asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now increase the upper limit on the holdings of National Savings Certificates by individuals.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now issue a National Savings certificate bearing a higher rate of interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now issue a National Savings certificate bearing a rate of interest comparable with that available on marketable Government debt.

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that was the kind of answer which I thought he would probably give. Should my right hon. Friend include this point in his Budget Statement later today, will he bear in mind the necessity to introduce the change which I have suggested?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

While not asking my hon. Friend to take anything away from the Chancellor's Statement, may I ask him whether he would accept that the present rates for National Savings Certificates, with interest rates as high as they are, do not encourage this type of saving?

My impression is that the decimal issue which came on sale on 5th October, 1970, and has an annual yield of nearly 5¾ per cent., has been a considerable success.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much medium-term official overseas debt was outstanding on 18th June, 1970, or on the nearest convenient date; and by how much it has been reduced since then.

I define the medium-term debt as being that to the I.M.F.; this stood at £992 million at end-June, 1970, and since then has been reduced by £24 million. A repayment schedule for the greater part of the outstanding amount has recently been announced.

Would my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the reduction of this medium-term debt? I hope that the years of Conservative Government will soon see the level falling to nil, as it was before the Labour Party came into office.

If my hon. Friend will consult Table 17 of Cmnd. 4631, he will see what happened to debt in the five years 1965–69, and subsequently in 1970.

If the hon. Gentleman is accepting credit from his hon. Friend for the reduction of debt, is he prepared to accept the blame for the increase in inflation, unemployment and lack of growth?

During the five years 1965–69 the dollar portfolio of £500 million was sold, £100 million of that went to the reserves, and £400 million plus another £1,800 million was required to pay off the indebtedness of those five years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review taxation policy to reduce income tax for the low-paid worker, pensioners, and the fixed-income groups in the lower-income brackets; and if he will make a statement.

The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that in these days of constantly rising prices, Government pledges notwithstanding, it would be quite wrong to give relief to the well-off rather than the old-age pensioners and those enumerated in my Question? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this is not done it will be a reversal of the compassionate society which the Labour Government initiated?

I can tell the hon. Member that no groups stand to benefit more from the Government's successful fight against inflation than those listed in his Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the retail sales of Her Majesty's Stationery Office's publications made in Newcastle-upon-Tyne during each of the last five years; and if he will now consider opening a retail branch of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Government bookshop in Newcastle similar to Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and other centres.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The question of establishing a Government bookshop in Newcastle has been examined several times, but the volume of business in the area is insufficient to enable an official bookshop to pay its way.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the agencies providing Government publications in Newcastle are doing a good job they are inadequate to meet the needs of a growing area? If the Government's regional policy means anything at all, should not Newcastle be brought into line with the rest of the country? Will he do something about it?

I am grateful for the tribute the hon. Member has paid to those bookshops which handle Government publications. I must tell the hon. Member that the volume of turnover in the City of Newcastle was less than half the figure that we would require as being the minimum to support an independent Government bookshop.

Will my hon. Friend say whether it is true that sales of the White Paper "In Place of Strife" were among the 10 best sellers of Her Majesty's Stationery Office? Will he further consider making a full refund to those who paid for that publication under the deluded impression that the then Government would do something about it and fulfil their pledges?

I can confirm that "In Place of Strife" came ninth in the top ten for 1969–70. I can only tell my hon. Friend that I think the electorate satisfactorily repaid themselves on 18th June.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the balance of payments surplus in 1973, on the assumption that the United Kingdom enters the European Economic Community and makes a 3 per cent. initial contribution to the Community budget.

Our intention is to maintain a surplus which is adequate to our needs. The cost of a 3 per cent. contribution would be about £30 million net.

Can the hon. Gentleman say, if the balance of payments situation deteriorates, whether the economy in 1973 will be able to sustain an initial contribution higher than the 3 per cent. offered, thinking in terms of the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. which seems to be the inevitable compromise in the negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman is making rather too much of this. The rate of export credit is going at something like £300 million, not £30 million, a year. There are many factors in our balance of payments which have to be taken into account, and this contribution is only one of them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking by way of preparation for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community, to ensure that taxation policies are brought into line with those currently, or prospectively, operating in the Community.

Due weight is being given, in the Government's review of taxation, to progress made within the Community towards harmonising the structure of taxation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I appreciate the reasons for its brevity. May I ask him to urge upon his right hon. Friend the vital need to continue to draft fiscal measures which will serve as an incentive to those who respond to this type of policy, and be a sharp spur to those who react better to such measures?

I am not sure that I can rise to the heights of my hon. Friend's argument. I will certainly bear in mind what he says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider removing the partial exemption from death duty of agricultural land.

I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to take any action to close this major loophole in death duty avoidance? Further, is he aware that it has contributed to the high price of farmland, which has been one of the means of preventing young people who want to become farmers owning their own farms?

I obviously cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement but I rather feel that the hon. Member is exaggerating this. Out of a total estate duty yield last year of £365 million some £10·7 million was attributable to the relief of farmland.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that high taxation on land means fragmentation of holdings, which is a most serious thing in agriculture? Will he take no notice of hon. Members opposite?

I will certainly take a great deal of notice of what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exempt football clubs from corporation tax in respect of money spent on ground improvements.

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will withdraw the exemption of football clubs from corporation tax in respect of money spent on acquiring players.

No, Sir.

Is it not strange that a club spending £150,000 on a footballer is exempt from taxation when a club spending a similar sum of money on ground improvements is subject to corporation tax? Will the Minister seriously consider, in the interests of ground safety, relieving the tax burden on ground improvement and, if necessary, imposing it upon the transfer of players?

I am sure the House would be impatient if I delivered the hon. Member a lecture upon the difference between capital and revenue—

Cheap.

but I appreciate that there is a serious intention behind the hon. Member's question. I would only ask him to believe that it raises very much wider implications than football clubs.

Does the hon. Member realise that on either side of the House we will not be lectured by anyone? Would he put his mind instead to the real problem of safety at football grounds that has been put to me by Leeds United Football Club? This is a problem exercising the minds of many hon. Members.

I did say that I recognised there was a serious point behind the hon. Member's question. There is a good deal of expenditure on safety which certainly qualifies for deduction as revenue expenditure. If there is any particular case which Leeds United or any other club would wish to have examined I would be happy to look at it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute an inquiry into the rôle of unit trust com- panies in the investment economy of the nation: and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The rôle of unit trusts is well understood, and I do not think an inquiry would serve any useful purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disappointing reply, particularly in view of the examination of Investors Overseas Services at the weekend and because unit trusts play a large part in our economy? Is is aware that if funds are directed into the wrong channels the imbalance of the economy can be increased? Will he make a complete examination to assure investors in unit trusts that those sums are properly directed in a period of economic decline?

I do not necessarily accept the situation which the hon. Gentleman describes as regards imbalance but I will none the less look into the point he raises.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that one of the most useful and effective ways in which my right hon. Friend could stimulate industrial investment this afternoon would be by getting rid of the last Government's double liability for capital gains tax on unit trusts and investment trusts?

I regret that again I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend might say.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the proportion of personal disposable income taken by personal savings between the first half of 1959 and the second half of 1964, and between the second half of 1964 and the first half of 1970; and what is the figure for the most recent convenient period of six months.

Between the first half of 1959 and the second half of 1964 personal saving as a percentage of personal disposable income (seasonally adjusted) changed from 5·0 to 8·5 per cent.; between the second half of 1964 and the first half of 1970 it changed from 8·5 to 8·4 per cent. and in the second half of 1970 it was 8·6 per cent.

While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask him to confirm that there is a direct relationship between savings and taxation; in other words, more savings means less taxation? Would he do his best to persuade his right hon. Friend to continue to encourage savings by small savers?

I can most certainly accept that there is a very clear relationship between savings and taxation because, naturally, the voluntary postponement of consumption provides the funds for investment and gives us more scope for reducing taxation.

Have the Government made an estimate of the effect on small savers of the Government's action in respect of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and workers' shareholdings in Rolls-Royce?

No. Those are two quite separate questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level he estimates that value added tax needs to be introduced to offset the abolition of selective employment tax.

This would depend on the coverage of the value added tax.

Although there is a great deal of speculation on what his right hon. Friend intends to do about selective employment tax, will the Minister remind him to confirm that the introduction of value added tax, which hits hardest at old-age pensioners and people on low incomes, will not be introduced at any level?

Value added tax is being studied on its merits in connection with the context of our review of the whole taxation system, and an announcement will be made in due course when we are ready.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that value added tax is nothing to do with S.E.T. but would replace purchase tax?

That is a more correct balance, if such a balance can be drawn. A value added tax is an indirect tax on goods and services, and in that sense it is nearer to purchase tax than to selective employment tax.

If and when the Government's Election pledge to abolish S.E.T. is carried out, will the Government ensure that the very many price increases imposed under the guise of S.E.T. will be refunded to the consumer?

It is fair to say that many prices are higher than they would otherwise have been because of selective employment tax. On the other hand, many retailers and others have kept down prices to the best of their ability, and their relief from selective employment tax, whenever it may happen to come, must be considered a factor in their liquidity and other aspects of their business. This is not a matter which we can discuss now.

In the meantime, if we are to have a value added tax, would the Government assure us that it will not be placed on food?

This assurance has already been given, both by myself and by others in the House. I refer my hon. Friend to a Written Answer which I gave on the 15th December last.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for the improvement of prospects of highly qualified personnel in the Estate Duty Office.

The pay of technical staff in the two Estate Duty Offices is under review: Proposals which, if accepted, would improve the position of younger officers on completion of their legal training have recently been put to the staff association concerned.

Will consideration be given to the growing contrast between the financial reward of senior inspectors of taxes and the financial reward to similarly qualified people in private firms, who often spend their time advising, frankly, on tax evasion?

This is a matter which those responsible keep constantly under review.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the money supply in the first three quarters of the current financial year.

Can my hon. Friend confirm reports that the total increase for the entire financial year is likely to have run out at about 12 per cent., which would make it the second largest increase in the money supply in recent years? If this is the case, does that correspond to my right hon. Friend's definition of a money supply policy which should be less than positive?

Broadly speaking, the money supply has been contained on the lines of my right hon. Friend's policies. But it would be best if my hon. Friend waited a little while, when he will doubtless hear other details of this, amongst other things.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm the figure given by his hon. Friend? In view of the difference between D.C.E. and money stock, is it not obvious that a great deal of this extra money is as a consequence of the inflow of hot money from abroad, and would he advise the Chancellor to reduce Bank Rate today, rather than next Thursday morning?

We are watching very carefully the flow of funds from abroad, which, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, can present a problem. But I cannot give any details such as those which he asked for.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in the money supply between 31st March, 1970, and 18th June, 1970, and the latest available date, respectively, expressed at an annual rate; and what is the comparable figure for the period between 18th June, 1970, and the latest available date.

Reliable figures are not available for all the periods asked for by my hon. Friend. Figures for the money supply (M3) in the first three quarters of the present financial year were published in the March issue of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. The seasonally adjusted percentage increases in these quarters were 4 per cent., 1½ per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively.

Do not those figures show that the Government have been pursuing an active policy to control the money supply, and that the situation is very much better than the comparable figures showed in the last year of the Labour Government?

Yes, Sir; the most recent estimates indicate that the situation is coming under control, and it looks as though we shall be very close to the target by the end of the year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to set up a national wealth register.

No, Sir.

I thank the Minister for that full and daunting answer. Will he accept that the balance of tax between capital and income is at present extremely grossly ill-weighted against the latter? In view of the evasion of capital tax, which is known to be running into several million pounds a year, and the avoidance of capital tax, which is known to be running into several hundreds of millions of pounds a year, will the Minister accept that the only equitable means of taxing wealth is through the establishment of a proper wealth register in this country at last?

I would not accept that for one moment. I do not believe that a national wealth register would be reasonable. It would be costly to run and would serve little useful purpose.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy is to build up national wealth rather than penalise it?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he makes of the total redistribution of income and capital from the poorest quartile of the population to the richest quartile which has already been brought about by Government action or to which the Government are publicly committed.

Information on which to base satisfactory estimates is not available.

Does the Minister nevertheless not accept that the sixpence off income tax, the 2½ per cent. cut in corporation tax already announced and the reintroduction of the non-aggregate rule for surtax, to which the Government are already committed, will collectively be giving over £500 million a year to the most highly paid and investing class, and that this is being paid for almost entirely by the poor and the lowest-paid workers?

I would not accept that. It is important to consider all the measures which the Government have taken, and not merely to make selection from them.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that it ill becomes the Opposition to criticise reductions in taxes when every Budget which they introduced increased taxation?

I have always been very struck by the peculiar way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite react on the lines which my hon. Friend has suggested.

The hon. Gentleman wishes to refute the allegation of my hon. Friend. If he cannot give the figures, on what does he base his refutation?

I did not say that. I said that it was not a reasonable approach to select one or two particular measures and to draw out the conclusion from them.

Since the hon. Gentleman himself falls within the upper quartile of the population, and since it lies wholly within his personal power to do so, has he advised my hon. Friend what personal steps he has taken to avoid what he regards as the more regressive aspects of the Government's policy?

That lies outside my sphere of responsibility.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the urgent need to encourage highly qualified married women, such as physiotherapists, to return to work on a part-time and a full-time basis, he will seek to amend the taxation law to facilitate this, bearing in mind their frequent need to employ full-time daily helps.

I must ask my hon. Friend to await my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Is it not wrong that highly-skilled women should stay idly at home, and does not the whole nation lose in the long run?

Many of the highly skilled women to whom my hon. Friend refers would hardly describe themselves as staying idly at home, but I take my hon. Friend's point.

Whatever the Chancellor has to say this afternoon, will the Government bear in mind the income tax position of the employed full-time daily help who, together with her husband, may be trying to bring up a family on a far lower income than that of her employer?

It is right to point out to the hon. Lady that the tax treatment of married women below the surtax level is a good deal more favourable than if the husband and wife were single.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of families who will benefit from the income tax reduction announced in October, 1970.

About 6¾ million families with children.

Would the Minister agree that the figures which he has just given demonstrate that already there are large numbers of people in this country, from the top to the bottom, who have every reason to be thankful for the advent of a Conservative Government?

The reduction in the standard rate of taxation reduced taxation for every taxpayer in the country.

What amount of reduction in tax will it mean to the 6 million to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred? Will it be, for instance, 1s. or 2s.?

It would depend upon their total income and their total tax liability.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many people will benefit after taking into account the Government's policy on increased charges for food, increased council house rents, and increased rates?

Not without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the last of the nine Pay As You Earn computer centres is not expected to come into action until 1979 when the decision to computerise Pay As You Earn was made in 1963.

Because this was thought at the time to be a realistic timetable having regard to the size and complexity of the automation programme. Work on the programme has now largely been suspended for the reasons which I gave to the House on 7th December last.

I welcome the present suspension, but would it not be sensible to press on with the simplification and reform of personal taxation before proceeding with these costly and apparently not very efficient computer systems?

I dispute my hon. Friends' suggestion that the system was not efficient. It was computerising the existing tax system, and it is because we are interested in simplification that we have suspended the programme.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made at Centre One at East Kilbride?

As many hon. Members know, I have given very considerable attention to the difficulties which have over the past months been experienced at East Kilbride. Without giving too great a hostage to fortune, I have gained the impression, as have a number of hon. Members, that the great efforts made by the staff there are now bringing improvements.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given further consideration to a tax allowance for clothing for disabled persons; and if he will make a statement.

The tax system cannot set out to take account of the specific expenses of particular groups of people, however deserving.

Is the Minister of State aware of the very considerable hardship caused to handicapped people by this iniquitous imposition? Does he not agree that the amount of revenue lost if such a concession were to be granted would be negligible and that the mark of a civilised society is the degree to which the better off can help those who are worse off?

I would not be at all unsympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's approach. I am well aware of the points he has raised. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I have answered a number of questions upon it, but, having studied the matter very closely, we felt bound to come to the conclusion that it would not be right to seek to give help in this way but rather through the normal workings which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree to the question I asked earlier, that if the disabled, who have more expenses than able-bodied people, do not get some relief, and if rich, well-off, able-bodied people do, this spells a disastrous future for the good name of the country?

We are deeply concerned about the problems of the disabled, but it is more effective to take action through the workings of the social services than otherwise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.

Taking the value of the £ sterling as 100p in mid-June, 1970, its purchasing power in mid-February, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, is estimated at 94½p. This comparison is based on the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices.

Without my asking the hon. Gentleman to anticipate his right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, would he nevertheless ask the Chancellor to include in his Budget a declaration making it clear that any tax concessions or social service benefits in the Budget have already lost one-eighteenth of their value as a result of the inflation over which the Tory Government have complacently presided?

I have rarely heard such a silly statement as the statement that we are complacent about this issue. What we are trying to do is to put right the mistakes of the previous Administration.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, taking into account the dismal, indeed disastrous, inheritance that this Government had, the nation will congratulate the Government on containing it at that figure?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. My feeling is that public opinion is very much behind the policy which we are now pursuing of reversing the escalating nature of this trend.

Does the hon. Gentleman expect this trend of depreciation to continue? If not, what steps do the Government intend to take to halt it or to reverse the trend?

As I have indicated, we are determined to reverse this trend, and the entire economic policy being pursued by the Government is designed to do precisely that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of tax concessions for private afforestation schemes using land of good agricultural condition where no public access or amenity is provided during each of the last three years.

No estimates are available.

Will the Financial Secretary urge his right hon. Friend to carry out a very thorough review of the present tax arrangements applying to private forestry? Should not the tax arrangements which apply be those which would encourage conservation and the provision of social amenity.

I am certain that tax arrangements should also have regard to the desirability that we should become more self-sufficient in timber.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the increase in credit availability that will result from the contemplated introduction by a bank, the name of which has been supplied to him, of £100 cheque-cashing facilities for holders of a particular bank card.

None, Sir.

Is not this new arrangement just announced by Barclaycard a way for the banks to escape the controls over private lending? Will the Minister of State consider whether to bring these schemes under control or, if not, to scrap the whole system of controls over lending, which is so discriminatory and also riddled with loopholes?

I would not myself go in for commercials. I would merely state that I do not believe that there is any such effect, because the individual credit ceilings are not being automatically increased and because this lending has to be accommodated within the banks' restricted lending limits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the cost of living index of reducing selective employment tax by 50 per cent.

Such a reduction would exert a downward influence on the index. The precise effects would depend on a number of variables.

Whilst not wishing to anticipate the abolition of this tax in a few hours' time according to the election pledges, may I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that a good deal of this has been absorbed by the retail services and that any institution of value-added tax in its place would hit the consumer far more badly than this one does?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the effect on the retail trade. What I find remarkable is the sudden, new-found enthusiasm for the abolition of the selective employment tax which is discernible on the other side of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the National Savings Bank is refusing to accept or issue a combination of a single ½p and a single 6d., even though they total a round unit; and if he will direct it to discontinue this practice.

National Savings Bank deposits and withdrawals are normally made at post offices, and I understand that the Post Office instruction and general practice is to treat the sixpence as a working coin. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, he may like to send details to me or direct to the Post Office.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the joint stock banks are refusing to follow this practice and then, in the same breath, are hypocritically saying that no one wants the sixpence?

That is a separate question. The general position is that there are adequate supplies of sixpences in the banks and they will provide sixpences on demand.

Will the Minister of State confirm that it is an offence to refuse legal tender, whether it is a halfpenny or a sixpence?

Clearly, the legal tender provisions also set limits on the circumstances in which these coins may be transmitted.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many banks in my constituency that refuse to give sixpences even though all the parking meters take the sixpenny coin? Will he do something about it?

That is not my understanding of the position. If my hon. Friend will give me further details I will look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what criteria Government purchasing Departments allocate purchases as between supplies from United Kingdom sources and those from overseas.

It is the policy of the Government that Department's primary aim is to secure the best value for money.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I draw his attention to the answer given to Question No. 40 on Wednesday, 3rd March, and ask him to recommend to the Lord President of the Council that he should order the purchase of curtains and furnishing fabrics for the Palace of Westminster which are spun, woven and finished in Lancashire?

Those are lofty sentiments, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has sent to the Trade Union Congress after his study of its economic policy document.

None, Sir. In their discussion of the economic situation with the T.U.C. Economic Committee on 11th March, Ministers stressed the need to reduce the current level of cost inflation.

Will the Chief Secretary say how much additional employment would result from 5 per cent. economic growth, and whether he agrees with the projections made by the T.U.C. in its document?

The Government's view regarding the T.U.C. document was made clear in the statement issued after the meeting. Their view as to what may happen in the future will be set out by my right hon. Friend this afternoon.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net inflow of funds to the National Savings movement since 18th June, 1970; and how this compares with the comparable figure a year earlier.

Figures for the middle of a month are not available. In the eight months from July, 1970, to February, 1971, the provisional figures show that the amount remaining invested in National Savings increased by £206 million. In the comparable period a year earlier, the amount remaining invested decreased by £45 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Do they not indicate that, whatever politicians or journalists may say, the silent majority of the people of this country have confidence in this Government?

That is entirely so, and it is important that we should do everything possible to create a situation in which savings are encouraged.

But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the figures announced earlier, showing that the pound is now worth only 94½p, mean that the Government have already knocked a "bob" off every pound invested in National Savings?

It is true that inflation does have an effect on the value of savings, and it is for that reason, among others, that we are determined to control inflation. Increased savings are a major weapon against inflation.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax revenue in 1969–70 compared with 1964–65, both in absolute terms and in terms of 1964–65 prices.

Total tax revenue in 1964–65 was £7,431 million. The gross tax yield in 1969–70 was £14,733 million, but after adjustment for S.E.T. refunds, and so forth, a comparable total is £12,643 million, which is estimated to amount to about £10,600 million in terms of 1964–65 prices.

Do not those figures clearly demonstrate to the British people that they will always be more taxed under Labour than under the Conservatives, and that, whatever the Chancellor's announcements may be later this afternoon, the British people will know that had there been a Labour Government in power taxes would have been even higher in 1971?

They make clear that the comparable figures for 1969–70 and for 1964–65 are as 10 to seven.