HL Deb 30 June 1953 vol 183 cc4-17

2.44 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule:

[Scheme for the application or management of the Charity known as the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, otherwise King James's Hospital, in Colchester. in the County of Essex]:

4. Endowment capital.—Asum of£9,304 5s. 7d. 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock part of the sum of £14,608 11s. 3d. like stock specified in the said schedule and one equal half part as nearly as may be of each of the other investments therein specified shall be transferred forthwith under the authority of Orders of the Charity Commissioners into the name of the Church Commissioners for England to be held by them subject to the provisions of the Benefices (Stabilization of Incomes) Measure, 1951, as endowment capital on behalf of the said benefice of St. Mary Magdalen.

26. Contributions.—The Trustees may make it a condition of appointing or permitting any person to he or remain an Almsperson that he or she shall contribute towards the cost of maintaining the said hospital building a weekly sum of such amount as the Charity commissioners approve front time to time.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out all words from and including, "A sum of" down to and including "specified" and to insert: One equal half part of the investments specified in the said schedule. The noble Lord said: The paragraph of the Schedule to which my Amendment has reference proposes to divide a sum of money—approximately £18,000—between two bodies. Eleven thousand pounds, or a little over, is to go to the Church Commissioners and £7,225 to the Charity Commissioners.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him whether those are the nominal values or the market values?

LORD SHEPHERD

I am not quite sure about that, but the point about which I am concerned is in the Schedule of the Bill. There is given a list of investments, and the values of those investments are attached; and, what is perhaps more important from the noble Lord's point of view, the income from the investments is stated. This income is to be divided, but there is a difference between the respective amounts to be given to the two authorities of £4,000—that is to say, the Church authorities are to receive £4,000 more than the Charity Commissioners out of these funds.

There is also the proposal that the rectory, which is the property of the Charity, shall be transferred to the Church Commissioners. If one assumes that the value of the rectory is anything between £3,000 and £4,000, one gets a sum of nearly £15,000 to go to the Church side, as against £7,000 to go to the Charity side—with the homes of five poor people added thereto The question that has occurred to my mind is this: is the division proposed a fair one? I must confess that, as I shall explain later, I think the division is hardly fair. My Amendment proposes that this division, instead of showing a great difference, should be made in equal parts, so that the Charity Commissioners and the Church Commissioners are treated alike. Annually it would mike this difference. If we assume that the interest upon the Church share is2½ per cent., then the income to the Church would be about £280. If we assume that the interest upon the Charity share is 2½ per cent., then their income would be about £180 per year. My Amendment would, therefore, make a difference of some £50, which would be a very great advantage to those who have to administer the Charity.

Just as the Church Commissioners appear to be receiving too much on this occasion, I believe, also that the Master of the Charity, who through die generations has been rector of the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, has received a greater sum from the annual income than he ought to have done. I believe that that point is appreciated by the Charity Commissioners themselves. They take the view that, in the circumstances in which the funds have been administered, when the rector has desired to increase his own income because of the difficulties of the period he has been placed in the unfortunate position of keeping the poor people's income low or of decreasing it, if possible. The Charity Commissioners are of the opinion—and I understand that in this they carry the Lord Chancellor with them—that a system of administration which puts the interest of the clergyman in contrast with the interests of the pensioners is a bad one and that the arrangement ought to be altered. In that respect we who sit on this side of your Lordships' House are in agreement. We think there should be a fair division so that the interests of the alms people are not prejudiced in any way by the changes.

Now, in order to prove the statement which I have just made about the income, I will give your Lordships a few facts. The Charter, which seems now to be available only in the Office of Records, was adopted in the reign of King James. That Charter provided certain things: first, that the poor people who lived in those almshouses should be given 52s. a year, or 1s. a week; secondly, that they should be provided with lodgings; and, thirdly, that there should be some faggots for firing added to their comfort. Lest it should be thought that to begin with the clergyman was getting something much more than these poor people, I had better add that the clergyman was expected to live in the buildings with the poor people and that the accommodation that I myself have seen is not accommodation that would give the impression that it was ever intended that the clergyman should become an affluent person. It is quite clear that in those days the stipend of the clergyman must have borne some relationship to the conditions which were meted out to the poor people.

As the times have gone on, conditions have changed in many respects. The land which formerly served as the basis for the endowment of this Charity has been sold, and the money has been invested in Government bonds and the like. It is true that the funds at the disposal of the Charity are much greater than they used to be. It is true also that the income of the Charity is much greater than it used to be; but, in the intervening years, although the stipend taken by the Master, who was the rector, increased until it became anywhere between £300 and £400 a year, the pensioners were still paid at the rate of 1s. a week.

Noble Lords will understand, I am sure, that in the time of King James, a shilling went a long way. Few people would suppose that a shilling went anywhere at all in the "Hungry 'Forties" of the last century. We believe that if the administration had been under different auspices, then, instead of all the profits going to one side, some attempt would have been made to give a little more to the pensioners. There may be some dispute between myself and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill as to whether the Master was bound by the Charter to pay 1s., and no more. If he were to ask me whether the Master could pay less than 1s., I would agree at once that he could not do so, because the Charter specifies 1s. But nowhere in the Charter is there anything to prevent the Master from paying 2s., 3s., 4s. or even 10s., if the money is available. He has always been at liberty to increase the 1s. to 2s., 3s. or 4s., as the case may be.

Not only was money of greater value in those times, but there is another point in the Charter that I should like to mention to your Lordships, and maybe we shall have some reply from the noble Lord concerning it. For what purpose was the 1s. paid? I have before me a free translation from the Charter bearing upon this point, and it is in these words: … for their sustenance, relief and maintenance they shall have, take and receive, … yearly 52s. So it is quite clear that the 1s. was intended to be, in the first place, not a mere token payment, but something substantial to enable these poor people to live in fairly comfortable circumstances. I suggest that, by the wording of the Charter, the Master of the Charity was under a moral obligation to increase the payments from 1s. a week when it became a question in those hard times of "their sustenance, relief and maintenance."

But I am not only interested in seeking a change because of the circumstances I have already mentioned; I am interested also because in the Bill now before us there is a full recognition by the Charity Commissioners that, under the new dispensation, they cannot meet the obligations undertaken by the Master in the days gone by. Indeed, if you examine the Schedule to this Bill, you will find, not once but several times, proposals put before your Lordships' House which relieve the Charity Commission of the responsibilities that formerly rested upon the Master. First of all, in Paragraph 2 of the Schedule, there is a proposal to dissolve the corporate body "known as The Master and Five Poor Persons," and by the dissolution of that corporate body all the things that that body stood for, unless otherwise provided for, are swept on one side. The new body will not be compelled, except in the one particular that I will mention, to provide lodgings, firing or the 1s. per week, unless the money is available for that purpose. The fact that the Charity Commission are putting these proposals forward is due to their anticipation—indeed, they mention it in one of their documents—that, as time goes along, they may not be able to continue to provide these things on the same scale as heretofore. There is one safeguard for the present almspeople—namely, that the new conditions cannot be applied to the people now resident. But, as men or women, as the case may be, enter into residence in the future they will be subject to the new conditions laid down by the new trustees.

There is one other point I should mention. In Paragraph 26 of this Schedule there is a most startling provision. It is as follows: The Trustees may make it a condition of appointing or permitting any person to be or remain an Almsperson that he or she shall contribute towards the cost of maintaining the said hospital building a weekly sum of such amount as the Charity Commissioners approve from time to time. So the Charity Commissioners are not only going to relieve themselves of payments which the Master has been called upon to make, but they are now taking powers under which a rent can be charged upon people who come into residence, if an application to charge it is made by the Trustees.

I am not going to say a word in condemnation either of the Charity Commissioners, the Church Commissioners or the local rector—who is a newly appointed person—or of the people who administer these funds. I believe they have been working under a wrong institution arid that they have been guided by wrong principles. I do believe, however, that by taking so much money at this time out of the Charity and handing it to the Church, the Charity is going to be so much worse off. I think it is due from me to say one word about the reason why the Church Commissioners are anxious to take over this money. As your Lordships know, they intend, wherever possible, to raise the stipends of the clergymen to a figure of £550 a year. They propose in this case to start with a contribution from the Charity of £280. Contributions will be made by the local church, by the Diocese of Chelmsford, by the Lord Chancellor's Department and by the Church Commissioners; but, so far as I can see, up to the moment the sum of £550 has not been reached. It is the wish of noble Lords on this side of the House, although taking action in relation to some of the proposals in the Bill, that the Church should succeed in raising the stipend of the Rector of St. Mary Magdalen to the required amount, because we believe that in the Church, as in every other institution in our land, those who are ministering to its work, those holding responsibilities towards it in any way, should be in receipt of a living wage, derived from sources to which the Church contributes and over which it has complete power. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("capital") to ("shall") in line 24, and insert ("One equal half part of the investments specified in the said Schedule").—(Lord Shepherd.)

3.2 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

It is, of course, very right and proper that we in this House should examine these things with great care, particularly such a case as this, which passed through another place without a single word of comment from either side. Therefore, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving me an opportunity to show that this Scheme is indeed a right, proper and fair one. I think that the noble Lord is starting off from a had premise when he makes certain assumptions as to the intention of the founder of the Charity, whom we call James I. James I re-founded and revived this Charity as a charity to support a Master and to provide a weekly dole, plus free dwellings, for five poor persons; and as such it has been administered for generations. In course of time, the income measured in money has, naturally, greatly increased, but the value of money has greatly depreciated, and in fact, so far as I can make out, over the generations the income has no more than kept pace with the cost of maintaining these objects of the Charity. James I took the opportunity of endowing the incumbent of the parish as the Master. I have no doubt that up to the first war the Charity was able to provide the incumbent with a passable living. Between the wars, the living must have become a very poor one, and since the war, of course, it has been quite an impossible one. One must remember that first claim on the money is this weekly dole and some fuel to the five poor persons, and of course the repairs of the almshouse—and it is the rise in the cost of repairs, plus the rise in the cost of maintaining the Master (in other words, the incumbent of the parish), that has now made a separation of Church and Charity absolutely imperative.

This was a settlement negotiated, I submit, between parties of approximately equal weight—at least I assume that the Charity Commissioners and the Lord Chancellor's Department would both regard themselves as at least light-heavyweights; and I presume, furthermore, that it was a settlement negotiated with good will on both sides. Suppose there had not been good will, considering their relative bargaining position, had one a greater power than the other or not? They both stand to lose. On the one side, the Church loses from the fact that it cannot get an incumbent, and therefore the Church is liable to have a decaying parish. On the other hand, supposing that the Church was able to find an incumbent and put him in, there would be a very grave and real danger that the money required to keep the bats out of the almshouse roof might, in fact, be keeping the wolf from the rectory door; so that the Charity has a great deal to lose in that way. I submit that those two considerations set off each other, and that the two parties—light-heavyweights or whatever you like to call them—were negotiating probably with good will, but certainly not from an unfair bargaining position the one over the other.

What sort of bargain did they make? If the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, I will not follow him in his particular methods of calculation, because they are extremely misleading. He was dealing with nominal amounts, and where you are adding up nominal amounts of 2½ per cent. Consols with 4 per cent. something else, the results are rather inclined to be misleading. I think it is safer to take income. I calculate the income from the Schedule of these securities at approximately £488, and the split will leave an income to the nearest pound or two on one side of, say, £193, and on the other side of £295—in other words, approximately £100 more to the Church side than to the Charity side—I give the noble Lord that. Out of the Church side has to be met the cost of an incumbent and the repairs to this rectory. I can assure the noble Lord that rectories are not always an asset. Out of the Charity side there has to be met this 1s. a week to five inmates, the customary 12 lb. or so of coal, plus the repairs.

First of all, dealing with the Church side, that figure of £295, augmented by certain grants from the Church Commissioners, the diocese and the parish, is one which they calculate will bring the rector's stipend up to the diocesan standard minimum of £500, which then qualifies for the special extra grant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of another £50. On the other side, the Charity Commissioners have budgeted for future expenditure, and their sum comes out approximately like this: £90 for ordinary maintenance, £15 for rates, £27 for the fuel, £13 for the 1s. a week and £50 for the special repair fund. Those figures are all approximate, and to my mind they are fairly generous estimates, especially for the £90 of ordinary maintenance, plus the £50 special repair fund. Furthermore, before the split was brought into effect the two parties bargained that the whole property should be put into an up-to-date state of repair. In the result, the alms-people are no worse off than they have been for generations—in fact they are better off, because the future of the repairs, and so on, for the almshouses, is now reasonably secure, whereas before it was on a most precarious basis. The parish gets its incumbent with the aid of a lot of provided money, money raised and so on.

Altogether, therefore, I believe that the Scheme is better for everyone concerned. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern with the whole matter, but I think it arises from his misconception of the objects of the Charity. The objects of this Charity never were to maintain and feed five poor persons. They were to provide a cheap home, to provide one shilling a week, and to provide some fuel. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because I feel that I should not be able to accept it.

3.10 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

I have listened with great attention to the noble Lord, but I cannot entirely agree with him. He will not be surprised at that, however, because we have had several conversations on the matter—indeed, I must thank him for the help he has given me in trying to make my case. I would say this: that before I ventured to make this speech I visited Colchester. I called at the Town Hall; I went to the library; I interviewed the rector; and I interviewed the leading churchwarden who is responsible for the business side of this parish. In addition, I have had other interviews in London. So I have done my best to make myself fully acquainted with the circumstances. With regard to the noble Lord's first point—that of incumbent of the parish and the Master—I would say this. The Master came before there was an incumbent of this parish; the Master existed before there was an incumbent and this Charity existed before the Church of St. Mary Magdalen. When the parish came, because of the poverty of the parish arrangements were made by which the Master of the Charity should become the incumbent of the church.

LORD HAWKE

That was still in the reign of James I, was it not?

LORD SHEPHERD

It was still in the reign of James I, but the point is this—and I want your Lordships to recognise it: before there was a church, before there was a rector, there were a Master and a Charity.

LORD HAWKE

For a few years.

LORD SHEPHERD

It does not matter: he was there. It would be wrong to lead the House to believe that there had been joint arrangements from the beginning between the Church, on the one side, and the Charity, on the other. The noble Lord was a little critical of the large figures I mentioned, and he has said that he much prefers to deal with income. I am prepared to deal with income also. I am also prepared to deal with the expenditure which arises out of income. The noble Lord has told your Lordships that the income is approximately £488. I think he will agree with me that the Charity Commissioners accept that their share of that will be about £200 a year.

LORD HAWKE

A little less.

LORD SHEPHERD

A little less. So your Lordships will see that the major part of the income is to go to the Church, and not to the Charity. It does not matter what set of figures we use, we reach the same conclusion. There is a significant conclusion about the further figures which the noble Lord has quoted. He has indicated how much is to be spent on repairs each year, how much is to be paid in rates, how much will go for the shilling a week to those now in residence; and he has mentioned the sum of £50 which is to be put into a sinking fund for future building. All that comes to about £195—that is the total of the figures which the noble Lord has given. If, therefore, the total income of the Charity is no more than £200, obviously this Charity is going short in the deal which is being made. That is why I am suggesting to noble Lords that, instead of a division of the kind we have in this Bill, the division should be an equal one. An extra £50 a year to the Charity would make all the difference in the world to its administration.

I wish to say only one thing further. It is no use the noble Lord trying to tell the Committee that the Charity was limited in its responsibility to the one-shilling payments; that it was limited to a few faggots of wood per annum; that it was limited to the payment of rates and repairs, because, under the Charter, it is as clear as anything can be that this payment of one shilling was for the sustenance, relief and maintenance of these five old people. Either these people could receive all those things at the rate of a shilling a week in King James's reign, or the Master in charge would have to find something more in order to provide the added things that the shilling could not provide. I personally believe that the shilling went a long way. In the intervening period the money available to the Charity has increased year by year, whilst the old state of the poor people has been maintained. However, I do not wish to carry this matter further than. I have done already. I have raised it here in order that some publicity should be given a transaction which may be repeated in other parts of this country. It is as well that those who are thinking about making changes in the administration of charity funds should realise that in this Chamber there are eyes watchful to see whether grievances will be created by changes as they take place. As the noble Lord cannot do anything more for me, I ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I think that I should make one or two remarks for the sake of the record. I again repeat that throughout the history of this Charity the Church has always had the lion's share of the charity. This division is actually removing that incubus of the lion's share. Therefore, I maintain that it is a fair one. I do not think it is fair to say that the amount left to the Charity will leave them short on their obligations. Far from it. I have already said that I think that their estimates for repairs et cetera in the future are probably over-provided for, rather than under-provided for. As for the interpretation of ancient charters, I have no expert witnesses, but I know that for generations the amounts received from this Charity, as from other almshouse charities, have been limited to three-quarters of a ton of fuel a year and one shilling a week.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit Paragraph 26. The noble Lord said: I mentioned during my first remarks a provision—it is Paragraph26—giving the trustees of the Charity, subject to approval from the Charity Commissioners, power to charge persons who in future come into these almshouses for their upkeep. I would prefer to call the charge a rent. I was assured in the first place that this particular provision was common form, but on pressing my inquiries I found that during the last two or three years, in schemes that did not require an Act of Parliament to effect a change, the Charity Commissioners have been suggesting the insertion of such a paragraph. This is the first time when it has been sought in an Act of Parliament to charge a rent to persons who are to live in almshouses. I venture to suggest that, in view of the circumstances, and in view of the satisfaction of the noble Lord that ample funds are available for these persons, this charge should be omitted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 1, leave out Paragraph 26.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord is quite right in pointing out the antecedents of this provision. When the Charity Commission desire to alter a statutory trust, they require a new Act of Parliament, but in other cases the Commission can make suggestions about the revision of trusts. I understand that this provision has been inserted in at least twenty-five almshouses schemes, though it has not figured in a scheme which has required Parliamentary sanction. It has been welcomed by the Almshouses Association and, so far as I know, no adverse comment at all has been made. In fact, in paragraph 318 of the Nathan Report it is recommended that this should be done, and the Charity Commission have taken the opportunity, in the case of the present Scheme coming before them, to put it in. They do not visualise that it will be required in the foreseeable future, and before it can come into operation it must have their permission, because no charge can be levied without the permission of the Commission. As we delegate to that body the care of these matters, I suggest that it would be right for Parliament to give them power in this matter. Who can tell the value of money in 50 or 100 years' time? This provision may save them from having to come twice to the same source of authority. I hope that the noble Lord will think the provision a harmless one, with foresight for the dim and distant future, and will not press his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Again I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but there are one or two other points I should like to mention in connection with this matter. From what the noble Lord has said it is clear that it is anticipated that the fund, as it will exist under the Bill, may be insufficient for its purpose, and that attempts have to be made to secure money from another source.

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord is putting a little more into my mouth than I intended. I think the fund is sufficient for the foreseeable future, so long as Governments of various complexions can more or less stabilise the purchasing power of money; but we want this power for the distant future.

LORD SHEPHERD

A final word: it arose during discussions I had—indeed, it arose during a conversation when the noble Lord was present. There is no particular difficulty about levying a rent on people who live in almshouses, because it is possible for people who so reside to go to the Public Assistance authority and draw a rent allowance to cover their obligations. I hope that such an idea is not before the Charity Commission at this moment. I am sure the noble Lord would not agree with that operating at all. But your Lordships ought to bear in mind that if at some stage it comes to collecting rent from the poor people who live in almshouses, then that rent, in its turn, will be collected by the poor people from the Public Assistance authority. I suggest that that is not the proper way to do it. I withdrew my first Amendment, but I cannot see my way to withdraw this one. I am not going to press it to a Division, but I think noble Lords should have the responsibility put upon them of deciding whether or not this provision should remain in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to: Bill reported without amendment.