Lords Sitting of 22 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.
The Lord Kenilworth—Took the Oath.

BRITISH PRE-WAR CLAIMS AGAINST JAPAN
2.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 will state the reasons given by the Japanese Government for the inordinate delay in settling the British pre-war claims against Japan which were filed in 1946, and whether they have made it clear to that Government that they expect those claims to be settled at a very early date.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for kindly postponing this Question from March 10 when I was absent. I am very much obliged. A number of factors have contributed to the delay since discussions with the Japanese Government first started, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by my enumerating them all now. Progress has been made over the last nine months, but, as I explained to the noble Viscount on December 16 of last year, we ran into difficulties over defining terms of discharge in the Agreement. A revised formula is now under active discussion. The answer to the second part of the noble Viscount's question is, Yes. We have made clear that we are disappointed at the slow rate of progress.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. May I express the hope that very soon he will be able to announce a satisfactory settlement of these long outstanding claims?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope so, too.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether we may take it from his Answer that there are no points of substance outstanding; that it is merely a matter of draftsmanship?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not want to overstate the case. It is a question of legal technicalities of the terms of discharge.

MERCHANDISE MARKS
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to introduce legislation to clarify the law as to merchandise marks in view of the fact that it is now nine years since Lord Goddard said in the case of Slatcher v. Mence Smith:
"Those who are responsible might well consider whether new legislation should not be introduced to set out the law on this matter in clear language which lay justices and others concerned with its administration could understand."]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans at present for introducing legislation on this subject; but the working of the existing merchandise marks legislation is at present being reviewed by a Committee on Consumer Protection, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. T. Molony, Q.C.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, I would ask: is he not aware that the Merchandise Marks Acts are part of the criminal law, and it is extremely unsatisfactory that prosecutors and accused alike should not know what the law is?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, a great number of criticisms of these Acts have come to the notice of the Board of Trade, and these, including Lord Goddard's criticism mentioned in the Question, have been referred to by the Board of Trade in their evidence to the Committee on Consumer Protection.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell me in the near future that some legislation is contemplated.

ST. MARTIN'S PLACE DEVELOPMENT
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the development shortly due to be carried out at St. Martin's Place, W.C.2, near Trafalgar Square, will deprive central London of garage space for about 70 cars in an area where more off-street parking is vitally needed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, permission to redevelop the site at St. Martin's Place, William IV Street and St. Martin's Mews was given by the London County Council as local planning authority, after consultation with the Westminster City Council, in March, 1959. No doubt they took into account that the premises to be redeveloped included a public garage for 50 cars. I understand that the new building will include a basement garage for 22 cars, meeting the standard requirements of the planning authority for new development.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, when the problem of the parking of cars is going up by leaps and bounds, does it really make sense to cut down the accommodation from 50 to 22? Cannot the whole question of parking be referred to some special authority who will go into the matter from the bottom up?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is fully alive to all the problems of parking. But this is a matter of planning consent to redevelopment, and I have to say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no cause to intervene.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's Answer, am I not right in thinking that the garage
70
space in the new building will not be open to the public?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think that is so. I have just noticed that in the Question it is said that we lose space for about 70 cars. Perhaps that is not quite right. It looks to me as if we shall lose garage space for 28 cars, the difference between 50 and 22.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is it not true that unless something is done about car parking Horse Guards Parade will have to be kept for parking in perpetuity?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government satisfied themselves that the design of the proposed building will be worthy of this magnificent site?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for Her Majesty's Government to satisfy themselves about the design of each development, because, as the noble Lord will know, the local authority is the planning authority for development purposes.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in the new Road Traffic Bill which is shortly being introduced, Her Majesty's Government will be taking powers to ensure that local planning authorities will have adequate garage accommodation in any new building?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think we shall have to wait until that Bill is before us to see what it provides, but I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will take note of what has been said to-day.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that St. Martin's-in-the-Fields is a sufficiently important building for the Government to concern themselves with what should surround it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government considers whether he should call in a planning consent, and at the present moment he sees no reason why he should call in this particular case.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to labour the point, but I was not clear on the noble Earl's Answer in regard to the 22 cars. Will that be public garage space or not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. I understand that they will not be public garages.
LORD GIFFORD: Then there is a loss of parking space for 50 cars.

AUGUST BANK HOLIDAY
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now carry out an inquiry into public opinion on the question of moving Bank Holiday from the first to the last Monday in August, in view of the many public expressions in favour of this, since the debate in your Lordships' House on 18th November 1959, during which an undertaking to consider such an inquiry was given.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently appointed an official Committee to consider what action the Government can take to encourage the extension of the summer holiday season in Great Britain. The question of moving the August Bank Holiday will naturally be one of the problems which this Committee will consider.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I am glad that this Committee has been appointed. Might I ask whether every endeavour will be made to publish the Report of this Committee as soon as possible, because there was one inquiry some years ago when the answer was delayed for a year?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I certainly hope that it will not be unduly delayed.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in deciding this matter will Her Majesty's Government take into consultation the Yorkshire and Lancashire County Cricket Clubs respectively?

HORTICULTURE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill this day through its remaining stages.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
2.46 p.m.
Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PAWNBROKERS BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Let me get to the point at once. Unless we do something to help "dear old uncle" he will rapidly go out of business altogether. How would your Lordships like to be remunerated on the same basis as you were remunerated in 1872? Let me give your Lordships an example of what is happening in the business of pawnbroking. Take the case of a pawnbroker using a capital of £5,000. The average gross receipts are probably about 25 per cent. in a year—that is to say, cross receipts of £1,250 per annum. He will have to employ a manager, an assistant and a junior assistant. In addition to the wages of those persons, the pawnbroker has to pay out of his £1,250 the rent, rates, insurance, lighting, heating, printing and all the rest of the shop and overhead expenses. If your Lordships think that that leaves him with any profit, then you are more optimistic than I am.

73
The present Bill seeks to remedy the situation in two ways: in the first place, what may be described as the jurisdiction of the pawnbroker is increased; and secondly, his profits and charges are increased. The actual machinery is by amending the Pawnbrokers Acts of 1872 and 1922. At the present time—this is not unimportant—there are four categories of loan: first, those not exceeding 10s.; secondly, those which exceed 10s. but do not exceed £2; thirdly, those exceeding £2 but not £10, and lastly those which are outside the Act—namely, loans exceeding £10. Clause 1 of the Bill reduces the categories of loan to three—namely, first, those not exceeding £5; secondly, those exceeding £5 but not exceeding £50; and thirdly, those exceeding £50, which do not come within the Bill.
Paragraph (a) of Clause 1 brings in Section 6 of the 1872 Act which relates to shops which do pawnbroking but do not call themselves pawnbrokers. Paragraph (b) of Clause 1 relates to Section 24 of the 1872 Act, which applies to special contracts. The area of special contracts under the 1872 Act is loans between £2 and £10. Under the Bill the area of special contracts will be from £5 to £50. Paragraph (c) of Clause 1 deals with the Fourth Schedule to the 1872 Act. That Schedule sets out the profits and charges which a pawnbroker is allowed to make and charge, and those differ with the category of the loan. The new categories which I have just mentioned will therefore have to be substituted in this Bill.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with Section 16 of the 1872 Act which concerns the time within which one can redeem a pledge. As the law stands at present, a pledge can be redeemed within twelve months. Clause 2 of the Bill reduces the time to six months. It has been found that 90 per cent. of pledges are redeemed within six months and that those which are not redeemed within that period are generally not redeemed at all. If the pawnbroker has to retain a pledge for twelve months it means that he has a certain amount of capital locked up, and it seems reasonable to reduce the redemption period to six months. That reminds me of a rather intimate matter. My own watch has been absent for nine months, so I had better go along and see this gentleman
74
very shortly, unless I want to be caught by this provision in the Bill.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with Sections 17 and 18 of the 1872 Act, which cover the sale of pledges for over 10s. and this clause merely applies the new category to these old sections of that Act. A similar substitution of new categories is made in sections 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the 1872 Act which contain provisions relating to the sale of pledges for above 10s. I now come to Clause 4 (and I may say that I am not referring to Clause 4 in another sacred, holy and unmentionable matter in another sphere but to Clause 4 of this present Bill), which deals with charges which in future will be permitted to pawnbrokers. Under the present law a pawn ticket costs ½d. if the loan does not exceed 10s. and 1d. for a loan above that amount. I hope your Lordships will not all be ruined because the new charge under the Bill is 2d. Under the 1922 Act the valuation fee was ½d. if 5s. was lent: the Bill makes that charge 2d. for every 5s. lent. The third item in the Schedule to the Bill increases the old charge of 1d. to 6d.
After a pledge has been sold the pledger is entitled to look at the pawnbroker's books and see exactly what were the proceeds of sale, and what surplus is due to him. It takes a little time for a pawnbroker to keep his books and produce them for inspection. A charge of 1d, for that service is a very small reward, and it appears reasonable to increase it to 6d.
Clause 5 of the Bill may be explained in this way. At present, when a person who has pawned something loses his pawn ticket he is required by the 1872 Act to make a declaration. Not only must he himself make a declaration before a justice of the peace, but he must take someone to identify him. It seems unfortunate that a person who has pawned something and lost his ticket should be obliged to tell his neighbours or relatives and disclose the fact of that pawning. Clause 5 of the Bill greatly simplifies the process by eliminating the necessity for a person to identify the applicant and for the applicant to make a declaration.
Clause 6 of the Bill contains a number of consequential amendments which really put into effect changes that I have already mentioned. Clause 7 deals with

75
the commencement of the Act. I have here a number of pawn tickets which it would be out of order to hand round—moreover, they might be of some use to someone. All these will have to be reprinted, and I hope that one month will be sufficient for that purpose. I see that my old friend Angus McKay, of Aberdeen and Jermyn Street, has printed a great deal of matter on his pawn ticket. I only hope that the Bill will not overtake him. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 says that the new clause relating to declarations should operate at once. Subsection (3) of that clause does not alter the existing contract.
I only hope, in conclusion, that no one has any prejudice against pawnbrokers as individuals or as a craft. In fact, they are not only honest people but sometimes very religious, and I hope the right reverend Prelate who sits opposite me will not mind if I say that on one occasion I asked my old friend Angus McKay, of Jermyn Street, whether he preferred the New Testament to the Old Testament. He told me that he preferred the Old Testament and I asked him why. He said, "I prefer the Old Testament because there are more prophets in it." If your Lordships are satisfied that this Bill does justice I commend it to you for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Meston.)
2.55 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has explained to the House the purpose of this Bill; and as your Lordships may have gathered, his measures are very complicated. I can only say that on this Bill Her Majesty's Government are neutral. I think it may be said that a benevolent neutrality is shown in that the Government draftsman put his hand to the complicated task of framing the Bill for the noble Lord and for his friend in another place.
Perhaps a word on the effect of this Bill upon the ordinary person who uses the services of the pawnshop might be useful to your Lordships. I am informed that the average loan that is taken out at a pawnshop is between 16s. 10d. and 21s. But if we say that it is £1, that would cost approximately 8d. for one month. The effect of the
76
measure which the noble Lord has put before the House will mean that the charge will now be 1s. 3d. for borrowing £1 for a month. If we look at the matter in terms of goods and services that does not seem to be an undue amount for a pawnbroker to charge. If his wholesale price for an article is £1 and he sells it, as it were, retail, the following month his present price is £1 0s. 8d., and the new price will be £1 1s. 3d. I cannot say whether your Lordships believe it is right that the pawnbroking business should be regulated by Statute, but the noble Lord has told us of the Acts of 1872 and 1922. Incidentally, pawnbroking was regulated by Statute much earlier—right back in the Middle Ages, when it was started on the Continent and carried on as an industry by the Pope. It was not greatly thought of in this country by the predecessors of the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops' Bench. Gradually, however, pawnbroking came into more favour in this country. In fact, it has been regulated by Statute in this country since 1669. If it is desirable for pawnbroking to be regulated by Statute then there is a case for putting forward these provisions.
The National Association of Pawnbrokers submitted a scheme to my right honourable friend in 1957. That scheme, which was broadly the same a, the Bill now outlined by the noble Lord was scrutinised in an independent and confidential examination by the Accountants' Division of the Board of Trade. I have a copy of that Report and I will put it in the Library for the information of your Lordships. The Report concluded that the profit on capital at present used by the pawnbroking industry was something in the region of 2½ per cent. The effect of the noble Lord's Bill would be to increase that profit margin to the 10 per cent. mentioned by the noble Lord, and in the light of present-day costs and values that would seem to be fair.
3.0 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for his kind remarks and general blessing. I hope I am not out of order, but I should like to express my appreciation to Mr. Graham Page for what he has done in another place. In point of fact, he introduced the Bill, piloted it through another

77
place, and I think to a large extent did something which few people can do successfully: that is, he drafted the Bill or part of the Bill. I do not propose to say any more, because to-day is a very busy day. There are three very important Bills to be dealt with: the Pawnbrokers Bill, then a Scottish Bill and then the Charities Bill; "and the greatest of these is charity". I thank the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, once again for what he has said, and I beg to commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WAGES ARRESTMENT LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greenhill, who is not able to be present this afternoon, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question. Bill read 3a, and passed.

FIRST OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. I may mention—I did not mention it earlier—that my noble friend Lord Greenhill is engaged on a Select Committee and that is why he is not able to be present.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHARITIES BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committeee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
Effect of and claims and objections to, registration
(2) Any person who is or may be affected by the registration of an institution as a charity may, on the ground that it is not a charity, object to its being entered by the Commissioners in the register, or apply to them for it to be removed from the register; and provision may be made by regulations as to the manner in which any such objection or application is to be made, prosecuted or dealt with.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), after the second "or" to insert:
"may within 3 years from the date when the charity was entered on the register of charities".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name: it is really a probing Amendment to enable the Government to explain what this clause is designed to do. It provides in subsection (2) that any person who is or may be affected by the registration of an institution as a charity may apply to the Commissioners for the removal of the charity from registration. Does that mean that any person who has an interest—maybe a person who has at some time subscribed sixpence to that charity—thereby acquires an interest to secure that his donation has been properly expended? He need not have any special grounds for requiring that the registration should be removed. He can do it at any time—I repeat, at any time; there is no fixed period within which he may do it. My Amendment is designed to see that, if we insist on giving people this right at large, at least we should circumscribe it in point of time. Otherwise a charity will never know from day to day whether it is liable to have an application made against it for its removal from the register.
Subsection (3) provides that a person who has made such an application, however frivolous it may be, and has had it refused has a right of appeal to the High Court; and consequently can put the charity (and he may be a man of straw) to tremendous expense. I suppose that most noble Lords must have had some correspondence in the last few days from strange people who have bees in their bonnets about particular charities and who would be the first to take advantage of a provision of this kind whenever the spirit moved them, so giving the charity concerned an immense amount of trouble. Then they can go to the High Court. Pending all this, pending these applications, the charity remains in suspense, for subsection (4) says:
"… for the purposes of subsection (1) above an institution shall be deemed not to be on the register during any period when the entry relating to it is in suspense under this subsection."
I think I have said enough to indicate that a perfectly frivolous request may be made at any time under this clause, without any restriction, either as to time or as to conditions, and may put a charity to an immense amount of trouble and expense, and possibly help to bring this charity into some undesirable publicity. So, while I am not going to press for the particular wording of my Amendment, I hope that whoever is going to reply for the Government will be able to elucidate what is behind all this, and also give some assurance that the provision enabling any person having an interest in the charity to make this sort of application will be suitably restricted.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("or") insert ("may within 3 years from the date when the charity was entered on the register of charities").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that almost any person or institution in this country might in some circumstances be the object of vexatious, spiteful or frivolous litigation by some man of straw who was not in a position to pay the expenses of such litigation if it were unsuccessful. I think that is a danger which applies to any body or any institution of that kind. The reason for providing that people may apply for the removal of a charity from the register is not intended for the benefit of people, as the noble Lord, I
80
think, suggested, who at one time paid a subscription of sixpence and have since decided that they do not like the charity. It is intended for the protection of people whose own interests may be affected by the question of whether or not the charity in question ought to be classified as a charity.
For instance, if the relation of some interested person were to die leaving his money to a charity, and if his next of kin thought there was strong reason for claiming that this was no longer entitled to be regarded as a charity, no longer entitled to be registered as one, then it would obviously be wrong to deny him the opportunity of making an application to the Charity Commissioners—and, of course, such applications are always subject to an appeal by one side or the other to the High Court. With regard to the time limit, I think the noble Lord will see that it would obviously not be possible to insert a time limit, which would defeat our purpose. A man might leave his money to a charity which was on the register, and then live a further twenty years before he died, but his next of kin would not be affected and would not know of his interest until his relative had died; and if he were precluded from making the application after a charity had been on the register for three years then it would of course be too late. Therefore, I do not think it would be consistent with the purpose of this provision to insert any time limit of this kind.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl has given the type of case where some provision of this kind is necessary. I have given the type of case where I think it might be the subject of a great deal of abuse. Is it not possible—I am not going to press the noble Earl—for the Government to consider whether they are not using this means both for the kind of case where it is desirable and for the kind of case where it would be frivolous, and for them to try to distinguish between the two? Everything the noble Earl has said in answer to this Amendment seems to me to be purely a matter of drafting—even the three-year period. A charity ought not to be at risk for ever. The three years might date, for instance, from the time when the provisions of the trust became public knowledge, or from the date when a person was affected. Give him three

81
years in which to make representations, but do not let it go on for ever, with the charity always at the risk of somebody coining along and claiming for its removal. I hope I have made some kind of case, and I hope that the Government will consider this point and will try to separate the various types of cases which may arise. In that hope and expectation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.13 p.m.
LORD CHORLEYhad given Notice of an Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out: all words after "register" and to insert instead:
"Provided that no such objections or application shall be entertained by the Commissioners until the person desiring to make the same has satisfied the Commissioners by an application made ex parte to the Commissioners in such manner as shall be directed that:

(a) he has a financial interest other than as a member of the public which will be affected by the registration of the institution as a charity;

(b) he can show cause why it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case that the objection or application should be entertained;

and provision may be made by regulation as to the manner in which any such objection or application (including such ex parte application as aforesaid) is to be made prosecuted or dealt
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: My noble friend Lord Chorley asked me last evening if I would move this Amendment on his behalf, because unfortunately he has been called away on urgent business. The point my noble friend had in mind was the point that my noble friend Lord Silkin also dealt with, and in formally moving this Amendment on Lord Chorley's behalf I would adopt the arguments which my noble friend has used. Your Lordships will see that the approach of Lord Chorley to this problem, which is undoubtedly a real problem, is to throw upon the person who is affected and desires to appeal against the registration of the charity the duty that he should first of all make an ex parte application to the Commissioners and satisfy them that he has a reasonable cause and a reasonable ground for making his application. If, on his ex parte application, the Commissioners decide that he is acting frivolously or vexatiously, and
82
that he is not able to put forward a reasonable case for his action, then the Commissioners have power to resist it. In anticipation of what the noble Viscount will say after further consideration of the point that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has raised, I feel that this may be one approach to the problem. I beg formally to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, leave out from ("register") to end of line 17, and insert the said proviso.—(Lord Granville-West.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am grateful to the noble Lord for the manner in which he has moved this Amendment, because he has made it a valuable adjunct, if I may say so, to what the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, said on the last Amendment. I should have thought that, rather than have an elaborate procedure as to establishing locus, we should be able to deal with it by the words at the end of subsection (2) of the clause. There the noble Lord will see the words:
"and provision may be made by regulations as to the manner in which any such objection or application is to be made, prosecuted or dealt with".
I have not, of course, drafted the regulation, but what I had in mind was that it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Commissioners, where an application is obviously frivolous, to be able to deal with it simply on the preliminary letter. I should like to consider that, because, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, these cases shade off into one another, and one wants to be careful to do justice.
On the general point, my noble friend Lord Dundee has put one case, and both noble Lords on the other side of the House who have spoken will appreciate that it is an important one: that is, that a large sum may suddenly be found to have been left to an object in the charitable nature of which there has not up to that point been much interest. But I should like to say one other word, out of respect for what my noble and learned friend Lord Simonds said yesterday, as to when something that had been a charity could change its character. As your Lordships may remember, my noble and learned friend was in some doubt. I had in mind at least three

83
possibilities. One was the case where the charity is a company. As those of your Lordships who are bred to the law know, the position there is that the company can change its objects; and, if it does so, funds accumulated up to that point which have been subscribed for the charitable purpose, or which have come into existence for the charitable purpose, are still fixed with the charity, though after that point they are not. Of course, it might be that the company had spent all the funds that had been obtained for the charitable purpose and then had nothing in the nature of charity in it.
The second possibility that occurred to me was when there was a revocable trust in which there might be some revocation. The third, of course, is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will remember very clearly, and that is where there has been an unexpected change in the law. That is why we put in the provision, which I think worried my noble and learned friend Lord Spens slightly, in subsection (5) of this clause,
"that the decision is inconsistent with a later judicial decision;"
As nobody knows better than he, there are certain cases where the decision of the Chancery Judge who deals with the appeal must be one way, yet within a short time the House of Lords has overruled the decision of the Court of Appeal which bound the first Judge. In such a case, of course, the Commissioners would have to take action accordingly. That is the third point, where, as in the Baddeley case, one might suddenly discover that something which everyone had thought was a charity was not. In that case it might be perfectly proper to apply for it to be taken off the register. Although there is always the possibility of the frivolous application—and I think that matter can be dealt with by regulations—I will consider the point again, and if there is any doubt I will have another look to see whether further statutory power is needed. I should like both noble Lords to appreciate that we have their point well in mind, and that we shall certainly be concerned to see that the machinery operates as it should.
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to express great sympathy with this Amendment, for a reason which came up in our discussions yesterday. When we were
84
considering Clause 4 the question arose as to what discussions might take place between this and the next stage of the Bill, and I asked whether the Government would be in a position to say before the Report stage came on what the nature of their regulations would be. The noble Earl who was answering at that moment for the Government said that it was clearly impossible for them to do that; that the Government had not thought of their regulations or framed them. Here is another case. The people who are speaking through me to-day all express a preference for having as much as possible put into the Bill and as little as possible left to regulation. Clause 4 and its effect, which I think will have to be looked at again carefully, depend very much upon regulations. I feel that if the Government are asking your Lordships to pass a Bill the whole effect of which will depend largely on regulations, and they have not framed the regulations and cannot give us any idea of what they are likely to be, then they are asking your Lordships to give them a blank cheque. Because I think that that is a wrong principle I join with the noble Lord opposite in hoping that this matter will be put into the Bill and not left merely to regulation.
LORD SILKIN: I was just going to make this point on the regulations—and I associate myself entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has just said. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would direct his mind to subsection (2), because it seems to me that the regulations which can be made are to be confined solely to the way in which objection is to be made, prosecuted or dealt with; that is, to the machinery once the objection has been made. It does not go to the real point that I tried to put before the Committee—namely, that there ought to be some restriction on the people who will be able to make this objection and some limitation as to the period. Admittedly, once the objection has been made it is desirable to have regulations as to the procedure then to be followed; but even if the procedure is the most satisfactory in the world, as I have no doubt it will be, it does not really go to the point that I respectfully put before the Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will agree that that is so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to consider that point. I did not mean in any way to derogate from what my noble friend Lord Dundee said about preserving the position in the case he quoted; and I did not think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, disagreed as to the force of that situation. What I had in mind was the earliest part of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin's speech when he was dealing with frivolous applications. I thought that they could be dealt with, and it seemed to me that it was within the powers given by the clause that they could be dealt with by regulations; and that in the case of an application which the Commissioners deemed to be frivolous they could reject it by a letter without further consideration. As I say, I am not drafting on my feet, but I thought I was admitting that part.
With regard to what my noble friend Lord Saltoun said, with great respect and friendliness, I dispute his two major premises. In the first place, this Bill does not depend on regulations. It uses regulations for the perfectly proper purpose which has been commended by the Donoughmore Committee, in 1932, and by every other body that has seriously considered modern legislation; that is to say, for procedural and transitional purposes, where it is essential, if the legislation is going to be successful, that it should fit a variety of conditions and that it should be possible to change it in order to fit new conditions. So long as regulations are limited to that purpose, then not only is there no objection to them, but they are for the public benefit.
The second point which I think my noble friend Lord Saltoun has forgotten is that modern legislative practice depends on consulting the persons likely to be affected before you make regulations May I take an example with which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, is familiar? If you were making regulations affecting the safety of workmen under the Factories Act you would consult the trade union and, of course, the employers who would have to implement them. There it would be foolish of Parliament to lay down a code in a Statute which would require to be changed by Statute, because new machinery is being introduced every day and you want to make your regulations apply. It is the same here: that before
86
we make regulations, we should like to consult those who can speak for charity and those who can speak for other great bodies that are interested in this Bill and really make the regulations helpful to them.
I put this with great earnestness to my noble friend Lord Saltoun. As many noble Lords know, a great deal of my own political life has been concerned with the problem of subsidiary legislation, and I am just as opposed as anyone, and have declared myself so on innumerable occasions, to dealing by subsidiary legislation with problems that ought to be discussed in this House and go through the stages in each House of Parliament. I assure your Lordships that if you drive that principle to death—and fortunately in this country one of our great safeguards has been that we do not drive principles to death—and prevent the making of regulations for dealing with transitional and procedural matters, you will cause unexampled delay, misery and hardship to the people whom we ought to have in mind when we are legislating; that is to say, not ourselves, but the people affected by our laws. I say that with the greatest strength, and I say that in this Bill we have tried to restrain the regulations to that purpose; and for that purpose I assure your Lordships I will always strive.
LORD SALTOUN: May I say a word on that matter? I quite appreciate all that the noble and learned Viscount has said. What would be of the greatest advantage, if any fruitful conversations are to take place between this and the next stage of the Bill, is that we should know the nature of the regulations. I am not asking, and would not ask, for a draft of the regulations, but about the kind of questions the regulations would cover and their nature. That would be essential for any fruitful discussion. Surely it should be within the power of Her Majesty's Government to tell us that before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I understood from the noble and learned Viscount when he replied to this Amendment that he had in mind to consider with sympathy the point raised by my noble friend Lord Silkin, and the point which was referred to in this Amendment. I believe my noble friend Lord Chorley would have been happy to hear

87
that assurance, because he, too, is very apprehensive as to the effect of the clause as it stands at the moment. Having regard to the full explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given, and also the assurance he has given that he himself will look at this point again, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
General power to institute inquiries
6.—(1) The Commissioners may from time to time, and if so directed by the Secretary of State shall, institute inquiries with regard to charities or a particular charity or class of charities, either generally or for particular purposes:
Provided that no such inquiry shall extend to any exempt charity.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (1), after the second "time" to insert:
"or at the request of the council of a county or a borough in respect of any local charity in the council's area,".
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment and I hope will be found to be quite unexceptionable. Under Clause 6, the Commissioners, as well as the Minister, have power to obtain any information or to institute inquiries with regard to charities in general, or a particular charity or class of charities. The purpose of my Amendment is to give the county councils and the county boroughs the right to request the Commissioners to institute such inquiries, or to request the Minister that an inquiry be held. It is entirely within their discretion whether they comply with the regulations.
This Bill gives the local authorities a locus in connection with charities. It enables them, if they so desire, to create their own list of charities, and it gives them the privilege under subsection (8) of this clause of making a contribution towards the cost of inquiries. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable and fair that they should have at any rate the right to ask that an inquiry should be instituted in any particular case that comes within their notice in respect of a charity in their area. It may be said that the local authorities can always make a request but, as nobody knows better than the
88
noble and learned Viscount, that is not so. If it is not within their competence to make a request it would be ultra vires. I am asking that, as one of their duties where they think it desirable that an inquiry should be made, they should be specifically empowered to ask that an inquiry should take place, reserving it always, of course, for the Commissioners to decide whether a case is made out for the inquiry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, after the second ("time") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I approached this Amendment under a different idea from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and if I am wrong I will reconsider it. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the beginning of Clause 6, you will see that it says:
"The Commissioners may from time to time"—
then comes Lord Silkin's words—
"or at the request of the council of a county or a borough in respect of any local charity in the council's area".
I had assumed that the purpose of the Amendment was to make it mandatory on the Commissioners to make inquiries if requested to do so by a local authority. That, as the noble Lord would understand, I was not prepared to accept. I should have advised the Committee against that, because the Commissioners have always had a complete discretion, and this should continue. If what is in the noble Lord's mind is simply that local authorities should be empowered, and that it should not be beyond their statutory powers to make the request, then I will gladly have another look at it. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for the view I have formed on this, and perhaps he will give me a chance between now and the Report stage to look into the different problem which he has adumbrated in his speech.
LORD SILKIN: I have no doubt that it is my bad drafting, but I am grateful for the assurance that the noble and learned Viscount will look at it in the spirit in which I moved the Amendment, and not in the spirit in which it is on the Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is one of the series of Amendments on which I addressed your Lordships yesterday.. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, leave out from second ("time") to ("institute") in line 45.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.38 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to add to subsection (1):
"or any charity excepted under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section four of this Act".
The noble Lord said: The Amendment just moved by the noble and learned Viscount has greatly lightened my mind with regard to this clause. There is, however, one point which causes me a little uneasiness. We, and I think all the charities for which I can claim to speak, have always been at the disposal of the Charity Commissioners. They have always made inquiries of us on any point about which they wished information; they have always received that information, and we have and always have had the most friendly relations with them. We value those relations very much. We have a very high opinion of the Charity Commissioners. But further on in the clause it says:
"For the purposes of any such inquiry … to furnish accounts and statements in writing with respect to any matter …"
That is a formidable full-scale inquiry. It would be unfortunate if the Charity Commissioners were to institute such inquiries frequently or easily, because they are extremely expensive.
I will take up that matter of expense now. When we left our debate last night the Government had refused to accept an Amendment in which a charity which is properly registered as a charity under Section 41 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, is not required to register again. The Government's reason for rejecting that Amendment was that by registration under this Bill that charity would receive the inestimable benefit of being regarded as a charity. The charity we were talking about was the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which has been a charity all its life; it was registered as a charity under the 1948 Act; and it would be compelled to reregister under this Act because by doing so it would get the inestimable benefit of being regarded as what it is.
90
It is not a logical position, and the point of our objection is that, as the noble Earl explained, a wholly new set of figures have to be furnished by this charity; it is put to considerable expense; it may have considerable difficulty in furnishing the information required.
That brings me to the point which will run through all this Bill. We who are members of organised charities are extremely careful of our expenses. We value the position which we hold of trust to the public very highly indeed. We have onerous and expensive duties to perform, and anything that adds to our expenses and to the complication of our work is a serious injury to us. That is why I have put down Amendments on all these clauses, because I feel strongly that the Government is light-heartedly saying, "You are the people who collect money from the public; you can easily collect a little more and do this for us". That is not our attitude at all. Our attitude is that we scrutinise every penny which we spend on the necessary expenses of administration and out of the pennies given to us by the public try to keep as many as possible for the actual purpose for which the charity has been formed. That is why all these Amendments are down.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I ask which Amendment my noble friend is moving? Is it No. 19?
LORD SALTOUN: Yes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Is not that consequential on No. 5, which my noble friend withdrew?
LORD SALTOUN: No, it is not consequential.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps my noble friend would look at subsection (2) and see how it reads. I am delighted to deal with this question if we are taking Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together, but I think No. 19 is consequential on No. 5; otherwise I do not think it would make any difference.
LORD SALTOUN: We may be exempted yet. The fact that we are not excepted by name under Clause 4 (4) (b) does not mean we may not be excepted in the end.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am delighted to fall in with whatever my noble

91
friend wants to do, but I think it is only fair to your Lordships to point out that Clause 4 (4) (b) at present reads:
"any charity which is excepted by order or regulations".
That is all—no others.
LORD SALTOUN: That is right. The Amendment reads:
"insert ('or any charity excepted under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section four of this Act')".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If it is excepted already by order or regulation, what is the point of excepting it again? If my noble friend's Amendment No. 5 had been accepted then a whole named list of charities would have been added to Clause 4 (4) (b), and this Amendment would have been consequential on that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Surely the noble Earl is not correct in the point which he is taking. Clause 4 of this Bill deals with the obligation to register charities, but Clause 6 is dealing with inquiries with regard to charities, as I understand it, whether they are registered or whether they are not registered.
LORD SALTOUN: That is precisely what I understood myself. That is why I am moving this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It would help if my noble friend would indicate whether he wants No. 20 dealt with at the same time.
LORD SALTOUN: No, I will move No. 20 separately. You have already provided that no such inquiry shall extend to any exempt charities. That is, I take it, exempt under the Second Schedule, or does "exempt charity" as so used mean those that are exempt under Clause 4 (4) (b)? That is the point at issue.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Clause 4 (4) (b) says that a charity which is excepted by order or regulation is not required to be registered. That is all it does. My noble friend moved an Amendment yesterday adding to those excepted by order or regulation a number of specified ones which he mentioned by name, and I took it that this Amendment, No. 19, was intended to exempt those named charities from the necessity of furnishing accounts or answering inquiries by the Commission.
LORD SALTOUN: As I read the Bill as drafted by the Government, Clause 6 starts by referring to all charities, whatever they are, whether they are exempted or not. It then goes on to say that this inquiry shall not extend to any exempted charities. I am asking that this inquiry shall not extend to excepted charities. I am trying to find out whether "exempted" and "excepted" mean the same thing. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 2, after ("charity") insert ("or any charity excepted under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section four of this Act").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment, No. 19, would take out from the Commissioners' powers of inquiry the whole class of charities named in my noble friend's Amendment to Clause 4, which my noble friend withdrew; although I quite understand that if he could get a similar Amendment inserted at a later stage of the Bill some difference would then be made to Clause 4. These charities have always been subject to inquiry as regards their permanent endowment; they have been subject to inquiry ever since 1853, and I do not know that any objection has ever been made to it. The Nathan Committee recommended that the powers of inquiry should be exercisable in respect of any charity, and I do not think anyone can complain that the powers of the Charity Commissioners as regards inquiry have been exercised in an oppressive way. The White Paper stated that it is intended that they should be exercised in the future as they have been in the past.
We cannot agree that there is any justification for any distinction between a particular number of named charities and any others, except, as I explained yesterday, those in the Second Schedule which are exempted only because they are already subject to special control by Parliament. From the general character of my noble friend's argument thought that he was covering considerations raised in Amendment No. 20, which we are approaching. I am anxious to meet my noble friend and to deal with his Amendments in whatever manner or sequence is most convenient to him. I will therefore say nothing about the considerations raised in

93
Amendment No. 20 until my noble friend has had a further opportunity of stating them.
LORD SALTOUN: I am greatly flattered by what the noble Earl has said, because it seems to me that my argument yesterday has left a big impression upon his mind. As the Bill stands it says
"The following charities are not required to be registered …
(b) any charity which is excepted by order or regulations …"
There is no list of charities in the Bill as it stands at the moment. The list which I proposed to put in is not put in, and all I am suggesting is that if certain charities are exempt the same reasons should govern those that are excepted. Perhaps the noble Earl will take out of his mind the six that I proposed to put in but did not put in, and will simply address his mind to the fact that what I am moving is that any charity that happens to become excepted under the regulations under Clause 4 (4) (b) may be excepted here. As for what he says about inquiries, may I say that it is absolutely right that we have had a happy relation with the Charity Commissioners. The only reason I am moving this Amendment is because I am a little frightened of the tremendous paraphernalia of such an expensive inquiry as is detailed later in the clause.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I want there to be no misunderstanding. I now understand that in putting down this Amendment my noble friend was not necessarily thinking of the list of charities which he named, but that he only wanted to make sure that charities exempted from registration should also be exempted from inquiry. We do not yet know which ones will be exempted from registration. I do not think we can accept that. I am sorry, but I thought the noble Lord had put down a series of Amendments designed to exempt charities in which he was interested, both from registration and from inquiry. I understand now that he wants to exempt from the inquiry provisions under this clause an unknown list of charities which may be exempted from registration. I am afraid the considerations which I have given in regard to the charities which I thought he had particularly in mind would also apply to any which may in future be exempted from registration.
94
Therefore, I am afraid that we could not undertake to accept this Amendment.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I think it would help the Committee if the noble Earl were to give some indication of the considerations that were to be given to charities which were to be excepted. What conditions are likely to be imposed or have to be complied with before a charity is excepted under the regulations? If we could have some indication as to what the Government have in mind with regard to that matter, then I think it would help us considerably in deciding whether or not this Amendment ought to be pursued.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: With great respect, that is what we were discussing at great length yesterday on Clause 4. We put forward the kind of considerations which might weigh in granting exemption from registration.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am sorry if I did not quite follow the arguments which took place yesterday, but I understood that the arguments which took place on the Amendment of the noble Lord who is moving this Amendment were really based upon the charities set out in his Amendment. Perhaps I was out of the Chamber at the time, but so far as general principles of charities are concerned I was not aware that any form had been given of the conditions that the charities had to fulfil before they were excepted from registration on the register. If I am wrong about that, I apologise to the noble Earl.
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it would be right for us to make a closed list until the Bill has been fully discussed in both Houses. But perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's request by giving examples—I hope he will not take it that they are exclusive: they are not intended to be; nor could they be. As he will appreciate, there are a large number of small charities for religious purposes (I know that he has this in mind, because I have considered Amendments which he will be moving in due time) which are of no general interest. I think he would agree with me on that. Perhaps I may remind

95
him of the general purposes of registration. It will provide an index, first for the purposes of potential beneficiaries; secondly, for social workers to consult; thirdly, for potential benefactors to see what openings for charity there are in particular directions, and fourthly, for charities and local authorities to see what the other is doing. As I say, there are a large number of small religious charities which I think would not come within any of these classes, and one would except, as opposed to exempt, them for that purpose. There are other charities of no general interest, and there may well be many where the information can be obtained elsewhere. I think the noble Lord would agree that it would be stupid, simply for the purpose of tidiness, to include charities of that sort.
I do not think it would be for me to follow the invitation of my noble friend Lord Saltoun to go into particular charities. The discussions are going on; we shall listen to what is said, and we shall try to find the most practical and flexible way of dealing with all the different points. But I should not like to be tied down to that at the moment. I wanted to respond to the noble Lord and give an example, in regard to which I hope I shall have his sympathy, by the classes that I mentioned a few moments ago.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for that statement. It is not one that I have heard before. If I should have heard it before I apologise to the Committee. At any rate, it is helpful in considering this Amendment, because of the exceptions which the noble and learned Viscount has just indicated are of such a trivial character, then there would be certainly no objection, so far as I can see, to their inclusion in the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a most interesting and ingenious point of the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, but, of course, he will realise that there are two considerations. There is the question of registration, which is for the purpose I have mentioned, so that other people will know about them. But there is also, the duty to see that the charitable moneys are properly used. I should not like to rule out the need
96
to do that in the case of charities which were not of general interest. I have considered that point because the two Amendments really hang together I may be able to give further information at the next stage, so I would ask my noble friend Lord Saltoun not to press the matter now, at least until we have been able to reflect upon it before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, for I feel that his statement carries us a great deal further forward If I have heard it before and failed to appreciate it I must apologise, though I did not think I had. That is all we were pressing for yesterday. I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (7), to leave out the first "may" and substitute "shall". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, and perhaps in doing so I may speak on Amendment No. 19B which stands with it. This is a very short point. The Charity Commissioners are empowered to hold inquiries and in certain circumstances they may desire to take action on those inquiries. Subsection (7) provides that where they intend to take action
"they may publish the report of the person conducting the inquiry, or such other statement of the results of the inquiry as they think fit, in any manner calculated in their opinion to bring it to the attention of persons who may wish to make representations to them about the action to be taken."
This Amendment is designed to provide that where the Commissioners intend to take action on an inquiry they should, as a matter of course, publish the report of the person carrying out the inquiry, so that whoever is affected by it may know exactly what is in the report upon which the Commissioners are acting.
I do not think it is good enough that the Commissioners should have discretion to publish what in their opinion are the facts which ought to be brought to the attention of people who may want to make representations. I believe that the Commissioners should be obliged to publish and make available the actual report of the person conducting the inquiry. This is only in keeping with

97
what this House and another place have done recently as a result of the Franks Report. The House has decided, I believe unanimously, that reports of persons conducting an inquiry by which others are affected, and which may have serious consequences to them, should be made public so that those persons may know. In this case, where the Commissioners propose to take action as a result of an inquiry it is all the more essential that the report of the person carrying out the inquiry should be published as a matter of course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, leave out ("may") and substitute ("shall").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SALTOUN: I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. I sympathise very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said and with the way in which he moved the Amendment, but not all cases are necessarily as simple as that. The Charity Commissioners may, and do, institute inquiries into quite trivial matters which may bear upon the character of people who are making rather a nuisance of themselves; and in such cases it might do more harm than good to publish the report of the inquiry. I believe I can speak for every charity with which I have ever in my life had anything to do in saying that we all have the most complete confidence in the Charity Commissioners and look upon them as our friends; and we have certainly no mistrust or suspicion about any report they may make at any time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad, after a slight divergence of view at an earlier time, to be in agreement with my noble friend Lord Saltoun on this point, and I hope that together we may convince the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I quite see—and it was borne on my mind more clearly after hearing him speak—that he had in mind the compelling force of the words:
"Where the Commissioners propose to take any action …"
I should like him to consider two possibilities here before he considers whether this Amendment should be pressed. As he will understand, the inquiries may take many forms, from an exchange of letters to a full-dress public inquiry on oath. Secondly, I should like him to consider that the result of an inquiry, and the
98
resulting action which the Commissioners propose to take, may be quite a trivial matter, of domestic interest only to the charity. They may ask, for example (and my noble friend Lord Saltoun will remember the kind of thing I have in mind): "Are you dealing with certain local trust funds which are part of your general set-up?" The charity may reply, "We have not dealt with these matters separately in the past," and the Commissioners may then write and say, "Will you please do so." The charity will say. "Of course we will; it has been an oversight." So the whole thing is done in a completely amicable way without any had feeling on either side. That is one kind of action.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the action proposed was that the Attorney General should bring proceedings in the Chancery Division. I do not think it would be very suitable if, before the Attorney General took his proceedings, we had a public report on matters which were then private. The third point—this is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Saltoun would agree, too—is that if the position came to the state where a public general inquiry was held, then, while I cannot pledge Governments in perpetuity, so long as my influence has anything to do with it I should always be strongly in favour of seeing that the results of that public general inquiry were in accordance with the principles of the Franks Committee—
LORD SALTOUN: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —principles which have been accepted by all Parties. Therefore it is in that sense, and with my personal undertaking that all the influence I possess will be towards publication when there has been a general public inquiry, that I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, not to press these Amendments which would limit the discretion so as to affect the other two types of case I have mentioned. I hope he will agree that I am not (to use a colloquialism) stalling at all on this Amendment. I do want to meet him; on the other hand, I want to maintain the flexible position for, first, minor actions and, second, matters that might appear to prejudice proceedings in the courts.
LORD SILKIN: I accept the explanation of the noble and learned Viscount that there might be cases where the question of publication of a report might be either unimportant or even considerably injurious. The position I am anxious to preserve is that it should be the normal thing for the report to be made available to any person who is affected and that other procedures should be exceptions. That may involve putting this subsection in a rather different form, but I should prefer to see the general rule laid down and exceptions included in the subsection. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be willing to consider that. I, on my part, will consider whether some other form of words would meet my case. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: In this clause we are dealing with the protection of the donor and the beneficiaries; and although, as I have made abundantly clear to the Committee, I do not believe that the register is any protection whatsoever to any fund for any purpose, I do believe that in this clause the power of inquiry is the most important protection we have in this Bill. I hope that in any reconsideration before the next stage of the Bill Her Majesty's Government will stick to their guns to ensure that any charity which is not ruled by another great body, such as a religious body, can be the subject of an inquiry by the Commissioners. I regard this as very much the same as the provision in company law, which, after all, is the greatest protection that exists for the shareholders. I would again emphasise that I do not think that this power of inquiry should apply to what one might call the religious bodies underneath other religious bodies which have a perfectly adequate and proper system of control, inquiry and inspection built into them.
On Question, Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Receipt and audit of accounts of charities
8.—(1) Statements of account giving the prescribed information about the affairs of a charity shall be transmitted to the Commissioners by the charity trustees on request; and, in the case of a charity having a permanent endowment, such a statement relating to the permanent endowment shall be transmitted yearly without any request, unless the charity is excepted by order or regulations.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that in the case of a charity which issues annual accounts audited by auditors qualified under subsection (3) of this section, these accounts shall suffice."
The noble Lord said: I have already said a good deal this afternoon about the anxiety with which the charities look over their administrative expenses, and I will not say anything more on that subject, but I will go into a little detail about the way in which great collecting charities more or less have to work. They get money in all shapes and forms from the general public, and it is not like money received in commerce. There is no way, really, except by their own internal check, of ascertaining that that money has been received and that nobody in the administration has put it in his pocket. In consequence of that, I think the Committee will find that most charities of that kind have a system of accounts which has been carefully agreed with their auditors and which the auditors would be sorry to see disturbed.
The system is very simple. It includes a strict and undeviating principle about the receipt and opening of letters. It is a simple, direct and well-checked system of banking money; and the whole form of the accounts is, so far as possible, a straightforward cash account. As soon as we insert complications into the books of a charity of this kind we open the door to misbehaviour. However great a confidence the directors may have in their staff—and I think there is no business in the world that has a staff which I more admire and have more complete confidence in than our own—our duty to the public means that we must maintain that system uninterfered with, and we should have difficulty with our auditors if we attempted to change it.
This Bill applies to England; it does not apply to Scotland, except in little

101
bits, and it does not apply to Eire. Our accounts in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, just to give an example—and I am sure that the Salvation Army and the Boys' Brigade could give parallel examples—apply to the whole of that area. If we were to be asked to make up a special account on how we treated monies referring only to England we might find it extremely difficult to do. It might be necessary to have a double system of book-keeping—in fact, I think it would be—and it would be extremely onerous and quite expensive. We have had questions on particular trusts and other matters put to us by the Charity Commissioners. We have always answered those straight away and we have never had any difficulty. Questions of that sort can be easily resolved, but any complicated question that affects us is difficult. It would be difficult to make special returns to the Charity Commissioners referring only to England and the area of land dealt with by this Bill.
For that reason I have put down this Amendment. I do not want to disparage the Government's Bill, but I should like to say that, all through the Bill, it seems to me that the checks and controls that appear in it are largely devised by able men who have no practical experience of running concerns of this kind, and that a great many of the checks and controls are rather illusory. But this particular one is important to us; it is important, I think, to every organised charity. We want our normal accounts to be the accounts presented to the Charity Commissioners in any inquiry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend mentioned just now that he had already said a certain amount on a previous Amendment about the great care with which most charities keep their accounts and the anxieties which they have in that connection. The duty to submit accounts to the Commissioners has been in force for a very long time, since 1855, and it has always been the practice of the Commissioners to accept the accounts which are prepared by the charity for its own purposes without prescribing a special form. But I think the
102
difficulty here lies in the distinction between the general accounts of the charity and the particular accounts of special endowments which may be administered by that charity and which may simply be summarised in the main accounts of the charity that administers them, without showing any particulars. It may not be satisfactory for the purposes of the Commissioners to accept just the published, audited accounts in the general accounts of the charity administering the special endowments, whether or not they give the particulars required.
May I give your Lordships an example? Last year a complaint was made to the Charity Commissioners regarding one of the charities in which my noble friend is interested, and it was found that, over the years, this organisation had accumulated a large number of special endowments for particular purposes. Now when the law was brought to their notice they at once agreed that each of these funds was separately audited, and that without serious difficulty the particulars of each separate audit of each of these special endowments could be readily sent to the Commissioners. That was done, and the matter was amicably settled on that basis. I hope my noble friend will be glad to know that it did not involve any increase of staff or of premises.
LORD SALTOUN: Yes. I remember that case.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think that published annual accounts of a large charity which did not show any separate accounts for these funds would not be acceptable to the Commissioners. I think they ought to be able to see the particular accounts of any subsidiary endowments.
Subsection (1) of Clause 8 gives the power to exempt by order or regulations. The duty to send in accounts annually is limited to the case of permanent endowments, but power is given to exempt them from that requirement. It might be sometimes unnecessary for the accounts of charities which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be sent to the Commissioners, and it is possible that in many cases it would be sufficient for accounts to be submitted perhaps once in seven years instead of annually; but I hope that my noble friend will not press me to try to give

103
examples of particular cases which might be dealt with under such regulations, because I do not see how it would be possible to do that at this stage. I hope he will appreciate that, so far as the Amendment is concerned, we must provide the Commissioners with power to see the detailed accounts of endowments annually, as is provided for in the clause as it now stands.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and it occurs to me that now is an opportunity of clearing up what I think is a misunderstanding. I have not read the paper myself, but I am told that the Daily Telegraph thought that the Government had last night given my noble friend Lord Bridgeman an assurance that under Clause 4 it was sufficient to register a charity as a whole, and that every little trust would not have to be registered. It is that immense labour—there are 10,000 tiny trusts in respect of the Boys' Brigade, and an even larger number for the Guides—that is the burden which all these charities are fearing. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me if such an assurance was given, because that would clear up the whole matter. I remember very well the little incident that he has referrd to, and that difficulty was easily overcome. Everybody just "turned to" and did a little extra work, and we got over that difficulty without much trouble; but in some cases it might be very difficult. Will my noble friend perhaps reply to that question?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The assurance to which my noble friend refers is accurately reported in Hansard. I am sorry to say that I have not got a copy with me, but I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me to rely On the OFFICIAL REPORT without further elaboration. I have not read the Daily Telegraph.
LORD SALTOUN: That seems to me to leave us where we were. I did not hear it last evening. However, I do not propose to press this Amendment, if your Lordships will allow me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Exchange of information, etc.]:
4.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "may, if they see fit" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment which I hope will be found to be acceptable. Subsection (2) of Clause 9 provides for the supply of copies of documents to people who require them. It says:
"The Commissioners may, if they see fit, supply any person, on payment of such fee as they think reasonable, with copies of or extracts from any document in their possession which is for the time being open to public inspection under this Act."
So that we are dealing with a limited class of document which anybody can go and see if he wants to, and for a copy of which he can ask, on payment of a reasonable fee. I see no reason why, on payment of a reasonable fee, a person should not be able to get a copy as of right. You can go to Somerset House and can get a copy of any document you want as of right: you can go to any other Department where the public have a right to see documents and can get copies of them by paying a reasonable fee. Why should there be any exception here? Why should the Commissioners have the right to say, No, you can come and look at the documents, but you must not have a copy", even though the person desiring the copy is prepared to pay a reasonable fee? I should be grateful if whoever is to reply would explain why they need this discretion, and in what sort of cases they would wish to refuse copies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("may, if they see fit") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We felt that this was pressing the Commissioners rather too hard, because, of course, the Amendment would make it mandatory on the Commissioners to supply copies of documents open to public inspection. I have no reason to suppose—and I do not think anyone else has—that copies would be unreasonably refused. This Amendment and the next, however, would make it possible for any person or organisation to make wholly impracticable demands—for example, for copies of the whole of the documents relating to the charities of London. I

105
followed the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I am informed that Somerset House will not, for example, give you copies of all the wills of persons named Smith, although you may go to Somerset House and look at them if you have that curiosity. It is really a question of on whom the burden should fall. As I say, I am told—and I have no reasons to doubt it—that no reasonable request will be refused by the Commissioners. I do not think it is possible to say that no unreasonable request will be made. I am afraid that one might get unreasonable requests. If I am wrong about Somerset House, and that you could ask Somerset House to give you copies of (to take my example) all the wills of anyone named Smith, I will consider it again; but I am told that you cannot.
Would the noble Lord consider whether we could not find a via media? Everything that my noble friend Lord Saltoun has been saying about not taking up too much detail applies in a secondary degree to the Commissioners. My noble friend Lord Howe asked me yesterday about the staff of the registry. I believe that it is very small number; and I am told that the Inland Revenue do all their work in this connection with a staff of about half a dozen. I should have thought that it would be a very small staff that would be required, and that the fears that have been expressed—about Parkinson's Law and the like—have been exaggerated. This is the sort of thing, however, that might put an additional burden on the Commissioners; and while I think they ought to meet any reasonable request, I do not think we ought to subject them to an unreasonable one. So perhaps, as I say, the noble Lord would reconsider it and see whether we cannot find a via media on the point.
LORD SILKIN: I would say to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that I do not know whether you can go to Somerset House and ask for the wills of all people named Smith, and I do not think it would be within the provisions of this clause. If, however, you sought out all the names of all the people named Smith who had made wills, you could go to Somerset House and get copies of the wills, though they would not undertake the task of selecting all
106
the Smiths. In the same way, if somebody wanted the particulars of a large number of charities and named them, and said he wanted copies of documents which were available to the public, I see no reason why he should not have them, if he paid for them. The governing factor is that he must pay a reasonable fee so as not to involve a loss to the Commissioners; and the Commissioners have the right to charge a fee and to fix the fee. I do not want to press this matter. I think this is a right which the public should have as a matter of course, and that it should not be discretionary. If the Lord Chancellor thinks that some other form of words might be suitable, of course I am perfectly willing to think about it again, and perhaps he will also. We want to preserve the right of the public. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give the public as much information as can possibly be given to them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Local authority's index of local charities
10.—(1) The council of a county or of a borough may maintain an index of local charities or of any class of local charities in the council's area, and may publish information contained in the index, or summaries or extracts taken from it.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "or", and to insert after "borough", "or of an urban district". The noble Lord said: We now come to a group of clauses concerned with the position under the Bill of the local authorities, and which, I think very sensibly, enlist their aid in relation to the administration of the new law and confer upon them a number of rights or obligations. In Clause 10 it is a question of bringing in the local authorities to make the index of local charities; and in Clause 11 it is a matter of conferring upon them a right, although a rather limited one, of reviewing local charities. Now, very properly, and I am sure your Lordships will think very sensibly, the county councils, the county borough councils and the non-county boroughs are entrusted with this task. But the urban district councils are left out.
Since the urban district councils came into existence, generally speaking, they have been equated with the non-county boroughs, and, not unnaturally, they are a little touchy when some sort of distinction is made between them and the non-county boroughs, as is done in these two clauses of the Bill. I think it is right to say that there are only two Statutes on the Statute Book which have been placed there since urban district councils came into existence in which a distinction of this kind has been made. One of them is the Ancient Monuments (Consolidation and Amendment) Act, 1913, which I think was passed at a time before the urban district councils had any effective organisation to look after their interests, and which, in any event, I gather, the Minister of Works has undertaken to look into whenever a Bill comes up in which this problem could satisfactorily be dealt with. The other Statute in which this invidious distinction is made is the Road Traffic Act, 1956. This particular point came into that Bill at a late stage, and although I think the association which looks after the interests of the urban district councils entered a protest, it was rather too late in the day for anything to be done about it. This is a distinction which has rankled in the minds of those who do this valuable work of local government in the urban districts, and I suggest to your Lordships that unless there are overwhelming reasons in this case, as I submit there are not, it would be unfortunate if this invidious distinction were again given legislative sanction in this Bill.
There are, of course, no differences whatever between a non-county borough and an urban district, except that of social status. Many urban districts are anxious to get the cachet, if that is what one may call it, of a borough, and from time to time that occurs; but so far as the actual powers go, I think they are exactly the same, apart from the one or two small cases that I have already indicated. When this point was taken up with the Home Office by the urban districts, through their association, the Home Office contended that there is an overwhelming reason why this distinction should be made. I should like your Lordships and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to look at it, because I think it should be agreed that there is no overwhelming reason
108
why this individous distinction should be maintained here.
The reason given was that in the old days, before the Municipal Reform Act was passed in the early years of the last century, the borough, which is, of course, a great institution in English life and English local government, administered charities directly; and I imagine that in 1834 most of the ordinary non-county boroughs (they were just ordinary boroughs at that time, of course) did administer one or more charities. The Municipal Corporation Act changed the system, de-vested them of this charity property and vested it in trustees nominated by the corporations in question. The effect of this no doubt was technically to take away the charitable work of the non-county boroughs themselves; but they have continued to exercise a fairly close control, and I understand it is because of that that it is felt by the Department responsible for this Bill that they should be brought into these clauses and given these particular duties, and that rights should be conferred upon them. Since that time substantial numbers of other non-county boroughs have come into existence. Exactly how they compare numerically with the old ones I do not know, but I should think there cannot be much to choose in respect of one group or the other.
As I understand it, the Home Office indicated that these new non-county boroughs and the urban districts were really not concerned with the administration of charities, because there were very few of them which appointed trustees or which were in fact concerned with the administration of charities. As I understand it, those who were engaged in these discussions at the time indicated that, if they could be satisfied that there were a substantial number of urban districts which were practically interested in the work of charities, a new outlook on this problem might well be taken. As a result of that, a questionnaire was sent out by the Urban District Councils Association to all their constituent members, and to that questionnaire no fewer than 260 urban district councils have replied. Of this number no fewer than 65 have been found in which one or more charities exist and in regard to which the urban district council in question has a direct interest.
The constitution of the governing body of these charities consists of the whole of the members of the council or, if that is not so, the council in question is empowered to appoint or nominate the whole of the members constituting the governing body. Furthermore, the functions of these charities are not, in the majority of instances, in the same field as the welfare or other functions carried out by the county councils of the counties in which these urban districts carry on their work. In other words, we have a situation in which roughly 25 per cent. of the urban districts in the country are directly concerned with charities of the kind which are envisaged by Clauses 10 and 11 of this Bill. I should have thought that, in those circumstances, the case for bringing the urban districts in on the same level as the non-county boroughs was fairly clearly made out.
That is the substantial point, but there are two other matters which I think are worth bearing in mind, and which I submit substantially strengthen the case which I am making. Clause 11 extends the provisions of this subsection to boroughs which are included in a rural district. This, I imagine, has been included in order to meet the circumstances which may arise and which, from time to time, I imagine, will arise as a result of the proposal which a county council can now put forward under the recent Local Government Act, 1958, where, upon a review, the county council may in effect, with the consent of the Minister and on the order of the Minister, reduce the status of a non-county borough and bring it into the organisation of the rural district, in which case it becomes a sort of ghost. Nevertheless, this ghost is still to retain its duties and responsibilities, while an urban district council which may easily contain 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 people is not even to have the same powers as the clause confers upon this ghost.
The other point is one which, in a sense, stands by itself, and is under Clause 11. I think it would be convenient if I were to deal with it at this stage, because unless the urban district council can obtain the power to make the index and have the general powers of review, then the situation which may come into existence under subsection (3) of Clause 11 will not be effective. Subsection (3) of Clause 11 limits the reviews
110
of local charities by local authorities by providing that:
"No review initiated under this section by the council of a borough shall extend to the working in any county of a local charity established for purposes similar or complementary to any services provided by county councils …"
That is the general exception. Then there is the important proviso:
"unless the review is initiated with the consent of the council of that county or the council initiating it provides those services in its area under delegated powers."
It is these last words that I particularly ask your Lordships to observe, because in certain circumstances under recent legislation a non-county borough or an urban district council can insist on the delegation of these services.
An urban district council or a non-county borough with 60,000 inhabitants can insist, as I understand it, on the delegation of these powers, and in addition a non-county borough or an urban district with a population of 50,000 can go to the Minister and ask him to make an order, and the Minister has a discretion to make the order conferring the right to carry on these services in the area in question—in other words, to delegate the powers to the non-county borough or the urban district as the case may be. Is it not rather absurd to draw this distinction? Because if an urban district with 60,000 inhabitants can obtain these delegated powers, or with 50,000 inhabitants can go to the Minister and ask him to make an order, surely it has a status which I should have thought entitled it to be brought into this situation, especially when we find, as I said at the beginning, that no less than one-quarter of these urban districts are directly interested in charities of this kind.
Therefore I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is reasonable that these powers and duties should be conferred, not only upon the county boroughs, as the Bill provides, but also on the urban district councils. The three Amendments which I have tabled are all calculated to bring about this situation. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that the urban district councils ought not to be treated in this way. I hope, too, that the noble and learned Viscount will agree that the local authorities' status should be extended in this way

111
and the urban district councils should be included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("or") and after ("borough") insert ("or of an urban district").—(Lord Chorley.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I hope that this time I am not mistaken in thinking that the noble Lord wishes to discuss Amendments Nos. 23 and 31 together with this Amendment. This Amendment would place urban district councils in the same position as boroughs as regards maintaining indices of local charities. The noble Lord has dwelt a good deal on the distinction which the Bill makes between non-county boroughs and urban district councils, although in many cases, of course, a non-county borough may not be nearly so populous as the area under the control of an urban district council. The Bill goes further than the White Paper in this matter. The White Paper proposes only to confer this ability, this permission, to keep an index of charities on county councils and county boroughs, but the Bill goes further than that and includes non-county boroughs as well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has informed your Lordships, these non-county borough councils were often for many centuries themselves trustees of the borough charities, and although the Municipal Corporations Act to which he referred removed the charities from the corporations and vested them in trustees nominated by the council, the connection between the council and the charity has remained very close. Then there are many unifying schemes which have been made by the Charity Commissioners on a borough basis. We therefore felt that non-county borough councils might be enabled to maintain indices and carry out reviews of borough charities in the same way as county boroughs, subject, as regards reviews of charities operating in the field of county services, to the county council's consent.
The noble Lord has moved this Amendment on the ground that the amour propre of the urban council is, or may be, offended. He said he thought they might be touchy on the subject; that they might be considered as not being as important as the non-county boroughs because the non-county boroughs are given this power while they are not. I hope they will not feel like
112
that, because that is not at all the reason for making the distinction in the Bill. The reason simply is that there are not enough local charities per urban district to justify an index or a review. There may be quite a small borough which has existed for centuries and which may have quite a lot of very old charities which were at one time under its control and in which it still takes an interest. There may be a much more populous urban district in which there are scarcely any charities at all which are confined to the area of that urban district; and the number of charities of all kinds in urban districts who have benefits confined to that area very rarely reaches double figures. In boroughs they are generally considerably thicker on the ground. I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is no reflection at all on urban district councils to exclude them from these sections. It is simply a recognition of the fact that the number of charities which exist as a rule within their areas do not warrant any such statutory provision. That is the only reason why the non-county boroughs have been included in this section while the urban districts have not.
LORD CHORLEY: Would the noble Earl not regard 25 per cent. as being a substantial number? If not less than 25 per cent. of these urban districts are in fact either administering or looking after these charities, surely the case is made out. The noble Earl is just putting forward the views of the officials which were put forward before this investigation was made, and it seems to me that no effect has been given to the fact that it has been discovered on investigation that no less than a quarter of these urban districts are administering or looking after these charities. I imagine that that is at least as good a proportion as in the case of the non-county boroughs which have come into existence since the Municipal Corporations Act. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have paid attention to the facts that have been discovered and therefore put the urban districts into the Bill. If the noble Earl refuses to be helpful, there is nothing more I can do about it but ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord gets leave to withdraw, may I say that I think that the noble Earl has made a

113
case for the majority of instances; but are there not some cases where it would be of public advantage that the urban district should have a part to play? I wondered whether one could not follow the precedent of the Town and Country Planning Act, under which it is permissive to delegate functions to certain authorities where the occasion arises. The noble Earl gave instances where in some areas it might be desirable to give the urban district these powers. It may be very inconvenient for persons who want to know about charities to go to the administrative centre of a county; they may have long journeys to make. In those cases it might be desirable to have the urban district playing some part. I wonder whether he would be prepared to consider something along those lines.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should just like to point out that the figures which in our view would make it rather unnecessary to include urban district councils in this clause on the ground that there are not enough local charities per urban district to justify an index or review were figures very honestly provided by the Urban District Councils' Association in discussion with the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has asked us if we will consider again whether in some exceptional cases it might not be an advantage to provide facilities of that kind, and of course there is no reason why we should not very readily agree to consider that in the light of what the noble Lord has said. But the facts on which the non-inclusion of the urban district councils was based were derived from information furnished by the Urban District Councils' Association. We will certainly look into what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Reviews of local charities by local authority
11.—(1) The council of a county or of a borough may initiate, with the consent of the charity trustees of any local charities in the council's area (other than ecclesiastical charities), and may carry out in co-operation with the trustees a review of the working of those local charities, and may make to the Commissioners such report on the review and
114
such recommendations arising from it as the council after consultation with the trustees think fit.
4.59 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, at the beginning of subsection (1) to insert:
"The Commissioners may initiate at the request of"
The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment. It puts on to the Commissioners the onus of initiating a review, and that is done deliberately with a view to protecting charities from wrongful interference. Charities are very dependent on local councils for a great many facilities they enjoy. They are dependent on them for flag days, which are almost essential to their existence. But they are also, very often, in difficulties with local councils. For example, the organisation to which I belong might well be in difficulties with the local council over the placing of a lifeboat; and other charities might be in difficulty over the placing of an ambulance or anything like that. No great organised charity could afford to refuse such a review if it were requested by a local authority. It would be difficult to refuse the review even if it were pressed for by a few members of that local authority, because we are so dependent on local authorities for facilities for the collection of money from the public.
The noble and learned Viscount, in winding up on Second Reading, explained to me that as the consent of the charity trustees has to be obtained that was sufficient and ample protection for any trust. That is not so, however, because, as I have explained, nobody with practical experience would think that that was any protection at all. The best protection would be to do what I have done in my Amendment—that is, to say that the Charity Commissioners may initiate a review at the request of a council of a county or borough, and with the consent of the charity trustees. All the other Amendments which stand in my name to this clause are merely consequential upon that. It does not help me at all to look at the later Amendments in the name of the noble and learned Viscount which say that the council of the borough or county may carry out "a review of the working of any group of local charities," because there again we have the Boys'

115
Brigade and the Boy Scouts working side by side. To take an example which I have known in another form in the past, there might well be some local councillors who were great believers in the Scouts or in the Boys' Brigade, and who would wish to confine activities in the area to one or the other. For those reasons I attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment.
One of my correspondents says that this provision would expose the trustees of such charities to near-blackmail. That shows the kind of fears entertained by some of these charities. I do not think they could have misunderstood the clause, because so many compliments were paid to the drafting of the Bill on Second Reading. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, at beginning insert ("The Commissioners may initiate at the request of").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that the attempt that I made in the Amendment which I have put down has not satisfied my noble friend. I should like to develop the argument a little more, in the hope that I may persuade him, and in the certainty that, as he always does, he will give full consideration between the stages of the Bill to the arguments I advance. The Amendment which we are discussing at the moment and with which the other five Amendments are joined, seeks to add that
"The Commissioners may initiate at the request of"
the local authority. There is, of course, no need for the grant of any powers to the Charity Commissioners; they already have full powers of inquiry under Clause 6. As long ago as 1892 the Charity Inquiries (Expenses) Act, of which the substance is re-enacted in Clause 43 (3) (a) of this Bill, enabled local authorities who wished the Commissioners to carry out inquiries in their area to contribute to their expenses. But the position we are trying to face, on a basis of partnership and co-operation, and not subordination, is that the local authorities are operating services alongside charities in common fields of welfare. Therefore we think that it is reasonable that a locus should be given for them to consult together on a voluntary basis—I repeat "a voluntary
116
basis"; I have stressed and underlined that point from the moment of the introduction of this Bill—either on the initiative of the council or otherwise, as to how their respective resources are to be employed to the best advantage.
I would ask my noble friend Lord Saltoun to consider the Bill and also, if the Lord Chairman will agree, for the purpose of the argument, the Amendments which I have put down. The position is, of course, that if the council suggest that there should be a review, the trustees, as I said on Second Reading, can consult with the Commissioners before giving their consent. But I would ask my noble friend to look at the end of subsection (1) where these words appear:
"… may make to the Commissioners such report on the review and such recommendations arising from it as the council after consultation with the trustees think fit."
Thus, they have the review; they then have to consult with the trustees—they must do that—and then they must report to the Commissioners. So one gets back to the Commissioners, the body that my noble friend wishes to initiate the matter, before any action can be taken. My noble friend has said that what he fears is pressure on the part of the local authority, and he has quoted an unknown correspondent of his who was moved to use the word "blackmail". I am sorry that that term should have been used, because it is not a term that ought to be used unless one has a real basis for making so serious a charge. It is a disgraceful criminal offence, and I think that people ought to be careful about applying it to responsible bodies. Let us, then, remove the approbrious epithet for the moment and just say that there is a fear of undue pressure by the local authorities.
My noble friend is speaking for nation-wide charities who have this fear. I recognised that the fear had been expressed by him and other noble Lords, and so I put down the Amendment No. 25, with which go Amendments Nos. 29 and 32. Amendment No. 25 says that
"… subject to the following provisions of this section"
the local authority may
"initiate, and carry out, in co-operation with the charity trustees, a review of the working of any group of local charities with the same or similar purposes in the council's area."

117
Surely nothing could be clearer than that we have in the area of the council a group of local charities with the same, or a similar, purpose; and then, and only then, does there come into force the procedure which I have just outlined, under which the local authority may go to the charities and the charities can ask the Commissioners. And there is the further fact that the charities must give their consent before anything happens. In order that there may be no doubt at all about that, I suggest putting, in a separate subsection, these words:
"No review initiated by a council under this section shall extend to any charity without the consent of the charity trustees, nor to any ecclesiastical charity."
So that there must be the group of charities, and there must be consent; and if a review takes place the Report must be made to the Commissioners. Thus, the Commissioners come into it at the first and second stages; and that really brings about the position which my noble friend wants—that the Commissioners should have control. I want to make clear, however, that the importance of the Amendment is that it shows that the power of review is intended to relate to the working of a particular class or classes of charity, and not to an individual charity, and therefore I believe that those charities for which my noble friend has been mainly speaking must have their fears allayed.
My other Amendment is mainly a drafting Amendment. Without it a borough council would be unable to move, for fear that, after the review began, the local authority would be found to include a charity whose field extended into the county service. This Amendment would enable the county council's consent to be obtained if this were discovered after the review had been initiated. On this point I would say to my noble friend Lord Saltoun that Her Majesty's Government have taken a view different from that of the Nathan Committee and that expressed in Amendments which were put on the Order Paper last night. We have taken a view which is much more favourable to the independence of the charities than the Nathan Committee thought. I should be the last to expect gratitude in politics. I believe that the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition would say it is not something in the expectation of which
118
we live our lives. But I am rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Saltoun has not appreciated that we have, in our view on this, moved in his direction.
There is only one other point I want to make clear. In reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Granville-West, I gave some examples of exceptions from the register. I made clear that I was only giving examples, but I do not want anyone to get a false impression. One of the reasons why exception regulations with regard to registration are to be made is the relief of charities with many branches from separate legislation. As I believe the noble Lord will agree, if there are a great number of branches it may be easy to except the branches because we have a major charity from which people can get full information. I mentioned that in replying to the noble Lord, but I wanted to keep that matter entirely free, because negotiations are going on, and I did not want either the noble Lord or others interested from a different angle to think I was barring that as a possible use of the excepting regulations.
The materiality on this Amendment is that I hope by these negotiations, and by the further discussions which were the subject of a promise by my noble friend Lord Dundee yesterday to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, that we shall be able to allay another fear of my noble friend Lord Saltoun. But on this point I hope he will feel that I have gone as far as I can to meet him if we are to maintain what I believe is essential—partnership and co-ordination on an equal footing, without subordination of voluntary and statutory work.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the further information he has given in regard to registration. While he was very anxious that there should be no misunderstanding about what he previously said, am I right in understanding him to say now that although the principle of non-registration of charities should cover those which have parent bodies, it would not be exclusively those, and that other charities, also, would be considered for exception from registration?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All that I have mentioned stands, without qualification. I am saying only that I did not want anyone to think I barred using the excepting procedure for small local manifestations of national charities. It could be done in that way. Again, I hope no one will take it that I am laying down what will be done. I am merely trying to make the position clear. Suppose there was a small local fund of under £500, or £250 for a national charity. We might well exempt that from registration, because, of course, there would be the national charity from whom it would be possible to get particulars of what was going on. That was the point I wished to make clear.
LORD GRANVILLE-WEST: I was worried about whether it was limited to such charities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; there is no limitation at all in what I have said. It was only to ensure that no one would take what I had said as a limitation that I added these words.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: In view of the Royal Commission at 5.30 I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund,

Foreign Service,

Distress for Rates,

Air Corporations,

Cinematograph Films,

Water Officers Compensation,

Road Traffic,

Coal Industry,

Local Employment,

European Free Trade Association,

Requisitioned Houses,

Wages Arrestment Limitation (Amendment) (Scotland),

Horticulture.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CHARITIES BILL
5.42 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am not altogether clear as to the precise position, and perhaps I may be corrected if I am wrong. As I understand it, there are two ways by which reviews or inquiries can be initiated. In the first place, under Clause 6 the Commissioners can at any time, of their own volition or otherwise, institute an inquiry. Under Clause 10 it is a matter for the local authority to initiate such an inquiry, and the consent of any particular charity would be required in order to enable that inquiry to proceed. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, expects that with the local council it will be only a matter of the town clerk, or it may be someone else, writing to the Commissioners and giving sufficient reasons for the Commissioners, if they think fit, to initiate an inquiry, which I gather is the form of inquiry the noble Lord would desire. I should have thought that it would be desirable that local authorities, having local knowledge, should be able to initiate such an inquiry. They may have some complaint to them, or some suggestion of some kind, and it would not appear unreasonable for the Bill to provide that local authorities should have the right, with the consent of the trustees in the case of a particular charity—and I am not altogether clear whether if the charity is one of a group that the particular charity will have the right to object or not—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will have to get the consent of every charity, whether one of a group or not.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. That clears up one point in my mind. So an inquiry could not be held at the instigation of a local authority in that form without the consent of every charity concerned, whether it be an inquiry into one charity or an inquiry into a group of charities. Therefore I should have thought that the noble Lord was fully protected in what he fears—namely, that there might be some local influence brought to bear which might result in an inquiry which

121
obviously, by reason of publicity and so forth, might do great harm to a particular charity.
Furthermore, it seems to me that it would be asking rather too much of the Commissioners if everybody requesting an inquiry had to go to the Commissioners in order that they might initiate it. I should have thought that it was quite sensible for the local authorities, the majority of whom would, I imagine, be in favour of any local charity and not anxious to damage it in any way, to initiate art inquiry, and that it was the most convenient and practical course. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government are right in the contention that they put forward and the noble Lord's views would be covered.
LORD SALTOUN: I want to say straight away that I am much obliged for the care and consideration that has been given to this matter by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I frankly confess that he lets me out personally. But the kind of people who are really concerned—and I am only taking examples—are the Boys' Brigade and the Boy Scouts, as I instanced in what I said before, or Dr. Barnardo's Homes, who are in competition with the local authority homes. Those are the kind of people who are not covered even by the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. My Amendment has this advantage: that if the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment is accepted, you go before the Commissioners, if you go at all, as consenting parties; the Commissioners do not know the origin or the reason for it all and are completely in the dark. But if the council knows that it has to approach the Commissioners first, then that stops any locally important gentleman who wants to do so from trying to put on pressure. For that reason, and because I must keep faith with my friends, I still persist in my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Surely this is a matter on which it would be rather silly that we should divide. I do not believe that the Government, on full consideration, will fail to see that the noble Lord has a good case. The Charity Commissioners are a central body for the control and regulation of charities. Surely it is only reasonable and fair that any request for an inquiry, which must throw up a
122
great deal of dust locally, should at any rate have their consent. Would the Government not agree to consider this point between now and the next stage of the Bill and see whether some compromise cannot be reached? It puts us in the considerable difficulty of voting against the Government we are supposed to support, and we do not like doing that if we can help it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think my noble friend Lord Hawke can say that I have been at all "stonewalling" on this matter. We brought forward our procedure on the original matter. It is open for the trustees to go to the Commissioners, and, as I say, at the end of the day the review must come to the Commissioners. The position of access to the Commissioners is made perfectly clear. Now, in order to meet the fears of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, I have put in the provision with regard to local charities, as opposed to a national charity—and all those the noble Lord quoted were national charities.
I have tried to approach this whole Committee stage on the basis that we should, as a Committee, try to improve the Bill. I have been moved in the directions that were asked on Second Reading, and on almost every point where I have been asked I have said that I will consider it. But I must remind my noble friend Lord Hawke of this fact: I have already compromised. I have already departed from the view of the Nathan Committee, and the view which is contained in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. There comes a point when my noble friend Lord Hawke is not asking for compromise; he is asking me to surrender the principle of cooperation on an equal basis. I do not think that that is reasonable. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Saltoun might at this stage consider what I have said. I have considered what he has said, and if he and my noble friend Lord Hawke still feel strongly about it they can put down a further Amendment on the Report stage. Surely, that is the reasonable way of meeting discussion of this sort.
LORD SALTOUN: I realise the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but the real point at issue is this—and I have never really had it clarified

123
all through this Bill, and I have not found anybody who can clarify it for me. The local troops of Boy Scouts are local charities, and the same is true of all the other charities that I have indicated. There is no way that I have yet discovered of preventing them from being considered local charities, although they are bound by an affiliation to the Headquarters. That puts me in this difficulty, and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will see my point. If he or I could find a definition that would cover all these groups and local bodies that have local trusts they would find the best way to carry out their work. Now this Bill comes down and says that all local trusts shall be subject to this, and that is all.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: Perhaps, as an old Scout, I could throw a little light on this picture. Before the war I worked very hard for the Boy Scouts' Association, and I should like to make it quite clear that every single group—and that includes Cubs, Scouts, Senior Scouts and Rovers—has its own finance. Except through the "bob-a-job" week they do not pay any form of subscription to the headquarters. I understand that this applies equally to Guides. This is where the difficulty arises. If, in some way, these groups of Scouts and companies of Guides could be, shall I say, exonerated from registering in this way, it would be a tremendous help.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I make the matter quite clear to my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire? I should think I was a Scout long before my noble friend was born, so I have a pretty long connection with the movement. I think he will agree that in 99·9 per cent. of the troops of Scouts there is no local charitable fund which is worked on a small subscription. In the other ½ per cent. there may be a local fund of £1,000 or £500 or the like. Of course, there may be certain gifts which come in. The only matter we have to consider is where there is a local fund, which may be quite a small fund connected with the local troop. What we want to do, and the object of the discussions which my noble friend Lord Dundee mentioned and undertook would go on when the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was
124
speaking yesterday, is to find a method. I am quite sure that we shall be able to find a method of dealing with these local charitable funds. But the last thing we want is by this Bill to force every troop of Scouts and Guides—it might be an isolated patrol and so on—to come in and submit their accounts. I simply cannot believe that it will happen. All I am asking is that we should be given time to have the discussions to find a method which is agreeable to the Scout Movement. Naturally, that is the first thing I want. I do not think my noble friend of Buckinghamshire need have any fears.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for that explanation. But might I ask one thing? Is he talking about this ½ per cent. as those which have a capital account of, say, taking his figure, £1,000?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was really what I was thinking, yes.
LORD SALTOUN: I am quoting from memory, but my information is that the Scouts have something like 10,000 local trusts, and the Guides 20,000. I hope that is right. Most of those will have capital, and it is for that reason that I tried to get the limit in Clause 4 (2) (b) raised, but the Government would not look at it. That would save a lot of this trouble. My difficulty is that these are local charges. I have not, and the Lord Chancellor has not, found any way of bringing these in. One has also to think of charities like Dr. Barnardo's—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would my noble friend permit me to interrupt him? I said just before the Royal Commission that one way of dealing with them was to except them under Clause 4 (2) (b). That is a perfectly easy way of doing it.
LORD SALTOUN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. That was the purport of my first Amendment. I am reluctant to force this Amendment to a Division, if there is any chance of getting some accommodation on this point. What I want is to see these charities protected. Is there anything we can do?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am extremely sorry. I am always anxious to do anything to help, but after what

125
I have done and what I have said in every direction I can only leave myself in the hands of the Committee. I have said that we will consider it. I have said that we will discuss it. I have said that we can except it. That is one way of dealing with it. I do not know what my noble friend wants to ram down my throat now. I have tried to be as reasonable as possible. I am afraid that I cannot do more.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not want to ram anything down the noble and learned Viscount's throat. What I do want is some ray of hope. I am perfectly ready to discuss it, and put the Amendment down again on the Report stage, if that is likely to bring any help. If the noble and learned Viscount thinks we can get any further on the Report stage I shall be very glad.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained this Amendment in the course of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and unless any of your Lordships wants further information I formally beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("may") to ("and") in line 10 and insert (", subject to the following provisions of this section, initiate, and carry out in co-operation with the charity trustees, a review of the working of any group of local charities with the same or similar purposes in the council's area,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved in subsection (1) to leave out
"with the consent of the charity trustees of any local charities in the council's area (other than ecclesiastical charities), and may carry out in co-operation with the trustees a review of the working of those local charities,"
and insert:
"and carry out a review of the working of any local charity in the council's area".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the power which is conferred on the local authorities to carry out reviews of certain local charities. As the clause stands, they can do it only with the consent of the trustees. I think it can be assumed that the power to hold a review will be rarely exercised in respect of those local charities especially where the trustees are constantly alive to their duties and keep the working of
126
the charity under review. If a review in co-operation with the local authority would be desirable in those cases, the trustees would undoubtedly welcome the assistance of the local authority and no problem would arise. But there are cases where the trustees have not vigorously pursued their duties; it is just in those cases that a review of the work of the local charity will be most needed and it is exactly in those cases where the local authority will be debarred from initiating a review. As I said, the occasion will rarely arise, but I think that in those rare cases where the trustees are not doing their duty and not carrying out the purposes of the trust vigorously the local authorities ought to have power to carry out those reviews, even though the trustees may not agree. So the purpose of my Amendment is to enable them to carry out this review without necessarily getting the consent of the trustees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this falls just on the other side of the line from the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Saltoun. I think it goes too far to suggest that the council should be able to do this without the consent of the charity trustees. The essence of a review is to enable the different charities and the statutory services to co-ordinate their work so as to make the best use of their respective resources. Just as I am afraid I rather turned on my noble friend Lord Saltoun the last time because I thought that he was rejecting the idea of partnership, so I think it would also be an infringement of partnership and cooperation on an equal basis if the local authority could do it without the consent of the trustees.
I think we have to take the charity trustees along with us. After all, there are the strong powers which exist in the Commissioners and, after the procedure which I have suggested, in the Home Secretary at the request of the Commissioners. There are the powers of accounts, inquiries and scheme-making powers, and I think that with all this one can hope that the trustees will be on their toes, as indeed the majority always have been,

127
and that they will accept this new co-operation and will take part in it. Therefore, as I have stood firm in the other direction, I would ask the noble Lord not to press me to deviate from the middle course in this one.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I, too, would express the hope that my noble friend might think it right to withdraw the Amendment. In view of all that has been said in the last hour, obviously it would be wrong to give an overriding power to the local authority—I am a local authority man in many respects—to have an inquiry into or a review of a local charity without the assent of the local trustees of that charity. I think your Lordships are concerned that the trustees should, in the first instance at any rate, have a say in this matter. Eventually, in the last resort, no doubt the Commissioners will have the say, but it is surely desirable in the first instance that the trustees of any particular charity should not, without their consent, have their affairs inquired into by a local authority. I venture to hope that my noble friend will think it right to withdraw an Amendment which I feel would be in complete contradiction to the matters which have just been decided by the House, which would not be in the least desirable and would certainly prejudicially affect the feelings of many trustees, and indeed the trusts themselves, if it were put into operation.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think that I ought to be put in the position that, because an unreasonable view has just been pressed beyond what is reasonable, therefore I, putting forward a reasonable case, ought also to suffer. I am dealing with the case where the local authority is of opinion that the charity is not being properly administered. They would naturally get the consent of the trustees if they could, but in those cases it would be difficult, presumably, to get their consent. I do not want to press this point unduly. Have the local authority any alternative course in those cases where they cannot get the consent of the trustees? Can they go to the Commissioners and ask the Commissioners to have a review? If the noble and learned Viscount can give me an assurance that they have some such recourse when they feel that things are
128
not going as they should, I should be most happy. I do not want to press this Amendment, particularly if there is some alternative remedy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, they can go to the Commissioners in the case that the noble Lord mentioned, where the charity is not doing its work. They could go to the Commissioners if it was a question of one of a group of charities not being "prepared to play" in a scheme of co-operation. There would be more difficulty in regard to a sanction in the last one—the Commissioners would have great difficulty in taking action. But in the first there would be no difficulty at all. If the charity trustees were not doing their job the Commissioners could act. If the charity trustees were being purblind as to the need for co-operation there would be more difficulty; but I should have thought, with the case being put to them from two important quarters, that something could be done. I want to be quite frank with the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to look at this matter again, because I feel that that is not a satisfactory position in which to leave it. Here we are talking of extreme cases but we have to legislate for them—where you have an unsatisfactory position; where the trustees are unwilling to carry out their duties properly; where they are unwilling to co-operate with the local authority in having a review. There there ought to be some remedy. I withdraw this Amendment, but I should like to look at it again and to return to it if I find that there is no alternative remedy available in a case of that kind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, at end insert—
("(3) No review initiated by a council under this section shall extend to any charity without the consent of the charity trustees, nor to any ecclesiastical charity.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("is initiated") and insert ("so extends").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Co-operation between charities, and between charities and local authorities]:
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the first "or" and after "district" to insert "borough included in a rural district, or rural parish". The noble Viscount said: The rubric to this clause reads:
"Co-operation between charities, and between charities and local authorities."
This Amendment seeks to add to the list of councils which will come within the scope of "local authorities" for the purposes of this clause. I feel certain that, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, the Committee will agree that the various councils and charities in an area ought to be able to co-operate, and pay money from the one to the other, in order to provide the services which either the trust or the duties of the local authority prescribe. But the defect of the clause as it stands at the moment is that only councils down to the level of a county district council may so co-operate with local trusts. There are, however, an enormous number of trusts which operate on parish level only and do not come into the rather wider sphere of the urban district or rural district council.
I have moved this Amendment in order to have included in the list of authorities with whom the trustees may co-operate those smaller councils, the council of a parish or of a new body, which I believe will soon come into existence, a borough in a rural parish, so that they may do things which are already set out in subsection (2) of this clause and can pay out trust funds in order to do so. Parish councils have a considerable list of powers—for instance, the provision of allotments, village halls and playing fields; and there are one or two curious miscellaneous powers, such
130
as providing water, footpaths and bridle paths and to maintain churchyards and so on, all of which are very commonly the purpose of small local trusts. I believe that it would be a good thing if the trustees of these small trusts could cooperate with councils where they are providing the same kind of service in the same locality, and where an interchange of money between them should be possible; because in some cases, at any rate, small councils may contribute towards the work of the trustees. This Amendment would enable a two-way flow, and I hope that your Lordships will feel that it would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("or") and after ("district") insert ("borough included in a rural district, or rural parish").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SALTOUN: I hope your Lordships will allow me the luxury of being drawn by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. I think it is probably the case that everywhere there is the most extraordinary co-operation between local authorities and charities, and it does not need this clause in the Bill to bring it about. I do not propose to move my Amendment on this clause in the Bill. I put it down only because I was not quite sure what was the element of compulsion. But I do not think this clause is needed to bring it about.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is obviously anxious to improve this clause, the purposes of which he supports. The question is not that there may be a lot of very good and active charities confined to one parish but whether the services provided by a parish council, as the authority, would be complementary or in any way similar to the services provided by the charity. I had not considered that there were likely to be many such purposes, except perhaps in regard to recreation grounds, and it hardly appears necessary to make any statutory provision regarding co-operation on those. My noble friend has, however, mentioned a number of other purposes, such as village halls, welfare services and other things. If your Lordships will allow I should like to look into that point again. We do not want to overload the Bill with unnecessary provisions but we shall be glad to consider whether the field of co-operation is sufficiently

131
wide to justify putting down an Amendment to this clause enabling parish councils, as well as other local authorities, to have this statutory authority for co-operation. I should not like to say whether or not the field is wide enough, but in view of what my noble friend has said we shall be glad to consider it further.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I can provide him with a formidable list, if that would be of any use. It is to be seen, of course, that the powers in this clause are only permissive. It says only "may", and is not necessarily going to overload the machinery by adding any element of compulsion. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Occasions for applying property cy-près]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe that it would be convenient if your Lordships were to consider Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 together. These Amendments to the clause dealing with the conditions to be fulfilled before a cy-près scheme can be made are put down to meet the view expressed by my brethren, the Judges of the Chancery Division, that the opening words of the clause were not clear. The intention of these words is now set out in a separate subsection, subsection (2) (that is Amendment 36) which says:
"(2) Subsection (1) above shall not affect the conditions which must be satisfied in order that property given for charitable purposes may be applied cy-près, except in so far as those conditions require a failure of the original purposes."
They mean that the clause does not alter the law, for example, as regards there being a general charitable intention, except by defining the conditions to be fulfilled in lieu of failure of the trust—that is, the conditions which can take the place of failure of the trust. The final Amendment is a separate drafting point which the Judges have suggested. I beg to move.
Amndment moved—
Page 12, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 21 and insert ("Subject to
132
subsection (2) below, the circumstances in which the original purposes of a charitable gift can be altered to allow the property given or part of it to be applied cy-près").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved,
Page 13, line 7, at end insert—
("(2) Subsection (1) above shall not affect the conditions which must be satisfied in order that property given for charitable purposes may be applied cy-près, except in so far as those conditions require a failure of the original purposes.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the last Amendment in my name to Clause 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, leave out ("by virtue of the gift").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.29 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved after subsection (3) to insert:
"(c) Where funds are raised by public appeal or public subscription for a charitable purpose, it shall be presumed that all contributions to such funds have been given with a general intention of benefiting charity unless the donor, at the time of making a contribution, has expressed an intention to benefit that charitable purpose only; and all sums contributed with an expressed intention to benefit that charitable purpose only shall be presumed to have been applied in fulfilment of that charitable purpose in priority to contributions given without limitation."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that there were several respects in which I thought that the extension of the cy-près doctrine contained in Clause 13 of the Bill should be extended, and I have tried my hand at putting down Amendments to achieve what I had in mind. We are all very grateful for the extension of the cy-près doctrine contained in Clause 13, and we feel that this opportunity of putting right certain anomalies which appear to exist as a result of a number

133
of legal decisions which have been made in recent years, should not be lost.
This Amendment relates to cases where there has been a public appeal or public subscription for charitable purposes and where, in the event, either those purposes have become impossible of achievement or the purpose has been achieved and there is a surplus of money. In both cases the effect is the same: there is a fund available which has not been capable of being expended for its original purpose. I imagine that in the first case, in the case where it has become impossible to carry out the terms of the original appeal, the money would go cy près. But I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could give me an assurance that Clause 13 as it stands would cover that kind of case.
But there is the other kind of case where the money has been collected and has been partly distributed—at any rate, sufficient has been distributed to carry out the purposes for which the fund has been collected—and there is a surplus. The question is: what is to be done with that surplus? As the law stands at present, there are three possibilities. First, the surplus can be returned to the original donors, if they can be found and, I understand, as the law stands, if they have definitely expressed the view that the amount they have donated is for a particular purpose and for no other. Secondly, the surplus can be distributed cy près. The third possibility is that the money, the surplus, will be taken by the Crown and treated as bona vacantia. I think in practice it then goes into a fund in count and is never heard of again, though I am not sure whether that is so. At any rate, it is not used again for any charitable purpose.
I should like to quote two examples that have occurred quite recently of moneys that have been collected as the result of a public appeal, and where, for one reason or another, it has not been possible to expend the money for the purpose for which the appeal was made. The first is the North Devon and Somerset Relief Fund, which the Committee may remember was a fund created to help the victims of the disaster caused by flooding and storm at Lynmouth, in Devonshire, and the surrounding area in August, 1952. A committee was set up and an appeal was made, and the sum of £1¼ million was collected. It was then
134
found that, when all the claims had been satisfied—I hope generously—there was a surplus of £250,000; and the question of what should be done with that surplus came to be considered by the High Court. Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry was the Judge, and he decided that the subscribers had intended to part with the money finally for a charitable purpose; they had not intended that the surplus should be returned to them if the object of the fund was fully achieved. He therefore directed that the surplus should be applied cy près. May I say that in that particular case the subscribers to the fund were never asked whether they intended their money to be used for a general charitable purpose; they subscribed as we all subscribe to cases of that kind. Here was a disaster, and I imagine that everyone who subscribed to that fund really thought that he was subscribing to help the victims of that disaster. But the Judge, in his wisdom, and I think probably rightly, decided that this money was subscribed for a charitable purpose.
But then we come to another case, the Gillingham bus disaster, which occurred in 1958. Again there was a surplus of funds collected. In that case it arose because it happened that the bus company was held liable for the accident which caused the death and injuries of the victims, and they paid full compensation. As a result, very little of the money collected was used for the purpose of paying out compensation to the victims. In that case, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, thought that the money should be returned to the donors proportionately. I cannot for the life of me see the distinction between those two cases. Nor can I see how in practice you are going to return what, in many cases, are quite small sums to the donors who gave their money anonymously and who, under this majority decision, became entitled to the return. Incidentally, the Court of Appeal made no order as to what should be done with the money where the original donors could not be found.
There is another case which I should like to mention, the Alverston and District New Hospital Building Trust. In that case, in 1956, the Court of Appeal decided that the public appeal—there was a public appeal—was a specific one for building a new hospital in Alveston

135
and was not for general purposes; and the funds in that case were inadequate for the purpose. I confess that I cannot appreciate the distinction between the three cases. No doubt eminent Chancery lawyers with inscrutable ways, accustomed to hair-splitting (and I say this in no disrespectful spirit) and accustomed to making distinctions, would find them. But to the ordinary man in the street and the general public, and I would say to the ordinary noble Lord who is not a lawyer, the three cases seem identical. In all three cases there were public appeals; the money was not capable of being used for the particular purpose, and there was the question of what should be done with the surplus. In this last case, where the money was inadequate and the National Health Act finally brought the project to an end, the Court of Appeal held that, where the donors could be identified, they should be repaid from a trust created, in proportion to the amounts of their contributions, and that the remainder should be bona vacantia. I have quoted these three cases, in all of which there was a different decision as to the surplus, though, to my mind, the cases are really incapable of discrimination.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make the position quite clear, and to provide that money so contributed should be regarded as being for general charitable purposes unless the donor, at the time of making the gift, has expressed the intention of benefiting the particular charitable purpose for which the appeal is made and that only. In all other cases it is to be regarded as given for a general charitable purpose; and, being for a general charitable purpose, the cy près doctrine will apply; with the result that, where the money cannot be used for the purpose originally appealed for, it will go to a similar charity. My Amendment also provides that the moneys so collected, where they have to be returned to the original donors because there is a surplus, should first go for the purpose of charity in priority to contributions given without limitation. I hope that the idea behind the Amendment will commend itself to the Government, even if the language in which the Amendment has been put forward does not—I should be rather surprised if it did. However, I
136
should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell us what are the views of the Government in dealing with cases of this kind. Undoubtedly the present position is not satisfactory, and I think it would be a great pity if we did not take advantage of the passing of this Bill to put right matters of this kind, which have given us much cause for anxiety and which have involved the charities in so great an expense. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
6.40 p.m.
LORD DENNING: May I say a word in support of this Amendment? In the doctrine of cy près as at present laid down, there has to be a general charitable intent before it applies. Take a case such as my noble friend Lord Silkin has mentioned. Take the Alveston Hospital case, where moneys were subscribed anonymously in pennies and sixpences. What was held in that case? Although £32,000 was collected in that way, after the National Health Service came into being there was no need for the hospital. What was to happen to the £32,000? The Court of Appeal held that the £32,000 was to go back to the original subscribers—those who paid anonymously in pennies and twopences on flag days—if you could find them. It was quite obvious that they could not be found. In the case of their not being found, those moneys were to go into the funds in court. Into the funds in court they went, and in the funds in court they presumably still are.
Similarly with the money subscribed for the bus disaster at Gillingham. That was subscribed for the relatives of the cadets. It was said, "Return it, if you can, to the people who subscribed their pennies and their twopences, but otherwise let it go into the funds in court." The argument is that if it is £5 or £10 and you can identify the person, why should it not be given back to him? But in a public appeal of this kind I would submit to your Lordships that a person gives his money and that that is the end of it: he does not expect to have it back. But the court do not find a general charitable intent there. Only in the one case of the Lynmouth disaster did Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry do that, but in the other cases they did not do so. Would it not

137
be a good thing, in the case of a public appeal and of a public subscription, to presume that there is a general charitable intent? Then the moneys can be applied by the court as near as may be to the charitable object. In the case of a hospital, it could go to a home for aged people, or some such charity as that. I should like to support this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I cannot help thinking that the words in the fourth line, "of benefiting charity", are far too wide and vague. It happens that I could give an example which may throw some light upon what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just said. After the Broughty Ferry lifeboat disaster the Lord Provost of Dundee raised a fund, and I happen to know what was said by subscribers to that fund, who were working people in one of the shipyards in Dundee. When the fund was advertised as reaching very large proportions indeed, they all said, "Well, that's all right; however big it gets let it be distributed among the people themselves." They may be humble folk, but I respect that opinion of theirs; and when the noble and learned Lord says that they have given to charity generally and they do not care what happens to the money afterwards, I venture to differ. These men would be very much hurt and very much offended if that money was put to any other purpose. I have always thought about the Gillingham case that, however in excess the money was of what normal people, perhaps wise people, thought it ought to be, it ought all to have been distributed among the people the fund was intended to benefit. That is one of the answers. In any case, I think that the words "of benefiting charity" are far too wide.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I should like to support this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has stolen all my thunder, but that is all to the good.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have the greatest sympathy with the object of this Amendment. I had intended to deal with some of the same cases as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but he has dealt with them, and I think my noble and learned friend Lord Denning would agree that there would be little served by my covering the same ground. The general difficulty that the Government
138
have felt is that this is a matter affecting the private rights of individuals who would be entitled to the property if the gift failed, and that traditionally Governments dc not interfere with such matters except on the advice of an independent inquiry. The two propositions which have always stood in our way are, first, that the wish of the donor governs the case; and, secondly, that a person who gives property for a particular purpose is prima facie still entitled to it in so far as it is not used for that purpose. To turn that into a concrete example: one would have no difficulty in agreeing as regards the shillings and sixpences, but in the Alverston case one of the gifts was for £500, and when you come to a figure of that sort it becomes rather more doubtful whether that person would have given so substantial a sum except for a particular object. An interesting thing to me is that that aspect of the matter has not caused any trouble to any of your Lordships who have spoken; but it is a matter which I should like to consider.
There are still some difficulties. As I understand the Amendment, it would apply only to gifts inter vivos, and that is only part of this problem. I think there are also difficulties in the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has used in order to deal with a difficult point:
"… unless the donor, at the time of making a contribution, has expressed an intention to benefit that charitable purpose only;"
If you send a letter saying, "I enclose a cheque to be used for the purpose of your appeal", what have you done? I am merely posing some of the difficulties, and there are a number of other points.
I should like to consider this point very carefully, and to consider how to get something which is workable in its details. I am in communication with the Chancery Judges on this point: I got into communication with them when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment. I will consult with them—and, of course, with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—to see whether we can deal with the matter. Even if there are still some difficulties at the end of the day, I think that we might at any rate make the position clear as to anonymous gifts, which would be some advance. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord will leave it to me to do the best I can to

139
find a solution. I am told that it is not an easy problem. I have merely carried out a preliminary consideration, but I shall certainly consider it further. As I say, I sympathise with the underlying object of the Amendment, and I shall work with the intention of finding a solution. I hope that the noble Lord will give me that latitude, and perhaps I shall be able to report progress before the Bill leaves this House.
LORD SILKIN: Of course I gladly respond to the noble and learned Viscount's request. I appreciate, as I said towards the end of my remarks, that this Amendment is probably imperfect in a number of respects, and on rereading it I had in mind the very point on which he has put his finger: that is, to express an intention to benefit that charitable purpose only. Very few donors write in the terms that they intend to benefit this only and nothing else, and I can quite see that this may well want re-wording. I am happy to leave it as it is, and I look forward with confidence to the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues finding a satisfactory solution. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I wonder whether your Lordships would wish to go on and deal with the next Amendment, which is a new clause and may take some considerable time, or whether you think that this would be a convenient moment at which to adjourn. I am perfectly willing to go on, but it will, I imagine, take somewhat longer than the time we have allotted ourselves.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am anxious to meet the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he feels that it will take some time. We have had a fairly long afternoon and have not made bad progress. Therefore I meet the desire which was in his look, rather than in his words, and I will ask my noble friend to act accordingly.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: In moving the resumption of the House, I should like to inform your Lordships that we shall continue the Committee stage of this
140
Bill on Thursday, March 31, when I hope we shall be able to conclude it—in fact, I am afraid we must do so on that day.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Earl means that we go on however long we stay, I am perfectly happy to do so on March 31. I think we shall have got over most of our difficulties. There are a number of Amendments on the Marshalled List which we have already discussed considerably, and I do not anticipate any difficulty.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved. That the House do now resume—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.