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.

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.

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.

I would like some explanation as to what is the meaning of this Amendment.

This is really a drafting Amendment. It is to make clear that the functions which are transferred are those that are exerciseable in respect of the area, quite irrespective of the situation of the property held for the purpose of the function. Let me give an example. The function of a parish council under the Burial Grounds Act, may be exerciseable in respect of the burgh as well as of the landward area, if the burial ground were within the burgh. This Amendment makes it clear that the whole functions as regards the burial ground are not transferred, but only so far as exerciseable, as far as the burgh is included therein.

This Amendment also raises the question of Privilege.

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

This is a matter of some importance dealing with the position of the library-service in Scotland. It was discussed both in this House and in another place. The original intention of the Bill was that libraries which hitherto have been under the parish council in the country districts should he transferred to the new district councils which are being set up. Since the Bill went through this House the various education authorities, the county authorities and such library authorities as the Carnegie Trust, who are all deeply interested in this problem, represented that it would be more suitable if the libraries were transferred to the county to bring them within and into close touch with the educational service of the county, and to strengthen the possibilities of development. There arose, of course, the question whether there should be included the libraries belonging to the burghs. There were those, of course, who urged that there should be a complete transfer, but in view of the attitude taken by certain of the burghs, who have great pride in their libraries, I thought that while it was perfectly reasonable and fair to transfer the smaller libraries of the country districts to the county, we should in the meantime leave the burghs with their existing libraries in the hope that, as I have said in previous Debates, with fair certainty, working agreements will be come to, so that there will be a combination of purpose and development in this service.

Does that mean that our library at Clydebank is perfectly safe and is not to be interfered with, and that our request has been met?

Yes, that is so. The library at Clydebank remains with Clyde-bank, but I hope that as time goes on it it may be found that Clydebank, in consultation with the new education committee of the central authority and of the county, may be able to become linked with them. In the meantime it is under its present control.

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

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 11, agreed to.

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

This new Sub-section is designed to meet a case such as that of Angus and Kincardine. The district board of control will disappear and its functions are transferred to the two separate authorities, the county councils of Angus and Kincardine, and the Amendment authorises that the appointment of representatives shall be made either by the two counties jointly or by a joint committee, or so many appointments may be given to the one county council and so many to the other. I think that is a good working agreement.

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

This is, in a sense, a drafting Amendment and it is consequential on the abolition of the commissioners of supply. In certain cases the only persons eligible for appointment to the governing bodies of institutions are persons who are or are qualified to be commissioners of supply, and this new Sub-section abolishes the limitation.

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it.

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

This Amendment is to meet the case where the transferee authority may offer employment to an officer otherwise than as a chief constable, since there will be only exceptional cases in which they can offer employment in that capacity. As the terms and conditions cannot be quite the same as those of a chief constable it is fair that the officer should have the option of retiring and receiving compensation as an alternative to accepting a subordinate position. If, however, he chooses to accept a post under the transferee authority he should be precluded from demanding thereafter that the post should be held on the same terms and conditions as his previous post, and the last part of the Subsection secures this end.

It is unreasonable that the Government should ask the House to accept this suggestion. This House and another place have agreed to the extension of the Title of the Bill, but it seems to me that the Bill has not been extended far enough, and that we ought to have had an Amendment in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Acts so as to provide for the unemployed insured workers exactly the same right that you are now going to provide for chief constables—namely, that if they are not genuinely seeking employment they can "go on the dole." That is exactly what is proposed by this Amendment. A chief constable who, having the opportunity of employment under one of the new authorities, refuses to accept what he considers to be an inferior post will be in the position of refusing employment, but he will be entitled to claim compensation. In other words, if he can prove that he is genuinely not seeking work, but refusing work, he will be entitled to compensation. Surely it is unfair to make such a proposal at this time of day, when we are discussing the unemployment problem so frequently. Why should we accept an Amendment from the other place, compelling authorities to pay compensation to individuals who have refused work, simply because those individuals are chief constables. I hope the country will realise exactly what is being done in this connection, and will compare what is now offered to the chief constables with what has been given to the unemployed work-people.

I wish to join in protesting against any proposal of this kind being included in the Bill. I think it will be found that the general opinion outside on this matter is that, if a man has lost his position as chief constable owing to these changes, and is not prepared to accept a minor post under a larger body, he should have to choose between accepting that post and getting no compensation at all. It is amazing that we should have a proposal of this kind brought forward at this stage. I agree with the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) that this case is on all fours with the case of the man who refuses a job and claims unemployment benefit. I do not say that the chief constable has left work of his own accord. His job has been taken from him, but he can get another post which would give him as good or almost as good remuneration as he was receiving. Undoubtedly the county council would give to such a man a very responsible post, and give him a salary almost as good if not as good as he was receiving from the small burgh.

I learn with some amazement that hon. Members opposite are not in favour of the Unemployment Insurance Act and apparently hold the view that if a painter is offered employment at a lower rate of wages, as a farm-labourer, he ought to be bound to accept that employment, or be cut off from unemployment benefit altogether.

The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act on this proposed Amendment.

May I put a point?

The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan Western (Captain Fanshawe) is in possession.

I understand that I was out of order, but I wish to register my amazement at the way in which hon. Members opposite seek to turn things to their own advantage.

We cannot discuss, on this proposed Amendment the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but we can discuss the principle involved. The hon. and gallant Member believes that the proposal embodied in this Amendment is on all fours with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, but that is far from being true. The proposal amounts to this: A chief constable at almost any age, and no matter what salary or what terms of superannuation allowance he is enjoying is entitled to refuse to accept employment under another authority. That is the simple issue, and, if he so refuses, he is to receive compensation. In the case of an unemployed person, if he refuses employment, his compensation is immediately suspended. I confess to sharing the amazement of my hon. friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). Not a word was said about this by the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill was passing through this House, but now he is accepting a principle which, in effect, means that the chief constables of the small burghs in Scotland can turn down any proposal that is made to them by other authorities. No one can dispute the fact that this may involve those other authorities in considerable expense, but apparently that has never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman. It clearly affects the question of the amount of superannuation allowance that has to be paid, and if there were many men on the fund, that fund would be exhausted before its proper time, so that it may throw an additional burden on the shoulders of the other local authorities, because they will be compelled to seek new chief constables and new officers of a subordinate character.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why these chief constables of small burghs should be placed in a more favourable position than any other officer of a local authority. If an ordinary servant of a small local authority, say, a dustman, is offered employment by a county council, which is responsible for undertaking certain functions formerly operated by the small local authority, and if he refuses that employment, is he to be compensated? Not a penny piece. "Take your job, or leave it." That is the position in respect of the ordinary servant of a local authority, but to the chief constable you say, "If you do not like your job, we will give you compensation." It is an inducement to the chief constables of small burghs to refuse employment under a county council and other local authorities. Take the case of a clerk, who may have been occupied in an administrative capacity under a small local authority over a period of years, and whose services may require to be transferred to a county council or a larger burgh. If he refuses to accept that employment, he is turned down at once. All that he would receive would be his unemployment benefit, and I am not so sure that he would receive that, because if he went to an employment exchange he would be told he had no right to refuse the employment, and certainly he would have to go before a court of referees. I cannot understand why chief constables should be singled out in this fashion. They have no more virtue, so far as I know, than any other class of the community and some of the chief constables with whom I have come into association have had even less virtue than some other folk.

I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether he proposes to extend this very excellent proposal. If it is generally applied, it is a very fine proposal. We rather like it. It is simply the old proposal of the right to work, but it ought not to be circumscribed. It ought not to be confined in any watertight compartment; it should be applied all round. Therefore, we want to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in that connection. Further, at what age will chief constables be permitted to indulge in this luxury of retiring? Is there to be a limit? Is a chief constable at 45, in his maturity, to be allowed to retire with compensation and then take other employment and do someone else out of a position? That would be most unfair. We are suffering a great deal from that kind of thing, and even hon. Members opposite, I believe, are inundated by complaints from people who say that pensioners, and those drawing superannuation allowances, are always taking other jobs, to the detriment of those who are displaced. We want to know, therefore, at what age these chief constables are to be entitled to do this. Again, what are the chief constables to do when they are superannuated? Are they to enter into competition with the police officers of other authorities? If so, they will try and get better jobs, and we may find this very curious thing arising, that a chief constable who refuses to be transferred in the beginning may find himself a few years later occupying a very high post under the very local authority to which he refused originally to be transferred. There has been no defence of this proposal, and I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that because it emerges from another place we have simply to accept it, willy nilly, and submit. I am quite satisfied that no one on this side of the House is prepared to be submissive in face of a preposterous proposal of this kind.

I, for one, am very glad the Government have moved to accept this Amendment, because otherwise it would be a severe hardship on chief constables of small burghs, who under the Bill will be compulsorily removed from their positions. I think the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) has forgotten that in this Bill the chief constables of those burghs absorbed in the larger areas are removed from their positions, and certainly they are entitled to compensation. Under the Bill as it left this House those chief constables were compelled, in a way, to accept a lower position under the new authority—at least, they might be compelled—and were put in a very difficult position, because they might be offered a post, say, as inspector, after having served for many years as chief constable. It is right and proper that these men, who have given years and years of faithful service, many of whom have risen from the lowest ranks in the Force, should under this reorganisation, get some such consideration as is proposed in the Lords Amendment now before the House, although this Amendment does not give everything which, I think, these men deserve. They ought to be in a position to transfer, notwithstanding the age Section in the Police Act for Scotland. In other words, when a vacancy occurs in the larger area, the more efficient and active of them might be used in the new position. However, the regulation is that over the age of 55 they cannot be so employed, and, unless that Act be altered, they cannot take the position of chief constable in the larger areas. But I do think that this Amendment does something. It protects them, so that they will not be compelled to accept a lower position than that which they have been holding in the burghs, and, at the same time, it gives them the right of compensation, which everybody who has been removed in that department deserves, and I, for one, welcome this Amendment.

The concern which has been shown for the prestige of the chief constable who is removed is not, I think, so tangible a question from the standpoint of those who have spoken from the Labour benches, where it is a question of doing justice by any man, whoever he may be.

The chief constable is removed by this Bill.

I realise that there are changes taking place under the Bill, but this is a provision whereby a man who has been chief constable will very likely be offered a position with an excellent status as inspector in a much more important area, it might be a wider area, in which there would be special responsibility far beyond that which he might have as chief constable in a smaller burgh, and he is enabled actually to dictate his own terms as to rejection. That, I submit, is a factor which ought to meet with the opposition of any man in this House who wishes to deal justly with all concerned. Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot make any particular comparison touching the Insurance Act, but I think the references that have already been made, even after the very weak response from the opposite side, brought out the anomalies of the situation. If we compare what is being done under other measures for the ordinary toiler in his every-day avocation, we find that the Government, apparently, have no consideration for them whatever. Here, on the other hand, as in other parts of this same measure, the straw shows how the wind blows. The interests here have far more influence with the Government than those about whom this side of the House is very gravely concerned. We know that those who occupy such positions are exercising very great responsibility, and no one wishes in any way to detract from the manner in which they discharge their duties.

Under the re-arrangement of the law that is taking place, certain authorities are being given under their charge smaller bodies. There you have a question of prestige where the chairman of a parish council, who in that capacity in the smaller area reckoned himself to be a personage, becomes now merely a member of a sub-committee. Many of these people have been impressed with their dignity and importance as chairmen of these public bodies, some of them having vessels named after them, or something like that, but the Government have swept all their prestige out of the way. The Government say that they are out for a great scheme for handling the affairs of Scotland in a very effective fashion; therefore all these little somebodies, whom other people might describe as nobodies, have been relegated to a small corner of a sub-committee in a large area. The position of the chief constable, however, must be conserved. There is not only his prestige, but he must be able to dictate exactly where he is to sit and how he is to stand, what his salary is to be and generally have a sweep of the decks. I say that that is a preposterous position.

If this was to apply all round, it would be quite a good principle, as has already been said, but why should we take one individual of a service? There is no provision made for the inspector, for instance. Is an inspector of police of less dignity than the chief constable? Is it not a fact that while one may hold the head position, the understudy, or anyone taking his place in the case of illness or something else, is looked upon as a man, not only of the same dignity, but with the same responsibility in whom the public can place their trust? Why, therefore, should the inspector be left out? Then there is the next man in responsibility—the sergeant of police. He is not being given this privilege, although he is in a position distinct from what is called the rank and file known as the constable. If it is right that the chief should have an opportunity of saying he is not going to take another position, why should not the inspector or sergeant be able to claim the right, in order to preserve his dignity, to leave the force and take up some other occupation? It is well known that in all these organisations the understudy man is the man who at all times is capable of taking on that class of work. The argument used on the other side applies equally to the inspector and the sergeant. After all, the removal from a position surely is not a question of dignity. For instance, I could illustrate the point by the fact that a number of people have been displaced by the remission of the Tea Duty.

Then take the case of the dock labourer. He is an occasional labourer, but his service is just as great as that of preserving the peace. That individual does not know his hours of work. He does not know when he is going to be on his job. It depends whether the ship is this or that way, or whether the ship is this or that way, and yet this man has always to be in constant attendance on the chance of getting work. We must

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House with respect to the question of Privilege.

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

A limited number of parish councils have recently increased materially the salaries of some of their principal officers. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who drew my attention to this in the House. I think the House will agree that it is proper to give the transferee or compensating authority the option of taking over those officers on the basis of the remuneration at the date of the introduction of the Bill, that is, in November 1928. An exception is made under the Clause where an increase in salary since the date is in accordance with the previously agreed scale of salary, and, of course, it will be within the option of the authority to use their judgment in dealing with these matters.

As this Amendment increases the compensation, it raises a question of Privilege.

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

This Amendment is similar to one made in the English Bill, and I think it is reasonable that it should be inserted to bring the Bill into accordance with the English Bill.

A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House with respect to the question of Privilege.

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

There may be cases where a man is employed by a parish council part time only in connection with duties transferred to a district council, such as looking after a recreation ground, under part IV of the Local Government Act, 1894. It is right in such a case that the district council and not the county council should take over that officer, and if they do not that they should compensate him.

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

This is an Amendment requiring that where a scheme of superannuation modifies the provisions of any Act of Parliament, it has to be laid before Parliament.

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

This Amendment is to make it clear that those who are working on these central bodies shall only be counted in connection with the duties which are allo cated to these particular bodies. It is really more a matter of clarity than anything else.

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

This Amendment is made mainly to meet circumstances arising out of a case such as that which occurred in Paisley and was brought to my notice. After conference with the authorities we are introducing this Amendment to protect such a case.

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

This Amendment is moved to make it clear that such a body as the Salvation Army is protected.

This Amendment again raises a question of Privilege, and an entry will be made in the journals of the House with regard to it.

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

The Government have decided to make the rate in accordance with existing allowances, and this Amendment makes clear what is actually intended.

This Amendment and the two Amendments which follow raise a question of Privilege, and an entry will be made in the Journals of the House with regard to them.

This and the next Amendment raise a question of Privilege, and an entry will be made in the Journals of the House with respect to them.

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

This Amendment deals with the Sanitary Clause, and I advise the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

I desire to support the proposal of the Secretary of State for Scotland on this occasion. When this question was before the House I drew attention to the very considerable hardship which would be imposed upon certain burghs if they had burgh surveyors who were not also sanitary inspectors. On that occasion I think we convinced the Government that it was necessary to allow the smaller burghs to retain their sanitary inspectors, and we wanted to make sure that the men who held the posts of sanitary inspectors should be men who were fully qualified for the job. The Government brought in an Amendment to that effect, and I think it is a wise thing that small burghs should be allowed to retain their sanitary inspectors.

I want to thank the Government for the course that they have decided to take. This is one of the small privileges left to the small burghs, who were rather perturbed when this Amendment was agreed to in another place. I know a good many people are anxiously waiting to hear the pronouncement of the Government in regard to this Amendment, and there will be great satisfaction to know that the Government have a little backbone which enables them to face up to the other House.

This Amendment refers to the election of councillors to various small burghs and to certain other councillors who are to come from the town councils to take the place of county councillors. I want to know if the Secretary of State for Scotland has reserved to himself any power to control the number.

This is a purely drafting Amendment to make it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland may exercise any one or more of the powers which he possesses to increase the number of councillors.

I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2).

We are certainly in favour of the provision in Sub-section (1) that the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, shall include the one-man business, such as that of the village blacksmith and so on, but we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept Sub-section (2), which would include salmon fishings and unwrought minerals.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think it will be clear, from what has taken place this morning, that we on this side are quite definite as to the need for separation in a case like this. It-makes the matter very difficult—and I think it is purposely done—when, with one matter that may be said to be agreed, other matters are put in which may be contentious. That may be good political strategy, but it is not a very honest way, if I may say so, of carrying out the opinion of the House. The Lord Advocate, in referring to my earlier remarks, was very unconvincing to me. I asked him to face the possibility that things which could not mature in production would now receive some form of relief. It is no answer to say that rates are being paid on that which is not worked, because examination of the accounts of a colliery will show that these sums are chargeable to that which is being produced. This has a direct effect on the wages of the miners, because any payments in respect of coal that is not worked, and not likely to be worked, will come on to that side of the balance sheet where the miners' wages are determined. If the colliery is now paying, or said to be paying, on coal that may be worked 50 years hence, that is being met to-day by putting it as a charge against the miner in the costs which determine what he is to receive, and this is an indirect way of bringing about a reduction in the coal-getters' wages.

On the one side of the ascertainment is included everything that is laid down by law as a cost, and this is one of the costs, but it is not to be, under this Measure, a simple cost based on the number of tons produced; it is going to be a cost which relates to minerals that may never be brought to the surface. There could be nothing more unfair and ill-conceived than such an alteration in the law—and I still insist that it is an alteration in the law—and, if we were fairly dealt with as the House of Commons, the other House would not be allowed to change the law on the last day of the Lords Amendments to a Bill. This is the first intimation of this alteration of the law so far as Scotland is concerned.

The ascertainments at coal mines are affected in a hundred different ways, but who is going to say in the mining areas how this is going to affect the wages of the miner? As an illustration, take a combination of 10 companies. When the single companies are working as units, the costs, so far as regards the areas they agree to work within their district, are the costs chargeable in the ascertainments; but when, as is happening all over the country, you have a combination of all these collieries, it means that, instead of 10 ascertainments, there is only going to be one, and that means that what is a matter for the future in relation to the actual returns is now going to be placed upon the ascertainment sheet which determines the miners' wages.

The Lord Advocate did not meet my argument about payment in anticipation for something that may never be worked, but the cost of that anticipated working of a certain amount of coal is put on to the charges of the current year, because the assessments are included in the ascertainment which decides the miner's wage. When we were dealing with the earlier Amendment to the Title, I hoped that between then and now the Secretary of State, having heard our unanimous views on this side, might have got some information with reference to what was put forward in argument, or might have seen someone of authority in the other House in order to ascertain whether it would not be possible to delete that part of the Amendment which alters Scottish law and custom. I understand, from those who have had longer experience in this House than myself, that there is no indication anywhere that any suggestion has ever been put before this House such as is contained in this Amendment, not only to disturb Scottish custom but to alter the Scottish law.

I must, of course, accept the Ruling given from the Chair this morning on the question of altering the Eating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, by a simple Amendment from the other House on the last day on which we can consider it, but such an alteration seems to me to be entirely outside the common practice of this House. I always understood that, in amending an Act of Parliament, we were dealing with something direct, that is to say that, if it were a question of another Bill dealing with rating and valuation as a single subject, it might be possible; but to bring in at the last moment an alteration of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, is something which, as I understand from those who have had long experience, is unknown as a matter of practice. For these reasons, we move the deletion of Sub-section (2) of the Lords new Clause, and I hope that, if for no other reason, Scotsmen in this House, no matter to what party they belong, will combine and show that we are not going, to allow the other place to come in at the last moment and make an alteration in our laws.

In reviewing the point under discussion, we should keep in mind that the question of Privilege has been raised, and, keeping that in mind, the importance of the Amendment should be fully realised. It has been advanced by a right hon. Gentleman opposite that the reason why the Amendment was put down was to bring Scottish practice into uniformity with English practice. I want to be quite clear where we are. The English practice is that ungotten minerals are not subject to rating. In Scotland, the opposite practice prevails, and ungotten minerals are subject to assessment for rating. Not only that, but as the law stands, the rental values that it is possible to procure under the rating operations have to be annually ascertained. That is to say, from year to year the Scottish people know what is the possible rental that may be procurable from these properties where ungotten minerals are to be found. I know of nothing which would rouse the Scottish people to a greater feeling of injustice than this, that if this Amendment is accepted, all the knowledge that we have found from this long practice which, in my opinion, makes the Scottish Rating Law infinitely superior to the English law, will be wiped out. That means another step in hiding from the public view the increases in values which accrue to the natural elements in the soil, such as coal and other raw materials.

I cannot help, in looking at the Amendment, allowing my mind to go back to the old quarrel. Many a night in the gallery have I sat and watched the Chamber whipped into a white heat over the old discussion as to whether we should tax ungotten minerals, and the dear Lords in the other place, who have now sent down this pious and innocent Amendment, are hoping to get away with the old difficulty of any attempt at assessing or valuing or taxing ungotten minerals. That is what this will do. That is what will happen if the Amendment is accepted, that ungotten minerals will be put out of the purview for valuation and to that extent will be hidden. Meantime year after year there will be accretions in value, and by, as it were, abolishing any form of public information the public are wholly unaware of the immense values embedded in the land of this country and of Scotland. It is indeed one of the vaguest of excuses for the Government to say that they are accepting the Amendment merely to procure uniformity in practice.

Let us put it the other way. If the Government is extremely anxious to have uniformity in practice, we who come from Scotland will suggest that the English law should be changed to bring it into uniformity with the practice of the Scottish law. That would mean divulging the value of the ungotten minerals in England, so that the easiest matter for Members of another place is to suggest that we should come into uniformity with the English practice to their advantage. Under the De-rating Scheme, both in England and in Scotland—it should be known more than it is outside this Chamber—this is a gift of £45,000,000 to landowners. One of the greatest conveyancing lawyers in the country told me the other day that this is a gift of £100,000,000 to the landowners of England and Scotland. This Amendment, if carried, will mean more de-rating. It will mean that ungotten minerals will be exempted from the further impingement of local rates. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) that if such an Amendment as this had been known more widely, if, indeed, the people of Scotland knew that such an Amendment was going to be brought in on a Friday afternoon to be imposed upon them, the Government would have found a very intimidating force in the House to-day. There seems to be an unholy imbroglio as to where we stand in procedure with regard to the whole matter. Let us look at the Bill. We are referred in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act to the Land Valuation Act, 1854, as to how these ungotten minerals have to be assessed. It is on the old form. This form was copied from the English:

"Whereas it is expedient that there should be uniform valuation, the assessments leviable may be levied according to the real rent of such lands and heritages as may be assessed and collected and that the provision for the valuation shall be made annually."

I want every Scotsman to realise that if the Amendment be carried it wipes out your annual valuation, it abolishes the necessity of the owners of these ungotten minerals from paying a rate, and it leaves them in the beautiful position of going into the open market with their ungotten minerals enhanced in value by the operation of easement and assessment. It is increasing the power of the landowners, as the whole of this Bill does, to extract more money in the open market for what they are pleased to term an asset.

Then with regard to the method by which the Amendment has been brought in. It seems to me that the Amendment is one to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. It is not really an Amendment to this Bill. It is jerrymandering the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act to suit the landowners under the Scottish De-rating Bill. It will mean this, because the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, clearly states that whereas in the English Bill the word "hereditament" is used to designate the subjects for de-rating, in the Scottish Bill we have to substitute the words "lands and heritages." If we review the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, under the term "hereditament," ungotten minerals are not subject to assessment. If we substitute "lands and heritages" for "hereditaments" and apply it to Scottish law, ungotten minerals, undeveloped minerals, unused minerals are subject to assessment. It seems rather sharp practice that in order to procure this easement of an annual imposition of a rate on ungotten minerals, and the Scottish interest in land and the interests in these ungotten minerals, we should widen the terms of an Act which is the governing Act of the De-rating Bill. The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act is the governing Act of these two cumbrous Acts which follow. Time after time in attempting to discuss Amendments and changes in the Derating Bills we were referred back to the governing Bill, the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill. We were precluded, and rightly so, from attempting to introduce into the De-rating Bills any change in practice which would necessitate any Amendments in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. This morning we find that an Amendment has come down from the Lords which in substance means an Amendment of the definitions in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act. They are to be allowed to embody a change in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill which in effect changes the definitions embodied in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill.

I come back to the main principle. If there is anything of which the Scottish people should approve it is the fact that there should be some form of assessing or of appreciating the value of the ungotten minerals of their country. The more ungotten minerals and land are kept out of use, the more difficult it becomes to provide employment, and, indeed, to reduce the costs of production. The more we can make it difficult for men to keep these natural elements out of use the better it will be for employment generally. The imposing of a sort of penalty upon owners and others compelling them to pay on the assessment of these ungotten minerals is thought to be of use in getting the owners of these properties to exploit and use the minerals. Absolving them from payment will have the opposite effect. This proposal has been brought forward in an empty House, but the benches opposite will be packed when the Division bells ring. The arguments that we are advancing are not appreciated, and the Scottish Bill will be carried by a majority of votes given by hon. Members representing England, who do not understand the significance of the question involved. It seems as though we are now beating the air. I have attempted to make clear the very great importance which the Scottish mind attaches to the principle embodied here. We want to know the extent of the ungotten minerals in our country. We want to know the year to year value of these minerals. We are anxious to impose an annual assessment on these minerals with a view to forcing the holders of these valuable natural assets to put them into use.

I would challenge the Government. I would challenge any sportsman who now sits on the Government Benches to go with me into any Division in Scotland after Monday next and argue in favour of this Amendment, even in their own Divisions. To think that under a question of Privilege this House has been winged in its attempt to deal with the taxation of this country! The Government are responsible for supporting an Amendment which will have the effect of appreciating the values of property and wiping out the necessity for an obligation being imposed upon the owners to make an annual return as to the value of the ungotten minerals which they hold. They are intensifying the value of land. It should at least be patent to anyone that when you make it more difficult to get at the land you are also increasing the difficulty of producing wealth and solving the question of unemployment. To think that this is being done under the pretext that this Bill will provide more employment and result in reducing the cost of production! Such an Amendment as this is bound to have an opposite effect. There is nothing in which I would revel more than taking any Member of the Government to heel on this matter in his own constituency.

The Division bells will be rung and the Government will bring in their factotums to vote. If this proposal is carried to-day the Government will know in their heart of hearts that they have done it by virtue of the votes of men who do not understand what is behind it. I can assure them that the Scottish people will realise the position when Scottish Members on this side of the House go among them and make it known that this is another present to the landowners, and that it is an effort to hide Scotland's national assets from the people. The late Lord Advocate of Scotland who has just left the House openly confessed that all the advantages under this Bill, whatever they might be, whether it was the de-rating of hereditaments, industrial or agricultural, or of freights, would go to the owner of the land, he being the permanent possessor of the property.

Nonsense.

I heard an interjection from an hon. and gallant Gentleman for whom I have the greatest regard. I am sure that he has not said that merely to provide a sort of comic interlude in regard to what I am saying. Does he say that I am speaking nonsense? Does he say that the Lord Advocate was speaking nonsense, or does he say that I am say-what the Lord Advocate did not say? I want an answer.

The Lord Advocate did not say what you are saying.

I am told that the Lord Advocate did not say what I am saying. I am sure that I shall be allowed to meet that charge that I am misquoting the words of a very responsible Member of the Government. These are the words used by the late Lord Advocate:

"I made it quite clear that I thought there could be no difference between us as to the first point "—

that was a point which he and I were discussing across the Floor of the House—

"because"—

notice the words—

"the tenant comes and goes and the landlord is the only permanent person; he is the owner of the property. Therefore, it is perfectly true to say that the benefit which follows on the land must come back to the landowner."

Hear, hear!

Do you say, "Hear, hear!"?

Hear, hear!

There you are. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) knows, as a student of Scottish reasoning, what are major premises. That is the major premise. Having got the major premise, I will read the rest of what the Lord Advocate said, which the hon. and gallant Member thinks qualifies the major premise. Perhaps for his benefit I had better repeat the major premise:

Therefore, it is perfectly true to say that the benefit which follows on the land must come back to the landowner. But I also said that the later stage is the interesting stage, as to whether or not when a fresh tenant comes that fresh tenant gets any benefit out of it.

Clearly, the Lord Advocate was suggesting there that the good landowner might consider sharing some of the benefits with his tenants. No one doubts that, but the major premise is the thing that I am after. The economic law of rent, as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove knows perfectly well, operates like sunshine; you can no more stop it than you can shut out the sunshine in this room. The quotation is nothing more or less than a statement by the late Lord Advocate of the law of rent, that as the landowner is the permanent owner of the property, any benefits coming through this Act would adhere to the land, and that with tenants coming and going and leases falling in and new leases having to be made, the benefit undoubtedly goes to rent. Therefore, it is the benefit of the landowner. I am not going to ask the hon. and gallant Member to be good enough to withdraw what he said, but I think he will admit that he was rather rash in making his interjection. He said that I was speaking nonsense. Does he say so now?

Undoubtedly.

Does the hon. and gallant Member say that the Lord Advocate was talking nonsense?

Certainly not.

The Lord Advocate said that the whole of the benefits would go to the landowner. Does the hon. and gallant Member deny that the Lord Advocate said what I have quoted?

No, but what he quite clearly said was given in the whole of his statement, and that, and not the half of it which the hon. Member has quoted as the major premise, is the whole premise.

I have given the entire quotation.

He was talking of the earlier portion, on which the Lord Advocate repeatedly challenged hon. Members opposite, and I cannot allow the hon. Member's challenge to go today, now that my right hon. and learned Friend is no longer a Member of this House.

I will leave it to any unbiased readers of the words, and I would ask them to weigh in their minds what I have said in regard to the major premise.

Read it again.

I am asked to read it again. Surely, it is well enough known by this time.

It will sink in. It is distinct enough.

I will read it again:

"I made it quite clear that I thought there could be no difference between us as to the first point, because the tenant comes and goes and the landlord is the only permanent person; he is the owner of the property. Therefore, it is perfectly true to say that the benefit which follows on the land must come back to the landowner."

Then comes a statement of pious hope:

"But I also said that the later stage is the interesting stage, as to whether or not when a fresh tenant comes that fresh tenant gets any benefit out of it. It is there that the hon. Member is not quite fair to my argument."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1929; col. 1249; Vol. 225.]

That is what the Lord Advocate said. The latter part was a pious hope or wish that the landowner, out of the goodness of his heart, might divide what in reality is his under these Acts. No one questions that some landowners might do that, certainly I do not question it for a moment. The major premise is the thing that I am after, and that is that the benefit under these Acts will go to the landowner. I hold by those words. The Lord Advocate used them, and no Scottish student of economics would dare to get up in this House and deny that those words are true.

I am sorry for the hon. Member. Of course, having got his beautiful bee out of his bonnet, he is giving it an airing round the House on this subject, and it is very hard on him to try to wing his beautiful thesis. The economic law, which he knows as well as I know it, is that not one of these things can be considered separately. The working of the law of rent is not to be considered separately from the working of our economic burdens. The hon. Member said that we can no more stop it than we can exclude sunshine from this House, but he knows that by reason of the artificial surroundings of the House we have an artificial light shining over our heads, instead of being subject to the direct rays of sunshine all over the House.

It does not come well from a man who is a very serious student of economics to say that when I am trying to make clear the economic consequence of this Act of Parliament, and to correlate it to a law which he knows is an invincible law, the law of rent, that I am airing a bee about the House. Henry George says:

"When men cannot argue against your case, they will call nick-names across at you."

That is what has happened here. However, I will let the bee go. I would point out, however, that I did not insult the hon. and gallant Member by saying that any principles advocated by him are simply a number of bees floating about. I would simply ask that when he interjects the next time, he will be a little more careful to see that there are no artificial ideas on the top of his head, but that the sunshine of truth will prevail in his brain, and that he will accept what has been said by one of his own colleagues. I stand by the words quoted. May I now come back to the point with which I was dealing when the hon. and gallant Member intervened? A little recapitulation will do no harm. This Amendment, if carried, will absolve the landowners in Scotland from the obligation of paying rates upon ungotten minerals. It will do something which is much worse than that, in that it will abolish the necessity for making a statement as to their annual value which, in turn, keeps the public blind to the increasing annual value of the national assets. The economic consequences of that is that, instead of forcing raw material into use, by giving these benefits to the owners and absolving them from having to pay a rate or a tax upon the annual value of these properties, to that extent we are hardening the monopoly in these raw materials and making employment more difficult than it would otherwise be. Last, but not least, I would ask whoever may reply for the Government to weigh well the words they say, because they will be quoted against them at length in the forthcoming election. I hope that in the course of the Debate some straightforward honesty will break out, such as came from the lips of the late Lord Advocate, and that we may be able at the forthcoming election to supplement the Lord Advocate's very excellent pronouncement.

I would prefer to hear the Lord Advocate before I speak.

I do not intend to make any electioneering point, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). The hon. Member has founded his argument upon entirely erroneous premises. As I understand his argument, he suggests that in Scotland ungotten minerals are entered into the assessment roll, and are assessed.

The rental.

The hon. Member has been referring to ungotten minerals, quite irrespective of whether they were let or unlet. It is only in regard to minerals that are let that there is any assessment. The suggestion, as I understood it, Was that in this Bill there is no longer going to be an entry in the valuation roll in regard to these minerals. That is quite inaccurate. So far as minerals which are let are concerned they will be entered as heretofore in the valuation roll. The position is this. In England, if minerals are let and not worked, they are not assessed, they pay no rates. In Scotland, in the same position, a colliery has to pay rates upon the valuation, and this places collieries in Scotland in an inferior position to collieries in England. This Bill does away with that hardship to a certain extent because, if it becomes law, on minerals which are let but not worked colliery owners or tenants will only have to pay rates on one-quarter of the valuations. To that extent we approximate to the position in England, where they pay nothing. As I have said before, you will always have these subjects entered in the valuation roll.

When a company is proposing to develop a colliery where there is a mineral field, and if they are fortunate enough to have an owner who owns the whole of the ground in which they propose to work, they take a lease from him of that ground. That case would fall within the original Bill. But if the company which is going into this venture find that one portion of the ground they want belongs to one owner and another portion to another owner the matter is then different—they do not intend to sink pits over both grounds-they sink one pit in the land of one owner; and that is the mine. With regard to the case where the lease is from one single owner it will be considered a mine for whole venture; if you work one part you are working the whole, and there would be relief to that particular colliery. But in the case where there are two landlords and you only work in one part and not in the other, then, under the Bill as it originally stood, there would be relief to the company only with regard to the valuation of the mine in the particular area of the one landlord, and as regards the ground of the other landlord there would be no relief at all, although the lease was taken as a single venture. It is to meet that hardship that the Amendment has been introduced. There is no sinister design behind it, as suggested by the hon. Member for Burslem. It is simply a matter of fairness, justice and equity, and I hope the House will support it.

I think the Lord Advocate has recognised the point made on this side of the House and has stated a case from his point of view. But when an Amendment of this kind comes from a quarter which is known as "another place" it is necessary for us to recognise the composition of that body, and there is no doubt that there is an element of landed proprietorship in this matter which makes hon. Members on this side of the House naturally squeamish when such a proposal comes before them. The arrangement with regard to salmon fisheries in this Amendment is not to the credit of those who occupy positions in the other place. They have no particular anxiety for the individual salmon fisher and his industry. This is a plea for specific interests which have established themselves so effectively that they can exercise power in Parliament without having any authority from the people of the country. In my view there are strong reasons why we should resent anything of this kind and it is not fair to the hon. Member for Burslem to describe him as having a bee in his bonnet. What I am concerned about is not the bee, but what is below the bonnet; what is in the man's head. My hon. Friend is prepared to debate this question upon any platform and in any constituency. Although he may be in charge of a bee-hive he is certainly not a drone. This proposal has come from the house of drones. I pay special attention to any man who puts forward a specific case with a clear knowledge of what he is talking about, and it is exceedingly poor business to come away with this stale old jibe about a man having a bee in his bonnet. Where would any of our great inventions have come from if there had not been men with bees in their bonnets? There are too few people with bees in their bonnets at the moment. It is at any rate an evidence of vitality. It is well that there should be men on this side and also on the Government side of the House who can put forward their case, and defend their arguments, providing the thing is done conscientiously. Landed interests are undoubtedly involved in this matter, and on Friday afternoon, when there is a scarcity of Members and a likelihood of such matters being shuffled through, the House is asked to consider complicated and intricate issues. It is well that we should have the advice and counsel of those who have gone into these matters. I think we have every reason for taking our stand against anything of the kind emanating from the other House.

I wish to raise a point in connection with Sub-section (1) of this Lords Amendment. The point was raised earlier in the proceedings as to the number of persons who may be affected by the Amendment in respect of one man businesses.

(Mr. James Hope): I am not clear to what the hon.

Member is referring. Is he referring to the original Clause of the Bill?

No, I am referring in Sub-section (c, 1) of the Lords Amendment. The matter arises in this way: The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), when the Amendment was first mentioned, moved to delete Sub-section (2), and that clearly precluded an opportunity of raising the points that I wish to put before the Secretary of State on Subsection (1) of the Lords Amendment. I desire not to oppose the Amendment, but to ask one or two questions regarding it. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons are likely to be affected by this provision, and what is to be the total cost? Can he give an assurance—this is very necessary—that these persons will not require to make constant requisition to the assessors in respect of their right to rating relief? Unless there is some definition of the persons who come within the ambit of the Clause we shall have constant litigation arising from appeals to the assessor. Will the agricultural blacksmiths, the joiners, and the persons referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir Robert Hamilton) be included? I appreciate the difficulty at this stage of giving a definite answer because the matter has just come from the other place, but I think it will also be appreciated that many persons are uneasy as to whether they come under this provision or not and it is very important that those persons should be informed on the matter. It is very important that they should know that it will not be necessary for them to go to litigation. Indeed they would be precluded from doing so because of limited means. I take it that the intention of the Government is that the persons affected by this provision should be properly treated and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance to the people concerned that they will be brought within the scope of the scheme without being compelled to have recourse to appeals to the assessor or other litigation.

This Amendment was introduced with the sole purpose of trying to make perfectly clear the intentions of the Government on this matter. I have not any estimate and I cannot give any forecast as to the numbers who may come under this provision, nor is it possible for me to say more than this—that these cases, like other cases dealt with under the valuation provisions, will have to be dealt with by the assessor, and all the arrangements as to appeal and so on will be available to individuals under this provision just as to other interests. I think it is clear that there is lying within the provision made by this Amendment a direction or a pointer to these assessing authorities as to the intention not only of the Government but of the House. As to the individual cases, obviously they must be judged on their individual merits.

May I take it then that this is intended merely as a guide to the assessors as to what businesses are to be included in the scope of the scheme—that it is a mere signpost and not a general instruction?

It has to be shown that the businesséis a factory or workshop, but the mere fact that there are no employés will not under the Amendment exclude them. The assessor, however, has nothing to do with that question. The further question will then arise as to whether they are primarily carrying on that business in that particular place, and the assessor will have to deal with that question.

Then the only businesses that will be brought under review are those businesses which come within the scope of the Factory Act. If an industrial establishment is under the provisions of the Factory Act for certain purposes then it may be included for other purposes in respect of rating relief. But take the case of a business owned and operated by one person without any assistants. Such a business might not come under the Factory Act, and, in such a case, it would not be included for these purposes.

It would not, as the law stood prior to this Amendment. It would not have come under the Factory Act because there were no employés. That was the law fixed by judicial decision. The law might have been otherwise, but the definition of "factory or workshop" was so construed as to imply that there must be employés engaged in it. If we had left the Bill without any Amendment, and, as it stood, when it left the House of Commons there would have been an exclusion of industries such as the business of a blacksmith who worked alone or had partners.

Is that a factory?

If there is machinery and so on in it, it is, but if there is not it is not a factory. It might, however, fall under the definition of a workshop. If you take the definition of a workshop as well as the definition of a factory you get within the Factory Act practically all kinds of industries. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) would not be a factory, but might be a workshop.

I gather that it will be left to the assessors to decide in the individual cases as to whether a business is a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Act.

That is so in the first place.

I shall cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House in reference to the question of Privilege.

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

This and a number of Amendments which follow it on the Paper all hang together and are for the purpose of stereotyping the indirect relief to occupiers of agricultural land in the first year. That has been done in order to meet criticisms from the other side of the House and from other quarters as to the possibilities of an inducement to raise the rates on the part of the community. The effect will also be to simplify the method of dealing with large estates containing numbers of small properties, and it will make the work of the local authorities simpler and less expensive.

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

This is consequential on the accelerating of the date of the de-rating of agricultural subjects in Scotland. As the House is aware, the scale of de-rating in the year 1929–30 will be 92 per cent., as against 87½ per cent. in a normal year, and the rateable value will be ascertained accordingly. This is a difficult calculation to explain briefly, but it is to meet the acceleration of the de-rating of agricultural land.

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House with regard to this Amendment.

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House with reference to this Amendment.

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.