HL Deb 15 December 1986 vol 483 cc8-18

2.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope I need not detain your Lordships for long in moving the Second Reading of this short and, I believe, uncontroversial Bill. Before I turn to the Bill itself, may I say a few words about the Chevening Estate Act 1959 and trust instrument, which this Bill amends?

Chevening Estate had been the family residence of the Stanhope family for nearly 250 years when the seventh Earl drew up a trust instrument which is now set out in the Schedule to the Chevening Estate Act 1959. The trust instrument established arrangements for the management and occupation of the estate, to come into effect during the seventh Earl's lifetime. The management of the estate and its contents and the trust fund were conferred on the administrative trustees, and the estate, its contents and the trust fund were vested in a bank, Coutts and Company. Thus the responsibility for the financial management and administration of the estate were divided. Moreover, the trust instrument limited the powers of the administrative trustees to dispose of interests in land, and particularly so in the case of areas of the estate known as "specified land".

The trusts for the occupation of the estate are left in the first instance with the Prime Minister, who was given the power to nominate a member of the Cabinet or the Royal Family to occupy the estate. This person is referred to in the trust instrument as "the Nominated person" and I shall for convenience refer to him in this way also. If the trusts in favour of the nominated person were terminated, trusts in favour of the Canadian High Commissioner would arise, enabling him to occupy the estate. If these trusts were terminated, for example if he did not wish to use the estate, trusts to allow the United States Ambassador to occupy Chevening would arise. On the termination of these trusts the estate, contents and trust fund would pass to the National Trust absolutely.

Since the seventh Earl Stanhope died in 1967 Prime Ministers have continued to use their power to nominate the occupant of the estate. At present this is my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary. But the experience of the operation of the provisions of the trust instrument over the years has led the administrative trustees, chaired by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, to believe that the wishes of the seventh Earl could be better pursued by amendments of the trust instrument. They are intended to allow further opportunities for occupation by the nominated person and greater flexibility and ease of management. Thus, this Bill comes before your Lordships' House.

There are three main areas where the Bill alters the present arrangements and which I would draw to your Lordships' attention. The first simplifies and eases the arrangements for managing the estate. Instead of the existing division of responsibilities between the administrative trustees and the bank, to manage Chevening there would be an incorporated board of trustees in which the estate, its contents and the trust fund would be vested. The board would thus be the sole trustee and combine the functions both of the administrative trustees and of the bank.

Secondly, the Bill varies the arrangements for the occupation of the estate which I outlined to your Lordships earlier. Your Lordships will recall that under these arrangements at present the trusts to allow occupation by the nominated person arise once only. When they terminate as I described, they terminate forever. Given Chevening's important and continuing role as part of the national heritage, and the use which has been made of it by nominated occupants, it now seems right to provide further opportunities for occupation by the United Kingdom nominated person.

Accordingly, the Bill provides for similar trusts in favour of the United Kingdom nominated person to arise after the termination of the trusts in favour of the Canadian High Commissioner, and once more after the termination of those in favour of the United States Ambassador. Chevening will still pass to the National Trust absolutely after the termination of the final nominated person trusts. I should say to your Lordships that the Canadian High Commissioner, the United States Ambassador and the National Trust have all been consulted about this provision and all have said that they are content with it.

The final important change to the original arrangements which I should mention relates to the area known as the specified land over which the trustees presently have no powers of sale, leasing, exchange or mortgage. The Bill would redefine the specified land to exclude from it certain outlying areas, some of which have been cut off from the main part of the specified land by motorway development. Apart from the areas taken for the motorway, these areas would still be part of the estate, but would no longer be subject to the restrictions in relation to the specified land which I have just outlined.

More generally, those restrictions on the disposal of interests in the specified land would be eased somewhat by giving the trustee certain limited powers to grant leases of and easements over the specified land, with the significant exception of Chevening House and the gardens immediately surrounding it. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this represents the best way of providing greater flexibility of management, while ensuring the integrity and proper direct management of the central part of the estate.

In conclusion, I have sought to show how this Bill would improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness with which Chevening Estate is administered. I believe, therefore, that these provisions do not conflict with the wishes of the seventh Earl. I am sure that he would have wanted the best possible use to be made of his generous gift to the nation. My Lords, I commend this Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Young.)

3.2 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining this Bill to the House. It is not without its complications and, as the noble Baroness has just said, it is the second piece of legislation which has been necessary to deal with this estate following the Chevening Estate Act 1959. When we consider the legislative burden generally and the number of worthy Bills which are in the pipeline, as well as Bills which noble Lords and honourable Members in another place would like to promote, I wonder whether the time and the effort needed to process this Bill are really justified. In my view, we should with respect try to think of some less burdensome procedure to deal with this kind of problem.

As the noble Baroness has described, the object of this Bill is to simplify the way in which to run this particular estate and the historic house that goes with it, and to establish a body corporate—the board of trustees—with power to undertake the functions now vested in Coutts and Company and in the administrative trustees. This seems to be a sensible and workable solution which we fully support.

However, a layman reading this Bill will not find it easy to follow and there are some points which need clarification. For example, we are glad to note that the Bill will have no effects on public expenditure or on public service manpower. This means—and I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm this later—that there is ample capital and income to run the estate. In this context, I think that Clause 4 of the Bill is worth a passing reference because it confers exemption from Schedule B income tax and stamp duty, an exemption which was also allowed in Section 2 of the 1959 Act. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us of the justification for this exemption from income tax and the annual loss to the Exchequer as a result of it. There is probably an adequate explanation, but I think that the House might wish to know what it is.

Furthermore, will the noble Baroness tell us a little more about the future use of the estate? As she explained in her speech, the intention of the late Lord Stanhope was that the house should be occupied by a nominated person; that is, a member of the Royal Family or a Cabinet Minister, then the Canadian High Commissioner, and afterwards the United States Ambassador, with an ultimate disposition to the National Trust. Can the noble Baroness say how this has worked out in practice? Have Lord Stanhope's wishes been fulfilled? That was not made absolutely clear in the noble Baroness's initial remarks.

In the years since the trusts were set up has Chevening House been fully, or fairly fully, used, and, if so, specifically by whom and for what purpose? We are all aware of the uses and the trusts which apply to Chequers and Dorneywood, but somehow Chevening House seems a little off the beaten track; we do not know quite so much about it as about the others. I believe that the House would be interested to know what specific future uses would be made of this property. Are any significant changes contemplated in the use of Chevening and the surroundings?

The noble Baroness has dealt with specified land; but can she tell us the extent of the land comprised in the estate? What is the total acreage; how much of it is farmed; how many are employed in farming and on other tasks in the estate? Lastly, may we assume that the maintenance of the house is more than fully covered by the income from the farm? Subject to those points, we wish the Bill a speedy passage.

3.8 p.m.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, I had the honour and pleasure for a time of being a trustee of the Chevening Estate. It was during the very early period when we were engaged mostly on refurbishing the house and making it fully fit for its future use. I think a compliment should be paid to Mr. Donald Insall for the manner in which he has refurbished his house—I believe with great distinction indeed. I believe it is recognised as such.

I must disagree somewhat with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I think that this was an immensely imaginative idea on the part of the late Earl Stanhope. I believe it is important that people holding very high appointment should have the opportunity of enjoying the peace and quiet of the English countryside in coming to the difficult and hard decisions which they have to make. I cannot say exactly how Prime Ministers enjoy living at Chequers, but judging by such reading as I have of biographies they make a great deal of use of it. My own reaction is that they find the peace and satisfaction there of great value. I believe the same could be true of Chevening. I hope the Secretary of State and Lady Howe are happy and enjoying themselves there, and are finding the peace that the countryside gives of some value in the very grave decisions that they have to make.

There is one question that I should like to ask. This house contains one of the most remarkable eighteenth century libraries in this country. It contains an enormous number of original documents which could be of great value to many students. Is it being used by students? What access do students have to it? How can they make use of it? It would be very sad if this library were not used and would be a thorough waste of the magnificant collection of pamphlets and books.

I had an exchange of letters with my noble friend because I wondered whether we really wanted a Bill of such fantastic complexity to deal with such small matters as are involved. This is a document of nine pages, five of which are schedules. I tried, in my limited way, to read the schedules. I got about half way through and I must confess that I was completely confused.

The Foreign Office kindly recognised the difficulty and have acknowledged that no consolidation will take place, so they have made a consolidation themselves, such as it is. It contains 25 pages of detailed work. Do we really want to have Bills as complicated as this? I am pretty sure that not one Member of this House who has looked through the schedules or tried to work them out, or has read the documents, will disagree with me. I suggest that this document should be completely rewritten so that we have a Bill clearly laying out the purpose of Chevening.

In a manner of speaking, it is simply what you have in any Act of Parliament—the terms of association. That is what this Bill is. It lays down the purposes of the Chevening Trust; what they should do; how they should be appointed; their purpose and their powers. You can look at these documents and find out precisely what they are, but only with difficulty. The noble Baroness said in her letter to me that there is going to be no question of a consolidation, and we shall be saddled with this for all time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, has of course been a trustee for, I think, 20 years. He will not find this difficult, but I am not so sure about any new trustee. He would have a terrible job to find out exactly what his tasks are. I should have thought that you could either do that, or alternatively write a clear statement and say that where the new Act applies it will take precedence over the previous Act.

There is a difficulty (and I can see this) about repealing Lord Stanhope's will, though of course it remains an official document, but I should have thought that something of a more simple nature could take place. This Bill is a sensible Bill. It is probably going to make the Chevening Estate better, but I think that this could be achieved in slightly more simple terms.

3.12 p.m.

Lord Hirshfield

My Lords, several Members of your Lordships' House have been closely associated as administrative trustees with the restoration and maintenance of Chevening House and the estate. I am pleased to see that in the House this afternoon are at least two of those trustees; so collectively there is much practical experience available to your Lordships concerning management of the estate.

I believe that I was an administrative trustee for longer than any other Member of your Lordships' House during a continuous period, not of 20 years but of eleven and a quarter years—which was long enough—until my resignation in July 1981. For seven of those years I was also chairman of the finance and general purposes committee from its inception in July 1974. Therefore it is appropriate that I make this modest contribution to the Second Reading.

I have a passion for things which possess artistic and architectural merit, such as fine paintings or drawings, furniture and objets d'art. All of these are to be found at Chevening. In particular, I am much interested in the preservation of Britain's stately homes (other fine houses such as Chevening) and the connected amenity grounds and lands; so I enjoyed every moment of my long and active involvement.

I shall always recall with pride my several interesting discussions with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who was then the nominated occupant of the house, and with his uncle, the late Earl Louis Mountbatten, both at Chevening and at Broadlands, concerning the redecoration and furnishings. I was also privileged to receive on behalf of the trustees from His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh at Windsor Castle a heritage award for the restoration of a house of architectural and historic importance.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs now occupies Chevening, as we have heard, and uses it regularly for meetings with foreign and other visitors. During my recent worldwide travels I met a number of diplomats and overseas representatives who have spoken of the excellent facilities they have enjoyed during meetings at Chevening. Many people, particularly in the locality, are delighted by the use that it is now having, and many of us feel that, after all, our work was worthwhile.

I am pleased that the house is being used and that it serves a useful purpose. In fact, the last activity with which I was involved before retiring as a trustee was to oversee the preparation and equipment of the main conference room area in which the Foreign Office meetings are now frequently held, and I am delighted to know of these favourable reactions by persons who use the facilities.

Hopefully it will not be considered out of order when I use this opportunity to record our gratitude to the trustees past and present for their valuable cooperation, and the considerable time devoted towards the highly successful accomplishment of a most excellent scheme of restoration. Inigo Jones's architectual connection with the house was uncovered early in the restoration process.

In preparation for this Second Reading, I refreshed my memory of the trustees' activities by reviewing a large part of the minutes of their meetings. I have also discussed this Bill's aims and objectives with some former colleagues, notably with Mr. Hugo Read, who managed the Duke of Devonshire's estate until his retirement. I am indebted to Hugo Read for his experienced observations, which substantially reflect my own views; so I hope they will be covered faithfully in my remarks.

I share the conviction of former trustees that what this Bill seeks to achieve is precisely what is required. The Bill will put the matter on the footing that Lord Stanhope is alleged to have always clearly wanted. According to Mr. Read, that was in fact evidenced by a statutory declaration made on 8th May 1970 by the settlor's solicitor. It is also sensible at this advanced stage in the restoration of the house and grounds to replace Coutts and Company (who were necessary as custodian trustees during Lord Stanhope's lifetime) by an incorporated board of trustees which would be empowered to act without the signature of each individual trustee.

Nevertheless, in this regard I voice a note of caution since I wonder whether the excessively wide terms of delegation of trustee investment functions proposed in the Bill are really necessary or desirable if the trustees are to retain proper control. It makes sense for them to have power to delegate in special circumstances, though not, I should have thought, in such an extreme way.

The Bill apparently contains a printer's error which probably need not be mentioned today. In Clause 5, at lines 37 and 39, there is reference to the Chevening Estate Act 1986, but on page 5 of the Bill the year of the Act is stated as 1987.

In place of the two categories of land under the subsisting trust there will be three categories: first, the house and amenity areas, no part of which may be leased; secondly, the specified land, which may be leased but not sold; and, thirdly, the rest of the estate generally, which may be leased but may be sold only with the consent of the Prime Minister.

Occasionally under the present trust the trustees have encountered problems due to the limitations and restrictions placed upon their management of the estate. For example, little was achieved by the trustees up to now towards restoring the former splendid kitchen gardens due to the high cost involved and other priorities. At some future time the trustees may want to let off the gardens to the north-west of the house as a commercial business. It should be possible to do so, with suitable safeguards, without damaging either the amenity or the security of the house if the kitchen gardens were omitted from the amenity area.

The trustees would also have greater freedom of management if most of the specified land to the north of the woodlands and towards Knockholt were cut off and put instead into the third category; namely, the land which may be leased but which may be sold only with the consent of the Prime Minister. While there are obvious practical advantages in using a road as a boundary, ownership on the northern edge of the estate is fragmented so that the woodland boundary would be more purposeful and give the trustees greater freedom in the management of Chine Farm.

Change has become the order of modern times, sometimes to advantage but not always. I question, for example, the wisdom of life appointment of trustees which may cause problems in spite of the Minister's power to give written notice terminating an appointment. Instead, why not provide an age limit? For example, it could be 75, as in the cases, I believe, of tax commissioners and Lords Lieutenant, or even 80, as some private trusts stipulate. Subject to those few reservations and suggestions which I hope the Government will examine before the Third Reading, I fully support and shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.

3.22 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. I hope your Lordships will allow me to slip into the gap on the list. I do so because I was as a Minister in another place concerned with the original Chevening Act. As such, I was invited down to Chevening to discuss the matter with Lord Stanhope, and to view all parts of what was rightly described by Winston Churchill as his "princely gift".

I wish to say only three things. The first is with reference to what the noble Earl said. The library is truly remarkable. However, what has remained chiefly in my mind about it is less the manuscripts—valuable as they must be to scholars—than the fact that the complete library of the first Earl is contained here. It is quite remarkable to see what sort of library a statesman and nobleman would have had at the beginning of the eighteenth century.

The second point is with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the endowments. My recollection is that the estate was not only endowed with the agricultural land and the money that the leases provided, but also that Lord Stanhope made another endowment of a quarter of a million pounds in investments. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, confirms that. The third matter is what led me to intervene today. Lord Stanhope discussed his aspirations for this estate in detail with me, and I have no doubt at all that in the circumstances that have supervened he would wholly have approved of the subject matter of this Bill.

3.24 p.m.

Lord Cornwallis

My Lords, perhaps I also may apologise for intervening. However, I felt that perhaps as the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, as chairman of the finance and executive committee of the trustees of Chevening, it might appear odd if I did not at least rise to support the Bill.

This Bill will make our administration very much easier and very much more effective. I hope that it will also lead to a much better management of our investments. We are very tied in the way in which we can deal with some of these matters now. I should like to comfort the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, by telling him that the garden wall to the kitchen garden (which I believe is one of the only two in existence in this country), is under active consideration for restoration when we can find the money to do so. I beg to support the Bill.

3.26 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, we have had a very useful short debate on this Bill. I am sure that we have listened with very great interest to those noble Lords who have spoken from extensive personal experience as trustees of the Chevening Estate. I was particularly interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, say that he felt that Lord Stanhope would have approved of the Bill, and also what the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, had to say, speaking from his long experience as a trustee.

A number of particular points have arisen which I shall do my best to answer. I begin by saying to my noble friend Lord Selkirk that we all appreciated what he had to say about Chevening. It is a beautiful house, with the most beautiful gardens to go with it. If I may speak on behalf of my right honourable and learned friend, I think that it would be true to say that he has made great use of it and that he much enjoys going to Chevening for precisely the kind of reasons my noble friend suggests. But more than that, it has been a house in which he has been able to entertain many distinguished foreign guests. I have no reason for thinking that they too have not greatly enjoyed the opportunity to see what I think can only be described as a very great English country house which is set in a most magnificent garden.

Turning now to the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a number of quite specific points. Perhaps I may start off by giving another example of what we believe are benefits that will come from this Bill. It is a Bill which modernises and rationalises the arrangements for the administration of the estate. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2—an example mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield. That enables the trustee to delegate investment functions to professional investment managers. The expertise of the investment managers will ensure that the best use is made of the trust funds. There will be greater efficiency in their use, since transactions will not be subject to delays while the consent of the trustee is sought. I give this as an example of a way in which we think the administration will be made more efficient and effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about the use of the estate. The trusts in favour of the United Kingdom nominated person are still valid. Previous occupants in Chevening have included the Lord Chancellor and His Royal Highness Prince Charles. There are no significant changes to the use of the estate which are at present envisaged. Any change would have to be consistent with the terms of the trust.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to tax. That is mentioned in Clause 4 of the Bill. The Chevening trusts are public in nature. They must therefore have been considered worthy of the tax exemptions bestowed upon them by the 1959 Act. This Bill—and in particular Clause 4—merely continues the existing exemptions. The noble Lord also asked about specified land. I am afraid that I do not have immediately available to me the acreage of areas which are being included from the specified land or the use to which they are to be put. I shall write to the noble Lord on this matter. He might find it helpful to look at the large-scale map which is available in the Whips' Office.

My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked one or two detailed questions. It gives me an opportunity, in answering the first one about the library, to say that I think no one who has ever had the pleasure of visiting Chevening can have failed to be struck by the splendour and interest of the library; and we all recognise its importance. The Bill does not alter the arrangements for access to the library, but certainly students who wish to use what the library contains can apply to the trustees for access. Any request would of course be considered carefully.

As my noble friend Lord Selkirk knows, I have been in correspondence with him. There is a long document which is available from the Government Whips' Office to which reference is made. It is long because it sets out the complete trust instruments as it is to be amended by this Bill. It may help your Lordships to see clearly how the amended draft instrument will look. I might say to my noble friend that when he wrote to me about repealing the original Act and re-enacting the trust instrument of the 1959 Act I explained that if we sought to follow this approach we should have to replace Lord Stanhope's original trust instrument with some purely statutory trusts. I believe that it is preferable to retain as much as we can of the original trust instrument.

I agree it is important that the amendments should be clearly understood but the changes to the trust instrument are set out in Schedule 2 to this Bill and will thus remain identifiable as amendments now made to the original trust instrument. But, to assist your Lordships in considering the amendment, we have prepared a document setting out the trust instrument, as amended, and this is available for any of your Lordships who may wish to look at it.

Finally, perhaps I might comment on one specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hirshfield, on the life appointment of trustees. The provisions for membership of the board set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill merely reflect the existing provisions of the instrument. There is no need in the context of this Bill, we believe, to depart from those provisions.

I hope that I have answered all the points that have been raised. I shall read carefully what has been said in this short but, I think, useful debate. May I thank your Lordships for your support for this short but helpful Bill, which I think will make the management of the Chevening Estate more efficient and more effective—support that has been received from all sides of the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time.