I can fully accept that the Government front bench was not in on the conspiracy. Nevertheless, whether there was or was not a conspiracy, by some extraordinary means a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" was avoided, either conveniently or inconveniently. Therefore the House did not have a chance to consider the matter in great detail, although we have since debated some not insubstantial amendments.

It seemed to us right to have a debate on this occasion. We had no general defence from the Government on Second Reading regarding this special impost. In the debate on 9th May we simply had this statement from the Chancellor of the exchequer: It would have been totally wrong in my view if the corporate sector had not been asked to bear some part of the extra burden."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 618.] That, I am sure, is a sentiment with which we can all agree, but it does not answer the important question raised by the right hon. Member for Carshalton, and which I hope we can also raise.

The Chancellor, on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, gave no indication at all of his view of company liquidity. I warned on Second Reading that this was bound to have a considerable effect on employment and investment. The Chief Secretary, however, in a speech to a Financial Times conference on 24th April said: Thus, far from being gloomy as some have suggested, the Budget offers better prospects for industry. He went on: I believe unnecessary alarm has been spread by the much exaggerated comment on the effects of the Budget on the liquidity positions. … Liquid assets of industrial and commercial companies late last year were at very high levels, around £10,000 million … but there is no evidence that so far companies generally are experiencing a liquidity crisis. That was in the past, as are all statements on company profits with which hon. Gentlemen opposite make great play. We have to concern ourselves here with the company liquidity and profitability in the future, and the figure of £10,000 million, which the Chief Secretary mentioned in his speech and which has been bandied about a great deal in speeches on this subject, particularly by Government spokesmen, refers to the end of 1973.

Since then, we have had tough and strict price controls. There have been threshold agreements imposed, causing considerable problems for many companies—much greater problems than anyone expected when the Budget speech was made. There have also been higher national insurance contributions, higher prices in nationalised industries, higher corporation tax and advance corporation tax.

It is now clear that the Chancellor's Budget judgment was wrong. I thought so and said so at the time. It took a wrong view of the effect of the three-day week, as the Chancellor has already admitted, and that was easily done and was totally excusable. What was far less excusable was the Chancellor's wrong judgment on the consequences of the deflationary effect of oil price increases and the turn round in the public sector deficit. I said on Second Reading that together these amounted to a total turn round in the public sector deficit of £4,000 million, which is a fairly colossal figure. The Chancellor's judgment on this proposal was warped by other than strictly economic matters.