CLAUSE 19.—(Provisions as to orders.) (Hansard, 23 February 1932)

The CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) is out of order. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) does not desire to move the second Amendment.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in page 16, line 27, at the end, to insert the words: (3) Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of Customs shall cease to have effect upon the passing of the next subsequent Finance Act. The object of this Amendment is to see that the duties which are now imposed shall come within the ambit of the annual Budget statement. The Clause gives power to make Orders apparently without any period determining those Orders, and we are anxious that they should run only up to the next Budget date after they are made, so that they are not re-imposed under the provisions of this Act, but, if they are re-imposed, are re-imposed under the provisions of the Finance Act of the year.
7.0 p.m.
The Committee will appreciate that the duties must, of course, form part of the Budget in any particular year, and the question this Amendment raises is whether or not the Committee would be better advised to permit these Orders in the form here laid down merely to be made until the next Budget date and thereafter to allow the imposition of Customs taxation to take its ordinary place in the Budget of this year. The procedure laid down in this Bill is, of course, of an exceptional kind and not in accordance with the usual financial procedure. The system by which these Orders come into force and are subsequently approved by this House is not usual and is one to which there are many objections. We are anxious that, once these Orders have been made, the system of Orders as regards these duties should cease and that the duties should 284 take their place in the ensuing Budget proposals. We hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will accept the view that it is better that, once established, these Customs duties should come up for review in the Budget statement and not remain isolated from the rest of the country's finances so that they cannot be dealt with when the Budget is being considered and when it may be desirable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adjust these duties in relation to the general financial situation of the country. It is desirable that the House should then have power to review these duties and the revenue arising from them.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Surely the effect of this Amendment would be to do away with Sub-section (5) by which the Committee can vary or revoke these Orders, and you would not 'have that power of quickly putting on and taking off an Order, which is part of the primary duty of the Committee. This particular Amendment, therefore, is cutting across the whole principle of the working of the Committee and is against the principles of the Bill. For that reason, I hope the Financial Secretary will reject this wrecking Amendment.

§ Major ELLIOT
Though I would not accuse the hon. and learned Member of moving a wrecking Amendment, still it is obvious that it would have that effect. If every one of these Orders were incorporated in the Finance Bill of the year, it is obvious that the Bill would be of unmanageable proportions. The suggestion that the House could keep these Orders under review in that way would not materialise, because it would he necessary to have a very strict time table on the Budget and the opportunity for review would be lost. The opportunity for review by the House lies in the necessity of the Government securing an affirmative Resolution from the House before any of these Orders become effective. This is indeed a very strong demand to make upon the Government and the House of Commons for the consideration of these matters. If we look at our financial procedure this year we see that, soon after we finish this Bill, we are going to embark upon the fourth Finance Bill of the year. Then the horticultural Orders, which are liable to lapse, have to be again considered by the Committee 285 and probably reimposed and incorporated in the Finance Bill. If all these Orders were incorporated in the Finance Bill, it would defeat the object of the Amendment, because it would clog the legislative machine to such an extent that it could only be dealt with by drastic limitation of debate, and consequently the review which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks would not come into operation.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether in fact, when the Budget statement is made, a statement will be made as to the result of these duties as part of the financial statement of the year? That is what we are really anxious for. We are anxious that this matter should be put fully before the Committee as part of the general financial statement. I appreciate the difficulties and, if I can have an assurance on that point, that when the Budget statement is made these duties will not be shut out from it as being dealt with by a separate Act of Parliament but will be dealt with—as they must be—as a substantial part of the finances of the country, then we will be satisfied.

§ Major ELLIOT
I cannot commit my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am certain that when the great annual opportunity for reviewing the income of the country takes place substantial blocks of income like this will necessarily have to be considered.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me when the House can review a decision taken on one of these Orders? I understand that under this Amendment we can review it when the Budget comes up, but, if that opportunity is to be denied us, how long have we tied our hands under these Orders? Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in supposing that there will be such a very large number of these Orders. The Committee are only human and will not be able to get through an enormous amount of work in the year. For how long does the House tie its hands by acting upon the decision of the Committee and passing the affirmative Resolution provided in the Bill?

§ Major ELLIOT
Surely, when the House has passed an. Order, it is effective until the House revokes it. The House 286 has the same opportunity of dealing with it as with any other legislation. It can alter, revoke, or modify it.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I understand that the Order is made subject to the decision of the Committee and that the Government do not act in the first instance. The reversal of that process depends upon the Committee making up its mind to that effect, and therefore, unless a new Act of Parliament is introduced, we tie our hands for all time. After the next election, when we are in a majority, we shall be unable to undo this evil work even though the experience of the country of the results of these tariffs is, wholly unsatisfactory. We shall have to repeal this Act before we can deal with these tariffs. That is a strong argument in favour of this Amendment which gives the House an automatic opportunity of revising their working as the result of the experience of the tariff each year.

Mr. PRICE
I beg to move in page 16, line 34, to leave out the words "or to the making of a new order."
We move this Amendment so that the House of Commons may retain some control over the working of this Measure. The general principles outlined in this Bill are such as to hand over a large amount of authority to the Committee which is to be appointed and to place a large amount of the authority of the House of Commons in the hands of these Commissioners. This Amendment suggests that, if an Order comes before this House and is rejected, the Department shall have no authority for issuing another Order dealing with similar articles, but that it must comp before the House and be dealt with by the House.

§ Major ELLIOT
Let me point out to the hon. Member that any further Order has also to come before the House and be sanctioned by the House. It would be impossible for one Order to affect any subsequent Order.

Mr. PRICE
I am suggesting that, if an Order is annulled after the House has taken into consideration, first and foremost, the welfare of the community, then neither the Commissioners nor the De partment shall have, power to issue: an Order of that description a second time. 287 If the matter requires to be dealt with a second time, it should go through the proper and constitutional procedure and be dealt with by the House of Commons alone.

§ Major ELLIOT
So it is.

Mr. PRICE
The Government are attempting in many of these Clauses to hand over the rights of Parliament to a committee, and I therefore suggest that, if the House considers that one of the committee's orders should not be accepted on a particular article or articles, then, if there II any need to reconsider it in the future, it should be the prerogative of the House of Commons and not of the Commissioners or the Departments to deal with it. The Bill in many of its Clauses is whittling away the rights of Parliament. I object to that and consider that there ought to be some limitation put upon the powers of the committee and of the Government Departments.

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I only want to put one question to the Financial Secretary. He has just pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) that any new Order would have to come before Parliament. I want to ask him a question in connection with steel bars. In South Wales we have rolling mills that have no steam furnaces or anything of that kind, and they have to import a large number of billets for the purpose of manufacturing wire rods, hoops, angles, fishplates and various other sections of steel. In this Bill you are only going to impose a 10 per cent. duty. Assume for moment that the Advisory Committee recommends that that be increased to 20 per cent.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment would not affect any Order issued by the Advisory Committee increasing the duty, but would only affect such Order as might be laid on the Table of this House for 28 days, and might be annulled or not on a Prayer according as Parliament might decide. This Amendment does not affect any Order imposing duties.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Could not "the making of a new Order," as regards which we are moving that it should be omitted, be far an Order imposing a duty?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
No; if the hon. and learned Member will look he will see that Sub-section (2) says: (2) Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of customs shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved y resolution passed by that House, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. And Snb-section (3) begins: (3) Any such order as aforesaid, other than an order imposing a duty of customs, shall cease to have effect. The hon. and learned Member will note the words "other than an Order imposing a duty." It is to that Sub-section that the Amendment has been moved.

§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I accept your Ruling, but I think I can bring in this point. I was saying that the Order laid on the Table of the House may be to impose a duty of 20 per cent.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the Order is one imposing a duty, it comes under Sub-section (2), whereas the Amendment is being moved to Subsection (3), which only deals with such Orders as do not impose a duty.

§ Mr. ALBERY
I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, to leave out Sub-section (4). I will try to explain briefly why I am moving this Amendment. Under the Bill the Commissioners are practically given power to impose taxation, which has usually been regarded as a prerogative of Parliament. It is especially laid down in Sub-section (2) that such additional taxation should be laid before this House within a period of 28 days. It has to be approved. That properly recognises that such taxation should not at any time be imposed except with the consent of this House. Sub-section (4), I realise, is framed in the usual terms, but we are dealing with an exceptional Bill and we are allowing the Advisory Committee powers which it is not customary to allow. Therefore, I consider that we would be right in deleting Sub-section (4) as there appears to be no necessity to give the Committee the right to impose taxation at a time when this House might not be sitting until two or three months later. If any additional taxa- 289 tion of this kind has to be imposed, it is reasonable to expect that the Government will be able to take the necessary steps either before Parliament rises or within a very short period of the time when it may be expected to be in session again.

§ Major ELLIOT
I think the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) will see that, during the present period, which is admittedly clearly one of necessity, to suggest that the Government should not have power to act because a new Order had to be laid before Parliament within 28 days, would unnecessarily fetter the discretion with which the Executive has asked the House to entrust it in these emergency times. I do not wish continually to harp on the subject of emergency. Everybody will agree that just now, when we are imposing fresh protective duties of a kind such as this country has not previously known, we are at any rate in a fiscal emergency if in no other. The House was elected by a great majority to give discretion to the Executive so far as possible to deal with the circumstances of the time. This is an exceptional Parliament. It is not the Executive which is asking for this discretion, but the Government of the day, and it is the Government of the day that this Parliament by an overwhelming majority was elected to support, and not merely to support, but to authorise it to demand a free hand to deal with this emergency. To fetter the Executive by this requirement would be contrary to the very intention that the country had in electing this Parliament. I ask the hon. Member if he cannot see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. ALBERY
I am bound, of course, to pay attention to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said. I regret that they did not find some other way of making temporary these exceptional powers. Unfortunately, powers which are taken in times of emergency only too frequently become powers which are subsequently taken as a matter of custom.

§ Mr. TINKER
I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, to leave out the words "dissolved or."
290 I hope I shall have the assistance of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) who has just spoken. We shall not go as far as he went, but I think we shall improve upon the point that he made. The time given for the House to consider an Order is 28 days. That appears to us to mean that if a number of Orders were issued and Parliament were then dissolved, they would be operative all the time until Parliament was re-elected. Therefore, a number of Orders which might be opposed if Parliament had continued, would have effect simply because Parliament was dissolved. I do not think it was ever intended that Orders should operate over an unlimited period without the House of Commons being able to exercise their authority.

§ Major ELLIOT
I do not think that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is as reasonable as he would make out. If the Parliament which is re-elected is of the same complexion as the Parliament which was dissolved, by hypothesis it will confirm the Order. At any rate, it will have full opportunity to review an Order and if the Order in question is of a controversial nature, the new Parliament will be jealous of its authority and the Executive will be very desirous of not coming into conflict with it. If, on the other hand, the Parliament which is elected is of a different complexion to that which has just been dissolved, it consequently is not likely to support the same Executive again when Parliament meets, and it would not pass the Order. The Order will not even be brought before it by the Government of the day, because the Government of the day will be changed. An Order will not be brought before Parliament, and it will accordingly lapse. To suggest that the fiscal system of the country should be in chaos owing to the possible desire of the Government not to summon Parliament immediately after the general election which has resulted in affirming its authority, is not a reasonable conclusion to draw, and consequently I hope that the hon. Member for Leigh will not see the necessity for pressing his Amendment.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is most versatile in the reasons which he gives for opposing these two different Amendments. First of all, he points out to the hon. Member 291 for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) behind him, that this is merely a matter of emergency and that the Executive must be trusted in times of emergency, and so on. Now, dealing with this question of the Dissolution of Parliament, we are on a completely different basis, because he is not dealing with it as a matter of emergency, but as part of the permanent fiscal machinery of the country, which is an entirely different proposition. His suggestion that you are to throw the fiscal machinery into untold difficulty because one Order, which happens to be made at a time shortly before the Dissolution of the House, does not get carried through the House before the Dissolution, is, I suggest, exaggerating the difficulty very much indeed.
He has entirely overlooked the real point of the difficulty, which is that these Orders come into force before Parliament approves them. Automatically, they come into force until such time as Parliament either directs that they shall continue or cease, a period normally of 28 days, which is a very wise provision. Why, because Parliament is dissolved, should that 28 days he prolonged, it might be for another 28 days or even for longer? Why not have a regulation by which, when a Dissolution is approaching, these Orders are not made for a week or two before Parliament is dissolved? Surely it is not necessary to make Orders so near to a Dissolution that those Orders cannot be got through the House. If that necessity arises, I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that whether the new party that comes into power be the same as the old or not, does not really matter, but that while Parliament is dissolved, nothing should happen to prejudice the new Parliament. If there are Orders that continue to run, that does prejudice the new Parliament, and it prejudices the people whose goods are taxed under the new Order.

§ Sir R. BANKS
Is not the real basis of Clause 19 simply this, that, when an Order is made, time begins to run against that Order for 28 days, after which, unless Parliament approves of it, it will lapse. Surely it is fair that time should not be running against that Order during periods when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued. It is all very well for the 292 hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to talk about the delay being prejudicial to Parliament. It is prejudicial to an Order which Parliament might very probably have confirmed, but which it has not had an opportunity of considering or debating. The whole basis of the Clause is that time does not run, as obviously it should not in fairness run, when the House is not in a position to discuss the matter.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was quite kind to the Financial Secretary. He made out just now that these duties were more or less permanent, and earlier in the Debate he said something else. It was only about 24 hours ago that an Amendment was being moved from the benches of his own party clearly making out that in their intention these measures would go on, possibly, for generations.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON
This Clause, which gives such enormous powers to the executive, is, perhaps, one of the most important Clauses in the Bill. It practically hands over the powers of this House over finance to an advisory committee or to the Board of Trade or the Treasury. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), the increased power given to the executive is embodied in Sub-section (2), which states that Any such order as aforesaid imposing a duty of customs shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolution passed by that House. That, really, is putting the cart before the horse. The Financial Secretary, in his enthusiasm for what he calls efficiency, would probably like to see these Orders made by these advisory bodies and simply come to this House for confirmation. Many Members of the House in all parties are, however, well informed and able to contribute their knowledge in regard to these various Orders, and it seems to me that, so far from the House passing this Clause and handing over to an executive body the 293 right to propose an Order, the proposals in regard to duties should be discussed here before going to the Treasury and the Board of Trade. If an Order comes to the House of Commons after it has been drafted by the Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade and the Treasury, there will be very little chance of its being revoked by the House, while the duties will have already been collected, certainly for a short period. It is most unbusinesslike to put on duties and interfere with trade and then come to the House of Commons for confirmation.

§ Sir P. HARRIS
Whitewash.

§ Mr. MASON
It seems to me to be an affront to the House of Commons. Members of the House, to whatever party we may belong, are surely able to contribute our quota of knowledge and experience, but we are asked to confirm an Order after it has been put into force and has had its effect upon our trade. The House is thus asked to approve of duties ranging from 10 per cent. to 50 or even 100 per cent., according to the various powers of all the bodies of which, unfortunately, we have already approved under this Bill, and that approval of the House is to be asked for after the Orders have been put into force.
This Clause takes away from the House its ancient powers for which we have had to fight in the past, and which we have had great difficulty in securing. Surely, whatever our party, we are all first and foremost House of Commons men, and I suggest, to many Members who may not agree with my own humble views on Free Trade, that this subject of the privileges of the House of Commons is one on which we should raise our voices. We may feel strongly on the question of either increasing or reducing a duty, but under this Clause we are asked to approve of what is already the law of the land; we shall have signed away our powers when we pass this Clause. The Financial Secretary is no doubt very anxious to increase the efficiency of the machine, but why should we hand over our ancient rights to any board, however constituted, and allow Orders to be passed which are brought to us for approval in this way? I could give numberless examples of occasions when we have had great difficulties, when another place has interfered with our rights, and now, apparently, we are prepared to hand over 294 the same powers to the Board of Trade or the Treasury.

§ Mr. GROVES
Is this the free hand?

§ Mr. MASON
As far as I understand, there was to be a free hand for the Government of the day to bring in certain legislation, but, surely, the electors of this country and the Members who came to the House of Commons never imagined that they were giving a free hand to the Government to bring forward legislation in which we signed away our ancient rights. What is the use of our attending here? [Interruption.] Hon. Members, apparently, agree on that point, but, if they desire to come here without offering any contribution to the question whether a duty is advisable or inadvisable, regarding themselves merely as ciphers, that is their own affair. I appeal to hon. Members, of whatever party, to protest and to be prepared to go into the Lobby and show by their votes that they disapprove of this Clause, because it means handing over the powers of this House to an arbitrary and autocratic body.

§ Sir P. HARRIS
It is very significant that within the precincts of this House a Committee is meeting to-day for the purpose of raising a memorial to a certain Eliot who, 300 years ago, suffered martyrdom for standing up for f he principles of Parliamentary Government against an autocratic King. It is rather sinister that a namesake of his should be asking that these powers of taxation should be handed over to a Committee of this House. No more comment is necessary.

Mr. PRICE
I was rather interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason), particularly when he said that in this Clause Parliament is handing over to a Committee the traditional authority which it has possessed for years. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for his arguments, but I do like even Parliamentarians to be sincere. If my hon. Friends below the Gangway consider, as apparently they do from their speeches in this Debate, that the National Government are responsible—as I agree they are—for endeavouring to lower the prestige of this House, they should come across on to these benches. Before came here, I was reminded that it was 295 impossible to be a Parliamentarian and a saint. I suggest that nearly every day while these Clauses have been under consideration our friends below the Gangway have been using arguments definitely belonging to the programme of the party which is represented on this side of the House, and, if they really mean what they say about the Government having attempted in this Bill to ruin the trade of the country and impoverish the poor more than they are at present impoverished, their place is on this side of the House.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
The speeches from below the Gangway opposite have been very interesting. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) has taken advantage of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," to restate his objections to the whole Bill, but, however interesting those speeches may be, they would have been more appropriate at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Clause which we are now discussing itself states that: Any Order made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade under this Act shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made. I do not see in that statement any sacrifice of any of the privileges of this House. On the contrary, it states that any Order made by the Board of Trade or the Treasury—which are executive Departments of this House—shall be laid before the House as soon as may be. It is quite proper that such Departments should have some executive power. Surely no hon. Member would suggest that, at the time when this Bill is being put into operation, whether it be regarded from the point of view of emergency or as a permanent contribution to our general legislation, there should be a restriction of the powers of the executive Departments in the general interests of our trade and commerce. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was entirely mistaken when he said that this was putting the cart before the horse.
The general principle of the Bill is that its provisions shall be as effective and as expeditiously applied as possible, and there is a definite statement that, if the House of Commons does not approve of these Orders, they shall cease to be 296 effective. So far from there being any suggestion that the House will lose any of its powers, there is a recommendation to the contrary, and the House will by no means lose its powers if the Orders are properly considered. If either the Board of Trade or the Treasury or the Department responsible, during the time when the House is not sitting, brings in any Measure which is not in the general interest of the country, Members of the House of Commons have a right to bring them to book. It is no question at all of our giving up any of our rights and privileges.

§ Mr. MASON
I do not think the hon. Member quite understands the second part of the Clause. The duty is put into force first and has to be approved within 28 days. I want the House to have an opportunity of discussing it before it comes into operation.

§ Sir R. BANKS
On a point of Order. Is not the discussion really irrelevant to the Clause? Surely the proper time for objecting to giving power to the Treasury to make Orders which shall have an operative effect as soon as made was on Clause 3. This Clause assumes that the Orders have been made and have become operative. I should have thought these observations were not relevant to the Clause at all.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Debate is getting very far from the Clause. The Committee has decided that the Treasury shall have power to make Orders.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS
Does not the Clause provide what the House itself shall do with the Order when the Order has been made? Would it not be in order to ask that the House should step in at an earlier stage before the Order has been made?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that can be brought in as a general argument, but it cannot be argued on this whether the power to make orders should or should not have been given. That has already been decided.

Mr. MORRIS
It is not a question of the power to make the Order, but that the House shall have an opportunity of giving its decision on the Order when made.

§ Sir R. BANKS
The Treasury has power to make an Order and, as soon as it is made, it becomes operative. Observations as to the length of time during which it is to lie on the Table will be relevant to the Clause, but much time has been consumed by the hon. Member in objecting to a power which has already been given to the Treasury under Clause 3 and which it is now quite irrelevant for us to discuss.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Is it not the fact that all that happens under Clause 3 is that the Treasury gets power to make an Order, and if it makes an Order, the duties so directed to be charged shall be deemed to be chargeable under the Section. It does not say when it shall start or finish. I suggest that it is in order in a subsequent Clause to say that, in spite of the Order being so made, it shall not come into force until the House approves it.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think not. The Fourth Ways and Means Resolution specifically lays down that the Bill shall provide that any Order made under the Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 28 days from the date when it is made unless some time before the expiration of the period it is approved by the House. I must hold that we are governed by the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. MASON
My argument was that this period was too long. There is no reason, had the Clause been properly drawn, why we could have had it discussed immediately—within 24 hours. As it is, the duty may be in force for something like 28 days, and then you come to the House of Commons and have it confirmed.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member, in his enthusiasm, went rather further than that and began to criticise the power to make Orders. That has already been decided. The only question here is how long the Order shall be laid.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
I am very glad that the interruption has enabled the hon. Member to make one observation which has any bearing in the Clause at all. With that I resume my seat.

§ Major ELLIOT
Surely all that we have heard about signing away the rights of 298 the House is completely and utterly beside the point. Time and again the House, when dealing with duties of Customs, allows the Executive of the day power to introduce proposals which are not fully sanctioned by the House for a very considerable time. If you give all the world notice that you are about to tax certain goods after a certain date, those goods will begin to pour into the country. It is necessary to take the power at the moment when you say you are about to levy the duty. The House always recognises that and entrusts it to the Government. As to the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that a distinguished namesake of my own would have looked with gloom upon my action at present, all I can say is that, if my distinguished namesake had read these words, Any Order made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade under this Act shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and any such Order as aforesaid shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of 28 days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by Resolution passed by that House. he would have said Nune dimittis. All these high constitutional questions are answered by the simple terms of the Clause and, when the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) says I desire to make the machine work, it is an accusation which I admit at once. I want to make it work. The whole House wants to make it work. The House is weary of the discussion. It is longing to get to work on other matters. The discussion on the Schedule is being held up by a purely academic and futile discussion and the Committee deeply resents the arguments, and repetition of arguments, to which it has had to listen during hours and hours not only to-day but on previous days.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I must protest against the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not know any opposition which has ever been conducted with more consideration for the rapid getting through of business. Had we desired, we could have hung up discussion indefinitely, as the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues did in the last Budget Debates when there was a Guillotine put on by our side—

§ Major ELLIOT
I was not applying my remarks to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, who have been most courteous in all their discussions on this matter. My remarks were directed to another quarter.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman's lambasting was only for domestic purposes. As far as we are concerned, it seems to us to be a sort of machinery which is quite good. We shall, I hope, have opportunities of using it in a rather more rapid form when we come back after the next election.