Lords Sitting of 30 June 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  INDISPOSITION OF PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY.
  2.36 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, since the House last met we have had news about the Prime Minister which has given us all great concern. Although we have our sharp differences of political opinion in this House, we have no differences whatever on either side of the House about this: that we all wish the Prime Minister an early and complete restoration to health. We should like to express our sympathy with him. We know very well that he is a willing horse, and it may well be that the burden of being both Prime Minister and, for a time, Foreign Secretary, was more than any man, even the youngest, could manage to undertake. I should be grateful if the noble Marquess who leads the House would convey to the Prime Minister our feelings in this respect.
  I also noticed—and I am sure that the Government are right in this—that the conduct of foreign affairs is in the meantime to be entrusted to some senior Minister, and that the Minister selected is the Leader of your Lordships' House,
  2
  Lord Salisbury. I do not know whether that is altogether a matter for congratulation, but I am sure he will do it very well. I hope he will not have to do it for very long. I was also glad to see in the newspapers to-day that Mr. Eden is making satisfactory progress. Perhaps the noble Marquess will convey to Mr. Eden also our good wishes for a complete and early restoration to health.
  As for the noble Marquess, although I said that I hope he will not have to undertake the conduct of foreign affairs for long, I should like to say this. We in this House shall bask in the reflected glory of having the acting Foreign Secretary a Member of our House, which will make our foreign affairs debates, excellent though they have been in the past, of even greater importance in the future. Does it mean that the noble Marquess, while he has this duty cast upon him, will no longer he able to act as Leader of the House? We hope it does not mean that. We can quite understand that it may mean there must be, perhaps, a little more devolution than heretofore in these matters—that condition, of course, is obvious—but I should like to know whether he contemplates that he will continue to be Leader of this House.
  VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I associate noble Lords on these Benches—there are not many at the moment—with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Earl, and with the greatest sincerity wish the Prime Minister a speedy return to good health. At the same time, we feel happy that the Foreign

  3
  Office will be under the guidance of the noble Marquess, who has been so long associated with it and is so admirable a Leader of your Lordships' House.
  2.40 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, most sincerely, on behalf of the Prime Minister, for the kindly words of sympathy to which they have given expression this afternoon. I can assure them that my right honourable friend is in his usual good spirits, and I know he will particularly appreciate the expressions to which your Lordships have given voice to-day. Secondly, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl for what he said about the Foreign Secretary. I am glad to say that all the news we are receiving about the Foreign Secretary is quite excellent, and there is every reason to suppose that, after, of course, the necessary period of convalescence, he will be back among us in his usual health and vigour.
  Finally, I should like to thank the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount for the far too kind things they have said about me. I must confess that at the present moment I feel rather oppressed by the formidable nature of the task which will face me, pending the return of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I can only say that I will do my best to cope with it in the interests of the nation as a whole. The noble and learned Earl asked what was going to be the position in this House: do I still continue to lead? The answer is, Yes, as I understand it, I certainly do. But I am sure that noble Lords will understand if there has to be, as the noble and learned Earl suggested, rather more devolution than has perhaps been usual: but that will be, I hope, for a limited period.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I venture to ask the noble Marquess this question? It is obvious that the changes due to this lamentable event in regard to the Prime Minister's health have thrown an enormous burden of work upon this Chamber. We now have many members of the Cabinet in this House. We have the Foreign Office, the Defence
  4
  Ministry and the Commonwealth Relations Office all represented here by their chiefs. Will it be possible so to adjust our Sittings, and if necessary to extend them, so that, through the medium of this House, the nation may be kept currently informed upon the course of international events?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that I will bear in mind what he has said. I realise that the situation has changed slightly since the House last met.

NUCLEAR ENERGY POWER STATION
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH had given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the proposed size of the new nuclear energy power station about to be built at Sallafield for commercial purposes; the estimated cost per kilowatt installed, including the reactors, the estimated overall thermal efficiency, and the estimated cost per unit sent out on a 60 per cent. load factor.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have been asked to postpone the Question which I put on the Order Paper for this afternoon. I therefore ask leave of your Lordships' House to postpone my Question until a more suitable occasion.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.43 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAG- DALEN (COLCHESTER) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
2.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule:
[Scheme for the application or management of the Charity known as the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, otherwise King James's Hospital, in Colchester. in the County of Essex]:
4. Endowment capital.—Asum of£9,304 5s. 7d. 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock part of the sum of £14,608 11s. 3d. like stock specified in the said schedule and one equal half part as nearly as may be of each of the other investments therein specified shall be transferred forthwith under the authority of Orders of the Charity Commissioners into the name of the Church Commissioners for England to be held by them subject to the provisions of the Benefices (Stabilization of Incomes) Measure, 1951, as endowment capital on behalf of the said benefice of St. Mary Magdalen.
26. Contributions.—The Trustees may make it a condition of appointing or permitting any person to he or remain an Almsperson that he or she shall contribute towards the cost of maintaining the said hospital building a weekly sum of such amount as the Charity commissioners approve front time to time.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out all words from and including, "A sum of" down to and including "specified" and to insert:
"One equal half part of the investments specified in the said schedule."
The noble Lord said: The paragraph of the Schedule to which my Amendment has reference proposes to divide a sum of money—approximately £18,000—between two bodies. Eleven thousand pounds, or a little over, is to go to the Church Commissioners and £7,225 to the Charity Commissioners.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him whether those are the nominal values or the market values?
LORD SHEPHERD: I am not quite sure about that, but the point about which I am concerned is in the Schedule of the Bill. There is given a list of investments, and the values of those investments are attached; and, what is perhaps more important from the noble Lord's point of view, the income from the investments is stated. This income is to be divided, but there is a difference between the respective amounts to be given to the two authorities of £4,000—that is to say, the Church
6
authorities are to receive £4,000 more than the Charity Commissioners out of these funds.
There is also the proposal that the rectory, which is the property of the Charity, shall be transferred to the Church Commissioners. If one assumes that the value of the rectory is anything between £3,000 and £4,000, one gets a sum of nearly £15,000 to go to the Church side, as against £7,000 to go to the Charity side—with the homes of five poor people added thereto The question that has occurred to my mind is this: is the division proposed a fair one? I must confess that, as I shall explain later, I think the division is hardly fair. My Amendment proposes that this division, instead of showing a great difference, should be made in equal parts, so that the Charity Commissioners and the Church Commissioners are treated alike. Annually it would mike this difference. If we assume that the interest upon the Church share is2½ per cent., then the income to the Church would be about £280. If we assume that the interest upon the Charity share is 2½ per cent., then their income would be about £180 per year. My Amendment would, therefore, make a difference of some £50, which would be a very great advantage to those who have to administer the Charity.
Just as the Church Commissioners appear to be receiving too much on this occasion, I believe, also that the Master of the Charity, who through die generations has been rector of the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, has received a greater sum from the annual income than he ought to have done. I believe that that point is appreciated by the Charity Commissioners themselves. They take the view that, in the circumstances in which the funds have been administered, when the rector has desired to increase his own income because of the difficulties of the period he has been placed in the unfortunate position of keeping the poor people's income low or of decreasing it, if possible. The Charity Commissioners are of the opinion—and I understand that in this they carry the Lord Chancellor with them—that a system of administration which puts the interest of the clergyman in contrast with the interests of the pensioners is a bad one and that the arrangement ought to be altered. In that respect we who sit on this side of your

7
Lordships' House are in agreement. We think there should be a fair division so that the interests of the alms people are not prejudiced in any way by the changes.
Now, in order to prove the statement which I have just made about the income, I will give your Lordships a few facts. The Charter, which seems now to be available only in the Office of Records, was adopted in the reign of King James. That Charter provided certain things: first, that the poor people who lived in those almshouses should be given 52s. a year, or 1s. a week; secondly, that they should be provided with lodgings; and, thirdly, that there should be some faggots for firing added to their comfort. Lest it should be thought that to begin with the clergyman was getting something much more than these poor people, I had better add that the clergyman was expected to live in the buildings with the poor people and that the accommodation that I myself have seen is not accommodation that would give the impression that it was ever intended that the clergyman should become an affluent person. It is quite clear that in those days the stipend of the clergyman must have borne some relationship to the conditions which were meted out to the poor people.
As the times have gone on, conditions have changed in many respects. The land which formerly served as the basis for the endowment of this Charity has been sold, and the money has been invested in Government bonds and the like. It is true that the funds at the disposal of the Charity are much greater than they used to be. It is true also that the income of the Charity is much greater than it used to be; but, in the intervening years, although the stipend taken by the Master, who was the rector, increased until it became anywhere between £300 and £400 a year, the pensioners were still paid at the rate of 1s. a week.
Noble Lords will understand, I am sure, that in the time of King James, a shilling went a long way. Few people would suppose that a shilling went anywhere at all in the "Hungry 'Forties" of the last century. We believe that if the administration had been under different auspices, then, instead of all the profits going to one side, some attempt would have been
8
made to give a little more to the pensioners. There may be some dispute between myself and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill as to whether the Master was bound by the Charter to pay 1s., and no more. If he were to ask me whether the Master could pay less than 1s., I would agree at once that he could not do so, because the Charter specifies 1s. But nowhere in the Charter is there anything to prevent the Master from paying 2s., 3s., 4s. or even 10s., if the money is available. He has always been at liberty to increase the 1s. to 2s., 3s. or 4s., as the case may be.
Not only was money of greater value in those times, but there is another point in the Charter that I should like to mention to your Lordships, and maybe we shall have some reply from the noble Lord concerning it. For what purpose was the 1s. paid? I have before me a free translation from the Charter bearing upon this point, and it is in these words:
"… for their sustenance, relief and maintenance they shall have, take and receive, … yearly 52s."
So it is quite clear that the 1s. was intended to be, in the first place, not a mere token payment, but something substantial to enable these poor people to live in fairly comfortable circumstances. I suggest that, by the wording of the Charter, the Master of the Charity was under a moral obligation to increase the payments from 1s. a week when it became a question in those hard times of "their sustenance, relief and maintenance."
But I am not only interested in seeking a change because of the circumstances I have already mentioned; I am interested also because in the Bill now before us there is a full recognition by the Charity Commissioners that, under the new dispensation, they cannot meet the obligations undertaken by the Master in the days gone by. Indeed, if you examine the Schedule to this Bill, you will find, not once but several times, proposals put before your Lordships' House which relieve the Charity Commission of the responsibilities that formerly rested upon the Master. First of all, in Paragraph 2 of the Schedule, there is a proposal to dissolve the corporate body "known as The Master and Five Poor Persons," and by the dissolution of that corporate body all the things that that body stood for, unless otherwise provided for, are swept on one side. The

9
new body will not be compelled, except in the one particular that I will mention, to provide lodgings, firing or the 1s. per week, unless the money is available for that purpose. The fact that the Charity Commission are putting these proposals forward is due to their anticipation—indeed, they mention it in one of their documents—that, as time goes along, they may not be able to continue to provide these things on the same scale as heretofore. There is one safeguard for the present almspeople—namely, that the new conditions cannot be applied to the people now resident. But, as men or women, as the case may be, enter into residence in the future they will be subject to the new conditions laid down by the new trustees.
There is one other point I should mention. In Paragraph 26 of this Schedule there is a most startling provision. It is as follows:
"The Trustees may make it a condition of appointing or permitting any person to be or remain an Almsperson that he or she shall contribute towards the cost of maintaining the said hospital building a weekly sum of such amount as the Charity Commissioners approve from time to time."
So the Charity Commissioners are not only going to relieve themselves of payments which the Master has been called upon to make, but they are now taking powers under which a rent can be charged upon people who come into residence, if an application to charge it is made by the Trustees.
I am not going to say a word in condemnation either of the Charity Commissioners, the Church Commissioners or the local rector—who is a newly appointed person—or of the people who administer these funds. I believe they have been working under a wrong institution arid that they have been guided by wrong principles. I do believe, however, that by taking so much money at this time out of the Charity and handing it to the Church, the Charity is going to be so much worse off. I think it is due from me to say one word about the reason why the Church Commissioners are anxious to take over this money. As your Lordships know, they intend, wherever possible, to raise the stipends of the clergymen to a figure of £550 a year. They propose in this case to start with a contribution from the Charity of £280. Contributions will be
10
made by the local church, by the Diocese of Chelmsford, by the Lord Chancellor's Department and by the Church Commissioners; but, so far as I can see, up to the moment the sum of £550 has not been reached. It is the wish of noble Lords on this side of the House, although taking action in relation to some of the proposals in the Bill, that the Church should succeed in raising the stipend of the Rector of St. Mary Magdalen to the required amount, because we believe that in the Church, as in every other institution in our land, those who are ministering to its work, those holding responsibilities towards it in any way, should be in receipt of a living wage, derived from sources to which the Church contributes and over which it has complete power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("capital") to ("shall") in line 24, and insert ("One equal half part of the investments specified in the said Schedule").—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: It is, of course, very right and proper that we in this House should examine these things with great care, particularly such a case as this, which passed through another place without a single word of comment from either side. Therefore, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving me an opportunity to show that this Scheme is indeed a right, proper and fair one. I think that the noble Lord is starting off from a had premise when he makes certain assumptions as to the intention of the founder of the Charity, whom we call James I. James I re-founded and revived this Charity as a charity to support a Master and to provide a weekly dole, plus free dwellings, for five poor persons; and as such it has been administered for generations. In course of time, the income measured in money has, naturally, greatly increased, but the value of money has greatly depreciated, and in fact, so far as I can make out, over the generations the income has no more than kept pace with the cost of maintaining these objects of the Charity. James I took the opportunity of endowing the incumbent of the parish as the Master. I have no doubt that up to the first war the Charity was able to provide the incumbent with a passable living. Between the wars, the

11
living must have become a very poor one, and since the war, of course, it has been quite an impossible one. One must remember that first claim on the money is this weekly dole and some fuel to the five poor persons, and of course the repairs of the almshouse—and it is the rise in the cost of repairs, plus the rise in the cost of maintaining the Master (in other words, the incumbent of the parish), that has now made a separation of Church and Charity absolutely imperative.
This was a settlement negotiated, I submit, between parties of approximately equal weight—at least I assume that the Charity Commissioners and the Lord Chancellor's Department would both regard themselves as at least light-heavyweights; and I presume, furthermore, that it was a settlement negotiated with good will on both sides. Suppose there had not been good will, considering their relative bargaining position, had one a greater power than the other or not? They both stand to lose. On the one side, the Church loses from the fact that it cannot get an incumbent, and therefore the Church is liable to have a decaying parish. On the other hand, supposing that the Church was able to find an incumbent and put him in, there would be a very grave and real danger that the money required to keep the bats out of the almshouse roof might, in fact, be keeping the wolf from the rectory door; so that the Charity has a great deal to lose in that way. I submit that those two considerations set off each other, and that the two parties—light-heavyweights or whatever you like to call them—were negotiating probably with good will, but certainly not from an unfair bargaining position the one over the other.
What sort of bargain did they make? If the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, I will not follow him in his particular methods of calculation, because they are extremely misleading. He was dealing with nominal amounts, and where you are adding up nominal amounts of 2½ per cent. Consols with 4 per cent. something else, the results are rather inclined to be misleading. I think it is safer to take income. I calculate the income from the Schedule of these securities at approximately £488, and the split will leave an income to the nearest pound or
12
two on one side of, say, £193, and on the other side of £295—in other words, approximately £100 more to the Church side than to the Charity side—I give the noble Lord that. Out of the Church side has to be met the cost of an incumbent and the repairs to this rectory. I can assure the noble Lord that rectories are not always an asset. Out of the Charity side there has to be met this 1s. a week to five inmates, the customary 12 lb. or so of coal, plus the repairs.
First of all, dealing with the Church side, that figure of £295, augmented by certain grants from the Church Commissioners, the diocese and the parish, is one which they calculate will bring the rector's stipend up to the diocesan standard minimum of £500, which then qualifies for the special extra grant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of another £50. On the other side, the Charity Commissioners have budgeted for future expenditure, and their sum comes out approximately like this: £90 for ordinary maintenance, £15 for rates, £27 for the fuel, £13 for the 1s. a week and £50 for the special repair fund. Those figures are all approximate, and to my mind they are fairly generous estimates, especially for the £90 of ordinary maintenance, plus the £50 special repair fund. Furthermore, before the split was brought into effect the two parties bargained that the whole property should be put into an up-to-date state of repair. In the result, the alms-people are no worse off than they have been for generations—in fact they are better off, because the future of the repairs, and so on, for the almshouses, is now reasonably secure, whereas before it was on a most precarious basis. The parish gets its incumbent with the aid of a lot of provided money, money raised and so on.
Altogether, therefore, I believe that the Scheme is better for everyone concerned. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern with the whole matter, but I think it arises from his misconception of the objects of the Charity. The objects of this Charity never were to maintain and feed five poor persons. They were to provide a cheap home, to provide one shilling a week, and to provide some fuel. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, because I feel that I should not be able to accept it.
3.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have listened with great attention to the noble Lord, but I cannot entirely agree with him. He will not be surprised at that, however, because we have had several conversations on the matter—indeed, I must thank him for the help he has given me in trying to make my case. I would say this: that before I ventured to make this speech I visited Colchester. I called at the Town Hall; I went to the library; I interviewed the rector; and I interviewed the leading churchwarden who is responsible for the business side of this parish. In addition, I have had other interviews in London. So I have done my best to make myself fully acquainted with the circumstances. With regard to the noble Lord's first point—that of incumbent of the parish and the Master—I would say this. The Master came before there was an incumbent of this parish; the Master existed before there was an incumbent and this Charity existed before the Church of St. Mary Magdalen. When the parish came, because of the poverty of the parish arrangements were made by which the Master of the Charity should become the incumbent of the church.
LORD HAWKE: That was still in the reign of James I, was it not?
LORD SHEPHERD: It was still in the reign of James I, but the point is this—and I want your Lordships to recognise it: before there was a church, before there was a rector, there were a Master and a Charity.
LORD HAWKE: For a few years.
LORD SHEPHERD: It does not matter: he was there. It would be wrong to lead the House to believe that there had been joint arrangements from the beginning between the Church, on the one side, and the Charity, on the other. The noble Lord was a little critical of the large figures I mentioned, and he has said that he much prefers to deal with income. I am prepared to deal with income also. I am also prepared to deal with the expenditure which arises out of income. The noble Lord has told your Lordships that the income is approximately £488. I think he will agree with me that the Charity Commissioners accept that their share of that will be about £200 a year.
LORD HAWKE: A little less.
LORD SHEPHERD: A little less. So your Lordships will see that the major part of the income is to go to the Church, and not to the Charity. It does not matter what set of figures we use, we reach the same conclusion. There is a significant conclusion about the further figures which the noble Lord has quoted. He has indicated how much is to be spent on repairs each year, how much is to be paid in rates, how much will go for the shilling a week to those now in residence; and he has mentioned the sum of £50 which is to be put into a sinking fund for future building. All that comes to about £195—that is the total of the figures which the noble Lord has given. If, therefore, the total income of the Charity is no more than £200, obviously this Charity is going short in the deal which is being made. That is why I am suggesting to noble Lords that, instead of a division of the kind we have in this Bill, the division should be an equal one. An extra £50 a year to the Charity would make all the difference in the world to its administration.
I wish to say only one thing further. It is no use the noble Lord trying to tell the Committee that the Charity was limited in its responsibility to the one-shilling payments; that it was limited to a few faggots of wood per annum; that it was limited to the payment of rates and repairs, because, under the Charter, it is as clear as anything can be that this payment of one shilling was for the sustenance, relief and maintenance of these five old people. Either these people could receive all those things at the rate of a shilling a week in King James's reign, or the Master in charge would have to find something more in order to provide the added things that the shilling could not provide. I personally believe that the shilling went a long way. In the intervening period the money available to the Charity has increased year by year, whilst the old state of the poor people has been maintained. However, I do not wish to carry this matter further than. I have done already. I have raised it here in order that some publicity should be given a transaction which may be repeated in other parts of this country. It is as well that those who are thinking about making changes in the administration of charity funds should realise that

15
in this Chamber there are eyes watchful to see whether grievances will be created by changes as they take place. As the noble Lord cannot do anything more for me, I ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I think that I should make one or two remarks for the sake of the record. I again repeat that throughout the history of this Charity the Church has always had the lion's share of the charity. This division is actually removing that incubus of the lion's share. Therefore, I maintain that it is a fair one. I do not think it is fair to say that the amount left to the Charity will leave them short on their obligations. Far from it. I have already said that I think that their estimates for repairs et cetera in the future are probably over-provided for, rather than under-provided for. As for the interpretation of ancient charters, I have no expert witnesses, but I know that for generations the amounts received from this Charity, as from other almshouse charities, have been limited to three-quarters of a ton of fuel a year and one shilling a week.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit Paragraph 26. The noble Lord said: I mentioned during my first remarks a provision—it is Paragraph26—giving the trustees of the Charity, subject to approval from the Charity Commissioners, power to charge persons who in future come into these almshouses for their upkeep. I would prefer to call the charge a rent. I was assured in the first place that this particular provision was common form, but on pressing my inquiries I found that during the last two or three years, in schemes that did not require an Act of Parliament to effect a change, the Charity Commissioners have been suggesting the insertion of such a paragraph. This is the first time when it has been sought in an Act of Parliament to charge a rent to persons who are to live in almshouses. I venture to suggest that, in view of the circumstances, and in view of the satisfaction of the noble Lord that ample funds are available for these persons, this charge should be omitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, leave out Paragraph 26.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is quite right in pointing out the antecedents of this provision. When the Charity Commission desire to alter a statutory trust, they require a new Act of Parliament, but in other cases the Commission can make suggestions about the revision of trusts. I understand that this provision has been inserted in at least twenty-five almshouses schemes, though it has not figured in a scheme which has required Parliamentary sanction. It has been welcomed by the Almshouses Association and, so far as I know, no adverse comment at all has been made. In fact, in paragraph 318 of the Nathan Report it is recommended that this should be done, and the Charity Commission have taken the opportunity, in the case of the present Scheme coming before them, to put it in. They do not visualise that it will be required in the foreseeable future, and before it can come into operation it must have their permission, because no charge can be levied without the permission of the Commission. As we delegate to that body the care of these matters, I suggest that it would be right for Parliament to give them power in this matter. Who can tell the value of money in 50 or 100 years' time? This provision may save them from having to come twice to the same source of authority. I hope that the noble Lord will think the provision a harmless one, with foresight for the dim and distant future, and will not press his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Again I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but there are one or two other points I should like to mention in connection with this matter. From what the noble Lord has said it is clear that it is anticipated that the fund, as it will exist under the Bill, may be insufficient for its purpose, and that attempts have to be made to secure money from another source.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is putting a little more into my mouth than I intended. I think the fund is sufficient for the foreseeable future, so long as Governments of various complexions can more or less stabilise the purchasing power of money; but we want this power for the distant future.
LORD SHEPHERD: A final word: it arose during discussions I had—indeed, it arose during a conversation when the noble Lord was present. There is no particular difficulty about levying a rent on people who live in almshouses, because it is possible for people who so reside to go to the Public Assistance authority and draw a rent allowance to cover their obligations. I hope that such an idea is not before the Charity Commission at this moment. I am sure the noble Lord would not agree with that operating at all. But your Lordships ought to bear in mind that if at some stage it comes to collecting rent from the poor people who live in almshouses, then that rent, in its turn, will be collected by the poor people from the Public Assistance authority. I suggest that that is not the proper way to do it. I withdrew my first Amendment, but I cannot see my way to withdraw this one. I am not going to press it to a Division, but I think noble Lords should have the responsibility put upon them of deciding whether or not this provision should remain in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule agreed to: Bill reported without amendment.

HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY (GUILDFORD) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
3.26 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SUPER- ANNUATION) BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.28 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 12 [Provisions with respect to transport of certain pupils]:
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope that I am in order in raising a point which arises from the Amendment to Clause 12 in the name of the noble Earl,
18
Lord Iddesleigh, who is not with us to-day. I cannot say that I am speaking with the full authority of the noble Earl, because he is rather out of touch with things at the moment, as he is enjoying a well-earned holiday. However, I believe that I should be expressing his point of view, and certainly that of other noble Lords, if I asked t le noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whether he can give us an assurance on the lines of the Amendment which is down in the name of the noble Earl. That would be a general assurance which, in effect, would say that nothing in Clause 12 shall diminish the already existing duties of local education authorities. But, in addition, should like to refer to the point we discussed on Committee stage in relation to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and accepted by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. May I ask the noble Earl whether we may take it that the phrase "reasonable needs of the pupils," which appears in Clause 12 (1) (b), means not oily reasonable needs in theory but also reasonable needs in practice?—I think that is perhaps the simplest way of putting the question.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I gladly take this opportunity of trying to reassure the noble Lord about what is concerning him. On a matter like this it is only natural that he should want to be quite sure that no powers are being taken away from the local education authorities. All I can really do is to repeat the assurance that I gave in introducing the Bill, when I said that Clause 12 should make it clear that this new clause neither removes nor adds to the powers and duties in regard to the provision of free transport. That power already exists under Section 55 of the 1944 Act, and is not: in any way affected by this new clause. This simply gives the authorities a new power, in relation to pupils not covered by the arrangements under that section, which the authorities can use or not use, at their discretion. I would also take this opportunity of reassuring the noble Lord on the other point he raised. My right honourable friend the Minister is fully satisfied, after careful discussion with her advisers, and particularly her drafting advisers, that these words, "which meet the reasonable needs of the pupils" will, in fact, cover what the noble Lord has

19
in mind. In any event, this will have to be interpreted in a circular to the local education authorities, and my right honourable friend authorises me to say that she will give special attention to this matter in preparing that circular.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has said, particularly, perhaps, for the final words.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
3.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, this is a more pleasant task than sometimes falls to one's lot. I consider myself fortunate that it has fallen to me to ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill to improve the maternity benefits of the National Insurance Scheme and to increase the amount of money available for mothers at the time of childbirth. My noble friend Lord Reading foreshadowed the present Bill when, in presenting the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill for your Lordships' consideration about a year ago, he indicated that it had been decided to introduce legislation on maternity benefits without awaiting the general review of the National Insurance scheme which will commence next year.
The changes now proposed are largely based upon the recommendations made by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in their excellent Report on maternity benefit which was published last year, and the increased amounts of maternity benefit proposed in the Bill are in accordance with the increases made last year in other National Insurance benefits; that is to say, a 25 per cent. increase in the weekly benefits. I anticipate, therefore, that your Lordships will find that this measure is a wholly uncontroversial one and that it will be welcomed by this House as a further contribution to the progressive development of social legislation in this country. I might also add that it had a smooth passage in another place.
Benefit for childbirth has been provided under the social insurance schemes of this country since their inception in
20
1911, and immediately before the beginning of the present National Insurance scheme a woman was entitled, when she had her baby, to £2 on the insurance of her husband, and to a further £2 if she was herself insured. The Report on Social Insurance made by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, from which so many features of the present National Insurance scheme are derived, recommended that in addition to a grant of £4 for all births, there should be a weekly maternity allowance of 36s. a week for thirteen weeks for women ordinarily in employment. These proposals were incorporated in the National Insurance Act, 1946, and in addition, an attendance allowance of £1 weekly for the four weeks after confinement was provided for mothers who did not qualify for the maternity allowance. It was these provisions which were examined, at the request of the right honourable lady who was Minister of National Insurance in the previous Government, by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and it is these provisions which are now being changed, substantially, as I have said, in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee.
The Advisory Committee proposed that the amount of the benefit which will be payable for any birth (that is, disregarding the special benefit for working mothers) should be so distributed that mothers who, whether from choice or because they are unable to do so, do not have their babies in the free accommodation of the National Health Service, should receive more in cash maternity benefit. The Committee found that confinement in hospital meant a considerable financial saving in comparison with confinement at home, and that the payment of the same maternity benefit for both gave rise to a widespread sense of injustice. Moreover, this arrangement created a financial incentive to hospital confinements as against confinements at home, and the Committee thought that, whatever the other relative advantages, it was not right that the National Insurance scheme should supply a financial inducement one way or the other. My right honourable friend the Minister of National Insurance has accepted this argument, and the present Bill provides that women who do not take advantage of the free provision under the National

21
Health Service for their confinement shall be entitled to a home confinement grant of £3. The weekly attendance allowance, amounting to £4, which a mother now receives if she does not qualify for the maternity allowance, will not be continued as a separate benefit; instead, the maternity grant is to be increased from £4 to £9, with, in addition, the new grant of £3 for confinements at home. In effect, the present benefits have been rearranged and increased, with the advantage to mothers that the £9 for one birth will be available for them to claim at any time between nine weeks before and three months after confinement, instead of being partly tied to certain weeks after confinement. Where more than one child is born at a confinement, an additional £9 maternity grant may be paid. Further, unlike the attendance allowance, this grant and the home confinement grant will be payable in full with the new maternity allowance.
Important charges are also made in the maternity allowance—the weekly benefit for women who normally rely upon their earnings, but who cease work because of the impending arrival of their baby. The present allowance is for thirteen weeks and begins six weeks before the baby is expected, and it depends on the record of work done in the qualifying period of a year ending with the commencement of the allowance. The National Insurance Advisory Committee found that women generally preferred to give up work some time before this—about three months before their confinements were due—but that the present maternity allowance and the conditions for it sometimes actually encouraged women to carry on working until too near their confinement. Other women whose health or whose conditions of work did not permit this, were failing to qualify for the allowance because they had to stop working too early. The present higher rate of maternity allowance—36s. weekly—was fixed so as to make it easy for women to stop working about the time of their confinements. The Committee found no need for this higher rate of benefit, and suggested that it would be preferable instead to extend the maternity allowance period by five weeks and to make the rate the same as the standard rate of benefit—then 26s. now
22
32s. 6d. My right honourable friend has accepted the recommendations of the Committee on all these matters, and the maternity allowance provided under the Bill is to be at 32s. 6d. a week, for eighteen weeks, beginning with the eleventh week before the confinement is expected. The qualifying year ends thirteen weeks before the confinement. A new provision is introduced for a reduced rate of the allowance to be paid if a claimant only partially satisfies the contribution conditions for it. At present, the entire benefit is lost if the claimant fails by even one contribution or credit. Another new provision is the power to pay in excess of the maternity allowance for dependents. This will help the mother who is perforce the family's bread-winner.
Qualification for the new maternity allowance will be by contributions paid by the claimant for weeks of employment or self-employment. At present, a married woman has the right not to pay contributions, but if she exercises this right she may receive credits for weeks of work which, for maternity allowance only, count as if they were paid contributions. At present, I understand that one-third of the maternity allowances paid are based on these "special" credits. The future condition that maternity allowance claimants must rely on contributions paid has been decided upon for two reasons, both put forwarding its favour by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. In the first place, the cost of the maternity allowance is largely met out of the contributions paid by women. It seems unfair, therefore, that an insurance benefit so financed should be paid to women who freely choose not to pay contributions while they are working, who thus secure a benefit drawn from the contributions of other working women who do pay. In the second place, the maternity allowance is designed for women who, up to the approach of their confinement, have been relying on their earnings. Such women will usually be paying national insurance contributions in order to qualify for sickness or unemployment benefit or, in due course, retirement pension.
The introduction of the new maternity allowance and the new conditions for it involves complicated transitional provisions. The present maternity allowance under the present conditions is to be

23
continued for confinements expected within sixty-five weeks of the date of operation of the new provisions. This ensures that all women who have at that date a record of work which could in any circumstances help to qualify for maternity allowance will not lose by the change, and it secures that before the new allowance becomes the only one available all women will have had time to qualify for it by contributions paid after the new conditions are introduced.
I make no apology for explaining at some length the provisions to which I am privileged to invite your Lordships' attention. This National Insurance Bill will, when it becomes an Act, affect well over 700,000 women in each year of its operation, and is designed to help them at a particularly important time in their lives. My right honourable friend estimates that the cost to the National Insurance Fund of the proposals in the Bill will in a normal year be about £10¾ million, as compared with the present cost of £8¼ million a year. The extra cost of the continuation of the present maternity allowance side by side with the new one during the transitional period, will be at an annual rate of about £500,000. It is not proposed to adjust the rates of contribution to meet the increased cost of maternity benefits, in view of the adjustments made last year under the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act, and because contribution rates as a whole fall to be reviewed in connection with the quinquennial review which is due next year. I have attempted to put before this House the salient features of a measure which is designed to make a significant improvement in the provision now made for family life in this country. The more liberal cash benefits now proposed for motherhood—to use the term favoured in another place by my right honourable friend—together with the welfare schemes for mothers and young children, are, beyond question, not only immediately helpful to the beneficiaries but of inestimable value in ensuring a good start in life for the generations upon whom our future as a nation rests. I am confident, therefore, in commending this Bill to your Lordships that you will readily agree to its being read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
3.48 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in the unfortunate absence of my noble friend Lord Kershaw, who is the great authority on this side of the House in these matters, I have been asked to give a general welcome to this Bill. As the noble Earl has said, it will be of immense benefit to women at a particularly difficult period in their lives, and in so far as it carries out the recommendations of the Advisory Committee it is largely an agreed measure. It is most welcome to those of us who have to make contributions to the National Insurance Fund that somehow this additional sum of £3 million a year will be found without any increase in the contributions. The sum of 10s. 9d. a week, which is the joint contribution, is a very high tax on industry, and we are grateful that there is no indication, at any rate for the time being, that it will need to be increased to meet these additional benefits. I do not ask the noble Earl to explain how he has been able to find an extra £3 million without any increased contributions, but it may be a tip worth knowing. There is a very substantial increase in maternity grant from £4 to £9, and that will be a special boon to the women at the time of childbirth.
At this stage I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill. The noble Earl has explained them, but we may have something to say at a later stage. There are just one or two small points that I hope he can explain to-day, though if he cannot I shall not hold it against him, because it is technical and perhaps we can ask him for a reply at a later stage. I should be interested to know why it is that, whereas in the past there has been an automatic payment for, shall I say, "increased production"—that is to say, for twins or a larger number of children the benefit has been automatic—it is now proposed in Clause 1 (6) that it should be subject to regulations. Does that mean that it will not necessarily be the case that a woman giving birth to twins will get twice the amount of benefit which is normal, as is the case at the present time? What kind of regulations has the Minister in mind in introducing this provision? It seems to me at first glance—though I speak with humble ignorance on these matters—that it must

25
mean that some women will not be getting the benefits which they have been getting under the National Insurance Act.
The other small point is this. I fully understand that it is the desire of the Minister to equalise the position as between those women who go into hospital at the public expense to give birth to a child and those who give birth to a child at home. From the point of view of the public advantage, apart from finance, in many cases it is desirable that childbirth should be in hospital and not in the home. There are a great many homes which are not suitable for childbirth, where the accommodation is inadequate and facilities are not available, and so on; and I imagine it is not intended to discourage childbirth in hospital to such an extent as to provide profit to a woman who prefers to give birth to a child at home. But the noble Earl said that it was intended to equalise the position. If that is the intention, regardless of the general advantage to the community, then I would suggest that payment of £3 for home confinement does not achieve the object. Any woman having regard merely to financial considerations would not be tempted by a payment of £3 to give birth to a child at home, as against going to the hospital. I should have thought that a larger sum than £3 was needed.
My last point refers to Clause 6 (2). I understood the noble Lord to say that generally there had been an increase in benefit of something like 25 per cent. But if the noble Earl will look at subsection (2) of Clause 6 he will find that the weekly rate of maternity allowance is to be 32s. 6d., instead of 36s. That does not look like a 25 per cent. increase; it looks to me like a decrease—not perhaps a 25 per cent. decrease, but a decrease. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could explain why there is this decrease and how he reconciles that with the general intention of the Bill, that there should be a 25 per cent. increase in benefits. Having said these things, I still welcome, on behalf of my noble friends, the broad principles of this Bill and the intentions which the noble Earl has stated that the Government have in introducing it. We may have something further to say on Committee stage, but at this stage we gladly welcome the Bill and support the Motion for a Second Reading.
3.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the extremely co-operative speech which he has just made. As he said at the beginning of his speech, this is a very technical a id complicated matter, and I think that if he agrees, the various points which he has raised, of which I have made careful notes, can be more fruitfully, and certainly more satisfactorily, discussed, and dealt with in greater detail, at a later stage. I am, however, extremely grateful to him for his acceptance of the general principles of this Measure, and I hope that the Bill will be altered for the better during its passage through your Lordships' House
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House

LOSS OF THE "PRINCESS VICTORIA"
3.56 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now prepared to make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the loss of the Irish cross-channel steamer "Princess Victoria," and what action is proposed as a result of these findings. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I feel sure that you will permit me to renew once more the expression of sympathy to which your Lordships gave utterance from all parts of the House for those who suffered in this major marine disaster. My Question asks the Government:
"… whether they are now prepared to make a statement on the findings of the inquiry … and what action is proposed as a result of these findings."
I am aware, of course, that the matter is sub judice as to the individual and collective responsibility of individuals, and. to some extent as to the administrative lessons which can be learnt. It is sub judice because of the rights which exist under the present law with regard to appeals by the British Transport Commission against the findings of this inquiry. Therefore, I ant sure the Secretary of State will agree that it would be improper for me to endeavour in any way to debate the collective or individual

27
responsibility of individuals. Moreover, I think it would be extremely difficult for us to debate the administrative lessons to be learnt until we are free from the present restrictions.
I can, however, ask three specific questions of the Minister. I think it is right that at this time the public should be made aware of the position with regard to the liability of the British Transport Commission in connection with their rights of appeal. Am I right in thinking that the British Transport Commission have, first, a right of appeal to the Minister, and that if the Minister accepts a submission that some evidence available has not been produced, or that some evidence has been given which is incorrect, he may order a re-hearing? Secondly, am I right in saying that the British Transport Commission have a right of appeal to the courts in respect of the accusation of negligence in connection with their liability? As I understand it, their normal liability is restricted to £15 per ton weight, which in the present case is, roughly speaking, £40,000, but if negligence is proved, then their liability is something very much greater in respect of each individual passenger. I understand that the British Transport Commission have a certain limited time in which they can lodge either of those appeals, first to the Minister or secondly to the court, in respect of their liability. I think it would be as well if the Minister would be so good as to make a short statement to the House upon what the position is. I think I am right, but it may be that I am not. In any event, it would be to the public interest that we should know the position.
My second point is this—and I am sure this will be granted at once. Will the Minister use his good offices, through the usual channels, to arrange that we have an opportunity for debate in this House on some future occasion as and when the decks, as it were, are cleared of the question of appeal? My third question is: what steps have been taken, quite irrespective of the question of appeal, to safeguard the immediate position? The Report of the inquiry says that the "Princess Victoria" was lost because her stern doors "were not sufficiently strong and because the car space was not adequately provided with freeing arrangements." Whether that conclusion is or
28
not contested, I think we should like some assurance that, British weather being what it is, rather unpredictable—it is always possible that there may be another tremendous storm—the position has been safeguarded by those responsible during the what I may call interim period until the matter can be debated and considered fully by your Lordships' House, and possibly by another place. With those few words, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he could answer this point. There are various matters concerning the immediate safety of passengers which are revealed by these findings and which, it seems to me, it would be proper to mention to the House to-day, although no one wants to take any action which would be embarrassing in view of the possibilities of appeal. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us whether, in his view, it would be convenient to deal with certain immediate questions of safety which arise on these findings.
4.2 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, it is not yet possible to make any full statement on the findings of the Court of Formal Investigation which inquired into the circumstances attending the loss of the "Princess Victoria," for the Report of that Court is still being studied in the Ministry of Transport and by the British Transport Commission, who have, under the Merchant Shipping Acts, a right of appeal to the High Court. Your Lordships will already know that the Court found that the vessel was unseaworthy because of the inadequacy of her stern doors, which yielded to the stress of the seas, and because the freeing arrangements for clearing water from the car space were also inadequate. The Load Line Rules, which contain the statutory requirements relating to freeing arrangements, are being examined, and if necessary they will be amended. The Court also made a number of observations on the life-saving and rescue arrangements, and these observations are also being examined. The Report of the Court will be published to-morrow, and I have

29
arranged for copies to be made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office.
May I say a word in regard to the questions that have been asked me on the subject of liability. Of course, it is too early yet for me to embark on this at any length because, as the noble Lord said, it is sub judice and it is open to the British Transport Commission to appeal. I think I should say right away that the Minister has no intention of ordering a re-hearing, so the British Transport Commission have, I think it is, three weeks from to-morrow in which to make up their minds whether they intend to appeal. During this intervening period one can say very little, since the whole thing is sub judice.
I should like also to say that steps have already been taken to ensure immediate attention to the ships sister to the "Princess Victoria"—there are four of them—in respect of their stern doors and the clearing away of any water that may get into the car deck. These steps are already in hand. As a matter of fact, this work was put in hand before the Court issued their findings, so that is already on the move. As regards the question of a debate, we shall be only too happy at the right time, when we are able to speak freely on this matter, to deal with the whole of this question. It is a most serious matter and a considerable number of interests are involved in it in one way and another. The whole question will be probed to the utmost, and at the earliest moment I shall be pleased to come back and give your Lordships all the information that is available.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I was recently on board the s.s. "Dinard." I do not know whether the s.s. "Dinard" is one of the sister ships of the "Princess Victoria." When I got on board, I asked if they could show me the washboards on the car deck. They showed me three washboards on each side. In my submission, they are utterly inadequate in area for freeing the car deck of water if it gets seriously flooded. Is the s.s. "Dinard" one of the ships that is to be tackled?
LORD LEATHERS: I cannot say precisely whether she is a sister ship of the "Princess Victoria." She may be of a kindred type and so will also require
30
attention. I assure your Lordships that these arrangements, not only in respect of the sister ships but also in respect of any other ships which are closely akin in their construction to the "Princess Victoria," will be carefully considered and dealt with.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I should like to mention this matter now so that the Minister may take it into consideration in the study of the Report which he will be making. According to the evidence in the Inquiry, it appears that the hazards were added to greatly by the fact that the ship was unaware of her exact posit on and that, therefore, she was unable to give precise indications to the rescue craft as to where she was. It seems that this particular ship, and in fact the other ships engaged on that crossing, belonging to the public authority, were not, as is the case with nearly all the privately-owned ships on equivalent service, equipped with the Decca Navigator system, which is now almost standard with passenger ships on these crossings. Had that been fitted, since this whole area is equipped with transmitting stations, she would have obtained automatic and continuous information of her exact position, despite the list of the sinking vessel. It seems to me that this matter should be looked into at once, for this system is a most valuable modern aid to navigation. It is no use relying on the fact that it is a narrow sea and that one can, in good weather, see one's position. In this case it was not so. I think urgent steps should be taken to deal with this shortcoming.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I appreciate the significance of that observation. I am alive to it up to the hilt. Being a ship owner myself in my normal days, I assure your Lordships that I share the view that has been expressed on the developments that have come about by the particular method that the noble Lord has described, which has been adopted in all my own ships. All this will be looked into with great care.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has raised this matter in a most helpful and temperate manner. There is one point the noble Lord did not touch upon, however, which I feel is of the greatest importance to the dependants of the master,

31
officers and seamen on the ship, who were completely exonerated by the inquiry. If there is an appeal this will involve a great many parties. Presumably it will involve the Railway Executive, the Load Line Assigning Authority and the Passenger Survey Issuing Authority, as well the Ministry of Transport; but in view of their vindication, surely the master and officers will not be involved. Can we have an assurance that their dependants will be compensated without their being involved in further litigation? This is a matter of great importance to the organisations which represent those dependants. If we cannot be assured that they will not be involved in further litigation resulting from an appeal, can we be assured that consideration will be given to their costs being paid, which, in fact, the court which hears the appeal would have power to direct? As the master and officers have been vindicated by the finding of the Inquiry it would seem most unfair to me that their dependants and those representing them should be involved in further cost and expenditure.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot give a clear-cut answer to a question of that sort, because the legal difficulties are going to remain with us for a time, and we must see the upshot of the appeal that is made. I do not think I could in advance commit the British Transport Commission to anything in the way that has been suggested, although I appreciate the spirit in which the suggestion has been made.
LORD WINSTER: I only beg that the noble Lord will give consideration to the facts which I have ventured to bring to his notice.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL

    TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    House adjourned at twelve minutes past four o'clock.