HL Deb 02 April 1974 vol 350 cc826-49

3.47 p.m.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, and as your Lordships know, this is the second time of asking. On the first occasion, though I say it myself, we got an enthusiastic unopposed Second Reading, and I am naturally very pleased to have been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that he will not oppose the Bill to-day. Therefore I will not make anything like so long a speech to-day as I did on the debate on January 28. I am also informed that it would be discourteous to your Lordships if I presumed on what happened that time and cut things too short, so I will try to reach a compromise.

There has been an error in the Whips' Office in the list of speakers, and apart from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I am at the mercy of two Bishops. The object of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to let small communities retain their village school halls or village community centres when they are no longer needed as schools. As the law stands, they have to be sold to the highest bidder, and with to-day's inflated prices this is more than small communities can afford. But that is not all. In most cases these schools were originally given by a local benefactor or group of benefactors. Therefore anyone with the slightest sense of justice would say that these buildings, taken over as a result of the 1944 Act and run since by the local education authorities, should, if no longer used by those authorities, be given back to the original benefactors or their descendants, who are in most cases the local community.

In my own case—and, as I know from my postbag, it applies to hundreds of others—we know who gave the land and who contributed the money; we have the original trust and know that the intention was to benefit the village of Ideford. Therefore as the contribution was 100 per cent. that should be the handback. In other cases, where the local education authorities may have built on an extra room or two, we would expect the Minister to charge the local community that proportion of the hand-back. We are not asking for something for nothing, but as the law stands at the moment it is legalised robbery. And when the hall is the village centre, when there is no other place for the parish council, the women's institute, the youth club and the Sunday school to meet, your Lordships will realise the damage that this sort of legalised robbery can do to a small community.

On January 28, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, emphasised that this is no Party issue; in fact, he repeated that fact twice. He also underlined the point that the main object of the Bill was that small communities should be able to retain their community centres. I believe he was thinking along the lines of financial assistance from local authorities in order that properties could be bought, as I gather has happened in several cases in his own county of Surrey. I would emphasise that that is not what we are seeking. We are seeking what we consider to be ours by right.

We have the deeds to prove what was the intention of the original donors. For the 1944 Act abruptly to have ridden roughshod over those intentions is, in effect, what we are complaining about. That the Act should give the financial benefit from the disposal of that property to diocesan boards of finance is to do the Established Church a disservice. In my speech on January 28 I gave many examples of that happening. The only defence offered by the authorities who have now been given the benefit of selling the properties has been that, "It is the law." When I asked a Question on this subject last July, that was the Minister's Answer. In a supplementary question, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked, "Why not change the law?" That is what we are now trying to do; but the answer of the Minister then was that it is the law.

So one found it rather odd that in his speech at col. 102 of Hansard for January 28 the Minister stated that his Department and the diocese did not want to find themselves cast in the role of Shylock. Not only did the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, keep saying what the law was, but the solicitor to our diocese, who happens to be a personal friend of mine, also kept saying what it was. I should like to remind them of the Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 4, where Shylock says, "I stand here for the law"; and later "You know the law", and later still, "I charge you by the law". At col. 103 of the Report of that debate, the then Minister said, Section 86 was specifically designed to … deploy these endowments, hitherto restricted to one locality … over the whole of each diocese".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28/1/74.] The local rector underlined those words in Hansard, and in capital letters, in red ink, while recovering from a near apopleptic fit, wrote, "With what moral right?" And then he wrote it again. He, and I, cannot believe that that is what Parliament really believed, and that is borne out by what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said on the occasion of our last Second Reading debate.

As I see it, there are two main points. First, there is the importance of small, sometimes very isolated, communities being able to retain their community centres when there are often no possible alternatives. Secondly, there is the moral question of what right has anyone, even Parliament, to tamper with wills and charitable trusts? I believe that no one has, or should have, that right, and in my case it is as plain as a pikestaff what my ancestor and his fellow local inhabitants intended. It is in the deed of trust, as I demonstrated to your Lordships on January 28. With our money we built a school hall for the parish of Ideford for the use of adults as well as for infant education, for Sunday school as well as for day school, and it is there in black and white. This became, and still is, our only centre. Our intentions were obvious.

The euphemistic language of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans on January 28 cut no ice. His suggestion, at col. 88 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that we might use the vestry for community affairs is interesting, because the vestry of our church is 8 ft. by 6 ft. As I understand it, one of the main arguments used against imposing museum charges was that some of the donors had willed their pictures or antiques, or whatever it was, free to the people of the country or of the locality. If that is the case, then the pinching of the only local centre for the benefit of the diocesan board of finance has even fewer moral grounds to stand on.

Since our last Second Reading debate we—that is, myself and the people of the village—have been on B.B.C. Television's "Nationwide". In our last debate, I gave examples of a large number of places and parishes throughout the country which are being affected by the iniquities of the 1944 Act, and of subsequent Education Acts. Since the television performance I have received many more examples in addition to those which I quoted to your Lordships earlier. I shall quote only three of these, but I am willing to allow anyone who is interested to go through my file to see the hundreds of cases that I have there.

One letter I received is from the chairman of Seal Parish Council, a Mr. Jonathan M. Balcon. In asking whether this Bill would cover his case, he stated that his wife's family—the then Lord Hillingdon—gave the land and buildings of the infants' school to certain trustees, with the proviso that they be used for all time for the educational, spiritual, moral or other welfare of the people of the village of Seal. After going through the now familiar history of these cases, he concluded by saying: It is a totally academic question, but it seems wrong to myself and to a great number of people that the Church should now dispose of something over which they had trusteeship (however that trusteeship was acquired), when the original intention was that the parish as a whole should benefit". He went on: The land should, in all reasonableness, now be available to the parish for the purposes as defined in the original deed in their broadest sense". I mention that case, in addition to those which I gave your Lordships on January 28, to demonstrate that the problem applies to gifts in this century as well as to gifts in the last century, which is what I was mainly referring to last time.

Another example worth looking into is the case of the Streatham Sea Scouts hall here in London. The scoutmaster told me that they own the building and have a lease on that part of the land till 1985, but the local church council propose to sell it to the Wandsworth Corporation. He wrote: In negotiating the sale of the premises the Church authorities have unbelievably not referred to the owners and trustees of the 1964 building who are also the leaseholders. I mention that case because it is in London and all of my earlier examples were from rural areas.

An even more apposite case is from, to quote his own words: A Churchwarden of Christ Church, Loft-house, near Wakefield (Diocese of Ripon), a working-class parish between Leeds and Ripon He said: Fifteen years ago our 'national' school suffered the fate they have in store for you leaving our parish, like yours, no place to have a Sunday school or meeting". He, a Mr. Morris, goes on to say that the result has been a diminishing and ageing congregation. He thinks that if the donor's descendants had still been around they might have saved their hall.

When I first started this ball rolling, I hoped that there was some little Order that the Minister could slip in, or promulgate, to put the matter right. But time and time again I had the Shylock-like, "tis the law" shoved down my throat, so much so that I saw no other course than this one, which was suggested as long ago as July by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. There was criticism of the drafting of the original Bill; it has now been redrafted by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, to whom many small communities all over the country are grateful, not least myself. Therefore, my Lords, I hope that the Government will not only accept the Second Reading but will assist us as speedily as possible to get something on the Statute Book to save our remaining community centres, especially in the poorer, more remote areas, from what we consider legalised theft. Stealing the heart of a small community is, to my mind, a great social evil.

My Lords, I have stuck my neck out on several subjects in the past 18 years since I have been back in this country. This is the first occasion when my postbag has been 100 per cent. unanimous. This is the file and these are all the letters from people all over the country who are suffering the same threats. Just look at them! People are angry at this state of affairs. I am reminded of Kipling's Norman and Saxon": The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow, with his sullen set eyes on your own. And grumbles, 'This ain't fair dealing,' my son leave the Saxon alone". I think there is a lot of that here. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)

4.3 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this early stage in the debate to indicate the Government's attitude to the Bill, but may I at the outset say I am sure that the whole House looks forward with great interest to the maiden speech which we are to have from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. We shall listen very carefully to what he has to say. To know whether the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will be pleased with what I have to say we shall have to wait until I have finished; and I shall ask for the indulgence of the House because what I have to say will take a little time. When I spoke from the Benches opposite on Second Reading of the Bill with the same Title introduced by the same noble Lord in the last Parliament, I expressed my sympathy with what appeared to be its principal aim. At the same time I expressed my doubts about the efficacy of its provisions and I expressed reservations about his approach to the problem with which he had to deal. I shall again have to give some time to the expression of my doubts and reservations. But that is not to be taken as detracting in any way from the expression of the Government's sympathy for the noble Lord's aims. On the contrary, I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that the Government fully recognise the importance of the part played in community life by village halls and community centres; and they recognise in particular that the buildings of the village school often serve this purpose out of school hours.

It is in one aspect of this recognition that the Department of Education and Science makes grants towards the capital cost of voluntary provision of halls and centres. But I must remind the House that the provision of these halls and centres is basically a function of local, not central, government, so that the Department's grants, when they are made, are made through local authorities who must decide for themselves on the priority which they give to the various claims on their assistance; and the help which the Department can give us is, of course, always subject, particularly so at present, to financial constraints. I want also to emphasise that the Government feel no lack of sympathy for the village of Ideford, whose case has led directly to the introduction of the Bill. We all recognise what a doughty champion they have in the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. In a sense, they have been the victims of the defects of a procedure long since abandoned. I am assured that those defects will not recur in the administration of the provision of the Education Act 1973, which has replaced Section 86 of the Education Act 1944, under which the scheme dealing with the village school was made in 1950.

There are three aspects of this and I shall, if I may, take a little of your Lordships' time to explain how the Department's practice has changed. First, there is the matter of the site on which the school was built. This was presented, free, under the School Sites Act on terms which provided for the site to revert to the heir of the original grantor when the school was closed. The 1944 Education Act contained a provision, reproduced in Section 2 of the Education Act 1973, which enabled the Minister to exclude the operation of that provision for a reverter provided the heir either could not be found or was willing to relinquish his rights. In the early years of the administration of that provision the Ministry's efforts to find such heirs were, and I put it frankly, a trifle perfunctory. That is no longer true. To-day no Order preventing the operation of the provisions for reverter is made unless the Department is fully satisfied that it is proper to make the Order. Secondly, as events have shown, the Ideford School was included in the scheme under Section 86 of the 1944 Act nearly a quarter of a century before it closed. The modern practice is to include in a scheme only the premises of schools which have closed, or are expected to close, in the near future. That practice is of course reflected in the terms of Section 2(1) of the 1973 Act.

Thirdly, the Department's practice now is to provide for the division of the proceeds of sale of a foundation where there is a strong local interest and it can be shown, as it can certainly be shown in the case of Ideford, that the original trusts covered other matters besides the provision of education in a school. This change of practice too is reflected in the terms of Section 2(4) of the 1973 Act.

Finally, may I say that the Government feel some sympathy if there is a desire to keep the commercial developer out of the village of Ideford—and I have had the feeling throughout that that is one of his aims additional to those of which the noble Lord has spoken this afternoon. Whether this Bill indicates the right way to set about this laudable object is, however, another matter. I am informed that there has been a planning application with regard to the site. I understand that there has been a decision with regard to that application and that an appeal is being made. In the circumstances it would be highly undesirable that I should say more than that it may well be that somewhere along the line the answer may—and I only say "may"—be found here. Certainly there ought not to be read into what am saying that I am trying in any way to prejudice the situation.

I have mentioned these aspects of the Ideford School case specifically, not only because I want to make it abundantly clear that the Government are not unsympathetic to the purposes of this Bill, but also because they are relevant to the way in which my right honourable friend proposes to exercise his functions under Section 2 of the Education Act 1973, with which this Bill is concerned. In passing, I must observe that because it is so limited, I am advised that this Bill does not apply to the proposed sale of the endowment of the village school of Ideford on which the noble Lord's proposals are founded. But having expressed my sympathy for the noble Lord's objects, I must, as I indicated I would, go on to express my doubts and reservations about his Bill. Some of these doubts and reservations relate to matters of principle and others to practical considerations of the administration of the provision which he proposes should be added to the 1973 Act.

I shall deal with the questions of principle first. I begin by reminding your Lordships that this Bill, as your Lordships will see from the terms of Section 2 of the Education Act, 1973, is concerned exclusively with the endowments which are held on trust for the provision of denominational education in voluntary schools. That section and this Bill are therefore—and this is a point of some importance—concerned with trusts which are regarded by the law as charitable. The principle underlying Section 2 of the Act is that on the closure of the particular school its endowments shall be applied for the purposes of denominational education in another voluntary school, or other voluntary schools, of the same denomination. This serves two purposes. First, it preserves the investment of the particular denomination concerned in the public sector of education; secondly, it recognises the very substantial contribution made out of public funds towards the preservation of that endowment in the way of the maintenance of the school concerned by the local education authority.

The section is also in general accord with the ordinary law of charitable trusts under which, when a particular object of the trust fails—as happens in this context on the closure of the school—the endowment must be applied for purposes as near as may be to the original objects. I mention that point specifically because it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, thinks that Section 2 involves a fundamental derogation from rights that would otherwise be enjoyed by the local community. As I am advised, that is not the case. If the diocesan board did not apply for a scheme under Section 2 of the 1973 Act—and no order making a claim under that section can be made except on the application of the appropriate diocesan authority—it would be the duty of the trustees to apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme under the Charities Act 1960. It is not possible to say in general terms how the Commissioners would deal with such an application, since in the very nature of things every application must be considered on the particular facts of the case. But it seems unlikely that circumstances could ever exist which would justify the Commissioners in making a scheme which would divert the endowment of a trust for purposes of denominational education to purposes which are neither denominational nor educational.

It is simply not the case, therefore, that endowment, which escapes the Department's jurisdiction under the 1973 Act, necessarily becomes available to the local community on the sort of terms envisaged by the noble Lord. It is a perfectly fair point that a scheme made by my right honourable friend under Section 2 of the 1973 Act can apply an endowment in a way which is not permissible to the Charity Commissioners under the Charities Act. But whichever of those two Acts is invoked, the endowment must be applied for purposes which are denominational, educational or charitable. The point—and I shall come to this in a moment—is that this Bill would enable an endowment held for these purposes to be applied, at least in part, for purposes which are neither denominational nor educational, nor even charitable.

But I must return to the point of principle I was making that all these endowments are held on trusts for denominational education. It does not, of course, follow from this that the school premises forming part of such an endowment must themselves be used in perpetuity for the purposes of a school—indeed it would be physically impossible for that to happen. But it follows that when the school premises are sold the proceeds of sale must be used for those purposes for which the original endowment was created.

The whole purpose of this Bill is to enable the representatives of the local community to buy property, which is, as I have said, trust property, at less than its full value. To the extent that the price they pay is less than the price which the trustees could obtain for it if they were free to sell to anyone willing to pay, there is therefore a diversion of the assets of the trust to purposes not covered by the trust—and indeed, as the Bill is now drawn, there could be a diversion to purposes which are not in law charitable at all. I suggest that the House will wish to take a long and hard look at a proposal to divert trust property from—in some cases far from—its original purposes before giving it legislative effect. I wonder whether the noble Lord is himself a little guilty of putting forward a proposal which would in effect enable local government to engross property which was originally the result of private charity. It may be unintentional, but it is a point to which he might give some consideration.

I have referred to the purpose of Section 2 of the 1973 Act in enabling the denomination to preserve its investment in the public sector of education. This, I suggest to your Lordships, is an aspect of the matter that ought not to be forgotten. The provision of the 1944 Act which was reproduced in the 1973 Act was part of the general arrangements made by that great Act for the provision of education in the public sector by religious denominations, and I suggest that it should be looked at in the light of those arrangements. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will shortly be inviting representatives of the denominations to meet him to discuss the possibility of some further financial assistance to the voluntary aided schools. I do not need to emphasise that in the course of those discussions he will have to have regard to the funds available to the denominations from their own sources, which of course include the proceeds of the sale of sites of discontinued schools provided by the denominations.

I need not detain your Lordships very long on the practical aspects of the Bill since these are fairly apparent from its terms. There is, first, a substantial practical question to be answered about how the Secretary of State is to "take into account" the amount of the contributions made by the members of the local community. Are they, for example, simply to be deducted pound for pound from the present open market value? Or is some allowance to be made for inflation? And how, if at all, is the value of the contributions made by the local education authority in maintaining the school to be set off against the contributions made by the members of the local community to building it?

Next—and this is more substantial—I must point out that the Bill envisages two quite separate and not easily reconcilable tests for determining the price at which the land is to be sold. The first, to which I have already referred, is the requirement that the Secretary of State must take into account the amount of the contributions for the endowment made by the members of the local community the second requires the Secretary of State to fix a price which appears to him to be reasonable having regard to the resources of the said community". My Lords, it is not at all clear how this would work in practice.

Let us take the case of an endowment to which the local community made a fairly substantial contribution and which is now valued at a price well beyond their reach. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that their contribution could reasonably lead the Secretary of State to fix a price of half the market value of the endowment, but that even this is well beyond their means. Is that price one that is, reasonable having regard to the resources of the said community"? If it is not, is the Bill saying that the local community is to be entitled to purchase at whatever price it can afford to pay? That would be a rather novel principle, surely, in what is in effect part of the field of compulsory purchase. If it is not, what, then, is the effect of the concluding words about a "reasonable" price? My Lords, these are not mere matters of drafting: they are questions of substance which will have to be answered if the Bill is to proceed further. At the moment, it is not clear to me what answers could easily or even sensibly, if I may say so with respect, be given to them.

My Lords, I have repeated my expressions of sympathy for the noble Lord's purposes in introducing this Bill; I have amplified the reasons for the doubts and reservations which I expressed from the Benches opposite to its predecessor, since they apply equally to this measure; and I have, further, given assurances as to the future administration of the statute, which I trust will allay at least some of the anxieties of the House about the way the law has been applied in the past. I emphasise once again the Government's sympathy; but it is my duty this afternoon to set out the difficulties. Your Lordships will decide how the Bill is to proceed, and how far it is to proceed in this House. Meanwhile, I have to advise that, for the reasons I have tried to give, I am unable to commit the Government to its support. I hope the House will excuse me for the length at which I have set out those reasons, but I have tried to set them out as fairly, as frankly and as clearly as I can. They are, my Lords, matters of real concern, and I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, if he obtains a Second Reading for his Bill to-day, gives very serious consideration to the points I have laid before the House.

4.25 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

My Lords, it is a traditional courtesy of your Lordships' House to grant to those who make maiden speeches a rather higher place in the order of speakers than would otherwise be the case. This means that I shall precede my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, which is rather bad luck on him because I know that he has a major speech to make on this subject. It also means that I am, as it were, seconding the resolution before it has been proposed. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, very much for his encouraging words a few moments ago.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will not feel that this Apostolic succession in this corner of the House is putting him at any disadvantage, because I am hound to say that I find myself very much in sympathy with many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has made. I recall that when I was chairman of our diocesan schools executive I came in for a great deal of unpopularity when parishes, finding that their schools were closed, assumed that, since they were their Church schools, they would have the obvious right to take them over and use them as parish halls. But I had to go along and point out that under Section 86 they could have them only provided they were prepared to buy them back—and I think your Lordships will realise how difficult it was to persuade them as to the justice of that, because we needed the money for educational work in other parts of the diocese. Nevertheless, I have the greatest sympathy with the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for introducing this Bill. It is true that in the country, I think especially in the hamlets and villages, there is a great need for premises in which the community may meet for social purposes; indeed, schools, both State and Church, are already in great use in this way as a result of amicable arrangements between those who own the schools and the community. In my part of the West Riding, which died two days ago, alas!, schools and the community joined in amicable arrangements to make this possible. I must, however, take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, on this matter of "legalised robbery". I am sad to think that many of the exercises in this connection in which I have taken part could be "legalised robbery".

My Lords, the situation at the moment is that if the Churches—and I speak for the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Church as well as for my own—are to play their part in the reorganisation of education, in many cases adapting themselves to comprehensive plans, we shall need a great deal of money to meet our share of the cost of providing new buildings and extending and improving old buildings, bearing in mind the fact that the cost of building, as your Lordships will know, is now greatly increased. Where are we to get the money? I would have said that the chief source of that money would be from the disposal of disused Church schools at the highest and best prices we can obtain in order that we can meet our obligations if we are to play our part in the educational programme of the nation.

I should also like to make the point that again and again it is a matter of what the educational trust says. There are many parishes in which the trusts are so worded that there is no question of the diocesan authority laying claim to the money deriving from the sale of such buildings. Other trusts are so worded that we have no alternative than to expect to receive it. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, to moderate his description of it as "legalised robbery", although I repeat that I understand the feeling in villages and small towns when the people find that the school they have always felt to be their own community school is suddenly put up for sale at the best possible price. And it has to be the best possible price—we have no alternative—in order to make it possible for us to extend and improve our stake in the educational programme of the nation. I do not think that there is any question of a sinister scheme on the part of the noble Lord to propose an amendment which would amount to confiscation of Church funds: I am sure that is not the case. I accept that he is fired by a real sense of social justice and social need. I respect very much the reasons he has given for moving his amendment, but I must say that I shall feel bound to vote against it.

4.31 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will all wish to join me in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, distinguished at once for its clarity and its brevity. He was diffident, he said, about making his speech because, as he told your Lordships, he thought that I had prepared a major speech on this occasion. That is not quite so, your Lordships will perhaps be relieved to hear, and a great deal of what I thought needed to be said has been said by the right reverend Prelate, and indeed also by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy.

I fear that anyone dressed as a Bishop is at a great disadvantage in this kind of debate because I am well aware that to many of your Lordships any Bishop who speaks against this Bill must immediately appear as an ecclesiastical bureaucrat, representing those sinister forces known as diocesan authorities and opposing the legitimate interests of good Christian men who are bravely battling to maintain the life and vitality of their villages against the faceless and heartless "townees" who live in the See City. This is a very popular platform and, if the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will allow me to say so, I am not at all impressed by his envelope of replies. It is very easy to get replies and support from people who think that you are fighting against an authority for something which is local, old and desirable.

As I think everyone would agree, the ends which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, seeks to gain by means of this Bill are admirable. No one could be Bishop of a rural diocese such as Gloucester without knowing perfectly well the value of a community to the life of a village. Of course one can understand how anxious small communities are to retain this kind of amenity. But the difficulty—and it has been expressed very well by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy—is to equate the excellence of the ends which this Bill seeks to promote with the injustice of the means—because it is proposing something which is in fact fundamentally unjust.

These village schools were built by public subscription, often with great help from some generous benefactor, and often, again, help was given from outside the village by such bodies as the National Society. They were built by people who thought it important that children should be given a Christian education. Most of them date from the middle of the last century, when this was the great issue in front of the Church. Compulsory education was becoming law and it was a matter of great moment for Church people all over the land as to whether or not this compulsory education was to be Christian or secular. Christians were urged by the National Society all over England to put their hands in their pockets and build schools. And of course they were local schools because that was the way in those days in which ecclesiastical affairs were conducted—local parish churches, local village schools and local vicarages.

I am interested in the way in which people who long nostalgically for the days in which everything was in fact local do not seem to realise the plight the local community would be in if it had been allowed to remain local. No village, or very few of them, could possibly afford to have their own parson, for instance, if he were not helped by diocesan funds. Villages are often given great diocesan assistance in the maintenance of their parish churches. The schools about which we are talking, built no doubt by public subscription, have been largely maintained by diocesan help.

I think that if we are going to wish for complete local autonomy we have to remember the changes that have come over the face of England and over the Church of England during these last 80 or 90 years. The fact is that these buildings were put up as schools by people who believed it was important that children should be taught in accordance with Christian principles. When it is no longer possible in a particular village for a particular trust to be fulfilled then of course the assets are transferred to some other place where the purpose of the trust can still be fulfilled.

With the right reverend Prelate, I was amazed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, talk of this situation as "legalised robbery". I should not call it robbery at all; I should call it the fair and honest discharge of the responsibility which belonged to the trustees of charitable funds—the responsibility of using them for the purpose for which they were given. If this Bill were to become law it would make this almost impossible, or at the very least it would greatly hamper the Church in the discharge of that responsibility. The Bill seeks, it seems to me, to bring about a situation in which a charitable trust which was founded for one purpose may be diverted to another purpose. I do not believe that this is just.

The Church, as your Lordships have been reminded, is faced with great financial problems in maintaining its limited place in the whole field of education. Of course, there are many people who do not see the necessity for the Church having any such place in our system, but there are still many of us who think that it is to the advantage of our people that the Church should be a partner, albeit a junior partner, in educational endeavour. This does involve the Church in enormous expense, which we meet largely from the sale of redundant schools in order to build other modernised Church schools. To cut it down drastically would be a very great inconvenience; it would greatly hamper the work of the Church. We shall still have to buy and build at the going rate. It is only when we come to sell something that we would be subjected to this kind of restriction, and that again is not fair.

The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has already spoken about the difficulty of administration; it is not necessary for me to say anything more about that. How the wretched Secretary of State determines what is the fair price or rent is very difficult to understand: it would be necessary to take account of the original gift, deduct presumably from it what outside help has been received in maintenance and try to trace the donors. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, says he has a list of the donors of Ideford School. That is fine; but most schools do not have such a list. In my own diocese I doubt whether anyone is alive who was an original contributor to the kind of schools that we are talking about. Most of the people who now live in the village did not have relatives there 100 years ago. There are great changes in village life. It seems to me quite extraordinary to say that because generous people lived in our village 100 years ago therefore I should be, in some sense, a recipient of an arrangement which most of us are bound to think to be unfair.

That is why I shall have to vote against the Bill. Of course one wants village halls; of course one sympathises enormously with the village when the school is taken away. Over and over again people in my diocese tell me in some sense they feel as if the heart has been taken out of a village when the school is closed. One understands this feeling and has great sympathy with it. We are not going to cure this sorrow by inflicting an injustice, and to take money which is given for Christian education and to use it for social amenity is simply improper.

4.42 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Wakefield very much on his maiden speech. He may not know it, but although I am of a different faith from him I have a small parcel of land within his diocese, in the parish of Rothwell-Haigh. I keep in very close contact with it and visit it fairly often, and I know with what respect the right reverend Prelate is held in that parish. I hope that we shall hear the right reverend Prelate more often on this subject as well as on other subjects in this House. The Bench of the Bishops is always greatly respected. Whether the land is getting more Christian or less Christian, I notice that the respect in which the Bishops are held is certainly going up all the time.

I should like to support my noble kinsman, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, in the intention behind this Bill. The eighth Lord Clifford (my great grandfather's first cousin) was largely responsible for this donation; he was the main benefactor of this school at Ideford. The intention was crystal clear: it was for education to be given in this village for the good of the locality. I am not making a Party point, but in the last Government, for reasons which some of us thought good and others did not think good, we suggested that for the betterment of the Arts there should be a small charge for entrance to the museums. I see noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who took great interest in this subject. It was found that one or two benefactors had given collections of pictures to various museums, and it was put to us with enormous force that the intentions of these benefactors should be overriding: why should anyone give anything to anybody if their intentions were to be overturned one, two, or as in this case, four generations later?

I suggest that there is a parallel in what my noble kinsman, Lord Clifford, is asking your Lordships to consider and what the Government were telling us when they were in Opposition; that is that the intentions of benefactors ought to be considered. This case is an example. As we have heard from the two right reverend Prelates and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, villages in Devonshire are very much in need of community centres. Why should something which had a clear charitable intent be sold for the largest amount of money possible? The sale will not necessarily be for the good of the village; it will be sold to a speculator of sorts for the highest price available, and it will not necessarily be in the interests of the village. My noble kinsman Lord Clifford has said that he knows the original benefactors of the school. Although the principle may be wide—and I respect what the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Gloucester, has said, that the principle may go too wide in this Bill—I am sure that there are ways and means whereby this could be dealt with in Committee. The intention in this case is crystal clear and the moral is also clear. It would take a very severe, unthinking person, just for the sake of extra money, whether for the Church or local school, to wish to deprive a village of this natural right which it has had for four generations. My Lords, my speech has been short, but I merely wished to express my benevolent help to my noble kinsman in his very good intention.

4.45 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, when we discussed a Bill on this subject during the last Parliament, I spoke in support of it. I do not intend to go into the arguments now because they have been adequately put on both sides. But I make this suggestion. On the last occasion your Lordships gave what was virtually the same Bill as this a Second Reading because you were sympathetic to its purposes, whether or not they were approved of. The point was made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who was extremely critical about details of the Bill, that if it was given a Second Reading now then it would provide an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, to see whether he could meet the criticisms that were made; and doubtless they could have discussions together. I suggest that, as your Lordships have already given an almost identical Bill a Second Reading in the last Parliament, you should do the same again. What happens in the future depends on the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has raised. It would be only fair, considering that we all like the objects of the Bill, to give it a Second Reading to-day.

4.47 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I must confess to feeling envious of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. When, a little while ago, I was speaking on this Bill from the place he now occupies I had the support of only one Bishop; I notice that he gets two Bishops and an Archbishop. But perhaps I should be flattered that the Bishops thought that I could, because of my clerical background, fend for myself. All I want to say is that I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is pursuing this popular cause—and it is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said, a popular one—with a different version of the same Bill. Yet still I must confess that I regard it as of doubtful practicality, inadequate scope and very limited effect. I remain, nevertheless, sure that there is no need for any major or radical review or change in the Church/State relationship in this field.

When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans was making his maiden speech (and may I say, incidentally, how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield this afternoon) he had some fears that if this matter was pressed too hard it would call into question the whole of the Church/State relationship, which we all know is so difficult and delicate.

I am glad to hear, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that there is still hope of a more flexible approach in this whole matter. I agree with him, both on personal grounds and in the light of my own ministerial experience, that there is need for more sympathy than has been shown in the past towards the fostering and the building up of the health of local communities and local parishes, as compared with the imparting of religious knowledge in diocesan schools. I continue to share the noble Lord's doubts whether this Bill is the right vehicle for such a change and such a more sympathetic approach. Therefore I hope that the right reverend Prelates, the Charity Commissioners and the Secretary of State, together with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, will find a better way forward.

4.52 p.m.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, first of all I would join with the other speakers in welcoming the right reverend Prelate and congratulating him on his maiden speech. As I said on the occasion of another right reverend Prelate's maiden speech, "I hope we shall hear from him often, and from now on, on subjects on which we can agree."

I should like, in winding up, to pick up one or two points where some speakers may have missed the point. The question of the heir was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I read (he will perhaps recall it) a letter from the great-grandson of the person who gave the land. So it cannot be said that that heir cannot be found. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, brought up the question of the appeal and planning permission. Well, my Lords, we—the people who are going to sell—have held up the sale so far because of the planners; and I can assure your Lordships that, no matter what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester says, the people who have written to me are not just a lot of hoodlums who write for the sake of sending letters. A large number of them are churchwardens; some are vicars. He is welcome to read the letters if he does not believe me. To go back to the appeal, the sale by the diocesan board of finance has been held up because we—that is, the local councillors—have opposed the change of user from a hall to a residence. The diocesan board want permission to make a residence so they can sell it outright, in which case we lose our assets and everything. That is the situation.

The question of maintenance has also been brought up. Since these school halls were taken over as a result of the 1944 Act, the maintenance has been paid by the local education authorities, who have been financed out of the rates; and the villagers have paid their rates for it. So I do not see how that can be used as an argument that they should not retain the use of their local centres.

A great point seems to be made that these schools in these isolated country areas were given for Christian education and therefore the Church of England should now reap the benefit by selling them off. This again in our case—and I know that it applies also to many others—is not particularly so. Those who know my part of the world will realise what occurred after the Western rebellion. In the previous reign they had "whipped" abbey land. Somerset, the Protector, "whipped" church land and he created such a vacuum that our part of the world became very Nonconformist, and the vacuum was filled to a large extent by Wesleyans. I am mentioning this only because when, 150 years ago, we gave this village, the donor, my ancestor to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, referred, was not the Church of England. Half the people who contributed to this local school were, as it happens, tenants on the estate. I have the addresses; I know which farms they came from; I know that half of them were Nonconformists. This applies all over the country. Now we say, "What right has the Church of England—which until the 1944 Act never had any right in these local village affairs—to sell the schools?" The easiest thing to do when a village school was created, when a local centre was set up to which the people had contributed, was to get the local parson and the churchwardens as the trustees. Most of the first governors, as in our case, were the main contributors. I really think that that point could be and is being overdone.

Another thing is that originally the building was made for a Sunday school. All right. Is that not continuing Christian education? We have no other place in the village for the Sunday school. Or would the right reverend Prelate like us not to have a Sunday school, so that the money can be used for some brand new school on the outskirts of some large conurbation? My Lords, I do not think that that is the point. I see no difficulty when it comes to deciding what should be done for the local community. If there is a list of contributors, and of how much they gave, surely you know whether it is 100 per cent., or 50 per cent. That should be a very easy matter for the Minister to ascertain.

The other point the diocesan board of finance should remember is that when the 1944 Act was passed those concerned said, "Right! we will make a deal with the Church. When we close down these schools, you must capitalise on your schools for further education." But then the Church's representative said, "But we do not own these; these are all small trusts." So the 1944 Act included a section saying that, "the other Acts, wills and so on, are hereby wiped out; and it is in the actual Order so far as we are concerned, which was issued in 1950." The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield asked, "Where are we to get our money?" The local reaction is, "Where are we to get our centre, for which, after all, we paid in the first place?" This is supposed to be unjust, according to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Gloucester. I do not see that it is at all unjust that the local community should have handed back to it, when the State no longer needs it as a school, a building that it gave and built in the first place. What would the right reverend Prelate do in this case? Would he say: "Right! No centre. No place for the youth clubs. No place for Sunday School. No place for the women's institute to meet. No place for the keep fit class."? What does he expect the young to do? We have only two bus services a week to Newton Abbot, and they run in the afternoon, not the evening.

No, my Lords. I do not in any way pretend that this Bill is perfect. I only hope that by introducing it we can get together somehow or other and make something of this kind work. I am quite convinced there is a terrific feeling throughout the country when people see these things happening: their only centres taken away or else offered at a price they cannot meet. We have only 150 to 200 inhabitants, 60 families; how can we find £15,000? We have collected £4,500 already. Is not that an earnest of our good intentions? As has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I hope that if your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading we can save all the trouble of going through any other procedure and get some sort of administrative order. Perhaps the experts and backroom boys can tell me through the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, what should be done so that we can at least save many of these centres before the smaller, poorer rural communities are left homeless.

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