§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £74,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
§ Mr. KINGThis raises a very interesting and an important question, because I see in the note that the Government has acquired a leasehold interest in Montague House, Whitehall. We ought to know something about this. So far as I am aware no announcement has been made 527 either in the public Press or in this House as to what the Government is doing with Montague House, which is one of the finest private houses in London. I noticed as I passed by that they are covering the whole of the forecourt with extraordinary buildings of brick and iron, which look as if they were to be more or less permanent. We now understand that the leasehold has been acquired for £49,500 This gives an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to explain his proposal and his intentions with regard to this building. I hope he will do so in such a satisfactory manner as to save me the trouble of any further remarks.
Mr. PRICEI entirely approve of my hon. Friend raising this question. A good deal of public discussion took place about this house some few years ago when attention was called to the ground rent that this place paid. We should like to know what was the ground rent, what was the property assessed at, what proportion does the total amount of £49,500 bear to the ground rent, and what proportion does it bear to its assessed rent. There is a piece of land at Gourock which the Government acquired at 2,100 years purchase. It would be very interesting to find out at how many years' purchase this works out, and as the right hon. Gentleman used to take a profound interest in this subject some time ago, it would be interesting to find out whether he is now, in his official capacity, assenting to a principle which he was always fighting against when he exercised freedom on the other side of the House. I trust we shall have a full explanation.
§ Sir A. MONDI shall be pleased to give an explanation of what I think is a very good bargain on the part of the Government. Montague House is held on a Crown lease terminating on 1st January, 1954. The ground rent is £906 per annum, and it is subject to Land Tax of £119 3s. 4d. We had agreed to rent it from December, 1916, for a period of three years, terminable by the lessees after the conclusion of peace by three months' notice, for £5,000, including ground rent and Land Tax. In addition to that sum, £14,000 has been, or will be, spent on temporary buildings which are being erected in the forecourt and grounds. The hon. Member asked who was occupying the house? The Ministry of Labour has 528 occupied it for a very considerable period, and the Ministry of Munitions is occupying a part of it, too. An opportunity occurred of buying the property for the Government, and I came to the conclusion, as also did the Treasury, that if it could be bought at a reasonable price, it would be a very economical bargain. We should probably have had to pay £10,000 in rent, to destroy the whole of the temporary buildings, which cost £14,000, besides the expense of removing them, and we should have had to reinstate the decorations of the house, which cost a large amount of money as well. So that we are really getting the house for practically less than nothing.
Mr. PRICEWhat proportion does the rent of £5.000 bear to the assessed rent? The Government has taken no end of property from other individuals, and in some eases has not given them anything. Why not have commandeered the place, and then assessed the rental, as has been done in other cases?
§ Sir A. MONDUnfortunately, the agreement was made before I took office. The house was let in December, 1916.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYou took office before that.
§ Sir A. MONDNo, in 1917.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYou took office in December, 1916.
§ Sir A. MONDThe arrangement was made before I took office.
§ Mr. PRINGLEGive us the date.
§ Sir A. MONDI have not got it exactly.
Mr. PRICEIt is not enough when this Vote comes before the Committee for my right hon. Friend to say the transaction was entered into before he took office. He is bound to defend the transaction of his predecessor. This is the first time this transaction has come before the Committee, and we have a right to know about it. I want to know, if you had an arrangement to pay this proprietor £5.000 a year, what relation that bears to its assessed rental before it was taken. I know a lot of private houses which have been taken over without a penny of rent being paid. How is it you make an exception in this case? My right hon. Friend must give us an explanation, and not say he was not in office, but must tell us all about it.
§ Sir A. MONDI do not know that I have the exact figures of the assessed rental. As I have explained, we should have incurred an expenditure of £25,000 to £30,000, and then at the expiry of the agreement we should have had no house. Therefore, I considered it a very good bargain for the State to get the house in perpetuity. It cost £120,000 to build. That was a long time ago, when building was cheaper than now. There were other parties in the market who were prepared to pay a very much larger sum. Outside valuations show that the amount the Government has paid is entirely reasonable. As a matter of fact, I think the Duke could have got a higher price, but he was selling his house. The Government had the first opportunity, and took the first chance of obtaining it. He made some sacrifice personally to let the Government have it at the price which has been accepted, and which, taking all the circum stances of the case into consideration, appears to me to be a very useful transaction, especially when one recollects how few sites are left along Whitehall for any future Government building on a considerable scale. That, of course, was one of the chief inducements which led us to consider the question.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt would have come to the Government in 1954.
§ Sir A. MONDWe get immediate possession of premises which the Government will want for some time after the War. I hope the explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONWhy did you not commandeer it, and then settle the price, as has been done in other cases?
§ Mr. PRINGLEI want to know where Montague House is accounted for in the present Estimates. In the Vote we have just passed there is a Supplementary Estimate for the Ministry of Labour and Unemployment Exchange and Insurance Unemployment buildings. That must have included Montague House. [Interruption.] If this had been carried through by the end of the year, in December we would expect one-fourth of the rent to be remitted. Consequently there would be something over £1,000 that would be saved in Appropriation in Aid under this Vote. Apparently there is no Appropriation in Aid under Vote 9. There should have been an Appropriation in Aid in view of the fact that the rent is not to be paid 530 for the current year. I think it was right that my hon. Friend (Mr. Price) should have raised the question as to the assessed rental of this building, because we want to know the relation between the assessed rental and the price which is actually paid for the leasehold. It is also interesting to have it compared with the £5,000 which the Government apparently agreed to pay by way of rent for this building. Apparently this building was acquired on very favourable terms to the owner—more favourable terms than were given to most hotels and private houses. My right hon. Friend is able to make a case that the Government actually conclude a good bargain now because in December, 1916, at a time when he said he was not responsible, they made a bad bargain. That seems to be the only way in which he can defend himself. He says that in December, 1916, the Government took this building at a rental of £5,000 for three years, that at the end of three years they would have to restore the decorations, and that by this bargain they were now going to save £10,000 in rent and the cost of the restoration of the decorations, also the cost of removing the temporary structures. In any event it would be necessary to remove these ugly structures. No one would tolerate their continuance after the War, so that I think he might have left that out of account. The situation is reduced to this, that in order to justify this present contract the right hon. Gentleman proves that his predecessor made a very bad bargain in agreeing with the Duke of Buccleuch in December, 1916, to rent this house at a time when it might have been commandeered, and when the owner would have been forced to go to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission in order to have the terms of compensation fixed. Why was the agreement then made with the Duke of Buccleuch, and why was he not left to the same remedy which is available to the less favoured of His Majesty's subjects? I thank the right hon. Gentleman should tell us something about the leasehold of this house.
§ Sir A. MONDI have already explained that this building was not commandeered. It was taken by agreement at what was considered a very reasonable rental, and I do not know why the hon. Member assumes that it was extravagant.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYet you consider that you have made a good bargain now?
§ Sir A. MONDI do consider that we have a very good bargain, and I do not agree with the hon. Member that the only justification for buying the lease now is that somebody made a bad bargain two years ago. I never contended that. I only said that the fact of our not having to pull down these temporary buildings immediately after the War, and not having to reinstate the decorations, enhanced the value of the bargain.
§ Mr. KINGI think the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to answer the question, although I think it is not a very satisfactory best. We shall have a Report stage of this Vote, and I hope on that occasion to be present and to have from the right hon. Gentleman the actual rateable value and the assessed value of this house. He can tell us that on the Report stage, and also tell us who was responsible for taking these premises. There is a mystery about it. He says he is not responsible, although he was First Commissioner of Works at the time.
§ Sir A. MONDI was not First Commissioner at the time.
§ Sir A. MONDThere is no mystery about it. This agreement was made before I took office.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWho made it?
§ Sir A. MONDThe hon. Member knows as well as I do who was First Commissioner at the time. I took office in December. This agreement was made before I took office.
§ Question put, and agreed to.