CLAUSE 68.—(Interpretation.) (Hansard, 12 February 1941)

Brigadier-General Brown
I beg to move, in page 48, line 29, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 32, and to insert: 1418 'agricultural land' includes all lands occupied with such agricultural cottages, farm buildings, farm houses and mansion houses as are appropriate to the property of which they form part and that 'agricultural buildings' includes all such cottages, farm buildings, farm houses and mansion houses as are appropriate to the property of which they form part. I have already had conversations with my right hon. Friend on this subject but I am not quite clear about it. I understand that "mansion houses" cannot come into it, but it still seems that some Amendment, with those words omitted, is necessary, in order to cover cottages which are not contiguous to the farm and may even be some distance away. To the best of my knowledge they are on the same assessment as the farm-house and farm buildings, and I understand the Minister intends that they should be assessed with the farm buildings under the Bill. If that is so, this Amendment is not necessary. But I should like an assurance that such cottages as may not be contiguous to the farm buildings, but are at some little distance therefrom, will be included.

§ Mr. Garro Jones
There is one small point which I think requires clarification. A different definition of farm-house and agricultural property is being adopted in this Bill from that which has been adopted in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and previous Acts. I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am correct in saying that to obtain the benefits of the Rating and Valuation Acts farm-houses, etc., must be houses occupied by persons primarily engaged in agriculture. This Clause extends the definition of "farm-house" to all farm cottages. There may be some very good reason why the definition should be extended. I have no particular objection to it, but I think the Committee ought to be informed why the definition is being extended.

§ Captain Crookshank
A priori there is no particular reason why a farm cottage or any other cottage should be treated in a different way from a house or cottage occupied by the postman, the doctor, or whoever it may be. They ought all to be the same for this purpose. But, as is explained earlier in the Bill, we have to find some rough-and-ready way in which we can get contributions, and we have adopted the Schedule A assessment. Our general intention on this subject is that since, in many cases, the Schedule A 1419 assessment does include the agricultural cottages which are occupied by farm workers they come under one valuation, and we have, accordingly, described the land on which they stand as agricultural land for the purposes of the Bill, and as such liable to the lower rate of contribution. It is perhaps true to say that, by being included in that assessment, they do get preferential treatment, but the alternative would be to disentangle them from these assessments, which would be a preposterous thing to do. Not only would the time and skill involved be considerable, but at the end of it there would be no appreciable increase of contributions. The general valuation of cottages for Schedule A purposes is very small and at the end of the process of disentangling them more would have been lost than gained. The purpose is not, therefore, to introduce any general idea of what an agricultural worker's cottage is, but is a purely practical one of applying this part of the Bill quickly.
If, however, the cottage is not part of the assessment which is covered by the words "on or contiguous to the land," if it is a separate independent cottage, it would be treated, in spite of the fact that it is occupied by an agricultural worker—which, of course, has nothing to do with the case—under a separate Schedule A valuation and which had to pay contribution at the ordinary 2s. rate. In cases where there is a general assessment for a property and where some of the cottages are included in the general assessment but are not on or contiguous to the land, I cannot answer my hon. and gallant Friend offhand, but I should think that there would not be very many occasions on which that problem would arise. The general intention, however, is to avoid disentangling the assessments and thereby to save time.

§ Sir J. Lamb
A large number of cottages may be essential to the working of a farm. They are let with the farm and used by farm workers, but are not contiguous to the land. They may be some distance away. But they are, nevertheless, as important for the carrying on of the farm as if they were part of it.

§ Captain Crookshank
The point is not whether these cottages are used for carrying on the business of the farm or by particular kinds of workers. The point is 1420 whether they come within existing assessments. It is from the assessment point of view that we attack this problem, not from the point of view of the work done.

Brigadier-General Brown
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I beg to move, in page 48, line 38, at the end, to insert— business' includes the functions of any local authority. There is no definition in the Bill of the word "business." It does appear in the Bill on several occasions, and on behalf of the County Councils' Association, for which I am speaking now, I would like to know whether they are to be included under the word "business." Under Part I they are, of course, very large owners. Under Part II of the Bill, the statutory duties imposed upon them lead them to undertake obligations which in practice are business schemes. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that such schemes are businesses.

§ Captain Crookshank
It has been said already that we are prepared to consider some of these points about local authorities in the Bill. This is one of the points.

§ Mr. Silkin
I thought we had a definite assurance from the President of the Board of Trade on an earlier Amendment that the functions of the local authorities would be regarded as businesses. I should have been happy to leave it at that.

§ Sir J. Lamb
If that is so, I am content.

§ Sir K. Wood
That is so. The President of the Board of Trade said that it had been decided that from the legal point of view it was unnecessary to specify these matters.

§ Sir K. Wood
I beg to move, in page 48, line 41, to leave out "choses in action or money," and to insert: money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidences of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purposes of a business. This Amendment is to widen the class of goods uninsurable under the business and chattels insurance schemes.

§ Sir J. Lamb
On a point of Order. I do not wish to move my next Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 48, line 46, at the end, to insert: 'local authority' means the council of a county, county borough, county district or rural parish"— if I can be assured that this is covered by the Government's undertaking.

§ Sir K. Wood
Yes, this is covered.