HC Deb 09 September 1931 vol 256 cc179-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee stage of the Resolutions, with the exception of the last Resolution, to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday, 10th September. 1931, shall be brought to a conclusion on that day, and at Eleven of the clock the Chairman shall, if such proceedings have not previously been brought to a conclusion, forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution then under discussion and shall then forthwith put the Question in respect of each subsequent Resolution, except the last Resolution, and shall immediately report the Resolutions to the House without Question put, and that the proceedings under this Order shall pot be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House."—[Mr. S. Baldwin.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. Surely we are going to have one word from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. S. BALDWIN

I understood that the Motion had to be put from the Chair before I could speak. This is a rather formidable-looking Motion, but it will be recognised by all who are familiar with the practice of the House as merely stereotyping our ordinary Budget.practice. The ordinary Budget practice for many years past has been that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer opens his Budget all the substantive Resolutions that affect taxation are passed the same night, the reason being, of course, that if after any change in taxation became known outside there were any delay in making that change effective, the revenue would run a chance of losing, it might be, millions, and a number of worthy people, but people whom it is not our part to make wealthy at our expense, would profit considerably. One Resolution, which does not affect the revenue, is always left over so as to keep the Debate open for another day. That is all that this Motion does. It is entirely for the protection of the revenue, to make sure that whatever changes may be proposed to-morrow shall become effective for the protection of the revenue, and the Debate can take place to-morrow and go on as is customary in Budget proceedings on the next day for which they are put down. That will probably be Tuesday, but the date will be announced definitely to-morrow.

It makes no difference at all in the ordinary Budget procedure. It imposes no limitation of Debate which bas not been imposed for years by the general practice of the House. It only prevents the possibility of the discussion, in the excitement of the moment, becoming so protracted that we could not get the substantive Resolutions affecting taxation passed to-morrow night. That is essential, and it is for that purpose, and for that purpose alone, that this Motion is moved. There is nothing more in it than that. It has no effect on any part of the Debate after to-morrow. The only effect it has on to-morrow is that it ensures the usual Budget practice being complied with, ensures our getting all the necessary Resolutions that affect taxation on the first night, which is for the protection of the revenue and the defeat of the profiteer.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

The right hon. Gentleman has given a clear explanation of the reason for this Motion, though I may say that it was not very obvious until his speech was made. Still, there are one or two questions which. I wish to put to him. First of all, I wish to take this opportunity of securing an assurance that we are to have the full ordinary opportunities in the subsequent discussions on the Budget Resolution. As the Lord President has explained, on Budget night we pass all the Resolutions that the Government require for the security of the revenue, and one is left open, and on that there takes place a general discussion upon the whole financial scheme of the Budget. I have looked up what has happened on ordinary, humdrum occasions, and I find that in the usual way two days have been allowed for the general discussion, and then after that we have gone on to the details of each Resolution. They have been considered one by one, and Amendments have been moved, and at least a couple of days have been allowed for the more detailed discussion. I think we are entitled to ask the Lord President whether we are to have a full opportunity, allowing for the presumably exceptional nature of the present occasion, to discuss the Budget, and an opportunity to discuss it on the same general basis as has been laid down for previous Budgets, probably allowing a longer time, if this Budget is of a very unusual character.

There is one further question I would put to the Lord President. He said that this Motion merely stereotyped ordinary Budget practice, but I think I am right in saying that no such Motion has ever previously been brought before this House. What has happened on other Budget nights has been that the Government have moved and have carried the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and that has allowed elasticity if the discussion happened to continue a considerable time. On this occasion the Government, instead of doing that, have substituted a Guillotine Resolution, bringing the Debate to an end at 11 o'clock. I quite agree that it may not make much difference in practice, but if very important and highly-controversial Budgets can be dealt with by the suspension of the-Eleven o'Clock Rule I do not know why, in this particular Budget, there is a, necessity for this really super-protection. I would ask that question, because the reason is not obvious.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

First of all, I want to register a protest against the particular part of the Motion to which my hon. Friend referred briefly a moment ago. Why should the proceedings come to an end at 11 o'clock? That would be a departure from precedent. in the case of financial discussions; in Committee of Ways and Means there ought not to be a curtailment of Debate. Tomorrow we shall begin in the usual way with Questions, and, judging by the Order Paper, they will take their full hour, and, therefore, we shall not have the length of Debate that we have had on these first two days. Then we have been told again and again that the present condition of affairs is abnormal, and we naturally expect some startling proposals from the Government. I hope they are not going to disappoint us. I suppose we are not going to have the old humdrum stuff—extensions of existing taxes. I hope we are not going to have the Tea Duty reintroduced, for example. I hope there is going to be something new. For instance, I hope there will be a good big tax put on certain luxuries which, I shall refer to as a matter of illustration. It is essential that one of the most elementary rights of hon. Members to free discussion in Committee of Ways and Means, without limitation by the Eleven o'Clock Rule, should not be taken away.

The right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, is making a very bad start in his handling of the House—for it is obvious that he, with his massed battalions behind him, is going to be the real Leader of the House in this Parliament. May I say to him that never have I felt more inclined to follow his advice than when I heard his first speech this afternoon? The right hon. Gentleman has my very great sympathy, and I would very much like to support him on this occasion, to show how deeply I sympathise with him. One of the finest things the right hon. Gentleman did from a national point of view was to break up the last Coalition Government. I was as opposed to his politics at that time as it was possible to be, but I hated the Coalition Government of that day as much as he did, and I thought he acted a national part of great value in breaking up that coalition. I know that he feels his position in the present Coalition Government to be extremely uncomfortable, and that he is only acting as he has acted from what he obviously considers to be a sense of national duty, mistaken though I think it to be. We know that he came home in a hurry from the Continent, where he had been buying British goods in Aix-les-Bains, and, with no time to be fully seized of the situation, allowed himself to be rushed into his present position. He was told all sorts of weird stories about the pound following the mark, and so on.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The hon. and gallant Member would have done better if he had made this speech in the Debate yesterday rather than to-day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My concluding words on this point would have brought me strictly into order I think. What I was going to say was that all that is no excuse for taking away the fundamental rights of Parliament to control taxation. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has yet realised that the fight waged by his Puritan ancestors, to which he is very fond of referring, with justifiable pride, is going to be fought all over again by us on these benches. [Interruption.] Yes, this is the first shot. This is removing the right of this House to exercise control over finance. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Guillotine for the last Finance Bill?"] The coming fight is to be over who is to dictate the method of taxation in this country. Is it to be this elected House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Trades Union Congress?'] It is no use hon. Members shouting "Trades Union Congress" at me. I am not a trade union nominee. I have fought my seat as a member of two parties. [Interruption.] I think the Trades Union Congress are right on this occasion, but I may think they are wrong on other occasions, and if necessary I shall oppose them. It is no use hon. Members shouting "Trades Union Congress" at me.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. and gallant Member to make his speech.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The fight. in the future is going to be the same as has been fought in the past. In the first place it was a fight against the autocratic monarchies of the past, who were claiming the right to levy taxation without the consent of Parliament. That cost us a civil war. The next fight took place under the leadership of a great Liberal and with the assistance of other great Liberals, two of whom, I am sorry to say, are not with us—one through death and another through illness. That was a fight against those self-appointed guardians of the public finances at the other end of the corridor. That was the last great Liberal victory for democracy, the last effective act of the Liberal party, just as this is their final burying. Now we have to fight against the same thing once more, and it will be a long and bitter fight, and those of us who go into it will have to suffer in various ways. It is a fight against those powers who have dictated the policy of this Government, whose humble servants the Government are, and who, at the end of their long-range telephone wires will have said whether the Resolutions to be moved to-morrow are to their liking or not. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Resolutions he will vote for to-morrow, and which he will limit our right to discuss, represent decisions taken in Wall Street and—[Interruption.) Oh, no, there was no conspiracy, no plotting, nothing of that kind. It was done most openly, blatantly. Of course, there was no question of orders being issued. It was not done so clumsily as that. Nothing of that sort! The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England did not send his messengers to say, "You are to do this or that." Of course not! He is a gentleman! He was probably at Harrow with the right hon. Gentleman. He is a diplomat, one of the governing class. He does not do things in that way. What he said was, and what he says now—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks to the Motion before the House. His remarks are not within order merely because they are references to Resolutions which are expected tomorrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is extremely unfortunate that one should have to raise these matters, and I do not like doing so, but I have to take this course when I am asked to consent to closure the discussion of the Budget Resolutions on the first day at Eleven o'clock. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not disclose the actual nature of his taxes until after five o'clock. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will he followed by ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we may have a speech occupying an hour from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), with the result that those who are really opposing the Government will be left with about two-and-a-half hours. I do not know how many Resolutions will be proposed to-morrow, but there may be 20. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would like to ask him if he is in favour of increasing the Petrol Duty, or the taxes on sugar, tea and tobacco. Are the Government going to introduce some sumptuary laws? In framing their taxation, the Government will probably introduce some very novel taxes. We have heard about taxes for the protection of morality, but I would like to see a tax placed on cosmetics and face powder. The question of taxing champagne has been suggested, and we have heard what the First Lord of the Admiralty thinks about a champagne tax. I think there ought to be a tax on luxuries. A tax might be very well introduced on imported jewellery, furs, and laces. That would be new taxation and it would raise a new principle as to whether you should tax luxuries—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must again remind the hon. and gallant Member that he must confine his remarks to the Resolution which is now before the House.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY

I want to know how many Resolutions we shall be asked to dispose of before Eleven o'clock to-morrow night. New taxes should be effectively discussed, and any curtailment of Debate should be agreed to only for very serious reasons. The Lord President of the Council must know how many Resolutions are going to be taken to-morrow, and therefore he will not be giving away any secrets of the Budget by answering my question.

Mr. EDE

There has recently been sitting a Select Committee on Procedure, and one of the questions considered by that Committee was the way in which Guillotine Motions can be abused. We are now considering a, Guillotine Motion assuring to the Government that at Eleven o'clock to-morrow night the Chairman of Ways and Means shall put forthwith every undisposed-of Motion with regard to the new taxation proposed except the last one. One of the things that can he done is that hon. Members sitting on the Government benches, who do not want to discuss the second, third or fourth Resolutions, may prolong the discussion on the first or earlier Resolutions, with the result that the later Resolutions will not come up for discussion at all.

It would be out of order to ask Mr. Deputy-Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means what Rulings will be given to-morrow, but are we to understand that the Resolutions will be taken in such a form that, as soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his statement, the first Resolution will be proposed, and the discussion will be confined to that particular Resolution? I would like to ask if when the first Resolution has been disposed of, we shall proceed with the second and so on? It was generally agreed among those who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Procedure that if a guillotine Motion was desirable, it was really desirable on financial Measures. I regret that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has left the House, because I recollect that the hon. Member eloquently demonstrated, speaking as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that if it was desirable that we should have guillotine proposals, it was highly desirable that the guillotine should be so constructed as not to preclude the Opposition from raising the points which they regard as important.

The discussion which is to take place to-morrow is of the very utmost importance, because it is the Government's challenge to the leader writer of the "Times," who said last week that not an extra penny ought to be raised by indirect taxation. I am not going to deal with the merits of direct or indirect taxation on this occasion, but there may be proposals in the Budget dealing with that subject, and such proposals may be so obnoxious to certain people representing the City that they may lead to a prolonged discussion. If such a discussion takes place on the first Resolution, it may shut out discussion tomorrow on Resolutions dealing with a tax on tea, or on some of those articles of luxury with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) appears to be so familiar.

It was interesting to notice yesterday that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir V. Bowater) who is now sitting on the back bench, thought that yesterday was the first day of a new Session, and he came forward to stake his claim for the City of London on the Front Bench; but the Patronage Secretary, of course, ordered him to the right part of the ship. That was an accident but it was symbolic. Opposite sits the person who always recalls to me the days of Cromwell. His Department is housed in Cromwell House, and it does not get very far away from the Mace. If this Resolution is carried, we shall be able to discuss to-morrow only those things which the Government desire to have discussed. A most important Budget is to be presented to-morrow, and I suggest to the Lord President of the Council that if he must have his guillotine Resolution, there is no reason for limiting the discussion to-morrow to Eleven o'Clock. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman make the time midnight?

I speak subject to correction—I am not an authority on the rules of the House—but, as far as I am concerned, when the House sits after 12.15, I like to sit until six o'clock in the morning. To-morrow night we shall have no concern about the trains and the trams. We all remember the occasion when Denzil Holies said to Mr. Speaker Finch, "You shall sit until it pleases us to rise." An impudent King sent a message to the Speaker that he was to rise in order that a Member, whose division is now included in the constituency of the Minister for Mines, should not have the opportunity of moving his Resolution against the Crown. I am sure that after having that fact brought to his notice the hon. Member opposite will no longer be a party to this breakdown Government, and how he can sit there side by side with the people who are now sitting on the Treasury Bench, which my right hon. Friends on this side used to adorn, is more than I can understand.

I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley that the profiteers do not open their offices very early in the morning, and he could arrange that the Guillotine should fall at such an hour that any such nefarious attempts as the right hon. Gentleman fears would be defeated. If the right hon. Gentleman will make such an arrangement we shall do our best on this side of the House to fall in with it; but he is now proposing to curtail the first day's discussion of this important Budget, which is to settle whether or not there is to a flight from the pound. A flight of the pound from a very large number of the public servants of the country and others is certain to be announced to-morrow. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that they will be included; it is well known what great friends of education the main bulk of the Government now are. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot so arrange this Guillotine that we may be assured of a reasonably wide general discussion and a reasonably well ordered Debate—I am not asking for anything more than that in the circumstances—on each of the single Resolutions which the Chairman of Ways and Means may have to put, so that it shall not be said outside, as it will be said if this Resolution is persisted in, that this Government rushed through the House of Commons those things which were unpopular with their own side and which have been condemned by "The Times." After all, we understand from Mr. Garvin, who is one of the major prophets of the present dispensation, that it was mainly upon this question that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends broke the last Government. Mr. Garvin, who knows everything in these matters, says that the late Government were prepared to go 50–50–50 of economies and 50 of new taxation; but the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends came along and demanded 75–25, which Mr. Garvin says is two to one. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) in his place. I was horn in the town that gives the name to his constituency, and I think he will agree with me that on Epsom Downs 75–25 is not two to one.

Commander SOUTHBY

I will take the hon. Gentleman's word on the question of odds laid on Epsom Downs.

Mr. EDE

That is Mr. Garvin's way of reckoning it, and it is symbolical of the arithmetic and the finance behind the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have tried to say nothing that would exacerbate this Debate. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman had to listen to me for 10 minutes yesterday, which must have been a weariness of the flesh to him; but I appeal to him to forgive me for that, and to afford my hon. Friends tomorrow evening an opportunity of thoroughly examining the financial proposals that will be put before the House.

Mr. BECKETT

I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment or two, because I deprecate very strongly any attempt to keep the House sitting too long at this time; but I do think that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House should give a little more protection to back-benchers than is given by this Resolution. Personally, I think that the Resolution is a reasonable one to put on the Paper, and it does not worry me at all that it is without precedent; I wish that many more things were done without precedent in this House; but I do think that if, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite are reframing our methods of procedure, they are going to restrict so severely the rights of Members of this House to discuss new taxation, they might at the same time put some restriction on their own rights in regard to discussing this new taxation. The Resolution is going to allow us seven hours in which to discuss the whole of the proposals which are to be put forward to-morrow, and, within those seven hours, we shall be extremely fortunate if we get an hour and a-half or an hour and three-quarters left for the rest of the Members of the House after those on the Front Benches have expressed their point of view.

I should expect some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman who is leading the House this afternoon, because I think he is the only Front Bench Member I have ever heard who has not deplorably wasted the time of the House when making a statement. With the possible exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), I have never had the pleasure, in the seven years that I have been in this House, of hearing a Front Bench speech that would not have been a very much more useful speech had it taken 20 minutes less than it actually took, and I think that what I am saying is common ground with at least 550 of the 615 Members of the House. It has become usual in this House that, directly a Member is elevated to a Front Bench position—I am speaking entirely from a non-party point of view; it is equally true of all parties—he makes a jolly good speech lasting about 10 minutes, and then suddenly remembers that he is on the Front Bench, and must not sit down under 40 minutes. I think there are very few Members of the House who would disagree with me in this diagnosis of the sufferings of back bench Members in these Debates, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley should certainly sympathise with us, because he has stood for the open shop, he has not joined the union, but has "scabbed" all his colleagues and repeatedly said things in about 20 minutes which any other Front Bench Member would have taken an hour and a-half to say. Therefore, I think we should get a little support from him in the plea that we are making to-day.

We are going to he given seven hours in which to discuss the most important proposals that the nation is going to have, and, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley really feels that that is all that can be allowed, and says that the House must, in the interests of the nation, get these proposals through in seven hours, why cannot he impose some restriction on the three or four of his colleagues on the Front Benches who are going to take at least five and a half of the seven hours away from us? I desire to register my protest in an entirely non-party spirit against that. It is the same in every Debate that takes place in this Chamber on every important issue. I am not making a personal plea; I very seldom wish to speak on these occasions; but, in every important Debate that takes place, we get four or five Front-Bench and would-be Front-Bench speeches, one or two Members who get up on points of order, and ask why they have not been called, are called in order that the House may have a little peace, and the remainder of the House is perpetually gagged. Members sitting on these benches, who are often full of information on particular subjects, and perhaps not the stereotyped information that is usually laid before the House, never have any chance whatever of taking part in the important Debates that take place in this House.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON

Is the hon. Member aware that, of the three hours of the Debate this afternoon, at least two and a half hours have been taken up by the Opposition?

Mr. BECKETT

I think the hon. Member will admit that, although I have changed my side of the House, I have not changed my tune. I have protested against this just as much from my own party as from the party opposite. My protest is against the method of conducting Parliamentary business. I have never been able to see much difference on any subject between t he two sides of the Table, and on this subject there is no difference whatever. In fact, as I have said, the only right hon. Gentleman whom I absolve from this particular charge is the hon. Member's own Leader in this House. I am not, making a party attack, but am making a general statement that the time of the House is perpetually wasted in the great majority of cases—

Mr. G. GIBSON

It is being wasted now.

Mr. BECKETT

That is a matter of opinion; I should have resumed my seat by now if the hon. Member had not interrupted me, and I have taken but a very short time to make this statement, because I should deprecate any kind of obstruction at this moment. I do not agree with the Government's proposals, but let them get on with them. I do not, want to obstruct them, but only to register my protest against at least 550 of the 615 Members of the House being constantly debarred from taking any part in the discussions on important proposals which are brought before the House. Therefore, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley, if he must get these proposals through in one day, at least not to impose this Eleven o'clock bar, but to give reasonable time for discussion by Members on the back benches.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE

I want to put a question to the Lord President of the Council. In the last two days there have been certain movements of certain goods, and I should like to ask whether, in the present exceptional circumstances, a greater number of people have been brought into what are called the secrets of the Budget than in ordinary normal times. So far as the time of the House in concerned, during the nine years that I have been here I have fought in my own way for a readjustment of the methods of the House. During the dis cussion of that part of the De-rating Bill which applied to Scotland, I was told, six months after it happened, that I was kept in my seat for two days because of a certain article that I wrote dealing with the Government's time-wasting in this House. Whether that was true or not I do not know, and I do not care, but, if such an injustice can be carried out on a Member who desires to stand up for his individual rights and to express his individual opinions, I think there is something very unfair in any congregation of men and women that allows such a thing to take place.

6.0 p.m.

If this Government had been sent here by the people in order to carry through what is to be contained in the new Budget, there would have been some ground for argument in favour of the proposal which is now before the House; but, since the Government have not, been appointed by the votes of the people to do what is to be contained in the Budget to-morrow, they have not the right to come forward and by this means deprive those who do not agree with that Budget of their right to have the full say. With some people it may be a question of late trains, but I am not worrying about that at all. I think that anyone who becomes a Member of the House of Commons should take it as it stands, while working hard to try to make it better. In the last Session I travelled home twice. I am not complaining, but only explaining; it is part of the job that I took on. Business men do not allow such conditions to obtain in their own business. Any enlightened employer knows that, if he is going to work a man for an extra shift under pressure, he must make provision, if he is going to get the best out of that man, for his having at least two hours off between his old shift and his re-start. That is understood by enlightened employers, by those who understand by what is meant by getting the most out of the individuals they are paying—getting the most for their money. I should have thought that, in a case like this, seeing that we have not been sent here by the British voters to do this thing, that would have created such a circumstance as to dictate to the Lord President of the Council that sense of fairness which would say that, since the Opposition have not had a chance—even Members behind him have not had a chance—to know what is to come, they may, if it is desired, have time in order to protest. No one would seek to destroy or waste the time of the House. I entirely agree with remarks that have been made about the length of speeches and the number of times certain people are allowed to speak. But that rests with the Chair and, therefore, I am not questioning it in that way. If we are really concerned with doing business, we have to get down to that organisation which will give us the biggest output of business in the shortest time. Present circumstances being abnormal, abnormal conditions ought to obtain.

Mr. LEES-SMITH

Perhaps the Lord President of the Council will make it clear whether the procedure to-morrow night, beyond the fact that we shall rise at eleven, is to he identical with the procedure on other nights, whether he assumes that there will he a Budget statement, but that the real statement from the Opposition side of the House will be made, not to-morrow, but some days later according to usual precedent, if the Opposition desires; that a Resolution will he left open, and that there will be two or three days' Debate on the scheme as a whole on that Resolution, and that then, on the Report stage, there will be an opportunity of going into details.

Mr. S. BALDWIN

I am only too willing to answer, as far as I can, the right hon. Gentleman's question. He may not have had as much to do as I have in the course of my official 1ife with Budgets, and I think he is not quite clear on one or two points. The fact is that Members, in speaking to this Resolution, have, I am sure in perfect good faith, not always quite clearly understood what it is. If they will cast their minds back to the usual proceedings when a Budget is opened, the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions is always covered by this Motion. The general practice is that the Budget Statement is made, and there is no Debate in Committee on each individual Resolution. They are always invariably put together, or one after another, on the first evening in order that they may become operative. There is one Resolution left over which is not connected with the imposition of taxation, and on that the Debate is continued on the Second Day. How that Debate is continued depends of course on the Opposition.

The general great Debate on the whole principle takes place on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which cannot come in until after the Report of the Resolution. This makes no alteration at all in the ordinary procedure of the first two days of the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions. It is true that we have put in the hour of eleven, but in my experience it is very rare that we go beyond that hour on that night. On the Tuesday, or whatever day is given for the Second Reading, I cannot yet say because it has not been settled how long the Debate may go on, but there will be that Second Day.

Beyond that it is impossible to say what time will he given, because the Government always have to judge by what is in the Budget, and by the reception of the Budget, and no Government can say before they introduce a Budget how long they expect to he in getting it through or what time they will give. Indeed, if one said anything on that subject, people might make deductions from it probably false, as to what was in the Budget or what the length of it was. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who always contributes interestingly and usefully to our discussions, wanted to know how many Resolutions there were. That is a question that I do not feel at liberty to answer. He gave us one valuable piece of information, that he has a balance at the bank, and I congratulate him most warmly on it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

With regard to the Second Day's proceedings, is it intended to closure them at eleven also, or will the usual Ways and Means practice be observed?

Mr. BALDWIN

I cannot give a pledge now. It will be announced in the business to-morrow. I cannot anticipate what the Prime Minister will say, but, when the business for Tuesday is announced, that question may legitimately be asked. I repeat that there is nothing in this Motion that is intended in any way to alter the customary procedure of the first two days of the Committee stage of Budget Resolutions.

Ordered, That the Committee stage of the Resolutions, with the exception of the last Resolution, to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means on Thursday, 10th September, 1931, shall be brought to a conclusion on that day, and at Eleven of the clock the Chairman shall, if such proceedings have not previously been brought to a conclusion, forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution then under discussion and shall then forthwith put the Question in respect of each subsequent Resolution, except the last Resolution, and shall immediately report the Resolutions to the House without Question put, and that the proceedings under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.