Mr Iain Macleod: I would not go as far as that. I have called it "drunken optimism". If everything had conceivably gone right—this is the basis on which the figures were submitted—it would have been just possible for those estimates to have worked. But in the light of the facts as we know them, the figure of Supplementary Estimates is not at all surprising. Exactly the same illustration occurred when the...
Mr Iain Macleod: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks, he would be aware of my view on deflation. I said in categorical terms that there is no case for general reflation. I do not urge that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not believe that there is a case for general reflation. I said—and this is within the recollection of the House—that in some regions, and I identified the Northern Region, there...
Mr Iain Macleod: Purely on a question of fact, when I made that reference from this Box it was in the debate, as the right hon. Gentleman will find, in January on the cuts. That is when I first suggested that the regulator might be used.
Mr Iain Macleod: How much less?
Mr Iain Macleod: Mr. Iain Macleod indicated assent.
Mr Iain Macleod: Will the Chancellor return to the original Question which he was asked by my hon. Friend and which he was asked again in a supplementary question? I understand that he does not want to make a new forecast, and I do not press him on that, but is he still holding to his original forecast of a surplus of £500 million in 1969?
Mr Iain Macleod: Will the Chancellor recognise, particularly as he was not pressed in the matter, that he has a duty to give as much information as he reasonably can to the House. In particular, will he tell the House what drawings, if any, have been made, in view of the fact that it was widely reported in papers such as the Financial Times that about 600 million dollars were drawn straight away?
Mr Iain Macleod: What conclusion does the Minister draw from the fact that this firm is doing very much better since the Prime Minister stopped advising it?
Mr Iain Macleod: As there are many negotiations still ahead, I would not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman today in detail on this matter? Is he aware that the announcement by the Bank and his own statement are disappointingly vague? May I ask three short questions, to see if he can give further information to the House? The right hon. Gentleman referred to a new facility for sterling and told us three...
Mr Iain Macleod: On a point of order. To expedite matters, may I say that, as the Chief Secretary pointed out, we are entirely content with many of the Amendments. They are largely to meet points which we made in Committee, and there are no observations which we wish to make until we reach Amendment No. 293. I wonder whether it would be possible to put the Amendments en bloc. We should be content with that if...
Mr Iain Macleod: Of course they are.
Mr Iain Macleod: I am not at all sure which windmills the hon. Gentleman is tilting at. Neither my right hon. Friends nor I, nor, as far as I know, anyone on this side of the House, has suggested, of all things, that we need a deflationary package for a second time. There may be voices saying this, but they do not include Her Majesty's Opposition.
Mr Iain Macleod: At an appropriate point in what will be a short speech I shall make some reference to the extremely interesting point which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made about unemployment. He knows that I share his anxiety about this matter. The Motion before the House is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time". One is tempted to ask, what Bill? We had to pass a special Motion this...
Mr Iain Macleod: I have two comments to make, which I will relate to Amendment No. 154. I want to express gratitude to the Chief Secretary. In our discussions in Committee this became known as the thalidomide case. The effect of this Amendment, although it is not limited to thalidomide cases, but this was the one most in people's minds, is that the sums awarded in compensation because of injury to the infant...
Mr Iain Macleod: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 10, line 36, after 'infant', insert: 'who has not passed the upper limit of the compulsory school age as defined in section 35 of the Education Act, 1944 or any statutory re-enactment or modification thereof'. We welcome the concession which has just been made and we are also grateful for the undertaking that in the coming year the Chief Secretary will...
Mr Iain Macleod: I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that I regard this as a matter of the utmost seriousness. It is appalling that as we have gone through the Clause and the Schedule hour after hour the only trifling concession that we have wrung from the Chief Secretary is in relation to thalidomide children. What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can find funny in this passes my...
Mr Iain Macleod: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely you would not wish to rule out Amendments which, say, may have been tabled this morning and which would be perfectly proper if they were to come in their ordinary place, say, on Thursday. They would not be starred, but if a new and important point were involved I imagine that the Chair would be willing to consider and alter the list accordingly.
Mr Iain Macleod: I follow the Chancellor only because it will be convenient for the House that the contributions from the Front Bench should be consecutive. This has been an excellent debate. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to it, but I will quite understand if the Chancellor, who, of course, is a busy man, is not able to stay for the whole debate. We are grateful to my hon. Friend...
Mr Iain Macleod: Is not the truth of the matter that the First Secretary has got herself into a ridiculous position and is now trying to get out of it? Does she not think that at a time like this she and her Department have better things to do than to organise witch hunts?
Mr Iain Macleod: Like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I speak for myself. There is no party issue in this. There is no Whip on this side and I am sure that there is none on the Government side. To many people, this is a moral issue and one must respect that view, but I do not see it in that light. The Government are involved in the betting taxation and in premium bonds, and many hon. Members know,...