RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL. (Hansard, 10 September 1914)

§ Mr. ROBERT PEARCE
I find that Clause 1 (Extension of Time for Taking Proceedings for Recovery of Rates) ends with the word "unable."

§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel)
I shall move an Amendment with respect to that.

§ Mr. R. PEARCE
It seems to me that the Clause will not be useful to the rating authorities. I do not see how anyone as the rate-collecting authority can under this Clause postpone proceedings for the recovery of rates. I gather that what we have to contemplate is that the ratepayer would not be able to pay. But if a man is able and willing to pay, this time limit should not operate. I shall be glad to know what answer is to be made with respect to the application of the Clause, for it seems to me that a man who can pay ought to be sued.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
If a ratepayer is able to pay, of course he will pay at the proper time, and no question as to making use of the provisions of this Bill will arise. What the local authorities will have to do, if the Bill is passed, will be to give notice to the ratepayer that after a certain time they propose to proceed under the Act, and if there is no reply made to that, proceedings will be taken to prove that this Act would not properly apply in the case of one who is able to pay.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what would be the effect of the provisions of this Bill in respect of disfranchisement for non-payment of rates?

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
That question does not arise yet. Before next year's Parliamentary Election comes on a number of points will have to be considered, such as the effect of the receipt of Poor Law relief, and also the effect of non-payment of rates, which under the present law are disqualifications for voting.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Am I wrong in thinking that the Bill would have the effect of immediately disfranchising voters who do not pay their rates within the proper time?

§ Mr. DUKE
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the first Clause of the Bill would be a little less ambiguous than it strikes me as being now if the occasion which provides for the extension of the time for proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Act were deferred at the request of the ratepayer. As the Clause stands here it is quite certain that there would have to be a trial on a matter of fact, and it might be possible for people to escape payment of rates because it was thought they could not pay. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce words indicating the reason for the nonpayment of rates, there would be an incontestible definition to which the local authority could easily give effect.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I have endeavoured to follow the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I do not even now quite understand the object of the Bill. It is an exceedingly complicated one. Would not the whole object be gained by taking out a summons and adjourning it for the necessary time? If the local authority does not take proceedings within six months, it has to prove that they were not taken because they were allowing time to persons who were, on account of the War, temporarily unable to pay. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what would be the effect on the collection of rates in a particular district where the local authority took no steps at all to recover the rates.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
In answer to that question I desire to point out that local authorities are most unwilling to take out summonses at the present time in cases where they know that persons are not in a position to pay rates, and I am informed by the Municipal Corporations Association and others that in many cases they would prefer to forego the rates rather than seem to take action against people in their own town who are quite unable to pay rates on account of unemployment in consequence of the War. Therefore the postponement of the summons would not meet that particular case. With respect to what was said by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Duke), his suggestion, as I understand, is that the Bill should provide for the postponement of proceedings at the request of the ratepayer. If that were put into an Act of Parliament I am afraid there would be a presumption in the mind of the local authority that if a request was made by a ratepayer then proceedings ought to be postponed. We have to be exceedingly careful not to allow people who ought to pay to escape payment. We should be very careful not to give them an opportunity of claiming that, on account of the War, they were not in a position to pay. The essential thing is to get in as much from the rates as possible, and this Bill has been drafted with that important consideration in view. The mainspring of the Bill is that it should be proved that the institution of proceedings has been deferred, that is to say, by the local authority, for the purpose of allowing time to persons who are unable, for the reasons specified, to pay rates for the time being. If you transfer the moving force from the local authority to the ratepayer you might be doing a great deal of harm from the point of view of the financial stability of our local authorities, and that is the reason why the words in the Bill do not give an option to the ratepayer.

§ Sir FREDERICK LOW
I think the real difficulty in the matter raised by hon. Members on the other side arises out of the use of the word "proved." I would suggest that Clause 1 should be amended by leaving out the word "proved," and that it should refer only to the determination of the local authority to defer proceedings.

§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL
I think this Bill follows on the Bill recently passed with regard to the relief of tenants as to payment of rent. In that Bill relief was given to tenants as to payment of rent, and when we discussed it the other evening the Attorney-General promised that the matter of rates would be considered. I take it that this Bill is the result of that consideration, that is to say, that where a tenant does not pay rent, then, if the owner of the property proves that such rent has not been paid on account of the War, he can claim relief from payment of rates for the time being. In the usual case the owners of property are sued for payment of rates, and a very large number are summoned as a matter of course. I should think that relief from payment of rates would be given under this Bill in cases where the owners of property can show that they have not received rent in consequence of the tenant not being able to pay—in other words, the payment would be deferred beyond the six months. I should like to have the view of the Attorney-General or the President of the Local Government Board on this question. Does the Bill mean that where the owner of property does not receive rent in consequence of the tenant being unable to pay rent on account of the War, and that where he can show, when summoned, if he is summoned, that such rent was not paid, he can get relief from payment of rates? In many cases which I know corporations, rural district councils, and urban district councils would not issue summonses in that case. I believe they would take the circumstances into consideration and postpone the putting of pressure on the owner. Since the discussion took place recently a very large number of people, owners of property, have been considering the legislation passed by Parliament. A very large number have become alarmed with regard to the former Bill. Although they do not object to the principle of the Bill, they think that where rents are not paid in consequence of the War consideration should be given to them in the meantime as to the non-payment of rates, and also in regard to non-payment of Income Tax. I think this Bill will meet the point with regard to the payment of rates, and I should like to hear from the Attorney-General whether it does so or not.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I beg to move, "That this House doth now resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
In my view we are making a mistake in proceeding with too great haste with these emergency Bills. The true course to have taken in this case would be to have repealed the Bill passed lately and brought in a proper Bill this week. Instead of that the course which we are pursuing produces all sorts of patchwork legislation which will lead to confusion later on. It is the undue haste with which we are proceeding that produces the necessity for these amending Bills.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I would suggest that in the strictest sense this is an emergency Bill. If it is to be passed at all it must be passed either to-day or within the next few days, for the reason that certain rates become payable in a very short time from now. The rates struck in April are now payable, and the local authorities will either have to take proceedings within the six months which the law allows them or they may have to forego their chance of getting the rates altogether. The matter is a very urgent one. It would arise in municipalities throughout the countries within a very few weeks from the present time. This Bill simply puts the district rates on the same footing as the poor rates. The limitation of six months within which proceedings must be taken does not now apply to poor rate.

§ Mr. MAURICE HEALY
The circumstances are different in Ireland.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
This Bill does not apply to Ireland. There is not the six months' limit in Ireland. It is urgently necessary so far as England and Wales are concerned. In reference to the municipal franchise, the scope of the Bill does not allow it in any case to be dealt with under this Bill. In any case no one can be worse off from the passage of this Bill, because the worst that can happen to anyone would be that proceedings against him for the payment of rates will be postponed, and, whether this Bill is passed or not, I am inclined to think that a person 686 is entitled to vote in a municipality if he is on the register. The register for the next municipal election is now being made up, and this does not affect it. Before next year's register is made up it will be necessary to consider this and several other points.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I do not propose to discuss the municipal franchise, but I think that this Motion is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure. I think that it ought to be an extremely rare Motion, made only when the Government are satisfied that the national safety urgently required the House to dispense with its customary form. The Explosives Bill, 1882, was the last Bill passed in this way. There is no reason why Bills of this kind should be dealt with to-day and should not go through their ordinary stages, taking the Second Reading to-day and the Committee stage to-morrow.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
There is no sitting to-morrow.

§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The Committee stage can be taken on Monday. There is no reason why the ordinary procedure should not be followed. It is not a question of the defence of the Realm. The Motion which is now proposed is one which should not he brought forward, save in very exceptional circumstances, when the public safety urgently requires it.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that there will be no sitting of the House to-morrow, you yourself, in reference to Supply, said "Report to-morrow." I have understood the practice of the House to be that that amounted to an Order fixing a sitting of the House for the day in question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It means that if the House sits to-morrow those matters will be on the Orders of the Day, but it does not prevent the House subsequently determining to adjourn from to-day until Monday. If it does so, of course those Orders will be automatically put on from to-morrow till Monday.

§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
Then the old practice of the House has changed.

§ Mr. KING
I support the point of view of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford 687 University. It seems to me quite unnecessary to proceed with the Committee stage of this Bill at present. We have got several days before us. I would like especially to point out that it may affect in a very important way the registration of voters. That is a matter which should not arise and it is quite unnecessary.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The Government has been proceeding with these measures under a somewhat exceptional procedure with the general concurrence of the whole House, and as apparently three hon. Members desire this Bill to be postponed until Monday and perhaps other Members of the House also desire this course to be followed, and as I cannot in candour pretend that it is necessary to pass this Bill to-day rather than on Monday, I will gladly meet the wishes of the hon. Members in question and withdraw the Motion now before the House.