§ Where a special drainage or special water supply district formed before the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, is wholly within a police burgh formed after the passing of the said Act, the burgh commissioners shall be the local authority for such special district, and the expense incurred by the commissioners for drainage or water supply within the same or for the purposes thereof, and the stuns necessary for payment of any money borrowed or to be borrowed for drainage or water supply purposes shall be paid out of a special drainage or water assessment which the commissioners shall raise and levy on and within such special district in the same manner as these assessments were levied before such district was included in a police burgh.
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved to omit the clause.
§ SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider his decision to leave out this clause, which simply preserved the status quo as regarded valuation and one or two other matters. For changing the status quo there ought to be good reasons, and he did not know of any reason in this instance except that of producing uniformity. There were, however, good reasons against the change, and one was that the effect of changing the valuation would be to take the burden off the richer ratepayer and put it upon the poorer. Under the Poor Law Act, 1845, the different properties were classified, and at present the richer properties were classified so as to pay upon their full valuation, less 33 per cent., whilst the shopkeeper, the poorer ratepayer, paid on his full valuation, less 25 per cent. 1354 It was now suggested that a railway company, the richer ratepayer, should be remitted 75 per cent., while shopkeeprs should pay upon the full valuation. The Lord Advocate was good enough to introduce this clause in deference to the representations made on behalf of the burgh of Keith, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not now drop it out of the Bill. The clause would cause no injustice to any other place, but it would give satisfaction to the people of the burgh affected.
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he could not yield to the appeal of the hon. Member, who had not quite accurately stated the whole circumstances of the case. In t he Act of 1889 there was a clause of this kind. Under the Public Health Act the public health rate in burghs was levied entirely upon the occupier; but the Local Government Act of 1889 provided that if there was a specially rated district which had been formed while it was still in the county, and it was then entirely absorbed into a borough formed after the date of the Act of 1889, the rate there should go upon the county basis, half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. The Committee to which this Bill was referred changed the incidence of the burgh rate and made it half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. He was now asked to leave in a clause which as far as he knew would apply to the burgh of Keith alone. He did not see why they should mete out special treatment of Keith. Besides, the grievance, such as it was, was rather less than the hon. Member represented. The hon. Member forgot that the exempting clause so far as railways were concerned provided that stations, depôts, and buildings should be assessable to the same extent as other lands and buildings within a burgh. The exemption, therefore, only applied to the railway lines proper.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid it seemed to him that the omission of this clause would alter the incidence of taxation.
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that it would alter the incidence of taxation upon some individuals. If that was the Speaker's ruling he would move the omission after the Bill had been re-committed.
§ *MR. SPEAKERthought that that would be the proper course.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.