HL Deb 15 February 1951 vol 170 cc357-66

4.25 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Repeal of provision for registers of annuities for all districts, and substituted provision as to selected districts]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT SIMON

I should like to ask for a little more information and assurance about Clause 1 of the Bill which, as the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading explained to us, is the most important clause the Bill contains. On the Second Reading, I asked two questions about it which were replied to briefly by the Lord Chancellor. I have since made inquiries and think that I, at any rate, now understand the matter rather better. I gather that while it is asserted that the register and maps which were required by the Act of 1936 have not been made, and it is now proposed that the obligation to make them should be cancelled, there are maps and documents which form the present records, and it is upon those that there is based the system of search which, from time to time, people interested in a particular property have to make in order to ascertain whether there is or is not anything in the nature of a tithe rent charge upon it. That point I follow.

I gather that these maps and documents are regarded as instruments of apportionment and not, strictly speaking, the register which the original Act contemplated, and I suppose that they are supplemented and brought up to date by the records of subsequent redemptions and apportionments. I should like to know whether I have now correctly apprehended that point. If so, the information then authorised by the Lord Chancellor may be of value to some who are concerned in this highly technical matter. But there is one other question which I think I ought to put and which I have no doubt the Lord Chancellor, either now or at a later stage, will deal with. It is this. As I have said and as we all appreciate, Clause 1 removes the obligation to make a register. Yet, when the Lord Chancellor replied on the Second Reading—I am referring to Column 149 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the day, which was February 1—he explained it in these words: However, there are some few areas in this country where the information is difficult to ascertain because there have been so many subsequent transactions that the original tithe apportionment map is cluttered up with all sorts of writings, and it has become almost a palimpsest. He went on to say: In these cases, we propose to prepare a register. The question which suggests itself is this. If, as I read it, Clause 1 abolishes all obligation to make a register, how is this modified and subsidiary announcement, "In these cases, we propose to prepare a register", to be effected in the legislation? One would have thought—I am speaking quite speculatively—that, if that is the policy which is being followed, there would be something in the Act about it, because if by an Act of Parliament you abolish all obligation to make any register under the Act, how can you at the same time say: In these cases, we propose to prepare a register "? I expect there is a perfectly good explanation and of course I am not saying this in any cantankerous spirit, but, technical as the Bill is, we had better be sure that we understand what we are doing. Therefore, I venture to put the question how it is intended that this modified purpose is to be statutorily secured.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

May I deal with the last point first, while it is fresh in my mind? For the procedure of preparing a register for selected districts only under subsection (2) of Clause 1, we are relying wholly on Clause 1 of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount will see that the procedure is set out in subsections (4) to (9) of Clause 1. The old power goes altogether. Section 9 of the Tithe Act, 1936 (which gave the old power), being repealed we have to find, and I think we do find in Clause 1, the necessary powers; and the precise procedure the noble Viscount will see set out in subsections (4) to (9).

I come to the other point which the noble Viscount raised, and he is perfectly right in his assumption. The position is that with the original apportionments there are kept the documents recording later transactions, which are chiefly apportionments and redemptions. A precise note of each subsequent transaction (including, of course, redemptions) is made on every original apportionment, and each subsequent apportionment is annotated in like manner. All these documents are available for inspection by interested parties, and a very careful and exact key is provided by the references on the documents. Expert advice is always available to those who consult the apportionments and maps (chiefly, of course, firms of solicitors and surveyors), and in practice a great deal of information is given by letter to those who find it inconvenient to make a personal inspection.

When I spoke originally on this matter to your Lordships, I had already been informed that leading solicitors had found that system perfectly satisfactory, but to make quite sure that I was on sound ground about this subject, which is not one with which I was ever familiar during my time at the Bar (nor, I think, was the noble Viscount; it is really a conveyancing matter), I suggested that the Parliamentary draftsman should make it his business to see some of the conveyancers of Lincoln's Inn, including some of the conveyancing counsel to the Court. He has done so, and they say they have never heard of any difficulty in the present position without any register, and that from the practical point of view those concerned in dealings with land are, so far as those whom I have consulted are aware, quite content. That is the opinion of people who really do understand these complicated questions, and I think the noble and learned Viscount will be satisfied by that.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I am entirely satisfied, and for what it may be worth may I say that since the Second Reading I have had the opportunity of putting the question informally to a solicitor in a firm which the noble and learned Viscount and I knew very well in the old days, and he was good enough himself to make inquiries. I have before me a letter in which he says that he thinks that, now that the matter has been explained to him, the result is quite satisfactory. Of course, it is as well to add, in regard to what is in the noble and learned Viscount's mind, that under Clause 7 of this Bill there is provided a statutory obligation to facilitate these searches, and that will remain a duty which rests upon the Commission.

On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Records and other documents: proof and right to inspection and copies]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) after "apportionment" to insert: "deeds or declarations of merger under the Tithe Acts". The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a complicated matter. Tithe rent charge could be merged in the land out of which it issued by deed or declaration of merger under the Tithe Acts, and in no other way. By such merger the liabilities formerly attaching to the tithe rent charge became charged upon the land itself. The most important instance of this was the liability arising from the ownership of tithe rent charges forming part of the possessions of a rectory, since the owner of the land by the merger became liable for repair of the chancel of the ancient parish church. The record of ascertainments under the Seventh Schedule of the principal Act may be unintelligible without reference to a deed of merger. It is necessary, therefore, that these instruments of merger should be available to all interested persons, and the Amendment specifically includes them in the list of documents so available. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 21, after ("apportionment") insert ("deeds or declarations of merger under the Tithe Acts,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [Reports of proceedings of the Commission]:

On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT SIMON

On Second Reading I ventured to put forward tentatively an inquiry to the Lord Chancellor as to whether he was satisfied that sufficient economy would be secured to justify the provision by which the Commission are no longer required to make any Report to Parliament. I have looked to see what these Reports are. They are very short documents. They consist of a great many figures which no doubt can be found elsewhere. But unless there is real expense involved, it seems to me rather strange that we should say that a statutory Commission which has the duty to make a Report is relieved from making any Report at all. There may be people who examine these Reports for the purpose of seeing what is recorded. I do not know enough about the subject to know whether this proposal is justified. I have mentioned it before, but the Lord Chancellor has said nothing about it. I shall be quite content if he tells me that he is satisfied.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have asked my advisers about this matter. They tell me that they are satisfied that it will save some money, but not much. However, one must remember the old saying, that if one takes care of the pence, the pounds take care of themselves. In this respect, I think we are taking care of the pence.

On Question, Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Right of recourse to the court on determination of annual value of agricultural land]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause:

Determination of particulars of charged land for purposes of remission under s. 14 of principal Act

".—(1) Where an application is made under the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act (which relates to the valuation of land in an agricultural holding in connection with the remission granted by section fourteen of that Act in the case of certain annuities charged in respect of agricultural land) for a certificate of the annual value of the charged land in such a holding, the surveyor of taxes to whom the application is made shall, before proceeding as required by the said Schedule, transmit a copy of the application to the Commission with a view to their examining whether the particulars of the holding and of the charged land therein are correctly stated in the application.

(2) If the Commission are satisfied that the particulars are correctly slated they shall notify the surveyor that they are so satisfied, and he shall thereupon proceed as required by the said Schedule on the basis of the particulars as stated in the application.

(3) If the Commission are not so satisfied, the particulars shall be determined as hereinafter provided and notified by the Commission to the surveyor, who shall thereupon proceed as required by the said Schedule on the basis of the particulars as so determined.

(4) In a case falling within the last preceding subsection—

  1. (a) the Commission shall as soon as possible after receiving the copy of the application notify to the owner the alterations appearing to them to be required and give him an opportunity of making representations, and, if agreement is reached, the particulars shall be taken to be as agreed between the Commission and the owner;
  2. (b) if after the owner has been given an opportunity of making representations it appears to the Commission that agreement will not be reached, the Commission shall notify the owner to that effect, stating that particulars as then appearing to them to be correct, and if within one month from the date of his being so notified the owner makes an application in that behalf to the county 363 court, the particulars shall be determined by the court;
  3. (c) if in a case falling within the last preceding paragraph the owner does not make an application to the Court within the period therein mentioned, or an application so made is not duly prosecuted, the particulars shall be taken to be as notified to the owner under the last preceding paragraph."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I propose to move a new clause in substitution for Clause 9. This is due to the vigilance of the noble and learned Viscount opposite, who pointed out that Clause 9 was really a blunder. It was a misapprehension. You cannot use the method of a case stated except for the ascertainment of a point of law when all the facts are set out in the case. Therefore, we have rewritten the clause altogether in a way which does provide, I think, for a proper method of determination. We propose to provide for settling what is properly comprised in an agricultural holding, or in a relevant segment of one, as a preliminary to the valuation process. I hope and believe that the proposed new clause provides means of enabling this to be done promptly and in a practical way, by seeking agreement in the first instance and putting the whole issue in the hands of the court in default of agreement.

Reference to a county court is proposed—here is another burden being thrust upon the county court judges, and a horrible one to decide, I should think—because an application to such a court would be a simple and inexpensive matter and is a course already adopted for recovery of annuities. There is also provided an appeal from the county court to the Court of Appeal under Section 105 of the County Courts Act, 1934, on either questions of law or equity, or upon the admission or rejection of evidence. Therefore it is applicable to this hearing. I do not think there is a danger of the county courts being swamped by applications under the new clause. The number of valuation cases under the Fourth Schedule of the principal Act never exceeds 200 in a year, and in the great majority of those there is in fact no disagreement. The number referred annually to the county courts under the new clause would probably never exceed ten or twelve. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 9 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SIMON

I am obliged for what the Lord Chancellor has said. I was always quite sure in my own mind that when the provisions of the original Clause 9 were pointed out to him he would without hesitation say that it was an unworkable and almost a self-contradictory clause. However, that is enough about that; such things happen sometimes and the object of Parliament is to improve legislation, even when it is introduced by the Government. So far as I can see, the whole of the alternative procedure provision for which is now to be inserted in the Bill is quite satisfactory. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor noticed, as an echo of our debate yesterday, that this is another straw which is to be put on the backs of the county court judges. But they really bear so many burdens already that I do not think this particular straw is going to break their backs—if indeed those backs are still intact. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that though the county court judge as here provided will reach a determination, if there were a difference to be settled there would, as under ordinary law. be an appeal from the county court. The Lord Chancellor did not actually say so but I think I am right in saying that of course there would be no appeal on facts, but there would be an appeal on law—on whether, for instance, evidence was improperly admitted. I should not suppose that that is ever very likely to happen. All is well that ends well in this not very large field, and I think we may fairly claim that in the present instance the House of Lords has done something to improve the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Minor amendments, and repeals]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I must explain briefly a little more about this fascinating subject. Subsection (4) transfers to the Commission the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of annuities charged on land for the redemption of tithe rent charge. Other annuities of a kind similar to those covered by the clause have been created under the Tithe Act, 1918, and later Acts, for the redemption of corn rents, and similar payments in lieu of tithes. The Amendment extends the clause to cover both kinds of annuities. This will be administratively convenient because the Commission will have all the documents in their charge. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 23, after ("rentcharge") insert ("or of corn rents, rentcharges or money payments redeemed under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1936,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT SIMON

I have nothing to say except that I should be interested if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could in a sentence tell me what a corn rent is. I imagine that at one time this was a matter which concerned the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom we are all so glad to welcome back to the House after his recent tour. When I took some part in passing the Act of 1936, in a Government which is sometimes spoken of with some strictures, I had hoped that we had put to rest this horrible subject for good and all. I think that the Archbishop must be sitting here reflecting with some satisfaction that at any rate it is not for the ecclesiastical authorities to bother themselves about these hideous technicalities. Those who used to be interested in collecting tithe—or in not collecting it—have been relieved of that most invidious burden and in place of it they have obtained a Government security. That is all I have to say about that matter and I hope it will be all I have to say about the whole subject.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I confess that I should hesitate to attempt to explain this interesting subject of corn rent in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is clearly bursting to speak and who. of course, knows all about the matter. But in the absence of a speech from him, I will say that I would rather have notice of the question and reply to it privately. I confess to my shame that at the moment I do not know the answer.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (10) Rules made by the Commission for prescribing anything which they are authorised by this Act or the principal Act to prescribe shall be a statutory instrument, and the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, shall apply thereto accordingly, and such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment makes express provision for subjecting rules made by the Commission to the operation of the Statutory Instruments Act. 1946. Such provision is necessary because the Bill confers new powers to prescribe certain things by rules—for example under Clause 7 (2), to prescribe the fee for a certified copy of an extract from an annuities register—and in the absence of express provision the Statutory Instruments Act does not operate on new rulemaking powers. The opportunity is also taken to subject the Commission's rules to the negative Resolution procedure. They have not hitherto been so subject, but now that the Commission's powers are being extended to such matters as fees, it is expedient that they should be. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 [Power to transfer junctions of the Commission to another Government Department]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Your Lordships will see that Clause 11 provides for the transfer of the functions of the Tithe Redemption Commission to any other Government Department by Order-in-Council. If and when the functions have been so transferred there will be nothing left for the Commission to do, and it is therefore desirable to provide that the Order may at the same time dissolve it. I therefore beg to move the following Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 9, line 48, at end insert— (" (e) for the dissolution of the Commission if and when all their functions have been transferred.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.