asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his examination of value added tax, he will consider the desirability of all products used in the building and timber trades being subjected to the same rate of tax; and if he will make a statement.

We are considering all aspects of value-added tax but have no statement to make at this stage.

Would my hon. Friend note that the building and similar trades tend to be composed of a large number of small units and that any unnecessary administrative work places a disproportionate burden on their resources? Is he aware that if varying rates of V.A.T. were to be included on the same invoice, as if the present Customs and Excise classification were to operate, confusion would certainly arise?

Following publication of the Green Paper, this was a point put to us by many associations in the building and timber trades. We shall give it careful consideration.

Can the hon. Gentleman give upon us one good reason for introducing value-added tax?

Yes. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman a number of very good reasons, most of which I deployed in the Finance Bill debates last year

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the likely rate of V.A.T. will be given in this year's Budget? Does he realise that without that industry will find it impossible to plan ahead?

We have received representations on this point, too. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will make on Budget day.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish illustrative tables of the effects of introducing value-added tax at various stated rates on selected items of everyday and occasional consumption now subject to no or varying rates of purchase tax.

We have under consideration suggestions of this type.

Since we were promised open and honest government, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry this matter up and publish these tables? Would he agree that the introduction of value-added tax means that people with high discretionary income will have their income and purchasing power increased, whereas those with a low discretionary income will suffer a reduction? Could he confirm that fact?

The hon. Gentleman must await the Budget for any details. However, the hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. At this stage it would be misleading and confusing to issue comparative tables on the basis of hypothetical V.A.T. rates and in the absence of any announced decision about the scope and coverage of the tax. It is usual at the time of changes in indirect taxation to issue such illustrative tables as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and we are considering how best to do this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that at the time of the Budget debate he will produce details of the value-added tax in advance of the Finance Bill.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that directly after the Budget the illustrations to which he has referred will be available for wide circulation throughout the country and to traders generally? This will need to be done on a much larger scale than is normally done on the application of some new tax, and is something in respect of which traders and the public will look to the Government. They will expect them to provide these details immediately after the Budget rather than to await publication of the Finance Bill.

I fully accept my hon. Friend's view that with a tax as new and as difficult as this, it is absolutely essential first of all that the traders who are to operate it should be fully informed: and, secondly, that the public affected by the tax should be fully informed as soon as possible.

But since the Government have repeatedly refused to make available to hon. Members discussion papers which have been widely circulated to industry and commerce in general, will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Will he say why he has been unable to present these papers to hon. Members for discussion when they have been freely available to everybody else? Why should we be excluded from participation in important decisions of this kind?

The hon. Gentleman is not being excluded from participating in anything. The Customs and Excise Department is following its normal practice in discussing the administrative problems involved with the various trades and industries which will have to operate the tax, as far as they can be discussed without knowledge of the rates and the coverage, which my right hon. Friend will reveal in his Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his intention to place a tax on gas for use as fuel for road vehicles.

All aspects of this matter, including in particular the effects on pollution, were fully discussed during the debate on last year's Finance Bill and I see no reason for interfering with the decision taken by the House then.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a risk of him chasing his own tail and that if he creates a disincentive for people to use fuels which will not contaminate the air, they will use those which do, with the result that large amounts of money will be poured out by his hon. and right hon. Friends in mopping up the atmosphere?

The difficulty is that a relatively small displacement from normal road vehicle fuel has a relatively large effect on revenue but not on the environment. The limited supplies of liquid petroleum gas now available are being fully used industrially where their effect in preventing pollution is as good as on the roads. The use of these fuels, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear, does not obviate the need for making ordinary motor fuels less polluted.

May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that since we debated this matter last year there has been a substantial development in industry involving the use of liquid petroleum gas for reducing smoke emission in diesel engines? Is he aware that this work is only partly under way and that there is a great deal to be done? Will he consider discussing this with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Most certainly. As my hon. Friend said, this work is of necessity development work. It is kept under review not only by the Treasury but by the Department of the Environment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that letters from members of the public to the various tax offices are answered promptly.

The staff of tax offices make every endeavour to deal promptly with letters from members of the public. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I shall be happy to look into it.

Is the Minister aware that, since the reorganisation of tax offices, there has been a growing volume of complaints from the public that tax offices take a long time to answer their letters and sometimes do not answer them at all? Is he aware that, since I returned to the House in June, I have had more complaints from members of the public on this subject than I had in the whole of the last Parliament?

Yes, I am aware of the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman has had with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Overall, the work situation in tax districts is now somewhat better than it has been in recent times. The matter the hon. Gentleman raises is of grave concern, and we will certainly look closely at any cases which are brought to our attention.

Would it not help if the new tax offices which are envisaged were to be more rapidly completed? In my constituency a large tax office which would provide considerable employment is two years behind schedule. Will the Minister do something about getting it completed and tell me when it will be completed?

I will certainly bring that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary who, I know, will look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on the subject of the rate of interest being charged by building societies for house mortgages.

None, Sir, since the building societies reduced their mortgage rates on 1st January.

Is the Minister aware that, while interest rates have been falling generally, building societies are still charging 8 per cent., sometimes more, and that the general public feel that they are being grossly exploited? Will the Government refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission or to another form of inquiry?

The public concern which the hon. Gentleman has expressed has not been reflected in the mailbag to which I referred.

I will show the hon. Gentleman my mail bag.

By all means—if the hon. Gentleman cares to send the letters to me. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently told the House that he did not consider that a reference of mortgage rates to the Monopolies Commission would be justified at present, although he would continue to keep the situation under review.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the present boom in private house building is being sustained by the continuing flow of funds into building societies? As building societies have to take a balanced view between the advantages of reducing the rate of interest to existing borrowers and continuing to attract funds to help new borrowers, are not they the best judges of when to reduce interest rates?

I entirely agree with the balanced view which my hon. Friend takes. If building societies do not pay the market rate to investors they will not attract sufficient funds to meet demands for mortgages and will have to reduce their lending.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake in his Budget statement to propose the abolition of the increase in charges on the road haulage industry imposed since October, 1964.

I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that not unexpected reply. Is he aware that the huge increases in taxation on this industry imposed by the Labour Government have done disproportionate damage to the economy of Scotland and that the reversal of these increases would give disproportionate advantage to the economy of Scotland? Does he not agree that the only explanation for the failure of the Labour Party to support representations we have made on this point is a remarkably sordid collective guilty conscience?

I have noted my hon. Friend's specific suggestion as well as his more general suggestion. There has been a large increase both in the tonnage carried and in the ton-mileage performed by the road haulage industry, and it is essential that resources used for transport, whether road or rail, should show a proper return.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of official reserves.

At end-January, converted at the middle rate, £2,679 million.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the record level of the reserves. I urge my right hon. Friend to take advantage of this record level, first, by lifting some of the restrictions on overseas investment, which are too stringent and much too long-standing, and, secondly, by lowering Bank rate, which would be a major contribution towards giving investment the fillip which we all agree it needs.

My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his second proposal. On his first proposal, these matters are under constant study and review.

As that clearly was a well-planted Question and the Minister obviously has in front of him many replies, will he tell us the cost in terms of increased employment of every £1 million increase in the reserves?

The hon. Gentleman is on a wrong premise. The Government have not sought increases in reserves at the expense of the domestic economy. The high level of reserves reflects the strength of the balance of payments and is an extremely good basis for the reflationary measures which my right hon. Friend has already taken.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total growth in National Savings since June, 1970.

The total amount invested in National Savings in June, 1970, was £8,500 million. By December, 1971, this figure had risen to £9,216 million—an increase of £716 million or almost 8½ per cent. in the 18 months.

Do not these excellent figures reflect confidence in the integrity and ability of the Government? To maintain the momentum of this National Savings boom, will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider further tax incentives to saving in the coming Budget?

My hon. Friend's first remark is correct and is true also of the previous period of Conservative Government. This figure contrasts with the 4½ years prior to June, 1970, when National Savings increased by only £134 million. It is important as a long-term measure to do everything possible to encourage savings. On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, I am sure he does not expect me to anticipate anything which my right hon. Friend may say in his Budget speech.

Does not that figure prove precisely the opposite—that the growth in National Savings is because people are becoming worried about their future, and, under a Tory Government, are putting their money into savings because they fear that they will soon be unemployed?

I do not think that is so. As I say, higher savings provide a firm foundation for a period of sustainable economic growth and higher employment, and that is what we are determined to achieve.

Without in any way being tempted to anticipate the Budget, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the present Prime Minister when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in 1965 promised the abolition of capital gains duty on unit trusts? As unit trusts are a formidably important source of new savings, will my hon. Friend study the Prime Minister's undertaking on that earlier occasion?

I will certainly bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend, but of course this matter obviously comes within the scope of the Budget.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current international monetary situation.

The immediate situation is satisfactory, but there is an underlying need to make progress with the reform of the international monetary system.

Will my right hon. Friend please expand as soon as possible, I hope today, on how discussions are going on the long-term reform of the international monetary system along the lines set out in the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last September?

The subject is under discussion in the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund. As my hon. Friend will understand, the substance of those discussions must remain confidential. Treasury Ministers and officials exchange views with their opposite numbers in other countries whenever opportunity offers. We cannot expect progress to be very quick on changes as fundamental as those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer at last September's I.M.F. meeting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the difficulties relating to the dollar as an acceptable medium of exchange for I.M.F. transactions, which is a symptom of the underlying difficulty of the present world monetary system, in particular relation to our repayment of debt, have been sorted out?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper on this subject. I agree that it is not satisfactory that I.M.F. operations should be hampered as they are at present by dollar inconvertibility. I hope that it will soon be possible to find a way round so that we can get back to normal.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the growing disuse of the new halfpenny, he will now withdraw this coin from circulation.

No, Sir: this coin, equivalent to 1·2 old pennies, has an important rôle to play in price shading. It is widely used, especially in food prices, and almost 1,150 million are in circulation.

But with the cost of living rising at its present rate, will it be long before this wretched little coin ceases to have any value whatever, since already the banks ignore it in calculating their balances? It will not be long before this coin follows the old farthing and the old halfpenny.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman. I think he has the necessary action the wrong way round. The fact is that this coin enables traders to shade their prices, and clearly if the coin did not exist it is likely that there would be considerable rounding up. It is an amount of considerable value when compared with the previous value of the old penny. I believe that it has a useful rôle to play.

Would my hon. Friend consider increasing the present miserly size of this coin since there are difficulties in handling it, especially for the elderly who may have arthritic finger joints?

This matter was decided by the previous Administration. It is right to stress that it is important that there is a size/weight relationship between the various differentials. If we were to interfere with that, it would create considerable difficulties for organisations handling coins.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority offices of the Inland Revenue have disclosed details of miners' income tax rebates to local offices of the Department of Social Security during the dispute in the coal industry.

The tax affairs of all individuals are protected by strict rules of confidentiality and the Inland Revenue does not make disclosures concerning them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the present dispute miners are most concerned that everybody seems to know about the miners' tax affairs except the miners themselves? Will he say under which rules of confidentiality offices such as the social security department know about miners' tax rebates before the miners are given any details?

In no circumstances should tax offices disclose to Department of Health and Social Security officials or to anyone else details of any repayments made. However, computation of rebates likely to be made to the average miner, on assumptions about their likely pay and tax and family circumstances, were made by the Inland Revenue and for illustrative purposes were passed on to the Department of Health and Social Security. I repeat that in those computations there were no details about any actual person or any actual repayment made.

In that calculation is account taken of concessionary coal which, we understand, bears no tax at all?

The sole step the Inland Revenue took was to make a computation of the rebate that was likely to be made to an average miner on certain assumptions about likely tax, but no detail was disclosed of any actual circumstances.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a further statement concerning the introduction of a coin to be called a crown equal in value to 25p, and the phasing out of the old sixpence coin now 2½p.

I cannot at this stage add anything to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) on 21st January about an intermediate denomination between the 10p and 50p coins. The 2½p coin will remain legal tender at least until February, 1973. A decision about its future will be made in the light of experience over the two year experimental period from D-Day.—[Vol. 829, c. 300.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want the House to know that there are thousands of people outside, many of whom have been trampled on. The doors have been locked to many of my constituents and to the constituents of other hon. Members. I would like you, Sir, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to this affair to see whether the situation can be remedied.

Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a good deal of public feeling that the gap is much too wide between the 10p piece and the 50p piece, especially as one tends to accumulate in one's pockets a large number of 10p pieces? Should not the Treasury endeavour to lighten that load in the interest of personal security?

I have referred to this matter in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. Although my hon. Friend feels that there is some case for this suggestion, it is none the less important that the public should have an opportunity of getting used to the existing denominations. I believe the time has not yet come when we can reasonably make a decision on this point, but I have noted what my hon. Friend said.

Will the hon. Gentleman ignore the terrible situation in the pockets of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? We are not concerned with that. What we are mainly concerned with is the abolition of the halfpenny.

I thought I had already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I feel bound to say that the whole premise of his earlier point, which does not arise on this Question, is totally false. There are as many new halfpennies in circulation as new pennies, and next year we expect demand for new halfpennies to increase by more than 180 million.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new steps he now proposes to take to improve the rate of investment.

The Government have already taken considerable action to encourage investment, both directly and by stimulating demand.

Leaving aside the Government's complacency, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Industrial Policy Group's statement about investment, which was highly discouraging, was both stupid and irresponsible at a time when we have a million unemployed? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House his right hon. Friend's view of what the Government propose to do about overcoming the reluctance of British industrialists to invest at present?

The authors of the Industrial Policy Group report have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, expressed doubt whether this country suffers from a shortage of investment at present. The Government and the leaders of the C.B.I. do not accept that view. The level of manufacturing investment in 1971 is likely to be higher than earlier estimates suggested. The revised estimates for the third quarter show a rise of 5 per cent. over the second quarter level.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear to the House the steps that he has taken to encourage investment. As for the rest, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

It is a pleasant change to hear my right hon. Friend sug- gest that things are getting better in investment for industry. However, that is not the general impression of those engaged in business. Will my right hon. Friend look at Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together, since it is the uncertainty about the value-added tax which plays a big part in keeping back investment?

I do not accept that uncertainty about the value-added tax is the cause. If it were, that would be removed very shortly. It is true, however, that uncertainty over the inflationary situation has contributed to the reluctance to invest. If hon. Members want more investment and more prosperity for the nation, the House as a whole had better help the Government to keep down the rise in wages and prices.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's total mismanagement of the present fuel crisis will postpone the pick-up of the economy and that the immediate-term and short-term outlook for unemployment will be even more depressing? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that even more vigorous action will be required than would have been the case before the fuel crisis?

It is early to judge the effect of the miners' strike and how it will affect both confidence and investment. A great deal will depend upon the outcome of the Wilberforce Inquiry and when the miners return to work. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to increase investment and to improve prosperity, I hope that they will bear this in mind and do what they can to encourage the end of the strike.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present value of the £ sterling compared to June. 1970.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current real purchasing power of the sterling as compared with 18th June, 1970.

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to similar Questions from the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 25th January.—[Vol. 829; c. 1181.]

That was not a reply to my Question. But if the hon. Gentleman is so embarrassed about what would have been the answer, may I remind him that it would have been an admission on the part of the Government of a total failure to carry out their pledge at the General Election to cut inflation at a stroke? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, further, that the economic chaos that we see today is directly attributable to his Government's turn-about on that policy and, in particular, the introduction of measures which have fanned the flames of inflation?

I think that it was a very clear answer and that, if the hon. Gentleman looks up the HANSARD reference, he will see that that is so. There has been a continuous month-by-month improvement in the retail price index since April, and the deceleration in the wholesale price index has been even faster. There has been a significant improvement—

What is it?

The purchasing power of the £, taken as 100p in June, 1970, was 96½p in December, 1970, and 90½p in June, 1971. It has fallen only 2p in the last six months, compared with a fall of 6p in the preceding six months and 3½p in the corresponding period of 1970.

Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the concern of the public in general and housewives in particular that an over-generous settlement with the miners will lead to a further increase in the cost of living?

This is another of the points to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has just referred. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) will refer to the HANSARD reference that I have given him, he will see the answer clearly set out there.

In the absence of up-to-date figures as of today's date, would the hon. Gentleman care to estimate the date on which the £ will have become the 10-shilling pound which the electors were led to believe would happen only under a Labour Government?

I return to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Northfield. The fact is that it has not changed since the last answer to which I have referred. The answer which was then given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was that, on the basis of the movement of the general index of retail prices, the purchasing power of the £ fell by 3·5 per cent. between mid-June, 1970, and mid-December, 1970, and by 6 per cent. between mid-December. 1970. and mid-June, 1971. In the three months since June, the retail price index has risen by about three-quarters of 1 per cent.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give the present state of the United Kingdom's short and medium-term debts to the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies net of loans made through use of the Reciprocal Swap Facility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of short-term and medium-term official overseas debt outstanding; and how this compares with June, 1970.

At end-June 1970 the United Kingdom's short and medium-term official overseas debt amounted to £1,461 million.

At the end of last month it had been reduced to £415 million.

Apart from the technical difficulties in repaying dollars which no one seems to want, is it now the case that we are quite clear of all the vast burden of short and medium-term indebtedness which the previous Administration left behind them? Is not it now the case that we are heading for the largest surplus on the balance of payments ever? Are not these the conditions for sustained and rapid economic growth, which would be assisted even more by a timely and generous cut in the Bank Rate?

I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last sentence, but I agree fully with what he said in the remainder of his supplementary question. I remind the House that it is a technical difficulty of repaying the remaining £415 million of debt which is causing the hold-up.

In view of the reply which I received earlier about our large reserves, and in view of the small indebtedness about which we have just heard, may I take this second opportunity to urge my right hon. Friend to consider lifting or relaxing the restrictions on overseas investment?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestions.

In view of the comments about the problems of convertibility, can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the Government's proposals to deal with the problems, and can he assure us that in no circumstances are the Government's endeavours being directed to trying to influence the American authorities to restore convertibility into gold?

As I said in answer to an earlier Question, the detail of the discussions taking place in the I.M.F. is confidential. But I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him that the discussions are continuing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of repayment of debt in the past 18 months, which we welcome, has been just about the same as the rate of repayment in the 18 months to June, 1970, and that what has happened makes nonsense of one of the main Conservative propaganda points at the General Election that we had debts hanging round our shoulders for many years to come?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also apply himself to the point put to him by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) that, with no effective debt remaining and the balance of payments being very strong, there is an overwhelm- ing argument for using this situation to expand the economy?

I made it clear, in answer to an earlier question, that I regarded the current situation as a base from which to carry out a sustained expansion of the economy. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's remark, the overall debt of this country, which went up under the previous Administration, has now been wiped out under this Administration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the establishment of one or two free trade zones in development areas.

This is not a simple matter, but if specific proposals are put forward by industry we shall be prepared without commitment to examine them.

Since Germany has five free ports and Italy six, is it not sensible for this country, as an applicant to the European Economic Community, to follow the Irish tradition and have manufacturing, as at Shannon, in one of our development areas?

We shall be prepared, without commitment, to examine the kind of proposal which my hon. Friend suggested. The existing system for giving duty relief on imported goods and materials which are re-exported or used in making goods for export is flexible, well understood, and works well, and it involves fewer restrictions and controls than are likely to be involved in a Customs-free trade zone.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived from the vehicle excise duty, purchase tax on vehicles, and excise duty on hydrocarbon oils, respectively, in the last year for which figures are available.

In the financial year 1970–71, motor vehicle duties yielded £421 million, purchase tax on vehicles £267 million and the hydrocarbon oil duty £1,396 million, of which £1,263 million was in respect of road fuel.

My hon. Friend knows that £621 million was expended in the same year on the provision of new and the maintenance of existing roads. Since it is the erroneous belief of many motorists that this is all they get back from the vast sums which they pay in tax, will my hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, consider publishing—at least before the Budget statement—the true cost of the maintenance of roads and provision of new roads by local authorities as well as by the central Government, such costs including road signs, markings, clearing and cleaning of roads, policing and traffic signals?

I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend said. However, a more fundamental point which needs to be made is that in many ways the viewpoint which he has summarised is misconceived since expenditure on roads is governed by the amount of resources which we can afford to allocate to them in competition with other claims on the national product.

On hydrocarbon oils, is the Treasury considering the proposals put forward in last year's Finance Bill about favourable treatment for liquefied petroleum gas?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have dealt with this matter, which was raised in earlier Questions this afternoon, in debate. We are still considering the rate which should be charged. I hope that we shall make an announcement soon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make selective cuts in purchase tax to favour goods produced in development areas.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does more than that, otherwise we might be convinced that the Government's lack of sensitivity towards regional problems is matched only by their lack of ingenuity. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a desperate need for extra substantial inducement for the regions and that this suggestion could have a worthwhile effect on prices generally?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said; but, as this is a Budget matter, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be more precise at this stage.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional tax revenue he expects to receive due to the current financial year having 366 days.

The extra day is not expected to have any measureable net influence; revenue will be increased, but so, too, will expenditure.

Is it not a fact that people who work 28 days in February get the same pay as those who work 29 days in February, especially if they are paid monthly? What is happening to this extra's day's production? Are the bosses getting it? If as the Minister of State says, the Treasury is not getting it, where is that extra day's work going in that 29-day period?

It will depend to some extent on the day of the week on which the extra day falls. It is not possible to give a quantitative estimate of the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.

Does my hon. Friend know of anyone who will work either 28 or 29 days in the month of February?

That is a point to which I must give further thought.