§ Order of the day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments and Commons Consequential 563 Amendment and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments.
§ [NOTE.—The references are to Bill (143) House and Rating (Scotland) Bill, as first printed for the House of Lords.
§ The Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]
§ Lords Amendment.
§ Clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 17, 18, and 19, and insert ("and in the case of burghs with a "population of five hundred thousand or upwards "means a dwelling-house entered in the valuation "roll at a yearly rent or value of twenty pounds or "under;")
§ The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:—
§ Line 1, leave out ("five hundred") and insert ("fifty")
§ Line 3, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-one")
§ LORD PENTLANDI move, with regard to the first Amendment of the Commons, to leave out "five hundred" and insert "fifty," that this House agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ LORD CLINTONThe figures in the Bill to which the Commons object were inserted by your Lordships after very careful consideration and after consultation with the burghs, and they were put in on the understanding that they covered practically the whole of the working-class houses in burghs. I therefore submit that we are entitled to some reason why the Government refuse to assent to our Amendment.
§ LORD PENTLANDI shall be glad to give the Government's reasons; but when the matter was last before your Lordships it was fully discussed, and I thought I then described at length the position of the Government towards the noble Lord's proposals.
§ LORD CLINTONThe figures now inserted in the House of Commons by order of the Government are not those which appeared in the original Bill. The Government had, I admit, gone a certain distance to meet us, because they no longer fix £26 as the limit; but I think that in this matter they might have given more consideration to Scottish opinion expressed clearly by the burghs of Scotland. I admit that the matter of rental is not a point which can be regarded as vital, but still it is 564 important, and I am sorry the Government should not have further considered the views that were put forward on behalf of the burghs in this matter.
§ LORD PENTLANDI do not think it is at all clear that the Government have not further considered the views which the noble Lord and those who acted with him put forward. The Government have considered those views carefully. The complaint is that the Government have not accepted them; but, as the noble Lord admitted, we have made an approximation to his views. Nor can I admit that in one direction the Government have not been in touch with the burghs, or that the burghs are strongly dissatisfied with the change effected by the Commons Amendment. This change was made in the Bill some days ago. The burghs are by no means reluctant to approach the Scottish Office on other matters. But no substantial objection has been taken to what is now proposed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNIt is all very well for the noble Lord to say that the burghs have taken no substantial objection, but your Lordships must remember that this Bill emanated originally from Glasgow and the West of Scotland and that all the other burghs in Scotland were opposed to the views taken by Glasgow. The words "five hundred thousand" population meant Glasgow alone, and the reason why that was inserted was that Edinburgh wished for £15, as also did Dundee and Aberdeen, and I know that Aberdeen wishes for the figure of £15 at this moment. The Government propose to make a different arrangement. They propose that in all burghs which have a population of over 50,000 the yearly rental or value should be £21, and the effect of that is to include the five largest burghs which are known as the scheduled burghs—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Greenock. Of those, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen, if they had their own way, would prefer the figure of £15. But besides those scheduled burghs there are four others—Govan, Patrick, Paisley, and Leith. I admit, if you are going to have a figure of £21 in Glasgow, that Govan and Patrick being adjacent there are possible inconveniences in having a different figure there, and to that extent there is something to be said for what the noble Lord proposes. It is for that reason, and not because I think 565 these figures really meet the wishes of these towns, that I hope in the circumstances the Commons Amendment will not be opposed.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move, with regard to the next Amendment, substituting "twenty-one" for "twenty," that this House agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThis is a very small and, prima facie, peddling Amendment, and surely the noble Lord should give us some reason for it.
LORD SALTOUNI was in Aberdeen only yesterday and saw several gentlemen who are interested in this Bill, and they were unanimously of opinion that £21 would include houses very much over what could be regarded as working-class houses. Why has the figure been changed? There must be some reason for it, and I think the noble Lord should state it.
§ LORD PENTLANDThere is no secret about this, and I shall be glad to give such explanation as I can. This matter was carefully considered in another place, and it was pressed upon the Government that the figure of £21 would be a more convenient figure than that of £20. In-habited house duty is levied on houses of a certain rental, and £21 would safely cover the limit desired. That is the reason for the change. The Government, as the noble Lord knows, were even reluctant to come down so low as £21, particularly in the case of Glasgow.
LORD SALTOUNThe explanation is, in my opinion, a lame one, but I do not think we shall consider the point a vital one.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments.
§ Clause 2, page 1, line 21, leave out ("a parish council")
§ Clause 2, page 1, line 22, after ("assessment")
§ insert ("except a parish council")
§ After clause 20 insert the following new clause—
§ C. Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice 566 or affect the provisions of section seventy-two of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847.
§ The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reasons:—
§ Because if the arrangements for the collection of municipal rates proposed in Clause 12 as amended by the Lords are required for the purpose of facilitating the object of the Bill, viz., the creation of a system of short lets, similar arrangements are equally necessary for the collection of poor rates, education rates, and other rates levied by parish councils, and for the collection of water rates.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that this House do not insist on the first Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNWe have had no reason yet for the disagreement to our Amendment striking out "a parish council." We struck those words out on the ground that they ought not to have been inserted at all, because this was a Bill which had to do with house letting and municipal rates, whereas parish councils have to do with poor rates. This Amendment is a very important one. It raises the question whether the parish councils, which collect the parish rates, are to be put on the same footing as the municipalities which collect the municipal rates.
§ LORD PENTLANDI moved the motion formally because I did not imagine for one moment that the noble Earl would desire any explanation on behalf of the Government as to the treatment of these particular words. This has been discussed at every stage of the Bill, and the Government's attitude has never varied in this or the other House. I was considerate of the time of your Lordships in merely moving that this House should not insist on its Amendments in this respect.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAs the noble Lord does not give any reasons but merely moves the Motion, I presume that the reasons are those which are printed on the Paper—namely, that the Commons disagree to our Amendments because if the arrangements for the collection of municipal rates proposed in Clause 12 as amended by your Lordships are required for the purpose of facilitating the object of the Bill—viz., the creation of a system of short lets—similar arrangements are equally necessary for the collection of poor rates, education rates, and other rates levied by parish councils, and for 567 the collection of water rates. Therefore your Lordships will see that our Amendments are objected to by the Commons on the ground of rates, and for no other reason. In proposing to place parish councils upon the same footing as municipalities your Lordships are being asked to make a very important change in the law. At the present time municipalities collect their rates under Section 345 of the Burgh Police Act, and when the occupier has been asked to pay his rates and has failed to do so, then recourse is had to the owner. Therefore a municipality at this moment has the right ultimately to have recourse to the owner. A parish council is in a different position altogether. They collect the occupier's rates from the occupier and from the occupier alone, and if he does not pay the rate is lost. Therefore your Lordships will see that you are asked, not merely to place the parish councils on the same footing as municipalities, but to give parish councils a most important power which they do not now possess—a drastic power of applying to the owners. The noble Lord urged the case for the parish councils very strongly when the Bill was before us, and your Lordships took the view, which I adhere to, that in giving this power to parish councils the law was being altered in a way in which you do not propose to alter it for anybody else. For the first time they will have access to the owner. We on this side are anxious to go as far as we possibly can with the Government in facilitating the collection of rates and thereby increasing, as we hope, the number of private arrangements; and although we are not unwilling to accede to this great change, it is on the understanding that the conditions which govern the franchise at present are not in any way interfered with. I do not know which will be the most convenient way of taking the question. Perhaps I had better wait until my Amendment is reached. Therefore while not at this stage opposing the reinsertion of the words "parish council" or the other Amendment, the noble Lord will understand that we do so on the distinct understanding that we are going hereafter to limit the matter to the question of the collection of rates—the only reason given by the House of Commons for their disagreement.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI now move that 568 the House do not insist on the second Amendment inserting the words "except a parish council."
§ Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)The Commons disagree to the new clause inserted after Clause 20, that—
Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the provisions of section seventy-two of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that the House do not insist upon this Amendment.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ LORD PENTLANDThe clause was inserted to clear up a doubt as to the effect of the changes in this Bill upon the provisions in the Water Works Clauses Act, 1847, and on examination the Government are of opinion that the clause is not necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe Government think that the persons concerned would not be affected by this Bill if the clause is omitted?
§ LORD PENTLANDThat is so.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment.
§ Leave out clauses 12 to 17, and insert the following new clause A—
§ A. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions with regard to the liability for and the imposition and recovery by, an assessing authority of any assessment of all Acts applicable within the respective burghs in which this Act may be in operation shall subsist in full force and effect, provided that in the application of sections three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, in any burgh which, at the date of the census of nineteen hundred and one, contained a population of fifty thousand or upwards, the following provisions shall apply and have effect (that is to say):—
§ (1) Section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall be read and construed as if the following provision were added thereto and contained therein (that is to say):—
§ Provided that where small dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Small Dwelling-Houses in Burghs Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1909, 569 are let for a year or longer and the rent is payable or paid more frequently or at shorter intervals than once in three months, such dwelling-houses shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be let for less than a year.
§ (2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale (that is to say):—
- (A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum;
- (B) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds seven pounds but does not exceed ten pounds, live per centum; and
- (C) Where the said yearly rent or value exceeds ten pounds but does not exceed the limit of rental fixed by this Act, three per centum:
§ Provided that, after such scale of deduction has been in operation in any such burgh for a period of not less than three years, it shall be competent for the assessing authority, or for any ten or more persons having an interest, to present a petition to the sheriff for reconsideration of such scale, and the decision of the sheriff, after such intimation by advertisement or in such other manner as he thinks fit, and after such inquiry, if any, as he may deem necessary, shall be final, but after the expiry of a period of not less than five years from the date of such decision, and thereafter at intervals of not less than five years from the date of the final interlocutor by the sheriff on the reconsideration of such scale, the scale may, subject to like procedure, be resubmitted to the sheriff for reconsideration.
- (ii) Every such owner shall have relief against the occupiers for the full amount of such assessments without deduction.
- (iii) Every such owner shall have the same claims and remedies for recovery from the occupiers of such assessments and rent as for the recovery of rent alone.
§ (3)—(i) Notwithstanding the payment by the owner of occupiers' assessments in respect of the occupancy of a small dwelling-house, if any small dwelling-house in respect of which such payment has been made shall not be let or occupied for the whole period for which assessments have been paid, the owner shall, upon lodging, on or before dates to be fixed by the respective assessing authorities, with the clerk to any such authority, or with such other officer as such authority may appoint for the purpose, a claim therefor, which shall set forth the period or periods during which the small dwelling-house was not let or occupied and a declaration to the effect that no rent or other consideration was due or was or is to be paid or given for such period or periods, be entitled to repayment from such authority of the proportionate amount of such assessments for the said period or periods.
- (ii) In the case of any small dwelling-house appearing in the valuation roll as unlet, the owner, on receipt of a requisition from an assessing authority shall forthwith furnish such authority with a return containing particulars of any period or periods during which such small dwelling-house has been let or occupied, and the owner shall be
570 liable to pay the proportionate amount of assessments for the said period or periods as if such small dwelling-house had not appeared in the valuation roll as unlet. - (iii) Any owner knowingly making or causing to be made any false statement in or in connexion with any claim, declaration, or return under this section, or failing to make any such return, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
§ The Commons propose to amend this Amendment as follows:—
§ Line 5, leave out from ("that") to ("where") in line 15 and insert—
- (a) The provisions of section three hundred and forty-five and three hundred and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, shall apply to every assessment leviable within any such burgh by any assessing authority other than a town council in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses with the substitution of such assessment and authority for the burgh general assessment and the town council respectively;
- (b) Section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as applying or applied (whether under the existing law or under the immediately preceding provision) within every burgh which at the date of the Census of 1901 contained within the police boundaries thereof a population of fifty thousand or upwards, and within any other burgh in which this Act is in operation, and the town council of which by resolution so decides, shall be deemed to incorporate the following provisions (that is to say):—
§ Line 17, after ("1909") insert ("here in after referred to as small dwelling-houses")
§ Line 21, leave out ("this section") and insert ("section three hundred and forty-five of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892")
§ Line 28, leave out ("as amended by any subsequent Act")
§ Line 32, leave out ("exceeds four pounds but")
§ Line 33, leave out ("seven and one-half") and insert ("ten")
§ Line 36, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven and one-half")
§ Line 59, after ("deduction") insert ("but such assessments shall only be recoverable by such owners from the occupiers along with payments of rent as such payments are fixed by the terms of let, and shall be paid by the occupiers only in amounts proportionate to the period for which rent is paid")
§ After clause A, as a consequential Amendment, insert the following new clause D:—
§ D. Every payment of on assessment by an owner under or in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding section shall, notwithstanding any deduction which the assessing authority is required to allow therefrom, be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification or 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 occupiers' assessments in arrear shall apply to occupiers of premises capable of conferring any franchise as aforesaid, although the owners of such premises are responsible for the occupiers' assessments thereon.
571§ LORD PENTLANDI move that this House agree to the Commons Amendment in line 5, to leave out from "that" to "where" in line 15.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThese are substantial Amendments, and I hope the noble Lord will give us some reason for them and will explain why he proposes to leave out our words and to insert his words.
§ LORD PENTLANDThis is an old story, and it is a question as to the most convenient point at which to take the discussion. I took the early course of moving to agree with the Commons in order to indicate the position of the Government.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that the words proposed to be inserted by the Commons—namely, paragraphs (a) and (b)—be agreed to.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that your Lordships agree to the two next Amendments—in line 17 and in line 21.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ LORD PENTLANDYes.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend subsection (2)—(i) of the new Clause A inserted by the Lords—
(2)—(i) Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling-houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and paid by them in place of the occupiers, under and in terms of section three hundred and forty-five or section three hundred
572
and forty-six of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as amended by any subsequent Act, a deduction to cover cost of collection and risk of loss on the following scale,
by omitting the words "levied on and." The noble Earl said: As the words stand, deductions would only be allowed in eases where the occupier failed to pay and the rate was actually levied upon the owner. I wish to facilitate private arrangements as far as possible, and therefore I propose to leave out these words. The effect of their omission will be that deductions will be allowed in cases where private arrangements have been made between owners and occupiers, as well as in cases where rates have been actually levied on the owners in default of occupiers.
§
Amendment moved—
In new Clause A inserted by the Lords, line 24, to leave out ' levied on and.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ LORD PENTLANDThe noble Earl has been good enough to give me an opportunity of considering this matter. I have not been able to come to any definite conclusion as to how this Amendment would be viewed by local authorities in Scotland, but without committing the Government at this stage, I will not oppose the omission of the words at the moment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in their next Amendment—
Line 28, leave out ("as amended by any subsequent Act.")
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
LORD PENTLAND moved that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment to omit the words "exceeds four pounds but" from paragraph (A) of the Lords Amendment—
(A) Where the yearly rent or value entered on the valuation roll exceeds four pounds but does not exceed seven pounds, seven and one-half per centum.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
573THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNHere again I wish the noble Lord would give us some explanation. Though on the whole I do not propose to take any exception to the Amendment, its result is to make a considerable difference.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe noble Earl will remember that in England, where this system is more extensively in practice, the allowances are greater, and the Government at first preferred to leave the fixing of this allowance to the sheriff. This change simply means that the Government have seen their way to approximate in some degree to what the noble Earl himself laid down.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLAND then moved that the House agree with the Commons in their next throe Amendments—namely, in lines 33, 36, and 59.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the new clause the following new subsection—
(4)—(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.
§ The noble Earl said: I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should take these three subsections separately. The object of the first subsection is this. I think it will frequently happen that an owner, where he has an occupier whom he can trust, will make a private arrangement with him that he will pay his rates; and if the owner neglects to do so, the occupier will receive due notice of this 574 neglect, and then it will be in his power to preserve his franchise by paying the rates. Then, of course, he will be entitled to deduct the amount from what he has to pay to the owner. That is the meaning of my first subsection.
§ LORD PENTLANDI think possibly it would be better at this point that I should say a word on what I understand to be the cumulative effects of the noble Earl's proposals. It may be of use, I think, if I remind the House of the state in which this Bill originally left the House of Commons, and of the changes which have since been made in it in regard to the main matter which is in dispute between the Government and the Opposition. As the Bill originally left the House of Commons it contained provisions for compounding for all rates, including poor rates; and in regard to the effect upon the franchise it contained a definite provision that the non-payment by an owner of any assessment payable on behalf an occupier should not affect the occupier's right to be registered as a voter or to vote at any Parliamentary or other election.
Your Lordships substituted a new clause for the clauses relating to rating which the Bill contained when it left the House of Commons. This new clause provides that in certain cases owners are to be liable for occupiers' rates; but by excluding in a prior clause of the Bill the parish council from the definition of "assessing authority" your Lordships removed the question of the Parliamentary franchise entirely from the scope of the discussion. Upon this I make two observations. The Government cannot assent to the implication of this exclusion—namely, that the right to the Parliamentary franchise is properly based on personal payment of poor rate. And, apart from that question, which need not have been imported into this discussion, I wish to observe, in the second place, that by this exclusion of parish councils from the definition of "assessing authority," it was rendered impossible to adjust the interests of parish councils to the new system of short lets which this Bill seeks to introduce. The Government, naturally enough, I think, found themselves unable to accept the position that rates levyable by parish councils, which amount to nearly forty per cent. of the total of all rates, could be properly separated in treatment from other rates. They therefore, by the Amendments introduced on the Lords 575 Amendments in the House of Commons, restored the parish council to the definition of "assessing authority," and amended the new Clause 12 in such a way as to make it clearly applicable to parish councils among other assessing bodies. The noble Earl this afternoon assented, with qualifications, to the restoration of the parish council to the category of assessing authorities.
The question of the franchise still remained. Your Lordships by your Amendments had taken out of the Bill the provision safeguarding franchise rights as the Bill originally came before this House. The Commons did not press for the re-insertion of this provision, but they inserted instead a new Clause D, to which the noble Earl will presently take objection, the effect of which was to provide that when an owner pays occupiers' poor rates the payment is to cover successive occupations in the course of a year and to qualify the successive occupiers, so far as payment of poor rates is a qualification, for the exercise of the franchise. The effect of this provision is no doubt as in England, to enfranchise an occupier who may only have paid poor rate for part of the year—
§ LORD CLINTONOr he may not have paid it at all.
§ LORD PENTLANDLet me proceed. The effect of the provision is to enfranchise an occupier who may only have paid poor rate for part of the year in respect of the house which constitutes the qualification. That is precisely what is permitted under the existing law in England, and that is my answer to the noble Lord's interruption. A further question remained. Suppose the owner himself does not pay. In such a case the Government could not accept the position that the disqualification of the occupier should follow as a necessary consequence. They therefore introduced the closing words of the new Clause D, to which the noble Earl takes objection, providing for continuation of notices to occupiers of assessments in arrear, and they enabled the occupier to retain his franchise on payment of the rate which the owner had neglected to pay, and subsequently to recover the amount from the owner.
§ LORD PENTLANDI am aware of that, but I thought it better to review the whole field. The Government, in making these provisions, have copied as literally as circumstances would admit the provisions of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, which, as noble Lords who have followed this controversy well know, is the governing Statute in England; and if your Lordships will refer to the debates on the Bill you will find that the whole question now in dispute was discussed at length and a compromise effected on precisely the same basis as that which we now propose for Scotland, In 1869, as now, the Government were charged with introducing a Franchise Bill in disguise. I have repeatedly, in the discussions on this Bill, had an opportunity, which I have taken, of disavowing altogether the imputation that the Government had any intention in this matter of introducing a Franchise Bill. That charge is made now; it was made then in the case of England. But in spite of that, and in spite of the much greater interests involved in the application of this principle to England, the Bill to which I have referred passed. The position, therefore, is that your Lordships are denying to Scotland an advance in the law which Parliament forty years ago was willing to give, and did give, to those in precisely the same circumstances in England.
I have only seen this series of Amendments proposed by the noble Earl to-day, and it is a little difficult for me and for local authorities in Scotland to appreciate fully, on such short notice, the effect of the changes which he proposes. As I understand it, however, his proposal amounts to this: that in no circumstances will he accept payment of rates by an occupier as a qualification for the franchise in respect of a particular house unless the occupier has paid a whole year's poor rate upon that house, notwithstanding he may only have occupied it for part of the year. I hope I am not misunderstanding the noble Earl's intention, because it is really the critical point of our differences. It is provided also that an owner is not to be called upon or be liable to pay any assessment on behalf of an occupier under the section until after the 20th day of June next following the imposition of the assessment. What will be the effect of this provision? I am not quite sure that I understand it. It is not quite clear, and anything I have to say 577 now must, therefore, be subject to reconsideration; but it would seem that the effect will be that any occupier desiring to retain his franchise will be obliged, notwithstanding successive changes of occupation, to pay the entire poor rate for the house constituting the qualification, and that although he may have already paid his rates with his rent to the owner. For some months he may have been paying his poor rate with his rent in instalments. He may have to leave that house after having paid these instalments of poor rate with his rent. If he is to qualify for the franchise he will also have to pay the entire occupiers' poor rate in respect of that house for the year. That is the burden which the noble Earl's provisions seem to me to lay upon the occupier. I do not dogmatise upon the point, but that is what seems to me to be the position.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. But I understood we were going to discuss the three paragraphs in my new subsection in order, and for that reason I limited myself in what I said to paragraph (i). The noble Lord is now going into the whole matter. The intention of paragraph (ii) is to leave the law with regard to the franchise in the position that it is at this moment, and not to make any change. What I would point out is this, that if the change which the Government propose to make is made, it would be possible to call upon an owner, in default of payment by the occupier, to pay the poor rate, and thereby to qualify an occupier who might never repay him or might never pay any rate at all.
§ LORD PENTLANDOf course, this is not a perfect world. The noble Lord has pointed out objections to the alteration, but the objections which he points out now were outweighed, in the opinion of Parliament, by the necessities and circumstances of the case in regard to England; and in 1869, as a solution of a controversy which had gone on for nearly three years, the Government, in spite of any such objections as the noble Earl has now pointed out, found themselves obliged, as a complement to any system of short lets for working-class houses, to make concurrent elasticity in this matter of the collection of rates. The effect of the rigidity which the noble Earl has insisted upon during the whole of these discussions is really to put as against the introduction of the short 578 let system in Scotland the whole penalty of disfranchisement.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe effect of the noble Earl's provision is to apply the whole leverage of the desire to retain the franchise against the system of paying rates with rent, which the clause specially introduces in order to facilitate short lets. You therefore take away with one hand what you give with the other. It is also faulty in so far as it leaves in doubt what is to happen if the owner, notwithstanding the present proposals, does pay his poor rate before the 20th day of June. Will the occupier, or will be not, be disfranchised in that case? Possibly the noble Earl will tell us; but the Government's proposals have been perfectly clear on this point all along. The noble Earl has assumed throughout these discussions the opinion of local authorities in Scotland. He has alluded to-day to the position of Glasgow. I have this afternoon received from the Glasgow Corporation this telegram—
House Letting Bill, Glasgow Corporation desire in strongest terms to represent against proposal to be made in Lords by which owners cannot be called upon to pay till after 20th June next following imposition of assessment. This would hang up great part of rate collection till year following that for which assessment levied, involving some £300,000, and is unworkable.—Town Clerk.That is not a final opinion. In the first place, we are not quite clear as to the noble Earl's intention. In the second place, the Glasgow Corporation may well be in doubt as to the effect of the words which embody his intention. But there is the opinion of the Glasgow Corporation on the proposals which the noble Lord now puts forward. I have another telegram also, from the Town Clerk of Glasgow, to this effect—House Letting Bill, It is thought here that the new clause to be proposed by Lord Camperdown would disfranchise—not would forbid the enfranchisement, but would disfranchise—large number of occupiers of small dwelling-houses.On the whole, therefore, I must, on behalf of the Government, decline to agree with the changes which are row proposed in the Amendments made in this Bill in another place.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNDoes the noble Lord object to the first paragraph of my proposed new subsection?
§ LORD PENTLANDI think my objection had better be to the whole of them, though there are differences in degree.
§ LORD CLINTONThe noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has dwelt largely on the English model. We are dealing here with a purely Scottish system, and I do not think it is possible to bring the English system forward as a direct model, as in many respects it does not apply to Scotland at all. In the first place, the noble Lord has altered the rental of houses in this Bill until they largely exceed the ordinary rental of compounded houses in England. The ordinary rental in England, with the exception of London, and, I think, Liverpool, is £13. Corresponding towns under this Bill will have a limit of rental of £21. But apart altogether from that, there is a very much stronger objection. The Act of 1869 was the result of compromise. Does the noble Lord opposite understand from his English advisers that compounding has worked successfully in England? Every authority who has reported upon compounding in England has reported against it, whilst Miss Octavia Hill, than whom no one knows more of the life of the working-classes in England, has declared the system to be wholly demoralising. Are we to take this worn-out, objectionable system from England, and apply it to a bran-new system of letting in Scotland? This Bill came forward nominally as a house-letting Bill. We have no difference with the Government on that point. But, in order to carry out his short-letting principle, the noble Lord has stated that he must have a compounding system. We disagree with that statement.
§ LORD PENTLANDMay I point out that the noble Lord assents in a form to compounding?
§ LORD CLINTONNo, no. We went as far to compounding as it was possible for us to go, and framed the clause which is now in the Bill. This clause has nothing whatever to do with enfranchisement, and yet it carries out the noble Lord's idea of rate collection. But the Government refuse to accept this clause until they have added to it certain other clauses which would clearly enfranchise the occupiers throughout the country. We have tried to meet the noble Lord in every way, and we are now met with an objection 580 in toto to our clause unless it carries with it the principle of enfranchising those who do not pay the rates.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI confined myself in my remarks to paragraph (i) of my proposed new subsection. Shall I deal with the whole subsection in answer to the noble Lord's speech?
§ LORD PENTLANDIf you please.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe object of the second paragraph is to prevent any change in the conditions which accompany the Scottish franchise. The law is at present that an occupier's rates must have been paid before June 20 if that occupier's name is to be on the roll. The occupier may himself pay; then he is on the roll; or he may make an arrangement with the house owner to pay the rates for him; that would be a perfectly legal payment, and the occupier's name would be on the roll. What we object to is that the owner should be compelled to pay the rates of a man in whom, very likely, he has no trust, with regard to whom, perhaps, all he knows is that he has not paid his rates, and thereby he is made to qualify that man for the register. It is that alone to which we object. And when the noble Lord opposite says we are attacking the system of short lets, I can only reply that the question of rates has no more to do with short lets than with the moon. We are proposing to give to the parish council a power of ultimate recourse against the owner which they do not at present possess; and, in order to meet the objections which the Glasgow Corporation have indicated in the telegram read out by the noble Lord, I will introduce in paragraph (ii) after the first "assessment," the words "imposed by a parish council." What we are attacking is the giving of power to parish councils to call upon owners to pay rates in order to qualify the occupiers. We do not wish in any way to diminish the powers of the municipalities. Indeed, as a matter of fact we do not diminish them, because municipalities need not collect under this clause; they can collect under Section 345 of the existing Act. The noble Lord said that we had assented to compounding. We have assented to nothing of the sort. What we have assented to is a system under which the occupier is first applied to, and then, if he fails to pay, the owner is applied to. The distinction is that 581 under compounding the owner is directly applied to, but under the other system he is only ultimately responsible for the rates. Paragraph (iii) is simply a reproduction of the last proviso in the new Clause D proposed by the Commons, which I shall presently move to strike out.
§
Amendment moved—
In new clause A inserted by the Lords, line 96, after paragraph (iii), to insert the following now subsection, viz.:—
'(4)—(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.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD PENTLANDI move that the House agree to the new Clause D inserted by the Commons.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Pentland.)
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had given notice to move the omission of the new Clause D proposed by the Commons, said: This proposed new clause provides that every payment of an assessment by an owner under or in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding section shall, notwithstanding any deduction which the assessing authority is required to allow therefrom, be deemed a payment of the full assessment by the occupier for the purpose of any qualification or franchise which depends on such payment. My reason for objecting to that is the reason I gave to your Lordships a short time ago—that this subsection as it stands would empower the parish council to collect the rate from the owner compulsorily. That is why I propose to omit this provision. The new Clause D next provides that where an owner who is 582 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. The reason why I object to that is that under those words an interpretation would be imparted to Section 345 which I believe is contrary to the real meaning of the Act. I know that noble Lords hold that under Section 345 you can apply direct to the owner. All I can say is it never has been done, and it certainly is not the law at the present time. The only case which has been taken into Court went in the other direction. These words appear to me most objectionable, because they would construe the section the other way. The remaining proviso in the new Clause D is the one which I have inserted in my Amendment.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe Government are not in agreement with the noble Earl and would desire to agree with the Amendment of the Commons. But I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division in the matter.
§ On Question, Motion to agree with the Commons in the said Amendment negatived.
§ A Committee appointed to prepare a reason for the Lords disagreeing to the said Amendment: The Committee to meet forthwith.