(3) The power of the receiver appointed under this Section to levy a rate may be exercised, notwithstanding that the expenses of the authority to meet which the rate is made were incurred in a period prior to that in which the rate is made, and notwithstanding that the council may have already made and levied a rate for such expenses.
After Sub-section (3) insert a new Subsection:
(4) Where in pursuance of a precept issued by an authority either before or after the passing of this Act, any sum is payable, directly or indirectly, by the council of a metropolitan borough to that authority, the authority may set off any sum payable to the council from the authority against the sum payable by the council in pursuance of the precept, without prejudice to proceedings for the recovery of the balance (if any) of the last-named sum under the provisions of this Section.
I beg to move, "That the House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."This is an Amendment of substance, and I think the House will agree with me that it is eminently reasonable. I will take for instance the case of the London County Council and a municipal borough council. Where the London County Council issue a precept to the borough council and where there is a sum payable from the borough council to the county council, the latter body may set off that sum against the sum payable under the precept without prejudice as to any balance that may exist. That will save cross payments and facilitate local government in this matter.
Question put, and agreed to.