ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER) (Hansard, 30 July 1963)

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod)
I beg to move, That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 24th October, at eleven o'clock. In moving this Motion, perhaps it would be convenient, to remove any possible doubt about the time of meeting on 24th October, to move it in a slightly amended form from that which appears on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I think that that is permissible and probably for the general convenience.

§ Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
I wish to oppose this Motion for the following reason. We have been given no information by the Government as to when the committee under Sir Milner Holland, which is to investigate pressures on tenants in the London area, is to be constituted. The problem is one of grave urgency for many London tenants. In my constituency, for example, the slum empire of mystery landlord Brady—which flits from one address to another—has come to life again under the guise of Various Tenancies Ltd., now at 113, Clapham Road, S.W.4. I have described this company as the same group of shady people who operated this racket years ago".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 246.] The Brady outfit is in operation again with all the old tricks and with renewed vigour. This company will be reaping a rich harvest during the Long Recess while Parliament is not sitting and while the Government are inactive and the Milner Holland Committee has not begun to function. I am not willing that we should go into recess while this kind of intimidation and blackmail is going on. I want a concrete assurance from the Government that effective action is to be taken without delay to protect the victims of the Brady racket in my constituency and elsewhere.

§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)
Many of us were rather disturbed by the failure of the Minister of Defence, a few moments ago, to answer a very direct 244 question put to him by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the future of the TSR2. Many of us will recall that last year the Government waited until the House was in recess before announcing the cancellation of the Blue Water project.
Could the Leader of the House give us an assurance, since the Minister of Defence is to speak in the debate tomorrow, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not rise until the Minister of Defence has made a statement on the future of the TSR2?

§ Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I am certainly opposed to the House adjourning until we have had at least two definite replies to important questions which have been raised. After all, this may be the last opportunity.
It is possible that this Motion is the death knell of this Parliament. We do not know what is to happen. In view of the timing of the Stratford-on-Avon by-election and the Prime Minister's answers about the Denning report, further circulation will be given this afternoon to the suspicion that there will be an autumn election. Therefore, this is our last chance, perhaps, to try to hold this set of Ministers on the Front Bench to certain promises which have been made.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government was, at any rate, sufficiently impressed by some of the abundant evidence brought forward by my hon. Friends and some sections of the Press about housing scandals to promise to establish a committee on the subject. We do not know what the powers of the committee will be, what its membership will be, what its firm terms of reference will be, or anything about it. It was certainly to the dismay of many hon. Members yesterday that in a Written Answer the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that he was not yet in a position to make an announcement on the subject, but that he would make an announcement when he was ready to do so. There was no promise that he would do so before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
In view of the character of the debate which we had the other day on this subject and of the known anxiety not only 245 in London, but throughout the country, about the kind of exploitation of tenants and racketeering that has been going on, it would be absolutely wrong for the House to disperse at the end of this week before a statement is made to us about the powers, terms of reference and membership of the Milner Holland Committee so that hon. Members will have an opportunity to put some points on this subject to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. If we adjourn before that is done, there will be a suspicion that this subject will be evaded and shelved and that no serious action will be taken on behalf of the tenants.
There is, further, the wider question of speculation in land and general property racketeering which has been going on. Twice in the last fortnight I have had occasion to draw attention to a case in Staffordshire, also connected with the late Mr. Rachman. We received the stupid answer from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that the late Mr. Rachman had been prospecting for oil in Staffordshire and that that was why a piece of mainly derelict land of about 50 acres had been over-valued to the extent of £100,000.
My constituents will want to know how it came about that this mainly derelict land was so valued by the Eagle Star Insurance Company for the purposes of advancing £100,000 to a company called Huntflink Investments, composed of the late Mr. Rachman and his wife. My constituents will want to know where the £100,000 has gone, whether it has gone out of the country, and into what other companies it has gone.
My constituents will also want me to report to them on the spider's web of companies that are known to exist, about which a great deal has been written in the newspapers recently, which have been concerned with this kind of exploitation and racketeering. It may be going on under the noses of many hon. Members. There may be many hon. Members who have companies in their constituencies that only conceal and disguise some of the speculators and racketeers who are deliberately bidding up the prices of land, and the prices of property for speculative purposes, thereby having a serious effect upon the whole housing situation.
246 We want an inquiry into the nature of these companies. I am sure that, had the evidence which has so far been submitted emanated from shareholders in those companies, it would have been the cause of an immediate investigation by the Board of Trade. If some of the things which have been published, to which I could draw the attention of the Leader of the House, in the last fortnight about this spider's web of companies had come from within those companies and been reported to the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade would have been compelled under the Companies Act to establish an inquiry. Because the evidence was submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), it was brushed off yesterday by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who said that there was no adequate evidence at the moment for him to establish such an inquiry.
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. It is, again, a case where the suspicion will be spread that because perhaps some of the paymasters of the Tory Party are involved in some of these businesses the Government will not establish an inquiry.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Swingler
In that case, the means of laying that suspicion is for the Government to accept that a prima facie case for an inquiry into these companies has been established and for them to promise to set up such an inquiry. We want to know that that investigation will be begun before the House adjourns. We want to know the powers and the nature of that investigation before the House adjourns, maybe for the purposes of this Parliament for ever.
Therefore, before we are asked to decide upon the Motion, I hope that the Leader of the; House will be able to tell us that before the end of this week the Minister of Housing and Local Government will state exactly the nature and membership of the Milner Holland Committee which is to inquire into the exploitation of tenants; and, further, that an independent investigation will be set up into racketeering companies involved in speculation and over-valuation of land, about whom many of us are very anxious to submit evidence.

§ Mr. William Warbey (Ashfield)
I, too, wish to oppose the Motion, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends the Members for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and for an additional reason.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies will be informed by the Leader of the House that there is a good deal of concern at this moment about the date which the Government intend to fix for the inauguration of Malaysia under the Malaysia Bill. So far, we have had the announcement of the intention as being 31st August.
I hope that before the debate is concluded, if the Leader of the House cannot persuade the Secretary of State to come here and make a statement, he will at least use the good offices of his Parliamentary Private Secretary to convey a message to the Secretary of State so that we can have a reply given to us at the end of the debate.
This is a matter which will involve the most profound and serious international repercussions. At this moment there is going on in Manila a summit conference of the heads of Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia. The question of the Federation and the timing of the inauguration of the Federation has now become a question which may have very serious repercussions indeed, unless Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to act with some wisdom.
Complaints have been made from this side about the forcing of the pace of federation, but die doubts have been set aside because it was said that at a previous conference of the Foreign Ministers of the three countries in South-East Asia an agreement was reached between all three and that Indonesia and the Philippines said that they would welcome the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. The right hon. Gentleman will know—his right hon. Friends certainly know, because they were informed of it during the course of the debate on the Malaysia Bill—that that welcome was conditional.
It was conditional on one very important proviso which was written into the agreement signed by the Foreign Ministers and now forming the substance of 248 the Manila conference. The proviso was that the support of the people of the Borneo territories should be ascertained by an independent and impartial authority, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, or his representative. Moreover, the representative of Malaya at that conference undertook to consult Her Majesty's Government about the steps to be taken to implement this agreement, in consultation with the Secretary-General.
I want to know, and the House is entitled to know, the answer to the question which was not answered during the Second Reading and other stages of the Malaysia Bill—whether those consultations with the Secretary-General have taken place and what action the British Government propose to take following those consultations. My information is that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, has made it clear that he could not ascertain the views of the people of the Borneo territories unless he was given a period of three or four months in which to make the necessary arrangements for finding out their views. If my information is wrong, I hope that it will be put right, but if it is not corrected, I shall stand by it.
Are Her Majesty's Government now intent on rushing ahead with the in auguration of this Federation against the opposition of Indonesia and possibly of the Philippines and without giving the Secretary-General proper time to conduct the investigations which were promised by the Tunku of Malaya? If Her Majesty's Government are not able to give an assurance that the date for the inauguration will be postponed long enough to enable the United Nations investigation to take place, we shall be forced to conclude that once again Her Majesty's Government are prepared to use the United Nations to cover up—

§ Mr. Speaker
I had some hopes, in the interests of the hon. Member, that at that point he was about to say that in certain circumstances he would oppose the Motion. He will have to bring his observations somewhere in relation to the Motion.

§ Mr. Warbey
I was about to do that, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that in my last sentence I was possibly straying a 249 little outside the terms of the Motion in expressing my own view of what should happen.
I conclude by saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I could go on for quite a long time if hon. Members opposite wish. There are a number of other reasons why hon. Members ought to oppose the Motion, but I do not wish to produce them at this moment.
I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will show some respect for the authority of the United Nations, will recognise that this is an international question on which United Nations mediation will be required in the future if not now, and will take the necessary steps to delay the implementation of federation so that the Secretary-General can make a proper investigation of what the people of these territories really want.

§ Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)
I suggest to the Leader of the House that we cannot rise for three months until we have had a satisfactory solution of the problem of Malta. As the House is well aware, very important talks are going on—at least, we hope that they are still going on—to draw up a constitution for an independent Malta. It is a welcome fact that on both sides of the House there is broad agreement that the time has come to give independence to Malta, and thus there is an opportunity for solving on an agreed basis what has been a longstanding subject of controversy between us.
However, there are disturbing Press reports that the talks have been running into difficulties and might be in danger of breaking down. It would be quite undesirable for this country to launch Malta on the seas of independence without having first endowed her with a thoroughly modern and democratic constitution under which fair elections could be held. The House will be aware that the Malta Labour Party has long held that such conditions for fair elections do not exist in Malta and that the last elections were not fairly conducted. Indeed, it supplied documentary evidence to the Special Commission of the United Nations on what it claimed were grave irregularities in the conduct of the elections in February. 1962.
250 As a result of that evidence, we on this side of the House have frequently pressed the Government for an inquiry into those elections. The Government have not seen, fit to agree, but on 10th May of this year the Special Commission of the United Nations pointed out that the conditions under which the general election of February, 1962, took place—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Lady, but we cannot discuss the merits or demerits of various aspects of constitution-making upon this Motion. The problem is whether the House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn until Thursday, 24th October, at eleven o'clock.

§ Mrs. Castle
I am trying to explain the points upon which these talks on Malta are in danger of breaking down. If this breakdown takes place, it will be intolerable for the House to rise until it has had not only a statement from the Government, but an opportunity for discussing the causes of the breakdown. It is because I am hopeful that the Adjournment of the House will not be delayed that I am trying to bring to the attention of the Government the danger points around which the breakdown is likely to take place. I am quoting the Malta Labour Party's case of the conduct of the elections to prove that there is a case to which we must give serious consideration.
There must be a constitution which will ensure that undue influence of any kind is not used during the election and under which the Malta Labour Party will have the right to press its claim that there should be fresh elections in Malta before independence takes place as the United Nations Special Committee drew attention to the controversy which raged about the conduct of the last elections and suggested that the holding of new elections under international observation ought to be considered by the administering Power, which is us.
I am, therefore, asking for some enlightenment on this issue, because my attitude to the Motion would be governed by the reply I got. I would have to oppose the Motion unless I was satisfied that we were to have a statement and that that statement would show that the Government were meeting the legitimate 251 minimum democratic demands of the Malta Labour Party. If they are not, all the statement would tell us would be that there had been a breakdown in the talks and that we were to impose undemocratic solutions on Malta.
I am not prepared to go away for three months and leave the situation like that. That is why my attitude to this Motion will be governed by the sort of answer I get today, and whether we get an assurance that this Government will not say to Malta, "You can have independence, but you cannot have it on the basis of a democratic, modern-type constitution equivalent to that in every other democratic country in the world, and you cannot have fresh elections before independence takes place". If the Government give those answers, the talks will break down, and there will be an imposed solution, a solution which I would not wish the House to accept.

§ Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)
I shall not support the Motion unless the right hon. Gentleman informs the House of the Government's intentions with regard to the publication of the Denning report. This matter has become all the more urgent and important because of the possibility of an autumn General Election. I know that it will not be very easy for the Leader of the House to let us into the Government's secret on this matter—

§ Mr. Lipton
The right hon. Gentleman has already done that.

§ Mr. Mendelson
If my hon. Friend has that information, good luck to him, but I have to confess ignorance in the matter.
But that is not the issue that I am putting to the Leader of the House. The Government have carefully cleared the decks and made it possible for the House to adjourn without having any business to return to in the autumn. They have made it possible for there to be a General Election during the Recess.
The matter of the Denning report is a very serious one indeed. The method of inquiry was decided on by the Government. As the House knows, there was a good deal of disagreement on the precise form of the inquiry. There were demands for a Select Committee, and also for other types of inquiry. The Govern- 252 ment's view prevailed in the end, as it must, but it means that this Report will be submitted to the Prime Minister, and it will be for him to decide the way in which Members of the House, and the general public, should learn what is in it.
It is conceivable that some time during the Recess the report will be sent to the Prime Minister, who will then consider it. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will supply my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the report, and there will then be discussions between them to decide which parts of the report should be published, and it is here that the first difficulty arises.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House, and, I am sure, on the benches opposite, too, clearly understood that these discussions between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend would be confined to the decision to be taken in relation to matters affecting the security of the State, and whether such information should or should not be communicated to right hon. and hon. Members. If there is even the slightest suggestion that matters other than those relating strictly to the security of the State are not to be communicated to right hon. and hon. Members, I hope that this will be repudiated by the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
We need an assurance from the Leader of the House that there is no question of changing in any way the established convention that only matters relating to State security are excluded, but I go further and say that if there is any suggestion that other matters might not be communicated to the House, I would not be in favour of my right hon. Friend discussing the matter with the Prime Minister at any time.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that it would matter for the purpose of whether this House should adjourn or not whether the hon. Member would be in favour of his right hon. Friend doing that, or not doing it.

§ Mr. Mendelson
With respect. Mr. Speaker, I would be far less alarmed about the precise nature of these consultations, and the final decision on what is to be excluded from the report, if the House were sitting, when questions could 253 be put to the Prime Minister on this matter.
However, I pass to the second reason why we need a firm assurance from the right hon. Gentleman about the Government's intentions with regard to the publication of the Denning report. If the report is received during the Recess, and the Prime Minister then decides to publish part of it, he may also decide shortly afterwards to advise the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament. If that were to happen, the House might never have an opportunity of considering the Denning report, and such a situation could lead to considerable controversy. As is well known, this is a matter which concerns the general public and all hon. Members, because in their constituencies they have been asked many questions on this subject.
I have always been in favour of getting at the facts and letting the people in the constituencies know them as soon as possible. It should be made clear beyond peradventure that the Government have an equal interest in seeing that this report is not only read by the people who want to read it, but that there is an opportunity of debating it in the House. I shall, therefore, not support the Motion unless the Leader of the House informs us of the Government's intentions in this matter.
On previous occasions the Leader of the House has said, quite rightly, that if a situation arose which led to a request being made for the recall of Parliament such a request would be considered, but the House knows that if only a certain number of hon. Members demand a recall the Government are not obliged to act on that request, It is clear that on this matter of the Denning report the Government have a special obligation. This is not a matter which cannot be foreseen. The Government are probably well aware of what is going to happen, and must have made their plans accordingly. I therefore submit that there is a special obligation of the Government to ensure that Parliament is recalled if, after the publication of the report, they decide that Parliament should be dissolved, and it is the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that this will be done.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydfil)
Having regard to the series of most urgent problems relating to Wales that were raised during the debate yesterday, and the profoundly unsatisfactory replies given by the Government to the appeals made by my hon. Friends, I shall oppose the Motion. The idea of being away from here for nearly three months without a reminder being given to Ministers of the urgent and difficult problems confronting us in Wales today is completely out of the question.
Even more urgent than the problems raised yesterday is that of local government in Wales. The Government have the report on this subject. This report—and I am not the only one who holds this opinion—means the utter disintegration, and, in fact, destruction, of local government in Wales. I know that I am speaking for most of my Welsh colleagues in asking for an assurance that whatever may be the contents of that report the Government will take no steps to implement any of its proposals or recommendations until at least Welsh Members of Parliament have had an opportunity again on the Floor of the House to debate, discuss and possibly oppose the attitude that may be adopted by the Government.
Unless we can have that assurance I shall certainly not support the Motion.

§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
I want to say a few words in support of the Motion. For several months groups of people all over the country have been expressing their fear and anxiety about the nature of atomic tests. I should have thought that hon. Members would be anxious to be released from this place in order that they might go all over the country explaining to people the valuable step that has now been taken to release them from that danger. I would have thought that the reassurance which hon. Members could bring to several groups in their constituencies would be of prime importance, and that the extent of our economic recovery would also have been a matter of reassurance to people who have been anxious about the problems of unemployment in certain parts of the country and the extent of our economic malaise.
255 Hon. Members, now shortly to be released from this House, could convey to their constituents the fact that their fears were misconceived, that the policy of the Government has been admirably successful, and that there are great opportunities, particularly for exporters, in the future. In view of all those factors I should have thought that it would be most important that hon. Members should be released at the earliest date.

§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) speaks with his tongue in his cheek. It is something that he does very frequently. It makes his contributions no less attractive, but he will not mind if we do not take them as seriously as others less well equipped might do—because we know that he does not mean them.
My hon. Friends have raised a number of important questions. The question of the TSR2, about which considerable doubt has been expressed, is a matter on which the Government should say something further before we rise. We cannot be blamed for being suspicious, in view of what has happened on previous occasions when expensive Government projects which have been boosted to the skies and lauded as the latest achievements of a beneficent Administration have been abandoned as soon as Parliament has gone into recess. I understand that the TSR2 has cost about £200 million. Doubts have been cast on the question whether the project will continue. It will be reprehensible if the Government were to allow Parliament to depart and then to make an announcement, during our absence, knowing that they cannot be challenged.
My hon. Friends have raised the questions of Malta, Malaysia, the Denning report and housing, and all these show the difficulties of our unfinished business. I want to mention something else. The hon. Member for Barry spoke of our economic recovery. I hope that he is not speaking too soon. We have had a lamentable year this year in relation to unemployment. Thank goodness, it is lower this month that it has been for some time, although still higher than it was twelve months ago, but I forecast that we have seen the lowest level of unemployment this year, and that it is 256 highly likely that the unemployment figure will continue to rise over the next few months [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall see.
My view is that we have touched the trough of unemployment, and I see nothing in the supine approach of the Government to make me believe we are likely to have a lower unemployment figure than at present. I think that we shall be confronted with economic difficulties. We shall find that the hard core of unemployment which exists in certain areas of England and Wales, as well as Scotland, will persist, despite whatever efforts the Government say they are making.
Nevertheless, on balance, I advise my hon. Friends not to oppose the Motion. I will explain why. My hon. Friends are incorrigible optimists. After twelve years of "this lot" they still expect to get some satisfaction out of the presence of Ministers on the Government Front Bench. For all the good they do they might as well not be there. I only hope that they will desert their Departments and go away for a long holiday, because the mischief that they have done to this country's economy and social purpose over the last twelve years is of such a character that it is far better that they should leave the job alone altogether. If they will not go away for good, as the country wishes them to do, at least let them have the longest possible holiday away from interfering with their Departments.
I can conceive of nothing better. My hon. Friends are indefatigable in their enthusiasm, but I fear that they will not get any more satisfaction out of the Government during the coming weeks than they have got during the last twelve years. This group of Ministers are supine in their indifference, wrapped in complacency and soporific with sleep—absolutely sodden. I am told that the Derby winner was drugged or doped. I wish that the lot opposite had been doped. They might have moved a little faster then.
I must beware of the Leader of the House. I know that he is regarded as an excellent tipster. But it was not a racehorse that he tipped last time; he tipped Leicester City to win the Cup. He went on to say that he was an excellent tipster, but when I see his name on a Motion proposing that we should adjourn until 257 Thursday. 24th October, my first thought is that we shall adjourn to quite a different date. He has been proved consistently wrong with his tips, and I find myself wondering whether we shall be here on 24th October. I express the view now that when the Leader of the House tells us that there is not to be an election this year we ought to watch the situation very carefully in case there is one. Nothing makes me more suspicious than when the Leader of the House starts giving tips of that character.
I do not wish to dash the enthusiasm of my hon. Friends any more than is necessary, but I do not wish them to be persistently disappointed by the inadequate quality of Ministerial replies. I could not advise them to oppose the Motion. On the whole, they will find more solace in mixing with their constituents and hearing what they have to say about this group of Ministers—which will provide them with even more scorpions and whips than they have at present with which to beat the Government if they dare to return to face the House after an election.
There is no doubt that the Government are tired and supine, and that the country wishes them gone. We cannot get rid of them until they wish to go. I thank heaven that the five-year Parliament Act was never changed to a seven-year Parliament Act. We know that they will be gone almost for a certainty this time next year. They cannot go too soon.
Meanwhile, I suggest to my hon. Friends that Ministers should not be encouraged to do any more damage either to our democratic institutions or to this country's policy by interfering with their Departments any longer than is necessary. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends not to oppose the Motion.

§ Mr. Iain Macleod
I shall reply to the serious points which have been made, which do not include the points made in the last speech. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-east (Mr. Callaghan) must be getting a little worried about what he has read about the short list that is being prepared for him in Cardiff, South-east.

§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucester, West)
That was a "no ball".

§ Mr. Callaghan
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he has only just started, but as he has ventured to mention the matter, I would remind him that he never replied to the challenge that I issued after he told us that the Conservatives would win Cardiff, South-East at the next election, when I invited him to contest the seat against me. Would he like to take up that challenge now? If so, I shall gladly take him up on it.

§ Mr. Macleod
Of course not—for the simple reason that if I tried to contest all the seats that the Tories have succeeded in winning during the last twelve years, and will succeed in winning during the next twelve years, I would be fighting elections weekly.
I wish to make two general points before considering the important points which various hon. Members have put to me. First, the length of this suggested Recess is 82 days, which is in accordance with the precedents which go back for a number of years. That is to say, it is in the bracket of the precedents. Secondly, Standing Order No. 112, which is always quoted on these occasions, makes it possible that whenever the House stands adjourned, if I may quote the words, …and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires… an earlier meeting can be arranged.
Of course, we give an undertaking, as I have given before when replying to debates such as this, that we would consider representations, not only from the Opposition Front Bench but from any hon. Member of the House.
Taking it slightly out of order in relation to my speech, because it relates to the Standing Order No. 112, I wish to refer to the second point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He said that an undertaking in relation to Standing Order No. 112 related to a dangerous situation in international affairs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows there is nothing about that in the Order, and that any situation regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant the reassembly of the House at a date earlier than that proposed could be covered, whether it dealt with foreign affairs, Commonwealth affairs or domestic affairs.

§ Mr. Mendelson
If the right hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that I gave that merely as one example.

§ Mr. Macleod
I understand that. But I make the point that it is in no way limited.
Both the hon. Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) referred to matters partly related to the Milner Holland Committee and partly to the debate that we had a short time ago. I assure them we all share their anxiety about some of the revolting disclosures. They are not new. We have known about them for years. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I believe that he would be almost the first person to stamp on any form of McCarthyism, and that he really ought not to say that the Government do not propose to take action because, in effect, some of the "paymasters" of the Conservative Party might be involved. That is the language of McCarthyism and it ought not to be used in this House.

§ Mr. Swingler
May I say to the Leader of the House—I take his comment—that I said that if the Government refuse, without proper reason being given—the right hon. Gentleman says that there is abundant evidence available to establish an investigation into these affairs—to hold an inquiry, the Government will spread the suspicion that they have something to conceal. That is what I said. It is up to the Government. If we accept that the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is evidence to be investigated—we all think that there is—will not he ask the Board of Trade to establish the inquiry necessary? That is all that I am asking.

§ Mr. Macleod
Because we may differ about remedies, it does not mean that an hon. Member is entitled to use the sort of language which the hon. Member used.
In the recent debate hon. Members opposite put forward with great fervour views that centred, for example, on the proposition that the Rent Acts should be repealed. We do not hold that view. We argued—I think with considerable cogency—that we believed that the remedy lies in the provision of more 260 housing—I am sure that that is the best of all remedies; in the survey of Sir Edward Milner Holland—I cannot yet give the names of those who will serve on the Committee, although they will be given at the earliest date; in the improvement of older property, and in making sure—as the Minister urged local authorities—that full use is made of the 1961 Housing Act. Those powers are helpful in the control of multi-occupation.

§ Mr. Swingler
The Leader of the House has said that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make an announcement as soon as possible. Can he say that his right hon. Friend will make an announcement at a time to enable us to have the opportunity to put Questions to him about housing before the House adjourns on Friday?

§ Mr. Macleod
I cannot give that undertaking, for an obvious reason.
Having had a great deal of experience of forming committees and inviting people to serve upon them, I know that one cannot always rely on getting those people, because they may be occupied in other affairs or unable to find the additional time which would be necessary. It may not be possible to do this in time. But I say to both hon. Members that we wish to have the full Milner Holland Committee set up as swifty as we possibly can and that if there is any information about that which could be given to the House by my right hon. Friend before the House rises, it will be given.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred, almost in the form of continued supplementary questions to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, to the future of the TSR2. I would rather not deal with that myself. But I will get in touch with the Minister of Defence tomorrow to see whether—probably in his speech—an answer can be given to the points which were raised by both hon. Gentlemen.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) raised the question of Malaysia. The Malaysia Bill went through the House with a considerable welcome, but—it is a fair point to make—with one or two warning noises, such as occurred today. In relation to the United Nations 261 and this matter, as the hon. Member knows very well, Mr. Narasimhan, representing the Secretary-General visited this area in I think, February of this year. Here, there is no question of the sort of situation arising in respect of which it has become normal for the United Nations specially to interest itself; that is to say, either a breakdown of law and order or a threat to peace.
I do not believe that anybody seriously suggests that the formation of Malaysia—to which we would wish to send our very best wishes—carries either of those dangers. But we are completely in touch with the Secretary-General on these matters and I will also see that the points made today by the hon. Member are conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
On the question of Malta, raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the difficulty is that the conference is still going on as the hon. Lady very well knows. I have had a lot of experience of being in the chair at conferences relating to Colonial Territories, and when the hon. Lady says that the conference is running into difficulties I can reply that I cannot remember a conference that did not. Perhaps we should not be too disappointed about that; it always happens. There is a measure of agreement, and it is quite right to say that there is a considerable measure of disagreement as well. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is trying to hammer that out. If the conference ends in time for a statement to be made, them one can be made.
I take the hon. Lady's point about elections. I have been familiar with this point for some time and also with the attitude of the Malta Labour Party to it. However, I have never thought it wise to shout to the man at the wheel. This conference is still going on and, with my right hon. Friend chairing it, I think that the House would be well advised to leave the matter in that way.

§ Mrs. Castle
Does that mean that if the talks are still going on on, say, Thursday, we shall not get a statement? Could not we have an interim statement from his right hon. Friend before the House rises?

§ Mr. Macleod
It would be wrong for this House to go on sitting from day to day just on the chance that on one of those days it would be appropriate to make a statement. That would be absurd.
As to whether any interim statement could be made, I will put that to my right hon. Friend, although I am fairly confident that his answer would be against it. As one can never tell about these things—conferences are fluid things, particularly this sort of conference—I am sure that it would be wrong to make an interim statement to the House unless a clearly defined point of either agreement or disagreement had been reached.

§ Mrs. Castle
Could the Leader of the House at any rate give us an assurance—and surely this is a reasonable and fair question to ask—that an irrevocable step will not be taken in relation to constitutional developments in Malta until this House has had an opportunity to discuss the matter?

§ Mr. Macleod
No irrevocable steps in that sense can ever be taken because a Bill such as an independence Bill must come before the House. It would be wrong to try to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State in dealing with a conference of this nature.
I have answered one of the two points put by the hon. Member for Penistone. The other point he made was something of a supplementary to the question asked about the Denning report. I do not think, with respect, that the hon. Member will expect me to put a gloss on the words of the Prime Minister. The procedure in these matters is clearly defined and understood. As the Prime Minister said, security is a matter that is not very easy to define. He said that he did not believe that there would be any difficulty, nor do I, in the discussions taking place with the Leader of the Opposition—as they have done before on a number of occasions—nor did he believe that there would be any difficulty in reaching an appropriate agreement.
An echo of the Welsh debate came from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who spoke briefly in the debate yesterday. Regarding the points he made in that debate about unemployment, I hope that he will agree, even if he did not accept it all 263 that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave a cogent answer at the end of yesterday's debate. Naturally, his other main point about the Local Government Boundary Commission was somewhat out with the scope of my hon. Friend's speech, but I will see that he is sent a separate answer about that by the Minister.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
Can the Leader of the House give me an assurance that during the Recess no decision will be taken on any proposals following any recommendations that the Local Boundary Commission for Wales may make to the Government until Parliament reassembles and can have an opportunity of discussing such matters on the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Macleod
Such matters can always be brought to the Floor of the House. I do not know of any such proposals and, therefore, I think that the Opposition are safeguarded from the point of view that the hon. Member has in mind. I would not think it right to give an assurance which might have the effect of holding up altogether action by the Minister.

§ Mr. S. O. Davies
The right hon. Gentleman's last few words can only be construed as a threat to the people of Wales. Will he be explicit and give an assurance that whatever recommendations may be made—and we have more than a suspicion about them—they will not be ratified until the House meets again after the Recess?

§ Mr. Macleod
I cannot be wholly explicit on a matter which concerns one of my right hon. Friend's Departments. 264 I will see that a letter is sent to him today on this matter, although I do not believe that the hon. Member's concern is, on the whole, soundly based.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was the only hon. Member, at any rate vocally, who supported the Motion.

§ Mr. Callaghan
And now he has left the Chamber.

§ Mr. Macleod
Perhaps he has started his holiday. Incidentally, it seems odd that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not present while we are having one of these debates, though I gather that he is in another place.

§ Mr. Lipton
Oh, no.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Macleod
All hon. Members know what I mean.
I recall the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne saying that we always have these debates. "We always oppose these Motions, but we would be horrified if our opposition succeeded," he said, in effect. I believe that to be a sound doctrine and I hope, having done my best to answer the questions put to me and having given an assurance on certain other matters—such as the Welsh point, on which an answer will be sent as soon as possible, in the next 24 hours from the Ministry concerned—the House will agree to accept the Motion.