GRANTS FOR EXTENSION OR ALTERATION OF EXISTING HOTELS (Hansard, 24 June 1969)

§ Mr. Pardoe
I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (3).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)
With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 139, in line 35, leave out from 'section' to end of line 38.

§ Mr. Pardoe
Clearly there is some difficulty in differentiating between expenditure on provision of additional bedrooms when the total plan takes into account conversion of existing accommodation other than bedroom accommodation. To give an example, in Cornwall there has been a drift from the land, which will undoubtedly continue, and many farms are being converted into hotel accommodation. This is an excellent way of using farm buildings of farms which have been amalgamated. There is the example of a farmhouse which was converted into an hotel with the minimum required number of bedrooms and the farmer wishes to convert the adjoining barn into additional accommodation. He may create a certain number of bedrooms and a certain amount of other accommodation, such as a lounge. As the provisions of Clause 7(2) are also applicable to Clause 8, the provision of a lounge would be necessary for him to qualify for a grant. Is it being suggested that the expenditure on converting that part of the barn that becomes lounge accommodation is not eligible for a grant, whereas that part of the expenditure incurred on converting part of the barn into bedroom accommodation is eligible?
I stress the distinction which is being drawn between grants for new hotels and grants for alterations to existing hotels. I take it that someone who builds an entirely new hotel from scratch will receive a grant on all the expenditure incurred on construction work, whether that expenditure has been incurred on the provision of lounge accommodation, television lounge, dining room, or whatever. Someone who alters or extends an existing hotel receives a grant only on the money expended specifically on the provision of bedroom accommodation. This is an anomaly as between the two types of development—the new hotel and the 1370 existing one. It is an unfair distinction to be drawn.
I draw special attention to these final words in subsection (3): expenditure which is not attributable to the provision of the bedrooms Exactly what expenditure is attributable to the provision of bedrooms? Leaving out of account for the moment fixed capital equipment, is it right that the provision of a bathroom would be attributable? Provided that it was a bathroom in connection with a bedroom, a bathroom with a bedroom and built at the same time as a bedroom, would it be expenditure attributable to the provision of the bedroom? If a corner of a bedroom is partitioned off by a partition running from floor to ceiling, and if behind that partition there are a shower and lavatory, would that become separate accommodation? Would it not be attributable to the provision of a bedroom, or would it be? In the case of a bathroom, it is extremely important to get that clear, because I believe that expenditure on the provision of a bathroom is attributable to the provision of bedroom accommodation. I want encouragement to be given to the provision of private bathrooms, because this is the kind of accommodation which we want much more of.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
This subsection is not restrictive, but a reasonable safeguard against the possible abuse of the provisions of the Clause. As I said in Committee, it was included following advice we were given by someone in the industry when preparing our White Paper. We do not want to include requirements which would discourage the proper provision of new accommodation, but there are possibilities of abuse. For example, a hotelier might decide to designate five staff bedrooms as letting bedrooms with little or no expenditure on them. This would simply be a device to take advantage of the Bill when enacted, without providing more real accommodation. Alternatively, he might simply partition five double bedrooms into 10 single bedrooms, similarly not providing new accommodation within the purposes of the Act. The provisions in the Clause are generous. They are relevant to the purposes of the Bill, but this safeguard is necessary. It will not cause any embarrassment or difficulty to anyone genuinely wishing to make use of the powers.

§ Mr. Pardoe
I am grateful to the Minister, but it would seem that he is interpreting the words "existing accommodation in the hotel" in line 34 as being the conversion of existing bedroom accommodation. He mentioned converting staff bedrooms into letting bedrooms, and converting single bedrooms into two bedrooms. Is that so?

§ Mr. Rodgers
I gave an example of what might be the case. I would not place that interpretation on it. There are other circumstances in which it might be necessary to disallow the entitlement, but all genuine cases are included. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that provision of new bathrooms, for example, would be very relevant and central to the provision of new bedroom accommodation.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
I have two questions for the Minister. The first is semantic, but I hope not unimportant. Can he explain when an extension is not an alteration and when an alteration is not an extension? I do not understand the distinction, and it was for that reason that we put down our Amendment.
My second question arises from the point made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). Could the Minister go a little further in the assurance he has just given and say quite clearly that expenditure on providing a bathroom to go with a bedroom would attract help under the Clause? I think that he will agree that when more people are coming to this country, particularly from North America, who take bathrooms as an inevitable concomitant of a bedroom, it would be a nonsense to provide bedrooms without bathrooms in the 1970s.
It would be helpful if the Minister would say simply that the answer to my question is "Yes", that in the normal way the provision of a bathroom to go with a bedroom would attract the help.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I cannot say that the answer is "Yes", because the purpose of the Clause is the provision of further bedroom accommodation. That is the purpose of the whole of Part II. It is not designed primarily for the improvement of existing accommodation. We recognise that a useful addition could easily be made to the number of letting bedrooms by the conversion of existing 1372 accommodation in a hotel. There might be reading rooms or ballrooms, for example, that are no longer needed.
In this respect we are seeking to keep up with the times to a greater extent than some hon. Gentlemen have suggested on previous Amendments. The provision of additional bedrooms in this way would contribute to the purposes of the scheme and might provide useful accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would preclude the payment of any grant in the case where additional bedrooms were provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. I imagine that it was a probing Amendment and that he does not wish to press it. The Bill deals with further accommodation. We would like to see it provided wherever possible by the disposal of facilities that are no longer required.