Lords Sitting of 28 January 1958

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

  TRIBUTES TO THE LATE VISCOUNT WAVERLEY
  2.35 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, it is, as your Lordships know, the practice in our House when, unhappily, we lose one of our number, to pay tribute only to those who have held Cabinet Office in this House, but I was sure that your Lordships would feel, in the case of Lord Waverley, that a life of such massive service to the nation could not end without public testimony by his Peers and the expression of our gratitude that the last years of this most extraordinary and remarkable life were spent among us here. To our councils he brought wisdom, the rarest and most coveted of human qualities, wisdom matured by experience in a wide range of public offices which he held during his long career, in all of which he gained personal success and recognition, all of which he dominated by the force of his intellect and of his character. It was, indeed, I believe, his peculiar blend of intellect and character, tested in a hundred ways in action, which brought our discerning people to reply upon him in complete confidence and to lean upon him as upon a rock. He had courage, and it was his in abundance, both physical and mental; judgment, weighted by Scottish caution; but above all, decision clear and forthright. No faltering was ever known on the part of John Anderson, but he pursued his course resolutely towards the goals which he had chosen for himself as right.
  Such men when they come are leaders, and his reward was the loyalty, the trust and the following of the whole of the British people. Those who were his friends knew that beneath his material success and the impressive parade of his public achievements there was the authentic article: the modest God-fearing man. But God endows men with his gifts not
  218
  to hide them under a bushel, but to use them in service; and it was thus that Lord Waverley used them all. My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will be paying his tribute to Lord Waverley a little later from this Bench, and therefore I will do no more than to offer to Lady Waverley and to the family the understanding and sympathy of your Lordships' House, and to repeat our pride that it was here in his last years that he was able to continue his great contributions to the country and to civilisation.
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, of course we all agree entirely with the view of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House: that despite any practice or rule, this is a matter in which we in this House ought most surely and solemnly to pay our tribute to the memory of Lord Waverley. I do not propose to speak at length, especially after the admirable speech which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has just made, and also because my noble friend Lord Attlee, who worked so closely with Lord Waverley for such a long time, will be touching on more intimate things. Lord Waverley, whom I can only think of as John Anderson—he was that to all of us—was to me during the course of the war a great and wise counsellor, especially during the period in which he was Lord President of the Council. When other people of whom one sometimes wanted to take more counsel were not available, he was always a sure refuge in time of trouble to a Minister who wanted sympathy and advice at a particular time.
  The extraordinary thing about the career of Lord Waverley, it seems to me, was the breadth of his intellect, as evinced by his academic successes both in arts and science. He was as interested in engineering and shipbuilding (as I found in my experience), and shipping and commerce, as anyone possibly could be. He was therefore a great success not only as a highly qualified academic person, but also probably, in my view—I do not know what anybody else's view may be—as the most outstanding civil servant we have ever had. He succeeded, in addition, as a statesman and then as a great business man; and his services to the Port of London Authority put a sort of crowning tribute to his great career.

  219
  I am going to leave it there, because my noble friend is to follow me. I would only say how deeply we sympathise with Lady Waverley, whom we have known for so long. I remember her many years ago being most hospitable to us in the Embassy at Paris—it makes me feel that I am getting older when I look back in that way. We are grateful for the memory of her husband, and we offer her our deep sympathy. He will always remain, whilst we live, to be a constant inspiration.
  2.42 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, when a great figure in public life passes away, he leaves a serious disjunction in the ranks of those who guide, advise and inspire us. We are all moved by those emotions of regret which have been so excellently expressed to-day by the two noble Lords who have spoken, and there is little I can add, save the expression of the sincere wish of those who sit with me on these Benches to be fully associated in these tributes.
  Lord Waverley was an Olympian figure who, in his later years, rarely entered the Parliamentary or even the political arena; and all of us in this Chamber I think share the double regret of being deprived of his counsel in the future and of having had all too little of his wise contributions to our debates in the past. In the changing pattern of modern democracy, where our leaders in politics, religion, the arts and sciences, and in professional and commercial life, are today drawn from every grade and every shade of social and intellectual background, Lord Waverley, stands out strikingly as the rather rare example of a man attaining many of the highest and most honourable positions in the State from the springboard of our traditional and invaluable Civil Service—that Service whose integrity is only underlined by the occasional criticism of its slightest lapse from infallibility. He was an ornament to his old Service, and he was an ornament to his country. Our deep regret at his death is coupled with our most sincere sympathy with Lady Waverley, with his family and friends.
  2.44 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the tributes that have been paid already to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, by the Leaders of the various
  220
  Parties have been so comprehensive and so moving that, like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I feel that there is hardly anything that can be added, even by his most fervent admirers. But I should like to say one word, if I may, as a friend and colleague who worked with him in the stirring days of the war. In such circumstances one gets to know people very well. One gets to recognise the merits that have made them what they are, and in the case of Lord Waverley one learnt that he had certain outstanding, pre-eminent qualities which must have impressed themselves on all those who worked with him.
  First, there was his courage, to which the noble Earl, Lord Home, has already paid a splendid tribute. Secondly, I think there was his steadfastness and, lastly there was, I do not know whether to call it a serenity or an imperturbability which I think flowed from those other two great qualities which I have already mentioned. No crisis, however unexpected, no situation, however formidable, had the power to disturb his serenity or shake his courage. We must all recall with gratitude that rock-like quality which was of inestimable value in those times of storm and stress.
  He had another quality which I believe to be of first importance in any senior Minister of the Crown: he could make available to his colleagues at will the lessons of his long and infinitely varied experience. He could, as it were, tuck them away and reproduce them whenever they were needed. The value of that power to a man who was a counsellor, only those who have served in the Cabinet can really appreciate. Sometimes one hears people who have not had that particular experience talking as if all that is necessary for good government is to collect a body of men, each of whom is a technical expert on the subject covered by his own Department, but very likely knowing nothing of affairs outside it. Of course, great technical experts are of first value for particular purposes; but I think anyone who has served in the Cabinet would know that it is very far from the truth to say that that is all that is needed. The Cabinet, as I think all noble Lords here know, is joint government. It is government by a Committee, and each member should be capable of making a significant contribution on any subject that comes

  221
  before the Cabinet if he is to be of real and permanent value to his colleagues.
  Lord Waverley had that particular capability in a very high degree, and he had also, as all who knew him will remember, a dry humour and an innate kindliness. So I do not think it is surprising that he won in ever-increasing measure the affection and respect of his colleagues. These same qualities which he showed in government were, I am sure we should all agree, also visible in this House. Those speeches which he made to us showed the same courage, the same wisdom and the same forthright honesty of purpose. He was with us all too short a time, and we shall miss him sadly now that he has gone. I should like, if I may, to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to Lady Waverley, whose sorrow we all share.
  2.48 p.m.
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to the moving tributes which have been paid to Lord Waverley, a very great man and a very old friend. He was, I think, the outstanding civil servant of his generation. Yet he was much more than that. It might have been thought that, as the supreme civil servant, he would be hidebound and would riot go beyond a limited range. But he had a most capacious mind. He had a very wide experience. The noble Marquess spoke of his courage. He had to face very difficult circumstances in Ireland and in Bengal, but I can never recall any occasion on which he ever showed the slightest anxiety or the slightest sign of wavering. I knew him, of course, particularly during the war, and I do not think it is realised how much he did. There was some talk of sending Lord Waverley as Viceroy to India, and I remember Marshal Smuts coming to me and saving "Don't let them do it. In every War Cabinet you need one person who looks after the machine. Milner did it in our first Government, and John Anderson is doing it in our second." And that is true. He did an immense amount of work, for which he was, of course, supremely qualified because of his very wide knowledge.
  One thing which I think is not always recognised is the great advantage we derived from the fact that he was a trained scientist—it is somewhat rare for leading statesmen to have that kind of back
  222
  ground. There were only two people I can recall who had it in my time, Sir John Anderson and Sir Stafford Cripps. In all the work on atomic energy John Anderson was in charge, and after he had left office in 1945, when I had to go to America to talk with the President on these matters, he willingly accompanied me; and he was, of course, a tower of strength there. The other thing which I think everybody who came into contact with him would at once recognise was his essential fair-mindedness. He had the most absolute sense of justice. One could never imagine his being swerved from what he thought to be right by any personal consideration or any private prejudice.
  Then what a wide range he had! The Port of London Authority; the Covent Garden Opera—every kind of thing he was able to take in his stride. I know that there are some who thought there was something rather formidable about him, who were a little awed with his great knowledge; but he was, in fact, eminently approachable, a warm-hearted and lovable character. I am glad that we pay tribute to him here to-day—a tribute in which I am sure that all who knew him would wish to join. I should like also to associate myself with the sympathy extended to his widow and to other members of his family.
  2.52 p.m.
  EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, we have had some fine tributes to a very fine man, all of which I wholeheartedly support, because I was a close friend of Lord Waverley over a number of years and proud to have enjoyed his close friendship. But there are others outside this House who I feel sure would wish to be associated with all that has been said to-day—I speak of his many great friends and admirers in Canada. I myself have recently returned from Canada, and it was a moving experience to hear so many eminent Canadians express sincere regret and sorrow at Lord Waverley's death. This is a message which I am quite sure your Lordships, as well as Lady Waverley, would like to have. It is a message which I know Lord Waverley's Canadian friends would wish me to give you.
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word, as one who, though I never met Lord Waverley until

  223
  quite recent years, was in close touch with him in a number of the diverse activities and interests of his last decade—the Port of London, the Post-graduate Medical Federation, the control over exports of works of art. At the Port of London, in particular, we were most fortunate in having as our Chairman, through the difficult years of post-war reconstruction, the greatest administrator of his age. He loved the London River and the Port, and he applied there with great enjoyment all the resources of his penetrating intellect and his prodigious memory which had at its command such an astonishing range of experience and of knowledge.
  One of the peculiar problems of the Port of London is that, outside the circle of those whose trade or whose travels bring them to it, it is almost unknown. The people of London are hardly aware that they have on their doorstep the greatest Port in the Commonwealth. Lord Waverley was determined to change that, and he made it his business to attract to the Port a multitude of visitors, from overseas and from this country, too. Many of your Lordships must have enjoyed his princely hospitality in the "St. Katharine", and must remember the profound impact which the unrivalled spectacle of the shipping in the Royal Docks made on Ministers and High Commissioners from every part of the Commonwealth and of the world. It may be said that Lord Waverley put the Port of London on the map.
  To the affairs of the Port, as to everything else he undertook, he devoted his remarkable capacity for work and his no less remarkable powers of balanced judgment. I have related elsewhere, but it will bear repeating, how one who had served many Chancellors of the Exchequer once told me that he had found each had a different reaction when he was taking a matter for decision. One would be thinking of the effect on his Party politically; another of the effect on the public view of him. "But," he said, "John Anderson was different from all the rest: he was the only one who was always searching for the right answer." That seems to me admirably to sum up the quality of the man. Many may have found his presence a little frightening—it was not for nothing that he was known
  224
  affectionately among the friends of his earlier years as "Jehovah." But those who were privileged to get behind the formidable presence found a kindliness, a warm human sympathy with a pawky Scottish humour that were very endearing. We have lost not only a great man but a greatly valued friend.
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, it is almost impossible to add anything new to what has already been so feelingly and so felicitously said. I venture to add a few words only, because, in my political experiences, Lord Waverley was one of the men for whom I felt the most profound admiration; and I have often thought that a young man entering into politics would do well to take as his guide the principles which animated a man who touched nothing of which he did not make a success. Lord Waverley touched many things, and it might be said of him that he took all knowledge to be his province. He had all the great qualities. He had courage, both moral and physical, for no man ever faced an assassin more coolly or more resolutely than he did. To courage he added coolness and imperturbability, integrity and fidelity to his trust; and there was a rock-like quality about him which bred implicit reliance on his judgment. I think that no man could ever have been more trusted than he was. Our public life has sustained a great loss—we are not so rich in men of Lord Waverley's calibre. John Stuart Mill once spoke of the absence of giants in the land, so that, he said, we had to rely on the puny efforts of a multitude of dwarfs. One of our few giants has left the scene.
  Sympathy has been expressed to-day with Lady Waverley. No one could have been more fitted than she was to be the companion of such a man—well able to understand and enter into the anxieties and vicissitudes of his public life, and also to enter with him into those artistic pleasures, music, the ballet and the opera, which formed the relaxation of his busy life. Sorrow has struck at her more than once in her life, but in this latest sorrow she has the consolation of knowing that Lord Waverley's name will always be held in honour by those who knew his services to our country and shared in them.
  3.2 p.m.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I hope you will pardon my adding from my heart a few words, because my association with Lord Waverley goes back earlier, I think, than that of anyone else in this House. I knew him intimately as a civil servant from comparatively early in the First World War, when he was associated with the Ministry of Shipping. I knew him later as a civil servant, working very closely with him. We were both heads of departments and we both worked very closely with Sir Warren Fisher, who was then the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Afterwards, I became a colleague with him in Mr. Neville Chamberlain's first War Cabinet, and later I was a colleague in Mr. Churchill's (as he then was) Government also.
  In the Second World War I had a close association with him in the matter of science. I had been given work as a Cabinet Minister for the promotion of science. When Lord Waverley became Lord President of the Council, of course he had an official connection with science which was very close. I was chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee. My Committee reported to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet referred the report to him for execution—for the first phase of putting the atomic bomb on the war map so far as this country was concerned. I was a member of his Committee on that subject, and other subjects.
  Moreover, I have a close and longstanding friendship with Lady Waverley. I should like to thank all those who have spoken, from different aspects of his life, for the wonderfully complete expression they have given to the great qualities of this great man. I was at his wedding, and I hope to be at the solemn ceremony in Westminster Abbey on Thursday.
  3.6 p.m.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the House has spoken, as it always does on these occasions, with authority and understanding and in most appropriate language. But I think we can seldom have listened to a more remarkable range of tributes than that which has been uttered on the passing from us of this most distinguished man. I first met Lord Waverley, I think, in 1937, when he had just come back from Bengal. He was not then introduced to me by
  226
  name, and therefore I can truthfully say that I do not think I have ever met a man who so completely impressed at first sight. But, unlike many who possess this quality, for him respect and admiration were only enhanced on closer acquaintance.
  The ancients recognised—and I think we should do better to acknowledge it—that the first qualities of a man are integrity and courage. Tribute has been paid to Lord Waverley's courage which, as has been well said, was both moral and physical. His physical courage was of the high variety which knows how to remain unmoved by the gun and dynamite of the assassin, the perpetual threat of murder in the lonely watches of the night and the ordinary activities of daily life, and a daily life lived in public as the symbol and vehicle of authority. His moral courage was of the kind that would never compromise with sentimentality or muddled thinking, but would never, in revenge, march forward and wreak vengeance on compassion or genuine misunderstanding. Lord Waverley was afraid neither of death nor unpopularity, but, as is not seldom the case with such men, the reward of his steadfastness was a serene old age and the universal respect and affection of his follow-countrymen.
  My Lords, of all the men in our public life Lord Waverley was most securely possessed of the Roman virtue of gravitas, a natural moral power exuding from him in the shape of visible dignity and authority. He could calm the excited by his presence. He could silence the hysterical with the unspoken scorn of inner serenity. When he opened his mouth to speak others would await his utterance in the sure knowledge that when it came it would be weighty, objective, dispassionate, and, more often than not, conclusive.
  Although the more one knew him the more one realised that he possessed strong moral and intellectual convictions, which I should imagine were as unshakable as a man may have, nevertheless he was, of all the public figures I have seen, one of the least prejudiced, one of the most willing to listen, the most certain to answer rationally, the least likely to interrupt prematurely. Such men are frequently thought deficient in humour or feeling, but Lord Waverley was deficient in neither. The secret of his calmness was

  227
  not insensitivity but self-control; and when he seemed to some, as I became aware during deputations during the war, lacking in sympathy, it became increasingly obvious that this was due, not to want of feeling but to intellectual honesty; to that rare combination in double harness of generosity and compassion yoked to prudence and immense self-discipline of intellect, which go to mark the distinction between the genuine humanity of the philanthropist and the emotional shallowness of the sentimentalist.
  He had one of the highest reputations in the land, yet of all the men of front rank he was probably the easiest to underestimate. When he spoke with authority he was too reticent to refer to his experience. When he spoke of scientific matters, a graduate of Leipzig was your adviser. When he spoke of the social services, he had learned his lessons as one of the administrative architects of the reforms of 1911. The economic opinions were those of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; the imperial policies those of the distinguished proconsul; the views on terrorism, those of the Irish ex-Secretary and the Bengal Governor; and, on penal reform, of the man who had been political and administrative head of the Home Office. Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. On all he touched he left the mark of his own distinction of mind and character.
  He was a personal friend of mine only in his latter years. He was a delightful friend, warm and affectionate, genuine and amusing. He spoke his mind plainly, in public and in private. For all his caution he was capable of severe criticism. He was the best of political allies in office or opposition, the wisest of counsellors, the finest of friends—a giant among men. He has gone, at last, from among us. His place below the gangway is empty. We shall hear his voice no more. But his fame is secure. Of him may we not say, as Pericles said once of the Athenian dead:
  "When great men die, the whole earth is their memorial. In their own country stone monuments describe their praises. But elsewhere, everywhere their fame lives on in the hearts of men, as in a cenotaph not made with hands."
  May he rest in peace and light perpetual shine upon him!

ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF NAZI PERSECUTION
3.15 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: 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 whether they consider that the answer of the German Federal Republic dated 21st February, 1957, to the Eight-Power Note of 21st June, 1956, protesting against imperfections in the German Federal Indemnification Law of 1956 regarding compensation for victims of Nazi persecution, gives reason to expect that the Federal Government will provide for the refugee survivors of concentration camps compensation not less than that which, in the Bonn Convention of 1952, and the Paris Agreement of 1954, it pledged itself to provide and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will take further action, and, if necessary, bring the matter up for arbitration, as provided for in the Bonn Convention.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, although the Federal Government's reply of February 21, 1957 did not give reason to expect that the Federal Government would provide adequately for all the refugee survivors of concentration camps, or to certain other groups of victims of Nazi persecution, it did, however, suggest that they might consider the establishment of a charitable fund from which victims

229
of persecution, or the dependants of victims, who were in hardship, might draw. Her Majesty's Government consulted other Governments interested in these questions. The Federal Government have since been informed on behalf of the Governments of France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway, that these Governments were prepared, without prejudice to the juridical position, to discuss the Federal Government's proposal further, provided that improvements to its content and form could be made. Her Majesty's Government hope that such further discussions will take place before long.
The arbitration procedure provided for in the Bonn Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany was intended for use where disputes had not proved capable of resolution by negotiation. It is clearly premature to discuss recourse to that procedure, because further negotiation is intended.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his most welcome and informative reply, I should like to ask him whether he would agree with me that this is a human problem and realises (as I am sure he does) that the legal aspect should tae second place to the ethical aspect of the problem.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my statement. Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with the sentiments which he has expressed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether, in fact, the wording of the suggestion by the Federal Government was not:
"To set up a fund to assist such victims of National Socialist persecution who live in these eight European countries "—
that is, the eight Powers who wrote the original Note to the Federal Government—and that this wording specifically omits the victims of persecution who live in Germany, including the displaced persons? And if that is the case, will Her Majesty's Government press at all subsequent discussions on this subject with the Federal Government that the displaced persons and other victims in
230
Germany should be included in the advantages of the fund?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I do not think that what the noble Lord says is correct. As I remember, the reply of the Federal Government covered all the victims concerned. I will, however, read through the reply again.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I have a short question within the general Question of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would think it proper or useful to draw the attention of the German Government to the way in which pledges and undertakings they themselves have given have been, to a large extent, frustrated by the officials to whom they have been entrusted. Other noble Lords besides myself can, if required, give a list of instances of this.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think that the scope of that question is a little outside the scope of the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but if any noble Lord cares to give me examples we will certainly study them.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury

E. Attlee,

E. Dundee,

E. Fortescue,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. Selkirk,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Crookshank,

L. Amulree,

L. Hylton,

L. Layton,

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Rea,

L. Wilmot or Selmeston.

—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Bridges be added to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LIFE PEERAGES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Home.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on this Motion that the Report be now received may I explain that we have no Opposition Amendment on the Paper and we do not wish to make any statement on Report, but we are holding ourselves in reserve to say anything that we need to say when we come to the Third Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]
Clause 1:
General provision as to recreational and similar trusts, etc.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be and be deemed always to have been charitable to provide, or assist in
232
the provision of, facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation, if the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must be for the public benefit,
(2) The requirement of the foregoing subsection that the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare shall not be treated as satisfied unless—

(a) the facilities are provided with the object of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended; and

(b) either—

(i) those persons have need of such facilities as aforesaid by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances; or

(ii) the facilities are to be available to the members or female members of the public at large.

LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subparagraph (ii) of subsection (2) (b), after "or" to insert "the male members or the". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remedy the defect, as it seemed to me, of the clause to which I drew attention in the debate on the Second Reading. Subsection (2) of the first clause lays down certain minimum requirements. Unless these requirements are satisfied the recreational trust or institution will not be considered charitable. If they are satisfied it will still be for the court to determine, in a disputed case, whether the particular trust or institution is in fact charitable.
The Committee will remember that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in explaining the Bill in the debate on Second Reading, dealt with the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Baddeley, the case mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill. He said that, while it was not intended in any way to reverse or alter that decision by legislation, it was desired to relieve from anxiety certain institutions and charities which thought, as a result of that case, that their own charitable status might be in doubt. My noble and learned friend explained that it would have been possible to deal with this problem by two alternative methods. It would have been possible to list the institutions which we wished to treat as undoubtedly charitable and expressly to validate their trusts. That alternative was deliberately rejected

233
by Her Majesty's Government, who preferred to lay down a principle which the courts could apply and develop.
The point was so admirably and clearly put by my noble and learned friend that perhaps I may read three sentences from his speech [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 207 (No. 23), col. 13]:
"It has therefore been necessary—and 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 to 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 tines."
Let me say at once that, in my opinion, and also, I feel certain, in the opinion of the Committee, the Government were undoubtedly right in preferring not to catalogue the institutions and then to validate their trusts, but to declare a principle. But surely they are right in this only on one condition: that the principle to be laid down is just and right and commends itself to the conscience and good sense of the community.
Does the principle, as it at present stands, satisfy those conditions? What does this new principle say? It says that a trust or an institution can be charitable although all its benefits are restricted to women, but that an otherwise identical trust, whose benefits are restricted to men, is incapable of being a charity. That is a very odd provision to lay down as a principle to be observed in the future. There is, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading, all the difference in the world between removing an existing disability in law and creating a privilege. We are quite accustomed to removing disabilities from women in our legislation, but it is quite another matter to create a privilege.
I have carefully read the speeches of the learned Law Lords in the case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Baddeley, from which, as I have said, this legislation arises. I should like to remind the Committee that in that case the trusts were held not to be charitable, apart altogether from the fact that the beneficiaries constituted too restricted a class. It is, I think, by no means clear
234
that, if the trusts of the women's institutes fall within the words of subsection (1) of this clause, the courts would be likely to hold that the women's institutes were not charitable merely because the benefits were confined to women. Nevertheless, I shall not trouble the Committee with a consideration of that matter, for this reason. I am quite content, as I am sure the Committee will be content, to accept from the Lord Chancellor that the point may be sufficiently doubtful to make it desirable to give women's institutes the benefit of the sub-paragraph we are now considering. My Amendment, therefore, does not seek in any way to modify the protection given to women's institutes and similar bodies by the Bill as introduced; it seeks merely to give, on the same conditions, the same protection to men.
What is it that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor fears would result from the adoption of my Amendment? I think and hope that I represent him correctly if I describe his fears as follows. He fears that there might be a reversal, or a possible reversal, of a view of the law long held, that recreational institutions or clubs confined to men of full age are to be treated as non-charitable. I appreciate the anxiety of Her Majesty's Government not to disturb established law, but I am a little troubled by a doubt whether my noble friend's possible fears in this matter are well founded. So far as any decided cases are concerned, should similar facts recur in future, none of them would be decided differently, if my Amendment were accepted, unless the ratio decidendi under which the institutions were held to be non-charitable was that women were excluded from those able to benefit. I do not think that that applies to many cases. If I may mention one authority quoted in the Baddeley case, which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will very well remember, because he was counsel in the case—Williams Trustees v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, reported in 1947: Appeal Cases, where the beneficiaries were Welsh people in London—that would still be decided in exactly the same way, should similar facts recur, even if my Amendment were adopted. For those reasons I think that there is merit in an Amendment which accepts fully the words that

235
give protection to the women's institutes but avoids giving women's institutes a special privilege.
In his speech on Second Reading the Lord Chancellor referred to the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income, which sat under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe. There are several paragraphs in the Final Report of that Commission which deal with charities—your Lordships will find them in paragraphs 168 to 175. That influential body, sitting under that distinguished lawyer, strongly recommended a new definition of "charity." I can imagine many excellent reasons for not acting, or not immediately acting, on that recommendation; but there is surely something strange in neglecting to follow the advice of such a body but, nevertheless, introducing legislation to vary the laws dealing with charitable trusts by introducing a wholly new principle, never, I think, suggested either by the courts in any judgment of a learned Law Lord or by any body which has ever considered the problem of charities and charitable trusts, a principle, moreover, which does not appear to be based on considerations of law or morals or common sense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, after ("or") insert ("the male members or the").—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD FARINGDON: In two words, as a layman, I should like to express my feeling about the rectitude of this Amendment, so eloquently and intelligibly delineated by the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, for the benefit of your Lordships. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it. It seems to me wholly irrational to make this special case for women. I understand the reason, which has been so ably and clearly explained by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but it seems to me that a recreation, in a case where the trust would otherwise be charitable, might appeal to one sex only. In spite of the equality of women, recreations are still to a considerable extent limited by the sex of those who take part, and I think that the noble Lord's Amendment is entirely logical. I believe that it is desirable and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): In spite of the eloquent appeal, urged with great modesty as to his legal position by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and the most comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lord Conesford, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I indicate the reasons. There are two main reasons which I venture to advance in answer to my noble friend. The first is that the principle on which the Bill is based is a sensible and reasonable one. The second, I think, is even more compelling. If my noble friend will look at the Bill he will see that the Long Title says:
"An Act to declare charitable under the law of England and Wales the provision in the interests of social welfare of facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation,…"
This is a Bill which seeks to declare as charitable in this connection the position that obtained before the judgment in the Baddeley case, and not, as I pointed out on Second Reading and as my noble friend quotes to-day, to change and enlarge the law of charity.
The formula on which the Bill is based has certain clear characteristics. There are two constituents of what it makes charitable: first, provision of facilities for recreation or leisure-time occupation, and secondly, that these facilities must be provided in the interests of social welfare. As my noble friend said, the Bill does not give a definition of social welfare, but states the minimum, the sine qua non, which must exist if social welfare can be implied. Therefore it is expressed in negative form—namely, that social welfare under the Bill does not exist unless it conforms with two requirements or limitations. The first is as to the object or aim or intention of the benefits—that is, the object of improving the conditions of life of the classes of people affected. The second limitation is as to the classes of people. There are seven classes. Five of these are of people in need—first, by reason of youth; secondly, by reason of age; thirdly, by reason of infirmity or disablement; fourthly, by reason of poverty, and fifthly, by reason of special social and economic circumstances. I gave to your Lordships, as it happened to me, one near to my own heart, the example of merchant seamen, who come within special circumstances when they

237
come to a different port. Then there are the two general classes: first, the public at large, and secondly, the one to which my noble friend takes exception standing alone, the female members of the public.
I suggest to your Lordships that the principle that excludes the providing of recreation or leisure-time occupation for improving the conditions of life of male members of the public is, first of all, common sense, because one must deal in these matters with the facts as generally known. I ventured to use a phrase in reply to your Lordships on Second Reading which I think was first put forward by Sir Reginald Hill and appeared in many of these cases: that is, the question of self-regarding clubs. It is not a fault in a principle that it does not include the ordinary men's clubs where men go for leisure-time occupation, which they may think, in the words of the Bill, improve the conditions of life of themselves, but in which the time is often spent in a very happy condition around a convivial part of the club. It has never been held—and I do not think it is common sense—that that should be made a charitable purpose.
That is the difference that has always been drawn, and if my noble friend will look at the innumerable authorities, which he will find collected in the case of Williams, to which he has already referred, he will see that that distinction is one that has always been made in the law of charity, as I have understood it. That is the general point, and that is the point at which we stuck. We stood by that and have not made any extensions. But my noble friend will appreciate that there is still the further point—and this is vital to the Bill which I have put before your Lordships—that before the Baddeley case that was the law, and the limitations of charity before that case excluded the men's clubs and the bodies on the borderline that I have mentioned.
I should like to elaborate that a little for a moment. The formula in the Bill has been devised with the object of confirming the charitable status of those bodies that were regarded as charitable before the Baddeley decision but which are now doubftul of their position as a result of dicta uttered in that case. Among the bodies about which doubt has been expressed are women's institutes, which are, as their name indicates, confined to women. My noble friend agrees, and I
238
am sure he would be the last person in your Lordship's House to desire any anxiety or doubt about the continuance of women's institutes. But may I take it from the other aspect? I know of no recreational clubs—and I have had the most elaborate inquiries made—confined to men, which were regarded as charitable before the Baddeley case. The National Council of Social Service have agreed that no such clubs have been treated as charitable in the past, and they cannot think of any that ought to be made charitable now.
It is necessary to make the formula in the Bill cover women's institutes, because, although they are probably mainly educational, their activities undoubtedly have a recreational complexion as a result of which their status is thought by some—and I give my noble friend the assurance that this view has been expressed in responsible quarters—to have been put in doubt by the Baddeley decision. If the formula were enlarged so as to include recreational clubs for men, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, there would be a grave danger of changing the law and opening the doors of charity to what I have termed self-regarding clubs for men, which are now excluded by a line of judicial decisions, and any such enlargement of the law of charity would be contrary to the Government's intention, which, as I have said, is simply to restore the position as it was thought to be before the Baddeley case.
That is the argument in law, and your Lordships may be consoled—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, will be—by the fact that these inquiries, which I assure your Lordships have been made in the most exhaustive way, have not found any body which would be within the previous law of charities that will be excluded. But to raise the question of doubt as to self-regarding clubs would, I think, be both a retrograde step and also contrary to the intention of this Bill, which is to restore the position to that which existed before the Baddeley case. Therefore, I hope, with that explanation, that my noble friend will not press the Amendment. I felt, in answer and in courtesy to the elaborate argument he produced, that I should try to explain the position as it appears to the Government; and that I have done.
LORD SALTOUN: One likes to understand what one is doing. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government a question

239
about this clause. Your Lordships will remember that before the last war the Government were anxious to stimulate athletics in the country and there was a "Keep Fit" movement. I remember well in one place that some charitable person gave a field and all the farm-servants of the district co-operated and made it into a recreational place for all the farm-servants of the district. I want to put this case. Suppose some charitable person had endowed that institution and provided also a ground for basketball for the girls, would the club thus formed be a charitable institution so far as the basketball ground for the girls was concerned, but not so far as regards the football ground for the men, unless the men had one or two girls regularly playing with them? That seems to be the meaning of these two lines in the Bill, and I should like to be enlightened on them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be convenient if I deal with that point now. First of all, I would remind my noble friend Lord Saltoun, for his peace of mind, of what I said on Second Reading: that in our native land the law of charity is in a different position and does not require the assistance of this Bill. This does not mean that I am not going to answer his question, but I know that he and I always feel for what might have to be the effect over the Border. I think his point is covered at the top of page 2 of the Bill, where the classes are defined. Paragraph (b) reads:
"either—
(i) those persons have need of such facilities as aforesaid by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances ".
Although I am not pledging what the result of an appeal to the House of Lords (which Heaven forfend, on the point my noble friend has mentioned!) would be, it seems to me that the case he has put would almost certainly come within "youth … poverty or social and economic circumstances", and it would be entirely irrelevant whether the men or the maidens played together or separately, or whether the maidens were debarred the privileges of the club. I think that deals with the point.
Quite seriously, I can tell the House that I have spent months in trying to get this matter right and to provide the balance between the deserving and needy
240
causes and the deserving and needy people, and not extending the basis of charity to something which may be desirable and pleasant but is not something for which people should get off income tax if they pay money towards it. That is the blunt point here. I think one can draw the line between bodies for those in need, bodies for those that are for the benefit of the community generally, bodies such as women's institutes, and other bodies which, as I say, though entirely pleasant and suitable for people to go to, are not objects for which people ought to get relief from income tax if they subscribe.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD FARINGDON: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor two questions? He held that, in the event of his accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, the men's clubs of the type of which he speaks would no longer be held to be ineligible as charities on account of their self-regarding nature. If that is so, would it not also be true that self-regarding clubs for women will, under this Bill, become eligible as charities?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to the noble Lord's first point, I think it certainly would reopen the question. With regard to the noble Lord's second point, there is, of course, the double limitation that I have mentioned. If one takes women's institutes (the example I have particularly in mind), I think there would be no doubt that both the requirements to social welfare are provided—namely, that the object is to improve the conditions of life, and that they come within paragraph (b). I think the real point is the first one—that the insertion of these proposed words would reopen a question which at the present day, I am happy to say, is closed.
LORD CHORLEY: I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, and it would be ridiculous if a large number of ordinary men's clubs, which are called self-regarding clubs and which are run for social pleasure, were relieved of income tax through being brought within the ambit of this measure. On the other hand, I think the Lord Chancellor has not

241
answered my noble friend Lord Faring-don satisfactorily in regard to the position of women's clubs of exactly the same kind. It seems to me that, with the object of protecting the women's institutes—which everyone would wish to protect—he is casting the net a great deal wider; and unless we are very careful we shall find a substantial number of women's clubs, if not already in existence, coming into existence, with the object of taking advantage of the provision. If there are only women's institutes to protect, would it not be better to face up to the matter rather crudely and include them in the Bill, instead of opening what might turn out to be a wide avenue along which a large number of carriages may be driven daring the next years?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to talk so much, but these are interesting points which have been raised, and I want to try to satisfy noble Lords. I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is that one tries to find a principle, and he knows the difficulty of getting a principle which covers the point exactly and which is not subject to attack from each side of the line. But, of course, the principle must be viewed in the light of existing circumstances. That, as the noble Lord knows very well, is one of the principles of construction of the Statute—namely, the state of the law at the time the Act is passed.
As I said in my earlier remarks, one has it perfectly clear, on the one side, that we have not been able to discover any men's associations which come within the same description as women's institutes. We have the position—and I think the noble Lord sympathised with it—that the clubs are mostly self-regarding. On the other side, we have the position that, broadly, I think it is fair to say, women have not had the same facilities for ebb-making as men; and one had, before the Baddeley decision, the fact that a great deal of money had been subscribed and left for women's institutes on the basis that they were charitable.
I say that with the greatest good temper, because after one has spent many months trying to find a formula it is always a pleasure to see if someone else can deal with the problem better. I think the formula which we have found—
242
namely, that as the minimum for social welfare the object must be that
"of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended,"
coupled with
"the provision of facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation,"—
does provide a safeguard in regard to the female aspect of this matter because, as I said earlier, we are dealing with a background of fact which is different from that in the case of men.
I have tried to answer all the questions which have been put to me, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Conesford will not press an Amendment whose effect would be to raise a danger of altering the law from the law as it existed before the Baddeley case.
LORD CHORLEY: I regret that I am not entirely convinced by the argument of the noble and learned Viscount. I am quite sure that there are women's clubs in London at the present time in which there is a good deal of educational work yet which are primarily social clubs, and which I think might well come within this formula.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: How would they come within this formula if they are primarily social clubs?
LORD CHORLEY: They do educational work. They are self-regarding in the sense that they have the pleasures of an ordinary social club, but they also provide lectures and undertake educational activities. It would not be difficult for them to alter their constitution in order to get the advantage of this Bill. If the whole object of this clause—and I am entirely on the side of the noble and learned Viscount in his desire to help the women's institutes—is to help the women's institutes, why not put them in the Bill? I quite appreciate that it is aggravating for the noble and learned Viscount, after all the trouble he has taken, to have these criticisms fired at him in this way. But I do suggest that, if we are to make the position of the women's institutes safe, the best way of doing it is to put them straight in the Bill and not let in a large number of women's clubs which have an educational side to their work and which by means of this Bill may be able to avoid liability to income tax.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord looks at the Bill, he will see that I have put them in subsection (3) as an example.
3.59 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: I hesitate to intervene in this legal argument, not being possessed of legal knowledge, but I feel that it would be for the advantage of those Members of your Lordships' House who have no legal knowledge if the Lord Chancellor could explain the meaning of what appears to be an extraordinary term, "self-regarding" clubs. There has been a constant reference to them, but nobody has explained what the term means.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: "Self-regarding" is shorthand for a club which exists mainly or substantially for the enjoyment of its members, and not for the propagation of some more rarefied motive. I think that is the best I can do. If my noble friend Lord Winterton will come with me to the club of which we are both members I will illustrate it more graphically.
LORD CONESFORD: I want first of all to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his clear and full explanation. He puts me in some difficulty, for this reason: that, quite frankly, he has not convinced me on the merits of my Amendment. At the same time, I would assure him that it is not my desire radically to change the law as hitherto decided in regard, to put it briefly, to men's clubs. Since, with the full weight of his authority, he says that my Amendment would run the serious risk of changing that whole law, I do not wish to press the Amendment on this occasion, But I hope the publicity which may have been given by the raising of this point may at a later stage of the Bill induce one of the learned Law Lords to give us the benefit of his views on what seems to me a most important change—the statement in this sub-paragraph of a principle which is quite novel in the laws of charity and which does not seem to me to be reasonable.
I agree with one point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley. It
244
is most important to bear in mind that we are dealing not only with existing institutions but with the possible effect these words may have on future institutions. There is already a mention in this Bill of some trusts that are expressly validated, namely, the miners' welfare trusts. I should have greatly preferred, if women's institutes are the only women's charities that it is intended to protect by these words, to mention them expressly in the way we mention the miners' welfare trusts, and leave out the words "or female members" in the clause we are considering. That would completely protect the women's institutes without introducing a wholly novel principle for the future. If we are going to introduce this novel principle, I think it requires a good deal of consideration before we decide to create a privilege which, as far as I know, has never been suggested in any decided case.
I would remind the House, as also my noble and learned friend reminded it on the last occasion, that the first Statute we have to consider on this subject is a statute of the year 1601. There has been an immense volume of decided cases, and to suggest a principle which, as far as I know, has not been suggested in any of them is to take a step which I think is most questionable. On the other hand, I approve of the general intention of the Bill. I must yield to the authority of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor when he holds that my Amendment as it stands would run the risk of altering the established law in a way in which I do not wish to alter it. In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would only add that I hope some learned Members of this House may give us the benefit of their views at a later stage. I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at six minutes past four o'clock.