BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 2 April 1936)

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I desire to ask the Prime Minister three question on business. In the first place, I think it is usual, after an incident such as that which took place last night, in which the Government were defeated on a matter of Supply when it had been expressly made a matter of confidence by the Government spokesman, that the Government should state what their intentions are in order to carry out the expressed views of the majority of the House. Secondly, I should like to ask how they intend to deal with the position of Government 2137 business caused by the carrying of the Amendment in question?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The Government are not prepared to depart from the policy pursued by themselves and by successive previous Governments in this matter, namely, that salary and wages claims from Government employés should be considered in relation to the Fair Wages principle. It follows, therefore, in their view, that to single out a group of employés for an increase based on a theoretical formula which has no relation to that principle is a course which could not be contemplated by the Government. The Government are satisfied that the wages and salaries paid to women in the Civil Service, whether in common-entry grades or in grades reserved to women, compare very favourably with those drawn by women on comparable work in outside industry; and, in maintaining the policy they have hitherto followed of affording the fullest and fairest opportunities to women for employment and promotion in the Civil Service, they are confident that they will have the support of this House.
In consequence of the decision taken last night, it will become necessary again to set up the Committee of Supply. I am advised that it will be in order, on that Motion, to discuss the whole question of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service. The Government, therefore, propose to put the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper to-night, and a Debate will take place on Monday next; and the Government will treat the Division arising thereon as a Vote of Confidence.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Will the Prime Minister state what he means by the Fair Wages principle; and, secondly, will he say what he thinks is the purpose of this House coming to conclusions on matters of policy if the Government are to disregard them?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, of course that does not quite represent what happened. When the substantive Motion was put, that substantive Motion was defeated. I admit that there was a great deal of confusion in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members all know that there was a great deal of confusion as 2138 to what really had happened, and it was the case that the first Division, which cleared the way in the wording for the Amendment to be put, went against the Government; and it is the admission of that fact that makes me only too ready to take the step which I think ought to be taken in these circumstances, and that is that this matter, which was discussed with these results in a very small House, should be discussed by the whole House. The subject is one of great importance and one on which every Government has to make up its mind. Hon. Members who sit opposite have sometimes to make up their mind as to what course they will take. It may be that, when they are in office, they will take a different course from what has been taken previously by other Governments. It is not as easy a matter as it looks when you discuss it theoretically. I think a debate on the whole subject in the House would be of value. It would give everyone an opportunity of expressing his opinion, and would enable the House to record whether or not it supports the Government in the line that it takes. With regard to the Fair Wages principle—I asked that same question—it is many years since I was at the Treasury, but I understand that that is the technical way of expressing a fair wage, that is, compared with comparable work throughout the country in other industries.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
The right hon. Gentleman's statement apparently amounts to this, that the Government can avoid an effective decision in the House merely by keeping their Members out. Does he mean that the House cannot come to a decision unless the Government choose to whip their supporters?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
Again I think the right hon. Gentleman has not quite appreciated what happened. The House was not quite at its best in coming to the decision. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but their laughter itself shows that they do not realise what happened. What really happened in effect was that the House within five minutes gave a contrary vote.

§ Mr. MAXTON
May I ask you, Sir, whether in your view the procedure that has just been outlined by the Prime Minister for extricating the Government out of the difficulty of last night is in keeping 2139 with good order and with the precedents of this House? About a month ago the House carried a Resolution against the principle of maintenance grants for school children on a private Member's Motion. Your Ruling at the time was that that decision precluded us from bringing forward that proposal in any shape or form on the subsequent proceedings on the two Education Bills, a Ruling which has been carried out by the Chairmen of Committees. I want to ask whether in your view the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is not a device that tricks the House out of the results of a decision that it took.

§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS
For the guidance of some who were absent last night, may I ask if I am correct in assuming that the House resolved to leave out all the words after "That" and to put no other words in their place and that, accordingly, the House came to no decision on policy of any kind whatever?

§ Mr. GARRO-JONES
May I remind you, Sir, that I sought a few weeks ago to secure the establishment of a Select Committee, and you declined to allow my Motion to go forward on the ground that the House had by implication rejected the principle in a previous Session, and you said you would not allow the Motion to be brought forward again on the ground that by so doing you would be asserting that the House had been wrong in its previous decision. I should like to ask whether a similar principle may not be applied to this case? Further, was not the reason why the House took two contrary decisions within ten minutes that a number of gentlemen on those benches were subjected to more severe pressure in the second Division than in the first—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The latter part of the hon. Member's question does not seem to me to raise a point of Order.

§ Sir HUGH O'NEILL
May I ask whether what happened last night was not that the substantive Resolution in favour of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service was, in fact, defeated?

§ Mr. EDE
Is it not a fact that you, Sir, put from the Chair the Question that the words "I do now leave the Chair" stand part of the Question, and that that was defeated by a majority of eight? Whatever else the House may not have 2140 decided, it did decide that those words should not stand part.

§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
May I ask you, Sir, whether, if the first Division last night had gone the other way, you would have left the Chair or not?

§ Miss WILKINSON
Is it not a fact that most Members were naturally, and rightly, under the assumption that they were voting on the principle that the House had been debating, and that only after a period of considerable confusion it was decided, very largely on the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to take the vote again?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
My difficulty is that on this occasion there appears to be no precedent for the present situation, because on previous occasions either the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" has been defeated on a direct vote or the Amendment moved to that Motion has been carried. On this occasion neither of these things occurred. It is true that the way I put the Question is the way the Question is always put on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" and an Amendment has been moved—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." That is really only a preliminary to putting the Question that the words of the Amendment be added. It is stated in Erskine May that a vote against words standing part of the Motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" is usually taken as a vote for the Amendment, and not as a direct vote on the Question "That Mr Speaker do now leave the Chair." There was no direct vote on the Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; the vote given was for the Amendment. The natural sequel to that, which I am sorry to say I omitted, was to put the Question, "That those words be there added." I ask the House to forgive me for not having put that Question. Had I put the Question the word "That" would have remained part of the original Motion. But what I put was what would be a substantive Motion, so that the whole Amendment included the word "That." On that occasion the Amendment was lost. So that we have the curious circumstance that the vote in the first instance was in favour of the Amendment, 2141 and then the vote 10 minutes afterwards was against the Amendment. That puts me rather in a quandary as to what is the proper procedure to adopt, but the rules laid down for the practice of the House relieve me of any responsibility. It is laid down that The Committee of Supply must be kept on foot throughout the Session, According to Erskine May, as was stated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) last night: When the House, by the acceptance of an Amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the Chair or by negativing that question has thereby superseded the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply, in the case where the first Motion is defeated or an Amendment is accepted that Order is revived by a Motion made forthwith, either that the House will immediately or upon a future day resolve itself into the Committee of Supply. That is the rule laid down in Erskine May dealing with similar circumstances to those which have arisen. As to whether it is the proper thing to do, to debate the whole question on the Question "That this House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply," it is not really for me to say before I hear the discussion as to whether it is in order or not; but certainly the question of putting down a Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply on an early day is the proper procedure to take.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
If as a matter of fact we come to that Motion again, does that revive the Amendments which have been obtained in the ballot on first entering into Committee of Supply? Will the second or third Amendment be taken or will the original Amendment be taken again?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
On first going into Committee of Supply, when the Motion is "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a ballot and once a Member has succeeded in the ballot he puts down an Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman asks me now whether that same system will be adopted on the next occasion. Erskine May lays it down that on the first occasion of going into Committee of Supply only one 2142 Amendment is taken, that is to say that if the Amendment is negatived no further Amendment is taken. On an occasion such as this, when the same Motion will have to he put on another day, I think it remains within my discretion whether I take the Amendment or not. That will be the position.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
The most recent precedent is in 1923, when the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," was defeated. It was then put down again and your predecessor ruled that that was on first going into Committee of Supply, because owing to the defeat of the original Motion the House had not gone into Committee of Supply. On this occasion there was a variation, because the Amendment was actually put and carried, but at the same time the substantive Motion was defeated. But the effect of that was that the Motion that you should leave the Chair was defeated. It now has to be put again. What I ask is, whether that action does not revive the right to raise an Amendment on first going into Committee of Supply, because we have not yet gone into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates?

§ Mr. MAXTON
My point bears on the subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I put it to you in a somewhat different aspect. I accept unreservedly your Ruling that the business of Supply must go on, and that the proposal to have another Motion that you leave the Chair is the correct procedure; but I put it to you that it is not competent for the Prime Minister to put down for the business of that day a Motion which has the purpose of negativing the decision that the House gave yesterday. I ask you for your Ruling on that point, as to whether it is competent for the Prime Minister to put down as a Motion a matter on which the House gave a definite decision last night?

§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
Further to the point of Order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. If this Motion which the Government have put down is carried it will be necessary to take a Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and on that you have said that you will then exercise your discretion as to whether you will take an Amendment. On that point may I call attention to the Manual of Procedure, page 207, which summarises 2143 the events which occurred on 11th April, 1923, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred? That is what it says: On 10th April, 1923, the main question was negatived. A Motion that the House would to-morrow resolve itself into Committee of Supply was moved on the following day", as has been done now— and the Speaker then ruled that the first Amendment having been disposed of, he would call the second Amendment if it were moved.

§ Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR
Is not this Motion an opportunity for private Members to draw attention to grievances, and are there not two Motions on the Paper in the names of private Members, in addition to the one that we discussed yesterday; and if this Motion is to be taken again on Monday ought not private Members to have the first right, which they have won by ballot, to draw attention to their grievances?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I quite see the point raised. My difficulty again arises from the fact that on two different occasions two different procedures were adopted. In the one case no Amendment was allowed and in the other case an Amendment was allowed. I have done the best I can by saying that I shall use my discretion, but I cannot draw on any precedent when precedents are contradictory.

§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
Would you not agree that a Motion put down by private Members to draw attention to a grievance should have precedence over any Motion put down by the Government?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That question would not arise on the Motion suggested to be put down on Monday to set up the Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I want your Ruling, Sir. The Prime Minister gave us to understand that we should have an opportunity of discussing what action the Government propose to take on the events of last night on this Motion, but if as a. matter of fact this Motion does revive the rights of private Members who have put down Motions on going into Committee of Supply, it is clear that we could not discuss this particular point which the Prime Minister said we could discuss on Monday. On the last occasion 2144 on which it was raised I think it was necessary to move the Adjournment of the House in order to have a discussion on the question of the Government's policy with regard to decisions come to by the House.

§ Miss WILKINSON
This does seem to me to be terribly important for future years, because it is rot only the principle, but this is the constitutional safeguard that the House has in order to raise the grievances of the subject. This question of Supply goes deep down into our history. What is going to happen? There is the question of the rights of private Members and the rights of the public when a very real grievance is felt as a grievance by supporters of the Government, many of whom when they were being lobbied by the Associations dealing with this matter definitely told the lobbyists that they were not anxious to vote against the Government, and therefore that they would stay away and by their non-presence here signified a general agreement—I ask you whether the Government, with its overwhelming majority, having faced up to what is really a fight on the rights of the subject, can use its automatic majority and put down the Motion again and treat it as a Vote of Confidence? I put it to you that the rights of the public and of private citizens are at stake on this matter?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The questions as to Government Motions so long as they are in order have nothing to do with me. I have tried to explain that there are two questions raised, both in different directions, and that is why I suggested it would be better to leave it to my discretion. If this Motion on Monday is carried and the question arises that I leave the Chair, I am inclined at the present moment to allow an Amendment which is in my discretion, so as to safeguard the rights of the House.

§ Mr. MAXTON
We are discussing this matter on the announcement of business for next week. I want a Ruling from you and I have asked for it before. I am being told what my work here is to be next week and what is to be the work of every Member of the House. Am I to come here on Monday on the assumption that I am going to have repetition of the Debate that we had yesterday, with 2145 an opportunity to change my mind as to how I should cast my vote, or are we to have a discussion on Monday on the relative merits of the Fair Wages Clause and equal wages for men and women? What is to be the business on Monday? I know your difficulty in making a Ruling in advance, but I think that we are entitled to know what we are to be asked to discuss on Monday. Are we to do again on Monday the job we did yesterday?

§ Mr. GARRO-JONES
The House is in some considerable difficulty because the Prime Minister has not indicated at all clearly what Motion he proposes to put down on Monday. Is it to be a Motion dealing with the principle of equal pay and equal work, or with the question of whether the House voted for or against that principle, or both? I suggest that the Prime Minster should inform the House the proposed terms of his Motion, and what it proposes to deal with.

§ Sir H. O'NEILL
In order to clarify the position on Monday, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question in regard to the procedure? Am I to understand that there are to be two Motions—first of all, a Motion, "That this House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply," and then, if that is carried, a Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and if so, on which of those Motions will the Debate take place?

§ Mr. SANDYS
On a point of Order. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st April, in which it is quite clear, whether it was a mistake or not, that the hon. Lady, when she moved her Amendment, said: I beg to move, to leave out the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,"— the words following. [Interruption.] If that was what was moved by the hon. Lady, there was no opportunity for the House to have the second Motion put. Therefore, the original Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," is wiped out, and instead the hon. Lady succeeded with her Amendment with no "That" at the beginning but, "In the opinion of this House, the time has come, etc.," which was accepted.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think that that question has already been decided; at any rate, I have given my ruling.

§ Mr. THURTLE
May I put a point on the original ruling, Mr. Speaker? Your ruling was concerned with what took place in the House last night, and if I understood you correctly, you said that when the question was put in the form in which you put it, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," according to Erskine May, a vote given against that Motion was a vote in favour of the Amendment. In those circumstances, when this House is in doubt, I understand that the Chair usually falls back on the authority of Erskine May. Are we, then, entitled to assume, in view of the fact that the vote is understood according to Erskine May to be a vote in favour of the Amendment, that the House did, in fact, last night decide on the principle which Was involved in the Amendment?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
No, I tried to explain that what had happened was that that was a preliminary vote in order to clear the way for the vote on the Question, "That those words be there added," and when I put the Question of the Amendment the House voted against it.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of these discussions, where we stand, what the business is to be on Monday, and what will be the scope of the discussion?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I understood that the business on. Monday would be that the Prime Minister would put down a Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," and I said that I could not rule what would be in order on that Motion until I had listened to the Debate.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has tried very hard to bring us up against what some of us feel is the actual case. As I understood the Prime Minister, he not only said that he was going to move to set up the Committee of Supply, but was also going to put a Motion on the Paper. [Interruption.] I am within the recollection of Mr. Speaker and the House that he was going to put down a Motion on the subject of you, Mr. Speaker, leaving the Chair. Perhaps the Prime 2147 Minister will clarify the matter. We do not exactly understand the position. Are we to understand that the Government will move that you leave the Chair, and, at the same time, move another Motion dealing with the same particular question?

§ Sir A. SINCLAIR
May I also ask the Prime Minister the question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) addressed to him: what is to be the procedure on Monday? Are we to have two Motions, one that we resolve into Committee of Supply, and the other that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair? Are we to have on either or both of those Motions an Amendment discussing the same subject as that which was discussed yesterday on the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)? Is it to be a Government Resolution, or it is to be in the form of an Amendment to one or other of those two Motions, and, if so, do not the Government realise that, if any Amendments are to be moved. they ought to be Amendments in the name of hon. Members calling attention to grievances?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I do not know whether I can make the matter a little clearer than it seems to be at the present moment, but on Monday the House in any circumstances must set up again the Committee of Supply, and that we have made clear to the House. We must not confuse that with the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. It will have nothing to do with getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Monday in any circumstances. The Motion is solely for the setting up of the Committee of Supply. That is a Motion which may be disposed of quickly, or it may take all day, but when Supply is once more on the Paper, then it will be open to the Government once again to take the question of moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Votes, and that definitely will not be until after Easter. So that disposes of that particular point. The words that may have been misunderstood here are, "The Government propose to put the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper," and that is the Motion to set up the Committee of Supply. We have made inquiries and 2148 believe that, if desirable, as I thought it would be, after what took place yesterday, the question which was discussed for three hours can be discussed further, and the vote taken would be on whether the Committee of Supply should be set up or not, and the Government are perfectly prepared to treat that particular vote and the Division arising from it as a vote of confidence. As to exactly what Motion may be moved or the exact conduct of debate that, as Mr. Sneaker said, must depend upon his ruling. I can say no more at the moment to elucidate this question.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
The point that arises for debate on Monday is not the specific merits of the Motion. The House came to a decision on that matter yesterday. The point that we have to discuss on Monday, is the statement of the Prime Minister, that he intends to disregard that vote altogether. I want to know whether we shall be able to have a full discussion on the action and the inaction of the Government in this matter on Monday?

Viscountess ASTOR
I am sorry to detain the House, but as we sat here the whole of yesterday discussing this question, I should like to know where we are. Does it mean that the Government are to make this a question of confidence, because I would remind the Prime Minister that yesterday there was but one speech delivered on his side of the House in favour of the Government? I think that it will be very unfair on Monday if he puts hon. Members, who are convinced of the justice of the claim of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service, and are pledged to it, in the position of making this a question of bringing the Government down. He knows perfectly well that it will be defeated even before it comes before the House.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
We have been discussing very properly the procedure in this matter, but, after all, the private Member in this House has something more to consider than a mere question of procedure. We have the spirit of this House to consider. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, does he really definitely propose, having had the Debate yesterday and an adverse 2149 vote having been given against the Government upon an important issue of this kind, entirely to disregard that vote and ask the House to reverse it on a second Motion of a vote of confidence? Does he propose in this way to flout the definite opinion of this House as expressed in the first Division?

§ Mr. MAXTON
I do not want to detain the House unduly on this matter, but I want to be very clear upon it. I understand perfectly well that a Motion to go into Committee of Supply will be in order for Monday. I understand also that a vote of confidence in the Government will be in order on Monday, as it is at any time, but I want to know whether a vote which has the effect, through its form, of bringing up for reversal the decision on Wednesday would be accepted by you to go on the Order Paper of this House?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked me whether I would accept a Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply"—

§ Mr. MAXTON
No.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
I should like to make this submission to you, Mr. Speaker. A Motion will be made on Monday to go into Committee of Supply. The Government will treat that Motion as a vote of confidence. If the vote of confidence is carried, I submit to you that that Motion will not negative the decision to which the House came yesterday in favour of equal pay. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, although the vote of confidence were to be carried on Monday, the House, by its decision yesterday, is not bound to the principle of equal pay for men and women.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
Is it not the fact that the House is able to repeal any legislation, and following from that surely the House, if the Government desire, can also repeal any Resolution?

HON. MEMBERS
No!

§ Mr. BEVAN
On a point of Order. I want to follow up the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). What we are discussing is the business for next week, and what we desire your guidance about is this, that when we come to the House on Monday we want 2150 to know, not what the Motion will be, because we all know that the Motion will be to go into Committee of Supply, but what subjects shall we discuss. What will be the issue before the House on Monday? On such occasions, usually, the issue before the House is the issue raised upon the Motion made by the Private Member who has won a place in the ballot. That was the issue that was discussed yesterday. Are we to wait until Monday before we know what sort of discussion will be in order, or are we to know now whether we are to rediscuss the issue of yesterday and the action of the Government?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member raises the question of what is to be discussed on Monday. The question as regards a Motion made as the result of the ballot and the subject that was raised yesterday does not arise for Monday, because, as the Prime Minister has said, the Motion: "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," will probably not come on until after Easter. Therefore, that question does not arise. What is to be discussed on the Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," is another question altogether. The hon. Member will understand that the usual custom is that that Motion is put and carried without discussion.

§ Mr. BEVAN
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is only on a special occasion like this, when the House has for the second time to set up the Committee of Supply that the Motion is open for discussion. On this occasion it will be open to debate. It is, however, impossible for me to say now what subjects can be raised. The chief subject to be raised is the necessity for setting up the Committee of Supply and the reason for doing so. The question has been raised whether the action of the Government will be open to discussion on that Motion, and it seems to me that that will be so, because that will be the reason for having to set up the Committee of Supply on the second occasion.

§ Mr. THORNE
When we go into Committee of Supply will the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) be entitled to put down the same Motion again?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The answer is definitely "no."

§ Mr. LANSBURY
May I ask very respectfully whether we can have a definite statement from the Prime Minister with reference to the notice that he gave that the Government would put down a Motion on Monday stating its position in regard to the question that was debated yesterday. We want to know whether that Motion—he gave us practically the terms of it—will be in order. As I understood it, his Motion would in effect, if carried, reverse the first decision that was taken yesterday. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I had hoped that I had made it clear that the Motion fur Monday will be that the House shall go into Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intends, if the Chair regards it as being in order, making a statement on behalf of the Government in respect of the particular vote which occurred yesterday, and to indicate whether the opinion of the Government on that matter has been altered at all by the expression of opinion given by the House yesterday. Am I to understand that he intends to make that as a prime statement in the course of the Debate, assuming that the Motion is in order, and that the discussion will naturally flow in accordance with his original initiation?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
That is the case. That is one of the penalties we have to pay for yesterday.

§ Miss WILKINSON
On a point of Order. In reply to a question whether the Amendment that I put down yesterday with regard to equal pay could be put down again on Monday, you replied "definitely no." If the Prime Minister does state the Government's position in regard to equal pay, is not that in contradiction of what you have just said? In that case shall we have a third discussion on the Question that you do leave the Chair, sometime after Easter?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
As regards the discussion on Monday, I have explained that on the Motion, "That this House resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," there will naturally arise the question of what took place yesterday, because that is the reason for the House having to resolve itself into Committee of Supply 2152 on a second occasion. The reason why we have to do that and what took place yesterday will naturally form part of the discussion on Monday on the Motion for setting up the Committee of Supply.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Can the Prime Minister state whether the Government propose to make any statement in the House on the reply of the German Government?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to be in a position to make a statement at the beginning of business to-morrow. He regrets that it will be impossible to make a statement to-day.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week and also how far he proposes to go to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule being carried?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
We are suspending the Rule to-night to enable the discussion on any Amendment that may be under discussion to be rounded off. We hope very much that we shall be able to conclude the Report stage of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill tonight. The only other subject that we shall take is that of the Scottish Raspberry Marketing Order.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Motion to set up Committee of Supply.
Tuesday: If not disposed of already, conclusion of the Report stage of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill, and Third Reading. Also the Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. It is hoped to bring on the latter Bill about half-past seven o'clock.
Wednesday: Motion to approve the Unemployment Insurance (Reduction of Weekly Rates of Contributions) Order; Consideration of any Lords' Amendments to Bills which have already passed this House, including Amendments which may be made to the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill; Consideration of Draft Orders in Council relating to the India and Burma Legislatures, which have already been debated in this House.
2153 Thursday: The House will meet at 11 o'clock, and it is proposed to take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment until Tuesday, 21st April.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who has just resigned from the Cabinet, will make the statement which is usual on such occasions, and has he any information of the date on which that may take place?

§ The PRIME MINISTER
The hon. Member is generally a stickler for precedent, but he has forgotten that a statement of that kind, as a rule, is confined to occasions where Ministers separate owing to failure to agree. There has been no such thing in this case.

§ Sir F. FREMANTLE
Does the Prime Minister realise the very great disappointment that will be felt throughout the country by the postponement of the Midwives Bill, which was to have been brought forward next Wednesday, and

§ The PRIME MINISTER
I quite agree. This is one of the inevitable results of what happened yesterday, but we hope to introduce the Bill as soon as possible after Easter.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
Will there be an opportunity for discussion on the question whether there should be a Ministry of Thought, or not, and whether after what happened yesterday there should be a new Ministry of Thought in this country?

Mr. DAVIDSON
Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that at least two Ministers will be in attendance when we are discussing the question of Scottish raspberries?