Clause 7.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES AND DWELLING-HOUSES OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.) (Hansard, 27 June 1956)

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 10, line 37, to leave out from the beginning to "as" in line 38 and insert: pertinent' has the like meaning". This is purely consequential on the deleting of the definition of dwelling-house.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 10, line 46, to leave out from "which" to the end of line 3 on page 11 and insert:

(a) is occupied in connection with agricultural lands and heritages; and

(b) is used as the dwelling-house of a person engaged primarily in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on those lands and heritages or employed as an agricultural worker thereon; and

(c) is suitable in character and size for such use in connection with those lands and heritages;.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the words proposed to be inserted are in the Bill in almost identical language at the moment, and the only new matter is in paragraph (c). That arises out of considerable discussion we had in Committee when it was suggested, I think rightly, that the owner or occupier of a very large house on a very small farm should not get what I might call an agricultural benefit. We undertook to look at the matter to see if we could get a formula to cover the point. Under existing law there are a number of cases dealing with derating in which the question has arisen as to whether the character and size of the house is suitable for the lands and heritages in connection with which it is occupied, so I think the phraseology should not give any legal difficulty. We have a number of decisions on the matter which should be easy to follow. I think that meets the point of avoiding giving to the rich man in the over-large house with a very small farm benefits to which he is not really entitled.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from "be" to the end of line 26 and insert: the gross annual value thereof less an amount equal to fifty per cent. of such gross annual value".

§ Mr. Speaker
This Amendment and the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), in line 27, to leave out subsection (7) seem to be interconnected. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Paisley would consent to the two being taken together.

§ Mr. D. Johnston
I agree, Mr. Speaker.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I agree that the two Amendments hang together. The Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State was put down to meet a point—to a certain extent a good point—made by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) in Committee, but it is clear from the fact that the hon. and learned Member has another Amendment down that our Amendment does not entirely satisfy him.
As subsection (6) stands, the amount which the Secretary of State may vary by order is the net annual value and the rateable value of a croft house. The effect of our Amendment is to provide that the amount which can be so varied is the 50 per cent. deduction from the gross annual value of such a house. In other words, his power is not to vary the rateable value of the house but to vary the deduction. That brings the subsection into line with Clause 6 (7).
It may be suggested that the Amendment is still too wide inasmuch as it might cover an arbitrary method of calculation, but the power must be kept fairly wide because the Secretary of State has to have power to vary deductions when they are expressed in the form of £x or y per cent., whichever is the greater. It is desirable that, just as he has power under Clause 6 (7), the Secretary of State should have power, in the case of crofters' houses, to make an alteration in the deduction. That alteration, of course, is subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House.
If he had no power to vary, as would be the case if the hon. and learned Member's Amendment were accepted, it 606 would mean that if an alteration were to be made we should need substantive legislation. It seems to me that if the power is given under Clause 6 it should equally be given under Clause 7. I think that hon. Members will appreciate that the power would certainly not be used in an arbitrary fashion, and that it is subject to the confirmation of the House.

§ Mr. D. Johnston
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his acceptance of what was the first part of my argument in Committee. The Amendment in the Secretary of State's name does not go the whole way that I desired in Committee, but as it took the major part of a morning in Committee to obtain this small concession, I do not propose to weary the House by trying to obtain the further concession which is embodied in my Amendment, which I do not propose to move. I merely say "Thank you" to the Government for the small concession which they have made after a very long period of consideration.