Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 7, after the word "Scotland," insert to extend the application of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, to lands and heritages in which no persons are employed, to net and cruive salmon fishings and to minerals let but unworked.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I say at the outset that, while a number of these Amendments are, as might be expected, purely drafting Amendments, there are some of substance. There is, however, only one Amendment which the other House has made with which I shall ask this House to disagree, and that is the Amendment dealing with the position of sanitary inspectors in burghs. The Amendment I refer to is on page 8 of the Amendment Paper, and it is in page 43, line 13, to leave out Subsection (1), and insert: (1) On a vacancy arising after the commencement of this Act in the office of medical officer of health or sanitary inspector of a small burgh, the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector, as the case may be, of the county within which the burgh is situated shall ipso facto become the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector for the burgh, and such proportion of the salaries and expenses of such officer as the county council and the town council may agree shall be paid by the town council to the county council, and, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Department of Health. Hon. Members will find the part relating to this question in Clause 35 of the Bill as it left this House. I will answer questions put on each Amendment as they come up.

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and it is for the House to decide whether it will waive it or not.

Can this question of Privilege be resisted by a Vote?

The proper thing for a Member to do if he does not wish the House to waive its Privilage is to vote against the acceptance of the Lords Amendment.

Have you, Mr. Speaker, any right to preclude a discussion on this issue?

It is entirely a matter for the House to decide whether it will waive its Privilege or not.

Shall we be in order in moving the rejection of the entire Bill?

We must deal with each Amendment as it arises. The House has already agreed to consider the Lords Amendments.

I think I shall be able to show good and sufficient reason why the House should agree with this Amendment. Let me point out that this is in one sense a drafting Amendment. In another sense, however, it is an Amendment of substance, and it has been devised for the sole purpose of including within the provisions of this Bill an extension of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928 in order to include within the rating provisions of this Bill single men businesses and in order to make certain that de-rating shall apply to them. This question was discussed or the previous stages of the Bill, and I undertook to see that an Amendment would be introduced in Another place to protect them. This Amendment also extends the de-rating proposals to commercial salmon fishings. The question was raised during the Committee stage and since then I have received a number of applications from the commercial salmon fishing industry round the coast of Scotland. As hon. Members know, there is a distinct Division drawn between commercial salmon fishing and sporting rights, and this Amendment has been carefully devised, after consultation with the assessors in Scotland, and the commercial fishing interests in Scotland who have agreed to the provision. I can assure the House that this Amendment will give de-rating to commercial salmon fishings, and will exclude any possibility of sporting rights being included.

There is the further point of the mineral rights. It has been ascertained through reports made to me, that the position of the de-rating of minerals in Scotland would not be so favourable to the coal working industry, and, as I am anxious to bring the matter into line, I have agreed to the extension of this provision. All those who are acquainted with this problem in Scotland will realise that there may be a colliery which is not perhaps being worked. The assessment may include more than one property, and, in order to make it effective, several properties may have to be included. You may find an arrangement under which all these properties are included in one lease or a variety of leases, and the de-rating under the Bill as it left this House would only be effective for the part that was actually worked, although rates would have to be paid on the whole of the property. Our object under this Amendment is to give de-rating so that there will not be any unfairness, and I think the House will agree that that is a desirable thing to do. With these explanations, I hope the House will agree to this Amendment.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that those who take part in salmon fishing for sport will not participate in the de-rating, and that de-rating will only apply to commercial fishings. I would like to ask how the right hon. Gentleman is going to differentiate between the two. I know this will be very difficult in my own Constituency where we have both commercial fishing and sporting fishing, and I know that those who fish for sport sell the salmon.

It must be "net and cruive salmon fishings". Those are well known terms. We have consulted with the parties interested, and they are satisfied that we have made a sufficient differentiation between the two kinds of fishing.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as we have not discussed this question in our previous Debates, what is the basis of the rating of commercial salmon fishings. There are, as I understand, salmon fishings which are let by competition; that is to say, the highest bidder gets the salmon fishing. Upon what basis will the rating be fixed? I hold the opinion that this question is more serious than the right hon. Gentleman has indicated to the House, and I think we are entitled to a great deal more information upon it. There are many difficulties in connection with the question of the de-rating of salmon fishings, and I should be glad to hear if the right hon. Gentleman can give any explanation as to how the rating of these salmon fishings which are let to the highest bidder is taken into consideration.

I am somewhat astonished at the number of Amendments that we are asked to consider at this stage of the passage of the Bill. It seems to me to be most unfair, on a Bill which was guillotined day after day, and the Amendments on which, put forward by the Opposition, were not given due consideration, that, in addition, we should at this stage be inundated with Amendments from Another place, and that on a Friday morning we are faced with most important changes bringing new principles into the Bill itself. As one illustration of a new principle, I will take the question of unworked minerals. Under Scottish law—I have raised this matter before in the House, and no one has ever been able to combat my statement—there is not, and never has been, any arrangement in Scotland under which a royalty was paid otherwise than on the basis of the number of tons of coal produced. New we are asked to recognise a right to payment on that which is not produced. That upsets the whole question so far as regards the basis of payment of royalties in the past.

The rates called royalties on minerals have always been applied to that which is produced. I challenge any legal authority on the Government Benches to give a single instance where a royalty has ever been recognised on any other basis than that of the produced tons of coal. I am reminded here of wayleaves, but they are quite different from the royalties on coal raised. The wayleave is an addition to the rates called royalties. The wayleave is that which is paid to another landowner when coal is being passed through or under his land, and it is quite different from a royalty. [Interruption.] In dealing with Scottish law in relation to rating, and especially with that rate which is called a royalty, you have to be quite clear as to what you are talking about, because you can be confused by the wayleave, even in many specifications which I have read in regard to opening and working new seams from a shaft situated in an area other than that from which the coal is to be obtained. This is where the average layman finds it difficult quite to grasp what is meant by the introduction of this Amendment.

There is nothing in Scots law to align this proposal with the existing law, and, therefore, it means a change of principle altogether. The Secretary of State said that, in order that there might be a greater sense of justice in regard to the de-rating provisions, it was necessary to take into view everything concerned with what was called productive industry; but a change such as this in what has been the law for all time, so far as Scotland is concerned, in relation to royalties, is something which I think the House of Commons should resent, especially at this last stage of the Bill. Had there been clear thinking on the other side, this, if it be the problem stated by the Secretary of State, ought to have been foreseen, and the change ought to have been asked for in the first presentation of the Bill, so that we might possibly have had some time for discussing it. Here, however, we are brought by this Amendment to a position in which we cannot even have enlightenment, but can only vote, and that is not enough so far as the Scottish people are concerned.Their rights and interests are being seriously tampered with, and, if this goes through, it will establish a very rotten precedent—I can use no other word to describe it. This change from the recognised law of Scotland by a simple Amendment from another place is too much to ask so far as the rights of the House of Commons are concerned.

I notice that the Amendment itself, apart from what relates to the Title, relates to minerals which are let, notwithstanding that they are not being worked at the time. Does that mean that we are going to give a right to a money payment on something that may never be worked? We have always to view the possibility that, while an arrangement may be made to pay a sum of money on that which is worked, there may on the other hand be something which may never be worked. We have collieries situated in such places that, if some scientific methods with which I am acquainted are carried out, certain areas of minerals will never be worked, and yet it is now proposed to include them in the whole. It would seem that this provision with regard to minerals which are let notwithstanding that they are not being worked at the time is putting something into futurity. I would not mind that so much if there were a guarantee anywhere, but there is no guarantee as to the minerals which are said to be proved. Anyone with practical knowledge knows that, although engineers bore, as I have- done myself, in certain areas to prove coal, and may find, when they get the shaft down and begin to open up workings, that they show a clear, clean class of coal, yet, when you begin to work, you may come up against faults, as they are called in England, or lights, as they are called in the Scottish mining areas. One of these disturbances may throw all the coal from one level to 20 feet below or above it, and there are cases such as that where the expense of driving inclines up or down would be such that the colliery owner could not face it; and yet he is now, under this Amendment, being promised payment on coal that he may never hope to get.

The whole idea underlying this is payment upon something that has not materialised, and I still challenge the Government, or any Member of the House, to show any instance where a royalty payment has been made otherwise than on the basis of the tons of coal produced. There has never been a royalty on the basis of the number of tons said to be contained in a certain area. That alone is a sufficient ground for the House of Commons, if it is going to show a sense of justice to the Scottish people and a sense of justice to itself as a so-called democratic body, preventing the passing of these words from another place, where someone is seeking, evidently from personal interest—I can think of nothing else that would bring this into being—to prescribe right into the future payments upon certain things that may never be, and to claim that rights from rates on things which are being produced shall apply to things which may never be produced. It seems to me an outrageous proposal altogether, and I hope the Secretary of State will see his way to withdraw, so far as that part is concerned.

Regarding the question of the salmon, we are not quite clear what is meant by the term "commercial." I know a number of people have what they call sporting rights in areas where the salmon are very good. I have had some of them, not in a commercial way. I look upon them as the right of all the people in the world. When a man who has sporting rights invites a number of his friends for a day's fishing, the whole of the catch may be sent to London and other places to their friends, and therefore it may be argued that it is not a commercial transaction, but we have other places where friends are not invited, and the salmon are sold. What machinery have the Government provided to deal with that class of sportsman? I have heard of those who are able to pay the whole of their household expenses out of what they call a private sports ground. I am sorry we have not the late Lord Advocate with us to-day, because I depend on him as far as points of Scots law are concerned.

The Secretary of State spoke of the modern meaning of the word "cruive," but we want to know the legal sense. It is one of the few Doric words. It has in practice three very definite meanings, apart from law. Originally, it was a hobble. Then it became a pen for live-stock. The third meaning is a pitcher garden enclosure. That meant that in the days before they had enclosures you could have your garden just where you wanted it, because the land belonged to the community. When it came to enclosure, the legal meaning had to be changed. I should like to know what is the exact interpretation of the word now. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell us what it means, but when it comes to a contest in the law courts the legal minds will interpret it. I should like to have some information as to what it really is. I do not accept the definition of the Secretary of State so far as its inclusion in the Act is concerned. Again, I protest against the number of Amendments that are brought forward. I challenge anyone to show that royalty has ever been paid except on the production of a ton of coal. I repeat that to introduce a new principle into Scottish law by this method from the other place without the Commons having discussed it is too much for this House to take upon itself to do.

On a point of Order. I tried to put before you, Sir, what was in my mind, but since you indicated what your view was I find it necessary to present another point. This Amendment provides, as I understand it, for an extension of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. In effect, it means that the provisions of another Act are to be amended. The point I wish to put is whether in the Title of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill we are entitled to include a provision which, in effect, means an amplification of another Measure. It appears to me that this is much more than a point of privilege. It would appear to me to be distinctly out of order, and that, while we are entitled to amend the Local Government Bill, we are certainly not entitled to amend the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, which is not before the House.

This Amendment is necessary because of the new Clause—[Amendment of 18 & 19 Geo. 5, c. 44]—that is proposed on page 47—the operative Clause. This does not amend the existing Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, but it is necessary because of that new Clause proposed to be inserted in the Bill.

In that case, there is no occasion for the Amendment at all, because it could properly be included in the substantial Clause, and, that being so, I cannot understand why the other place thought it desirable to make this submission, and why the right hon. Gentleman accepts it. If there is to be an Amendment of the Local Government Bill in respect of the rating Clauses and provisions, it can be done in the proper place, and there is no occasion for an amplification of the Title in this way.

The alteration in the Title is necessary so as to bring the Clause within the scope of the Bill. If the Amendment we are now dealing with be not made, the new Clause could not be inserted, because it would not be within the scope of the Title.

A point of difficulty arises. It may be that we may not desire to oppose that part of the new Clause which provides for an extension of the rating relief proposals to lands and heritages in which no persons are employed. That may be a very desirable proposal. But we may desire to take exception to the remaining part of the Amendment. It would appear to me that we are precluded from voting in the affirmative in respect of one provision, and in the negative in respect of the other. Clearly, you cannot divide the new Clause into two parts to enable hon. Members on these benches to express themselves. I am not quite clear whether there will be an opportunity later, in the event of this Clause being defeated, to enable Members on these benches to vote in favour of the proposed Amendment extending the rating provisions to single man businesses.

No, there will not be.

The right hon. Gentleman intervenes to say "No, there will not be". That is very unfair. The other place submit an Amendment which embraces a number of points, some of which we accept. We urged them upon the right hon. Gentleman previously, but we found it impossible to get them accepted. Now we are precluded from accepting them, because they are bound up with something which is unacceptable.

It is not for me to advise hon. Members how they shall deal with various Amendments. The proper course in opposing the Amendment now before the House is to do so on the ground of the Opposition to the new Clause, because it is only the new Clause which makes it necessary to have the Amendment with which we are now dealing.

Is it not the case that you are the only person to whom we can appeal for protection? We hold the view on these benches that the Secretary of State for Scotland has already introduced irrelevant matter in this Bill. He has proposed to give the factors in the West of Scotland, and, indeed, all over Scotland, an increase by introducing a Clause into an already complicated Bill. We drew your attention to that at the time. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, yet the right hon. Gentleman brought it in and carried it through. Hence, our suspicion that something else of a similar kind is going on this morning. We appeal to you to protect us from having squeezed through something which is entirely out of order.

I think I remember rightly the point which the hon. Member raises. I can call to mind that the point of Order was as to whether the matter was within the scope of the Bill, and I ruled that it was, so that that question cannot arise now.

Cannot we have a definition given by an authority on the law on the other side of the House? If so, it may have some relation to the point which is now being placed before you. The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act states distinctly what is the meaning of hereditament. An hereditament has never been defined in law, but the word "hereditament" appears in the English Bill. It says: For any reference to a hereditament there shall be substituted a reference to lands and heritages within the meaning of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854. That is to say, where the word "hereditament" appears in the English Act, "lands and heritages" shall appear where the Bill refers to Scotland. That is all that is included in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. When we come to the Clause, which, I am glad to say, you have pointed out to us this morning, I am not sure whether it would not have been better to have discussed it before we discussed the first Amendment on the Paper. If one looks at this Clause, he will find that there are words which extend the definition embodied in the Act. A point of substance has been placed before you in seeking your Ruling as to whether it is competent for Amendments to come from Another place which really relate to another Act of Parliament. I submit, as far as I can judge, that the Clause to which you have referred is an Amendment of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. When one consults the Bill, these words are clearly defined by the words to which I have referred. They are strictly circumscribed and governed by the English treatment of hereditaments. In the English Act, the word "hereditament," interpreted within the strict meaning of the Act, does not in any way include the proposals embodied in the Amendment. It is a very difficult point, and if we could have a statement from an authority on Scottish Law from the other side of the House, it might clarify the position.

On that point of Order—

There is no definite point of Order. The hon. Member was dealing with the provisions of a certain Clause. Far be it from me to interpret Scottish law.

The position under the Bill as it left the Commons seems quite clear. Provision is made in the Title to grant relief from rates in the case of the land and heritages in Scotland to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies. There are three particular lands and heritages which we now wish to include which are not referred to in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. These are the cases to which my right hon. Friend referred. First of all there are factories. Under the 1928 Act, a factory is given the same definition as is contained in the Factory Acts. The Factory Acts do not apply unless there are employés, and we wish to include the case, e.g., of the village blacksmith. That is the first point. The second case is with regard to salmon fishings. We do not find commercial salmon fishings or any salmon fishings, defined in Scottish law. You do not find them as a heritage in the 1928 Act. Therefore, if we are going to bring them in, as we propose to do, we have to extend the Title. The third case was with regard to minerals. In Scotland we have certain subjects assessed, mines, minerals and quarries, but there is a provision providing that mines and quarries, if unworked, are not to be assessed, but nothing is said about minerals. The Court of Session some 40 or 50 years ago decided that minerals must if let be assessed even though they are not worked. We are not seeking to change the law of Scotland at all. The hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) was quite wrong with regard to his statement, as to what is the law in Scotland. Unworked minerals, if let, are assessed. They are not, I believe, assessed in England. We are seeking to make the two Laws conform. All we ask with regard to the third matter is that where minerals are let as part of a colliery but let from a different lessor, you may look at the whole thing as a unum quid and treat the minerals which are let under this derating. We are not giving gifts to any person. All that we are doing is to relieve them of certain liabilities which they have had to meet. They are assessed in Scotland for unworked minerals if let, but not in England. These three proposals, therefore, seem to me to be sound, and the purpose of the Amendment of the Title is so that we may have the appropriate Clause introduced into the Bill.

I understand the statement that has been made by the Lord Advocate in regard to the assessment of minerals. Does he wish the House to believe there is any difference between that and the royalty which is paid when the coal reaches the surface?

When minerals are let they are let at a fixed rent, but if those minerals are worked the usual provision is that the lessee should either pay a rent or a royalty, if the royalty is more.

That is so.

Therefore, we are all agreed in regard to that matter.

There is one point in connection with the one-man business upon which I am not clear. The Secretary of State referred to the blacksmith and the joiner. I presume that that would also apply to the weaver. What is the position of the knitter? Will the knitter be included under the provisions which cover the one-man business? It is a matter of very considerable importance in my Constituency, where there are many small houses of cotters in which there may be a widow depending entirely upon the produce of her knitting for her livelihood. Is any distinction going to be drawn between the weaver who weaves on his loom and the knitter who knits?

We are now discussing the Title. In the discussion one thing has been made perfectly clear by the Lord Advocate, and that is that there is no need to extend the Title for the purpose of bringing in the one-man business.

Yes, there is. As I have explained, the Factory Acts have been construed as not including works where there are no employés, and it is to include that class of works that we are extending the Title. For example, the blacksmith's shop or the joiner's shop where you have, say, three men working in partnership and there is no employeéwould not come under the Bill as it stands. It is desirable that such cases should come within the scope of the Bill.

I happen to know the individuals who moved this particular extension in the other place, and I know that it was with no real desire to encourage or help the individual man but with the deliberate purpose of trying to get an additional advantage to those who own salmon fishing.

I want to counter at once any suggestion of that kind. The Amendment was moved in the other place by my direction, on behalf of the Government, in pursuance of the pledge which I gave to hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is unfair for the hon. Member to say what he has said.

I am glad that I have said what I have said. We now have an admission that the responsibility is not the responsibility of the other House but is the result of Intervention by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has deliberately used his influence for the purpose of getting introduced into the other House an extension of the Title of the Bill, to amend another Bill. We protest against that.

It is for the purpose of allowing the one-man business, to be brought in.

Yes, and also to bring in the salmon fisheries and the minerals. We object to that. Having given away so many presents to their friends we did hope that the Government would have left a limited number of things undisturbed, but instead of that, in the very last days of a dying Parliament they are seeking to include every one of their friends in the way of gifts, so far as their various proposals are concerned.

Mr. SHIN WELL:

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not truckle to the other place in this matter, more particularly in respect of the de-rating of unworked minerals. Before dealing with that matter I would point out that we welcome very gladly the provision in respect of the de-rating of one-man businesses. Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that some time ago I asked him a question on this matter. I wanted to know whether it was possible to extend the de-rating provisions to agricultural blacksmiths, and his answer was that it must be left to the assessors to decide. That view was not accepted gladly by hon. Members in many quarters of the House. We were concerned about the agricultural blacksmiths and about the men who were engaged in businesses in which they did not employ anyone, but the right hon. Gentleman stuck to his guns and whenever the point was put to him he replied, in the same terms, that that point must be determined eventually by the assessors. At what stage he decided to change his mind I cannot say but, apparently, some submissions must have been made to him, and in response he has induced the other place to provide this Amendment.

I have indicated that there is some difficulty on these benches as to how we should vote on this new Clause, because we accept the Amendment in regard to the one-man business, but it would appear to me that we have no alternative, in spite of our views regarding the derating of the one-man business, but to oppose the Clause as a whole. When the de-rating proposals were before the House, figures were submitted to us in respect of the cost to the Nation, through the Imperial Exchequer, and to the local authorities. To-day, although there is to be an amplification of the de-rating proposals, not a word has been said as to the cost involved. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us what it will cost the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities to institute the extension of the de-rating proposals to one-man businesses, and he ought to tell us what it will cost as regards the extension to net and cruive salmon fishing, also, what it will cost as regards the minerals which are left unworked. So far as I know, the local authorities are in the dark. Whether their views have been sought, I cannot say, and it would be very interesting to know. Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the local authorities concerned, before he submitted this Amendment to the other place, and has he any figures to give to the House in relation to that point? I shall gladly await that information, and I think I reflect the opinion of other hon. Members on these benches and, possibly, the opinions of other hon. Members who are concerned about the financial provisions of de-rating and the welfare of local authorities, when I say that the information will be gladly received.

I come to the de-rating proposal in respect of salmon fishing. We have been told that they apply to commercial salmon fishing. That is quite proper, because, it ought not to apply to salmon fishing for sport alone. Is it possible for the right hon. Genetleman to say how it will be apportioned? Will the de-rating proposals in respect of salmon fishing go to the salmon fishers or to the owners of the waters? The Lord Advocate-I am sure that every person in the House will be glad to welcome him in his new position, although I cannot say that we hope he will occupy it for long; of course, that is a political matter—did not say anything on this head. I wonder whether he could inform us how this determination and allocation is to be made? Clearly if this relief is to be afforded to owners of the waters it is not going to be of much value to the salmon fishers on the commercial side. On that point again we are anxious for information.

My last point relates to the minerals let but unworked. It is perfectly true that in Scotland unworked minerals are assessed, and it is also true, with great respect to the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie), that when arrangements are made between the owners of minerals and the coal owners, and a price is fixed for every ton of coal to be produced, a round figure is agreed upon for the working of coal in a potential sense. That is true, but what we want to know is how this possibly can affect productive industries in Scotland. We were told that de-rating would have the effect of improving the position of productive undertakings, and that coal was to be included, but to provide a larger measure of relief for those who are the owners of unworked minerals surely cannot affect in any useful or efficient way productive undertakings in Scotland. I submit that the Secretary of State should not accept this Amendment. He should have confined himself to the point of great substance—namely, the one man businesses, and have left the other things alone.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has quite rightly put the point as to whether the de-rating proposals in respect of one man businesses would affect a large circle in Scotland; whether it would affect the weaver and the woman who knits things at home for sale on the market, as it intended to affect the agricultural blacksmith and agricultural joiner. There must be a large number of persons in Scotland who work at home and in small establishments who do not employ any person or persons. It would be desirable if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us to whom this is to apply. It will not be sufficient for his purpose or for ours to say that the point must be eventually determined by the assessors. He has said that before, and he should now be in a position to tell us quite plainly, so that everybody in Scotland who is concerned may understand, to whom it is to apply. Clearly, if it is to be left to the assessors to determine we are going to have extensive litigation in Scotland. Litigation may be a desirable thing for those who can afford it; the Lord Advocate knows that it is profitable to gentlemen like himself but it is certainly not going to be profitable to the poor crofter and the poor agricultural blacksmith and agricultural joiner and persons who are experiencing a hard time in their endeavour to make ends meet. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the House further information on these points.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes 113; Noes 44.

A note will be made in the Journals of the House recording that the Amendment was made.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to line 9 agreed to.