ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS) (Hansard, 15 December 1965)

§ Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)
I suggest to the House that we are now facing one of the most dangerous crises, both national and international, since the Christmas of 1938. I therefore suggest that we should be very cautious about adjourning to 25th January. It is against the background of our economic difficulties at home, the running down of our Forces, and the fact that our major ally is engaged in a seemingly unending war in Vietnam, that I think that we should consider the potential dangers of the situation in Central Africa. I suggest that during the Recess we might well pass the point of no return and that when the House reassembles we might find ourselves so far along the road to a shooting war in Central Africa that it would be impossible to retrace our steps.
I should like three assurances from the Government before supporting the Motion. The first concerns oil sanctions. There has been a supposition in the Press supported on the wireless last night and this morning that the Prime Minister, when he goes to the United Nations, will agree to mandatory oil sanctions. There have also been reports of a possible blockade of the port of Beira in order to enforce these sanctions. This could be regarded by the Portuguese as an act of war. [Interruption.] The military blockade of a foreign port has always been accepted in the past to be an act of war.
Secondly, there is the possibility during the Recess of United Nations intervention in Zambia. It is reported this morning that Zambian representatives are visiting both Washington and Moscow in order to discuss such intervention.
Thirdly, the increased pressure from the Afro-Asian nations on Britain may well lead to the despatch of British troops into Rhodesia to "protect"—I say that word in inverted commas—the southern part of the Kariba Dam.
I submit that all these three matters could well involve us in a shooting war and that this could happen during the 1268 Recess, and that it would be difficult to support this Motion unless we have a commitment from the Government that the House will be recalled in any of these three eventualities. So far we have merely had a statement from the Government that they do not propose in any circumstances, as I understand it, to talk to Mr. Smith or to any members of his Cabinet. Because of Afro-Asian pressures the whole situation in Rhodesia has escalated from the deprivation of the advantages enjoyed by members of the Commonwealth to a full economic blockade. I believe these same pressures could cause a further escalation and bring about the three dangers to which I have referred.
I hope that the Government will be able to give us a categorical assurance that neither oil sanctions, nor the movement of British troops into Rhodesia, nor United Nations intervention in Zambia, will be undertaken during the Recess. I should like a firm undertaking that if they consider that any of these three matters are necessary they will recall Parliament.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
On a point of order. Is it in order, on this simple Motion to adjourn for the Christmas Recess in recognition of a Christian festival, for the hon. Gentleman to seize the opportunity to review all these matters?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished Parliamentarian of many years' experience, must know that this is not such a very simple Motion. If the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) goes out of order, I shall call him to order.

§ Mr. Wall
I think I have made my point clear to the House. I hope that we shall be able to receive assurances from the Government on these three specific issues.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
Most of us who rise on these occasions do so feeling that they have something of a tongue in their cheeks and they are a little conscious of a feeling of dishonesty about it. I shall be happy to leave this place. I shall welcome a holiday. However, I have sought over some years to introduce Measures for the benefit of 1269 the suffering people of Oldham, people of Oldham who suffer from industrial disease, people of Oldham who are being victimised by a Welfare State system which seems to me to have now reached the stage of being a colossal swindle. Most of them are being compelled to pay very much more and they are getting very much less than they are entitled to under the contributions. Anyone who looks at the figures cannot doubt that. Under the management of hon. Members opposite we lost something like 10 per cent. of the value of the accumulated fund by faulty investment. One hundred million £s went on the National Insurance Fund. Ten million £s went on the industrial injuries Fund. Industrial injuries are really getting worse and worse.
I do not want to use words of a pejorative nature. I remember that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance used to speak with passion about the suffering of people with lung disease. In those days there were coal mines in her constituency and she was very deeply concerned about pneumoconiosis, of which I personally have a certain practical knowledge. Some of us have seen what is happening in Oldham. With £100 million in the fund, one full-time pension was granted last year to one sufferer from byssinosis in the whole of England and more applications are being made this year for review than have ever been made in history. I am trying to put it moderately. I am trying to put it uncontroversially.
Two or three years ago the Tory Whips objected to this Measure. I should not like to express myself about this in the sort of terms I would normally use in conversation, because they would invite your reprehension, Mr. Speaker. I went on the wireless and expressed my views. Last year the Labour Whips objected to this Measure—[Interruption.]—rather more decorously, I thought. Then I was subjected to a piece of psycho-drama. When they withdrew their objection; when indeed I—innocent; simple; the sort of good-natured ass that I am—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should pursue the history of the Measure he is seeking to advocate. He must link his argument to why we should not meet as late as 25th January.

§ Mr. Hale
I appreciate your rebuke, of course, Mr. Speaker. I had it in mind to recall the words—I hope that this is not disrespectful—of an even more well-known Horace: "Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci Lectorem…"— perhaps I might substitute the word "auditorem"— …delectando pariterque monendo

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. For the benefit of the House, and to avoid any ambiguity or suggestion of undue familiarity with the Chair, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will translate the passage from the Latin poet.

§ Mr. Hale
You compel me, Sir, to immodesty, because, paraphrasing it, Horace said that he preferred to please his audience at the same time as instructing them, and I had not myself wished to put that into English. He also said, Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio that is to say, he was unhappy when he tried to be brief because that was the moment when he became expansive.
I return to the question of byssinosis and the end of that unhappy story. I make no criticism whatever of the Labour Whips—on the whole, I think that we have had the best Whips I have ever known, though that is not saying much—but I was told that there was not time, that I was faulty in my timing and it was too late to get the Measure through. I was told that there was the judges' salaries Measure which had to be got through ready for 1st April next year, which has not yet arrived, and there was something about tinned salmon in which an hon. Gentleman opposite was interested but to whose Bill, in a moment of passion, I had unfortunately objected. I have since regretted this manifestation of opposition. But the salmon Measure had to be got through because a Minister approved of it. My byssinosis Measure could not be got through—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not now detail the Measures which have gone through. He must direct his argument to the one he wants to have passed.

§ Mr. Hale
I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Had I had your guidance earlier to keep me on the strait and narrow path, I might have got further 1271 than I did. I was tempted into diversion, and this has prevented me from making the progress which I might have made.
I was making, clearly and briefly, I hope, the point that, if there is no time under the present arrangements for dealing with the byssinosis Bill, we ought to consider taking time out of the proposed Recess for that purpose. My Bill in Committee took exactly six minutes. Four and a half minutes were taken by the junior Minister who wanted to explain that there was a free vote, as I had already got everyone in the Committee in my favour, and one and a half minutes were taken by me in moving a vote of thanks to the Chair. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to say that the concluding stages might have been got through in ten minutes. I say at once to hon. Members opposite, despite their reactionary views on general matters, that they were extremely helpful in this case. Those of them who did not like the Bill agreed to stay away. So we had what one could call virtual Parliamentary unanimity.
Half an hour would do it. Two hours would do it. Half a day would do it. We are now talking about adjourning for five weeks. Could not we adjourn for half a day less and let something be done for the people of Oldham who are genuinely suffering and genuinely being swindled, and who are very unhappy about their treatment by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? They feel—again I express it diminuendo—that they have not seen in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—even the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) need not look pleased about it because this is the first compliment I have ever paid to him—a Minister under this Government who understands their problem. I do not think that, in the long list of Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance, the present Minister stands out, and I do not at the moment feel that her Ministry is justifying the confidence which the House has reposed in it. I put it to the House, therefore, now that we are considering whether it is necessary to adjourn for 35 days, that we could make it 34 and pass the byssinosis Bill.

§ Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)
I want an undertaking from the Leader of the House concerning the situation in Vietnam. I realise that there is to be a foreign affairs debate next week, but there is in Vietnam now the danger that the United States forces may decide to take stronger military action which would, I believe, have unfortunate effects on neighbouring countries. Should the situation in Vietnam deteriorate to such an extent that it became obvious—it is not yet obvious to all hon. Members or to the country, perhaps, because not sufficient has been reported in the Press—that the United States Government had to make a further major military commitment in Vietnam and felt obliged to take action against targets in the city of Hanoi, the Government ought not to hesitate, in those serious circumstances, to seek to recall the House.

§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
In the normal course of events, I should agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and, like him, look forward to the Christmas Recess. But there is a strong case for a more careful definition of some of the more serious aspects of Government policy before we can agree to pass the Motion. Seldom before has the House had to contemplate a Motion of this kind at a time of greater uncertainty in many aspects of policy at home and abroad. There is great uncertainty in matters of foreign policy, defence and economic affairs. One thinks particularly, of course, of the uncertainty prevailing about Central Africa to which my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred.
Those of us on this side who have given a generous measure of support to the Government in their policies regarding Rhodesia have felt nevertheless a growing anxiety at the lack of definition of the Government's aims. I trust that the Lord President has carefully considered the important article on this subject in today's issue of The Times. The situation is really—

§ Mr. Speaker
A general criticism or indictment of Government policy is possible at most times, but not on this Motion. The hon. Gentleman must link 1273 his remarks to the question whether we should break up until the date mentioned in the Motion.

§ Mr. Gower
I am not making a general indictment, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing that, before we take the serious step of agreeing to the prolonged Recess proposed, we should have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Government will, during the remaining days before the House rises, arrange for a careful re-examination and re-definition of the Government's aims regarding the state of affairs in Central Africa. I am not saying that we shall disagree with those aims, but we want to know what they are before we adjourn. Further, the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that, if there is any marked change in Government policy during the Recess, the House will be recalled.
The Lord President cannot deny that there have been changes of policy since we first debated the problem of Central Africa. There has been a change of emphasis. We started off relatively united as a House in taking, perhaps, minor steps, but they have gradually become more arid more like a sledgehammer, and we do not know where they will end. We do not know what the consequences may be. We have given the Government general support, and we hope to be able to continue to give that support, but we cannot do it in a vacuum. I hope, therefore, that the Lord President will give us the assurances for which I ask.

§ Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said that hon. Members who speak on this Motion sometimes do so with tongue in cheek. That may or may not be so. However the case may be for him, there is no doubt about the effectiveness of his tongue. If we could listen to speeches every day like the one that he has just delivered, it would be easier to stay for longer hours in this House than we are required to do at the moment.
I want to say something in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I believe that the crisis in Rhodesia is developing and changing daily. I am sure that everyone, whatever his 1274 views, would agree that the risks are great and will increase during the Recess. Although we have allowed the Government wide powers under the Southern Rhodesia Act, it is nevertheless the duty of the House to examine every Measure brought before it under those general powers. A mistake, particularly as the crisis develops, could be fatal to the happiness and future of all the peoples of Central Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice made it plain that two specific risks could present themselves. The first is on the question of oil sanctions, which it is clear that the Prime Minister must and will discuss in New York and, indeed, policy will be forming now about it. Secondly, there is the talk—happily not from the Government Benches—of the use of force.
In other words, we are dealing with a situation escalating dangerously. It is clear that we would not be doing our duty as a House if we did not at least make a serious attempt to get an assurance from the Government on these two specific points or on any other major changes of policy and to seek also from the Government an undertaking not to bring such changes about or to introduce any other sanctions while the House is in Recess.

§ Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bear in mind the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the reform of the Estimates Committee? Does he recall that the minority view was expressed in the Report to the effect that we might consider emulating the example of the Canadian Parliament, which is about to have sittings of specialist committees which can investigate major matters concerning supply when the Hause as a whole is in Recess? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we could examine this system for future reference?

§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call the next speaker, I would remind the House that there are important matters upon the Order Paper for today. Mr. Eldon Griffiths.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
Following your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not being discourteous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I was rebuking him.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply wish to observe that there is an extraordinary discrepancy between what we hear from the Leader of the House each week during questions on business—when he says, in effect, to hon. Members who want certain legislation or have speeches to make on constituency matters that they cannot be heard by the House because there is no time—and this Motion in which the Government propose that we should leave the House for 35 days.
I understand and appreciate the Government's desire to be free perhaps from the need to come to the House to answer questions. Ministers may well need a rest more than do other right hon. and hon. Members. But surely the Leader of the House will have some regard to the reforms which are not undertaken and to the arguments of hon. Members on both sides that are not heard because there is no time. Surely it is right that, instead of going away for 35 days, the right hon. Gentleman should consider 33 days or 32 days. Would not that be sufficiently long for Ministers to have a rest and for hon. Members to visit their constituencies?
I would also support the arguments put by my hon. Friends on the subject of Vietnam, where escalation is a real danger, on Rhodesia, where events may not any longer be under control, and on the domestic economic situation, in which, as far as I can see, the Government are not in command.
In view of the Vietnam situation, it is wrong that the Foreign Secretary should not have the advice of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to conduct his policy on Vietnam during this period unless he has the benefit of the hon. Member for Ashfield's advice, together with that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Equally, on the subject of economic policy, I feel that the Chan- 1276 cellor of the Exchequer must have the advice of all the various gradations of opinion within his own party. He might feel lost without that assistance.
I urge the Leader of the House not to deprive Ministers for 35 days of the counsel that they could get from their own side. They should not be deprived, either, of the wisdom they would so frequently be offered by my right hon. Friends, in particular on the economic situation. As I recall it, if they had not had the advice of my right hon. Friends, the country would have been in an even worse condition. It is for these reasons that I ask the Leader of the House to think again and perhaps send us away for a little less time than he proposes.

§ Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness)
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not be influenced by the sheer undiluted nonsense we are listening to now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am directing my observations to hon. Members opposite and I want to put them quite clearly. All of us are conscious of the pressing problems at home and abroad, but it is a little nauseating that hon. Members opposite should take this attitude when they did not have the courage to vote against the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order last night.
Their attitude is sheer poppycock. If they want to challenge the issue and are so troubled about what is happening in Rhodesia and elsewhere, let them take this Motion to a vote. Let them also say when they would like to come back. On New Year's Eve?

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
I know that there is very important business to be discussed this afternoon, but I want to make one simple point which seems to me to be an effective answer to those hon. Members who object to the length of the Recess. They can remain in London, in England, instead of going off to the Caribbean. By doing so, they will be at the beck and call of the Government should they recall Parliament at a moment's notice. That is the complete answer to those hon. Members who object to the Motion.

§ Mr. Julian Amery (Preston, North)
I apologise for keeping the House from its main business for a few moments longer, but I share the anxiety of many of my hon. Friends that we should be asked to go into Recess for so long at a time when the Rhodesian crisis is deepening in the way it is.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred to certain health problems. This morning, I was advised by a doctor of great repute, who recently visited Salisbury, that we have cut off United Kingdom aid and treatment which was being given to 75 cases of spinal tuberculosis in Salisbury—all of the patients, incidentally, being African. I am also told that the World Health Organisation, of which Britain is a member, has suspended its anti-malarial activities in Rhodesia. I cite this as a symptom of a depening crisis. It is not the only symptom. Political warfare from Zambia, which we are now protecting with the Royal Air Force, has been considerably stepped up. I want to give two very short quotations to the House from a transcript which I have received, monitoring a Zambia Radio broadcast in African dialect to Rhodesia. The broadcast says: I say to you, as you are aware, the whole country is full of telephone wires and electricity cables and is full of similar things. From today all these things must be cut, the telephone wires must be cut, the electricity cables must be cut. The broadcast goes on: We say that all travelling vehicles must be stoned"——

§ Mr. Snow
On a point of order. Is one entitled to ask the source of the information given by the right hon. Gentleman?

§ Mr. Amery
I can give that. The broadcast goes on to say: We say that all travelling vehicles"——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) was asking courteously for the source of the quotation.

§ Mr. Amery
The source is that it was broadcast over Zambia Radio at 11.45 a.m., Friday 26th November, 1965. It goes on to say: 1278 We say that all travelling vehicles must be stoned, must be hit with whatever you have in your hands, and to the people who are inside do what you are able to do, as you would squash a fly or a louse in your hand, do these things. I cite these as evidence of how serious the situation is. As we consider the question of whether the House should separate next week for 35 days or more, I think that we have to consider not just our opinions as to how serious this crisis is, but we have to look at the views of the most unbiased judges we can find. I was very struck last weekend when two very distinguished Rhodesians, known to be political opponents of Mr. Smith, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead, said, in important articles in the Press of this country, that they thought that disaster lay ahead within a few weeks. I understand that one of those gentlemen, in a private conversation, has talked of a second Boer War if we do not settle matters within a few weeks.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), with his very great experience in these matters, in his speech at Glasgow two days ago, also spoke of the great urgency of reaching a settlement before things go too far, before there is either racial war or before sanctions have proved to be a total fiasco and rebellion triumphs. It is very important that we should not under-estimate the gravity of the situation and what is going to happen in the next few weeks. I align myself solidly behind the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, and if the Government's policy were in line with what he said I would not feel the same anxiety as I do. But I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his statements to the House on Friday, made it clear that his policy was one of settling the Rhodesian business on terms of the unconditional surrender of the Rhodesian Front Government and Parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that we will be wise to separate if this is the Government's policy.
There are three specific question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council before we move to the next business. There has been a great deal of talk in the Press about the imposition of a mandatory oil embargo, and I should like an assurance from him that nothing of this 1279 kind will be done without an opportunity of debate in this House. I cannot insist that the Government should follow my advice as to what should be done, but I can ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that no action of this kind will be brought forward without consulting Parliament.
There is likewise continuing pressure that either a British or Commonwealth Force should be sent to the Rhodesian side of the Zambesi, where the Kariba power installations are situated. Here again I would like an assurance that there is no question of such action being countenanced by the Government, at any rate, until the matter has been brought for discussion before the House. More generally, I would like an assurance that any major new steps, any further tightening of the sanctions, will not be brought forward, and will not be accepted by the Government without first of all recalling the House and consulting Members.

§ Mr. Peter Bessell (Bodmin)
While it is true that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this bench would find ourselves differing, to some extent, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) on the subject of Rhodesia, the force of his argument cannot be denied. Both in Washington and throughout the world the Rhodesian crisis is regarded as a very serious threat to world peace. While we have done all in our power to support the Government, we have not given them an open cheque. It would be quite wrong for major measures to be taken, such as oil sanctions or any other steps, even though we might be able to support them, without the House of Commons being able to debate them.
In view of the nature of this crisis, and in view of the effect that it is having upon world opinion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council to consider seriously whether it is right, whether it will add support to the Government's case throughout the world, and whether it will have the support of the nation, for this House to go on a 35-day holiday.

§ Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)
My hon. and right hon. Friends have raised 1280 a number of very important points. There are clearly signs of deterioration both at home and abroad. There are the problems of Vietnam, Rhodesia and the state of the economy. All of these points have been very well and rightly taken. I would ask the Lord President of the Council if he will deal with the question of oil sanctions. I understand that there is some possibility of a statement being made this week in the United Nations. Will there be a statement made to this House next week, before we rise? There will be plenty of time to make such a statement. Secondly, will the Lord President give an undertaking that no major change in the vital question of our attitude to Rhodesia will be made without a recall of this House?

§ Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)
I would like to raise a new point. We have all been shocked and grieved by the death of a number of our Members. We do not know, but it may be that these deaths, or some of them, were caused by the strenuousness of the Parliamentary sittings. I, and many other Members have no wish at present to die for our country. I want to live for it, and in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Lord President said recently that there is no way that he could see of obviating all-night sittings such as occur in the summer, would he consider whether adjourning for three weeks instead of five, and saving ten full Parliamentary days, might get over this difficulty and obviate these late-night sittings in the summer months?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden)
May I first of all correct what seems to be a wrong impression in the House, namely that this is an unduly long Recess. It is not. It is the average length for a Christmas Recess. The Government feel that it is important for the length of this Recess to continue, while it may be necessary later on, at Easter and Whitsun, to shorten the normal Recesses. To meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), there would be little point in the House sitting during January, when we should normally be away on recess, unless we had the Finance Bill in front of us, which we should not have at that time.
1281 This has been an important debate, and serious matters have been raised. There is no doubt that we are going away for the Christmas Recess when the position in Central Africa and South-East Asia is extremely serious. The situation is changing almost daily and it is absolutely right that there should be every facility for the House to be recalled if necessary, even before Christmas, or immediately afterwards, to deal with any situation which may arise. Provision already exists for this as the House is aware. This is not the first occasion in our history that the House has gone away when there has been a crisis in front of us.
I would remind the House that under Standing Order No. 117 a Minister of the Crown, on representation to you, Mr. Speaker, can ask for your authority to recall the House at any time during the Recess. Ministers of the Crown of all Governments have always made themselves available to representations through the official Opposition, or unofficial Opposition, or private back bench Members on these occasions. I have no doubt that that would be done again. What it would be impossible for me to do—no Government would do it—would be to give a firm assurance this afternoon that the House would be recalled before any Government action was taken in any sphere.
The Government must be responsible for governing, and will be so. But we know from experience, both in opposition and in government, that the Opposition are in close touch with the Government and that discussions take place. No. 10, Downing Street is always available to them. It was when we were in opposition; it is now when we are in government. It is impossible to give a firm undertaking that no action will be taken unless the House is recalled.

§ Mr. Gower
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that nobody on this side of the House suggested that any Government action should be the signal for the recall of Parliament? What was suggested was that any major change in policy should be the signal for recall.

§ Mr. Bowden
If any major change in Government policy were imminent, it would certainly be obvious to the Opposition, who would immediately get in touch with the Prime Minister and ask for the recall of Parliament. This has 1282 been done before. I have had the experience of asking for the recall of Parliament, and of having had it refused. But there is no doubt that there is the opportunity to ask for it.

§ Mr. Maudling
The right hon. Gentleman said that if any major change of Government policy were impending it would be obvious to the Opposition. That does not follow. That is laying the responsibility on the Opposition to ask for the recall of the House. That is surely the responsibility not of the Opposition but of the Government. The point put to the right hon. Gentleman was that if the Government proposed a major change of policy on the question of Rhodesia, which is of fundamental and vital importance, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to recall Parliament.

§ Mr. Bowden
If any major change takes place in our policy on Rhodesia, it will have to be a Government decision and a Government action. I think that it would be obvious, through all the normal procedures of the Press, that such action had been taken. But, as has happened time and again, particularly on the Central Africa issue, the Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the Opposition to see him, and he has done so. I have no doubt that this will continue to be the way in which the situation is handled.
We all hope very sincerely that nothing will happen between the adjournment and the return of the House which will necessitate recalling the House. On the other hand, we should face the fact that the situation in Rhodesia is changing, and it may be that as a result of the action already taken, while the problem will not have been solved, the illegal régime in Rhodesia will have come to an end by the time that we return.
I should like to refer briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said. It is appropriate, in this season of the year, that he should draw the attention of the House to the aged and sick and particularly people who are suffering from diseases like byssinosis. The Government have a pretty good record in this field in the last and current session of Parliament. We have just passed a Bill which will give increased rates of workmen's compensation to those excluded under the 1948 Act. This is a continuing process. I 1283 am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill did not get a Third Reading and the Royal Assent. However, the Government provide 20 full days and four half days a year for Private Members' Time. This should be compared with the 56 days which any Government have for legislation. This is not a bad balance.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that the Government are serious when I say that we will watch the situation very carefully during the Recess. I hope that it will not be necessary to recall the House, but if it is necessary because of changes in Central Africa or South-East Asia we shall not hesitate to do so. However, I hope that the House will accept the Motion and that we can proceed with the business.