§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 5:
§ The spindles levy.
§ (5) The spindles levy payable for any year in the case of a cotton mill shall be a debt accruing due to the Spindles Board at the beginning of that year from the person who is then the owner of the cotton mill; and if, at any time in the course of that year, any other person becomes the owner of the cotton mill, he shall be treated for the purpose of this subsection as if he, as well as the first-mentioned person, had been the owner of the cotton mill at the beginning of the year.
§ Viscount BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after the second "mill." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the way I read the latter part of this subsection is that if a cotton mill happens to change hands during the period of twelve months there will be a double levy. That seems to me extremely unfair, because if the cotton mill happens to be owned by a company the company can easily evade that provision by changing the directors and shareholders. I think this is a very reasonable proposal to make, and knowing that my noble friend Lord Templemore is also reasonable, I hope he will see his way to accept my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("mill") to end of line 23.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ Lord TEMPLEMOREMy Lords, my noble friend was good enough to say that I am a very reasonable person. I hope I am, but I am afraid I cannot by any means accept his Amendment, because in fact it would entirely do away with part of the purpose of the Bill. My noble friend means by this Amendment to do away with what he thinks is a double levy, on different sets of people, who might have to pay the same levy. That is not so. This does not mean that the Spindles Board can collect 1207 the levy twice over; but it means that they should recover either from the old owner or from the new, or partly from one and partly from the other. Supposing, for the sake of argument, my noble friend is owner of a mill and he pays the levy quarterly. Supposing he pays the levy on January 1 and on April 1, and when June 30 arrives I come and buy the mill from him. Then I become liable for the levy on July 1, and after that date. As the Bill stands, where the mill changes hands the natural thing would be to collect the remaining instalments from the new owner. This can be done under the clause as it stands, but could not be done if my noble friend's Amendment were adopted.
If the Amendment were adopted one effect would be that it might be very difficult for the Spindles Board to recover outstanding instalments of the levy from the old owner. Supposing—an unlikely thing to happen—my noble friend went bankrupt or disappeared! Of course the same consideration applies to recovery of instalments for that year already overdue. In this connection I should like to point out that the Bill does not make the levy chargeable on the mill or any part of the machinery, and the only method of recovery is by direct proceedings against the owner. I am advised that this is the normal 1208 position of any joint debtor; that is to say, in the case of a debt which is recoverable from two persons, if the debt is discharged by one the other person is not liable. By no manner of means under this subsection can the debt be collected from two people. The subject is rather a technical one, but I hope I have explained it to my noble friend's satisfaction and that he will see fit not to press his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I think the wording of the subsection is a little ambiguous and that it might have been made a little clearer. However, my noble friend seems to have given me a satisfactory answer, although perhaps to-morrow when I read the OFFICIAL REPORT I shall see that he has given me no answer at all. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.