I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "twenty-five."I apologise that because of a technical hitch the Amendment was not brought forward at an earlier stage. It is a very simple matter and I quote only one case in support of it; that is the case of a: urban district council which has some 500 allotments, of which 400 are at rents over 20s. This may seem to some people to be a high rate, but in the case in question they are extremely good allotments and are provided with standing pipe water, and so forth. Under the present completely satisfactory arrangement the rents are paid annually, half in arrear and half in advance. If the Bill becomes law the situation in the district to which I am referring will be that that arrangement, which, I repeat, is satisfactory, will become illegal and will, naturally, lead to difficulty. The collection of these small rents at intervals of less than a year is uneconomic. They could, no doubt, be collected three-quarters in arrear and one-quarter in advance, but that is not a very tidy solution. I suggest that the Amendment would result in administrative convenience to a good many people and hardship to nobody.
I beg to second the Amendment.
Since this will undoubtedly save a good deal of bookkeeping and collection expenses, I am glad to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.