§ Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 1, after "tithepayer", insert "duly".
§ 1.17 p.m.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAMI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. BELLENGERWould the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to give us some explanation of this Amendment? No doubt it is a drafting Amendment, but those of us who are not lawyers might be interested to hear the reason for the insertion of the word "duly", and I think it is only fair to the House that the Parliamentary Secretary should give that explanation.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAMI think it is desirable that, when a tithe-payer serves notice on the Commission, he should serve it in accordance with the rules and regulations which such action demands. I do not know that it would affect the Measure if this Amendment were not made, but in the circumstances I think it would be advisable to insert the word "duly", unless the hon. Member has any express reason to the contrary. Accordingly, I suggest that the Amendment might be accepted.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 24, at the end, insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not have effect as respects any arrears which are irrecoverable by the Commission by virtue of proviso (a) to subsection (10) of this section.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAMI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is necessary in order to cure a technical defect in the drafting. Clause 20 (10, a) provides that arrears are not to be recoverable notwithstanding that the tithe-payer is legally liable in other respects, if the arrears became due more than two years before the commencement of proceedings to recover them. A tithe-owner might serve a notice on a tithe-payer claiming payment of arrears which have become irrecoverable for this reason, and the tithe-payer might, either inadvertently or, possibly, by collusion with the tithe-owner, require a reference to the Arrears Investigation 1008 Committee as to the arrears. If this were to happen, the position under Sub-section (7) of Clause 20 as drafted would be that the Commission would have to pay an amount equal to the arrears, subject to any remission ordered by the Committee, to the tithe-owner, although the arrears would be irrecoverable by the Commission.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 3, at the end, insert:
and a proportionate part of any remission directed by the Committee of arrears of a rentcharge, to which the provisions of section four of that Act relating to sums payable by way of sinking fund payment apply, shall be treated as attributable to the sum so payable for that year.
§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAMI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It seemed proper that any remission directed by the Arrears Investigation Committee should be treated in the same way as remissions under Section 8 of the Tithe Act, 1891—that is to say, remissions where the tithe rentcharge exceeded two-thirds of the Schedule B value of the land—used to be treated. Under Section 4 of the Tithe Act, 1925, a proportionate part of the amount so remitted was treated as attributable to the Sinking Fund, and that sum was reduced accordingly. The House will remember that under the Act of 1925 the payment of £109 10s. was treated as containing £4 10s. in respect of sinking fund, but where there was a remission under the Act of 1891 the amount so attributable was reduced accordingly. It was thought proper that any remission directed by the Arrears Investigation Committee should be treated in the same way, because otherwise it would be unfair to the tithe-owners.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 37, line 21, agreed to.