HL Deb 21 January 1958 vol 207 cc11-28

3.1 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, your Lordships will find the purpose of this Bill shortly stated in the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum, where it says: The main object of this Bill is to give statutory recognition to the charitable nature of certain trusts and institutions which exist for the purpose of providing recreational or similar facilities, or whose purposes include the provision of such facilities, in the interests of social welfare. Many such trusts and institutions were commonly regarded as charitable until the case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Baddeley; but the governing instruments often contain terms similar to those considered in that case, and considerable apprehension has been felt as to the effect of it. This is a short and, apparently, technical Bill, but it is of considerable importance to a wide range of voluntary organisations—youth clubs, women's institutes, old people's clubs, village halls, community centres and many others which have until recently always been treated as charitable, but whose status has become open to question as a result of the decision of this House in the case which I have just mentioned. It was decided in that ease, in effect. that certain trusts for the provision of facilities for social and physical training and recreation limited to residents in West Ham and Leyton who belonged to, or were likely to belong to, a particular religious persuasion, were not wholly charitable and hence were not entitled to the fiscal privileges accorded by law to charities. This decision might not, at first sight, have been expected to have far-reaching consequences, having been decided, as it was, in accordance with well-established principles. However, many institutions hitherto commonly regarded as charitable, and in many cases of a character substantially different from that under consideration in the case I have mentioned, have trust instruments containing words similar to those which were criticised in the Baddeley trusts, and have been seriously worried about their own position.

Your Lordships will excuse me for saying one or two words on the legal position. Most of your Lordships will be aware that a perpetual trust for a purpose which is not charitable is void, and even if the trusts escape this pitfall they would not, unless their purposes were exclusively charitable, be entitled to income tax relief. Nor can trustees usually alter the purpose of their trusts merely because they turn out to be not charitable. In the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government have felt it necessary to introduce legislation to clear up the situation by confirming the charitable status of those classes of trusts which, although previously treated as charitable, are now considered doubtful as a result of this case.

It has taken some time to formulate a solution, because the scope of charity is to be ascertained not only from Statutes such as the Statute of Charitable Uses, 1601, but from decisions of the courts developed by analogy upon analogy over hundreds of years. The Government White Paper Policy on Charitable Trusts, issued in 1955, stated its intention to preserve the case law it is hoped, provide guidance for the and in the present situation the aim must be the least possible modification of the existing law. Moreover, two public Commissions have recently pronounced against any extension of the charitable field. It has therefore been necessary—but very difficult—to find a legislative formula which would clarify the position without upsetting those decisions (including that on the Baddeley case itself) or interfering with the law of charity.

There are many and obvious good reasons against attempting Ito do this by setting out a catalogue of institutions and declaring their trusts validated. The Bill therefore proceeds by declaring a principle which is to be applied in individual cases by the courts and can be developed by them in the future according to the changing circumstances and needs of the times. Clause 1 of the Bill accordingly declares on what terms and for what class of beneficiary the provision of facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation is a charitable purpose. These terms may be briefly described as compliance with a new test of social welfare combined with the old test of public benefit.

The precise construction of these tests and their application to individual cases is a judicial matter and it is not for Ministers to pronounce on the question whether a particular trust will be charitable under the Bill. But the general intention of the Bill is clear. Subject to the existing test of public benefit, it is to be charitable at law to provide facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation with the object of improving the conditions of life of the beneficiaries but not some other purpose, such as the promotion of a particular sport. The beneficiaries must be either the public at large (or female members of the public, to cover the case of women's institutes) or limited classes who are in need of such facilities but are unable to provide them for themselves; that is to say, the young, the aged, the sick or disabled, the poor, and persons in need by reason of their social and economic circumstances.

These requirements are not a complete definition of social welfare but lay down the minimum conditions without which the test of social welfare cannot be satisfied. In the present clause, the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) will, it is hoped, provide guidance for the judges. Subsection (1) is the operative provision and the remaining subsections of this clause are explanatory. Before passing to these subsections, I might mention that the words "assist in the provision of facilities" are intended, inter alia, to cover those national bodies (such as the National Council of Social Service) which do not provide facilities themselves, but make grants to, or act as the organising and administrative machine for, those who do. The word "facilities" is intended to be widely construed, as is further explained in subsection (3) of the clause.

It is now made clear that it is charitable to provide not only for outdoor games and amusements, but also for the sort of recreational facilities which are ordinarily provided at village halls, community centres, and women's institutes. I would emphasise that these particular illustrations are given mainly to indicate the intention that a wide and liberal interpretation is to be placed on facilities for recreation and other leisure-time occupation. These illustrations are in no way intended to be limiting or to give any preferential status to the institutions specifically mentioned over the many others which come within the principle of the Bill but which are not mentioned. If some of your Lordships feel disappointed that some meritorious institutions in which your Lordships are interested are not cited, I hope your Lordships will bear this part of my speech in mind.

I also hope that it will be appreciated that the object of the Bill is to provide a principle capable of flexible application, and this would be defeated if these illustrations were expanded into a catalogue which could never be complete, but would tend to be treated as exhaustive and exclusive. The words, "or any other leisure-time occupation" are intended to make it clear that the Bill applies to recreation in its widest sense and covers, for example, reading, games, physical training, or just "sitting and thinking" in old people's clubs.

It may be asked why the provision of recreational facilities limited to women will satisfy the test of social welfare, while those limited to men only will not. The answer to this is that the Bill does not set out to make institutions charitable which were not ordinarily regarded as charitable before the Baddeley decision. In general, recreational institutes and clubs confined to men of full age have been treated in the past as not being charitable; and it is not thought that this should be altered. Women, on the other hand, have seldom in the pas been in a position to provide these facilities for themselves, and it is thought that the charitable status hitherto enjoyed by women's institutes and the like should be preserved.

I now pass from facilities provided for the public at large to those for the classes enumerated in subsection (2) (b) (i) of Clause 1. It has long been established that the poor, the sick, the aged and the young are proper objects of charity, and comparatively small classes of these will suffice to establish the element of public benefit. With these have been included the class of persons in need by reason of their social and economic circumstances—a phrase intended to cover such cases as may arise from time to time of persons who, though not actually poor, find themselves cut off from their home surroundings: for example (I must declare an interest, because I have been President of the Gordon Smith Institute for Seamen in Liverpool for many years) merchant seamen in port away from home.

It has seemed to the Government—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that the principles underlying the Bill are, in general, consonant with the decisions of the courts in this somewhat obscure corner of the field of charity. But particular care has been taken to preserve in its integrity the principle of public benefit on which so many determinations of charitable status have depended—for example, that the employees of an industrial firm do not form a sufficient class for the purposes of charity.

May I say one word as to the operation of the Bill? The Bill is retrospective in its confirmation of the charitable status of the institutions whose status is in doubt. Subsection (4) of Clause 3 deals with income tax and provides that such institutions will lose no tax benefits as the result of the Baddeley case. Subsection (5) makes somewhat similar pro visions about the lower rates of duty on conveyances of land. To complete this account of the retrospective application of the Bill, I would observe that the general effect of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 is that anything lawfully done in the past on the assumption that trusts covered by the Bill were not charitable, shall remain effective. I will give your Lordships one example. A trust which had, before the introduction of the Bill, been wholly or partly wound up or otherwise dealt with on the footing that it was invalid, is not revived by the Bill.

The remaining clauses need not detain us long. The object of Clause 2 is to validate the large class of trusts established or assisted by grants from the former Miners' Welfare Fund or the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. Such trusts have hitherto been treated as charitable, but will not necessarily be made charitable by Clause 1 because the beneficiaries are, in many cases, limited to miners, ex-miners and their dependants, and the trusts are not for the benefit of the public at large. It is proposed that these trusts should be treated as if they are and always had been charitable, and should not simply be declared to be charitable like the trusts within Clause 1. This distinction in drafting is intended to ensure that the Bill does not infringe the principles underlying the law of charity generally and, in particular, the test of "public benefit" which I have just mentioned.

The Bill in general applies only to England and Wales. The law of Scotland as to public trusts is different, and trusts such as we have been considering would not be invalidated. In Northern Ireland, the law of charity is based on English law, but the Northern Ireland Parliament have power to legislate. There are, however, limitations on their powers to do so retrospectively. Clause 4 removes these limitations in so far as is necessary to allow a corresponding Bill to be passed at Stormont. Clause 6 (2) is worthy of some attention, because in certain cases the statutory references to charity in Acts applying outside England and Wales (like the Income Tax Acts) are construed in accordance with the English Law of Charity. Clause 6 (2) therefore ensures that in these cases the Bill will operate to extend the references in their application also to Scotland and Northern Ireland so that tax relief will be applied on a uniform basis throughout the United Kingdom.

The Bill is expressed to bind the Crown in Clause 5, because if a trust within the Bill was invalid and the settlor had at the time of the gift intended to divest himself of any beneficial interest, the Crown could claim the property as bona vacantia; and the Bill extinguishes any such claim. At this point it may be appropriate to announce that Her Majesty's consent has been obtained to the introduction of this Bill in so far as it may affect the interests of the Crown.

There has been little precedent for legislation of this kind for many years, and the Government have felt the need for great caution in venturing upon an untried field. They have exercised great care to avoid even an appearance of encroachment on the traditional functions of the courts, and I hope that your Lordships will feel that this measure will be of assistance to all concerned with the law of charity by supplying a degree of certainty where the law is in doubt, and providing a firm foundation on which recreational charities can be established. I beg to move.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

3.20 p.m.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nathan, who your Lordships will remember presided with such acceptance over the Committee relating to Charitable Trusts, had hoped to be present this afternoon, but owing to indisposition he is unable to be with us and I have been asked to say a word or two in support of this Bill. The Bill is not an unimportant one. It covers, I imagine, some thousands of trusts of one sort or another. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has mentioned a number of organisations which might come within its purview. They include youth clubs, village halls, community centres, institutes of various kinds, including women's institutes, the Playing Fields Association, presumably; old people's charities, and possibly even the Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A.; and, no doubt, a great number of others. It is obviously very desirable to make the law in regard to their position clear and certain.

As I understand it, the case to which the noble and learned Viscount referred decided that the ambit of some of these trusts, or, at least, of that particular trust, was too wide to bring it within the hitherto accepted definition of charitable. Because of that decision there has been considerable doubt in the minds of a great many organisations as to whether they might consider themselves charities and so entitled to the advantages which that position would give them. Charities, properly so called, have advantages: for one thing they have tax exemption. Latterly, there has been, as I think the noble and learned Viscount will agree, a tendency to enlarge the definition of what is a charity, and efforts are made by promoters of one sort or another to bring all sorts of organisations within the purview of the term. But the Legislature, quite properly, has endeavoured—I will not say to set a limit, but certainly to avoid the enlargement of the position of charities which has existed since 1601; since, indeed, the days of the first Elizabeth. This Bill is intended to remove doubts and to ensure that the advantages hitherto obtained by charities, strictly so called, should continue.

I would only observe in regard to Clause 1, and I think in regard to Clause 2, that all those bodies carrying on recreational and similar activities are not made charities in the strictly legal sense. The term used in the Bill is that they shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable, which is not quite the same thing, but presumably it gives the same advantages as if in fact they had been charitable trusts within the law. There is some special provision, obviously very necessary, in the case of miners' welfare trusts. Mining communities are largely in one village or town. Very often these trusts are limited, by the very nature of their occupation and the geographical position of the pits and their residences and so forth, to a particular class of the community, which was not ordinarily contemplated by the law of charities hitherto. Therefore they are specially mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill.

I agree with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that the whole question of what should be regarded as charitable in the legal sense is rather a delicate matter. It is obviously not desirable to increase the number of charities or varieties of charities entitled to the various exemptions and advantages. On the other hand one does not wish to limit in any way the position of charities properly so called. I would compliment the draftsmen on the way in which they have dealt with the matter in this Bill. The Bill will clear away doubts. It will enable those entitled to tax exemptions to continue to have them. It will also entitle them to such benefits as may be obtained from the Ministry of Education in the way of grants, and will generally clear up doubts. For those reasons we on this side support the Bill.

3.25 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I should like briefly to join the noble Lord who has just sat down and to welcome this Bill on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches. There is one point that is especially important: for the first time we have it officially laid down that recreational charities will now become properly recognised as charities—a matter on which there has hitherto been some doubt. Hitherto, most of the charities have been for people in some bodily or physical need. That kind of work has largely been taken over now by the various local authorities and the central authorities. Therefore I think the time has come when the purpose and point of recreation and the purpose of what may be called social welfare are now recognised. By encouraging these charities we shall be doing a great deal to make a healthy and prosperous community.

3.26 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of the provisions of this Bill? I would call attention to one aspect of what might arise in the operation of the Bill which I do not think has been mentioned. As recently as December of last year the Minister of Housing and Local Government appointed a Committee to consider the operation of the law so far as charities are concerned. That committee obviously has not yet reported. Undoubtedly the position has become difficult, in view of the decision referred to by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. But the local authorities, or the body representing the municipal bodies in this country, are alarmed that the Bill could extend the scope of exemption from rating. That may be right or it may be wrong, and I am not going to pronounce upon the point. But your Lordships will be aware that at the present time, in view of the proposed abolition of percentage grant and the institution of block grant, local authorities are naturally very apprehensive at what might be a further loss of revenue to them. I am not going to say whether that loss of revenue is right or wrong. All I am asking is that the noble and learned Viscount will consider whether it would not be advisable that this aspect of the Bill, admirable Bill as it is, should be discussed with the local authorities' associations to prevent any difficulties or trouble in the future.

3.28 p.m.

LORD LUKE

My Lords, I, too, should like to give this Bill a warm welcome. I think it will be most welcome to all those people and organisations who have been concerned with providing the recreational facilities which are covered in the Bill. The Baddeley case affected a wide section of voluntary societies and their work which had been going on for a great number of years—some thirty, some fifty, and some perhaps even longer than that. That work was of great value to the community and I think it was thoroughly appreciated. It was always considered by them, throughout the years that they were organised, to be charitable work. As the noble and learned Viscount has already pointed out, however, during the last few years since that case was heard there has been considerable doubt and uncertainty about status, and, indeed, doubt and worry over the continuation of that work. Therefore, I should like to express gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for appreciating the dilemma in which these organisations have been placed and for their prompt action in making a readjustment of the status of these societies and associations.

The noble and learned Viscount has already enumerated the principles in the Bill, but I wish to repeat them because I like to hear these provisions for the public benefit—for instance, the words "in the interests of social welfare", "improving conditions of life", and "those having need". Noble Lords will be aware that there is, indeed, still considerable need for recreational facilities of all kinds in this country. Then there are the words "the public at large", and really all the words in Clause 1 (3) are the meat of the whole proposal, especially the following: the provision and maintenance of grounds and buildings to be used for purposes of recreation for leisure-time occupation. That, indeed, is very wide.

I would, however, make one query of the noble and learned Viscount. Although he mentioned the word "clubs", the word "clubs" does not appear in the Bill at all. It seems to me that where there are associations of people formed for the set purpose of providing just these recreational facilities, and which are receiving assistance to do so, then there should be some name—perhaps not "club", but some title—given to them, because these associations are of necessity formed by membership and are not formed by just the public at large. Of course, in these cases the membership is not exclusive—I am referring to such bodies as boys' clubs, girls' clubs and other associations formed for recreational purposes.

The Bill does not, probably quite rightly, make sport a charity, but it seems to me that it covers all recreational activities, both indoor and outdoor—this is the important part—for those who, in the absence of some grant or provision from a body formed for the purpose, would not have them. I take encouragement from the words of the noble and learned Viscount when he said that these are the minimum conditions in the Bill, and that a liberal interpretation would be placed on the trust, and so forth, which will be formed for the purpose of the provisions.

As to the need, I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but, speaking as I am on behalf of the National Playing Fields Association, I would say that it is not without interest that the applications for playing fields and playgrounds up and down the country run into hundreds—indeed, thousands. That shows that there is still great need and that we are, as it were, only catching up with the lack of these particular facilities. I have no doubt that there will be general agreement that nothing should interfere with progress in providing them. It is within your Lordships' knowledge that in the 1960's there will be an even greater need, with the large increase in the numbers of boys and girls who will be leaving school at that time. In conclusion, I should again like to express appreciation to Her Majesty's Government for this Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage through Parliament.

3.33 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than two minutes. Needless to say, I agree that this Bill should have a Second Reading and I intervene only to draw attention to a point which I think will require further attention in Committee. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in his lucid explanation of the provisions of the Bill, gave some reasons for what are, at first sight, the quite extraordinary provisions set out in the second sub-paragraph of Clause 1 (2) (b) of the Bill. This lays down the requirement that, in order to benefit from this Bill—now I quote the actual words— the facilities are to be available to the members or female members of the public at large. I cannot immediately recollect any precedent for those remarkable words. There has been a tendency in our legislation to introduce equality for women, but to introduce superiority for women is to some extent a novelty. Recently, a witty novelist spoke of all animals being equal but some being more equal than others. Now, apparently, we put women in that class.

The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, mentioned the advantages that might be gained by such bodies as the Y.W.C.A. and the Y.M.C.A., but if he will examine the provisions to which I am drawing attention I think he will see that he is wrong and that, if either of these bodies can benefit at all, it can only be the Y.W.C.A. and not the Y.M.C.A. I only draw attention to this remarkable provision. I know that my right honourable and learned friend explained the reasons that no doubt the learned draftsman had in. mind, but I cannot think that Parliament will be willing to pass those words without further examination.

3.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down may well be right, but I hope he will excuse me if I follow my noble friend Lord Luke rather than him. Before I follow either of them, however, may I draw attention to one point which I think is a very satisfactory one connected with the presentation of this Bill? This is a Government Bill, and, as a Government Bill, it is very properly brought before us. When other wrongs have to be righted and suggestions are made that a Government Bill should be brought to right the wrong so often we are told of the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time. This Bill is an excellent example of how, when the object is agreed to by all Parties, as it has been agreed to in this House to-day, there is no trouble whatsoever, except possibly with the Parliamentary draftsmen, in bringing forward a Government Bill of this sort. I hope that this will be remembered as an excellent example of a Government Bill properly brought and quickly passed through all stages, certainly in this House.

Having said that, I should like to join wholeheartedly in what was said by my noble friend Lord Luke, whose remarks I need not repeat, in welcoming the Bill in this House. Like him, I have been discussing the provisions of the Bill with a number of organisations, including the one which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did the honour of mentioning specifically—namely, the National Council of Social Service. That body has asked me to say how much they appreciate the bringing of this Bill and—if I may add this—the draftsmanship of it. There are other bodies which have already been mentioned and which are going to benefit in the same way. There are the youth organisations, including the pre-Service organisation. There are organisations such as the National Council of Physical Recreation. I do not want to give all their names in particular.

As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, the actual claims which each body may or may not have to come under the benefits of the Bill will be decided by the Inland Revenue authorities, case by case. If it turns out, as a result of the Bill, that those bodies which secured tax exemption before the Baddeley judgment are to continue to secure tax exemption, that will meet the case of most of the charitable organisations that I can think of, because most of them did enjoy tax exemption before the Baddeley judgment; so they are back to the position which they were in before, which they thought to be all right but which, to some extent, turned out to be a fool's paradise. That position is now remedied. I was slightly horrified, if I heard the noble Lord, Lord Burden aright, when he suggested that a different principle should be applied to rates. I could not agree with him there, for I should have thought that if Parliament decided that certain classes of organisation should be relieved from taxation, the same principle should apply to rating. It crossed my mind to wonder exactly what was the justification for dealing with one industrial organisation, the Miners' Welfare Fund, separately from other industrial organisations, which I understand is done. However, I do not want to go into that now.

I will come back to the note of general approval which has been struck so often in this debate. I feel that this Bill by its Title has done something rather wider than its actual purport in this House. It has got us away from the ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in regard to charity. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, mentioned that the history of this matter goes back to 1601, when ideas of charity were largely connected with giving soup to poor people. Here we have got away from all that, for the Bill makes it clear that we are thinking not of giving soup or loaves of bread to a class of person who we hope disappeared with the arrival of the Welfare State but of dealing with the promotion of proper leisure-time activities. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack mentioned one class of person—the man who "just sat and thought". But the story goes on, "Sometimes I just sits", and I hope that person, too, was included. With those words may I add my welcome to this Bill.

3.42 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

My Lords, it will be familiar to the minds of all Members of this House that a large number of these trusts and institutions have been and are affiliated to, or in some way under, the ægis, direct or indirect, of the Church, and it is right therefore that one of the Spiritual Lords should rise for a moment to welcome this Bill. Up and down the country there are organisations, not only the large and national efforts but small local ones, which in their own way are doing a representative useful service, in many ways and over many different ages. Some are long established and some are of yesterday, because, thank God, it has always been one of the traditions of the Church of England that it stands for the social welfare of the whole community.

One small point to be remembered in regard to the difficulties caused by the Baddeley judgment was not only that it gave anxiety to bodies carrying on admirable service of this kind in regard to recreational leisure-time activities for social welfare but that, had the position remained unchanged, it might have seriously hampered the growth of new efforts of the same kind, because those responsible might fear for their taxability in regard to the question of charitable work. It is therefore with regard to the future, as well as to the past and to the present, that I should like to add, on behalf of all these bodies, a word of deep relief and satisfaction that their position is to be thus clarified and their work encouraged. We thank Her Majesty's Government for the action they have taken.

3.44 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the main tenor of the few words I shall say in reply is in gratitude to your Lordships for the reception which the House has given to this Bill. I am glad to think that that tone ran through every speech, from that of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, to that of the right reverend Prelate who has just delighted the House. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, had any points on which he wanted specific information, but, if he has, he knows that he has only to ask me and I shall be delighted to give it. I was glad that he drew attention to the two inquiries, one under the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the tax inquiry under my noble and learned friend Lord Radcliffe, both of which pointed out the danger of extensions of charity. What this Bill is doing, however, is seeking to restore and clarify the position which everyone believed to exist before the Baddeley judgment was given.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for what he said. With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I should like to point out to him, as I have just said, that the Bill is not intended to increase the scope of charity; and therefore the position of local authorities will not, in my view, be any different from what it was before the Baddeley judgment was given. If the noble Lord has any specific point in mind, I should be glad if he would get into touch with me, or ask the local authorities' association to do so. In the meantime, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to the speech of the noble Lord, so that he can give me his views. I hope that the noble Lord will convey to the Association that I shall be very anxious to consider any doubts they may have, and if they will write to me the matter will have my fullest attention.

LORD BURDEN

My Lords, I am much obliged.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, spoke to-day, because the whole House is aware of the great work and attention which he has given to the National Playing Fields Association, and many others, in this context. As to the position of clubs, under this Bill they must of course rely on Clause 1 (2) (b) (i), as I believe he had in mind, for the test of charitable status. Youth clubs, for instance, are generally provided for those in need by reason of their youth. Again, if there is any further point of doubt, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would write to me, or come and see me, when I should be glad to discuss it with him.

As is usual on these occasions, my noble friend Lord Conesford is not only a well of English undefiled but also a champion of the male sex, and very worried if it suffers any unfairness in regard to the other sex. I should like to say one or two words on that point. As I said in moving Second Reading, broadly the position is that men's clubs have always been regarded as (to use a phrase of Sir Reginald Hill, whom I so often led in tax cases) "self-regarding and therefore non-charitable," whereas the position of women is rather different. What we desire, as I believe my noble friend appreciates, is to protect the position of women's institutes, and to ensure that there is no doubt about their charitable status, even although they are for one sex.

If my noble friend Lord Conesford had some doubts about the position of men's clubs that have an aspect of public benefit, I should like to say this. It is possible that occasional apparent exceptions to the rule I have mentioned with regard to men's clubs may be found—for example, where a local institute, originally provided for men only, has come to be used by both sexes of the public as a village hall, or where an institute which provides educational facilities confined to men has been treated as an educational charity. This is a difficult point, and I should like to assure my noble friend that the Law Officers and myself did give great attention to it. But we were very anxious to make clear—and I am sure that every one of your Lordships will support us—that women's institutes should not be prejudiced, because we all know the great work that they do. If my noble friend has any ideas on improving the draftsmanship, I have no amour prow on the subject and I shall be pleased to consider anything he may suggest.

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

May I ask one question, and that is for a definition of the precise meaning of the words "at large"? Supposing there is a women's institute, for instance, which is in a certain village, and it is called by the name of that village and its members are confined to women of the village. Does Clause 1 (2) (b) (ii) cover such a case? I should not have thought that the facilities were to be "available to the…female members of the public at large," though it is a matter of interpretation. If that club is confined to a particular village, can paragraph (b) (ii) be counted in favour of that institute?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very anxious not to appear to be giving a legal ruling, because one cannot do that until one has the terms of the trust in front of one. But, of course, on the point that we were just discussing, the difference is between members of the public at large—that is, both sexes—and a body which may be locally limited to women. Broadly (if I may put this to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence), there are a number of cases on the general law of charity which have allowed local application: that is, if a charity is given for an area, that is enough. Examples are particularly obvious in the case of towns where a charity has been given for a town, or a burgh in Scotland, or other limitations of the area. But I think that the noble Lord may take it that women's institutes or community centres are safe under this Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to study what he said and write to him, so that I may give him an answer clearly to his specific point.

My noble friend Lord Bridgeman, apart from his general blessing to the Bill, raised two points. One was that this was an example of a Bill which was generally acceptable, and which had managed to avoid the difficulty of lack of Parliamentary time, of which Ministers speak so often. I hope that my noble friend will count it a virtue in present Ministers that we have taken that step, and will not be too severe on us in the future. The other point he mentioned was the Miners' Welfare Fund—and to the great joy of us all the position of miners to-day is very different from what we remember it to have been, say, thirty-five years ago. But I should like to remind my noble friend—and I am sure he will take the importance of this point—that the money has been subscribed, and often locally subscribed, on the basis that the subscribers were giving to a charity. It seems to me quite wrong that, in that special position, a great deal of money having been subscribed over the years, the fund should not retain the position which everyone believed was the true position, and remain charitable. That was the reason which mainly influenced me; and I think my noble friend will see the force of it.

I am grateful to all noble Lords and to the right reverend Prelate for what they have said, and may I repeat generally what I have said—namely, that, if there is any specific point, I shall be only too glad either to reply to letters or to deal with the matter if noble Lords care to come and see me personally. My Lords, with that I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.