New Clause No. 7.—(CHARITIES.) (Hansard, 20 June 1967)

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
1467 The Clause represents a special plea for charities. I declare my interest as a nominee of the Harpur Charity which, among other things, has endowments for the benefit of the major schools in Bedford, almshouses and other things. There is widespread concern in the world of charities lest they should be unable to continue to make the important contribution they have made, in some cases, over centuries. Here there is the beginning in some cases of the likely break up of the estates for which these charities are responsible, and from which flow substantial benefits in one form and another.
This is a matter of great concern to them. When the charities were originally formed the assets may have consisted of fields near London—Holborn is the borough in which the estates of the Bedford charity stand. Down the years those estates have, I hope, been wisely administered for a wide variety of beneficiaries, and have made very substantial contributions to education. I wonder whether this was the subject which those who represent the Cambridge colleges put to the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps not. If we stand in the way of the original deeds of covenant, and the intentions of the founders, it will lead to the deprivation of those who, down the centuries, have benefitted from charities. There are substantial grounds for the special pleading I make.
When this matter was discussed in Committee I was not able to be present, but I hope that it may be possible to make some special provisions for charities. This is not public money, in the true sense, but charitable money, which is often put to far better use than public money, dependent on the terms of the trust deeds, and so on. To see the beginning of the end of some of our substantial charities would be regrettable.

Mr. Wiley
As the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has said, a very powerful case was put in Committee for this suggested provision, though not in the same form. The Clause is open to the objection that there is no real reason for the exception that is sought to be made. First of all, there is no precedent—these charities were not exempt in the 1954 legislation, although the effect of that legislation was very 1468 much to depreciate the value of the freehold interest. It also affected the way in which charities felt it right and proper to deal with the leases, which was unfortunate.
The second objection to the Clause is that one cannot justify this indefensible distinction between leaseholders which would result if it were accepted. One cannot differentiate, for example, between the leaseholders of the Hampstead Garden Suburb and the leaseholders of the Dulwich Estate. The cardinal difficulty is that one cannot distinguish between leaseholders according to the character of their freeholders. That is why, hitherto, it has not been possible to exempt charities.

§ Mr. Peyton
I rise only to say how glorious it is to see the light dawning on the Minister's face as he realises what an appalling Bill it is.

§ Mr. Hamling
It is a very good Bill.

§ Mr. Graham Page
It certainly is not a very good Bill when the result is to deprive charities of funds which they have used for purposes which, in many cases, the taxpayer will have to finance in future.
This case was deployed in great detail in Committee, and I shall not repeat that detail but will put the principle. We cannot look at this from a point of view of landlord and tenant in the case of charities, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he asks how in that respect we can distinguish reasonably between the landowner who is a charity and the landowner who is a private individual. I do not think one can.
The distinction is that the Bill takes away certain funds of the landlord. It may be quite right, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Bill should take away the assets of a private individual, but when it takes away the assets of a charity and fails to give proper compensation for taking them, it is taking money that would otherwise be devoted to education, educational research or even to medical aspects. We have referred again and again to the Dulwich Estate which, through its funds, finances half a dozen or so schools or charities, and which will, if its capital is taken, as it will be under the Bill, be unable to do that in the future.
1469 The tragedy of the Bill is that it does not make distinctions in these cases. It would not have needed to make distinctions if it had provided for proper compensation for the landlord's interest, but as it does not so provide it should make distinctions in favour of those landlords who use their funds for charitable purposes.

§ Mr. Hooson
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has provoked me to speak, because there is no reason in principle for a distinction between the leaseholder who holds the lease from a charity and the leaseholder who holds it from any other concern. The fact that the charity has performed good work is no reason why it should not do so in future. Its assets are the greater, in the considered view of the House, than they would have been if we had had an equitable system of land holding from the beginning. It is because of the leasehold system that charities, like other land owners, have had the value of their property enhanced. It would be quite inequitable to draw distinctions in the Bill between lease-holders who hold their leases from charities and those who hold their land from other landlords. I therefore hope that the Minister will stand firm.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
In speaking of the balance of interests of the lessee and the leaseholder the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) did not address himself to the question of fairness to the freeholders, and it is with the equitable treatment of the freehold, the charity in this case, that we are concerned. I understood the hon. and learned Member's remarks to lay emphasis on the treatment of the lessee.

§ Mr. Hooson
I think the compensation terms are fair.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I have no comment to make on that, except that I am in complete disagreement. I am surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member say that. I think there is special pleading on his part as well.

§ Mr. Hamling
On both sides.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I have pleaded on my side for charitable purposes. I accept that the matter was discussed fully in 1470 Committee and I have no option but to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.