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
