HC Deb 16 July 1958 vol 591 cc1372-83

10.1 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, at the end to insert: 1. The person who is for the time being the Lord Privy Seal. The object of the Amendment is to modify, in the sense indicated therein, the provisions in the Schedule for changing the composition of the administrative trustees. At the outset I should say that since the Second Reading debate we have had the opportunity of discussing with the Government the changes that we would like to see embodied in the Bill, and the Minister in charge has indicated that he would see his way to accept our proposals. As it stands, the Schedule, in effect, removes the Ministers who, under the terms of the existing deed, are the administrative trustees, from that body, and substitutes officials in their place. We felt that that went somewhat too far in the direction of changing the composition of the administrative trustees, and that a Minister of senior standing should be a member of that body. I understand that the Government are prepared to accede to that proposal.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)

As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, we were anxious to respond to the spirit of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Bill and to discuss, before the Committee stage, any misgivings that the Opposition might have about the form of the Bill as first presented to the House. We were also anxious, as far as we could, to meet any anxieties expressed by them. As the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has indicated, we have found it possible to meet all the anxieties and to agree to the Amendments which the Opposition desire to see in the Bill.

I wish to say only this about the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is quite willing to act as chairman of the trustees, and the Government are prepared to see a senior Minister as chairman in order to preserve some Ministerial and some political connection with the Chequers estate. Although I am prepared to accept the Amendment, I do not want to bind the Government at this stage to say that it should be the holder of any one specific office who for all time would be chairman of the trustees.

Perhaps it would be invidious to reflect aloud on some right hon. Gentlemen who in the past have occupied the office of Lord Privy Seal. It is unnecessary to do so, because one can say that it is possible that in some future Government there will be some other senior Minister who would be more suitable. Therefore, although I am prepared to accept the Amendment, I want it to be on the understanding that, before the Bill goes to another place, we should like to consider whether or not it might be suitable to table an Amendment to enable future Prime Ministers to choose a senior Minister other than the holder of the office of Lord Privy Seal. If that happens, the House of Commons will have a further opportunity of considering such an Amendment; but, as at present advised, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice

I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for what he has said, subject to the fact that I was not conscious of any such qualification as he indicates. It may well be that if it is the purpose of the Government to make provision for the possible substitution of another Minister of senior rank, we in the Opposition would not feel any strong objection to that proposal. However, I must say that it is a proposal which comes new to me. At the moment we are concerned only with the Amendment on the Order Paper. Naturally, we shall look at any change the Government seek to introduce in another place with the scrutiny which this Bill deserves and which we have given to it. However, I have moved this Amendment, and I understand from the Financial Secretary that it is accepted by the Government.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what he means by a "senior Minister"? It is a new phrase to me. Obviously it does not relate to age. I understand that there are certain Ministers who hold ancient offices under the Crown, like the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal. After that there are, of course, some offices whose holders are generally included in the Cabinet, but the choice is entirely open to the Prime Minister. Does it mean that it will be a person in the Cabinet or what other idea have the Government in mind—if they have any ideas at all—about what this new phrase "senior Minister" means?

Mr. Simon

I was afraid the right hon. Gentleman might ask me that question. Of course, the phrase "senior Minister" is not susceptible of legal definition. For that reason I did not table any different Amendment and was prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). All I can say is that if some other formula is found, and is found to be preferable, it will be one which I think will meat the conception which the Opposition have of some respected holder of a high office in the Government, if it should not be the Lord Privy Seal. I cannot go further than that.

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. A "senior Minister" of the Crown is not a phrase susceptible of legal definition and therefore cannot go into a Statute. I thought it right to give a word of warning in case we did wish to have another look at this phrase before the Bill goes to another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. Soskice

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from "Minister" to the end of line 14.

The Chairman

This Amendment goes with the Amendment in page 7, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to "is", and to insert: The person who is for the time being the Lord Privy Seal shall be the chairman of the administrative trustees but if he".

Sir F. Soskice

That is so, Sir Charles. The purpose of the Amendment I am moving is to remove the existing provision in the Schedule to the effect that the person nominated by the Prime Minister is to be the chairman of the administrative trustees. The later Amendment to which reference has been made provides that it shall be the Lord Privy Seal, the holder of that office for the time being, who is to be the chairman of the trustees. I understand from the Financial Secretary that this is also a proposal with which the Government agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir F. Soskice

I beg to move, in page 6, line 49, at the end, to insert: and (b) shall not be exercised in respect of any other part of the Chequers Estate unless the transaction has previously been approved by the person who (on the date of the contract of sale or other contract in question) is the Prime Minister". This is an important Amendment to which I gather the Government are prepared to give their assent. It deals with the power to sell and dispose of land.

The Amendment says that no such transaction is to take place except with the approval of the person who for the time being holds the office of Prime Minister. This, in the view of the Opposition, is a major and necessary safeguard, because the Bill gives power to the administrative trustees to dispose of land which is part of this national heritage except that part which can be regarded as the mansion house or … gardens adjacent thereto. The word "gardens" is nowhere defined, but we have thought that there should be some check upon possible moves by the trustees to dispose of land in a sense which would seriously impair what has become part of the property of the nation.

There are three matters which I would like to mention. I understand, and this is of great importance, that the Government are prepared to give a definite undertaking through the mouth of the Financial Secretary with regard to two plots of land which, so I am informed, it is the purpose of the administrative trustees to dispose of. For the purpose of the record I should perhaps define the two plots of land. One is that which is appurtenant to Brockwell Farm at the south-west end of the estate and the other is the Kimble Hill property at the north-west end of the estate.

I understand that the trustees desire to dispose of both those properties. In the Opposition we felt great apprehension about that, because it seems to us that if those properties were disposed of for building purposes and were acquired by a speculative builder, that would seriously impair the amenities of the estate. I understand, and I should like this confirmed by the Financial Secretary now while we are considering the Amendment, that the Government are prepared to undertake that if these sales take place—of course, in any event they will be able to take place only with the approval of the Prime Minister—they will be subject to certain restrictive covenants.

10.15 p.m.

I understand that the restrictive covenant in the case of Brockwell Farm will be a restrictive covenant which will limit the land appurtenant to that farm to use either for the purpose of a single private dwelling-house to be erected on the site of the present Brockwell Farm—unless that farm is itself modernised or changed into a modern private dwelling-house—or for agricultural purposes.

I also understand that the Government are prepared to undertake that the land at Kimble Hill will also, if sold, be sold subject to a similar restrictive covenant—in that case, a restrictive covenant to the effect that it will be used only for agricultural purposes. I should like that formally confirmed by the Financial Secretary, as this is a matter to which we attach great importance, and we understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to give that undertaking.

I should like to mention one other matter. The Amendment provides that the Prime Minister's approval is to be obtained before there is any sale or disposal of land that can be disposed of under the powers now taken for the administrative trustees by this Bill. It would, naturally, be a matter of courtesy that the Prime Minister should inform the Leader of the Opposition if there were any such intention to dispose of land under the powers now taken. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell the Committee that the Prime Minister would, at least, inform the Leader of the Opposition for the time being before there was any such disposal of land. I hope that I may be given the assurances for which I have asked.

Mr. Simon

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was obviously haunted, on Second Reading, with the prospect of the Estate of Chequers being sold off in building lots, and with a vision of villa roofs and privet hedges greeting the Prime Minister when he had his breakfast, and the evening made hideous by the sound of tennis balls, and the caterwauling of the local operatic society at rehearsal. I pointed out at the time that I thought that that was an exaggerated picture, in view of the duty laid on the trustees to have … regard to the need for preserving the enjoyment of the mansion house and gardens … as a suitable country residence for the Prime Minister … Nevertheless, I am very glad to be able to accept this Amendment. It is a safeguard against the alienation of the land, which is necessary to the enjoyment of the mansion house as a suitable country residence for the Prime Minister. It is, however, desired to sell off the two outlying farms to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—Brockwell Farm, in the south, and Church Farm, in the northwest—in the interests of good estate management. I am quite prepared to say that Brockwell Farm and Church Farm, and the land adjoining them, will not be sold without the imposition of restrictive covenants limiting the use of the property in each case to agricultural purposes or to the purposes of a single private dwelling-house. When I say "single private dwelling-house", it is intended that this, in each case, will be on the site of the existing farm buildings, if it is intended to rebuild.

Referring to the other matter about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in matters relating to the Chequers Estate it has been the custom in the past to take the Leader of the Opposition into the confidence of the Prime Minister. That, indeed, was done in the preparation of this present Bill. I am perfectly prepared to give an undertaking that in any major matter affecting the Chequers Estate, or whenever there is any major question of selling the land, the Leader of the Opposition will be taken into consultation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, after "hereof", to insert: except those specified in the catalogue mentioned in clause 3 of the deed". On Second Reading I suggested that Parliament should be scrupulous in setting aside the terms of a trust settlement and should do so only if we could show conclusively that circumstances had changed since the date when the settlement was made. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech on that occasion and the Opposition Amendments tonight have concentrated on the matter of land. I have put this Amendment on the Paper and another which is to follow later to deal with the question of chattels in the house itself.

It seems to me that it is not legitimate for Parliament to disregard the express wish of Lord Lee of Fareham when he made the settlement on Chequers that the contents of the house and in particular the valuable collections of furniture, pictures, manuscripts, china and other objects should never be dispersed. While I see that it is perfectly reasonable that power should be given by this Bill to the trustees to sell unimportant pieces of furniture—to change the carpets or curtains, to dispose of cracked china and so on—I think it unreasonable to go so far as the present Clause does and to permit the trustees to sell even the most valuable objects which formed part of Lord Lee's bequest to the nation and to future Prime Ministers.

Therefore, I put down this Amendment which would limit that power. I suggest that the power of the trustees to sell should not apply to works of art in the house. In error I included in the Amendment on the Paper the word "inventory". The word should be "catalogue" and my error arose out of an error in the original Act which I need not trouble the House by explaining. There is a great distinction between the catalogue and the inventory and it is precisely that distinction I wish to make by my Amendment.

The inventory of Chequers consists of a list of all the objects in Chequers down to the last tooth glass in a housemaid's bedroom, but the catalogue consists only of a list of all those outstanding works of art and relics, particularly Cromwellian relics, in the house. In my opinion, the trustees should have power to dispose of minor objects, occasional tables and tooth glasses; they should not have power to dispose of works of art. I commend my Amendment with that verbal alteration substituting "catalogue" for "inventory" and I hope it will seem to the Financial Secretary a reasonable distinction and a fairer way of dealing with Lord Lee's request.

Mr. Simon

The trustees, as the House knows, have found themselves increasingly hampered by the operation of the existing provisions, which do not permit the sale of any chattels whatever from the estate. Some of the chattels, of course, are bound to wear out, but even then the trustees have no power to dispose of them. An old carpet may have worn out, there may be a very uncomfortable armchair of no artistic value, or a cracked kitchen teapot, but none of those things can be sent to the village jumble sale. Therefore, it was expressly desired, as one of the aims of the Bill, to give some greater flexibility in the disposal of the chattels of the house which are of no artistic value.

The difficulty about my hon. Friend's Amendment, even when the word "inventory" is altered to "catalogue", is that it would not meet the case. There is both an inventory and a catalogue. The inventory is a very detailed list, setting out virtually all the chattels in the house. It is that which is mentioned in clause 3 of the deed. In addition, there is a catalogue of the principal works of art at Chequers, but that is not the inventory to which clause 3 refers.

I think that the confusion arises—and it is very understandable, if I may say so with respect to my hon. Friend—because clause 15 (f) refers to works of art as specified in the catalogue mentioned in clause 3, but in fact clause 3 does not mention any catalogue at all but refers only to the inventory. One therefore sees that there is no way of differentiating between the works of art and the minor chattels, as to which we all wish to see greater flexibility and greater discretion given to the trustees.

In a later Amendment on the Order Paper the disposal of any chattel must have the assent of the chairman of the trustees who, following the Amendment which we have made, is the Lord Privy Seal. With that safeguard and with my assuring my hon. Friend that it is the intention to preserve the major works of art and historic relics unimpaired at Chequers, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. N. Nicolson

In view of what my hon. and learned Friend said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir F. Soskice

I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end to insert: Provided that the power to sell chattels under this clause shall not be exercised except in pursuance of a decision of the trustees in which the chairman of the trustees concurs.

The Chairman

I think that this could be discussed with the Amendment in line 47.

Sir F. Soskice

As you say, Sir Charles, both the Amendments go together, and I can briefly indicate the purposes of both. I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). As the Financial Secretary has indicated, we have sought to substitute an alternative safeguard, as we feel that we must do something to see that these chattels are preserved as far as possible in accordance with the spirit of the original deed and the original gift.

The Financial Secretary has indicated that he is prepared to accept the Amendment, which is to the effect that no chattel shall be disposed of except in accordance with a decision of the trustees to which the chairman of the trustees—the Lord Privy Seal—is a consenting party. We think that that is an adequate safeguard, and with that provision in the Bill we feel happy that these chattels will be suitably preserved and that nothing of importance will be disposed of or at any rate that any proposed disposal will be individually considered and cannot take place unless the Lord Privy Seal agrees.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to "is" and insert: The person who is for the time being the Lord Privy Seal shall be the chairman of the Administrative trustees but if he".

In line 47, at end insert: Provided that in relation to the power conferred by clause 8E hereof thin clause shall have effect subject to the proviso to that clause.—[Sir F. Soskice.]

10.30 p.m.

Mr. N. Nicolson

I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out from "Chequers)" to "In" in line 4, and to insert: paragraphs (d) and (e) shall be omitted. 14. The following clauses shall be inserted after clause 15 of the deed 15A.".

The Chairman

I think that this Amendment goes with the next Amendment, also in page 8, to leave out from the end of line 15 to "For" in line 18, and to insert "15B.".

Mr. Nicolson

That is so. They go together and refer to the power given to the trustees to make alterations to the external appearance of the house. The Schedule is widely drawn and omits a great many of the provisos which Lord Lee inserted in the deed under the 1917 Act. But, in my opinion, these excisions are far too drastic. Lord Lee requested that the architectural details of Chequers should remain unchanged. This passage of the Bill deletes that provision. He also asked that there should be no new buildings put up within 200 yards of the house. That provision is likewise deleted by this passage. I would prefer to see those two provisions kept in the deed.

It is not unreasonable to imagine that Chequers could remain as it is, except for normal maintenance and repair, for many further centuries. I cannot foresee that any future trustees would wish to plaster over the brickwork or to destroy any of the architectural features of the house, which, since the removal of the Victorian Gothic additions, are precisely as they were left by the builder, William Hawtrey, at the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend what was the motive of those who drafted the Bill in seeking to delete this wish of Lord Lee, and whether it could be restored without unnecessarily hampering the trustees. Secondly, I understand that there is no wish on the part of the trustees or the actual curator of Chequers to add any buildings to the neighbourhood. One could have understood it if there was need of a new shed to house a new form of heating, but there is no such wish, and yet power is to be given to the trustees to make such additions, which might materially affect the appearance of Chequers. I suggest that that power is an unnecessary one and should be removed.

The final power which the trustees are making under this passage of the Bill is the power to sell chattels. We have already dealt with that subject. My main intention, therefore, in the Amendment is to confine the changes in Lord Lee's testament to the two items that in future the trustees shall have power, if they so wish, to alter the internal decorations of the house, and secondly, that they shall have power to remove the furniture from room to room. At the moment, they are forbidden by the original deed to do both these things. I consider that those provisions were unreasonable.

Mr. Simon

These Amendments contribute to one object, which is to retain in their present power paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of clause 15 of the original deed. These three provisions are: first, that the architectural features of the mansion house, surrounding gardens, and so on, shall be preserved intact: secondly, that no new building be erected within 200 yards of the mansion house; and, thirdly, that all pictures, tapestries, books, etc., as specified in the catalogue—to the difficulty concerning which I have already referred—mentioned in clause 3 are never to be removed from the mansion house. The Committee has already approved the giving of greater flexibility in regard to chattels. Therefore, if only for that reason, my hon. Friend will see that the Amendment runs counter to the intention of the Bill and the decision of the Committee.

I would however, like to reassure my hon. Friend on the other two matters to which, I know, he attaches importance. The reason why those two clauses are being dropped is, first, that they impose an absolute prohibition, and secondly, because their spirit and the intention to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention are carried out in another way under the Bill. It is these absolute prohibitions which have created the difficulty in the past.

It certainly is not the present intention to erect any new building within 200 yards of the mansion house, but we may in the future have some new form of heating and it may be desirable to put up some building to house it. The safeguard is first of all the character of the trustees; secondly, the fact that the Minister of Works has in the past been consulted and will in future be consulted about any such move; thirdly and most important the duty of the trustees to refrain from making any avoidable change in the distinctive features and character of the said mansion house and gardens. I was quoting from paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Bill. That is the overriding duty, and in our view gives a safeguard against the mischiefs which my hon. Friend has in mind. The same applies to the preserving of the architectural features of the mansion house and surrounding gardens. In our view they are amply safeguarded by the formula which I have just read.

Mr. N. Nicolson

I am sure the assurances my hon. and learned Friend has given will satisfy the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.