§ MR. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether householders who are workmen 1446 occupying houses belonging to their employers on a tenancy determinable with their employment, but for which they pay rent in the shape of a deduction made from their wages, are entitled to have their names inserted in the "tenant" or in the "inhabitant occupier" column of the Valuation Roll; whether a difference of practice prevails as to this, the names of such householders being in some counties inserted as "'tenants," in others as "inhabitant occupiers;" whether, when their names are inserted as "tenants," large numbers of such householders are qualified for and enjoy School Board and municipal franchises; whereas, being inserted as "inhabitant occupiers," they are wholly disqualified for these franchises; and, whether, if these anomalies exist, he will, in preparing a Local Government Bill for Scotland, provide a remedy, so as to place the local franchises on a broad and equal basis?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)The hon. Member's Question involves more than one point of law, as to which I can give no authoritative opinion. Where a deduction from wages is made in respect of the occupation of a house owned by the employer, the usual practice is, I understand, to enter the occupiers in the Valuation Roll as tenants. But the difficulty does not arise from the name given to the occupier in the Roll. If the rental of the house is entered in the Roll, then the occupier is placed on the School Board Roll. I shall inquire whether a difference of practice prevails in the making up of the Roll in the case of the class of occupiers referred to in the Question; and if there is I will endeavour to remedy the anomaly.