§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to His Majesty, 532 to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
§ Sir C. HENRYWith respect to the rates and contributions in lieu of rates, etc., in respect of Government property, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the proportion of these rates, which is chargeable on the Admiralty, the War Office, the Post Office and other public buildings, is charged to the different Departments? The Office of Works supplies the buildings, but this is a charge paid by the Treasury, and I should like to know whether these different Departments are exonerated from these rates or whether the Treasury reclaim them and get credit for the amount? I quite realise that the rates which are paid with respect to houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers are charges which the Treasury rightly pay but I maintain that where rates axe paid in respect of Government Departments they should be charged to the particular Department if we are to get a correct expenditure of the respective Departments.
§ Major NEWMANWith respect to the charge for rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers, the Committee will know that the Government pays the rates on houses occupied as Embassies and Legations in London. I should like to know whether at the moment we are paying rates on perhaps the most handsome, the biggest and the most valuable Embassy house in London? I refer to the house in Chesham Place, which until recently was occupied by representatives of the late Russian Government. As hon. Members know, Count Beckendorff died in that, house a few months ago. I think the revolution in Russia had taken place a short time before his death, but he had been carrying on as representative of the Russian Government to the Court of St. James. After his death, I think Monsieur Sassonoff was appointed by the Russian Government to take his place, but no representative was actually sent over. 533 The powers of the Embassy was taken over by one of the secretaries, and then the Provisional Government passed away and the Bolshevik Government came along. I want to know whether we still regard this magnificent house in Chesham Place as the home of the representative of the Russian Government in this country, and, if so, are we paying rates on it? When we are dealing in millions this may be a very small amount, perhaps the rates will not be more than £400 a year, but, at any rate, it is an interesting point whether we are still paying the rates on this house, and whether we still regard this house as being the place where the Leader of the Russian Government in this country resides. We know that Monsieur Litvinoff, who has been appointed Ambassador by the Bolshevik Government, has taken up his position, not at Chesham Place, but at 82, Victoria Street, where he occupies a modest set of chambers. To-day we have this great house empty, except for the annexe, where a number of clerks still carry on a certain amount of work, or perhaps smoke cigarettes. Surely this big house might be taken over by the Government and turned into some sort of Government offices? Are we still paying rates on it? Do we consider it belongs to the Russian Government? Do we think that we ought to allow it to stand empty and not make use of it for Government offices? I would like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to answer these questions.
§ Mr. KINGWhat about the rates on the new temporary buildings? Their rateable value must be very considerable. We are told that the buildings at Montague House represent a cost of £14,000. Are they assessed for local rates, and, if they are, has the Government to pay the rates?
§ Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry), the rates and contributions in lieu of rates are charged to the Departments concerned. With regard to ordinance factories, they come back as Appropriations in Aid under this account. In regard to the question about the Russian Embassy, the hon. and gallant Member must know as well as I know that it is impossible for anyone to give a definite answer at this moment as to the position that exists in regard to 534 Russia and its Empire. I doubt very much whether it would be possible at this moment, in the state of our relations with Russia to say whether this Embassy will continue to be held for the Russian Government or not. That is obviously a point that cannot be settled on a question arising out of a Supplemental Estimate.
§ Major NEWMANWe are paying rates on it.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BALDWINObviously, we must continue to pay until we reach the point if and when the Government say there is no representatives of Russia in this country, and there is no house in which Russians can carry on their business. That is entirely out of my Department. It is a matter of policy, and when the matter of policy is settled, of course, the matter of rates will settle themselves. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerset, the broad line is this, that on all buildings of a permanent nature the amount of rates paid, or the subsidy given in lieu of rates, is charged here, but on Government buildings entirely connected with the War and the prosecution of the War the charge is taken from the Vote of Credit. The question is whether the charge is one for objects directly and wholly connected with the War, or objects of a permanent nature. I think that that answers the question as simply as it can be answered without going too much into detail.
§ Mr. KINGAre these buildings assessed at a definite sum or is a lump sum given as a contribution in lieu of rates?
§ Mr. BALDWINA contribution is given in lieu of rates.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI notice that the Supplementary Estimate for the rates on these houses of foreign Powers amounts to £1,000. I do not think that my hon. Friend has told us the reason for this increase. It is very important that we should know. In that case there is an Appropriation in Aid, because the representatives of foreign Powers pay a portion of the rates on the houses and that sum in the Estimates for 1917–18 amounts to £2,300. In respect of this increase of £l,000 on the original Estimate is there to be no payment from the representatives of foreign Powers, or is it because the Russian Government now is not making any payments that you have 535 this revised Estimate, or is there any other reason why you should have an increase of £1,000?
§ Sir C. HENRYAs I understood my hon. Friend, the amount paid by the Treasury for these rates comes from different Departments. If what he said is correct, and I assume that it is, why is there an Appropriation in Aid of £3,000 from the War Office and no Appropriation in Aid from the Admiralty, the Post Office and other public Departments? I see that there is repayment, so that the amount was paid back by the representatives of the foreign Powers.
§ Mr. BALDWINI have made a slip. My hon. Friend is quite correct. I made an error in the way I put it.
§ Sir C. HENRYWhy is the differentiation made between the War Office and the Admiralty and the Post Office? Why do you recover rates from the War Department for Ordnance factories and not from other Departments?
§ Mr. BALDWINMy only answer to that would be—and I do not think that my hon. Friend will think it satisfactory—that it is the usual practice. Why it is the practice I cannot tell; it is a curious way of accounting, but it is a matter of policy that has been followed. I think that my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to it.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI was wrong about the Appropriation in Aid of £1,000.
§ Mr. BALDWINYes, we get that back.
§ Major NEWMANAbout the German and Austrian Embassies—what are we doing as to those two big houses? Are we paying rates on them?
§ Mr. BALDWINThere was a mutual arrangement made soon after the outbreak of war between our Government and the enemy Government, by which the rates are paid and recovered. The same thing is done with our Embassies abroad.
§ Mr. P. A. HARRISIt is a very remarkable thing. Are we to understand that there were communications between the two Governments on this matter?
§ Mr. PRINGLETrading with the enemy!
§ Question put, and agreed to.