HC Deb 29 July 1925 vol 187 cc583-90

Resolution reported, That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to tithe rent-charge and other rent-charges, rents, and payments in lieu of tithe, and the

£ s. d.
Total Surpluses … 2,373,189 12 8
Total Deficits … 867,493 8 6
Net Surplus … £1,505,696 4 2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

payment of rates thereon, and for other matters connected therewith, it is expedient that there shall in each year be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue such sum us the Treasury may certify to be payable by those Commissioners under the said Act in respect of rates assessed on Queen Anne's Bounty as the owner of any tithe rent-charge vested in them under the said Act, alter deducting there from amounts not less than the following (that is to say): an amount equal to £5 for every £100 of tithe rent-charge previously attached to benefices which is liable to be rated, and which is for the time being vested in Queen Anne's Bounty, and an amount equal to £16 for every £100 of tithe rent-charge previously attached to ecclesias- tical corporations which is so liable and vested."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. FISHER

I desire to offer a few observations to the House on this Money Resolution. I do not propose in any way to contest the necessity for the Tithe Bill, nor do I wish to contest the main principles upon which the Bill is framed. I recognise quite fully that it is desirable that tithe should be stabilised. I rise in order to obtain, if I can, from the Minister some assurance that he will be prepared to consider between now and the Report stage the case that was put to him on Second Reading, and during the Committee stage of the Bill, with reference to the position of the Charitable Corporations under this proposal. I do not propose to enlarge upon the very strong case which the Charitable Corporations—and by these I mean Oxford and Cambridge. Eton College, Christ Church, New College, Magdalen College, and other great institutions—have under the Bill. The main proposal of the Bill is to stabilise tithe at £105. Personally, I am not prepared to accept that figure as a fair figure, but as I realise that the Minister has reached that figure after, no doubt, very difficult and anxious negotiations between the landowners on the one hand and the clergy on the other, I am not suggesting that he should alter the main basis of the Bill. What I do very respectfully suggest to him is that the Charitable Corporations are placed under this proposal in a position of exceptional disadvantage. It is quite true that they are apparently on the same terms as are the clergy, but there is this great difference: the clergy have a very large concession in regard to the rates which is not offered to the Charitable Corporations. If you take the offer to the clergy at £105 the offer to the Charitable Corporations is £71. There is a great difference between the way the two are treated. If the Bill goes through in its present position—

Mr. SPEAKER

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he connects his remarks with the Resolution? The discussion on the Resolution can deal only with charges on the Exchequer, not with the merits of the Bill as between the tithe-owner and the tithepayer. These are points that can be raised on the Bill. I do not see how they can be connected with this Money Resolution.

Mr. FISHER

I was merely wishing to explain that I shall be compelled to oppose the Money Resolution, although I am in favour of the Bill, unless I can receive some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that he will between now and the Report Stage reconsider the case that has been put to him on behalf of the charitable corporations.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think that must come on the Bill, and not on the Resolution.

Sir HENRY SLESSER

I rise to call attention to the fact that under this Resolution the House is asked to sanction the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money in connexion with the Tithe Bill, and I emphasise the fact tonight because I do not think that on the earlier stages of the Resolution it was sufficiently brought to the attention of the House that the new charge is estimated to be a sum not exceeding £292,000. I appreciate that it is not in order at this stage to criticise the merits of the Bill, but one of the consequences of the Bill is that the Exchequer will be made liable for about £300,000. I hope when the Bill comes up for further consideration it will be remembered that an integral part of what some of us regard as a very iniquitous scheme for the spoliation of the poor clergy is a charge of £300,000 on the Exchequer. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. Fisher) does not quarrel with the Resolution except in so far as it affects the lay tithe owner, but the clerical tithe owner has to be considered too, for if things had been allowed to go on and take the natural course, tithe being unaffected and rating being unaffected, as would have been the case apart from war legislation, there would never have been any necessity for the Minister to come to the House to ask for the money. I regard this payment as a subsidy to the landowners. It is that, really, because the land owners are not going to pay the tithe they ought to pay to the poor incumbents, and therefore it is necessary to subsidise the rates with this sum. Although it is to some extent concealed in the difficult and intricate provisions of this Bill, the fact remains that the £300,000 is, in fact, a subsidy to the landowner because he will not pay his tithe at the full rate of £130.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood)

I do not know how far under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it would be within my competence to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), but I gather that it would not be in order at all. Perhaps I may, however, be permitted to go so far as to say that I will give such consideration as I am able to the subject which he has raised. With regard to what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Slesser) has said, I cannot help thinking that he has allowed his judgment to be somewhat distorted by political prejudice. He has spoken about this being a measure for the spoliation of the clergy, but obviously it is not within the rules of Order to discuss the general principles of the Bill. I am surprised, however, to see that he couples with his judgment of the Bill a desire to continue what I can only call the spoliation of the ratepayer, because this Bill relieves the ratepayers of a burden which Parliament cast upon their shoulders in 1920. The purpose of this measure is to preserve the status quo without making the other ratepayers suffer for the relief that Parliament thought fit to give to the tithe owner.

We are not, however, discussing now the general policy of the Tithe Bill, but we are considering whether it is wise on the part of the Exchequer, to relieve the ratepayers of a burden which Parliament cast upon them in 1920. I content myself by saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Slesser) is falling into an error when he suggests that this Resolution gives a subsidy to the owner, and he must not allow himself to be infected by the political judgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in this matter. There is no basis for such a contention in this Resolution. It is clearly a straightforward business to transfer a charge of £300,000 from the shoulders of the ratepayers to the Exchequer. And that is, in the general judgment of hon. Members, not an unreasonable thing to do, and it is one which I think will receive universal assent. This Resolution is merely designed to preserve the status quo in the matter of rating. This proposal asks the House to give no new relief to the tithe owner, and the only relief is that which is given to the ratepayer who is suffering from a burden which Parliament had no intention of casting upon him

Mr. BARR

I think the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) who spoke from the Labour Benches and the Minister have made it clear to us that this is the transference of a charge from the ratepayer to the Exchequer. We find that in 1836 when there was a commutation of tithes it was laid down that in future the titheowner and the clergy should pay the poor rates for their district, and that was done on various grounds which J do not enter into now. Notwithstanding that at various times since 1899 relief was given to the titheowner; in 1920, relief in respect of rates was given in full to those under £300, and to those between £300 and £500 it was given to the extent of one-half. The ratepayers were brought in, as the Minister has explained, in order that they might bear this burden and relieve the clergy and other titheowners, and we can understand that that created a good deal of feeling in the country. No small friction and dissatisfaction was created by this putting of a charge on the ratepayer to make up what in 1836, when this arrangement was made, was put upon the clergy and the other titheowners. What the Minister proposes now is that, in order to avoid that local friction, the burden should be transferred to the Exchequer. It is to fall on the public none the less, but they will not be so sensitive, and it will not be so conspicuous: it will not be known that it is being done. It is a great injustice, none the less, that titheowners, who are in receipt of tithe contributed by the land of the whole country, are relieved from what it was clearly understood was to be paid by them, it being first put on the rates, and now, to make it less invidious and less obnoxious, it is being transferred to the Exchequer, where it will be less known. I strongly object to it on that ground. I think that, if a Church is to receive a benefit in this way from the public, the people should feel it and know that they are doing it.

The other consideration is this, and I think it is not irrelevant. In my view, under this Bill, the clergy who are being relieved by the Exchequer are receiving great and undoubted benefits, and particularly the benefit that, in the course of 85 years, when the sinking fund has operated and redemption has taken place, virtually this money—public money now—will be transferred for the benefit of the clergy and held in trust for the incumbent. Because of that, I am strongly opposed to facilitating the passing of this Measure, even to the extent of this Financial Resolution, which puts a burden on the Exchequer to relieve and aid financially ministers of a particular denomination at the expense of all other denominations and all citizens of the country. Therefore, I hope we shall resist and go to a Division upon this Financial Resolution to-night.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o' Clock.