asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now completed his consideration of the treatment to be accorded to businesses whose claims for rebate of purchase tax or excise duty upon the introduction of VAT were received after 30th April.

The vast majority of claims were received by 30th April. However, to assist those traders who were unable to meet the time limit my right hon. Friend has authorised Customs and Excise to entertain belated claims provided it is satisfied as to their bona fides.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be well received particularly by those in small businesses or those who have had ill health at stocktaking time which prevented their completing their claims on time.

I am grateful for my Friend's remarks. Certainly the problems of ill health and of small businesses have been among the factors that we have taken into account in reaching this decision.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and the Minister would have saved much time, and prevented the Minister breaking his own regulations, by voting for the Opposition's amendment instead of against it. How does the Minister justify the fact that he is now breaching a piece of legislation that he put on the statute book?

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it would have been quite inappropriate for us to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. What we are now proposing does not achieve the same result.

It is exactly the same.

It is not the same result. It is as a result of having a limit that the vast majority of claims are in. It is appropriate that we should take account of these late claims, given that special circumstances may necessarily have arisen.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the resolution of the European Parliament following the Report of the EEC Assembly's Finance and Budget Committee on the loss of sums amounting to £40 million or more a year from the EEC Budget, he will now press for improvements in accounting procedures in order to prevent a recurrence of such losses.

As we have already made clear, we want to see as effective accounting and audit procedures in the EEC as possible. The recent resolution by the European Parliament was a welcome contribution to this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the resolution passed at the recent session of the European Parliament urged the Commission to present an immediate report of the frequent instances of fraud which still occur in the agricultural sector and urged member States to deal with this matter? May we have a full report to the House? What action is being taken by the Government, particularly as, in the future, British taxpayers' money will be involved? Are the Government pursuing the matter with vigour and are they trying to renegotiate the common agricultural policy, which is leading to such disastrous results for the British people?

The Government are certainly anxious to see effective auditing and accounting procedures. Having accepted the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), the European Parliament decided that committees of that Parliament should give urgent consideration to the setting up of a public accounts committee. We shall wait with great interest to see what the European Parliament produces. My hon. Friend's motion would have been that much more effective if it had been supported by hon. Members of the Opposition.

Is my hon. Friend aware that misappropriations of the magnitude referred to in the Question represent the ugly and unacceptable face of the Common Market? As, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured the House that this matter would no doubt come before the Council of Ministers, why cannot we now be told, in this our national Parliament, that our Minister at the Council of Ministers will take the initiative in raising this matter?

It is easy enough for figures to be bandied about. This figure is £10 million less than the figure which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) included in an earlier Question.

Tell us what it is, then.

The answer is that until the investigations are completed, no one is right to put any figure on it.

Surely, as British public money is now involved in these ugly and unacceptable practices, it is the duty of the British Treasury not just to be anxious but to take active steps to see that the money is properly spent.

That is the duty of the Commission, and it is the duty of the European Parliament to see that the Commission does its duty in this regard. These matters are being attended to.

Does my hon. Friend recall that during the debates on the European Communities Bill this precise point was raised, and that we asked at the time whether the Expenditure Committee would be allowed to go out and investigate these matters? Will my hon. Friend please see that this matter is taken up with the European Community so that the Expenditure Committee can go to Europe and examine the use to which British money is put, to see that it is not wasted?

As I understand it, the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee of this Parliament has already been to Brussels.

Is the Minister aware that a month ago I put this very point to him in a rather different form? I now repeat it, in the hope of getting an answer. We want some method of arriving at ministerial accountability to this House in respect of our contributions that are being mislaid or misappropriated. Have the Government considered the point that I put to them, and are they going to do anything about it?

This is a matter for the Community as a whole—[Interruption.] I repeat that it is. Community funds and the Community's accounting and auditing procedures are at issue. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, as indicated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), this matter will be discussed in the Council of Ministers.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the price increase of petrol on 30th April, he will use the regulator to neutralise this increase by a compensating reduction in excise duty.

No, Sir.

As there is evidence since 30th April that the oil-producing countries are pressing for a further price increase for oil, and as the price of petrol is such a sensitive factor in the cost of living, will my hon. Friend reconsider his answer with a view to bringing down the tax on petrol?

There is perhaps a certain inconsistency between the two points made by my hon. Friend. He will agree that the matter is not as simple as one can express in a short supplementary question. However, it would be wrong to create any expectation that commercial price increases will be automatically offset by cuts in duty. I do not believe that would be at all in our national interest.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since 5th March 1973 requesting him to replace the duty raised by road fund licence by an equivalent increase in excise duty on petrol.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received since 5th March asking him to replace the revenue raised by road vehicle licences by an equivalent increase in excise duty on road fuel.

Two, Sir.

I hope that my hon. Friend will urgently ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earnestly to consider abolishing the road fund licence for private vehicles. If he did that and recovered the lost revenue by increasing the excise duty on petrol it would achieve certain desirable objectives. Anyone covering less than 10,000 miles a year would benefit net. The scheme would reduce unnecessary journeys and it would be a blessing to the environment.

It will not have escaped the notice of the House that this Question is asking my right hon. Friend to do the opposite to what the previous Question was seeking, but I am afraid that he would not be able to go along with this idea either. The main effect of replacing the excise duty by increasing the duty on petrol would be to shift taxation from private cars to commercial vehicles, which would increase the price of goods in the shops and the price of our exports, and in the present situation I do not think that would be appropriate. To bring in the equivalent revenue would require an increase in petrol and derv of 8p a gallon, which would be substantial.

There is reasonable evidence of a lot of tax evasion going on in this respect. Will the Financial Secretary therefore consider conferring with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to have a conference between the taxation authorities and the police to try to stop what is now becoming rife exploitation and cheating on the part of what would appear to be a large percentage of people who own motor cars?

I am aware of the strength of feeling on the subject in a number of parts of the House. The question of enforcement was dealt with last week by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and enforcement is a matter for him.

Does not my hon. Friend detect a certain reaction in the country against what I would call the relative fiction of the Road Fund, which it appears is used progressively for many things in addition to road works? Does he not feel that the introduction of taxation which was charged according to road use would be more consistent with other taxes in this country?

I must give my hon. Friend the traditional Treasury answer that we would not support the view that there should be hypothecation of revenue for particular purposes. As for the effect on road use, it is important to appreciate that, although there might be some short-run impact on road use by a price increase of the order I mentioned, the evidence is that the elasticity of demand for petrol is such that the longer-term effect on the amount of road use would not be very great, and it would not be an effective way of achieving that objective.

In its report on urban transport the Expenditure Committee of this House recommended that the Government should seriously examine precisely this proposal. Does he not agree that it is contrary to social policy and sensible traffic policy these days to place a disincentive on people owning a car, and that what we really should do is to shift that disincentive to the use of the car for particular occasions?

I understand very well what the hon. Member is saying. I do not wish to pre-judge our consideration of the views that the Expenditure Committee expressed about a further study of the shift of taxation from the annual licence to the petrol tax. Obviously it is right that we should always bear in mind recommendations made, and that we should consider them carefully. That is what we are doing.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what authority the Inland Revenue makes charges for the supply of public forms connected with appeals against its own decisions.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to appeals against the new rating valuation lists effective from 1st April 1973. There is no obligation on ratepayers to use the Inland Revenue forms for this purpose, and while such forms are supplied free to individual applicants, it is in accordance with normal Government policy to make a charge for bulk supplies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He is entirely correct in saying that the recent revaluation lists have provoked some consternation among many of my constituents. Bodies such as the National Farmers Union, ratepayers' associations, residents' associations and old folks' clubs have sought through their clubs to acquire the forms, and it would be helpful in the circumstances if forms could be provided to them in bulk.

Of course the changes in valuation this year were much bigger than they would have been if the previous Government had not funked it in 1968. I recognise the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. Supplies of up to 50 forms are available free of charge to professional firms and bodies of that sort, but it would be contrary to the practice regarding a large number of other forms that comply with statutory rules for the Stationery Office to make unlimited quantities freely available. We have had 53 bulk orders this year and 10,000 forms went to a large firm of surveyors. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to make a 1p charge.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the rate of growth.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the current rate of growth in gross domestic product; and how this compares with the average rate of growth between 1964 and 1970.

As in the Budget forecast, around 5 per cent. per annum over the 18 months to the second half of 1974, which is more than twice the rate of growth between 1964 and 1970.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement he made on Monday in no way conflicts with the Government's growth rate target of 5 per cent.? Will he further confirm that it is the Government's intention to pursue a very high growth rate over a long period to give industry the necessary confidence to invest at a much faster rate than before and so increase the rate of increase in the capacity of the economy?

The forecast of the rate of growth over the period to which I referred in the Budget Statement remains, and certainly, as I said on Monday, nothing has happened to cause me to change that forecast other than the fact that exports are doing better than I expected at the time of the Budget. As for the period beyond, I made clear on Monday that one of the principal purposes of the public expenditure changes was to ensure that we can continue to expand at a fast rate of economic growth during the period 1974–75 and beyond.

The House will have noted with interest the Chancellor's statement about growth up to the interesting date of the middle of 1974. Will he tell us a little more about his plans after that date? Instead of what he told his hon. Friend, will he tell us whether, in making his cuts the other day, he had in mind a much lower level of growth after the middle of 1974?

I though that I had dealt with that question. Perhaps I can repeat the answer for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. One of the principal purposes of the changes in public expenditure that I announced on Monday was to ensure that we could continue with a fast rate of growth and that we did not repeat the intolerable situation that the hon. Gentleman and his party got into, when they had to slam on the brakes and had one of the most appalling rate-of-growth records of any Government in our history.

Are we sure that growth should be the be-all and end-all in connection with the public expenditure changes? Is not the Chancellor pennywise and pound-foolish to bring to an end Operation Eyesore, which might not be measured in growth terms but which did a great deal for Scotland and the north of England in cleaning up of the landscape and buildings?

I can quite understand Opposition Members thinking that the rate of growth of the economy, and so the prosperity of our people, is not necessarily the primary aim of government. For us, it certainly is.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received a copy of the Page Report on savings; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a copy of the report. It will be published as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that will be a grave disappointment, particularly to the trustee savings banks, which were ready to introduce loans to their depositors but were stopped because of the Page Report? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the trustee savings banks are an important arm of the national savings movement? Will he please indicate when this long-delayed report will be published?

I know of my hon. Friend's particular concern. He has already told me that the report should be published as soon as possible. It covers a very wide and important field. Therefore, it is right that the Government should take proper time to consider it.

Is not the Chancellor aware that the continued delay in publication is causing serious concern and that there is widespread disillusionment among those people holding savings certificates, particularly those holding earlier issues, who are receiving interest at the rate of only 1½ per cent. a year? That, in effect, is a swindle on those people who are least able to protect themselves and who look to the Government for their protection. Will the Chancellor please make sure that the report is published at the earliest possible moment and not give us any excuses for putting off this important publication?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question. It is very important that the report should be published at the earliest possible moment.

As Chairman of the Trustee Savings Bank Parliamentary Committee, I urge my right hon. Friend to see that the report is published as soon as possible. More than that, I hope that he will realise that it is the biggest of all the savings movements in the country, and that therefore he will accept the recommendations of the Page Committee and see that such things as loans to depositors are permitted as soon as possible.

I have noted my hon. Friend's urge.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to contain the level of interest rates.

By safeguarding faster growth and by lowering inflationary expectations.

In this context, what is the Treasury's attitude to the management of the money supply?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has frequently stated the Treasury's attitude to the money supply. We regard the containment of the growth of the money supply as an essential arm of economic policy.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Bank has been preventing interest rates from falling by its policy with the discount houses? It is a policy with which I entirely agree, but it is not the answer my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not accept my hon. Friend's proposition. He will have noted that on 18th May the minimum lending rate fell to 7¾ per cent. Moreover, the Bank's deposit rate has fallen to 6,¾ per cent., and the base rate to 8½ per cent. I should have thought that those were encouraging moves in the direction that my hon. Friend would like to see.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the major factor in producing the rise in interest rates, which falls so cruelly on young couples wanting to buy a house, is the Government's decision to finance their expenditure by borrowing rather than raising taxation and the policy of competition and credit control in the banking system?

We know that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is always to increase taxes. It is this Government's policy to cut taxation. It is not the size of the borrowing requirement that determines the level of interest rates; it is the manner in which the money is raised. My right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear that he intends to raise the great bulk of the money from non-bank sources.

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

Taking the interal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in June 1970, its value in April 1973 is estimated to be 79p.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that scandalous admission that the Tory pound is now worth only 15s. 10d., in old money, will come as a bombshell to millions of families frantically struggling to make ends meet, and that the only thing that will boom for them is their cost of living?

For families trying to make ends meet, surely, the relevant factor is what is happening to the real standard of living. Under the present Government that has been rising very rapidly, even after allowing for the increase in prices. It is my right hon. Friend's belief that we must continue on a rapid rate of economic growth, in marked contrast to the hon. Gentleman's party, which did nothing but stultify growth. What is essential is to take an overall view, and on that basis the Government's record is good.

Taking that reply into account, will my hon. Friend tell us the extra purchasing power in the retirement pension over the same period, since 1970?

We have made a number of increases in the retirement pension and have now undertaken to make annual reviews. By October pensions will be 55 per cent. higher than when we came to power. After allowing for price increases, that will still give a bigger increase in living standards than that of the population as a whole. That shows the priority we give to improving the standard of living of pensioners.

But does not the Minister accept that the appalling figures he has just announced represent a total failure by the Government to carry out a responsibility that the Chancellor personally accepted not so long ago to contain the rise in prices? Do not the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted, following the figures he gave last month and the month before, show that in fact the cost of living has been increasing faster under what he humorously calls the prices standstill than before the standstill was introduced? As we are now in phase 2, and are liable to see big increases in the price of manufactured goods following the increase in food and house prices that we saw in phase 1, what sort of phase 3 do the Government now propose to introduce?

As to the overall position I believe that it is true to say that the determination to beat inflation that the Government have shown in the standstill, and are showing in phase 2, has been reflected by the public at large. Much of the increase in the all-items index in April was due to sharp and unavoidable increases in the price of seasonal food, particularly tomatoes and vegetables. We have always made it clear during the standstill period that some items will go up in price, particularly imports. They are increases which the country as a whole cannot avoid paying. Apart from that, I believe that it is true to say that the policy has been successful. We are determined to make it succeed, but we must combine it with a faster rate of economic growth and higher real incomes. I think that that is the right approach.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the operation of the policy of competition and credit control; and if he will make a statement.

Since September 1971 there has been a welcome increase in competition and innovation in the banking sector. This has led to structural changes which have complicated the interpretation of monetary statistics. But the new system of credit control, though no doubt capable of further refinement, has throughout been operated flexibly both in conditions requiring monetary ease and in circumstances where monetary restraint is more appropriate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has said on the previous Question, it is not the system of competition and credit control that itself feeds inflation but the growth of the money supply? Will my hon. Friend say when he expects the rate of growth of the money supply to diminish?

My hon. Friend will have seen the figures which were published on Monday, which show that the increase in the M3 measurement was only three-quarters of 1 per cent. That represents a substantial slowing down of the rates earlier in the year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take additional steps to eliminate or reduce tax evasion by the transfer of assets to territories outside the sterling area.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Treasury has been informed that the word "outside" in the Question should be "inside". That would include the Cayman Islands.

The Inland Revenue, as a matter of course, keeps under review action necessary to counter tax evasion devices.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Lonrho inquiry will cover the activities of the Yeoman Investment Company in the Bahamas, the Swiss subsidiary called Borma, and the nine Drayton Corporation Trusts of which Mr. Angus Ogilvy is the chairman? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the constitutional position will be if the inspectors seek to obtain information from a member of the Royal Family who is heavily implicated in this rather squalid affair?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs has already announced that an inquiry is to take place under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948. We must await the outcome of that inquiry. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that references to the Cayman Islands by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are a malodorous red herring, and that the existing law is adequate to deal with the taxation of directors and employees in such circumstances?

As I understand the position, the place of payment of remuneration will not affect a person's liability to United Kingdom tax unless the whole of the duties of the employment are performed abroad. As I think is known, only amounts received or remitted here during the currency of the employment are then taxable. In any case, exchange control consent would now be required to retain funds in the Cayman Islands. That would not be given unless a need were established.

Some people are finding the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister about our capitalist society a little strange. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what level of tax avoidance would be pleasant and acceptable?

I have already made it clear that in terms of tax avoidance and evasion the Inland Revenue, as a matter of course, will make a full investigation into the possible use of artifical devices to minimise tax liability. I have said that I am considering whether further action is necessary.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to alter the basis on which a dependent relative allowance is granted from a sum equal to the basic retirement pension to that of subsistence level as calculated for supplementary benefits.

No, Sir. While I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, I do not think it would be justified.

Is that not a somewhat penny-pinching attitude? Surely no one is expected to live only on his retirement pension? Would it not be more realistic if we had it brought up to subsistence level?

The allowance is available to a taxpayer who has a relative who is dependent on him. Over many years it has been the view of successive Governments that the level of the basic retirement pension is the measurement of dependency. In Clause 12 of this year's Finance Bill we have taken powers to formalise that and to allow the amount to be altered as the pension is altered. This year the level of a dependant's income can rise to the pension level of £378 a year before the allowance begins to be lost. The level will be allowed to go up to £478 a year before the allowance is wholly lost.

Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that, sadly enough, millions of people have to live on the basic retirement pension alone?

Nobody has to live only on the basic retirement pension, because he is entitled to apply for supplementary benefit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an investigation into the whole issue would be very acceptable? Further, does he agree that it is not a very good idea to say that because something has existed for about 500 years it must be right? I know how interested the Government are in trying to do the best they can. They have done a great deal more than any other Government have ever done, but that does not mean that we cannot go a little further. Can we have a little agreement that if cases are put up they will be properly examined, and that if they are well founded the Treasury will act?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. No Government have shown themselves more ready than this one to break from hallowed Inland Revenue traditions in relation to tax reform. For that my right hon. Friend deserves every congratulation. We will take note of what has been said.

The House will have been startled to hear what the Chief Secretary said a moment ago. If it is not the case that the Government do not expect anybody to live on retirement pension alone, why do not the Government raise the retirement pension to a level at which people can be expected to live?

We have raised the retirement pension more in our two and a half years of office than the previous Labour Government did in the whole of their six years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all items in the EEC Information Budget are available for scrutiny by him.

Yes, Sir.

If the Minister is familiar with all these facts, will he tell the House whether the report is correct that secret retaining fees are paid to undisclosed persons out of the Information Budget?

The right hon. Gentleman continues to make anonymous accusations of this sort. If the right hon. Gentleman will supply me with the details of the irregularities to which he is seeking to draw attention we will have them investigated. Until we have particulars of the irregularities that the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to investigate we cannot take the matter further.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Parliament has increasing power over the budget of the Commission? If the Labour Party sent representatives to that Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that they could raise the question at that forum if they considered that it should be raised?

Oh.

The only thing that puzzles me is why that eminently sensible statement should be greeted with jeers from the Opposition.

Will the Minister now return to the point that was put to him earlier? If the information is supplied to him will he make himself accountable for the transactions that go on? Or is it pointless to put the information to him? Does he intend to shield behind the claim that this is a matter for the European authorities?

The hon. Gentleman can hardly have listened to my reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I asked the right hon. Gentleman to let me have the information on which he bases his accusations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the reform of the international monetary system.

At the March meeting of the Committee of Twenty, deputies were given instructions on an accelerated programme of work and the preparation of a draft outline of reform in which major issues of principle would be identified for decision. Deputies are meeting all this week in Washington to push ahead with this work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the floating of the major currencies of the world the recent pressure on the dollar and soaring gold prices would have led to a major international currency crisis? Is it not highly desirable that this new flexibility in the international monetary system should continue as a permanent feature?

There are arguments for and against the proposition put by my hon. Friend. I am certain that we must push ahead—and I know that I have the backing of all right hon. and hon. Members who have studied these matters—with the programme for the reform of the monetary system. It was because, at the ministerial meeting in Washington in March, I felt that we were not making the progress that we should be making that I put forward in some detail proposals for a specific plan of work. These proposals are being considered in Washington this week by the deputies. I very much hope that it will not be too long before we are able to have another ministerial meeting, when we shall be confronted with the issues on which we shall have to take decisions.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on continually paying lip service to the idea of fixed exchange rates and in practice doing nothing about them. Has he any evidence that this period of floating exchange rates has produced any damage whatever to British trade or investment?

The question whether a particular currency should float in particular circumstances, or whether there should be a fixed exchange rate, is a matter on which there are varying opinions. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, is that the overwhelming majority of Finance Ministers throughout the world believe that the new monetary system should be based on fixed but adjustable parities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional cost to United Kingdom balance of payments by 1st January 1978 of the increased EEC agricultural prices agreed recently.

Very small.

Is the hon. Gentleman any longer worried about the balance of payments costs of our entry into the EEC, both during and after the transitional period?

That goes much wider than the Question, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the effects upon our balance of payments of the settlement reached by the Council of Agricultural Ministers earlier this month—in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture played such a notable part —will be very small.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that whatever the effects of the recent settlement may be on the balance of payments in 1978, a much greater effect will be had by the relative expansion of British agriculture?

I entirely agree.

Will the Government publish as a Green Paper for discussion their proposals for the reform of agricultural policy in the EEC prior to the Commission's publication of its document in October?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received seeking relief for retirement pensioners from taxation when following part-time employment.

This suggestion is made quite often but I do not think it would be right to single out these pensioners for special treatment.

But the Treasury has indeed singled out a certain class of people for special treatment. Bearing in mind the dramatic drop in the value of the pound and the astounding increase in the cost of food, the Chancellor has enabled the well-off to deal with this serious situation by giving them massive tax reductions. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that old-age pensioners are also entitled to some consideration? Will he not dismiss them so cavalierly and so lightly?

I do not think that that arises out of the Question, but, as I said earlier, the record of the present Government on pensions provision in general is one of which we can be proud.

Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to the case where the pension of an older husband suffers if he has a younger wife who is employed?

I shall give consideration to that point.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider not only the financial matter but the medical matter? Is he aware that we have a highly increasing cost in geriatrics and that one of the ways to keep people out of hospital after they reach pensionable age is to give them useful and gainful employment and keep them in the community? The suggestion in the Question might save the Treasury money in the long run.

There are conflicting views on the question whether, or to what extent, it is right to encourage people to go on working beyond a certain point and what fiscal measures should be taken to that effect, but the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that in September 1971 the earnings rule starting point was raised from £7·50 to £9·30 and that in October 1972, as a result of the National Insurance (Amendment) Act, brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombes), the proportionate band was increased from £2 to £4.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the main forms of Government expenditure per head of the population of the United Kingdom per week; and how the amounts have changed in recent years.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the small posters which used to be issued by successive Governments giving, on the one hand, the sources of the national income and, on the other hand, the sources and means of expenditure of the national income? Will he draw up a poster relating to 1970 and 1973 and consider issuing such posters in future, so that large numbers of people who are not accustomed to reading complicated balance sheets can gain some grasp of these problems?

I shall consider that helpful suggestion. I am sure that people would be very eager to recognise