Lords Sitting of 21 July 1955

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

  ESTATE DUTY ON CHARITABLE GIFTS
  2.5 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to consider the appointment of an appropriate body to study and report on the desirability of again permitting relief from estate duty in respect of gifts for religious, educational and charitable purposes as, for illustration, exists in Canada and the U.S.A.]
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the liability for estate duty in respect of gifts inter vivos for public or charitable purposes is governed by the Finance Act of 1894. This Act, which introduced estate duty, fixed the period within which gifts inter vivos attracted liability to duty at one year before the date of death. This provision has continued to apply to gifts for public or charitable purposes up to the present time. The extension of this period to five years in respect of other kinds of gifts does not apply to gifts for public or charitable purposes. In these circumstances it does not seem to my right honourable friend to be necessary to set up a special body to examine this particular liability to estate duty.

EDUCATION ON COMMONWEALTH OPPORTUNITIES
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on the matter of migration to the Dominions whether, in view of the recent statement by the Prime Minister,
950
they are now prepared to consider for the last year of school attendance some additional special education on the structure of the Commonwealth and the opportunities offering for life in the Dominions.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, in secondary schools, and not only in the final year, the Commonwealth is usually studied in courses of geography, history and current affairs. In some schools special self-contained courses dealing with the Commonwealth are provided in what is expected to be the pupil's last year at school. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to give such help as they can in this matter, while leaving the schools free to plan their work in their own way. The Ministry of Education organises refresher courses on Commonwealth topics for teachers every year, and the schools are also helped by agencies such as the Imperial Institute and the Royal Empire Society, and by the scheme of teacher-interchange.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, which appeared to deal more with opportunities for additional education on the Commonwealth than with opportunities offered for life in the Dominions, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would make recommendations in the proper quarter that, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Relations Office, an attempt should be made to ensure that opportunities of life in the Commonwealth should always be brought before children, who in that way would in the future think of the possibilities of migration?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, my noble friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is sitting on the Bench, and I feel sure he has heard what my noble friend has said.

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY
2.10 p.m.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action it is now proposed to take regarding the retired pay of those

951
officers who retired under the terms of the 1919 Code, in view of the Government's undertaking to "continue to keep under review with sympathy and understanding the needs of these officers".]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord has no doubt read the answer which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a similar question last week. I am afraid it is not possible for me to add anything further to what he said on that occasion. The noble Lord will, I am sure, have noticed that that answer was not wholly negative.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government are aware that the officers affected are dying at an appreciable rate, and that there was a question asked of, and answered by, the Minister of Defence on an earlier occasion this year, when he said that the cost of granting a 20 per cent. increase on the rate of retired pay of 1919 would be a little under £1 million a year, but that this would diminish annually by some £80,000? Are we really to believe that the Government cannot afford such a small sum in order to do justice to these officers to whom they are contractually bound?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, whilst not accepting entirely all that the noble Lord has said, I would assure him that my right honourable friend does not in any way underestimate the importance of this subject. I think I can say that past experience has shown that when he says that he is keeping a subject under review, that is not just an idle formula.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, is it not the case that this reply, that the matter is being kept under review, has been given more than once in the past and that no material advantage, with the exception of perhaps to-day's and last week's announcements, has been given to those officers? It is also the fact that in the last few days there has been an announcement that the cost of living index has gone up since 1947 by something like 50 per cent. Cannot this matter be treated in a more humane and common-sense manner, by giving a chance to men of this vintage who did great work to have a reasonable standard of life in their declining years?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that what he has said will certainly be examined closely by my right honourable friend. I think it is fair to remember that in the last three years there have been three separate measures which, in one way or another, have assisted in this matter. What the noble Lord said in regard to the cost of living is, of course, known to everyone, and it is one of the factors which undoubtedly will be borne in mind.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
STROMNESS HARBOUR (GUARANTEE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (GRANTS FOR FISHING VESSELS AND ENGINES) SCHEME, 1955.
2.15 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL. ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, grants towards the cost of building new fishing vessels, and of installing new engines in older vessels, have been paid by the White Fish Authority for the last two years under the White Fish Authority (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1953. The Scheme covers the inshore, near-water and middle-water fleets. The new scheme now before your Lordships makes certain changes in the conditions under which the grant may be paid and received. These changes have been agreed with the industry and with the White Fish Authority. I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, before approval is given to this Scheme I wish to raise one or two points from this side of the House. We believe that the Scheme will be beneficial to the working owner and we therefore approve it. From what I have read of the Scheme it appears to help those owners already in the fishing industry and also those wishing to start. But I should like to raise the question of limitation of grants. Noble Lords will notice that under the Scheme the smaller owners will receive only three-tenths of the cost the remainder of the money will have to be found by them. Grants for the acquisition of larger ships may reach a sum of £25,000, as against the much smaller sum of £5,000 for smaller vessels. The grant of three-tenths may be insufficient for small owners who have to provide the remaining seven-tenths of the money.
Then, do I understand from the reference to the period until 1963 that the Scheme will definitely cease in that year, or is that merely the intention at the moment? The noble Earl may also be able, in his reply, to help me in regard to the question of the transfer of a vessel on the death of an owner. Under the Scheme, where there are joint owners one owner can benefit and the other may not do so. Suppose that the owner who benefits under the Scheme dies, and the vessel is transferred to the remaining part-owner. Do the Authority, in those circumstances, take action to recover the vessel, or is ownership automatically transferred to the other partner? Also, should a small owner die, a vessel owned in conjunction with the Authority may have to be sold for estate duty or other purposes. I am wondering whether, in those circumstances, there is any provision for the widow, or relatives, of an owner of a vessel to continue under the same terms as the original owner, although, in fact, they may not themselves be working owners at the time that the working owner died.
Subject to these comments, I believe that the Scheme will be beneficial. I notice that in another place it had the
954
approval of the Minister and of those Members connected with the fishing industry. I am sorry that I have not given the noble Earl notice of this point, but perhaps he may be able to give me some information. Replying to a Question in another place on June 23 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 542 (No. 13), col. 1492] the Minister said:
"I am delighted at the progress being made in building modern trawlers with efficient equipment and good accommodation for the crews"—
that is important, of course—
"and that this progress has been facilitated and considerably encouraged by the loans and grants scheme."
I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us how much has already been spent under the original Scheme, how many vessels have been covered by that amount, and whether, in fact, the Scheme has been carried out as well, as ably and as beneficially as the Minister suggested in his reply.
2.20 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, yesterday we heard from the noble and learned Earl who leads the Labour Opposition of the value which an Opposition should have in this House. Today the Labour Opposition is not in opposition to, but is in support of, Her Majesty's Government, in regard to the subject matter of this Order. It therefore falls to us on these Benches to say a few words in questioning the wisdom of the Order. The cost falling upon the taxpayer in respect of subsidies to the fishing industry has been continually rising and I think it is now about nine times what was originally intended. So far as fishing vessels and engines are concerned, it started with loans and has since degenerated into grants. Until this latest Order any grant was repayable on the sale of a vessel. Now, even if the vessel is sold, repayment may be waived at the discretion of the Authority. Moreover, the Authority are granted new powers to enable them to accept or reject, at their discretion, any application for a grant of the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers' money is there put outside the control of Parliament. Surely if the taxpayers' money is to be given away it should be given away by Parliament, and this power should not be delegated to any authority, certainly not to an authority which is primarily concerned with trawler owners or their agents, their wholesalers, whose

955
interests must be at variance with those of the consumer. If Parliament is to make gifts, surely they should be made subject to definite, clear and precise rules, and should not be at the arbitrary discretion of anyone outside.
Subsidies are granted under other Orders to provide guaranteed returns from the use of fishing vessels. I think that next Tuesday we are to have one of them brought to our notice. Is not this sufficient inducement? Is it necessary or desirable to subsidise the purchase or fitting out of vessels in addition? It is not done in the case of tankers, for which a case might be made just as easily. I should like to know whether the cost of all these subsidies is not much greater than any advantage which accrues to the consumer in the form of reduced prices, for the fish he buys. Has not the time come to call a halt to these subsidies, to these grants, for the purchase of fishing vessels, and to leave the purchaser to finance his purchase in the market on purely commercial considerations, like any other trader? No attempt is made to make out a case for the continuance of these particular grants, and in the absence of such a case we feel that this practice should cease.
2.24 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me what happens in the event of a widow succeeding to the part ownership of a boat, and whether the grant can be transferred. The answer is that the White Fish Authority have a discretion to transfer the grant on the death of a part owner to anyone whom they consider to be suitable as a further part-owner. A widow is certainly eligible. The noble Lord said that this Order has been dealt with in another place already. In fact that is not so.
LORD WISE: Will the noble Earl excuse me? I did not quite say that. A Question concerning the fishing industry was raised in another place, and the Question rather anticipated this Order, I think.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am sorry. I misunderstood the noble Lord; I thought he was referring to this particular Order. The position is that of the £9 million which was made available under the White Fish and Herring Industries Act,
956
1953, up to now £1,956,144 has, in fact, been approved in grants, and they cover some eighty near-water and middle-water vessels, 192 inshore vessels, and 140 replacement engines for inshore vessels. That involves some 30 per cent. of the near-water and middle-water fishing fleet. There is still some 70 per cent. which is over thirty years old, and needs replacing. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised some points about this money. As I have pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, this £9 million is available under the Act. The money was appropriated by Parliament for this purpose. It is not a question of Parliament's not having control. Parliament earmarked it some two years ago.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: If the noble Earl will pardon my interrupting him, may I say that there are no definite rules under which this money should be paid and under which it is paid. It is left to the discretion of a body other than Parliament to decide in a particular case whether money should be given or not. That, to my mind, is not correct.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think it is fairly common practice. Parliament cannot deal with each individual vessel whose owner makes application for a grant.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Parliament can lay down rules and regulations under which a grant should be made. Parliament can define the terms. It is this present practice to which I have referred which is not desirable. To say that it is done in other cases is surely no answer.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: The White Fish Authority are not, as the noble Lord appears to think, biased on the side of the fisherman. They are a body who are responsible for seeing to the supply of white fish as well as for looking after fishermen. And, of course, there is the White Fish Advisory Council, a body which contains representatives of every section of the industry and of the consumers also. If I may go back to the noble Lord's point about regulations for giving these grants, I would say that there must be reasonable discretion to an authority to make a grant and assist fishermen as and when they think it necessary. Someone has to take responsibility. We cannot lay down the procedure too tightly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HERRING INDUSTRY (GRANTS FOR FISHING VESSELS AND ENGINES) SCHEME, 1955
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this Scheme is the counterpart for the herring industry of the Scheme which we have just been considering. It covers the whole of Great Britain. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE ACT (PART I) EXTENSION OF PERIOD ORDER, 1955
2.31 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to extend for another year the operation of Orders made under Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. This section relates to the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the products included in the First Schedule to the Act. It empowers Ministers to make, by Order, appropriate arrangements for this purpose if such arrangements do not already exist. The Act provided that the life of Section 4 should be limited to three years unless it was extended annually by an Order of this kind. Orders under this section are now in operation for three of the scheduled commodities: wool, fatstock and cereals, and your Lordships will shortly be asked to consider a new Order relating to potatoes.
Hitherto, the authority for the guarantee arrangements for all commodities except wool has derived from Defence Regulations. This was appropriate enough to Schemes which largely stemmed from the emergency buying operations of the Ministry of Food, but now that we have left those days behind and have a series of guarantee arrangements working in a free market, we think it right to rid ourselves, so far as we can, of dependence upon the Defence Regulations and look to Part I of the Agriculture Act for the authority needed to implement the guarantees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Agriculture Act (Part I) Extension of Period Order, 1955, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 13th instant, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
2.34 p.m.
LORD WISEMy Lords, I am afraid that in this case I shall not be quite so friendly towards the noble Earl. The Order in print is a small one, but it is of great importance. According to the records, a similar Order passed through your Lordships' House last year with little comment, but, having had another year in which 10 look at the agricultural situation, I feel, while not wishing to trespass on any agricultural debate which may take place in your Lordships' House when we return after the Summer Recess, that I should call the Government's attention to one or two points. This Order is to be considered in another place to-day, but I have no knowledge whatever of any comments that may be made there: what I want to say is entirely for your Lordships and arises out of my reading of the Order and looking into the situation in agriculture. It is admitted that this is simply an extending Order, without the passing of which, year after year, the arrangements under the Act would fall. I have knowledge of the present conditions of agriculture and at the outset I say candidly that I am perturbed at the present uncertainties of the industry and apprehensive of the future.
Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947, provides for guaranteed prices and assured markets for farm produce. Section 1 (1) of the Act is as follows:
"The following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting and maintaining, by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimnm prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry."
That is the first task under the Act on which the Order is founded. At the moment I am apprehensive that the Government, although they agree with the term "guaranteed prices and assured markets," are not implementing the Act as it should be implemented. Conditions

959
in agriculture are uncertain and extremely difficult, in so far as marketing and kindred matters are concerned. I suggest to the Government that the Act is not being carried out as it should be, strictly according to the letter of the Act, and in my view the matter should be reviewed by the Government.
The Party of noble Lords on this side were responsible for introducing the Act. I was in another place at the time and played a considerable part in bringing it into operation. If I may speak generally for agriculture, I think it is the desire of the farming industry that some review of marketing conditions should take place at the present time. Perhaps this is a bold statement, but, as I have said, at the moment there is no guarantee whatever in prices and no assurance of markets. The noble Earl may doubt what I say, but I have in my hand a cutting from a local paper, a daily agricultural paper in the Eastern Counties, in which it is stated that in one market yesterday the price of pigs (we have talked a lot about pigs in recent months) went down by no less than 6s. a score, as against the previous week. Those connected with agriculture know that a condition whereby the price of one commodity can decline by 20 or 25 per cent. in one week is not the sort of thing we envisaged under the Agriculture Act. I could mention other produce—cattle, for example, have declined to the detriment of the producers of livestock.
This sort of thing does not appear in other industries. I do not go one day into a shop or into an industry and say "It is hot to-day and I am going to knock off 6d. a pound or 20 per cent. from what you are charging me." But that is exactly what happens in the agricultural industry. Prices rocket up and down with the uncertainties of the weather. On the other hand, we are always boand to pay a set price for the things which we have to buy. That helps to create in the industry the difficulties from which we are suffering at the present time. During the last few days the question of the payment of subsidies has been discussed in various quarters, and there is the point that the subsidy policy
960
of the Government may be enriching people of all sorts who are not supposed to gain from subsidies. Let me hark back for a moment to the question of pigs. A farmer with whom I am associated sent some pigs to market and they fetched a certain price. Within two or three weeks back came a cheque from the Government, and it was ironical that that cheque was for a larger amount than the cheque received from the auctioneer for the pigs in the first instance. In effect, that meant that not only were the Government subsidising those pigs to an extent of over 100 per cent., but the consumers, who are the taxpayers, were not benefiting by the low cost at which the first purchaser of those pigs obtained them, but were paying twice over, in taxation in regard to subsidies, and in regard to the price of the commodity in the shops. I do not want to enter into an agricultural debate, but I thought it right to call the attention of the Government to that matter, because this Order deals with the whole root of the Agriculture Act. I hope that when we are again asked this time next year to extend the Order the agricultural industry will have once again found its feet, so far as prosperity is concerned.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords. the noble Lord said he did not want to turn this into an agricultural debate, but I feel that he was getting himself warmed up for the next agricultural debate in your Lordships' House and was not, strictly speaking, keeping to the Order before your Lordships. I cannot accept a good many of his arguments. I certainly cannot accept that there are no guaranteed prices or assured markets. I know that the noble Lord would like to see a fixed price all the way through, but we on this side of the House do not happen to agree with that point of view: we prefer to have a market where a man can benefit by producing better stuff and by more careful marketing. But those political philosophies cannot be gone into to-day. I do not think there is much I can say in reply to the noble Lord, except that I shall look forward to his speech on the next agricultural debate, and I hope to have available answers to convince him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY BILL
2.43 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 35, and passed.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 35, and passed.

RATING AND VALUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL,
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I think it would be appropriate to say a few words to your Lordships about the Amendments which were withdrawn on an earlier occasion. Noble Lords may remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill there were four Amendments in my name which would have had the effect of excluding certain parts of the outfall sewers belonging to the London County Council from the general exemption of sewers from rating conferred by subsection (2) of Clause 9 of the Bill. Those Amendments were not moved, and my noble friend Lord Man-croft explained that this was because of the possibility that, if the Amendments were inserted in the Bill, it might be converted into a hybrid Bill. My noble friend said that further consideration would have to be given to this matter before the Government decided whether to proceed with the Amendments. As a result of this consideration, it was decided not to put these Amendments down for the Report stage.
Noble Lords will probably expect to have a word of explanation as to why
962
the Government have taken this course. The effect of Clause 9 (2) of the Bill is to exempt all sewers from rating. When this provision was discussed in another place, Amendments were moved from the Opposition Benches with the intention of excluding the outfall sewers of the London County Council from the exemption conferred by the Bill and thus of ensuring that the London County Council continued to pay rates on them. The Amendments were supported by a number of speakers, mainly on the Opposition side, and including a Member of the Opposition Front Bench. It was urged that these sewers ran for long distances above ground, across the areas of local authorities inside and outside the County of London, took up much valuable ground, and provided a large source of rate income for the local authorities of the areas concerned. It was pointed out that there were no other over-ground sewers anywhere in the country even remotely comparable in size to these particular ones.
As the geneml feeling in another place seemed to be in favour of the Amendments, my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to find a suitable forty of words to secure the continued rateability of the over-ground portions of the sewers. Amendments were put down in pursuance of this undertaking. The possibility that the Amendments would convert the clause into a hybrid one was considered, but the preliminary view taken was that they would not have that effect. Since the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the point, however, the Government have given further consideration to it, and have now come to the conclusion that the position is not entirely clear. Undoubtedly an arguable ease can be made for the view that if the Amendments were made the Bill would become a hybrid one. To decide this point, the Bill would have to go to the Examiners, with all the delay involved. And were they to take the view, as they well might, that the Bill had in fact become hybrid, all the hybrid Bill procedure, under which those involved would be entitled to be heard by counsel before a Select Committee, would come into play. This the Government could not accept, since for practical reasons it is important that the Bill should be

963
passed before the Recess. The Government have therefore been forced to conclude that they cannot give effect in this Bill to the assurance which was given by my honourable friend in another place. It is for this reason that the Amendments which were put down but not moved in Committee have not been put down again. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Munster.)
2.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think it right that I should say a few words on this matter, because I believe it is largely as a result of my intervention that this question has been raised. I should like the House to feel that this is not a purely technical point. If it were, I do not think that I should have wished to raise it. But this House, in its wisdom, over a long period of years, has taken the view that where in a Public Act private interests are affected, and particularly where an individual interest is affected, that individual should have the right to appear by counsel and state his casein other words, that it is wrong to use the instrument of a Public Bill in order to affect the position of an isolated individual. I am sure the House will agree that that is right.
In this particular case. it was sought to give every authority in the country the right to be free of rating in respect of its sewers, except the London County Council in respect of two particular sewers. I said this on Tuesday, but I think it is right that it should be said once more in the clearest possible terms. There may or may not be good reasons for imposing this disability upon the London County Council. In my view, there are no good reasons for it. As I said before, it is a very big sewer, and I agree with the noble Earl—he has put the position quite fairly—that probably there is no other sewer in the country as large as the two particular sewers that it was sought to make responsible for rates. But there are other big sewers in the country—as I say, not quite so big as this—and there are overhead sewers and areas where, whether the sewers are above ground or underground, large areas of land are sterilised and it is
964
impossible to build upon them. The London County Council sewers are not unique in that respect.
Be that as it may, it may well be that a case could have been made for special treatment of the London County Council. But what could not possibly be justified was that this case should be made without giving the London County Council an opportunity of being heard and stating their view. For that reason, I believe that the Government and the noble Earl have acted wisely in not moving these Amendments. I do not know whether one should attach any sinister implication to his words, "in this Bill." I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government to pursue the matter further. I hope they will not. I hope they will accept the position as it stands, and will not seek to penalise the London County Council because of its size and because it happens to have large sewers. With what the noble Earl is doing to-day I fully agree. I think he has taken the right course, and I hope that the matter will be allowed to rest where it is.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2.56 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
". No lifeboat house, shed or slipway used solely for the purposes of lifeboat services shall in the case of any rating area be liable to be rated for any rate period beginning on or after the date of the coming into force of the new valuation list for that area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will not weary the House by endeavouring to recite all the arguments used when an Amendment similar to this was proposed by me the other day. Noble Lords will remember that the noble and learned Earl who leads Her Majesty's Opposition suggested that an Amendment should be drafted making the exemption from rating applicable only to lifeboat stations round the coast. He threw out a hope that Her Majesty's Government would look at the matter again and would see whether they could, to that limited extent, deal with the matter in the way suggested by my Amendment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House then said at the conclusion of the debate that further consideration was to be given to the point. I hope further consideration has been given to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replying to the debate the other day, compared the position of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution with that of the Y.M.C.A., the Boy Scouts, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, and so on. I should have been a little happier if he had compared the work of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution with that of Trinity House, because it is far more analogous to that body. After all, we exist to save life at sea of people of all nationalities— not only British seamen or people who find themselves in the sea for one cause or another, but all nationalities. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution is an entirely voluntary body, and if it is right to exempt Trinity House I cannot help thinking that it is also right to exempt us. I do not agree that the Y.M.C.A. is quite in the same Class. It is a magnificent body, as are all those bodies mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. We all support them and do everything we can to help them; but their position is not quite the same. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have found it possible to help the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but omitting the depôt. We have a fairly big depôt where we keep spare parts and stores for the lifeboats all round the coast of the British Isles and Eire. That is not a factory, but a depôt, and is always looked upon as such by the Inland Revenue for the purposes of taxation. I should have liked to move that the depôt be exempt. However, I have bowed to the view of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and that idea has been dropped. I hope that if it is at all possible Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to this point, which is not a very large one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my reason for intervening is that I have been asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt to say a word: he had intended to do so himself, but has been unavoidably prevented from being here. I should like to say this in support of the noble Earl. He has now modified his Amendment, compared with what it was before. I know it is easy to say about any one of these worthy institutions that if we give particular treatment for this one, we should give it for another, and yet
966
another, and so on. I venture to suggest this criterion. This particular Institution, I submit, is absolutely vital to the life of the country: if it went out of action it would be essential for the Government to reinstate it and operate it themselves. It is a matter of convenience that it is being operated on this voluntary basis, and I suggest that what differentiates it from almost any other charity is that it is vital to the life of the nation. For that reason, I think that it deserves special treatment.
I am not going to suggest that if the noble Earl, Lord Munster, thought very hard he would not be able to find one more institution, or two more, or half a dozen more, that could be treated in the same way. If there are a few other institutions upon which the nation vitally depends, which are in the same category and which are so essential that if they did not exist in a voluntary form they would have to be provided by the nation, then I say that they ought to be assisted in the same way. But what we have before us is this Amendment, and I think we ought to take this one on its merits. I feel that this organisation ought not to be placed in a position that it is, or might be, in financial difficulties.
Furthermore, if it is alleged that this matter could be dealt with under the other provisions of the Bill, and that it could be left to each particular local authority to deal with it on its merits, then we have the point made by the noble and learned Earl on the Committee stage: that there will not be uniform treatment. At the present time, I understand that a hundred local authorities are giving exemption or relief and that forty-eight are not. It is a most undesirable state of affairs that the success of this Institution should be left to the whim or mercy of each particular local authority to decide for itself whether it should get relief. I submit that, if we take the view that this is an essential part of the life of the community, then it ought to receive the best possible treatment and be included in the category of those institutions which are entitled to complete exemption. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give the most sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend Lord Howe, if I may say so with

967
respect, moved this Amendment with admirable brevity, but I hope that the House, and the noble Earl as well, will forgive me if I go into this matter at some length and in considerable detail. The noble Earl has explained to the House the effect that this Amendment would have on the Bill and on the Lifeboat Institution in particular. The noble Earl reminded your Lordships that he withdrew an Amendment on the Committee stage, saying that he would put down another Amendment at a later stage of the Bill and would follow the advice which was suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. In his reply, my noble friend Lord Mancroft, while making it clear that he thought the Government would not be prepared to accept such an Amendment, undertook to go into the question again in the light of what had been said during the discussion on the Committee stage. We have been into it with great care. The arguments which were advanced at that time have been reviewed by my right honourable friend, but he does not find them sufficient justification for accepting the Amendment.
On the previous occasion, my noble friend who moved the Amendment referred first to a number of existing exemptions — churches, chapels, and scientific, literary and fine art societies. Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to justify these exemptions on merits in contrast to the exemption now sought for lifeboat stations, since it has been made clear during the proceedings that this Bill is principally a tidying-up measure which, in regard to reliefs from rates, sets out so far as possible to maintain the existing position, rather than to extend or restrict any existing relief from rates, whether statutory or given without statutory sanction by means of sympathetic or nominal assessment.
The noble Earl also mentioned the exemption of Trinity House under Section 731 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. He referred to Trinity House again in his speech this afternoon. That section of that Act exempts from
"all public, parochial and local taxes, dues and rates of every kind;"—
all
"lighthouses, buoys, beacons and all premises or property belonging to or occupied by any of the general lighthouse authorities "—
968
of which Trinity House is one—
"or by the Board of Trade"—
now by the Ministry of Transport. My noble friend described this as a better analogy to the lifeboat service than the churches and scientific societies to which he had previously referred. The argument which I have just made with regard to the churches and scientific societies is, nevertheless, equally valid; that, as the Government are seeking in this Bill merely to preserve the existing position. they would not regard the fact that the work of the lighthouses and lifeboats is, to some extent, analogous as a justification for extending or curtailing existing reliefs.
I should, however, like to go into this point about lighthouse exemption in more detail. The noble Earl will observe that it is in a very different category. I am sorry that I cannot give the House as full an account as I should wish on this question, for the exemption of lighthouses appears to be a subject of great antiquity. I have not succeeded with my advisers in tracing it further back than the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, which itself was a consolidating measure. The Sara Committee on Scottish Valuation and Rating expressed the view that the exemption was based on the analogy with Crown property and there appears to be some justification for that view.
In the first place, the General Lighthouse Fund, from which the Trinity House lighthouses, beacons and so on, are provided and maintained, is deemed to be a public account, and, as such, is subject to examination and audit by the Exchequer and Audit Department. The accounts of the Fund are laid before Parliament each year by the Minister of Transport. The Fund's revenue, light dues from shipping using our ports, is secured to it by Statute, and expenditure requires the prior approval of the Minister of Transport. This view of an analogy with Crown premises is further strengthened by the fact that the exemption has been held not to extend to the lighthouses, beacons, et cetera of other authorities, such as local authorities. I think, therefore, that my noble friend will probably see at once that the lifeboat service cannot similarly claim exemption by analogy with Crown property for it is an entirely voluntary organisation.

969
My Lords, the next point which my noble friend raised was the anxiety of the Lifeboat Institution that when its property had been revalued by the Inland Revenue Department, who have no discretion to make sympathetic assessments, there might be a considerable increase in the amount which the Institution had to pay by way of rates. I think that on this point I can set his mind at rest. If the Institution is within the categories which are described in Clause 8 (1) it has the protection afforded by subsections (2) and (3) of that clause, which means that it could not be required to pay more in rates in 1956–57 than it did in 1955–56, and it would be entitled to a proportionate remission in rates in subsequent years unless three years' notice was given of the intention to reduce or discontinue the remission. No doubt the rating authorities concerned will take account of the views expressed in your Lordships' House on this subject. but in any event the Minister has undertaken to report to Parliament upon the way in which the policy of rating authorities develops in this respect, so that further measures could, if necessary, be taken before—I hope long before—irreparable damage is done to the charities.
In addition to the compulsory remission, the Institution may benefit under Clause 8 (4), which will enable any rating authority to reduce further, or to remit entirely, any rates for which they are liable. Doubts were expressed when your Lordships last discussed this matter whether this was, in fact, a new power, since a hundred rating authorities were already giving the Institution favourable treatment. I have been advised that the only statutory power which could conceivably be called in aid to remit or reduce the rates is the general power given under Section 2 (4), of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to do so on account of the poverty of the person liable. In practice, poverty in this sense is extremely difficult to establish in relation to a charity, and it is understood that for that reason the power is rarely, if ever, invoked to help charities. On the other hand, it is a fact that many rating authorities gave sympathetic assessments without statutory authority, while others have stood on the letter of the law, as the Inland Revenue have had to do, and will assess all properties at their true value.
970
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin were particularly concerned with this question on the previous occasion. May I remind them that is another place the right honourable Member for South Shields, Mr. Chuter Ede, expressed some surprise that rating authorities should have resorted to sympathetic assessments to give rate relief to charities. My right honourable friend and the Department do not know whether the forty-eight rating authorities who have demanded rates from the Lifeboat Institution have done so because they have taken the strict view of the law, but there is at least the hope that, encouraged by the views which have been expressed in all quarters of this House, and armed now with the clear power which I have mentioned under Clause 8 (4) of the Bill, they will be more generous in future to the Institution.
May I now, for a few moments, refer to the present Amendment? I must tell the House the principal reasons which the Government hold for advising your Lordships, with regret, not to accept this Amendment, in the certainty that if you did so they could not reasonably refrain from embarking upon a judgment of the merits of a great number of very worthy organisations who may well consider themselves at least equal in merit in their particular field to the Institution. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt (who I understand is for other reasons not able to he present to-day), suggested that if there were others who felt that they had an equally strong case, they should put forward their claims for exemption. I venture to suggest, however, that we do not want exemption from rating to be settled in this way, with success dependent in some measure upon the skill of each organisation's advocate in this House or in another place.
It is true that the Amendment which Lord Howe has moved to-day is more modest than the one we discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, but it illustrates in itself the danger the Government feel would arise if this Amendment were made and anyone justly criticised a rating authority who refused to remit or reduce the rates on any of the Institution's properties which had not been covered by the clause. Would not such people be likely to say, "If Parliament, in all its wisdom, was satisfied that the boat-house

971
exemption was enough, who are we to presume otherwise?" Yet I suspect that the Institution's present relief from rates amounts to as much as they might get under this Amendment alone. Similarly, if we set about listing the organisations which convinced Her Majesty's Government that they ought to have exemption, should not we be encouraging rating authorities to regard that as an authoritative list, not to be exceeded by the exercise of the rating authorities' discretionary power, and so shut out no less deserving, though perhaps less vocal, organisations?
To sum up briefly what I have said—I apologise for being so long, but this is a most important matter—my right honourable friend considers that, so far as possible, discretion in the matter of rate relief should rest with the rating authorities alone; and he feels that, having regard to the compulsory remissions covered by subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 8, the organisations concerned are protected against any possibility of ruinous rate increases, and should at least be content to wait and see how the rating authorities exercise their discretion before seeking more far-reaching reliefs. There can be nobody in this House who has not considerable admiration for this great Institution, and indeed sympathy behind the purpose of the new clause. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have given the House at some considerable length, I feel that I must advise your Lordships not to put this Amendment in the Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl very warmly for the carefully considered answer which he has given us. Naturally, I regret the decision, but his explanation was so clear that I do not feel I should be justified in pressing the case. I hope that when he referred to "equally vocal societies" he did not mean that we have been too vocal. If he did, well, he must put it down to our propaganda. However, I feel that the explanation that the noble Earl has given is a sound and intelligible one, and on behalf of those associated with me I should like to thank both him
972
and Her Majesty's Government very much. If at any future time the whole question should again come up for review. I think your Lordships will probably hear from us also. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19):
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
3.22 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 19), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House rose at twenty-three minutes past three o'clock.