"It shall be the duty of the proprietor of any omnibus (when applying for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence, to provide any form of transport service in the London Traffic Area) to supply to the Minister on such form as the Minister may determine full details of any agreement, written or verbal, for the control by loan, agreement, shareholding, or interlocking directorship, or otherwise of his business by any other company or person, and full particulars as to his holding or beneficial interest in the stocks, shares, or securities in the business of any company engaged in the manufacture or supply of vehicles, plant, equipment, or requisites for any such service.
Failure to supply such details, or knowingly to supply false or misleading details, will render the proprietor or the responsible officer of any company providing any form of transport on the London Area on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and the cancellation of his licence."
I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "omnibus", to the first word "to" in line 3, and to insert the words
which is licensed subject- to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service.
The first Amendment necessary to this Clause is in reference to persons doing
what is required of them. The whole object of the Clause is to enable the Minister to obtain particulars from omnibus owners in order to prevent monopoly or combine.
The Amendment which is being moved by the Minister is a direct attempt to reverse the decision at Which this House arrived when it was invited to decide and did decide between the respective merits of two Amendments on the Paper. One Amendment, which was accepted by the House after debate, is in the terms now appearing on the Paper in respect of which the Bill has been recommitted. The principal point of distinction between the Amendments is that one seeks to reverse the decision of the House whether it was desirable that these powers should be obtained before the licence was granted or after it was granted. It was mainly on that point that the House divided and by a large majority came to the conclusion that they preferred the Amendment in the form contrary to that which was on the Paper and which is now moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I respectfully protest against this attempt to reverse the decision come to by the House after full discussion. I regret I did not succeed in catching the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman to alter this Clause, therefore I do not understand in the least on what ground it is now suggested having regard to the decision of the House, that the Amendment now proposed should be substituted. I should just like to examine the Clauses of the Bill for one moment which deal with the question of granting licences. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the question of granting licences generally and says they are to be granted subject to certain conditions. Clause 7 deals with what restrictions may be imposed on particular streets in which particular omnibuses can ply for hire and the numbers of omnibuses in these streets. If the licence is granted in the first instance you have got rid of the really effective part of getting this information. You are really dropping out of it two things. You are resigning yourself to the position that you will only get this information with regard to omnibuses which propose to ply on restricted streets and you are abandoning any attempt to get information regarding omnibuses which ply on streets which are not restricted. It is true that the proposed Amendment does provide for the information being given, but the only effective method of getting that information is to get it when you are in a position to say: "If I am not satisfied, I shall not grant the licence." This is really an attempt to reverse the decision of the House. I do most respectfully urge the House to have nothing to do with this attempt. It is not showing reasonable respect to the House to reverse a decision which was only arrived at a few nights ago.
I do not think this is an attempt to reverse the decision of the House. It is just as well to remember the conditions under which that vote was obtained. A Clause stood in the name of the hon. Member for Camberwell, also the hon. Members on the other side of the House accepted the Clause of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) as the most innocuous of the two, I pointed out that the matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee.
I have taken the trouble to compare the Amendments. It was said that the particulars should be got before receiving a licence. The wording is:
When applying for a licence, or for the renewal of a licence, to provide any form of transport service in the London traffic area.
That is any form of transport: not one route one day and not another the next like a chars-a-banc. What is proposed is more flexible and more likely to get information than adherence to the Clause as it stands.
I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill, but I have a different opinion from that of the hon. Member above the Gangway. What we fear is that London will be exploited by a traffic trust. That is why I have always opposed this Bill and stood for municipal control of traffic. The Clause says that when the company comes along for a licence you shall ask for particulars, and you will know whether they are in a trust or not. That is information to which the people of the City of London are entitled, for it is their city. The Minister says that this information should only be obtained from a smaller number of people. Is it not desirable we should get the whole information? I cannot understand the attitude of the Members above the Gangway or of the Minister.
The hon. Gentleman is better informed as to details than I now am, but I have a grip of the idea that if we are to avoid a traffic combination we must have the fullest possible information. Why is it necessary that the Minister should constantly rely upon the support he gets from the other side of the House? I have spoken of the merits of the Clause. I do not wish to make any party point. I want to make the Bill good from the point of view of London. I appeal to the Minister not to press this Amendment, and to leave the Clause in the form the House determined.
The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is always so exuberant that sometimes one suspects he hardly understands the point to which he is addressing himself. He stated he was fully seized with the general situation but not the details. As the hon. Member opposite said, the licensing authority are the police, and it is not much good requiring that information should be supplied to the Minister before the licence is granted. [HON. MENIBERS: "Why not?"] Because the information will be supplied to the Minister, and the police are the licensing authority.
It may be a very good thing to have, but it is not much good in a Traffic Bill. The object of the Minister, as I understand is to make his regulation that anybody whose omnibus is licenced shall give the information. The conditions attaching to the granting of every licence is that
it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service.
If the Minister's Amendment is accepted, people who own omnibuses will not be required to give what I think are very oppressive details unless their omnibus is licensed. It must be borne in mind that when the first omnibus of the London General Omnibus Company is licenced out of four or five thousand omnibuses the whole of the information will be then in the hands of the Minister.
I have only moved this Amendment to make the Clause as watertight as we can possibly make it. I would ask the Committee to remember that it is no use putting this obligation on people on whom you do not intend to put it. The word "omnibus" is a perfectly clear expression, but apparently by the use of the word omnibus as it now stands in the Bill you are including a great deal that you do not mean to include.
I am trying to put this obligation where the hon Member wants to put it on the omnibus in the sense of an omnibus running on an ordinary line of traffic and maintaining a regular service, and not to put it on a great many vehicles which the hon. Member meant to exclude or wished to exclude. I cannot put it more clearly if the hon. Member persists, I can only leave it at that. As to the next point, it has been pointed out that the Minister is not the Licensing Authority and the Amendment I have moved is to carry out the intention and the desire of the hon. Members below the Gangway. If they will look at the second Amendment they will se,: that it is made clear that where particulars have been supplied by the proprietor on the grant of a license for an omnibus, particulars need not be supplied by him on the grant of a license for any other omnibus belonging to him which is granted within a period of one year after the date of the first mentioned license. I suggest that hon. Members below the Gangway should be good enough not to be so suspicious. We are only desirous to make the Clause watertight.
As we are going to have a new Clause of some sort, we had better have one that will work. The new Clause as it stands is absolutely unworkable, and the Amendment of the Minister of Transport makes sense. It is no use him sending particulars to the Commissioner of Police. He is not the Minister and would not know what to do with them; he would put them in the waste basket. I admit it is a cumbrous form, but the Amendment of the Minister is the only way to put the Clause right. The Commissioner of Police will grant the licence in the ordinary way and the licensee then goes along to the Ministry of Transport and says "I have a licence, allow me to work on certain routes." Where there are several competitors Lord Ashfield and private owners, the Minister of Transport can then ask for particulars from all the applicants. Unless the Amendment were accepted the Clause is nonsense and unworkable.
I am satisfied the Minister is very desirous to help us to make the Clause effective, but I think to be effective the particulars ought to be furnished at the very earliest stage. When we agreed to re-commit the Bill, we did accept the fact that we were prepared to receive suggestions to improve the Clause, although I should have preferred that the information should be furnished forthwith.
|Division No. 115.]||AYES.||[1.45 a.m.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Harris, Percy A.||Owen, Major G.|
|Alstead, R.||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Hindle, F.||Raffan, P. W.|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Hobhouse, A. L.||Raffety, F. W.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)||Rathbone, Hugh R.|
|Birkett, W. N.||Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie||Rea, W. Russell|
|Black, J. W.||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Bonwick, A.||Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)||Remer, J. R.|
|Briant, Frank||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Royle, C.|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Collins, Patrick (Walsall)||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)|
|Costello, L. W. J.||Kedward, R. M.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Lessing, E.||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Dickie, Captain J. P.||Linfield, F. C.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Duckworth, John||Loverseed, J. F.||Terrington, Lady|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||McCrae, Sir George||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Macfadyen, E.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Maden, H.||Vivian, H.|
|Falconer, J.||Mansell, Sir Courtenay||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)||Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Foot, Isaac||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen)|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Mond, H.|
|Gorman, William||Moulton, Major Fletcher||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.||Murrell, Frank||Mr. Comyns-Carr and Mr. John|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Harris.|
|Gillett, George M.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gosling, Harry||Lansbury, George|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Law, A.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Willfrid W.||Greenall, T.||Lawson, John James|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Leach, W.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lunn, William|
|Baker, Walter||Grundy, T. W.||M'Entee, V. L.|
|Banton, G.||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Mackinder, W.|
|Barnes, A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||March, S.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Marley, James|
|Becker, Harry||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Harland, A.||Maxton, James|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Mills, J. E.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Mline, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Broad, F. A.||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Buchanan, G.||Haycock, A. W.||Montague, Frederick|
|Buckle, J.||Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Clarke, A.||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Climie, R.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Mosley, Oswald|
|Cluse, W. S.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Murray, Robert|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hirst, G. H.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Hodges, Frank||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cope, Major William||Hoffman, P. C.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Crittall, V. G.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Paling, W.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Palmer, E. T.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)||Perry, S. F.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Hudson, J. H.||Philipson, Mabel|
|Dickson, T.||Huntingfield, Lord||Potts, John S.|
|Dukes, C.||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Duncan, C.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ritson, J.|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Ferguson, H.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Rose, Frank H.|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Kirkwood, D.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Lamb, J. Q.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Sullivan J.||Westwood, J.|
|Scurr, John||Sutton, J. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Shepperson, E. W.||Thurtle, E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Smith, T. (Pontefract)||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Tout, W. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Snell, Harry||Turner-Samuels, M.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Spence, R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Windsor, Walter|
|Spero, Dr. G. E.||Warne, G. H.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Spoor, B. G.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)||Wright, W.|
|Stamford, T. W.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Stanley, Lord||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Stephen, Campbell||Webb, Rt. Hen. Sidney|
|Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-||Wells, S. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Welsh, J. C.||Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson|
I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from the word "determine" to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words
(2) Particulars to be supplied by a proprietor of an omnibus under this Section shall be supplied by him within fourteen days after the grant of the licence for the omnibus, and as respects any interests created or arising during the currency of a licence shall be supplied within fourteen days after such interests are created or have arisen:Provided that where particulars have been duly supplied by a proprietor on the grant of a licence for an omnibus, particulars need not be supplied by him on the grant of a licence for any other omnibus, belonging to him which is granted within a period of one year after the date of the first-mentioned licence.
(3) If any person refuses or neglects to supply any particulars which he is required to supply under this Section, or knowingly supplies any particulars which are false in any material respect, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or in the case of a continuing offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which the offence continues.I do not know whether hon. Members will agree with me when I say that this has been redrafted to put the Clause in its proper from. If hon. Members will look at Page 6 they will get all the information. Hon. Members will notice that there is provision for a penalty of £100 where any person refuses or neglects to supply the particulars required or supplies false particulars.
I desire to say only one word upon this. It is really au attempt as far as I can see to reintroduce what the London Labour Party wanted to get into the Bill upstairs. I object to it as one of the Members who have tried to do their best to protect the interests of the small busser, and the small busser should realise that if any of them become subject to the penalties of this Clause they will have the London Labour Party to thank for it. I think it is just as well they should know this. The small omnibus people do not keep large secretarial staffs like the combine, they only have one or two individuals running the omnibus, the driver and the conductor and perhaps one or two more. You are going to throw a lot of extra work on them to prepare these particulars and make them subject to the penalties for every day on which the offence continues. I hope they will not forget what the London Labour Party tried to do for them.
Permit me to say a word also in the sense in which the Noble Viscount has spoken. Hon. Members know perfectly well I have lifted my voice in the interests of the publicity of the finance of the undertakings, but what I object to is a new offence for people who are not always provided with the resources for defending themselves in a charge of committing the offences. If anything I prefer the language of the other Amendment except the part which enforces the penalty which was drafted by hon. Members below the Gangway. It is not so far reaching. Hon. Members may thing it does not matter whether there are new offences or not. I am sufficiently interested in the main- tenance of liberty still to think that this House, even when aiming at an object which we all desire—publicity with regard to people who perhaps have reasons for hiding up their transactions—should not create offences which will hit people we desire to protect. The Clause is too widely drawn. The House, in its laudable desire, is putting upon the Statute Book a provision which I hope will not be a precedent.
I also have objections to these Amendments, but they are not the same as those of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip). I should have thought that this provision, so far as the small concerns are affected, would have been met by some stereotyped form which we find in many demands made by the Treasury or the Government in similar eases. I am not aware that any of us, in whatever trade we may be engaged, are greatly hindered by Government requisitions as to the extent of our trade in what means we employ, our capital, our stock, our partners, &c. I am rather astonished at the grounds on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have seen fit to oppose this Amendment. I would rather seek to oppose it on the ground that it provides that particulars shall not be provided again when particulars have already been provided in respect of one omnibus. That is to say, that when an owner, or an omnibus company, has provided particulars as to the financial condition of any one omnibus, he shall within a year not be forced to provide particulars when he engages in trade in providing omnibuses for a service or other vehicles. Within a few hours the whole financial standing of an undertaking may be altered, and it will nevertheless be unnecessary to inform the Ministry.
The details which we desire should be supplied of the financial standing and arrangements entered into by any particular omnibus undertaking have to be supplied at the beginning, but when entering into an engagement with the shareholders or taking in further omnibuses new details do not have to be supplied within one year. I speak with the greatest deference to the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that I believe is right. It is because they have to supply so few particulars that I am opposing the Clause. If the Minister of Transport will do me the honour of reading out the Clause it will be seen that is what he is aiming at. He is aiming at allowing companies, whether small or great, to continue for a year without supplying further particulars. The provision of these particulars will not be a grave handicap. They can be given on a printed form such as that on which the Ministry of Agriculture requires a most detailed description of everything connected with a holding. The forms in connection with omnibuses would not be to us complex and they would not entail hardship on the small omnibus companies and small omnibus owners.
The Noble Lord opposite throughout the proceedings has been trying to pose as the great champion of the little man. I do not remember that the Noble Lord has done a single substantial thing on behalf of the little man. The little man will have no objection to furnishing the particulars asked for by this section. He will do it quite easily and with the 'greatest simplicity. Nobody knows better than the Noble Lord that it is not the little man 'we are fighting. It is the London Traffic Combine, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip) on the consistency he has displayed in this matter. He has displayed the keenest of position for the principle of what the President of the Board of Trade described as the measurement of publicity being applied. All I say is that we are conceding under this Bill important protective powers to a great commercial organisation. We are entitled to know the financial structure of that organisation. It has defied under- standing, it has defied financial analysis even by financial experts. If it has nothing to be ashamed of it will not hesitate about giving the particulars; if it is ashamed about anything then I can understand its opposition to that proposal. If any substantial monopoly is to be conferred the Minister is entitled to know the financial structure of the organisation and kindred organisations with which it is associated.
I am personally prepared to support this Amendment, but in paragraph three of the Amendment the only penalty for not giving the information is the matter of a fine. In my view the most effective penalty is the other one which is referred to in the original Clause, namely, the cancellation of the licence and I would ask the Minister whether he would not retain the power in Clause three, the power to cancel a licence in the event of any person failing to supply the information that is required as well as the more showy hut less effective power of summoning him to a Police Court and fining him £100 does not necessarily mean that that power of cancellation need be exercised in any particular case unless the Minister thinks proper. I submit that the power of cancellation ought to be given to the Minister. There is no -substance whatever in the idea that the supplying of these particulars is going to impose any burden upon the small man.
It will not be the Minister who will impose the penalty. The penalty will have to be presumably imposed by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The question of cancellation is not quite applicable because the owner may be the proprietor of one licence or he may be the proprietor of four thousand licences. It would be very difficult if he were prosecuted to decide how many of the four thousand should be cancelled.
I regret the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me to be playing with the question. You are not bound to cancel all the licences of some particular combine or any licence merely beause in one particular instance a technical offence has been committed. But the power should be retained to cancel a licence in the case of anybody who really shows a determination to resist supplying the information. If it really becomes inconvenient to anybody to supply this information, they will resort to any means they can to resist. You want real powers, and not comic opera powers, to compel them to do it. I submit that fining a company of this kind is nothing at all. What you want is power to bring them to heel, if necessary, and that is provided by the cancelling of licences far more effectively than by a police court fine. The right hon. Gentleman points out various matters such as that the Minister is not the licensing authority. But Parliament can provide powers for the Minister. All those things could well be got over if there is the will to get over them.
I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
(4) All particulars required to be supplied under this Section shall be treated as confidential except where the person supplying the same otherwise agrees, or where the Minister considers that it is in the public interest that they should be included in a Report to Parliament under this Act, or where the Minister considers that the disclosure of the same is requisite for the purposes of any inquiry under this Act, or, in cases where legal proceedings are taken, for the purpose of those proceedings.
If any person discloses or publishes, in contravention of this Sub-section, any particulars which are to treated as confidential, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
Full power is taken there to use the information in the public interest and where it is required, but protection is given against any possible use for private malice. Such a provision is usual in all cases where Parliament insists on information. I think the Clause with the addition of these words secures that the Minister can use the information for all purposes for which it is desirable that it should be used.
An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was very indignant a few minutes ago that new offences were being created, but that was a case that touched the interests of the traffic combine. Here is a case which makes it punishable by a fine of £100 for any newspaper to publish information, but there is no protest from the learned Gentleman now.
I am at a loss to understand why a great public corporation should not be asked to give a public account of its business. What is the virtue of getting these figures if they are to be hidden away in the pigeon-holes of a Government department, and only to be used in the event of an inquiry, when under the Act you can demand the figures when any inquiry is made without this Clause? The Amendment is going to give the Minister facilities to get all the essential figures, and that is immediately followed by a Clause which says that the public shall be denied access to the figures. Great undertakings like the London County Council and municipal bodies make their accounts public and why should not the accounts of these large corporations be published?
To my mind the particulars should be filed in the same way that files are kept at Somerset House. Any small limited companies have to file particulars of shareholding at Somerset House, where they are open to inspection by any member of the public on payment of a small fee. The small companies will have no objection to furnishing the information, but the interlocking trust is one of the most difficult things to deal with. Most of the members on this side told their electors that at the first possible moment they would deal with trusts. At one of my first meetings I was asked what I would do with them. I said "If you can deal with them you had better be standing here and not me." After I was elected to this House I took the trouble to try to find out the ramifications of a trust which operates in my own district. It is one of the most difficult operations I have ever undertaken, I have been at it now for over twelve months and I am unable to find out precisely where the ramifications are. The particulars should be filed in some place where intelligent members of the public could get at them. No honest man would object to having the particulars filed, and I am surprised to think that a Labour Government is anxious to put a Clause like this into a Bill of this sort.
I regard it as extraordinary that the Government should try to put this Clause on the Committee; it is subversive of all we know about the Labour party and publicity. In a matter of the traffic of London the public has a right to the fullest publicity and I shall certainly vote against the Amendment because I believe it is altogether against public policy that there should be any reservation made in the matter of publicity.
I have not been convinced that these words are essential. Deliberately to put this in the Bill seems to take away all the good which the elaborate Clause provided for, because the purpose of t he Clause is to find out who owns the various omnibus companies. They are very difficult to get at. Already we know that all their ingenuity has been used to give the travelling public the idea that they are three or four companies, whereas we are finding out that these really camouflage one company. I suggest that as it is necessary to give these very great powers to the Minister which he himself admits will strengthen the powers of the combine, they should be given the widest possible publicity. The public should be constantly informed of what is going on, and if, as the results of the ramifications of this Bill, the combine is being strengthened. I suggest to my right hon. friend that be should press the matter to a Division and I will vote with him.
It is interesting to listen to the discussion to which we were treated in Committee. There are two classes who want to carry out an anti-trust crusade. Why should we, in regulating London traffic, pass a Clause which will enable every "Nosey Parker" whether he sits on the benches above or below the Gangway to get busy about the affairs of a concern such as the combine. What do hon. Members really think they are going to get out of these investigation? Do they really think they are going to search the business of the London traffic combine? The intentions of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) are difficult to fathom. One can only imagine that he wants to make it impossible for any omnibus concern to compete with the combine on the London streets. We know that the members of the trade unions would rather like to see all the men in one combine so that they have only to withdraw their labour from one. If any hon. Member on either side of the Gangway wants to go and find out anything about the combine what is to prevent him going to Somerset House with 1s in his pocket and finding out. I really ask hon. Members whether it is worth while going in for this piece—meal anti—trust legislation. If they want to deal with trusts and combines let them do it properly. We all know the hon. Member who comes from Bootle. Brunner Mond are in that part of the world. Does he want to find out about them?
I am particularly concerned as to the last three lines of the Amendment which provide that any person who discloses or publishes any particulars which are to be treated confidentially will be liable on conviction to a fine of £100. It is not very difficult to imagine the result of a provision of that sort, and I am at a very great loss to see why the Minister of Transport should have though fit to include the last three lines of this Amendment in this Bill. If hon. Members will allow me this is a point of very great substance. I would point out that any newspaper, any private individual publishing a pamphlet or article in a weekly newspaper in fact any publication whatever is liable to a fine of £100, if he publishes information which has been supplied in accordance with the provisions of this Bill to the Minister of Transport. It is not difficult for hon. Members to imagine that any journalist or any Member of this House or any subject of His Majesty may be so liable. It is in fact a point of very great substance. If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) for instance, publishes in his admirably edited paper "Forward "particulars—I do not know whether they are true or not—that Lord Ashfield owns a percentage of shares of the London Omnibus Company, he is liable to a fine of It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the Press and of the subject, and I press upon the Minister earnestly to withdraw the last three lines.
Sir F. HALL:
I refer to the last three lines. It is perfectly plain that if the Ministry of Transport says that certain information shall not be disclosed, they should have powers granted to them to provide that certain information that they consider as confidential should not be disclosed. If you do not give the Government what it asks for, then the whole law becomes useless. I sincerely trust that the Government will adhere to the whole of this Clause, and I think that by doing so no harm can possibly be done to the small owner, the combine, or anybody connected with the industry. Every Government would only be too careful to see they were not drawing a hard-and-fast line and saying no information shall be communicated.
The last three lines are just the common form of words which appear in certain Acts. If you are going to say that these particulars, which are required under Statute, are confidential you must go on and impose a penalty. As a matter of fact it is not the publication of facts, it is the publication of facts in contravention of this Sub-section. You may ascertain the facts for yourself, but you must not get the fats for publication from the Returns which have been made. The other view that they should not be confidential at all is a point of substance, but it must be remembered that an obligation has been placed upon a person who obtains a licence for an omnibus. Surely it is not exactly fair to require him to give these particulars of his mortgages and loans if these particulars are not to be confidential.
The particulars of an agreement are only asked for providing the business is controlled. It may be that the present Minister is very active and may well know exactly what to do, but he may go to the House of Lords. He may have a very inactive successor. We may have a Tory Government in office. I am not very old, but there is nothing sure in political life. We know the Opposition do not want this information to be supplied. Let us suppose for a moment they do come into office; what would they do with the information? What the Government are doing is quite against the tenets of the Labour party when they talk about open diplomacy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in the name of common sense to put the agreements on the Table and let us know what they arc. It ill-becomes Members of the Labour party to talk about Members below the Gangway wanting to hide things after this.
Before we proceed to a Division we ought to understand a little more clearly what is implied in regard to this matter. This information has to be ascertained. For what purpose is it to be ascertained? Is it merely for the purpose of placing it in pigeon holes where it cannot be utilised for the purpose of future discussion upon matters of public interest. The question of the newspapers is no doubt extremely important. It might be very serious to enforce penalties upon an innocent newspaper, an innocent editor or an innocent journalist. But there is a question more important than that of the Press. Is this information to be at the disposal of Members of this House? That is a point that has not hitherto been made. Is it really suggested that you are to impose a statutory obligation upon these companies for the purpose of getting information which can only be asked for if it be a legitimate matter for discussion, as for future legislation. The Members of this House will be committing an offence punishable by fines in a Court of Justice if having been able in some way to ascertain what this information is they use it for discussion in public meetings of their constituents and explain to them matters which require attention and may require future legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has made out no case for treating this information in this way. It is most dangerous in the interests of the free Press of this country and doubly dangerous to Members of this House. I hope the matter will be reconsidered. If it is not I hope a majority of Members irrespective of parties will go in the Division Lobby in opposition.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position, which, I am sure, is the desire of the whole House or at least by an overwhelming majority. I merely rise to make two observations. Without making any allusions of any sort or any imputations against any person we have had in this House, Presidents of the Board of Trade members of great combines which are to be allowed to keep their information confidential. The second point is: I have been connected all my life with newspapers. It is entirely monstrous to impose these penalties on newspapers. You do no good to fight newspapers. We ask for publicity because these people are given a position of particular advantage. I hope the Motion will be withdrawn.
I have some hesitation in supporting the Minister on this Amendment. Whether I do or not depends on the answer I get, to a question I wish to put to him. I object to anything being regarded as so confidential that it cannot be made public if any Member of the House requires it to be public. My question is this: whether, if we include this word "confidential" and the context with which it is connected in this Bill, will it still be possible for a Member of this House to call for a return giving the particulars that are laid down as confidential in this Clause?
These returns are being called for because I assume it is considered by the House in the public interest that the Minister should be in possession of these particulars. I am asked to withdraw these words. As a matter of fact I cannot do anything of the kind. These are the words which are put in every Bill providing for a statutory return to be rendered. They are the words of the Corn Production Act—
The object of getting this information is to enable the traffic to be controlled and the combines to be controlled. It is the Minister of Transport who gets the information. It is giving the power to the Minister of Transport to deal with the traffic, and to enable him to do so the House has decided to give him the right, and the House must remember that they are imposing this obligation not merely on companies but on the little man also. Surely the Committee must be aware that this Clause, with its penalties, applies equally to the owner of one omnibus.
Is it not a fact that the small omnibus owner to-day has to state, before he can get a licence, whether he has got his omnibus on hire purchase or what other method of payment, and whether he is insured for third party risks? Every form of information the small omnibus owner must give before he cart get. a licence.
And does the Commissioner of Police supply the information to the newspapers? That is exactly the point. The information is supplied to a public authority and the public authority treats it as confidential. That is exactly what is proposed to be done in this case. The information is given to the Minister of Transport, but the Minister of Transport is only to make use of it for public purposes. We are not doing our duty unless we put forward this Clause with proper safeguards to prevent misuse of the in formation. These words are just the words used in other Acts.
|Division No. 116.]||AYES.||[3.5 a.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon George Abraham||Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Gillett, George H.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gosling, Harry||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Greenall, T.||Law, A.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lawson, John James|
|Baker, Walter||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Leach, W.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Guest, J. (York, Hamsworth)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Barnes, A.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Lunn, William|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||M'Entee, V. L.|
|Becker, Harry||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||March, S.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Harland, A.||Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Mills, J. E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Buckle, J.||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Moore-Brahazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Haycock, A. W.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Clarke, A.||Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Mosley, Oswald|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Palmer, E. T.|
|Cope, Major William||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)||Penny, Frederick George|
|Crittall, V. G.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Perry, S. F.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Potts, John S.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hirst, G. H.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Hodges, Frank||Ritson, J.|
|Dukes, C.||Hoffman, P. C.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Duncan, C||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Ferguson, H.||Hudson, J. H.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Shepperson, E. W.||Sutton, J. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Sherwood, George Henry||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)|
|Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Tout, W. J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Spence, R.||Turner-Samuels, M.||Windsor, Walter|
|Spoor, B. G.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Stamford, T. W.||Warne, G. H.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. J.|
|Stephen, Campbell||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)|
|Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wells, S. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sullivan, J.||Whiteley, W.||Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Raffan, P. W.|
|Aistead, R.||Hindle, F.||Raffety, F. W.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Hobhouse, A. L.||Rathbone, Hugh R.|
|Banton, G.||Hodge, Lieut. Colonel J. P. (Preston)||Rea, W. Russell|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Remer, J. R.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)||Royle, C.|
|Black, J. W.||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Bonwick, A.||Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)||Scurr, John|
|Briant, Frank||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Kedward, R. M.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lansbury, George||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lessing, E.||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Comyns-Carr, A. S.||Linfield, F. C.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Costello, L. W. J.||Loverseed, J. F.||Terrington, Lady|
|Darbishire, C. W.||McCrae, Sir George||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Dickle, Captain J. P.||Macfadyen, E.||Thurtle, E.|
|Duckworth, John||Maden, H.||Vivian, H.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Marley, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Falconer, J.||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Finney, V. H.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Westwood, J|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Mond, H.||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Foot, Isaac||Montague, Frederick||Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Murrell, Frank||Wright, W.|
|Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Owen, Major G.||Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Phillips, Vivian||Benjamin Smith.|
I do not think that this Bill ought to go through its Third Reading without some protest. We have done our best both in Committee and on Report to make it a better Measure, more democratic in character, and it is the one first-class Measure which six months work of Parliament has produced. It takes away the power of governing and gives bureaucratic powers. We have endeavoured to put forward by practical Amendments methods which probably may be dealt with. The Bill is bad in itself, bad as a precedent and a bad kind of legislation, and all our principles would be abused if we were Do vote even for the Third Reading. Our aim and efforts are always to control and prevent monopoly, but anyone who studied this Bill carefully must come to the conclusion that it will work in the direction of creating an almost complete monopoly over the travelling facilities on the streets of London. It gives power to the Minister to limit the use of certain streets and to give away a franchise without payment and without any valuable consideration to privileged individuals. It goes out of its way to say that once these streets are defined only a limited number of omnibuses are to have the use of them. Certain individuals will be in an impregnable position to withstand competition, because if any companies in the future desire to give travelling facilities to the public the Minister will be in a position to say that this franchise has already been given away. I do submit to this House—there are only a few of us who feel strongly about the Bill—that we would be lacking in our duty if we did not divide on the Third Reading.
For once in my life I think I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. This is an extraordinary far-reaching Bill. It gives power over all means of transport except trams. I am told it is possible for the Minister to take these powers. What it is going to do is this: It is going to put us back in the position of some old-fashioned town. You are going to have roads where trams and omnibuses are now competing in narrow streets, and the Minister will have power to stop omnibuses running over these streets and give a monopoly to the trams. I can see in the rush hour a wheel coming off a coal Dart and all the people being put to great inconvenience. You are giving a monopoly to the trams, which are old-fashioned and inadequate means of transport. I think it is extremely unfair that you should stop the omnibuses from running while you are not endeavouring to stop the trains. We are threatened, indeed, with the putting on of more trams when the traffic increases on these restricted roads. The people of London will be glad, in one respect, when the three years of this Bill come to an end. We shall all sigh for the time to come, bad as the conditions are to-day. I feel convinced that by the words of this Bill it can easily be proved in the next year or two that London will be worse off. We shall have a bureaucratic department existing for work which one town clerk should be able to do. It is only another means of keeping alive a department which ought to have died two years ago; a means for extending it which may lead to the construction of an enormous building at Chiswick to house the staff. I know our party had something to do with the Bill. The good works of the Bill, whatever they may be, must be ascribed to our party. The rest I do not like. I am going to vote against this Bill. It is a very bad Bill and will go down to history as a monument to the inefficient legislation put forward by a supposed Socialist Government.
There has been a most interesting revelation of the effect of the discussion of this Bill upon public opinion by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) this evening. What happens in his division will happen in many. A large section of his constituency find that unexpected powers are given in the Second Schedule of the Bill. We may find that when the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), coming back late to the House in his car, desires to go by a certain road, and finds himself prevented, he will use military language, and it will be unlimited. [HON. MEMBER: "Withdraw!"] All I can say is that I can only hope that when that happens the present Minister of Transport will not be there to hear him. There seems to be a general impression among the public that this Bill merely applies to omnibuses, but Sub-section (2) prescribes streets which are not to be used for traffic by vehicles of any specified class, either generally or at specified times. I differ from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). I do not agree that this Bill has been made less objectionable. The only point of improvement. I can see that the regulations are to be brought before Parliament. I shall watch public opinion carefully—at almost every street corner in London—when this Bill is put into operation. I am glad to have an opportunity of voting against it and I wish our opposition had been able to kill it.
A great many Members of this House do not seem to realise that the cost of this Bill is to be borne out of money provided by the general public. We provincials have to face the same thing in regard to the Royal Parks. They are borne on the estimates. We pay the money and the people of London enjoy the advantages. I object to the control of London traffic being vested in a Minister of that House. The business of the House is congested already and more business of this kind should not be brought into it. I have had to stay several nights in this Chamber while some tube, or railway extension, in North London has been debated at great length by London Members. I think it would have been better for this House to have applied a little mere devolution and invested the local bodies of London with more power over their own affairs. Let them finance their own affairs and control them. This Bill is a very bad precedent. It is on these grounds I intend to go into the Lobby against this Bill.
|Division No. 117.]||AYES.||[3.27 a.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Potts, John S.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harland, A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Ritson, J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Roberts, Rt. Hon, F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Haycock, A. W.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Banton, G.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Russell, A. West (Tynem)|
|Barnes, A.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Hirst, G. H.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hodges, Frank||Scurr, John|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hoffman, P. C.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Buchanan, G.||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Buckle, J.||Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, J. H.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Clarke, A.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Snell, Harry|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spence, R.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Spoor, B. G.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Cope, Major William||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Crittall, V. G||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kirkwood, D.||Sullivan, J.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lamb, J. Q.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lansbury, George||Thurtle, E.|
|Dickson, T.||Law, A.||Tinker, Joseph|
|Dukes, C.||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Tout, W. J.|
|Duncan, C.||Lawson, John James||Tinker Joseph,|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Leach, W.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Lumley, L. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.||Lunn, William||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Ferguson, H.||M'Entee, V. L.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Mackinder, W.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||March, S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)||Wells, S. R.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maxton, James||Welsh, J. C.|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Westwood, J.|
|Gillett, George M.||Montague, Frederick||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gosling, Harry||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington)|
|Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Graham D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mosley, Oswald||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenall, T.||Murray, Robert||Windsor, Walter|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Naylor, T. E.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Palmer, E. T.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Penny Frederick George||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Perry, S. F.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Hindle, F.||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Alstead, R.||Hobhouse, A. L.||Raffan, P. W.|
|Asko, Sir Robert William||Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)||Raffety, F. W.|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Rathbone, Hugh R.|
|Becker, Harry||Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)||Rea, W. Russell|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)||Remer, J. R.|
|Black, J. W.||Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)||Royle, C.|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Jewitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel O. M. C.|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John|
|Collins, Patrick (Walsall)||Kedward, R. M.||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)|
|Comyns-Carr, A. S.||Lessing, E.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Darblshire, C. W.||Linfield, F. C.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Dickie, Captain J. P.||Loverseed, J. F.||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Duckworth, John||McCrae, Sir George||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Macfadyen, E.||Terrington, Lady|
|Falconer, J.||Maden, H.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Finney, V. H.||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Vivian, H.|
|Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)|
|Foot, Isaac||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Mond, H.|
|Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.||Moulton, Major Fletcher||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Murrell, Frank||Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Briant.|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Owen, Major G.|
|Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.|
Question put, and agreed to.