HL Deb 30 July 1912 vol 12 cc757-65

Amendments reported (according to Order.)

Clause 1:

Right of Trustees Holding Leasehold Interest in Place of Worship to Acquire Freehold.

1.—(1) Where premises held under a lease to which this Act applies are held upon trust to be used for the purposes of a place of worship, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, and the premises are being used in accordance with the terms of the trust, the trustees, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary (not being an agreement against the enlargement of the leasehold interest into a freehold contained in a lease granted or made before the passing of this Act), shall have the right as incident to their leasehold interest to enlarge that interest into a fee simple, and for that purpose to acquire the freehold and all intermediate reversions:

Provided that—

  1. (a) if the premises exceed two acres in extent the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise the right in respect of more than two acres thereof; and
  2. (b) this Act shall not apply where the premises are used or are proposed to be used for the purposes of a place of worship in contravention of any covenant contained in the lease under which the premises are held or in any lease superior thereto, or where, the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character.

(2) The leases to which this Act applies are leases (including underleases and agreements for leases or underleases), whether granted or made before or after the passing of this Act, for lives or a life or for a term of years where the term as originally created was a term of not less than twenty-one years, whether determinable on a life or lives or not.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I propose, in paragraph (b) of Clause 1, to strike out the words "or where the trusts upon which the premises are held include the use of the premises (otherwise than by a lessee or assignee from the trustees) for the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character." These words were not originally in the Bill but were inserted by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, to meet a complaint made by my noble friend Lord Newton. Personally I did not quite agree to the words. But since then the noble Earl has proposed in Clause 4 to meet the grievance in a way which seems to me on the whole satisfactory. In those circumstances the words which I propose to strike out have nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill, and by remaining in the clause they seem to me rather to create confusion than otherwise. For that reason I propose to omit them.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 24, leave out front ("thereto") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

I quite agree with the course suggested by the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I move to insert the new paragraph standing in my name on the Paper. The noble Earl will recollect that when the Bill was in Committee I moved an Amendment, on behalf of the Port of London Authority, with the object of exempting that authority and other public bodies from the operation of the Bill, and though the noble Earl agreed that I had made out a good ease on behalf of the Port Authority he considered the scope of my Amendment too wide. I understand that as the paragraph is now worded the noble Earl's objection is removed. As I explained in Committee, the Port Authority have a site on their property which has been let by them at a purely nominal rent as a place of worship in the expectation that it would revert to them when it was required for the development of the property. It would be obviously unfair that those to whom the site is let should have the right of acquiring it on the favourable terms provided in this Bill, and that the Port of London Authority should be left at some future date when it was necessary to develop the property to reacquire the land on the terms of the Lands Clauses Act. I therefore hope your Lordships will agree to the insertion of this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 29, after paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph: (c) This Act shall not apply where the premises form part of land which has been acquired by or is vested in the owners thereof for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal or navigation under any Act of Parliament Provisional Order or Order having the force of an Act, of Parliament and the freehold reversion in the premises is held or retained by such owners for those purposes."—(Lord Ritchie o f Dundee.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having altered the Amendment, and in its present shape I am prepared to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I propose, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause, "It is hereby declared that the acquisition of an estate in fee simple under this Act is not an occasion for the assessment or charge of Increment Value Duty and that Reversion Duty is not assessable or chargeable on any such acquisition." The latter part of this Amendment was proposed in other words in Committee by Lord Clinton, who is not able to be in his place to-day, and I have undertaken to put it forward on his behalf, with the addition that I have extended it to Increment Value Duty as well. The reason is very simple. It is quite possible, if the site of a chapel let on lease is enfranchised, that the lease may be said to be terminated, and then under the new terms the lessor would be liable for Reversion Duty. It has also occurred to me that, supposing it were taken to be a sale, in the same way be might be liable to Increment Duty under the sale clause. I know it has been said that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1910, Reversion Duty would not be chargeable because a body of trustees holding for religious purposes would be held to be a governing body constituted for charitable purposes while the land was occupied by such a body for the purposes of that body. It is a legal point and I am not going to undertake to say that it is not so, but it is not very clear, and for the purpose of showing that Reversion Duty is not to apply in this case it would be as well to insert this declaratory Amendment. In any case Section 37 of the Finance Act of 1910 does not apply to Increment Duty. Therefore I think it would be advisable to insert the words which I propose in order to show that it was not intended that this Bill should operate with regard to these transactions. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill said the other day that the Government did not intend to claim Reversion Duty in these cases. I have no doubt that may be so. But the question is, What is done in these cases? Lately the Government have been making very extravagant claims for Reversion Duty and Increment Duty, and only on Saturday last they made a claim for Increment Duty, the result of which was that not only were they declared to be wrong, but they had to pay the costs. It seems to me very hard that an individual in the cases under this Bill should be called upon even to defend his rights in the matter and fight any attempt to impose a charge of this sort. If your Lordships consent to insert the clause which I now move, such an attempt would, of course, be absolutely impossible.

Amendment moved— Insert, after Clause 3, the following new clause:

"Enfranchisement in relation to Land Value Duties.

".It is hereby declared that the acquisition of an estate in fee simple under this Act is not an occasion for the assessment or charge of increment Value Duty and that Reversion Duty is not assessable or chargeable on any such acquisition."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am sorry I do not see my way to accept this Amendment. The proposed new clause divides itself into two parts—one part deals with Increment Value Duty and the other with Reversion Duty. The question of Reversion Duty was referred to during the Committee stage by Lord Clinton. I told him then that we were quite convinced that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1910, the lessor was exempt from paying Reversion Duty under this Bill, and since that time I am glad to think that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that that is so. Then comes the question of Increment Duty, which is on a very different footing. There I do not believe the land would be exempt, and His Majesty's Government do not quite see why it should be. It would be their intention that in such circumstances the land should pay.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

It would be the lessor who would pay, would it not?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

It would be the vendor, that is to say the owner, who would have to pay the Increment Duty. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that the vendor should not pay. If there is an increase in the value of the land then Increment Duty becomes payable. Why not? If the land has gone up so immensely in value, then, under the whole principles under which the new taxation upon land as introduced in the Budget was approved of in another place, it is only right and proper that Increment Duty should be paid. In any ease, I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment is one of those which trench upon debatable ground in so far as the privilege of the other House is concerned, and for that reason also I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. It is clear that the vendor would have to pay and under the Finance Act he ought to pay.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

When the noble Earl says that the vendor ought to pay I do not follow him, because what advantage will the vendor have got? The site will have been enfranchised and the per3ons who will have benefited will be the trustees of the chapel. On the other hand the vendor, if Increment Duty is payable, will, as I understand, have to pay it. Why should he have to pay it? He gets nothing.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to this somewhat technical point. May I put to the noble Earl how I understand it? Let us take the case of a chapel leased to trustees at the nominal rent, say, of a shilling a year. The site is enfranchised under this Bill. Thereupon, as I understand it, no question arises with regard to Reversion Duty. That I understand the noble Earl is quite satisfied upon, and he is able to give the House an explicit assurance on the point. Then we come to Increment Duty. Am I right in thinking that what would happen in that case would be that the owner who had leased the site, in the case supposed, for a shilling a year would find himself, after enfranchisement, able to turn it to the best advantage and to obtain an increase of income in respect of it? If that is so, I think there is something to be said for the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Increment Duty only becomes payable upon the difference when the land is more valuable. What the vendor would have to pay upon, therefore, would be the increase in the amount of money he got. If the vendor does not get the money he cannot pay Increment Duty.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4:

Power to Require Trustees to Sell in Certain Cases.

4.—(1) If any person who appears to the Judge of the County Court to be interested proves to the satisfaction of the Judge that any premises the estate in fee simple in which has been acquired by the trustees under this Act, or any part thereof, are let or are habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith, the Judge shall, unless it appears to him that such use was due to inadvertence and will be discontinued, order that the premises, or such part thereof, be sold.

(2) For the purposes of this section premises shall not be deemed to be habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith by reason only of their being used for such other purpose not more than twice in any year.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" and to insert "purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character." This Amendment will not come as any surprise to those of your Lordships who followed the discussion on this clause in Committee. I quite admit that the position is a difficult one. We none of us wish them chapels in future to be used for political purposes or for trade purposes. We are quite agreed upon that. In the clause as it stands at present your Lordships will see that the building is forbidden to be used for "any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith." A number of other objects readily occur to one's mind for which it is very desirable that these chapels should be used if the trustees so desire. Take, for instance, the campaign against tuberculosis, an instance to which I referred on the last occasion. Take, again, meetings of friendly societies; it is desirable that friendly societies should not meet in public-houses. But the words of the Bill as they stand at present would prevent the use of these chapels either for friendly society purposes, or for such purposes as the campaign against tuberculosis. I might mention other purposes for which these buildings might be used such as parish council meetings, health and housing crusades, agricultural and horticultural lectures, and so on; but under the clause as it stands any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith is forbidden. It is desirable that we should rid our minds of what, perhaps, is in the minds of some noble Lords. I refer to the fact that those who use these chapels for religious purposes on Sundays do not attach quite the same sacred character to them as we in the Church of England do to our churches. The idea of using our churches for other purposes than as places of worship is repugnant to us, but that is not so in the ease of the chapels which will be enfranchised under this Bill. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment, which allows full latitude to the trustees and only prevents the buildings being used for purposes of trade and political meetings.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("for") to ("the") in line 30, and insert ("the purposes of any trade or business or for any purposes of a political character").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD NEWTON

In spite of what the noble Earl has said, I cannot help expressing the hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. After all, this Bill is brought in for a particular purpose—namely, because it is supposed to be a good thing to enfranchise certain religious edifices—and I cannot see why the scope of the Bill should be enlarged. The words in the Bill "place of worship or purposes connected therewith" ought to be wide enough for anybody. I take it that those words would cover, for instance, an institution like a gymnasium or anything of that sort. What the noble Earl is proposing, in effect, is that enfranchisement should be compulsory provided no trade whatever is carried on in the building and it is not used for political purposes. I submit that that is going beyond the spirit of the Bill, and that the words in the clause are amply sufficient to cover the purposes indicated. For that reason, if I succeed in finding a teller, I shall certainly vote against the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I must say, having spoken the other day with regard to this Amendment, that I think the words which the noble Earl inserted in Committee are amply sufficient and very good words indeed. He provides that the premises are to be sold at the discretion of a Judge if they are "let or habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith." That is the whole extent of the Bill as stated in Clause 1. It is quite true that by inserting the words which the noble Earl has moved to-day these premises may be used for tuberculosis meetings and so on, but they might also be used for the purposes of a club or anything of that kind. I greatly prefer the words at present in the Bill.

THE EARL OF MEATH

Would the words as they stand in the clause prevent Happy Evening Associations meeting in chapels, because we know that they have sometimes a tendency to be very political?

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I expressed the other evening, and I still retain, a preference for the very much simpler formula which is now in the clause and which owes its existence to the Motion of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. After all, this is a Bill intended to facilitate the enfranchisement of places of worship. That is admirably expressed in the clause as it now stands. I see the point which Lord Beauchamp has in his mind, but what I am afraid is that if we extend the scope of the clause in this manner we shall find that we are passing a measure, not for the purpose of enfranchising places of worship, but for the purpose of enabling people to enfranchise premises which are partly used as places of worship and partly for wholly different purposes. My noble friend cited one of them a moment ago. I venture to think that the safer course is to adhere to the clause as it is in the Bill at present.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I shall not, of course, put the House to the trouble of a Division, but I am afraid I must warn noble Lords opposite, on behalf of my friends in another place, that the Bill in its present shape is not likely to be acceptable to them, and that it is not unlikely that the Bill will be returned to this House with the wording changed.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Is the noble Earl satisfied that subsection (2) of Clause 4 is essential to the purpose of the Bill? The first subsection says that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that the premises are "let or habitually used for any purpose other than that of a place of worship or purposes connected therewith" there is power to require the trustees to sell. Cannot we safely leave it to the Judge to decide whether the premises are habitually so used or not? Subsection (2) attempts to define what is "habitual use." Personally I would very much prefer to trust to the common-sense of the Court than to any definition.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

This is one of those legal matters on which I can only speak with difficulty. I am advised that the phrase "habitually used" is one which is difficult for Judges to interpret, and it was thought that it might be of some assistance to them if we defined what the phrase really means. I have no great feeling one way or the other, but acting under the advice which has been given to me I am inclined to ask that the subsection should be allowed to stand, at any rate for the present.

Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)