CLAUSE 29.—(Property held for charitable purposes.) (Hansard, 5 February 1941)

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 21, line 34, after "any," to insert: land which constitutes or forms part of a. This Clause deals with property held for charitable purposes, and the first Amendment that I move is mainly of a drafting character. I would like to say a word about this Clause because of the common misunderstanding there is about it. I understand that the Clause has been read as carrying a meaning at variance with the Government's intentions in the following respect. It has been read as meaning that in order to fall within Sub-section (4) which makes special provision as to payments made to charity land the 989 land must fall within Sub-section (1) and be a contributory property. This is contrary to the intention. For example, buildings used for religious purposes are not contributory properties. The other Amendments are of a drafting nature.

Sir Joseph Lamp (Stone)
Do local authorities come within this meaning?

§ Sir K. Wood
I will deal with that on my hon. Friend's Amendment.

§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
Since the Chancellor has explained to us that religious buildings do come under this Clause even if they do not contribute I would like to ask him this question: Does the Chancellor of a church which may easily have a lay rector get two shots? Is the church to have expectations under this Clause and also to maintain its Common Law rights against its own rector? If it is impossible to amend this Bill in that respect, can we have an assurance that it will be put right as soon as possible?

§ Sir K. Wood
I am afraid that my hon. Friend has gone far beyond my knowledge on this matter. I shall have to examine that, although I agree it cannot be dealt with under this Bill. I am sorry that I am not very familiar with what he has said.

§ Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)
It is a question of interpretation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. Sub-section (5) empowers the Commission to give an interpretation of what is a charitable object and what is a religious object. Although there are many questions which arouse my curiosity on this Clause, I felt that I would be content to leave the question of interpretation to the Commission.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
The Commission cannot take away Common Law right.

§ Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)
I beg to move, in page 21, line 38, after "applies," to insert "or for ecclesiastical purposes."
The Amendment which I now propose is not an attempt to extend the intention 990 of the Government in this Bill but to make clear that ecclesiastical purposes are included in charitable purposes, as we all believe has been the intention of the Government. The reason for doubt about it is this: In a number of Acts of Parliament, including the Settled Lands Act, there was a differentiation between charitable objects and ecclesiastical objects and it might, therefore, be held in the absence of these words that ecclesiastical purposes were not included.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
If it is not too presumptuous I want to ask a question by way of caution. Does this proposal exempt property, owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which is not religious property?

§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
I would like to support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend. For many weeks past the Chancellor has given very careful consideration to the issues raised in this particular Clause and I believe he has received representations from various ecclesiastical authorities and Churches, who are profoundly concerned with the implications of this Clause if it should stay in the Bill and become part of the Act. Some of my hon. Friends and I are particularly anxious about certain interests in the Catholic Church which are affected by this Clause. There are certain orders of the Catholic Church which do not teach or do any of the various practical works associated with many religious organisations and I would be particularly glad if the Chancellor would give an assurance that the interests of those communities will be protected. It may, perhaps, save time if my right hon. Friend makes some general statement which will cover many of the issues raised in the subsequent Amendments to the Clause. We are, naturally, anxious to protect the charitable purposes for which the various religious organisations stand and do not wish to avoid any responsibility which, in ordinary circumstances, every religious body should take in the interests of the nation. Finally, I would like to say how much those of us who have been associated with conferences on this very delicate subject do appreciate the courtesy and consideration extended to us by the Chancellor and the Treasury in relation to this particular Clause.

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)
I do not know whether I have properly understood the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down but he appears to want included not merely part of the premises which may be used for religious purposes, but premises which may be used for other than religious purposes.

§ Sir P. Hannon
No.

§ Mr. Messer
Well, that was the impression I got and I was about to point out the danger of such a course.

§ Mr. Denman (Leeds, Central)
In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) I think I can give him the assurance for which he asks. These words do not bring within the Clause properties that are merely held for purposes of producing revenue.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
I hope the Chancellor will make sure before he accepts this Amendment, that it is tightly enough drawn to exclude revenue-producing property.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Is not the matter quite clear already? Is the case not protected under Sub-section (2, c).

§ Sir K. Wood
I think so. I propose to accept this Amendment, but I will examine the matter in the light of what the hon. Member has said. I think it might be convenient if I made a general statement now, because I promised the religious communities that I would say something in the Committee on the lines of the assurances I gave to them. This matter is of great importance to the religious communities and the religious life of the country. In looking at the matter from the point of view of property held for charitable purposes, we had to give consideration to very many questions and to decide whether we would ask charities and churches to make the ordinary contributions under the Bill and follow the usual procedure with regard to claims. We felt, in the first place, that apart from another consideration which I will mention later, we should be following the desires of the Committee and of the country if we did not endeavour to exact contributions from churches and charitable bodies. The cost of this will not fall upon property owners under the provisions of the Bill, but will be borne by the State. We felt that, amid all the 992 evil which has been done, we should at any rate seek to restore, as far as we could, and in suitable cases and in proper places, the churches that have been destroyed in considerable numbers throughout the country. That was our main object. We would not allow the enemy, if he could—not that I think he could— to defeat the religious purposes of these communities throughout the country. Another practical reason for our action is that in many such cases it is impossible to apply the exact terms of the provisions of the Bill with regard to value. That was a subsidiary, but none the less substantial, reason for our taking the course we have taken.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Does my right hon. Friend include schools as well?

§ Sir K. Wood
I will refer to them a little later. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) headed a deputation to me from his own community, and I have seen representatives of all the Christian bodies in the country. Moreover, they have all met together under the chairmanship of the Bishop of London. They have a common interest in this matter, and they have considered it together. They have assured me that the main principles of this Bill, and particularly the Clauses which affect them, are warmly welcomed by them, and they have said that they appreciate the good will which the Government have shown in this Measure, and which I am sure will be endorsed by the Committee. The only matter they have raised with me—an important and substantial matter as far as their interests are concerned—is the question whether the fact that they make no contributions under the Bill will mean that compensation payable under the Bill to charitable and ecclesiastical bodies will be reduced or postponed on that account. I have given the Government's assurance that that is not the intention and that that will not be the case. There are, of course, a number of cases where the physical character of the property renders unsuitable the normal basis laid down in the Bill for the assessment of compensation, and, having regard to the purposes of the bodies in question, a measure of flexibility as to the manner and the amount paid to them should be available in their own interest. Obviously, it is desirable to make some provision of that sort; but I 993 want to assure the Committee and those who are concerned that there is no question, for instance, of giving first consideration to claims made in respect of contributory properties and postponing the claims in respect of those who do not contribute. There is no intention of that sort.

§ Sir P. Hannon
Will my right hon. Friend embody that in the Treasury Regulations to be issued for the War Damage Commission?

§ Sir K. Wood
It may not be a matter for regulation, but I will certainly see that there is such a direction. What we should have to have regard to would be the national interest. It might very well be that in certain cases homes would have to be restored first, but there is no question of a differentiation between the people who make contributions and those who do not. We desire to give equal consideration to all cases in the national interest, and that, of course, will be governed by the general conditions of the Bill. It is true that, inasmuch as contributions are not being paid and inasmuch as there is considerable difficulty with regard to values and valuations, the amount of payment is left free for settlement by the Commission.
If one wanted to criticise this Clause—as I think, improperly—one could say, "Everyone is left at the mercy of the Commission." I think that is inevitable when contributions are not being made, and when one has regard to the character of the buildings for which compensation has to be paid. But I would emphasise, and give the assurance, that it is the intention—and I am sure it will be carried out by the Commission, for otherwise we would not get a reasonable administration of the Bill—in all these cases, and particularly in regard to churches, that there should be full consultation with the respective committees or representatives of those whose property may be affected in this way. Obviously, the Commission, in dealing with a question of compensation for the loss of churches, will have to get into very close consultation with the representative of the bodies affected. For instance, in the case of one of our City churches which has unhappily gone, and which meant so much to us from an historical point of view, it might very well be that, seeing that unhappily the historic 994 side can never be restored, the advice which the Commission will receive from the responsible authorities will be that they do not want the church rebuilt in that particular place, and that the compensation available can be better utilised elsewhere, in places where there is a larger population. Good might, in fact, come out of evil, for such a church might very well be restored in the middle of a community where it would do much more good from the practical and Christian point of view than it would in the City of London, attended at it might be by very few people on weekdays and Sundays. All these considerations will have to be borne in mind and the Commission will have to be guided and advised by the responsible authorities. My hon. Friends who are interested in this matter, and in the churches themselves, can rely upon the very closest consultation. Our object, and the object of this Clause and, I am sure, of the Commission when it is appointed, is to use the compensation to the very best possible advantage and in accordance with their desires and wishes. Obviously the Commission will have to look to them as to the particular arrangements and the way with which the matter is to be dealt.
I have also been asked whether this Clause will include manses, dwellings of clergymen of the Church of England and other denominations. The answer is that so long as they are held on trust and are not, of course, the property of individual ministers, then they will be covered by this Clause. In other words, so long as they are used in connection with religious purposes and not as individual property of an individual, it is our intention to cover them by this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley, on behalf of the Catholics, wanted to know whether the property of the Catholic Order is covered. I think he may take it, so far as the wording already contained in the Bill is concerned, that we believe that that is so; but I will examine that point again—of course, it is a matter of importance to the Catholic Church. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which we can also dispose of. It is an Amendment to page 21, line 40, after "only," to insert: and that whether or not such use involves the carrying on of a trade, or where the whole or that part thereof, as the case may be, is unoccupied. 995 As regards the first part of that Amendment, we have the true doctrine of this Clause laid down by the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), in page 21, to leave out lines 39 to 43—that is to say, the benefits of this Clause can only be given in respect of land used in connection with charitable purposes covered by the Clause. I am afraid my hon. Friend's Amendment is too wide, since it may cover the case of a factory run on commercial lines the profits of which were used to provide revenue for the charity. I do not think that is my hon. Friend's intention, but that may be the meaning of his Amendment, and it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the Clause. On the other hand, a workshop which incidentally produced certain profits, but the main purpose of which was to provide technical training in connection with an educational charity, would be covered by the other Amendment to which I have referred. As regards the second part, charitable property which is temporarily directed to other purposes by reason of the war is covered by the Amendment which I shall move in page 22, line 3. I think that will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley has another Amendment providing that where the main purpose for which land is used is a charitable purpose to which this Section applies the use of that land for any purpose which, although not such a charitable purpose, is ancillary to the said main purpose shall not deprive the owner of the proprietary interest in the land of the benefit of this Section. This again is too wide. It would seem to cover, for instance, the case of a home farm which exists mainly to supply farm products to a charitable institution and there is no reason why they should not be treated like other agricultural properties. But there are other agricultural properties which again will be covered by the Amendment in page 21, to leave out lines 39 to 43—such as properties used in connection with charitable purposes, holdings and other places for training children in agriculture. He may be content with the assurance I have given him in that connection.
Then there is the Amendment, in page 22, line 10, which seeks to include the words, "for holidays and for con- 996 valescence." The word "holiday" is far too wide. In so far as the charity exists for providing holidays for the poor, it will already be covered by Sub-section (2, a), and it is unnecessary to provide further than that. In so far as they exist for private holidays for other classes of the community, that would not appear to be a case which I could reasonably accept within the ambit of this Clause. The Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), which I propose to accept, would cover the point my hon. Friend has raised.
There is another Amendment, the object of which is not clear: In page 22, line 11, after "religion," to insert: or the practice of observance thereof. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley will speak to me about that. We have used the term "advancement of religion" which, I am informed, has been consistently used since the time of Queen Elizabeth, and there seems to be no reason for departing from that traditional form. However, perhaps he will have a word with me on that point. Another Amendment to which I wish to refer is that to page 22, line 18, after "hereditament," to insert: not being a hereditament used for the purposes of the advancement of education, science or research. The effect of this Amendment would be to give educational charities the right to the compensation payable under the earlier Clauses of the Bill while retaining their contributions at one-third. I cannot go as far as that. I think my hon. Friend must be content with the provision I have made, although I would add that I have had no representations on the subject. The only other Amendment to which I need refer is, in page 22, line 12, at the end, to insert: other purposes beneficial to the public: Provided that where an educational establishment is not conducted for profit, or where the profits, if any, are held and used for any of the charitable purposes to which this Suction applies, the fact that fees are charged or that a profit is made shall not exclude the owner of the proprietary interest in the land from the benefit of this section. I shall be glad to have any representations made to me so far as those educational establishments are concerned which are not conducted for a profit, and see whether in fact they are covered by the Bill. As regards the second part of it, I am advised that the proviso is unnecessary. 997 It has long been held that an educational charity does not cease to be a charity merely because fees are charged. That, therefore, is unnecessary. Subject to any observations that any hon. Members desire to make, I suggest that, after my explanation, they should leave the matter in this way, that I will examine the Amendments again, some of which have only just appeared for the first time, mid see whether on the whole, having regard to the main objects which I have pointed out, any further amendments are necessary or not to carry out anything that ought to have been done and may have been omitted.

The Deputy-Chairman
I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion on the Amendment, and I will call individual Amendments afterwards.

§ Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation on a matter in which some of us ate very interested in the North of England, the aged miners' homes movement.

§ Sir K. Wood
Aged miners' homes are covered by the Clause in so far as they are for the benefit of persons who are either not well off or suffer from any disability. If there are homes which are not in this category, there is no reason for giving them the benefit of the Clause, which relates to charity. In so far as they come within the definition to which I have referred, they will be covered by the Bill.

§ Mr. Taylor
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a little more consideration to this aspect of it. While it is true that in our movement we may have some men who have been injured or who are suffering from poverty, yet it would be very difficult indeed to separate and distinguish one as against the other. I do not think it would need much elaboration to show that this is a charity in the pure sense of the word. Persons can only enter the homes after they have reached a certain age, the age of retirement. The funds are entirely made up of subscriptions from working miners and generous friends who are kindly disposed towards the relief of miners in their declining years. The governors do not receive a penny in rent. Some of the inmates may be suffering as a result of injury during working life and others, 998 maybe, on account of circumstances over which they have had no control, such as low wages or ill-health. At the same time there are others who are probably not poor, but under the rules of the organisation are entitled to retire into the home on reaching a certain age. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this again and bring all three classes into the same category.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I do not wish to be controversial, but there were one or two things in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I do not think ought to be passed without some question. He said there was no risk that charities, because they were not contributory, would find their claims reduced or postponed. I hope his use of the word "claims" was inadvertent, because the essence of the Clause, from the point of view of educational charities, is that they have no claims at all, since the compensation can be paid, not only in what amount the Commission decides, but also to what receiver the Commission may choose, and there is no specific person who has any right to claim. There is a distinction there between religious and educational bodies. He pointed out that in general there would be no contribution, but he did not point out that under the educational part of the Clause there would be one-third contributions. That makes a distinction between the two. I am not quite sure that I would not have wished to be allowed to pay the whole contribution, but it is a distinction on which we ought to have a word from the Treasury Bench.
Closely connected with that there is another distinction between educational and ecclesiastical charities. The War Damage Commission is not compelled to consult the individual owner of a church. Where churches are too thick on the ground and some are blown up, there is something to be said for building a new church somewhere else. It does not apply in the same respect to educational charities where it is often their contiguity to each other which gives them their value. There is another distinction. I do not suppose anybody would suggest that there is a possible risk that if an Anglican church in the City were blown up the Commission would pay compensation to a Roman Catholic church in South Lancashire. As the Bill stands 999 however—I do not suggest it is the intention—if an educational establishment in one place is blown up the compensation might be given to some different sort of educational establishment in some other place.
There is no right of appeal in these cases in the way that the ordinary contributors have, but could it not be made clear that in cases where there is a one-third contribution the person, incorporated or otherwise, making the contribution must be consulted. The person making the contribution cannot be a claimant, but I do not want there to be any risk, if, for instance, a college were blown up, that the university, or even the whole body of universities, is to be consulted. Where there is a continuing body which has owned property for generations or centuries and which is making contributions, and where that continuing living body suffers damage to its buildings, it seems not unreasonable that, although it cannot have a right to be a claimant, it should have a right to be consulted. If I am told that that will be done under the words of the Bill I am willing to accept that interpretation, but it does not seem clear on the face of it. My right hon. Friend said something which, if it is right, is disquieting. As far as I could follow him, he said he could not go so far as to say that an educational charity might be allowed to pay the full contribution and thereupon have an expectation of full compensation. If that is what he meant it seems to be in contradiction of what he said earlier, that he wished it to be clearly understood that the bodies coming under this Clause would not run any risk of financial loss from coming under the Clause. I understand that my Amendment—in page 21, leave out lines 39 to 43, and insert.— (b) that the land, as distinct from rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connection with the carrying out of the purposes for which that interest is held, and not otherwise"— is to be accepted. I will not, therefore, detain the Committee by explaining it. I have another Amendment in page 22, line 4, at the end, insert,— (2) If and so long as land normally used, as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from 1000 such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purpose of this Section to be used as it is normally used. I understand that the official Amendment—in page 22, line 43, at the end, insert,— (5) If and so long as land normally used as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be used as it is normally used"— is to the same effect and is to be accepted. I will not, therefore, trouble the Committee with mine. I should like your guidance, Colonel Clifton Brown, whether I should say a word now on my two later Amendments to this Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman
It would be better if the hon. Member deferred his remarks until I called the Amendments.

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
I would like to support what the hon. Member has said in regard to the position of educational charities which will make a contribution of one-third. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give an assurance that he will consider making some modification to make it sure that the charity which contributes shall be consulted. That is not asking very much. It still leaves the immense power of decision in the hands of the Commission. The least that these bodies ought to expect the Act to provide is that they should have the fullest opportunity of putting their case to the Commission. In so far as they make a substantial contribution they are in a different position from other charities.

§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
I would like to refer to a set of important organisations connected with the agricultural interest which is not covered by the Bill. I refer to the village institutes or clubs. They are public institutions and are frequently the only means of any indoor social life in the villages. They are not likely to make big calls on the Exchequer in this matter. Nearly all of them are purely charitable institutions and many are facing difficulties owing to the men being called up. I do not think they are covered by paragraph (d), although they take some part in education in that they are available for lectures and are useful for the general purposes of the community. There is a tremendous drive to 1001 get people back into agriculture and these institutions form one of the means of keeping people in the country. I would ask the Government to see that these organisations are brought under the Bill as they, in fact, nearly are, because they are of vital importance to the agricultural community.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I wish to put another aspect of this question with regard to bodies for the advancement of religion. I take it that Sub-section (4, a) gives the Commission or the Government a certain amount of control on what replaces the building in the public interest and the interests of town planning and general amenities. I have in mind the case of a church where the Corporation of Edinburgh gave land at the junction of Princes Street and Lothian Road on which to build a church. When it became a bottle-neck for traffic and a danger to pedestrians and the town wanted back a slight strip of land from the church, the church claimed some thousands of pounds an acre for it. No one would think of destroying a church that was in such a position, but if by chance a church which is a block in the traffic were removed by a bomb, the Government would have the power to say in the interests of town planning that the church should not be replaced in the middle of the traffic. While everyone sympathises with the statement of the Chancellor as to the generous treatment that will be offered to the bodies fulfilling this function, I would like an assurance that consideration will be given to the public interest and town planning and that religious bodies will be generous in their negotiations with the Commission where it is a question of rebuilding in a place where it would be a danger to the public.

§ Sir J. Lamb
My hon. Friends and I have several Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with schools. Naturally we wish to curtail discussion on the Bill as much as possible, and we should not move them if we could feel satisfied that the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer covered the objects we have in view. In referring to voluntary schools the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the words "no contribution," but the Bill speaks of a contribution of one-third for educational purposes. I should like to 1002 know whether a voluntary school will be in the position of making no contribution but will be able to receive full payment for damage done.

§ Captain Crookshank
I can answer that point at once. The present position under the law is that non-provided public elementary schools are statutorily exempt from rates. Therefore they cannot make a contribution on a rate assessment, and therefore they will not be making a contribution.

§ Mr. Denman
Is that true of Schedule A? They do not pay under Schedule A, but could they not be assessed under Schedule A?

§ Captain Crookshank
As I understand the present position—it is a legal point, and I may be wrong—non-provided public elementary schools are statutorily exempt from rates under Section 167 of the Act of 1921, and therefore there will be neither a Schedule A nor a rating valuation in respect of the buildings, and so, under Clause 14, they cannot be contributory properties, because Clause 14 says that contributory properties are those which fall either in the first or the second of those two categories.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I am much obliged for that explanation, which will meet my first point. I understand they will not be liable to pay a contribution but that payments can be received by them. I should like to be sure that the Chancellor's statement covers my further Amendment dealing with schools which are the property of a local authority. Here I am speaking for the County Councils' Association. We all know the liability which rests upon a local authority to replace schools which have been demolished if the denominational body does not see fit or is not in a position to replace them, but as the denominational body will be fully insured—if I may introduce the word "insurance"—I think the liability to replace the schools is removed from the local authority, and that will obviate the necessity of moving my Amendment. If I am given an assurance that full compensation for damage done to voluntary schools removes the liability upon local authorities to provide another school I shall feel that both my points have been covered.

§ Mr. Silkin
There are three small points which I wish to mention, because if I get 1003 satisfactory explanations it may obviate my moving Amendments. First, what is the position of public schools like Eton and Harrow? My second point deals with housing associations, that is, charitable organisations which exist to build houses for the working classes. It is not at all clear whether they come under Clause 29. I have put down an Amendment referring to those who make provision for housing the working classes. That Amendment is far wider than the case I am putting forward, because it would cover anyone who is providing houses for the working classes, whether a charitable organisation or not. I do not propose to move that Amendment, because it is wider than the point I am now putting, but I should like to have an assurance that the Chancellor's statement does cover the case of housing associations which are genuinely providing houses for the working classes at low rents and without profit to themselves.
There is another Amendment which I am moving at the request of the London County Council. Apparently they do not want to enjoy the blessings of this Clause. Apparently they fear the Greeks and the gifts they bring. They want to be allowed to pay full contributions even though, strictly speaking, they may come within the terms of this Clause, in respect of places for the treatment of sickness, disease or injury, the advancement of education, elementary schools, etc. They want to be assured that as a local authority they are not regarded as a charity, and they will pay the ordinary contribution with a view to getting the ordinary benefits.

§ Mr. Harvey
I must apologise for speaking a second time, but as it is expected that the Government will reply to all the points raised in the various Amendments it may be well for me to put a very important point which was only touched upon by the Chancellor in his general statement. I understood that he was unwilling to consider giving an option to educational bodies to take their place with all other property owners, paying the same contributions and receiving the same benefits. It seems to me that it is most desirable that he should reconsider that attitude, from the national point of view and the point of view of the educational institutions concerned. 1004 It is surely to the advantage of the insurance fund that it should be as large as possible, and if it were increased by a substantial contribution from a number of educational institutions availing themselves of this option that would be to the general good. Among education authorities there is real anxiety in a number of cases, lest the conditions which may be imposed upon them by the Commissioners may seriously interfere with the objects they have in view, and in any case some of them would much prefer to pay the larger sum and have the right to the same compensation as other property owners. The Chancellor has been so friendly in his attitude and has shown himself so desirous of doing justice to all the bodies concerned that we can have no doubt about his personal intentions, but he pointed out that the wording of the Clause gives absolute authority to the Commission, and we have to consider not merely his speech but the wording of the Clause. We cannot wonder that education authorities should feel some anxiety when they know that they are going to pay a one-third contribution and in return have no absolute right to anything, though the Commissioners may, if they think fit, give a payment of such amount, to such person and subject to such conditions, as they may in their discretion determine after consultation with such persons or bodies as appear to them to he appropriate. It surely is not right that an education authority should be compelled by Act of Parliament to make what would be in many cases a substantial contribution, and have, in return, no right whatever, even to consultation. I would therefore plead that the Government should consider giving the option to all such authorities of making full payments and receiving the same rights under the Bill as other property owners.

§ Mr. Denman
Having taken some interest in Clause 29 from a very early stage, I wish to make two points in connection with it. Clearly, the Churches are putting themselves entirely, for practical purposes, in the hands of future Governments and of the Commission, as it may hereafter be constituted. The Churches are acting wisely in this matter, because it is, perhaps, especially the duty of the Churches to be rich in faith, and in this case they clearly must have a reasonable faith in the good sense 1005 of future Administrations. The second point is like that which was admirably made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) as to the relation between public interest and the replacement of Churches, and so on, in future. I am sure, from discussions which I have had in connection with the Clause, that it would be the view of the Churches that the business of the Commission would have regard to the kind of public interest to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Churches would themselves think that that was the duty of the Commission, and I am sure they would all collaborate most anxiously to satisfy the obvious public needs in that respect.

§ Sir Robert Tasker (Holborn)
I wish to ask a question with regard to schools. What is the basis of computation for determining what the schools shall receive? How are one-third, one-half or three-quarters to be arrived at? Again, with regard to charitable institutions, there does not seem any method of calculating the amount of reimbursement. The Clause is too comprehensive, and there should be some sort of definition. It extends to all kinds of charities and even to a charity in which I am interested for the benefit of ex-Service men. I do not know where the Chancellor will begin and where he will end, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would explain.

§ Captain Crookshank
This form of Debate is very convenient for hon. Members, to speak upon their own Amendments, but it is difficult for me to try and pick up exactly what everybody is talking about. I do not pretend to be able to answer every question put to me, but there are certain aspects of the general question which I may be able to review. We have had suggestions as to whether or not various charities should be brought within the Clause, such as homes for aged miners, village institutes and the British Legion. In one form or another hon. Members think of those institutions coming within the definition of charities, but we have to look at what the Bill says. The Bill describes what charitable purposes are, and they are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause.
1006 I do not think that, by any stretch of imagination, the British Legion, as such, could come under the Clause, and I do not suppose it really wants to. The same is true of village institutes, as such. They could not possibly come under the present definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was right in saying that they perform a very useful service in the life of the community. He said there was some educational work, as they were open for one or two lectures a week. That is not what most of us think of when we talk of educational establishments. The only answer is that there is not room in the statutory definition for the village institutes, as such, and they would fall within or without the Clause according to the circumstances of each particular case. If a village institute were solely concerned with advancing education, it would come into the definition, but if it were used also for entertainments, ping-pong and other things, it would not.
On the question of miners' welfare cottages and aged miners' homes, I would again point out, if my recollection of former years' intensive application to the problems of the mining industry is right, that there is not just one form of aged miners' home. This is a general term. Most of the homes are probably run under some trust arrangement, or in conjunction with some organisation or trade union. One home might come within the definition or might not. One group might be largely devoted to relieving the poverty of aged miners, and another group, I could imagine, would be devoted more to the treatment of physical sickness. There might be a home in which single miners lived. We have to look at the circumstances of each case. However, the point having been raised, I will look into it further.
Another hon. Gentleman asked about the position of public schools. I think he really asked the question in a humorous way. I think he realises that such schools would be paying at the reduced rate. Whatever else you can say about the advancement of education, this is the object of the public schools, although they might fail in that object. This is another matter, but that is their purpose.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The failure is obvious in some cases.

§ Captain Crookshank
I am afraid that in some cases it is patently obvious, and I will leave it at that. At any rate, the advancement of education is the purpose for which the public schools exist, and that is within the definition of a charitable purpose. There may be some educational establishments which do not come within that definition. There may be schools of the type run as a business by an individual for purely financial purposes, and with the advancement of education as the means by which he hopes to get a good financial result. In that case, one would have to look into the circumstances and see whether the school did or did not fall within the definition.
Some hon. Members have put the point of view of local education authorities. The non-provided schools are not subject to one or other of the forms of ratings referred to in the Bill and which would make them contributory properties. Therefore, the position is that they are not contributory properties. I thought that had already been made clear, but that does not prevent them from being the recipients of compensation. The whole question of compensation runs through the Bill. There are two plans, the cost-of-works plan and the value plan.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Might I interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I want to make this clear. If they do not receive the full value, can you still leave upon the local education authority the onus of providing the full value?

§ Captain Crookshank
I think it would be much simpler if we dealt with these points seriatim. The non-provided school does not contribute. After consultation with everybody concerned as to what the War Damage Commission ought to do if the managers of the non-provided schools cannot rebuild, it may fall upon the local authority to rebuild, but that is surely one of the considerations which the War Damage Commission would have to bear in mind when consulting the persons and bodies which seemed appropriate, having regard to the nature of the purposes for which that interest was held. I think my hon. Friend's point is covered, but if he is not satisfied he can talk to me again, and I can consider it further.
The hon. Gentlemen who spoke on behalf of Cambridge University (Mr. 1008 Pickthorn) and the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) have referred to the point that while an educational establishment may have to pay a contribution, yet it is not mandatory in the Bill that, before deciding whether to pay cost-of-works or value payments, the War Damage Commission should consult them, although they are contributors. I think that is the point they made. I cannot imagine a War Damage Commission, with the authority that it will have and with its important responsibilities, and having been told in the Bill that they must consult such people as they think appropriate, not thinking that the first appropriate person to consult was the person who made the contribution. It seems to me to be thinking of the War Damage Commission as a collection of nitwits. However, if the point that such a safeguard is necessary is really pressed, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look into it and see whether it is worth putting it into the Bill.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
It is not so obvious as my right hon. and gallant Friend seems to think.

§ Captain Crookshank
I think I dealt with the question about the local education authorities, which was raised by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker). He also pointed out that some of these establishments were paying a lower rate and others were not paving a contribution at all, and he asked how the War Damage Commission would assess the basis of the compensation. I am afraid that he has not been as careful a student of the Bill as some of us have had to be. The contribution is no basis at all for the compensation. The compensation which is going to be paid is in the form of either a cost-of-works payment or a value payment based upon entirely different considerations. The contribution paid by anyone has no relation at all to the compensation to be paid.
The last question—and I think I have answered everything that has been asked—was by the hon. Member opposite, who asked whether, in deciding whether or not to rebuild a church, the Commission would in their discretion take into account various town planning considerations. I think that was the gist of his question. I would answer the question in this way. 1009 Under this Clause it is true that the War Damage Commission is given the discretion, after consulting with the parties concerned, of deciding how much compensation is to be given. But then, of course, earlier on we envisaged the fact that the Commission would have some general directions over the whole field with regard to town planning, and it would, therefore, be for the Commission in their discretion to decide at any given point which one of the two would be the overriding consideration. They might say, "This building for certain reasons has got to be put here, and your town-planning arrangements must conform with that fact," or they might say, "The town planning in this area is such that you cannot put that building there," and in that case town-planning considerations would have to have paramount effect. In each case they would have those two problems to weigh up, and, within the best of human possibilities, would do the right thing.

§ Mr. Harvey
My right hon. and gallant Friend has not dealt with the point which I raised when speaking a second time about the need for an option.

§ Captain Crookshank
I thought that my right hon. Friend had already said that we could not really consider the possibility of one or other of these various charities, as defined in this Clause, having the option to come in or not.

§ Mr. Harvey
The right hon. Gentleman referred to churches, but not to schools.

§ Captain Crookshank
I think it would apply in all cases, because ex hypothesi if one looks at the list—religion, education, science or research—that envisages all sorts of bodies which are not in a very flourishing condition. They would not be able to come in, and as far as schools are concerned, I do not think there are very many schools which would ask to come in.

§ Mr. Woodburn
If they send contributions, will you accept them?

§ Captain Crookshank
As a voluntary offering I do not think there would be any bother about that. My right hon. Friend did say that he would consider the point carefully.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I raised the question of village institutes. They are a particu- 1010 larly hard-hit body. In the countryside they perform a very important function, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman between now and the Report stage to look at the question from a wider point of view. They are practically "broke," and if you put a heavy contribution upon them, many of them are bound to close, in which case the country would lose a very valuable institution. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would discuss the point with me. I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for his kind and courteous answer, which I very much value, and I hope that he will also mellow his views.

§ The Chairman
In regard to most of the remaining Amendments on this Clause, I think there has already been full discussion, and I propose to call them only if hon. Members wish them to be called.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
With respect, Sir Dennis, I was told that I might say a few words on my other Amendments and that it would be better if they were not mentioned while we were discussing the general policy.

§ The Chairman
I think that was the reason why I said I would only call them if hon. Members wished them to be called.

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 22, line 3, after "research," to insert: only, or, if they include such purposes and the use of the land is solely or mainly for or in connection with the carrying out of such purposes. This Amendment is required because the Clause, as drafted, is not quite clear as to whether properties used both for education and some other unspecified charitable purpose would be exempted. The result of the Amendment would be that the charge of one-third of the full rate would be imposed only where the use was solely or mainly for or in connection with educational purposes.

§ Mr. Woodburn
, I beg to move, in page 22, line 4, at the end, to insert: (2) Nursery schools, wholly or mainly supported by charity and approved by local authorities, shall have their liability under this Clause reduced to nil. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I wish to explain this Amendment. Many local authorities have not yet been able to establish nursery schools and have accordingly given permission to voluntary bodies to experiment in certain districts in the establishment of nursery schools. These have been of enormous value from a social and from a health point of view, and are in every way to be encouraged. I am placed in a certain difficulty by what the Financial Secretary has said, for I cannot say whether these schools are exempted from rates or not. To take one example, there is a nursery school in one of the worst parts of Edinburgh in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), which, although it was at first impossible to get children to go to it in any numbers, has reached the point where there is a waiting list of 80 names, and mothers are registering their children for the nursery school as soon as they are born, just as I understand horses are registered for the Derby when they are born. The fact that that is done shows the tragic need for this nursery-school movement, and anything which is going to discourage them will have a serious reflection on a very important experimental feature of the educational system. Until local authorities are able to establish their own nursery schools in sufficient numbers, I would respectfully ask the Chancellor to accept this Amendment, and agree that such nursery schools as are defined here should be exempted.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Is there any reason why exemption should be limited to nursery schools approved by the local authority?

§ Sir K. Wood
The answer to that is the answer which I am going to make to this Amendment. Unless my hon. Friend can bring further evidence to support his proposal, I cannot accept his Amendment at the present time, because it is very difficult to see why I should pick out nursery schools for more favourable treatment than other educational charities. If I were to do so, I know what would happen: I should receive many applications in regard to similar institutions. Therefore, unless 1012 my hon. Friend can put forward some particular reason, I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
To avoid misunderstanding may I point out that the schools I have in mind are wholly or almost wholly maintained by charity, although the local authority makes a grant to them? There is no question of any fee; they are charitable schools maintained for the benefit of people in the very poorest areas.

§ The Chairman
The next Amendment on the Paper appears to deal with the question of exemption on the grounds of charitable purposes upon which there has already been so much discussion. I do not think I can allow any further appreciable discussion on it.

§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)
I beg to move, in page 22, line 6, to leave out from "purposes," to the end of line 12, and to insert: in respect of which exemption from Income Tax would be granted under the Income Tax Acts, 1918 to 1940. This rather widens the scope of the exemption provisions. The only definition of "charitable purpose" that we have is contained in the Income Tax Acts. There have been quite a number of decisions based upon that definition, and I thought that here was an opportunity for the Chancellor to explain why he has narrowed down the definition contained in those Acts. May I point out one or two things in regard to it? I have put this Amendment down chiefly at the instigation of the National Institute for the Blind. Where do they come in under this definition? Not under relief of poverty; they might come in under the relief and the treatment of sickness, disease or injury, physical or mental, particularly in so far as treatment is concerned. Then there is the other provision, namely, the advancement of education, science or research. They do a very great deal of work in helping and educating blind people, but beyond that they do something else; they help to establish them in business and look after them for a considerable time, and it seems to me that the definition now included in the Bill is much too narrow. What applies to the National Institute for the Blind also applies to the deaf and infirm. I have put down this Amendment for the purpose of 1013 getting some statement from the Chancellor. I do not press him at this moment, but will he consider it between now and the Report stage, when we may have to discuss the matter more fully?

§ The Attorney-General
I think this Amendment goes much too far. My hon. and learned Friend is not quite right in saying that the definition contained in the Income Tax Acts is the only definition, but the Income Tax Acts do, of course, give special exemptions for bodies which are held to be charitable. Some trusts have been held to be charitable which might surprise one. Thus, a society for the propagation of Socialism was once held to be a good charitable trust, although it has not yet been held that a society for the promotion of Conservatism is also a charity. The building of bridges and all sorts of things have been brought in as valid charities, which clearly would have no right to be included in the exemptions under this Bill. As far as the blind are concerned, or any special institution which either now or later people feel would normally be intended to be covered but which has not been covered by this Bill, we shall be glad to consider them.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I beg to move, in page 22, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert: (b) the making of provision for the cure or mitigation or prevention of, or for the care of persons suffering from or subject to, any disease or infirmity or disability affecting human beings (including the care of women before, during, and after childbirth); I think that the Chancellor intends to accept this Amendment. The real object of the Amendment is to be quite sure that the provisions covered in the last words of the Amendment come into the Bill, and are made quite clear. It is almost invariably the case that when anything has to be done for women the male Members of this House have to move the necessary Amendments. It is only right that we should do this for our absent sisters.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, after "education," to insert "learning."
Many of us prefer the word "learning" to "research," or even to "education"; and would he sorry to see the word "learning" omitted. I do not pre- 1014 tend that this is a matter of very great importance, and I will not waste any time if the Chancellor says that it is impossible for him to consider it. If "learning" is inserted here there are two or three other places where it would have to be inserted; but I did not bother to put an Amendment down for each case.

§ Sir K. Wood
Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave the matter open, for me to consider it.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, at the end, to insert: Provided that any hereditament owned or occupied by a local authority for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Sub-section shall be deemed not to be held for charitable purposes for the purposes of this Section. The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that local authorities concerned with the various matters referred to in the Clause are not to be treated as charities, but are to be permitted to pay the full contributions, and to get the full benefits. This Amendment is brought forward at the instance of the London County Council. I recognise that there are other local authorities which take a different view. I move this merely to get the view of the Chancellor. At any rate, it ought to be made quite clear what the position is.

§ Sir K. Wood
I shall have to consult the County Councils' Association on this matter. This is the only representation I have had, and I had better ask the Association what they think about it, as there is a difference of opinion between the L.C.C. and other bodies.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I know of no difference of opinion, and, on behalf of the County Councils' Association, I should like to support this Amendment. I have put down an Amendment at the request of the Association which I think covers exactly the same point.

§ Sir K. Wood
If they are in agreement, there is no objection from my point of view. If the hon. Member will leave it at that, I will take steps to draw up an Amendment in the right words.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
It might save time if the Chancellor could explain this matter. To me, it seems extremely anomalous. We were told by the Financial Secretary that 1015 it was impossible for educational establishments in private hands to pay the full contribution. I do not understand why. If it is possible for the Treasury to allow municipalites to pay the full contribution—I do not say that I want it to be allowed—I should like the apparent anomaly explained.

§ Mr. Silkin
There is no anomaly. The Amendment merely makes it clear that local authorities are not charities.

§ Sir J. Lamb
They do not want to pay the one-third contribution as charities, and then to be debarred from receiving the full value for reinstatement.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
We have been assured from the front bench that the paying of the one-third contribution in no way affects the amount of compensation.

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, at the end, to insert: (5) If and so long as land normally used as mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section is temporarily diverted from such use by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of this Section to be used as it is normally used. This Amendment is to cover the case of premises normally used for charitable purposes but requisitioned for other purposes. The Amendment provides that they shall be regarded as remaining in charitable hands. This will keep them within the meaning of the Clause.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, at the end, to insert:— (6) For the purpose of giving effect to any directions given by the Treasury under Section eight of this Act, the Commission shall have power, where war damage occurs to a hereditament which satisfies the conditions specified in Sub-section (1) of this Section, and which is held for the advancement of education, science, or research, and where it is in the national interest on the ground of the purpose for which the property is occupied, or of the historic or artistic interest of the buildings damaged that the war damage should be made good, to make a payment of 1016 the reasonable cost of the work in a style and with materials appropriate to the surroundings of the buildings and to the purpose. This Sub-section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (5) of Section twenty-nine. This is an empowering Sub-section, not binding the Treasury or the Commission in any way. It merely gives them power to make a rebuilding payment when otherwise there would have been a value payment, and to draw rather special attention to questions of style, material and so on. There are many arguments which might be put for this Amendment, but I do not wish to delay the Committee. The Amendment is of rather less importance now than it was when I put it down. In view of what the Attorney-General said on Clause 4 about the necessity of treating as a unit the whole of a building, or even of a group of buildings, which were interdependent, the chance of any educational institution receiving value payments instead of rebuilding payments is not very great. But that does not make it unreasonable for me to move the Amendment, and I hope that the Chancellor will go some way in meeting me.

§ Sir K. Wood
This, of course, enables the Commission to take the steps that my hon. Friend would desire, but, in fact, they have the power at this moment. I would ask my hon. Friend to rely upon the discrimination of the Commission as provided for in the Clause, and I do not think that it would be well to separate it in this way. I said in my statement a short time ago that the Commission will have the fullest regard, as it is my intention that they should, in all proper cases for the purposes of the charity concerned. They will certainly have regard to that matter, and I can also undertake, as I said before, that there shall be full consultation between the Commission and such persons or bodies as appear to them appropriate having regard to the purposes and nature of any such cases of this kind. Therefore, I think we can say that the power is already given to the Commission and that they will have regard to this particular matter which my hon. Friend has in mind and that there will be consultation. In these circumstances, I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, to leave out "property or hereditament," and to insert "land."
This is a Drafting Amendment.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I do not propose to move the next Amendment on the Paper in my name—in page 23, line 6, at the end, to add: (6) Nothing in this Section shall apply to any contributory property of which a local authority is the owner in fee simple. In view of the statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is accepting this in principle, and that he will insert other words, perhaps at a later stage, I do not propose to move my Amendment, nor the following one—in page 23, line 6, at the end, to add: (6) The managers of a public elementary school, not provided by the local education authority, may apply to the local education authority to pay the contributions which are due from the managers and if the local education authority approve such application such authority may pay the managers' contribution as part of the cost of maintenance of the school, and any sums receivable in respect of war damage shall be paid to the local education authority who shall apply them towards the reinstatement of the school, or a council school, and the provisions of Sections nine and ten of the Education Act, 1936, shall apply to schools damaged by enemy action.

§ Sir P. Hannon
Before the Clause is put to the Committee, may I say on behalf of those who are profoundly concerned with the provisions of this Clause in relation to churches, schools and various institutions and with the advancement of religion, how profoundly grateful we are to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has made this afternoon on the various Amendments submitted on the Paper? I cannot recall any instance in this House in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer has been so accessible or kindly and sympathetic with practical help and suggestions for the amendment of a complicated law as has 1018 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In particular, he received the deputations on this delicate and very often baffling subject of our schools and churches with the greatest kindness and consideration.
I apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having put upon the Paper to-day a whole series of Amendments of which he should have had much longer notice. He said that he would take into consideration, in his own peculiar, genial and kindly way, the substance of the Amendments that I placed on the Paper this morning and would see how far he could go in meeting the principles involved in those Amendments. But, speaking generally on the Clause, I think, in this particular instance, in the application of this very delicate, difficult and embarrassing measure of war damage compensation, and contributions from all kinds of property owners in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a very generous and kindly point of view in regard to the Christian Churches. I am certain that the whole community desires the continuity of the influence of the Christian Churches in this country, and that they will readily acknowledge the attitude which the Chancellor has taken up.
I am sure that the whole nation and, indeed, that part of the world which is fighting for Christian civilisation will acknowledge the contribution which the Chancellor is making in this Bill. For my own part of the Christian Church, I think I can say, on behalf of my co-religionists, that nothing will more redound to the credit of the Chancellor than the attitude he has taken to secure the continuity of the Christian point of view.

§ Sir K. Wood
I am much indebted to my hon. Friend. I hope that I shall have his equally warm support for proposals that I may be introducing later in the year.