HC Deb 04 May 1944 vol 399 cc1473-8
Mr. Arthur Greenwood

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will state the Business of the House for the coming week?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

The Business for next week will be as follows:

Tuesday, 9th May—Report stage of the Education Bill.

Wednesday, 10th May—A Debate will take place on the White Paper relating to an International Monetary Fund. (Command Paper 6519.)

Thursday, 11th May, and Friday, 12th May—Conclusion of the Report stage, and Third Reading, of the Education Bill.

During the week, if there is time, we shall take the Second Reading of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill. When we have disposed of Business questions, I have a statement to make to the House. It is considered desirable to make it in Secret Session, and I shall accordingly spy Strangers.

Mr. Greenwood

It has been reported to me to-day, that there is a certain anxiety in the minds of many Members of the House with regard to certain anomalies which have arisen out of the pay and allowances decision of the Government. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government can undertake to examine the anomalies which have been placed before them. Otherwise I fear there may be a very strong demand for a Debate.

Mr. Attlee

Certainly, the Government will examine any anomalies and any detailed points.

Mr. Greenwood

I would like to put this further point to my right hon. Friend. If, say, next Thursday I ask whether further consideration has been given to that matter, can I hope for some sort of favourable reply?

Mr. Attlee

I will certainly look into that matter and see how far the examination has gone.

Mr. Loftus

In view of the great importance of next Wednesday's Debate on the White Paper on the International Monetary Fund, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to extend the time of the Sitting by at least one hour?

Mr. Attlee

Yes, I think so, if that is the: general wish of the House.

Mr. Shinwell

In regard to the proposed Debate on international currency arrangements on Wednesday, do the Government propose, in addition to the White Paper, to accept any of the Motions on the Paper dealing with the subject, or to make any of those Motions the foundation of the Debate? In that event, will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that, although Motion No. 50 has been placed on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)

[That this House considers that the Statement of Principles contained in Cmd. 6519 provides a suitable foundation for further international consultation with a: view to improved monetary co-operation after the war.]

—there is another Motion, No. 47?

[That, in the opinion of this House, the primary objective of our economic policy after the war should be the maintenance of full employment; and His Majesty's Government should enter into no commitments in respect of currency or trade which might prevent them from carrying out an expansionist policy designed to achieve this end.]

in the names of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), myself and other Members; and that if Motion No. 50 is omitted by the Government, there will be a desire expressed by other hon. Members to put forward Motion No. 47? Will the Government therefore state their intention?

Mr. Attlee

We had thought that the House would desire as wide a Debate on this matter as possible and that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) would provide a very suitable opportunity, and would not restrict the Debate at all.

Mr. Shinwell

Is it the case that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and other hon. Members is on the Paper at the request of the Government? If that is so, as I understand it is, would it not be much better for the Government to take charge of a Motion themselves, instead of inspiring hon. and right hon. Members to undertake that task? May I put a further point, because this matter is exceedingly important? If there is already a Motion on the Paper in the names of hon. Members who are associated with another Motion put on the Paper subsequently, surely, in those circumstances, the Government ought to indicate their plain intention and not leave it to Private Members.

Mr. Attlee

The House asked for a Debate on a number of Motions on the Paper. It is a matter of meeting the convenience of the House what Motion will be taken.

Sir Irving Albery

With reference to to the money Debate on Wednesday, will the House be placed in possession of the information as to which of our Dominions and which foreign countries took part in these discussions?

Mr. Attlee

I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Are the Government yet in a position to announce the approximate date when we can have a Debate on the issue of equal pay in the public services?

Mr. Attlee

I am afraid I cannot announce it now. I hope to do so perhaps next week. The Government are rather heavily pressed at the moment, and it is a rather important matter.

Sir A. Southby

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) to the effect that he would consider anomalies, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to bear in mind that in Questions on Tuesday and to-day I raised two points which are of great importance to the Forces and to which he gave categorical negatives? Is he now prepared to reconsider those matters?

Mr. Bellenger

May I put this point to my right hon. Friend? It is quite obvious from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) has said, that there is a certain amount of disquiet in various quarters about certain aspects of the Government's White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with it, not by way of discussion in this House, but by referring individual Members to various Service Departments. Some of these anomalies have already been presented to the Government in written form, but they would not accept a written memorandum when unofficial members asked them to do so. Can we have a Debate to discuss these matters?

Mr. Attlee

It would probably be better if those issues were considered when Members have seen the results of the discussion. We will then see whether the House would like a further Debate.

Miss Ward

When the moment is appropriate, can we have a full Debate on the Government White Paper on pay and allowances? Am I not right in assuming that, during the Debate which finally led to the setting up of the informal committee, a pledge was given that there would be a Debate on the White Paper when it was issued?

Mr. Attlee

I thought that the general view of the House was that there was no particular desire for an immediate Debate.

Mr. Boothby

Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House, either to-day or in the near future, which Motion is to be taken in the Debate next Wednesday, because the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) somewhat narrows the issue, and mine is the wider Motion of the two? There is no antagonism between the two, but his does actually limit the issue.

Mr. Attlee

The Government will take into consideration the points which have been made with regard to the Motion. Our only desire is that the House should have the widest Debate, and the fullest opportunity of debating all the issues in the White Paper. I should have thought myself that the Motion in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove was very wide.

Sir H. Williams

Is it proposed to take Item 5 on the Order Paper to-day, because it relates to the future, but by the time it is taken, it will appear to relate to the past, owing to the confusion which arose yesterday? In the circumstances is it proposed to drop the Motion which was discussed yesterday?

Mr. Attlee

We are hoping that the matter may be taken formally.

Sir H. Williams

Is it not rather absurd to introduce a Bill in a few minutes' time, and then pass a Motion welcoming something that has already happened? As the Government have got into a mess, had they not better drop the Motion?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson

With regard to the international currency Debate next Wednesday, will the Government, in selecting which Motion is taken, be careful to select a Motion which will relieve the House of the necessity of hearing a long rigmarole from somebody or other who knows nothing whatever about it?

Mr. Lewis

May I ask a question on a matter of Business? I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it should be addressed to you or to the Leader of the House. The question is this: I want to know whether, now that the dates of our Sittings are published, it would not be possible to revert to the old system of having the daily ballot for tickets for admission to the Members' Gallery, for this reason? The present system is very inconvenient.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a question on Business.

Mr. Gallacher

In connection with anomalies arising out of the White Paper on pay and allowances, would the right hon. Gentleman consider a serious anomaly? In view of the fact that the Government allow 35s. as the minimum for the maintenance of a wife, how can they justify—

Mr. Speaker

That is not a question on Business.

Mr. Gallacher

On a point of Order. It is a very important question on Business. This is a matter I wish to have discussed. Will the Government not consider the re-assembly of the Members' conference to consider the anomaly that now exists in relation to old age pensions?