Lords Sitting of 21 April 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed six members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 13th instant, to consider all the Consolidation Bills of the present Session.
BURY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PRE- VENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW OF PROPERTY (ENTAILED INTERESTS) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD BLANESBURGH: My Lords, I ask your leave to withdraw the Law of Property (Entailed Interests)) Bill which I introduced on April 12 and which was down for Second Reading in my name today, and to introduce in place of it a Bill to prevent the conversion of entailed interests into absolute interests and the destruction of interests expectant thereon by the statutory trusts for sale and to define the expression "rentcharge in possession"; and to move that the Bill be read a first time. The explanation of this course is that I have been informed by eminent conveyancers in Lincoln's Inn
118
that there is, in addition to the matter in relation to the Law of Property Acts that I proposed to deal with in the earlier Bill, another difficulty with which I deal in the Bill I am asking leave to introduce. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Blanesburgh.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
The original Law of Property (Entailed Interests) Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1928, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a. —(Lord Strathcona and. Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRAC- TION ACT, 1929, MODIFICATION ORDER, 1932.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOTTENHAM GAS ORDER, 1932.

  KIDDERMINSTER GAS ORDER, 1932.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Templemore, I beg to move the Motion relating to these Orders.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I hope the House will not be unduly alarmed at the unusual size of this Bill. Its size is, of course, due principally to the passing of the Statute of Westminster, which has necessitated a large number of Amendments to make it clear that the Government in the United Kingdom is not legislating for Dominions in which that Statute is operative. The Amendments will be found at the end of the Bill, in the Second Schedule, Part I. Similarly, in Part II of that Schedule, on page 18, Amendments are necessary to omit reference to Ireland as a whole, and make it clear that the Act refers only to Northern Ireland. Opportunity has been taken to bring the Act into conformity with the legislation which exists in that part of His Majesty's Dominions, which differs in some respects from legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom.
As a result of careful scrutiny of the Bill, necessitated by the Statute of Westminster, the Bill received perhaps even more examination than it does usually, with the result that a very large number of Amendments are being made in the Bill before your Lordships. They are all of a drafting character, or of very minor interest, and therefore I do not think it necessary that I should say anything in regard to them to your Lordships' House. Apart from the Schedule of the Bill the effects of the 15 clauses are, I think, clearly explained in the Notes on Clauses which precede the Bill. There are only three clauses to which I think your Lordships would desire me to draw attention, but I know that my noble friend Lord Mount Temple is anxious to ask a question, and I propose to try to reply to him at the end of the debate and to any other point which noble Lords may wish to raise, because I think it will probably be meeting the convenience of the House if I do not go into the Bill at any great length except on the more important matters.
In Clause 7 a clause is introduced to remove doubts as to whether recreation rooms in the three Services, and in the
120
ships of His Majesty's Navy, are definitely exempt from the Sunday Observance Act and the Cinema Acts. The exemption is limited to entertainments under the direct control of an officer or responsible committee, and I think you will find that there is nothing of any great consequence in that clause. It is merely to remove doubts, and has reference far more to the Air Force than to the other two defensive forces. Clause 8 deals with the attachment of officers and other ranks to His Majesty's forces in the Dominions. It will make officers and soldiers who belong to the forces of the United Kingdom subject to the military laws of the Dominions when attached, but they will not be attached to a Dominion force except with their own consent in peace time, though they will be available to be attached compulsorily in time of war.
Clause 12 deals with the question of reducing a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer to a lower grade, or to the ranks. As the law exists at present that power is confined to the Army Council, or in India to the Commander-in-Chief or officer appointed by him with the approval of the Governor-General. It is proposed in Clause 12 that the power should be utilised, where necessary, by a General Officer not below the rank of Major-General, appointed for the purpose by the Army Council. It has been found, for instance, that where we have a force as far away as Shanghai it causes undue delay when cases have to be referred home to the Army Council, to receive their consent before the sentence can take effect. General Officers have power to impose punishments far more severe than this with regard to men serving in the ranks, and therefore I think your Lordships will agree that it is a wise provision. I think those are the only matters of any consequence in this rather long measure which I need bring before the House, but if there is any point on which your Lordships wish to have information I will do my best to supply it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I desire to intervene only for a moment, as having been Under-Secretary of State for War in a previous Government. The noble Earl apologised for the size of the Bill

121
this year—almost, one might say, in inverse ratio to the size of the Army which it legalises —but the size of it is surely evidence of deep and careful scrutiny on the part of the War Office of the Acts which it is designed to incorporate, and I am certain that no one will really complain of the size of the Bill this year. I venture to suggest that perhaps it is a pity that the Government did not have a little more faith in the possibility of the success of the Disarmament Conference. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, as an evidence of his belief in the possibility of a reduction in expenditure on armaments, taken 6d, off the income Tax, it might have been a definite encouragement to the belief that the Disarmament Conference would succeed, and the figures contained in Clause 1 of this Bill might perhaps have been even more attenuated. That is as it may be, but I think it would have been a gesture which would have satisfied a large number of taxpayers, and have indicated a belief in the possibility of the success of the Conference.
It is the fact that the cuts made in expenditure and embodied in this Bill are substantial, and that they represent over a series of years considerable reductions, although not perhaps quite in proportion to the fall in the cost of living over those years. That is not necessarily a statement that those cuts are inadequate, because of course I am aware that an enormous number of fixed charges are included which cannot be reduced. Nevertheless, it is a fact that during the last six years there has been a fall in the cost of living of 55 points, which, had it been able to be applied throughout the expenditure on the Army, would have reduced that expenditure by a considerable number of millions. I suggest that it would be possible to examine the alterable Votes with a view to seeing whether perhaps they could be reduced on the cost of living basis. I realise that the fixed Votes cannot of course be altered.
The meaning of this Bill involves an understanding that there has been an immense amount of work at the War Office in order to enable the War Office to carry through the necessary alterations which have been made. I think I am right in saying that every member of
122
the Services believes, perhaps more than outside people, in efficiency. It is the tremendous desire of those in the Services to see that their units are absolutely efficient, and I cannot tell your Lordships how disappointing it is, when one does want to see efficiency, to feel that the little money for each individual case may not be available to make the efficiency greater. It is a disappointment which every member of the Services must feel.
I want to say how loyally all members of the Service during my experience at the War Office co-operated with the Government in realising the necessity for a cutting down, and in redoubling their efforts to secure that there was no loss of efficiency because of the cuts. The War Office is, as far as my experience goes, the most efficient of all Government offices. I do not believe that it can really be beaten from the point of view of efficiency, not because of anything I had to do with it—the noble Earl, of course, has inherited the result of my work, and he is very fortunate in that—but because it is an extraordinarily good piece of internal organisation. It runs with efficiency and smoothness, and it is because of that good organisation that alterations have been possible with a minimum of upset to the Army itself. We on this side have no objections to make to the Bill.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, the noble Lord justified his intervention in the debate owing to the fact that he was a former Under-Secretary of State for War. I had not thought of mentioning my past, but as another former Under-Secretary of State for War I think I am entitled to say a few words, and if he says that the noble Earl has profited by his good work, well, perhaps the noble Lord opposite may have profited by the good work which I did when I was there before his time. I am not going to deal with the general principles of the Bill, but there is one point of certain public interest which I should like to put forward for your Lordships' consideration. If you look at Clause 4, which deals with an amendment to Clause 114 of the Army Act, you will see that it is proposed, if this Bill becomes law, that the owners of all motor vehicles and

123
trailers shall be obliged, if requested by the War Office—which they most certainly would be—to furnish a return to the War Office of the mechanically-propelled vehicles and trailers which they possess, in order that the War Office may have a list of those vehicles in case of a national emergency. Of course, that is a very sound and commonsense arrangement, which nobody would wish to see put an end to, and if it does give a little trouble to the owners of mechanically-propelled vehicles and trailers, well, that is part of their contribution to national defence and security.
But I am not quite sure that it is really necessary, and that is the point which I should like my noble friend to deal with when he replies. Up till now it has obviously been necessary in the case of horses for private individuals and firms to send in a list of their horses once a year to the War Office, so that the War Office may know what horses there are in the country available for service. But I submit that such a return as is suggested in Clause 4 is not necessary for this reason. Every county council and borough council has in the course of the year to issue licences to owners of mechanically-propelled vehicles and trailers to enable them to use their vehicles upon the road. This is a list which is compiled annually, is therefore up to date, and is constantly being used by the police for the purpose of detecting crimes in connection with motor vehicles. Therefore there is ready to hand for the War Office the very thing which they desire to have. If that is so, it is obviously a work of supererogation to make the owner do that which has already been done for another purpose. Indeed, it would be much simpler for the War Office to go to the county councils and borough councils for their information than to write to scores of thousands of people to send in their returns, and, when the returns are sent in, to classify them. It seems to me that this form of economy and the avoidance of more trouble to the motor-car owners might well be explored by the War Office.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think you will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has paid a very just tribute to the work that is done at the War Office by officers and civil servants in keeping
124
the cost of the Army to the very lowest possible limit, and the efficient way in which they have succeeded in their efforts. I am doubtful whether he would be increasing the popularity which he had there if he succeeded in carrying out the scheme which he proposed. I gathered that his suggestion was that the cost of the Army should be reduced in proportion to the fall in the cost of living. Presumably that would mean that the pay of officers and men would come down, not by 10 per cent., but by the number of points in the fall in the cost of living which has occurred during the past ten years, and, further than that, that the cost of all the workmen who supply the multitudinous things which an Army requires in these modern days should equally be cut down, and the trade union rates of wages reduced to a very material extent. I am rather surprised that that suggestion should come from that quarter of the House, and it is not one which personally I should be very much inclined to follow.
With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, he was good enough to tell me of the point he was going to raise, and therefore I have been able to make inquiries. The question has been seriously considered by the War Office and they desire to have this clause for two or, possibly, three reasons. I must remind the noble Lord that a good many licences are taken out, we will say in the area of the London County Council, but for the greater part of the year the motor cars to which those licences relate are in a very different part of the country. For instance, any one who has a house in London and one in the country very likely has his motor in the country most of the time and it would not be much good to look for it in the London area.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: The noble Earl will forgive the interruption, but that is not the class of vehicle that probably the War Office would want. They would want chars-a-bancs and motor lorries not Rolls Royces.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think many of the motor cars in London are Rolls Royces. I am afraid my car does not come into that category by a very long way. But, of course, cars of all descriptions would be wanted in time of war;

125
for instance, for carrying about signal contingents, staff officers and others. But there are much more serious objections than that. The first is that a certain number of vehicles do not come under the police regulations—those which have not yet been sold, for instance, and those are just the type of vehicle that the War Office would probably wish to get hold of; that is to say, the vehicles which are still in the hands of either the manufacturers or the dealers and on which licences have not yet been taken out. Such information would obviously be valuable in the event of mobilisation.
The second point is that in regard to licences, the information which is given to the police contains nothing as regards the running capacity of the car and its then condition. If the noble Lord will refer to the Army Act he will find that the owner of horses has not only to specify the number of horses he has, but to agree that they shall be inspected and examined as and when required by the relevant authority. That is a provision which is of value in regard to motor cars of all kinds and conditions. We are anxious that when the list is provided officers shall be enabled to go down and look at the vehicles and see if they are suitable in the event of an emergency. That is why this provision is in the Bill. There is no suggestion that the War Office is going to ask every year for a list of these vehicles or that it is going to do so in the near future. The provision is put in the Bill so that if the power is required it will be available. I hope I have made the point clear to my noble friend and that he will agree that it is a wise provision to put into the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (20).]
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) No order made under this section shall make lawful during any part of the period specified in subsection (1) the killing of grey seals except—

(a) by persons holding permits for the purpose granted by the Minister or the Secretary of State; and

(b) in such manner and by means of such weapon or instrument as may be specified in the order.")

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment and propose in lieu thereof the following Amendment:
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) An order made under this section which renders lawful the killing of grey seals during any part of the period specified in subsection (1) shall contain regulations providing for the grant and revocation of permits by the Minister or the Secretary of State and prohibiting such killing except—

(a) by persons holding permits; and

(b) in such manner and by means of such weapon or instrument as may be specified in the regulations."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the necessity for the proposal to disagree with the Commons in their Amendment of subsection (2) of Clause 1 arises from the fact that when that Amendment was accepted it was not observed that the subsection in its amended form would not square with the Penalty Clause. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section 2 makes it an offence to contravene any regulation made under subsection (2) of Clause 2, the regulations in view being regulations dealing with methods of slaughter. But subsection (2) now makes no reference to regulations and also includes a new provision as to permits. It is so worded that no offence or penalty is prescribed by Clause 2 if a person kills a seal without a permit during any part of the breeding season in which killing is legalised by Order. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I am asking your Lordships' House to substitute for the Amendment made in another place an Amendment which will get over the technical difficulty by providing regulations as to permits, the contravention of which will constitute an offence under the Penalty Clause.
At the same time, to meet the point as to the revocation of permits raised in two suggested Amendments by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, we are proposing to add the words "and revocation" which will enable the Minister or the Secretary of State to take all necessary powers for the revocation of permits. I am advised that this will cover all, or nearly all, that the noble Viscount has in view, and the Government are obliged to him for raising this point. Apart from this question of revocation, the Amendment proposed is purely a matter of drafting and does not differ in substance from that which was passed in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment and propose another Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having put down an Amendment to meet some of the points raised in the Amendments which stand in my name. As he has been good enough to do that I do not propose to move the first three paragraphs of my proposed Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Commons Amendment disagreed to and the new subsection agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the new subsection (2), to insert the following:
"( ) If any person with intent to deceive—

(a) forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, or alters or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person a permit granted under this section;

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a permit as to be calculated to deceive;

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine."
"( ) If any police constable has reasonable cause to believe that any permit produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act is a document in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed he may seize the document and when any document is seized under this section the person from whom it was taken
128
shall unless the document has been previously returned to him or he has previously been charged with an offence under this section be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am glad that this system of permits has been introduced, but now that it has been introduced it seems necessary that there should be a forgery clause inserted. There are many precedents for this. There is the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, which seems to be as analogous as any. Then there is the Road Traffic Act, and there are many others such as the Merchant Shipping Act, all of which have forgery sections in them. It was rather difficult to choose which precedent to take, but I have taken the Road Traffic Act as my precedent, with the difference that I have ventured to reduce the penalties from four months to three months and from £100 to £50. It was stated in regard to the Amendment to the Road Traffic Act in this respect that it was most necessary that the police should have power to seize any document which they thought was a forgery, otherwise no prosecution could take place. I hope in those circumstances that the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After the new subsection (2) insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the question of forgery to which the noble Viscount has referred is a somewhat complicated one. The forging of permits is not within the range of practical possibility. The noble Viscount has already withdrawn his first three paragraphs and he will see that we do not consider a forgery clause to be necessary in this case. The opportunities for, and inducements to, forgery will be very small indeed and if forgery does occur it can be dealt with under the existing law. The reason for the inclusion of forgery in the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, to which the noble Lord has referred, and the inclusion of a specific

129
provision as to forgery in the Road Traffic Act was to enable proceedings to be taken summarily instead of on indictment, as would otherwise be the case, under the Forgery Act. Under these Acts the temptations to forgery may be considerable, and it was deemed necessary to add to the forgery law provisions enabling forgery offences to be dealt with summarily. In this case there is no need to burden the Bill with such special provisions where the occasion for, and the inducement to, forgery would hardly ever exist. But if a case should occur it can be dealt with under Section 3 (3) (f) or Section 4 of the Forgery Act of 1913 in England, or under the Common Law in Scotland.
I should also like to point out to the noble Viscount that there is a close parallel in the recent Destruction of Imported Animals Act. That provides for licences to import or to keep musk rats and, no doubt for reasons similar to those adduced in regard to this Bill, it contains no provisions as to the production of licences on demand or as to forgery. The regulations under the Act provide for the production of Import Licences for the obvious reason that this might be necessary to prevent the unauthorised import of musk rats. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that explanation, and, if so, will be disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not quite understand what the noble Lord referred to in speaking about indictment, because in the Road Traffic Act indictment is mentioned and also summary conviction, so that there seems to be really no distinction.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The point is one that relates to Scotland.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But this deals with England as well as Scotland.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: It is mostly Scotland.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As long as my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will say it is not to be treated as a precedent in future Bills I shall be satisfied. In that case I am willing to withdraw, but otherwise I feel some diffidence about doing so.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I hope I can satisfy my noble friend upon this. The position is that forgery is an offence at Common Law, and under the Forgery Act it can be dealt with only on indictment, which is a more formal and serious way of dealing with it. It is only with regard to a special form of document that it is desirable to provide a summary method of dealing with it, and that appears to be the case in the Road Traffic Act, under which, apparently, they give you the power to put it in either way. If there were not such a provision then you could only have dealt with it in the case of a forgery by means of indictment. In this particular case it is not thought necessary to provide a special means of dealing summarily with offences of forging permits, because it is very unlikely there will be many such offences, and, if one should arise, then there is the provision for dealing with it by indictment.
I can assure my noble friend that in any legislation which is introduced the Department concerned will in every case consider whether it is not an offence which is likely to require such frequent checking or which can be more conveniently dealt with by summary methods. In such an event the Department would provide a special clause to enable that to be done. In cases like the present, where it is not likely to happen often, then probably they will take the view, which the Department took in the present case, that in that particular instance it was not required. Therefore I hope my noble friend will realise that we are not in the least saying, because it is not in this Bill, therefore it is not desirable to have it in any other Bill. Each case should be judged on its merits, and I hope a reasonable decision will be reached in every case.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after the undertaking given by my noble and learned friend I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert:
("(3) It shall not be competent to make any order under this section applying to the islands of Haskeir Mor and Haskeir Beig, in the Outer Hebrides, or to any place within three miles of any part of these

131
islands, other than an order extending the period specified in subsection (1) of this section.")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House agree with the Commons in the Amendment on page 2, line 5. This is a new subsection inserted between subsections (2) and (3), the effect of which will be that no order can be made curtailing or cancelling the close time so far as regards the Island of Haskeir and the waters surrounding it within territorial limits, though it will be possible to make an Order extending the close time. The object of the Amendment is to make this island, which was once a famous breeding ground of the grey seal, a permanent sanctuary.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons.

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. (29).]
Clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end insert ("and calling on him to put the chancel in proper repair'').
Clause 3, page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and rules under that section may prescribe the form of the notice to repair and the manner in which it may be served").
Clause 4, page 3, leave out Clause 4.
Clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out from ("benefice") to the end of line 38.
Clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out ("rules made under this Act") and insert ("County Court rules").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it will be within the recollection
132
of the House that the object of this Bill was to remove certain jurisdiction from the Consistory Court to the County Court, and your Lordships passed the Bill without a Division. So did the House of Commons, but it was suggested in the Committee there that one or two very small Amendments should be made. These Amendments deal not with the principle of the Bill but with procedure, the object being to send the cases in future to the County Court. The proceedings had begun by formal notice, and your Lordships described what ought to be put into the notice. The Commons suggested that there should also be put into the notice words calling upon the defendant to put the chancel in proper repair. I think that is a small improvement to the notice, and it certainly will make the matter clear.
The next Amendment of the Commons was this. Whereas by the Bill jurisdiction was given to the Lord Chancellor to draw up the notice, it should now be drawn up by the Rules Committee of the learned County Court Judges. That was an Amendment I hardly liked to propose myself, as it would diminish my work to some small extent, but I am bound to say that I am very glad the Commons have put in this Amendment. I think the County Court Judges Committee will be a very convenient tribunal to deal with the form of the notice. If your Lordships agree to the Amendments I have already mentioned then there are two small Amendments in Clause 5 which are consequential, that we should omit from the definition of "Chancel" the words "but does not include a chancel which is repairable by a parochial church council." And, in the definition of "Prescribed" the words "rules made under this Act" are unnecessary now. If the rules are made by the County Court they should be called County Court rules and not "rules made under this Act.' The Amendments, though not of an important character, I think make the Bill a little clearer. I beg to Move that this House doth agree to the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS (POWERS OF INVESTMENT).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the Motion which I beg to make to your Lordships is that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the interim recommendations, dated the 22nd March, 1932, of the Gas Legislation Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and generally the extent to which gas undertakers should be authorised to invest funds in other undertakings. The question of authorising the gas undertakings to invest in this matter arose in the first instance out of the National Fuel and Power Committee's Report, and that Report is now being considered by a, Committee appointed by the Board of Trade. There are a great, many points in that Report which the Committee have not dealt with, but they have issued an interim Report dealing with this particular matter and have attached thereto certain recommendations.
Last year, and I think in the previous year, powers were given under Private Bills to Newcastle-on-Tyne and Gates-head, and also the same powers, I think, were given in 1931 in the Gas Light and Coke Company's Act and in the Mid-Southern District Utility Act. There have been a considerable number of further applications coming forward, and it seems desirable that the matter should be considered in its various aspects by a Parliamentary Committee. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade was that certain powers should be given generally to all gas undertakers, and that certain additional powers should be given to very large undertakers. Individual undertakers who should apply for powers beyond those were only to apply for them by promoting a Bill. This implied that each additional power of that kind must be considered by Parliament on its merits. It has been the practice of Parliament in the past to prohibit the manufacture of gas apparatus by statutory gas undertakings, and it desirable that any change in the law and practice should not be made without Parliamentary consideration. The change, if it is to be made, should not be made without Parliament going into the matter thoroughly
134
and for that purpose a Joint Committee seems best. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the interim recommendations, dated the 22nd March, 1932, of the Gas Legislation Committee appointed by the Board of Trade, and generally the extent to which gas undertakers should be authorised to invest funds in other undertakings, and to report accordingly.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire their concurrence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to tell your Lordships that unfortunately I have only just learned—that is why I have not had the opportunity of communicating with noble Lords opposite—that it will be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday. I am afraid, also, that it will be necessary to suspend Standing Orders, although I know that is a proceeding which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, criticises. A very remarkable situation has arisen. Some very ingenious lawyer, I am informed, has dis-covered that no President of the Board of Trade can sit in the House of Commons and if he does do so he is disqualified and incurs penalties every time he sits or votes. I think every President of the Board of Trade for a great many years past has always sat in the House of Commons and in these days of financial stringency it must be very tempting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think how many million pounds must be owing from the gentlemen who have held that office in the past.
Quite obviously, however, that is a state of affairs which requires correction and that necessitates passing a Bill to grant indemnity to those who have incurred penalties and to regularise the position. As debates in which it is very important that the President of the Board of Trade should be in a position to participate will take place early next

135
week I understand from my right hon. friend the Attorney-General that it is proposed to introduce and pass a Bill through all its stages in the House of Commons to-morrow and to ask your Lordships to take a similar course on Monday. In these circumstances, although I do not think it is a matter which will call for very prolonged debate, there seems no alternative but to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House to tell us at what hour he proposes we shall sit? Will it be at the usual time?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think if we meet at the usual hour that will be quite satisfactory. It is a matter which I do not think will take very long. It is only for the purpose of passing this one measure that your Lordships are asked to meet.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: In the circumstances, which appear to be absolutely unprecedented and which I hardly feel able to grasp fully from what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has said, it would seem to be absolutely necessary to pass the Bill through all its stages on Monday.
House adjourned at five o'clock.