EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL (Hansard, 10 November 1970)

§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)
The House is faced with a very odd Motion here, and it would be fitting for the Patronage Secretary, were he to care to give us his attention for a moment, to indicate its purpose. As I understand it, the Government having committed the Bill to a Standing Committee, now ask that it be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The Patronage Secretary interrupts, though it may be not for me to hear, that it is normal practice but, with respect, I have never heard of the practice before. The Government having 341 committed the Bill to a Standing Committee have now presumably changed their mind—or have they not? Why should they waste the time of the House in this way? I did not ask for the Bill to be committed to a Standing Committee. The Government asked for that, and the obedient, Whipped back-benchers opposite agreed that it should be committed to a Standing Committee. Now, with the same mindless obedience, they are ready to agree that it should be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I sense in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks a breath of objection to the Motion. If he objects to the Motion in any way, I must put it off.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I did not sense anything. All I sensed was that there was a certain insensitivity opposite. I was trying to state the facts as clearly and as objecttively as I could. I thought that it was a reasonable question. Perhaps some of the new hon. Members we have among us will in due course want to ask why the Government Chief Whip should seek to hold them up in this manner by first asking them to walk into the Lobbies, if necessary, to support the committing of the Bill to a Standing Committee and then later, without any argument or speech, with merely the usual bland, friendly smile, completely changing his mind and saying, "No. You were wrong, lads. I misled you last time. I promise you that it is all right now. I want you to agree to the Bill going to a Committee of the whole House".
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is right. I am not expressing objection. I should like to know on which occasion the right hon. Gentleman is right. Is it the first time or is it the second time? [An HON. MEMBER: "Too curious."] I agree that they are the masters now, but even the masters must give some intelligible account of their actions to the House. I hope that no back-bencher opposite would ever allow the Chief Whip to get away with such a change of mind as this without some explanation.
Far be it from me to raise any objection to this procedure. Nothing that I have said could lead anybody to believe that I was objecting to it. The only comment that I propose to make is that, 342 if the Government intend to go on like this—changing their mind at such regular intervals and after such a short time on such questions as whether a Bill should go to a Standing Committee or should be taken on the Floor of the House—how can we expect them to solve any serious problem with which they may be confronted?
Therefore, before I make up my mind whether this is a subject on which objection should be taken, it would fitting if the Patronage Secretary would give an explanation. I have a great deal of respect for the Financial Secretary, but it is not for him to do so, because he has not tabled the Motion. The Financial Secretary should not convert himself into an air-raid shelter because the Patronage Secretary has made a mistake. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is converting himself from the Treasury into an air-raid shelter, I can only say that I have seen very few flimsier structures—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We must come back from the subject of air-raid shelters.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I shall have done my job if I have at least cast some doubts into the minds of back-benchers opposite who may not have noticed what the Motion was about—that the Patronage Secretary made a mistake on the first occasion and now seeks to put it right. I would not want to lead them into the Lobby against him. I think that they should probably support him on this occasion, but I suggest that they keep a jolly close eye on him, because if he can make them walk in two precisely opposite directions in three days on a simple issue like this, heaven knows what will happen to them when they get into really deep waters.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Question is—

§ Mr. Callaghan
Mr. Speaker, I have not quite finished my remarks. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The barrage does not help sane discussion.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Mr. Speaker, as you and I know, it does not tend to shorten proceedings.

§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)
On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to speak twice?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman was of the opinion that I was interrupting him.

§ Mr. Wells
Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman had sat down. It was within the eyesight of us all that he had sat down.

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must rely on Mr. Speaker's eyesight.

§ Mr. Callaghan
If objection of this sort is to be taken, it will be perfectly possible for others beside myself to continue the debate.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am grateful for the help which hon. Members are giving to the Chair. If objection is taken at all, the Motion will be put off.

§ Mr. Callaghan
I thought that I had been very careful in not taking objection so far, but it would be perfectly possible for others to ask questions. All I want to do now is to put a very simple proposition. In order to avoid others of my hon. Friends asking the questions, and pressing them, which I have asked, I suggest that we should have from the air-raid shelter opposite some defence of this change of mind.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)
I am astonished that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) should have forgotten so swiftly what he must have known when he was sitting on this side of the House. He knows that the question of a Bill going to Standing Committee is automatic and that all the business about my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary dragooning his right hon. and hon. Friends into the Lobby 344 on one day and then inviting them to do something else on another day is irrelevant.
This Motion might have been put down on some day last week. In fact, it has been put down tonight, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends are entirely justified in supporting it. The Bill is nominally a Treasury Bill, although the Home Office debates the details. The Committee stage has always been taken on the Floor of the House, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take no exception to that practice, which was regularly followed every year when he and his Government were in office.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)
It is clear from what has been said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that what happened happened per incuriam. Although the Government had not the candour to explain the matter in full to the House, it is clear that they were not on that occasion acting as mindless robots but merely made a mistake.
Contrary to what the Minister said, I believe that this was the first occasion on which the Bill was sent to a Standing Committee. I am sure that no one on this side, looking back into his experience, can recall any other occasion on which that occurred. It happened by mistake. It was a bungle on the Government's part. They have half-apologised. We accept that half-apology for what it is worth.