HL Deb 28 February 1939 vol 111 cc957-69

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT ESHER

My Lords, this Bill, as the Title states, is promoted to make further provision with respect to the transfer of lands to the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty and for other purposes. The general object of the National Trust and the work it is doing for the nation are already so well known to your Lordships that I feel it is unnecessary for me to refer to them in more than the broadest outline. The National Trust has already vested in it for the purpose of preservation upwards of 50,000 acres of land, and 300 buildings ranging from castles to cottages. The National Trust was incorporated as a statutory body in 1907, and its exceptional position has been recognised by Parliament in the special Acts which have been passed, conferring powers upon it for the furtherance of its objects. The latest of these Acts was passed in 1937, and by means thereof it has been possible to establish what is known as the Country Houses Scheme, which aims at the preservation of historic houses for the benefit of the nation in the hands of the Trust, while the families of the owners are enabled to remain in occupation.

Your Lordships are well aware of the manner in which estates are settled and entailed, and of the restrictions placed by law on the alienation of such land. I would, however, remind your Lordships that under the existing general law the tenant for life of a settled estate has power to dispose of the principal mansion house and the pleasure grounds and park and lands usually connected therewith. That power is subject to certain restrictions, and any sale of such property must be made for the best consideration in money that can reasonably be obtained. The special Act of 1937 already enables tenants for life to grant or lease settled land to the National Trust, gratuitously or otherwise, but subject to the restriction that the area shall not exceed five acres. Much though the Act has facilitated the Country Houses Scheme, it has been found ineffective to deal with the transfer of the larger houses and estates of national interest, or of architectural, historic or artistic importance, of which there are so many magnificent examples familiar to us all.

If your Lordships will turn to Clause 3 of the Bill it will be seen how the National Trust propose to facilitate such transfers. The clause is necessarily complicated and technical, but its provisions may, I think, be summarised as follows: It is proposed to empower the National Trust to accept, and the tenant for life under any settlement which comprises a principal mansion house to grant, either gratuitously or otherwise to the National Trust, in fee simple, firstly, the principal mansion house and the pleasure grounds or park usually connected with it; secondly, what may briefly be described as "amenity lands," that is, any property in the neighbourhood necessary to preserve the amenities of the house; and thirdly, what may be described as "endowment lands," that is, lands to provide an income for the maintenance and preservation of the house, its pleasure grounds and the amenity lands.

Within three months after the transfer of any such estate to the National Trust, the National Trust is obliged to lease the property to the tenant for life or statutory owner for a term not exceeding 150 years, at a nominal or other rent, and such lease is to be made subject to the settlement which affected the land before a transfer to the National Trust. The provisions to be contained in that lease are set out in subsection (3) of Clause 3. It is to be noted that the lease must contain a covenant by the lessee to admit the public to view such part of the property as may be agreed by the National Trust, and also give power to the National Trust to determine the lease whenever the entail comes to an end. Before passing from Clause 3, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the two very important restrictions on the exercise of the powers of the clause imposed by subsection (2). In the first place the disposition of the property cannot be made without the consent of the trustees, or an order of the Court, and in the second place the principal mansion house must be one which is certified by His Majesty's Commissioners of Works as being a building which is of national interest, or architectural, historic or artistic importance, and therefore proper to be acquired by the National Trust.

There are minor general matters also included in the Bill. Clause 5 will enable the Trust to grant easements over the property without the consent of the Charity Commissioners, and so save a considerable amount of trouble and expense. The Bill, under Clause 6, also enables the Trust to be trustee of any property which comes within the objects of the Trust. As the Trust finds the imposition of by-laws of very great value in the management of its estates, it asks for power, under Clause 7, for such by-laws to extend to properties which it holds on lease. Clause 8 extends the jurisdiction of the National Trust Acts to the Isle of Man. Such, briefly, are the provisions of the Bill, and commending it to the sympathetic approval of your Lordships, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Esher.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I do not suppose there is any one of your Lordships who has not the heartiest sympathy with the objects of this Bill. Certainly I have. I feel that the National Trust, in its endeavours to secure the preservation of these ancient buildings, is doing work for which everyone of us should be grateful. The ancient houses of England are well worthy of preservation, and I fear that if they do not receive some sort of assistance, such as this Bill affords, they will gradually disappear. Your Lordships perhaps occasionally visit Epsom, and your Lordships may have heard of Nonsuch Palace. That building of Henry VIII was pulled down by a friend of Charles II to build villas at Epsom. We do not want that to happen to-day, and the villas of our suburban resorts to be built of the materials of our ancient houses. But while we wish to do everything we can to preserve the ancient houses of our country, I think we must carefully consider the means whereby we seek to attain that end.

Naturally, as I am bound to do, I have given this Bill very careful scrutiny. It has been very carefully scrutinised in my Department, and in the corresponding Department in another place. At first I had considerable doubt as to whether this Bill could properly be allowed to proceed as a Private Bill—whether it should not really be a Public Bill. The main reason for that is that it alters the general law in regard to the Settled Lands Acts. However, after very careful consideration of similar, though not quite analogous, precedents I came to the conclusion that, so far as I was concerned, it was not necessary to suggest to your Lordships that it should not proceed as a Private Bill, but I felt that, if it did so, every possible step should be taken to secure that the Bill and all its provisions should receive the most careful scrutiny of your Lordships' House. Indeed when it was decided that the Bill should be introduced as a Private Bill I said that I would bring the matter before your Lordships' House in this way, so that your Lordships might have every facility and insist upon its careful scrutiny.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain what is in my mind. The Bill is unopposed, and there are therefore no petitions against it. In the ordinary way it would not go to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and I should deal with it under the Standing Orders personally in what is known as the Unopposed Bills Committee. I do not think that that would be sufficient scrutiny to meet the purpose, and so I suggest that we should take advantage of Standing Order No. 110. That Standing Order runs as follows: The Chairman of Committes may, if he thinks fit, report to the House his opinion that any unopposed Bill on which he shall sit as Chairman should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill. And that is the report which I propose to make to your Lordships' House. Turning it into an opposed Bill will have the effect of sending it to a Committee upstairs.

This provision is not very often used. I believe I have made more use of the Standing Order than my predecessors, because it has always seemed to me that if an important matter is to be considered on which there may possibly be divided opinions, it is more satisfactory that a thorough examination should take place before a Select Committee, rather than that the examination should take place before the Unopposed Bills Committee. At the same time, I do not think that I have really troubled your Lordships unduly in exercising the powers under this Standing Order. But I think that of all the Bills that I have dealt with in that way, this one is the one which is really most suitable to be turned into an opposed Bill and to be sent to a Select Committee. Of course your Lordships would probably, as you did in the case of the Rooks and Rabbits Bill, refer it to a Committee, and this procedure will have the same effect. When the Bill is turned into an opposed Bill I would propose, as is quite the usual practice in the case of any Bills referred to Committees in your Lordships' House when points occur which are not fully dealt with in the petitions, to write a letter to the Chairman of the Committee, drawing his attention to certain points in the Bill and inviting him to ask his Committee to give very careful consideration to them and to report thereon to your Lordships' House. By using this procedure I think the Bill will receive a thorough examination in the Select Committee.

I would now like to draw attention to one or two points which occur to me as being worthy of consideration. In the first instance I would make it clear that transfers such as are contemplated in this Bill can at present be effected without any difficulty under our Estate Bill procedure. Estate Bill procedure is not very often used. I think in the eight or nine years that I have had the honour to occupy this office, I have had only two or three Estate Bills, but they do offer procedure for transfers and alterations in settlements such as are contemplated in this Bill. Under Estate Bill procedure, which has been followed by your Lordships' House for a great many years—I do not quite know how long—the consent of the trustees, of the remainder men, and all other interested parties is required. The procedure is rather formal. They have all to appear in the Moses Room before me, and in the presence of each other they have to give formal consent.

Under the proposal now before your Lordships, it will be possible, as I understand it, for the tenant for life to do something by leave of the Court to which all the interested parties, including remainder men and trustees, may object. Of course I am not saying that this is not desirable. It may be very desirable. Restrictions imposed by the Estate Bill procedure may be very undesirable, and this Bill may remedy the law in that respect, and it might be for the benefit of everybody. I only say this, that when you are going to make so considerable an alteration in the law—the settled lands law—and in the procedure of your Lordships' House, very careful scrutiny is required, and your Lordships should be fully acquainted with exactly what is contemplated and with the opinion of a Committee which has given careful attention to the matter.

I pass to Clause 3 of the Bill. By that clause the tenant for life will have power to transfer his mansion house, park and other properties specified in Clause 3 (1) to the National Trust, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (3) of the same clause. First, he would have to get the consent of the trustees. There is an appeal, as I understand it, if the trustees fail to assent, to the High Court, and no consents of remainder men or other persons interested will be necessary. There is one point in the Bill which requires examination by a Committee, and that is that there do not seem to be any principles laid down for the guidance of the Court in the case of there being any opposition by trustees or any other interested parties to the proposed transfer. Also it seems that it is not clear whether the Court could have regard to anything but the pecuniary benefit of the parties interested. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I think it requires examination, and I believe I am not incorrect in thinking that certain Amendments have been drafted with a view to meeting some of these points. But those, of course, we have not before us at present, and they would be very suitable for examination by the Committee.

Then there is a point in the Bill which I do not think my noble friend mentioned. It is that when the remainder man becomes entitled to possession he can be given six months' notice even if he and the trustees and all the other interested parties have objected to the original transfer to the National Trust. I would suggest that this is a very considerable alteration in the general law of settled estates and also in the Estate Bill procedure of your Lordships' House, and that is a strong reason why I think a Committee should examine it in detail. As your Lordships know, we have always been able to make these transfers by Estate Bill procedure, but have always insisted upon the consent of trustees, remainder men, and other interested parties. There is a still further point. It is a question for consideration perhaps whether it is desirable that all these settlements and trusts should be affected by this particular clause—whether existing ones should be affected or only future ones, and I think that might be a matter which would be usefully examined by a Committee and their opinion reported to your Lordships' House.

I think that probably many of your Lordships are familiar with this procedure as trustees and in other capacities. I have had some experience myself though I am not a remainder man—I rather wish I was. Your Lordships will see the difficulties, and the importance of the considerations which this Bill presents and the necessity for their examination. There are one or two other matters which the Committee might examine. For instance, one might perhaps suggest that the class of properties mentioned in Clause 3 (1) might be looked into to see if they are suitable, whether they should be added to or subtracted from, or anything of that kind. Before Parliament decides this issue the list should be scrutinised carefully by a Committee. It might be considered whether it is desirable that the consent of trustees alone without any order of Court should be permitted. Thus you might have two methods—consent of trustees on general lines, or an order of the Court, when the trustees object, on hard and fast lines. That occurs to me as a matter which the Committee might usefully examine.

Then we have the next point—the duration of the lease for 150 years. I am not quite clear why that particular number is taken. It may be quite all right—very likely it is—but it is a matter that might be scrutinised. There are other points in the Bill which seem to me a little obscure and which might be examined and improved by a Committee, such as the incidence of Death Duty. I do not follow from the Bill how that would work out. That is all I have to say. I hope your Lordships will not think that I am in any way opposing the Bill. All I say is that it is a very important measure which will form precedents for other measures, and it is one that Parliament should not pass until it is satisfied it is the best possible measure of the kind which can be laid before it.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)

My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the merits of this Bill. I am, myself, in a somewhat delicate position. I am Chairman of the National Trust and also a member of His Majesty's Government, and I understand that it is contrary to all practice for a member of the Government to express opinions with regard to the provisions of a Private Bill. But I would like to say that, speaking as Chairman of the National Trust, I would not wish in any way to dissent from the suggestion which has been made by the Chairman of Committees. I quite agree that in respect of a certain restricted class of property which will be scheduled this Bill would make alterations in the Settled Lands Acts and, that being so, I quite agree it is suitable that the provisions of the Bill should be carefully scrutinised in Committee. Though it is an unopposed Private Bill, I would not myself wish therefore to raise any objection to the suggestion made that it should be treated as an opposed Bill and examined in Committee.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)

My Lords, this Bill deals with matters which, both as regards the procedure of the House and the form and substance of the measure, are matters of considerable interest to anybody in the position of the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps your Lordships would desire to know what view the Lord Chancellor takes upon the matter. As regards the procedure of this House I am no authority, but the authorities of this House and of the other place agree that it is not out of order for such a Bill to proceed as a Private Bill. I am bound, however, to point out the very wide scope of this Bill and to remind your Lordships, before you proceed with it as a Private Bill, that it affects potentially every limited owner of property of the kind specified in the Bill and every reversioner and remainder man of such property.

If the Bill had schedules of properties proposed to be included or affected, whether two of such properties or a large number, then notice would have to be served on those who had interests in the estates concerned. If they were infants entitled to remainder, application would have to be made to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of guardians for such infants, and either the consent of the remainder men or of the guardians of the infants would have to be obtained or, if not, it would rest with the Committee to consider whether such consents could be dispensed with. I do not, myself, know whether under the Bill as it stands every remainder man of property which he considers to be within the scope of the Bill—which of course is very wide—if he considers he has an interest in a house of historic or architectural interest or romantic beauty, would be entitled to appear before the Committee and be heard. But what I do think it is appropriate to point out to your Lordships is this—namely, that there is hardly a property owner of this kind, whether in possession or reversion, who knows that his interests are going to be affected, and accordingly it is not worth the while of a person, we will say the tenant for life of a beautiful property in Wales or the North of England, to instruct counsel to appear before the Committee which the Lord Chairman of Committees told us is going to report.

The consequence is that your Lordships are being asked to-day to give a Second Reading to a measure which may affect quite a large number of persons entitled in remainder or in possession, and they really have not had any sufficient opportunity of knowing whether their interests are going to be affected by a Private Bill and have taken no steps in the matter. Your Lordships will bear in mind that a number of the persons to whom properties would descend on the deaths of the tenants for life will be infants, and in a large number of cases they will be persons who are not yet born. Moreover, it is suggested, I understand, though it is not at present in the Bill, that the Bill is going to include in "properties" pictures, furniture, and chattels settled with the principal mansion house. If that were done, it would be a very extraordinary extension of the Bill, and it would require very careful consideration because the legal position as regards chattels is not the same as that which exists with regard to land.

These are considerations which it seems to me might well indicate to your Lordships in your discretion that you do not consider this Bill, which affects the rights of so many people who are not mentioned by name and who do not know their rights have been interfered with, ought to receive a Second Reading in this position—namely, that the Bill is a Private Bill. There is another consideration which I may mention. Most of your Lordships have had no opportunity at all of considering the position. I know certain of your Lordships who have come here without any idea as to the very large interests that are affected by this Bill. There are a large number of noble Lords who are tenants for life or owners in remainder of estates of historic interest or natural beauty and places of that character, and it does seem to me that before this matter is dealt with on Second Reading the people concerned should have an opportunity of considering whether in the true interests of themselves and their successors it is right to assent to the measure going through in its present form. It is quite true that the matter might be rediscussed on Third Reading, but according to my understanding of the practice of the House if the Committee decided that the Preamble of the Bill has been approved, there is a very strong feeling that the matter ought not to be reopened on Third Reading in the case of a Private Bill.

In these circumstances, after discussing the matter with the Leader of the House, who is unable to be present owing to duties elsewhere, I am unable at present to accept the Bill in its present form, and I think the wiser course, subject to your Lordships' approval, would be to adjourn this debate in order to allow the matter to be further considered. If your Lordships should see fit to allow the Bill to proceed as a Private Bill, I feel I should not be justified in resisting that course, because the general objects of the Bill are, I think, admirable, and I would not endeavour to oppose them. If, on the other hand, some of your Lordships should consider that this measure should only be allowed to proceed as a Public Bill, then perhaps one of your Lordships would put down a Motion to reject the Second Reading. If that is not done, and your Lordships approve of the Bill going on as a Private Bill after that further consideration which a short adjournment would allow, I should have nothing to say, but, having discussed the matter with the Leader of the House, I suggest that the interests affected are so large that they ought not to be interfered with in a matter of this kind except after very full consideration. Accordingly, in order to bring the matter to a head, I propose to move the adjournment of this debate.

Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are greatly obliged to the noble Lord on the Woolsack, and equally to the Chairman of Committees, for the careful analysis they have given of this Bill. In the first place I should like to say that this Bill has been in possession of the House since last November. There is no novelty in the Bill. It has been in possession of your Lordships, as I say, for several months, longer in fact than any Bill which is on your Lordships' Order Paper to-day. Secondly, I must point out to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that nobody's property is taken away from him under this Bill, as was the case a few months ago under the Coal Bill. The initiative lies with the owner, and, if the owner is an infant, with a duly appointed guardian of that infant—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is the tenant for life.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The initiative lies with him. The initiative lies with him now in dealing with property of this kind, and I really cannot see why in those circumstances this is quite so predatory a measure as the Lord Chancellor indicated. I should deprecate substituting for this Bill what is called the Estate Bill procedure. That might involve a dozen Bills in a single Session of Parliament, which would be very unfortunate, and very costly, and would bore your Lordships and the House of Commons still more. I think that, in view of the fact that a Bill promoted by the National Trust may reasonably be considered to be a Public Utilities Bill, there is really no need for putting the name of every property and the names of the owners of every property into a Schedule of an Estate Bill, year by year. In other words, the National Trust is entitled to have a continuation of several other Acts under which it acts already with statutory powers.

Between the proposals advanced from the Woolsack and by the Lord Chairman of Committees I myself would prefer the latter, but I have not had an opportunity of talking to my noble friend opposite who has already addressed your Lordships. I should hope really that we might conciliate the differences between the Lord Chairman and the Lord Chancellor by agreeing to an adjournment for a few days, or a week or two, and that then the Lord Chancellor at any rate should agree that he would approve of the proposal made by the Lord Chairman, whose speech, as he indicated, will be referred to the Chairman of the Committee upstairs and that will of course ensure that more than ample opportunity will be presented to have the matter fully considered.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I intervene for one moment? There is a great difference between your Lordships' Estate Bill procedure and this Bill. Under the Estate Bill procedure transfers such as are contemplated in this Bill can only be effected with the consent of all those interested. Under this Bill the consent of the trustees, remainder men and so forth may be dispensed with. That, I think, is the difference in procedure which will be the most important matter for a Committee to take into consideration.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has stated that the Bill has been in possession of the House for a considerable period. That may be the case technically, but I wonder how many noble Lords who are here this afternoon had ever seen the Bill before they entered the House to-day. It is not a Bill such as one of those normally circulated when pink notices come round inviting your Lordships to put a cross against those Bills you wish to consider. Normally, in the case of a Private Bill, the cross is not put, because it is assumed that the Bill is of a non-controversial character. In the circumstances, I do not think that your Lordships' House has had any ample opportunity for discussing and considering this Bill, and, therefore, I shall respectfully suggest that we should accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and adjourn the debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.