NATIONAL DISASTER FUND (Hansard, 20 March 1967)

§ Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a National Fund of a permanent nature to be available to those who suffer in any designated disaster; and for connected purposes. I realise that in framing such legislation, certain important principles have to be reconciled. The first is to maintain what I would describe as the spontaneity of the moment so as in no way to discourage the generous instincts of members of the public who, faced with a national tragedy, wish to subscribe to a particular disaster fund. The second is to preserve the widest possible degree of local initiative. The third is to prevent money from being frozen in a charitable fund or trust in the event of its being over-subscribed. The fourth is to create a central fund, capable of making immediate grants for relief and thereby removing the present delay between the occurrence of the disaster and the successful launching of an appeal. The need is greatest within hours of the tragedy occurring.

Disaster funds may run into very large sums of money. The Lord Mayor's Fund for the East Coast Disaster in 1953 reached about £5 million and the Aberfan Fund has already reached £1½ million. On the Central Register of the Charity Commissioners are recorded countless disaster funds, ranging from numerous mining disasters to lifeboat and lightship disasters. Some are very old indeed and cover every form of tragedy in this century.

One colliery explosion fund, launched in 1910, still has £19,000; another has £200,000; the Titanic Disaster Fund, launched in 1912, was wound up two years ago. It is true, of course, that many funds have to make continuing provision for contingent liabilities—fot example, towards dependants and possibly future dependants.

It is also true that, under the Charities Act, 1960, the Charity Commissioners 959 have a slightly greater discretion to enlarge the scope of charitable funds, but the cy près doctrine is such that the enlarged objectives have to be as close as possible to the original purpose and the money cannot be used for general charitable purposes. Often, references are made to the courts at great expense and the litigation is frequently protracted. The Lynton-Lynmouth Fund, launched in 1953 to deal with the tragedy in my constituency, was the subject of High Court proceedings. Fortunately that fund now has been completely spent. The Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester Fund to make provision for the 27 Royal Marine cadets who were killed involved litigation stretching over 13 years to decide what should happen to the residue of that fund, and, indeed, the litigation absorbed half the balance.

What I seek to do is, first, to set up a national disaster fund, which I suggest should be administered by the Charity Commissioners, who would submit an annual report to Parliament. Second, in cases where the Secretary of State certifies that an event or happening constitutes a national disaster, a certificate to that effect should be published in the London Gazette. The effect would be that a local authority in the afflicted area would have the right to make an immediate call upon the fund and would still have continuing rights to launch a local appeal. Third, at the end of a specified period, which I suggest might be two years, any surplus remaining in the fund should be transferred to the central disaster fund. This would take charge of any continuing obligations, for example, possible future commitments for dependants and future dependants. In many cases, funds have had to be kept going not because there is money which has to be paid out but because of the possibility of claims being made in the future.

I do not think that it is right to expect a mayor to act in perpetuity as the administrator or trustee of a disaster fund, and, therefore, it would be wise in those cases, after a designated period, to transfer any surplus to a central fund. I am certain that that would meet with the approval of the general public. It has been a matter which has been debated at party conferences, I think first 960 at the Labour Party Conference in 1934. The Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts went into it in some detail in 1952. If the general public were consulted, I am certain that it would be agreed that this is the sort of formula which would combine the factors of which I have spoken. They want to show sympathy with victims of a disaster, but, should the fund be oversubscribed, to make any surplus available to others who may suffer misfortune in the future.

I am aware that this is a complicated matter touching upon the law relating to trusts and the administration of charities. I have been fortunate in getting wide support from all quarters of the House, and I am specially grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is here and to the other sponsors of the Bill who have agreed to support me. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it and give it a First Reading.

This may be a case where, after discussions with the Ministers of the Crown whose Departments are involved, the C.C.A., the A.M.C., the Red Cross and the Charity Commissioners and, assuming that the House agrees to the general principle, the House might agree to a formal Second Reading and then send it to a Committee.

There is great public disquiet on this matter. I believe a measure of this sort is long overdue and, therefore, I beg leave to introduce this Bill.