HC Deb 04 July 1895 vol 35 cc202-4

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.

On Clause 4,

*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved in page 2, line 1, after "subject," to insert— By taking the amount of rent, if any, in addition to the rent stipulated to be paid under such lease or agreement at which, one year with another, the subjects let, and such erections or structural improvements might together, in their actual state, be reasonably expected to let from year to year, in consequence of such erections or structural improvements having been made.

DR. CLARK

asked for an explanation of the Amendment.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE

said that it was to provide for the case of property which might be let, say, for 30s. a year, while a building on a part of it might have an annual value of £1,000 a year. Without this contribution such property would escape contribution to the local rates.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved in Clause 4, page 2, line 3, at end, to add— But this proviso shall not apply—

  1. (1) To any erections or structural improvements made or acquired for agricultural purposes by the lessee of subjects wholly or mainly agricultural; nor
    2. 203
  2. (2) To any erections or structural improvements made or acquired, and used exclusively for the purpose of working or cleaning minerals let under such lease or agreement as aforesaid, in respect of which minerals rent or lordship is stipulated to be paid; nor
  3. (3) To coke ovens or other structures in which coal or other minerals are treated, where the rent or lordship stipulated in such lease or agreement as aforesaid to be paid in respect of such coal or other minerals is, by the terms of such lease or agreement, calculated upon the coke or other minerals as treated in such ovens or other structures."
Amendment agreed to.

On Clause 5,

DR. CLARK

asked what course was to be taken with regard to the Amendments standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen to include police burghs in the clause.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that the Amendments must have been put down under a misapprehension. It would be impossible to carve a police burgh out of the county for the purposes of assessment, as it was not a separate unit of assessment. It was only a part of the county, and if separate principles of valuation were to be applied in the same area, there would be great injustice.

DR. CLARK

said, that he had read a petition from the burgh of Thurso on this subject. There were a number of Royal burghs in Scotland with less than 1,000 inhabitants, and police burghs with 40,000 to 60,000 inhabitants. In the Police Burgh Bill of 1892 the intention was to place all these burghs in the same position. The Law Officers agreed in Committee to all this, but it was found that, both as to registration and valuation and licences, the large police burghs had not the power the royal burghs had. It was the desire of the large police burghs to have those powers, and he thought they ought to have them.

*THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that unless they were to go the length of making each police burgh a unit for the purpose of assessment, they could not carve it out of the county for the purposes of valuation. The counties would, probably, have something to say to such a proceeding. The question was a large one, but was not, however, raised in the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

DR. CLARK moved the following new clause, which stood in the name of Mr. Asher:— From and after the commencement of this Act, the provisions in the Valuation Acts which are applicable to burghs, and the magistrates of burghs shall, also be applicable to all police burghs under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, and to the magistrates and Commissioners thereof.

Motion made and question, "That the clause be read a Second Time" put and negatived.

Bill, as amended, reported to the House, read 3°, and Passed.