§ Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the statement by the directors of the Piccadilly Hotel, Limited, now in liquidation, that alterations in the designs of the building were insisted on by the representatives of the Crown, as landlord, which entailed an expenditure of about £160,000, and a further large loss owing to the diminished rentals of shops sub-let in the building; and whether it is proposed to continue this system?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have seen the statement referred to; but there must, I think, be some mistake in it, as I am advised that the Crown requirements (which were, in the main, settled by the previous Government) could not in themselves have entailed the extra cost or loss in rental alleged. It is clearly desirable that, in the case of large rebuilding schemes on Crown property, due regard should be paid to the architectural result; and I am not prepared to say that a slight additional expense is not sometimes justified for this purpose. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Member that care is taken that commercial considerations are not overlooked—indeed, I am at the present moment considering the best method of securing these two objects in another important rebuilding scheme.
§ Mr. ASHLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman say why what is justified in the case of the State is not justified in the case of an individual owner?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not think that there is anything unjustifiable in requiring a lessee of property to conform to architectural requirements.
§ Mr. ASHLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly give that information to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer?