HC Deb 25 November 1909 vol 13 cc449-51

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons consequential Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)

I propose, in the first place, to agree with the drafting Amendment in the new Clause (A) to leave out the words "levied on and." With regard to the new Sub-section which the Lords propose to introduce, I propose to disagree with that Amendment. With regard to the new Clause (D) inserted there by the Commons to which the Lords disagree, I propose to substitute for the new Clause (D) the following:—

"Every payment in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding Sections shall be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any franchise which depends on such payment: Provided that where an owner who is responsible therefor omits or neglects to pay any such assessment the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid; and provided further that all provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupier's assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise as aforesaid, notwithstanding that the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupier's assessments thereon."

I may state in a sentence that the reason why I take that course is that if the Lords new Sub-section were agreed to great financial inconvenience would be caused. The parish councils and many occupiers who have actually paid their poor rates will be disfranchised.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to understand the full effect of this new Clause as read out by the Lord Advocate before voting or assenting to the Bill in the manner he suggests. I should like to know whether this new Clause provides that the tenant shall be retained on the roll of voters?

Mr. URE

Yes.

Mr. BARNES

Whether the money be paid by him or by the owner?

Mr. URE

Yes.

Mr. BARNES

On that understanding, Mr. Caldwell, I shall vote for the Bill, though I should like to say before it goes through that the Bill does not give what is wanted. It cuts down the time in which the man was tied to his house, and, although the rent limit is not so high as we should like it, yet I recognise that the Bill is a considerable instalment, and does better the position very considerably. So far as its rating provisions go, although that is a matter upon which the workman does not feel so keenly, yet I am glad to find that the Lord Advocate has disagreed with this Amendment of the Lords, which would have had the effect of disfranchising a good many men, and which, so far as I understand it, had the effect also of enabling the landlords to collect and retain moneys in their hands for a considerable period. As I understand it, that provision is now taken out of the Bill. And on that ground I will vote for the Bill going through.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered" put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In new Clause (A), after paragraph (iii), insert the following new Sub-section:—

  1. "(i) If an owner who has undertaken by agreement with the occupier to pay any assessment on his behalf omits or neglects to pay it, the occupier may pay the same and deduct the amount from the rent due or accruing due to the owner, and the receipt for such assessment shall be a valid discharge of the rent to the extent of the assessment so paid.
  2. (ii) An owner shall not be called upon nor be liable to pay any assessment imposed by a parish council on behalf of an occupier under or in virtue of the provisions of this section until after the twentieth day of June next following the imposition of the assessment.
  3. (iii) All provisions of any Act with respect to notice to be given of occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any qualification or franchise, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon."

Mr. URE

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

The Lords disagreed to new Clause (D) inserted by the Commons for the following reason:—

"Because under its provisions an owner might be compelled to pay the parish council rates of an occupier at such a date as to qualify him for the parliamentary franchise, although he might never pay those rates."

Lords Reason read a second time: —

Resolved, that this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed. —[The Lord Advocate.]

And, instead thereof, new Clause (D) (Occupiers' assessments) —[The Lord Advocate] —inserted in the Bill.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.

Committee nominated of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Murray Macdonald, and Mr. Barnes.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately. —[Mr. Ure.]

Reasons for disagreeing with Lords Amendments afterwards reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Ure.]