§ 54. Mr. W. ROBERTSasked the hon. Member for Central Leeds as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the interest which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have in the management of the Paddington Estate Trust amounts to a controlling interest; and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' consent is necessary before any change or redevolopment can take place in the property under the control of the Paddington Estate Trust?
§ Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner)The position in this estate is that, while the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are entitled to a share, generally one-third, of the income, the management is in the hands of a trust. The basis of the relationship between the two bodies is that the Commissioners are he freeholders, the trust holding a lease for the residue of 2,000 years.
The Commissioners have power to require that they shall join with the trust in the grant of any sublease or tenancy, but this power cannot be regarded as entitling them to claim more than protection of their present financial interests or of the value of their reversion in some 1,900 years' time.
§ Mr. ROBERTSAm I right in thinking that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners cannot establish any control over any changes which may take place in the property?
§ Mr. DENMANThat is so. They can in no way control changes unless they were manifestly to the financial disadvantage of the Commissioners.
Mr. ROBERT'SDoes the hon. Gentleman consider that it is in the interest of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they should derive profits, or at least an income, from a trading estate over which they have so little control?
§ Mr. DENMANThe position is admittedly not wholly satisfactory. It is one from which the Commissioners can only escape by Act of Parliament, failing voluntary agreement. They have on more than one occasion attempted to obtain physical division of the property whereby they would acquire absolute control of their own share, but that has not yet been possible.