Mr Iain Macleod: I think the only thing that draws new Members of this House to their feet to take part in these Debates is the sure knowledge that they can rely, as I rely tonight, on the traditional courtesy and kindliness of Members of this House. We are today considering an Amendment which has been put down arising out of Supplementary Estimates amounting to about £148 million. Of that vast sum...
Mr Iain Macleod: Too small perhaps, but I remember reading last year that the Minister of Health stated that he was awaiting information from the Peckham Health Centre to enable him to determine whether he could make a grant under his powers under Section 16. I do not know whether that has been done or not, but I know that on the same day that I read about these Supplementary Health Estimates for nearly £100...
Mr Iain Macleod: asked the Minister of Health whether he will exercise his powers under Section 16 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, to make a grant to the Peckham Health Centre.
Mr Iain Macleod: Whatever the London County Council propose, is the Minister aware that he has a direct responsibility to this House for the encouragement of research? Is he aware that those people best qualified to judge consider that the Peckham experiment was one of the most worthwhile and exciting research experiments in the world?
Mr Iain Macleod: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) with which countries reciprocal arrangements for National Insurance benefits have been made; (2) with what countries negotiations are now taking place with a view to establishing reciprocal arrangements under the National Insurance Scheme.
Mr Iain Macleod: Is the Minister aware that many English women whose husbands lived, for example, in New Zealand and who have returned to spend their widowhood in this country, are not able to draw the benefit to which they are entitled? Will she expedite negotiations. particularly with these Dominions?
Mr Iain Macleod: am glad to follow the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). Indeed, I think I am the eighth Scotsman who has spoken in this Debate, although I sit for an English seat. The hon. Member's speech included some shrewd slaps at the party on these benches, but it also included something else, and I am sure we were very grateful to hear the financial honesty of his argument. I thought it tore...
Mr Iain Macleod: By all means: the hon. Gentleman should tell that to his colleagues. The remedy is not to reduce National Assistance benefits, but to do more for the workers and increase the purchasing power of the £. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want the answer shorter they can have it in two words: " Another Government." We are told that the cost of this will be £81 million, and it may be approaching—and...
Mr Iain Macleod: One of the advantages of this Parliament—which has very few—is that an unspectacular Bill of this nature can obtain a rather higher priority than it could hope to do in normal times. I am told that this Bill is virtually an agreed Measure with the Central Midwives' Board. But the Parliamentary Secretary would be the first to agree, I think, that that in no way detracts from the duty of...
Mr Iain Macleod: I am afraid that I regard the Regulations before the House tonight as a stride, and a long stride, down the road to utility dentistry which the profession has been forced to enter upon in these last two years. When we look at the background of the Regulations, we have, first, the Spens Committee report. Fortunately, that ground has been adequately covered by Members on both sides of the House...
Mr Iain Macleod: Let me conclude, then, by saying this: I believe, as has been said so often, that these Regulations are not setting about this very serious problem in the right way. If we accept the basic fact that there are not enough dentists, and if that was admitted in 1946 by Members opposite, then let us consider the real implications. It merely shows immaturity to suggest a scheme for the whole...
Mr Iain Macleod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still three of four matters of Unionist policy which have not yet been accepted by the benches opposite? Will he therefore accept on behalf of the Government—of course, at a cut rate—any surplus copies of our last election publication on Unionist policy for Scotland?
Mr Iain Macleod: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I am sorry to interrupt, but there is a most important point here which puzzles me very much—this talking about a contradiction in terms. The Motion the hon. Gentleman is proposing invites us to do a certain thing in order that …the public may reap its benefits. Now, as a matter of English construction, the phrase "reap its benefits" refers back to...
Mr Iain Macleod: Just a moment. This is a most important point—
Mr Iain Macleod: The House is entitled to know what it is discussing.
Mr Iain Macleod: I beg to move, in page 57, line 8, after "be" to insert "(a)." I propose, if it is in order, to refer to this and the two following Amendments standing in my own name and those of my hon. Friends, with the exception of the last line of the second Amendment, the reason for which will no doubt become apparent shortly. Those Amendments are in page 57, lines 10 and 19. What I am trying to...
Mr Iain Macleod: The origin of these Amendments was that, on Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends drew attention to this Clause and said that it was without precedent in the exemption which it gave. In fact, they were wrong in saying it was without precedent, but the precedents are confusing and conflicting. These speeches drew a sympathetic echo from the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow),...
Mr Iain Macleod: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should have thought not. This report was put in by the Minister of Fuel and Power, and in the Minutes reported to the House it states why the Bill should stand in its present form. I am seeking to show why the view then held by the Minister is wrong. The report says that this is not a question of granting protection to nationalised industries, but of...
Mr Iain Macleod: I am trying to explain the reasons why the method I offer is superior to the one at present in the Bill. I am sure the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) will understand that that, of course, necessarily involves an explanation of the procedure here put forward as an alternative. I have tried to put before this House, as far as I know them, all the important facts relating to the history and...
Mr Iain Macleod: The position is this. This matter was not raised on the Committee stage of the Wolverhampton Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary recommended the Wolverhampton Bill to this House without reservation on Third Reading. The Wolverhampton Bill has left this House ahead of the South Shields Bill. Why did not the Parliamentary Secretary in all honesty say that he recommended the Bill with the...