, as in the case of sewage, charged to the parish rate. In 1929, the rural district councils were given powers

631
to spread the charges for those services over a far wider area, which in fact they did—namely, over the whole rural district instead of the parish. In this Bill, Clause 6 converts what has become more or less a general practice of rural district councils into an obligation to charge to the district rate all water and sewage expenses which at present fall on local rates. I shall not pursue the matter, but I could argue that housing expenses falling on local rates have, ever since local authorities went in for housing activities on any scale at all, been charged to the district rate and not to the parish rate, and it seems to me that there is no reason whatever why the same principle should not apply in the case of water and sewage.
Finally, I would ask my noble friend Lord Brabazon to let me take the point which he made to the Minister, who will no doubt consider it during the time that these plans are being presented to him by the county councils. I do not think that I need say more on this matter at the present time. It is, as your Lordships know, a highly complicated subject, but this is nevertheless a small Bill, which I think your Lordships would be well advised to pass, for it will be of great benefit to people who live in rural localities.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this small Bill of seven clauses, which I ask your Lordships to read a second time, will not take more than a very few moments. It will not in any way, I think, prove controversial, for it merely contains some small miscellaneous amendments to the Government of India Act, 1935. In 1941 Parliament approved an Act which extended the maximum permissible life of the Provincial Legislative Assemblies from five years to a period expiring twelve months after the end of the war, but that Act did not touch the Legislative Councils, or Upper Houses as they have come to be called, in the six Provinces, namely Madras, Bombay,
632
Bengal, the United Provinces, Bihar and Assam, where they exist. The Legislative Councils are permanent bodies not subject to dissolution but subject to a rotational system of election so that one-third of the members retire every third year. Although the provisions of the principal Act governing Legislative Council elections have been suspended in those Provinces temporarily administered under Section 93, elections have been held in Bengal and Assam, where Ministerial Governments are functioning. The suspension of elections in Section 93 Provinces has upset the rotation system which, as I have just pointed out, provided that one-third of the members should retire every three years, and it is now proposed, under Clause 1 of the Bill, that the period of office of members of the Legislative Councils in Section 93 Provinces shall be extended by the period for which the proclamations are in force, plus an additional period up to twelve months so as to enable the elections to be held at a suitable time of the year.
Clause 2 of the Bill makes it clear that if a Judge of the High Court is transferred to another High Court or to the Federal Court, he shall not retain his office of Judge of the High Court from which he was transferred. This is the only clause of the Bill which will be retrospective. I might mention that there is a similar provision in Section 10 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, applicable to High Court Judges in this country. Clause 3 of the Bill amends Section 314 of the principal Act under which the advisers of the Secretary of State shall not be more than twelve nor less than eight in number. This was a transitional provision pending the establishment of Federation. In the circumstances of war it is now proving increasingly difficult to ensure that the statutory minimum of eight can be maintained. Travelling arrangements between India and this country are severely limited and, furthermore, those who might be appointed as advisers are fully engaged on important work connected with the war. It is therefore proposed that the statutory minimum of eight may be reduced to five, but it is the intention of my right honourable friend to work to the higher figure as long as possible.
I now pass to Clause 4 of the Bill. Under the principal Act leave of absence

633
cannot be granted to the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief more than once during their period of office, thus, should the holders of these important posts be called outside India for consultation, they would, as the Act now stands, have automatically surrendered their right for any period of lease during their tenure of office. My right honourable friend, after consultation with the Viceroy, who is in agreement, is of the opinion that it may be both necessary and desirable for the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief to leave India for brief periods for the purpose of personal consultation either here in London or somewhere nearer the shores of India. There can be no doubt that under the strain of present conditions personal contact is most useful.
It is intended to amend Section 86 of the Ninth Schedule of the principal Act so that leave of absence on duty will not impair the statutory right of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief to go on leave for reasons of health or private affairs once during their period of office. Clause 5 of the Bill amends Section 87 of the Ninth Schedule by removing the obligation to appoint an acting Commander-in-Chief during the Commander-in-Chief's absence on duty. It will be generally agreed that during his brief absence from the country there is no practical necessity for appointing a deputy. The House will, however, notice that an acting Commander-in-Chief will still be appointed when the Commander-in-Chief is granted leave of absence for reasons of health and private affairs, and that whenever the Viceroy is absent for any reason whatever, an acting Governor General must be appointed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR-TIME REGISTRATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, it will require a few minutes only, I think, to explain
634
this Bill to your Lordships and to secure your general assent. It makes temporary amendments in the Parliamentary Elections (War-Time Registration) Act which we passed last year. Your Lordships will remember that the old system of this country was that since you could not vote in a constituency unless your name was on the register, the register was made up on the 15th October, containing the names of residents who qualified from having resided for at least three months, between the 1st of March and the 1st of June of the preceding year. That was a bad system; it involves a very serious lag between the time when the voter is qualifying and the time when he exercises his vote. The lag is at best four and a half months, and it may be as much as sixteen and a half months. All those objections were enormously magnified by the circumstances of the war. In fact, there has not been any keeping up of that register, and it was most important to start a new system in the future.
The Government therefore appointed a very strong Committee, a Departmental Committee on Electoral Machinery, and this Committee made a very ingenious recommendation. It recommended that there should be continuous registration, that the register should always be kept up to date, principally by the use of the National Registration Act, supplemented by other procedure. Under that plan when a General Election came, it would be possible to freeze the new register, and that is the register which would serve for a General Election, everybody on it being qualified, as far as he was qualified, within two months of the election taking place. The Government adopted these recommendations and put them in the important Bill of last year, which still stands. Unfortunately, the Government tried to do rather better than that. The Committee had never taken into their contemplation by-elections. Their proposals were for a General Election; but the Government, striving to do better, included in the scheme of the Bill which we carried last year by-elections. It was very necessary that we should do so, for they produce the greatest difficulty of all at this very minute. The register goes back before the war, and one result is that nobody can vote unless he is at least twenty-five.
It was thus very appropriate that the Government should try to enlarge the

635
scheme in that way, but, having enlarged it and carried the main Act last November, including by-elections, and getting everything up-to-date, it was found necessary to take counsel with the very skilled people—registration officers and others—who make the detailed administrative plan for working the arrangement. That having been gone into closely, it has been ascertained beyond question that, in the view of the most experienced of these people now available, it would be impossible to work the scheme of last year unless it was somewhat modified. The choice really is between leaving the scheme of last year a dead letter—so to speak, preserving it in the refrigerator until it might be brought out in happier times—or altering it in certain particulars. It would obviously be very wrong for Parliament to throw its hand in and say it would do nothing; the situation would grow worse and worse. Consequently, the Government now come forward, with all due apologies, and say that the Bill which we passed last year—on which I made a most eloquent speech last November !—has to be modified.
The modifications are really two. Under the Act of 1943 the qualification for being put on the civilian register, on the score of residence, was continuous residence in a constituency for not less than two months prior to the last day of the month before that in which the election is held. That involves a great deal more in the way of examination and investigation than you might suppose—particularly the provision regarding two months. There is the case of the man who has left his address and moved somewhere else in the same constituency. Against that, you have the man who is a bird of passage and who may have moved through three or four constituencies in the course of the last two months. Every one of these cases has to be individually checked, as our Bill provided last year, and that cannot be done with the staff of experts available now. So many have gone to the war and so many others cannot get the necessary supplementary staff. This Bill therefore makes two changes which will greatly simplify the matter for the time being, though I am far from saying that the changes in themselves improve the system—I do not think they do.
The first change it is proposed to make is this—to give up for the time being this
636
test of continuous residence and put upon the register a voter who is entitled to be included because he is registered in the National Register as residing in the constituency on the qualifying date. That gives the go-by to the bird of passage, no matter how many constituencies he has travelled through. The registration authority simply looks at the National Register, finds the man there, and says, "There you are—I put him on the list of voters." The other thing that has to be done is with regard to the period for qualifying. It puts the qualifying date back another month. We are assured, by those who know the subject best—and it is a most expert business, full of technicalities, as every one who has been an electioneerer knows—that the thing will work. We therefore propose to put back the date by another month, making it three months, and also propose to rely for the time being on the fact that the name of the man or woman is in the National Register at that address without inquiring into his or her recent history and peregrinations.
The Bill is purely temporary. There is a provision in it that it has to be brought to an end by the end of 1945. If, on the other hand, the Home Secretary finds he has got his tackle in order more rapidly than might be feared, it will be open to him to bring the expiration date into operation sooner than the Statute contemplates. These are the provisions of the Bill. I have endeavoured to explain them in non-technical language. I hope I have satisfied the House that we ought to give a Second Reading to it, and by this means secure that the voting at by-elections, as they come along, and at the General Election, when it comes along, will be conducted on a register which is fairly up-to-date.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JEWS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask his Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the proposal that, in addition to the one million Jews already serving in the Armed Forces of the United Nations,

637
facilities should be afforded for the formation of a Jewish Army under British or United Nations Command to fight on any required battlefield and to be composed of volunteers not at present liable to compulsory military service, such as Stateless refugee and Palestinian Jews, together with volunteers from neutral countries, and territories liberated from the enemy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Templemore and Lord Southwood for arranging a time for this Motion which I have had on the Paper for some weeks and also for the compliment of fixing it on American Independence Day. There is a similar Motion on the Order Paper in another place in the names of fifty-three Members of Parliament of all Parties, and my proposal is supported by some of your Lordships here. I am not putting this forward officially on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, but I have discussed the matter with my right honourable friend Mr. Greenwood who knows the subject very well and he is very favourable to the proposal contained in my question.
As my noble friend Lord Croft knows, this question has nothing to do with Palestine or with the politics of Palestine, for which he is no doubt very grateful. It does not affect those Jews who are serving or eligible to serve in our own National Forces. It does not affect the Jews who are serving in the forces of our Allies. For instance, it does not affect the 600,000 Jews serving in the Russian Army, of whom 30,000 have been decorated for valour and 120 have been given the highest award—Hero of the Soviet Union. It does not affect General Chernyakovsky whose northern group of armies captured Minsk and are now heading for East Prussia and Konigsberg. This does not affect that kind of Jew at all. They are already provided for in their own National Forces. It does not affect the Jews in the French Foreign Legion who formed the bulk of the Force under General Koenig at Bir Hakeim. Nor does it affect the 30,000 Jews in Palestine who joined the Eighth Army and other British Forces, many of whom are now serving in Italy with distinction. It does not affect men like Brigadier General Kish, chief engineer of the Eighth Army and pioneer of mine clearance, who was killed in Tunisia. Nor
638
does it affect the 24,000 refugee Jews of all nationalities in Marshal Tito's Army in Yugoslavia.
The object is to recruit Stateless and refugee Jews, Jews in neutral countries and the Jews in Egypt, Iraq, Teheran and Turkey. In the Middle East countries and in North Africa there is a permanent Jewish population of 600,000 and my plea is that the very many able-bodied men in these communities should have an opportunity of serving against the common enemy. For instance, 5,000 young Jews are now ready in the Argentine to join such a force and should have an opportunity of taking part in the war. It may be said by my noble friend these people, or at any rate many of them, can join our Pioneer Corps. No one underrates the value of the Pioneer Corps but these men want to go into combatant units; into front line units. Others again are deeply religious men and hesitate to join ordinary units because there may be a difficulty about religious observance, whereas in a Jewish Army it could be easier to keep those observances. There is a precedent for that in what occurred during the last war. As to the numbers concerned the estimate of the number of men of military age, many of them already trained soldiers, including the untouched reservoir of man-power in Palestine, is between 100,000 to 150,000 or the equivalent of ten divisions. These are recruits who would be willing to serve anywhere in the world.
I need not stress to your Lordships the sentimental appeal that such a force would make to Jews everywhere. Hitler has declared the Jew to be his enemy Number 1. They offer themselves as our ally Number 1. As to the practical steps to be taken I suggest as a start that the Jewish battalions now serving in Italy could be increased and formed into separate divisions. These are Palestinian Jews who form separate battalions and are now serving in Italy. There is no reason why we should not take into these battalions other Jews from the Argentine, Egypt and Turkey, and from other countries and liberated areas. These recruits should not be limited to battalions but their numbers could be increased and later on they could be formed into divisions and then into corps.
I suggest that this offer should be seriously considered, apart from all other

639
grounds, because as the war develops man-power becomes of ever greater importance. Already we have had appeals from the President of the United States and our Prime Minister for all the available man-power and General Eisenhower has made a striking declaration of the importance of man-power in the great battles that are now raging on the Continent and which will increase in intensity. All your Lordships are well aware of that point. Here is an offer of a very large number of ardent soldiers whom we can have for the asking.
This project has very wide support in the United States and a Committee which has been working on it for some time had the support of the late Colonel Knox. It has the support now of Mr. Stimson, Mrs. Roosevelt, many States Governors, General Hershay, the officer corresponding to our Adjutant-General who has the responsibilities of man-power in the United States; and also the support of all the trade union leaders in America with one exception, Mr. John Lewis, who is always in a minority. It also has the support of the Presidents of many American universities and the Bishops and clergy of both Protestant and Catholic Churches, and of 250 Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The first Chairman of the American Committee is a well-known American gentleman, Dr. Samuel Church, and Senator Johnson, the President of the Carnegie Institute, is now Chairman. In this country besides many of your Lordships and Members of the House of Commons there is a similar Committee which had the support of the late General Wingate and of Field-Marshal Sir Philip Chetwode, Field-Marshal Lord Plumer and many others with wide experience who believe that this would be a valuable contribution to the war effort of the United Nations—a great body of young men, many trained soldiers, whose zeal in the struggle against Hitlerism is beyond doubt. They only ask to be allowed to serve in Jewish units and brigades in the front line and to wear their own badges as in the case, for example, of our own Scottish regiments.
Just before the outbreak of war Dr. Weizmann, on behalf of the Jewish Agency, who really I suppose is the spokesman for the great majority of Jews throughout the world, offered to Mr.
640
Chamberlain, then Prime Minister, help from Jewry all over the world in every way, including man-power. A few days later the war actually broke out. Dr. Weizmann offered to raise a Jewish fighting force to start to fight side by side with the British forces and under British command. He offered 10,000 men at once, and eventually 60,000, most of them in America, then neutral. This offer, after much consideration, was rejected on the grounds of lack of equipment. One can understand that being the case at that time. When the United States was still neutral and this country was in great peril in 1940 the Committee of which I have spoken were busy in the United States and they offered to raise at once—that was in 1940–100,000 Jewish volunteers for His Majesty's Army. This offer was also rejected again on the ground of lack of equipment. We who know the situation in regard to the position in 1940 can quite understand the reasons then given; but now another 100,000 Jews, most of them not liable for military service at all, offer their services as combatants. I understand the munition difficulty has been got over now. We have abundant arms and munitions of all kinds and I would suggest that His Majesty's Government should very carefully consider this matter before they reject this offer. I beg to move.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should not like this Motion to be passed over without saying a word or two upon it. As the noble Lord has so earnestly pressed upon the House it is undoubtedly the case that Jews throughout the world greatly desire to be able to join in this fight, against the greatest enemy that has ever afflicted them, in the form of some identifiable Jewish unit. The fact that a very large number of Jews obviously are in the various units that are scattered throughout the world does not altogether satisfy this demand and if the War Office can find some way of dealing with this very sincere and very natural desire it would certainly be responded to on a very large scale by those who have as great a desire, perhaps the greatest desire in the world, to destroy the Fascist and Nazi régimes against which we are fighting.
As to the scale upon which something of this kind can be organized at this stage of the war, naturally the noble Lord who speaks for the War Office will have far

641
more knowledge than anyone outside can have. He will know that at the present time these matters have been raised between the great Jewish Agency and the Secretary of State for War, and that we are anxiously awaiting some sort of answer to the questions that have been put to him. In particular, they would like to press what was pressed something like a year ago, this very modest request for the formation at least of a Jewish brigade the basis of which could very easily be those battalions of the Palestine regiments that are at present serving in Palestine and Libya, who are, as they feel, wasting their time on guard duties when both officers and men are not only ready but anxious to take part in the actual fighting. They feel very strongly that they have not been given perhaps the sort of deal which they expected when they volunteered. None of these men are conscripts, they are all volunteers. If something can be done by the War Office to relieve the present situation I think they will be doing an act of justice and conceding something for which perhaps these men have the right to ask. The least that a man can ask for is the right to fight against his enemies in a properly organize unit—and that is all this demand amounts to—on the scale of a division or a brigade. At this period of the war I really think that might be acceded to.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, my remarks to-day, as the noble Lord rightly conjectured, will be confined to the military aspect of the proposal that a Jewish Army should be formed to take part in the war under British or United Nations command. The case for the formation of such an Army is based on two main propositions—namely, that there is a shortage of man-power, and that as many as ten or twelve divisions could be formed from Jews who are not yet serving, or who are not liable to compulsory service, or who are not at present eligible to serve in combatant units.
With the proposition that there is a shortage of man-power, no one could be found to quarrel; and if it could be found that ten or twelve divisions could be trained and equipped for service the combatant nations—I am convinced in this case I car speak for all of them—would
642
welcome the addition of ten or twelve divisions to their forces. The question is whether in fact those divisions could be made available from the sources mentioned by the noble Lord, and whether the men from which they would be formed could, by and large, make a more valuable contribution to the Allied war effort as members of such formations than they would if they continued in their present capacities.
The noble Lord spoke of an Army comprising Jewish infantry divisions, Jewish Commandos, Jewish Air Squadrons and Jewish Tank Corps. I would like to take the snore simple proposal of the formation of some considerable number—ten or twelve, I think—Jewish infantry divisions which he postulated in the earlier part of his speech. Now, an infantry division requires a first-line strength of some 18,000 men, of whom, be it noted, quite a considerable proportion are employed in the various Services, such as R.A.S.C., R.A.M.C., R.E.M.E., Signals, etc. Twelve such divisions thus demand 216,000 men. The matter does not end there. Each infantry division requires several thousands of men per year to replace battle casualties and normal wastage by sickness and other causes; so that, to nourish the twelve divisions, a large reservoir of Jewish man-power would have to be available.
Lastly there is the obvious fact that an infantry division cannot live on nothing. It must have behind it its administrative tail, and its proper complement of Corps, Army and lines of communication troops. We find, therefore, that twelve infantry divisions really represents a man-power commitment far in excess of the capacity of any resources mentioned by the noble Lord, even including the 30,000 men he expects to get from Europe, to whom I will refer in a moment. It may, of course, be said that the Corps, Army and lines of communication troops need not necessarily consist of Jews; but the problem of finding them from other sources is obviously one of the greatest possible difficulty. There is also the consideration that these troops themselves will require reinforcements to make good normal wastage.
The sources of supply mentioned by the noble Lord were Palestine, the Middle East and Near East countries, French North Africa, European countries such as

643
Spain, France, Yugoslavia and Italy, Great Britain and the U.S.A., and South America. The recruitment of Jews from these very diverse countries presents a large number of different problems. To mention only a few, the Jews in Palestine have already contributed a large proportion of their man-power to the Armed Forces of the Empire, and any considerable further recruitment would lead to a dearth of man-power for her essential industries. The great majority of Jews in this country, the U.S.A., and French North Africa are either serving already, or are engaged in work no less essential to the war effort. Any suggestion that Jews already serving, especially in the technical arms in which so many of them are engaged, should transfer out of these arms into newly-created Jewish formations would be entirely unacceptable, since it would cause a really serious degree of dislocation. The same applies to the Jews serving under Marshal Tito; he would be very reluctant to part with any considerable number.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not suggest taking Marshal Tito's men away from him. I said this did not apply to them. They are already serving.
LORD CROFT: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I thought he meant men already trained in that country might be found to take their part. We are left with recruits from France, Italy, the countries of the Middle and Near East, Spain and South America. The number of recruits forthcoming from these countries must necessarily be largely a matter of speculation, especially since most of them would be liable to military service in their own countries, and recruitment in large numbers could only be with the consent of the respective Governments. Further, the different backgrounds from which they would come, their different languages and national characteristics would obviously impose difficulties in the way of welding them into a coherent whole.
This brings me to the question of the equipment, organization and training of the proposed force. The noble Lord said that there was now no question about equipment. I hope he will forgive my saying that this is to take an unduly optimistic view of the situation. It is true that our Armies to-day are among the best equipped in the world: but the equipment
644
of as many as twelve new divisions is obviously a major task which could not be undertaken without a considerable diversion of effort. The carriage alone of such a large quantity of equipment to such place as might be chosen for the mobilization of these divisions would entail a heavy transport commitment.
Organization presents an equally big problem. War daily becomes a more complex and specialized art. Supposing that we were suddenly to find ourselves with some 250,000 Jews drawn from four different continents and many times that number of nations, I think the complexity of the problem would be appreciated. We would first of all have to find transport to bring them all to some central place, in itself no small problem, and we would have to find accommodation for them there. We would then have to try to sort them out into the jobs for which they were best fitted as individuals. Officers and non-commissioned officers would have to be selected, headquarters and staffs created, and indeed the whole complicated task of creating a large force out of a number of polyglot individuals would have to be undertaken with the added disadvantage that there would be no ready-made cadre upon which to build. This would evidently be a process which would take months, but which would have to be undertaken before any training except of the most elementary nature could begin. The training of a modern Army is also a lengthy process, more particularly in the technical arms, such as the Artillery, Medical Corps, Signals and so on. The minimum time within which a formation could be trained so as to be fit for battle would be eight months, and might well take as long as a year. I would mention in passing that this organization and training would have to be supervised by British or United Nations personnel—I do not think it could be done by anyone else—and this would represent a very considerable diversion of effort from the main task of winning the war as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord puts forward his plea for a Jewish Army on the very understandable ground that the Jews are anxious to strike their own blow against their oppressor Germany. But for reasons that I have indicated their capacity for doing so would not eventuate for many months to come and, with God's good

645
grace, Germany will, we hope, have gone down to defeat long before a Jewish Army could, on the most optimistic view, be ready to take the field. This brings me to the noble Lord's alternative proposal which is very much more in keeping with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the Palestine Regiment should be expanded into a Jewish Division and that this should be used in active operation against the enemy by whom I presume the noble Lord means Germany. The difficulties which I have mentioned before apply to this proposal also, though in a lesser degree. Moreover, the organization and training of such a division would take many months. This would interfere unduly with the preparation and movement of formations which are likely to be more immediately called upon to fight against the enemy, and we therefore regard this also as not being a practicable proposition. Whether the organization of a smaller specifically Jewish formation—for example, a brigade or a brigade group—would be practicable, I cannot say to-day. But I can say that the possibility is being very darefully studied.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his reply and I am not a bit downcast as a result of it, especially having regard to the last part of what he said. A number of us who are interested in this matter—we are all members of one House of Parliament or the other—asked my right honourable friend the Minister for War to receive us in a deputation. He is going to do so but he thought it more courteous to your Lordships to wait for this debate before we were received by him. We will now renew our request to the Secretary of State, and I know that he will see us. I think that we shall be able to clear away some of the technical difficulties which have been referred to by my noble friend to-day. One difficulty can certainly be cleared up, that of language. In my view, there is really no language difficulty. Yiddish is the international language which is used among these people, and, quite apart from that, many of these people have travelled nearly all over the world as refugees and they are very good linguists. If my noble friend thinks that ten divisions is an over estimate, why hot five? I think some of these questions can be got over easily, and I was very grateful
646
to the noble Lord for what he said about the possibility of a brigade being formed out of the existing Jewish battalions.
I know the War Office language very well by this time for I have suffered under it for a good many years. I think the War Office rather misses the spiritual side of this question. The War Office authorities pay tremendous attention to the morale of their own regiments, the British regiments. The same sort of consideration applies here and I do not think they quite appreciate that or understand the tremendous sentimental appeal, the urge that this formation would give, and the pride that these long-suffering people would take in an effort of this kind. They can fight, as my noble friend knows, and they only want an opportunity of showing their prowess. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND FOR AGRICULTURE.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the statement in paragraph 19 of "The Control of Land Use" (Command Paper 6537), that "land which to-day is used for agriculture may to-morrow be required for housing or industry," they will give an undertaking that they have reserved the minimum area of agricultural land necessary for the maintenance of a healthy agricultural industry at home and of national security; and, if so, whether they will state the extent of that area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, it is not thought necessary to reserve the minimum area of agricultural land for the purposes mentioned by the noble Lord. Such an approach ignores the variation in quality of land which is at least as important a factor as the quantity of land required for housing or industry. The principle that the Government are seeking to establish is that land should be put to its optimum use, and in this connexion I would refer to the statement made by Lord Reith behalf of the Government in this House on

647
the 11th February, 1942, which included the following: The Government
"… will seek to avoid the diversion of productive agricultural land to other purposes if there is unproductive or less productive land that could reasonably be used for these purposes."
Effect is being given to this policy through the Minister of Agriculture's rural land utilization officers, who are consulted, together with other Departments concerned, on proposals to develop agricultural land. I would like to pay a tribute to local authorities and planning authorities who have welcomed the advice of rural land utilization officers, and who are constantly seeking their services. Sporadic and uncontrolled development in the past has affected a much greater area of land than that occupied by actual buildings; this has been a principal source of damage to agriculture and has led to the waste of much land. It can be avoided only by effective planning control such as would be facilitated by proposals
648
contained in the White Paper to which the noble Lord has referred.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend for the answer, which I think is as satisfactory a one as I could expect. No doubt my noble friend is aware that there is considerable alarm among some of the most important agricultural organizations in the country concerning the paragraph to which I refer in my question, in view of its relation to the formation of any future agricultural policy.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.