National Trust has a duty to challenge Government, says its boss

THE National Trust’s director general has vowed to continue challenging the Government amid a row over politicisation at the charity.

During a heated annual general meeting, Hilary McGrady alluded to criticism of the charity after it denounced growth plans announced by Liz Truss as an “attack on nature”.

Ms McGrady said she was aware that not all members agreed with its stance but that the arguments were at the “front and centre” of the organisation’s purpose and it would continue to challenge policy.

At the meeting in Bath, the Trust faced anger over its support for a new road at Stonehenge, its participation in Gay Pride events, its democratic processes, its dealing with complaints and the way in which it responded to members’ questions.

Despite criticism, the charity defeated its opponents.

In an unusual move, it had opposed every single one of the resolutions proposed by its members – and each vote went in the board’s favour.

Campaign group Restore Trust had argued that René Olivieri, the chairman, should not be able to use discretionary proxy votes handed to him to vote down resolutions that the board opposed.

But they lost that proposal by 20,000 votes, with the chair only casting 1,828 discretionary votes against them.

Other resolutions voted down included one that the membership “deplored” the “divisive and unacceptable use of members’ funds” on participating in “woke vanity projects” like Gay Pride.

Ms McGrady acknowledged in her opening speech that there were things that the Trust did that not all members agree with, including a campaign against the growth plans proposed by MsTruss as prime minister.

The intervention, which included a full-page advert in the national press, led to accusations from Whitehall that the charity was “playing politics”.

Ms McGrady told the AGM: “Sometimes we need to speak out publicly. That’s why we voiced our concerns about recent proposals affecting nature, heritage and the planning system.

“I know not all members will agree, I don’t attempt to represent everyone.

This is, however, front and centre of what our purpose is about. We will continue to work with the Government to get to the right solutions”.

But the Trust’s leadership was accused of not listening to the membership on a number of issues.

Zewditu Gebreyohanes, director of Restore Trust, accused the management of “disingenuous obfuscation” because, she said, they were not answering questions directly.

She repeated questions from members about what information had come to light which meant that the Trust had abandoned plans to largely restore Clandon Park, near Guildford, Surrey, which was devastated by a fire in 2015.

Andy Beer, director of operations and consultancy at the Trust, said that over time, and with more information, “in simple terms we think we have come up with a better plan”.

The charity confirmed that it had received a £68million insurance payout and although the terms of the agreement meant there were no restrictions on how it spent the money, it was dedicated to using it all at Clandon Park.

Kent Rawlinson, Clandon’s project director, said it was “simply not possible to meaningfully restore the interior”, but instead it could tell the “remarkable story” of the construction and would be “a bit like visiting an 18th-century building site”.

Despite anger in the room, Mr Olivieri ended the meeting on a conciliatory note, asking for suggestions from members and promising to “do my best to be open to new ideas on how we are doing things”.

‘Sometimes we need to speak out publicly. I know not all members will agree. I don’t try to represent everyone’