HC Deb 01 July 1927 vol 208 cc793-6
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).

I realise that I am struggling against adversity, and I shall put my case very; shortly as I have already ventilated the point in Committee. This is another instance of prejudice being introduced with a good deal of effect. My Amendment is one of principle—

Mr. GROVES

Not interest?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

I am not talking of capital, but of the principle with regard to the actions that may arise from anything done in this House. Why should moneylenders be treated differently from any other trade? It is well known that companies registered before 1916 are not compelled to publish these particulars. No other company incorporated before then has to show the particulars mentioned in the Sub-section which I seek to delete, and I do not see why different treatment should he meted out, unless it is to create prejudice against the moneylending company. It will not cost the promoters anything to agree to this Amendment, and thus to rid this Bill of some of the cargo with which they have overloaded it. They have introduced matters which have not been before the Select Committee and which have not been discussed very fully upstairs. I could give some very nasty instances on that point. One of my objections to the triple set of these Bids is that so much of them is due to the ignorant spite caused by Noble Lords its another place stepping down from their high judicial position because of personal prejudice in order to frame a Measure. I want to rid this Measure of spite and personal prejudice. The Government ought to have taken the matter in hand themselves and conducted an inquiry and given us a fair Bill. The bulk of moneylenders are respectable and are trying to carry on an honest trade. If the Measure was tempered with more of the milk of human kindness, and if more justice and equity were put into it, it would get on very much better.

Mr. HARNEY

I beg to second the Amendment. I agree with the general remarks made by the hon. Member. I have never been able to see why a business that must be regarded as legal should be treated with that kind of vindictiveness which certainly characterised this Bill in its early stages. As to the Amendment, hon. Members will remember that by an Act passed in 1917 certain companies were called upon to publish certain particulars. That Act said that companies should not be asked to give those particulars if they were already in existence, and that it should only apply to companies formed afterwards. This Bill says that the provisions of that Act shall apply with the necessary modifications to every moneylending company, even though they were formed before 1916. Why make an absurd exception? In the case of ordinary companies you say that they shall only be required to give these particulars if they were formed after the Act comes into operation. That is perfectly right and proper, but it is not fair that ten years later you should come along and say that it shall apply retrospectively to moneylending companies.

Mr. BURMAN

This particular Amendment of the Companies Acts dealing with company directors was passed during the War, and it required all companies registered after its passing to publish certain particulars, including the names of the directors of the company. It was a very simple Measure passed in order that persons who dealt with the companies might know whether they were dealing with British subjects or with foreigners. Every company established after the date of the passing of the Act had to give those particulars, but a company registered before 1917 was not required to give them as it was assumed to be conducted by British subjects. It is proposed now that that exemption with regard to companies registered before 1917 should not apply to moneylending firms. Shortly, it amounts to this, that in future every firm of moneylenders registered under the Companies Acts, either privately or publicly, will have to publish the names of their directors, and people will then be able to know with whom they are dealing.

Mr. HARNEY

I have no objection to their being compelled to give particulars. My objection was because you are making a fish of one and fowl of another. Parliament has said that it will not be retrospective for companies generally, but this Bill makes it retrospective for one class of company.

Mr. BURMAN

I ask the House to support me in opposing this Amendment in order that these companies may be called upon to give the names of their directors. Surely there is no hardship in that.

Mr. THURTLE

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. I have noticed we have had a lawyer speaking in support of it, and it was said during the last discussion that the weight of legal argument was on the side of the moneylenders. As I listened to the discussion this morning, it occurred to me that, if the weight of legal argument is on the side of the moneylenders, it might not be unconnected with the fact that the weight of money is also on their side. It has been said, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." The fact that there is a great financial interest behind this moneylending business may not be unconnected with the ardent support given by lawyers in this House to the moneylending interests. We ought to do everything possible to make it difficult for disreputable moneylending firms to carry on business. Those who are carrying on an honest straightforward business will not he afraid to proclaim to the world what their real names are, and I think there is no justification at all for this Amendment.

Mr. NAYLOR

I supported my hon. and gallant Friend in his last Amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot support him in this one. I was to some extent disappointed in the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman on the Liberal benches asked that we should not make fish of one kind of company and fowl of another. Now I do not want to suggest any other kind of company is of a "fishy" nature or that the moneylending business is necessarily "fowl," but one must realise that the moneylending business is not exactly the same kind of commercial business as is carried on by an ordinary company engaged in commerce, and, that being the case, the House ought not to support the Amendment.

Mr. OLIVER

I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend, because it is extremely unfair to make fish of one and flesh of another, but, if that rule were applied, we should find that the Amendment would make fish of one and flesh of another as far as new companies and old companies are concerned. It would draw a distinction in the matter of names between the new company and the old company which would be very prejudicial to the new company. It will be unfair to make the new companies do something which the old companies were not required to do.

Amendment negatived.