asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average weekly cost per person for food subsidies; and what is the estimated amount spent weekly per person on drink, tobacco and gambling combined.

Approximately 3s. 2d. and 18s. 10d., respectively. The latter figure is based on the estimated gross expenditure in January, and excludes winnings.

After deducting an amount for winnings, does not the Chancellor think it seems to suggest that we have a wrong sense of values? Ought not something to be done about it?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the exemption from United Kingdom Income Tax, accorded to United States Government pensioners who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and who pay Income Tax on their pensions at source, to British colonial pensioners who are domiciled in the United Kingdom and who pay Income Tax on their pensions at source.

I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the exemptions provided under double taxation agreements. Exemption from United Kingdom tax does not extend to pensioners of the United States Government who are British nationals, unless they happen also to be United States nationals. United States pensioners who are British nationals and not United States nationals are charged to United Kingdom tax if resident in the United Kingdom, as are, in general, colonial pensioners resident in the United Kingdom, but credit is given by the United Kingdom for the corresponding United States or colonial tax. I see no reason for varying the existing arrangements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why interest is not being paid on outstanding Post-war Credits.

There is no right to interest on outstanding Post-war Credits, and it was never intended that interest should be paid or accrue prior to repayment of the credit itself.

Is the Chancellor aware that the "Income Tax Quiz" published by His Majesty's Stationery Office says, on page 21:

"Does the Post-war Credit bear interest? Answer: It will bear interest as from some date after the end of the war."

When the financial circumstances of the country permit.

Is the Chancellor aware that under the existing system the last Post-war Credit will not be repaid until 1988, by which time the Government will have had the interest-free use of this money for 47 years?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the approximate total of outstanding Post-war Credits; and if he can give any estimate of the year in which payments of these credits on a substantial scale can be commenced.

About £611 million. As I said in the Budget debate on 16th April, we cannot afford to speed up the rate of repayment this year, and I cannot say now when it will be possible to do this.

Can we appeal for a greater measure of consistency in the Treasury? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not recall that he recently justified the rather remarkable Financial Agreement with the Egyptian Government on the ground of the moral obligation involved? Surely the people who own these Post-war Credits are equally entitled to consideration.

I do not agree that the analogy is at all an appropriate one.

How does the amount outstanding compare with the amount already paid out?

I should like to have notice of that question.

Will the Chancellor take into consideration the cases of old people or people who are ill or in want, and give them special consideration by the repayment of their Post-war Credits?

It is already done in the case of people reaching the age of 65 in the case of men, and of 60 in the case of women.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the functions and membership of the Central Planning Staff.

The Central Economic Planning Staff is a division of the Treasury under the Chief Planning Officer, which is responsible for advising on the co-ordination of general economic policy. Nearly all the members of the planning staff are permanent civil servants, some of whom are seconded from other Departments.

Does the present Chancellor find it satisfactory to have this body of senior civil servants ruling the roost? Does he not find that they destroy the sense of responsibility for forming policy among departmental Ministers?

I would not agree with that.

Can the Chancellor confirm the statement made in "The Observer" last week-end that Sir Edwin Plowden is leaving the Central Planning Staff at the end of this year? Is it intended to appoint a successor?

That is quite a different question, but I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that the company from which Sir Edwin Plowden has leave of absence has intimated that it will continue that leave of absence until the end of the present year.

And no longer?

Would the Chancellor publish the names of the Central Planning Staff in HANSARD?

I think it is contrary to precedent to publish the names of civil servants in any particular division.

This is a matter of vital importance, because these men have very great power and are not acting in a purely Civil Service capacity. Is there not very good ground for breaking precedent in this case?

They are ordinary civil servants acting in an ordinary Civil Service capacity and subject to the direction of the Minister. Their names are, I think, published in the ordinary reference books.

Does the information which the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend mean that Sir Edwin has decided to see the Government out?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now agree to issue Purchase Tax coupons to holders of Central and South American passports in addition to holders of United States of America passports, in view of the likelihood of those residents being encouraged by such a concession to come to this country in this Festival year.

No, Sir.

Does not the Chancellor agree that Purchase Tax at high rates is as much a deterrent to the holders of Mexican and South American passports as it would be to holders of United States passports who have this concession? Does he not wish to encourage the holders of those passports to come to this country?

I doubt very much whether a small concession of this kind could make very much difference to the numbers coming from South America.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to apply the principle of equal pay to women civil servants.

When acceptance of the broad principle of equal pay for men and women in the Civil Service was first announced, it was made plain that it could not be carried out until the general economic situation permitted. As the House is aware, I am now examining the position again in the light of representations made to me by the staff side of the National Whitley Council.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in Income Tax for single women, without a compensating abatement as in the case of married men, is an added reason for giving them equal pay?

I should not like to give an answer on that point.