HC Deb 16 April 1959 vol 603 cc1215-9
Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 2. line 18, to leave out " year 196263 " and to insert " appointed year".

With your permission, Sir Norman, and for the convenience of the Commitee, the next three Amendments might also be taken together. They are those in page 2, line 19, leave out year 196263 " and insert " appointed year "; in line 23, leave out " year 196263 " and insert " appointed year " and in line 25. leave out " sixty-two " and add: sixty or such subsequent year (not later than the year beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty-two) as by an order in the form of a statutory instrument the Minister of Housing and Local Government may from time to time appoint: Provided that no such order shall be made within the last six months of a year, or so as to appoint any year other than the year next following the year in which the order is made, or unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament". These Amendments are all associated with Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. which gave power for the rates of charitable institutions to be frozen at the level of the previous year. If the revaluation resulted in those institutions having to pay less they paid less, but if the revaluation meant that they would pay more then Section 8 fixed the rate at the previous year's level. The limitation continued until the local authority concerned gave notice at a subsequent date that it would no longer maintain the limitation.

That provision has had a detrimental effect on the revenue of many local authorities. Cambridge and other university towns and other places with other types of institutions have found their rateable incomes seriously reduced. It is true that the charities do not want to pay more rates. On Second Reading the Minister informed us that a Departmental Committee had been set up under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Pritchard, and he said that the report of that Committee might be made within a few weeks. However, so far as I know that report is not yet available.

The purpose of this group of Amendments is that instead of the limitation of Section 8 lasting until 196263 it should last until only 1960. By then, if the Pritchard Committee had reported and there were no fresh legislation to deal with the problem, the Minister of the day would have to come to Parliament each year and justify the continuance of this position.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will concede our request, because the Minister himself said on Second Reading that the inclusion of the provision for the year 196263 did not necessarily mean that the limitation would automatically run until then. He said that if legislation or some arrangement to deal with the problem came before that time. then the limitation would be withdrawn. After 1960, if the Minister gave the House valid reasons why he was not yet ready with proposals to meet the situation, then the House would always be sympathetic to the Minister. However, we think it better that after 1960 the Minister should justify any delay every year instead of making the delay automatically applied until 1962–63.

In view of the lateness of the House and other business which is still to come, 1 do not wish to go into greater detail. The matter was discussed on Second Reading and local authorities affected by it have made representations to the Minister. The general problem is thus known. It is a question of whether we shall have yearly justification after 1960, or whether we shall give the Minister permission to take the limitation automatically up to 1962–63.

Mr. Bevins

Although I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this group of Amendments, I may be able to make one or two comments which will be helpful to the Committee and which may give hon. Members an idea of the pattern likely to emerge in this complicated matter. As drafted, the Bill secures that no notice to reduce or discontinue relief enjoyed by charities under Section 8 (2) of the 1955 Act can be effective before the end of 196263. Thus, charitable bodies cannot become liable to pay full rates until 1st April, 1963, at the earliest.

The hon. Member has been good enough to explain the significance of the Amendments and I shall not take up time by going over that ground again. As I understand it, the Amendments would be of practical consequence if, after the Government had considered the Report of the Pritchard Committee, it was decided first that there should be no Amendment to Section 8 and, secondly, that notices under it should become effective before the end of 196263. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right when he said that this was a possibility which we did not seek to rule out and that notices might become effective before 1963.

Indeed, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend used these words: I am not saying that the Section 8 standstill will necessarily continue until 1963. I am saving that in the Bill we are providing for it to continue until 1963 unless, between now and then, Parliament decides to enact some fresh legislation on the rating of charities which might come into force earlier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 8245.] The answer to the question whether Section 8 should be allowed to continue unamended as a permanent provision is equally clear. Section 8 was brought in as a holding provision, something designed to see charities safely over the change in the machinery of valuation for rating and to give enough time to the Government and Parliament to decide whether anything else needed to be done. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman would suggest that Section 8 is likely to be satisfactory as a permanent provision.

As hon. Members know, there is no unanimity among beneficiaries under Section 8 about what should happen, nor, for that matter, among local authorities on how charities should be treated in future. Some local authorities think that there should be no relief at all, or precious little, discretionary or otherwise. Others would prefer to see assistance given direct by way of grant rather than rate remission. At the other extreme, one local authority thinks that there is a case for complete exemption by Statute of all charities and kindred bodies. Whatever solution is put forward in due course by my right hon. Friend or the Government, there should be an opportunity for Parliament to examine that proposed solution and, if need be, to substitute an alternative solution if Parliament is so minded.

7.30 p.m.

If a solution comes before Parliament in a Bill it can be debated and amended, but an Order of the kind envisaged in the Amendment could only be either approved by the House or flatly rejected. I suppose if an Order were rejected it could only be to make way for an Order specifying a different year. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there must be further legislation on this tricky and controversial subject. As yet, the Government are not tied to any definite views in advance of the report of the Pritchard Committee which I think the hon. Gentleman may like to know my right hon. Friend is expecting to receive within a month or two.

It is obvious that the ending of the old provisions and the beginning of the new ones, whatever they may be, ought to be synchronised and that the proper place for that is in amending legislation apart from any connection there may be between the two. I think hon. Members will agree that it would be wasteful of Parliamentary time to consider separately an Order fixing the date when the old reliefs end and a Bill which fixes, among other things, the date when the new arrangements, whatever they may happen to be, start. I hope that what I have said will be of some little help to the Committee and that in the circumstances which I have briefly outlined the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not feel disposed to press the series of Amendments.

Mr. Ede

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. He said that he hoped that what he had said might be of some little help to the Committee. Perhaps he might be able to make that " little somewhat larger. Are we to understand that when this amending legislation comes in, it will deal with all the problems raised by Section 8 of the principal Act? I took some part in the discussions that led to the passing of Section 8. We know it is difficult. I have been somewhat surprised by the decisions of the courts with regard to what is a charity. Some of the learned societies, which I would have thought were undoubtedly charities, have found that they have become liable, for instance in the City of Westminster, for considerable sums of rates that have threatened their very existence.

Is the proposed legislation to be wide enough to enable us to deal with the question of the definition of what a charity is, and how it is to be recognised by law? Unless we can get that point settled the present unsatisfactory state of affairs and the anxieties of many estimable and learned societies will continue.

I hope that this is regarded as a matter of urgency by the Government, because many people are feeling considerable frustration at the moment and are hanging on in the desperate hope that the exercise of that awful phrase " somehing must be done " will come about. Too often when people get into the frame of mind that "something must be done ", the first thing that is done is not always something that relieves the situation.

Mr. Bevins

I do not dissent from a word that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. It was expected that we would some time ago have had the report of this Committee on charities, but that Committee has found the subject more complicated and abstruse than perhaps any of us did originally. It is the hope of my right hon. Friend that legislation will cover the whole field that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Lindgren

In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bil

Schedule agreed to.

Rill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.