VOTE ON ACCOUNT.—REPORT. (Hansard, 9 March 1916)

§ Mr. ASHLEY
I wish to bring before the notice of the Financial Secretary to the War Office a point which arises in Class I., Vote 14—Rates on Government Property. In many parts of the country the War Office, under the Defence of the Realm Act, has taken considerable tracts of land for the purpose of military camps. They have come down under the Defence of the Realm Act and forcibly—I do not complain of that—taken away from farmers some of their best fields, and sometimes their whole farms, for the purpose of making military camps, remount camps, and for other Government purposes. When they have taken over these lands they have proceeded to build very extensive structures there, some of them of quite a permanent character. They have made roads with concrete bottoms, and in other ways have made the camps of a permanent rather than of a temporary kind. Naturally, the rates on this land which has now been built over will be very much enhanced. They will be trebled, quadrupled, and in some cases will be five times as great as formerly. I am informed, and I believe it is the fact, that the farmer who lets this land is liable for all the rates levied upon it. What I want to get from the Financial Secretary to the War Office is a statement that when the rates have been raised to the farmer owing to the Government having come down and taken his land and having built upon it, that the War Office will shoulder that responsibility and not leave it as a burden on the farmer. I am informed that the 1754 legal liability still remains with the farmer, even though the land has been taken compulsorily from him under the Defence of the Realm Act by the military authorities, and they have put buildings upon it. The answer may be made that the War Office will behave with justice and recoup the farmer any extra money he has to pay in rates, and he will not be out of pocket in the end. I do not think that is quite fair, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that point, because possibly the farmer may have to find a very considerable sum of money at a time when money is not easy to obtain, and afterwards have to beg as a matter of courtesy and justice from the War Office for money which really is entirely a War Office responsibility. I ask for a definite assurance that where a demand is made for increased rates owing to the action of the Government in having taken over a man's land and placed buildings upon it, the War Office will pay the money direct to the rate collector, and not oblige the farmer to find the money.

§ Sir J. SPEAR
I beg to endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend It is an equitable and just one, and his suggestion is businesslike and straightforward. We all hope that the Government will pay rates for the property which they take, just as the owners of private property would have to do, and at a fair rate as well. It is most unfair to local administrative bodies that the Government have, in many directions of Government work, objected to pay rates on the same principle as that on which private owners would have to pay if they had the same property. The contribution which is given in lieu of rates is a contribution which is fixed by themselves, and this is not an equitable system. I strongly support the appeal of my hon. Friend that the Government on taking possession of property should pay rates to local authorities just as would be the case if a private individual had taken possession of it. I go beyond that and say that all Government establishments should be liable to a contribution to local expenses and local rates on the same basis as private persons. It is inequitable that the Government should treat themselves, with reference to the contribution to public expenses, more leniently than private individuals are treated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that in this case the Government 1755 are going to take the straightforward action of paying their liabilities direct to the local authorities

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster)
The question which my hon. and gallant Friend raises is a question of great complexity. Had I known that he was going to raise it I should have taken steps to fortify myself with some inquiries into the Departmental rules on the matter. In a great many parts of the country temporary camps have been provided and huts have been built for the purposes of the War. It is not in any way confined to land taken by the War Office; it might equally-well be land taken by any other Government Department. Therefore, so far as Government action is necessary, it will not depend upon one Department more than another. It seems to me that a very difficult problem connected with the rate-able value of land has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. Speaking generally, I should suppose that in this case, as indeed in all cases where loss or damage has been suffered owing to military occupation of land, it would be a matter which would be properly referred to the Duke Commission, and I cannot anticipate any decision which they may reach on the question. But, speaking in very general terms, my own opinion would be that where they are satisfied that any action of the Government threw upon farmers the burden of paying rates on land occupied by hutments or camps that should be dealt with. I do not think that I can carry the matter further than that just now, and I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend would expect me to do so; but I can say that the question will have the most careful consideration of the War Office, and, I have no doubt, of the other Departments concerned. I hope that what I have said will give satisfaction to my hon. Friend and to those interested in this matter.