§ *MR. GEORGE FABER (York)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the "Coach and Horses," a fully licensed public house, at Hilsea, near Portsmouth, was sold by public auction in July last on behalf of the War Office, the then owners of it, a reserve price was put upon it; if so, whether the reserve price was fixed on instructions from the War Office, and was it so fixed on the basis of the War Office being the owners of a fully licensed property, with a permanent monopoly value, or on what basis; at how many years' purchase on the rental value was the property sold; and did the auctioneer who was instructed by 181 the War Office to sell the property make any announcement before the sale, on behalf of the War Office, that the property in question was likely to be injuriously affected in value by impending Government legislation.
§ *MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)Before that Question is answered, may I ask whether the reserve price fixed in this case was not, in the opinion of the War Office, the market value of the property to be sold, and whether he has ever known a case in which, when licensed premises were offered for sale, the auctioneer has reminded possible purchasers that the license was an annual privilege, and that the property might at any time be affected in value, either by the action of the justices or by legislation.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that.
§ MR. HALDANESo far as the supplemental Question is in order my reply is in the affirmative. The Answer to the Question on the Paper is this—the reserve price of the "Coach and Horses" was not fixed on the basis suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but at the amount of a written offer received prior to the sale. The rental, which was fixed at £125 a year on a twenty-one years' lease in 1886 was no criterion of the value of the house at the time of the sale, as the neighbourhood has changed considerably during the currency of the lease. The fact that the lessee, and at least one other bidder were willing to give £10,000 for the property at a time when it was well known that licensing legislation was imminent, seems to indicate that for some years the terms of the lease must have been very profitable to the lessee. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative. I may add that the time of sale was not fixed with any idea of realising a maximum price, as has been suggested, but under the rule laid down by a recent Committee on War Department land that all super fluous land is to be sold as leases expire. In this case, the lease expired in September, 1907.
§ *MR. GEORGE FABERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the time when this property was sold on a 182 basis of monopoly value, he himself, as a member of the Government, was aware that legislation was intended prescribing a time-limit for licensed property?
§ MR. HALDANEThe hon. Member seems to suppose that in dealing with the sale of superfluous property, whether licensed or otherwise, I personally intervene and fix the terms. I do not, and most properly do not. As regards the rest of the Question, it was well known that the Government was going to deal with licensing. I think it was perfectly certain, ever since the passing of the Act by the late Government, that the next Government would deal with the question of licensing. The subject has been constantly discussed.
§ *MR. GEORGE FABERMay I ask for a specific answer? Did the right hon. Gentleman himself know that a time-limit was to be proposed by his own Government?
§ MR. HALDANESuppose I did; what difference would it make?
§ *MR. GEORGE FABERI see the right hon. Gentleman declines to reply. I was not aware that there was anything discourteous in my Question. May I ask whether the Government of which he is a member has two standards of value—one when they are selling property and another when they propose legislation?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThat is an argument, and not a question.