Lords Sitting of 13 July 1937

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NIGERIA (REMISSION OF PAYMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
ILFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
METHYLATED SPIRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

EAST WIGHT GAS ORDER, 1937.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 6th instant, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 6th instant, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TONBRIDGE WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution of courts of summary jurisdiction for domestic proceedings]
LORD CAUTLEY: If I am in order I would like to ask the noble Lord in charge of tins Bill why it is that three has been selected as the number of magistrates who alone are to be entrusted with the hearing of these proceedings. The Bill deals, among other matters, with disputes in regard to the guardianship of infants and proceedings in relation to separations between husbands and wives, and also proceedings for bastardy. I speak as a Recorder for many years and as one who is at present a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. I venture to say that no cases give one more difficulty, speaking generally, than do husband and wife cases—difficulty, I mean, as to the

339
ascertainment of the truth. That is equally so in very many cases of bastardy. In these proceedings one is set a very extremely difficult question of fact to decide.
The view that I have always taken of petty sessional courts is that magistrates are selected because of their known character and the esteem in which they are held by the people among whom they live. As a consequence of this people have confidence in the decisions at which the justices arrive. The justices themselves are kept straight on questions of law by the magistrates' clerk. To my mind the strength of that procedure rests in a great measure in the number of magistrates sitting to decide these questions of fact; indeed, I go so far as to say that the same principles apply to the magistrates' decisions as apply to the decisions of a jury, and those principles are the foundation of the confidence which is placed in the whole of our criminal proceedings. This Bill slipped through the other place without much argument; in fact, with no argument at all on Third Reading. The question I wish to ask before we proceed further is on what principle the number of three magistrates to whom the decision of these difficult questions should be entrusted, was based. I should have liked five, but not being very cognisant with procedure in your Lordships' House I am not sure whether I can move to make the number five.
LORD MERTHYR: It falls to me to answer the question put by the noble Lord. I would refer him if I may once more to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Social Services in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, which, as I pointed out on Second Reading, forms the basis of the Bill and really provides the reason for putting a restriction upon the number of justices who should sit to hear these cases. I cannot do better, I think, than quote part of paragraph 30 of the Report of the Departmental Committee, in which they say:
"A crowded bench, so far from assisting to produce the right sort of atmosphere, is likely to add to the natural embarrassment of the parties to the dispute. The proposal to limit by Statute or by rule the number of justices entitled to adjudicate in these cases seems to us consistent with common sense and we strongly support it. The number
340
commonly favoured was three or at most five. It appears to us that a bench of not more than three justices would be the best, and we recommend this limitation."
That is the paragraph upon which this particular clause of the Bill was as based. That the number should be an odd one needs no further argument if a number is to be fixed at all, and I can only add that this Report, from which I have just quoted part of a paragraph, was the unanimous Report of an experienced and qualified Committee.
The noble Lord who has just sat down said, I think, that this Bill slipped through another place, but I would venture to point out that it was very carefully considered in Committee in another place. The proceedings in Committee there lasted, as a matter of fact, for four days and quite a large proportion of the time taken by the Committee was devoted to this particular clause in the Bill. It was very fully discussed and, whilst some preference was indicated for the figure five as against three, eventually the smaller figure proved to be the more popular. Generally speaking there are, as I think must be fairly plain, arguments for the restriction of the number of justices sitting in a case which is by nature civil and not criminal, particularly, as I explained at some length on Second Reading, where one of the parties to the case is a woman unaccustomed to legal procedure. It is not an exaggeration if I add that she is very often precluded from putting her case properly before the court by the mere sight of a large bench of justices—it is reported that sometimes the number is anything up to thirty—present in court to hear the case. The argument was fully gone into by the Departmental Committee whose Report has been very faithfully followed by the promoters of this Bill, and the promoters think it is of considerable importance to limit the number of justices sitting. Therefore they are very keen that this clause should be retained. I hope I have in some way answered the criticism of the noble Lord and that he will not object to the clause being retained.
LORD CAUTLEY: I cannot agree that my criticism has been answered. I raised no objection to the limitation of the number of justices. I only objected to the number being cut down to three. I have heard no reason given why three is

341
any better than five, so far as the litigants are concerned. I must accept, I suppose, the findings of the Departmental Committee, although I have never noticed any difficulty in either a husband or wife putting a case before the court. However, having raised the matter for your Lordships' consideration I do not feel that it is my duty to press it any further.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Newspaper reports of certain domestic proceedings.
3.—(1) It shall not be lawful for the proprietor, editor or publisher of a newspaper or periodical to print or publish therein, or cause or procure to be printed or published therein, in relation to any domestic proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1886 and 1925, or the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, 1895 to 1925, any particulars other than the following, that is to say:—

(a) the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses;

(b) the grounds of the application, and a concise statement of the charges, defences and counter-charges, in support of which evidence has been given;

(c) submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings and the decision of the court thereon;

(d) the decision of the court, and any observations made by the court in giving its decision.

LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, 1886 and 1925, or the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts, 1895 to 1925." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is one of a series of Amendments all directed to the same end—namely, to exclude bastardy proceedings from what I may call the operative parts of this Bill with the exception of the proceedings taken to enforce payment. I should tell your Lordships in advance that I am glad to say the Amendments have the approval of the Home Office. They take the form, I think, which is approved by the Home Office, and I understand that my noble friend in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept them. Therefore, it needs very little from me to commend them to your Lordships. This part of the Bill in respect of bastardy proceedings has caused some concern amongst those who are charged with the administration of the law. There is a great deal
342
to be said undoubtedly for the Report of the Departmental Committee in respect to matters which can directly be called domestic proceedings—that is to say, guardianship of infants and matrimonial disputes between husband and wife. That these cases should be tried in a more or less domestic tribunal before a small number of justices, and with limited publicity, I think is all to the good; but it is rather difficult after all, when you come to think of it, to class bastardy proceedings as domestic proceedings.
Those of us who are acquainted with the administration of the law in this respect and the cases that arise know that there are no cases which are more strongly disputed. They give rise, as my noble friend said, to very difficult questions involving most difficult questions of fact, and when they are disputed it is inevitable that there is perjury committed on one side or the other, sometimes on both. They involve the most serious charges against persons from time to time. They involve, no doubt, sometimes charges against the character of the complainant, and also very often they involve very serious implications against the character of the defendant. Unfortunately, one knows cases in which the young woman concerned has made as defendant the person who is in her opinion the most likely to be able to pay, and very often, as we know, quite unfounded charges are made against persons in most responsible positions, often against the employer of the young woman concerned. They are cases which involve most serious questions of character. These are not cases which, with great respect, ought to have any special limitation applied to them at all. They are just the most important cases that can come before a bench of justices.
And there is this further point: that a limitation of the number of justices would, in my opinion, be most unfortunate. I have had the privilege of sitting, from time to time, with my brother magistrates, and we sometimes have the painful duty of determining these cases. A bench of magistrates are, in my opinion, far and away the best tribunal in the country for determining these matters. If you can get four, five or six magistrates from different parts of the district with different occupations, they are just the people who can act as a

343
jury and are able to give you the most valuable points of view as to the habits and the places which are concerned, topics on which it is invaluable to have their aid. I should think that the administration of justice was very seriously impeded if in fact the court were limited, as is proposed here, to three justices.
Those are the simple grounds on which these Amendments are proposed. I am glad to say that I understand that they have also the approval of the Lord Chancellor; they are approved by the Home Office, and I understand will be accepted by the promoters. In those circumstances I do not suppose it is necessary to say very much more to your Lordships in support of them. I may say that this particular Amendment is in the nature of a drafting Amendment, on the footing that bastardy proceedings would be taken out of the Schedule. If your Lordships are good enough to assent to this Amendment, I think the rest follow as a matter of course.
Amendment moved——
Page 2, line 43, leave out from the beginning to ("any") in line 2 on page 3.—(Lord Atkin.)
LORD GORELL: I feel very diffident about representing a view in opposition to that of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, and still more so on a matter in which legal considerations must necessarily have such weight. I venture to think, however, that in this matter the Committee is being treated in a slightly unusual manner. It was only at the beginning of June last that this Bill received its Second Reading without a Division, and it was supported in a statement by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, whom I understood to be speaking on behalf of the Home Office, recommending the Bill to the consideration and support of your Lordships and saying that it had the full support of His Majesty's Government. Several weeks have intervened—rather an unduly protracted period—between the Second Reading stage and Committee. I think it is unquestionable that all the voluntary societies, without any exception, who have as their principal duty the consideration of the particular cases of which the noble and learned Lord spoke, are wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill as it stands.
I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord is perfectly correct in stating
344
to your Lordships that this Amendment, and the other Amendments consequential upon it, have the support of the noble and learned Viscount ordinarily upon the Woolsack. He would, no doubt, be able to tell your Lordships about that. But no new factors can have arisen to cause a complete change in the attitude of the Home Office, and it would be a misfortune if these Amendments were to pass through your Lordships' House without any expression of view on behalf of the voluntary societies connected with these cases. I have had the privilege of being president of one of them for a number of years, and it is incumbent upon me to say that the Amendments are viewed with great disappointment. We feel that the Bill, as it now stands before your Lordships, is very much needed. It has come to this stage with full support, and we are not in these Amendments considering merely a change of detail but something which removes a rather large and a very important portion of the Bill.
That being so, we are faced with the question of what it is wisest, in the interests of the Bill, to do. I am conscious that, in the Amendments which the noble and learned Lord has upon the Order Paper, while he takes away with one hand he is prepared to give back to some extent with the other. The bastardy cases will have a benefit, even with his Amendments, which they do not at present enjoy under the law, and I am given to understand that if these Amendments are rejected it is possible that the very real advance made by the Bill may be imperilled. In those circumstances those whom I have been consulting, who have been so much concerned with all these cases, feel, though with great regret, that it would be unwise to ask your Lordships to reject the Amendments. I do not know what action the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take, but I hope he will recognise that, as has been said, politics is one long second-best; that we, in the position which has arisen, are unfortunately unable to get all that we had hoped, but that we do at any rate get something. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to accept the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord.
LORD MERTHYR: I have very little to add to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, except to say that the promoters of the Bill accept these

345
Amendments. Your Lordships, on looking at the list of them, will observe that they are really all consequential upon the last of them—or rather, the first five of them are consequential upon the sixth. As the noble Lord has said, although bastardy proceedings are to be left out of the Schedule to the Bill altogether, they are to be included in three clauses of the Bill: 5, 6 and 7. Therefore certain advantages will be gained in matters of procedure in courts of summary jurisdiction when dealing with affiliation cases. If this Amendment is accepted—and on behalf of the promoters of the Bill I am to say that it is not resisted—then, in matters concerning the investigation of the means of defendants against whom an order has been made, this Bill will apply; and, as in Clause 6, there will also be a. change in the procedure in affiliation cases, inasmuch as assistance will be given in the matter of the examination of witnesses by the court; and also in Clause 7. I need not mention that further, because it is really a piece of machinery. I can only add that, as has been already said, there will, I recognise, be no little disappointment in many circles as the result of the acceptance of these Amendments and the consequent exclusion of affiliation proceedings from this Bill. Those who are responsible for its introduction into Parliament have, however, after mature consideration decided that it would be wise and proper to accept these Amendments, and I recommend to your Lordships that they should be duly passed.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps I might add one word before these Amendments are put to your Lordships. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on the Second Reading of this Bill I gave it the support of His Majesty's Government. It will also, however, he remembered that at that time I refrained from mentioning any of the details connected with the Bill. On hearing the criticisms made by high legal authority, I think it advisable that these Amendments should be accepted by your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Investigation by courts of summary jurisdiction as to means.
5.—(1) Where in any domestic proceedings in which ail order may be made for the periodical payment of money by any person, or in any proceedings for the enforcement or variation of any such order, a court of summary jurisdiction or a justice of the peace has requested a probation officer to conduct an investigation into the means of the parties to the proceedings, the court may direct the probation officer to report the result of his investigation to the court in accordance with the provisions of this section:
Provided that in the case of any such domestic proceedings no direction to report to the court shall be given to a probation officer under this subsection until the court has determined all issues arising in the proceedings other than the issue as to the amount to be directed to be paid by such an order.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, in subsection (1), after "such order," to insert "or in any proceedings in any matter of bastardy." The noble and learned Lord said: Now that your Lordships have been good enough to accept the first Amendment, which I think we may take as agreeing to accept the principle of the Amendments, this Amendment follows almost as a matter of course. As Lord Merthyr has said, this is moved with a view of putting in bastardy proceedings (and not taking them out) for the purpose of investigation by courts of summary jurisdiction as to means. That seems to be perfectly proper and reasonable, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Clause 5, page 4, line 21, after ("order") insert ("or in any proceedings in any matter of bastardy").—(Lord Atkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "domestic proceedings," to insert "or of proceedings for an affiliation order." The noble and learned Lord said: This is the same matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after ("proceedings") insert ("or of proceedings for an affiliation order").—(Lord Atkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6:
Examination of witnesses where parties are not legally represented.
6. Where in any domestic proceedings, or ill any proceedings for the enforcement or

347
variation of an order made in domestic proceedings, it appears to a court of summary jurisdiction that any party to the proceedings who is not legally represented is unable effectively to examine or cross-examine a witness, the court shall ascertain from that party what are the matters about which the witness may be able to depose or on which the witness ought to be cross-examined, as the case may be, and shall put, or cause to be put to the witness, such questions in the interests of that party as may appear to the court to be proper.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "domestic proceedings," to insert "or in proceedings in any matter of bastardy." The noble and learned Lord said: The same question arises here; that is, a question of proceedings to enforce or vary an order made in domestic proceedings. It deals with a question of means, and it is right and proper that bastardy proceedings should be included in that respect.
Amendment moved—
Clause 6, page 5, line 18, after ("proceedings") insert ("or in proceedings in any matter of bastardy").—(Lord Atkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Extension of duties of probation officers.
7. Acts done by a probation officer—
(c) in conducting, at such a request as aforesaid, investigations as to the means of parties to domestic proceedings, or to proceedings for the enforcement or variation of orders made in domestic proceedings;
shall be deemed for the purposes of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, to be acts done by him in the performance of his duties under that Act.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved, at the end of paragraph (c) to insert "or to proceedings in any matter of bastardy." The noble and learned Lord said: It is the same proposal in reference to inquiries which may be made by probation officers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 7, page 5, line 41, after ("proceedings") insert ("or to proceedings in any matter of bastardy").—(Lord Atkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule:

SCHEDULE.
Domestic Proceedings.
Proceedings—
(c) for affiliation orders under the Acts relating to bastardy;
other than proceedings for the enforcement of an order made under any of those Acts, or for the variation of any provision of an order made under any of those Acts for the payment of money.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved to leave out from the Schedule paragraph (c). The noble and learned Lord said: This is the effective part of the proposal. The result, which has now been accepted by your Lordships, is that paragraph (c) disappears, so that domestic proceedings, as defined in the Bill, will only include proceedings under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, and the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts. Affiliation proceedings will only come in in those clauses in which you have been good enough to let me include them by my Amendments.
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule, page 8, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Atkin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER ANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to consolidate the law affecting the superannuation of local government employees and also to amend it in certain particulars. It will constitute, if accepted by Parliament, a complete code of the law relating to this subject. A White Paper which is published with this Bill sets out, I think very clearly, what the intentions of the Government are, but perhaps I might refer to one or two of the more important effects of the Bill. If this Bill is passed, all whole-time officers of local authorities will be compulsorily included in a superannuation scheme. The other main provisions deal with the facilitation of voluntary superannuation schemes with regard to the servants of these authorities. The Bill is really the outcome of a series of deliberations between the interested

349
parties which have lasted over a considerable number of years. There was a Committee which reported in 1927 but progress did not emerge very rapidly from that Committee's Report because of the financial crisis and other reasons. Agreement has been now reached between associations representing the local authorities and the National Association of Local Government Officers, and therefore I can submit the Bill as an agreed measure.
Your Lordships may perhaps remember that the original Superannuation Act was passed in 1922. That Act gave the authorities power to make discretionary superannuation schemes and that Act has been widely utilised. At present 944 out of 1,556 authorities have adopted the Act. There are, however, still 587 authorities without these superannuation arrangements. The reason why it is considered desirable to require uniformity of practice throughout the whole local government machine is largely to be found in the increasing responsibilities and increasing importance of the local government service. I am sure that everyone will agree that it is highly important to secure the best type of applicant for these services, and to secure also that, once having been appointed, the local government official may regard himself as entering a career with various opportunities of promotion and so forth. It is therefore necessary to secure ease of transfer from one local authority to another when these vacancies may be filled as they occur, and this can only be done if approximately the same conditions prevail throughout the service. Therefore this Bill makes provision that all whole-time administrative professional and clerical officers should be included.
The Government considered at some length the question of how far to carry this compulsory principle and whether it should be applied to the servants as well as to the officers of authorities, but they finally decided that it should not be applied to the servants, and in this they are following the recommendation of the minority rather than of the majority of the Selby-Bigge Committee. The real reason for this decision was that the manual labourers, road staff and so forth, do not enter the local government service as a career in the same way as the officers, and they do not have the same need for opportunities for transfer or mobility. I
350
quite agree, of course, that provisions should be made for the old age requirements of these servants just in the same way as it is desirable in the case of the officials, but some provision is made by reason of the contributory pensions schemes which apply universally to all manual workers employed on a definite contract of service.
I would also point out that if it is considered desirable by the local authorities to make additional provision for their employees by means of a superannuation scheme they are at perfect liberty to do so—in fact, the process by which these discretionary schemes can be made is facilitated by this Bill, and certain additional benefits are permitted. For instance, it is laid down that henceforth all superannuable employees will be entitled to reckon past local government service for pension purposes; all periods of service are to be aggregated; periods of unemployment or absence on sick leave with reduction or suspension of pay during the last five years of service are to be ignored in calculating pension; the employee whose remuneration is reduced owing to his inability to perform his usual duties will be allowed to continue his contributions on the former scale and thus preserve his pension rights in full; a married employee will be able (in return for surrender of part pension) to provide an annuity for a surviving wife or husband.
I think I ought to say a word about one class of employee who are in a rather particular position—namely, nurses, health visitors and midwives. Their work is generally of a somewhat strenuous character and they often find it difficult to carry on with full efficiency after the age of sixty. The Bill accordingly provides that this class shall retire at sixty, and it also allows them to take their pensions at the age of fifty-five after thirty years' service has been completed, which compares with the forty years minimum in other services. We recognise that if the compulsory retiring age is fixed at sixty some of these nurses and health visitors will be at a disadvantage in that they may not be able to complete forty years' service and so earn the full pension, and the Bill allows the local authority to award a compensatory allowance to such employees.

351
There are a number of other provisions included in the Bill chiefly to remedy minor hardships which have arisen since the passing of the 1922 Act. I might draw particular attention to the position of those employees who joined the forces for the period of the last War. Some doubts have arisen as to the exact position of those employees, and as to whether they are entitled to count their War service in these superannuation calculations. Your Lordships will see that in Clause 12 (3) it is laid down that such service can be taken into account, and we further contemplate some further clarification of the position in regard to the War service. In the Bill it is laid down that the day of the Armistice is to be taken as the final date up to which War service can be calculated, but we propose to introduce an Amendment to extend that in some directions. Special provision is also being made in regard to employees engaged in a temporary capacity so that their rights shall be safeguarded if they subsequently become further employed. There is also provision made for appeal to the Minister in cases of disputes as to the rights of employees, and the Minister may and in certain cases shall, state a case to the High Court on any case which may arise.
This is a Bill of a very technical character. The technicalities of it appeal, not unnaturally perhaps, a little more to those who are going to be affected by it than to the general public. Nevertheless, it is a Bill of great importance, because nobody who has anything to do with local government can fail to appreciate the extent to which we rely on the efficiency of that service. We all know that a continual stream of Bills is passed every Session by Parliament. We also know that the mere passing of them is only half the battle. The application of them is nearly always a matter involving a great deal of hard work and much complicated work, and I think that few of us would grudge to these officials, on whom so much depends, such improvement as can be reasonably effected in their conditions of service. As I have already explained, this is largely a Consolidation Bill. Apart from some Amendments in Committee, the principle of which was accepted without any Division in another place, no exception was taken to the principle of the Bill, and in view of the fact that it has been agreed between the parties interested, I hope your Lordships will be content with this
352
explanation and will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while I entirely agree with the noble Viscount with regard to this Bill, I should perhaps say that we on these Benches approve of the Bill—or should I say that I approve of the Bill? But it does not go quite far enough for, as the noble Viscount said, it only embraces the conditions of actual officers of councils and not those of other employees. The noble Viscount was good enough to indicate that certain Amendments might be put in in Committee and might even be accepted. I think he said that he was going to put down an Amendment which would embrace employees who did War service. I am hoping therefore that the two Amendments that I have in mind, which I have indicated to the noble Viscount, and which I believe were discussed in another place, may receive that favourable consideration which only two or three days ago the Government gave to suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in regard to another Bill.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I quite agree that this is a very good Bill. It has been welcomed by the National Association of Local Government Officers right through the country, because it now compels every authority to have a superannuation scheme. As the noble Viscount pointed out, no fewer than 587 local authorities have no scheme at all, and under this Bill a proper career will be provided for those very industrious people the local government officers of this country, because if they go to another authority which has no pensionable rights that authority does not at present give them the benefit of their transfer. I can tell the noble Viscount that this Bill is very much welcomed by this very powerful association. The controversy when the Bill was first introduced was about temporary officers, because it was found that under a great many authorities men were employed in important posts as temporary officers and were therefore ineligible for superannuation rights. That is now going to cease, and that is all to the good. On the other hand there was a good deal of dissatisfaction when the Bill was first introduced because it did not allow any temporary officers to be

353
appointed. It can be quite understood that if all persons, whatever the service, were to be entitled to pensions it would be a great difficulty because an authority might need a man's services only for a year or two years. That has been got over by fixing the period at two years, and that again is all to the good.
I might say that in London the London County Council, the City of Westminster, and a good many other borough councils in London have long had these superannuation schemes. Either they took advantage of the 1922 Act, or they have introduced schemes of their own which have received the assent of Parliament. Now every authority will be compelled to make proper provision for its own employees. I should like to add that the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, which represents all the borough councils of London irrespective of Party, have asked me to say how greatly they appreciate the introduction of this Bill. As regards the employees, I think the noble Viscount is quite right in saying that it is of great benefit that there are contributory schemes, and I think he will find on examination that most of the more progressive and enlightened authorities have got schemes of that kind. It is not for me to judge, because I have not the facts before me; it is for the Government to judge whether it is wise or unwise to make these schemes compulsory. It has taken a long time in the case of the officers to produce a compulsory scheme, and it is very difficult, without further information, to decide whether it is right or not. But having been asked to do so, I feel it my duty to express the pleasure of the local authorities, and also of the officers of the local authorities, that this Bill has been brought in by the Government, and the hope that it will now pass into law.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not rise in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. On the contrary my feeling is rather one of surprise that we have not seen this Bill many years ago. Such as it is, I am happy to see it, and hope it will be passed into law and be successful when it is in operation. I rise only to call attention to a sidelight which arises under this Bill, but it is an important sidelight, as it affects hospital work in this country. I am thinking more of the pensions which nurses will
354
draw under this Bill as compared with what now happens in the voluntary hospitals. As your Lordships are aware, in the voluntary hospitals there is what is known as the federated superannuation scheme. That has been running for some years, very hopefully. It has not been running long enough to allow a definite opinion to be formed. I do not think any great disadvantages have so far shown themselves, and we have every hope that, as years go on, it will prove a very useful plan. Under this Bill, nurses who are employed in the municipal hospitals will, in their turn, quite rightly qualify for a pension, but under a totally different scheme and on a totally different scale. I do not object to the difference of scale, but the fact that there is a new scheme is unfortunate, because it makes any interchangeability between the two bodies practically impossible.
It is true that if a nurse transferred from the voluntary hospital system now to the municipal system, she would take with her accrued rights under the federated scheme, but if a nurse transferred in turn from the municipal side to the voluntary hospital side, she would do so under very much less advantageous terms. Going from the voluntary side to the municipal side, the nurse would take with her both her own contributions and her employers' contributions, but going from the municipal side to the voluntary hospital side she would take only her personal contributions; she would take nothing on behalf of her employers. That is going to be very unfortunate in practice, because it will mean that interchangeability between the services will be hampered. The two services are approximating to each other every day, and it is very desirable, from a national point of view, that they should approximate. It will be very unfortunate if difficulties are put in the way by the fact that the nursing system of the country will be divided into two absolutely different classes and unable to benefit each other as they should. The difficulty will arise at once in one small way because, as your Lordships are aware, the municipal hospitals now very largely recruit their nurses from the training schools attached to the voluntary hospitals. In the voluntary hospitals they begin to qualify for pension rights the minute they join, and they would have a small modicum to take with them if they

355
transferred to the municipal side. It may be that that will work smoothly, but, in my opinion, it will have an indirect effect, because the municipal hospitals will not get the best of these nurses—in fact, they will only get those who do not see a good career on the voluntary side.
It is a small point. I know it has been brought to the notice of the Government, and I understand that at present nothing can be done. The Government, I fancy, are bound by the decision of those mysterious people known as their actuaries. In this matter Governments are at a great disadvantage compared with ordinary laymen who deal with actuaries. A layman who is told by an actuary that a certain thing cannot be done can deal with the matter in a few minutes, or get another actuary. I have done so with great benefit on two or three occasions in times past. I have never allowed myself to be bullied by a mere mathematician! Governments are not so fortunate. They have got their actuaries, and they have to obey them. They cannot depart from the advice they give. It is a pity there is not some interchangeability arranged for on this point. I believe it would not be difficult, with good will on each side. I suppose it is too late to hope that this Bill will be amended in the direction I have adumbrated, but I draw comfort from the fact that, good as the Bill is, it is bristling with difficulties which will probably have to be dealt with as the Bill works out, and I do not think it will be long before we have an Amending Bill. When that time comes, I hope the Government will show themselves to be in a more sympathetic attitude than they have adopted up to the present.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I must thank noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, adumbrated an Amendment which I think was moved in another place. Although there was a full discussion of the point there, we shall be very happy to have it again here. I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for his authoritative support of the Bill. With regard to my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, I agree that it is never an easy matter to satisfy everybody, particularly on a highly complicated and technical question such as
356
this. I would remind the noble Earl that this Committee reported in 1927, and deliberations have been proceeding, one way and another, almost ever since. I am fully aware of the improbability of satisfying all the various classes of people who might be included in the scheme, but I will, of course, lay what he has said before my right honourable friend, without holding out very much hope that anything will be done in this Bill. My noble friend seemed to understand that himself. I have nothing further to add, but would merely once again commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMIS SIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee, with your permission I would like to say a few words, because when this Bill was debated on Second Reading I promised Lord Howe that I would give an answer to certain questions which he then raised. In the first place, I want to make it quite clear that the object of this Bill is to give reasonable security of tenure with a prospect of pension to a body of men who were carefully selected for their posts as long ago as 1930 and have an onerous and exacting task to perform. There is nothing in this Bill which will make it more likely for an unsuitable person to be appointed or to be allowed to continue his office if found to be unsuitable. Assuming good behaviour, their posts are made permanent as against the present system of varying tenures at the will of the Minister, who has power to prolong them, a power which he frequently exercises. The Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal, for instance, was appointed by the Minister for ten years as from 1934. The question as to whether there should or should not be Traffic Commissioners or a Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal is not affected by the Bill at all. All that this Bill lays down is that all such persons as have

357
been appointed under the 1930 and 1933 Acts shall be given reasonable security of tenure and a pension if eligible.
My noble friend also asked me whether it would be possible to raise the conduct of the Traffic Commissioners on the Ministry of Transport Vote. I am advised that, as the salaries of the Commissioners are borne on the Vote, discussion would appear to be in order. The powers of the Minister of Transport, however, in respect to the Commissioners are severely circumscribed by the 1930 and 1933 Acts. I feel that this Bill is an act of justice to the present holders of these offices and will facilitate the recruitment of suitable successors to fill their places in time to come, and I hope your Lordships will agree to pass the Bill into law. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Erne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gautley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair].
Clause 1:
Prohibition of films involving or depicting the suffering of animals.
1.—(1) No person shall exhibit any cinematograph film to the public or supply such a film to any person for public exhibition (whether by him or by another person), if in connection with the production of the film any scene was organised or directed in such a way as to involve fie cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury.
(2) In any proceedings brought under this Act in respect of any film the court may, until the contrary is proved, infer from the incidents depicted or purporting to be depicted by the film as exhibited to the public or supplied for public exhibition, as the case may be, that in connection with the production of the film a scene was organised or
358
directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on an animal or the cruel goading of an animal to fury, but it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove either that no scene so organised or directed as aforesaid is represented in the film as exhibited to the public or supplied for public exhibition, as the case may be, or that he neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe that any scene so represented was so organised or directed.
LORD CAUTLEY LORD CAUTLEY had four Amendments on the Paper to make subsection (1) read as follows:
"No person shall exhibit to the public or supply to any person for public exhibition (whether by him or by another person) any cinematograph film (whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere), if in connection with the production of the film any scene represented in the film was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury."
The noble Lord said: Before dealing with the Amendments seriatim may I say that this Bill received a Second Reading a week ago to-day, and immediately after that, at the request of a representative of the Home Office, a meeting was held between him and the Parliamentary Counsel and the promoters of this Bill. These Amendments were settled at that meeting really at the request of the Home Office. I think the Minister who appears for the Home Office here to-day will confirm me when I state that none of the Amendments alters either the intention or the substance of the Bill in any way whatever. All that they do is to clarify the position of a defendant who can come within its clutches, and, that being so, regarding them, as I do, as merely drafting, I propose to say little or nothing about them, but I am prepared to answer any question that any of your Lordships may wish to put.
I have before me a copy of the new clause that takes the place of the old clause. It appears to be exactly what I have stated. Perhaps I may give one illustration and take the first three Amendments, in lines 6, 7 and 8. If these Amendments are agreed to the clause will read:
"No person shall exhibit to the public or supply to any person for public exhibition (whether by him or by another person) any cinematograph film (whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere) …"

359
I will stop short there and move the first Amendment in my name. Afterwards I will move the other Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("any cinematograph film").—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: The next Amendment is to leave out "such a film."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("such a film"). —(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: The next is to insert certain words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("any cinematograph film (whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere)").—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: The next simply adds words which will make the subsection read:
"if in connection with the production of the film any scene represented in the film "—
and then the original words of the clause are retained.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("scene") insert ("represented in the film").—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY LORD CAUTLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "until the contrary is proved" and insert "without prejudice to any other mode of proof." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. The original subsection reads:
"In any proceedings brought under this Act in respect of any film the court may…"
Then these words are added by the Amendment:
"without prejudice to any other mode of proof,"
and you omit the words "until the contrary is proved," so that the subsection goes on "infer from"—and so on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("may") to ("infer") in line 15, and insert ("without prejudice to any other mode of proof"). —(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY LORD CAUTLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the incidents depicted or purporting to be depicted by the." The noble Lord said: Again I will read from the Bill:
"…infer from the incidents depicted or purporting to be depicted by the film as exhibited to the public or supplied for public exhibition, as the case may be."
I propose to leave out the words "the incidents depicted or purporting to be depicted by." With other Amendments this is done purely to clarify the wording.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("from") to the first ("the") in line 16.—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: I think it will best clarify the position if I read how the clause will go on if the other Amendments which I have on the Paper are agreed to:
"that a scene represented in the film as so exhibited or supplied was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on an animal or the cruel goading of an animal to fury, but whether the court draws such an inference or not it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that he believed and had reasonable cause to believe that no scene so represented was so organised or directed."
Really the words in the original Bill are only paraphrased, and some of the Amendments are consequential. The next two are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("in connection with the production of the film")
Page 1, line 18 after ("scene") insert ("represented in the film as so exhibited or supplied").—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: In the next two Amendments I propose to insert "whether the court draws such an inference or not" and to leave out the words "either that no scene so organised or directed as aforesaid is represented in the film as exhibited to the public or supplied for public exhibition, as the case may be, or." As I have explained the Amendments are moved to clarify the subsection.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("but") insert ("(whether the court draws such an inference or not)")
Page 1, line 22, leave out from ("prove") to ("that") in line 2 on page 2. —(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD CAUTLEY: There are two other drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("neither knew nor") and insert ("believed, and")
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("any") and insert ("no").—(Lord Cautley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

TRADE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I would point out that these Amendments, although many in number, are mostly of a drafting or clarifying character. Partly they have been put forward or accepted by the Government in order to meet certain objections or anxieties expressed with regard to the possible effects of certain provisions of the Bill. I would propose with your Lordships' permission to group together as far as possible the Amendments on each clause, explaining as shortly as possible those which are of a more important nature.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 45.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out ("trade").
Clause 1, page 2, line 2, after ("mark") insert ("shall be construed as references to the use of a printed or other visual representation of the mark, and references therein to the use of a mark").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the omission of the word "trade" is to make this provision wide enough to cover marks which are not trade marks in conformity with Clause 15. The effect of the latter Amendment is to limit the "use" of a trade mark for infringement and other purposes to a printed or other visual use. It makes clear that a mere oral use is not included within the category of infringing acts. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert ("to the extent to which").
Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave, out ("to the inherent adaptability of the trade mark") and insert ("the trade mark is inherently adapted").
Clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out ("to the extent to which").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these Amendments to Clause 2 are drafting Amendments aimed at replacing the word "adaptability"—which does not appear in this connection in the existing Acts, and would need interpretation—by the expression "adapted to distinguish" which is already in the Acts and has been elucidated by a number of judgments of the Courts. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert ("to the extent to which")
Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out ("to the inherent capability of the trade mark to distinguish") and insert ("the trade mark is inherently capable of distinguishing")
Clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out ("to the extent to which").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these three Amendments constitute a corresponding group of Amendments to the last group. Their object is the replacement of the word "capability," which would have been new to this provision, by the words "capable of distinguishing" which appear in the Act of 1919. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMON'S AMENDMENTS.
Page 3, line 14, after ("of") insert ("subsection (r) of")
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("down to the words 'against the provisions of Section eleven of this Act'").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments

363
consequent on the division of Section 41 of the principal Act into two subsections in the Third Schedule. I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ("have been originally invalid, or to")
Clause 4, page 3, line 36, after ("use") insert ("after the date of the registration")
Clause 4, page 3, line 39, leave out ("but") and insert ("Provided that")
Clause 4, page 3, line 40, leave out from ("there") to ("a") in line 41 and insert ("is")
Clause 4, page 4, line 4, leave out from ("use") to ("or") in line 6 and insert ("in relation to goods connected in the course of trade with the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark or (in the case of a certification trade mark) goods certified by the proprietor")
Clause 4, page 4, leave out line 12
Clause 4, page 4, line 13, leave out ("as the case may be")
Clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out ("notwithstanding anything in Section forty-one of the principal Act")
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out from ("he") to ("an") in line 29.
Clause 4, page 4, line 30, leave out ("as the case may be")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I think it would be convenient if I might take all the Amendments to Clause 4 together. This clause, which is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, deals with cases in which a word trade mark has become the name or description of the article or substance in relation to which it has been used. It protects a trade mark from being invalidated by the mere fact that it is used as such a name or description by the public—a matter which the trade mark owner often cannot control—unless in an ordinary case there has been a well-known and established use of the word as such a name or description of the article or substance (not being goods of the owner of the trade mark) by a person carrying on a trade therein, or in the case of an article or substance which was formerly manufactured under a patent, a period of two years or more after the cesser of the patent has elapsed and the word is still the only practicable name or description of the article or substance.
364
The clause, as it stood, was wide enough to cover the cases, firstly, where the word had become the descriptive name before the date of its registration as a trade mark, and, secondly, where it had become such a name after registration. The Amendments, other than that at page 4, line 4—which I will mention in a moment—are designed to limit the clause to the second case where the word became the descriptive name of the article or substance after the registration of the trade mark. This will leave cases in which the word may be alleged to be already descriptive at the date of the application for registration to be dealt with under the ordinary rules for testing the suitability of a mark for registration, and if a mark should be registered which does not satisfy those conditions it will be open to any person aggrieved to apply for its removal from the Register.
The reference to Section 41 of the principal Act in subsection (2) at page 4, is now no longer necessary, because Section 41 deals with the validity of the original registration of the trade mark whereas, as I have said, the amended clause is confined to matters arising after registration. The Amendment at page 4, line 4, is of a drafting character only and is intended to make clear the original in- tention—namely, that the well-known and established use of the word or words as the name or description of the article or substance by some person other than the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark must, in order to invalidate the trade mark, be use in relation to goods which are not the goods of the proprietor or registered user. I beg to move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 7, page 6, line 37, leave out ("trade mark when registered") and insert ("registered trade mark")
Clause 7, page 6, line 41, leave out ("trade mark when registered") and insert ("registered trade mark").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 7, line 2, at end insert:
("(3) The provisions of the two foregoing subsections shall have effect in the case of an unregistered trade mark used in relation to any goods as they have effect in the case of a registered trade mark registered in respect of any goods, if at the time of the assignment or transmission of the unregistered trade mark it is or was used in the same business as a registered trade mark, and if it is or was assigned or transmitted at the same time and to the same person as that registered trade mark and in respect of goods all of which are goods in relation to which the unregistered trade mark is of was used in that business and in respect of which that registered trade mark is or was assigned or transmitted.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this clause as it stood removed the requirement that the assignment or transmission of a registered trade mark must be accompanied by that of the good will of the business concerned. It left unregistered trade marks where they were in this respect, that is to say, they remained assignable only along with the goodwill of the business concerned. There are objections to the extension of freedom, of transfer without goodwill to unregistered trade marks generally; particularly as these marks are often lacking in distinctiveness, and claims to the exclusive right to their use have frequently not been tested. There are, however, some cases in which it would be desirable to allow unregistered trade marks to be assigned along with registered trade marks without the whole of the goodwill of the business, for example, in cases where there are in use in the same section of the business a number of unregistered trade marks which are variations upon a. registered trade mark. The new subsection (3) accordingly extends the provisions of the clause with regard to the assignment of a registered trade mark without goodwill to an unregistered trade mark passing at the same time as a registered trade mark, to the same assignee, and in respect of goods for which the registered trade mark is transferred and the unregistered trade mark has been used in the same business. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("person") and insert ("of the persons concerned")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make clear that the persons whose use of the trade mark in question is to be considered are persons concerned in the assignment or transmission. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("registered proprietor of a") and insert ("proprietor of a registered")
Page 7, line 29, after ("it") insert ("in respect of ally goods in respect of which it is registered")
Page 7, line 34, after ("assignment") insert ("of the first-mentioned trade mark")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of these three Amendments in subsection (4) is to make clear that, notwithstanding the extension of Clause 7 to unregistered trade marks under the conditions laid down in the proposed new subsection (3), the facility given by subsection (4) to the proprietor of a trade mark to take the opinion of the Registrar as to whether his assignment would or would not be invalid under the clause is to be confined to registered trade marks. I beg to move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That: this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("person") and insert ("of the persons concerned")
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("person") and insert ("of those persons")
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("subsection (I) or (2)") and insert ("subsections (1) to (3)")
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("registered")
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("registered")
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("if") and insert ("or under subsection (4) of this section, so, however, that in the case of a registered trade mark this provision shall not have effect unless")
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("in like manner")
Page 9, line 7, after ("transmission") insert ("of a registered trade mark")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these are all Amendments to subsection (5) of Clause 7 which deals with the assignment of a trade mark in respect of part only of the United Kingdom, and perhaps I may take them together. As the subsection stood, it prohibited generally such an assignment in the case both of registered and unregistered trade marks, but made an exception as regards registered trade marks if, in a particular case, it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Registrar that the results of such an assignment would not be contrary to the public interest. Having regard in particular to the freedom proposed to be given for the assignment of unregistered trade marks in the circumstances set out in the new subsection (3) to this clause, it is thought that the Registrar should have the same powers of approving the assignment of an unregistered trade mark for part only of the United Kingdom, and so taking it out of the ban imposed by subsection (5), as he has in the case of a registered trade mark. This is effected by leaving out the word "registered" from lines 23 and 25 on page 8. The Amendment at page 9, line 7, is intended to make clear that the power of the Registrar to validate an assignment of this sort effected before the commencement of the Act shall, however, apply only to cases of registered trade marks. The other Amendments are of a purely drafting character.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, line 23, at end insert:
("() Where an assignment in respect of any goods of a trade mark that is at the time of the assignment used in a business in those goods is made after the commencement of this Act otherwise than in connection with the goodwill of that business, the assignment shall not take effect until the following requirements have been satisfied, that is to say, the assignee must, not later than the expiration of six months from the date on which the assignment is made or within such extended period, if any, as the Registrar may allow, apply to him for directions with respect to the advertisement of the assignment, and must advertise it in such form and manner and within such period as the Registrar may direct.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of this new subsection is to secure advertisement of any assignment of a
368
trade mark made without the goodwill of the business with a view to preventing deception of persons who had in the past associated the trade mark with the assignor. The assignment is not to take effect until the advertisement has been made under the direction of the Registrar. The Registrar will, no doubt, order the advertisement to be inserted in London or local newspapers, or in trade journals or catalogues — or possibly, in some cases, he will direct that it shall be applied to the goods themselves—as may be best calculated to cause it to reach the persons for whose information it is intended. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 10, line 9, leave out ("any") and insert ("the purposes of Section twelve of this Act and for any other").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is really only a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 11, line 11, after ("Registrar") insert ("after considering the information furnished to him under the last foregoing subsection").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Amendment is to ensure that the Registrar, before deciding whether a proposed registration of a "registered user" would or would not be contrary to the public interest, shall consider the information with which he is required to be furnished by the applicants for such registration. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 12, page 16, line 40, after ("or") insert ("for the purposes of")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 13, page 17, line 17, leave out ("respect of") and insert ("relation to").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment, inserted for conformity of language with other parts of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 15, page 59, line 23, leave out from ("or") to ("in") in line 24 and insert ("so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion").
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this clause relates to the effects of registration, and deals in particular with the kind of acts which are to be deemed to constitute infringement of a registered trade mark. As the clause stands, a registered trade mark may be infringed by the use of a mark (a) identical with it, or (b) comprising any of its essential features, or (c) colourably resembling it. It is thought that descriptions (b) and (c) are not sufficiently precise, and the Amendment would replace them by a reference to a mark "so nearly resembling" the mark alleged to be infringed "as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion." These words have the additional advantage that they correspond to similar expressions in other parts of the Bill—for example, in Clause 9. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 19, line 29, leave out ("to import") and insert ("in a case in which the use is use upon the goods or in physical relation thereto or in an advertising circular, or other advertisement issued to the public, as importing")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is an Amendment to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 15. Under the existing law a trade mark can be infringed only when the mark complained of as infringing it is used as a trade
370
mark, that is to say, as indicating the trade source of the goods concerned. A judgment of this House has shown that it is at present no infringement of a trade mark to use it in such an expression as "This is a substitute for 'X'", where "X" is the trade mark, The Bill as it stood altered the law in this respect and included such a use among infringing uses. The Amendment limits such a use, if it is to be an infringement, to a use upon or in physical relation to the goods themselves, or in an advertising circular or other advertisement issued to the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 5, leave out from ("goods") to ("or") in line 9, and insert ("connected in the course of trade with the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark if, as to those goods or a bulk of which they form part, the proprietor or the registered user conforming to the permitted use has applied the trade mark and has not subsequently removed or obliterated it, or has at any time expressly or impliedly consented to the use of the trade mark")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is twofold. In the first place it is intended to make clear that a trade mark which has been applied to goods in bulk by the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark and not removed by him may be used upon those goods after the bulk has been broken. This is considered merely to preserve the existing law. It is, of course, subject to the power of prohibition by contract given to the proprietor of a registered trade mark by Clause 17. The latter part of the Amendment is thought to be necessary, now that the acts constituting infringement have been specified in the Bill, in order to preserve the ordinary plea of leave and licence to a defendant claiming that he has used the trade mark on the proper goods with the express or implied consent of the proprietor or registered user. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 17, pages 21 and 22, leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new clause:
Infringement of trade 'nark by breach of certain restrictions.
("—(1) Where, by a contract in writing made with the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark, a purchaser or owner of goods enters into an obligation to the effect that he will not do, in relation to the goods, an act to which this section applies, any person who, being the owner for the time being of the goods and having notice of the obligation, does that act, or authorises it to be done, in relation to the goods in the course of trade or with a view to any dealing therewith in the course of trade, shall be deemed thereby to infringe the right to the use of the trade mark given by the registration thereof, unless that person became the owner of the goods by purchase for money or money's worth in good faith before receiving notice of the obligation or by virtue of a title derived through another who so became the owner thereof.
(2) The acts to which this section applies are—

(a) the application of the trade mark upon the goods after they have suffered alteration in any manner specified in the contract as respects their state or condition, get-up or packing;

(b) in a case in which the trade mark is upon the goods, the alteration, partial removal or partial obliteration thereof;

(c) in a case in which the trade mark is upon the goods, and there is also thereon other matter, being matter indicating a connection in the course of trade between the proprietor or registered user and the goods, the removal or obliteration, whether wholly or partially, of the trade mark unless that other matter is wholly removed or obliterated;

(d) in a case in which the trade mark is upon the goods, the application of any other trade mark to the goods;

(e) in a case in which the trade mark is upon the goods, the addition to the goods of any other matter in writing that is likely to injure the reputation of the trade mark.

(3) Subsection (2) of Section sixteen of this Act shall not apply to an act that is deemed by virtue of this section to be an infringement of a trade mark registered in Part B of the Register.
(4) In this section references in relation to any goods to the proprietor, to a registered user, and to the registration, of a trade mark shall be construed, respectively, as references to the proprietor in whose name the trade mark is registered, to a registered user who is registered, and to the registration of the trade mark, in respect of those goods, and the expression 'upon' includes in relation to any goods a reference to physical relation thereto.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this new clause empowers the proprietor of a registered trade mark, or a registered user thereof, to impose certain restrictions on the way in which the trade mark
372
may be dealt with after it has gone into trade on his goods—and this in order to protect the reputation of the trade mark and of the goods bearing it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 18, page 22, line 22, at end insert ("to the extent to which")
Clause 18, page 22, line 23, leave out ("to the inherent adaptability of the mark") and insert ("the mark is inherently adapted")
Clause 18, page 22, line 26, leave out ("to the extent to which")
Clause 18, page 22, line 41, leave out from ("it") to ("or") in line 42.
Clause 18, page 22, line 42, leave out, ("colourably resembling it") and insert ("so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion")
Clause 18, page 23, line 5, leave out ("to import") and insert ("in a case in which the use is use upon the goods or in physical relation thereto or in an advertising circular, or other advertisement, issued to the public, as importing")
Clause 18, page 23, line 7, after the first ("the") insert ("relevant")
Clause 18, page 23, line 22, leave out from ("goods") to ("or") in line 27 and insert ("certified by the proprietor of the trade mark if, as to those goods or a bulk of which they form part, the proprietor or another in accordance with his authorisation under the relevant regulations has applied the trade mark and has not subsequently removed or obliterated it, or the proprietor has at any time expressly or impliedly consented to the use of the trade mark")
Clause 18, page 23, line 38, at end insert: ("Provided that paragraph (a) of this subsection shall not have effect in the case of use consisting of the application of any such mark as aforesaid to any goods, notwithstanding that they are such goods as are mentioned in that paragraph, if such application is contrary to the relevant regulations.")
Clause 18, page 24, line 7, leave out ("and manner")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, these Amendments are all to Clause 18—that is, the clause dealing with certification trade marks—and as almost all of them follow, or adapt to certification trade marks, Amendments with which we have already dealt this afternoon in their application to ordinary trade marks, perhaps I may take all the Amendments to this clause together. The first three Amendments correspond to those made in

373
Clause 2 in respect of ordinary trade marks registered in Part A of the Register, and are designed to get rid of the word "adaptability" in this case also, as I explained was done by a previous Amendment. The Amendment at page 23, line 5, makes, in respect of certification trade marks, a similar Amendment to that made to Clause 15 with regard to the use of a trade mark in such an expression as "A substitute for 'X'", where "X" is the trade mark. The Amendment at page 23, line 7, is drafting only.
The next Amendment—namely, that at page 23, line 22—corresponds to that made to Clause 15 at page 20 with regard to the use of a mark on its proprietor's own goods after breaking their bulk or with his consent. In the present case, however, there is added—at line 38—a proviso that the mark can be used in the circumstances covered by the paragraph only if such use would not be contrary to the regulations made for governing the use of the particular certification trade mark concerned. The last Amendment is peculiar to this clause and to certification trade marks. leaves out the words "and manner" because it is undesirable to require in the Bill that the manner in which the proprietor is to certify goods shall be dealt with in every case in the regulations governing the use of a certification trade mark, since in general the proprietor will certify by affixing a mark to the goods or authorising it to be affixed thereto, and this is the ordinary manner of use of a trade mark and need not be mentioned in the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMDNDMENT
Clause 29, page 31, line 16. The Commons have reinserted Clause 29 which was omitted as a Privilege Amendment in the following form:
Amendment of Section 48 of principal Act.
("29. In Section forty-eight of the principal Act (which provides that in all proceedings before the Court under that Act the costs of the Registrar shall be in the discretion of the Court but the Registrar shall not be ordered to pay the costs of any other party) after the word 'but' there shall be inserted the words 'in any proceedings in England or Northern Ireland,' after the word 'not' there shall be inserted the words 'except in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of
374
this section in a case in which he has appeared in the proceedings,' and at the end of the section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(2) Where the Registrar appears in any proceedings before the Court in England or Northern Ireland under this Act, Section seven of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933, or any corresponding enactment which may be passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, as the case may be, shall have effect as it has effect in relation to other proceedings to which the Crown is a party in a Court having the power to award costs in cases between subjects.'")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a Privilege Amendment. The Commons have reinserted Clause 29, which was omitted as a Privilege Amendment, in the form as printed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Fourth Schedule, page 48, line 45. The Commons have not reinserted the words ("Section forty-eight") which were omitted as a Privilege Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I ask your Lordships to note here that the Commons have not reinserted the words "Section forty-eight," which were omitted as a Privilege Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a comparatively small Bill which extends for a further period of five years the temporary provisions contained in the Rating and Valuation Act of 1928, regarding deductions made in the valuation of small properties, and variable allowances which may be made to the owners. The Bill is necessary because unless the period is extended the Act will cease to operate on April r next, when the new valuation list is due to come into force. Your Lordships will understand that if this amending legislation is not passed the scales enacted in the Act of 1925 will automatically revive, and these small

375
properties will generally have a further burden automatically placed upon them. The Bill is limited to rating areas outside London, and the present rating scale will continue in operation until 1941. I do not think it is necessary to explain anything more about the Bill, except to tell your Lordships that it has the approval of the Central Valuation Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SPIRIT CONSUMPTION IN INDIAN PROVINCES.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Paper.
[The Question was as follows: —To ask His Majesty's Government what was the amount in pounds sterling of the net Excise revenue of India for the years 1933–1934, 1934–1935 and 1935–1936 respectively; what was the recorded consumption of country spirits in 1935–1936.in Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Sind, Bihar and Orissa, the United Provinces, the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, the Central Provinces and Berar, Assam and Burma respectively; what was the number of shops licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, the net amount of Excise revenue, and the cost of Excise administration in each Province in 1930–1931 and 1935–1936; and what was the percentage of Excise revenue compared with the total revenue accruing to the Provincial Governments in each case for the year 1935–1936.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have here the figures which are required to reply to the noble Lord's Question, but, as he will of course be aware, there are several tables of figures and with his permission therefore I will circulate them with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
376
I am glad to have been able to give an answer to the Question of the noble Lord. I have been able to do so because his Question refers to years prior to April i last, but it will not have escaped the noble Lord's attention that after April i last the responsibility for the Excise policy and for the administration of the Excise Acts in India passed to the Indian Governments, who are responsible not to Parliament here but to the legislative bodies in India itself. I would explain, therefore, that should the noble Lord on some future occasion desire to obtain similar information, I should not be able to demand it from the India Governments as of right, but I have no doubt that if the noble Lord wished for the information—and I know the great interest he takes in this particular matter —I should be able to obtain the information for him as a matter of courtesy.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the explanation which he has given in regard to the position in the future, so far as asking questions in this House and in the other House is concerned. I fully understand the situation, and I can only say that if I decide again to ask him for similar information, I understand that I can only ask him whether at that time it is possible for him to give a reply.
The figures referred to as are as follows:
1. Net Excise revenue of India (converted into sterling at is. 6d. per rupee):

Year.

£

1933–34

11,247,655

1934–35

11,285,615

1935–36

11,446,830

2. Recorded consumption of country spirits in 1935–36:

(London) Proof gallons.

1. Bengal

not available

2. Madras

963,325

3. Bombay

(a)

1,046,424

1,040,197

4. Sind

(a)

108,899

109,254

5. Bihar and Orissa

604,422

6. United Provinces

499,858

7. Punjab

(b)

376,045

not available

8. North West Frontier Province.

34,116

*9. Central Provinces and Berar.

*332,530

10. Assam

210,302

11. Burma

(b)

67,901

94,535

* Calendar year 1935.

(a) Revised and separated figures for 1934–35.

(b) Figures for 1934–35 were not available when the Question set in 1936 was answered, and are now inserted.

3. Number of shops licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor in each Province for 1930-31 and 1935–36:—

1930–31.

1934–35.

1935–36.

1. bengal

56,249

not available.

2. Madras

15,834

16,100

3. Bombay

2,895†

2,913

(a)

3,682

3,686

4. Sind

l68†

176

(a)

315

298

5. Bihar and Orissa

9,743

16,143

6. United Provinces

4,265

4,274

7. Punjab

4,991

(b)

5,641

not available.

8. North West Frontier Province.

82

89

1930.*

1935*

9. Central Provinces and Berar.

2,362

2,272

1931.*

2,313

10. Assam

266

360

11. Burma

1,249

(b)

1,329

1,322

* Calendar years.

† Revised figures for 1929–30.

(a) See note (a) above.

(b) See note (b) above.

4. Net amount of Excise revenue and charges for collection of Excise revenue in each Province in the years 1930–31 and 1935–36, and percentage of net Excise revenue to total Provincial revenue in 1935–36:—

Province.

1930–31.

Net Excise revenue.

Cost of collection.

Rs. lakhs.

Rs. lakhs.

Bengal

180·2

21·8

Madras

524·3

46·7

Bombay and Sind

304·4

42·0

Bihar and Orissa

142·1

l8·2

United Provinces

112·2

13·0

Punjab

111·5

12·8

North West Frontier Province.

—

—

Central Provinces and Berar.

86·3

11·7

Assam

58·4

8·7

Burma

107·5

24·3

Province.

1935–36.

Percentage of net Excise revenue to total Provincial revenue in 1935–36.

Net Excise revenue.

Cost of collection.

Rs. lakhs.

Rs. lakhs.

Bengal

133·7

18·0

11·7

Madras

408·3

35·2

25·7

Bombay and Sind.

365·8

43·2

23·7

Bihar and Orissa.

143·7

17·1

26·1

United Provinces.

140·7

11·8

11·8

Punjab

99·7

11·0

9·4

North-West Frontier Province.

8·6

0·8

5·0

Central Provinces and Berar.

60·2

9·6

13·1

Assam

35·2

5·4

14·8

Burma

88·7

17·8

9·8

GOVERNMETN OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF INDIA LAWS) SUPPLE MENTARY ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FEDERAL COURT) ORDER, 1937.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (ADAPTATION OF LAWS) SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER, 1937.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House on Thursday last.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that Orders be made in the form of the drafts approved by the House on Thursday last.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wisbech Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Yeadon Water).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ABERYSTWYTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

379

Physical Training and Recreation,

Teachers (Superannuation),

Methylated Spirits (Sale by Retail) (Scotland),

Trade Marks (Amendment),

Pier and Harbour Order (Falmouth) Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Culag (Lochinver)) Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Fowey) Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Maidenhead Water),

380

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sevenoaks Water),

Newcastle-under-Lyme Corporation,

Eastbourne Extension,

Gosport Water,

Hastings Corporation (General Powers),

Lancashire Electric Power,

Rotherham Corporation,

Ilford Corporation.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.