Mr Iain Macleod: Before too many hon. Members interrupt, perhaps I may remind—
Mr Iain Macleod: I do not mind having a conversation about this. I am coming to the conclusion that we should adopt the Select Committee's proposals. I said that al the beginning.
Mr Iain Macleod: I understand that, but a number of those already carrying out Select Committee and other duties may not wish to be redistributed. I cannot believe that the net effect of a proposal of eight Committees, each of nine, can be other than to add to the general burden upon, as I have described them, the wiling horses. The next point is very well summarised in the final question put by the hon....
Mr Iain Macleod: One of the difficulties which I see is that, invariably, it is the conflicting forces within a Government in one way or another that shape policies. To give an illustration from the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), in an ideal world no doubt overseas aid would go only to the places which needed it most, whoever decided that. In practice, it goes in many...
Mr Iain Macleod: I am not sure that one can. I am not sure necessarily that it is wholly desirable. To take my overseas aid point again, in many cases the fact that we desire for strategic reasons to help country A rather than country B is a fact of life in the world today which any Government have to take into account. My only point is that that detracts from the pure clinical analysis of problems, and...
Mr Iain Macleod: With respect, the hon. Member is making precisely the same mistake as that made about 18 years ago. When by noble Friend Lord Butler removed the food subsidies, there was a howl of protest from the Labour Party exactly on the lines mentioned now. In fact, the money was used both for reductions in taxation and for help through the social services for those who would otherwise not benefit. One...
Mr Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, leaving aside questions of price changes, and so on, the increase in tax rates between 1964 and 1969 is more than £3,000 million?
Mr Iain Macleod: Yes.
Mr Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the White Paper Cmnd. 4234, which we are to discuss tomorrow, says that the Government are making a cost-benefit analysis of the value of investment grants. Will the result of that study be published in due course?
Mr Iain Macleod: Tomorrow, those who speak in the debate will probably speak as either abolitionists or retentionists, some perhaps as people who have not made up their mind. But today it is important that we should speak as parliamentarians. I speak as a former Leader of the House. I intend first briefly to state my own view about this matter and then to try to follow the logic of it, including the logic of...
Mr Iain Macleod: We take the right hon. Gentleman's warning about reading too much into these figures. Do I understand that he will make available the crude figures up to 15th December on a comparative basis with the crude figures for a year ago?
Mr Iain Macleod: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify his original reply? Does he mean that just one governmental representation has been received, or is he including representations from trading associations and individuals?
Mr Iain Macleod: Mr. Iain Macleod (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the payment of excise betting duties under the Finance Act, 1969, in view of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr Iain Macleod: Does not the Chancellor agree that the story is a little more complicated than that? The right hon. Gentleman has started it as from September. Is he aware that in Committee on the Finance Bill on 11th June, 1969, with support from both sides, I moved an Amendment concerning the precise point of monthly payments and on 16th July, on Report, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury,...
Mr Iain Macleod: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on one matter which he has not answered? We did not vote on this matter because of the assurance given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the proposal was technically and administratively impossible. That was what Parliament was told, and on that basis Parliament made up its collective mind. The point which has now arisen is that the...
Mr Iain Macleod: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the anxieties which people have is that the ordinary person, if he becomes entitled to a refund, may have to wait many weeks, or sometimes months, while in these cases special arrangements are made? Will he comment on that?
Mr Iain Macleod: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance for which it has often asked? Can be give a flat undertaking that no important business will be taken by the House without full documentation before us?
Mr Iain Macleod: The Financial Secretary will be aware from his postbag and from questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the dislike of this coin that exists at the moment. If this dislike continues, will he undertake to withdraw the coin, or is his mind completely closed?
Mr Iain Macleod: Is the Chief Secretary yet in a position to answer the question which I asked him when he made a statement on this matter as to whether there will be a separate group for local authorities and, if he is not, will he take an opportunity to let the House know fairly soon?
Mr Iain Macleod: Does the Financial Secretary agree that, to a very heavy taxpayer, the yield of the S.A.Y.E. scheme can amount to over 80 per cent.? If he agrees that, will he say how much of the initial response takes the form of switching and is not a net gain?