National Trust going in the wrong direction, warns former chairman

The National Trust is “going in the wrong direction”, a former chairman of the charity has said in an unprecedented intervention.

Sir William Proby said he had “been reluctant to criticise my successors” but added that there were “serious flaws” in the way that the organisation was being run.

His comments came in response to a report that accused the trust of an “abuse of power and a subversion of democracy” over changes to voting at its annual meeting.

The report, entitled National Distrust: The End of Democracy in the National Trust, called for ministers to introduce legislation to “prohibit all anti-democratic measures” and for the Charity Commission to open an inquiry.

It identified recent changes as areas of concern, including to the system of voting at annual meetings, which it said gave unfair advantage to the management’s preferences and limited attendance.

The report was written by Zewditu Gebreyohanes, a senior researcher at the Legatum Institute think tank and the former head of Restore Trust, a members’ campaign group, who told The Telegraph the charity’s leadership had “actively … stifled dissent from members”.

Restore Trust was founded in 2021 amid anger at a “woke agenda” at the charity after it published a report linking its properties, including the former home of Winston Churchill, to colonialism and slavery.

The campaign group accused the leadership of “dumbing down” history and said that in recent years it had lost its curatorial expertise and prioritised “visitor experience” over heritage.

Other areas criticised in recent years included the decision to “out” a country squire 48 years after his death and to ask staff and volunteers to wear gay pride symbols.

Writing for The Telegraph, Sir William, who was chairman of the trust between 2003 and 2008, said he believed “governance changes in recent years are taking this great institution in the wrong direction”.

It is the first time Sir William, who has also served in senior roles at the Historic Houses Association and the National Portrait Gallery, has spoken out to criticise the leadership of the trust. It is rare for a former chairman to intervene in public debate over the charity.

“The National Trust has always attracted controversy,” Sir William wrote. “This is because of its importance in our national life and the passion which so many people feel for what it does. This is healthy and should be welcomed by the management and board of trustees.

“A truly democratic structure allows these issues to be debated, voted on, and the organisation can move on. Stifling dissent will only lead to a running sore of disaffected members outside the organisation, which inevitably will damage this great institution.”

Sir William added that he hoped the report would encourage the charity and the regulator “to look again at its governance” and restore “democratic principles”.

One area of concern identified in the report was the introduction of a “quick vote” system, which is the first option on the annual meeting ballot paper and allows trust members to tick one box to agree with all recommendations of the charity.

It was introduced “without consultation” in 2022, a year after Restore Trust had emerged and seen three of its suggested council members elected and one of its resolutions passed. Since then, all Restore Trust’s suggested council members and resolutions have been voted down. Tens of thousands of votes against its suggestions have been cast using the “quick vote” system.

The report said: “If a nation’s incumbent political party were in charge of drawing up ballot forms and introduced a voting option at the top of the form with the option for members to vote in line with the Government’s recommendations, the public would likely recognise this as a significant abuse of power and a subversion of democracy.

“It is equally undemocratic for the National Trust to resort to such tactics.”

It alleged that the system had made the democratic process a “rubber-stamping exercise” and was “the single biggest erosion of democratic processes in the organisation’s history”.

The trust denied the claim, saying it needed to modernise to stay true to its purpose of protecting the nation’s heritage “for everyone, for ever”.

The report warned that there was also “no clear separation” between the board of trustees, the charity’s governing body – charged with holding the management to account – the council, which appoints and advises the board, and the paid senior management.

It said the “lack of proper separation” was demonstrated by the fact that Adam Dyster, the adviser to Rene Olivieri, the chairman of the board, was also adviser and speechwriter for Hilary McGrady, the director-general.

Half of the 36-strong council, which holds the board to account, are elected by trust members. Ahead of the annual meeting, the charity recommends to members who they should vote for. The recommendations are made by the nominations committee, which is made up of council members.

While the trust’s preferred candidates are identified in the annual meeting booklet and by members of management on social media, others are not allowed to campaign in a system that has been described as “unfair”.

The report noted that Celia Richardson, “the communications director of the National Trust, plays a critical role in promoting the trust’s voting recommendations on X [formerly Twitter] and thereby mobilising a not-insignificant segment of the National Trust’s membership”.

Sally Hunt, a council member, is identified as “apparent evidence” of the impact of that support, having polled 19th with 9,276 votes in 2021 when not recommended but being elected the following year in fourth place with 71,358 votes when she was trust-endorsed.

The report alleged that the fact the Trust did not interview Lord Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court and a historian, as a potential candidate last year suggested it was only interested in “those it was confident would not oppose any of the Trust management’s actions, irrespective of the merits and qualifications of the candidates”.

It is not the first time that the Trust, Europe’s largest conservation charity, has faced concerns over its democratic processes. In 2003, the independent Blakenham Review noted “deep suspicion” over proxy voting and recommended restrictions.

But the Legatum Institute warned that the trust had reversed some of the protections introduced and had made the system less democratic by ensuring that all proxy votes are cast by the chairman.

It said the system was used “to consolidate control and reduce dissent by quashing members’ resolutions critical of the management that would otherwise have passed”.

In recent years, a number of resolutions critical of the management would have passed by thousands of votes if the chairman’s discretionary proxy vote had been excluded.

The report recommended that Lucy Frazer, the Culture Secretary, introduce new legislation that would “reverse the post-pandemic amendments [and] prohibit all anti-democratic measures”.

It said a new statutory instrument that could not be amended by the trustees would prevent “power-grabs by the executive” at the trust, which was established by an Act of Parliament.

A spokesman for the trust said: “The National Trust is an independent charity, regulated – like all UK charities – by the Charity Commission.

“We have open and democratic governance processes, and are accountable both to our regulators and to our members. Our members firmly rejected a resolution suggesting government oversight in our work via an ombudsman at our AGM in 2022.

“‘Quick vote’ was introduced following advice from our independent election services provider that it is standard practice for large membership bodies. We will continue to take advice on what is standard electoral practice from accountable, regulated institutions that are experts in this field, and which have their own transparent systems of governance.”