HC Deb 05 November 1920 vol 134 cc802-8

  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:
  2. 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 803 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; and
    3. (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.
  3. (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.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "whether in conjunction with other purposes or not."

The Clause would then provide that they shall not have power to enfranchise property which they are not using for religious purposes, such as a cinematograph or a shop, and they should only be able to enfranchise that part of the premises which is being used for religious worship. I submit that that part of the premises which is sub-let for purposes other than religious purposes should not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Act, and be enfranchised on the favourable terms which can be arranged for that part which is used for religious worship. There may be some cases where it is difficult to differentiate between the two classes of property, but in the vast majority of cases there is a clear cut line where there is a separate lease of premises adjacent to but held on the same trust, which would come within the meaning of this Act, and which are clearly being used for commercial purposes.

Sir J. AGG-GARDNER

I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis)

The effect of the Amendment would be to destroy in very large measure the usefulness of this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the Wesleyans. I believe that in the case of 98 per cent, of the Wesleyan Churches the land is held for the purpose of religious worship in conjunction with other purposes. The effect of the Amendment, so far as the Wesleyan Church is concerned, would be to destroy entirely the whole object of the Bill. As regards the other religious bodies, I believe that the position would also be gravely imperilled. If we were to pass the Bill in the form which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, the probability is that we should be told by the Nonconformist Churches that we might as well not have passed it. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is in favour of the general principle of the Bill, and I ask him not to press an Amendment which would so gravely impair it.

Mr. RAWLINSON

Can the hon. Gentleman meet me on the point where the land is used definitely and sub-let definitely for purposes such as I have mentioned?

Mr. LEWIS

I am not going to repeat the argument used by the Solicitor-General, but I hope that my right hon. Friend has said enough to convince the House that they have adequate safeguards.

Mr. SEDDON

No one doubts the sincerity of my hon. and learned Friend, but if he follows this proposal to its logical conclusion it would create much more injustice than it is going to remove. He seems to have associated, quite naturally, chapels and cinemas, as if there were some affinity between the two. The only place in this country where a cinema show is given every Sunday is within the confines of an Established Church. It has been given in one part of Birmingham. They are alleged to be religious pictures, Bible pictures, and so forth. If the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed this Amendment he would, I am quite sure, unconsciously inflict upon the great mass of Nonconformists a hardship for which he himself would be sorry. I do not happen to be a Wesleyan, but I am a Nonconformist. The denomination to which I am attached has had its doctrinal changes, and injury has been done to those who were original owners of the buildings because of the power of the landlord to step in. We want Nonconformist churches to be free from this irksome condition.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) is under a slight misapprehension in opposing this Amendment. He said that the Amendment would knock the bottom out of the Bill so far as it applied to the Wesleyans and the majority of Nonconformists, because many of their trust deeds—98 per cent, in the case of the Wesleyans—provide for the holding of the premises, not only for religious purposes, but for other purposes also. The Amendment will in no way affect them, because it relates only to a particular case where the land is held for religious and secular purposes.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment, for I honestly think this particular item is not worth worrying about. I fear that the religious trusts of Nonconformist bodies would be seriously interfered with, and many of them would have to be altered if the Amendment were carried. Most of these Nonconformist trusts, which we are anxious to help by this Bill, are poor trusts belonging to religious communities which, in common with the Church of England, at this moment are very hard put to it to pay their way. Anything that will tend to encourage Nonconformist denominations to build up endowment funds I would heartily support. I do not want to see anything done to prevent the trusts being administered as liberally as possible. I should not be at all sorry to see them making a little money out of their property and devoting it to religious purposes. I personally would be most anxious to encourage the building up of endowments.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not convince me. I gather that the object is to get something out of somebody else.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, c), after the word "in" ["vested in"], insert the words "any municipal local or rating authority or in."—[Mr. Rawlinson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. TURTON

This is a Bill to which I give my enthusiastic support. I have been a great many years in polities on the Liberal side, and fought four elections. I have continuously pressed the justice of this measure and I am glad that it is now received so heartily on both sides. I am only sorry that in this year of grace 1920 it should be necessary for Parliament to bring forward a measure which entitles certain religious bodies to have to come here to ask for authority in order that they may worship. Wherever there is a religious body, I think they ought to be given every possible facility for carrying on their worship in accordance with what they honestly believe. As a Churchman, I think the best we can do, when we remember the support which we received from hon. Members opposite on the Enabling Bill, is to give our hearty support to a Bill coming from the other side. I reciprocate entirely the great response and support we received on that Enabling Bill. I am glad when they come forward that we in an equal Christian spirit can meet them and endeavour, so far as we possibly can, to carry on religion in this country.

There is another reason why I support this Bill. I am bound to admit to hon. Members opposite that the Nonconformist bodies, as a rule, are extremely bad men of business. I can speak from personal experience. Thirty-five years ago my father gave a lease of a site for a Wesleyan Chapel in our village at the purely nominal rent of two shillings. Two years ago the trustees informed me that the lease had run out. What a splendid opportunity for your grasping Tory landlord to get possession of that site and of the different amenities. Frankly, I for one would have regarded it as blood money. I think I am entitled to say that of course the trustees had their lease renewed on the same easy terms as previously. It might have been that the land belonged to a syndicate or to somebody who held entirely different religious views. Therefore, I say, on that ground of business alone, it is only right that we should congratulate our Friends opposite en having obtained a measure of justice in regard to this matter. I am only sorry—and it is the only tone of regret that I have in this matter—that we should bring in the antiquated form of the Lands Clauses Act and the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act. Speaking as Chairman of the Standing Committee which had before it the Acquisition of Land Bill, I should have been delighted if there had been included in that Bill, not only local authorities, but religious bodies of all kinds, and I think it is unfortunate that our Friends opposite should not have been able to include their different sites for places of worship under the Land Acquisition Bill, instead of going back so far as 1845 to the Lands Clauses Act and the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act. However, I understand they are prepared to accept those antiquated Acts, and I would only say that I give my vote for the Third Reading with my most hearty support, and that I congratulate the promoters on having got through their Bill with the hearty good will of parties on both sides of the House.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before Five o'clock.